Joss Delage

Sarah Palin selected by McCain for VP slot

257 posts in this topic

McCain just beat Obama in a recent poll:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/08/mccain-leads-poll/

This is a stunning trend shift and you would think that it would be at the front page of all key media ... but you'd be wrong.

What press are you reading? It's all over the Politico and the main news sites. McCain's convention bounce appears bigger than Obama's. Whether it lasts is another story. When are the debates? Palin's interview with Gibson may prove crucial, particularly if Gibson hasn't already fed his questions to her so her handlers can prepare her for it.

The McCain bounce is actually the Palin bounce.

It appears that the entire body of the approx. 8% of the electorate that swung from pro-Obama to pro-McCain during the Republican convention is women. Since McCain's announced his running mate, approx. 20% of American women surveyed, have switched their vote from Obama-Biden to McCain-Palin.

This is a huge shift driven, in part, by women in the center who were frustrated over the defeat of America's first woman candidate who had a real shot at the White House. Many of the converts to the Republican ticket were Hilary supporters.

What world-view do Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have in common? Does Sarah Palin, with her autistic infant and her 17-year-old daughter who has "chosen life," articulate the pro-female viewpoint better than Hillary Clinton?

No.

Absolutely not.

But Sarah Palin embodies an American can-do attitude and is a self-made success. For a large fraction of the 20% who changed their allegiance this -- a competent and independent spirit in a woman -- is more important than any stand on any particular moral or political issue.

If you saw footage of the white-haired John McCain speaking on the stump this week, the Palin bounce has put a significant bounce into the Senator's step, too.

What does all this ultimately indicate about the state of American culture? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

But there is no question what it means politically. Despite monumental advantages the Obama campaign has in donated money, organization, numbers of campaign workers, numbers volunteer activists on their side, and a captive main stream media throwing all the "news" coverage their way -- despite all these considerable material advantages -- the McCain-Palin ticket has pulled into the lead.

The majority of American women want a woman like Gov. Palin in the executive branch, one heartbeat away. And a majority of American women are hostile to the main stream media acting as a branch of the Obama political machine, spitting out neo-Marxist comments against Sarah Palin.

If this is "identity politics," the kind of woman that the majority of American women are identifying with is a confession that they have a pretty healthy pride in themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are fooling ourselves if we think that voting GOP will buy us time. The best thing that can happen for the cause of freedom and rational thought is for the GOP to disintegrate and be forced to reconstitute itself along rational lines.

Historically, whenever free speech and/or property rights have been destroyed in a given society, it has proven very, very difficult - if not impossible - to restore them. This fact is the most powerful argument against "voting down" the conservative Right in order to make more clear the capitalist Right's contrast with the Left.

With an emphasis on your mention of "historically", i.e., empirically, as opposed to the kind of fantasizing that goes on about this topic. When people lose freedom and prosperity they tend to become accustomed to the new level of depravation and have even less means to fight it, while gaining nothing new to help them intellectually understand what is right, which lack of was the problem to begin with. In any election cycle you had better take the best of what is possible because you are going to have to live under it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Sarah Palin embodies an American can-do attitude and is a self-made success. For a large fraction of the 20% who changed their allegiance this -- a competent and independent spirit in a woman -- is more important than any stand on any particular moral or political issue.

Especially since there is no explicit alternative offered on moral principles and hardly any discussion of political principles at all. This is an example of the American sense of life still trying to assert itself as people see some hope and grab for it. From what I have been learning about Sarah Palin from people who have worked with her and know what they are talking about, as opposed to the astonishing media frenzy trying to attack her with every rumor, inuendo and irrelevant smear they can dig up, they are grabbing in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When people lose freedom and prosperity they tend to become accustomed to the new level of depravation ...........

It has always amazed me the way people 'adapt' and accept these deprivations much as they do bad weather. Clearly they think neither can be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Among the "unfunded mandates" imposed on Alaska is the Federally mandated destruction of the economy by prohibiting private ownership for the sake of environmentalist preservationism. Less than one percent of the land in Alaska is privately owned. The Federal government blocks access to private land and mineral rights as well as disrupting transportation corridors across the state. It controls and prohibits production. ANWAR is only one example. This has been done to rural areas all over the country, primarily by liberal, urban viros who like to dream about Garden of Eden wilderness at someone else's expense, and then snipe at their rural victims. Few people in this country understand what urban populations with the dominant political power are doing to rural populations within thier own states and nationally. The state of Alaska has been so mauled by this that Alaskans tend to regard Federal funds as reparations for what has been done to them. Biased accounts of the small amount of money going to Alaska do not acknowledge, let alone address, this and it's not surprising to see them suddenly appearing in the media's frenzied attempts to undermine the threat to the progressive's Obama from Sarah Palin's popularity.

Oh, come on, evw. Enough with the sob stories about how "urban" elites dominate rural areas. Illinois is a perfect example of how that is not the case. Chicago is the economic driver of the state, and where the farmers go to sell their crops. However, for 25 years we've been forced to use ethanol statewide to prop up the corn industry. Every new expressway built in the Chicago area is a tollway. Not a single toll road exists downstate. We pay up to 10.25% sales tax here vs. 6.25% in the rural areas because downstate politicians grab a disproportionate share of state income tax revenues and the limited federal money that does come in. People think just because we have a Daley as mayor that we have clout at the national or state level. We really don't. Even King Richard I didn't hold that much sway at the state level (though he did carry his weight in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations).

As for Alaska, they have been a GOP stronghold ever since they became a state. If Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II haven't done anything to right what you think has been wronged (let alone Ted Stevens), what makes you (or Alaskans) think McCain is going to be any different? More likely, Palin will just send even more earmarks their way and get more bridges to nowhere built.

The level of rationalization here for Palin in particular is astounding. Her goofy church doesn't matter (but Obama's does). Her state's consumption of federal funding is just "reparations." The fact that she got the nod primarily because she's a woman doesn't matter (Tim Pawlenty has just as compelling a story getting elected in the land of Hubert Humphrey and Jesse Ventura).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When people lose freedom and prosperity they tend to become accustomed to the new level of depravation ...........

It has always amazed me the way people 'adapt' and accept these deprivations much as they do bad weather. Clearly they think neither can be changed.

Haven't you heard of Al Gore? :huh:

*emphasis mine obviously*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Among the "unfunded mandates" imposed on Alaska is the Federally mandated destruction of the economy by prohibiting private ownership for the sake of environmentalist preservationism. Less than one percent of the land in Alaska is privately owned. The Federal government blocks access to private land and mineral rights as well as disrupting transportation corridors across the state. It controls and prohibits production. ANWAR is only one example. This has been done to rural areas all over the country, primarily by liberal, urban viros who like to dream about Garden of Eden wilderness at someone else's expense, and then snipe at their rural victims. Few people in this country understand what urban populations with the dominant political power are doing to rural populations within thier own states and nationally. The state of Alaska has been so mauled by this that Alaskans tend to regard Federal funds as reparations for what has been done to them. Biased accounts of the small amount of money going to Alaska do not acknowledge, let alone address, this and it's not surprising to see them suddenly appearing in the media's frenzied attempts to undermine the threat to the progressive's Obama from Sarah Palin's popularity.

Oh, come on, evw. Enough with the sob stories about how "urban" elites dominate rural areas.

Please drop the sarcasm and learn something about the subject before you make condescending pronouncements about it. I have been dealing with this problem for twenty years. Your condescending denials only serve to illustrate why rural people have the kind of complaints they do about the snotty political elitists among the so-called 'cosmopoliton' Democrats and liberal Republicans. It is one of the reasons why there has been such a sign of hope and support for Sarah Palin that the 'main stream' intellectuals find so unexpected and which they do not understand.

As for Alaska, they have been a GOP stronghold ever since they became a state. If Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II haven't done anything to right what you think has been wronged (let alone Ted Stevens), what makes you (or Alaskans) think McCain is going to be any different? More likely, Palin will just send even more earmarks their way and get more bridges to nowhere built.

There is no "bridge to nowhere". No one has been able to do anything about the domination of Alaska and other rural areas because of the influence of entrenched environmentalists combined with widespread ignorance about the problem. This would not change with McCain. Palin would be a beneficial influence in preventing McCain from allowing the viros to run loose in Washington and make the problem worse, as it always is when a conservative is not in the White House. You clearly know nothing about this subject.

Most of the population nationally is ignorant of the story of Alaskan statehood, the conditions put on it, and the stream of broken promises ever since. The whole ordeal is a story that makes your jaw drop when you learn of it because the power politics and what it got away with is so contrary to what people think America is. How does anyone think it came about that there is state in the US in which less than 1% of the land is privately owned? Something is very, very wrong and it is time that people started to look at what is going on instead of looking down their noses at people who are supposed to not matter because they are in "nowhere".

The level of rationalization here for Palin in particular is astounding. Her goofy church doesn't matter (but Obama's does). Her state's consumption of federal funding is just "reparations." The fact that she got the nod primarily because she's a woman doesn't matter.

Palin's "goofy church" has nothing to with her politics, success and popularity, and neither does the rest of the tidal wave of such personal smears, rumors and irrelevant innuendos against her from the liberal media, all intended to destroy her without having to deal with the substantive issues.

Obama's "church" and the other organizations he has taken leadership positions in are demonstrably far left radical political organizations which he associated with because of a common political ideology and militant activism that are anathema to the foundations and future of this country. That is not irrelevant to the election, despite the main stream media's attempts to ignore it because they are liberals who have been part of Obama's campaign from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newsweek has an interesting article on rumors about Palin's stances:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

Sliming Palin

We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

A detailed analysis these points follows at the link above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I think is behind McCain's VP choice. Keep in mind President Bush is more unpopular than his father. What happened during that election. Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate with James Stockdale as his vice-presidential choice. James Stockdale was the highest ranked POW in Vietnam while McCain was also a POW. All three are Naval Academy Graduates. Not wanting to make the same mistake Perot made in his vice-presidential choice, McCain picks a VP that causes a positive reaction as opposed to the negative reaction that Stockdale caused. Does anyone remember Stockdale's poor performance in the Vice-presidential debate?

The fact that McCain's VP choice has caused such a positive response within the Republican Party also allows McCain the opportunity to put Joe Lieberman in a position in his cabinet that is far more important than the VP.

Will Joe Lieberman be McCain's choice for Secretary of Defense or will he head the State Department?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that McCain's VP choice has caused such a positive response within the Republican Party also allows McCain the opportunity to put Joe Lieberman in a position in his cabinet that is far more important than the VP.

Will Joe Lieberman be McCain's choice for Secretary of Defense or will he head the State Department?

I don't know who he will appoint, but in his acceptance speech he said he would appoint Democrats to help run the government. The only thing that is worse is that Obama would appoint all Democrats and liberals.

Lieberman is a socialist, but is better than most on foreign policy and might be better than most others as Secretary of Defense if appointed and confined to that. Such is the state of the country and its politics :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O'Reilly just announced that, because Obama just agreed to go on the Factor tomorrow night, the series will be postponed by a week so they can take this last-minute interview into account.

O'Reilly has postponed this series again. It's now scheduled to start on Sept 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O'Reilly just announced that, because Obama just agreed to go on the Factor tomorrow night, the series will be postponed by a week so they can take this last-minute interview into account.

O'Reilly has postponed this series again. It's now scheduled to start on Sept 15.

He just had an interview with Obama in which he went after him for his plan to raise taxes on "the rich" to redistribute it. Obama did not do very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been dealing with this problem for twenty years. Your condescending denials only serve to illustrate why rural people have the kind of complaints they do about the snotty political elitists among the so-called 'cosmopoliton' Democrats and liberal Republicans. It is one of the reasons why there has been such a sign of hope and support for Sarah Palin that the 'main stream' intellectuals find so unexpected and which they do not understand.

There is no "bridge to nowhere". No one has been able to do anything about the domination of Alaska and other rural areas because of the influence of entrenched environmentalists combined with widespread ignorance about the problem. This would not change with McCain. Palin would be a beneficial influence in preventing McCain from allowing the viros to run loose in Washington and make the problem worse, as it always is when a conservative is not in the White House. You clearly know nothing about this subject.

Most of the population nationally is ignorant of the story of Alaskan statehood, the conditions put on it, and the stream of broken promises ever since. The whole ordeal is a story that makes your jaw drop when you learn of it because the power politics and what it got away with is so contrary to what people think America is. How does anyone think it came about that there is state in the US in which less than 1% of the land is privately owned? Something is very, very wrong and it is time that people started to look at what is going on instead of looking down their noses at people who are supposed to not matter because they are in "nowhere".

Palin's "goofy church" has nothing to with her politics, success and popularity, and neither does the rest of the tidal wave of such personal smears, rumors and irrelevant innuendos against her from the liberal media, all intended to destroy her without having to deal with the substantive issues.

Obama's "church" and the other organizations he has taken leadership positions in are demonstrably far left radical political organizations which he associated with because of a common political ideology and militant activism that are anathema to the foundations and future of this country. That is not irrelevant to the election, despite the main stream media's attempts to ignore it because they are liberals who have been part of Obama's campaign from the beginning.

Palin's goofy church has a lot to do with her politics. She supports the war in Iraq not because she gave it much thought, but because "God" told her it was important to fight the war. What else has "God" told her to do?

As for the bridge to nowhere, it wasn't built, but in spite of Palin and the Alaska GOP, not because of them. Palin was for the bridge before she was against it, and only killed the project after most of those funds were diverted to other pet projects in Alaska.

While you may claim kinship with Alaska from your rural Maine hometown, I clearly know the type of abuse that we "condescending" urban citizens get from the rural areas. We fund program after program, and see our taxes skyrocket to support infrastructure that few people actually use. Yet when it comes to any projects we desire, such as capital funding for local transit, we constantly hear "I never use the trains or buses, why should I pay for them?" Well, I don't use their roads or libraries, either? Why should I pay for them?

The truth of the matter is that if big states like Illinois seceded from the Union, we'd keep far more of our resources than we send to Washington. We could trade with other countries or states on arms-length terms that are better than what we deal with currently.

As for why so little land is privately owned, consider how tiny the population is. There isn't much arable land, and only small pockets have the oil or other minerals that are worthwhile to extract. Should it be higher? Perhaps, but statistics without context don't give the whole story. As Mark Twain once wrote, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes, I'm clearly miffed at once again being a resident of a big state that "doesn't matter" from a national perspective. We're used to being ignored by national politicians here, while dutifully sending our tax dollars to Washington to be distributed elsewhere (no matter what the administration).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O'Reilly just announced that, because Obama just agreed to go on the Factor tomorrow night, the series will be postponed by a week so they can take this last-minute interview into account.

O'Reilly has postponed this series again. It's now scheduled to start on Sept 15.

He just had an interview with Obama in which he went after him for his plan to raise taxes on "the rich" to redistribute it. Obama did not do very well.

Actually, I thought O'Reilly conceded the principle (that he is entitled to his own earnings) to Obama. I knew O'Reilly would be ineffective, but I didn't know he would do so poorly. Whenever I catch his show these days, which is rarely, I get the sense he even wants Obama to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain just beat Obama in a recent poll:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/08/mccain-leads-poll/

This is a stunning trend shift and you would think that it would be at the front page of all key media ... but you'd be wrong.

It looks like you are in Seattle. So am I -- this is all over the major news media. Not sure what you read or listen to or watch -- or how you define "key media." Looks like we have a real race on our hands! Yeah Palin!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been dealing with this problem for twenty years. Your condescending denials only serve to illustrate why rural people have the kind of complaints they do about the snotty political elitists among the so-called 'cosmopoliton' Democrats and liberal Republicans. It is one of the reasons why there has been such a sign of hope and support for Sarah Palin that the 'main stream' intellectuals find so unexpected and which they do not understand.

There is no "bridge to nowhere". No one has been able to do anything about the domination of Alaska and other rural areas because of the influence of entrenched environmentalists combined with widespread ignorance about the problem. This would not change with McCain. Palin would be a beneficial influence in preventing McCain from allowing the viros to run loose in Washington and make the problem worse, as it always is when a conservative is not in the White House. You clearly know nothing about this subject.

Most of the population nationally is ignorant of the story of Alaskan statehood, the conditions put on it, and the stream of broken promises ever since. The whole ordeal is a story that makes your jaw drop when you learn of it because the power politics and what it got away with is so contrary to what people think America is. How does anyone think it came about that there is state in the US in which less than 1% of the land is privately owned? Something is very, very wrong and it is time that people started to look at what is going on instead of looking down their noses at people who are supposed to not matter because they are in "nowhere".

Palin's "goofy church" has nothing to with her politics, success and popularity, and neither does the rest of the tidal wave of such personal smears, rumors and irrelevant innuendos against her from the liberal media, all intended to destroy her without having to deal with the substantive issues.

Obama's "church" and the other organizations he has taken leadership positions in are demonstrably far left radical political organizations which he associated with because of a common political ideology and militant activism that are anathema to the foundations and future of this country. That is not irrelevant to the election, despite the main stream media's attempts to ignore it because they are liberals who have been part of Obama's campaign from the beginning.

Palin's goofy church has a lot to do with her politics. She supports the war in Iraq not because she gave it much thought, but because "God" told her it was important to fight the war. What else has "God" told her to do?

That is patently false. It is one of the many nasty rumors that have been maliciously spread and which you continue to repeat on the Forum as if they were true.

As for the bridge to nowhere, it wasn't built, but in spite of Palin and the Alaska GOP, not because of them. Palin was for the bridge before she was against it, and only killed the project after most of those funds were diverted to other pet projects in Alaska.

There cannot be "more bridges to nowhere" when there isn't one now. Your pronouncements claiming to report on alleged historical processes in government have no credibility. You have a long record here on the Forum of making false statements without evidence, in the form of inflamatory rhetoric and "spin" that you cull from leftist sources and internet rumors, and then throw off the top of your head as if they were established fact. This pattern of subjectivism as a substitute for objectivity seems to appeal to you because of what you find plausible in terms of your prior attitudes.

While you may claim kinship with Alaska from your rural Maine hometown, I clearly know the type of abuse that we "condescending" urban citizens get from the rural areas. We fund program after program, and see our taxes skyrocket to support infrastructure that few people actually use. Yet when it comes to any projects we desire, such as capital funding for local transit, we constantly hear "I never use the trains or buses, why should I pay for them?" Well, I don't use their roads or libraries, either? Why should I pay for them?

"Kinship with Alaska from a rural hometown in Maine" has nothing to do with it. This false characterization dismissively thrown out illustrates once again that you make pronouncements as if they were fact without knowing what you are talking about. Please stop this and make some attempt at objectivity and fact. You know nothing about my experiences or even what state my home town is in.

Your taxes escalate because liberals impose them for all kinds of redistributionist schemes. They also impose the land use prohibitions and destruction of the economy in the rural areas. The small minority of rural voters have nothing to do with making policies on "trains and buses" in Chicago.

The truth of the matter is that if big states like Illinois seceded from the Union, we'd keep far more of our resources than we send to Washington. We could trade with other countries or states on arms-length terms that are better than what we deal with currently.

Illinois does not want to "secede from the Union" over taxes or anything else. Nor does it operate on the principle of "trade". It is a high tax liberal state whose politicians like their influence in Washington. The Democrat machine in Chicago is currently trying to put one of them in the White House for more control. The last thing Illinois will repudiate is the welfare state redistributionist mentality.

As for why so little land is privately owned, consider how tiny the population is. There isn't much arable land, and only small pockets have the oil or other minerals that are worthwhile to extract. Should it be higher? Perhaps, but statistics without context don't give the whole story. As Mark Twain once wrote, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Which only begins to describe your own method. Your strained guess to try to explain away why less than 1% of the land in a state of this country is in private ownership is completely false. There is no way to justify such a statistic no matter how you try to spin it in your imagination while conceding only "perhaps" there should be more private ownership than the current less than one percent. You have no idea of what has happened in Alaska or what natural resources are available if government did not prohibit ownership and access to them. The land use prohibitions in Alaska were imposed by the Federal government as a condition of statehood and the situation has deteriorated further as promises made have continued to be broken.

You continue to make outrageous, ignorant, subjective assertions off the top of your head, which Forum members are increasingly catching on to as your credibility here plummets. If you have an interest in Objectivism you should realize that it begins with simple, basic small 'o' objectivity.

Yes, I'm clearly miffed at once again being a resident of a big state that "doesn't matter" from a national perspective. We're used to being ignored by national politicians here, while dutifully sending our tax dollars to Washington to be distributed elsewhere (no matter what the administration).

Illinois is not "ignored" nationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palin's goofy church has a lot to do with her politics. She supports the war in Iraq not because she gave it much thought, but because "God" told her it was important to fight the war. What else has "God" told her to do?

Sarah Palin's church has surprisingly little to do with her politics. Sarah Palin is a Christian creationist...but, as a small town mayor and as governor of Alaska she never attempted to introduce creationism into the schools. The only role her view on this subject played was that her irrational personal views came up in a televised debate when she was running for governor. She is not a theocrat.

A demonstration that Sarah Palin is not a Christian radical is that she has not removed her children from what evangelicals consider "secular humanist" public schools in order to enroll them in a private school that offers pious religious instruction.

Sarah Palin support the war in Iraq because "God" told her to? Am I to take that comment seriously? Do you know Gov. Palin's view of the war? I don't. ...and I don't think you do either. Please look into her view before condemning it. If there is something in her view to condemn -- some fact, some way of failing to reason about the facts -- please bring it up. We want the facts. We want to know. But...

But, you cannot legitimately assume that war supporters are inherently irrational people. There were good and rational reasons for invading Iraq (to prevent Saddam from supplying nerve gas to al Qaeda or Palestinian terrorists and to prevent Saddam from beginning work on an atom bomb again). There were good and rational reason for maintaining an occupation after no WMDs were found (in order to leave Iraq in the best condition so that would not become a "failed state" for decades to come, like Afghanistan, and provide a haven of anarchy for global Islamic terrorist movements.)

The fact that Objectivists take both sides of the Iraq war issue and have their reasons -- valid or not -- and have argued over them vehemently for the past seven years must be known to you. I believe that you participated in these arguments. The fact that such intellectual arguments exist should be considered proof to you that the voice of "God" is not the only reason why many of us Objectivists supported and continue to support the war.

Gov. Palin's worst religious leanings show up on the topic of pregnancy: her decision to knowingly carry a Down Syndrome fetus to term and her (undoubted) influence over her 17-year-old daughter's decision to "chose life." If you would like to condemn the irrational and destructive in Sarah Palin's religious view of life, that -- not the war -- would be the place to go. (If you want to condemn Gov. Palin's evil view of pregnancy, I'll happily join you.)

Barack Obama's long membership in a neo-Marxist "black liberation" church and his long "spiritual" association (including his personal conversion to Christianity) indicates a far greater hostility to liberty than Palin's involvement with religion. The past four years have seen the overt declaration by one top free-market conservative after another that their primary allegiance is to Jesus Christ. In response the left has not asserted a rational, secular view of life. They don't have it. Over the past four years the unprovoked declarations of religious belief from conservatives have been answered by a resurgence of the religious left to a level we've not seen since the civil rights movement and anti-war movement of the '60s.

To start his political career, Barak Obama overtly rode the radical religious left in the black ghetto of Chicago. He used it to gain his position as a "promenant community organizer" (organizer for what?) and forms the basis of his meteoric rise to the U.S. Senate. The only reason Obama got off the ride with the religious left was that it (rightly) implicated him in a deep philosophical rejection of American liberty.

I am not aware of any significant instance in which Sarah Palin has exploited religious justifications for tyranny. Barak Obama cannot make the same claim.

He found a spiritual ally in Reverend Wright and experienced a sense of personal power in his religious arguments for overthrowing capitalism and instituting a dictatorship that would seek reprisals against the race that (supposedly) benefited from all the (supposed) evils of capitalism.

As for the bridge to nowhere, it wasn't built, but in spite of Palin and the Alaska GOP, not because of them. Palin was for the bridge before she was against it, and only killed the project after most of those funds were diverted to other pet projects in Alaska.

While you may claim kinship with Alaska from your rural Maine hometown, I clearly know the type of abuse that we "condescending" urban citizens get from the rural areas. We fund program after program, and see our taxes skyrocket to support infrastructure that few people actually use. Yet when it comes to any projects we desire, such as capital funding for local transit, we constantly hear "I never use the trains or buses, why should I pay for them?" Well, I don't use their roads or libraries, either? Why should I pay for them?

The truth of the matter is that if big states like Illinois seceded from the Union, we'd keep far more of our resources than we send to Washington. We could trade with other countries or states on arms-length terms that are better than what we deal with currently.

As for why so little land is privately owned, consider how tiny the population is. There isn't much arable land, and only small pockets have the oil or other minerals that are worthwhile to extract. Should it be higher? Perhaps, but statistics without context don't give the whole story. As Mark Twain once wrote, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes, I'm clearly miffed at once again being a resident of a big state that "doesn't matter" from a national perspective. We're used to being ignored by national politicians here, while dutifully sending our tax dollars to Washington to be distributed elsewhere (no matter what the administration).

The intensity of your condemnation of Sarah Palin accepting, and spending, the pork-barrel money for the bridge to no-where are a little bit out-of-context. Sarah Palin's vice in this area does not set her apart from other politicians, making it a reason why we should not vote for her to become Vice President.

For example, Barack Obama used his Congressional privilege to direct a $225,000 earmark of your federal tax dollars to support Catholic church of a liberation theologist, Pastor Pfleger -- a man who was censured by his Cardinal for urging a mob of gun-prohibitionists gathered in front of a suburban gun store to go in and drag out the owner and "snuff" him.

If you want to dig into Sarah Palin's false "small government" image, take a look at the lease "agreements" she extorted from oil companies drilling in Alaska and the mechanism by which she forced owners of natural gas leases to accelerate their plans for construction of a new pipeline. Gov. Palin is very proud that she increased the "dividend payment" by $1200 per year to all "tenured" Alaska residents. Each now gets a check for $1654 per year from the state government...money taken from oil companies for exploiting resources that they should have had the opportunity to develop as their own private property.

Your anti-rural attitude, I don't get it.

I lived in Chicago's Gold Coast for four years (I now live in the suburbs). When I was there, I loved the urban lifestyle. I visit often. I really don't want to live anywhere in the world that is more than an hour's drive from such a fabulous place. But as a former big-city man, I recognized that America's urban centers are the center all that is both the best and the worst in America.

It is in America's big cities that one finds the most interesting and accomplished individuals in the greatest numbers in virtually every field of endeavor. But it is in America's big cities that one also finds, in very large number, dishonest individuals who resent achievement, want to crush liberty, and want to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat or...failing that...to destroy industrial civilization through environmentalist controls. Racism is rampant. Not a few of the city's bad people are frauds and criminals. Insurance fraud and disability fraud are particularly common in the city, especially among city workers, firemen, and the police. Violent crime and its political corollary -- opposition to carrying guns for self defense -- imprisons people in their homes at night in many neighborhoods of the city. The brightest, most prosperous, busiest quarter of the city is mostly safe from the threat, but for the other three quarters the presence of violent criminals is a pall.

This is not to idealize rural society...where drug abuse and alcoholism and juvenile delinquency are at least as common as in the big city. ...and where the multitudes who get the majority of America's unemployment and welfare payments live. ...and where it is much harder to run into interesting mind.

But cities, suburbs, and rural society have no monopoly on either virtue or vice. That's why I don't understand your view. And your view has been no accident; no slip of the tongue. You've been very insistent on it. I must assume it's not a joke.

Berating those who live in rural society because they live in rural society is a crude and irrational and collectivist prejudice. You are an Objectivist -- I take your word on this -- so why promote such a view? Do you have a personal axe to grind? Are you a homosexual man or a black man who's had terrible trouble in rural society at some time in your past?

I don't get it.

Please go easy on people in rural America. There are a lot of good, self-supporting, self-respecting, independent people out there. Some are even interesting, successful people. Some -- typically ex-urbanites -- are even intellectuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is patently false. It is one of the many nasty rumors that have been maliciously spread and which you continue to repeat on the Forum as if they were true.

Please explain what this means, then.

"Kinship with Alaska from a rural hometown in Maine" has nothing to do with it. This false characterization dismissively thrown out illustrates once again that you make pronouncements as if they were fact without knowing what you are talking about. Please stop this and make some attempt at objectivity and fact. You know nothing about my experiences or even what state my home town is in.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "may"? It was meant as a hypothesis. Anyway,

Your taxes escalate because liberals impose them for all kinds of redistributionist schemes. They also impose the land use prohibitions and destruction of the economy in the rural areas. The small minority of rural voters have nothing to do with making policies on "trains and buses" in Chicago.

Illinois does not want to "secede from the Union" over taxes or anything else. It is a high tax liberal state whose politicians like their influence in Washington.

Now here's where you are clearly posting false information and your ignorance of Illinois politics. The rural vote quite often decides statewide elections. Cook County is solidly Democratic (not necessarily liberal), but represents about 40% of the population. The 5 other counties in the metropolitan area are mostly Republican (slowly changing) and represent about another 30% of the population. "Downstate" is mostly GOP, but far southern Illinois is more Democratic. Up until 1992 we were a swing state at the presidential level, and as recently as 2003 had a Republican governor. As I pointed out before, there was a Republican who could have beaten Obama handily had he been talked out of retirement, and even the original nominee had a good chance before details about his divorce from Jeri Ryan became press fodder (along with personal details about the original favorite in the Democratic primary). And, yes, funding for the Regional Transportation Authority was a major political issue last winter. After much bickering, the General Assembly approved a 0.25% sales tax in the 6-county area to finance basic repairs to the el tracks and maintenance on the aging buses. We can argue the relative merits of any public transportation system, but the fact is that the RTA is actually fairly lean as government agencies go, and has been underfunded relative to both its capital needs and rural highway systems in Illinois.

As for the tax burden, Illinois is middle-of-the-road in state and local tax burden, ranking 30th out of the 50 states, and slightly below the national average with a 9.3% total average levy vs. 9.7% nationally. Our comparatively high property and sales taxes are offset by a low income tax. We also rank 45th out of the 50 states in receiving $0.75 in federal funding for every $1 in tax we send to Washington. Among our neighbors, Wisconsin gets $0.86, Indiana $1.05, Missouri $1.32 and Kentucky a whopping $1.51. Wisconsin is a left-leaning swing state, Missouri a right-leaning swing state, while Indiana and Kentucky are solid red states.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/26.html

If our politicians have all the influence in Washington you claim they do, we certainly don't have much to show for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Berating those who live in rural society because they live in rural society is a crude and irrational and collectivist prejudice. You are an Objectivist -- I take your word on this -- so why promote such a view? Do you have a personal axe to grind? Are you a homosexual man or a black man who's had terrible trouble in rural society at some time in your past?

KPO = Katherine P O'mara. She's a woman and she is not an Objectivist. That might help you some of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain just beat Obama in a recent poll:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/08/mccain-leads-poll/

This is a stunning trend shift and you would think that it would be at the front page of all key media ... but you'd be wrong.

It looks like you are in Seattle. So am I -- this is all over the major news media. Not sure what you read or listen to or watch -- or how you define "key media." Looks like we have a real race on our hands! Yeah Palin!!!!!

I am actually now in Paris, I'll update that - thanks for reminding me.

Interestingly, when I posted that was after looking for any reference to this on the CNN, NYT, and WSJ sites and finding none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your anti-rural attitude, I don't get it.

Please go easy on people in rural America. There are a lot of good, self-supporting, self-respecting, independent people out there. Some are even interesting, successful people. Some -- typically ex-urbanites -- are even intellectuals.

I don't have an anti-rural attitude. I'm taking Palin to task for giving a speech last week laced with anti-urban themes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are fooling ourselves if we think that voting GOP will buy us time. The best thing that can happen for the cause of freedom and rational thought is for the GOP to disintegrate and be forced to reconstitute itself along rational lines.

Historically, whenever free speech and/or property rights have been destroyed in a given society, it has proven very, very difficult - if not impossible - to restore them. This fact is the most powerful argument against "voting down" the conservative Right in order to make more clear the capitalist Right's contrast with the Left.

With an emphasis on your mention of "historically", i.e., empirically, as opposed to the kind of fantasizing that goes on about this topic. When people lose freedom and prosperity they tend to become accustomed to the new level of depravation and have even less means to fight it, while gaining nothing new to help them intellectually understand what is right, which lack of was the problem to begin with. In any election cycle you had better take the best of what is possible because you are going to have to live under it.

Amen.

and

Amen.

This is what is wrong with Craig Biddle's view that taking sides in the 2008 election is "a meaningless trip to the voting booth."

We should take sides in this election. Who wins will effect the conditions under which we live out our lives here, in America, the flawed but greatest country in the world.

Electoral victory for the worst of America's two political parties will not promote rational philosophy. Living the consequences of the worst of the two strongest political alternatives will not teach Americans the right political ideas. It will not advance conditions under which Americans might better learn the correct ideas.

The people of Eastern Europe didn't learn to press for their freedom because the evil conditions of life under Communism convinced them of the evils of the doctrine. They pressed for liberty because they saw it real and practical and flourishing right on the other side of the border.

The more rapid advance of evil makes life worse. It promotes evil causes, not our good cause.

When January 2009 comes around I do not want to see one party rule in Washington D.C.; one-party rule by the worst of America's two major political parties; one-party rule by the party that is led by cynical power-lusters who have lost all interest in ideas secular or religious; one-party rule by the party that suborns mass vote fraud; one-party rule by the party that condemns as a crime close vote counts in which their candidate doesn't win; one-party rule by the party that claiming that every election their syndicates tried but failed to steal were stolen by the party that legally won the most votes; one-party rule by the party that challenges processes for counting the vote in court if they are objective; one-party rule by the party that is beginning to believe in nothing but one-party rule.

Because the leadership of the Democratic Party has moved so far to the anti-intellectual and power-lusting left, none of that party's candidates can be trusted with power now -- except for a tiny handful of the Democratic Party's best and most honest men (e.g., Senator Joe Lieberman).

I don't believe we should vote for any Democratic candidate for any office in this land unless we can reasonably project that that candidate will serve as a legislator in a minority caucus. If he is a member of the majority he will merely be used as a pawn for the grey-haired new-left leadership of the party (Senator Joe Lieberman serves as an example of the level of integrity that is required by a Democrat to operate independently of his evil party leadership...and he was removed from his party for the sin of not vote to lose the war).

We cannot vote for Democratic Party candidates until the party leadership that believes in one-party rule is removed.

That's not the way to pick a candidate? I agree it didn't used to be. But, given the nature of the leadership of the Democratic Party, America has entered an era of partisan power-politics that we, the American people, can ignore only at our own peril. Yes, this era of partisan power-politics was inaugurated by the Republicans when they attempted to impeach a lawfully-sitting president on trumped-up misdemeanor charges of perjury in a bogus civil lawsuit over the bogus claims of "sexual harassment." ...but it is the Democratic Party leadership -- at the urging of the party's "nut roots" -- that is beginning to act like a giant criminal syndicate. It is the Democratic Party leadership that is beginning an overt push for one-party rule. And this time they don't want it just for corrupt patronage systems in localities like Chicago or corrupt state syndicates like New Jersey's, but for the entire country.

In the case of this year's national election, I think it is particularly important that the Republican Party maintain a solid filibuster minority of more than 40 seats in the U.S. Senate on all important issues. I would urge all Objectivists to vote for the Republican Senatorial candidate from their state, regardless of his views on virtually any topic. If the Democratic Party were to gain the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in Congress we could expect some of the most destructive of leftist ideas could be enacted into law.

You didn't think you'd ever have to fill out a government form to get on a waiting list for bypass surgery? Well, maybe you might. You didn't think that mandating 85% reductions in CO2 emissions would actually go forward to the point that the country plunged into a long and unending recession? Well, maybe you might be disappointed. You thought that the Democrats only wanted to pull out of Iraq, but now the U.S. and NATO are pulling out of Central Asia and turning Afghanistan back over to the Taliban while rejuvenated Islamic radicals threaten to topple the governments of Pakistan and Egypt? Well, who did you vote for and vote against?

Or did you stay at home because the candidates of both parties extolled the virtues self-sacrifice and you didn't bother to figure out which was worse. One party is extolling self-sacrifice with a significant and new level of criminal intent...while the other is "only" being vicious, undercutting liberty and demoralizing all who support it.

If I support one party in America's mind-body dichotomy choice of parties, that does not mean that I support either half of the mind-body dichotomy. It means that I support the lesser of the two evils. I support the best chance that the mind and the body have to remain at liberty.

If my projected outcomes for socialized medicine, an environmentalist depression, and defeat in Central Asia sound overly dramatic to your ears, I hope I am badly mistaken in the degree of my concern. But given the Democratic Party's thirst for one-party rule over the nation since their candidate for president lost the 2000 election by a few hundred votes, I don't want to find out just how far they might go if the got that one-party rule in Washington, D.C. ...and no opposition filibuster in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There isn't much arable land, and only small pockets have the oil or other minerals that are worthwhile to extract.

Alaska is both the largest state and almost certainly at the same time, the least well explored. The above is a completely indefensible statement in itself - I would not be surprised if there are many billions of dollars of gold left to be found there and probably many other minerals - but beyond that, is a meaningless response to the issue of government "ownership" of 99% of the the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your anti-rural attitude, I don't get it.

Please go easy on people in rural America. There are a lot of good, self-supporting, self-respecting, independent people out there. Some are even interesting, successful people. Some -- typically ex-urbanites -- are even intellectuals.

I don't have an anti-rural attitude. I'm taking Palin to task for giving a speech last week laced with anti-urban themes.

I stand corrected.

I agree with you that Gov. Palin has made appeals on the basis of anti-urban populism. I disagree with this part of her political program. (You can read my my long diatribe against anti-rural prejudices as an argument against anti-urban populism.)

What I didn't in your argument was why you repeated, again and again, arguments against rural America. I thought you were blaming rural society for most of America's entrenched interests that seek government payments.

Urban America hosts entrenched interests that are, proportionately, just about as heavily invested in government entitlements as those of rural America. That means that almost 80% of the government dole goes to cities and suburbs where 80% of Americans live. And almost 80% of the votes that are corrupted -- purchased by government subsidies -- are cast in urban and suburban districts.

Or do urban and suburban districts get only 60 or 70% of the loot? In that case, I still wouldn't hold it against rural people that they get too much loot. There are priorities when it comes to which kinds of loot are the worst kind, but if either group gets any loot, I'm against it. Can I assume you are, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites