We Are Sarah’s People

From the desk of Joshua Trevino on Thu, 2008-09-04 07:46

There is the Sarah Palin you saw on television, and there is the Sarah Palin I saw in the XCel Center here in St Paul, Minnesota. I don’t know how it played on TV. I don’t know what the news media said. I don’t know how the pundits assessed the speech. I don’t know what narratives the blogs are spinning. I only know what I saw. I only know what I felt. I only know what effect Sarah Palin had on the thousands of men, women and children assembled to hear her accept the Republican nomination for Vice President of the United States. I only know what word describes all that best.

The word is electric.

It is difficult to express how dispiriting this Republican convention has been. Compared with the victory-fest in NYC in 2004, the RNC here at St Paul has been a muted affair. Enthusiasm was dampened for myriad reasons: John McCain is everyone’s second choice; Hurricane Gustav threatened the whole celebration; the party is at a historical nadir; and most of all, the George W. Bush Administration has indulged in compromise of principle after principle. Earlier today I went on Cenk Uygur’s radio show as the conservative punching bag, and got hammered on a series of points that I had to concede — civil liberties, wartime management, fiscal responsibility, and more. It’s a tough spot to be in, when your partisan standard-bearer has forced you into making excuses. I’m not the only one in that position and its accompanying state of mind; and I was not the only one to feel that this convention was more funeral than sendoff — more a goodbye than a beginning — and more pro forma than joyous.

Then came Sarah Palin.

The Vice-Presidential pick was immediately popular with the conservative base by reputation alone, but she did nothing in the past week to capitalize upon that popularity. She spoke at a few perfunctory rallies, and she waved at some cameras in passing. Meanwhile, the media of all stripes went after her with a savagery reserved for those outside the circle of the chosen. Her public record was scrutinized and attacked where deserved — and disparaged where undeserved. Her private life was subjected to speculation that forced the public exposure of her own child — how could it not have humiliated that child in some fashion? — and made her mothering a subject of open debate. In response, she said nothing. She did not defend herself, and she did not excuse herself. She asked for no apology. She said nothing. And here, at this passing epicenter of Republicanism in America, wonder arose at when she would riposte — and how she would do it.

This evening, after a series of speeches by the also-rans and first choices of the party — reason in itself for the muted enthusiasm of this convention — Sarah Palin struck back. When she walked out onto the stage, alone and small in the vastness of the hall, the eruption was far beyond what came before, for Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani. All the indignation and righteous anger, all the defensiveness and protectiveness aroused in the preceding week, welled to the surface as the crowed roared. This we’ll defend, said the crowd.

Sarah Palin replied: I need no defense. And the crowd was subsumed in awe and adoration. There is no need to go over the speech in detail. If you saw it, you saw it — and if you wish to see it, you may. Know this: every cheer you heard on television was magnified a thousandfold in the great hall. She was quite nearly perfect, faltering only when stepping a bit too quickly over her own applause. She slid the knife into her opponents with a sly deftness — how delicious it will be to see her up against the groping, pompous Senator Biden! — and she presented herself with a disarming candor. Her diction was that of the upper Midwest, and her demeanor was of the stern but friendly mom. She invoked the memory of Harry Truman, and if there was presumption there, there was also truth. Sarah Palin is all up front, and we saw her this evening in full. Neither nervous nor quick, neither stricken nor strident, she led the crowd along with a confident cadence, till, at the end, they were in her hands.

When she finished, they cheered.
When John McCain emerged, they cheered louder.
When he commented on her greatness, they cheered loudest of all.

Lest it seem that all was untarnished glory, it should be noted otherwise. The stage design was crude and inept. Mercifully inapparent on television was the absurd and awful PowerPoint slideshow that played on the jumbotron behind her. Over and over, we saw: the Washington Monument, Old Faithful, Mount Rushmore. The stage upon which she stood looked like a cheap dance club — black plastic rimmed with a glittering hot pink stripe. Meanwhile, in the crowd, functionaries could be seen openly passing out pre-printed “handmade” signs, and spotting the repeats was too easy.

Worst of all, in the long run, is the difference in enthusiasm between that for John McCain, and that for Sarah Palin. This evening, the Alaskan Governor could form an army from her faithful legions. John McCain is more uncertain. The Arizonan, in his few moments on stage, was squeaky and halting where she was firm and compelling, and his war-crippled movements went poorly with her practiced grace. Suddenly, unexpectedly, the bar for him tomorrow is set not by his opponent — but by his surprising, surpassing running mate.

We here at the RNC, this evening, are not so much Republicans … as we are Sarah’s people.

 

 

My photographs are available here.

Palin

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 22:26.

Thanks, Rob. I too have a more favorable view of Palin than of McCain or Obama at this time. I just hope she doesn't screw up on immigration and other issues relevant to preserving the American people. Let her stay silent on immigration for now as Onecent recommends. My favorable view of McCain is mainly relative to Obama. I may prefer McCain to big-spending Huckabee, but beyond that he was the least attractive of the Republican candidates. But that is all behind us now. Better a volatile, patriotic centrist than a one-world, America-hating leftist!

Re Oprah

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 18:11.

Apparently the less intelligent members of her staff have not figured out that the New Age Goddess is not a bipartisan institution. If the Goddess determines she can mitigate the enthusiasm for Gov. Palin by interviewing her, it may still happen.

Oprah is an idiot

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 18:51.

Oprah is an idiot with very transparent partisan political motives. Her audience is 6 white females to 1 black female. You simply can't treat that demographic reality the way she is and expect not to find yourself losing a huge amount of viewers and money.

With this news of her obstructing Palin coming on her show going mainstream in the media Oprah now needs Palin more than Palin needs her.

The way to defeat the lefty partisan monoploy in Hollywood and the media is to boycott their products and punish them financially. The NYT's is financially crashing. CBS has never recovered from their Dan Rather fiasco. Us Weekly which did a hit piece on Palin had massive subscriber cancellations this week.

Capitalism is wonderful for fairly reallocating resources by allowing citizens to punishing the stupid and to reward the good. It's why state subsidized lefty media monopolies like the BBC and CBC are so inherently unfair and wrong.

pvdh # 4

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-09-05 16:14.

@ pvdh

I will address your 3 responses.

1) Yes, how could it be otherwise but diffficult to know her true opinions about the 5 "convictions" you falsely attributed to her?  A month ago, neither you nor I knew anything of substance about the elected Governor of Alaska.  My point was not that it's "difficult" to know (as of yet), my point was that you are willing to attribute falsified convictions to the Governor as an 'argument' in a discussion with the purpose of trying to destroy her reputation.   You do not have to know anything about Palin to know that the 5 purported "convictions" are MANIFESTLY false. Do I have to go over each one of them?  I will, if you have been so much manipulated by media bias that you can't make that common sense judgement for yourself any more.  There is nothing "humanistic" about lying, or about participating in manifest distortion of the truth.  That was my point.

2)  If you really want to get to know the "real Palin", you will have to make sure that you yourself can keep an OPEN MIND. And the same thing applies to Obama, of course.  That means that you will have to get to know - and consider!! - real facts, and not distortions, about both persons over a considerable period. Facts about their past and about their present.  That is going to be very difficult in the current state of (morally-empty) education and media, but not impossible.  It means thinking about what you read and see, and not absorbing it like a sponge.

3) Sorry, I find it hard to believe that, in the context of a political discussion, you would interpret "the center" in a geographical sense.  But, then, I do have a suspicious mind. It comes from 'experience'.  

McCain is not one of us

Submitted by Maple syrup on Fri, 2008-09-05 14:46.

if Obama wins, many Republicans in Congress will infer that going liberal is the winning ticket, and will be reluctant to oppose him. ... handing the left a triumph as a means of restraining leftist policy is just too tricky a strategy to be reliable.

The problem is that McCain is not a conservative. He is, at best, a 1960s liberal whose advisors are largely former Trotskyites. If he wins, the Republicans will complete their transformation into a second liberal party. The U.S., like many other Western nations, will have a political duopoly where the only differences are style and image.

 

No Republican congressmen will cross the floor if Obama wins. They will wait for him to slip up, and they will try to blame him for policy positions that McCain himself has endorsed, such as granting amnesty to over 13 million illegal immigrants. (Have you all forgotten his last attempt? His name was actually on it: the McCain-Feingold amnesty bill).

 

As you point out, I am not alone in making this argument. It was also made recently by Lawrence Auster on his blog:

 

(1) A McCain presidency will destroy the Republican party as a vehicle of conservatism and thus gravely damage conservatism itself. (2) If McCain is president, Republicans and conservatives will largely support him in his leftward policies. (3) If Obama is president, Republicans and conservatives will oppose his leftist policies. (4) Thus the net effect of an Obama presidency on the country could in some ways be less leftist than the net effect of a McCain presidency. (5) An Obama presidency would awaken a renewed conservatism and opposition to leftism, while a McCain presidency would complete the transformation of conservatism into liberalism, even while the "conservatives" imagine that they are fighting liberalism.

@maple

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2008-09-05 15:39.

"The problem is that McCain is not a conservative"

Exactly. That's why I felt rather at ease if he would become president. But that's before he brought Sarah in.

McCain's prospects

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 15:59.

That Mr. Vanderheyden finds Sen. McCain acceptable shows why he has a good chance in November. He is a fairly centrist politician, with good prospects in a nation where party affiliation is in decline. Mr. Vanderheyden has little to fear from Gov. Palin because the vice-presidency is rarely of any significance except as a platform for future activity, such as V-P Gore's unsuccessful run for president and his highly successful career as the guru of global warming.

McCain-Kennedy

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 14:52.

I believe McCain-Kennedy was the amnesty bill. McCain-Feingold was campaign finance bill, which Pres. Bush signed in the misguided hope that the Supreme Court would invalidate it. Another overtricky strategy.

@ Self-inflicted ***

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-09-05 11:34.

"You are right-no difference! ... I know which one I prefer".

 

Logic isn't your strongest suit, is it? Tell me, if there's no difference, why do you suggest a personal preference for one over the other?

 

btw: Self- inflicted *** is the new username I 've given you.Think about it.

logic

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-09-05 13:46.

@atlanticist: would you kindly explain what LOGIC has to do either with Michael or with Sarah Palin, and why do you select a preference?

McCain

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2008-09-05 07:55.

Before the appointment of misses Palin (I really don’t like her, not as a person, but for her ideas.) I was rather confident about the US elections. I like Obama, but, as a world leader, I even liked McCain better. I think he would make the thoughtful, intelligent, but incisive president that the world would need today. The parts of his speech I've heard only confirms that Idea. No gratuitious attacs on Obama. So what ever the outcome would have been, the world would be better of. But then he brings Palin on board to spoil the fun. And I think you guys are right. She has a great capacity to win harts and minds. I really don’t like the idea of the conservative Christian right getting a grip on the power in the US. What happens in Washington has sooner or later his effect in Europe.

 

 

 

As a Brit  I can comment

Submitted by THE DOCTOR on Thu, 2008-09-04 21:28.

As a Brit  I can comment without prejudice on the prospective VeeP , she is great and I look forward to the time it is President Palin  .

Voting for someone you hope will die

Submitted by Maple syrup on Thu, 2008-09-04 21:26.

Things are pretty bad when the strongest argument for McCain is that he is old and likely will die in office.

 

Remember, if he gets elected, one of his first moves will be to push through a bipartisan amnesty of illegal immigrants. Officially, their numbers are pegged at 13 million. Unofficially, there will be many more -- and they will then bring in their families. Rightly or wrongly, regardless of how the deal is worded, a lot of people in the Third World will understand that the doors have been thrown wide open.

 

If Obama tries the same thing, the Republican congressmen will laugh in his face. They'll be more than happy to let the Democrats take all the blame.

 

This is the real choice that Americans face:

With McCain: a bipartisan amnesty that will probably get passed.

With Obama: a Democrat amnesty that will stay on the back burner.

@Maple Syrup

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 00:58.

Remember, if he gets elected, one of his first moves will be to push through a bipartisan amnesty of illegal immigrants.

Your drivel is pure speculation and not fact based. It is your opinion and not a fact. To tell us that McCain will do an amnesty program at first chance is a lie and demonstrates a very poor understanding of Americans, our democratic process and the realities of our elections process.

Two years ago prior to a congressional vote on that issue the public through organized mass emails, petitions and internet sites which went mainstream halted all backroom deals, any floor vote and sent politicians reeling. Perhaps you missed that. We aren't ignorable like our Canadian and European counterparts.

And perhaps you've missed that Hispanics can't be entirely ignored thanks to the immigration problem neglect by Bush and the Dems. Reality is never as simple or as black and white as your fact challenged comments.

McCain and Immigration Reform

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 14:28.

I always enjoy Mr. Onecent's spirited patriotism, but he comes down too hard on Mr. Syrup's warnings about Sen. McCain on immigration. Wasn't it Sen. McCain himself who co-sponsored the hated amnesty bill with arch-open borders advocate Sen. Ted Kennedy, who championed the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act? And didn't Sen. McCain try to by-pass the committee process and maneuver for a quick vote on the amnesty bill by the whole Senate? And according to Sen. Santorum, Sen. McCain was outright insulting to opponents of his amnesty plan. And hasn't Sen. McCain told Hispanic groups during the campaign that comprehensive reform--i.e., amnesty--would be his first priority in January 2009, just as Mr. Syrup said? And following Sen. McCain's declaration that he has received loud and clear the anti-amnesty message from the American people, when asked about continuing construction on the security wall to help control our constantly violated border, didn't he growl, "I'll build their g**d*** wall," strongly suggesting that he really opposes the will of the people to preserve their sovereignty first before engaging in any further amnesty programs?

The political realism of Mr. Onecent's final comment that neglect of the immigration problem has made it impossible to ignore Hispanic voters appears to be an admission that concessions have to be made to pro-amnesty Mexican-Americans, which further supports Mr. Syrup's warning about McCain on immigration.

The popular opposition to McCain-Kennedy was a great moment. Hopefully those forces can be mobilized again when the next amnesty bill is put forward. But the amnesty advocates (i.e., businesses seeking cheap labor, ethnic activists seeking supporters, unions seeking new members, and leftist politicians seeking new clients/voters for the welfare state) will never give up, and it is hard for ordinary working people to continuously thwart their machinations and defend the sovereignty and the people of the U.S.A.

@KO

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 16:31.

Here's my point again, the reality of this election is that the Hispanic vote can't be ignored. There is no point for McCain to take a strong anti-illegal stand and alienate Hispanic constituents, that's the reality on the ground. The goal is to get elected. And, by the way, many native Hispanics are in favor of tough enforcement. It's hurting them.

All politicians in the US are aware of the public consensus on this issue. The past amnesty sham get stopped dead in its tracks and shelved because of the public outcry. Congress was put on notice. I don't think that Congress has the guts to do another unpopular bill, they have to stand for re-election too.

And, yes, McCain was a disappointment on this issue, but, what one says before an election and what one does after one is safely elected can be two different things. We'll see. Getting the fence up and secured is what the public wants done first.

McCain was never my first choice as candidate. You can only work with the cards dealt you. The illegal issue has taken on a life of its own outside of partisan politics, both Dems and Republicans in the public are in agreement. It would be very difficult for a politician to ignore that. Congress is more vulnerable to voter backlash. McCain has never offered amnesty. Both candidates are being careful not to stir up this issue for the sake of Hispanic votes before this election. It's a dead space right now that will come roaring back in the near future.

McCain and amnesty

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 17:49.

To Mr. Onecent: Good analysis, thanks. Hispanics should favor tough enforcement and hopefully there will be a time when all minorities will agree that controlling immigration is in everyone's best interest. You still seem to want to shield Sen. McCain from responsibility for McCain-Kennedy, but that doesn't matter. Conservatives hope he learned his lesson and generally believe he would be far better than the socialist Obama.

@KO

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 18:54.

To Mr. Onecent:

I'm a girl. Not that it matters.

I'm not trying to shield McCain from his past amnesty debacle. As I said, he wasn't my first choice. But, there is a place for idealism and there is reality. McCain is, as a conservative, what I'm stuck with. The other option, an Obama win, is too grim to even contemplate.

Congressional elections are on 2 year cycles. A percentage of their 4 year seats change faster. They got the message from furious Americans the last time they tried to pull a fast one. Congressional politicians are very vulnerable. We are better organized at the grassroots here than Europeans thanks to the internet as a dynamic force in our politics now.

Keep in mind that our government is not supply benefits and housing to Mexicans like Europeans are doing with Muslims. There isn't a state sponsored welcome mat. Who's going to dismantle that in the EU? One man, one vote is practically dead in the EU, the elite in Brussels make the rules. I'm not worried about Americans resolving this issue.

Mexicans on the dole

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 19:27.

Thanks for your reply, Onecent. I will return to your preferred moniker. Mexicans are greatly overrepresented in the consumption of government goods and services; however, I don't want to repeat ad nauseam that we are not as much better off than the Europeans as you think. Why dispirit the troops! I happen to live in a liberal city in a fairly liberal state, so I see some of the worst of what goes on.

I appreciate your hard-headedness and fervor. Keep their feet to the fire! More guns and babies, as Thomas Landen says on another string! Pass the word!

@maple syrup

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 01:21.

Things are pretty bad when the strongest argument for McCain is that he is old and likely will die in office

One more time, your drivel is pure garbage. That "argument" is made exactly by WHOM? Throwing your opinion out and trying to wrap it as a mainstream opinion is pure disingenuousness.

You've made enough stupid throwaway comments that it's really time you back them up with facts. Got any verifiable links to facts that support your opinions??

Good point

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-09-04 21:56.

Mr. Syrup makes a good point which has been advocated for months by Lawrence Auster on VFR (www.amnation.com/vfr), and not only regarding immigration issues: Auster fears Republicans in Congress will roll over for McCain, thus ending conservatism as a force in the federal government, whicle they will fight Obama tooth and nail and bring conservatism back to life after it has languished under President Bush's centrist, big-government non-conservatism. That is somewhat speculative, however, because if Obama wins, many Republicans in Congress will infer that going liberal is the winning ticket, and will be reluctant to oppose him. There may be even more defections and bipartisanship under a President Obama than under a President McCain. Definitely sub-optimal choices! But handing the left a triumph as a means of restraining leftist policy is just too tricky a strategy to be reliable.

And another thing

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-09-04 22:04.

We won't find out in this election cycle, but odds are Gov. Palin shares the immigration views of 90% of the American electorate, which are not Sen. McCain's. So if she does succeed him at some point in the future, we will be in pretty good shape.

Oh please ...

Submitted by Maple syrup on Thu, 2008-09-04 19:20.

Oh please, put a sock in it. Sarah Palin is running for vice-president, not for president. Her influence on McCain's policy-making will be zilch, nada, absolumment rien.

A McCain presidency will be just that.

 

Good news

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-09-04 19:33.

Win or lose this time, she has a great career ahead of her. Mr. Vanderheyden's fears are typical of the leftist. Funny thing is, so-called far-right Christians just believe what 99% of Americans believed 100 years ago, which is basically what 99% of Europeans believed 150 years ago. Are we all so much better off as a result of the intervening "progress"?

Mr. Syrup's negative view of McCain is widely shared by American conservatives (he is one of the worst on immigration issues), but we compare him to the black preppie leftist on the other ticket and conclude that voting for McCain is necessary damage control. Gov. Palin is a big bonus. She will make such damage control more likely to succeed.

In any case, her speech was full of political principles and statements on issues that were readily recognizable to an American audience.

pvdh # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-09-04 18:48.

@ pvdh

One would hope that a secular humanist would form his opinions based on factual information, not on falsehoods. In your original posting you attributed 5 "convictions" to Ms Palin, which were all false.  These were all caricatures of her true convictions.  We all know how politics are played, and by some (especially in certain media) at any cost, even at the cost of the 'truth'.  But, you as a humanist must try to remain 'truthful' and not abandon the truth.

Your youtube link reveals a lack of seriousness, and undermines your credibility as a commentator.

In the US, elections are virtually always won in the political "center", and in many other democratic countries as well.

Your last little sentence to Truth Serum was really beneath you, and reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge of contemporary America. Misinformation and dishonesty has real costs in real life, for all of us.

@ Atlanticist

Glad to see that you are well-versed in Alaskan rituals.  Thanks for the humor, it was pretty good... 

@Marcfrans

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2008-09-05 07:32.

One would hope that a secular humanist would form his opinions based on factual information, not on falsehoods. In your original posting you attributed 5 "convictions" to Ms Palin, which were all false. These were all caricatures of her true convictions. We all know how politics are played, and by some (especially in certain media) at any cost, even at the cost of the 'truth'. But, you as a humanist must try to remain 'truthful' and not abandon the truth.

You’ve got to admit that she doesn’t make it easy to get “factual information” about her opinions. Like I said, her speech didn’t contain any. But please feel free to enlighten me.

Your youtube link reveals a lack of seriousness, and undermines your credibility as a commentator.
Yes and now. Actually I like her a little bit better on the youtube. She seems a bit more human. You could ask the question if all that “speechwriting and training” does democracy any good. We need to start digging deep to find the real Palin. But the same goes for Obama of course.

In the US, elections are virtually always won in the political "center", and in many other democratic countries as well.
Your last little sentence to Truth Serum was really beneath you, and reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge of contemporary America. Misinformation and dishonesty has real costs in real life, for all of us.

I thought he mend the geographical center of the US. My mistake. Wich doesn't totaly excuses my last sentence. It's indeed out of line. For some reason I was realy pissed of yesterday. sorry, didn't want to hurt anybodies feelings

Beta males beware!

Submitted by RoyE on Thu, 2008-09-04 18:47.

Wow. This lady can body slam Obama without breaking stride.  She's more man than Obama can ever hope to be.  She just may have driven a stake through the heart of Hillary Clinton's aspirations to be the first female US President.

It's refreshing to see real America punch through the distorted  freak show that the media presents to the world. Bravo  Sarah Palin!   Her arrival to the scene is long overdue!   

Bravo!

 

 

Palin is a challenge to the feminist whiners

Submitted by onecent on Thu, 2008-09-04 17:41.

Sarah Palin has challenged the Left's feminist paradigm. Instead of a whinning victim hag she's a self-made young women that with devotion to her family and community got the job done. She didn't play the feminist entitlement game to advance her career.

 

She's smart and obviously a fast learner. Sure, she isn't up to speed on foreign affairs, but, neither is Obama.  At least she has the humility to recognize that whereas the arrogant Emty Suit doesn't admit how little he knows which is what makes him so dangerous.

 

Oh, and, Peter, reminding us to define you as a "secular humanist" is pathetic, dogmatic, boring, and typical of the intellectually bankrupted Left. Perhaps someday with more maturity you can accept yourself, other people and ideas without the need to label nor have a fixed mental address like "secular humanist". 

@ PVH #2

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-09-04 17:02.

Yeah, I can see why you would feel so threatened.Hey, I've even heard rumours that she once proposed a state law which would have required every Alaskan-born secular humanist of European lineage to perform the 'Stations of the Cross' while traversing the state on an enforced annual religious Iditarod.

Straight talk

Submitted by truth serum on Thu, 2008-09-04 16:57.

peter vanderheyden:

 

I would also like to add that what you refer to as vitriol, I would call straight talk...something Europe is not used to in their Orwellian dream world.

 

Europeans always forget about the center of this country...they think for some reason that all Americans think like Hollywood, CNN and New York.  Then when somebody like Sarah Palin comes along they are mystified as to why the "American People" love her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

truth serum

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2008-09-04 17:50.

I know there is a center alright. But face it, they’re irrelevant when it comes to elections. Even if the republican candidate was a ugly blind deaf and dumb 120 year old guy with an IQ of 20, the center would still vote for him. As long as the guy isn’t black.

Clueless

Submitted by truth serum on Thu, 2008-09-04 18:41.

peter vanderheyden:

You really, really have no clue....so you fall back on what most people do in that position...you insult them.

Soooo, let me speak to you in a language you will understand....you are an ignorant, elitist snob.

Almost everything you have posted here has revealed your stupidity, from how our media works to how much more fearful you are of a fundamentalist Christian than an Islamist.

Come back and talk to me when you have educated yourself on how America really works and how Christians are being persecuted in almost all Muslim nations TODAY, then we might have an intelligent conversation.

NEXT....

@ PVH

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-09-04 16:11.

Are you having a kappert moment here?

 

 

First, you ask if this is the way you win an election in America with (a lot of vitriol and) "no issues". Then you go on to list 5 of those non- existent issues. If this lady's convictions aren't issues for you, why take the trouble to pass comment upon them? And if they wouldn't be issues for europeans, why would any of them, given the option,  bother to vote either 'for' or 'against' them?

 

America has got Sarah Palin and we've got Michael Palin. As a potential future leader of the free world, I know which one I prefer.   

@atlanticist

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-09-05 11:03.

You are right - no difference!
America has got Sarah Palin and we've got Michael Palin. As a potential future leader of the free world, I know which one I prefer.

@atlanticist911

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2008-09-04 16:41.

I didn't say she didn't have issues. She just didn't mention them in her speech. I can understand that she didn’t In her place I would have been to embarrassed to mention them.
But they sure are issues for me. Pretty scary ones. actually. Remember I’m a secular humanist. I was already afraid of the Muslims coming up with their dogmas and intolerance. But having soon a fundamentalist Christian for the 9th to twelfth year in a row at the head of the free world is very very very scary.. Much more scary then those 5% Muslims in Europe It seems that free thinking, scientific research, and humane and tolerant behavior are at the defense. How could it com to this? Probably Fromm is right. People are afraid of freedom. They will turn to simplistic and dogmatic thinking and have power sick leaders to think for them, rather then risk to think for themselves.

Would a teddy bear to cuddle help?

Submitted by onecent on Thu, 2008-09-04 18:48.

But having soon a fundamentalist Christian for the 9th to twelfth year in a row at the head of the free world is very very very scary.. Much more scary then those 5% Muslims in Europe.

Stick around, peter, if you are young and European, you'll probably be living the less scary dhimmitude and Sharia Law script in due time. If not by your old age then surely your grandkids just going by the demographic projections. Fear not, your fellow "secular humanists" are working hard at providing you that future in the EU.

Oh, and, the US doesn't govern you, so you are hardly going to be effected by our election decisions here. The EU makes its own domestic and foreign policy. Let's get real, there isn't one aspect of little peter's daily life that has been impacted by American Christians. Your fear is really misplaced.

One of the best delivered speeches in US history

Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Thu, 2008-09-04 15:39.

and the buildup, with all the mocking commentary from the leftist media just set her up to destroy them. Keep in mind that recent polls say that Americans think media bias by a large margin is the biggest problem in US politics today. There is a significant contempt of the media, and the disconnect in the way the media framed her and how she was in reality can only further destroy the media's credibility.

free market

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2008-09-04 15:53.

It’s a curious thing that “media bias complaint” Here is how the free market works: A majority of the Americans think a big part of the audio visual and printed media is biased. Hence they don’t look at those channels any more, don’t listen to those radios anymore and don’t buy those newspapers and magazines anymore. Instead they use the small conservative but unbiased news outlets. The result: those small outlets become big, and the big biased outlets become small. Final result: the media is no longer biased. What on earth makes this free-market principle not working?

Reply re free market

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-09-04 21:23.

Three points on this. First, leftist ideologues are willing to run left-leaning private media outlets at a loss; that prolongs their life contrary to market principles. Second, left-leaning public media outlets are subsidized and survive because of the political marketplace even though the economic marketplace would not support them. Third, the majority of media consumers is probably sufficiently apolitical to support media regardless of political bias. Thus a minority of politically alert people can squawk about bias all they want while the sleeping multitude yawns in front of the TV.

Voting for Sarah

Submitted by JimMtnViewCaUSA on Thu, 2008-09-04 15:33.

Mr Trevino's piece is emotionally spot-on. This is one American who will vote for that white-haired guy and Sarah. 

how to win US elections

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2008-09-04 15:27.

So this is how you win an election in America. A lot of vitriol and no issues.

 

Somehow I can understand it. With her convictions:

 

-abortion should be against the law even in the case of incest and rape.

 

-creationism should be taught along with evolution as "science"

 

-God wanted the US to attack Iraq.

 

-Children are angels who don’t need contraception because they’ll listen to mummy when you tell them “sex before marriage will bring you to hell”.

 

-The warming-up of the earth is not man-made.

 

It seems better not to mention them. In Europe she would probably hit her maximum at 0.05% of the votes.

 

I certainly hope so. re: Vanderheyden's how to win US elections

Submitted by curmudgeonly on Fri, 2008-09-05 13:38.

Point by point:
Her stance on abortion is hers; whether she advocates it as law as well has not been a subject that the MSM has followed. I think she prefers to lead by example.

This is incorrect. Her stance is that creationism should not be outlawed, but allowed to be discussed if need be. Her parents are science teachers.

Another misrepresentation. She led a prayer at her church. The prayer asked God to guide people, and especially leaders who decide to go to war, in correct ways.

Good luck on finding someone to smoke that jibe with you.

A warmer Alaska would be more fun. The problem is that Alaskans know all that hot air from the Gorbeciles hasn't done a thing for them or to them.
Weeks of 40 below (F) are instructive. You should try it sometime.

McCain/Palin have set up the counter to the role models of Obama/Biden. The choice is now pretty, of the two, who would you rather be like? Seems easy enough to me. (hero & frontier governor (w/first dude that races snowmobiles) vs Columbia/Harvard radical & boring verbal flaming leftist)

Even the women are cool: both Cindy and Sarah are pilots.

Alternatively, Biden takes Atrak and Obama runs his mouth. And near as I can figure, they want to expand the number of people on the dole. Already 38% don't pay taxes. Maybe they want 50% on the other half's backs.

peter vanderheyden: I'd be

Submitted by truth serum on Thu, 2008-09-04 16:29.

peter vanderheyden:

I'd be worried if Europeans did like her.

It is only the Democratic elite who wants America to be like Europe...Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats want America to be like America, not a carbon copy of someplace else.

She embodies the spirit of what it means to be American: Independent, strong and unafraid. Love and pride of this country and not afraid to show it.