« Quote of the Day: David Broder On Robert McNamara and Sarah Palin
Inside Jeb: Is the Smarter Bush Brother in Line to Take Over the GOP? »
Sarah Palin’s “Higher Calling” Reason for Quitting
Jul 9th, 2009 | 52 responses
The guessing as to what Sarah Palin will do, now that she is quitting her governor job, continues.
Ofttimes, in the reporting on Sarah Palin’s magnanimous decision to quit her day job, the lines get blurred between why Sarah Palin quit, and what she’ll be doing next.
Joe Gandelman posted a piece today, summarizing—and shooting down—a couple of the alleged reasons for Sarah’s quitting.
One is that she did not want the state of Alaska to continue to pay exorbitant amounts of taxpayers’ money to defend her against the many ethics violations charges, as all that money could be “going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research.”
Gandelman quotes from The Plum Line:
…David Murrow, a spokesperson for the Governor, said in an interview that much of this money was budgeted to the lawyers in advance and would have gone to them anyway, even if state lawyers hadn’t been defending against these ethics complaints…In other words, while these lawyers might have been free to do other legal work for the state, the ethics complaints have apparently not had the real world impact Palin has claimed, and didn’t drain money away from cops, teachers, roads and other things.
This one has now been added to a long and growing list, “The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin: A Round-Up,” kept by Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish.
Another reason is probably a very natural and valid one: Palin is just fed up with the incessant and sometimes vile criticism of her and her family.
As I mentioned, the lines between why Palin quit and what she’ll be doing next, get blurred and probably rightly so, as the two are pretty much intertwined.
A good example was provided by a USA Today Opinion piece earlier this week, combining the two into “what this move really means.”
In, “Palin’s Flameout,” we read:
Sarah Palin’s surprise announcement Friday that she is resigning as governor of Alaska has spawned a thousand theories as to what this move really means.
Take your pick. Palin’s fed up with the news media and late-night comics turning her into a caricature and her family into a national joke. Or she is crazy like a fox, taking a clever, but risky, gamble to position herself to run for president in 2012. Or, she’d rather cash in on her celebrity than tend to governing. Or she’s getting out ahead of some lurking scandal.
Let’s take a look at these four “theories.”
Over the weekend, the FBI probably eliminated one of them: the lurking scandal.
Also over the weekend, after Palin’s reference to a “higher calling,” she most likely eliminated cashing in “on her celebrity,” unless she is totally bereft of scruples. I would not classify making money hand-over-fist as a “higher calling.”
That only leaves getting out of the limelight altogether for her family’s sake and gambling “to position herself to run for president in 2012.”
Being “fed up with the news media and late-night comics turning her into a caricature and her family into a national joke,” could very well be a reason for Palin’s quitting—and a noble one. However, jumping right back into the frying pan of publicity and of that mean media and public opinion, by campaigning for others, for issues, and/or making money hand over fist is really not consistent with such a noble intention, and certainly not a “higher calling.”
Finally, does this move “really mean” that she’ll be gambling “to position herself to run for president in 2012″?
Assuming that, after having been a governor, becoming a U.S. Senator is not that big of a higher calling, the only other higher calling left for Palin is indeed to run for U.S. President in 2012, or 2016.
There are other ways for Sarah Palin to answer to a higher calling, but that takes us into the religious realm, and I don’t know that much about that, or about Sarah Palin.
If this “analysis” of Palin’s decision-making process appears rambling, topsy-turvy, jumbled and not making sense, it probably is.
Perhaps I should have listened to the one thing that made sense in Sarah Palin’s rambling, topsy-turvy, jumbled and not-making-any-sense, “I Quit” speech last Friday, when she referred to a saying kept by her parents on their refrigerator: “Don’t explain: Your friends don’t need it, and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”
52 Responses to “Sarah Palin’s “Higher Calling” Reason for Quitting”
Is there anyone who frightens liberals more than Sarah Palin?
You can almost see the lips quivering and smell the warm piss flowing down their legs every time her name is mentioned. Who are they trying to convince with all this speculation on what she is up to?
Obama’s popularity is in a tail spin, the Democrats in the House and Senate couldn’t poll any lower if they molested children on camera, unemployment is shooting through the roof and the only people getting the blame are on the left. So what do the liberals obsess about?
Sarah Palin.
Run and hide, little liberals. She’s out to get you.
jwest – Pardon me for being a bit surprised that a pro-choice athiest would be such a staunch supporter of an anti-choice, anti-freedom, religious zealot like Sarah Palin.
Tidbits,
Granted, Palin is pro-life. But what is about her that makes you think she’s an anti-freedom religious zealot?
During her campaign for VP, I don’t remember hearing of any edicts issued in Alaska that everyone must attend church daily. I’m an atheist, but I don’t hate people who believe in some deity. Along those lines, I equate rabid environmentalism in the same light as snake-handling evangelicals.
Palin is a hugely successful, honest, straight-forward woman who wants to make a difference in the world. Why wouldn’t I support her?
jwest – First I admit a prejudice. Having been once married to a woman whose family was Pentacostal, I have some first hand experience with folks who believe in speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, faith healing, direct revelation from god and casting out demons…though they didn't handle snakes. Palin is Pentacostal, or at least attends a Pentacostal Church. From my perspective, that is well beyond believing in a diety and incorporates all manner of red flags about how one makes decisions and how those decisions are influenced, particularly when if you understand the Apocoliptic view of the “end of days”. My prejudice: Pentacostalism is religious zealotry by definition.
The fact that she has been unable to get the legislature of perhaps the most libertarian state in America to adopt the anit-freedom agenda of legislating the religious right's “morality”, does not mean that she personally does not support that anti-freedom desire to legislate the morality of the religious right. To the extent that she has spoken on these issues, she appears to be in lock step with the religious right on their desire to legislate morality at the expense of freedom. It is one of the reasons she is the darling of that sub-culture. Examples: Constitutional Amendment to outlaw abortion, outlawing internet gambling (I don't gamble but respect the right of those who do to spend whatever is theirs, after the government pilfers the rest, as they choose), dictating that schools teach “abstinence only” impeding the freedom to teach birth control, requiring prayer in schools, requiring the teaching of creationism in public schools, anti gay marriage (though, to be fair, she may support civil unions). I am not aware of a single issue on which she has expressed a view at odds with any of the litany of anti-freedom “moral” issues of the religious right.
I grant you that she is a successful woman who wants to change the world. I'm just not convinced that the changes she wants to make would create a world in which I would feel comfortable.
Tidbits,
Where are you getting these ideas about her wanting to require prayer in schools, teach creationism, outlaw abortion, etc? It sounds like the same type of rumors people were spreading about her wanting to ban books in the Wasilla library.
Are these extrapolations from the Democratic Underground?
As to her church, I believe she attended a Pentecostal church at some point, but I don’t believe she is still a part of it.
Just to support her a bit more, I don’t believe she had anything to do with Michael Jackson’s death either.
jwest—
Very laughable comments. Thank you for the humor. She just packed sand in her own arse and jumped off a bridge. Now she is frightning? Maybe if you are a republican.
jwest – We all know that Michael Jackson's death was orchestrated by Al Sharpton who saw it as an opportunity to get more face time.
I repeat that I have a prejudice where the Pentacostal Church is concerned. Beyond that, I attempted to limit my litany of her anti-freedom views to things about which she is on record, the one exception being internet gambling where I don't know her views. See, e.g., her Indianapolis speech on abortion or her open support of “abstinence only” any number of times. Note that I did not refer to Democratic shiboleths like “banning books”.
My principal points remain that she is a darling of the religious right, that she is their darling for a reason, and that she has never publicly broken with any of their anti-freedom, legislating morality, issues. If I am incorrect, and she has broken with the religious right on an issue, please enlighten me.
For people who claim that the glut of articles, posts and commentary on Sarah Palin, is a sure sign of “Liberal” desperation, fear and panic (“lips quivering and smell the warm piss flowing down their legs every time her name is mentioned”, etc), I just can't figure out why they aren't applauding and promoting even more “desperate” Palin press.
Tidbits,
This is an enlightening conversation.
If someone like you, who has proven to be thoughtful and reasonable on a number of issues has this impression of Palin, I can just imagine what the leftist crazies like Stickings and Kattenburg are thinking.
Let me direct you to the most center-left source I can think of that will summarize the points quickly – Wikipedia. They list the positions and cite sources for further research if you need it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_position…
Just scroll through and see if there is anything you don’t believe is accurate.
J. West — it's not fright so much by liberals as pathological hatred, which is found often among them.
Austin Roth, if you're out there — it looks like there's not an end yet to the obscessional string of threads about Sarah Palin. [rolling eyes]
“Palin is a hugely successful, honest, straight-forward woman who wants to make a difference in the world. “
Even more than that — as with George W. Bush, when liberals direct pathological and often downright scummy behavior toward them, and (sometimes they say it, sometimes they merely imply it) others who don't share their more left-extreme-leaning-views, the rest of us who know and are better defend the people they attack.
The scummier the attacks on Palin, the more voters of better quality will recoil from the Democrats.
That's especially true now that the Democrats are horribly overreaching with wrongful goals in Washington.
“My principal points remain that she is a darling of the religious right”
Well, the Religious Right is not only over-hyped (they're in fact short-changed by the GOP, taken for granted except occasionally given a sop and courted more openly at election times), but the object of anti-religious bigotry and hard-core hatred from the Left, who are far worse than anything the Religious Right actually is.
Also, Palin's voter base is not centered on or solely consisting of the Religious Right, _obviously_, but is instead that of “social conservatives,” most of whom aren't related in any way to the Religious Right except by which political party they favor.
What Palin and the Religious Right have most in common is that they are the objects of neurotic and psychotic behavior by their main critics and opponents, and the real issue is the nature of these haters.
DLS,
I have to disagree with you on this one.
Liberals hate a lot of people, but they don’t obsess over them like they do Palin. There is a deep seated fear in them about loosing the next series of elections to someone they hold in such distain.
Plus, I just loved using the “warm piss” reference in describing them.
“I can just imagine what the leftist crazies like Stickings and Kattenburg are thinking”
Kattenberg — rolls her eyes. Any woman who not only isn't a left Dem or Green but a Republican is loathsome, not meriting “traitor to one's gender.”
Stickings isn't thinking, just erupting waste in one tantrum after another, as usual. His apparent Canadian self-concept is a pathological imitation of the worst of US PC and extremist leftists.
“Liberals hate a lot of people, but they don’t obsess over them like they do Palin. There is a deep seated fear in them about loosing the next series of elections to someone they hold in such distain.”
There is definitely a lot of neurosis and psychosis on display. Palin is like a sugar cube by an ant hill.
“Where are you getting these ideas about her wanting to require prayer in schools, teach creationism, outlaw abortion, etc? It sounds like the same type of rumors people were spreading about her wanting to ban books in the Wasilla library.”
It can't simply be anti-Juckabee-and-anti-Religious-Right stuff such as from Stickings when Huckabee was trying to win the GOP nomination, recycled and regurgitated now. Anti-Palin bile is much bigger.
Just as with Huckabee (and with Bush), so with Palin — decent, normal people will pay more attention to the ill nature of the attacks and the attackers than to Palin, and will defend Palin even if she's not the one we want in the White House.
DLS,
Could it be that we have stumbled on to the basis of liberalism? –
Misinformation
All these years I thought leftists were in a persistent vegetative state, when all they needed was accurate information?
No, it can’t be that simple.
jwest – Perhaps you saw something different in the Wiki reference than I did. In reviewing this, I found the following: 1. Palin supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (anti-freedom), 2. Opposes benefits for same sex couples (anti-freedom and discriminatory), 3. Opposes “explicit” sex education, school clinics related to sexual issues and distribution of contraceptives (including condoms); her view since the election has “evolved” to abstinence only, though it is not recorded in Wiki, 4. Opposes embryonic stem cell research (anti scientific freedom), 5. Opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest (anti-freedom) – her post election Indianapolis speech actually went further, 6. Supports teaching creationism alongside evolution. This all seems to track pretty closely, though not exactly, with what I said in an earlier post.
Notwithstanding the lip service she gave to freedom of religion or freedom of speech, her positions are fundamentally in line with the “legislating morality” inclination of the religious right.
Perhaps, jwest, we just see things differently on this one.
The scummier the attacks on Palin, the more voters of better quality will recoil from the Democrats.
That's especially true now that the Democrats are horribly overreaching with wrongful goals in Washington.
DLS, I highly doubt that Palin has anything to do with the “recoil from the Democrats”. But the Democrats in general, may indeed be overreaching, considering the exodus of independent voters. But hey, let's keep talking about Sarah Palin. Many of the folks here are still trying to figure out why she did what she did…maybe this was the plan.
Tidbits,
It’s true that Palin supports a ban on gay marriage, just as the majority of people in the U.S. and liberal states like California and Massachusetts. She seems to be in the mainstream on this point.
She opposed benefits to same-sex couples but when the Alaska Supreme Court ordered them to be instituted, she complied. When the Alaska legislature passed a bill to discontinue those benefits, she vetoed it so the benefits continued.
Doesn’t sound like an extremist to me.
She opposes “explicit sex education” (who wants it?) and the distribution of contraceptives in the schools, but supports sex education because “kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues.”
Once again, the position of the majority of Americans.
Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds, but supported Bush’s decision as the first President to federally fund this research on existing lines. Palin, like Bush, does not try to outlaw embryonic stem cell research, just refuses spending federal money on it. Palin endorses adult stem cell research.
This has nothing to do with “freedom”. Anyone is free to do the research on their own dime.
Palin is pro-life, and is morally against abortion. She believes the states should have the ability to set their own standards. She rebuffed religious groups who wanted to restrict abortions in Alaska – even though she agreed with the positions. She said she would not unilaterally ban abortion in her state even if she had the power, leaving it to legislature to make the decisions.
Even though I’m personally pro-abortion, I recognize Palin’s position is shared by the bulk of Americans.
On creationism, she said she would like to see both positions taught, although creationism doesn’t need to part of the curriculum.
Sounds a little less severe when it’s explained this way, doesn’t it?
Really, Tidbits, Palin has not let her (moderate, mainstream) views interfere with her governing of Alaska, so I don’t see how she is viewed as so extreme by those on the left.
Tidbits,
Just as a matter of intellectual honesty, let me know this:
When you read through her positions on Wikipedia, did you find that she was less extreme than you had been led to believe previously?
Dorian -
Look what you have done. We could have gotten through ONE day without a Palin post, and the silliness that comes with it.
If indeed she has committed political Seppuku (I am of mixed feelings on that. She can only have killed her long-term career if she really had one, and I have always said she did not. However, what little chance she may have had is likely gone. Also, Seppuku is supposed to regain honor. Don't see that aspect in her speech, either), then why don't we all just let the corpse rot in the sun, rather than being the buzzards picking at her remains?
I am just so sick of hearing about her. She is (was) a sideshow. Nothing more.
My legs are quite dry. My eyes, however, are a bit moist from the laughter of this. Thanks for that JW.
Actually, AR, I am one of those who is very happy if her “higher calling” in fact means running for president in 2012 or even in 2016.
That's worth at least one post, don't you think?
Dorian
Well, it only took a thread of 24 comments, but let’s look back on what we’ve learned.
We know that Sarah Palin didn’t advocate “abstinence only” sex education in schools.
We found that claims that she wanted to ban abortion and internet gambling were false.
We now know that anyone saying Palin wanted to require prayer in school is misinformed.
That’s enough for now. You can’t educate the world overnight. If it were that easy, there would be no liberals.
jwest – Here's some intellectual honesty. I don't give a rat's ass if the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage; it's still anti-freedom. I also don't give a rat's ass that the majority of Americans support the Patriot Act. It's still an unconstitutional invasion of liberty, or at least certain provisions are. The issue for me, being intellectually honest, is not what the unenlightened mob thinks, but how policy/views relate to principles like efficient government and pragmatic problem solving in the context of providing maximum individual liberty to the people.
Notwithstanding your attempts to rationalize Palin's positions into the “moderate mainstream”, she does not fit the principles to which I look in selecting a leader any more than Obama does. The usurpation of liberty is no less harmful when it comes from the right than when it comes from the left.
While watching one of the replays of her resignation speech, the wife and I talked about what it was that we found so unappealing about her. A couple of qualities came to the forefront.
1) She doesn't want to be accountable for anything she's done or said if it has any negative ramifications. In interviews she brushes those things off, saying “Oh its in the past” or “thats just liberal spin” that sort of approach. Even her resignation reeks of this. “This is HARD. Too hard. I quit.” Let's not talk about it anymore, at least until I am ready or want to exploit it.
2) Her holy roller god complex is problematic to me. “We'll let God figure that out”, or, “Its in God's hands”. Excuse me? I would prefer that our leaders not be so dependent on invisible sky men for our welfare and instead use thoughful, reality based decision making. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't (see #1). As a consumate opportunist Palin loves the kudos for when she's done something right, but when things go bad she leaves it up to sky man to judge and sort out.
3) Palin seems to be extremely intellectually uncurious and not of the caliber of person who has worked their way into a shot at a position as important as POTUS. That might be the most insulting part of her presence on the national scene. As governor of a remote, low population state, her incompetence was limited to Alaskans. When thrust onto the rest of the country as part of a high risk, Hail Mary ploy to win (thanks McCain), suddenly we all had to be subject to her capricious, unaccountable, let-god-sort-it-out attitudes and blaring unsuitablility for the job. A position she would never, ever, ever have acheived through her own merits.
Anyway thats the view from the desert.
Dorain –
You want her to run so the Democrats are ensured of victory? Or do you seriously harbor thoughts she is Presidential material?
AR:
A big YES to the first one, and an even bigger NO to the second one.
Tidbits,
I’m with you on the freedom aspects of government.
Perhaps my desire for “efficient government and pragmatic problem solving” is what drives me in defending Palin, who has demonstrated these traits over her career, as opposed to Obama’s answer of bigger and more expensive government.
Freedom is important to me in all aspects. I don’t give a rat’s ass about gays, but if someone tried to lock them up because of their sexual preferences, I would fight for them. I wouldn’t cross the street to see that they received any special benefits or got the right to marry, which I believe civil unions could do just as well, but that’s just my apathy on a subject I don’t care about.
Individual freedom is something the left seems to hate in the country. Can you think of anything the right has proposed that comes close to the myriad of laws put forth by the democrats to “protect” you from yourself? Hell, if we let the leftists run rampant, you will be wearing pads while sitting down to your state-approved meal of tofu and organic sprouts.
If you love freedom, Palin’s not the enemy here.
Whew!
Just a quaestion—at the risk of being called sexist, etc., etc.:
Let's imagine a Sarah Palin, with all her mental, poltical, emotional, psychological, ethical, ideological. etc., etc., qualities and attributes exactly as she is now, including her voice and her mannerisms, all, except for her attractive face and attractive figure. Would she be as popular?
Just curious
Now, don't kill the messenger of the question…
Lurxst,
Not that it will do any good to discuss this with you, but here’s a question you and your wife can contemplate.
When Palin decided to run against the entrenched corporate interests and experienced politicians in Alaska for governor, with billions of dollars at stake for the oil companies in commissions to the state on the line, how did this “checker player” win?
Maybe the Baby Jebus helped her – right?
Does it hurt when you think?
AR: I can never figure out which one is a smile, and which one isn't:
I guess it depends which way you hold your head?
Happy to respond, jwest, but day job requires some attention. Back in an hour or so.
Dorian,
That’s a good question.
Let’s play the same game using Barack Obama’s resume but in the body of Don King.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_King_(boxing_p…)
Ya think the country would have swooned as much?
I'm actually going to side with Jwest on this point.
I can't think of too many fat, ugly people in politics.
Jwest –
Can you think of anything the right has proposed that comes close to the myriad of laws put forth by the democrats to “protect” you from yourself?
Yes, unfortunately, I can. The laws allowing the seizure of private property to give to another private entity (ala Kelo). That comes from the Right, not the Left.
So, as a whole, do red light and street surveillance cameras, Blue laws, liquor laws, gambling laws, pornography, baggy pants laws, etc.
Finally, the argument on same-sex marriage certainly can be seen in that light as well.
I asked first…
Dorian -
My way was correct. You can tell by typing them into an IM window.
becomes a smiley face; (: doesn't change.
So, you had a smile. Thanks.
I am still having problems visualizing smiles or frowns, it all depends which way I hold my head, and what mood I am in..
Hold your head in your left hand, and your beer in your right (unless of course you are left-handed. Then reverse).
The beer will take care of the mood. If not, keep adding more beer until it does!
AR,
You need to help me understand what you’re saying.
Kelo v City of New London was a case concerning eminent domain that the Connecticut Supreme Court decided in favor of the developers to take private property away from its owner and give it to a private developer. The SCOTUS took the case and it upheld the decision in a 5-4 vote, with liberal voting in the majority.
How does this show the right is against freedom?
Liquor laws are outcroppings of prohibition, a distinctly left wing creation.
I don’t know how it works where you live, but I can enjoy a drink in any of a thousand places on my way to the local casino where I can gamble until I feel like going home to enjoy the porn movies on Direct TV.
If the right wing is saving us from these things, they’re not doing a very good job.
However, try driving down the street without your seatbelt on, lighting up a cigarette, riding a motorcycle without a helmet or any one of thousand things that have no effect on anyone but yourself and see which party throws a fit.
OK buddy, who are you and what have you done to Austin Roth?
Hi jwest.
First, stay away from personal insults. No, I don't have pain when I think. Resorting to insults instead of actually answering or rebutting a point of debate here, it doesn't strengthen your assertions and it certainly doesn't change my opinion. You seem to resort to insults very quickly, which would indicate an intellectually inferior status, unable to back up your claims or properly refute others. I don't necessarily believe that to always be the case for you, but you drag us all down when you rely too heavy on the put downs instead of facts. I may make sarcastic remarks about the topic or subject of debate but I stay away from personally attacking other commenters at TMV.
Here's some sarcasm.
How on earth does the former Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission get elected Governor? She cozied up to the big money to get what she wanted and then she then turned around and in a slop to her constituents got them a fat rebate check passed on the backs of the oil companies and the rest of us oil consumers. I would typify this as screwing over one constituency group for the other, once she got into the governor seat. Opportunism. She is nothing if not an opportunist.
I am also pretty sure she would say that jesus helped her win, unless she is somehow just a fair weather Pentacostal.
jwest – Kelo is the only stretch, but it is the state taking of an individual right for the good of others. But let's table that one.
Prohibition was primarily the work of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and other Christian/Right groups. It was repealed due to the efforts of the Democratic party in 1932. Regardless of that history, though, Prohibition was repealed over 75 years ago, so nope, you can't use it anyway. Almost every single dry county or territory today is dominated by, and the Prohibition laws the result of, Christian Right politicians and supporters. And indeed texas is a crazy quilt patchwork of dry, partially-dry, and wet communities. Guess which ones tend to be dry, and which ones wet?
The Republican Party has a long history of opposing gambling, and continues to be so. Almost all attempts to reduce or ban gambling, in-state or online, are Republican.
You make no attempt to claim that if the Republican Party had its way, all pornography would be outlawed, I noticed.
My state, btw, with a Republican Governor, House and Senate, is moving to expand smoking bans, via bills introduced by Republicans.
As to me not being me, first, I have ALWAYS said I see both parties as minor variations of the theme of personal power, and trust neither of them. The past 10 years, watching both parties flip back and forth as needed on both domestic and foreign policy issues should convince any thinking person how truly Orwellian our portion of Oceania truly is.
Secondly, you must remember the moniker given to me by GreenDreams – “Unnervingly Moderate”(tm)
for Dorain – (:
Lurxist,
I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Next time, I’ll just try to keep my remarks about your ability to reason to simply being “intellectually uncurious” or a “checker player”.
You seem to have the impression (perhaps from watching Keith Olbermann) that Palin literally is waiting for “God to figure it out”. Since Alaska is such a bumpkin-filled state, even someone with her limited ability to think two steps ahead can be elected governor (if she’s willing to stab her friends in the back).
You’ve got to wonder how someone of her incompetence managed to obtain an 80+ approval rating, but that is probably due to the low-information voters that inhabit the state. You can’t spend a lot of time looking at policy if you’re picking a banjo and waiting for the next tourist to sodomize.
Yup, from now on, I’ll watch out for the personal insults. I certainly wouldn’t want to give anyone the impression that I don’t respect their opinion.
Gee, I think I'll just let AR take it up from here. Anyone who doesn't understand that both sides want power, and obtaining power necessarily involves the dimunition of freedom, just isn't paying attention. Thank you for making that point AR.
If your want to see the power of eminent domain, forget Kelo. Just stop and think at the next railroad crossing you encounter. Every train in America travels on a “right of way” that involved, for the most part, the federal government taking the land of private citizens and either giving it or leasing it to private railroad companies.
Consider also the conservative Bush appointees to the FCC who fined CBS for showing a Super Bowl halftime that included a “wardrobe malfunction”, and who continue to control the FCC today (terms haven't expired) requiring 5-7 second delays, lest an accidental “F-Bomb” be dropped resulting in yet another fine. Of course, liberals want to reimpose the abomination known as the “Fairness Doctrine”…so it cuts both way…and both ways cut against freedom. Or consider that liberals would like to do away with that “sexist” Miss America Pagaent” while conservatives pass laws to outlaw low rider pants that might, to the apparent offense of god, show someones underwear.
Sometimes you just need to get past the ideology and recognize that liberty is under attack from both sides, not just one.
AR,
You know the pressure from the religious right (not a majority of the party) is something most politicians pay lip service to but never put any effort into achieving.
Hell, if we didn’t have some of those people, the left would be having donkey shows at middle school assemblies.
They’re there for balance. The left have their Gores, PETA, NAACP, all the various environmental groups and other assorted nut cases, and we have the religious right. Would the world be a better place if we could lock them all in an attic somewhere and just bring them out for holidays? Sure. But it ain’t gonna happen.
The right is moving more and more libertarian, while the left is embracing socialism with a vengeance. Your personal freedom certainly isn’t going to suffer under someone from the right as it would from the friendly government people that are here to help you.
jwest said, “Your personal freedom certainly isn't going to suffer under someone from the right as it would from [someone from the left].
Guess it depends on which personal freedoms are important to you. The point, however, is not to assign points to one liberty over another, but rather to seek, as a matter principle, to preserve them all. And, that can't be done when one is more committed to defending an ideology than to defending liberty.
jwest, are you really saying that the preservation of personal liberty is relative and that you are willing to sacrifice some liberties as long as you don't have to sacrifice others? I think you'd be better off simply acknowledging that both sides engage in the deprivation of liberty, and both should be stopped.
Tidbits,
I do believe that the right is more concerned with protecting individual liberties than the left.
As to what compromises I am willing to make concerning my personal liberties, I believe there are tradeoffs to be made.
Since I’m rushed for time at this moment, I’ll just hit on one.
I am willing to give up the absolute right to privacy on my international communications in order to allow the government to better track terrorists.
This should be explored more when time permits.