Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Can Palin Broaden Base for 2012?
It's not that I assume that Barack Obama is going to be the next president of the United States (in fact, I anticipate a furious charge from a devil-may-care John McCain in the next 21 days).
But when conservative columnist William Kristol is urging the Republican presidential nominee to divest himself of an operationally incompetent and strategically incoherent campaign apparatus, then perhaps we can at least take a peek, a look-see, at a future in which a Democrat runs the country. Which Republicans might be challenging President Obama in 2012?
In terms of 2008 aspirants we can say that McCain and Fred Thompson will be too old. Rudy Giuliani too strategically incoherent. That leaves the following (with apologies to Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter, Paul and Keyes):
Sarah Palin: If the governor of Alaska wants to run for the White House then she is going to have to spend every day of the next four years systematically rehabilitating her public image. In return for the honor of being selected by that other Maverick, Palin has been rewarded with the widespread perception that she is a dim-wit, dishonest, an abuser of power, and a religious zealot.
Similar charges were leveled at Dan Quayle in 1988, another politician who went from total obscurity to the Most Detested Person in Liberal America in a matter of seconds (I seem to recall a headline in The Village Voice: "Bush flips America the Bird!"). But at least he actually got to be vice-President.
What Palin does bring to the table and what may make her attractive to GOP kingmakers is her ability to "energize the base." By "base" we mean White Conservative Evangelicals. And if reports from the field are accurate, then the base isn't only energized by her, but short-circuiting. Her crowds are huge and their shout-outs are becoming increasingly inflammatory. (Incidentally, an Evangelical pastor yesterday correlated Obama's followers with worshippers of non-Christian gods).
It will be interesting to see what type of campaign Palin would run when unencumbered by McCain's handlers (who did not, I think, do her any favors in the last six weeks). If she strikes populist Christian themes and plays on her small-town appeal then that should be of concern to. . . . .
Mike Huckabee: I have gone to great pains to point out that the base did not--I repeat, did not--necessarily get overheated for the former governor of Arkansas. In his 2012 incarnation Huck must secure Evangelical support earlier and more often. Palin will be winking at them as well and the mind races at the thought of these two cudgeling one another for a share of the same demographic in Iowa (Chuck Norris, meet the First Dude. First Dude. Chuck).
But if there is one thing we are learning in this election season it is that White Evangelicals are less of an electoral force than they were four years ago. The leadership is in flux. Issues beyond abortion and gays interest them. A younger generation is rising.
A weakened--more precisely, a fractured--Evangelical base signals the possible re-emergence of that other GOP base composed of Free Marketeers, daredevil de-regulators, the pro-Big Business faction, and the anti-tax brigades, among others. It may also a signal an opportunity for ....
Mitt Romney: If McCain loses, it seems safe to say that it was the stupid economy that did him in. Had Romney been selected as his running mate in 2008 he could have addressed this issue with more authority than both Mavericks combined.
But let us not forget that Romney himself pandered to the conservative Christian base (which he fought Huckabee for in some sort of mutual annihilation pact). He proclaimed himself an "evangelical Mormon." He flip-flopped on abortion. He thumped Bible. He lambasted secularists. In short, Mitt Romney ran as a Culture Warrior--a role he was not suited to play.
If Palin, Romney and Huckabee do run in 2012 they will have to learn one crucial lesson from 2008: culture warfare is not enough. Put differently, they will need to play to the bases. To win a presidential election it takes more than faith.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
October 15, 2008; 12:34 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Salt of the Earth |
Next: Last Debate: Avoiding God and Palin
Posted by: Ron Holland | October 20, 2008 8:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Taking a non traditional approach, I would like to answer your question directly. No. Palin cannot broaden the base for 2012. To be blunt, the Republican Party needs a candidate that is respected for there thoughtful opinions and their ability to inspire people based on a clear grasp of the difficult issues, and not just shout one line bumper stickers.
Mike Huckabee has the potential though his knowledge, poise, humor and common sense appeal and he displays competence. He will need to be less emphatic about religion and understand that will not broaden his base. If he can do that he has the ability to inspire.
Mitt Romney is another quality candidate, it is the Republican base that rejected him however my sense is that in a National election he would have broadened the appeal and attracted independents and Democrats.
If the Republican party continues to cling to the evangelical base it is doomed to be further marginalized as voters in the country when push comes to shove truly respect the separation of church and state.
Posted by: geek | October 17, 2008 1:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The issue with Romney's faith was only brought up because the MEDIA and opposing candidates brought it up. He never ran as the "Mormon" candidate. It is a shame that our country turned it's back on Romney, the most qualified, intelligent man running for President. Romney would have made mincemeat out of Obama in these debates.
*** standing on stump***
Romney changed course on abortion (the RIGHT kind of change). It wasn't a flip-flop. Do you think we would have been guessing about Romney's economic plan at this point in the race, the way we are guessing about McCain's? Romney is decisive AND a clear communicator.
*** getting off stump***
I'm sick about our choice. I'm voting for McCain, but we HAVE to do better in 2012.
Posted by: SoCal Republican | October 16, 2008 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life."
Michael Gerson
The Washington Post
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 4:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: Analysis this segment of the debate | October 16, 2008 3:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Was there already a law in Illinois Senate that protected infants born alive after escaping the abortion attempt?
Senator Obama claims there was one which is why he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act three times.
But he had explained in another interview when questioned on the same topic (he had been grilled on several occasions on this to topic) that he did not want an extra doctor to be called in, and in no way have anything done that would go against the decision the mother had made originally (read: in accordance with her right to "privacy") and the abortionist had sought to carry out even if he/she had failed (read: the child was to be killed).
That is what he means by undermining Roe vs Wade. If the right to kill an unborn was constitutional, it was not right to try to save the child that escaped an abortion attempt.
Posted by: Clarify | October 16, 2008 3:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Absolutely fantastic moderation Bob Shieffer!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 2:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
On a final note on the topic of abortion, what Senator Obama said that is reasonable and positive:
"We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth,
*communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity,*
and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."
________________________
And with that those who have problems with Senator Obama's dedication to Roe vs Wade can relax.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 2:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The unborn child is called an embryo until the end of eight weeks when it has developed all the external features of a baby. It is called a fetus, meaning "little one" (little baby) from then on. Its heart had been beating at its own pace since day 22/23 after fertilization.
On what basis does a mother get the right to kill that unborn child whenever she wants?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 1:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Before the sexual revolution, there was no demand for abortion as a right.
The fact that abortion rate is high in spite of availability of contraceptives is proof how it is strongly tied up with the sexual revolution, and nothing to do with death of women due to pregnancy.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Befor
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Make-Believe Maverick
A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty
By TIM DICKINSON Oct 16, 2008
At Fort McNair, an army base located along the Potomac River in the nation's capital, a chance reunion takes place one day between two former POWs. It's the spring of 1974, and Navy commander John Sidney McCain III has returned home from the experience in Hanoi that, according to legend, transformed him from a callow and reckless youth into a serious man of patriotism and purpose. Walking along the grounds at Fort McNair, McCain runs into John Dramesi, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was also imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam.
McCain is studying at the National War College, a prestigious graduate program he had to pull strings with the Secretary of the Navy to get into. Dramesi is enrolled, on his own merit, at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in the building next door.
There's a distance between the two men that belies their shared experience in North Vietnam — call it an honor gap. Like many American POWs, McCain broke down under torture and offered a "confession" to his North Vietnamese captors. Dramesi, in contrast, attempted two daring escapes. For the second he was brutalized for a month with daily torture sessions that nearly killed him. His partner in the escape, Lt. Col. Ed Atterberry, didn't survive the mistreatment. But Dramesi never said a disloyal word, and for his heroism was awarded two Air Force Crosses, one of the service's highest distinctions. McCain would later hail him as "one of the toughest guys I've ever met."
On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.
"I'm going to the Middle East," Dramesi says. "Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran."
"Why are you going to the Middle East?" McCain asks, dismissively.
"It's a place we're probably going to have some problems," Dramesi says.
"Why? Where are you going to, John?"
"Oh, I'm going to Rio."
"What the hell are you going to Rio for?"
McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.
"I got a better chance of getting laid."
Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."
McCAIN FIRST
This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.
In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.
In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.
Previous Next
Page 1
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The pro-abortion culture that has taken the pro-abortionist a generation to implement, could take the anti-abortionists a generation of hard work based on hard medical science and human rights aspects for the unborn, to overturn.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris Cillizza
The Final Presidential Debate: First Thoughts and Who Won?
The debates of the 2008 presidential election are now over, brought to a close by an at-times testy back and forth between Barack Obama and John McCain at Hofstra University in New York.
McCain did not score the knockout blow that many Republicans had hoped but he did land several solid body shots -- the best of which was his repudiation of Obama's contention that he represented four more years of President George W. Bush.
Obama, well aware of his lead in state and national polls, refused to be flustered by McCain and instead brought nearly every question he was asked back to the economy and the struggles of average middle class families. Obama wasn't particularly dynamic, but he didn't have to be.
A few of our other thoughts are below. But we want to hear from you too. Who won the Hubbub at Hofstra? And why? The comments section awaits. Or if you prefer, you can leave a video response below.
One more quick note: The Fix will be making a quick jaunt to the Left Coast tomorrow and Friday so posting will be a bit lighter than usual. Thanks in advance for your understanding.
• "Joe the Plumber." The McCain campaign clearly saw an opening from the widely circulated You Tube clip of Obama talking to -- obviously -- a plumber named Joe. Time and again throughout the debate, McCain name-checked Joe as a stand-in for small business owners who, he argued, would be badly hurt by Obama's tax plan. McCain needed to find a way to connect on the economy and his campaign clearly believed it found it in Joe. Maybe. But, as we said in the runup to tonight's debate, McCain's problems as a messenger on the economy can't be fixed in a night. If Joe the Plumber is where he is going to go in the next 20 days, he needs to hammer on it day and night to try and change voter perceptions before Nov. 4.
• Obama's Cool. Obama has learned one key lesson during the 9,000 debates in this campaign -- don't lose your cool. McCain, on several occasions, mocked Obama (laughs, smirks etc.) and interrupted him to try and correct the record. Obama largely ignored these verbal (and nonverbal) jabs, knowing that the one way he would surely lose the debate -- and jeopardize his place in the race -- was to lose his temper. Obama was steady but not spectacular tonight; come to think of it, that phrase could describe his performance in all three debates.
• McCain's Scatter-Shot Approach. The key in any political campaign is to latch on to one really powerful argument against your opponent and stick to it. It's why the "celebrity" attack by McCain on Obama worked earlier this summer; the McCain came up with it and repeated it endlessly. Tonight, McCain couldn't seem to decide which line of attack he wanted to focus on. He did break the Ayers seal but also threw in ACORN, negotiating with rogue leaders, taxes, and a lack of international experience among other issues. For the average viewers, that scatter-shot approach makes it VERY hard to know what exactly to focus on in McCain's case against Obama.
• Abortion, Really? Roughly ten minutes -- one-ninth -- of the debate was focused on abortion. The truth is that while many people feel passionately on both sides of the issue, their minds are almost completely made up. McCain may have stayed on abortion longer than many GOP strategists would have liked in hopes of courting those white, working class voters who tend to be conservative on social issues but it's hard to imagine many undecided voters making up their minds based on the candidates' stance on abortion.
• The "Split Screen Smirk/Smile." Both Obama and McCain seemed to have decided that the best way to nonverbally dismiss their opponent's attacks was to smile. It didn't work for either candidate. McCain's facial expressions seemed contrived, Obama's vaguely arrogant. Just a steady look into the camera will do nicely. Did no one learn from Al Gore's debate sighs in 2000?
• Schieffer Shines. Anyone who has ever met Bob Schieffer (and The Fix has had the honor -- albeit just once) knows that he is the ultimate class act -- and a great journalist to boot. Man, did he show it tonight. Schieffer kept the debate moving, asked probing questions and wasn't afraid to interrupt one of the candidates when they veered wildly off topic. Well done.
By Chris Cillizza |
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Who is Joe the Plumber?
He is Joe Wurzelbacher, an Ohio man looking to buy a plumbing business who came to symbolize the notion of "spreading the wealth" in Wednesday night's third and final presidential debate between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.
Earlier this week, when Wurzelbacher got a chance to speak with Obama when the candidate visited Toledo, he told Obama that his tax plan would keep him from buying the business that currently employs him.
Sensing an opening in the debate, McCain cited that exchange when the candidates were asked to explain why their economic plans are better than their opponent's. McCain said Obama's plan would stop entrepreneurs from investing in new small businesses and keep existing ones from growing.
"Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes," McCain challenged Obama.
"You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream," McCain said.
McCain then looked directly into the TV camera and said: "Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees. And I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income."
Obama denied that was true.
"Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy," Obama said. "They produce the most jobs."
So what did Wurzelbacher (pronounced whur-zell-BAHK-er) think about being at the center of the debate?
"It's pretty surreal, man, my name being mentioned in a presidential campaign," he said minutes after hearing McCain utter his name.
In Toledo on Sunday, Wurzelbacher told Obama that he was preparing the company, which earns more than $250,000 a year, and said: "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
Obama said that under his proposal taxes on any revenue from $250,000 on down would stay the same, but that amounts above that level would be subject to a 39 percent tax, instead of the current 36 percent rate.
"And the reason why we're doing that is because 95 percent of small businesses make less than 250 (thousand). So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut," he said.
Wurzelbacher protested, saying he's been a hardworking plumber for 15 years and why should he be taxed more.
"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance at success, too."
At a later point in the discussion, Obama said: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. But listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question, and even if I don't get your vote, I'm still gonna be working hard on your behalf because small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it."
Wurzelbacher's name came up again when the debate turned to a discussion of health care policies.
He said Obama's reaction on the tax question left him feeling uneasy.
"I didn't think much of it the first time I heard it," Wurzelbacher said, adding that he still thinks Obama's plan would keep him from buying the business.
About McCain: "He's got it right as far as I go."
Even so, Wurzelbacher declined to say which candidate would get his vote on Nov. 4.
"That's for me and a button to know," he said.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Roger Simon
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Debates should not be confused with trips to Lourdes: Few miracles are dispensed.
John McCain needed a miracle in his final debate with Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a miracle that would wipe away McCain’s deficit in the polls and re-energize his flagging campaign.
He did not get one. The clouds did not part. Heavenly choirs were not heard. Instead, the American public heard angry attacks from McCain.
Sometimes McCain attacked directly, and sometimes he attacked sarcastically, but he never stopped attacking. And he never rattled Obama. Obama answered every attack and kept his cool.
How cool? Obama was so cool that after 90 minutes under blazing TV lights, an ice cube wouldn’t have melted on his forehead.
McCain attacked him on everything from wanting to raise the taxes of Joe the Plumber - - now the most famous plumber in America and at serious risk of becoming so wealthy his taxes will go up no matter who wins - - to not traveling enough.
“I admire so much Sen. Obama’s eloquence,” McCain sneered. “Sen. Obama, who has never traveled south of our border.” (This from a man whose running mate got her first passport last year.)
But McCain didn’t just attack, he also defended, including defending those people who attend his rallies and the rallies of Sarah Palin who have shouted nasty and threatening things when Obama’s name is mentioned.
“Let me say categorically that I am proud of the people who come to my rallies,” McCain said. “I am not going to stand for anybody saying that the people who come to our rallies are anything other than patriotic citizens.”
Obama responded to all this — what else? — coolly.
“I don’t mind being attacked for the next three weeks,” Obama said. “What the American people can’t afford is four more years of failed economic policies.”
He never got off his game plan. He never got shook up.
The biggest impact of the three presidential debates for Obama was not anything said or not said. It was impressionistic: Obama simply did not appear to be the scary “other” that McCain needs him to be. “When people suggest that I pal around with terrorists, then we are not talking about issues,” Obama said smoothly.
For McCain, the biggest impact of the debates was visual: In the first debate he refused to look at Obama, in the second debate McCain appeared to careen around the stage and in this last debate McCain would scribble furiously with his Sharpie as Obama was talking or else smirk in response to what Obama was saying.
Moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS often asked provocative questions that sometimes did not get provocative responses. When Schieffer asked each man why the country would be better off if his running mate became president rather than the other guy’s running mate, Obama said Joe Biden “shares my core values.” John McCain said Sarah Palin is a “reformer” and “she has united our party.”
And McCain’s desire to keep his party united behind him — because who else is? — was very much on his mind, dipping deep into conservative Republican talking points. McCain repeatedly accused Obama of “wanting to spread the wealth” around, which doesn’t seem like all that bad an idea to people who aren’t wealthy.
But there was one place McCain would not go: He did not bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is a line McCain seems determined not to cross, even though some in his party are urging him to do so.
What McCain really needed is what he still needs: for Obama to make some huge gaffe, something that makes Obama look like the riskier choice between the two.
But Obama made no such gaffes Wednesday night.
“The biggest risk we could take right now is to adopt the same failed policies and same failed politics that we’ve seen for the last eight years,” Obama said.
The race is not over. It would be wrong to write McCain off. After all, there is still almost three weeks to go. And in politics, anything can happen.
It usually doesn’t, however.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
CCNL, it would be a great help if you would tell the bloggers about your religion, so that people can get on with the business of converting to it as quickly as possible.........NOT.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain, Obama get tough, personal in final debate By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. - John McCain repeatedly assailed Barack Obama's character and campaign positions on taxes, abortion and more Wednesday night, hoping to transform their final presidential debate into a launching pad for a political comeback. "You didn't tell the American people the truth," he charged.
ADVERTISEMENT
Unruffled, and ahead in the polls, Obama parried each accusation, and leveled a few of his own.
"One hundred percent, John, of your ads, 100 percent of them have been negative," Obama shot back in an uncommonly personal debate less than three weeks from Election Day.
"It's not true," McCain retorted.
"It absolutely is true," said Obama, seeking the last word.
McCain is currently running all negative ads, according to a study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But he has run a number of positive ads during the campaign.
The 90-minute encounter, seated at a round table at Hofstra University, was their third debate, and marked the beginning of a 20-day sprint to Election Day. Obama leads in the national polls and in surveys in many battleground states, an advantage built in the weeks since the nation stumbled into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
With few exceptions, the campaign is being waged in states that voted Republican in 2004 — Virginia, Colorado, Iowa — and in many of them, Obama holds a lead in the polls.
McCain played the aggressor from the opening moments of the debate, accusing Obama of waging class warfare by seeking tax increases that would "spread the wealth around."
The Arizona senator also demanded to know the full extent of Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a 1960s-era terrorist and the Democrat's ties with ACORN, a liberal group accused of violating federal law as it seeks to register voters. And he insisted Obama disavow last week's remarks by Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat, who accused the Republican ticket of playing racial politics along the same lines as segregationists of the past.
Struggling to escape the political drag of an unpopular Republican incumbent, McCain also said, "Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. ... You wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."
Obama returned each volley, and brushed aside McCain's claim to full political independence.
"If I've occasionally mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people — on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities — you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush," he said.
McCain's allegation that Obama had not leveled with the public involved the Illinois senator's decision to forgo public financing for his campaign in favor of raising his own funds. As a result, he has far outraised McCain, although the difference has been somewhat neutralized by an advantage the Republican National Committee holds over the Democratic Party.
"He signed a piece of paper" earlier in the campaign pledging to accept federal financing, McCain said. He added that Obama's campaign has spent more money than any since Watergate, a reference to President Nixon's re-election, a campaign that later became synonymous with scandal.
Obama made no immediate response to McCain's assertion about having signed a pledge to accept federal campaign funds.
Asked about running mates, both presidential candidates said Democrat Joseph Biden was qualified to become president, although McCain added this qualifier: "in many respects."
McCain passed up a chance to say his own running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, was qualified to sit in the Oval Office, though he praised her performance as governor and noted her work on behalf of special needs children. The Palins have a son born earlier this year with Down Syndrome.
Obama sidestepped when asked about Palin's qualifications to serve as president, and he, too, praised her advocacy for special needs children.
But he quickly sought to turn the issue to his advantage by noting McCain favors a spending freeze on government programs.
"I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding if we're going to get serious in terms of research. ... And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it," he said.
In addition to differences on taxes and spending, McCain said Obama advocated trade policies that recalled those of Herbert Hoover, who presided over the start of the Great Depression.
Obama has called for tougher provisions in trade negotiations, arguing that is necessary to avoid undercutting the wages paid American workers.
McCain also said Obama has aligned himself with "the extreme aspect of the pro-abortion movement in America" and had voted present while in the Illinois Legislature on a measure to ban one type of procedure late in a woman's pregnancy.
Obama said the bill would have undermined Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that granted abortion rights, and had been opposed by the Illinois Medical Society.
"I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception," he added.
McCain sarcastically paid tribute to "the eloquence of Senator Obama. He's (for) health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything."
McCain's allegation about class warfare stemmed from one of Obama's campaign appearances last weekend.
In Ohio on Sunday, Obama was approached by a man who said, "Your new tax plan's going to tax me more."
A video clip caught by Fox News shows Obama replying, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
McCain referred repeatedly to that voter, Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Toledo, Ohio.
Wurzelbacher watched Wednesday night's debate and said he still thinks Obama's plan would keep him from buying the small business that employs him.
McCain's reference to Ayers reprised campaign commercials he has run to try and raise doubts about Obama's fitness to serve.
Ayers, who was a member of the violent Weather Underground in the 1960s, hosted a meet-the-candidate event for Obama in an Illinois race many years later.
"The fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Sen. McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me," Obama replied.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Suggestion:
An election commission for each party should assess the CVs of all their members in the Congress and Senate, including all their governors.
Look for scandals and skeletons in their closets.
Make a shortlist of several based on all factors and then groom them on all issues that comes up in presidential elections.
Thus the public will have several equally good candidates to choose from and the media will not have to send out their investigative journalists to unearth scandals or skeletons in closets on the eve of elections.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.
The Good Words were articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 16, 2008 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Romney over Palin in 2012 but only if he can get rid of the Moroni/Smith anchor around his neck.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 16, 2008 12:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
America is long ready for a black president. Senator Obama is only half black and his upbringing is fully white.
Race should not be an issue at all, and it won't be. In fact the race issue is working in favor of Senator Obama rather than against him.
The only saving factor about his strong support for Roe vs Wade is that it is not a mandate for women to abort their children and Senator Obama does not make any personal decision on behalf of women.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is unfair to accuse most Americans of racism considering Senator Obama did get the nomination because of votes that were cast for him.
To accuse anyone who doesn't vote for Obama of racism, is a kind of racism turned on its head.
Nobody who has consciously voted for Senator Obama in the primaries and has consciously vowed to vote for him in the general election is suddenly going to be driven by subconscious racial feelings that make them vote for Senator McCain. If people have changed their minds for reasons of policies, it should not be attributed to racial feelings.
That was bad psychological analysis cut out for partisan ends.
America is long ready for an American president. Race factor will not be an issue. In fact it is acting strongly in favor of Senator Obama because Americans are keen to prove that they have overcome their racial prejudices. All the black people who have paved the way before Senator Obama is proof. Senator Obama is only half white, and he is fully white in his upbringing.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A Democrat giving suggestion to the Republicans on who should run for President next time, is exactly the same as a Republican giving advice to Democrats on who should run for office.
How useful is advice from an opponent?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
All businesses, without exception, seek profit for themselves. Their level of ruthlessness may vary.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Most businessmen all over the world seek only profits for themselves and they do it ruthlessly. They know every trick in the book to get around laws that might try to stop them.
Blaming the government for all business practices may not be fair at all.
Ordinary mortals who do not understand business should be fully informed about how businessmen blame the government for the losses that affect ordinary mortals.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 12:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The post with the video links were not from me.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A route that leads to dissuading women from abortion is cut off when a healthy woman carrying a healthy child chooses an abortion clinic as first port of call.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Having a middle person patient sell abortion policy is bad practice.
An Obstetrician who is not an abortionist would present a different tone on options available to the woman.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria is the hypocrite.
She presents herself as a devout Muslim convert but she is unable to denounce her pro abortion beliefs.
Posted by: DALEEL | October 15, 2008 11:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
That is why every woman should be made to consult with a doctor, have all the information regarding fetal development explained to her, options that do not involve abortion and have at least a three day waiting period, if not a week, before she is allowed to go ahead.
Having abortion clinics that operate like sellers of insurance policies, frontline salespersons who try to close a deal and have the procedure done before the woman has a chance to change her mind, is BAD.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A man on a blog discussing abortion wrote: My wife and I watched the ultrasound of our growing baby at 12 weeks. I was completely amazed. The baby was a complete miniature, with a beating heart and all its organs.
One woman, on the other hand complained: "It is always the doctors who create problems in getting an abortion quickly. They try to put one off and try to delay the procedure hoping to persuade one against it." !!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
When a Mafia boss hires a professional killer to do away with an "inconvenient" opponent, is that an issue of "privacy" too?
And if a law existed that considered the "privacy" of the Mafia boss and the professional killer, their right, would it be singing a one note song to have such a law overturned? Would it be argued Mafia bosses do not make such decisions easily; that they usually consult with several people before they make their final decision?
Posted by: Confused | October 15, 2008 11:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The "health of the mother" is often endangered under the hands of the abortionist:
Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls (1 of 4)
This is a composite of ambulance calls to Aware Woman abortion clinic in Melbourne, Florida. It shows the tragic results of botched abortions. Countless women have been injured at Aware Woman and other abortion clinics throughout the United States where abortion is legal but not safe.
The last frame of the video shows the abortionist who injured these women. Aware woman abortionist William Philip Egherman was trained by Martin Haskell, the inventor of partial birth abortion.
The bomb squad vehicle is the one with ramps on the back for their bomb handling robot. Notice the neighborhood school children walking by from their school bus stop within sight of the bomb squad truck as the bomb squad does their job.
The video is overlaid with audio from the actual 911 calls and one message left on our answering machine by one young woman whose abortion at Aware Woman went terribly wrong.
A transcript of the audio is included below to aid in understanding the audio.
Transcript of December 12, 1997 (911 call)
Dispatcher: Fire/rescue.
Aware Woman: Hi, we need an ambulance up at Aware Woman, it's 1564 Dixie Way.
Dispatcher: Okay, what's going on?
Aware Woman: We have a patient with a real low blood pressure - 54 over 30.
Dispatcher: Is she a surgery patient?
Aware Woman: Yes.
Dispatcher: Is she post-surgery today?
Aware Woman: Yes.
Dispatcher: How many hours?
Aware Woman: Let me see when she had her surgery? She had her surgery . . . she was done with surgery at 12:35 - so about 2.5 hours.
Dispatcher: But she's responsive?
Aware Woman: She is responsive.
Dispatcher: Okay, and your name?
Aware Woman: My name is (blanked out).
Dispatcher: We're on the way. If she gets worse before we get there, call right back.
Aware Woman: Okay, thank you.
Dispatcher: Unh huh, bye.
Aware Woman: Bye,bye.
(Hang up sounds)
Transcript of July 4, 1997 (911 call)
Dispatcher: Fire/Rescue.
Aware Woman: Hi, we need an ambulance at Aware Woman - we have a patient with heavy bleeding.
Dispatcher: And your number.
Aware Woman: (unintelligible) Bye Bye.
Transcript of March 29, 1997 (911 call)
Dispatcher: Fire/Rescue.
Aware Woman: We need a transport, we have a possible perforation and we'd like a transport with no lights, no sirens.
Dispatcher: Okay, ma'am, we are 911. We have to come emergency.
Aware Woman: Okay, so you have to have lights and sirens.
Dispatcher: Yes ma'am.
Aware Woman: Okay.
Dispatcher: And what's wrong with her?
Aware Woman: A possible perforation.
Dispatcher: What's that?
Aware Woman: Where the uterus has been perforated. She was having an abortion.
Transcript of an Aware Woman patient
This young woman is responding to one of many letters sent to Aware Woman patients offering help with problems after an abortion. She did not identify herself but she is obviously hurting both physically and mentally:
"Hi, I had a procedure done there (at Aware Woman abortion clinic) in January and I just think that while you are protesting you should just maybe tell the people what happened to me. I had an abortion in January of this year and two days later . . . they didn't give me an abortion. A baby came out in the toilet and I held it in my hand.
"I tried to get counseling and things like that. You know all the therapist does is just want to dig up things that have happened in your life. She never wants to hit the issue that you want to talk about.
"Well, I'm just calling . . . I mean you can tell the girls that, you know, if this is something they want to do, then don't go there (Aware Woman).
"I tried to seek legal advice and pretty much Aware Woman has covered their butt. You know they are not going to let anything happen to them.
"So, my intentions are only just to tell these girls that they might go in and pay $480.00 and their termination might be what happens. They don't know what might happen 2 or 3 days later. Maybe they may have a chance that nothing would happen to them. Their baby might come out like mine did -- whole. It wasn't torn, it wasn't anything. I was 13 weeks and I held it in my hand. It fit in the palm of my hand.
"I have terrible, terrible problems. I bleed every day. I don't know if I will ever have children again. I am 22 years old.
"Maybe I should have listened to the lady who was trying to talk to me when I went inside. I haven't talked to anyone else about this so it felt good just to have someone listen and not say anything."
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry, forgot to add Conservative Evangelicals to my list of people who are against abortion.
Original post:
Only Conservative Jews, Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and some atheists are strongly anti-abortion. Atheists who are anti-abortion are science and human rights oriented, for the unborn child.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
When a Mafia boss hires a professional killer to do away with an "inconvenient" opponent, is that an issue of "privacy" too?
Posted by: Confused | October 15, 2008 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator McCain mentioned correctly that the words, "health of the mother" has been stretched.
It has been stretched to include her inconvenience as "illness," and in 98% of cases when she opts for abortion, it is the only "illness" she suffers from.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
DERAIL ROE VS WADE, WHICH IGNORES THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY AND IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN CHILD?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
VICTORIA, abortion is a one note song for the unborn child, for it will NEVER have the opportunity to hear even one single note if it is aborted as a right granted to the mother.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Planned Parenthood joined forces with MoveOn.org to stop the introduction of conscience clause for medical doctors and other health care workers that would give them the right to refuse to do what their conscience did not allow.
It is forgotten that after the Nazi era, disobeying one's boss in doing wrong is permitted by law. Obeying one's conscience, refusal to hurt another person, is not a crime! A medical doctor, trained to save lives, should have the right to refuse to take them as in abortion.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 11:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In this audio Obama coldly claims two doctors helping a baby born alive after a botched abortion would be a burden for the aborting mother when he is arguing against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act at the Illinois state legislature April 2002
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"HOW CAN SENATOR OBAMA MENTION THE HIPPOCRATICE OATH AND FORGET THAT HIPPOCRATES FORBADE ABORTION IN ALL TRIMESTERS?"
Obama was answering mcCain's false charge that he voted against providing medical life saving care for babies who survived abortions-
He was making the point that protecting the life of babies was already existent in Illinois State Law, and under the hippocratic oath by doctor's themselves-
So the sideways bill which was trying to overturn Roe V Wade on a state basis was voted against-
And there was no issue of not protecting lives that were already legally protected-
He voted No against the sneaky bill- which included that language- (again- already covered) but was an attempt to derail Roe v Wade.
But McCain, like yourself- is more interested in slinging mud- because neither of you can make positve,constructive, and creative discourse.
Too bad it distracts from real issues-
did you know the DOW dropped 733 points today?
Now, you and your one note song can be properly ignored.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 15, 2008 10:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Only Conservative Jews, Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and some atheists are strongly anti-abortion. Atheists who are anti-abortion are science and human rights oriented, for the unborn child.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Since some Christian denominations and other religious groups do not understand the gravity of abortion, it is quite possible that Senator Obama is influenced by it and feels justified about his stand.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Another Anonymous has slipped a comment among mine.
I did not mention that Senator Obama is a hypocrite.
He doesn't seem to be informed about what the Hippocratic Oath states about abortion, forbidding medical doctors from inducing them.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator Obama is passionately devoted to abortion as a right. Is it because of lobbying pressure from Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-abortion groups?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Abortion as a right is part of pagan culture. It is not Christian.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Public awareness education program by anti-abortion groups must seek to change the cultural awareness in the young through science and human rights aspects of the unborn child of abortion.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"HOW CAN SENATOR OBAMA MENTION THE HIPPOCRATICE OATH AND FORGET THAT HIPPOCRATES FORBADE ABORTION IN ALL TRIMESTERS?"
Obama is a hypocrite !?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To abortion:
Religious groups against abortion can only ensure that the members of their respective religious do not resort to abortions.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Analysis thus far:
Debate not a game changer. Abortion has always been an issue and people has long had their stand.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
So the moderator is from the CBS.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why did Senator McCain not mention that 98% of abortions are abortion of convenience? Statistics from other countries show that social help alone is not enough to reduce abortions? That legal restriction has had a big say in low abortion.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A Christian culture that says killing an unborn child is the right of the mother, when a Greek pagan, the Father of Western Medicine, Hippocrates, recognized it as a barbaric practice in his pagan culture? And FORBADE MEDICAL DOCTORS FROM INDUCING ABORTION?
HOW CAN SENATOR OBAMA MENTION THE HIPPOCRATICE OATH AND FORGET THAT HIPPOCRATES FORBADE ABORTION IN ALL TRIMESTERS?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A Christian culture that says killing an unborn child is the right of the mother?
A Christian culture that says killing an unborn child is the right of the mother?
A Christian culture that says killing an unborn child is the right of the mother?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator Obama supports Roe vs Wade.
Senator Obama supports Roe vs Wade.
Senator Obama supports Roe vs Wade.
He defends it under as privacy issue and does not want it left to states or the people!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
My sincere apologies.
Roe vs Wade has been addressed!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The rest of the world doesn't care about the abortion debate in the US because it is about killing unborn American children.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 10:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Does it make a difference that many Americans consider abortion a human rights issue, the stand supported by hard core medical science?
Is is important to ask the would-be-President his stand on it?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 9:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If the moderator is someone from the Washington Post which has been pro-Obama all along, how non-partisan would the questions be in the last presidential debate?
Would the very important question about abortion be asked? About FOCA? About the ways to reduce abortion, including legal constraint?
Or is it not important that more innocent, defenseless unborn American unborn children would be killed because of the strengthening of abortion as the unrestricted right of the mother, knowing that 98% abortions is abortion of convenience.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 9:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot,
You said, "Jesus was a liberal." Wrong. Jesus IS a liberal! Jesus was a community organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
I'd watch that video, but the debate is on, and I'm watching on my computer.
Posted by: Arminius | October 15, 2008 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Jesus was a liberal."
Hey Patrinot is that like Jesus was a community organizer and worked for ACORN like Obama?
FIRST:
OBAMA SAYS ACORN "COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS" WILL SHAPE HIS PRESIDENTIAL AGENDA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
THEN:
OBAMA DISTANCES HIMSELF FROM ACORN AND DOWNPLAYS THE VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/14/obama_comments_on_acorn_contro.html
Posted by: JUST THINK JACQUES | October 15, 2008 9:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPVJnyRPZ3k
Intersting how people who profess to abhor name calling can hurl the word 'liberal" like an epithet.
Jesus was a liberal. Why does that guy hate Jesus?
See what a fast learner I am?
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 8:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"You would have to be an ignorant fool not to think that blacks experience a different America."
Well. Human kindness is overflowing--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPVJnyRPZ3k
Posted by: JUST THINK JACQUES | October 15, 2008 7:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot,
That was a very sobering post from you. It saddens and angers me that DWB (Driving While Black) is still considered a crime in America. Land of the Free, my a**.
Also, I'm sure that you have realized by this time that JUST THINK JACQUES is an absolute fool, lost sometime in the 1930's, or perhaps in McCarthy's witch hunts of the 1950's.
Posted by: Arminius | October 15, 2008 7:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Just think
I had missed the Hannity interview. Good for Wright, I thought he showed Hannity up for the ass he is.
I have little experience about what it means to be black in America. But when I was pulled over for having a lapsed registration sticker, I got a ticket that was forgiven when I brought the sticker I had been too lazy to put on the car. When one of my black students got pulled over for the same thing, they impounded her car and left her stranded on a steet corner in the snow with a handicapped child with a gastrostomy tube and a central line.
I had to go to a hearing to decide if another of my students should be allowed to make up a final he missed. A very nice, respectful kid. He was driving to his uncle the judge's house when he was stopped in a white neighborhood for having a tail light out. He was carted off to jail until his public defender could reach his uncle the judge the next day, and he missed his exam. Now, when my mother was pulled over for a taillight out, the nice policeman winked at her and instructed her to attend to it right away.
Another of my students had so much going for her, but she was feeling tremendous peer pressure about acting "white". She was torn between the culture she grew up in and opportuntity in the white world. Of course we see this even in white families where someone "makes good' and gets rewarded with "well who do you think you are missy, too good for us", but try being black too.
You would have to be an ignorant fool not to think that blacks experience a different America. It would be better for all of us if a President Obama could change that.
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Nice try Christian Now Liberated, Tithes in the LDS church are not Compulsory! Joseph Smith was asked "How do you have so much influence on your people?" He said, "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." If you knew anything about our church, you would know there is no force. Did the master shepherd lead his flock or drive it? I thank you in advance for not commenting as a supposed spokesperson on a church you do not belong to and have only opinions about.
Posted by: Bill Fitzgerald | October 15, 2008 7:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Here Patrinot-
Pastor Wright's entire God Damn America sermon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY2_2D0ANEA
and his now classic interview with Hannity/Colmes:
Posted by: JUST THINK JACQUES | October 15, 2008 6:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Great WEATHER UNDERGROUND Documentary with Barack and Michelle's comrades (or uh neighbors..) Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn reflecting on their unrepented political goals:
Posted by: JUST THINK JACQUES | October 15, 2008 6:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
just think jacques
Hey Patrinot-
Maybe you need to figure out the basic ideology of Obama's 20 year Pastor and Mentor Jeremiah Wright- Black Liberation Theology.
JTJ - I'm not certain I get the meaning of your posts. I took your first post to be fearmongering that electing Obama will be ushering in Communism, a wacky idea that is bandied about by a desperate McCain campaign. Apparently, you meant Obama wasn't a Communist? I'm fairly intelligent so I am only willing to take half the blame for not getting your point.
Regarding the pastor - Bill Clinton wasn't kidding when he said Sunday morning at 10 oclock was the most segregated hour in America. There are very few black families in my church. I have been to some black churches for funerals and found the experience quite different from us staid Episcopalians. But I have doubt that liberation theology affects predominantly black churches as a different kind of liberation theology affects central American Catholic churches.
However I have listened to the entirely of the much publicized "damning' speech that Wright made, and when his remarks are taken in context I agree with them wholeheartedly. I too damn torture, extraordinary rendition. egregious human rights abuses, the suspension of habeas corpus, and I love my country enough to be willing to stand up and damn a country that is acting as if they think God is blessing them for engaging in these acts.
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Concerned The Christian Now Liberated: "So sad, the same old Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist as she again refuses to address the flaws and errors of Islam especially those regarding terror, warmongering and abuse of women as dictated by the Worst Book/SOP Ever Written."
Yo, Concy pussycat! Miss moi much, eh?
What to do....even a religionist living in the third world, an adherent of belief in God, a reader of the so-called "Worst Book/SOP Ever Written", have the sense not to buy into McCainocracy and Palinomics. And McCainomics and Palinocracy. What more Americans well versed with Enlightenment writers.....
Cheers pussycat.
October 10, 2008 4:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In his book- "The Secular Bible" Jacques Berlinerblau says on page 131:
"If secularism is to be perserved as the minority position that it has always been (and should always be), it will need to rethink itself." I wonder why secular thought should always be in the minority? Why rethink secular thought? Did a Secular Jihadist fly a commercial airline into the Trade Center? Did a Secular President strike back in vengence by bombing civillian shepards? I would point out that maybe it is time for secular thought to be given more exposure. Instead of making appoligies for the way the religious mind processes world events we should encourage MORE MARXIST thought if only to give the population another frame of reference. Maybe it is time for the majority of Christians to rethink themselves."
Hey Jacques. That's like Barack Obama telling the plumber in Ohio he wants to "spread the wealth around".
Posted by: JUST THINK JACQUES | October 15, 2008 5:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
From Obama's autobiographical "Dreams from My Father":
U.S. Senator and Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama wrote about "Frank", a friend of his grandfather's and a childhood father figure and mentor.
"Frank" told Obama that he and Stanley (Obama's maternal grandfather) both had grown up only 50 miles apart, near Wichita, although they did not meet until Hawaii. He described the way race relations were back then, including Jim Crow, and his view that there had been little progress since then.
As Obama remembered, "It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created."
Obama also remembered "Frank" later in life when he took a job in South Chicago as a community organizer. He took some time one day and visited the areas where Frank had lived and wrote in his book, "I imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig."
From Marxist Thought Online:
"Eventually, Frank Marshall Davis befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, "Living the Blues" and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside."
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5047/1/32/
Hey Patrinot-
Maybe you need to figure out the basic ideology of Obama's 20 year Pastor and Mentor Jeremiah Wright- Black Liberation Theology.
Posted by: JUST THINK JACQUES | October 15, 2008 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RE: Just think Jacques
1930's Germany - Run for your lives, the Communists are just inches away from destroying our country! The Jews have stolen all your money! God wants us to fight back! God wants us to restore the real good German values, even if it means fining a final solution to the problem.
2004 America - Run for your lives, the Muslims are just inches away from destroying our country. God wants us to fight back with all our might. God wants us to restore the real good Christian values - even if it means torture, extraordinary rendition, strangling habeas corpus.
2008 AMerica - Run for your lives, the Muslims are still inches away from destroying our country, and now the Communists want to steal all your money. God wants us to fight back. Listen to Sarah Palin - she's rallying the real Americans about what needs to be done.
I guess what goes around comes around.
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Something for Berlinerblau to contemplate for his next "GOD VOTE":
US communists say their time has come
"A rare bird in the political world, the US Communist Party is feeling rather smug in these days of capitalist turmoil.
At the party's New York headquarters on 23rd Street in Manhattan, regional party chairman Libero Della Piana, 36, laid out why he thinks Marxist-Leninism's time has finally come.
"We are very excited, we feel that we are at a turning point," Della Piana, an imposing half-Italian, half-African American with a pony tail, told AFP.
"We can afford to be less on the defensive for the first time since Ronald Reagan, and we can say our word in rebuilding America on a new basis, rebuilding a better world, instead of one based on the greed of the few."
The US Communist Party was founded in 1919 and never really took off. It was ostracized during the Cold War and members faced discrimination, even firing from their work, during the anti-Communist drive of the 1950s.
Today, the party claims to have 3,000 to 3,500 members -- seemingly not a threat to the giant Democratic and Republican parties contesting next month's White House election.
But American communists think that the collapse of Wall Street and huge disillusionment among the public with the economy has put them on a roll.
"We receive more and more phone calls, we have more inquiries from people, we see an increase in interest," Della Piana said. "We hope to be part of the discussion. I can see a role for the Communist Party in this next period."
"The crisis' number one lesson: the market cannot regulate itself," he said. "Otherwise it goes out of control."
Communist youth coordinator Erica Smiley, 28, said "the major issues for the young are: peace, jobs, health care, education, and we provide them with answers."
Whether the communists will be able to deliver remains open to question.
One plus is that their recently renovated New York headquarters, featuring the obligatory tomes of Lenin and Marx, is prime real estate -- a serious and very capitalist nest egg.
But few people were about during a visit by AFP on Monday and the atmosphere was collegial and slightly sleepy, rather than revolutionary.
"They are all out working to get people to vote," explained Bill Davis, 65, who has been a faithful member for 37 years.
There is no communist running for the White House and the Communist Party does not endorse Democrat Barack Obama.
Yet many staff here wore his picture on lapel buttons, while Republican John McCain was relegated to a box of tissues -- the tissues being pulled through his mouth."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081015015822.kjqmjcg0&show_article=1
Obama's childhood mentor "Frank" would be so proud..
Posted by: JUST THINK JACQUES | October 15, 2008 4:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There she is again, the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist still making commentary about all that is wrong with the USA while her Muslim religion aims to bury us with their koranic dictates of warmongering, hallucinations, abuse of women, Allah is great and Mahound is the perfect one. What rubbish!!!
With respect to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, Infidel, one wonders why the Jihadist does not simply read the book? Hmmm, because she risks her life in doing so showing again how backward Islam is and will continue to be so until Mahound is finally put in his historic place as an illiterate, greed and lust filled, near-lunatic, warmongering, long-dead Arab.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 15, 2008 4:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
C for Conservative:
"I wonder where the Moral Majority will go politically when the the younger generation gets older."
Who knows? I certainly never thought I'd see people in my country defending torture, extraordinary rendition, disposal of habeas corpus, or shouting "kill him" at mainstream political rallies. And I sure never thought I'd see Bill Ayers in a suit and tie with PhD after his name, respected publications on his CV, taking money from friends of Ronald Reagan and hobnobbing with prominent Chicago Republicans (and Democrats).
"they must make their case to the more educated youth." Better be careful, they'll call you an eltist! I say this only half jokingly - It is young people like you who will have to see through how that label is applied to dicredit people who can see through the fearmongering and mind control of the neocons.
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 4:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"I wonder where the Moral Majority will go politically when the the younger generation gets older."
There are three or four countries openly asking American Christians to immigrate. They are looking for Americans who are family-oriented capitalists to join their communities and are offering generous economic incentives. You may want to check it out.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What few Republicans today know, and don't care to learn, is the ROOTS of their party in America. In fact, conservative politics in America is traced to the 18th century BRITISH Tory party, the political (elitists) who aligned themselves with British ROYAL authority and IMPERIAL interests. The Tory party--later the Whigs--in America is remembered for the same reason: they ALSO aligned with the BRITISH ARISTOCRACY, in their case by OPPOSING the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War because THEY believed that maintaining the status quo best served their own political and material interests.
Remember the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18) were those who aligned themselves with the despotic King Ahab. Despite the terrible effects of Ahab's exploitive, repressive policies on their own people, those prophets never challenged Ahab's actions or took him to task. Instead they supported him, made excuses for his sins, and prononced his transgr3essions as holy. YET their support for Ahab was not predicated on their belief in his righteousness, for he was not righteous. RATHER, it was based upon their own self-interest. It was in the false prophets' interest to maintain the status quo that geve them privileged status. It was in their interest to ignore Ahab's mistreatment of the poor, because their silence enabled them to stay close to the seat of EARTHLY power. Most important, it was in their interest to support the king, because in return for their loyalty he recognized those false prophets as the true--that is, the politically correct--prophets of God, with all the rank, riches, power, and deference that came with that exalted status.
The old-time prophets of Baal should have spoken truth to power, and today's Christian leaders (pastors, ministers, evangelists, bishops, and, for Palin, evangelistic "witch doctors" who lay hands)should be doing the same. They should be confronting Bush and reciting the words of the prophet Isaiah in their hearing: "Thus saith the Lord:.../Is this not the fast that I choose:/to loose the bonds of injustice,/to undo the thongs of the yokd,/to let the oppressed go free,/ and to break every yoke?/Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,/ and bring the homeless poor into your house;/ when you see the naked, cover him...?" (Isaiah 56:1, 58: 6-7).
As supposed servants of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that's what they should have been doing. But the false religious leaders so close to the likes of Reagan and George W. CHOSE not to. They chose and are choosing to FORGET that Jesus was more concerned with the needs of the poor than with the desires of the righ; that he enjoined HIS followers to value ALL God's children in EQUAL measure; that HE exhorted them to be merciful and kind and honest and just. THEY have chosen to FORGET that Jesus said to those who grant unjust favors to members of their own social circle or economic class or race or ethnicity: "If you love those who love you, what reward do you have?" (Matthew 5:46). THEY have CHOSEN to forget. That is why, despite all their pious claims, the ministers and pastors, and bishops and evangelists who have ELECTED to cozy up to those in power rather than CONFRONT them do not practices the ethics of Jesus. THEY follow the ethics of the prophets of Baal. THEY have let well intentioned Christions along the path leading the furthest away from Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Ward6ForNow | October 15, 2008 3:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I wonder where the Moral Majority will go politically when the the younger generation gets older. I'm 21 and my big issues are the size of government and the economy. I believe in Adam Smith economics, but I can't find a leader within the evangelical Right that cares about anything but controlling the life of gays.
I was a Romney supporter, and will support him again in 2012 if he runs again. At CPAC, Romney definitely had the youth vote because we care about actual conservative issues like limited government. I guess my message is that if the Evangelical, Pseudo-conservative movement wants to win in the future (Huckabee) they must make their case to the more educated youth.
Posted by: C for Conservative | October 15, 2008 3:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John, would you like to elaborate more on your comment about neocons
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 1:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Democrats think they are so intelligent because they can use the word neocon.
Posted by: John | October 15, 2008 12:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"What is the difference between a rabble raising mullah and Palin?
Lipstick."
Hee hee- it's funny because it's true.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 15, 2008 12:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Salaam Victoria,
Thanks for the elaboration on the origins as well as usage of the term, "Joe/Jane Six Packs."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,
Yo! Concy Pussycat! Miss moi much for some wee fun?
How goes Palinomics and McCainocracy, and Palinocracy and McCainomics?
Some folks are happily Palinated. Some folks are trying to dePalinate themself.
Baseless allegations and unsubstantiated rumours has it that Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is trying to free Ms. Sarah Palin from the hijabing and jihading of the American mind as in - Us vs them! God is on our side! We will pursue God's plan! It is all God's will!
After all, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is against silly beliefs and gross abuses of human rights. Or is she, regardless of race and religion?
What is the difference between a rabble raising mullah and Palin?
Lipstick.
J - the non-Palinista
Posted by: Jihadist | October 15, 2008 11:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I totally agree with Hoslo.
Unless the Repubs banish and repudiate the neocons, they will just go shopping for a new puppet candidate. They might go with Palin 2.0 (who will have learned to hide her fingerprints better, being more accomplished in riling the crowds but stopping just before they cross the line). But I wouldn't be surprised to see them go with George Pataki. He was my governor for a decade or so and he is very weak morally and politically, but he has a great smile and knows how to say the right things. By then people will have forgotten that the people of NY eventually repudiated his cronyism and corruption. He'd be a perfect neocon patsy without Sarah's baggage.
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Palin was the greatest thing since canned beer but they left her to the wolves and would not let her claw back."
Considering that she allowed the hunting of wolves from low-flying helicopters, there's a lot of justice in that statement. Shooting animals from helicopters isn't hunting, it's slaughter.
Posted by: Athena4 | October 15, 2008 11:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is not evangelical Christians that the Republican Party needs to distance itself from, it is neoconservatives.
Neoconservatives have been vying for the soul of the party since at least the Nixonian era (and some might say even earlier).
They are relentless, learning from their mistakes and profiting from their successes. Think Nixon's resignation was a defeat for them? Nah, it was temporary setback. They took advantange of Reagan's growing vulnerability and brought us Iran Contra. (I urge all of you to go on the web and look at Reagan's "apology" speech where he looks totally befuddled and says something like "I can't believe I would do such a thing, but apparently I did".
What happened to the criminals of Watergate and Iran-Contra? Did they hide their heads in shame and disappear from the American landscape? No indeed, they are completely unrepentant heroes in their party - G. Gordon Liddy, Chuck Colson, Ollie North - how did perjurers get to be leaders of an evangelical movement? Palin is only following in their mold. Who would have ever dreamed that the criminals of Watergate would be running the country 30 years later? j I about choked when I heard that Bush had turned to Fred Fielding to defend him.
I don't know what to say about Americans being so blind and gullible that they would listen to the perjurer Liddy on the radio every day or vote for the perjurer North, but condemn Obama for working with a respected Professor to improve local schools on a board with plenty of influentual Republicans, spending money from influential friend-of-Reagan Republicans who heavily funded John McCain, and who (until 2001) gave the same appearance of being "rehabilitated" as LIddy, Colson and North.
It is not the "live and let live" evangelicals that the neocons turn to, it is the intolerant ones. Atwater figured out that if you let them think they could force their brand of reality down America's throats, they'd support you. Only later would some of them begin to see that maybe abusing the earth, denying the poor "bootstraps" to pull themselves up with, starting unjust wars, parsing words into lies, well, maybe this isn't so Christian after all.
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous said :
1:
“To refer to Jesus Christ as "community organizer" and to mean that Senator Obama is the same as Jesus Christ, is going way, way beyond the partisan rhetoric, don't you think?
:)
1a: What was Jesus Christ if not a “community organizer”? Sent by God to start a movement that has changed the history of mankind forever! He lived and died in a community size of a small NY or Chicago neighborhood.
1b: I never said nor meant Obama was same as Jesus Christ. It’s just absurd to think like that!
1c: What I wrote and meant was: I trust a community organizer much more than a governor.
2:
“And yet you complain about "The One" ad. Kind of contradictory IMHO.””
:(
2a: I NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT ANY OF THAT! THIS IS NOT ANYTHING I EVER SAID OR WRITTEN! There is only one THE ONE for me!
3:
“It is one thing to admire a politician, but quite another to raise him to the pedestal of Jesus Christ in person.”
:)))
3a: I admire Mr. Obama very much and I have high hopes for what he will do as the leader of the most powerful country in the world, but: I never raised him to the pedestal of Jesus Christ in person!
But just to inform you:
3b: There are many “community organizer” in the history of the Christianity who has been sanctified. (and a very few governors too)
3c: Anyway: Wasn’t it George Bush who said he was “on the mission from God” to fight the Muslim terrorists? Wasn’t Sarah Palin on the mission from God to make the pipeline deal and even to become a governor? Jesus Christ was on the mission from God not Bush or Palin!
3d: What I wrote was just a reaction to what the columnist is trying to establish: The Obama presidency will be bad for the Evangelical or other Christians in the US and he is already planning for a godly and good one in 2012!
Dear Anonymous, You didn’t even react to what I wrote about the Neocons and how they used a Newborn Christian governor of Texas to get on with their big plan, “The Project for the new American Century”. So I guess you agree whit my points there. Or?
Well I think they are trying the same plan one more time. This time with another governor: Sarah Palin!
God Bless!
I put my original comment here under so you can read it once more if you want:
Culture warfare? Was the last 8 years a culture warfare?
Wasn’t that the "Project for the New American Century”?
Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz and on and on.. You remember?...
These people used 1 person, GWB and a lot of money to give the US and the world what you have today: 4500 dead American soldiers, at least 300000 mimed, 1000000 dead Iraqis, Bin Laden still loose, 2 wars on, plans for another war, with Iran, the US and the world economy in shambles? on and on...
And you are already planning for the next phase of your project? What are you going to call it this time? Ms. Palin? Sure she can read (not the newspapers), write e-mails and also talk! And that's why she is the perfect candidate? just as Bush was 8 years ago?
Meanwhile, when it comes to faith, I rather trust the Jewish community organizer, Jesus Christ than the Governor Pontius Pilatus! Even if he is a she next time around!
God Bless.
Posted by: HOSLO | October 15, 2008 11:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You cannot take faith out of politics, because faith is tied to moral values and ethics. If you make a list of qualities you would like your President to possess, then I believe that high moral and ethical standards would be on that list. As far as I'm concerned, Romney, Palin, and Huckabee would all meet that test, although they are all human and have all made mistakes like the rest of us. But the list does not end there. There are further qualifications a candidate must possess to run for office. Compare these three based on their ability to lead the country, not on who portends to pray the most. And I would encourage people to get over the mormon bias - it's hypocritical - stop judging and look at what the candidates have done with their lives and talents.
Posted by: Michael | October 15, 2008 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Just curious as to why a post I submitted hours ago after my first never made it to the discussion when others have posted more than once.
Is it possible that happened because I used the word "bi*ch" in a sentence, but not making reference either to a person or to a female dog?
Just asking.
Posted by: Decipherer | October 15, 2008 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'd much rather see Romney as the Republican nominee in 2012 than Palin.
Posted by: Michael | October 15, 2008 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The fact that the Democratic Party still has a wide range of viewpoints that run the spectrum from right to left will preclude it from power grabbing like the Republicans. Indeed, it was very difficult for Clinton to round up all the factions during his first two years in office thereby allowing the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
When you go back and look at those times when Democrats controlled the Executive and the Legislative branches, there was never runaway spending and passage of "bad" programs. The Republicans still fight against medicare and social security. When the Republicans had their chance, they gave us flawed medicare D and "no child left behind." They would have also given us privitization of social security, a sure killer of social security as we know it. At every turn, Republicans look out for big corporations and fat cats. How they manage to get so many "poor" and middle-class people to vote for them is a mystery to me. Oh, I forgot, they landed on wedge issues like abortion, school prayer, and gay rights to attract those voters who are willing to vote against their own economic interests in favor of issues that will never reach a satisfactory conclusion for anyone.
Posted by: EarlC | October 15, 2008 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
An interestong article. However, if the Republicans want to really get back into the game assuming that the Democrats win in a landslide, then they may need a new cast of characters. Perhaps some of those who were featured for possible vice-presidential picks may be in prime time by then. Palin, Romney, Huckabee, and the rest of this year's flock will be damaged goods. Palin will always have her credibility problems. Romney will be one-step farther removed from the political arena plus his Mormon faith will not sit well with some evalgelical right-wing Christians. Huckabee will also be one-step removed from the political center.
The Republicans will need to do some soul searching. They need to get back and study Lincoln and his legacy. "Honest" Abe is truly the place for them to start. They really lost their compass in this election cycle. Where Lincoln waged a war to restore the Union, the Republicans wage political campaigns to divide the country.
We also have to get off the kick of reducing taxes as a way to win elections. The Federal treasury is so far in the hole that we may never get out of debt. I foresee an infrastructure collapse soon. The financial meltdown is a symptom of the debt status of our once great nation. Fighting wars on a credit card is but one problem. The seeds of runaway inflation are beginning to sprout because the superwealthy are the ones with the money and they can affort to spend $10 per gallon of gas or more, $2000 per night at a nice hotel, and so forth. Think about it. When I see a suit for $800 in a normal retail store, I wonder who its customers are as I look around and see almost no one there.
I just walked through a house for sale for $1.7 million with 6,500 square feet of floor space and I wondered who is going to buy this house in these times. With seven houses on display and for sale in our local Homearama, I wonder who has the money to buy them. The average family income in my city is still way below $100,000 per year, yet we build homes of $500,000 and up for speculation.
I have wandered off the topic. I am a frustrated American. I do not hear Republican governors, senators, and congressmen repudiating the hate speech of the current crop of Republican candidates or their campaigns. Where are the real statesmen? Let us find a path to civil politics and an honest discourse where we can disagree with integrity.
Posted by: Earl C | October 15, 2008 10:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,
So what your saying is Romney was raised and serves in a church that can take 6.2 Billion dollars run a growing bureaucracy and still profit? One that still attracts news membership in spite of what many call strick rules. All while servings it's members and those in the community.
Sound Presidential to me.
Fred
Posted by: Fred Read | October 15, 2008 10:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Current events indicate the end of the shot-gun marriage of libertarian Republicans and religious fundamentalists. I could see either group moving toward third-party status.
Posted by: War Eagle | October 15, 2008 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To Joann Carlson
I left my evangelical upbringing years ago. Your words were inspiring and bring back what I remember in the faith of my grandparents.
Thank you.
Posted by: Linda Pennsylvania | October 15, 2008 10:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Peruse the following very thorough reviews:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
to educate yourself about BO and JB before November.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
to educate yourself about JM and SP before November.
And don't forget to VOTE !!!!
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 15, 2008 10:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
With the Democratic party poised to gain absolute power, we can assume it will in the course of time be corrupted - and then we will need a strong Republican party to challenge it. None of the panderers that worship at the memory of Ronald Reagan have a chance, now. W.'s administration took the Reagan jingoism and devil-may-care attitude to its logical end. The Republican party will have to jettison its drunken spending habits and its attitude towards foreign adventures (which Reagan only partly shared) and go back to its previous habits of economic probity and mistrust of adventures abroad. An Obama push to escalate in Afghanistan might give them the opportunity to come back in 4 years - but only if they get leadership that puts America's interests ahead of Georgia, Israel and England. Palin and Romney are not the answer. Maybe Bobby Jindal or some levelheaded congressman we've hardly heard of.
Posted by: Roger Evans | October 15, 2008 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The more the times beg for some kind of reason and sanity, the more nutballs we see touted for president. Why does the Post continually give aid and comfort to a tiny minority of wack-jobs who have hijacked one of the country's major parties? Why do they insist on helping the tail wag the dog in our elections?
Can anyone out there name an equivalent group of extremists on the left who a Democratic candidate feels he has to kowtow to every election? Do you hear any talk of how Obama or any Democrat has to appease PETA or MoveOn.org or the Environmental Defense Fund if they want to get elected?
The biggest lie perpetrated in our elections is the extent of the electorate who are Christian in the committed sense of the word.
Religion out of our politics--NOW!
Posted by: Mike D. | October 15, 2008 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mrs. Palin's celebrity and noterity stems altogether from her award-winning ability to capitalize on her physical attractiveness and cute, model-like mannerisms -- smiling, winking, and waving to her public -- and not from her limited intellect and reasoning ability.
From Troopergate, Mrs. Palin's political direction now appears to be coming mostly from her husband Todd, and not really a product of her own ambition.
In the event that (a) Mrs. Palin fails in her gamble to become the first female Vice-President of our United States, and (b) Alaska's Republican Senator Ted Stevens is convicted of corruption and loses his Senate seat, Mrs. Palin might well gamble on Alaskan's high opinion of her and run for the Senator's vacated Senate seat -- a move eerily reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's pre-positioning herself as Senator from New York while she waited out new President Bush's expected two terms.
Otherwise, in the event Republican neo-conservative Mrs. Palin would be foolish enough to run against President Barrack Obama four years from now, and with only the governorship of sparsely populated Alaska on her political resume, she will most certainly go down in flames and put an end to her political career.
Posted by: Ken Kellogg-Smith | October 15, 2008 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Romney has a large anchor around his neck i.e. the Mormon Business Cult Fronting As A Religion.
Mormonism-
A business/religious cult based on Joseph Smith's hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.
And from: lds-mormon.com/time.shtml
"The first divergence between Mormon economics and that of other denominations is the tithe. Most churches take in the greater part of their income through donations. Very few, however, impose a compulsory 10% income tax on their members. Tithes are collected locally, with much of the money passed on informally to local lay leaders at Sunday services. "By Monday," says Elbert Peck, editor of Sunstone, an independent Mormon magazine, the church authorities in Salt Lake City "know every cent that's been collected and have made sure the money is deposited in banks." There is a lot to deposit. Last year $5.2 billion in tithes flowed into Salt Lake City, $4.9 billion of which came from American Mormons."
"The Mormons are stewards of a different stripe. Their charitable spending and temple building are prodigious. But where other churches spend most of what they receive in a given year, the Latter-day Saints employ vast amounts of money in investments that TIME estimates to be at least $6 billion strong. Even more unusual, most of this money is not in bonds or stock in other peoples' companies but is invested directly in church-owned, for-profit concerns, the largest of which are in agribusiness, media, insurance, travel and real estate. Deseret Management Corp., the company through which the church holds almost all its commercial assets, is one of the largest owners of farm and ranchland in the country, including 49 for-profit parcels in addition to the Deseret Ranch. Besides the Bonneville International chain and Beneficial Life, the church owns a 52% holding in ZCMI, Utah's largest department-store chain. (For a more complete list, see chart.) All told, TIME estimates that the Latter-day Saints farmland and financial investments total some $11 billion, and that the church's nontithe income from its investments exceeds $600 million. "
"Members of the church celebrate the Lord's Supper with water rather than wine or grape juice. They believe their President is a prophet who receives new revelations from God. These can supplant older revelations, as in the case of the church's historically most controversial doctrine: Smith himself received God's sanctioning of polygamy in 1831, but 49 years later, the church's President announced its recision. Similarly, an explicit policy barring black men from holding even the lowest church offices was overturned by a new revelation in 1978, opening the way to huge missionary activity in Africa and Brazil. "
Bottom line: Mormonism is a business cult using religion as a front and charitable donations and volunteer work to advertise said business.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 15, 2008 10:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I have no clue who is running McCain's campaign but they are ding dongs. They lost it for him!!!! He had it but it is now gone. Palin was the greatest thing since canned beer but they left her to the wolves and would not let her claw back. I feel so sorry for John McCain!!!!!
Posted by: Ray | October 15, 2008 10:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bobby Jindal
Posted by: Phil | October 15, 2008 9:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes, there is some critique in your words about Palin. Nevertheless ...
What would a Palin presidency do to the USA? Can you imagine the dimension of damage such a reckless and ideology-driven extremist can do to a nation - and to the world?
Is it necessary to have it happen to understand how irresponsible your easygoing anticipations are, Mr. Berlinerblau?
The USA is desperately in need of political experience, competence, expertise, administrative quality, sober assessment of cause and effect ... and there you dare to offer Palin as a possible choice for President (in case she can establish some public "reputation")? The lady who represents the part of the USA who despises education, learning, science, dealing with ambivalence, etc.? The lady who declared war on reality (in her statement about the Troopergate verdict)?
Reason, reflection, analysis are required - not gut feelings of know-nothings - to fix the problems of a modern world - or, at least, not to have them spiral into desaster.
Posted by: lionfox | October 15, 2008 9:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mitt Romney is OK. He should run again in 2012, but I think the GOP needs to find someone new.
As he is already a larger than life figure, 2012 will probably be a referendum on Obama, so once again the Republicans may find themselves at the mercy of the political landscape.
Right now I am more concerned about rehabilitating the health of the GOP. Let's spend the next 4 years regaining control of congress.
Posted by: Jeffrey Chapin | October 15, 2008 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In my opinion, what the conservative movement in America needs to regain legitamacy in 2012 is Mitt Romney without his pandering to the religious wing of the party. I was puzzled by the feeling among Republicans this year that the key to winning this election was going to be base turnout. Look at who the front-runners have been since 2006, Hillary Clinton and John McCain! Hillary is nothing if not a central leaning populist. She honestly believed that the most homogenized message would win the Democratic nomination, and then on to history! John McCain is no Laura Inghram! It was obvious that the key was going to be grabbing the middle ground, but with a clear message that would resonate with the center without pandering to the base of either the left or right, and yet not let the base feel abandoned. That may sound like a tough message to craft, but think about it.
WIth disclaimer here, I grew up Mormon in Utah County, the most Mormon of all Mormon communities. Having lived outside of Utah all of my adult life, I have had a good chance to compare and contrast conservative Mormons and evangelical Christians. What is quite interesting is that they are very nearly indistinguishable on every point but one, they insist that they are each right about salvation and everyone else is wrong. They are both pro-life, pro-heterosexual marriage, pro-Israel (as a presage of the second coming of Jesus), against gun control, against federal intervention in social issues, pro federal intervention in moral issues. They are all God fearing, family loving, red-white-and-blue patriots who want prayer in schools, support the death penalty, and are quite intolerant of most anyone who isn't white, heterosexual and christian.
From early 2007, the issues that would define this election were clear: First, reigning in the overheated economy on four fronts: 1) runaway federal spending, 2) runaway trade deficits, 3) runaway credit markets (household, corporate and public), 4) cooling down overheated equity and housing markets. Second, unwinding American involvement in Iraq, Third, building a plan for American independence from Middle Eastern, African, and Venezuelan oil. (I believe we can still use Canadian and Mexican oil, as well as domestic reserves), and finally, getting at least half of the 40 million uninsured Americans some kind of basic health insurance.
Mitt Romney would have neutralized the message of "Change", and was uniquely qualified to run on a platform that would have won over the American people had he taken the following positions:
1. Demonstrate that he was the most qualified candidate to implement a sound economic policy based on fiscal restraint and financial accountability for past abuses
2. Take a contrarian position on Iraq, for example: "Get out now, Iraq is lost, the Iranian backed Shia have won. Continuing involvement there is draining our resources into a bottomless pit. The Kurds and Sunni will have to ally themselves with some factions that can support them. The tides of history are turning, we cannot hold them back. The Shia and the Sunni are set to have a death duel over who controls Mecca and the US and the rest of the Infidel world can only look on in horror. The only option after this is the Mongol option, bomb the Shia back into the 12th century."
3. Get serious about developing a new transportation economy based on domestic resources. CNG or LNG, clean coal, investing heavily in electric vehicles, rebuild metropolitan mass transit rail systems for Boston-New England, New York, Phila., Pittsburgh, DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, LA-So. Cal, Bay Area, Portland and Seattle. Start rebuilding our nuclear power infrastructure so we can start building new plants within the next decade. And finally, R&D support for alternative energy.
4. Provide a plan to get at least 20 Million of the poorest working Americans some kind of preventative health care plans including pre-natal and neo-natal care and childhood immunizations. This could be a county-by-county program, getting health care management as close as possible to the problem.
If he wanted to be bolder, fix the tax problem. Re-adjust the ratio of capital-gains to dividend taxes to encourage real profits over just growth in stock price. Push the broader investment decisions down on to the share holders and stop holding up so much cash in retained earnings.
Again, in my opinion, one of the big problems underlying this economic crisis was the over-abundance of cheap cash held up in the system that needed to find investments that gave high beta so companies holding that cash could justify inflated stock valuations.
Redistributing that cash back through the individual investors would have allowed broader investment of cash to new ventures that held promise of profitability, even though growth may have been limited. If investors valued profits, then the pressure would be off on the growth side, and we would find high efficiency in our economy.
Next do away with the income tax on earned income, while continuing to tax investment income and gains. Change the whole system to a VAT with a regressive rate rebate to anyone who can document their income (basically, if you are a family of four with a documented income of less than $24,001, you would get a rebate equivalent to the effective tax rate X actual income, or in essence be living tax free. Above $24,000, the rebate rate would be progressively lower, up to, say $100,000, where there would be no rebate, meaning you pay full VAT on you spending, but anything saved or invested isn't taxed until it yields profit or gains, and then it is only taxed on the profit or real gains that it makes.
This system would penalize illegal, undocumented workers by taxing them with no recourse for rebate. Sounds fair, they get to use government services and so they pay for them.
At the same time, raise overall taxes and reduce federal spending. I'm not advocating a balanced budget. As long as the US dollar is the de-facto currency for world trade, (as well we want to be), we can afford to run some deficits and allow the rest of the world to fund our government. If they want to hold US Treasuries at 4% yield, then more power to them, we have better things to do with our cash.
This platform is as "anti-Hillary" as a platform can be. It would be unpopular to some, but very popular with others. It is heavily weighted to the economic side, but government in the US has always done better when it focused on economic issues and less on moral and social issues. I don't believe that American's believe in the revival of Jacksonian populist Democratic ideals. I don't believe that American's are looking for a handout, they are just looking for a chance, an opportunity. Mitt Romney could have pulled it off.
Unfortunately, if we fast forward to 2011, we will probably have the same set of issues in front of us. A Democratic congress and a Democratic president will almost certainly try to broaden government spending without raising taxes. The deficit will be bigger, which means our current account deficit will have to be even bigger than it is now. We will probably still be in Iraq, afraid to pull out, yet unable to even define victory let alone achieve it. Our tax policies will still benefit un-earned income, favor retention of earnings, and penalize the middle class. I believe that a bolder Mitt Romney, one that isn't so homogenized to the right of center, could pull off a huge landslide by truly running a straight shooting economic based campaign.
Posted by: C Sheen in NH | October 15, 2008 9:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The Republican Party needs to shed its skin completely. This election will prove that the Christian Evangelical movement is over and cultural warmongering is no longer a winning tactic. To rebuild, Republicans have to modernize, move center, and redefine conservatism in secular, 21st Century terms. Social progress wins the day.
Posted by: Paris | October 15, 2008 9:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The GOP has lied, cheated, and stolen its way into power, and I hope it implodes of its own corruption. We need a viable alternative to the Democrats, but the Republicans have alienated so many people they should go quietly into the dustbin of history.
Inflammatory put-downs of any who disagree with them are the stock in trade for numerous conservative spokespersons throughout America, and enough Americans fell for their line to elect several incompetent Republican Presidents, Senators, and Representatives over the last decades. At least now some Americans are waking up to the fact that being good at slinging insults and threats doesn't mean one's opinions are correct, and it certainly doesn't indicate political competence.
The Republicans are no better than schoolyard bullies, and their economic ideas have been discredited so many times that even the slowest of Americans must be wondering by now if there is anything good in the Republican party at all.
There is nothing Christian about the Republican Party, its hypocritical platform, its spokespersons, or the behavior of its elected officials, and the free-market conservatives have revealed themselves as greed-driven crooks who would rob a child's piggybank if they thought they could get away with it.
The Republicans have done more to discredit their own party than the Democrats could ever hope to, and they may yet take the US down the tubes with them.
Posted by: Michael | October 15, 2008 9:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
First, the republican party would only put a woman on the top of the ticket if they had to. The choice of Palin as republican VP nominee this year was pure political expediency. If no such expediency exists in 2012, forget all about Sarah Bye-bye. She has been a mess for the McCain people to deal with calling his judgment into question, as well as making people begin to wonder whether or not the country can handle another shoot-from-the-hip presidency.
Assuming Barack wipes the electoral map with McCain in three weeks, I'd love to see Palin vs Obama-Biden in 2012. It would be a laugh. But since republicans are not too big on humor, forget all about it.
Posted by: orbiter dictum | October 15, 2008 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The GOP is beginning a long and tough civil war as to what they are all about. The easy victories achieved with the heroin of evangelical voters has come to an end. The true conservatives who actually believe in science and libertarian values (i.e. live and let live) are in open revolt. At the end of this process a new GOP will emerge that will be smart, lean and less judgemental about personal lives and more judgemental about back dooring religion into the public square (i.e. creationism).
All in all it's about time.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
As a liberal American I can say that I do not "detest" Sarah Palin. If she is a dim-wit, dishonest, abuser of power, and a religious zealot, that is her own doing. Thanks to Belinerbrau for pointing out her faults.
Posted by: spidey103 | October 15, 2008 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Republicans need to reassess if they are to be viable in the future. They should examine the influence and control of the religious right on their party. As an evangelical Christian, I find this particular group of "Christians" more power-hungry than Christian. The Republican party is largely white, while our nation is becoming less white. They have to seek ways to attract our youth or they will die. Or they can hope the Democrats screw up royally, which is entirely possible, and people turn to them as an alternative.
Posted by: MN USA | October 15, 2008 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There's a joke in there somewhere about Palin and "energizing the broad base", but I'm not going to get in trouble by making it.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 8:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What an irrelevant and backwards article. George W. Bush's conversion of the GOP "base" from people who like small government and don't want to be taxed to evangelical Christians is what is killing the party. The only way that the Republicans can retake power in 2012 (short of a huge blunder by Dems) is to completely expel the conservative Christian base from its platform. Evangelical Christians, by their very nature, are not logical people. That's fine for a religion, but when you start basing political action on the ideology of a particularly illogical people, you get things like a President who claims to be a compassionate conservative, which translates to lower taxes (conservative) and increased spending (compassion).
The simple fact - and please refute me logically if you disagree - is that the GOP and the teachings of Christ do not mix. Christ was, at his very core, a community organizer. He was pro-taxation, pro-redistribution of wealth, and anti-accumulation of wealth. The base ideas of traditional Republicans, that everyone should be most concerned with themselves, that the lower classes should be happy with trickle down economics, that everybody's responsible for themselves and helping them is actually hurting them, are very contradictory with the teachings of Christ. Republicans are much more apt to turn a blind eye than to turn the other cheek.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this. There are absolutely logical and well thought out ideas behind conservative economics, whether or not I agree with them. The implication of those ideas, though, is that the teachings of Christ don't apply to our world. Again, nothing wrong with this, and there's certainly an argument there to be made. Christ's ideology was based on rehabilitating and empowering a small oppressed group of people (the Jews in the Roman Empire), and that ideology may not apply when the good guys (as most Americans see themselves) are not oppressed, but are, in fact, the most powerful people in the world.
To be detached from Christ doesn't mean that Republicans are morally bankrupt, either. It's certainly plausible that people can be law abiding, kind, wholesome people without believing in God, let alone adhering fervently to Christ's teachings.
Though it may seem to be political suicide (and it probably is, at least in the short term), Republicans need to reorient themselves ideologically. They shouldn't come out against Christ or Christians, necessarily, but they need to say "look, George W. really made a push to appeal to evangelicals, and that push totally skewed his ideology into something that is unsustainable. We, as conservatives, are going to start talking a lot more about conservative economic principles, and a lot less about God and Christ, because, while some of us individually may have certain views, those views don't necessarily represent our platform."
I have a theory as to how this courtship of the evangelicals came to pass. It may be wrong, and there are certainly more qualified people than myself to make this argument, but it seems like, because the Clinton years were, as a whole, so peaceful and prosperous (contrasting the cold war era and the terror era), that Republicans needed something, anything, to propel them to relevance. Hence the incredible focus on wedge issues and evangelicals. George W. Bush is not particularly savvy or smart, doesn't have much experience in the political or international arena, and it's fairly obvious that he made his past achievements by the grace of his rich and influential father, but he could run as a "born again" Christian, and attract a previously scattered portion of the electorate.
The big question is how long it will take to reverse GWB's legacy. He's certainly done a lot of damage to the country militarily, economically, and with regards to our image overseas. But he's also done a lot of serious damage to the Republican party ideologically. At one of the Republican primary debates, they were asked to raise their hands if they believed in evolution. Several candidates did not. There are two explanations: one, that they actually don't believe in evolution (and are therefore mentally incompetent) or two, that they were scared to upset the "evangelical base" that GWB created. That is GWB's legacy in the Republican party - they are now so entrenched with evangelicals that they would rather refute science that has withstood criticism for a hundred and fifty years than offend a group of people with whom they don't even have common ideological ground.
Pitiful.
Posted by: crashinghero | October 15, 2008 8:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Meantime, they all are guaranteed jobs at RNC Fox News.
Posted by: Roy | October 15, 2008 8:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Majority say Legislature should act against Palin
by Channel 2 News staff
Thursday, October 9, 2008
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- In a poll conducted by Channel 2 News, respondents were asked whether or not the Alaska Legislature should take action against Gov. Palin in light of the abuse of power report.
Here is the official question and results.
Should the Legislature take action against Gov. Sarah Palin for her abuse of power laid out in Stephen Branchflower's investigation?
Yes 66 %
No 34 %
All polls conducted by Channel 2 News and KTUU.com are unscientific
Posted by: Palin can't hide from the press forever | October 15, 2008 8:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sarah Palin-
Grossly Unqualified
Religious wacko
Liar
Scandal after scandal
Warmonger
Thinks Iraq caused 9/11
Thinks the earth is 6000 years old
Fires people for personal vendettas
Barely made it through college
Bought and sold by big oil
Book banner
Failed world geography
Can't explain the Bush doctrine just like Bush can't
Thinks gay is a choice
Appoints incompetent cronies to official positions
Thinks torture is a Christian value
Wants to force rape and incest victims to have the baby
Against sex ed (how ironic)
Can't answer questions without flashcards
Avoids press conferences
Denies global warming
Okay with polar bears drowning
Buddy of indicted Senator Ted Stevens
Gets paid to stay home while not working
Against women's rights
Refuses to cooperate in investigations of herself- cites executive privilege
Goes AWOL from her job frequently
Supports George Bush 100% (not 90)Like Bush (with Mexico), cited being governor of a state that’s near another country as proof of foreign policy expertise
George Bush with lipstick!
Posted by: Bill | October 15, 2008 8:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
All these Republican have something in common.
They all believe American voters have "STUPID" stamped on their foreheads and can easily be manipulated by Rovain politics of fear, hatred and religious and racial intolerance - common denominators of their neochristian faiths.
Posted by: Roy | October 15, 2008 8:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I am an evangelical Christian; a woman who has been a delegate to 2 Republican state conventions.
One thing the polls aren't examining is the fissure that is developing among pro-life evangelical Christians.
Many of us believe Governor Palin is the worst of Christians in many, many ways.
1. She "didn't blink". A godly woman would have told McCain, "I'll have to pray about it." She didn't blink and she didn't seek God's will concerning her decision to run for VP at a time of numerous and significant motherhood challenges.
2. She has lied repeatedly, from "Thanks, but No Thanks" to the Ayers exaggerations. Christians don't lie for political expedience.
3. She smears other Christians. It is a well-known fact that Palin and Obama will worship Christ together in heaven (according to both politician's doctrinal beliefs). We have strict instructions in the Bible regarding our treatment of other Christians. Senator Obama has been a Christian man in his treatment of Gov Palin; in return she has acted shamefully.
Please don't imagine that all evangelical Christians are happy about her selection as VP nominee. Many are very, very unhappy.
Posted by: Joann Carlson | October 15, 2008 8:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Joe Leiberman, who will be about 69, will be a Republican (let's hope) come November. If he flip-flops on abortion and same sex issues, he can position himself for the 2012 run.
If, as I anticipate, Obama will have a successful first term, any Republican will be a long shot. No stronger GOP candidate will want to run and loose, and lessen their changes for nomination in 2016.
But chances be damned, Joe loves the limelight and would like to enjoy the glare of publicity one more time. I can see more viable Republican candidates positioning themselves for 2016.
Hal Brown
Posted by: HalBrown | October 15, 2008 8:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hmmm, we see the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist has returned with her normal distracting commentaries as she still refuses to address the major issue facing Muslim women, their treatment as third class citizens and as fodder for Muslim males.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her autobiography, Infidel, captures the situation quite well.
("Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.)
four excerpts:
p. 47 paperback issue:
"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"
p.68:
"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."
p.309
"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."
p. 347
"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 15, 2008 8:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The reason that Huckabee didn't excite the Christian Right, and Palin does?
The "Christian Right" is more about being *right-wing* than it is about being *Christian*. Remember when they flocked to the divorced, former Hollywood actor at the expense of the Southern Baptist?
It isn't Palin's faith that interests them. It's her nationalist appeal to "us" versus "them" -- and can we all admit that we know what she's talking about?
Posted by: Kris | October 15, 2008 8:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Is this what passes for "analysis" over at Georgetown these days? Pretty pretty thin gruel if you ask me, professor.
By any measure, Sarah Palin will have faded into the obscurity she deserves and she owes the rest of us, regardless of the outcome of her burgeoning legal and political troubles back home in Alaska. She'll be lucky to complete her first term, much less be re-elected.
Buh-bye, Sarah -- we hardly knew ye. And good for us.
Then you discuss Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, two narrow-issue, limited-constituency candidates who are unlikely to have any impact in 2012. Other than bloviating and sniping at Barack Obama over the next four years, what will they likely actually be doing in the political arena over the next four years?
Answer: Nothing! While Obama and the Democratic Congress will actually be working tirelessly to clean up the hideous mess Bush has left us, these two will be talking . . . and talking . . . and talking. Little else.
Obama would wipe the floor with either of them.
Who else can the GOP field against a formidible incumbent Democratic president in 2012? Pretty limited choices -- none of the other GOP primary candidates other than the above came close to emerging from the pack. All of them are non-starters.
That's not to say that some "New Republican" who rejects the siren song of their so-called evangelical base and who embraces a new political approach, a la a Bill Clinton in 1988 - 92, could come on to the scene in the next four years.
A guy like Gov. Jindal in Louisiana is a possibility, but he is still largely untested and might have a very difficult time surviving the GOP primary gauntlet.
You never know, but I would not count on the next GOP standard bearer coming from this year's bitter harvest of deeply-flawed candidates.
Posted by: Decipherer | October 15, 2008 7:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin for president?
All together now:
OH, MY GOD!
Posted by: Jesus | October 15, 2008 7:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How about none of the above. The GOP needs a fresh face. Huckabee has his own cable show and I believe he will enjoy that alot more than running for Pres. Palin, in my opinion, has done more damage than good and would be a poor candidate (just imagine an ad featuring her Katie Couric interview), and if Romney was going to win at any point in time, this was the year. He just flip-flops too much. I expect to see a fresh face or Jeb Bush, Booby Jindal, Rick Perry type, one that we probbaly have not heard of yet. It will also be interesting to see what the next 4 years bring. Assuming Obama wins, and the nation is in a good mood, then there will be more of a Dole/McCain figure running, as opposed to a Jeb Bush, Rick Perry Bobby Jindal type.
Posted by: Jimbom | October 15, 2008 7:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin, Huckabee, and Romney? - then I'd say Obama will have a good shot at a second term. Palin cannot possibly get through an interview except on Fox. She'll be looking at Russia across the Bering Strait in 2012. In a year that everyone is looking for non-partisanship, Romney dumped his respectable middle of the road record to become Karl Rove's Frankenstein - loooser. Huckabee: would Republicans nominate an ex-governor from Hope, Arkansas? Isn't Chuck Norris wearing a little thin? Much more likely that by 2012, the Republicans will bring up someone unheard of at this point. However, Obama will be vulnerable. It will take divine intervention to dig us out of the hole Bush has dug for us.
Posted by: SharptonVoter | October 15, 2008 7:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
None of the above.
After this election the Republican Party will need a massive retooling. The divisive, arch religious-based plan of attack is worn out. The recent ugly tactics employed by the McCain/Palin campaign has brought a very dark element sniffing around the edges of the campaign. The Republican Party can't go into 2012 with 2008's "Kill him!" still echoing in the background. They need a wjole new focus.
The minute the election is called, the Republican Party will bllame Sarah Palin for the disaster. Troopergate, plus her emerging house scandal will finish her off. Sarah Palin is a futer trivia answer at best, not a future Presidential candidate.
Posted by: Caligula | October 15, 2008 7:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How on earth is it possible that a seemingly serious person like mr Berlinerblau BEGINS his summing up of possible Republican candidates for 2012 with an elaboration on a nitwitty parrot ?
Posted by: chris | October 15, 2008 7:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I hope better choices appear on the horizon for the GOP soon. None of these are remotely palatable.
I think I threw up a little in my mouth while reading this article.
Posted by: Flabber Gasted | October 15, 2008 6:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This illustrates clearly why there needs to be a revolution in this country. Sarah Palin is the top pick, in this writer's mind at least, for the republican nod in '12. The thought is so breathtaking in its sheer stupidity and the lack of thought as to why this woman should be considered for any public office, let alone the presidency.
To think either party (and part of the problem is there are just two) would even dare nominate someone as inept and unqualified to be president as Sarah Palin is shows a complete lack of patriotism. The country first, right? Not with these people.
Posted by: Mark Hamblett | October 15, 2008 6:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I demand to know why Sarah Palin lied so blatantly about what was in the troopergate report.
The report said she abused her power and violated an ethics law.
She said that the report said she had done nothing ethically wrong.
Why did she lie?
Posted by: anja | October 15, 2008 6:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
HOSLO:
To refer to Jesus Christ as "community organizer" and to mean that Senator Obama is the same as Jesus Christ, is going way, way beyond the partisan rhetoric, don't you think? And yet you complain about "The One" ad. Kind of contradictory IMHO.
It is one thing to admire a politician, but quite another to raise him to the pedestal of Jesus Christ in person.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 6:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"What Palin does bring to the table and what may make her attractive to GOP kingmakers is her ability to "energize the base." By "base" we mean White Conservative Evangelicals."
They don't need to be energized. They need to get an IQ injection.
Posted by: asoders 22 | October 15, 2008 5:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power in pushing for the firing of a state trooper once married to her sister and by allowing her husband to use the governor's office in a crusade against the officer, a legislative investigation found.
!!CORRUPTION!
****AMERICA SHOULD BE FEARFULLY CONCERNED****
ALASKA GOVERNOR Palin RECALL!
I am a Alaskan life voting Republican. This 2008 Election, I will [with pleasure] vote Democrat!
McCains V.P. selection Sarah Palin unequivocally has NO business being the Alaska Governor, let alone, a USA candidate for Vice President…..
Maverick??.....”AMERICA SHOULD BE FEARFULLY CONCERNED”
I voted for Sarah Palin in Alaskas 2006 Governor Election. MISTAKE!.... Never Again… I repeat-NEVER AGAIN!!....Alaska Governor Palin is an absolute Embarrassment to the Alaska People(s) and "IS PROVEN” over and over to be an insatiable Liar!!...
How can she possibly ASSUME to possess the ability to clean up America, when she cannot clean the progressive ''MESS" She has created, then left Alaska to run for the United States V.P.? Yes,---Left “HER and Her husband todd palins” Mess FOR Alaskans to Clean-Up!!
MCCAIN, you should be ASHAMED of yourself!!!! This victim (palin)has no business in this Presidential Arena.
Thank You McClatchyde.com Truth News
AlaskaPolitics and.com
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 4:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin, Huckabee and Romney? I'd rather vote for Larry, Curly, and Moe.
Posted by: Huckster | October 15, 2008 4:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau's piece puzzles me. Is this about who might run against Obama in 2012 or about who might run against him if capturing the Evangelicals were the only thing that mattered - or, if by then, mattered at all?
If it's the latter, and I presume it is as nothing at all other than the Evangelical perspective is discussed, then he rightly points us towards a conclusion: The Evangelical vote is becoming increasingly less relevant, to the point that it's about as valuable and relevant as this article...not in the least bit.
Posted by: Bill, CT | October 15, 2008 4:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"If the governor of Alaska wants to run for the White House then she is going to have to spend every day of the next four years systematically rehabilitating her public image."
With that opening line you have already conceded that Palin will not run for the White House. Where is your Dan Quayle today? Mark my words "Palin will never be the president of this country". As in never. You end your comments about her by remarking on an Evangelical preacher accusing American citizens of being worshipers of non-Christian Gods. Get a clue man. These people are off their rockers as far as radical Muslims are. Thank God they are a minority. It is they who are non-Christian. Palin personifies it in her venomous attacks.
Posted by: mucker | October 15, 2008 4:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Culture warfare? Was the last 8 years a culture warfare?
Wasn’t that the "Project for the New American Century”?
Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz and on and on.. You remember?...
These people used 1 person, GWB and a lot of money to give the US and the world what you have today: 4500 dead American soldiers, at least 300000 mimed, 1000000 dead Iraqis, Bin Laden still loose, 2 wars on, plans for another war, with Iran, the US and the world economy in shambles? on and on...
And you are already planning for the next phase of your project? What are you going to call it this time? Ms. Palin? Sure she can read (not the newspapers), write e-mails and also talk! And that's why she is the perfect candidate? just as Bush was 8 years ago?
Meanwhile, when it comes to faith, I rather trust the Jewish community organizer, Jesus Christ than the Governor Pontius Pilatus! Even if he is a she next time around!
God Bless.
Posted by: Hoslo | October 15, 2008 4:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Romney or Huckabee perhaps. Palin is facing to many problems on ethics and other ongoing investigations in Alaska. I also don't think she is smart enough.
Posted by: Dave | October 15, 2008 4:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is quite inspiring to note how Senator McCain is continuing to do his very best even though the odds are against him now.
In the end people will remember not just the winners but also the losers who put up a good fair fight till the end. Until every last vote is cast, it is right for Senator McCain and Governor Palin to do all they possibly can.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 3:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I give up. Patriot keeps writing such patriotic posts to me and another Anonymous replies on my behalf, writing stuff that gives me a bad name.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 3:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
That was me Anon- you really are a goofball.
See? It is not so difficult taking repsonsibility for one's words, is it now?
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 15, 2008 3:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous-
"But an Anonymous pretending to be me. Now that is completely new!"
How do you know YOU"RE not pretending to be ME?
You are a goofball-
Just take a name already.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 3:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't think that Palin energizes the base so much as enjoys the role of laying a blood scent for wolves, and then we know what she does to wolves.
Maybe more apt is to see her as the political blood-letter, a person who would mash a thorn of crowns on an innocent head and then rub salt or vinegar and complain in a whiney voice that the person is a complainer. If that energizes "the base," well, maybe that bases is no Christian base. Is there a form of Christianity that blames the victim they have chosen as the victim? That would not be the God vote such actions should energize. I take God to be more serious a presence than that, and one who cares for us all. Smarter, he votes for all of us to be cared for; very few return the comliment.
Posted by: Sandy | October 15, 2008 3:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't think that Palin energizes the base so much as enjoys the role of laying a blood scent for wolves, and then we know what she does to wolves.
Maybe more apt is to see her as the political blood-letter, a person who would mash a thorn of crowns on an innocent head and then rub salt or vinegar and complain in a whiney voice that the person is a complainer. If that energizes "the base," well, maybe that bases is no Christian base. Is there a form of Christianity that blames the victim they have chosen as the victim? That would not be the God vote such actions should energize. I take God to be more serious a presence than that, and one who cares for us all. Smarter, he votes for all of us to be cared for; very few return the comliment.
Posted by: Emily | October 15, 2008 3:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin for President! What is America getting into?
This financial crisis is watershe. We will see the hollowing out of American. We need the intellectual power to lead and re-position America. A president who can rally and energise the people. A president who can attract the talents to come to Washngton and serve, and to solve problems America is facing.A president who can inspire people to serve.
I dont thank Palin can fit this bill.
Posted by: Kenny | October 15, 2008 3:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You are assuming that the Republican Party will still be intact as a political force in 2012. I tend to doubt it. The next serious challenge will come in the form of a well-orchestrated effort by independant voters, who left the Republican Party is massive numbers over the past four years, culminating with a great stampede this year. The evangelical right will slug along for a while at 10-15% of the electorate, evolve into a white, elderly, rich & vocal group of one issue fringe voters, then break up & dissolve like fizzies within 10 years. Look at the new generation of young evangelicals. They don't look anything like the Falwell-Roberstson vision and they flat-out don't want to be associated with a Republican Party that destroyed its parents' golden years, that ignored environmental disaster, that planned and waged an immoral war, invoking God's support, a great blaspheme, and suddenly welcomed racists into its midst. Sarah pallin could do us all a big favor in 2012 and stay home and raise her children to be model citizens.
Posted by: Mike Harley | October 15, 2008 2:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wa alaikum a salaam Jihadist-
You asked-
"Where in the world did this patronisingly dismissive term, "Joe/Jane Sixpack" come from? Do they mind this term being used by Ms. Sarah Palin?"
Joe Six-pack (American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms)
"A lower-middle-class male. For example, I don't think opera will appeal to Joe Six-pack; he'd prefer a rock concert. This disparaging term, first recorded in 1977, conjures up the image of a man in undershirt and construction helmet who will down all of a six-pack (six cans or bottles of beer sold in a package) in an evening."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FIRST USAGE OF JOE SIX PACK
On Language; The Return of Joe Six-Pack
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: May 3, 1998
Who invented him? The Oxford English Dictionary is silent; the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang has a citation in The Los Angeles Times from as early as 1977.
''Herewith Joe Six-Pack's birth certificate,'' writes Martin F. Nolan, the reporter and frequent writer on language at The Boston Globe. He attaches an article in that newspaper dated Aug. 28, 1970, about Joe Moakley, then a State Senator who was campaigning against Louise Day Hicks for the Congressional seat held by Speaker John McCormack.
''Moakley plans to make Mrs. Hicks the major issue in the campaign,'' wrote Nolan, then at The Globe's Washington bureau, ''talking about issues in the media and shouting in Joe Six-Pack's ear to wake up and face the unsimplistic facts of life.'' The headline over the Nolan story was ''After the Soul of Joe Six-Pack.
''The guy I heard it from,'' writes Nolan, ''now long dead, threatened to sue if I quoted him. He must have known something. The initial mail in 1970 was all negative, accusing me of using Irish (and Polish!) ethnic stereotypes.
And what happened to Joe Moakley? ''He really does qualify as Joe Six-Pack. Joe does not follow Beltway couture or cuisine and seems the same as he ever was. He lost to Louise Day Hicks that year and had to run as an independent in 1972, winning suburban votes to defeat her by fewer than 3,500 votes.
''Thus, the heir to John McCormack, the protege to Tip O'Neill and the future chairman of the House Rules Committee began his career in Congress as sort of a (gasp!) reformer.''
Major coinage found, triggered by a President's use. A happy day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This has a fun 360 degree search and the latest references to Joe-6pack
http://www.silobreaker.com/FlashNetwork.aspx?DrillDownItems=11_5344932
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now my take- Here is the caricature version-
Joe Six-pack is a blue collar working class guy- (always a white guy)
He is a 'regular Joe'. (also an expression) and likes to drink beer (the six pack part), and not wine. he's nationalistic, and socially conservative. His wife goes to church for him. He also has a natural distrust and suspicion of intellectuals(liberals), and you rightly observed that-
"it is rather very bad form for the wine sipping, cheese nibbling, opera listening smart and well off ones to dismiss and mock them."
(GO READ JACOBY'S POST- THE CONTEMPT AND DISDAIN ARE DRIPPING FROM HER PEN)
Obama was reported in The Chicago Tribune as saying this in Iowa-
"Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
It started , what is now known as the Arugula Gap.
Coupled with his statement in San Francisco that small towns in the midwest, or Pennsylvania, watching plants and factories close down and seeing this admin doing nothing- may get bitter, and cling to their guns and religion...
This set off a firestrom of accusations of the arugula eating elitist-
but Obama had already proven and has regained his bona fides for the populist vote-
As for Nixon's Silent Majority- besides pumping up some maybe mythical maybe real shadow support-
my Dad is one- he could also be smart version of Joe Six Pack- he has alot of the elements-
(I try, when I blog here- to only critique what I am or know well personally)
So please, no storm of anger over the definition- I reserve the right to define my own family.
Joe Six Pack gets a bad rap from elitist mentality types though-
His concerns are very real- likely he served his country in the military- he goes to work every day, and tries to do the right thing- and sometimes sees those around him profit and prosper without really earning it.
When he sees his taxes going to government handouts- his frustrations are valid- he never asked for anything- and maybe had to sacrifice his own education or dreams to do the right thing.
I cannot entirely blame his anger-
My entire home city was filled with Joe Six Packs- Pittsburgh PA- steel capitol of the world for a century until cheap japanses imported steel closed all the mills down in the 70's.
So, they're my people, and I've been fighting with them all of my life- (I was born a natural liberal) but I still love them and have lived their struggle.
You also asked-
"Do they mind this term being used by Ms. Sarah Palin?"
Sadly, no- they seem so happy to be silent no more, and seem to relish the attention. I think it makes them feel powerful and important- and that is a major part of her appeal to voters-
her speeches are peppered with compliments and affirmations that those dark feelings inside need to be expressed, deserve to be expressed, and it is ok- you betcha- not only ok- but patriotic.
as a matter of fact- another insane GOP attendee at her speech screamed "KILL HIM!!!"
AGAIN-
when she mentioned Obama's name.
Jane SixPack?
This is a new one entirely, and a Sarah invention. I guess it hs her version of equal rights for women- a dubious distinction at best.
Fro Arminius too- one of my favorite Monty Python snips- the constitutional peasant-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
This was a fun exploration of americana for me-
O- for the record- if you ever want the best info on idioms,etymology, and american language use and misuse- google William Safire- he is the ultimate authority-
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 15, 2008 2:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
For Palin to make a serious run in 2012 she'll need to become conversant on a plethora of topics. Since she's the governor of Alaska and mother of 5 with a baby, and it took her 6 years to get a 4 year degree in journalism, the odds that she'll acquire the level of expertise needed to be the president are slim. I'd love to see her get the nod if only for the entertainment value. While the social conservatives love affair with functionally illiterate politicians will continue, I believe independents have seen the dangers of voting for the person you'd most like to toss back a beer with.
Also, Palin's popularity is dependent on the price of oil. The state of Alaska may not be sending her off to the national stage with valentines and roses if the price of oil stays within a moderate range.
Posted by: Sarah | October 15, 2008 2:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
For Palin to make a serious run in 2012 she'll need to become conversant on a plethora of topics. Since she's the governor of Alaska and mother of 5 with a baby, and it took her 6 years to get a 4 year degree in journalism, the odds that she'll acquire the level of expertise needed to be the president are slim. I'd love to see her get the nod if only for the entertainment value. While the social conservatives love affair with functionally illiterate politicians will continue, I believe independents have seen the dangers of voting for the person you'd most like to toss back a beer with.
Also, Palin's popularity is dependent on the price of oil. The state of Alaska may not be sending her off to the national stage with valentines and roses if the price of oil stays within a moderate range.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 2:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
But an Anonymous pretending to be me. Now that is completely new!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 1:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot, if you think this blog is bad because two are posting as Anonymous, just read Susan Jacoby's latest. Almost everyone is posting as Anonymous!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 1:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Santorum's strength was his sanctimoniousness, but that has a limited shelf life. The sanctimonious can't get away with abuse of power with a wink, can they?
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 1:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot, obviously someone is getting a big kick out of responding to you on my behalf. The most recent comment about Rick S was *not* from me.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 1:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You're leaving someone out: Rick Santorum. That's who it will be in 2012.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 1:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
well anonymous, you could take a pen-name and eliminate the confusion
Associations are important, arent they? So, the Annenberg's palled around with Ayers and gave him a few million grant, so I guess these friends of Reagan are tained too. This is a problem because they also gave John McCain a hefty sum for his campaign. If the Annenbergs gave money to Ayers and to McCain, it means McCain pals around with terrorist lovers. Oh dear, I guess McCain should return that money. The Republicans who sat on the board with Obama and Ayers, I guess they pal around with terrorists too. So I guess McCain needs to return their money too. The people who gave Ayers the Chicago Citizen of the year award, I guess they're terrorist lovers too? Better find out if any of them gave McCain any money cause surely he wouldn't keep it.
I just hosted a coffee for a local Congressional candidate in my living room because he believes in the Constitution and I like him - but since I have chosen Obama over McCain can his opponent say he pals around with terrorist lovers? He never asked me if I had been a domestic terrorist at any time in my past. I guess that means he has poor judgment. My friend's husband gave a coffee for his opponent, and the opponent also never asked if he had been a domestic terrorist 30 years ago, so I guess both candidates in that race have bad judgement.
John McCain was the invited keynote speaker at a virulently anti-gay group. At the invocation the chair praised a woman who had just shot a doctor because he did abortions. McCain sat quietly, then gave his keynote address. Did McCAin privately think it was not OK to speak for a group whose leader supports a domestic terrorist (as well as discrimiation against gay Americans)? If so, why was that woman a delegate at the RNC?
Sarah Palin recorded a welcome in 2008 for the secessionist party in Alaska. The founder of th is group said that when government agents came for him they should wear red becasue it made them better targets. Sounds pretty domestic terrorist-ish to me. Actually, McCain sitting through the woman praising the doctor shooter was just dumb. But Palin's associations with the AIP group are quite concerning and havent' had nearly enough scrutiny.
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 1:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot, there is another Anonymous responding to your posts.
I don't consider Obama a demigod, and I have no reason to demonize him. He is a great politician. But one must wait until he has actually taken office to judge him as President.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 1:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot, I never implied that I don't share your values. I'm thoroughly against demonizing anyone.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 12:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Read this and then lets talk "http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm"
I understand your point, studying it in undergrad college History. Obama may be speaking the right terminology but his history associations portray a very different picture. Many years of association with terrorist, Islamic faith and beliefs, criminal involvement through direct association makes him just as guilty as the ones he associated with.
Frankly, he is not to be trusted. You nearly persuaded me, too late on the political issue because I am tainted by Obama's past affiliations and actions. Don't read in to this, I am speaking of political issues only.
Palin is to extreme in my opinion regarding her Christian beliefs although I feel like the media has blown that out of proportion.
Metaphorically speaking people misjudge and misinterpret too often of others actions and intentions. They are quick to impart their own judgment and don’t give credence to the facts, or just simply say someone is being dishonest without having a shred of “substantial proof” to back up their assertion.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 12:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot, another Anonymous had stepped in and posted what is supposedly an answer to your post to me.
No, I'm not afraid of anybody.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 12:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree that Huckabee and Palin will probably duke it out for the same "low rent district" demographic.
Palin couldn't survive a campaign over a year or more. She plays well with what Lee Atwater once called the "extra-chromosome wing" of the party, but she isn't going to get any traction with Educated America.
She is also going to have to find a way to stay relevant for the next four years. Huckabee is already establishing a presence on cable TV and through his PAC, and as a Baptist minister he can always stay relevant to the Evangelicals. By 2012 Bristol and Levi will be divorced with 3 kids, the retarded kid's "special needs" will be on full display, and Track will be back in Wasilla nursing his OxyContin addiction. Palin won't be nearly as marketable as she is today.
There are some other talented Republicans who might come into play. Charlie Crist, Bobby Jindal, Linda Lingle, maybe even Lindsay Graham. Mitt and Rudy are done.
Posted by: SkyBeaver | October 15, 2008 12:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin's the one. Only one person can save the Republicans in 2012, and they call her, "Klondike Barbie." Brainy choice!
Posted by: Mare Nostrum | October 15, 2008 12:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I am well aware of the history you speak of, the current candidates are neither noble or sound decisions fro a president. I am voting to keep the worse of what I believe to be out of two from getting in to the oval office.
I do believe that Obama is a phony in the truest sense, un-American, and ill-equipped to be a president of any country let alone the USA. Call is a matter of protecting what little good is left of our country from Obama who can't even stand before an American flag and lend honor to its history, which is pathetic.
Thanks for the advise, you are well-balanced with giving it, and don’t take my signature wrong, it bears no intimacy with it just my way of spreading a little sunshine in to people’s lives through an electronic medium. Although they may get a signature of smiles from me they will and do not have my heart that is preserved for my country and those which I love.
Good night :)
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 12:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anyone who understands the goober/bible-nut base of the Republican party knows it will be Palin in 2012. They've found their long awaited Joan of Arc and are savoring the thought of martyrdom and the political wilderness. Poor persecuted things. So pure, wholesome and virtuous yet scorned by the wicked country they profess to love.
Posted by: John in Chicago | October 15, 2008 12:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anyone who understands the goober/bible-nut base of the Republican party knows it will be Palin in 2012. They've found their long awaited Joan of Arc and are savoring the thought of martyrdom and the political wilderness. Poor persecuted things. So pure, wholesome and virtuous yet scorned by the wicked country they profess to love.
Posted by: John in Chicago | October 15, 2008 12:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
anonymous
Read this and then lets talk
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
Posted by: pariot | October 15, 2008 12:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The only thing Palin will be running for in 2012 will be as a contestant for a reality show. Having Palin as the future leader of the Republican Party will be the final nail in its coffin.
Posted by: perks | October 15, 2008 12:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
anon, you need to step back and get some perspective.
Three thousand people died on 9-11. It was probably the most frightening day of my life. And it highlighted for us just how vulnerable we are. So what should be an American response - to cower in fear and give up our civil rights, torture, abandon our history as a champion of human rights....or to show American courage?
America's history is to be a country of courage, not a country of fear. For over 200 years Americans have responded to war, depression, and other calamaties with courage. The founding fathers knew they could hang, they know war would not be safe for anyone in the country, and that blood would be spilled for freedom. Did they advice their countrymen to give up their quest for civil liberties for safety? Did they tell them "you can't have civil liberties if you're dead, so lets forget about a Constitution and go home".
Now is the time for your generation to decide. Are you willing to stand up for your civil liberties, for the Constitution, for freedom, even though it means accepting some measure of insecurity? Or will we be the first generation of Americans willing to toss away the civil liberties our forefathers bled and died for because we are afraid?
The truth is, there is the equivalent of 3 9-11's every year from gun violence - are you in favor of gun restriction? Cancer deaths add up to 185 9-11's every year. Traffic fatalities are the equivalent of 14 9-11's every year - have you stopped going out on the road? Terrorism seems for frightening because it affects the innocent, but your chance of being killed by a drunk driver is the equivalent of three 9-11's every year - you would be safer bringing back prohibition.
Americans have a right to expect our government to protect us from preventable risk. Before 9-11 4% of containers in our ports were inspected, now it is about 6%. Nunn-Lugar said unsecured loose Soviet nukes were among the greatest threat to our national security and wanted us to spend 30 billion dollars to fix it (by the way, that's the equivalent of about 5 weeks fighting in Iraq) - we have made very little progress on it. Fossil fuel dependence is probably now our greatest threat to national security - it may feel good to chant "drill baby drill", but given that we use 25 % of the world's oil and posess 3% of the worlds stores, its kind of shortsighted to think drilling alone is more than a temporary stopgap for this problem.
Anon, stop being afraid. Stop electing leaders who want you to be afraid. Start electing leaders who will actually make us safe instead of just taking away our civil liberties and pretending that makes us safe.
Posted by: patriot | October 15, 2008 12:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If my vote matters, I will vote Palin for 2012. Despite her interview flops, she is probably not stupid even if it took her five years in six colleges to get her degree. But she sure is ignorant and ignorance could be changed if she starts reading more - that she did get her BA and showed that she could read teleprompters surely implies that she could read. More than things like Christian Life, or People magazine.
In any case, the reason I vote for her is that I think she is hilarious, the way she winks, she opens her mouth and says nothing, etc. Can you imagine the entertainment value she could provide if she were a bit more know legible - she doesn't even have to be intellectually curious.
And should she lose the 2012 election (as I think she will) she can go back to be runner ups of local and national beauty pageants.
Posted by: Steve Chan | October 15, 2008 12:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
T. Steinbrenner: "Palin for President? Of what? The Bake Sale?
We're gonna start electing Idiots again (Bush II)?
Palin's not ready, nor will she ever be. She's not Smart, her voice is annoying, she wears more makeup than McCain, and she'll be fat by 2012.
Done."
Indicative of someone being "MORE SHALLOW THEN A KIDDY POOL."
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 12:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot, I can only repeat that comparing Governor Palin to Hitler et al is completely unfair. I suppose my knowledge of history is sufficient to make that much distinction.
You are getting carried away by your partisan fervor?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 12:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin for President? Of what? The Bake Sale?
We're gonna start electing Idiots again (Bush II)?
Palin's not ready, nor will she ever be. She's not Smart, her voice is annoying, she wears more makeup than McCain, and she'll be fat by 2012.
Done.
Posted by: T. Steinbrenner | October 15, 2008 12:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"That was not the point, but the unfair accusations of Palin."
What is unfair about them? The woman is employing the time-tested formula for crowd control and she is damn good at it.
I suggest you read Britt's 14 tenets of Fascism.
For me at least, this is not partisan stuff. I got interested in this in 1996 when I was tutoring my niece in Social Studies. The topic of the day was "WWII and the rise of fascism". Her textbook was typical American pablum, so I asked her "If Hitler was so evil, why did all those people "Heil" him so enthusiastically?". Of course she had no answer. So we reviewed the economic, social and political conditions in the country at the time, studied Hitler's speeches, and we wrote a speech Hitler might have given on his rise to power. I made her stand up and give it to appreciate the power of delivery and crowd control (by the way, the kid never asked me to tutor her again). After it was over I turned on the TV and Pat Buchannan was giving our speech! You could have knocked me over with a feather.
I watched with alarm as the rhetoric began to infect the mainstream Republican party over the ensuing years. But anyone who brought it up was labelled as unpatriotic, idiotic, alarmist, ridiculous, or, as here, extreme. But just because you say its extreme doesn't make it so.
Posted by: patriot | October 14, 2008 11:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The extrapolation, Patriot, is a bit extreme, don't you see? Was there an equivalent of 9/11 in the countries you mentioned and the equivalent of a religiously fanatic, well armed, well trained Al-Qaeda at large threatening it like the US?"
You must be educated enough to know that an extremist was involved in that incident and not a true bonifde Chrsitian, maybe not? There are extremist in every group(s)consequently, an extreme measures were imparted to the innocent.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 11:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
President Palin will be elected into her first full-term as President in 2012, much to the chagrin of the American-hating Left, many of whom will still be threatening to move to Canada.
Hopefully, when she's inaugurated in January of 2017, we will have figured a way to forcibly deport this Commie SCUM!
Posted by: Rufus | October 14, 2008 11:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If the lynch mobs that back the yokel from the Klondik want *any* hope of winning, they will get behind Mitch. Palin is going to go down in flames as one of the primary reasons we lose this election. She had her 15 days of fame. Kind of like Spiro Agnew. The nuts won't agree, but they don't win elections.
Posted by: Moroni | October 14, 2008 11:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin is a neanderthal who got in while McCain was having a brain fart. If he ever had any chance at all of beating Obama, which is highly questionable, she killed it like a wolf from a plane.
2012 would have to be a horrific scene to have her back in a presidential race.
Posted by: alanms | October 14, 2008 11:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You're forgetting someone very important: Cindy McCain! Have you seen her on the campaign trail? She freeze-dries the opponent with a stare far colder than any Alaskan governor could ever muster. Cindy McCain could show Hillary Clinton a thing or two about the value of marrying the correct man to preposition yourself for a career of nepotistic opportunism. And remember, those seven to fourteen houses were actually Cindy's!
Posted by: Judas Gutenberg | October 14, 2008 11:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh man that would be hilarious. I hope the totality of Giuliani's annihilation in 2008 in no way deters him from running again in 2012.
Posted by: aleks | October 14, 2008 11:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Do you mean like the burning of the Reichstag, the Communists lurking in every corner waiting to take over Germany and Italy any second now if they just dropped their guard for even one second, the "dirty Jews" who were stealing all their money and responsible for the hideous inflation and dire enconomic conditions, the invocations that God was looking to the dear leader to restore Good German Values again? Or the riots beginning to sweep Italy surreptitiously started by Mussolini but that then gave him the opportunity to sweep in to restore "law and order" and save the country.
Better go read a little more history.
Posted by: patriot | October 14, 2008 11:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot, I agree with you regarding Iceland that we are being penny wise and pound foolish; however, Iceland is many, many miles from our East coast (I know as I flew back and forth from there to here several boring times while in the Navy), and their gaining access to the airfields won't help much to project their airpower to our coast. The real danger is that Russia gaining this access may reduce our capability to detect their subs transiting from the Norwegian Sea into the Atlantic; Putin appears to be rebuilding Russia's military.
Posted by: ChuckB | October 14, 2008 11:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot:
Mind you I protested the invasion of Iraq, I'm against capital punishment, I'm for giving help to the disadvantaged...
That was not the point, but the unfair accusations of Palin.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 11:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
MCCain/Palin....Not Now!
Palin....Not Ever!!!!
This woman has looked the American people in the eyes and has lied through her teeth while doing it.
She stated today she has nothing to lose, excuse me but you are involved in the biggest election in this country, your half of one of the tickets, you have a lot to lose. Especially taking into consideration all eyes are watching you and how you behave.
Alaska today denounced her stating she was vindicated in Troopergate. She is guilty of "abuse of power". She lies, takes things personal and to extremes. Definetly not what this country needs, we are about to finally get rid of one like that!
Posted by: DLV | October 14, 2008 11:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin would need to return to college (just one this time, not 6), and major in government, PLUS pick up a law degree (all in three and a half years, with 5 children to boot). Even then, based on the race-baiting campaign she's already raised, and the skeletons emerging from her copious closet, including her $500,000 contractor built home and town ice rink, to say nothing of the huge deficit she left Wasilla, these will be major impediments to her even touching the ticket. She's done. There will be no successful comeback for Gov. Palin. You guys are forgetting that on this score, Americans have long, long memories. The next time around, even if she's not at the top of the ticket, the research done on her will be deep and sustained far in advance of 2012. She's quickly becoming a known, shallow quantity, and that will work against her profoundly.
Moreover, you are pulling from that old Republican playbook. It might not work next time round, given how transparently it is that Republicans use these wedge issues and the threat of violence to unseat rivals. No, her chance is gone. Quite honestly, she'd need tutoring from some of the best conservative minds in the country, and these intellectuals have completely bailed on her. Her base is not expandable without them, and they have absolutely no respect for her intellect. Moreover, using her husband to run interference for her smacks of his playin' the heavy. I don't know if they get the Sopranos in Alaska, but that's not gonna fly in Washington. Cheney's days are done.
We can go a step farther: if Obama wins, do you REALLY think that Americans will forget that it was Republican policies that led to a radical expansion of the national debt (blowing out the numbers on the National Debt Clock), two wars our own national intelligence estimate suspects are now perched on a knife's edge by all accounts we are not capable of sustaining, surveillance of American citizens by the NSA (and the probable future parlaying of those secrets to the private sector), AND LET US NOT FORGET THIS CURRENT STOCK MARKET CRASH. If history is any indicator, FDR won four terms after Hoover. It might be a long, long penance for the Republican Party. It will need to seriously reconsider its image and its core values, which while focused on social issues, have completely abandoned the market unfettered to pillage and destroy good Americans. Because if Obama and the Dems manage to get the country back on sound economic footing in his first term, the Republican call for lower taxes, and social issues, will not ring so compelling, just as right now its ideas about the free market sans regulation stand profoundly discredited--no matter who Repubs blame. Naw, she's done.
Finally, her base will NEVER raise as much money as Obama will in his second run, if his first is successful. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, my grams used to say . . . and her base, without those wealthy intellectuals, is already squeezed hard. Had this party made sure wealth DID trickle down to those in rural areas, instead of the massive wealth/power grab the Repubs have engaged since Reagan, maybe you would have had a shot. But not now.
Heavyhead
Posted by: Heavyhead | October 14, 2008 11:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Patriot:
Dear Anonymous
Please shed some light on your comment about calling the comment that Palin is a female Hitler partisan ignorance. I think your response reveals a certain lack of appreciation of history.
You seem to have forgotten that not only Hitler, but also Mussolini, Pinochet, and most other fascist "dictators" held power legally, appointed or "elected" to their roles. They followed a very well-defined recipe that includes fearmongering about national security, fearmongering about foreigners, scapegoating the media, "elitists" and "socialists/communists", sowing a broad-based populist appeal as a "commoner" that cloaks a blind support for wealthy industrialists, practicing shameless cronyism, invoking God, and an exquisite skill in inciting crowds to a mob-like frenzy where they perpetuate or condone most decidedly "unChristian" behaviors.
The Bush/Cheney administration engaged in all of this, and was making good progress building crowd-frenzying blind support until the sheer incompetence of their cronyism caught up with them. But clearly Rove thought little enough of his country to want to give it one more try. Palin's "problem" was that she was actually too good at it, - going from zero to "kill him" in 6 weeks was just too obvious a riling of the masses. You can be sure they'll teach her how to be less obvious about the crowd manipulation next time. And then she'll be the most dangerous woman in the history of our nation.
October 14, 2008 10:50 PM
__________________________________
The extrapolation, Patriot, is a bit extreme, don't you see? Was there an equivalent of 9/11 in the countries you mentioned and the equivalent of a religiously fanatic, well armed, well trained Al-Qaeda at large threatening it like the US?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 11:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Michigan, dream on, your knowledge is limited to the edge of your crooked nose and the wish of a righteous just goodness coming forth from your fountain has long dried up. At best you will be nothing more then a “sneak in the grass” with the facade of a sheep in wolves clothing, your mouth speaks of God but your heart is far from him.
Can a Catholic vote for Obama, pro-choice? Hear, hear, a false pretense is evident.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 11:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
By Keyes, I presume you're talking about Alan Keyes, the carpetbagger from NJ that tried to run against Obama for the Senate in 2004.
You have really got to be either totally kidding OR totally off your rocker. Keyes is an extreme right-wing nut and a religious zealot. I really pray to God that he doesn't end up as the Republican candidate. That would be worse than Palin.
Posted by: Venkatesh | October 14, 2008 11:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin can be a contender if she becomes more cosmopolitan. Her wolf killing, ah, shucks image is only attractive to a minority of Republicans, independents and disaffected Democrats. Her best bet is to contest Stevens’ senate seat, assuming he won't be wearing stripes and his seat will be vacant anyway. I think governors appoint replacements for congressional and senate seats vacated prior to the expiration of a term; can governors appoint themselves? Sarah needs to experience the Lower 48 to learn about a broader range of social and political issues. If she softens her provincial image, she will broaden her constituency. Also she needs to get Todd to step back further into the shadows.
Posted by: ChuckB | October 14, 2008 11:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
agentorange1 - its not so easy to rewrite history. Why don't you go back and read the reasons they decided not to go on - cause they all came true.
Iceland just went bankrupt. They asked us for a loan the equivalent of 10 days fighting in Iraq. We said no, we couldn't spare it. So Russia stepped up to the plate with the offer. Now, when Russia asks to have its fighter jets refuel at our abandoned airbases there, what do you think Iceland will say? For the want of the price of 10 days fighting in Iraq we may well soon have Russian jets refueling just miles from our east coast. The Iraq war has weakend us and strengthened Iran. We need to restore American power around the globe instead of pouring it down the drain in Iraq.
Posted by: patriot | October 14, 2008 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Anonymous
Please shed some light on your comment about calling the comment that Palin is a female Hitler partisan ignorance. I think your response reveals a certain lack of appreciation of history.
You seem to have forgotten that not only Hitler, but also Mussolini, Pinochet, and most other fascist "dictators" held power legally, appointed or "elected" to their roles. They followed a very well-defined recipe that includes fearmongering about national security, fearmongering about foreigners, scapegoating the media, "elitists" and "socialists/communists", sowing a broad-based populist appeal as a "commoner" that cloaks a blind support for wealthy industrialists, practicing shameless cronyism, invoking God, and an exquisite skill in inciting crowds to a mob-like frenzy where they perpetuate or condone most decidedly "unChristian" behaviors.
The Bush/Cheney administration engaged in all of this, and was making good progress building crowd-frenzying blind support until the sheer incompetence of their cronyism caught up with them. But clearly Rove thought little enough of his country to want to give it one more try. Palin's "problem" was that she was actually too good at it, - going from zero to "kill him" in 6 weeks was just too obvious a riling of the masses. You can be sure they'll teach her how to be less obvious about the crowd manipulation next time. And then she'll be the most dangerous woman in the history of our nation.
Posted by: Patriot | October 14, 2008 10:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
mainer wrote:
With a little luck, Palin will disappear into the snowbanks of AK and her $2.1M assets and never resurface. She has no brain, no ability to think. She is the female Dan Quayle.
=-=-=
The male Dan Quayle was the ONLY person in the Bush 41 War Cabinet who advocated FINISHING the job and taking Saddam down in 1991. Had Dan Quayle's advice been taken, there would have been no infidel American troops in the sacred sand of Suadi Arabia, bin Laden would have needed some other bull**** reason to do 9/11 if at all and finally and Bush 43 would not have had to go into Iraq to take down the man his father should have.
I will take the female Dan Quayle in 2012 even if she is not already President by then.
But, unfortunately for America, McfCain may do the same for the Republican Party as the last Arizonan who ran for President. What a disaster for America Goldwater's defeat turned out to be. And that will apply the McCain as well.
In 1964 the Demcrats bellowed that Goldwater would get us into a war in Viet Nam while LBJ was already busy Bombing North Viet Nam.
Today the clain is that McCain will get us into a war with Iran. Iran has been at war with us since the day they took 52 hostages at the US Embassy (read US Soil) 444 days before Ronald Reagan was inaugurated President.
Posted by: AgentOrange1 | October 14, 2008 10:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If President Obama and a Democratic congress are able to steer the country out of the mess created by the Bush administration and the 40 year demagogic war against the New Deal then it will matter not who runs on the Republican side in 2012. If President Obama and a Democratic congress are not able to steer the country out of the mess created by the Bush administration and the 40 year demogogic war against the New Deal then it will matter not who runs on the Republican or Democratic side in 2012.
Posted by: Dr. G | October 14, 2008 10:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kenneth:
Its obvious that Palin is Bush 2.0.
However, its obvious she would look pretty hot with a Hitler mustache.
Sexy! (especially with red high heels).
October 14, 2008 10:29 PM
________________________________________
Spouting partisan nonsense, eh?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 10:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The President & VP chosen from among those who can work best with other parties, apart from fulfilling basic eligibility criteria for the most powerful political office in the world.
Among others -
Personal integrity.
Firm grasp of all issues concerning the country with the ability to make truly informed decisions from experts in their respective fields.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 10:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Its obvious that Palin is Bush 2.0.
However, its obvious she would look pretty hot with a Hitler mustache.
Sexy! (especially with red high heels).
Posted by: Kenneth | October 14, 2008 10:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The door should open for many parties which can form coalitions to rule.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 10:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
How about no parties. That way each politician would have to be responsible for their own voting record and would be freed to work with any other politician based on common interests for specific issues rather than being divided into 2 rigid groups who battle each other constantly.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 10:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
By 2012 Palin will have been taught how to hide her fingerprints when riling the crowds. Rove et al will make sure she learns the art of bringing the crowd just up to the line but no over it. And once she learns that she will be the most dangerous woman in the history of our nation.
Huckabee did not prove to me that he is not a wolf in sheep's clothing. America is already losing our edge as leaders in science and technology. Our graduate programs in math and science are full of foreign students for want of American students, and given how difficult we've made it for them to stay they're taking their new knowledge home. We really don't need someone else diluting science with idiotic religious ideas (and I'm not only a scientist I'm a Sunday School teacher).
Romney is the lesser of the evils. But we will see who else will arise. The nutjob senator from Oklahoma?
I think it is premature anyway. The battle for the soul of the Republican Party has just begun. Will Rove prevail, or will it be the Christie-Todd Whitman (i.e. Its My Party Too) crowd. If the moderates win I'd love to see them run Olympia Snow against Hillary Clinton. I'm a lifelong Democrat but I'd probably vote for Snow. I'd also seriously consider casting a vote for Lugar - depending on the opposition.
Posted by: patriot | October 14, 2008 10:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No democracy should be a one party country. THAT would open the doors to unbridled corruption and abuse of power.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 10:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dave:
Palin would be defeated if she tried to run by herself. The majority of America realizes that she is the closest thing to a female Hitler that many will see in their lifetime.
October 14, 2008 9:41 PM
_________________________________________
This is the height of partisan ignorance.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 10:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Entitlement can be used in a negative and a positive context, McCain's experience, level of knowledge, and political background, all which Obama lacks, entitles him to the position, there is no disputing that."
The only one of the qualities mentioned that Obama lacks is Military service. Once could argue that community service is valid service of a different kind.
As for "no disputing that" McCain's (or as I have seen him referred to by other posters, Crash Every Plane McCain) experience shows that he was not exactly a great success in in his military service which he owes to his family more than merit, that he votes against legislature that would help veterans, his personal life rivals Clinton's for marital shenanigans in nature if not quantity, while not legally criminal, his participation in the Keating scandal demonstrates extremely poor judgement if not immorality, and his choice of Palin, well that one is just plain odd to the Nth degree.
What McCain and the current incarnation of the Republican party are entitled to, is to be shown the door so they can find there way out of government.
Posted by: Votin for that one | October 14, 2008 10:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Look to Western Europe. Conservatives come back even though socialists gain power for a while. Moral of the story: people want to give conservatives and liberals chance in turns. Neither party is perfect and is the ultimate savior. Both forms of government should be open to learning and changing.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 10:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Romney. He should have been the VP pick this year instead of that vulgar, egotistical Palin, who I can't bring myself to vote for.
Posted by: Disgruntled Republican | October 14, 2008 10:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
LKB:
I'm not sure how the responses to this article drifted off to abortion, but here we are again. Anyway, I am not sure where I fall on the abortion issue, but I do know one thing that really irks me. It seems that many of the pro-life people are also for limited spending on social programs that would actually support a young mother who is trying to raise a child or one who is suffering the psychological impacts of giving one up for adoption. What about those girls who are thrown out by their families, or forced to drop out of school? There are so many emotional impacts from having a baby and, even if you give a baby up for adoption, those impacts don't just disappear after the delivery. I'm sure mapny of these people would say "their community, friends, or church will take care of them"..well, that's just simplistic and naive. If they were really connected to a support system they may not be in this predicament in the first place. Fine, be pro-life, but then you need to be pro-mother and pro-child after the baby is born, as well, and support their growth and development through taxpayer-funded programs.
October 14, 2008 9:44 PM
____________________________________________
Surely you notice the discrepancy in the development of emancipated women? On the one hand they want to fight for equality to exercise their sexual freedom but on the other they want others to be responsible for the consequences - the government, the religious organizations or whatever.
That aside, ninety eight per cent of abortions are abortions of convenience by women who CAN afford the child. So help from government and the community is not the overriding factor.
The luxury of holding the government responsible for the consequences of one's sex life does not exist in poor countries where the people truly cannot make their ends meet without help.
As to the rest of your post, abortion has been discussed at length on earlier threads and on the blogs of Prof Stevens-Arroyo, Chuck Colson, Prof Mark John Reynolds, Susan Jacoby.
Since abortion is an important issue, many expressed the thought it ought to be discussed at the third and last presidential debate. If Senator Obama as president intends to sign FOCA as his first presidential act, then it is of concern to those who are fighting for the human rights of unborn children, because FOCA rolls back years of achievement by those opposed to abortion - legal restrictions that reduces the number of abortions and the continued practice of atrocious abortion methods, like the partial birth abortion, and help given to children born alive in the Born Alive Infant Protection Act...
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 10:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No one can predict the future to the exact course, however, the future is bright for the believers of what is good, honorable, and just.......those who devise evil schemes, and wicked devices don't stand a chance for a happy future, period.
What are most hoping in for their future?
The sun will shine for me, this I know and that no one will stop.
Moving on to the future towards that which is good, as the good book says by Brother Paul " Forgetting all those things which are behind, and looking forward...." (paraphased)
My friend David says, don't look in the review mirror, look a head, he was right.
Its been real, See ya!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 10:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama could only be so lucky to run against Sarah Palin again...she ruined the McBush campaign.
Posted by: Michigan | October 14, 2008 9:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
" McCain seems to feel he deserves to be president because he is entitled to the position. He believes his honor, integrity and service in the Military are the basis for this entitlement"
Entitlement can be used in a negative and a positive context, McCain's experience, level of knowledge, and political background, all which Obama lacks, entitles him to the position, there is no disputing that.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 9:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Governor Palin has taught all the lesson it is necessary to read more than the local newspaper when running on a national ticket.
The young should be taught to read newspapers expressing different points of view and to think critically and independently.
Becoming partisan, at any stage, especially when young, stunts intellectual abilities.
There is only gray in politics and one should be open to learn from all sides.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 9:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous wrote:
"Voters and potential voters are rallying for the person of Obama and not the cause"
----
You might want to talk to average Obama supporters directly. They are, for the most part, well educated and well read. They feel they know the person of Obama because they know his plans. In part because they have actively researched the subject. He has also stated his plans clearly and often since the beginning of the Democratic run up to the primary and his plans remains rather consistent in content. He has chosen a qualified, equally suited running mate who is very well known and who was also vetted by the primary election process if not by his lengthy career. Obama's supporters are drawn to his person because of his ideas, his ideas are the cause.
Voters of both parties are hard pressed to pin down McCain's plans because his debate arguments rest mainly on the statement, "I know how to lead, fight, win wars, cut spending, cut taxes, fix Social Security, etc. All well and good but he rarely offers much detail to explain how he will do these things. When he does he offers sledge hammer approaches: freeze all government spending not related to the war, do not engage in talks other than with those who already agree with us in total before hand (including the leader of Spain?), stop the campaign process until the economic crisis is solved, etc. Three weeks until the election and he is just now offering his economic plan. Combine that with his choice of Palin as VP and it isn't hard to see why Obama supporters gravitate to his cause. Palin did as much of more to shore up the Democratic base than any other Democrat could hope to do.
Entitlement is the reason voters are turning away from the Republican party. McCain seems to feel he deserves to be president because he is entitled to the position. He believes his honor, integrity and service in the Military are the basis for this entitlement. Even if that were true, which it is not, those qualities need to be backed up by sound plans of action, he has not demonstrated of late that he really possesses those qualities. The Republican Party has trotted out "values" often over the last 8 years but voters see the party standing for values that do not reflect their own. The values the Republican party has stood for most of all are the values of their own bank accounts. When the Republican party moves back, closer to the middle and begins to demonstrate they share the values of the majority of the middle class, both fiscally and culturally, they will de better at the polls. Unless they do those things as a party, it won't matter who they offer up as a candidate.
Posted by: Voting for | October 14, 2008 9:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
My, my, the jealous hackers are out; don’t leave home w/o your computer.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 9:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm not sure how the responses to this article drifted off to abortion, but here we are again. Anyway, I am not sure where I fall on the abortion issue, but I do know one thing that really irks me. It seems that many of the pro-life people are also for limited spending on social programs that would actually support a young mother who is trying to raise a child or one who is suffering the psychological impacts of giving one up for adoption. What about those girls who are thrown out by their families, or forced to drop out of school? There are so many emotional impacts from having a baby and, even if you give a baby up for adoption, those impacts don't just disappear after the delivery. I'm sure many of these people would say "their community, friends, or church will take care of them"..well, that's just simplistic and naive. If they were really connected to a support system they may not be in this predicament in the first place. Fine, be pro-life, but then you need to be pro-mother and pro-child after the baby is born, as well, and support their growth and development through taxpayer-funded programs.
Posted by: LKB | October 14, 2008 9:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
THIS IS FOR ALL YOU INTERNET JUNKIES!!!!
McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!McCain/Palin 08!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 9:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin would be defeated if she tried to run by herself. The majority of America realizes that she is the closest thing to a female Hitler that many will see in their lifetime.
Posted by: Dave | October 14, 2008 9:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I see it in terms of the GOP needing to put together the components of the Bush coalition. The four:
a) Evangelicals: the loyal foot soldiers, who adore Palin and look askance at that crap-shooting John McCain.
b) Neocons: mostly media types like Limbaugh and George Will, who actively dislike McCain and see Palin as a terminal lightweight.
c) Blue collar white guys: yes, it's hard to understand why they vote GOP, since it seems transparently not in their best interest, but there you have it. McCain isn't their guy either. Palin is, well, a chick.
d)The Haves & the Have-Mores: the real money behind GOP politics (and GOP politics is still about money). Romney is their guy. McCain is a poor second choice, and Palin -- well, she's not just a chick, she's a nut.
The winning candidate would have to reassemble this fractured coalition. I don't think Romney or Palin can do it. So I'm thinking somebody else entirely.
Posted by: samson151 | October 14, 2008 9:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Republican nominee in 2012 will be David Patreaus. In 2020, Sarah Palin will be 56. My second guess would be Gov. Bobby Jindal R-LA who looks good compared to Ray Nagin and Katherine Babineaux Blanco. Besides, Jindal is less "white" than Obama.
I would have preferred McCain pick Rep. Marsha Blackburn R-TN (Nashville) but she's too attractive and molasses-accented for most of the country.
Posted by: Sam What Am | October 14, 2008 9:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
": If the governor of Alaska wants to run for the White House then she is going to have to spend every day of the next four years systematically rehabilitating her public image."
Or learning anything related to the job in some shape or form. But I'm picky.
Posted by: Paganplace | October 14, 2008 9:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This has nothing to do with faith at all. It is just another excuse for a liberal pundit to attack Republicans. As if the Post doesn't have enough partisan hacks liberals on the staff spewing the same talking points.
Posted by: rmorrow | October 14, 2008 9:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is time to sit down and analyze how an unknown Senator Obama hit the national stage and exceeded all expectations.
Writing a good autobiography is the start to introducing oneself to the public.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 9:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I hope and pray that the American people will not forget as soon as 2012 what the Republicans have brought us, and the world, in terms of greed, corruption, economic exploitation and disaster, environmental destruction, loss of international standing, and the list goes on.
Mr. Berlinerblau posits Palin and Romney and Huckabee as possible presidential candidates in four years. If that is the best the GOP will have in the wings at that point, then they will have continued in their downward ethical spiral.
Posted by: Baruch | October 14, 2008 9:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The lesson for the young who aspire for public office: keep your life free from scandals. Since the nation expects personal integrity from the men/women they choose to lead the country and represent their country abroad, don't stand for public office if you have skeletons in your closet.
In this age of the Internet and YouTube, it is like participating lifelong in a Big-Brother show.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 9:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It was a long run for the Republican Party. Now wander into the desert for forty years and think about how to pull it all together again.
Think hard, and think long.
Posted by: t. swift | October 14, 2008 9:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan on John McCain,
"his whole career is wrapped up in the military, he's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're gonna be in Iraq 100 years, .... what John McCain is telling you is what he's promising you... what he said is 'make no mistake there are going to be more wars'....that is straight talk, to be quite frank, you get John McCain in the White House and I do believe we will be at war with Iran.
--------------
Conservative Columnist George Will on John McCain,
"I don't trust John McCain."
"McCain is an angry man and I don't think America wants an angry President."
=====
NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES THINK MCCAIN WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE PRESIDENT...
THIS IS NOT A FOOTBALL GAME WHERE YOU CHEER ON YOUR TEAM REGARDLESS.
Posted by: Mark M. | October 14, 2008 9:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
PALIN RADICAL RIGHT WING EXTREMIST
During the 1990s, when Mark Chryson directed the AIP (Alaska Independence Party), he and another radical right-winger, Steve Stoll, played a quiet but pivotal role in electing Palin as mayor of Wasilla and shaping her political agenda afterward. Both Stoll and Chryson not only contributed to Palin’s campaign financially, they played major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/index.html
America doesn't need it's own Ahmadinejad!
Posted by: Dennis | October 14, 2008 9:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
“My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.”
This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.
Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that’s the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. (“Keep up the good work,” Palin told AIP members. “And God bless you.”)
AIP chairwoman Lynette Clark told me recently that Sarah Palin is her kind of gal. “She’s Alaskan to the bone … she sounds just like Joe Vogler.”
So who are these America-haters that the Palins are pallin’ around with?
Before his strange murder in 1993, party founder Vogler preached armed insurrection against the United States of America.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/index.html
Posted by: Dennis T. | October 14, 2008 9:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The success of Senator Obama's campaign has been the message: Whatever you do for me and to get me elected, you do for yourself and the country.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 9:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee-Palin does have possibilities. Two people who think God created the Earth 46 years ago. One who signed off on the Baptist proclamation on the subordination of women. One who gets her global warming science from Republican cartoons. I say if you're going to make a laughingstock of a political party, go whole hog.
Posted by: DS | October 14, 2008 9:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
New faces with no scandals and skeletons in the closet, who can't be accused of having contributed to any mess directly in the best thing.
The next time round, whether in four or eight years, the voters will want a change once again and it will be the turn for Republicans.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 9:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If the Republicans lose the White House, and see deeper losses in the House and Senate (all very real probabilities today) then we might see civil war in the Republican Party. The economic conservatives are tired of being yoked to the social conservatives and everyone is tired of the neo-cons. They held together as long as they were winning but if that ends the knives are going to come out in a hurry as each Republican faction seeks to blame the other for their debacle. And that will be a messy process and may not be done by 2012.
Posted by: Its too early for this | October 14, 2008 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The campaign of Senator Obama is thoroughly organized. It is door to door appeal and millions on email lists. Voters and potential voters are rallying for the person of Obama and not the cause as was the case in Martin Luther King.
There is a lesson to be learned. Is getting people to rally behind a person more effective than getting people to rally behind a cause? Is democracy about rallying behind a particular person or the values a particular person and their party represents?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous:
Republicans are blessed with numerous great leaders
-------------
Rubbish. This is a criminal organization in its death throes, and thank God.
Posted by: David Scott | October 14, 2008 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
One can only hope that in the next eight years, the Republican party will be able to come up with something better than this. What about Lindsey Graham? Or even better, someone who is not on the scene right now and didn't help preside over the burgeoning deficit, deregulation of banks and Wall Street, and the unnecessary war. Maybe a conservative who believes in a balanced budget?
Posted by: fmjk | October 14, 2008 8:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Republicans may be dumb as rocks, but even I don't think they're stupid enough to nominate Palin -- or Huckabee for that matter. Even dumb extremists like to win elections, and neither one of those candidates would pull 40 percent in November.
Romney maybe. He has the principles of a ground sloth, but can sound convincingly moderate a whole lot better than Palin or Huckabee can. And he has money.
Posted by: David Scott | October 14, 2008 8:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Republicans are blessed with numerous great leaders who have been relegated to the wings, simply because of internal republican procedures and whip.
In 2012, hopefully we will see atleast couple of these great hidden republican leaders.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 8:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin's mistake was accepting the ticket. She should have followed in Obama's footsteps and given an electrifying speech at the RNC convention, gone back to Alaska, boned up on national issues and foreign policy, and made a run for the big job in 2012 or 2016. If she had taken that path, she could have been the shoo-in! Now she faces an even bigger uphill battle to even get the nomination the next go-around. Her ambition blinded her.
Posted by: PKA | October 14, 2008 8:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The kind of vitriol that made the rounds about Senator McCain and Governor Palin should be proof that partisan supporters do their dirty bit for the candidate of their choice.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 8:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hopefully the Repukes will return to their roots & present a responsible candidate who does not pander to the demented Christocrats. What ever happened to the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 8:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"More than faith"? You mean more than hatred of your fellow humans, that includes them thar faithies and us here infidels both. Yup 'um.
Posted by: pinetree | October 14, 2008 8:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
David Axelrod's success with Senator Obama is proof that people with potential can be groomed for the presidency in a few years. What Senator Obama had going for him was an Ivy League degree combined with an unusual personal story, a biracial identity and being raised by the white side of his family is white in his ways of thinking and behavior, a pleasing personality and a nation that is ready for a biracial president.
Governor Palin was thrown on the national scene with absolutely no preparation and grooming on the eve of the election. One can forgive her for performing badly at such short notice.
Background check should be made for skeletons in the closet *before* candidates are introduced to the national voters. It is not wise to wait for scandals to emerge after the elections campaigns are underway because not only is it embarrassing to the party they represent but also a bit of a problem for the US image abroad.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 8:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No matter how popular Palin is, she will be tagged as a loser after this election. I can't think of any running mate on a losing ticket, Democrat or Republican, who was still able to advance their political career.
Evangelicals may say now they will vote for her in 2012. However, come election time a little voice in the back of their heads (probably Satan) will tell them that she carries too much baggage and they will look to another evangelical politician to carry the cross.
Posted by: maggots | October 14, 2008 8:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin first needs to worry about not being impeached. Then the rest of us can worry about the direction of my beloved GOP, if she is ever a really viable candidate.
I am an old-fashioned conservative to my core. I take no pleasure in many of the liberal movements that seem to be growing more in vogue. Mainly, though, I am saddened by my own party's inability to provide intelligent, fiscally conservative leaders. It seems like we are pandering to the most intolerant, least democratic, group of our constituency who is more focused on creating a religious state than a free one, who claims moral supremacy but acts with Machiavellian disdain for the foundation of our great system. A Palin presidency would bring us one step closer to being the perverted mirror image of those countries which we occupy and their intolerant leaders who we view with contempt.
Posted by: amira | October 14, 2008 8:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 8:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What Palin needs is to immerse herself in the minutia of policy. She also needs to develop a coherent worldview. Once she's done these things, her image will improve by itself.
The problem with Quayle was that he communicated extremely poorly. Palin doesn't have this -- she's one the best communicators since Reagan. She's just needs substance -- something easier said than done.
The other two people mentioned are losers, with no chance of gaining the nomination. If Palin falters, it will be someone else in 2012 -- perhaps someone most people don't know yet.
Posted by: info | October 14, 2008 8:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It has been pointed out in Roe vs Wade that objection to abortion is not synonymous with objection to sex outside marriage for anti-abortionists condemn abortion within marriage just as much because the objection is to taking the life of an innocent unborn child.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 8:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
That would be an excellent 2012 campaign, for Democrats. Completely incompetent Palin, evolution denier Huckabee and flip-flopper Romney. Piece of cake to run against. Of course, if Dems would not mess up in the coming 4 years.
In any case, the most stupid projection. Hopefully in 4 years a new wave of Republicans would sweep away the medieval-thinking present GOP.
Posted by: Max | October 14, 2008 8:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The basis of the abortion as a right is clear: when Judaism and Christianity and its moral teaching loses its hold on society, the extra-Judaic, pre-Christian pagan sexual values in ME and Europe resurface.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 7:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow - I would actually imagine that after the fiasco that was her VP selection that she would retreat to Alaska and focus on hunting, snowmobiling, and abusing her power. Oh yeah, maybe a little "focus on the family" (pun intended) would be in order as well!!!
Posted by: Todd | October 14, 2008 7:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Sacrament of Abortion, written by Ginette Paris (Spring Publications, Dallas, 1992), proposes paganism (i.e. polytheism, witchcraft, earth worship, etc.) as a superior model for a society struggling with abortion issues.
A SUPERIOR MODEL????????????????????????
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 7:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In four years, conservative America will have more to focus on than just culture issues. There will be issues of socialism vs. American-style democracy. Individualism vs. collectivism. "The common good" vs. "The home." Religious free speech vs. "hate" speech legislation. It might be the Armageddon, if you will, of American ideals and values vs. the "progressive" agenda - or it may be the fight to get those American values back. Time will tell.
Posted by: J. Buchanan | October 14, 2008 7:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
When McCain loses the election, they will point to Palin as one of the main causes of his loss.
I am reasonably confident after the election is over that Sarah will be thrown under the bus. Troopergate and bile she spewed will be the only things anyone will remember of her. Honestly, what were they thinking when they selected her?
Posted by: blinker | October 14, 2008 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
the idea of either palin or any other republican currently on the political scene as someone who would take the reins of power in 2012 is enough to make me make sure my student visa is in proper order so i can be granted entrance in any country in the european union that employs thoughtful, articulate non racists as their heads of state.
the idea of hearing that voice for four years will take me through all of joe's six packs this evening.
Posted by: kheine | October 14, 2008 7:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The recent campaign proves that ultimately, playing to the base is not enough. Now, it does help in securing the nomination. But, it was McCain's mistake in choosing Palin, to play to the base, after he had already secured the nomination. He would have been much, much, better off with a mainstream, even dull, Republican. Obama knew this, and that's why he's heading towards the winners circle. Biden is anything but over stimulating. Palin not only comes across as dull witted and ideological, she also is a major distraction from the McCain ticket. McCain has been so busy being a "maverick," he comes across now as reckless. And, that's not a trait Americans want in a President. As for Palin in 2012, she's damaged goods now, and it will also depend on how Obama does. If he's another Bill Clinton and the American Economy recovers, he will be undefeatable in 2012.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 7:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
THINK:
Babies with the kind of fetal deformities you describe are extremely rare. They usually die either in the womb or shortly after birth. Mercy killing is not even necessary.
The anti-abortion groups are referring to the 98% of healthy babies conceived by healthy mothers, most of whom can afford the child but abort them for reasons of convenience. Consider and compare the mothers in desperately poor countries who do not consider killing their unborn children. Surely not many women in the US live in such poverty?
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 7:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin simply can't survive the next four years on the national stage. She won't survive many actual interviews.
I just saw an interview with her on the friendliest of subjects - special needs children. Even in that she came across as clueless, embarrassingly so.
She's a novelty now, but even now the shine is wearing off.
Posted by: Hillman | October 14, 2008 7:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
THINK:
Abortion due to fetal deformities + illnes in mother + pregnancy due to rape/incest altogether accounts for only 2%, that is right 2% of abortion.
The remaining 98% is abortion for convenience.
Killing an unborn child is *not* a privacy issue anymore than infanticide is.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The callous attitude towards abortion prevalent in society today is no different from the pagan values (remember pedastry was considered normal in pre-Christian Greece?) in extra-Judaic and pre-Christian era in ME and Europe; it is even worse because it is being viewed as a "right."
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 7:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Late term termination is sometimes the least wrost option. We had amily friends who found out late in their fifth month that the fetus was developing without the hemispheres dividing. Only safe option was late term. Mom could have died without it. Traumatic enough without some religious nut cases sticking their noe into it, or worse using government to stick their nose into it. Two healthy kids after that. NOT your decision to make for other people. .
Posted by: Think | October 14, 2008 7:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The more I learn about the white evangelical base the more I am concerned about our country.
The church seemed to be growing to a point where they are dividing the country.
If the 2012 election is going to be a fight over the religious base and their views against the middle or the road americans they could well destroy our democracy as we have know it.
It is already showing signs of what they have accomplished already.
You cannot win if you are a Republican unless you profess to being Pro life.
On that issue alone. I sure this will go further until they would have to be evangelical like Bush.
I am older so I feel lives will change in this country as one view will be forced on another, or you will be considered unamerican.
This is sad.
The idea that the Sarah Palins of the world are growing is too scary.
It is clear to me that if this is how it will be Democrats fighting Republican, evangelicals this will be our downfall.
This in the end will not make us a force for good in the world. The idea that we can legislate morality is just insane.
I particularly dislike the use of God to do the will of this church and it's members.
The term Soldiers of Christ of this is God's Plan they are personally carrying out is just to filled with vanity and assumption.
Posted by: crich520@aol.com | October 14, 2008 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Jihadist,
"I have a cartoon pasted above one of my computer terminals. A rich rich and well dressed couple people passed by a grizzled and ragged peasant painting graffiti on the wall, "Keel the rich". The man verbally corrected the peasant on his spelling - "K-I-L-L"."
Reminds me of Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'. Brian was trying to write the Latin for 'Romans go home' on a wall. Up comes a centurian, who proceeds to correct, in very firm tones, the spelling and grammer, and then threatens the hapless Brian that he must write it 100 times or suffer certain sensitive parts of his body being separated from him without benefit of anesthesia...
Posted by: Arminius | October 14, 2008 7:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin won't be the candidate, although I hope she will. She'd get the ringer she's only gotten a taste of and she won't be able to hide from the media like she is doing now.
Posted by: thorfinn | October 14, 2008 7:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Governor Palin should be an advocate for Feminists for Life, relentlessly raising public awareness about what human rights for the unborn child means and why it is well within the ideals of feminism to speak out for the unborn child. The goal is to influence the younger generation of women who have not yet developed a hardened conscience in this matter.
Some women will always remain out out of reach, but at least it will not be the majority as it is now.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 7:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What are you smoking?
Posted by: Don | October 14, 2008 7:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
palin is done. Too much of a negative. She has no brain, spent less than a few weeks in her only elected office before she started abusing power, and she is an international laughing stock. She can't even open her mouth without a lie or a stupid comment coming out. Can you imagine her on the ticket as the lead person????? My god. If you think mclame is sinking fast, imagine her. She is dragging him down, she would sink like a stone on the top of the ticket. And how lame is romney? The goops are going to have to do better than that to unseat Obama in four.
Posted by: Brandon | October 14, 2008 7:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The election hasn't happened yet, and already he's talking about 2012. This is ridiculous. Can we please have a couple of years off?
Posted by: Alan S. | October 14, 2008 7:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As a liberal Democrat, I pray that the Republicans are stupid enough
to run Palin in 2012. But I know that they are not that stupid.
Her public image is to Dan Quayle's, what Nixon's is to Henry Kissinger's.
How is she going to game 10 or 12 debates,
with 5 or 6 six intelligent public figures sniping at her from all angles?
Is she going to say she's too busy caring for Trick?
Sarah Palin is going to morph into a professional fund-raiser only.
Posted by: Jamie | October 14, 2008 6:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Arminius,
I have a cartoon pasted above one of my computer terminals. A rich rich and well dressed couple people passed by a grizzled and ragged peasant painting graffiti on the wall, "Keel the rich". The man verbally corrected the peasant on his spelling - "K-I-L-L".
The point? The rich don't care, or could not care less, or couldn't care less, whichever is the correct English on this of the rich being untouched and untouchable by the travails and angst of the poor.
Cheers and see you again.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 14, 2008 6:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Consider this. You will find it hard to follow. Because it is not in English; it is in Palinese:
“That’s what I say that I like every American I am speaking with we’re ill about this position that we been put in where it is taxpayers looking to bailout, but ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, um, helping the, oh, it’s got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and, and, putting it back on the right track; so health care reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade... we have we got to see trade as an opportunity not as, a competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity, all of those things under the umbrella of job creation, this bailout is part of that...”
But just because the woman is a half-wit hardly disqualifies her from public office. The average county commissioner or governor is not much better. And at least one of America’s finest presidents was probably little smarter than a moron.
We refer to Warren Harding. He was one of the greatest of American chief executives. No one was ever sent to prison under the Harding Act. No gaudy office building in Washington is known as the Harding Building. And no monument we know of defaces the earth in his memory. He started no wars. He spent no more of the taxpayers’ money than his predecessors. And he never gave a lecture to the American public that anyone could make sense of. Daily Reckoning
Posted by: Daily Reckoning | October 14, 2008 6:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Can Palin Broaden Base for 2012?
No. The furthest-most conservative right wing of voters, perhaps. But with each passing day, Palin is revealed to be just another ethically-challenged politician. And not an especially savvy or well-informed one at that. The bloom is off the rose... and we've found a few thorns, too. I think she'll lose a substantial chunk of her base in Alaska and face a very harsh re-election campaign. There will be another young fresh face in 2012... someone that handles himself/herself well with the media. I'm guessing Bobby Jindal. Perfect Republican follow-up to Obama's "exotic" name and looks.
Posted by: DogBitez | October 14, 2008 6:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin is toast. The main stream, country club, cocktail Republicans will not let her prevail. (They also have the money.) She will go back to Alaska and, maybe, get a radio talk show -- the female Rush -- where she can keep the fringe from thinking. I think someone new is going to come forward.
Posted by: dianaokay | October 14, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This ridiculous article is like a department store putting up Xmas decorations on June 25th.
What are you, nuts or just plain stooopid?
NO ONE CARES ABOUT WHO OBAMA IS GOING TO BEAT IN 2012!
Posted by: Kevin Schmidt | October 14, 2008 6:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
America's Republicans long ago deserted the conservative political, economic and foreign policies of the greatest true conservative president, Dwight Eisenhower. "Ike" believed in small government, avoiding foreign wars and entanglements, a non-aggressive foreign policy, low taxes, restrained government spending and keeping government out of the social domain.
This greatest modern American president called for nuclear disarmament and rightly warned his nation of the dangers of what he called "the military industrial complex." Half a century later, I still like Ike -- and am proud to call myself an "Eisenhower Republican."
Equally important, traditional conservative principles demand hard work, thrift and saving. One does not buy anything until saved-up cash is available. Governments spend only what they collect in taxes, not future generations' money known as "deficit spending." While necessary for long-term investment, borrowing must be strictly limited and tightly supervised.
Today's Republicans call themselves "conservatives" but are nothing of the kind. Under President George W. Bush, government size, spending and deficits have become gargantuan. "Conservative" in the U.S. has become synonymous with social dogmatism of the religious hard right and rural crassness and ignorance. Now, thanks to their "rescue package," Republicans (and Democrats) seem well on their way to socialism. Eric Margolis
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 6:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Salam Victoria,
Where in the world did this patronisingly dismissive term, "Joe/Jane Sixpack" come from? Do they mind this term being used by Ms. Sarah Palin? Are they really the "common people" she said she is representing in the American political landscape?
In Britain, they would be called the working class - those who do not, by fate or poverty, get the education and opportunities they could have had. No one ever said this group are lazy. Some hold at least two jobs to make ends meet even in a healthy economy.
In this times, they have reason to be nervous for their future. One would have to be insensitive not to see why some are venting and lashing out. I do not think many can afford cable to watch C-Span or CNN too much.
Are the so-called "Joe/Jane Sixpack" the new Silent Majority as mythologised by Richard Nixon? Strike that. Are they the new very noisy minority of Palin? Seems to me they are making their voices heard and votes count in this election.
Frankly, whatever their politics and beliefs, it is rather very bad form for the wine sipping, cheese nibbling, opera listening smart and well off ones to dismiss and mock them.
The Joe/Jane Sixpacks are revolting to liberals.
The Joe/Jane Sixpacks are revolting against liberals.
Wassalam
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 14, 2008 6:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The conservative base is showing its true face here.
They are paranoid, angry and seem to relish in not just name calling but disparaging people based on race, creed and religion. I see these people as the true virus of any great nation. Those who fear neighbors of color, of having a synagogue in their town, of letting there kids play with children of color. This is the conservative base that has shown its face. With this election, I thought we had a chance to reverse these attitudes, yet they continue to linger in small town America.
Obama believes in the free market, he belives it should be regulated (i.e. rescue plan which McCain voted for), he is a Christian, family man and an American. The people rallying for McCain do not hear him, they only see him. They plague are country's cultural and political progress.
Posted by: Tucker | October 14, 2008 6:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As a Democrat, I hope it is Palin. I do not believe she would even attempt to rehabilitate her image; she thinks she is just fine. But most people agree with Christopher Hitchens that she is a disgrace.
Posted by: Greg T | October 14, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You can't seriously maintain that the problem with Palin is her "image"!!
Posted by: jad | October 14, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Politicians do go back on their election promises. Senator Obama as President would have to go back on some of his promises because of the new economic crisis. So he could well go back on his "first duty" to sign FOCA as his first duty as president because of information presented to him by the anti-abortion group. He has to be president for all Americans remember? If the anti-abortion group can make a compelling case on the basis of science and human rights, then it would well come within Senator Obama's pay grade to learn when life and rights for the unborn child begins. Senator Obama has always been open to learning. He should read a textbook of human embryology or have a top human embryologist to brief him on the development of the child in the womb. He should watch some ultrasound of babies in the womb at different stages. All of it should convince him that the baby growing in its mother's womb is a member of the human race like any born person with a right to its life and worthy of protection by law.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator Obama and FOCA
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 6:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There are few things more important for an unborn child who is destined for the vacuum cleaner of the abortionist by its own mother.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 6:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why all the speculation? If the economy gets back on track, then it won't matter. People will be praising Obama and his team as the mighty heroes. If the economy is still in the tank, as it was for Carter, then a centrist GOP candidate will emerge. Voters have grown weary of the far right or left. Too much information is instantly available for Palin-type politicians to ever gain the majority. The only way for someone of her rabid dog, lying penchant to win is for some sort of catastrophe to occur. 9/11 was a once in a generation thing and the current economic crisis is winding down. Now we are back to the bread and butter of the national economy and it's cyclical undulations.
That being said, never underestimate the stupidity of the average voter. Just look at 2000 and 2004.
Posted by: chuckles | October 14, 2008 6:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria, you wrote,
"Arminius, you're anti-neocon? I know you're liberal like me- but I figured that was one issue you were solid on. They did latch onto the religious right as a power play- but they are fundamentally Pro-Israel period and other associations are directed by that issue, and that issue only."
I am VERY anti-neocon. I won't list here the endless screw-ups of the sad administration so badly led by that Neanderthal now dragging his knuckles around the oval office.
I will say this once, and will not discuss it with you further, because I value your friendship: I am both pro-Israel AND pro-Palestine. I want peace and prosperity for all. I am aware of the sins of both sides, and the horrendous omissions of the current neolithic administration in America to make any efforts to relieve it.
End of discussion. Please!
Posted by: Arminius | October 14, 2008 6:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Abortion is a human rights issue for those who look at the issue from the perspective of the unborn child. Why should such a serious issue then not be discussed, especially since Senator Obama has promised Planned Parenthood and all pro-abortionists to pass the FOCA as his first duty as president? Why are there off-limits in the discussion of this issue, when non-issues have been discussed times without number?
Here a closer look at the issue from the anti-abortion perspective
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
At least Quayle could name a newspaper he's read in the last ten years. I can't believe there are people out there who champion this kind of ignorance in their politicians.
Posted by: pcpatterson | October 14, 2008 5:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Salaams Jihadist.
Actually, Eid was pretty much the same as every other day. It's an invisible holiday in America.
"They do have all the information they wanted from the sources they wanted. And "low information" group is all too often tied with low income group by the estimation of some."
Low information voters span the spectrum.
But mostly people who are apathetic to the whole process- and only pay attention at the very end and catch up. Yes, the information is there- but now- with cable- I think it is even worse.
Whereas there used to be political ads on TV-
most people can just entertain themselves until the last minute-
This last presidential debate tomorrow, will likely be the first time alot of low info people tune in to see what the candidates have to say.
It really transcends all socio-economic barriers, as a matter of fact- the low income voters are pretty energized and even over involved this cycle.
Arminius, you're anti-neocon? I know you're liberal like me- but I figured that was one issue you were solid on. They did latch onto the religious right as a power play- but they are fundamentally Pro-Israel period and other associations are directed by that issue, and that issue only.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 14, 2008 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A video clip (commercial) has been put together by the Family Research Council Action PAC in which Senator Obama in his talk at Planned Parenthood states that the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, an Act that would repeal the ban on partial-birth abortions, repeal the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which states that babies born alive, even if “born” because of an abortion, have the right to medical care which would save their lives instead of just being left to die with no aid), and strike down parental notifications.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 5:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
realist:
Roe v Wade will remain the law of the land. Pro and con discussions regarding the morality of abortion notwithstanding. A woman's right in this regard should remain inviolable.
Organized religion could of course do much more to reduce abortion numbers by supporting sex education and widely available conventional birth control methods, including the 'morning after ' pill.
Do they do this? Of course not....instead, they ineffectively attempt to anathematize abortion.
Abortion should certainly not be a topic of discussion at this point in the final Presidential debate - there are much more pressing national issues at hand.
October 14, 2008 12:33 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Manichaean:
You make good sense here. I have known 'Old Guard' republicans, people who dispensed with religion and social issues in government, people who could actually think instead of knee-jerk to a fixed agenda, and knew that there were no 'silver bullets', no black and white, but gray. I have great respect for them, even though I, being liberal, do not agree with them.
I have no use for neocons, and even less for the rabid religious right.
What people forget is that our government is a dynamic - this is the grand legacy of the Constitution. We must have the give-and-take of two parties, the pendulum swinging between left and right. It is this bubbling political cauldron that eventually pops forth a solution, made by us all. When I learned that Rove was planning for a neocon hammerlock on America for the foreseeable future, I knew we were in trouble. Can we all think of Hitler's 'Thousand Year Reich'? The republicans must reinvent themselves to be stable and aimed toward the 21st century.
Posted by: Arminius | October 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Let's hope the republican party splits into three groups: into the lunatic religious fringe, the neocon idiots, and the old guard republicans - the libertarian-small-government-fiscally-responsible republicans we once respected, even if we didn't agree with them.
I might vote for the latter group again, but the "social conservatives" are a danger to our Constitution and the neocons are just dangerous nuts.
If Sara Palin is the republican nominee in 2012, we'll know we're seeing the last of the republican party. I hope there's room for another party besides the democrats, I don't really trust them much either.
Posted by: manichaean | October 14, 2008 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Salaam Victoria,
How was your Eid?
Yes, fanatics being always on the fringes, need to scream loudest in memorably regretably words and phrases and do sometimes resort to rather desperate and reprehensible acts.
All fanatics are alike in fact. It may be that "low information" of the undecided voters who would determine the outcome of elections. But I am not too sure on what is meant by "low information". They do have all the information they wanted from the sources they wanted. And "low information" group is all too often tied with low income group by the estimation of some.
I agree with you that people do not really vote for a candidate, but rather against a candidate or political party as a form of protest vote as was apparent in this year's Malaysian general elections. It is really a choice between the lesser of two evils. Or, more precisely, the lesser incompetents.
I do think that people do vote on issues -specifically as to whether they agree or disagree with a platform or a course of action. But, yes, it helps if a candidate look good and make the right noises. More pertinently, a "new" face always gives the hope of a fresh start or a new beginning over the familiar and the known.
A "new" face has the advantage of not being in office long enough to have gaffes etched in the public consciousness.
It is a truism in politics that promises are easier made than delivered. Whether those right pledges made during election campaigns are translated into action upon being elected is another story altogether. It is always easier to talk about what must be done and should be done by a public official in office rather than being in office. Everything is good on a policy paper. The real challenge is to get everyone on board once in office. And then, there is those opponents screaming on what must be done and how.
In a state such as oil rich Alaska and Alaskans' own socio-economic situation of perhaps, wealth and well-being, perhaps it is easier to ignore or forgive politicians of their banality, venality and wastefulness. Sarah Palin do know how to get a rise out of some voters by fixing the blame on others. She is, like you said, a consummate Alaskan politician in Alaska. At the national level? She is not in Alaska anymore.
Wasalaam and see you.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 14, 2008 3:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Clearly it's Romney's to loose. Palin and Huckabee can split the lunatic floating cross vote.
Posted by: jOE 12 PACK | October 14, 2008 3:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It ain't over til it's over. One week is a long time in politics, let alone 4 years.
Can anyone tell me what Kerry has been doing for the last 4? Without doing a google?
The loser gets no face time by the media.
This is the last we have seen Kerry on the fornt page- n 2006-
He then said: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
That, Kerry said, was meant as a reference to Bush, not troops. Kerry said it is the president who owes U.S. soldiers an apology — for “a Katrina foreign policy” that misled the country into war in Iraq, failed to adequately study and plan for the aftermath, has not properly equipped troops and has expanded the terrorist threat."
Remember that?
Most probably have a dim memory of it- at most.
Palin, if she loses, may be groomed by the GOP- but she is still Gov.
The frantic and hurried pace with too many issues to discuss has served her in this race-With 4 years to dissect her past- and whatever she may do in the future- it is hard to say she will come out with the same freshness and excitement she is generating now.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 14, 2008 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It doesn't really matter if people are fantaics- they exist on both sides.
They don't decide anything.
What matters is if they can vote in the majority block.
It is the low information undecided voters who control the outcome.
The voter who is disinterested enough to not bother to learn about what each candidate stands for in advance, but interested enough to drag themselves to the voting booth.
People don't vote for a candidate.
They vote against a candidate, or the candidate's party.
People don't vote on issues, they vote on visceral reactions and impressions of candidates.
Sarah is a consumate politican because she has an basic instinct of this.
But being a good politician is no guarantee of wisdom and intelligence in making administrative decisions.
She won the Governorship by pointing her finger at the incumbent and screaming about the ethics charges broupght up against him.
She stayed popular because she had such an overwhelmingly large surplus in budget- (due to oil) that she was able to buy the constituents support.
However, while in the lower 48 states, she is sliding by on claiming she was cleared of ethics violations- the truth is- she was not.
And her own constituents are vociferously discussing this now.
Don't be so sure that there isn't a young politician in Alaska, looking forward to Palin's loss in 2 or so weeks- that isn't gearing up to point the finger at her when she comes up for her own election.
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 14, 2008 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
America is the only country where people hunt on a full stomch. (Chris Rock)
Posted by: VICTORIA | October 14, 2008 2:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ZZim on Palin:
"She's young, energetic, good-looking, and she makes a component of the Republican base go absolutely bonkers."
"Because she is exactly like Obama - young, inexperienced, unqualified, a ground-breaker, charismatic, etc. the whole nine yards."
Dear Mr. ZZim,
We are always of the opinion that she is, indeed, young, energetic and good looking and just the right person to energise the political base that is thus far, untapped of its fullest potential.
Ms. Palin is, unquestioningly, a role model for women in proving that we can wear lipstick while shooting wolves from helicopters, and to act like a pitbull when being a hockey mum among other liberating actions for all womankind.
We are most supportive of the rights of women to anything they want or otherwise with either a lipstick or a sixpack, or both on hand. Ms. Palin, is indeed, the first metrosexual woman who proved once and for all it is possible to shot or fish animals and to clean them as recreational sports while looking femininely good. The starving women in the third world are most appreciative by her example and would now be putting on make ups while they hunt and fish out of necessity.
As women who support another woman's choice of hunting and fishing for some voters and baiting other voters, we have no doubt that Ms. Palin prove that women are as capable as any man in turning into a sly political animal in excelsis and in extremis.
We are also fully supportive of Ms. Palin's right to pursue high office as any man without experience or qualifications just to prove we can as any man can.
Ms. Palin, is undoubtedly, a groundbreaker in explaining how God works, and it is no mystery to anyone now that the oil pipeline is God's will and a manifestation of modern day miracles.
Ms. Palin is indeed, not only charismatic, but also enigmatic to those those trying to decipher this cipher shieled as a protected and endangered delicate specie from the prying media wolves and sharks.
Thank you for your support, understanding and acceptance of women being as inexperieced, as unqualified, as blundering, as blinkered as any man seeking public office.
J - member of Women Advocting Rights of Palin (WARP)
Posted by: Jihadist | October 14, 2008 2:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Torsten wrote, "Now, the evangelicals--not all of them but the Huckabee Wing of them, the religious right who, you know, think God is on their side and their side alone and so therefore they can do no wrong--are the modern day Pharises and they're damaging the Republican party greatly."
The absolute best thing that the GOP could do to improve their chances in future elections is drop-kick the religious right out of their tent. It would hurt in the short-term (probably at least until 2016), but in the long-term, they would seem a lot more legitimate to many voters. In other words, they would win more friends than they would lose...
Posted by: Robert B. | October 14, 2008 1:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ZZim writes
"I suppose we can look forward to Palin topping the ticket in 2012."
At this point that seems likely, assuming something damning doesn't come out.
"However, if the Democrats are smart, they will need to continure their relentless and vicious assault"
Not sure what you are talking about. The Democrats have treated Palin pretty hands off, considering what a boob she is. She's proven perfectly capable of alianating normal Americans with her actions and comments.
"over the next 3 years to forestall that. They need to do that because she represents a tremendous threat to their power. She's young, energetic, good-looking, and she makes a component of the Republican base go absolutely bonkers. The Democrats should be terrified"
You are exactly right that she makes a component of the Republican base go bonkers. However this part of the base is the same part that turns off normal Americans. Screaming "terrorist", "kill him" and the N-word isn't exactly endearing. Moreover Palin's record in governing is mostly bad, and I don't expect it to get better. Believe me, nobody on our side fears her as a candidate - everything she has done has helped Obama's candidacy.
Posted by: Marc Edward | October 14, 2008 1:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Marc Edward wrote, "So, if you want to guess who will be leading the Republicans in 2012, look for some loud mouthed extremist(s) who will be speaking to 'joe 6pack' aka 'white working class folks' and casting the blame on 'illegal immigrants' aka 'brown skinned latinos'"
If this is the trend, look for Tom Tancredo to have a much better showing come 2012...
Posted by: Robert B. | October 14, 2008 1:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
An American in Canada wrote: "Those who say it is the economy that has swung this election give voters too little credit."
These are the same voters that re-elected Bush in 2004, so forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical of my fellow citizens' civic intelligence. I would bet that many of our citizens are in the same boat as Ms. Palin as to how our Constitution works...
Posted by: Robert B. | October 14, 2008 1:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques, I was thinking along those very same lines just last night. I suppose we can look forward to Palin topping the ticket in 2012.
However, if the Democrats are smart, they will need to continure their relentless and vicious assault over the next 3 years to forestall that. They need to do that because she represents a tremendous threat to their power. She's young, energetic, good-looking, and she makes a component of the Republican base go absolutely bonkers. The Democrats should be terrified.
Because she is exactly like Obama - young, inexperienced, unqualified, a ground-breaker, charismatic, etc. the whole nine yards.
Posted by: ZZim | October 14, 2008 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RICK MAVE writes
"Romney, Pawlenty, Jindal will be the relevant names from this cycle"
Romney is toast for a host or reasons, leading with being a Mormon, seconded by his out-of-the-Republican-mainstream positions (pro-choice, pro-gay). Pawlenty is rather unimpressive, but who knows. Jindal is a crazy person, period. He's certainly the wrong shade for the modern Republican base.
Dan Chisholm writes
"This article is forgetting the possibilities of Colin Powell, General Petreus, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford and a host of others. However, if the top three are Palin, Romney, and Huckabee, then it goes to Romney in a landslide"
I have to wonder if Romney really wants to lose another few million dollars on a hopeless race. Palin is certainly possible. Powell will never be nominated by the Republicans and I doubt he will even try to run. Petreus - he has no political positions, little experience, and his personal history is questionable. Jindal is crazy (google 'jindal exorcism'). There will be no hope for any GOP moderate in 2012 because the moderates are leaving the GOP. It will have to be another crazy-Rightie, which puts Palin in the lead (assuming she isn't in jail).
Obviously the early speculation is worth a used lottery ticket. Obama's policies have to survive contact with reality. The war has to end. If Obama embraces progressive policies and they work, we could see a major re-allignment in this country that could last generations. In the mean time the wings of the Republican party need to hash things out. It would be best if they dumped the evangelicals once and for all, but those types seem to have the upper hand, so the Republican Party could be reduced to permanent 'has been' status if it becomes the party of 'no evolution, Christians-only' no-nothings. Gee meaningless speculation is fun, if only because it engages the mind and it doesn't matter.
Posted by: Marc Edward | October 14, 2008 1:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Moderate: "It is an amazing coalition - tea-toter Evangelicals and Joe/Jane Six-Pack and non-caffeine Mormans!"
You ain't seen nothing yet. Add non-alcoholic drinking Muslims to the tea-totered Evangelicals and non-caffeined non-nicotined Mormons and you have a paradise for believers and hell for non-believers here on earth - no drinking, no smoking, no swearing, no sex.....
"A mind is a terrible thing to have". So Dan Quayle misspoke on the NAACP motto.
Cheers and out of here
J - the caffeinated
Posted by: Jihadist | October 14, 2008 1:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is an amazing coalition - tea-toter Evangelicals and Joe/Jane Six-Pack and non-caffeine Mormans!
Posted by: Moderate | October 14, 2008 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ooops! Make that "A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort once he forget his purpose" - George Santayana.
What do do? What with stock market rallies and Paul Krugman getting the Nobel Prize for economiics.....
Down with Bretton Woods institutions!
Down with the Washington Consensus!
Down with reckless shortselling in the markets and in politics!
2012? "In the long run, we will all be dead" - George Maynard Keynes (another blinking economist)
Cheers
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 14, 2008 12:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
But, since Palin and Huckabee, as End-Timers, go for the 12/21/12 date for the end of the world, even if one gets elected, s/he'll never make it to Inauguration Day in January 2013! So, not to worry!
Posted by: anti-dominionist | October 14, 2008 12:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is it too much to hope that the real Republicans will be allowed back into the tent? Dick Army, Newt, and Delay went to great lengths to get the moderate Republicans out of the house, Trent Lott et al did the same in the senate. Bush destroyed Cristy Todd-Whitman and Colin Powell and probably others by appointing them into obscurity in an incompetent administration. Former NY Gov. Pataki managed to stay out of the administration, but he fell out of sight too soon. There are very few others (Chuck Hagel?) of national note.
Simply being a decent Christian and working to improve the country used to be enough.
Posted by: Robert | October 14, 2008 12:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi-
America, since its inception as the city on a hill, has always fought against theocracy. Not because the idea of a churched state is not appealing, but because no one can agree on which church should rule the roost.
You seem to be trying the morph the Republican party into an American form of the European Christian Democrats. This party is viable in parlimentary system since coalitions are the bases of government. America's system (driven by a winner take all electoral college) is quite different. Both the present antipodes (whether Federalist and Democrat, or Whig and Democrat) have to be broad within themselves. That's why Henry Wallace and Strom Thurman could be in the same party. Your re-casting of the GOP as a "values" (read religious) party ignores the strong differences in the various religious groups. Catholics and some evangelicals can't even be in the same room, never mind work together.
If the GOP is to contribute again, it needs to refocus it efforts in a secular framework. We are electing a president, not a Pope. No one expects a Pope to know economics, or sewage drainage, so why expect a President to be a moral leader.
Informing politics with moral guidance is one thing, making a religious group the main engine of a party is another. If the evangelical right wants a political arm, let it buy one like the Moonies did.
Posted by: doctor t | October 14, 2008 12:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau,
Thank you for your essay, " Can Palin Broaden Base for 2012?"
The McCain camp being "operationally incompetent" and having a "strategically incoherent campaign apparatus"? Perhaps creating chaos and uncertainty and then offering certainty as solutions is a capital idea after all to make the most of the social, economic and security fears of certain "bases".
And surely Sarah Palin not running for the White House in 2012 if the Republicans loses this current Presidential bid? One do recall the fate of Geraldine Ferraro who was picked to be the running mate of Governor Goerge Dukakis. Ms. Ferraro is more interesting and more experienced then Ms. Palin.
So, in gist, what everyone is saying is that Ms. Palin is, in fact, bringing out the worse in people - pandering to, and speaking for the lowest base of human instinct and the lower base of society, the so-called "Joe and Jane Sixpacks".
One do wonder if "Joe and Jane Sixpack" is a new slur of what was formerly and deragoritically called trailer park trash with all those mocking and taunting social, cultural, political and religious associated with it - dim-wit, religious zealots etc. The same characterisation of Palin.
As everyone seems to ignore the fears and hopes of these "White Conservative Evangelicals" (WCEs), it would be somewhat churlish to take McCain and Palin to task when they are not ignoring their voices, no matter how disturbing it seems the expression of anger and frustration of these WCEs are.
These WCE voices found a facilitator and enabler in Palin, after all, and are emboldened and "energised" by it. If politicians cannot afford to ignore other minority groups in the US for votes, then politicians cannot afford to ignore the WCEs as a voting base. They are the new and now vocal minority group in the US who think their jobs, their values, their beleifs are under attack and under seige.
The rise of the "White Conservative Evangelicals" is obviously a reaction of and a response to perceived demonic, uppity, snobbish, well educated and relatively well off "liberals" monopolising the media as they perceived. and do not express their nor care for them and what they stood and care for.
Perhaps the WCEs perceive the relatively cosmopolitan "liberal" to be more out of touch with them as a segment of the population in their concerns, than with the liberals in China or France. Hence the "Loyalty Day" broached by Palin?
To ignore the third world equivalent of "Joe and Jane Sixpacks" is to imperil societies and states. They are at their most vital when governments fail to deliver what they need and want. The "liberal elites" can be effete in stopping their word wars, resorting instead to dismissing them as ignorant and fanatical rather than to honestly address the whys and hows the "Joe Sixpacks" are alienated from them.
The "Joe Sixpacks" are not ignorant of what is happening. Only their words and actions seem wrong and wrongly articulated in the civil discourse of a civilising or civilised society as defined by "liberals".
No doubt, they see their world falling around them and are screaming out at for someone, anyone to to do something or, at least, to speak for them. They have no real power and they know it - only to exercise them in elections in democratic societies, or to take to the streets in non-democratic socieities.
Either way, the "liberals" don't get them or to care much for them and to mock them as ignoramuses. Until it is too late to do anything about their verbal rage or their physical rampaging.
In democratic socieities, they usually fade away, or tone down but sulk and simmer until the next elections when the likes of Palin comes along and speak the same language and energise them again.
Yes, if Palin, Romney and Huckabee do run in 2012 they will need to play to the bases. But culture warfare is enough to galvanise the masses, the bases. See the "Clash of Civilisations" for a global parallel. Never mind everyone said there never should be one. And yet, there is always one - of beliefs and values throughout history within states and among states among peoples.
George Santayana - "A fanatic redoubles his effort once he forget his purpose."
Who is the fanatic? Who is not?
Thank you and regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | October 14, 2008 12:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Whatever their drawbacks, Romney and Huckabee are intelligent, educated individuals. Palin is neither.
Posted by: Roger | October 14, 2008 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This article is forgetting the possibilities of Colin Powell, General Petreus, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford and a host of others. However, if the top three are Palin, Romney, and Huckabee, then it goes to Romney in a landslide. He has, by far, the best organization, the best people around him, the most support from all the house and senate members he is fighting night and day for. Mitt has become the Republicans most effective fighter and fundraiser for Republicans across the country and if the democrats don't gain filibuster proof majorities, it will be primarily because of Mitt's efforts.
On top of all that, Palin and Huckabee will divide the evangelicals which will force them to fight over those voters and become even less attractive to everyone else while Mitt can just be himself and explain how he will Bring America Back because he's fixed huge problems everywhere he has gone. Mitt will get a chunk of evangelical votes even without pandering to them as well.
Posted by: Dan Chisholm | October 14, 2008 12:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Unfortunately for the GOP, they can't seem to separate themselves from candidates that run on the religious ticket - or is it visa versa? Republican candidates apparently can't get any traction unless they're bowing and scraping to the evangelical right.
There don't seem to be any GOP frontrunners herein mentioned that haven't proclaimed their born-again status, including Jindal from Louisiana (a Hindu turned Christian?)......
As long as religion maintains it's position front and center on the GOP platform, the republican party will stay exactly where they belong - and that's waaaaaaaaay out in right field where they can do no (more) harm.
Poor old Romney would like to have opted out of the religion discussion but this was not allowed -especially since he was an acursed Mormon (in the minds of some evangelicals).
Instead, the GOP candidates from early on talked of nothing BUT religion......beyond ludicrious if you ask me.
Running on the platform of religious propriety is so yesterday! For today's GOP, time apparently stands still somewhere between the 18th and 19th century.
Barry Goldwater must be having a real conniption of the lower bowel right about now.
Posted by: pundit | October 14, 2008 12:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm looking forward to further self-destruction in 2012.
Palin -- lolz
Huckabee -- lolz
Romney -- there is no way on God's Green Earth that Evangelical Christians will be energized by a religious Mormon, whose beliefs they decry as cultist in their Sunday sermons. When push comes to shove, Evangelicals will flee from Romney
Republicans in 2012 -- lolz
Posted by: HillRat | October 14, 2008 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Broaden the "Base"?!? I thought all of the inbred, simple-minded folk in this country already supported the Republican(American Taliban) Party! That is if they listen to Hate Radio or watch FOX's propaganda channel. The Republican party has fallen, and it cannot get up, not without embracing something that it has despised for nearly 20 years - MODERATION. I used to be a Republican, but the rise of Delay, Newt, Phil Gramm, Abramoff, Bush and even Cheney has soured me to the point where I will probably NEVER vote Republican again. Those rallys last week, in which some of the idiots of the far-right begged McCain to Swift-boat Obama, and that poor ignorant woman made the comment that Obama was a terrorist was one of the most disguisting political scenes I have witnessed in my entire life - like something out of Germany in the 1930s! I voted for Bush Sr in '88 and I still believe he is a good man and was a good president, but since then the Republican party has become a flat-earth society, where propaganda has become like dogma and the radical right marches itself right off the cliff! First by nominating a dipstick, drunken coward and making Dick Cheney his chaperone! I never HATED Cheney at all(I supported Bush Srs coalition to kick Saddam out of Kuwait) when he served under Bush Sr., but apparently George H.W. Bush had him on a tight leash, and under Dumbya he has committed what I consider to be egregious war-crimes, and abused his VP office grossly! To sum up, the Republican "revolution" has done an EXTREME disservice to this country, and it is long past time they paid for it. I hope this coming election splinters the party of Lincoln, and it never shows its ugly face in American politics again! Lincoln must be spinning in his grave and the cancer his party has become!
Posted by: Mike in Dallas | October 14, 2008 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Until the Republican party sheds its relationships with religious kooks, racists, and "Joe six packs", it will delegated to the ranks of a dinosaur museum. Forget 2012 or even 2014; the democrats are destined to stay in power until they make a mess of things, which they will eventually. However, the lessons of the last 8 years will not fade rapidly from most individuals memories. Nor should they.
Posted by: Michael D | October 14, 2008 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Romney, Pawlenty, Jindal will be the relevant names from this cycle. While Pawlnety and Jindal weren't candidates in the 08 primary, they emerged in the aftermath and are both representative of the upcoming generation of Republican leaders. Maybe Palin can save herself after McCAin loses, but as of now the Maverick has sent her into a flat spin straight out to sea. I personally think she's purely a female Huckabee type. A cultural play, an ideological nod. A pretty face to reinforce opinions we all already have.
Someone commented earlier about Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan each being names to watch next time and I agree. They are of the same generation as Jindal and Pawlenty (actually I think Pawlenty's a little older than the toher 3, and the other 3 are of a more fiscal background while Pawlenty sort of straddles the Palin/Huckabee crowd and the more sane mainstream of the party base.
So 2012: Romney, Pawlenty, Cantor, Ryan, probably Huckabee again (sigh), I doubt Palin would try, we'll probably see Newt trying to get begged to run again since that's what tickles his fancy, and Jindal may go too. But I agree it'll be Romney's to lose. However, I think Obama will have to total the car to lose in 2012. An incumbent is typically pretty hard to beat, and Obama is a likeable good-looking guy with a good personality and a nice temperment, so much so all his bizarre and detestable relationships with people who just all so happen to hate America seem to not matter at all. So, we'll have to hope the Democrats lose control like a fat kid in a candy shop without any adults around by virtue of having total control of the federal government in the WH, House, and Senate....and that the populace isn't too stupid to realize it in 4 years. But the GOP is in good hands since Romney is extremely articulate and more than apt to advocate as the voice of the out of power opposition party, providing an alternative to what's sure to be a socialistic approach to fixing the present ills.
No matter what, John McCain should lose though since as bad as an Obama Presidency could be, the landscape will be much worse for longer if we let McCain take us further to the left, giving Americans no choice between Democrats and Democrat Lites. We need to lose, get shut out, and only then can we rebuild ourselves. http://bethemaverick.blogspot.com
Posted by: RICK MAVE | October 14, 2008 11:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The issues facing this country are too dire to waste time on lame attempts at humor like this one.
Posted by: Hank | October 14, 2008 11:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
David's got it exactly right. While the founders were deistic, they certainly were not like the devout pious types we see today. They distrusted man's religion b/c they had seen what it was used to do to man. However they did acknowledge the rights of all men as ordained by God himself. This is b/c that much is obvious, not b/c a book tells them so.
Now, the evangelicals--not all of them but the Huckabee Wing of them, the religious right who, you know, think God is on their side and their side alone and so therefore they can do no wrong--are the modern day Pharises and they're damaging the Republican party greatly. In part that's the GOP's fault since they've catered to them and pandered to them in certain ways that are counterproductive, and now we're paying the price. Hopefully enough of them are smart enough to realize we won't have a President Huckabee or anyone like that and never will and their actions--fuelled by religious bigotry--ironically resulted in nominating a candidate McCain who they detest since he once told them, accurately, they're agents of intolerance, which they are.
Posted by: Torsten | October 14, 2008 11:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin or Romney in 2012....as a Nation...let us pray.....NO WAY.......please Repbublicans...drop the religious aspect of the Party and just give us some good down home republican conservatives as a choice....
Posted by: rann | October 14, 2008 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You have *got* to be kidding me... What kind of priorities could someone have on October 14, 2008 to be sitting around worrying about Election 2012? Considering the changes we've seen in the 2 months, can it be possible that many significant events will happen between now and perhaps sometime in 2009 when just possibly someone of dubious ethics and/or sanity would decide that we could have 3 year elections rather than 2 year elections?
One might even hope to see emerging new talent as the times try our collective souls.
Posted by: bj | October 14, 2008 11:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Assuming that Obama will win as predicted (a landslide) and his coattails sweep in large majorities in the House and Senate:
1) The current Republican leadership will be swept away. Some Republicans will resign their offices rather than face 2-6 years of impotent minority status. The current Republican leadership will be blamed for their defeats and will be justly ignored.
2) The Republican base will be searching for new leadership, so none of the recent candidates (Romney, Huckster) will be wanted. Perhaps Palin will.
3) It's reasonable to assume that the next 1-4 years will be hard economically. Because of the Bush debt and the Bush deficits (and they are Bush's fault, period) President Obama's options for easing the nation's economic woes will be rather limited. I hope he tells the nation from the get-go that times are gonna be hard.
4) In previous periods of hard economic times, people have needed a scapegoat, and their usually arise 'leaders' who will point out that scapegoat, usually a visible minority (blacks, Italians, Irish, Jews, etc.). This time it will probably be latinos.
So, if you want to guess who will be leading the Republicans in 2012, look for some loud mouthed extremist(s) who will be speaking to 'joe 6pack' aka 'white working class folks' and casting the blame on 'illegal immigrants' aka 'brown skinned latinos'. It will be no surprise if we see an increase of violence against latinos. Sarah Palin might be a good candidate for this, but no doubt there are others who will want to 'lead' in this manner. Under no conditions will we see a Republican leadership that is reasonable, calm, logical, or interested in working with the Democrats.
Posted by: Marc Edward | October 14, 2008 11:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The article was about the "God" vote. David is a religous bigot. The reason "Christians can not carry this election is because of people like David that tear apart the Christain unity by fault finding and doctrinal difference between the different church. The "party" needs a uniter not the divider that David preaches....(alto he does not realize it) If you have not noticed the other party supports abortion and gay marriage. How can one be a christian and not follow Christ's teachings?
Posted by: Jack from Oklahoma | October 14, 2008 11:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"If McCain loses, it seems safe to say that it was the stupid economy that did him in."
I'm already tired of the narrative that economic crisis was the deciding factor in this election (which is still not over). Throughout this campaign, and with increasing intensity, McCain has shown himself to be erratic, angry, and lacking in judgment and compassion. His choice of Palin is probably the most glaring example of this.
Those who say it is the economy that has swung this election give voters too little credit.
Posted by: an American in Canada | October 14, 2008 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
While I think Romney has a shot, he's probably missed his opportunity, because he's getting pretty old and the party will be more excited about someone younger. Romney will be 65 years old in 2012 and, while we have had first-time nominees that old in the recent past (Dole, McCain, Reagan -- all Republicans), the median age since 1960 for a FIRST-TIME Presidential nominee from a major party is quite a bit younger .... only 55 years old. Here's the data (oldest to youngest):
Bob Dole (1996) 73
John McCain (2008) 72
Ronald Reagan (1980) 69
George H. W. Bush (1988)64
John Kerry (2004) 60
Hubert Humphrey (1968) 57
Walter Mondale (1984) 56
Michael Dukakis (1988) 55
Barry Goldwater (1964) 55
Richard Nixon (1968) 55
George W. Bush (2000) 54
Jimmy Carter (1976) 52
Al Gore (2000) 52
George McGovern (1972) 50
Richard Nixon (1960) 47
Barack Obama (2008) 47
Bill Clinton (1992) 46
John Kennedy (1960) 43
Posted by: Algernon | October 14, 2008 10:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't know what planet the "author" of this article was living on but he CERTAINLY wasn't near the Republican base IF he thinks we weren't excited about Mike Huckabee. True, the GOP bigwigs in Washington didn't like the fact that someone they couldn't control was actually running away with the nomination and they tried to derail him for "golden boy" Mitt. Trouble is MITT is the one that didn't excite the base...nor much of anybody else, so...we wound up with McCain. Huckabee HAS excited the base, the independents, the democrats who want an honest, experienced, fair man of character to lead this great country, young people and African Americans who are conservatives...He is multi-talented and has proven himself both as a strong leader AND as a shrewd campaigner. Look for a Huckaboom for 2012!! Overwhelming win and the most popular president in American history!!!! Huckabee will prove that vertical politics can actually work!!
Posted by: Linda | October 14, 2008 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin? You've got to be tripping on acid or something. She is headed back to the wilderness, likely never to be heard of again - if Republicans are lucky. If you're a Democrat, you're hoping she DOES get the top slot. But even the GOP isn't that ignorant.
Huckabee? Nice enough fellow, but entrenched in idealism. We need realism. Idealism is George W's philosophy, the far right's policy, and we all know how this turned out. The far right must be slapped back to some sort of reality, and ditching Huckabee effectively does this.
Romney? The most likely successor, though his ideology is anything but mainstream. Unless Romney does a 180 from 2008 and accepts reality and not idealism, he too will be mowed down by Obama and the Democrats in 2012.
I do not think Repulicans have a chance at power until 2016 at the earliest. Both The House and the Senate will be overwhelming Democratic until then as well. This means prosperity is about to return.
Posted by: Scott L. | October 14, 2008 10:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jack wrote "The "God" vote sadly will not be enough because America no longer wants to be a "God" nation..."
Jack is delusional. America has never been a "'God' nation," whatever that means. America was founded by men who, if they were Christian, believed that religion should be kept at arm's length and should have no role in the governing of America. I'll bet it frosts Jack's cake to know that the word "God" is not in the Constitution, and the only mention of religion in the Constitution is in the amendment that was designed to ensure Americans' freedom from religion. Jack would also do well to read Jefferson's letter to his nephew, which says, in part, " Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear…"
If the Founding Fathers were Christians, their brand of Christianity would not be recognizable by, or acceptable to, today's so-called Evangelical Christians.
Posted by: David Illig | October 14, 2008 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I highly doubt the viability of Palin & Huckabee for 2012. Huckabee likely experienced his flash in the pan novelty act in 2008 and if (when) he runs again for 2012 he'll learn the lesson of the law of diminishing returns. Especially if Palin throws her hat in the ring. I don't think that she would, but if she would then that would in fact, as the author states, split the evangelical base and I'm surely she'd capture more of them than Huckabee, his liberal record, and his terrible show on Fox News could ever hope for b/c she's a way better prospect than he is.
Now the article only addresses the known talent pool from 2008, but one name it leaves out that is sort of in that same Palin-Huckabee wing of the party is Pawlenty, who rightfully is more impressive than both Palin and Huckabee on any given day. I would expect Pawlenty, Palin, Huckabee (presuming all 3 run) to split that Sam's Club devout segment of the conservative base--the social conservatives--the way the entire conservative base was split this time...where Romney, Huckabee, Thompson each had claimed victories in social conservatives and economic conservatives here and there in differing regions. This would make the path easier for Romney who will have the whole of economic conservatives behind him, and most likely even more evangelicals than he did last time, when he actually did get more of their vote than Mike Huckabee did.
Now who knows what unknown talent will spring into the race, but in the vein of Romney's strengths I would keep an eye on Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor. Of the two I would guess Ryan's more of a viable national name. A 4th like name in this regard would be Bobby Jindal, though much will depend on how he fares in LA the next several years. The plus is that he can't be worse than the Democrats who have ran that place into the ground for the past 40 years or whatever it's been.
But judging purely by what we know from the 2008 crowd and the Republican tendency to nominate the last election's runner-up, 2012 will be Mitt Romney's to lose. And make no mistake he'll play the perfect foil to Obama on TV for four years and his turnaround artist talents and his organizational genius will be at play, if the GOP is smart, at rebuilding their badly broken brand starting in just about 22 days from now.
Posted by: Torsten | October 14, 2008 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin will never ever again appear on a national ticket ... she will only be an amusing storyline from the 2008 campaign and will be very lucky if she is reelected governor in 2010. I imagine that she'll make a lot of money working as a consultant and making speeches, assuming that she plays it straight enough to stay out of jail.
My bet is that the Republicans will get a little less insane and nominate someone like Pawlenty or Jindal. They will be looking for someone NEW and will have NO interest in old faces like Thompson, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, Crist, Ridge, or Hutchinson.
Unfortunately for Jeb Bush, his brother's horribly failed Presidency will guarantee that he will never have a shot at the job.
Posted by: algernon | October 14, 2008 10:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin? By 2012 she could probably be beaten by the REAL Bin Laden (not the patriotic American-born Christian that she seems to think is Bin Laden). Headline: "PALIN CRIES FOUL, SAYS SHE DIDN'T KNOW SHE WAS RUNNING AGAINST THE REAL BIN LADEN." Moosebum, Alaska, Nov. 7, 2012 - Sarah Palin, speaking from her cell in the Alaska State Penitentiary, said that she was deceived by her own party as to the true identity of her opponent..."
Romney? Headline: "ATHEISTS, EVANGELICALS AND WAHHABIS UNITE TO KEEP NUTSO CULT OUT OF WHITE HOUSE."
Huckabee? "[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
Headline: "ATHEISTS, MORMONS, AND WAHHABIS UNITE TO SAVE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY"
Huckabee's defeat of the 2012 Democratic candidate has caused a constitutional crisis. Article II, Section I, of the Constitution requires the President to swear (or affirm) "I will... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Huckabee cannot take the prescribed oath in good faith because it is his stated belief that part of the Bill of Rights (at a minimum) needs to be scrapped in order to change the United States' form of government from Constitutional Democracy to a theocratic state governed according to the teachings of Protestant fundamentalism. "In an unprecedented move, 170 million Americans have joined the suit to prevent Huckabee from taking office."
Posted by: David Illig | October 14, 2008 9:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"The "God" vote sadly will not be enough because America no longer wants to be a "God" nation.....
You sound like you are blaming the non Christians because they aren't converted. Christians need to take a hard look in the mirror. They're supposed to be on a mission to lead others to Jesus by showing them how he has inproved their life, look at the message they are spreading instead. Is it any wonder Americans want to distance themselves from this anger and hatred?
Satan isn't just hanging around bars and porn shops, he is doing his best work in the minds of God's workers. All he needs to do is knock you off the path a few inches, and suddenly you're working for him. Sadly, most Christians today can't even see the path anymore.
You've turned God's sweet message into a bitter pill, then you criticize seculars when they won't swallow it. How is that God's plan?
Posted by: Big G | October 14, 2008 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"The "God" vote sadly will not be enough because America no longer wants to be a "God" nation.....
You sound like you are blaming the non Christians because they aren't converted. Christians need to take a hard look in the mirror. They're supposed to be on a mission to lead others to Jesus by showing them how he has inproved their life, look at the message they are spreading instead. Is it any wonder Americans want to distance themselves from this anger and hatred?
Satan isn't just hanging around bars and porn shops, he is doing his best work in the minds of God's workers. All he needs to do is knock you off the path a few inches, and suddenly you're working for him. Sadly, most Christians today can't even see the path anymore.
You've turned God's sweet message into a bitter pill, then you criticize seculars when they won't swallow it. How is that God's plan?
Posted by: Big G | October 14, 2008 9:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I am hoping for Romney in 2012. For that matter, I still think dropping Palin for Romney is the best way for McCain to win in 2008.
This election is about the economy. We all know that. McCain has zero credibility on the economy, and is leaning only on the Republican platform for the economy, and that is not good enough.
Palin I have nothing against, but she can't save us. She is a classic example of how McCain chooses to reinforce his identity (Maverick) rather than show concern for true American domestic issues.
Now Obama is even worse on the economy than John McCain, but neither one "gets it."
Posted by: Jed | October 14, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Palin in 2012? Are you kidding? You do know what they do to pitbulls that lose don't you?
Posted by: Big G | October 14, 2008 9:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
When McCain loses, Palin will fade away into the Alaska wilderness. Huckabee if he can get the money to run might try again. He will have to get over his religious bigotry. Romney who is my pick, might not get into the mess again. I think a new face will come out, someone we least expect. The "God" vote sadly will not be enough because America no longer wants to be a "God" nation.....
Posted by: Jack from Oklahoma | October 14, 2008 9:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
With a little luck, Palin will disappear into the snowbanks of AK and her $2.1M assets and never resurface. She has no brain, no ability to think. She is the female Dan Quayle.
Hopefully, a few qualified women from both parties will emerge and give the office a run.
Posted by: mainer | October 14, 2008 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
The new Sarah Palin For President in 2012 website is now online, with related news, headlines & links at http://www.palin4pres2012.com/