God Save the President Elect

Politics — By on November 5, 2008 at 5:01 pm

By Robert Stevenson
Last night, for the first time, a black man accepted his election as the next President of the United States. In that sense, today is a glorious and redemptive day in American history. As I look forward and ask “what is a young conservative to do?,” let us consider what we have seen.
In the past eight years, President Bush has been maligned in ways that were not only personally vicious, but also demeaning to the office of the President. I pray, whatever our opinions, that we treat our next chief executive with the highest respect and dignity, as befits his office.
Someday America will stray so far from its founding that the time for revolution would be recognized even by Burke, and even the most conservative among us will demand radical, violent change. Not today, and not soon. Up to that day I will serve my country. Up to that day, whether he be republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, intelligent or idiotic, Christian, atheist, or Muslim, I will always, always take a bullet for the President of the United States.
President-elect Obama is certainly not the sort of leader America needs. His radical social ideas, his background is shady and, perhaps worst of all, he seems out of step with the Burkian, Jeffersonian, and Lockeian ideals upon which this nation rests. Nevertheless, God save the President of the United States, and God save Senator Barack Obama.
Robert Stevenson is a Senior at Biola University and a student at the Torrey Honors Institute. Robert is a candidate in the United States Marine Corps and has completed Marine Corps Officer Training. In addition to his work as a student and for the Marine Corps, Robert has worked as an assistant producer for the Hugh Hewitt Show.


Tags:
  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    In the past eight years, President Bush has been maligned in ways that were not only personally vicious, but also demeaning to the office of the President.
    George W. Bush, in the past 8 years, has maligned us, the people, his employers in ways that were not only personally vicious but demeaning to our office.
    We are the superiors of the president.
    Limiting our liberties, spying on us, impoverishing us, stealing elections, the equation of born humans to zygotes and the repugnant discrimination against non-Christians has demeaned us.
    I will always, always take a bullet for the President of the United States.
    Are you a Secret Service Officer? A member of the Marine Guard? Something else?
    If not, then you’re a civilian, and taking a bullet for the guy who’s supposed to be your employee is not simply idiotic, it is immoral.
    President-elect Obama is certainly not the sort of leader America needs.
    Barack Obama was certainly the leader the USA needs. I’m glad you’re not going to revolt against him and all that, but you might wish to actually consider whether or not you’re bearing false witness against him.
    Because it looks like you are.

  • http://ourgoodgarden.com B

    Mumon, I hope you get wise someday. It is the managers who believe such drivel as you have spouted who destroy our companies, organizations, and edifices. Bosses should ALWAYS respect their employees. A leader should ALWAYS have an attitude of taking one for the team, including everyone under herself as well as over. You either have never managed, led or parented anyone, or you are incredibly bad at it. God.
    Just because George Bush believes that some things are vices which you consider virtues you demonize him. He hasn’t been vicious in anything. It is the left that has ever and always viciously lashed out like the wounded howler that it is. This is completely on the record in the news and the presidential acts. Anyone who denies is, ohhhh, not in the REALITY-BASED community.
    B

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Mumon,
    I consider myself pretty above average in intelligence. I think you are likewise well above average as well. By my estimate, I would say we are probably right 54-55% of the time. A really stupid person on this list who will remain nameless outside paranthesis (smmtheory) is, in my opinion right maybe 51% of the time.
    That may not seem like much but 51% is better than tossing a coin to make decisions. If we knew there was a slot machine in Atlantic City paying out 55% of the time we’d both become rich.
    The flip side, though, is that we are both wrong at least 45% of the time. Sadly nobody knows which 45% of their opinions are the wrong ones. So that’s why it’s useful to have people like Robert who disagree with us. They can be as dumb as dirt and the odds alone mean they probably have us tripped up on some topic somewhere.
    So I’m happy Obama won but I’m also happy he didn’t win with 60%, 70% or 75% or more of the vote. We should have a vigerous opposition that is skeptical. Robert might have been a bit more gracious about it but he is wishing Obama well and reaffirming his loyality to the country, especially when it doesn’t make the choices he wants it to make. To their credit many on the right have acted well after their loss last night. They could have been a lot worse by ‘going to the hills’ with talk of stolen elections and conspiracy theories.
    One of the things that always struck me during the campaign was as things got very heated, when the candidates talked to each other in the debates they were able to be civil. At the end of the day we are all in the same boat so it doesn’t make any sense to smash a hole in the hull when the other guy gets his turn at the wheel. Robert’s gesture is kind of cliched but it’s a necessary ritual whenever there’s a big election because it reaffirms we are all part of the same family here. No doubt the shoe will eventually be on the other foot again for us….but not for 8-12 years hopefully.

  • road warrior

    no body wants to talk about it but Obama is a target not and in saying “God save the president-elect” that’s what we are really saying. We realize that at least in his first four year there will be an attempt on his life. My prayer is that God protects him, not cause i am a huge fan because he is a brother like any other American is a brother. The liberal illuminati will try and hide this but it’s the fact. We should all be praying for him and his family.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I’m not sure how you would ‘know’ there’s going to be an attempt on his life. It seems like attemps are more or less random. No one is sure why JFK got shot. Nixon was hated but there wasn’t an attempt on his life but Ford’s, who was kind of dull as a President. The guy who tried to kill Reagan was doing it not in the name of liberalism but out of delusion. I don’t know if you count it but some loon did try to fly a small plane into the White House in Clinton’s term. The current President has sunk as low as you can possibly go (and he is despised for good reason IMO) but no one has ever attempted to take his life. So I don’t think you could possibly know what is essentially a random variable (unless of course you know something that we don’t).

  • http://ourgoodgarden.com B

    Boonton, it looks like there is a thread of commonality: all the guys behind the assassin’s target (not including Billy) were presidents who really attempted to change things. That doesn’t mean that all changeful presidents are assassin’s targets, just that it seams to be a prerequisite to get into the club. Obama certainly seems likely to try and change things…

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    What was Ford trying to change? was an attempt on his life too. Johnson did a lot more change than JFK ever did or promised yet no one tried to kill him. There I think you’re seeing a pattern out of random noise.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    B:
    When employees are insubordinate, you have to fire them, or they will be corrosive to team spirit and morale.
    A leader should ALWAYS have an attitude of taking one for the team, including everyone under herself as well as over.
    Not categorically in all circumstances.
    That’s simply suicidal.
    Boonton:
    Sorry but when folks let other folks needlessly butcher my fellow citizens, when they intentionally butcher citizens of other countries, when they leave my fellow citizens to drown, when they raid the retirement funds of my fellow citizens, and when they have the chutzpah to trumpet all of that malice and incompetence as “God’s plan” or some nonsense like that, it’s somewhat tone deaf not to take those things personally, and not to help defend America from people like that.
    The conservative movement has been monstrous for America, and no matter what any of its critics say, no matter how they say it, the conservative movement will have been seen by history as a terrible, brutal monstrosity.
    We should not mince words here.

  • Ken

    I would be very angry too at someone who did the things Mumon reports. But George Bush did none of those things in Mumon’s lurid fantasies. Either stop skipping those meds or remove the fact-filtering goggles.
    “No one is sure why JFK got shot.”
    He was shot by a Communist who had visited Cuba and was angry about the Bay of Pigs. Maybe we can’t have absolute certainty, but, based on the evidence, we can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Christian

    Sarah Palin didn’t know that Africa was a continent. She thought it was a country. She also didn’t know which countries make up North America. People, like the folks here, that are STILL defending McCain, almost put TWO complete morons in the white house. One being Sarah Palin. The other being John McCain for CHOOSING Sarah Palin and putting the entire country in grave danger.
    This is from FOX News:
    “According to Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron, there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked “a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency,” in part because she didn’t know which countries were in NAFTA, and she “didn’t understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself.”
    Palin was apparently a nightmare for her campaign staff to deal with. She refused preparation help for her interview with Katie Couric and then blamed her staff, specifically Nicole Wallace, when the interview was panned as a disaster. After the Couric interview, Fox News reported, Palin turned nasty with her staff and began to accuse them of mishandling her. Palin would view press clippings of herself in the morning and throw “tantrums” over the negative coverage. There were times when she would be so nasty and angry that her staff was reduced to tears.”
    Sounds like a great leader of the free world, huh? But at least she would have never had an abortion, and would spit on someone who did. THAT makes up for all the bad. In fact, we shouldn’t even bother with any of the other stuff. The only question we should ask from now on is, “Would you have an abortion if you were raped by your father and became pregnant?” If the answer is “No! Of course not!” then we have found our President/Vice President!
    In the future, please, to all the people here… I love you, you are compassionate and kind and have great faith in the Lord… but PLEASE… STAY OUT OF POLITICS! First GWB, then the Alaska Disaster! Ugh. You guys can pick ‘em. The good news is that, for at least the next four years, you don’t matter in public policy anymore. And for that, I can truly thank my God, Jesus Christ.
    God Bless You All, the USA, and the President Elect Barack H. Obama II!!!
    With Hope,
    Christian

  • Godbot

    “In the past eight years, President Bush has been maligned in ways that were not only personally vicious, but also demeaning to the office of the President.” He then goes on to say about Obama, “President-elect Obama is certainly not the sort of leader America needs. His radical social ideas, his background is shady and, perhaps worst of all, he seems out of step with the Burkian, Jeffersonian, and Lockeian ideals upon which this nation rests.”
    First of all, Bush has absolutely deserved all the criticism he has recieved. His “legacy” will be one of liying, cheating, and stealing. He and his administration have shown themselves to be hypocrites in the biblical sense of the term.
    Second, conservatives have been “maligning” Obama since day one, and their sour-grapes inspired and ongoing criticism is unfounded and illogical. “Radical social ideas?” His ideas have a long history in both American and European forms of democracy. “Shady background?” What does this mean, exactly? Bush has a “shady background” at LEAST as “shady” as Obama’s. This “shady” accusation against Obama maligns him. Is it okay then to malign the Presidential Candidate and President elect, but not the Pesident (because of his title)? Obama is “out of step with the Burkian, Jeffersonian, and Lockeian ideals upon which this nation rests?” Seriously? At the very least, Obama is a Christian while Jefferson absolutely was not. Uh, maybe you’re right about that one.
    While I voted for Obama, I do think that it remains to be seen whether or not he is, for sure, “the sort of leader America needs.” I believe he is, but it would be naive to think that I am absolutely, 100%, and completely right. What we do know is that Bush is/was NOT the leader we need/ed (but perhaps he was the leader we deserved?).
    Then there’s this:
    “Someday America will stray so far from its founding that the time for revolution would be recognized even by Burke, and even the most conservative among us will demand radical, violent change. Not today, and not soon. Up to that day I will serve my country. Up to that day, whether he be republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, intelligent or idiotic, Christian, atheist, or Muslim, I will always, always take a bullet for the President of the United States.”
    In other words, you will support the President, merely because he has a title, even to the point of “taking a bullet” for him, right up to the point you (and other consevatives) decide that he does not deserve your support, despite his title, at which point you then, apparently, will “demand radical, violent change.” What? And this is posted on a site that supposedly has faith in a Man-God/God-Man who during his time on earth opposed all forms of violence against his fellow human beings, whatever their titles or lack thereof. Hypocrite!
    Look to the beam in your own eye (as I will look to the beam in mine), before you take it upon yourself to tell the rest of us who has a splinter in theirs.

  • Dustin Steeve

    Christian,
    Be wary of triumphalism. Nobody likes a gloating winner. Sarah Palin may not have been an expert on legal theory, and if she did indeed have a confused understanding of Africa that would be sad, but let us not forget that “Slow Joe Biden” (as he is called on the Hill by his peers) made the claim that Hezbollah was chased out of Lebanon by France and the United States. This is a shockingly foolish and an untrue thing for the former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to say. (link: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/35261)
    For those who want to follow up on Christian’s claims, here is a link to the story: http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/11/reports_mccain_at_odds_with_pa.html.
    At this point, Palin bashing is simply uninteresting. Liberals have won the day, conservatives have not. Palin is not our Vice-President. Gloating over graves serves no greater good.

  • Godbot

    This “back-handed” compliment and hypocritical post deserves a detailed response. But for some reason my comments are routinely being “held for approval by the blog owner.” I’ve tried emailing Joe Carter and await his response. Going over my comments, I see nothing that would merit needing approval (no profanity, libel, etc…). Any suggestions about how to get around this? Boonton gave me some info a couple of days ago. I am relatively new to the Internet in general and the blogosphere in particular. Is there something I am doing wrong? Thanks for listening.

  • Godbot

    It seems my comments get through as long as they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Huh . . . ?

  • http://www.talithakoumfiles.blogspot.com Letitia (The Damsel)

    I’m so glad that some of us are measuring the leadership ability of our politicians by the factoids they do/do not know.
    It’s great that FDR got on TV outlining how he’d address the stock market crash during his presidency.
    I see no irony whatsoever in the fact that Obama criticized Americans for not knowing how to speak French.
    It shouldn’t bother anyone that Obama has such a fuzzy memory that he forgot he was an attorney for ACORN in Chicago.
    Brilliant.

  • Larry Lord

    I pray, whatever our opinions, that we treat our next chief executive with the highest respect and dignity, as befits his office….
    President-elect Obama is certainly not the sort of leader America needs. His radical social ideas, his background is shady and, perhaps worst of all, he seems out of step with the Burkian, Jeffersonian, and Lockeian ideals upon which this nation rests.

    How surprising that a high school educated wingnut Marine would fail to detect the glaring hypocricy in his own comment.
    Someday America will stray so far from its founding that the time for revolution would be recognized even by Burke, and even the most conservative among us will demand radical, violent change.
    [insert sound of cuckoo clock here]

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    At this point, Palin bashing is simply uninteresting. Liberals have won the day, conservatives have not. Palin is not our Vice-President. Gloating over graves serves no greater good.
    Actually Palin bashing at this point is interesting and possibly somewhat useful since both sides can be honest now that the election is over. The people who worked on the McCain campaign knew she wasn’t qualified. Fox News knew that McCain’s own people felt this way but kept it quiet because the sources shared it ‘off the record’. So the question is what were the real reasons Palin was choosen. I think it is clear they were:
    1. She’s a woman and it was hoped that would attracted Hillary supporters (the so-called PUMAs)
    2. She had the support of the religious establishment in the Republican Party who like her pro-life stance plus her example of having lots of kids and choosing now to abort when she knew one of them would have Downs.
    3. When giving a prepared speech she could be spunky and entertaining.
    Notice out of these reasons the first is pure identity politics…something conservatives are supposed to be against and the third is pure style over substance (or in this case style in place of substance). Style designed to appeal to the hard right. The second was about shoring up a minority base of the Republican party at the expense of the rest of the election. McCain was already pro-life & even if pro-lifers didn’t like his stem cell position it’s not like McCain wasn’t a lot closer to their stance than Obama. This would have been like Obama choosing Jesse Jackson to be his running mate in order to secure the black vote.
    So we essentially have a VP pick that was made to placate the hard right and that is what McCain essentially got but at the expense of losing everyone else.
    Sarah Palin may not have been an expert on legal theory
    Dusty, give it a break. DO you honestly believe this crap? The one thing that is clear in Palin’s speeches, debates and few interviews is that the only thing she is an expert in is talking points. No one ever questioned her like she was Robert Bork or Lawrence Tribe.
    but let us not forget that “Slow Joe Biden” (as he is called on the Hill by his peers)
    Well that’s kind of the point, Biden was forgettable. What Obama did was reassure voters that he wasn’t crazy, wasn’t a radical. He picked an experienced person to be VP BUT he did not pick one who was so powerful and bold that he would have to worry about him setting up his own little de facto Presidency in the White House basement like Cheney.
    I’m not saying McCain could have won with a different VP choice but if he had picked Lieberman it would probably have been a closer race. It would have given some substance to his maverick claim which in this campaign seemed to simply mean having an erratic personality, something that looks a bit too close to senility in a 72 yr old man.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Letitia
    It’s great that FDR got on TV outlining how he’d address the stock market crash during his presidency.
    See, the facts were wrong but people got the point. FDR addressed the Depression, not the market crash, and he did it on the radio, not the TV. Contrast this to not knowing who the members of NAFTA are. This is a bit like not being aware NATO is about committing US forces to defend Europe. If you get the main point you can be forgiven being wrong on a relatively minor factoid like whether some small Eastern Bloc nation has become an official member yet.

  • Godbot

    “God Save the President Elect”
    The President Elect is already saved, if my understanding of salvation is correct.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick

    “Nevertheless, God save the President of the United States”
    Your salute is highly inappropriate.
    That is the salute given to Kings and Queens, those whose hold on power is a claim of Divine Right.
    This is America. We don’t believe that our leaders have a Divine Right to govern us. They instead rule with the consent of the governed.
    If you want to bring a deity into it, I suggest something like “May God bless the President”.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Last night, for the first time, a black man accepted his election as the next President of the United States. In that sense, today is a glorious and redemptive day in American history.”
    You should have seen the faces of the black children at school yesterday. I will remember it for the rest of my life.
    “In the past eight years, President Bush has been maligned in ways that were not only personally vicious, but also demeaning to the office of the President. I pray, whatever our opinions, that we treat our next chief executive with the highest respect and dignity, as befits his office.”
    I agree that calling Bush “Hitler,” as some did, was over the top. He was and is an awful president, the worst in my memory, bordering on criminally incompetent, but I don’t think he is evil. He is probably a rather decent fellow.
    “President-elect Obama is certainly not the sort of leader America needs. His radical social ideas, his background is shady…”
    Balderdash. His ideas are not radical, and his past is not shady. This is pure bull, spin from the wingnut right. He is a man who has devoted his life to public service. He will do a fine job. He will face great challenges with courage and equanimity. He will make mistakes, of course, and you will disagree with his policies and appointments, but you will see that he is cool and has good judgement and instincts. You will see. I hope you will admit it.

  • ucfengr

    Actually Palin bashing at this point is interesting and possibly somewhat useful since both sides can be honest now that the election is over.
    Sometimes I wonder whether you are stupid or just blazingly naive. If you are part of an organization that has just suffered an astounding defeat, what’s the first thing people start doing? Look for someone to blame, other than themselves. And who’s the easiest person to blame? The FNG (F’n new guy). Palin was the brightest light in a very lackluster campaign. The McCain campaign was awful. It was Palin that brought the base back, after Senator Maverick spent the last 8+ years alienating it. I suspect more Republicans voted for Palin, than McCain.
    I would be very skeptical of anything that is coming out about Palin now, for the simple reason that it reflects every stereo-type East Coast elitists (liberal and conservative) have about small town America. The “Wasila Hillybilly” part is especially telling. These folks are looking to shift blame, and perhaps more importantly, trying to keep the “noveau-riche” hick out of the country club. It’s sad, and it may cost the Republican party if they allow it to go on.

  • ucfengr

    George W. Bush, in the past 8 years, has maligned us, the people, his employers
    I think part of the problem here is that you have a misunderstanding of the employer/employee relationship. I have people that work for me. If I tell them to do something, they do it, or I can fire them. If George Bush doesn’t do what you tell him to do, what is your recourse? Can you fire him? No. The worst you can do is write a nasty letter to the editor of your local paper? Quite a difference. That is a really big problem of much of the left; they have no idea how the real world works.

  • http://www.newcovenantliving.blogspot.com Jack Brooks

    Bush-haters are insane. The path of dishonesty and rationalization that Clinton led you all down has sunken you into a break with reality, where you choose to no longer recognize the factuality of public records, the contents of actual speeches, or actual votes. Do you not see how consumed with hatred you are, or how what you want to believe is real has replaced what actually is real?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    ucfengr
    Look for someone to blame, other than themselves. And who’s the easiest person to blame? The FNG (F’n new guy). Palin was the brightest light in a very lackluster campaign.
    Your mistake is that to assume I pinned the blame on Palin. Palin was the symptom, not the disease. She was an is a master at spinning sound bytes, at substance over style.
    The question isn’t whether Palin’s to blame but why this is the, as ucfengr claims, ‘the brightest light’, of the Republican Party.
    It was Palin that brought the base back, after Senator Maverick spent the last 8+ years alienating it.
    Wow, I guess Palin really is the best you got to offer. Kind of odd you end up NOMINATING someone you claim spent 8+ years alienating you.
    I would be very skeptical of anything that is coming out about Palin now, for the simple reason that it reflects every stereo-type East Coast elitists (liberal and conservative) have about small town America. “Wasila Hillybilly” part is especially telling.
    I hate it when Republicans play the worse types of vices liberals fall victim too. Here’s what we got to look forward too, 8 years of ucfengr trying to play the white small town Al Sharpton. I didn’t hear any of the ‘hillbilly’ sensitive types here get upset when the phrase was used on Bill Clinton. You know whose idea Palin was? Bill Kristal’s. Editor of the Weekly Standard & columnist for…..guess???…The New York Times. But noooo, keep thinking this is about East Coast elitists….you know from those non-pro-America parts.

  • ucfengr

    The question isn’t whether Palin’s to blame but why this is the, as ucfengr claims, ‘the brightest light’, of the Republican Party.
    Notice, I didn’t actually say she was the “brightest light of the Republican Party”, I said she was the “brightest light in a lackluster campaign”. There is a difference. Perhaps some private tutoring in reading comprehension would help.
    Wow, I guess Palin really is the best you got to offer. Kind of odd you end up NOMINATING someone you claim spent 8+ years alienating you.
    Are you starting to have memory problems in addition to reading comprehension problems? Go back in the archives and find how little support McCain had here during the primaries. Huckabee was the main guy for many.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Notice, I didn’t actually say she was the “brightest light of the Republican Party”, I said she was the “brightest light in a lackluster campaign”. There is a difference. Perhaps some private tutoring in reading comprehension would help.
    After 8 years of Bush it would appear many of the lights are burned out.
    Are you starting to have memory problems in addition to reading comprehension problems? Go back in the archives and find how little support McCain had here during the primaries. Huckabee was the main guy for many.
    Not it seems for the base (although yes he was the main guy here but as the title of this place says, this is just an ‘outpost’). The main guys were:
    Fred Thomson – who seemed to be getting support because he’s an actor so maybe that would make him Reagan’s reincarnation.
    Rudy – Don’t get me wrong, you gotta appreciate a cross-dressing, wife hoping, NYC mayor getting rich off a ‘consulting company’ whose business model is legal bribery getting up and making a speech against ‘cosmopolitian elitists’…but the man was unstable and that was well known by a lot of people before hand.
    Romney – A Republican Bill Clinton
    Huckabee was one of those characters, like Howard Dean among the Democrats, who could fire up the base but can’t move beyond the base and the opinion makers in the Republican party couldn’t get beyond that.
    At the end of the day it isn’t surprising you nominated someone you think alienated you for 8 years. It’s a bit like the Democrats nominating Joe Lieberman. At the end of the day you had no one to choose from except losers. But McCain did his part, he bowed in front of the alters of the religious right, donned the hair shirt, and as you noted nominated the cheerleader to be his running mate. You can’t say he let you down & he made it clear he was willing to bend on anything to keep you guys behind him. It wasn’t he who couldn’t deliever at the end, it was you.

  • ucfengr

    At the end of the day it isn’t surprising you nominated someone you think alienated you for 8 years.
    Again, I didn’t nominate John McCain. In fact, if you read my pre-nomination posts, you will find that I questioned whether or not I would vote for McCain in the general election. As to who picked McCain, if you look at the primary results, what you see is that McCain got most of his early support from “blue states” and states with open primaries. His voters were people least likely to support him in the general. He didn’t start winning in “red states” until it was pretty much decided.
    Not it seems for the base (although yes he was the main guy here but as the title of this place says, this is just an ‘outpost’). The main guys were:
    I don’t have any real problems with your assessment of the Republican field, except perhaps Romney. I would argue Romney was the anti-Clinton, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. Romney was probably my first choice out of the field, but he had some pretty serious limitations as a candidate.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    His voters were people least likely to support him in the general. He didn’t start winning in “red states” until it was pretty much decided.
    Huckabee stayed in until the last moment, he couldn’t sell himself even to the red states.
    When I say Romney was a Republican Clinton what I’m talking about is first persona as a ‘slick politician’ and second what appears to have been strategic flip flops. I think he won over the ‘elite’ because they figured he would placate the religioius right while behind closed doors would keep their control over actual policy well contained to abortion and maybe gay rights. You’ll notice the Kristal ‘argument’ for Palin is essentially along the same lines. All style instead of substance. ‘Energize’ is a nice way of saying demagogue. Saying Palin was about ‘small towns’ against ‘East coast elites’ is like saying Amos & Andy were about civil rights versus Southern racists. Palin was little more than a performance in black face designed to pander to the female vote and play to regional warfare (rural versus suburbs & city). You can hear the contempt her more intellectual supporters have for the voters when they say such stupid things like “well she isn’t a legal expert’….as if being able to speak intelligently about the direction the Supreme Court should go or understanding that a right to privacy is the foundation of the Roe.v.Wade decision (or yes that Mexico, the US and Canada are the nations that make up NAFTA) is some type of elitest ‘book learning’. Ucfengr, you are stuck oddly in the past where if you wanted to read and discuss such things you’d hit the editorial pages of the NYT and Washington Post and watch Meet the Press and maybe if you were of right wing bent add the National Review and WSJ. The fact is even in rural areas people can intelligently read and discuss policy without being played down to as if they were idiots.
    The Palin gambit failed among women and only slightly helped with some rural areas (see two items out on the net, I’ll find links if you need me too. The first is the graph of GOP voters by age in 2004 and 2008. You’ll see the huge drop in the youth support. The problem with a political coalition of cranky old men is that they tend to die off in a decade or two. The second is the map of counties that increased their GOP vote from Bush in 2004 to McCain in 2008. What you’re seeing is a GOP rump, like if Obama had picked Jesse Jackson to boost his black vote at the expense of everyone else).

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603895.html

    On top of the $150,000 first outlined in Federal Election Commission filings, Palin spent “tens of thousands of dollars” on additional clothing, makeup and jewelry for herself and her family, including $40,000 in luxury goods for her husband, Todd, our colleague Michael Shear reports. The campaign was charged for silk boxer shorts, spray tanners and 13 suitcases to carry all the designer clothes, according to two GOP insiders.

    Newsweek reports that top McCain aides were stunned by the huge tab, especially after adviser Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three outfits for the convention and three for the campaign trail, with a budget of $25,000; instead, the nominee racked up six-figure bills at high-end department stores. “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” a McCain aide sniffed to the magazine.

    Palin has always contended that she didn’t ask for the extravagant makeover. The campaign previously said the used clothing would be auctioned off for charity; the L.A. Times reports that a Republican National Committee lawyer is headed to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the items still in her possession.

    I do agree the hillbillies word is not exactly proper here. Palin seems to be quite opportunistic and this isn’t a rural Alaskan trait but a trait of the Alaskan political class. Her mentor, Ted Stevens, is looking at jail time for getting a second story built onto his house for free (plus wrap around deck & other goodies). Since the GOP was essentially exploiting her I’m not sure she’s to blame for exploiting right back (and doing a bang up job, spray on tans for her kids and silk boxers for hubby!).
    And before anyone else tries to echo ucfengr’s ‘elitist’ cry let’s all remember Republicans wanted to count the towels the moment Bill Clinton’s moving van left the White House.
    Note this point as well:
    Sources said expenses were put on the personal credit cards of low-level Palin staffers and discovered when they asked party officials for reimbursement.
    First this fits in with her established pattern of abusing people under her authority and below her in rank. We have troopergate, library gate, her actions as Mayor etc. You can say she was technically within the law (a phrase any Bush supporter is so familiar with they should have it set up as a macro on their keyboard), but it’s not classy and a serious mark against her character.
    Second, before you try to pretend this is all just evil staffers (note again how the underlings are blamed) trying to pad their resumes and score their book deals, keep in mind the $150,000 in cloths is documented in FEC filings. Soon these additional goods and services are going to have to be reported to the FEC. It will be interesting to see how much ends up in the charity auction when all the reporters have finally gone home and the right is thinking about other things (and how is Bristol’s spray on tan going to be given to charity?)
    Third, this just about sums up the election, Bush’s unpopularity and everything else. Under all of this is an clear sense of unlimited entitlement with no responsibilities or higher duties. Maybe other Republicans weren’t putting spay on tans on their FEC reports but this is the arrogance that causes a political hack to be put in charge of FEMA AFTER 9/11, let’s a kid with a fake college degree on his resume order NASA scientists to phrase their findings to be more inline with creationist dogma, and, I kid you not, question people who applied for government jobs rebuilding Iraq on whether or not they supported Bush in 2000 and disagreed with Roe.v.Wade.

  • smmtheory

    Actually Palin bashing at this point is interesting and possibly somewhat useful since both sides can be honest now that the election is over.

    Thus begins the 4 year campaign to try to prevent a 2012 Palin nomination to run against Obama. I smell fear in the air.

    The one thing that is clear in Palin’s speeches, debates and few interviews is that the only thing she is an expert in is talking points.

    And yet you think it works so well for yourself. Imagine that.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Thus begins the 4 year campaign to try to prevent a 2012 Palin nomination to run against Obama. I smell fear in the air.”
    I rather doubt your albatross will affect our fortunes, but you are welcome to try. Palin was a bone thrown to the base, when McCain needed the independents. Have you guys learned nothing? I really hope you guys run a Palin or Brownback or such. I really do.
    When I first mentioned that Palin was a Hail Mary pick, the first thing I heard was that she struck fear into Democrats. I have yet to see the first evidence of or reason for that. That must just be one of those inexplicable things you say because you think they will resonate, like “elitist”, “illuminati”, “socialist”, “class warfare”, “maverick”, “Joe the Plumber”, etc. You guys need a new playbook. Seriously.

  • ucfengr

    I do agree the hillbillies word is not exactly proper here.
    What a guy. Of course you destroy any goodwill you might have earned here by spreading anonymously sourced gossip as fact.
    Her mentor, Ted Stevens,
    From MSNBC
    “Ted Stevens, the grand-daddy of Alaskan politics, has a wary relationship with the new Republican VP pick — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
    When Palin was running for governor in 2006, she ousted long time Alaska fixture Frank Murkowski in a hard fought primary. Stevens and Murkowski are long time friends and Palin was able to defeat the sitting governor by running on ethics and clean government reformist platform”
    and
    “In July of last year, Palin shocked and angered Stevens by publicly criticizing him for his role in the VECO scandal and called for him to speak out about it.”
    Rather amazing that this can be described as a mentor relationship while Obama’s much closer, and more friendly relationships with Wright and Ayers are dismissed as casual.
    Thus begins the 4 year campaign to try to prevent a 2012 Palin nomination to run against Obama. I smell fear in the air
    Me too. If you aren’t afraid of someone, you don’t have to lie about them.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    smmtheory writes:
    Thus begins the 4 year campaign to try to prevent a 2012 Palin nomination to run against Obama. I smell fear in the air.
    Ahhh yes, reverse-reverse psychology is a powerful tool to use on the weak minded!
    What a guy. Of course you destroy any goodwill you might have earned here by spreading anonymously sourced gossip as fact.
    FEC filings are now gossip? It’s on the record and no doubt the charity auction will be on the record too, let’s see how much of the $150K comes back for charity or how much gets ‘lost’ in the laundry.
    Rather amazing that this can be described as a mentor relationship while Obama’s much closer, and more friendly relationships with Wright and Ayers are dismissed as casual.
    Mentor means teacher, by that measure it is starting to look like Stevens taught Palin a lot more than Wright or Ayers did. But then we shall see…
    “In July of last year, Palin shocked and angered Stevens by publicly criticizing him for his role in the VECO scandal and called for him to speak out about it.”
    Ohhh btw, you may want to look at who was running a little group called “Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.,” from 2003 until June of 2005. She certainy does know how to turn on people.

  • Rob Ryan

    “…and more friendly relationships with Wright and Ayers are dismissed as casual.”
    I don’t think ANYONE has ever characterized Obama’s relationship with Wright as casual.
    “If you aren’t afraid of someone, you don’t have to lie about them.”
    This certainly explains all the lies about Obama from right-wingers, but it is a gross oversimplification. In the first place, no one has to lie about anyone. Additionally, there are lots of different motives for lying about a person unrelated to fear.

  • ucfengr

    FEC filings are now gossip?
    I’m starting to feel the pull of the great black hole of stupidity again. Of course, you know I wasn’t talking about the FEC filings, but the other unsourced gossip. You know the abuse of subordinates/book banning BS. Regarding the whole wardrobe flap, I notice nobody cares were Obama gets his $1500 Hart, Schaffner,& Marx suits or where Michele gets her multi-thousand dollar designer outfits. I bet there is a line item in his campaign budget for wardrobe too.
    Back a couple of years ago, I asked who the Bush haters were going to hate when Bush leaves office. I guess we have our answer.

  • ucfengr

    Oh, and the Palin doesn’t know Africa is a continent/doesn’t know which countries are in NAFTA BS. The NSC guy who briefed her, Steve Biegun, went on the record and said it is all bunk. He furthermore said she has “great instincts and great core values,” and is “an instinctive internationalist. and that whoever is saying these things about her “is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously,”

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    You’re absolutely right. Palin is the next Reagan or Churchhill. I’m just trying to psyc you out of nominating her becuase she’s so good…

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    More seriously, you win an election by trying to capture 70% of 70% of the vote, not 90% of 30%.

  • ucfengr

    You’re absolutely right. Palin is the next Reagan or Churchhill.
    Yes, calling you (and others) for spreading malicious gossip about someone is the same as saying they will be the next Churchill. Any other tidbits you’d like to share? Been off your medication long?

  • ucfengr

    More seriously, you win an election by trying to capture 70% of 70% of the vote, not 90% of 30%.
    Having a compliant, even supportive press who’s willing to dig through your opponent’s garbage to smear her and report any wild rumor as fact, while completely ignoring your own questionable past associations helps too.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Nothing came from the garbage, Palin did herself in on the Couric interview. The stories about the $150K shopping spree has come right from the FEC and the addition spending is coming from the staff of the McCain campaign.
    There’s plenty of stories about expensive clothes and styling of candidates before (didn’t Clinton have a $500 haircut once or was that Edwards?). The ‘normal’ budget was already extravagent ($25,000 for 6 outfits) and if the clothes aren’t returned to charity and if the aids did have to put another $40K on their credit cards (now begging to be reimbursed) we are looking at nearly $200K in campaign funds being used for personal use. That’s probably not too far from what it cost to add a level to Stevens’s house complete with stainless steel appliances, which is threatening to result in him spending the last years of his life in jail.

  • smmtheory

    This certainly explains all the lies about Obama from right-wingers, but it is a gross oversimplification.

    Talk about a gross oversimplification… lies about Obama from right-wingers qualifies as one too. Regarding the lie about the dubiousness of Obama’s citizenship (even somebody as stupid as I knows that being born of an American parent grants American citizenship), and the story about Obama secretly being Muslim, the only thing I think I saw were one(or maybe two)-time posts left in the comment sections of the right wing blogs I read. For all I know, they could have as easily been planted by left-wingers trying to discredit right-wingers. I didn’t believe any of that. Aside from that, I can’t recall anything else said about him that was demonstrably a lie. Certainly nothing questioning the parentage of his children. What else might you have seen from right-wingers that you thought was a lie?

    Additionally, there are lots of different motives for lying about a person unrelated to fear.

    So do tell, what are some of the different motives unrelated to fear that might prompt the lying about Palin?

  • Rob Ryan

    Are you TRYING to make my point for me? You listed a couple of my favorite lies. They appeared thousands of times on right-wing message boards. Let’s go from there.
    Obama is a Marxist.
    Obama is a socialist.
    Obama is going to raise your taxes if you make over $40,000.
    Obama is going to recruit brown shirts and take over the country as a dictator.
    Obama is going to take away your freedom of speech.
    Obama pals around with terrorists.
    Obama will take away the right to practice medicine from doctors who refuse to perform abortions.
    Obama opposes drilling in America because he is in cahoots with Middle East Arabs.
    This is only scratching the surface. You can find all of this on Fox Forums right now, and lots more. Even you can’t possibly fail to recognize that right-wingers have been having a field day lying about Obama.
    “So do tell, what are some of the different motives unrelated to fear that might prompt the lying about Palin?”
    You’re surely kidding. People have been known to lie about others because they simply do not like them and don’t want others to like them, either. Some lie about others so that they can present themselves as superior. Some lie about others because they enjoy making mischief or the attention their lies bring. Some lie about others to retaliate for lies told about them or their friends. ANY of these reasons, and I do not suggest that my list is by any means comprehensive, could motivate some individuals to lie about Sarah Palin or anyone else.
    C’mon smmtheory, you know this stuff! You don’t seriously think the only motivation for lying is fear, do you?

  • smmtheory

    Look Rob, I know that you can overlook a whole truck load of Obama’s faults, but it looks like you are a wee bit overanxious to label all right-wingers liars. If you cannot acknowledge that there are also many right-wingers that have not participated in lying about Obama, then you’ve engaged in doing the same thing you were earlier ridiculing.

    People have been known to lie about others because they simply do not like them and don’t want others to like them, either.

    Why care at all whether others like her or not? Fear perhaps?

    Some lie about others because they enjoy making mischief or the attention their lies bring.

    Why target her and not somebody or something else? Fear perhaps?

    Some lie about others to retaliate for lies told about them or their friends.

    Why retaliate against her if she didn’t tell any of the lies? Fear perhaps?

    You don’t seriously think the only motivation for lying is fear, do you?

    Not for lying in general no, but when the target happens to be somebody a lot of people do happen to like… well, it smells like fear to me.

  • smmtheory

    Out of curiosity Rob, are you denying that Obama has said he wants to raise taxes on people making more than an as yet to be determined threshhold? Are you denying that Obama has said he thinks the wealth that belongs to others should be redistributed? Are you denying that Obama has been friendly with Bill Ayers that was associated at one time with the Weathermen Underground? Are you denying that Obama has said he wants to start a Civilian Defense Force? Are you denying that Obama does oppose offshore drilling? Are you denying that Obama opposes expanding areas for oil exploration?

  • smmtheory

    Civilian Defense Force should have been Civilian National Security Force.

  • Rob Ryan

    ” but it looks like you are a wee bit overanxious to label all right-wingers liars.”
    Have you completely lost your mind? I have done no such thing! I said this: This certainly explains all the lies about Obama from right-wingers, but it is a gross oversimplification. Notice that the word “all” is related to “lies”, not to “right-wingers”. Once again, I am forced to choose between doubting your honesty or your reading acuity.
    “If you cannot acknowledge that there are also many right-wingers that have not participated in lying about Obama, then you’ve engaged in doing the same thing you were earlier ridiculing.”
    I can do much better than that; I would say that the overwhelming majority of right-wingers have NOT participated in lying about Obama. I was not talking about the majority of right-wingers. I was talking about the ones doing the lying.
    “Not for lying in general no, but when the target happens to be somebody a lot of people do happen to like… well, it smells like fear to me.”
    Fine. If that is what you want to believe, feel free. I think I have made it obvious to most people that lying can have a variety of motives, and probably does in Sarah Palin’s case. What is less obvious, though, is what Democrats have to fear from Palin. Maybe you can elucidate that. While she clearly excites conservative Christians, she has little appeal to intellectual and secular conservatives and even less to independents. You will next accuse me of whistling past the graveyard, unless I miss my guess. That’s OK too. Nominate her in four years; I’ll somehow deal with my fear.
    “Out of curiosity Rob, are you…”
    No. And I don’t need to do so to characterize the lies I presented as lies. They are lies. If you can’t see the difference, I won’t waste my time in a vain effort to teach you discernment.

  • smmtheory

    Look Rob, you’re the one that used the passive-aggressive sentence to tie all the lies about Obama to right-wingers. Now to cover it up you’re arguing semantics? Give it a break. You could have just as easily made the point you now say you intended to make without making any reference to right-wingers in that sentence. Like – just “This certainly explains all the lies about Obama” and that would have been that. Now you want to impugn my reading acuity or my honesty?

  • Rob Ryan

    “You could have just as easily made the point you now say you intended to make without making any reference to right-wingers in that sentence. Like – just “This certainly explains all the lies about Obama” and that would have been that.”
    Nonsense. You would have still jumped in wanting to know what i thought were lies about Obama, and the discussion would have progressed similarly. Besides, I was referring specifically to right-winger lies, so why shouldn’t I say so?
    “Now you want to impugn my reading acuity or my honesty?”
    Yes, because you apparently still don’t get it. You still haven’t admitted that fear is not the only reason people lie about people. You still haven’t admitted that the lies about Obama are lies. Tell me which ones are not, without equivocating, and we may have the basis for a discussion.

  • smmtheory

    You still haven’t admitted that fear is not the only reason people lie about people.

    Check out the end of comment 45 again. Your problem is that the same can be applied to Obama. I said – Not for lying in general no, but when the target happens to be somebody a lot of people do happen to like… well, it smells like fear to me. Your next problem is that I never said lies about Obama weren’t lies, and it’s rather obvious to somebody stupid like me that it would be a contradiction if I did. Since I never engaged in lying about him though, I don’t know what is and what isn’t a lie about him. You could even be lying about him to make him look good and I wouldn’t know it. On top of that you are trying to set up a contradiction by demanding that I tell you which lies about Obama are not lies.
    If the lies about Palin bothered you even half as much as the lies about Obama, then you might have a leg to stand on, but it doesn’t look as if you are bothered by them at all.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Your next problem is that I never said lies about Obama weren’t lies,”
    You implied so with your series of questions to me in comment #46, which, curiously, change the language I used in presenting the lies. One can, of course, make a lie not a lie by changing some words.
    “…and it’s rather obvious to somebody stupid like me that it would be a contradiction if I did.”
    Then let me help you by rephrasing the challenge: which of those that I presented as lies would you say are not lies in the form I presented them?

  • smmtheory

    You implied so with your series of questions to me in comment #46, which, curiously, change the language I used in presenting the lies. One can, of course, make a lie not a lie by changing some words.

    Actually what I was implying is that you may have distorted some other peoples comments to the extent that you thought they had been lying. I phrased the questions to the best of my recollection as they were to public knowledge; stuff taken at face value for what Obama had said in front of witnesses. I was also curious whether or not you would deny that he had said some of the things that others had witnessed. If that stuff doesn’t disturb you enough to discourage your liking him, then it should be fun watching you squirm and spin over the next four years trying to convince people these are good things happening.

    Then let me help you by rephrasing the challenge: which of those that I presented as lies would you say are not lies in the form I presented them?

    In the form you presented them? If I take that to mean by the definition and nuance you place on the words you used, then it is highly probable that they are all lies. For instance, I know you think William Ayers is rehabilitated and not a terrorist. Some might think that is a highly specious claim considering his lack of remorse, his lack of having done time for his crimes, and his continuous flaunting of his activities from that time as not having done enough. That he has pictures taken of himself stomping on the American flag and goes down to Venezuela praising a dictator’s education system does him no credit either. Sure he hasn’t made any explosive devices for a while. He might be too afraid to after watching his buddies get blown up that night. If that allows you to think he is not a terrorist, then of course it’s a lie that Obama pals around with terrorists. Who am I to argue? I’m not interested in lying about Obama. I’m not even interested in speculating what is or what isn’t a lie about Obama. What I would really like to know is whether or not he’s just going to be a rubber-stamp approver for Congress… that and whether or not I should quit my job and cash out my 401k before Congress appropriates it for “my own good”.

  • http://www.timpanogos.wordpress.com Ed Darrell

    President-elect Obama is certainly not the sort of leader America needs. His radical social ideas, his background is shady and, perhaps worst of all, he seems out of step with the Burkian, Jeffersonian, and Lockeian ideals upon which this nation rests.

    Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is radical? I suppose – but of course, it’s radical in that Jeffersonian way that expressed Locke’s ideas in clear, democratic fashion. It’s radical in the way that Lincoln thought it important to hold the union together, rather than let it fragment over any issue.
    Obama’s not the guy we need right now, if you’re hoping Jefferson Davis might rise from his grave and lead the South to victory in the Civil War. Obama’s not the guy we need if you’re still standing with Lindbergh against Churchill in 1939. Obama’s not the guy we need if you think Lawrence was a fool about Arabia.
    Jefferson and Locke are smiling right now, and Burke is only worried that he’s slipping another notch in the list of great orators. He’ll smile about that, too, before it’s over.

  • http://www.hgwzbejra.sdpjozb.com arjm zrat

    nftqgmi tqpyfiwh xhqpo avrlp rygmktwn eqjxrw ygktq

  • http://www.hgwzbejra.sdpjozb.com arjm zrat

    nftqgmi tqpyfiwh xhqpo avrlp rygmktwn eqjxrw ygktq

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I would be very skeptical of anything that is coming out about Palin now, for the simple reason that it reflects every stereo-type East Coast elitists (liberal and conservative) have about small town America.
    For the record, since I know everyone’s dropped this thread, this nonsense was written by ucfengr nearly two months ago (11/6/8)
    What a guy. Of course you destroy any goodwill you might have earned here by spreading anonymously sourced gossip as fact.
    Well the FEC filings now put Palin’s clothing spree at closer to $300K. What we haven’t seen, yet, is any news of that big auction that is supposedly going to raise money for worthy charities from all those clothes. That’s a shame because we are going into a cold winter with a lot of unemployment and a lot of foreclosed houses…..that could have brought a lot of winter coats for needy kids. Ahhh well.