Sarah Palin’s focal appeal has always been her cultural roots: from day one, she was packaged as the sharp-shootin’ Alaska Hockey Mom with an NRA membership; the now-proverbial pitbull in lipstick. The Sarah you see is the Sarah you get. And hey — if you’re in politics to piss off liberals, there’s no one better. Despite her incredibly poor unfavorability ratings amongst the electorate at large — or, perhaps, I should say, because of them — she remains an incredible force amongst the grassroots, from the 9/12 Marchers to disgruntled ex-Ron Paul aide Eric Dondero to self-appointed GOP Sheriff Erick Erickson. As my colleague Matthew E. Miller has been relentless in pointing out, Erickson in particular is rather angry at certain Republicans who, unlike Palin, have not yet endorsed Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 Congressional race. And he and the rest of the RINO Police ready to throw Newt Gingrich overboard.
Have we gone completely insane? Who, if not Newt Gingrich, has not established his Republican bona fides? And yet — and yet — toss the bastard overboard if he’s unwilling to cater to the grassroots. (Perhaps of note: I actually support Hoffman in this race.)
But why can’t Gingrich get away with this? There were no calls for Sarah Palin’s head when she bragged about some of the same things Dede Scozzafava’s head is being served to the wolves on a platter for.
The Palin Test, then, is a cultural one: if you’re “one of us,” if you’re not one of the “good old boys,” if you’re not one of the “Washington Elite,” then your actual policy prescriptions are conveniently forgotten. This is why Tim Pawlenty’s lukewarm support for capping carbon emissions has been attacked, while Sarah Palin’s subcabinet agency to combat global warming has been forgotten. It’s why Mitt Romney’s so-called fifty-dollar abortions have been (falsely) held up as an example of his secret disdain for pro-life causes, while Sarah Palin’s appointment of a former Planned Parenthood official to the Alaska Supreme Court has been erased from the historical record. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill that would have barred same-sex couples from state benefits, but it doesn’t matter, even though Mitt Romney is relentlessly pursued by Evangelicals due to his inability to block the implementation of a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. And let’s not forget the bailout she supported, the outrageous populist baiting of Exxon and Conoco-Philips, or the McCain-Kennedy bill that she was warm toward.
Call me a cynic, but I fail to see how not aborting your baby earns you a free pass on these things.
The viciousness that Palin evokes on the left is another feasible explanation for this unconditional love. If Palin feels the Mama Grizzly instinct when bloggers go after her kids, Erick Erickson wants to be a Mama Grizzly to Sarah Palin. If she spoke out in favor of a massive tax increase tomorrow in order to fund a single-payer health care system, I don’t think that Erickson could leave her side. She’s his forever, for better or for worse; a perplexingly-blank slate that far too many conservatives continue to project their own wants onto. And so long as things remain like this, no matter what she says, Erick Erickson and his ilk will follow her, whether through the valley of death — or straight off of a cliff. The alternative is: hold her to the same standards as everyone else. I don’t see anything so outrageous about that.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
(PS – I’m sure a lot of you will be saying “Alex, I thought you liked her now!” — which only proves my point. You’re allowed to have a favorable opinion toward someone without calling their s**t gold.)
October 28th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Good points, Alex.
I’ve been saying for months that Palin’s primary appeal is in her persona, but when I do, everyone here goes nuts. She plays to it, smartly I think, and avoids having to be categorized as much as possible. Everyone wants to claim her as their own – conservatives, moderates, libertarians, etc.
It’s also true that the instinct to protect her is beyond what can be reasonably expected at this point. I understand why (the MSM’s outrageous attacks), but I think it’s time to for her get the scrutiny that everyone else is subject to.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:12 am
The reason everyone wants to claim her as their own is because she is everything that is good about the Republican Party wrapped up into one. She is the modern day Reagan. I know that phrase angers many on this site but her appeal is broad based and many Republicans, regardless of their placement on the conservative, bar graph scale can find something about her they like. They root for her, she can bring many of us together, not because we may believe in all of her positions but because we believe in her to lead this counry where it needs to go…both forwards and backwards…forward to prosperity and backwards toward the traditionalist society that has made this country so great. And, in fact, you have mentioned some progressive instance where she has shown the leadership to do the right thing in the modern world and people deep down, understand that. These are the reasons why, I believe, she gets a pass.
The one problem I see with your article is that it is based in perception. I don’t necessarily think you were blaming Palin for the way others hold her on a pedestal and do not question their allegiance to her but many, as Martha has already done, will take this opportunity…the one you created, and blame Palin for the treatment of her by others…either good or bad.
Otherwise you made some interesting points and opened up an opportunity for a lively debate…hopefully it will be a civil one.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Can’t stand her and didn’t vote for her ticket….mostly because she’s associated with John McCain.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Martha, you wrote…”it is time for her to get the scrutiny everyone else is subject to.” Are you serious? I understand the point of Alex’s article and in some instances his article rings true about the unwavering pass that Palin gets from Consevatives but to say it is time for her to get scrutinized like everybody else is…is unbelievably…I don’t even know what to say?!?! She is one of the most scrutinized politicians since Reagan…or at least as scrutinized, if not moreso, as Bush and Cheney and Clinton and Obama. I guess you mean from Conservatives but if you read this forum, which I know you do, I’m not sure how you can come to that conclusion?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:21 am
#2 -
It really galls me when people compare her to Reagan. Reagan spent 30 years developing a reality-based political philosophy that included thoughtful study and 8 years at the helm of CA state government before he ran for president (Reagan himself admitted he wasn’t ready to be president in 1968, when he first ran.) Palin has rode the winds of Republican cultural disaffection, with no ideological underpinnings to her career. Certain Republicans project a philosophy onto Palin because it’s easy — not unlike how Democrats project their own philosophy on the cypher that is Obama.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Molly, didn’t you hear. Since Obama came along it is no longer politically correct to question someone’s associations.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:27 am
“Palin has rode the winds of Republican cultural disaffection, with no ideological underpinnings to her career. Certain Republicans project a philosophy onto Palin because it’s easy — not unlike how Democrats project their own philosophy on the cypher that is Obama.” Ah no, that is not totally correct, she governed Alaska like a Conservative thus it is wishful thinking to claim that she has no ideological underpinnings. Don’t forget Alaska also benefited having her as governor.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:29 am
#6
What’s wrong with Obama’s political associations. Ayers ran an anti-conscription movement in the 60′s.
No problem there. I oppose a draft, and I think we need to disarm the president.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:30 am
David, I understand your point and it is a valid one. I don’t think the comparison is ever a literal one but a metaphoric and symbollic comparison based on beliefs and I’ll admit it…even a little bit of persona. I was a child when Reagan was president and I remember listening to him speak and I remember how he made me feel proud to be an American…I get the same feelings during Palin’s speeches. They may not be as literal or poetic in their verse and prose but the spirit is there and it is a spirit that has been lacking, in American politics, since Reagan gave his farewell speech. Nobody can ever replace Reagan but I’m just happy that there is a politician that could follow in his footsteps.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:31 am
I like that Reverent Wright too.
He told it like it is.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:33 am
8 – was it a peaceful movement Molly?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:34 am
If we allow the president to have a standing army, then we are always at risk for another terrorist like George Bush getting control of it.
That’s why Jefferson was right. No standing army for the president. IT’s too dangerous.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Until the last few sentences, Alex, i thought you had actually come to your senses.
As I pointed out yesterday, a case in point to amplify some of Alex’s points: IF Palin had thrown her hat into the ring for Scozzafava, and used Gingrich’s exact wording and logic (before he did), I can guarantee you that 95% of her supporters would have been 100% rock solid convinced that she was right and that the risk of electing the democrat was just too high. I guess her supporters have a low self appraisal of their own ability to think things through. It has become a situation that whatever Palin does is the right thing, and whatever she says is exactly the thing that should be said. To have this much sway by just having someone put out facebook postings is amazing, and alarming.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:35 am
“8 – was it a peaceful movement Molly?”
No seems it wasn’t. We can’t endorse the ones who committed crimes, but not all of them committed crimes.
The government wanted to conscript them and force them to kill Vietnamese people though.
So both sides were pretty evil.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:37 am
#9 – Fair enough. I’d simply add that there’s a huge chasm between the power to deliver a speech that can stir emotions, and possessing a coherent philosophy of governance (and the talent to execute it) that can move the country forward. Our current president is a stark example of that.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Did Ayers commit crimes?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:41 am
#16
Maybe. He was not convicted though. The government DID commit crimes though…a lot of them (unconvicted of course.)
October 28th, 2009 at 8:46 am
“IF Palin had thrown her hat into the ring for Scozzafava, and used Gingrich’s exact wording and logic (before he did), I can guarantee you that 95% of her supporters would have been 100% rock solid convinced that she was right and that the risk of electing the democrat was just too high. I guess her supporters have a low self appraisal of their own ability to think things through.” Wow, more evidence of the liberal/moderate wing of our party is becoming unhinged. Oh that litte word “IF;” that fact is that Mrs. Palin did not endorse Queen Dede, because unlike Mr. Gingrich and the Pro Debeites, Mrs. Palin is not a nutbar, she does not blindly follow the party. On the other hand, the moderate around hear are blindly following Queen Dede despite the fact that she cannot win and despite the fact that she is pretty much a Socialist. They figure, yippie she has an R after her name and the NRA endorsed her ‘yippie let vote for Queen Dede after all she was not born in Kenya life Mr. Hoffman.’
October 28th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Or to put it another way, Palin would be the ideal Republican head of State, but a horrific Republican Head of Government.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Tricky Dick Nixon and LBJ were million times the criminal that Bill Ayers ever dreamed of being. Same thing with Bush.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:48 am
“Palin would be the ideal Republican head of State.” That is a new one, but then again I have benefited from a lot of entertainment the last few days.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Ohio, I am a rock solid conservative, all three legs, so don’t call me those names. I hate them!!! You missed my point completely!!! My point was, if you go back and read it, that her FOLLOWERS are just that, FOLLOWERS! It mattereth not what Palin does or says, or has done, they follow her with an allegiance similar to the Obama lovers.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:50 am
“It’s why Mitt Romney’s so-called fifty-dollar abortions have been (falsely) held up as an example of his secret disdain for pro-life causes, while Sarah Palin’s appointment of a former Planned Parenthood official to the Alaska Supreme Court has been erased from the historical record. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill that would have barred same-sex couples from state benefits,”
Alex, you’re almost as bad as the MSM. Check your facts before hitting the submit button.
#1. Governors in Alaska can only appoint Supreme Court Justices from a list of attorneys that have been selected by a comittee. In the case at hand, she was presented with only two choices: Morgan Christen and Eric Smith.
#2. Palin did not veto a bill that would have barred same-sex couples from receiving state benefits.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:52 am
15 – I’d agree but I think there is plenty of evidence to support Palin’s ability to govern. Alaska was pretty prosperous in her time as governor. Her time may not equal Reagan’s or any other governor of any state but she did some great things for the state of Alaska and even the nation while she was behind the helm.
The media so loves to hate Palin and their ratings must skyrocket when there is a Palin story. So, I can see why one can be tired of hearing about her and may even think they know all there is to know about her but in reality she has only been on the scene for a little over a year. Part of that time was on the McCain Campaign’s conditions and another part was based on how she was to go forward as Governor of Alaska when the Democrats did not want her to go forward as anything.
Only recently has she been able to show her political philosophy, which she has, to the national stage. All I ask is to not get so tired of hearing about her that you miss out on the philosphy that she is introducing to the nation.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:57 am
22 – Your point was based on a hypothetical. So your point is moot! It’s funny how Palin supporters are followers but Romney and Huckabee supporters are enlightened.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:00 am
20 – you mean the same Nixon that ended the draft and the conflict? That war was horribly run but the real blame should be put on JFK who never should have gotten us involved in Vietnam in the first place.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:01 am
#25…It’s not funny, it’s scary!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Your point is still moot, FancyPantsRepublican.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Conservative, I don’t remember, who do you support…as of now?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I support Mitt Romney.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:10 am
#26 jerseyrepublican,
In 1969, over 500,000 antiwar protestors marched on the WH to put pressure on Nixon.
What did Nixon do?
He bombed Cambodia instead, and his poll numbers rocketed to over 70%. The anti-war movement was never able to recover.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Do you believe in a woman’s right to choose? Do you believe in government run health care? Romney has supported both of those. Are you a Romney follower?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Conservative. I support the smart man as well. Anyone can put on their facebook whatever they feel like putting. But actually being accountable for that opinion – as Romney is – is so much better.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:12 am
jerseyrepublican,
Pat Buchanan writes about the nostalgia of Nixon destroying the anti-war movement.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/10/23/nixon-and-obama-soul-brothers
In both October and November of 1969, 500,000 demonstrators marched on Washington to — in the words of David Broder — “break Richard Nixon” as they had broken Lyndon Johnson.
Wrote Broder, “The likelihood is great that they will succeed again.”
“Instead of making pronouncements about not being the first U.S. president to lose a war,” admonished Time, “Nixon would perform a better service by preparing the country for the trauma of distasteful reversal” — i.e, a U.S. defeat.
Nixon answered the demonstrators and their media auxiliaries with a Nov. 3. speech calling on “the Great Silent Majority” to stand with him and against those out to destroy his policy and presidency.
When the three networks — primary sources of news for two-thirds of the nation then — trashed his speech, Nixon authorized a counterattack by Vice President Agnew, which caused an avalanche of telegrams to pour into ABC, CBS and NBC denouncing them, in solidarity with the administration.
By December, it was not Nixon who was broken. Antiwar activists never mustered those numbers again, and the media had been exposed as out of touch with Middle America.
That month, Nixon rose to near 70 percent approval, and Agnew was the third most admired man in America, after Nixon and Billy Graham.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Jersey beat me to it, but supporters of other candidates are equally willing to give their favorites a pass on issues that non-supporters and detractors criticize. And this can — as we see here often enough — work in both ways.
It seems, for instance, that supporters of candidates who have not taken sides in the Dede S./Hoffman matchup (I’m lookin’ at you, Messrs. Huckabee and Romney!) find it instantly outrageous for Palin to have backed Hoffman. Supporters of the fence-sitting candidates-in-waiting clearly see Palin as the largest threat to their preferred candidacies, and their criticism of Palin for choosing principle over party is the most fervent. Other GOPers who’ve committed the same apostasy against party that Palin has do not receive the same vitriol for having done so, cf also: the absent caterwauling directed at Pawlenty for backing the Hoffmeister.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Molly,
Defending terrorists like Ayers, bigots like Rev. Wright, calling for anarchy.
I can tell you’re going to be a lot of fun around here…….
October 28th, 2009 at 9:19 am
MarkG,
“Jersey beat me to it, but supporters of other candidates are equally willing to give their favorites a pass on issues that non-supporters and detractors criticize”
That’s politics. Some of us are worse at it than others. But almost by definition, we have to give our favored a “pass” on certain things, because no one is perfect. Now some are honest about that, and some are intellectually dishonest about it……
October 28th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Ayers is awesome in some respects. Of course we no longer have the right of freedom of association in this country so I doubt people would be free to join the Weather Underground now days.
Bush abducted a U.S. citizen who had joined Al Qaeda for 4 years until the ACLU finally got him out of one of Bush’s camps since there was never any evidence against him.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Why is the critizem false? Romney flipped on everything. Come On! Romney pro gay, the pink flyer hands outs with Romneys name blazed on each flyer – when that became a liability Romney for a presidential run became ant-gay, Romney is an insincere and flip flopping opportunistic candidate – - and with more and more reports coming in of a highly questionable person.
“Carciero reportedly posted a note blog post dated Jan. 31, 2008, criticizing former Gov. Mitt Romney.”
“Romney’s corporate affiliates have committed unacceptable crimes, massive discrimination, pervasive tax sheltering and have trounced on the rights of the voiceless,” he post reads. “This is not the GOP I know.”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/belmont/news/x23526935/Belmont-doctor-injured-in-Mass-General-attack
One thing for sure Romney cannot stand Palin, Palin took what he thought should have been his spot as VP. Watch an exodus from the GOP if Romney continues try to buy the GOP.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:21 am
“Ohio, I am a rock solid conservative, all three legs, so don’t call me those names.” Well, yeah I have called my opponents a few names the last few days, but it is funny how the Dedeites are allowed to call Mrs. Palin and the rest of us names. Let’s just say it is ironic. The bottom line is that Mrs. Palin was smart enough to read the Tea-leaves in NY-23, while her opponent kept their heads in the sand and blindly supported the party elite. All freaking year we listen to how the party boss was smarter than Palin and smarter than the rest of us. We were called Tea-Bagger, Birthers, White trash, ACORN haters, Conservative extremist (I actually do totally shy away from that one because I am a proud Conservative) and what not all. Nevertheless, the Conservative base (which actually included Romneyites and members of other camps) have proven the party leader wrong time after time and now we are worried about names all of a sudden. If socks are not pulled up and acts are not gotten together there will be more than just names to worry about. If the party want our money and our votes, they will have to do more than stop calling the base names because we now hold the cards in this contest. The rules of the game of changed. Moderates no longer have free raine to run the show anymore. NY-23 was the last straw after a year of foolishness.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Is the Palin post today a little Romney anger? Latest poll looks like Romney is slipping.
“The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in second, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in third,”
Romney, Huck is first in the poll!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Jersey, “government run health care?”
You’re either ignorant, or not telling the truth.
The Massachusetts plan was not run by the government at all!
There was not even a government option, thanks to Mitt Romney.
Mitt has been pro-left his entire life. Being from Massachusetts, he promised to not allow the issue to move either direction while governor. In keeping that pledge, he was able to govern 100% pro-life every time he had an opportunity. In the most liberal state in the USA, you simply don’t get elected to office if you go in with both guns blazing on that issue. The fact is that he received great recognition from the pro-life groups for his staunch support of life as governor.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:27 am
#35.MarkG:
(Jane Austen – Pride and Prejudice)
MarkG, I am sure you can think of a different possibility if you try hard enough.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Palin should be held responsible for decisions made by the Alaska Supreme court while in office as well as take reponsiblity
over the entire pipeline project until completetion since she was a huge proponent of it and signed off on it. Any future problems
or changes that concur should fall at her feet eventhough she resigned before she could see it through. It would only be fair
since Romney is being held accoutable for similiar situations in his state.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Molly,
“Ayers is awesome in some respects. Of course we no longer have the right of freedom of association in this country so I doubt people would be free to join the Weather Underground now days.”
Well, we all have our regrets in life…..
I got it! Maybe you could start your OWN terrorist organization!
(that was sarcasm, btw. I don’t want anyone’s blood on my hands if Molly is really as unbalanced as she lets on….)
October 28th, 2009 at 9:32 am
See if I was like you Conservative I could take your typo…”pro-left” and make a big witty joke about it but I won’t. I am not being disingenuous. You’re right, technically it is not government run health care but it is government mandated, government regulated health care that in the long run will cost the taxpayer more money and will force doctors to exodus the state of Massachussetts and it was signed by Mitt Romney.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Look, I will say this in favor of Romney and Huckabee not taking sides so far in the NY-23 race: If they continue to do so, they’re in a fair enough position to comment on the election’s outcome from an above-the-fray position. It’s those who have taken sides who have the potential to be embarrassed. I also think there’s a legitimate case that either gentlemen could make: “I don’t have a dog in that fight; it’s up to the local voters to decide.” I say, fair enough.
Staying out of the fight also keeps you from annoying either the GOP establishment or the conservative base. It’s a safe play, and there may not be any long-term gain to be made by spending political capital.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Conservative,
“Mitt has been pro-left his entire life.”
Your Freudian slip is showing………
October 28th, 2009 at 9:34 am
44 – I’m sure she will be and I am sure it will be the Romney supporters who throw the first stone.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:37 am
pro-life – no slip at all, just fingers doing their own thing.
I notice that no one argues my hypothetical point that Palin supporters will support her no matter what she says or does.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Romney is pro-expedience…and that’s fine. I believe he is a Republican maybe not all legs of the stool but I do believe he is a Republican.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:40 am
How can you argue a hypothetical? Okay…I wouldn’t support her on that issue.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:41 am
“Staying out of the fight also keeps you from annoying either the GOP establishment” HELLO, the GOP establishment needs to be annoyed (and strongly punished) for their mismanagement of NY-23. This was the last straw. They need to shape up or ship out.
“I notice that no one argues my hypothetical point that Palin supporters will support her no matter what she says or does.” Huh???
October 28th, 2009 at 9:44 am
“I believe he is a Republican maybe not all legs of the stool but I do believe he is a Republican.”
Haha, I do not care if Mr. Romney (and Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Gingrich) have 5 or 6 legs. Their legs are of no use if their head is in the sand.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:44 am
MarK, nice quote. But doesn’t it speak to the human foible for being biased?
I’m not sure what you’re hinting at here.
However, as for the 2012 Race, take my word for it — for now anyways: I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m willing to listen to the candidates’ arguments and take them at face value. Eighteen months ago I certainly was a fierce Romney critic. But in all fairness to Mitt, I think there is a very strong case that his past positions and doings as governor (the ones that I dislike and disagree with) were justifiable as the best a conservative could hope for in the ultra-left biotope of Massachusetts. Mitt didn’t have the luxury of right-wing legislative majorities, and he made the most of what was possible politically.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:48 am
47 – I agree. I don’t blame them for not voicing an opinion but Palin and her supporters shouldn’t be put into question for voicing theirs. The whole point of Alex’s post was to call out specific bloggers for praising Sarah and demeaning other politicians who do not have a stake or chose the Republican establishments side. That is actually kind of pointless because it is all a mirage. These guys get revenue every time you or I click on their site so they are just stoking a fire to get more clicks…this site does it as well…it’s no big deal…people have to stop taking this stuff so personally.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:49 am
#49 And would you blame them after all their candidate has had to answer to on those two fronts?
October 28th, 2009 at 9:50 am
You are a lunatic. You really think it’s fair to conflate a dozen Watertown area local yokels in a room with the ENTIRE GOP ESTABLISHMENT?
You have no clue what you are talking about.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:53 am
55 – I agree with you again but this is something he’ll have to deal with for the rest of his political career. He hasn’t dealt with it with great success when he tried to convince everyone that he was the ultimate Conservative. Conservative’s didn’t believe him and the electorate as a whole isn’t warm to his schtick. Just as Palin has to deal with Couric interview, Romney will have to deal with, is he really a conservative issue…can we believe he stands for what he claims he stands for. If he can overcome that perception and only if he can overcome that percetion will he have a possibility of becoming the nominee.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Adam, I don’t mean to speak for Ohio but I think you do not know what you are talking about. The RNC continues to flood her campaign with more and more funds and even sending staffers over to help her.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:59 am
60,
She’s the REPUBLICAN candidate! Hoffman is a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE. Of course the the national party apparatus is going to spend money.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
55 – to continue…because of RomneyCare…the perceptions of or the reality of, has forced Romney out of the discussion of nationalized health care…this doesn’t help him. Even if he is the nominee, the Republicans will not be able to use healthcare against Obama because his campaign will simply say it was modeled after MassCare, which Romney signed into Law and the people will believe that perception…true or not. Fair or not…decisions can come back to haunt you.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Fox News can’t make it through the day without bumpin’ the P word a million times.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Fox Noise machine.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:03 am
#1. Governors in Alaska can only appoint Supreme Court Justices from a list of attorneys that have been selected by a comittee. In the case at hand, she was presented with only two choices: Morgan Christen and Eric Smith.
I know. And she chose the PP Member who supported her energy agenda over the pro-lifer who opposed it.
I LIKE what Palin did in that circumstance. I’m just criticizing the Erick Ericksons among us who would be calling for the head of Mittens.
#2. Palin did not veto a bill that would have barred same-sex couples from receiving state benefits.
Ah, but she did. http://mediamatters.org/research/200808290025
October 28th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Personally, I have absolutely no problem with Palin and Newt taking sides in NY-23. Arguments could be (and have been) made for either side. Both sides are legitimate. And no, I don’t think for one second that it is “bad” for the Republican Party.
Nor do I have problems with Huck and Mitt not taking sides in said contest. In fact, I am somewhat encouraged to see Mike Huckabee finally refraining from divisive politics. That is a welcomed departure for him. A sign of him being the frontrunner, perhaps? He knows he can no longer throw bombs with quite the same abandonment that he formerly had?
October 28th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I love our new troll, Molly! Welcome. We needed a resident Paulbot. But it can’t get too out of hand; keep it civil. Distract too much attention away from on-topic discussion and you’ll probably find yourself banned by Kavon.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:04 am
61 – they’ve flooded money to a candidate that is not conservative but was backed by typical, political posturing…I am more conservative than she is and I am pretty socially moderate.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:05 am
mark, I agree. I can see rationales for both sides, and I think the stronger one comes down on the side of Hoffman. But I’m hardly going to throw Gingrich overboard for his reasoning.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:06 am
“You are a lunatic. You really think it’s fair to conflate a dozen Watertown area local yokels in a room with the ENTIRE GOP ESTABLISHMENT?” These so-called Watertown yokels would not have pulled this shenanigans if they they did not have the blessing and Money of the Central party.
It is funny how many of you carry on as if it is only a few Palinites who are pissed off. Does not any of you find it interesting that essentially only Mr. Gingrich supports the shenanigans in NY-23. Mr. Tompson, Mr. Pawlenty and many other GOPers can read the Tea leaves and are bucking the establishment. Make no mistake, there are many people in my county alone who are more angry at the GOP than me over NY-23 and many of them are not even Palinites.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:06 am
67 – I’m not sure she is a Paulbot…I think she is a liberal…but I could be wrong.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:08 am
68,
Doesn’t matter. The point is that the job of the NRCC is to back REPUBLICAN candidates. If that causes indignation and hurt feelings among supporters of the nerdling, er, Hoffman than that’s too bad. Hoffman could have, you know, done the honorable thing and waited just a few short months to start campaigning for the 2010 election. Judging by the looks of him though the size of his ego is probably only supercedes by his affinity for Star Wars memorabilia. Call it a hunch.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:09 am
“I know. And she chose the PP Member who supported her energy agenda over the pro-lifer who opposed it.” Ah that is not true. Let’s just say that the other person was not Pro-Life along with being a Leftist on many other issues.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:10 am
If the RNC was smart they would wash their hands of it and say let the better Conservative win and we welcome either one into our caucus.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Unfortunately you assume that the GOP is smart Jersey, the hacks can call the rest of us rable and trash all it wants, but the party hacks are illustrating to everybody that they are not the brightest bulbs in the package and that might be putting it politely.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Rush likes Pahlin, the press hates her–enough said.
Huckababy was gov. of arkansas, so was bill clinton. Ovomit was governor of nothing. It seems to me that Pahlin’s Alaska was better run than arkansas ever was(no offense to the backwater boys, swamp rats and clinton chums).
October 28th, 2009 at 10:15 am
If the national party goofed, it was early in the process. That’s when the party’s top ranks might have gotten involved to “mediate.” The national party does have an important role to play in drafting viable candidates around the country.
But we should also recognize that the strength of anti-party, independent sentiment nowadays could have caused the national party’s early involvement to backfire. That is, had Chairman Steele cajoled the local committee into selecting Hoffman, there could now very well be a viable third-party Scozzafava insurgency making hay out of the general disdain for both national parties.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:15 am
76 – “Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, so was Huckabee. Ergo, Huckabee sucks.” Brilliant reasoning.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Reagan was governor of California. I guess that means Schwarzenegger is kick ass.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:19 am
You said it not me! I was simply saying that if clinton or huckster are qualified by virtue of a governorship, Pahlin is more qualified. It’s not that hard to follow.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:21 am
CNN Poll: 7 in 10 say Palin not qualified to be president
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/28/cnn-poll-7-in-10-say-palin-not-qualified-to-be-president/?eref=marqueeflipper
Analysis: Palin’s high-risk, high-reward strategy
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/sarah.palin/
October 28th, 2009 at 10:23 am
“The national party does have an important role to play in drafting viable candidates around the country.
” Absolutely True, but the party does not have to give money to the local campaign after they failed to hold a primary.
“there could now very well be a viable third-party Scozzafava insurgency making hay out of the general disdain for both national parties.” Haha, maybe if Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney officially choose sides, you might get you wish
October 28th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Adam’s right about the job of the national GOP organization.
The only hypothetical that I could imagine where the national party organization would support a third-party candidate over its own member’s candidacy would be if the GOP local had been caught doing something thoroughly off-the-charts objectionable. For instance, if the GOP candidate had a recent background as a member of Aryan Nation or some other unreconstructed Nazi group, the national GOP would have to at least drop support and withhold funding for such a candidate, if not throw support to a non-GOP opponent.
I seem to recall something like that happening some time ago somewhere out in the heartland somewhere, but I can’t remember exactly.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:33 am
For you conservatives that hate Palin, listen up, YES she has power and influence and people really like her, but your problem is that you are afraid she going to lose it for us in 2012, THINK AGAIN..She is the only politician who would step aside and throw her weight behind someone else IF it became obvious that she couldn’t win. She puts this country above power, something we have never seen in politics. She WILL win us a conservative 2012 one way or another, so stop cutting off her nose to spite our face!!!!
October 28th, 2009 at 10:35 am
84–I agree, look at huckababy, he stayed in the nomination process just to hurt mitt . . . and gave us the loser mccain.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am
“She is the only politician who would step aside and throw her weight behind someone else IF it became obvious that she couldn’t win. She puts this country above power, something we have never seen in politics. She WILL win us a conservative 2012 one way or another, so stop cutting off her nose to spite our face!!!!” A lot of truth in that, if she cannot turn her numbers to be positive, she will not run for President. However, right now, she is essentially the only person who has her act together, she has her ear to the ground and has charisma. Hopefully, after next week, the others will learn and we can have other strong and fit candidates in the race. On a side note, while Mr. Pawlenty lacks charisma, he is getting his act together in other regards.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Jersey,
“I’m not sure (Molly) is a Paulbot…I think she is a liberal…but I could be wrong.”
Anarchist, the way I read her. She called for the destruction of government in a prior thread, and wistfully wishes the Weather Underground were alive and well in this one.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:46 am
“You’re either ignorant, or not telling the truth.
The Massachusetts plan was not run by the government at all!
There was not even a government option, thanks to Mitt Romney.
Mitt has been pro-left his entire life. Being from Massachusetts, he promised to not allow the issue to move either direction while governor. In keeping that pledge, he was able to govern 100% pro-life every time he had an opportunity. In the most liberal state in the USA, you simply don’t get elected to office if you go in with both guns blazing on that issue. The fact is that he received great recognition from the pro-life groups for his staunch support of life as governor.”
It was so good to finally have a statement of truth concerning Mitt Romney. It is a beginning of some sense being spoken here in the case of Mitt Romney.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I voted for Paul in the primary, and Constitution Party in the general.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Constitution Party isn’t that great…but they had a decent candidate this time.
And the Libertarian Party had Bob Barr who was really terrible.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:51 am
“I love our new troll, Molly! Welcome. We needed a resident Paulbot. But it can’t get too out of hand; keep it civil. Distract too much attention away from on-topic discussion and you’ll probably find yourself banned by Kavon.”
It is civil. Go to the DailyPaul and see how it digresses sometimes blaming everything on Israel or cooky conspiracy theories. The admins there do their best to keep some of them under control, but sometimes it falls over the cliff.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Molly,
“It is civil.”
Maybe what Alex meant was go easy on the “I love terrorists” schtick.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:54 am
“Mitt has been pro-left his entire life.”
That’s TWO Rombots who have made the same (Freudian?) slip!
October 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
“Maybe what Alex meant was go easy on the “I love terrorists” schtick.”
Well I think Americans should be able to join any group they want including Al Qaeda without having to worry about Bush abducting them and removing habeas corpus right.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:56 am
MarkG,
“I seem to recall something like that happening some time ago somewhere out in the heartland somewhere, but I can’t remember exactly.”
When David Duke got the nomination for Louisiana governor or Senator. I forget which, as he ran for both. But I think it was Governor. He lost to Edwin Edwards, who was a known criminal.
Not a good year for Louisiana.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Molly,
Do you think Americans should also have the right to intentionally kill innocent people?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:00 am
“Do you think Americans should also have the right to intentionally kill innocent people?”
Course not. But a jury system can figure out if that’s going or not.
If there an American Al Qaeda member, or KKK or Mafia or WeatherUnderground or whatever, it’s fine so long as they’re not committing crimes, but we have a criminal justice system for that.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I think we have to phase out Bush’s war of terror too, and convert it back into a law enforcement matter, which is all it is anyways.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am
#65 You are flat out wrong as to #2. You’re citing a post from MediaMatters dated August 29, 2008 — when there were huge inaccuracies being printed about Palin. I live in Alaska and I know for a FACT that she didn’t veto same-sex benefits. If you don’t believe me, maybe you will believe Newsweek:
“The folks in Alaska might have been surprised to hear that. In the past, Palin has described her opposition to granting gay couples the benefits married couples receive. In an August 2007 interview with NEWSWEEK, Palin said she had upheld such benefits (angering fellow conservatives) but only because the state Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to deny them”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162324
October 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Molly,
“If there an American Al Qaeda member, or KKK or Mafia or WeatherUnderground or whatever, it’s fine so long as they’re not committing crimes, but we have a criminal justice system for that.”
What you don’t seem to appreciate is that the entire raison d’etre of each of those groups is CRIMINAL.
As for the jury system, sometimes it breaks. I still believe in it, but your boy Ayers admitted his crimes after he was acquitted.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:03 am
” Ayers admitted his crimes after he was acquitted.”
Really? Show us.
Has Nixon admitted to his admitted to war crimes yet? Kinssenger has.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:05 am
““If there an American Al Qaeda member, or KKK or Mafia or WeatherUnderground or whatever, it’s fine so long as they’re not committing crimes, but we have a criminal justice system for that.”
What you don’t seem to appreciate is that the entire raison d’etre of each of those groups is CRIMINAL.”
So if you’re in some right wing milita or racist group that Al Sharpton thinks is criminal, you should be indefinitely detained without habeas corpus rights?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Molly,
“At the end of Ayers Fugitive Days he writes that he is “Guilty as hell, free as a bird—it’s a great country.” ”
http://conservapedia.com/William_Ayers
October 28th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Molly,
“So if you’re in some right wing milita or racist group that Al Sharpton thinks is criminal, you should be indefinitely detained without habeas corpus rights?”
It has nothing to do with what Sharpton thinks, but more to do with lynching people, burning down houses, bombing churches, and beating little kids up.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:09 am
“It has nothing to do with what Sharpton thinks, but more to do with lynching people, burning down houses, bombing churches, and beating little kids up.”
So let a jury decide if they’re doing something wrong. That’s not an excuse to abduct people without trial.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Molly,
“Has Nixon admitted to his admitted to war crimes yet?”
If he hasn’t “yet” it would be rather hard to now………
October 28th, 2009 at 11:10 am
“Guilty as hell, free as a bird—it’s a great country.” ”
He doesn’t say what he was guilty of. Was he guilty of blowing up a building without people in it, with people in it, or stealing stuff.
Yawn. Lots of people don’t get convicted for stuff they do wrong, but the system still works.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Kissinger relayed Nixon’s order to expand the bombing of Cambodia, saying, “A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves.”
Nixon to Kissinger: “Just Bomb the Hell Out of Them”
October 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Molly,
“He doesn’t say what he was guilty of. Was he guilty of blowing up a building without people in it, with people in it, or stealing stuff.”
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay……
Are any of those possibilities you mention NOT crimes?
Your contention was that he never admitted to committing crimes.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:14 am
MWS,
Why aren’t Nixon and Bush in jail? They’re guilty as hell and free as a bird.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Errr nm on Nixon….I should say why wasn’t he in jail.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Molly,
“Why aren’t Nixon and Bush in jail?”
Not enough lunatics running the justice system, I guess.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Nixon should be in jail for killing the economy with taxes and protectionism, not to mention his potty mouth.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Holder is too weak to ever doing anything about Bush’s torture programs.
Cheney on the other hand has grown huge balls since he left office to constantly attack Obama for not putting in enough troops. Probably so big that he could fight Al Qaeda all by himself over there. He probably doesn’t need the troops with him.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:20 am
“Not enough lunatics running the justice system, I guess.” Shhhhhh, don’t give them any ideas.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Molly, what defines torture? You cannot even define what is or isn’t a crime yet you call Bush a terrorist for some torture you say he allowed to occur…what’s torture?
why does the system work for definitive, admitted terrorists like Ayers but it doesn’t seem to work, in your mind, when it pertains to Bush?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
#116,
Because the Justice Department decides what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. Holder (the top cop) has said that he will not prosecute anything so long as its in line with the memos written by John Yoo (MEMOS MIND YOU NOT LAW.)
For practical purposes law enforcement does not apply to government officials only the citizens that it rules over.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:46 am
If Drowning a Man 183 Times in one month is not Torture, What Is?
“We do not torture.” — President George W. Bush, November 7, 2005
“The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals.” — President Barack Obama, April 16 2009
“No one is above the law.” — Attorney General Eric Holder, January 15, 2009
18 USC 2340 — The Law.
Chapter 18 of United States Code, Section 2340 defines the act of “torture” to include the threat of imminent death. The same section of federal law specifies that U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and even foreign agents of the United States who commit torture, whether here or overseas, whether against an American or a foreigner, “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” Finally, the same federal law stipulates that “A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”
October 28th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Paul needs to run again so we can finally defeat the Neoconservatives in 2012, and send them back to their caves where they belong.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Molly,
Out of curiosity, do you believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Ron Paul, gearing up for 2012?
You betcha as Fox News would say while promoting the P-word.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“Out of curiosity, do you believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened?”
Nope, although I don’t think he was paying much attention to it.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“Nope, although I don’t think he was paying much attention to it.” And who was paying attention then?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
94. Wow, are you off your rocker. Why should Americans join groups that expressed a desire to DESTROY the U.S. ? If I recall correctly, that is th definition of treason. There is a reason why that is punishable with the death penalty. You can’t just join a anti-U.S. group, and expect them not to mark you as a problem.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
MWS – the second person merely copy and pasted my typing error. You’re such a jerk….! And, Ironically, you seem to be proud of it!
October 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“Why should Americans join groups that expressed a desire to DESTROY the U.S.”
Why not get rid of the Federal Government entirely? We’ve had Libertarian caucuses that had that as part of their agenda running for office. The radicals caucus of the Libertarian Party founded by antiwar editor in Chief Justin Raimondo and Murray Rothbard that supported that. No big deal.
There have been communists groups with that agenda too (only they wanted to replace it with their own power.)
Nothing the courts WITH A JURY (Yes the Constitution grants you that) to decide if you are guilty of an actual crime not just belonging to a a group.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Conservative,
Oh, cool your jets, and don’t take yourself so seriously……..
October 28th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
And you all thought Progressives were bad.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“And you all thought Progressives were bad.”
They are!
October 28th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
#127.MWS:“Oh, cool your jets, and don’t take yourself so seriously……..”
Excellent advice for all.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Molly,
“Nothing the courts WITH A JURY (Yes the Constitution grants you that) to decide if you are guilty of an actual crime not just belonging to a a group.”
How can you cite the Constitution on the one hand as the basis for law, and yet call for the destruction of the government it was written to create on the other?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Molly,
Follow up question to #131…..
Once we do away with the federal government, would it be alright for the states to do away with the jury system and bring back trial by ordeal if they so chose?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
……or maybe they could set up a police state, complete with strom troopers and kangaroo courts.
Would that be okay, if that’s what a state decided for itself?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“How can you cite the Constitution on the one hand as the basis for law, and yet call for the destruction of the government it was written to create on the other?”
If the Federal Government and the Military Industrial Complex are going to exist, I’d rather have them restrained by the Constitution (not that a piece of paper every constrained them anyway, but it’s fun to pretend.)
October 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“Would that be okay, if that’s what a state decided for itself?”
Course not. I believe i decentralized power. Get rid of the beastly Federal Government first, and then worry about downsizing and decentralizing the State Governments.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Molly,
“Get rid of the beastly Federal Government first, and then worry about downsizing and decentralizing the State Governments.”
Towards what end? How do we ensure some uniformity of law? How do we guarantee jury trials?
October 28th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Something Specific…
Gov. Sarah Palin and Gov. Bobby Jindal both remind me of Reagan…
However, Palin, in taking the road less traveled with go-for-it gumption and inner fortitude (college … basketball point guard … mayor … resigning from commission to expose corrupting machinations … taking on the Alaska good-old-boy Republicans and winning Governorship decisively … Vice-President nominee with charisma … “mover and shaker” with speeches, op-eds, a simple computer and Facebook comments, hah!! … book seller … wife and mother of 5…) and doing it with the self-assurance that comes with maturity, Palin has revealed that she has Margaret Thatcher appeal … intelligence … style… and the inner woman soul/spirit, the LADY has “IT” charisma that gets positive attention from men & women, left & right, and negative attention from men & women, left & right.
In the “Palin Test” 4th paragraph, only negative aspects are discussed without mentioning Palin’s reasons for taking the positions she took. An example is the Alaska Supreme Court appointment of a Planned Parenthood official.
I mention paragraph 4 to segue into my own pet peeve re: what some Gov. Palin supporters are saying is her perspective of the fanatical element of supremacist Islam.
The Debate Has Begun…
I have read in other forums the view that Gov. Palin implicitly criticized groups like JihadWatch.org and founder Robert Spencer as having a limited perspective about supremacist Islam and the anti-capitalist stealth jihad to use the legal system to plant Sharia law in America to subvert the U.S. constitution
What was Gov. Palin implicitly criticizing in her Hong Kong speech? She did not point to anything specific and did not reference the supremacist aspect of Islam which uses the Qur’an as it’s jihad and Sharia law text book to promote “…thus saith Muhammad” about jihad, which means that there can be no deviation from the ultimate goal of international jihad and Alla’s supremacy over the whole earth under Sharia law.
It is accurate to say that Muhammad spoke kindly about Christians and Jews for the first 12 years at the start of his preaching in Mecca.
However, after the Jewish leaders in Mecca rejected his prophetic role, and after Muhammad was forced to leave Mecca for his safety and moved to Median, in his years in Medina Muhammad’s teachings and rhetoric changed dramatically… Muhammad said to kill kaffirs (…infidels, unbelievers) who will not pay the jizya (…dhimmi compliance tax) and who will not convert to Islam or will not accept the dhimmi (…subservient) status… so, they must die if they will not convert to Islam or accept dhimmitude and pay jizya.
That is supremacist Islamic history in a nutshell, not speculation about intent.
- – - – -
Gov. Palin’s Muslim References to Islam In Her Hong Kong Speech -
“Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the savagery of September 11, 2001. [...].
“[...] In this struggle with radical Islamic extremists, no part of the world is safe from those who bomb, maim and kill in the service of their twisted vision.
“This war – and that is what it is, a war – is not, as some have said, a clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. This is a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want: [...].
“[...] Last year, in the midst of the U.S. debate over what do to in Iraq, an important voice was heard – from Asia’s Wise Man, former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who wrote in the Washington Post about the cost of retreat in Iraq. In that article, he prophetically addressed the stakes in Afghanistan.
“He wrote:
‘The Taliban is again gathering strength, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan would reverberate throughout the Muslim world. It would influence the grand debate among Muslims on the future of Islam.
‘A severely retrograde form of Islam would be seen to have defeated modernity twice: first the Soviet Union, then the United States. There would be profound consequences, especially in the campaign against terrorism.’
- – - – -
The statements by Gov. Palin about “… a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims” and her quote about former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew about a “… severely retrograde form of Islam…” do not at all suggest that Gov. Palin was implicitly referring to and criticizing as having a limited perspective groups like JihadWatch.org and Robert Spencer.
Of course, it is accurate to say that it is “a war within Islam” where a small “minority” wants to impose supremacist Islam on the “majority” of Muslims.
The question is, what do the Qur’an and the Hadith MEAN when they say “…thus saith Muhammad” about jihad and Sharia law… not what do the “moderate” Muslims think it means as opposed to what the “supremacist” Muslims?
There are historically accurate authors, such as Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom, who have written about supremacist Islam who are making the point that the so-called “moderate” Muslims are the ones subverting the theological supremacy of the “religion of peace” and thus, the so-called “supremacist” Islam “IS” the true “moderate” Islam because the supremacist Muslims are the ones who are adhering to the original intent of the letter of the Qur’an re: jihad and the imposition of Sharia law on the whole earth.
Lee Kuan Yew’s statement about a “… severely retrograde form of Islam…” is not a definitive statement about the historical essence of supremacist Islam, unless 1400 years of Islamic jihad and +/- 200 million kaffir’s who would not submit to dhimmi status and so were killed for Allah, is retrograde too.
That is history about 1400 years of supremacist Islam, not fantasy about Islam today re: the debate about fanatical “supremacist” Islam vs. “moderate” Islam.
A “small minority of violent killers” is a limited reference to a small supremacist minority who use the Qur’an as their jihad and Sharia law text book.
However, Gov. Palin words do not seem to be implying that the fanatic Muslim minority is wrong about (…the traditional understanding of) the Qur’an and “supremacist” Islam… and jihad… and Sharia law… replacing the U.S. constitution, while (…the traditional understanding of) the “moderate” Muslim majority is right about Islam…. and jihad… and that Sharia law will NOT replace the U.S. constitution.
If and when Gov. Palin ever were to say that 1400 years of supremacist Islamic jihad and the imposition of Sharia law in the name of Allah is being misrepresented by Robert Spencer on JihadWatch.org … or Pamela Geller on AtlasShrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs … or Bill Warner on PoliticalIslam.com … or David Horowitz on TerrorismAwareness.org & FrontPageMag.com … or Brigitte Gabriel on ActForAmerica.org & AmericanCongressForTruth.com … or Geert Wilders … or Andrew Bostom … et al., THAT would be a difinitive statement.
THEN it would be accurate to say that Gov. Palin would not only be IMPLYING that Robert Spencer and JihadWatch has a “limited perspective” about supremacist Islam, Gov. Palin would be EXPLICITLY saying that pointing out the history of the last 1400 years of “convert or die or live as a dhimmi” rhetoric in the name of Allah by supremacist Islam is simply a limited perspective by Geert Wilders, Andrew Bostom, Pamela Geller, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer et al., and would reveal Western misunderstanding due to Western feelings of superiority, and language limitations because the Qur’an is not read in the original language ( which makes the Imam the authority figure for the “supremacist” AND “moderate” Muslims ).
However, I do not think that Gov. Palin would have advisers around her who would be so uneducated, uninformed and misguided that they would not educate Gov. Palin about nascent anti-capitalist and supremacist Islam and the Qur’an inspired stealth jihad in America that is the 20th Century iteration and 21st Century continuation of the Muslim Brotherhood stealth jihad that began in 1928… because Muhammad said so in the 600s AD.
People living in England probably know about the nascent Sharia courts that are being accepted in the British court system (and by the head Christian dhimmi, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams) and the growing Muslim no-go-zone ghettos in England and France and Germany.
Read more here from AmericanCongressForTruth.org about Terrorist Network Cells In America. Can Sharia compliant courts be next in America? Yes. That is EXACTLY the intent of legal jihad.
Hopefully, that nascent supremacist Islam intent and the stealth legal jihad to implement Sharia law in America is what Gov. Palin will address forcefully and substantively and explicitly in the future.
God Bless America and God Bless our friends in Europe.
The debate has begun… where will Gov. Palin take it is the question>
October 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“Towards what end? How do we ensure some uniformity of law? How do we guarantee jury trials?”
Bush had a torture program. How can we protect ourselves from the Federal Government is the real question…
A strong national defense means the militas and states get all the guns and the president doesn’t get any at all.
Centralized power is the real threat. So long as we allow the president to have a large standing army, we are always at risk for getting another terrorist in there like Bush. The UK has disarmed their citizens so I think that’s how the politicians prefer things.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“Towards what end? How do we ensure some uniformity of law? How do we guarantee jury trials?”
Ideally we destroy the States too, and establish competing governments model and competing law enforcement and competing criminal justice systems, but it’s about going in the correct direction not about purity.
Ron Paul would take us in the correct direction unlike Reagan nightmare who helped establish big government or the Bush or Clinton years.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
This is an excellent article. $arah palin could pee in her supporters’ breakfast cereal and they would still defend her. It’s just pathetic.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“This is an excellent article. $arah palin could pee in her supporters’ breakfast cereal and they would still defend her.” Funny, that is how a few Romneyites have been acting like.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
When Jefferson won his election, the people marched on the capital to physically remove them from office when they tried to steal the election.
The people were armed, and the central government wasn’t.
Now we have the reverse scenario, which is a serious national security threat.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“Ideally we destroy the States too, and establish competing governments model and competing law enforcement and competing criminal justice systems, but it’s about going in the correct direction not about purity.”
So we become another Somalia?
Sounds like mild anarchy with competing warlords to me.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“So we become another Somalia?
Sounds like mild anarchy with competing warlords to me.”
Silly. Medieval Ireland existed for over 1000 years without any central government. They had competing law enforcement and governments that weren’t based on geography. No wars because no one had an army. It worked great. Iceland had an anarchist system too, which apparently worked much better than their government that just went bankrupt!
But having smaller governments based on geography (States) isn’t such a bad compromise. If some states want to further decentralize, well that’d be fine.
I seriously doubt that Ron Paul or anyone would be able to shrink the Federal Government anyway, but hopefully just stop it from growing. He could however, start undoing the world government, which has been taking shape over the last 100 years.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
We have to destroy the U.S. empire abroad. That’s the main reason why the terrorists were attacking us in the first place.
It would be hard for States alone to have an imperial expansion.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“Silly. Medieval Ireland existed for over 1000 years without any central government.” I think that is a bit of a different story. With respect the the Irish, those 1000 years were not exactly fun and game.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“I think that is a bit of a different story. With respect the the Irish, those 1000 years were not exactly fun and game.”
Well no one Medieval times lived well because of productivity differences between now and then (productivity=technology for the most part.)
But no one was controlling them.
We still having competing governments in the world (no world government) so as long as you can get your wealth out of one country when the governments get too large, then people will be free for the most part.
However, we have to stop the world government from taking hold, and this especially true for the banking sector that is centralizing.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Countries are just like corporations that have to collapse every once in a while.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Silly. Medieval Ireland existed for over 1000 years without any central government.
Hooray, we can be like Medieval Ireland!
October 28th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Oh my.
And people accuse me of ruining good posts.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
137. Oh my.
And people say I’m over the top.
I don’t want to ever hear anyone complain about me again.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Yeah, he’s basically right, though.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
We just elected a pres that had almost NO experience whatsoever and boy does it show. Almost every group that supported him is ticked off at him. Good presidents? These guys are politicians. They hire people who tell them what to say, how to dress, how to comb their hair, ad nauseam. The last thirty years have brought us a pathetic pack of losers, but remember, the people get exactly what they deserve. Palin can’t do any worse, and probably won’t do any better.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
“Oh My”…
151. “Oh My” is not a response that moves the conversation forward. A specific reference with a point-counterpoint attempt to “define and defend” an alternate point of view definitely is forward movement.
152. Thanks for the “pat on the back” about Sarah Palin and the direction Palin hopefully will take the future debate about the supremacist Islam intention to impose Sharia law by stealth legal jihad methods.
I hope Sarah (and #152) will become informed by reading Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs blog and Brigitte Gabriel’s sites, ActForAmerica.org ( especially “recent news” and the “email archives” ), AmericanCongressForTruth.org and the newest info site Stop Shariah Now Project.
These sites will move the conversation forward in a positive and informed way.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
PS. I forgot to add…
I encourage everyone to read here the newest email from Brigitte Gabriel about Terrorist Cells Throughout America and the November 7 FREE Web Cast Conference.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:35 am
“Mitt has been pro-left (sic) his entire life”
Well, well, I say Romney’s followere are still touting that failed effort at playing both sides. At the same time he was supposedly pro-life he was bragging about being pro-choice.
There is a reason that he uses the phrase “effectively pro-choice” to describe his former self. rather than the bare term “pro-choice”. He holds to the notion that while he was actively supporting the murder of unborn children, he was still “always” pro-life He at that time was either self-deceived or a deceiver and it appears that he still is.
This deception is precisely why he is not to be trusted. He has not converted – he has changed his priorities. Perhaps for political expediency (a run at the presidency) he was “effectively pro-life”. Because there is no credible reason he “changed”, there is no credible reason believe that if another opportunity to be “effectively pro-choice” comes along that he will not do that if it suits his purposes, all the while still clinging to the notion that he can be and “still is” pro-life or will tell his pro-abortion supporters that he was only “effectively pro-life”
October 30th, 2009 at 9:33 am
David.#156,
I am not going to argue whether you are right, or whether you are wrong. However, I will attempt to give you something to think about.
Chirst, in his Sermon on the Mount, famously said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt 7:1). That is well and good as far as it goes, and most people stop there. However, I have always felt that the crux of what Our Lord was trying to say is found in the lesser quoted second verse, “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
I have always interpreted that to mean that we choose which standard we will be judged by when we stand before the great bar and give an accounting of our life. The Lord will merely use the same standard on us that we have used on others.
Would you liked to be judged using the same standard you are using to judge Mitt Romney? Me personally, I want the good Lord to use the most compassionate, forgiving, quick to recognize improvement and good intentions standard as possible when it is my turn.
How about you? Which standard do you hope for?
October 30th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I laugh at all of you….
has Palin said she is Reagan? has she said she should be compared to him? NO she quotes him…. so what? can’t she quote him?
has she ever said she is running for anything? NO but, everyone has an opinion of whether she has a chance, how do people view her
as a presidential candidate… is she popular? WTF?
what a bunch of dolts… you all are projecting all these images on her…. all your own images…
she just goes along, doing what she has planned to do… which NO ONE knows what it is…. yet everyone has an opinion if it is right, wrong,
slow, fast, good, bad…
get a friggin life
has she done anything negative for Conservatives? has she made any bad comments about any Conservative?
she is good for the Conservative movement…. period. So celebrate that and quit this mickey mouse nit picking over things you don’t friggin
know… it is almost like CNN talking non stop crap for a week about Michael Jackson’s death… after 5 minutes it is all made up bull shit
same with Sarah Palin…. none of you know what the hell she is up to so why not wait and find out and in the meantime, thank her for
helping the Conservative cause