What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The testing time is coming

Some of us who really are social conservatives are wondering what in the world Sarah Palin was thinking when she "retweeted" (I can't believe this term has now become part of our political discourse) the, shall we say, unpleasant comments of one Tammy Bruce, a pretend-conservative lesbian (why would anyone believe that this person is conservative?) apropos of people opposed to homosexuals in the military. Palin isn't saying anything, while Bruce is strutting about telling everybody that, among other things, it means that Palin condemns the CPAC boycott by social conservatives because of the inclusion of GOProud at CPAC! That's pretty amazing: It would be more plausible for Bruce just to say that Palin agreed with Bruce on the issue of homosexuals in the military.

And I have to admit, that hypothesis is certainly significantly confirmed by the "retweet." Short of "Palin's Twitter account was taken over by mischievous liberal friends or family and she doesn't want to admit this" or "Palin mindlessly retweets things she disagrees with and just assumes people will figure it out and then doesn't clarify when the people she disagrees with go about boasting that she agrees with them" it's difficult to see what else it could mean. I suppose there's also, "Palin mindlessly retweets things she just thinks are mildly interesting and thinks people might want to think about and then simply can't be bothered to clarify when the person she retweets goes about telling everyone what she supposedly thinks about CPAC." The third is what you might call the second-place runner-up in terms of explanatory power for the evidence, but I just threw in the other two for laughs.

It's not looking good. Here, apropos of the same topic, is the VP debate clip between Biden and Palin on homosexual issues, in which they end up by celebrating their agreement. (HT Jeff Culbreath) My own interpretation is this: Biden means to be enthusiastically endorsing civil unions and all other aspects of the homosexual agenda short of homosexual pseudo-marriage. Palin means to be condemning homosexual "marriage," sort of flirting with civil unions without making any clear statement, and saying nothing about everything else, leaving herself the opportunity to make it up as she goes along later. The obvious follow-up question, which unfortunately is not asked, is, "What do each of you think of civil unions?" I wonder what the answers would have been.

It could be true, as Lawrence Auster has said, that anyone who says that he favors civil unions but not homosexual "marriage" actually does favor homosexual "marriage" but hasn't decided to admit it yet. It certainly makes a good line, and seems to be true of many (like our President, for example).

But I think there are people, like Palin, about whom it isn't true. The trouble is this: While such people's opposition to homosexual "marriage" was sincere at the time, it was conceptually unfounded, and they really, really wanted to avoid outright offending the homosexual lobby. Hence, their sincerity at the time may be moot.

One of Auster's commentators has said that only the religious right remains to oppose the full triumph of the homosexual agenda. I think he's right. Let's hope the religious right actually does it--opposes the agenda, that is. If Palin becomes our standard bearer (and I do consider myself to be a proud member of the religious right), things don't look too good there, either.

The time of testing is coming. It won't be very long before Sarah Palin and all like her who said that they really, really opposed homosexual "marriage" will have to find out not only what they meant at the time, but whether their opposition had any roots to it. Once everything else has been granted, that will be demanded. If they have embraced the homosexual agenda on everything else in the meanwhile, that last stand, too, will wither and die in the midday sun.

**************************************************************************************

Speaking of the religious right and defiance, I want to present this video and song, which I just saw the night before last. The Booth Brothers--"Under God."

In the intro. on the concert video, from a concert in 2005, gospel tenor Michael Booth introduces the songwriter, Phil Johnson, and says that he and co-writer Sue Smith wrote the song in response to the attempt to have "under God" taken out of the pledge. Note, too, the allusion in the lyrics to Judge Roy Moore at about 2:26, reflected in the video.

The really strong religious right has been willing to fight for decades now, and the history of this song represents that fighting spirit.

What we need now are members of the religious right willing to carry on, even in areas so distasteful that normal people understandably don't want to talk about them, and to resist to the last gasp. Unfortunately, while it may or may not be legitimate to vote for Sarah Palin in some future election, Bruce may also be right when she says that Palin is "not a culture warrior." More's the pity, because culture warriors are the leaders we need today.

Comments (51)

Lydia,

Very good post. You summed it up well with your last paragraph and I heartily and maybe pessimistically agree. I do not believe Sarah Palin or many other so-called conservative Republicans will hold firm on the issue of civil unions and by extension homosexual "marriage" precisely because their initial opposition did/does lack "roots" and was/is "conceptually unfounded."

I can remember many years ago, in discussions about the legitimacy of homosexual "marriage", arguing that if the government of the United States could outlaw polygamy, it could certainly continue to reject the legalization of homosexual "marriage." I based my argument re: Reynolds vs.the U.S., on the government basing its decision on Scriptural principles. I did a bit of research and discovered that while the Christian tradition had an influence on the SCOTUS's decision, the testimony of various experts in the field of mainly, I think, sociology, had a profound influence when they testified that in all of history the practice of polygamy always resulted in despotism. At this moment I cannot find the the sources on that testimony by a professor(s) in the field, but it is not an unreasonable argument.

I don't intend to change the direction of this discussion by referring to the issue of polygamy, but I do believe that most conservatives, cultural or not, are deficient in their historical understanding of the cultural and sociological consequences of blessing a union that really isn't a union. My observation of post-modern man is that he fails to see farther than the nose on his face and rarely contemplates the consequences of present action on future generations. I do believe that today's accomodations of sexual gluttony will not stop until the depravity has engulfed every household even in the form of pedophilia. That's the plan.

The recent passport replacement of "mother" and "father" with "parent 1" and "parent 2" supports what you are saying, Gina.

This comes from the woman who labeled men who believe in the traditional structure of marriage and gender roles as Neanderthals. I don't know why people still think Palin is anything other than a countryfied version of a big city liberal feminist.

The fact that our alleged political salvation is being affected by a group lead by a Mormon who likes his church's koolaid and a frontier feminist means we are basically damned to trials and tribulations for the foreseeable future...

"I do believe that today's accomodations of sexual gluttony will not stop until the depravity has engulfed every household even in the form of pedophilia. That's the plan."

Yep. It's all there in DeSade, if you have the stomach to read him.

Palin's not a cultural warrior. She's a neo-con lite wearing populist make-up.

I'm a little surprised that you're just catching up right now. Palin isn't a stealth liberal or conservative. She is someone who hasn't really thought about any of the issues but has thought about what she wants her next job to be. What's impressive about her, though, is that she seems honestly surprised that many people have thought about these things a lot and actually expect people like her to be familiar with their work. She maintains that ting self-righteous "what do you mean I'm supposed to know which Korea is the anti-American one!" stance for what, two years now?

Bag the Korea thing, Boonton. I'd prefer not to start talking about how many states are in the union. That stuff is nonsense, and jumping on people for mere slips of the tongue would never be tolerated by the left (and in fact isn't tolerated by the left).

But I think it's a sad thing to have to realize that Palin never will be and perhaps never was what she appeared to be. I thought of John McCain as corrupting her from a stronger social conservative position. Perhaps I was wrong about that, too, especially considering McCain's position on this recent issue concerning the military.

What we need now are members of the religious right willing to carry on, even in areas so distasteful that normal people understandably don't want to talk about them, and to resist to the last gasp.

I want to see this (Revelation 19, ESV):

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

When it does happen, it will be a tattered remnant emerging from hiding places, running to the rallying cry, drawing swords to lay them down at his feet. God give us the grace to fight to the end.

Fair enough, the Korea thing probably was just a slip of the tongue and people do make mistakes like that all the time (McCain, for example, needed his buddy Lieberman to correct him on Shi'ite versus Sunni Muslims in Iraq and Iran). But Palin already used up her excuses on numerous other signs that something wasn't quite right.

Which brings me to was it really a slip of the tongue? Do you honestly think that if she was cornered on the air and asked probing questions about Korea with no forwarning, no time for her handlers to pull together a Cliff Notes briefing that her performance would have been passable 'cept for that one little slip? Two years ago maybe this could have been excused on the grounds that this just doesn't come up much in Alaska and she was tossed into the limelight suddenly, but at this point she has been on her own for a long period of time and has made it clear she thinks that having detailed knowledge of the things she aspires to make decisions about it just not her thing. Her politics is not about policies, its about brand management. There is little difference between her and entertainment celebrities.....which is probably why political staffers have been frustrated with her. She should probably consider pulling her 'posse' from the ranks of entertainment managers rather than political ones.

This is all great if her end goal is to become, say, the Fox News version of Oprah Winfrey but how does that sell her as a candidate for elected office?

Palin used to have a flag of Israel in her office; on her clothing she wore a Pin that depicts the Flags of America and Israel on it; she has Randy Scheunemann on her staff; she is a big Title IX feminist; she is a Neo-Con who succors Israel and supports the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; she dragged her knocked-up unwed daughter, and her kooky boyfriend,into the nation's spotlight; she quit her job as Governor; and she has given her children really odd names - but, because she is anti-intellectual, she is the real deal, a real conservative.

She may appear original
She may wink and she may flirt.
But no matter who she claims to be,
She is Dubya in a skirt

She is a flat out disaster so I fully expect the Stupid Party to choose her as their POTUS Candidate

Boonton, I'm sure that if she had been corrected she would have known North Korea from South Korea and which was the Communist one and which our ally. To ask whether she could have done an in-depth, profound foreign policy analysis of the Korean situation on her feet is moving the goalposts.

But I'm no huge Palin defender, as this post itself shows. I'm not at all sure that she's national office, statesman material. Neither, I would say, is our current President, and that's aside from and in addition to the fact that I think his positions on the issues are disastrously wrong.

I would have been willing to get behind Palin as our "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" moment if she were really Mr. Smith, who, if you'll recall, believed that lost causes were the only causes worth fighting for. A rock-solid, principled amateur is an amateur I can support, even enthusiastically. If, as appears increasingly to be the case, that's a faulty description of Palin, then my enthusiasm is drastically reduced.

Vermont, can the Israel stuff--as if that has _anything_ to do with the topic of this post. It doesn't, and I'm pretty draconian on wildly off-topic stuff.

On your view, I'm no doubt a "neo-con" myself on a number of issues. But I am a very strong social conservative, and I'm disturbed by where Palin is going.

She is indeed quite similar to George W. in a lot of ways, including having good intentions. It's looking like she may be, or may end up, further to the left than he. What's sort of amazing is that he had an obvious desire to be thought a Nice Guy (he never got that wish, that's for sure), whereas Palin is willing to be thought a gun-slinging Mama Grizzly. (Excuse the mixed metaphor.) If that's the image she wants to convey, then she should put it to good use--like defending socially conservative positions in a forthright manner. What's the point of all that Rambo style if it's not used in defense of the most unpopular positions held dear by her base? Seems like a waste to me.

With Twitter, almost everyone regresses to a teenager. The age of slow, methodical thought is being chased away by the promise of instant gratification just for being able to push some buttons. I honestly think that if some politicians and some teenagers (sometimes, its hard to tell the difference) were forced to sit still for fifteen minutes, they would vanish from all of the heat built up.

The Chicken

P. S. I, of course, as a chicken, don't tweet.

The Chicken

Lydia

"To ask whether she could have done an in-depth, profound foreign policy analysis of the Korean situation on her feet is moving the goalposts."

If she was asked if she thought the 6 party talks should be continued to be pushed or some alternative employed instead do you think she would have answered in a way that indicated that she knew what they were and had at least a bare bones knowledge of their pros and cons? (Remember my conditions are being cornered on air, no time to get briefed beforehand on either the background or what the 'right' conservative positions are) I'm not talking 'in-depth, profound' here but passing and I don't think she would and I think this is something a person who wants to be President should know....esp. two years after they lost the VP spot after being criticised for being weak on foreign policy knowledge.

"A rock-solid, principled amateur is an amateur I can support, even enthusiastically. If, as appears increasingly to be the case, that's a faulty description of Palin, then my enthusiasm is drastically reduced"

The original meaning of amateur, though, is not one who is sloppy but one with an inherent love for something that they do it well on their own. A true amateur might be very impressive in politics.

The original meaning of amateur, though, is not one who is sloppy

Boonton, please show us you can quit. It just isn't pleasant to see someone so despise another that they lose control.

We got Jimmy Carter because his opponent said "Eastern Europe" when everyone and his dog knew he meant "Western Europe". But it didn't matter. Carter, ever the opportunist, seized the moment and the rest is history.

We got Jimmy Carter because his opponent said "Eastern Europe" when everyone and his dog knew he meant "Western Europe".

Uh, no. It was the pardon of Nixon and a weak economy that doomed Ford from the beginning.

What's the point of all that Rambo style if it's not used in defense of the most unpopular positions held dear by her base?

She's probably not too keen on gun metaphors right now, all things considered.

Uh, no. It was the pardon of Nixon and a weak economy that doomed Ford from the beginning.

Uh no. The facts speak for themselves.

After the Dem convention, Carter held a 33-point lead in the polls. It tightened drastically and Carter won by 2-points in the popular vote. It was trending towards Ford at a steady pace that if continued would have put Ford over the top.

The populr vote was the closest since 1916. Wisconsin (1.68% margin), and Ohio (.27% margin) decided the election. Had Ford won these states, with the other 27 states he carried, he would have won the presidency. Ford carried the most states ever carried by a losing candidate before or since. It was a squeaker.

Or as Michael Barone put it:

A switch of 5,559 votes in Ohio and 3,687 in Hawaii -- 9,247 votes out of 81 million -- would have made Ford president for four more years.

Excellent post. I was surprised to find a conservative blog with a realistic view of Palin--so many conservatives seem to salivate over her. Her "retweet" was very alarming IMO, and her silence about clarifying it is deafening. Palin also advocates simply letting the states decide about abortion instead of outlawing abortion altogether. I think Palin is better than Romney, but that's about it. I don't want to see this woman anywhere near the WH, unless it's as a member of the Cabinet or simply as a visitor.

Palin also advocates simply letting the states decide about abortion instead of outlawing abortion altogether.


Do you have a citation on that, Sam? If it's just her saying that Roe v. Wade shd. be overturned and the issue returned to the states (as it was before Roe), it doesn't follow that she does not want abortion outlawed.

We have to remember that during the entire Reagan presidency the pro-lifers couldn't find a pro-life constitutional amendment they could all agree on, and the passage of such an amendment is now about as likely as a takeover of the planet by aliens. I want abortion outlawed altogether as much as anyone I know or can imagine, but as a strategy I would be just thrilled no end if we could see Roe overturned fully and work from there on getting the individual states to outlaw it.

"Do you have a citation on that, Sam? If it's just her saying that Roe v. Wade shd. be overturned and the issue returned to the states (as it was before Roe), it doesn't follow that she does not want abortion outlawed."

Lydia,

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Sarah Palin has endorsed some pro-choice candidates. At the very least, she endorsed a candidate in my state who had, in 2005, voted to give Planned Parenthood over a million dollars; thankfully, this candidate lost to one who was more conservative and endorsed by Huckabee. Why did Palin fail to endorse the more conservative candidate, who was against abortion in all cases?

Palin seems to have a somewhat "soft" position on abortion IMO. I'm not saying she likes abortion, but her stance implies that it isn't so horrific that it should be banned on the federal level. Huckabee, OTOH, wants a federal amendment, which I think is the right position to take. Can you imagine someone saying, "I don't personally believe in slavery, but I think that the practice should be left up to the states"? Or--and this is just a fictional, farfetched example--what if there was a movement afoot to execute all Palin supporters in the U.S. Do you think Sarah Palin would sit back and say, "Oh, I don't believe in that personally, but that's up to the states to decide whether they should execute my supporters or not." No way--she would never tolerate that practice for a second. I believe that the Constitution guarantees the right to life, and that murder is not something that should be left up to the states.

Of course, I do agree that simply overturning Roe vs. Wade would be a huge victory. But we need more than that. In the nineteenth century, I don't think black people would've been thrilled with anything less than the full abolition of slavery at the federal level, and I see abortion in the same light. Of course, I understand what you're saying. But I still think Huckabee's approach is the best, even if it may not, in our crazed society, be realistic. And I do think Palin is better than Romney, but to me, that's not saying a whole lot. ;)

Sam, while many conservatives like Palin, consider WHY they like her.

She drives liberals absolutely, foaming at the mouth insane. I wouldn't vote for her in a primary given my druthers, but that doesn't stop me from whispering the words "President Palin" to a university democrat and watch them flip out.

"Sam, while many conservatives like Palin, consider WHY they like her."

Because she looks good--at least that's the reason for most of the men, I'd say. LOL. I'm convinced, Patrick, that if she looked like, say, Greta Van Susteren, she wouldn't even have half as many fans. Seriously.

"She drives liberals absolutely, foaming at the mouth insane."

Yes, but not all of that is for legitimate reasons. Just as Dan Quayle deserved some of the criticism he got, so has Sarah Palin. Liberals basically consider her to be the Jessica Simpson of the Republican Party, and she's done more than a few things to justify that impression. However, having said that, I think the criticism of her by the liberal left is *way* out of proportion to any flaws she may possess. They basically just want to assassinate people's character and don't care about truth.

"...but that doesn't stop me from whispering the words 'President Palin' to a university democrat and watch them flip out."

Yes, we all deserve a little enjoyment out of life. ;)

Of course, I do agree that simply overturning Roe vs. Wade would be a huge victory. But we need more than that. In the nineteenth century, I don't think black people would've been thrilled with anything less than the full abolition of slavery at the federal level, and I see abortion in the same light.

I'm with Lydia on this. I am a moral absolutist on abortion, but not a political absolutist. The latter doesn't follow from the former. You have to walk before you can run, and all legitimate political victories are won piecemeal. I think you're mistaken about CW politics and slavery. Lincoln did things very piecemeal on slavery, and to this day and forevermore he'll be accused by one side for being insincere on one side and a tyrant on the other, and often of both by the same folks simultaneously. Politics ain't beanbag.

Of course, I understand what you're saying. But I still think Huckabee's approach is the best, even if it may not, in our crazed society, be realistic. And I do think Palin is better than Romney, but to me, that's not saying a whole lot. ;)

I think Huckabee is a huckster. I think I can see him managing his face when he talks. I don't know his position on this issue, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's calculated his message to appeal to Christians who see abortion in a political absolutist lens. No offense, but I'm not a fan.

Yes, but not all of that is for legitimate reasons. Just as Dan Quayle deserved some of the criticism he got, so has Sarah Palin.

How did Dan Quayle deserve criticism? I'll bet you don't know anything about him. He was my Senator and I know. He chaired a few of the more intellectually astute committees of the Senate before he became VP. It was a total sham that he was unqualified to be VP. I total media attempt at takedown. He was right when Colin Powell was woefully wrong on Gulf War I. Your criticism of Palin smacks of the same "well perception is reality" group-think. I have the same qualms about Palin that Lydia does, but if she were what the Libs say they wouldn't pay her half as much attention as they do.

By the way, anyone that cares to know could google up the interview where she said "North" when she meant "South" and clearly see it was merely a misstatement. She even correctly identified them earlier in the interview. Sheesh.

Sam, you have a good point about Palin's supporting pro-choice candidates, and that I did know about, and it's a problem.

AFAIK, she has never used the phrase "personally opposed" re. abortion nor said, "I'm personally opposed to it but think it should be left up to the states." Anybody who uses the "personally opposed" phrase re. abortion gets a big black mark in my book, and if she's used that phrase, I'd definitely like to know. I doubt if she's addressed the constitutional amendment issue, simply because it's not a live issue right now, but if she has, I doubt that she's said that it would be _wrong_ to have a constitutional amendment as opposed to making some kind of strategic comment.

One reason I'm leery of putting any energy into a constitutional amendment is that I seriously worry that it would _limit_ what can be done to outlaw abortion. For example, if a constitutional amendment contained an incest exception, I suspect any Supreme Court would interpret this (even if it were not a correct interpretation) to mean that the states could not have a more restrictive law. I also suspect that enforcement of any laws arising out of a constitutional amendment would be completely suspended in Democrat administrations, all across the country, or even that Congress would refuse to write enforcing legislation. It could well be easier actually to get abortion stopped and abortionists locked up at the state level, though of course it wd. vary from state to state.

Huckabee I won't support. His various pardons and releases from prison of heinous criminals, despite many warnings, show him to be as lacking in judgment, wisdom, and a sense of justice as the village idiot, making him unfit for the office of President. The fact that he has stood by them when he should be weeping and repenting after seeing what has happened shows a dangerous stubbornness in his particular form of soft-on-the-bad-guys "Christianity." As a Christian, I am very unhappy with that.

I don't think black people would've been thrilled with anything less than the full abolition of slavery at the federal level, and I see abortion in the same light. Of course, I understand what you're saying. But I still think Huckabee's approach is the best, even if it may not, in our crazed society, be realistic.

It's the best on paper, but it's not worth pursuing yet. Just as the left has used incrementalism, anti-abortionists must as well. The next step the anti-abortion movement should take is to find a candidate who agrees with us and is willing to put someone who will blatantly deceive the Senate and general public into the Supreme Court. Someone like Biden will come along to "bork" a candidate who is honest. Quite frankly, we need a similar candidate, but one who can look a Biden in the eye and blatantly lie to him that he's "mainstream" when, in fact, he has ever intention to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I don't think you would have to lie to the Senate to get approved. The questioning leaves so much open for interpretation that one could honestly answer. For example, what do you mean by "mainstream," and who exactly has determined what is mainstream? The mainstream of constitutional scholars agree that RvW was a poorly reasoned opinion. So, unless Biden clarified his question, I could simply answer, yes, my opinion on RvW falls within the mainstream. In addition, candidates can fall back on the tried and true "As a jurist, I cannot answer that question until I am confronted with an actual case before me to decide which implicates those precise issues." That would also be an honest response. No need to resort to lying (Roberts and Alito did a pretty good job of it).

Actually, Alito said that Roe v. Wade is the "settled law of the land" in his hearing at the lower court nomination. Is that not correct? It's how I remember it, and most unfortunate, too.

The trouble with the term "incrementalism" is that anymore, it means "compromise all over the place." The term "incrementalism" conveys the idea that we are actually moving toward our goals, if only gradually. The reality is that people who identify themselves with that term and disdain "purists" are usually moving _away_ from our goals, only a bit more slowly than the opposition. How is it "incrementalist" to support a completely pro-choice candidate like Scott Brown, for example?

So I won't identify myself as an incrementalist, because most people would actually call me a purist. I don't think that support or lack of support for a push for a constitutional amendment actually makes the difference between being a purist and a non-purist. I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. That by itself identifies me with the purists.

On the homosexual agenda, what is terrifying (and this is related to the main post) is the speed with which it is advancing, even among so-called conservatives. The people who take a strongly anti-purist position on abortion are, I'm afraid, also likely to be the same people referring (ahem) to the mother of some man's boyfriend as "your mother-in-law" and finding that they can't give in fast enough to be perceived as tolerant on those issues.

"I don't think you would have to lie to the Senate to get approved."

Of course one does. Justice Thomas is one of the best examples.

Vermont, can the Israel stuff--as if that has _anything_ to do with the topic of this post.

Dear Lydia. I consider both her identifying with a foreign country and her support for Unjust Wars to be issues in Social Conservatism - a topic of this thread - but because you consider it a non sequitur I will leave it alone.

I do understand why you want to deal with the specific issue you wrote about and not the general matter of social conservatism.

You can discuss Palin and abortion, VC. I would consider abortion, the homosexual agenda, and various feminist laws all to be relevant to social conservatism.

We got Jimmy Carter because his opponent said "Eastern Europe" ....

And Sarah Palin is no Ford. She's no Dan Quayle either. Slips of the tounge are normal, even expected if someone is speaking about something they have seriously studied. This is not the case with Palin, though.

The populr vote was the closest since 1916.

Since that "fact" appears to come from the Twilight Zone, I'll let the results speak for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

I'm not saying that Ford's misstatement was completely irrelevant, but you can't really think it was of equal or greater importance than the shadow of Nixon's pardon and the weak economy. If you have some serious research and polling data to support such a claim, I'd like to see it.

The populr vote was the closest since 1916.

Since that "fact" appears to come from the Twilight Zone, I'll let the results speak for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

If that data is correct, then I should have said it was the closest election since 1916 save one --Nixon '68. My mistake.

I'm not saying that Ford's misstatement was completely irrelevant, but you can't really think it was of equal or greater importance than the shadow of Nixon's pardon and the weak economy. If you have some serious research and polling data to support such a claim, I'd like to see it.

I didn't say it was of equal value or greater importance. I was disputing that Ford was "doomed from the beginning" by these facts or any. Pointing out such facts as that he lost by "9,247 votes out of 81 million" is quite enough to do that. The fact is that the public was having serious doubts about Carter or he would have walked away with it after Nixon and in a bad economy. I may well have overstated the impact of his gaffe, but step2 didn't dispute that and I wasn't defending it. Given the tightness of the race and the few thousand votes he lost by, it is certainly arguable.

"I don't think you would have to lie to the Senate to get approved."

Of course one does. Justice Thomas is one of the best examples.

I don't know why people post comments that don't offer anything to consider. Reminds me why I hated grade school. If I were moderator I'd just delete the contentless "neener-neener" posts.

Lydia,

The reason why the homosexual agenda is progressing so quickly is that we as a nation, society, and culture have forgotten what sex is actually about. As sex is now viewed in a context completely divorced from its biological purpose, sodomy becomes just a kinkier expression of the same pleasure.

You will always lose in a confrontation on this matter and others so long as you permit Benthamist hedonism to set the agenda.

Carter won because large numbers of conservative Christians voted for him because he said was "born again" and because he campaigned as a conservative. Those folks believed him. No one knew he'd do a 180 and govern as a liberal. I know this first hand, because I was involved in those circles at the time and paid attention, even though I was a little too young to vote. The vast majority of these folks, feeling they'd been hosed, turned to Reagan in 1980.

"How did Dan Quayle deserve criticism?"

Mark,

It's been a long time, but IIRC he made quite a few silly remarks. Did I like Dan Quayle? Yes. But I don't think he did the best job of presenting himself. It's kind of like going to a job interview. You may actually be the best candidate, but you may not end up presenting yourself as well as some of the other candidates.

"Your criticism of Palin smacks of the same 'well perception is reality' group-think."

If you want to be POTUS, perception is extremely important IMO. It's just not enough to mean well. Again, to be considered for a job, you have to present yourself well. Saying something ill-advised or half-baked in an interview, or looking less than fully professional, could easily cost you a job. Is that fair? Not necessarily. But that's just reality.

"Huckabee I won't support. His various pardons and releases from prison of heinous criminals, despite many warnings, show him to be as lacking in judgment, wisdom, and a sense of justice as the village idiot, making him unfit for the office of President. The fact that he has stood by them when he should be weeping and repenting after seeing what has happened shows a dangerous stubbornness in his particular form of soft-on-the-bad-guys "Christianity." As a Christian, I am very unhappy with that."

Lydia,

I can understand that. I used to be a fan of Huckabee, but he played the "quiet game" last month concerning the repeal of DADT, and that really opened up my eyes. I'm not a fan of *any* of the frontrunners at this point. I hope someone who looks like a dark horse now, such as Pence or Bachmann, ends up grabbing the nomination. This matter is definitely something that we all need to be praying about.

"Of course one does [have to lie]. Justice Thomas is one of the best examples."

Al,

Can you please clarify this? Are you saying that you think he lied about his positions on certain issues, or that he lied about his involvement with Anita Hill? Personally, I do think he lied about the latter. JMO, of course.

It's been a long time, but IIRC he made quite a few silly remarks.

Quayle was attacked as soon as he was announced, not because of anything he said. He presented himself just fine before he was nominated for VP. He didn't change.

If you want to be POTUS, perception is extremely important IMO. It's just not enough to mean well. Again, to be considered for a job, you have to present yourself well. Saying something ill-advised or half-baked in an interview, or looking less than fully professional, could easily cost you a job. Is that fair? Not necessarily. But that's just reality
.

Translation: "Perception is reality." If someone attacks you, there must be some good reason for it, even if you don't know what it is (see position on Quayle above). This is a shameless rationalization for following the crowd that makes the most noise. Yeah, we all know that perception matters, but the phrase "perception is reality" captures a view that goes light-years beyond that.

"The reason why the homosexual agenda is progressing so quickly is that we as a nation, society, and culture have forgotten what sex is actually about."

Patrick,

That's certainly a big reason, but I think an even bigger reason is that Christians and conservatives seem so passive on the issue. We are the groups that should know better, not so much the culture at large. Unfortunately, we seem to have succumbed to the secular mindset, "Relax--it's *just* sex!!!"

"Carter won because large numbers of conservative Christians voted for him because he said was "born again" and because he campaigned as a conservative. Those folks believed him. No one knew he'd do a 180 and govern as a liberal. I know this first hand, because I was involved in those circles at the time and paid attention, even though I was a little too young to vote. The vast majority of these folks, feeling they'd been hosed, turned to Reagan in 1980."

Rob,

That's kind of how Obama won. He didn't portray himself as a conservative, of course, but he didn't cast himself as the ultra-liberal that he truly is either. Remember the line from that margarine commercial from the '70s?

It's not NICE to fool Mother Nature!!!

Well, we could rephrase that here:

It's not NICE to fool Americans. But it sure is easy!!! ;)

And remember Hillary's whispered comment on network TV, "We just screwed all these people"? She wasn't just whistling Dixie. LOL.

"Quayle was attacked as soon as he was announced, not because of anything he said. He presented himself just fine before he was nominated for VP. He didn't change."

No other VP pick before or after Quayle (until Palin, at least) was ridiculed in the same manner. I think the problem was his perceived inexperience. Even though I personally liked Quayle, I think Bush should have made a different pick, just as I think McCain should have.

"Yeah, we all know that perception matters, but the phrase 'perception is reality' captures a view that goes light-years beyond that."

True. And I'm definitely not a fan of the "perception is reality" crowd, because that's how Obama got elected. :(

No other VP pick before or after Quayle (until Palin, at least) was ridiculed in the same manner.

You don't know why, and it doesn't matter to you. I can't think of a clearer statement that perception is all that matters.

"You don't know why, and it doesn't matter to you. I can't think of a clearer statement that perception is all that matters."

So now you can read people's minds, huh? That is so cool--I've always wanted to learn that skill! LOL.

"Perception is reality" is true, but only to the perceiver, who may well be a moron, a lunatic, or a sociopath.

Regarding the sanctity of life Sarah Palin has walked the walk.

The Stupid party will choose her as their candidate someone claims in a previous comment.

Stimulus stupid or cash for clunkers stupid?

Sarah Palin is a very attractive, intellectually challenged power-seeker who misread the weather vane; neo-conservativism is the de-mystified political religion of nationalists ("American Exceptionalism - you betcha!") and plutocrats, not the rising creed of a new majority. And, because the religious right baptized this heresy, they will pay for it in a Babylonian Captivity of their own making. A desacralized people cannot defend the sacrament of marriage, they can only trade spiritual truths for temporal phantoms.

Birth control. Divorce. Abortion. Same-sex marriage. The Rite of Suicide. These are the rituals and liturgies we use to worship our gods now.

Some Christians have woken up to Beck the Mormon neocon, Palin money/libertarian/right-liberal and other things. The results are discussings about worldviews, philosophies and liberal concepts such relativism, equality, diversity, multiculturalism and progress.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.