Friday, July 10, 2009

Palin's Choice: Duty or Dereliction

Click on the title to go to my latest column at WND.com. After you read it come back here to post your comments.

45 comments:

pbunyon said...

Something tells me that Sarah Palin was never really a "Republican". I think that sentiment was first echoed by the Republican Party as they abandoned her in the media and hence by Sarah herself as she stood nearly alone against the manical left.

Sarah Palin knows much more about Alaska than I do and that leads me to believe she knows what she is doing. The Left is so scared of a mother who gets things done that they will never let go of her even in effigy. She knows the Office of the Governor will be forever clouded and preoccupied with all this rediculous litigation as long as she holds the office.

I hope she steps out from the Republicans and stays a powerful figure in politics.

Alan Keyes said...

pbunyon:

I guess I'm confused about why people like Sarah Palin seek office. Is the objective to do the job, or simply to satisfy political ambition by winning an election? When someone takes an oath of office they don't promise to faithfully do their duty as long as their opponents don't bother them too much, or as long as some party or other is nice to them. They simply promise faithfully to execute the duties of office. Palin says that she has done so effectively despite the opposition. So what gives her the license to abandon her oath?
I don't want powerful figures in politics who step away from their duty when the going gets tough. How does this serve the country? Isn't our republic being destroyed because politicians like Palin don't have the courage to stand firm for the sake of what's right? Standing firm doesn't mean saying the right things in speeches and appearances. It means sticking to right action even when it's difficult. From now on what she says won't matter to me at all, because it's not backed by the kind of perseverance that stands firm even when the opposition does what comes naturally.

I also can't shake the thought that this lack of conviction explains why, as governor, every major public policy decision she took on the moral issues went the wrong way. Apparently her views are not based on the kind of digested and thoughtful convictions that give sustained strength to the actions required to follow up on her words.
Alan Keyes

chiu_chunling said...

Palin has resigned from political office before when she felt that her presence was serving as a pretext for abuse. In a prior case, the abusers were Republican officials who stuck her in a powerless ethical oversight committee to neutralize her queries into their corruption.

Yes, the law being abused is one of her own design. But the fact that a law can be abused to drive good candidates from office is not a sufficient reason to condemn such laws. Palin doesn't want to repeal the ethics laws she fought to impose, not when a perfectly acceptable alternative was available. And one was.

She resigned in favor of someone who does not attract national media/political attention. The spotlight has moved with her. The tools to fight political corruption remain in place, and she has stopped the flagrant abuse of those tools. Did this require some degree of personal sacrifice? Probably, despite what she said about it having the unanimous assent of all those close to her. Does it make her a less powerful voice nationally? No.

Her record as governor helped propel her to national attention. But nothing about that attention has had anything to do with her being a governor. Living in Alaska, her family, her values, her relationship with the McCain/RINO camp, there are a multitude of topics which excite interest in Palin, but her Governorship is not one of them. Indeed, her resignation has garnered much more national attention than anything else she did as governor.

And that attention has already accomplished something good. It has tried to focus on how this indicates that Palin is not "worthy" of office, as though resigning from office is now a crime. But some of it must focus on the abusive campaign against her personally.

Palin isn't running away from the fight. She's decided to outflank her attackers and enfilade them. In the process she has secured for herself a new position which is well suited to defense and to regrouping for a new offensive. She has sown confusion amongst the enemy, and encouraged her followers. Does this discomfit many who wanted a strong ally in a supporting role (perhaps as a fire magnet)? Yes, but when the overall command structure has broken down completely there is a need for bold actions, even if they aren't perfectly coordinated with everyone else.

Does she have any hope of success in this fight? Sadly, no more than before. Which is to say, none at all. But her bold movement forward, which has thrown back the enemy and rallied her forces but in no way left her former position (the Governorship of Alaska) undefended (and has, rather, improved its security), does deserve my admiration. As a tactician, at least.

chiu_chunling said...

As to the question of her oath of office...one does not swear to retain the office as long as possible, but to execute it faithfully throughout one's term of service. If one is unable to serve the office as effectively as another might (and this is the case, no matter who you ask), then duty demands resignation in favor of that person.

I favor her action because it is bold and smart. But I cannot accept any insinuation that it is not also perfectly honorable. Honor does not particularly concern me, but logic does. No possible construction of the duty of high office can or ought impugn the honor of one who honestly decides another will serve the office better. What is a position of authority in the first place other than the recognition that some person might be better qualified than others to make certain decisions? By what possible argument can using indisputably legal measures to bring the most qualified person to the office count as dishonoring the office?

If Palin had sobbed about how her personal life is in shambles and she can no longer handle the stress of serving as governor, no one would for an instant suggest that honor demanded she continue in office if she were able to find a more competent replacement. What does that say about the arguments appealing to some novel standard of 'honor'?

I cannot say. Perhaps, I do not care. If honor were less well-worn as a phrase meaning that others should do what is convenient to the speaker, I might be interested in it.

P@ said...

I think Sarah did the right thing for the good of her state and her family....no one should have to endure the abuse she was suffering at the hands of her critics both Democrat and Republican....we are in a sad state of affairs when a great governor is not allowed to do her job and work for the people as she as elected to do so....at least Mr. Parnell is her ally so far and is on the same page as Sarha in getting the people's business done for Alaska!!

pbunyon said...

Dr. Keyes,

Thank you for responding to this poor old country boy's post.

I can appreciate your position on Sarah Palin leaving her elected office. You certainly have a valid concern for the kind of person who even attempts holding such an office. I would've liked seeing her stay in office, but being a beautiful family woman who is pro-life in the face of down syndrome and teen pregnancy, she harnesses intense hatred from the animalistic leftist media which would continue to disgrace the office. If nothing else I hope it opens the eyes of people as to the extent that the left will conjure snakes to seize time, money and power from those they despise. She'll be back and I hope you are too.

-Daniel

P.S. I just heard that Ruth Bader Ginsburg basically admits eugenics! I sure hope you have something to say about that. I look forward to it.

NobodySpecial said...

I think you are right on, Dr Keyes
We don't need another flip flopping flop running whatever may be left of this country when the current crew discharges.
Or maybe she wants another pounding from the Saturday Night Live cast, because she's profiting from the exposure.
The choreographed collapse and engineered devastation has jaded me so badly.
Personally I think it really doesn't matter anymore.
Recall the person people think is president !
And lets start over.
You should Keep On your quest and keep running.
Lets put a real honorable American in office.
Dr Keys for President!

(Thanks I feel much better now)

californiascreaming said...

Great comment Alan. She just shows that giving in to your opponents is basically what has crumbled the Right and Republicans the last 6 years. Bush quit his duty after being re-elected. He wasn't a fighter. He let the Left define him. "Bush lied, Soldiers Died". What was his response. Bush didn't show the fire and passion to go after the Left. He went away with low approval ratings when he did a decent job. Now the rest of the Republicans are following suit. They get defined by the Left and they end up appeasing to them. It ultimately makes them look weak.
So Palin throws in the towel. Are there any Republicans willing to fight? The Left smear machine is going full tilt. We need an passioate Republican to take on the Left. I don't see one yet. Maybe Tom McClintock of California. Freshman Congressman. Now that the Republican party is at its lowest point since FDR, maybe they will wise up and get Alan Keyes some speaking time. You are the only politician who ever debated Obama and put him in his place.

chiu_chunling said...

How does concurring with leftist opinions about Palin count as fighting them?

Palin, at least, condemns what the media has done. Even if her strategy were flawed (and to the degree it is flawed, that flaw was in assuming that supposed conservatives wouldn't leap on the bandwagon of condemnation), where has she given up the fight?

She resigned from the Governorship in order to freely pursue this fight, a fight she knew she couldn't win while continuing to faithfully fulfil the office of governor. Given a choice between giving up the fight and giving up her position, she gave up her position to take the fight to the enemy. I count to her credit that it apparently did not occur to her that she could do what most other politicians would have done, abuse her station to win the fight. I say "apparently" because anyone familiar with why Palin first entered politics knows she is all too aware of how most politicians try to use their offices. She rejected that option out of hand, not because she overlooked it, but because she despises it.

Shall I point out that Dr. Keyes let himself be led away to prison without even throwing a punch? Shall I impugn his courage for going to Notre Dame (only the most recent scene of such a surrender) without having the resolution to "actually fight"? It would be utter nonsense. Felt I shame, I would be ashamed to suggest such a thing. But how would such an accusation differ from what is being claimed here about Palin's unwillingness to fight her battle on the least advantageous terms available?

I will permit arguments that Palin's resignation was a blunder (though I do not agree). But to suggest that it is cowardly or dishonorable...I may not well understand either term, but the blame for that must like with those who strip them of all possible meaning.

Chelsea said...

Not only did the State already spend $2 million, but Sarah Palin was personally half a million dollars in debt because of bogus ethics complaints filed against her one right after the other. Complaints which cost these people absolutely nothing to file and which showed no signs of stopping if she stayed in office (in fact another one was filed right around the time she announced her resignation). Sure, she was innocent - and proven so - of all of the complaints so far, but it's one thing to persevere and stand up to the "politics of hate" and bigotry in order to finish the job you were elected to do. Its quite another to continue to rack up your own personal debt just to defend yourself and your office against idiots who have nothing better to do with their time.

David said...

Dear Sir and Brother in Christ,

I have followed you for years, since the early 90's in the pro-life movement. You are a very gifted speaker and I have appreciated your ability to speak to the heart of the issue. That being said it is sad to see your political ambitions leading you to slander a lady, a fellow believer and a public servant who has stood in some very difficult positions. She is a lady, a woman, the "weaker vessel". Should she be in public office, in a role that requires broad shoulders and a strong back maybe not but she is there and she has served with distinction.
Your article is what I would expect from the mudslinging left, where is the example of the christian gentleman who lifts up the fallen and uses his great gift to speak a blessing to his fellow soldiers.

Joel Lehman said...

She yielded under the ungoing, intense character ridicule from the media and its consumers, the American public. Lately it has been the Letterman jokes, … and then the Vanity Fair article, which I think finished her off. Her adversaries, which would be most Americans, probably would not have ridiculed and attacked her so much 1. if she were not so openly Christian.., 2. if she had no more than 2 children. 3. if she were divorced. 4. if she had killed her unborn down syndrome child. 4. if she had made sure that her 17-year old daughter killed her unborn child.

Terry Morris said...

Two things:

(1) I thought Palin was supposed to be some kind of "pitbull in lipstick," by her own accounting.

(2) She's now freed up to earn probably in the neighborhood of 60K a pop at "conservative" speaking engagements, which I don't begrudge her for, I'm just saying.

But if anything reveals her poor judgment it is that she accepted McAmnesty's invitation to join his presidential ticket.

SGT. Joe "Red" Hartsock said...

anybody who says Palin wasn't a Republican has their HEAD in the sand. It was the damn media that destroyed her image, those hateful bastards!! If anything, I'm frustrated she is stepping down, but it could be to give herself more time to think about how to formulate her presidential strategy

Also, Dr. Keyes, we need to appeal to the RNC to get out the word about Usurper Obama and hopefully we will then start seeing TV ads saying this obamination is an illegal alien!

please keep up the good work, and if anything, if you like speaking in small cities, you might want to speak in my hometown. we have a fantastic tradition every halloween as well


side note: I am not in the military, I've had family in it though. My online name is a reference to a fictional character in a series I enjoy.

chiu_chunling said...

I certainly have to agree that Palin's political acumen must be called into question by her acceptance of McCain's obviously treacherous offer. She wasn't cut out to be a politician, and it wasn't her original aim. She simply wanted to fight the corruption in Alaska's state government.

I advised everyone around me that she was mere window-dressing on McCain's campaign, a desperate effort to deceive conservatives into voting for his ticket. I know that quite a few people who would otherwise have made a more dramatic showing in the 'protest vote' decided to take the bait anyway. Talk about McCain's age and health really helped his campaign when it came down to it. Even for many of those who understood the cynical political calculus behind the selection of Palin for the ticket, the thought of putting her "one heartbeat away" proved sufficiently tempting.

It did not tempt me. There are various reasons for that, few of which can be of any relevance to the current subject. But this I will say. The naivete Palin showed in accepting such a poisonous invitation, while less intentional than Obama's, might have been even more dangerous for America had she actually been propelled into the Presidency. She proved herself unready to navigate the treacherous currents of the Potomac by her choice of a ferryman.

While that blunder is in the past, it is not far in the past, and I can't help but remember it whenever someone speaks of her political future. If she is wise, she will steer clear of direct involvement in government office for some time. I cannot say how long a time, but her resignation of the Governorship of Alaska is a good first step.

Still, though I encouraged everyone not to be deceived into voting for an open socialist by his choice of a ""pit-bull in lipstick" for a running mate, I was impressed by her ability to rally the mass of patriotic Americans. They saw in her what I could not. She represents, symbolically and in reality, so much that made America strong and good. Yes, in supporting McCain as a viable candidate and accepting his invitation at face value, she also displayed one of the most basic and embarrassing flaws of Americans.

She has, it seems, learned a lot from the experience. I would hope that the ornery folk of America have picked up some of that lesson as well. But one thing I learned anew from watching her, which I would share. There is power and promise in the heart of America. A nation needs prudent, thoughtful leadership to prosper. But to be strong, it must heed the heart.

I cannot promise on any wise that America can be made prosperous again. But I will say that it is folly indeed to disdain those in whom the heartbeat of America can yet be discerned. It is an unfortunate army indeed which can find no better general than the standard bearer. But what kind of general speaks disparagingly of those willing to stand at the fore and rally the troops?

Terry Morris said...

SGT ... whatever said:

anybody who says Palin wasn't a Republican has their HEAD in the sand.

Okie dokie. I have my head in the sand. But it's really not her "republicanism" that I have a problem with. It is her supposed "conservatism" (and the supposed "conservatives" that threw their support behind her). I'll argue it with you if you like, but I should forewarn you that you will definitely lose the argument on any grounds that are considered rational.

Dr. Keyes will back me up on this issue, I trust. But I'll take it up on my own if that is necessary.

P.S. I have served in the U.S. military.

Terry Morris said...

By the way, Chiu, I've never been a supporter of Palin, obviously. But the way McCain & Co. threw her under the bus when she garnered a whole helluva lot more votes than he could have in and of himself, is just evil as far as I'm concerned. That scumbag needs to be drummed out of office in my opinion. He is a RINO of the first order, and destructive to representative republicanism.

chiu_chunling said...

To my way of thinking, the first really smart thing Palin has done since gaining national attention is resigning from elected office in favor of someone with less personality and more acumen. I've never felt that the mockery of her intelligence or experience was remotely fair, but it was the obvious tactic.

I knew she was being used as a sacrificial pawn the moment McCain selected her. Subsequent events proved that "pawn" was too dignified a word for the role. She was unwise to place herself in such a position.

And yet...when her composure and grace were stripped away by relentless attacks, I saw something better and more sure than intellect or art. And I remembered that many Americans still have it. Not most, perhaps. Not enough.

But if there is to be any meaning to the work of building and administrating a republic, the unconsidered impulses of personal moral striving cannot be forgotten, and most certainly cannot be ignored. Palin is not well suited to government office, and she has done well to leave it behind. But that does not mean she is incapable of serving the cause of freedom.

If only by reminding one such as myself that such a thing is of value.

Terry Morris said...

Yes, it was the obvious tactic, but I've never personally joined in on that chorus. In fact, I've always defended her intelligence, as well as incessantly pointing out that of all the contenders in the late presidential race, Sarah Palin has more executive experience than the rest combined. In other words, we didn't have a single qualified candidate in the late election, which is one primary reason I chose to abstain.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why she chose -- she made a conscious decision -- to expose herself and her family to the ridicule she has received. Unless it was out of pure naivete' coupled with political ambition -- a horribly dangerous combination in my humble opinion. And where is her husband Todd in all of this decision-making? Has he not failed her as to his proper role as her husband? Shouldn't he be one of her top advisors in any event? Joining McCain's ticket was a bonehead move, but, I mean, parading Bristol and Levi on stage at the RNC? C'mon! Btw, where's Levi now???

Anyway, this whole "absentee momism" thing (which seems to be so popular these days, even among "conservatives") just makes me sick to my stomach. There's nothing remotely conservative about that. Period.

gilbertabrett said...

When I first heard there was an announcement coming from Governor Palin about a possible resignation, my suspicious nature took over - what had she done and who had caught her and forced her out? Then I listened to her speech and took her at her word. I do not know her well enough to know if she was correct in her decision, but I live in VA and OUR governor is MIA and his office will not even release his whereabouts - a sorry rascal...

I am glad that General George Washington finished his trip across that foggy river though... they don't make backbones and faith like his anymore I guess... (Not counting you, Dr. Keyes!)

On a scale weighed out by today's standards, for our last election we had a decorated military vet with an long, open Senate record with many flaws and an undercover Muhammadan with no history of national service or office, no BIRTH CERTIFICATE, very irrational friends, supporters and mentors and an obsession with the culture of death. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that until we build up another party in this country, by sitting by and NOT voting you ARE supporting someone by YOUR dereliction of duty. You have to choose. Saying neither is NOT good enough, not what our founders put their and their family's lives on the line for and NOT what our military is fighting AND DYING for now.

Now add Governor Palin on the scale and Senator Biden. And no one can see the correct choice? I think (& have written and withdrawn my member ship to) the Republican Party was FOOLISH to ever put Senator McCain as their front man, BUT we had a choice. And now look where we are! Does ANYONE from a conservative standpoint think that we could be any worse off if Senator McCain was now President McCain?

At LEAST he would not be traveling the world apologizing for America and speaking in a manner that would have been considered treasonous 200 years ago...

I wish Governor Palin the best, but I still think crossing the Delaware was the BEST plan, but maybe that is just my OCD kickin' in...

Terry Morris said...

Gilbert wrote:

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that until we build up another party in this country, by sitting by and NOT voting you ARE supporting someone by YOUR dereliction of duty.

So you're suggesting that I possess less than an ounce of common sense, Gilbert, and that I'm a traitor of some kind? Thanks. Anyway...

You argue in favor of a very false notion. IF the electoral college didn't exist, then you might be right. As it is, though, my abstaining from the presidential election didn't effect the outcome in any way, shape, or form. And I got to keep my integrity to boot. For me personally, abstaining in the late presidential election (which I'd never done before) was the only principled option I had. Dr. Keyes wasn't on Oklahoma's ballot, nor Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, et al. I thought about writing in Tancredo, but I didn't want to deface the ballot and take a chance on having it cast out since I did vote in the State elections.

I realize that VA was a swing state this cycle. Were I a Virginian I would most likely have held my nose and voted for the RINO McAmnesty. But I ain't a Virginian.

chiu_chunling said...

I recommended that patriotic Americans vote for Keyes in the last election. Yes, some would consider it the same as not voting at all...but such a contention isn't worth any answer. Not voting does send a message, but it is not the same message that voting for a specific alternative candidate sends. Which message an eligible citizen wishes to send is a matter of personal choice...but a matter of choice it remains.

I know that most people I so advised ended up voting for Palin instead, but I'm not one to hold a grudge over such a thing. She's now looking for candidates to support. I'll wish her luck in finding them. It seems she might need more than I would have expected.

Who would have thought that those who wish to save America would be so embarrassed of those who want it saved?

Terry Morris said...

Well, like I said, Keyes wasn't on the OK ballot. Had he been, he'da damn sure got my vote without the slightest hesitation, and for the same reasons you mentioned in the other thread.

chiu_chunling said...

Oh, many of the people I talked to were planning write-ins anyway (before Palin, at least). That does make it seem...really unlikely to make a difference. And I frankly admitted it at the time as well as now.

Your particular concern about possibly having your ballot thrown out is not one I addressed, though the lack of provision for write-in ballots doesn't speak well of any electoral process. Throwing out ballots which don't go to a 'pre-approved' candidate...I'm not even going to bother grinding my teeth. I will click them together a bit, though.

Anyway, you turned in a ballot, so that's a vote. And I'll say you cast it better than most. Whether you did it better than those who voted "against Obama" or not is a matter of opinion (though, as you mentioned, 'against' votes don't mean much in non-swing states). I don't take any firm position on the issue of whether to 'throw my vote away' or 'choose the lesser evil'.

My point is just that those who threw their votes away shouldn't be lumped in with those who didn't bother to vote. Particularly if one is going to have harsh words for those who don't vote.

Terry Morris said...

You're right, Chiu. I'd like to get that changed in Oklahoma, and I need to start some letter writing campaigns to help initiate the process. We've been doing some internal house sweeping in Oklahoma over the last few election cycles. The Republicans are now in control in both houses of the State Congress for the first time since statehood. They've been doing some pretty good work on a number of issues which the democrats created all those years they were at the helm, but I don't think they've yet gotten around to fixing the problems with our elections. I think they will eventually.

On my concern about my ballot being thrown out...

I never thought it was a foregone conclusion that it would be, I just thought there was a chance that it would be (a chance I wasn't willing to take since I wanted my votes counted in the Statewide elections and on the State questions, also in the Congressional races.).

I make no claims as to the 'superiority' of my choice to abstain in the presidential race except on a purely personal level, just to be clear. In fact, I've defended people who voted McCain-Palin because they felt it the only choice they had. I have no beef against people that voted the ticket as opposed to Obama or simply sitting out the election. Particularly those, as I said above, who live in swing states. To my way of thinking Gilberabret made the right decision given his particular circumstances. But I have one piece of advice for the Republicans -- if they want me to vote for their candidates in the future, they'd better put up someone I can live with voting for. But they're not really after my vote because I'm one of them radical right-wingers they so much despise with the democrat brethren. No; they went out and got themselves a great big tent and set it up on the fairgrounds. They've been promoting this 'big tent compassionate conservatism' for quite a while now. But for some reason or another they ain't smart enough to see that it isn't working.

chiu_chunling said...

No...they see it isn't "working" and they know damn well why, and that is their plan.

Republican In Name Only. Why are these people in control of the Republican Party organization? Because it's the most effective way to prevent you from casting an effective vote against Progressive policies. They aren't really that concerned with getting elected themselves, so much as cultivating their contacts "across the aisle" and with the social and financial elite.

It is pure icing that, in the process of pretending to be Republicans, they get to mislead many hapless novice candidates as to the requirements of "electability". But make no mistake, the entire point is to keep qualified conservatives out of office, and portray any who do get there as lunatics or morons.

They miscalculated badly with Palin, and you can tell it really scared them if you look at what they say about her (which they started even before the election, in case you thought they were actually trying to win).

I'm baffled that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so ready to forget what the term RINO implies. These people didn't take over the party to get into office. Their main goal is to keep you out.

Terry Morris said...

Chiu, I acknowledge that there's likely a lot of truth to what you're saying in your last post. I personally tend to be a little less cynical than you are about it though. To you that's probably an indication that I'm naive, or that I have a blind spot in the way I view the world of politics. Which certainly could be the case. But in order to keep my sanity, I don't want to go about distrusting everyone's motives all the time. If it comes to that in the end, well, I guess that's what it comes to.

gilbertabrett said...

OK. I am sorry. I did not mean to come across as insulting - just how strongly I feel about voting. I was actually in PA during the last presidential debacle and those antiques we voted on did not allow you write anyone in. SO... I HAD to make a quick choice. For me there was no competition because I would never vote for a snake like O'Drama, even though I think McCain is a butt smoocher a lot of the time and does not seem to THINK like someone who would run the office of US president. STILL, I would not vote for slick willy...

Either which way, I just think we HAVE to use what we have. Maybe that is why they can't keep ammunition around here in VA now...

I personally believe that GOD has allowed us to get what we deserve. Sorry, but the Christians have to suffer through this. We will either grow some backbone and use our GOD given voices, or we will continue to worry about our 501(c)(3) status...

If we have a country left in 2010, we might be able to make a REAL change...

chiu_chunling said...

Admittedly, I wouldn't trust in humans even if doing so weren't specifically condemned by God. I have a hard time even trusting God, or perhaps one could say I "trust, but verify". I can understand that most people would regard that attitude as a little bit extreme.

That being said, why trust those who have already repeatedly betrayed you?

Terry Morris said...

Well, I don't think they've all betrayed me. At least not purposely so.

Anyway, I wouldn't say that "trust but verify" with respect to God is extreme. And if most people would consider it extreme, as you assert, I can hardly see why. To me personally, "trust but verify" isn't really distrusting God as much as it is distrusting oneself, or, one's ability to discern God's will. But that's just me.

gilbertabrett said...

I used to be like Thomas - show me the scars - but I have learned that faith in GOD (for me) is NOT about me. It is about letting HIM do what HE needs to do in my life and not being sour about it. HIS plan always works out for the best - for HIM & for me, if I allow it to be that way. If I grumble, then I know I am disappointing HIM AND blocking my own blessing (as Patti LaBelle would say).

AND I would still not vote for that crab, O'Drama. I feel bad when I call him names, but then I remember two of the first things he did when he moved into OUR White House - send millions we did not have to murder innocent babies in the womb and give a major address to the Arab World before he addressed the USA. SORRY! Innaugural Addresses do not count! They come with the territory that day...

chiu_chunling said...

See, I'm not such a nice person that I can even aspire to not be sour about God's influence on my life. Downright bitter, I am. But I'm fine with that.

I would call Obama names...except I can't think of any worse than his own. Barack Hussein Obama. That's almost enough obscenity to describe him.

Anyway, back to the topic, I don't deny that there are some Republicans who are genuine enough in their commitment to the foundational ideal of rule of law which defines a republic. And there are plenty more who aren't actively determined to overthrow the Constitution and the sovereignty of America, but are just confused. Then you have those who are corrupted by the lure of power and wealth unbounded by laws. And a few are genuine wolves in sheep's clothing.

I don't much care which category any given individual falls into. I'm not the judge of men's hearts, after all (and I wouldn't want to be either...ick). But one shouldn't ignore what people do just because you can't know why. The reasons don't really matter to you anyway.

On the other hand, they do matter to me...while the actions don't. Hmmm...I guess that's the difference between actually living in the world and just being amused by it. If I were my boss I would so fire me....

Terry Morris said...

Well, as I've said elsewhere, I'm really beginning to turn my attention more inwardly, which is to say towards the goings-on in my own State, and to heck with Washington DC. I'm more concerned with the local and State pols than I am with the national ones. Washington DC is corrupt beyond repair, I'm firmly convinced of that. The Republican party is no longer a viable vehicle for conservatism in my view, so it's basically useless as far as I'm concerned.

As for Sarah Palin, I hope she'll stay in her State and try to effect change-for-the-better there, as opposed to trying to do so at the national level where she has no hope of success. Lord knows they have some serious problems in Alaska. At least they did when I lived there. Indeed, it was because of their teaching of homosexual behavior in the AK public schools (this was in the early '90s) that my wife and I first began to contemplate homeschooling.

On your remarks about Hussein's name, when I first became aware of the guy back during his Senate run in Illinois, I said then that his name should, in a sane America, be enough to end his political career then and there. But I already knew America had gone over the edge at that point.

chiu_chunling said...

Well, I do hope that Palin devotes some of her efforts to Alaska's politicians, but at the state government level she's pretty much swept what she can. The problems you saw had a lot to do with why she entered the arena, after all. Signs are she'll be devoting at least some support to help conservatives win at the state level elsewhere, though I'm guessing she wants to focus on changing the landscape in Congress.

Dreams die hard, after all. When someone has succeeded beyond all expectation in cleaning up one corrupt government, it can result in unrealistic expectations for what might be done to save another. Palin's definitely a dreamer.

But I don't hate that. I like to dream too, after all.

The really great thing about Barack Hussein Obama is that each name has a distinctive sound and thus fits different occasions. "Barack" is a perfect replacement for most common explicatives. It also can be used as a verb, since it's etymologically derived from one--as in "Barack that!" or "That's Baracked up!"

"Hussein" is great for a drawn out scream. "Hussein!" Like when you find out a bureaucrat decided saving your mother's life wasn't "cost effective". "Hussein!" Or that a group of American soldiers came under fire and weren't allowed to call in an airstrike because airstrikes kill innocent Muslims, so American soldiers died instead. "Hussein!" Or when they let some terrorist mastermind escape because he's in a Olly-olly-all-come-free zone. "Hussein!" Or they've actually got one in custody, and Obama lets him go. "Hussein! Hussein! Hussein!"

Finally, "Obama" is perfect for those moments when you're just too disgusted to muster the energy for anything else. Like pretty much any financial headline this year. "Obama". Also useful to describing any otherwise indescribable moron. "What an Obama." It even combines with 'nation' to form a multi-purpose, multi-level derogatory term for pretty much anything obamay. "Baracked Obamanation." "What a Baracking Obamanation." "What the Barack is that Obamanation?"

"Hussein!"

gilbertabrett said...

Now you know you are sick! You cracked me up all through that one Chiu! You HAVE to fit Barry and Soetero in there somehow!

Oh, I must get rest this week because vice prince Biden is coming to VA to tell us how well the CRIMINALUS Bill is working. What a joke these people are. It took me forever to get through Maryland last week because of them paving a road THAT WAS FINE!!!

Then this afternoon on Beck or Hannity or one of the conservative radio programs, it was said that the rumor is Govornor Palin is goiung to stomp for 'conservative' democrats.

I am gonna take a week and not read anything except my Bible and listen to no news. I bet i will be amazed at how much willl change in that short amount of time. JESUS said it would be like a woman in labor at the end...

Terry Morris said...

What is a "conservative democrat?"

pbunyon said...

I would be laughing at the commentary if my stomach wasn't turning over it all. I did manage to cough up a little laugh. I guess you could call it up-chuckling. Great stuff guys.

chiu_chunling said...

Yeah...if I'd actually been joking I'd be more disappointed.

As for the "conservative Democrats" thing, apparently "Gov. Sarah Palin believes all Americans must work together for the future, regardless of their party affiliation. Gov. Palin is the honorary chair of SarahPac, and its supporters are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and those unaffiliated with any political party." I'm sure she's gotten a contribution or two that came with one of those "I've been a Democrat my whole life, up until [pick your Obamanation]" letters. Which is her cue to say, "I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all."

Beyond that, I think she's just making a point about electoral politics that is usually not particularly contentious, except when she's the one making it.

I do recall that when I read her criteria for the kinds of politicians who would be getting her support, I had to laugh. Not at the suggestion that 'conservative Democrats' might qualify, that's just normal non-partisanship language. I was amused by the apparently earnest expectation that there would be Republicans able to qualify as being that conservative.

pbunyon said...

Now see Chiu, I say something simple like Sarah never having been a Republican due to the obvious reasons. Here you go spelling it all out so it would be hard to dissagree. I sometimes scratch my head at your reasoning but I can hardly argue with it. I hope you keep it coming.

Thanks,
PB

Terry Morris said...

As for the "conservative Democrats" thing, apparently "Gov. Sarah Palin believes all Americans must work together for the future, regardless of their party affiliation.

I guess there's certainly something noble in the sentiment, but it doesn't change the basic problem which is that Democrats are generally liberals. If they're registered democrats, then they're at very least tacitly agreeing with the democrat(ic) platform.

I know some self-professed "conservative democrats," but I've never been able to figure out exactly how it is that they seriously make such a claim when the platform of the party they align themselves with is so very hostile to fundamental conservative values -- the open avowal of feminism (I'm not talking about the radical militant form of feminism, I'm talking about the more subtle and dangerous form) as a governing principle of a well functioning society and all that that implies for the nuclear family, the acceptance of multiculturalism as a self-evident positive good for American society, the "proposition nation" bologna (give us your tired, your poor, and all that), etc.

How do people who have fundamentally opposing worldviews 'work together' for America's future? I mean, it sounds good'n'all, but how? Maybe the answer lies in decentralization of political power. But does the average Democrat believe in government decentralization? Certainly not.

chiu_chunling said...

Well, the "average Democrat" doesn't think about such things that much. Political theory can be a fun past-time, but the average person just isn't that into it. Heck, even most politicians aren't that interested in it.

There are a number of "Democrats" who really have voted against their own party for the last few elections. Not as many as would have had the Republicans presented a distinct alternative to Progressivism, but there are quite a few. If you talk to the typical Democrat about preserving small businesses enterprise and avoiding monopolies and personal responsibility, they'll claim that sort of thing is exactly what the Democrat party is all about (or used to be all about).

It's not that they're stupid. Okay, it's not just stupidity. Regular government isn't natural to humans, and thinking about it in terms more complex than personal like or dislike of prominent individuals isn't normal. That doesn't just apply to Democrats, it applies to most former Republicans too.

Sure, Progressives are exploiting that dynamic to overthrow the American republic. That doesn't mean you're going to win by ignoring such a basic fact about how humans decide who to follow. It isn't rational or particularly sane. Even one such as myself can gather a following, which just goes to show how much humans depend on exceptional individual role-models for a sense of direction. It almost doesn't matter how someone stands out, people have such a need for the extraordinary.

And, to be fair, in times like this it is clear that America needs something different. Most people are not particularly expert at thinking out exactly what that might be and then looking for an exact match. Which is how "hope" and "change" won. You can decry it, but if you want to lead humans (or try to avoid having them follow you), you need to understand how they decide their allegiances.

Theories about fundamental freedoms and rights are important to good government. But they won't propel you into office.

Terry Morris said...

I'm not seeking any office.

My state is a good example of what you're talking about with regard to Democrats voting opposite their party. Indeed, my own dad is a lifelong registered Democrat, but he's very conservative by contrast to average Democrats. He's really just a moderate, though. Which is to say he's ... a right-liberal (he's also a big Sarah Palin fan, btw). And, yes, Dad loves to talk about what the Democrat party used to stand for, i.e., everything he currently stands for.

pbunyon said...

Chiu_Chunling,

I know that you must have at least listened to or read Charles Krauthammer commentaries. You may not be the same person but you sure come across with, what seems to me, a similar mind to reason. Am I way off?

-PB

chiu_chunling said...

I...did recognize his face immediately when I looked up the name (which I definitely recognized). And his articles track as being cogent and relevant to my interests. Particularly the last one, about the Moon. Which is slightly ironic since my own interest has practical implications directly opposed to permitting further human activity there.

I wouldn't say that our thoughts are identical. For example (leaving behind the Moon, about which we think similarly, but from different perspectives), he says that the Iranian protesters need "mass" (I take that to mean a combination of popularity and momentum) to succeed. While it is true that those would be helpful, what they really need is some practical way to stop the regime from killing them. "Mass" can accomplish that through moral and social suasion, making it hard for regime supporters to believe there is any further point to making themselves the (hated) servants of oppression. But while that is the tool some prefer others to use, it is not how Americans won their freedom. When the British started shooting into crowds, those crowds started shooting back (in fact, exactly which side counts as having started the shooting is debatable).

But overall, our agreement is greater than our disagreement. The essential problem is not that the administration lacks an effective strategy for helping the protesters, the problem is that Obama is not on their side in the first place. So it is up to the Iranians to supply the will and means to fight for themselves, whatever means they choose.

Anyway, it will be a pleasure reading his articles.

pbunyon said...

Chiu,

I am glad you found him. He becomes a credit to any debate whether you agree, disagree, or get left in in the dust.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.