Sarah and Barack, peas in everyone's pod

What is the single, common(est) denominator between Sarah Palin and Hussein Obama? In a comment to the VFR entry, The Freepers on Laura Wood on Sarah Palin, frequent commenter Clark Coleman explains his recent epiphany of sorts about Sarah Palin,

It suddenly occurred to me when reading this blog entry that Sarah Palin is the conservative version of Barack Obama. Many of us (even Obama himself) noted that Obama was a blank canvas on which his followers could project their political hopes. Why? Not because of his political experience or capabilities or clearly stated policy positions, but because of his personal life story. E.g., Obama is going to be a post-racial unifier. What was there in his past to indicate such a thing? Nothing. In fact, just the opposite. But his followers had hopes, you see. Ditto for numerous other policy areas where people had hopes not based on his statements or past actions.

Sarah Palin is a dyed in the wool conservative who will lead the GOP out of the mushy moderate wilderness. How do we know this? By reading her pronouncements on immigration, feminism, etc.? Obviously not. Rather, it is because of her personal life story. She is a small town girl, one of us flyover-country types, who identifies with us and not the Beltway elite. We can project all our conservative hopes on her. Because of her personal qualities, she is a conservative political blank canvas, ready for us to paint to our liking, just as Obama was for white liberals.

LA replies to Clark Coleman:

I think this is an important, basic insight into the Palin phenomenon..

Further, your analysis also explains the left's overwrought reaction to her. Earlier today I was saying to a friend, "Why do people love her so much, and why do people hate her so much? Neither makes sense." In fact, as your comment makes me realize, the left loathes and fears her for the same illusory reason that the right loves and adores her: both sides imagine her to be some super conservative. Both sides are taking her biography, her symbology, as representing something real about her politics.

The right and the left are having this huge, bloody battle over Sarah Palin in Plato's Cave, fighting over illusory images.

In a short follow-on entry directing readers to comments in the discussion, LA boils it down even further:

Clark Coleman has a good explanation of why so many conservatives believe—without any evidence or record to back up the belief—that Sarah Palin is a great conservative. She is the conservative version of Barack Obama, a blank screen on which people project their hopes. I add that liberals hate her for the same reason that conservatives love her. (emphasis mine)

It's a good point and it ought to be stated with as much simplicity as often as opportunity arises. Liberals hate Sarah Palin for the exact same reason that conservatives love her, and without what?, without any evidence or record to back up the belief about her that they both hold in common.

Not to toot my own horn (I wouldn't do that! ;-)), but I said as much very early on in one of several short exchanges between Auster and I in the Great Palin Debate of 2008:

TM to LA:

Here's the subject line of an email I received yesterday from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink newsletter:

Dr. Dobson: McCain's choice of Palin: "Outstanding."

Outstanding?

I don't get the immediate display of enthusiasm among "conservatives" for this choice. Not only does she not have a political record to speak of, but nobody really knows anything of substance about her. Is it that they were just so dismayed and disgruntled by their nominee that McCain's choice of a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-homosexual rights (female) running mate far exceeded all their expectations?

It seems like President Bush's phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations" could be easily customized to fit this situation.

LA replied:

It's not true that she does not have a political record to speak of, and that nobody really knows anything of substance about her. The issue is whether she has the background to be president, not whether she has a political record to speak of.

TM replied:

Okay, she has a political record that consists of her time as governor of Alaska, and as mayor of the city of Wasilla (population: ten thousand).

You're right about what the issue is. And in my opinion she definitely does not have the background to be president. But who does in this race?

By the way, I never did, that I recall anyway, follow up on my statement in the exchange where I said that Bush's phrase could be easily customized to fit this situation, so allow me to do so here. We may call it, if you like, "The false conservatism of high expectations."

As has been said so many times before, modern Americans are so utterly steeped in liberalism that very often they don't know that they're liberals; that their words and actions are almost altogether liberal. Which is probably a good partial explanation for why study after study has shown that most Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal. And yet. But then again, I don't put too much stock in the results of most "studies" anyhow. So the point, at least as far as I'm concerned, is probably a moot one. Which begs the question, why'd I raise it in the first place? :-)

End of initial entry.

**********

I should like to add that we now know quite a bit more about Sarah Palin, her politics, her family life and so on, than we did during the initial stages of the Great Sarah Palin Debate conducted between August and September of 2008. Indeed, the debate itself revealed, or helped to reveal, or put in proper perspective, a lot about Sarah Palin that was not formerly known or understood by the average American, conservative and liberal alike. It's one of the things I most appreciate about VFR, and why I read and participate in the discussions there on a daily basis.

Read More

Why do the Sarah-haters hate Sarah?

There's a pretty good discussion on the topic at VFR in which several posters posit their own theories on what is the source of this irrational visceral hatred of someone as real and genuine, and non-threatening (personality wise) as Sarah Palin.

So, what do you think? Why do the Sarah-haters hate her so much?

Read More

Listen up Sean

For the umteenth time, we have a Senate makeup which is virtually filibuster proof.

I was watching Hannity and Colmes the other night, nunoff election eve for Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Chambliss was a guest on the show and a lot was made (by Hannity) of the fact that the Republicans enlisted the help of Governor Palin while the Democrats kept Obama off stage in Georgia.

As you know by now Chambliss won the runoff by 20 points. The point though is this, while Hannity was beating the drum that Obama's non-appearance in support of the Democrat opponent of Chambliss was some kind of indication that Obama is a coward, given that Obama ought to be doing all in his power to make the U.S. Senate filibuster proof per the cause of the Democrats, he seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that on the things that matter most -- on the key issues -- the Senate is already, or, as I've said before virtually filibuster proof. Those key issues of which I speak are so-called 'comprehensive immigration reform', reinstatement of the gun ban, etc.

It's not about Democrat vs. Republican per se, it's about Liberalism vs. Conservatism. And there are at least a couple of Democrats in Republican garb (or RINOs if you prefer) who still hold seats in the U.S. Senate, of which John McCain is one. Harry Reid recognizes this, but somehow Sean Hannity doesn't.

Read More

Patriotism and qualifications for national political office

Over at BadEagle.com Dr. Yeagley informs me that my definition of the term "qualified", applied to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, does not align with a true conservative, modern definition of same, when in actuality my definition does not align with Yeagley's liberalized definition of the term "qualify" and its derivatives:

Terry, "qualification" these days, to a true conservative, means simply to know what it means to be American, by a studied Constitutional definition, and to love America.

And I reply:

I'm sorry Dr. Yeagley, I respect you and your opinion, but I cannot get onboard with what you've written above, which to my way of thinking is simply a lowering of standards for the sole purpose of making people like Governor Palin fit into some kind of 21st century (or something) definition of the term "qualified."

What you're describing in your definition is patriotism. Patriotism does not a qualified V.P. candidate make, albeit it is important that a V.P. candidate be a patriot, which, as you say, disqualifies Hussein Obama.

Okay, this started out as a long post in which I was going to show why the corruption of these terms by illegitimately making them synonymous with one another, as Yeagley has done above, can in no way be considered "true conservatism," modern methods and good intentions of some notwithstanding. But then I thought better of it, deleted everything I'd written in that vein, and decided to take another approach.

I'm asking for my readers, conservative and liberal alike, to either defend Yeagley's definition of these terms or to refute it in a comment to this entry. Anyone who wants to contribute to the discussion is very welcome to do so, but if you're simply going to engage the tack of insulting this or that contributor, or Dr. Yeagley himself, then I'm simply going to delete your posts (you know who you are). Fair enough? Good, then let the conversation begin.

Read More

Don Wildmon on the upcoming

Donald Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of the American Family Association (AFA) has sent the following AFA Action Alert to the organization's subscribers, one of which I happen to be:

Please vote! Our children's future depends on it!

October 15, 2008

Dear Terry,

In my 70 years, I have never seen an election where coverage was so one-sided and biased or where censorship by the liberal media was so widely practiced and where media coverage was so slanted as I have seen in this election process. Their plan is working. The only chance conservatives have is to make sure they care enough to vote.

If the liberals win the upcoming election, America as we have known it will no longer exist. This country that we love, founded on Judeo-Christian values, will cease to exist and will be replaced by a secular state hostile to Christianity. This “city set on a hill” which our forefathers founded, will go dark. The damage will be deep and long lasting. It cannot be turned around in the next election, or the one after that, or by any election in the future. The damage will be permanent. That is why it is so important for you to vote and to encourage friends and family to vote. This is one election where your vote really counts.

Sincerely,

Translation? Vote the thoroughly non-conservative Republican ticket or all will be forever lost and you will have contributed to the final destruction of America. As a Christian and a conservative, a father of six children and a patriotic American, this cuts deep, which is the intent, no? But as I've pointed out so many times before, it's a false conception that my vote, as a citizen of the state of Oklahoma, is going to, in any way, shape or form be a difference maker in the presidential election. The same applies to you if you do not live in a swing state. Therefore, what would my vote cast for the Republican ticket accomplish other than to add yet another number to the McCain-Palin "mandate" should McCain manage to squeeze out the victory? I can't allow my vote to be misused that way. However, it is vitally important, as it always has been, for us to vote in the state and Congressional races, preferably according to the biblical admonitions on choosing our rulers.

No; my vote in this presidential election will be a protest vote, which is to say that I will not vote McCain-Palin, irrespective of the esteem in which I hold Mr. Wildmon. As I advised someone who was wailing and knashing his teeth over my not taking the Kerry candidacy seriously prior to the 2004 presidential election, "if you Democrats want us to take your candidate seriously then you need to nominate a serious candidate on the Democrat ticket." The exact same principle applies to the GOP, which in no way, by my estimation, can any longer be considered as representing Conservatism, or Republicanism for that matter, except, as I've also pointed out before, in a quickly eroding relative sense. I personally don't care to contribute further to that erosion.

I'm not seeking absolute conservative and Republican purity, but the two are already watered down enough, don't ya agree? A little coffee with your water anyone? No? So be it. But don't ask me to choke down your lukewarm watered-down concoction.

Read More

What do these people possibly have in common?:

Mohammed Ali, John McCain, George Foreman, Sarah Palin.

Without "rope-a-dope" and "rumble in the jungle," these people probably have no commonalities. But with these taken into consideration, will history record that John McCain, in Mohammed Ali rope-a-dope fashion, saved himself and his campaign for the final rounds of the fight when he would unleash his "knockout punch," otherwise known as Sarah Palin, onto a worn out and expended Barack Hussein Obama?

History, I suppose, will tell.

Read More

Horowitz predicts outcome of presidential race

David Horowitz, editor of FrontPage magazine, is predicting at his blog, based on the trends he's seeing right now, a McCain-Palin landslide victory in November:

Not being a pollster I have little to lose by predicting the race, and of course there's a lot of water yet to pass under the bridge -- events, debates, revised strategies etc. But right now I don't see this as a close race. If the present trend holds, McCain-Palin will win 331 electoral votes to 203 for Obama-Biden.

Well, I don't know about all that, but I like Horowitz's style. I've already predicted a McCain-Palin win at this blog, though I'm not nearly as confident as Horowitz appears to be that McCain will win by a landslide. Of course he is careful to qualify his prediction with the remark "if current trends hold," which they rarely do.

My thinking is that Palin's popularity among social conservatives will carry McCain to victory, probably a narrow victory, but a victory nonetheless. Sure, a lot can happen between now and then which might affect the outcome the other way, but I'm betting that Palin's popularity, particularly among social conservatives, can withstand virtually anything Obama and leftists have to throw at her. But ya never know.

It remains to be seen whether I'm closer to right or Horowitz is closer to right, or, of course, whether both of us is dead wrong.

Read More

Hijacking a Great Movement?

When President Bush said of the 9/11 hijackers that they had "hijacked a great religion," he probably didn't realize how his false statement might lead to other similar false statements concerning other inherently radical movements.

And then came Sarah Palin, representative of the greatness of the feminist movement...

Read More

But have you considered this?...

I used to have an associate -- a so-called "friend" -- who, by all appearances, was a good and decent guy, a young family man with two young daughters who seemed to be devoted to them and to their long term welfare. I later came to learn that my associate was, in fact, none of the above; that he was simply putting on a good show, as certain individuals seem to have a particular talent for doing.

The first evidence came when we were engaged in a business discussion and he, all of a sudden and for no particular reason, unveiled a number of photographs which he and others had taken at his friend's bachelor party. I immediately objected, saying I wasn't interested in seeing what was in the photos. When he asked why, I asked how he would feel if one day someone was showing such photographs which involved his wife or his daughters, or one of his sisters. He responded that he "wouldn't like it," to which I replied "indeed, nor would I like it; these women in these photos do have fathers, and grandfathers, uncles and brothers. Have you not thought about that?" Of course, that isn't the only reason I objected, but it was my argument to him because I wanted to get down to where he lived. As goofed up as he was (and still is, by the way), he was sincere when he said he would not like it if the photos involved one of his female family members.

I was over at another blog, which I won't link to, earlier this morning. The author had written a post about Sarah Palin in which he was more or less sympathetic towards her, and hostile towards some of her critics. At one point in the entry the author announces that if he could he would say the following to Bristol Palin's boyfriend, "good job m'boy, now go marry her and produce four more." He's of course applauding the fact that Bristol and her boyfriend are both white, and that they've reproduced, and he encourages their making it legal and doing more of the same. I'm happy that Bristol evidently prefers to stay within her own race -- not that she has a whole lot of choice in Alaska -- but I wonder whether the author of the post would be so encouraging towards the young man were he to have impregnated his own daughter rather than Todd Palin's? I should certainly hope not. I personally would have put the fear of God in him early on in the relationship, as I've said elsewhere, but that's just me. But under no circumstances would I insult Bristol's father by congratulating the young man that impregnated her out of wedlock.

I think it just shows the lack of character in the blogger that wrote the post that he would be so flippant and nonchalant about the Palin family situation. Or maybe he just doesn't have a family of his own, and daughters of his own, and therefore somehow wouldn't understand the nature and depth of his insult. In which case he should learn to exercise a little self-restraint and keep his disrespectful trap shut.

Read More

Leftists shooting themselves in the foot

You'll have to pardon my getting pleasure from this, but I simply cannot help it. I mentioned in the previous post that I'd visited several leftist sites, one in particular, concerning the Palin interview. Well, I've gone back to the site -- which consists of a bunch of radical leftist female Barack Obama supporters -- and here is part of what I found there in a separate entry:

Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama,

For 19+ months you've tried to run a positive campaign. You've focused on change. You've inspired millions with your message of hope. You've focused on the issues. Now, all of a sudden, with the introduction of Sarah Palin as Republican Vice Presidential candidate, the game has changed.

The Republicans cannot go head-to-head with you on the issues because they know if they try they'll lose. THey have been. They're trying to co-opt your message of change and it's back-firing. They're offering more of the same and they know it. So suddenly it's not about issues anymore, it's about personalities: The grizzled POW and the pert PTA mom.

Here's what I want you to do:

I want you to fight. back. I am giving you permission to get. angry. I want to hear you say, "Enough is enough!" every time you speak. I want you to take on their cynical, half-truth-ridden, insulting-to-all-American-citizens campaign and wrestle it to the ground.

And the author goes on and on and on, building anger and momentum as she goes, about how she's giving Obama permission to go on the attack against the evil, hate-filled, perverted, lying, manipulating, everyone-offending, etc., fundamentalist Christian team of McCain-Palin. Apparently the author is too angry to have noticed that Obama has been on the offensive sticking his foot in his mouth every time he turns around lately, saying stupid things like McCain doesn't know how to send an email and whatnot.

I understand that the introduction of Sarah Palin into the mix put the fear of God into the left which had been just cruising along virtually unopposed, without a care in the world except arrogantly pronouncing how badly they were going to defeat McCain (apparently they don't understand the meaning of the phrase "don't count your chickens before they hatch"), but doesn't the author realize how desperate she's become, in a matter of a couple of weeks no less, and how desperate and potentially harmful are her recommendations to the mild-mannered Barack Obama? And by the way, if the Republicans' tactic, according to this author, of "co-opting" Barack's message of change, is truly backfiring on them, as she further asserts, then what's to worry about, why get so passionate and angry about it; if it's backfiring, that means it's working against the Republicans, right? Call me crazy. LOL

Read More

Gibson-Palin interview

There's a good discussion today at VFR over Charles Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin last night, specifically Gibson's tactics, i.e., wrenching her statements out of context. I've looked around the leftist blogosphere a bit to see what the lefties are saying about it, and of course they're lining up behind Gibson, albeit some of them are complaining that Gibson let 'er off the hook when he conceded her point that her words had been inspired by president Lincoln.

I'm not interested in drawing leftists to my blog, so I won't link to any of these sites. You can find them and read them easily enough by using the search words "Palin: America on a mission from God," if that is your desire. But at one such site the author questions Gibson's conceding Sarah's point on the basis that her answer invoking Lincoln is illegitimate, then quotes Lincoln's exact statement in support of her claim. But here's the pickle, why would Sarah even have thought to invoke Lincoln unless Lincoln's words had actually inspired her? But it's easy enough to see the connection between Sarah Palin's quote and the Lincoln quote, unless one operates in the darkness that is leftism.

But as I said in a comment to the VFR article linked above, "a text taken out of context is a pretext." Charles Gibson takes Sarah Palin's words out of context twice in succession in the interview, thus establishing malice on his part.

Read More

Sarah Palin and Complementarianism

If you follow a biblical-Christian worldview then you're very likely a complementarian. To what extent you're a complementarian may be in question, but you're a complementarian to some extent, no doubt. To what extent you're a complementarian, though, is ultimately the determining factor in how you view the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's vice-presidential running mate. But if you're not a pure complementarian are you in danger of slipping into Christian egalitarianism?

Earlier today frequent VFR commenter and complementarian Laura W. sent to VFR a link to a site called "Doug's blog" where is posted this excellent essay by Bill Einwechter in which Einwechter discusses Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise. I'm posting the introductory paragraph below. You may read the entirety of the essay here.

Sarah Palin’s selection by John McCain to be his running mate in his bid for the presidency of the United States is not only a surprise political move, it also carries with it implications of historic proportions. If Senator McCain is successful in his candidacy, Mrs. Palin will become the first woman to fill the office of vice president of this country and be in place to assume the presidency, if necessary. She will also be in line to take up the Republican nomination for president in the future. If John McCain becomes president and chooses to serve only one term, it is quite possible that the next presidential election (2012) will be between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. But Palin’s nomination to the vice presidency is not only an historic occasion for our country, it is also a watershed moment for evangelical Christians, particularly those who claim to be complementarian in their views of men and women (i.e., those who believe that men and women have different but complementary roles according to the revealed will of God).

I think you'll enjoy the rest of the essay irrespective of how pure a complementarian you are. So be sure to read it. I know I certainly needed a bit of a refresher.

Read More

Palin-McCain

Not an endorsement, just an image I thought you all might appreciate. It pretty much says it all, doesn't it? (Hat tip: Gates of Vienna)

Read More