Palin Plots for 2012

A vicious back-and-forth broke out this weekend between advisers to John McCain and Sarah Palin about whether the Alaska Governor is to blame for the McCain campaign's woes.

The Politico ran a story on Saturday entitled, "Palin Allies Report Rising Camp Tension." Ben Smith reported:

Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image--even as others in McCain's camp blame the pick of the relatively inexperienced Alaska governor, and her public performance, for McCain's decline.

"She's lost confidence in most of the people on the plane," said a senior Republican who speaks to Palin, referring to her campaign jet. He said Palin had begun to "go rogue" in some of her public pronouncements and decisions.

"I think she'd like to go more rogue," he said.

In response a McCain adviser told CNN:

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

Oh Lordy. I've never seen a campaign in such turmoil a week before an election.

But Palin isn't sweating the small stuff. She's already looking forward--to 2012. At a campaign rally in Des Moines on Saturday, Palin came out in favor of ethanol (calling it "the ethanol"), the corn-based fuel produced by Iowans whose subsidies have repeatedly been condemned by John McCain.

Said McCain at the third presidential debate: "I oppose subsidies for ethanol because I thought it distorted the market and created inflation; Senator Obama supported those subsidies."

Said Palin in Iowa: "John and I will adopt the all-of-the-above approach to meet America's great energy challenges. Yes. [crowd cheers] [...] That means harnessing alternative energy sources, like the wind and the solar and the biomass and the geothermal--and the ethanol!"

The Christian right has taken over the Iowa Republican Party, giving Palin a good shot in the 2012 GOP caucus if McCain loses and she decides to run for president.

Whatever happens to McCain, get ready for four more years of Palin--and maybe more.

Comments (130)

1. mebbe she's been sipping "the ethanol" -- and the only one to truly benefit from a continued Palin presence will be Tina Fey and others on the comedy circuit... well, and maybe a few relieved moose in AK

   Posted by leftofcenter at 10/27/2008 @ 12:24pm

2. If, after many miracles, Obama & Co resurrect the US in the next 3 years, extract it from imperial disasters abroad, renew its creative energies ...

   ... only a pigeon will want the GOP nomination in '12. And Sarah can toss her Valentino jacket in the ring.

   This assumes, of course, that she can first be reelected AK guv.

   But if the times continue to prove tough & tougher at home & abroad, there may be competition for the GOP slot. In which case, she's out. The real money won't give her the time of day.

   Posted by sloper at 10/27/2008 @ 12:43pm

3. 2+2= nuclear policy of the Nigerian Delta- Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/27/2008 @ 12:38pm

   Yes Darin. after watching Sarah Palin collapse under the tough scrutiny of Katie Couric, and watching as her pick causes McCain to drop in the polls and hearing her lie about Obama and her accomplishments, and after having her called out for violating ethics rules...

   we quake in fear of her return in ought-12.

   I am sure her victory will be a cakewalk. It will take weeks, maybe months, certainly not years.

   Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2008 @ 12:52pm

4. Oh, I hope she is the parties nominee in 2012. All that would mean is 4 more for Obama. But alas, I actually think the repubs are smarter than that (maybe).

   Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2008 @ 1:07pm

5. The lessons of Dr. Frankenstein must have been lost on the Grand Old Party.... you can't stitch together the pieces and parts of a backwoods hayseed, dress them in the best Sunday finery available and expect them to behave like anything other than what they are.

   And although the cynicism of the far right created this monster, unfortunately it looks like the rest of the country will have to bear the consequences of their actions for some time to come -

   Posted by lumenpro at 10/27/2008 @ 1:09pm

6. Posted by lumenpro at 10/27/2008 @ 1:09pm

   Puttin' on the Ritz!

   ----

   Or is it more like Bride of Chucky?

   Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2008 @ 1:10pm

7. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/27/2008 @ 12:38pm

   Yeah, Darin, crabwalk has it right....we're just living in terror hat the GOP will commit political seppuku in 2012 and run Palin against Obama.

   Oh, please, please, please....don't utterly destroy his re-election bid by putting a woman that 55% of the country doesn't feel is qualified to be Prez....

   as your Presidential nominee!!!

   LOL

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 1:18pm

8. Ms. Palin is succeeding in finally separating the Republican party into the twos halves that have been in tension for a very long time. The Christian right is the support Palin will receive in the foreseeable future, the economic right, Libertarians and national security parts of the Republican party are even now leaving the party, some to support Obama. Palin, I believe, will split the party. She will take the Christian right out of the coalition and she will lead this portion, perhaps 35% of the national population, into a much smaller, weaker Republican party. The sensible wing of the Republican party can only hope to find common cause with moderate democratic party members and create a new party that will more closely resemble right of center parties in Europe and Canada. i.e. more personal freedoms than the Palin Republicans would allow, more equity in income, more dedication to the environment, in other words - a party that I might consider being a member of.

   Posted by OiJimmy at 10/27/2008 @ 1:27pm

9. Any chance that the Dems might spend a few bucks to oppose Palin's efforts to be reelected as governor of Alaska? Where do I send my donation to help dump the demented diva?

   Posted by sageofsage at 10/27/2008 @ 1:29pm

10. Posted by OiJimmy at 10/27/2008 @ 1:27pm

    Actually on another thread, resident Religious Rightie LVLIB said...that'd be fine with him (for the non-RRs to leave and become Democrats)....

    mind you he didn't explain how the "new, post-2008, holier Republican Party" actually wins any elections after that.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 1:29pm

11. She's a Maverick getting all "Mavericky" on the original Maverick. Now Mr McCain has them right where he wants them!

    Posted by TheRat05 at 10/27/2008 @ 1:40pm

12. "they deserve the destruction of our Constitutional Republic that we will get. "

    You mean like the back alley ass kicking it taken the last eight years? You mean like that?

    oh, and there are millions of people who wouldn't mind a little redistribution of wealth. I love that socialism has been dusted off and trotted out by the desperate right.

    I'll take a little socialism over a lot of fascism any day.

    Posted by maddening_crowd at 10/27/2008 @ 1:40pm

13. Look folks, the idea of Palin 2012 is laughable at best. The American people had her forced upon them this time around. If she runs by herself there is no way that she would survive the 18 month public vetting that would be the republican primaries. Nah, the best she'll get out of this is a seat in the Senate (Alaskan's it seems will elect anybody) where she can host coffee klatsches with that lunatic from Minnesota.

    Truth is, Divas burn hot and then fade into impotence and obscurity. Two years from now Sarah Palin will be no more than a footnote.

    Posted by maddening_crowd at 10/27/2008 @ 1:49pm

14. If the American voters don't finally realize who Obama really is and reject him on November 4th, especially after info like this 2001 radio interview come to light, they deserve the destruction of our Constitutional Republic that we will get.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 1:29pm

    Larry, it's not "Biblical" (heathen Aesop) but could you relate the fable of "The Fox and The Grapes"???

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 1:37pm

    You DO realize you just created a scenario that will receive much "bipartisan" support here at "The Nation"?....A rare occurance, LVLIB and the typical "TN" blogger will agree on something!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 1:49pm

15. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:00pm

    No, just as stupid.

    Look at RESE or PLUNGER predicting their "martial law" and "openents (RESE spelling) rounded up to Haliburton-built concentration camps"....

    just as stupid and based on the fact that THEIR political ideology lost.

    Same thing.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 2:07pm

16. She's actually a drama queen, not a diva. She thinks it's all about her, and she's always on (as in "on stage"). A diva actually has real talent. Many years ago, when I first heard the term, it was used to describe the opera star Maria Callas, who had a voice like an angel.

    Posted by beth128 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:12pm

17. Where's your faith, lvliberty? He never gives you more than you can handle. So buck up. On the bright side, if Obama wins he won't be president for no more than eight years. How do you think I got through the Bush administration. I knew eventually it would come to an end.

    Posted by k330k at 10/27/2008 @ 2:15pm

18. As I am not an American and don't have to watch my PC ass, I'll say it. The Christian Right is being very slowly rolled back by science. I mean fergawdsike, they can only produce pathetic miracles like getting a shill to walk without cruthches, but science produces real miracles - nuclear weapons, CERN, cures for diseases, etc. And science tells us that certain beliefs of the Christian Right are, er, wrong. Creation 6000 years ago? Pfui! And so on. I other words, religion is mythical, not factual.

    Our minds, of course, are mythical structures, so we find comfort and familiarity in religion. This may be a Good Thing, but it is no way to run countries, wars, economies etc. For that we need facts. Hence the separation of state and church. Sarah Palin may hang her hat on religious bunkum, and may even convince a great many others to follow her. But it is still bunkum, obscures rational decision-making etc. In other words it DOESN"T WORK for running a big country. Bossy, intolerant religions (like right-wing Islam and Christianity) add bossiness and intolerance to the bunkum, and it works even less.

    It is my hope that the majority of Americans will reject a populism which seeks to ram the beliefs and practices of one brand of Christianity down everybody's throats.

    Posted by mikecope at 10/27/2008 @ 2:20pm

19. Lliberty1 Your list of seven "Things" that seem certain are not at all certain. They are simply hyperbolic conjectures without any documentation outside of right-wing talking heads - who at the end of the day, are talking to sell dish detergent not to make valid points. They make outrageous claims because it stirs up their audience and the audience finds justification for their fears. A loyal customer base that will be more receptive to advertising that is pitched on these hysterical talk shows. You say the nation will become less "moral". How moral was Jim Crow?, how moral was inequality in the work place?, lack of safety precautions in the workplace?, (you should visit a construction site in China to get an idea of the morality of worker protection), how moral is inferior education for children of color? (I'll grant you this still needs work), how moral is rusty coat-hangers and back alley abortions? (oh, for great-grand moms recipe card called "For the inducement of miscarriage"). Or maybe the good-old days we should pine for include polio, teachers ignoring the clear signs of child abuse, what exactly do you mean by morality?

    Posted by OiJimmy at 10/27/2008 @ 2:23pm

20. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:16pm

    LVLIB, wouldn't you have said almost exactly the same thing when Bill Clinton was sworn in???

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 2:24pm

21. Posted by OiJimmy at 10/27/2008 @ 2:23pm

    In Larry's defense, he's mostly an economic libertarian (even is "win hearts and minds, don't make it illegal" on abortion).

    Mind you, his libertarianism stretchs back to even BEFORE the New Deal. He recently said he opposes the 1934 revision of the Food and Drug Act...despite the fact it was brought about when 100 people were POISONED due to cracks in the 1908 FDA.

    Foreign policy? A mix of Curtis LeMay and "Israel can do no wrong" Rapture Rascals.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 2:30pm

22. Though I know from scripture that the world is getting worse not better,-LIVEr

    Really? Scripture tells you that? Fascinating.

    I guess the world I live in is worse than 32AD. Egads, having running water sucks. I do miss the intercene wars that ran throughtout the tribes/clans across the world back in The Good 'Ol Days. I also pine for the days when I could own people. Sigh.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2008 @ 2:44pm

23. Why are righties so concerned that a democratic WH and congress will bring on disaster? It took that same combination to get us out of the other "problem" in the 30s. Besides, don't all the far right religious folks want the world to end? Are they trying to fit Obama into the mold of the anti-Christ? I could be wrong, but, it seems some people actually belive that Obama is the anti-Christ. Maybe the rev. can clarify his peoples view. I always considered satan to be the ally of Christians. Who do they blame when they screw up. I getting a vision of Flip Wilson.

    Posted by Truthman at 10/27/2008 @ 2:46pm

24. "But the rampant sexual immorality, legalizing abortion which is infanticide, looking at cohabitation rather than marriage as equal moral conditions, homosexuality, premarital sex and especially among teens, movies and television, public vulgarity, the way people dress, lack of respect by youth towards teachers, and virtually anyone in authority, and I could go on. "

    ahhh, the evils of the free market place at work. All the fault of "the left".

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2008 @ 2:47pm

25. I getting a vision of Flip Wilson.

    Posted by Truthman at 10/27/2008 @ 2:46pm

    Geraldine?

    haw-nee!

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2008 @ 2:49pm

26. Posted by lvliberty: We've never had fascism in this country and we never will.

    Benito Musollini was going to call fascism 'corporatism', but he changed his mind. Isn't that right?

    So, it seems that we already have a form of fascism here. And the corporations are screwing up wildly by being so greedy that their own system is disintegrating.

    You add a little religious fundamentalism into that and we are going to have a pleasant little vacation from sanity.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/27/2008 @ 2:56pm

27. -And it has nothing to do with the marketplace. -

    Bull.

    TV is free mkt. The "moral" effects created by television are those created via the selling of products and the marketing of programming. 90120 was a success because the consumers (viewers) loved it.

    abortion is a free market activity. If consumers didn't want it, providers wouldn't provide it.

    Homosexuality has been around since day...2? It is as natural as heterosexuality. It has nothing to do with morality.

    Marriage, as practiced in the US is a fairly recent invention. It has undergone revision multiple times here, and is practiced in multiple forms around the world. Marriage, from a legal standpoint, is about property.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2008 @ 3:07pm

28. gotta run.

    Sex does not equal morallity. Unless your party is behind in the polls.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/27/2008 @ 3:09pm

29. I actually think the repubs are smarter than that (maybe).

    Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2008 @ 1:07pm

    Consider the mess they made of everything and you still have a doubt?

    I heard a good suggestion a few days ago. It went kinda like: When Palin helps in the new con repub major loss, she can take all the remaining far right religious anti-science extremists with her to Alaska and then try seceding from the USA and staring down Russia...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 3:13pm

30. This woman has no national political future. If she ever gets clear of the increasing investigations into her behavior as governor of Alaska, she'll never get another chance on the national stage.

    McCain's choice was cynical and stupid. It seems they didn't even vet this woman.

    Now the monster from Alaska has turned on her handlers, a week before she and McCain are going to lose the election.

    The thought of Sarah Palin "a heartbeat" away from the Presidency is scary, much more scary than anything you'll see this Halloween.

    Posted by phillipalden at 10/27/2008 @ 3:33pm

31. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:46pm

    Really???

    So no fear of a "Bill and Hillary far-left agenda....nationalizing health care....putting gays in our military....largest tax hike in US history"...

    none at all?!??!!??!

    Odd...that's all I heard from Limbaugh back in 1992-1993. I guess Rush didn't know what a centrist Bill was, like you did, huh?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 3:43pm

32. BTW, like to get back on-topic and ask LVLIB (Who apparently is the only one from the Right who wants to join this conversation)....

    if he thinks Palin is laying some groundwork for 2012 or are these stories of dissension between her camp and McCain's camp so much hooey?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 3:44pm

33. lvliberty1 Your attitude towards abortion are elitist - on the frontier (where my and my wife's families came from) an unplanned baby could strain a family's resources to the breaking point, taking the mother out of the work force at a devastating time and possibly even threaten the live's of the family. It was common to "Induce a miscarriage" in these circumstances - the whole abortion issue is a very modern invention. Sexual immorality?, you should visit the home states of the two Republican presidential candidates, perhaps Skagway in Alaska and Jerome in Arizona, places with incredible pride in their "Working girls" and "Red Light Districts" In Skagway you can still be taking upstairs by a local high school where in the old days $5 would get you 15 minutes - do you really believe things have changed so much? You should get out more.

    Posted by OiJimmy at 10/27/2008 @ 3:58pm

34. Hmmmmm, LL, I thought you said something about not confusing "belief" with "religion"? Wasn't that what you said yesterday?

    I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, although I do still find the whole "belief" thing worrisome, specially when connected to politics.

    Now after reading the above I am not sure there is any benefit to the doubt.

    There seems to be a very unwholesome amount of religion mixed in with all your belief. You seem to be mixing your metaphors all over the place, and you have some very odd sources for your ideas, opinions and beliefs.

    I THINK I MAY HAVE TO SKIP THIS IN THE FUTURE, I am curious though why the others don't. IS THERE SOMETHING I SHOULD KNOW?

    By the way in Spanish there is a concept called "Morbo", which is the thing that makes people watch road accidents, and why those tv reality shows seem to have such a success, and I think this is what the S Palin phenomena is about. I hope somehow people will be shamed out of it, and then she will go back to the oblivion she came from.

    I have been avoiding reading about her, looking at internet links about her etc., although I can't seem to get away from them all. It makes me cringe and feel embarrassed when I catch myself at it. It is certainly not part of my better self. Especially when there are so many other things of more importance at stake.

    As has been said before, S Palin is a ruse of the GOP, either conscious or unconscious, to absorb air time for free, that BO has had to pay for, or that is how it starts to seem, as she runs out of control, and her handlers can't rein her in (all sounds very much like the animals she is so avidly intent on hunting and slaughtering).

    By the way I still recommend that book, it would be something to do while you while away the next 4/8 years...

    Posted by marilynm at 10/27/2008 @ 4:01pm

35. Not that I think Falin was the right choice, but it wasn't her fault that McCain't talked her into following her political ambitions. Ambitions never have dictated ability and now surely it's only obviously correct to rap McCain't in a white flag of the fallen crack clay of defeet.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 4:04pm

36. er (ha), defeat...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 4:05pm

37. Also, as I said before, the USA is in no danger of becoming a socialist state, it never has been and it would take a helluva a lot more than 8 years to get it there.

    And a revolution couldn't do it either.

    Posted by marilynm at 10/27/2008 @ 4:06pm

38. One could say that the McCain't/Falin new con repubs campaign is a basket case of mixed metaphors... too.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 4:08pm

39. it would take a helluva a lot more than 8 years to get it there.

    And a revolution couldn't do it either.

    Posted by marilynm at 10/27/2008 @ 4:06pm

    Didn't take much to make it into a dic'tatorship...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 4:09pm

40. I see LVL is on here too toting the rights perpetual boogie man. Trickle down economics didn't work Larry. You guys lost on that one. Give it up. Let's try something else. The boogie man doesn't work anymore in this country. You guys tried it an the polls didn't even flinch because everyone sees through your 4th grade name calling. A lack of understanding of socialism is what causes you to use the name so often.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/27/2008 @ 4:10pm

41. The devil made me do it" is a cop-out.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 3:04pm

    I am actually glad to hear you say that. I grew up with the fundamentalist of the 50s. Back then in the south blacks were not allowed in white churches. Jews were considered Christ killers. Catholics were considered idol worshippers. Fundalmentalism has changed some. Now blacks are tolerated. Jews are good because they are to be converted to Christanity. Catholics are actually accepted if they are to liberal. I have been hearing that the world is about to end any day now for almost 60 years. I bet the people in europe during ww11 thought the time was near. I see the world as getting better when compared to the ignorance of the past. But, I guess there will always be those who see the end as near. It seems that most embrace this as they get older. I see the same thing in aging abusive parents wanting to make amends with the children they abused. It is rater pathetic, sad actually. I can never understand how they tell this to their children and grandchildren.

    Posted by Truthman at 10/27/2008 @ 4:11pm

42. Hmmmm....

    So Hillary can PLAN for 2012 (or 16) but The Abominable Snow Woman PLOTS for 2012, eh?

    C'mon guys, give it a rest. You sound like school newspaper reporters

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/27/2008 @ 4:13pm

43. It should have been "not too liberal" for the line above referring to Catholics.

    Posted by Truthman at 10/27/2008 @ 4:14pm

44. This is supposed to be journalism?

    Kinda says...

    Get out more.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 4:15pm

45. Posted by Truthman at 10/27/2008 @ 4:11pm

    The world has been ending since religion was on this earth. Everyone has been predicting the end of the world since the beginning of written history and none of them have been right.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/27/2008 @ 4:16pm

46. Will Palin be the sign of the apocalypse for the Christian fundy right? We will see. Maybe the fundys will go the way of the dodo and religion can stay in the church and in peoples homes where it belongs and people can stop telling me how I should live my life and mind their own business.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/27/2008 @ 4:19pm

47. <i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:50pm</i>

    I'm kind of curious about the underlying theology here. Your claim seems to revolve around a continuous "spiraling-down" of morals and all since the first century AD. One, what verse does this come from exactly? Two, more fundamentally, if you're suggesting the world if "going to hell in a handbasket," what does that say about God? What happened to him having even some semblance of control over the big picture?

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2008 @ 4:32pm

48. Nice try LIBERTY.

    Read thew entire transcript. It is pretty clear that Obama was actually discussing (and even impliedly advocating) judicial restraint.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/27/2008 @ 4:33pm

49. Let's face it: if Pain had had to go through the primary process, she would have gotten about as far as Tom Tancredo; look for her to have a short shelf life in 2012. Fundamentalists already have Mike Huckabee, who ran a folksy, respectful and non-divisive campaign and, with his own Fox show, he will be able to continue to get his message out. First question for Palin in 2012: How's that $40-billion pipeline coming?

    Posted by nathanhale at 10/27/2008 @ 4:36pm

50. Oh, and by the way, has Palin endorsed Ted Stevens yet?

    Posted by nathanhale at 10/27/2008 @ 4:38pm

51. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/27/2008 @ 4:13pm

    Uh, CHIP, you DO realize by extension, you just compared Palin to Hillary?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 4:38pm

52. Posted by nathanhale at 10/27/2008 @ 4:36pm

    S'why the Dems should go to their fund-raisers and get them to donate BIG-TIME to a "Palin 2012" primary run. Wash her in cash so that the SANE Big Money boys in the GOP can't stop her, if not from getting the nomination, hurting the guy they really want.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 4:50pm

53. let her plot...i hope she is the repugnant nom in 2012...

    a surefire recipe for 4 more years of dem rule!!!

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/27/2008 @ 5:12pm

54. Hey everyone, isn't it clear this lvliberty person is totally incarcerated inside her/his religion? There is nothing that any of us can say or do to free this person- nothing we say can help a person who truly believes rational thought and moral freedom is governed by demonic influences. I am a younger individual and when I am faced with the most close-minded of my grandparent's generation I find the best strategy is to simply outlive them.

    Of course, since lvliberty has chosen to be the religious conservative voice on The Nation's comment pages she/he deserves to be corrected when facts and ideas are distorted (homosexuality is NOT immoral! Stop hating us!)- but perhaps we can do this in a way that does not engage her/him in theological arguments for which he/she will only offer up biblical references in place of fact and reason. I know it is tempting to try to dazzle with our logical thought and non-dependence on a deity but.. well, perhaps we can simply take heart that unshakable faith is, in much of the younger generation, gradually being dissolved. Its enemy is education.. it seems as we teach young people how to use their brains they find the incongruities in religious doctrines increasingly unacceptable.

    Now.. about this article.. I find Sarah Palin's ideas repulsive but I would caution against the sexism trap of calling her 'diva' or 'drama queen.' We would not use either of these terms to describe a male VP candidate in the same circumstance(unless he happened to be a homosexual.. grr..). I do not want to 'go easy' on Palin in any way shape or form - in fact I'd like nothing more than to see her own ignorance and beliefs rip her political career apart - but can't we try to do this in a gender/sex neutral fashion? Let's not give the GOP any ammo.

    Posted by DarwinCNY at 10/27/2008 @ 5:17pm

55. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 1:29pm

    Actually, I've never made an argument about the Constitution beyond trying to demonstrate that the arguments you make are inconsistent.

    As for you Obama quote - going by what you have posted here, he is presenting a theoretical argument that both the courts are not a good system for implementing change and that despite this, it is not difficult to come up with legal justifications.

    It's not an argument of intent. It's an argument of possibility.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 2:30pm

    LVL seems more neo-con on foreign policies and paleo-con on social. I cannot recall a single liberty argument that wasn't used to support his positions above rather than on a live-and-let live that is generally at the base of libertarianism.

    Global war undermines liberty. If he has to chose between the two, he'll pick global war. Thus, he's not libertarian.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2008 @ 5:31pm

56. "Hey everyone, isn't it clear this lvliberty person is totally incarcerated inside her/his religion? There is nothing that any of us can say or do to free this person- nothing we say can help a person who truly believes rational thought and moral freedom is governed by demonic influences. I am a younger individual and when I am faced with the most close-minded of my grandparent's generation I find the best strategy is to simply outlive them..."

    Posted by DarwinCNY at 10/27/2008 @ 5:17pm

    Thank goodness for you, I was beginning to think everyone was loosing their marbles (myself inc.)! Well that Lvliberty person certainly, and all the rest of us for getting it into it with her/him. I still can't quite get the rational behind his posts, and am starting to think it is a kind of attention seeking, socio pathic behavior etc.

    And about the S Palin thing, I completely agree about staying away from the gender obvious criticisms...it is really playing into her corner...but it is so hard not to be mad at her for being who she is and doing with it what she does.

    Posted by marilynm at 10/27/2008 @ 5:50pm

57. According to my sources, Palin has been seen entering and leaving an "Undisclosed Location." Reports are she has been rather smartly dressed. The rumour is she has been "Cutting a Deal" with the soon to be former Vice President Dick "Vader" Cheney.

    Uh Oh Spaghetti-O!

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2008 @ 6:37pm

58. It seems that Dickie Boy has invented a machine that can "See Through" the Iraq War. Plans are apparently underway to "See Through" a variety of other possible "War Type" scenarios.

    Updates will be posted when avaialable.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2008 @ 6:44pm

59. "Here are the questions asked by WFTV anchor Barbara West:

    "You may recognize this famous quote: ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to ‘spread the wealth around'?"

    "Are you joking? Is this a joke?" Biden asked.

    "No," said West.

    "Is that a real question?"

    "That's a question," West replied.

    ...

    While critics on the left are blasting West for being a right-wing hatchet-woman, etc., critics on the right are asking if Obama, as president, would freeze out reporters who ask tough but legitimate questions."

    -Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/27/2008 @ 6:25pm

    At least Biden knows who Marx was and what Marxism is.. I imagine (pre-extreme coaching) Palin's response to the same inquiry would have been "Karl who?"

    And I think the last 8 years have shown us that reporters simply don't ask tough legitimate questions of our president, so no conflict there.

    Posted by DarwinCNY at 10/27/2008 @ 7:09pm

60. -Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/27/2008

    You really need to find a fetid crack and crawl into it for about 4 years..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2008 @ 7:24pm

61. Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/27/2008 @ 5:02pm

    Hey, Red, can you quote this Scripture?

    Titus 3:2

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 7:53pm

62. Get ta fu?k outta here!

    To hell wid dem bitches. Sarah, Hillary, and the rest.

    We don't need no stinkin' biotches!

    It's 2008 biotch. Get me a beer! You seen da news biotch? Treat you any way we wanna!

    Posted by bleedingheart at 10/27/2008 @ 9:28pm

63. <i>Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2008 @ 4:32pm </i>

    For whatever reason (whether him not seeing this, etc.), Liberty has yet to adequately respond. I think his position does raise serious internal problems.

    <i>Posted by DarwinCNY at 10/27/2008 @ 5:17pm </i>

    Please correct me if I'm misreading, but you seem to suggest that religion and reason are mutually exclusive. Though I hope I'm not sabotaging the thread too much here, I'm curious as to why exactly they're mutually exclusive. That's not to say that some manifestations of religion can't be problematic; with that I'd agree. Why, though, are religion and reason fundamentally opposed to each other?

    <i>Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/27/2008 @ 6:25pm </i>

    This is actually a legitimate point. I question how far this can actually be generalized, but it just isn't enough to say "well, Bush didn't answer questions either." That's especially true given that Bush isn't running; in order to have any impact, this would have to be a comparison against McCain.

    <i>Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 7:53pm</i>

    Touche, though I'd be careful because quoting isolated verses can be dangerously problematic (especially in the hands of those who use them to defend an extreme form of literalism). Nonetheless, I think the verse expresses a crucial point that really gets ignored too much.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2008 @ 9:31pm

64. Palin came out in favor of ethanol (calling it "the ethanol")

    alaskans learn everything through the tubes.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 9:37pm

65. Yes, homosexuality has been around a long time, but it has seldom ever received legitimacy except in decaying societies.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 3:18pm

    yep, usually a few decades after they let women go outside and brown people don't have to pay brown tax.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 9:40pm

66. Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2008 @ 9:31pm

    I'm pretty sure Red/Rio (or LVLIB) has an "out" for the injunction of Titus 3:2 and why he DOESN'T have to not speak evil of "sek'lar regressives", "Demoncrats", "marxist leftists", "illegal Mes'kins", etc....

    they always do.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 10:20pm

67. I think this whole Palin vs. McCain thing is a prime example of "Post Dramatic Dress Disorder"...

    Posted by Ouch at 10/27/2008 @ 10:42pm

68. Cheap jingles, get cheaper with each chant! Spread the Wealth! Obama wants to spread the wealth. I say Obama is attempting to Spread the Debt! Spread the Debt to the wealthy 1% of America.

    Antonio_Bklyn

    Posted by Antonio_Bklyn at 10/27/2008 @ 11:09pm

69. PDDD!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 11:14pm

70. whoa, another one!

    SPREAD THE DEBT!

    yeah!

    thanks.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 11:27pm

71. To RedRiver, and as one Christian to another:

    2. Generally speaking, words in "all-caps" are frequently considered as "shouting-words." The Bible and many other early writings (Shepherd of Hermas, for example), exhort us, when we admonish others, to do so with humility.

    1. The kind of obedience practiced by the early martyrs did not preclude any of them from disobeying Rome's emperor.

    IMHO, it's not too much of a stretch to ascribe emperor-like personality traits to GW. I'm not sure We're required to obey when the obedience would dishonor Jesus.

    Posted by Ouch at 10/27/2008 @ 11:38pm

72. <i>Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/27/2008 @ 11:22pm </i>

    Illustrates my point nicely. This is why I tend to think that "red-letter Christianity" is more compelling; it anchors itself on the best standard it can and evaluates everything else (writing expressing the personal convictions of fallible human beings) based on that.

    <i>To RedRiver, and as one Christian to another:

    2. Generally speaking, words in "all-caps" are frequently considered as "shouting-words." The Bible and many other early writings (Shepherd of Hermas, for example), exhort us, when we admonish others, to do so with humility.

    1. The kind of obedience practiced by the early martyrs did not preclude any of them from disobeying Rome's emperor.

    IMHO, it's not too much of a stretch to ascribe emperor-like personality traits to GW. I'm not sure We're required to obey when the obedience would dishonor Jesus.

    Posted by Ouch at 10/27/2008 @ 11:38pm </i>

    I think you may have gotten the order switched up a bit. I think you have a valid point, though I would also be careful of its scope, especially when there can be reasonable differences of opinion on many areas of policy.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2008 @ 11:57pm

73. amen.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 12:08am

74. Palin as prez?

    LOL

    Considering her very presence has sent a much more viable candidate's entire campaign into the tanks, how would that ever happen?

    Maybe they're hoping for a nuclear holocaust. She can be president of the United States of Alaska since that will be the only inhabitable piece of US soil left.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 12:47am

75. McCain's ridiculous and raucous ranting about Obama and Socialism doesn't seem to have worked at all, and why is that? We've been told for years that we couldn't have single payer health care, that it was Socialism. We then watch the smartest guys in the room and their quant lap dogs pump the financial system full of monetary flatulence. They walk out with their fees and commissions and the system belches out the dregs to the rest of the "investors". Every one of the greedy and stupid bankers caught without a chair when the music stops runs off to Paulson-Bernacke for their share of the public wallet. Do you think that might have something to do with it? We've just been witness to pure lunacy, conjured by Phil Gramm in return for piles of cash and endless favors from the likes of UBS, mediated by acolytes from both parties, and authorized by the regulators quite willing to let those avowedly dedicated to eternal greed.... regulate themselves! There is nothing anyone can say about mercantilist capitalism or morality that carries any weight, none at all. Not only does the emperor have no clothes, but he's running down Wall Street playing with himself in public. Only in a world where "Christian Conservatives", who are neither, could blind themselves so thoroughly with perceived power could they fail to understand what has happened and why. So be it.

    Posted by ncimon at 10/28/2008 @ 01:06am

76. <i>Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/28/2008 @ 12:13am </i>

    On the first argument...I think you undercut yourself. It is precisely the point that we render to Caesar what is his AND to God what is His. However, it seems problematic to assume that Caesar's demands cannot conflict with God's. That being the case, the choice seems pretty clear, though again, I'd argue we should be careful before making that definitive leap.

    On the second argument, I don't see how this vastly differential standard makes any sense (especially with Jesus' own words as the proper weighing standard). One, he never made that kind of distinction (see the woman at the well, the woman accused of adultery, etc.). Two, that standard seems incoherent. The entirety of the Christian ethic IS one of love (which includes humility within it), which requires us to treat all (read, all) others with the kind of respect that they are due as God's children. In fact, if you look at where Jesus reserved most of his criticisms, it was to the Pharisees, who embodied the kind of in-group/out-group arrogance that you appear to be defending. When they declared themselves to be holier than everyone else, Jesus cut them down and reminded them that God does not obey their narrow boundaries and refuses to subordinate ritual piety to actual justice, care and concern for others.

    Remember, whatever else other scriptures say, Jesus' own words and actions are a sufficient standard against which those other writings can be evaluated. If there's an inconsistency, I think it's pretty clear which way it gets resolved. Therefore, to sustain your argument, you'll have to contend directly with Jesus' own example instead of just quoting more verses.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 01:07am

77. This portion of the thread is way off topic, but, oh well.

    To RedRiver:

    1. One example: Martyrdom of Polycarp. All he needed to do was "swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent, say away with the Atheists." [Christians were considered atheists back then.] Polycarp gladly refused to obey.

    2. How many of these bloggers have confessed their unbelief?

    To Thrawn, re last paragraph:

    My better half agrees with your advice about scope; my sarcastic half says I was being nice.

    Re the original article:

    It's a bit of a stretch to extrapolate Palin's future intentions from the material included. What probably isn't (add italics, not caps) a stretch is to expect that, win or lose, she'll be sat down for a friendly reminder of Reagan's 11th (Never dis thy fellow elephant.)

    Posted by Ouch at 10/28/2008 @ 01:09am

78. "Please correct me if I'm misreading, but you seem to suggest that religion and reason are mutually exclusive. Though I hope I'm not sabotaging the thread too much here, I'm curious as to why exactly they're mutually exclusive. That's not to say that some manifestations of religion can't be problematic; with that I'd agree. Why, though, are religion and reason fundamentally opposed to each other?"

    -Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2008 @ 9:31pm

    I think the term 'problematic' is a massive understatement. And while I don't think my post really said it, you are right, I do think of religion and reason as mutually exclusive.

    I can't think of an instance where reason and religion are miscible, though it certainly depends on your definition of reason. A religious person quoting scripture to me might as well be quoting from one of Lang's old fairy tale books - the ideas in each could be applied to many different real-life situations yet neither can be supported by any testable facts and in the end the discussion would get just as far.

    I have no problem with one person using whichever religion as a quick and effort-free guide to living his or her life or as a way to provide some comfort when faced with the pain of loss and death. But when it interferes with politics in a way that morally judges my life and my beliefs and works to deny me equal rights, or when it takes precedent over the fundamentally more important work of halting the destruction of this planet, or when it effectively causes global conflict and massive loss of life again and again.. Then it causes more harm than good and I would call upon the followers to wake up their long-sleeping brains and depend upon reason and not faith to provide answers (or at least become Buddhists - happy medium).

    Posted by DarwinCNY at 10/28/2008 @ 01:34am

79. We've never had fascism in this country and we never will.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 1:46pm

    If we haven't (and the jury's out on that one) it isn't because Bush, Cheney and the rest of their cabal haven't tried.

    And, Larry, morality lectures? Coming from a guy who supports the mass murder of civilians? A guy who supports torture? A guy who believes in screwing the poor for the sake of the wealthy? A guy who would force his religious beliefs on the entire human race? Morality lectures? Yeah, hell of a source on that one, Rev.

    Posted by jmusolino at 10/28/2008 @ 02:17am

80. This shows how desperate the McCain campaign is. Poor Steve Schmidt is having to listen to old radio programs for ideas that he can use to distort Senator Obama's political and economic philosophy.

    I studied both economics and constitutional law, and would tell everyone here, that it wasn't that difficult to understand what was being discussed on this radio program.

    Senator Obama was actually defending the Supreme Court for not stepping into the role of deciding how money should be spent in school systems, and on the demands of people interested in a fair shake in society.

    He was saying that organizers would be better off bringing their grievances to legislative bodies.

    The McCain capmaign jumped on the phrase "redistubutive" to mean a monetary policy instead of what it was- a civil rights one.

    How stupid do they think we are? Their lies will not work this time.

    Vietnam Veteran Khe Sanh 1968

    I took this from the response section of the Boston Globe on line

    Here is a very potent anti-nuclear power article on counter punch - http://www.counterpunch.org/johnston10272008.html

    I am pro-life - THEREFORE - I am anti-nuclear power - McCain lost my vote with his barbaric , death for Americans , birth defects and miscarriage promoting , treasonous call for dozens of lethal nuclear power plants to planted like toxic time bombs all over the country -

    Posted by nonukes at 10/28/2008 @ 03:17am

81. Anyone who thinks Gov Palin might be taken seriously in 2012 or for more than a few months before then should consider the fate of a more talented, interested, and well- trained public speaker from another small state, one with a similar constituency, and more practice governing, and skill in getting re-elected.

    I heard this guy talk for an hour with an able host, Dianne Rheem, occasioned by his book tour for "Digging Your own Grave with a Knife and Fork." Gov Palin could not manage an intelligent 1/2 hour of conversation.

    As noted, look where Mike Huckabee is now.

    Posted by htravis at 10/28/2008 @ 03:26am

82. "But the rampant sexual immorality, legalizing abortion which is infanticide, looking at cohabitation rather than marriage as equal moral conditions, homosexuality, premarital sex and especially among teens, movies and television, public vulgarity, the way people dress, lack of respect by youth towards teachers, and virtually anyone in authority, and I could go on. "

    Is this a Taliban spokesperson?

    Posted by mikecope at 10/28/2008 @ 04:53am

83. The one thing that I find amusing here is that this country has social programs all over the place. Has everyone forgotten Social Security? You cannot get more social than that. I will not vote for someone that has said that they will remove funds from a program(s) that millions of americans come to rely on as their only means of surviving. Some would prfer that these programs be done away with so that the sick and elderly would just die off quicker.

    As far as Palin goes, she is nothing more than a diva straying from McCain's campaign. The problem is that he now has to live with the woman he called his soul mate (which I find interesting as he is married and isn't that what is said of ones spouse?). Also for her to be told to get off the topic of the $150k clothing debacle and choosing outright not to do so because "somebody" else brought it up is just down right idiotic.

    Obama can count me for a vote on Nov. 4.

    Posted by jloughry1976 at 10/28/2008 @ 06:44am

84. As far as the knucklehead who feels the need to point a finger and yell SEE! Obama's the bad guy, check out this interview from 2001! You sir (or madam) have taken the interview out of context which is what the GOP is really good at. So check the following link so that you can get the facts about what was said and not a 3rd party poster on here.

    salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/10/28/obama_civil_rights/

    Posted by jloughry1976 at 10/28/2008 @ 06:50am

85. Posted by Thrawn at 10/27/2008 @ 11:57pm

    THRAWN, re-read what RED said.

    He's saying HE doesn't have to "not speak evil of others" because "we aren't Christians and don't obey George W. Bush".

    Ignore us and why does he excuse HIMSELF?

    Oh and what will he say about Titus 3:1 if OBAMA is President?!?!??!?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 07:18am

86. I think this whole Palin vs. McCain thing is a prime example of "Post Dramatic Dress Disorder"...

    Posted by Ouch at 10/27/2008 @ 10:42pm

    I haven't been at this site very long and don't know where you stand, however, that was hallarious!

    Posted by Truthman at 10/28/2008 @ 07:35am

87. I think this whole Palin vs. McCain thing is a prime example of "Post Dramatic Dress Disorder"...

    Posted by Ouch at 10/27/2008 @ 10:42pm

    Sure glad your not judgemental

    Posted by Truthman at 10/28/2008 @ 07:39am

88. I think this whole Palin vs. McCain thing is a prime example of "Post Dramatic Dress Disorder"...

    Posted by Ouch at 10/27/2008 @ 10:42pm

    Sure glad your not judgemental

    Posted by Truthman at 10/28/2008

    Sorry wrong quote. It early.

    Posted by Truthman at 10/28/2008 @ 07:51am

89. Compared Hillary to Palin?

    Ok MASK I'll bite, so how did I do that?

    My point was, as usual, the low level of objectivity on here.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/28/2008 @ 08:06am

90. Ok MASK I'll bite, so how did I do that?====Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/28/2008 @ 08:06am

    Okay...

    "So Hillary can PLAN for 2012 (or 16) but The Abominable Snow Woman PLOTS for 2012, eh?"----Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/27/2008 @ 4:13pm

    Well, not sure where you get "Hillary PLANNING for 2012" except from somebody who is critical of HRC for not truly supporting Obama's campaign....ergo, if they are being critical of Hillary for "planning" for 2012, then they're not being hypocritical for saying Palin is "plotting" for 2012, since they would no doubt be critical of Palin.

    Second, you didn't exactly DENY that Palin is "plotting" or "planning" or "working on" a run for 2012, did you?

    Which to me seems to indicate that, given you likely think Hillary wants to "plan" for 2012...you think Palin is too.

    Which means you agree with the gist of the article and merely tried to quibble over VERBS and not the premise.

    So straight up, CHIP....DO you think Palin is perhaps, maybe, possibly "keeping her options open" for a run for the top slot of the GOP in 2012????

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 08:41am

91. After Palin's return to Alaska, I believe there will be additional ethics investigations to come. Not sure she will survive. We're not talking about the most sophisticated personality.

    But heaven forbid we must endure this women on the campaign trail again. This has been a very low point in American politics.

    Posted by Hoot at 10/28/2008 @ 08:44am

92. As to morality, I don't know how old your are, but I draw upon my experiences over the past 60 years of seeing America change. Some like ending racism were long overdue changes. But the rampant sexual immorality, legalizing abortion which is infanticide, looking at cohabitation rather than marriage as equal moral conditions, homosexuality, premarital sex and especially among teens, movies and television, public vulgarity, the way people dress, lack of respect by youth towards teachers, and virtually anyone in authority, and I could go on.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:44pm

    can't we just crucify this holier-than-thou fuckstick and get it over with? i'm so tired of his/her/it's pseudo-savior bullshit. how's that for lack of respect (which is EARNED and not GIVEN) and vulgarity?

    Posted by palehorse67 at 10/28/2008 @ 09:37am

93. As to morality, I don't know how old your are, but I draw upon my experiences over the past 60 years of seeing America change. Some like ending racism were long overdue changes. But the rampant sexual immorality, legalizing abortion which is infanticide, looking at cohabitation rather than marriage as equal moral conditions, homosexuality, premarital sex and especially among teens, movies and television, public vulgarity, the way people dress, lack of respect by youth towards teachers, and virtually anyone in authority, and I could go on.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:44pm

    break out your burkhas everyone.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 10/28/2008 @ 09:38am

94. Posted by Hoot at 10/28/2008 @ 08:44am

    I say the exact opposite. If Obama wins, and the Democrats want to assure he is easily re-elected?....

    get contributors to start donating to the "Palin 2012" primary run the DAY after Election Day 2008.

    She probably wouldn't get the nomination (there are still plenty of sane Republicans, even a few who CLAIM ...NOW....to love Saint Sarah)....but she'd cause holy hell for whoever the GOP winner eventually would be. It'd make Hillary vs. Obama look like a love-fest!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 09:53am

95. As to morality, I don't know how old your are, but I draw upon my experiences over the past 60 years of seeing America change. Some like ending racism were long overdue changes. But the rampant sexual immorality, legalizing abortion which is infanticide, looking at cohabitation rather than marriage as equal moral conditions, homosexuality...and I could go on.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:44pm

    and now that i got the anger out of my system, i will address your comment rationally.

    see this is what gets me about conservative ideology -- they seem to be all for smaller government and letting people make their own decisions, yet when it comes to someone's reproductive and sexual choices, which would seem to me to be one of the most private matters one can make, they seem to want to legislate everything.

    since i am pro-CHOICE, i believe a woman's inherent right to CHOOSE -- that she can make her decisions better than any law or lawmaker could. now that doesn't necessarily mean i would do it if i were a woman, but that's my personal CHOICE isn't it? i can express my personal views and religion without impeding anyone else's. the same goes with homosexuality. i'm not gay, but if someone else is what's that got to do with me?

    as for movies/tv and the way people dress, this has been said about every future generation since time immemorial. it will continue to be said. i don't particularly like the way people younger than myself dress, but i'm not going to get bent out of shape about it. if they want to look like an idiot so be it.

    and as i said in an earlier post, respect is not to be expected, it is earned.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 10/28/2008 @ 09:58am

96. this will help:

    THE HOLY GRAIL

    THE SARAH PALIN SWIMSUIT COMPETITION VIDEO

    IT DOES EXIST:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSdFIDygFwM

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/28/2008 @ 10:12am

97. Posted by palehorse67 at 10/28/2008 @ 09:58am

    That's the conservative creedo though. They don't want you to tell them how to spend their money they only want you to tell them how NOT to spend their money. They sit here and preach to us pious liberals about smaller government but they want bigger government in your personal life. They want the government to tell you how you should act just not where you money goes. It shows what's important to them. True liberty isn't important to them. Monetary liberty is. I want the right to do what I want without the government telling me that is "immoral", which is a relative term by the way. They want the right to horde their dollars but want the government to dictate everything they should and shouldn't do.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/28/2008 @ 10:24am

98. Posted by leftofcenter at 10/28/2008 @ 10:12am

    Yeah, when I see a tight-across-the-ass one-piece bathing suit doing its pageant walk....

    I think "potential President of the United States"!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 10:26am

99. Yeah, when I see a tight-across-the-ass one-piece bathing suit doing its pageant walk....

    I think "potential President of the United States"!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 10:26am

    but if you say that, according to her twisted logic, it's sexist. i can flaunt my shit, but don't you dare acknowledge that perhaps i got here by the way i look.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 10/28/2008 @ 10:31am

100. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:32am

     though i don't particularly like organized religion (as opposed to faith), i can see the good along with the bad and i remember not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. it seems you should remember that when offering a scathing critique of present-day america.

     Posted by palehorse67 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:46am

101. "As to morality, I don't know how old your are, but I draw upon my experiences over the past 60 years of seeing America change...rampant sexual immorality, legalizing abortion which is infanticide, looking at cohabitation rather than marriage as equal moral conditions, homosexuality, premarital sex and especially among teens, movies and television, public vulgarity, the way people dress, lack of respect by youth towards teachers, and virtually anyone in authority..."

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 2:44pm

     Blah, blah, blah.

     There is in fact a country for the gasbag Reverand and his rightwing war on the year 2008 --- a war that, we see, goes beyond a mere withered, stale old fart boo-hooing about the better days passed. Yes, there is a country to the Reverand's tastes in moralism. It's called Saudi Arabia.

     Recall that LVLIB recently stated that Colin Powell is not comfortable as a Republican. Got that? Colin Powell. Not comofortable in the GOP, although he is probably the most respected figure in the party with the public: A former chair of the Joint Chiefs, Nat'L Security advisor and Sec of State in Republican admins, GOP not.

     Thus, one may readily assume that the Reverand wants to vet the GOP down to its rump: Wild-eyed end-time freaks, hapless home-school captives, Ashley Todd and Mark Foley type disgraced losers, and the semi-recovered drunks who woozily fill the musty pews for the Reverand's drivel-drenched sermons. The real republican party.

     Anyway, if the Powells are not Republican enough and America is not American enough, it's high time for the Reverand to "love it or leave it". Cut the bullshit, Rev, and go someplace with its moral compass fixed on beheadings, g*d in the public square, and suiciding. Saudi Arabia is your paradise.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 10/28/2008 @ 12:25pm

102. <i>Posted by DarwinCNY at 10/28/2008 @ 01:34am </i>

     I apologize in advance, again, for diverting the thread a bit (though I think that ship has long sailed). I want to keep at this area because it's extremely important, not just as a theoretical matter, but as a question of what democratic discourse can/should looke like.

     I think it's also important to note that "religion" cannot be reduced to "what the extreme religious right/left says," which is a big part of where I think Hitchens falls short in his critique.

     So to get to the post...why? You've said that you believe religion is OK as a means of comfort but not as something that gives reasons for particular kinds of action, but you've never given a reason why it's inherently contrary to rationality.

     It seems like there are two ways you could claim that religion is mutually exclusive with reason. First, procedurally, in that sense that beliefs expressed by religion flow from faith, which is said (wrongly, I think) to be reason's opponent. I would argue, instead, that reasoning from premises that cannot themselves be proven is fundamental to reason and can never be avoided. Second, substantively, in that the things people with religion believe are in and of themselves irrational (God, miracles, etc.), which I think is also open for very reasonable dispute. Since I'd rather not fully preempt and try to address both before even knowing where you're coming from, does either/both of those describe your position that religion is contrary to reason?

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 2:28pm

103. Sexual immorality!

     LOLOL

     Sounds like some of the god-fearing christians around here need to get a piece and mind their own business, and stay out of people's bedrooms.

     Is that the same sort of sexual immorality that Ted Haggard (or countless other members of the so-called moral majority) was preaching about while having sex with teenage boys and feeding them crystal meth, or a DIFFERENT kind?

     While I'm sure none of the religious fanatics here support such behaviors, don't you find it slightly interesting that the people that get caught having sex with young boys all the time, are the very people talking about "sexual immorality" every time they open their mouths?

     As The Bard wrote, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much..."

     Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 3:10pm

104. LVLIBERTY, I'll make you a deal...

     You stay out of my bedroom, and I'll stay out of your church.

     The only time we need government intervention in either (talk about big government, eh?) is when somebody is being taken advantage of, or abused.

     Of course that will never fly with somebody so adamantly bent on imposing their own mindset on somebody else, but it's worth a shot right?

     Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 3:14pm

105. 1. He regretted the Warren court had not been as radical on social policy as they were with civil rights. 2. He regretted the constraints of the constitution due to it's language. 3. He felt that social engineering as in redistributive policies would need to be accomplished through the legislative process (and even noted he had a bias in that regard as a legislator). Clearly, Obama believes in socialist dogma. His denials are not believable because he says and does just the opposite. But then again, lying seems to come easy to Mr Obama. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:04am

     God your so full of it LVL. You only hear what you WANT to hear. It's clear to anyone what he really meant you just want him to be the demon you have made him out to be in your head.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:14pm

106. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:14pm

     That, my friend, is what is known as "grasping at straws" where I come from.

     Don't mind him though, he's very confused and scared. Some bad behavior is to be expected.

     Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 3:18pm

107. Of course we want the world to end, that is the only truly sane position.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/27/2008 @ 3:04pm

     If that is "the only truly sane posistion, then you are insane and a menance to society. You need to be locked up.

     Posted by Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 4:19pm

108. While critics on the left are blasting West for being a right-wing hatchet-woman, etc., critics on the right are asking if Obama, as president, would freeze out reporters who ask tough but legitimate questions.

     Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/27/2008 @ 6:25pm

     She IS a right-wing hatchet woman. Her husband is a GOP media consultant. I'm surprised she didn't ask when Obama was going to stop beating his wife...

     Posted by Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 4:21pm

109. "AS to Obama, what I've described to people both from the pulpit and outside of it, is that seeing the response to Obama shows just how easily the Anti-Christ will be persuasive to the world; Whomever that person is or will be."

     Didn't you recently claim that only liberals preach politics from the pulpit? Now you are talking about equating Obama to the Anti-Christ? Jesus your are more of a lunatic than I thought.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/28/2008 @ 4:55pm

110. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:32am

     "...I have a responsibility before G-d to speak as the voice of Christ to the world. That is to offer hope and restoration where it is sought, and condemnation where it insteads focuses on self rather than G-d."

     Isn't it ironic that presuming to be the voice of Christ is probably the worst example of putting self before "G-d"? What evil hasn't been perpetrated by some idiot presuming that he understands God's mind?

     "The US today has become a culture of self-gratification and lacking any sense of requirement to adhere to any real social standards of behavior. Instead, as stated by SRJ and CCC consistently, the left advocates live and let live, self determining moral codes (or lack thereof)."

     And here we see what kind of liberty you truly advocate. Liberty not worth the name. There is a world of difference between social suasion - such as the shunning of the Amish - and using the government to enforce your worldview.

     I'll take Mill's harm principle, i.e., an important component of liberty is the freedom to pursue tastes and pursuits, even if they are deemed "immoral," as long as they do not cause harm. Homosexuality, drugs, or gluttonous eating may not be my cup of tea - but it's not my place (or the government's) to tell people how to live their lives.

     "...Christians who follow the Bible as I do understand that we are not now, never have been, nor ever will be a Christian nation."

     Presuming to speak for all - and you are implying "real" - Christians is another example of putting self before God and your fellow men. I wouldn't presume to speak for God or even Christians - even though I am one. You can only speak for yourself. It would be good for you to keep that point in mind.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2008 @ 4:56pm

111. <i>Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2008 @ 4:56pm </i>

     Your criticisms of "speaking for God" seem on-point with regards to the huge excesses that that notion invites, but what about, say, someone saying that slavery is unjust because it treats God's children as less than they are? It seems that insofar as "speaking for God" is often understood as following his example, why is that necessarily an evil?

     On the harm principle, one thing I've always been curious about...what precisely constitutes a harm? Does it have to be clear physical damage or lasting mental trauma? Will harm caused by inaction count? What's the threshold? I ask this not because I'm demanding a complete and total account of what the Harm Principle entails, but rather because it seems somewhat question-begging (especially because the very notion of harm is a moral one).

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 5:09pm

112. LORDY! Where is the usual skin-head, neo-nazi spew?? I thought for sure this blog would have deteriorated into that by now! Or did I miss that? darn! LOL

     Posted by fiona33 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:30pm

113. Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 5:09pm

     "...but what about, say, someone saying that slavery is unjust because it treats God's children as less than they are?"

     This is a moral argument that in no way contingent on knowing the mind of God. It is different than making an argument like: slavery is unjust because God thinks it is unjust.

     Any argument where one of the premises depends on knowing what God thinks about something is one we cannot know the truth of. Even something that appears obvious like whether God thinks slavery is unjust.

     Leviticus 25:44, for one example among many, suggests that slaves from other nations are permitable. Or another, what about being God's slave? Or the representative of a God in the form of an abbot or pastor? Even something that seems straight-forward can become unclear fast.

     "It seems that insofar as "speaking for God" is often understood as following his example, why is that necessarily an evil?"

     The problem, in my view, is that we have to give it our best guess, but we should also acknowledge that sub specie aeternitatis, it is not clear what is good or evil, what God thinks, or what we should believe. I think Kierkegaard has a lot of good ideas on the role of subjectivity in religious matters.

     And to address your point, what is necessarily evil is pretending - to ourselves and to others - that our subjectivity is objective. I'd say this is the principle reason people turn from God, and it is the fault of the people claiming to be speaking on God's behalf or representing him in some way.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2008 @ 5:38pm

114. lvliberty - you make redistribution of wealth sound like the world coming to an end. When 5% of the country has 90% of the wealth... there are problems. This is coming from a small business owner that makes over 250,000 - no I'm not Joe the Plumber... I'm David the Appraiser. I will gladly pay more taxes for everyone to have health care and live well. I live VERY well but what do I need a bank account with over 50,000 for? Oh wait... for HEALTH CARE COSTS... that is really the only real emergency we could face in this country anymore? What... maybe I'll blow a tire or break my suspension? That's what I have auto insurance for. Health insurance is broken - wealth distribution is broken, non-regulated entities are BROKEN. And surprisingly... your humility and generosity are BROKEN. How can a religious person be so selfish? How much money do you make a year? I hope it's over 250,000 or else STFU! I love the people who don't even get effected by legislation... but like to pound their little angry fists about PRINCIPLE! Get over it... go join Palin's failed new party or the Christian Exodus. Give me a BREAK. Thankfully the majority of this country DISAGREES with you this time. What does a person need to make over a million dollars for... GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON.

     Posted by hirohyoto at 10/28/2008 @ 5:47pm

115. Nice series of posts, SRJ.

     Posted by Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 5:49pm

116. Doesn't anyone at "The Nation" monitor the tracking polls? Evidently not, otherwise there'd be an awareness that McCain/Palin is making huge & rapid gains on B. Hussein & Joe the Mouth, Biden.

     Why is McCain closing the gap? Because 1) his ads attacking B. Hussein as a tax & spender are working, 2) nominal Catholic Joe Biden has found himself in hot water with the Church as represented by the Bishop of Wilmington,3) the Philip Berg lawsuit demanding B. Hussein prove to a federal court that he's a natural-born U.S. citizen & qualified to seek the presidency is advancing to the appeals court level, & 4) an independent pac is getting reay to roll out ads linking B. Hussein to his 20 year relationship with rabidly anti-American & insanely anti-white Jeremiah Wright.

     The Left thought it had a shoo-in this time, but it has once again blown its opportunity. The Democrats' must be attempting to acquire the title of the stupid party from the G.O.P.

     Posted by Banshee5 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:52pm

117. Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 5:09pm

     As for the second part of your question, Mill defines it in his opening chapter in On Liberty in this way:

     "That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

     So, if you accept the principle that society should not be interfering with the liberty of any of its constituents, except in instances of self-protection, then you need to be careful about what constitutes self-protection.

     I'm inclined to a limited view of harm that focuses on specific harm to individuals. Harm to the social fabric, other people's worldviews, feelings and so forth are just weasel approaches to violating the spirit of the principle of harm - used by people that don't accept it in the first place.

     I also would argue that it isn't question begging because it's dealing with a different question - i.e., when should society intervene in personal liberty. It is not exclusively dealing with morality.

     Example, harm to oneself may be a moral question, but it is specifically what the principle allows, and it is essentially an amoral position based on utility.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2008 @ 6:00pm

118. Posted by Banshee5 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:52pm

     You should try looking at state polls instead of national trackers. The electoral breakdown is 340 - 195.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/28/2008 @ 6:28pm

119. Posted by Banshee5 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:52pm

     If you pay attention more closely you would already know that national trackers tend to be inaccurate and tend to plain out and fall when there is a stagnation in the election. There has been no big news so the national trackers are stagnating. McCain still isn't even close in the state polls. Plus it all depends on which national tracker you are looking at and when you look at it.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/28/2008 @ 6:30pm

120. <i>Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2008 @ 5:38pm </i>

     Interesting, though I agree with you that Christianity (though I don't think this is exclusive to Christianity) should encourage a strong degree of humility and willingness to listen to and carefully consider the viewpoint of those we disagree with, I'm not entirely sure we can say that our moral claims are grounded purely in our own opinion. Though I think it's certainly problematic to say "Do X because God says so," I don't think it's possible to avoid lines of moral argumentation that are ultimately rooted in theological and religious claims.

     After all, if we believe that our moral arguments are purely subjective, we provide very little reason for others to give consideration of them. As such, it seems like we're actually aiming, at best, for a careful balance between the kind of absolute moral certainty that is another form of idolatry and a kind of absolute subjectivism that trivializes moral claims altogether.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 6:33pm

121. Posted by Banshee5 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:52pm

     Also you have completely over exaggerated McCain's gains by the way. If you actually look at a stable polling source like Rasmussen then you will see that it has taken McCain two weeks to get 2 points up. While Obama has been fluctuating between 51 and 54. There has been a constant fluctuation where Obama stays between 50-54 and McCain stays between 42-47. So whatever polls you are looking at are wrong. They are just unstable polls. They probably don't have very large pools that they poll from. I recommend Rasmussen for a very stable polling source with a large pool. Gallup is ok but it is kind of unstable and some times will render wildly inaccurate state polls. Real Clear Politics and FiveThiryEight are good for electoral college breakdowns. Outside of those, there aren't too many reliable sources.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/28/2008 @ 6:34pm

122. Though I think it's certainly problematic to say "Do X because God says so," I don't think it's possible to avoid lines of moral argumentation that are ultimately rooted in theological and religious claims. After all, if we believe that our moral arguments are purely subjective, we provide very little reason for others to give consideration of them. As such, it seems like we're actually aiming, at best, for a careful balance between the kind of absolute moral certainty that is another form of idolatry and a kind of absolute subjectivism that trivializes moral claims altogether. Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 6:33pm

     While I agree with you that for religion to claim moral "superiority", for lack of a better term, their moral guide has to be from their deity, at the same time anyone who believes solely that their morals come from God becomes too fanatical and never questions if those morals are right. I think morals are subjective in the sense that you have to sit down and decide if in your heart, not in your mind, what you believe in is correct.

     Religious morality has fluctuated even amongst Christians. Christian morality can be used to justify anything correctly or incorrectly. So if the set of morals is from God how does one then justify using God's morality to commit murder? That comes to the point of subjectivity. People take a moral code passed down to them and then interpret it. If the Bible's moral code was so clear cut there would be no way of interpreting it in different ways. But since it is morality becoms subjective and based in part on timeline.

     Morals need to be presented objectively and then evaluated subjectively. People who do not question their religion do not truly believe in their religion.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/28/2008 @ 6:40pm

123. <i>Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2008 @ 6:00pm </i>

     I think there are really two levels of question here:

     1) Is the harm principle good? 2) If so, what is its scope?

     The problem I tend to have with it, or with the way it is often defended, is that it seems to create a false dichotomy. It suggests that we either have to accept coercing an individual purely for their own good, or coercing individuals only when a clear concrete (say, clear physical or emotional harm) is present. I'm not sure, for example, why harms to the social fabric wouldn't be important.

     That's why coercive action against an attempted murderer is completely legitimate, even if the attempted victim was unaware and you can be certain that the person will not try again on that or any other person. That's also why I'm not all that convinced that "bad Samaritan" laws (obligating either aid or at least calling 911 when you witness a crime and are in no danger) are unjustified.

     <i>Posted by Banshee5 at 10/28/2008 @ 5:52pm </i>

     The Philip Berg lawsuit? Though it was dismissed for standing, I've seen no reason to this point to believe that there's any merit behind it. It's not clear that the American people believe that either, judging from the ongoing trends that still clearly favor Obama.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 6:41pm

124. Palin is a washed up whale or should I say "moose" on the beachhead of the far Christian right. Should she be lucky enough to get reelected as Governor after her ethics violations and extravagant wardrobe, there will be a new wind blowing in America come 2012. America will be on a new trajectory and it won't include Palin's regressive ideology. Once Americans get a taste of real democracy and a functional, responsive government that is no longer pursuing Bush's failed policies, the last thing on their radar will be Caribou Barbie spewing her hate, division and sarcasm. Even 4 more years of governing a state with the population of Albuquerque, NM will not give the credentials she needs to be a viable candidate. I'm afraid we'll have to deal with Jeb Bush. The Bush Dynasty ain't through trying the ruin the country yet!

     Posted by croupier01 at 10/28/2008 @ 7:36pm

125. Palin (a)Pollin(g)..she is an idiot! Back, front and center..she is an IDIOT. Dump her now or like thousands of others I will say Bye-bye Republican Party.

     Posted by Harry G. at 10/28/2008 @ 7:58pm

126. Use of the definite article with "ethanol" was approprioate in context.

     Posted by Dan Lackey at 10/28/2008 @ 8:17pm

127. Palin's positioning of the average American is so off target. Interesting that the real-life average American, the person found to be the nation's most statistically average man or woman after a long bipartisan search, has come out for Obama. Indeed, the news has been confirmed on the search's website, TheAverageAmerican.com.

     Posted by worldly at 10/28/2008 @ 9:46pm

128. If recently convicted felon and U.S. Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, wins reelection next week (and it looks like he will), maybe he'll do the stand up thing and resign his Senate seat. I know, I know, he's a dirtbag. He aint gonna do the stand up thing. He will appeal his conviction and die before he gets turned out of office.

     But I am in the mood for a fairy tale.

     Let us imagine that after getting reelected, Stevens resigns.

     Then Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, will have to appoint his successor.

     Can she appoint herself?

     Once, a Minnesota governor, Wendell Anderson, appointed himself to a vacated U.S. Senate seat. It caused a lot of uproar but, hey, he became a U.S. Senator. His career was over after that. . . but he took the shot.

     Sarah Palin is going to remain interesting to watch. Scary interesting. She's got to do something.

     How you gonna keep them up on the tundra after they've seen the national spotlight?

     Alaska is too small a pond for Sarah Barrucuda now.

     Posted by Tree_Fitz at 10/28/2008 @ 11:13pm

129. Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 6:33pm

     "I don't think it's possible to avoid lines of moral argumentation that are ultimately rooted in theological and religious claims."

     I don't think this says was you meant it to say. I do think it is possible to make moral arguments without making any religious claims. Utilitarianism for example.

     I think it is also possible to present an argument that doesn't have the problematic structure, yet is based on religion.

     For example, I might say that my belief, as a Quaker, is that all people are created equal in the eyes of God. If all people are equal, then a circumstance of slavery undermines our God given equality and upsets the moral fabric.

     Important difference here is that I am asserting my belief rather than claiming I have knowledge of the perspective of God. Subtle, but important, difference.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 6:41pm

     I think the first part of your question needs to be viewed in light of the alternatives.

     The harm principle, at base, is the perspective that people are their own best judge of what is "good" for them. That's the central value. Then, it says that society should intervene only when it is a question of self-protection.

     Attempted murder is clearly a case where self-protection is in order. But what about a situation where one of your neighbors decides they prefer to do their daily chores naked? Or keep a firearm in their house? Or eat grasshoppers?

     The harm principle gives us an easy way to answer these questions.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/28/2008 @ 11:20pm

130. A lot of this discussion is off point. This is <b>not</b> an argument about conservative philosophy. Insisting that there should be some sort of government authorized moral structure that reaches down to the bedroom is <i>statism</i> and that's what it should be called. I've got legitimate gripes with conservatism but it's nowhere here to be found in these ideas.

     Posted by ncimon at 10/29/2008 @ 11:32pm