We Are Sarah’s People

From the desk of Joshua Trevino on Thu, 2008-09-04 07:46

There is the Sarah Palin you saw on television, and there is the Sarah Palin I saw in the XCel Center here in St Paul, Minnesota. I don’t know how it played on TV. I don’t know what the news media said. I don’t know how the pundits assessed the speech. I don’t know what narratives the blogs are spinning. I only know what I saw. I only know what I felt. I only know what effect Sarah Palin had on the thousands of men, women and children assembled to hear her accept the Republican nomination for Vice President of the United States. I only know what word describes all that best.

The word is electric.

It is difficult to express how dispiriting this Republican convention has been. Compared with the victory-fest in NYC in 2004, the RNC here at St Paul has been a muted affair. Enthusiasm was dampened for myriad reasons: John McCain is everyone’s second choice; Hurricane Gustav threatened the whole celebration; the party is at a historical nadir; and most of all, the George W. Bush Administration has indulged in compromise of principle after principle. Earlier today I went on Cenk Uygur’s radio show as the conservative punching bag, and got hammered on a series of points that I had to concede — civil liberties, wartime management, fiscal responsibility, and more. It’s a tough spot to be in, when your partisan standard-bearer has forced you into making excuses. I’m not the only one in that position and its accompanying state of mind; and I was not the only one to feel that this convention was more funeral than sendoff — more a goodbye than a beginning — and more pro forma than joyous.

Then came Sarah Palin.

The Vice-Presidential pick was immediately popular with the conservative base by reputation alone, but she did nothing in the past week to capitalize upon that popularity. She spoke at a few perfunctory rallies, and she waved at some cameras in passing. Meanwhile, the media of all stripes went after her with a savagery reserved for those outside the circle of the chosen. Her public record was scrutinized and attacked where deserved — and disparaged where undeserved. Her private life was subjected to speculation that forced the public exposure of her own child — how could it not have humiliated that child in some fashion? — and made her mothering a subject of open debate. In response, she said nothing. She did not defend herself, and she did not excuse herself. She asked for no apology. She said nothing. And here, at this passing epicenter of Republicanism in America, wonder arose at when she would riposte — and how she would do it.

This evening, after a series of speeches by the also-rans and first choices of the party — reason in itself for the muted enthusiasm of this convention — Sarah Palin struck back. When she walked out onto the stage, alone and small in the vastness of the hall, the eruption was far beyond what came before, for Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani. All the indignation and righteous anger, all the defensiveness and protectiveness aroused in the preceding week, welled to the surface as the crowed roared. This we’ll defend, said the crowd.

Sarah Palin replied: I need no defense. And the crowd was subsumed in awe and adoration. There is no need to go over the speech in detail. If you saw it, you saw it — and if you wish to see it, you may. Know this: every cheer you heard on television was magnified a thousandfold in the great hall. She was quite nearly perfect, faltering only when stepping a bit too quickly over her own applause. She slid the knife into her opponents with a sly deftness — how delicious it will be to see her up against the groping, pompous Senator Biden! — and she presented herself with a disarming candor. Her diction was that of the upper Midwest, and her demeanor was of the stern but friendly mom. She invoked the memory of Harry Truman, and if there was presumption there, there was also truth. Sarah Palin is all up front, and we saw her this evening in full. Neither nervous nor quick, neither stricken nor strident, she led the crowd along with a confident cadence, till, at the end, they were in her hands.

When she finished, they cheered.
When John McCain emerged, they cheered louder.
When he commented on her greatness, they cheered loudest of all.

Lest it seem that all was untarnished glory, it should be noted otherwise. The stage design was crude and inept. Mercifully inapparent on television was the absurd and awful PowerPoint slideshow that played on the jumbotron behind her. Over and over, we saw: the Washington Monument, Old Faithful, Mount Rushmore. The stage upon which she stood looked like a cheap dance club — black plastic rimmed with a glittering hot pink stripe. Meanwhile, in the crowd, functionaries could be seen openly passing out pre-printed “handmade” signs, and spotting the repeats was too easy.

Worst of all, in the long run, is the difference in enthusiasm between that for John McCain, and that for Sarah Palin. This evening, the Alaskan Governor could form an army from her faithful legions. John McCain is more uncertain. The Arizonan, in his few moments on stage, was squeaky and halting where she was firm and compelling, and his war-crippled movements went poorly with her practiced grace. Suddenly, unexpectedly, the bar for him tomorrow is set not by his opponent — but by his surprising, surpassing running mate.

We here at the RNC, this evening, are not so much Republicans … as we are Sarah’s people.

 

 

My photographs are available here.

Sarah on TV

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-09-12 12:05.

Bush-doctrine? Anticipatory self-defense? Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks? Russia attacked Georgia? Israeli military action? Oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? How dumb must U.S. citizens be to give her a vote?

@Bolleke Boy

Submitted by Maple syrup on Thu, 2008-09-11 15:00.

Your points are valid for districts where the public schools are still predominantly white. In such areas, parents take their kids out of public schools for religious/values-based reasons.

 

But those districts have relatively low rates of private school attendance. The situation changes wherever African/Hispanic students make up more than 25% of the school population.

 

This has been shown by a number of studies. For instance:

 

John T. Yun, who until recently was a researcher at Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project and has extensively studied private school choice, said income is a factor in the low percentage of blacks going to private schools, but its importance is often overstated.

His published research shows that cities with a high percentage of blacks have higher percentages of whites in private schools and further reveals that there is a large disparity in private school enrollment among blacks and whites even when their incomes are the same.

"People don’t look at the data that is out there," he said. "The assumption is that since there are more poor African-Americans, you see more African-Americans in public school. That simply isn’t the case."

http://www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryprev.asp?Path=ArDemocrat/2003/10/27&ID=Ar00102&Section=Arkansas

Back to Sarah...

Submitted by RoyE on Thu, 2008-09-11 13:30.

I like the way she  has exposed  the sham element  of  modern feminism , that being   the use of  amplified  grievance, victimhood, and entitlement  to advance the leftist agenda.    A great many American women seem to resent being used as pawns in this game.

Identity group politics  going to war with  itself  makes for satisfying theater.        

objection and warning # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2008-09-10 23:47.

@ onecent

Be not be fooled.  The word "though" was the correct one, and I certainly did not want to say "through" in that particular sentence/context.

Needless to say, I have never claimed that one "can transform an African into a European" by "injecting" culture into a brain.  Armor has difficulty with properly interpreting words like "African, European, neocons..." in the partcular context that they may be used.  And, obviously, one cannot "inject" culture like one could inject a chemical substance.  It is the old problem again.  'Nihilists' confusing values with physical phenomena.

Objection and warning

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2008-09-10 22:03.

@ onecent

1) I disagree that the state of public education in inner cities has anything to do with a "culture of poverty" (in a material sense).  Spending per pupil in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars in those school systems is much higher today than, say, fifty years ago. Yet, while the 'input' is much higher, the value of the output is much lower. Also, some of the worst public school districts (e.g. Washington DC) are among the highest spenders per pupil.   No, the poor state of education in inner cities has much more to do with the political power of teachers unions and with the sub-'culture' of those inner cities.  The latter is a complex phenomenon, that has many 'roots'. Armor will say that it is based on 'race', but it is not.  It is though a naive-left sub-culture of victimisation/victimhood cultivated by (mainly white) social 'scientists' in Academia.

2) Armor is right in saying that "euroweenies" is a slur, and I do not like the term.  But, he is wrong to see it as "antiwhite".  You must realise that (a) Armor does not understand the 'American' interpretation of the term "neocon", and that (b) he sees everything through a racial lense, just like those American victimhood-peddlers in naive-left Academia.  I agree though that there is much "nihilism" to be found among lefties in both Europe and America, and among a certain kind of ethnicity-obsessed rightists in Europe as well.  Armor's own manifest racism is indicative of that.

@marcfrans

Submitted by onecent on Thu, 2008-09-11 01:51.

"Culture of poverty" isn't about money, it describes the bad habits and bad choices, that people make that keep them poor in inner city ghettos - no work ethic, illegitimate births, no ability to delay gratification, alcohol/substance addictions etc. It describes the pathology that keeps people poor. It's a cycle that no gov't intervention changes.

When I use the term Euroweenie it's directed at European politicians and their policies, I'm sorry to offend anyone personally.

Nature or Culture of Poverty

Submitted by Armor on Thu, 2008-09-11 17:10.

In reply to OneCent and Marcfrans, here is a sum up of the reasons why schools are underachieving:

White pupils:
1. use of left-wing teaching methods (unruliness is allowed, learning by rote is avoided, the whole-word method is used to teach reading even though it doesn't work...)
2. being forced to be with blacks and other non-whites
3. efforts to reduce the racial achievement gap by hampering the progress of white pupils

Black pupils:
1. use of left-wing teaching methods
2. lower intelligence on average (nothing to do with a "culture of poverty"!).
They are also more disruptive, more violent, less interested in learning...

--
Marcfrans: "It is the old problem again. 'Nihilists' confusing values with physical phenomena."

I've read on a website that part of the reason why Blacks are more violent than us is simply that they have more testosterone. That also explains why men are more violent than women.

@Armor

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-12 00:00.

You are a rabid racist, it disqualfies you from any response from me.

I'd even like you referring to me.

@Half-a-cent

Submitted by Armor on Sat, 2008-09-13 03:49.

Besides being aggressive, your comments are disingenuous. By mentioning a "culture of poverty" and calling me a "rabid racist", you imply that Blacks are just as intelligent as the rest of us, and no more violent by nature. But you won't say so explicitly, because it would lay you open to criticism. I think you realize that Blacks are naturally less intelligent and more prone to violence.

If there was more honesty about racial differences, we would not get phony conversations about a so-called "culture of poverty", the whites would no longer be blamed and made to suffer for the failings of the blacks, and maybe we would be allowed to have our own schools. I think one reason our governments do not want schools to be separated by race is that the policy of racial replacement would be plainer to see. When half the pupils in the classroom are third-world, it is supposed to be cultural enrichment for the beleaguered whites. But when the whole school is African and there isn't a single white pupil left, it is difficult to argue that it is cultural enrichment for the whites. It looks like pure and simple replacement.

In fact, Half-a-cent is no different from Marcfrans, who keeps saying that the only real difference between races is skin color. According to him, every other difference is cultural, and it is easy to transform an African into a European by injecting some "European culture" into his brain. Saying otherwise makes you a rabid racist. However, Marcfrans does not have "the courage of his opinions". That is why he wrote: "I have never claimed that one "can transform an African into a European" by "injecting" culture into a brain." In fact, that is precisely what he has been arguing for months and months, although maybe he didn't use the word 'inject'.

What's wrong with Marcfrans

Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2008-09-10 22:59.

MF said: "the poor state of education in inner cities has much more to do with the political power of teachers unions and with ..."

Everyone -and not only the non-whites- is hurt by the absurd ideologies that prevail in teacher unions, education schools, education secretariats and so on.

MF: "It is th(r?)ough a naive-left sub-culture of victimisation/victimhood cultivated by (mainly white) social 'scientists' in Academia."

Marcfrans is the guy who says he can transform an African into a European by injecting some "European culture" into his brain. But he still thinks he can criticize "the naive-left sub-culture of victimisation". In Marcfrans' case, the problem is not naivety but malevolent wrongheadedness.

@ onecent

Submitted by Maple syrup on Wed, 2008-09-10 14:57.

I'm not an American. I only know what American parents tell me. They usually cite two reasons for abandoning public schools:

 

1. Unruly students in the classroom who ruin the learning environment and make it impossible for serious students to learn.

 

2. Violent individuals, often organized in gangs, who threaten students outside the classroom and often demand protection money. These gangs are overwhelmingly African-American or Hispanic, with a growing number of Indochinese or South Asian origin. White gangs are very rare.

 

At this point, I present the usual conservative talking point: "But surely the teachers are also to blame? Perhaps they aren't taking their work seriously enough." In every case, the answer has been: "The teachers are no better and no worse than they were twenty years ago. It's the demographics that have changed."

 

if the numbers are sane

 

Are the current numbers sane? In the next 42 years, the U.S. will gain another 135 million people. That was the entire U.S. population in 1942. Will you be able to support that many more people while maintaining your current standard of living? Remember, some commodities just cannot be increased to match increasing demand. This is especially so for water, food, and oil. You're already experiencing chronic water shortages in the Southwest and Southeast.

 

And finally, what was so wrong with the demographics of the 'Old America' that you feel compelled to change them so radically and so quickly?

@Maple syrup

Submitted by BollekeBoy on Wed, 2008-09-10 15:57.

I know I’m not onecent, but let me try and reply to your posting too.

Your first point about unruly students is one I don’t really have any disagreement with.
Your second point about violent gangs is certainly a problem with certain inner city school districts, but is not universal. You see, I am precisely one of the people Obama was talking about when he spoke in San Francisco. I am a gun-owning, practicing Catholic who happens to reside in the beautiful mountains of central Pennsylvania. The local public school is almost entirely white, and is widely regarded as a ‘good’ school. There is no problem with gangs. Despite that, my daughter attends a private Catholic school. There is a higher level of discipline, unruly students are not tolerated. Academic standards are high. They are taught to love not only their God, but also their country. So the school is trying to turn our children into well educated, well disciplined, Christian patriots. As far as I can tell there is nothing wrong with that. The public schools are trying to turn our children into the next generation of liberal leftists.
As far as the teachers being just as good today as they were 20 years ago, I disagree. I was in school 20 years ago and the teachers could be divided into two different groups: the older ones who had also taught my parents and the younger ones who were probably students with my parents. One of the older teachers I had was my history teacher who was a student of history himself. He knew his subject inside and out. Younger teachers are the ones who went to the ‘college of education’ at some university where they don’t learn any particular subject. They are theoretically taught how to teach by using a template. A teacher can be given a textbook on a subject they know virtually nothing about and be teaching that class. I remember asking questions to those teachers and being told they did not know the answer, and would have to look it up.
I’ll let the rest of your questions up to onecent.

BTW: as far as being a ‘bitter’ and clinging to my religion and my guns, all I can say is,
“Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!”

@BollekeBoy

Submitted by onecent on Wed, 2008-09-10 19:26.

Thanks, my point, the deterioration of the public schools is more than a racial issue. THere are plenty of blacks with the means pulling their kids out of them too. In the inner cities it's the culture of poverty that makes them so bad. Even in the white suburbs, the schools have delined. Hey, our colleges have dumbed down.

I'm with you on not being bitter, I cling to my First and Second Amendment rights, my patriotism, and the vibrant spiritual life that we have here. The Democrats don't. Like the Euroweenies they are self-loathing nihilist wimps. They would like to destroy all that is good about western culture like their European counterpart.

euroweenie?

Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2008-09-10 21:16.

"Like the Euroweenies they are self-loathing nihilist wimps."

What does 'euroweenie' mean?
Is it some kind of anti-white slur used by neocons?

@ onecent

Submitted by Maple syrup on Tue, 2008-09-09 16:26.

"maple syrup - you throw out ridiculous absolutes of what will happen. Refuting your nonsense is a fool's game, there is also a nasty undercurrent of blatant racism to every thing you write. You are ignorable."

Onecent,

I have made no "racist" statements on this thread. Yes, I pointed out that American parents are pulling their kids out of the public school system because it is no longer 'white'. That is what Americans tell me, including many liberals.

And yes, I said that Americans will soon become strangers in their own land. That is simply an observation of reality. If you don't like that reality, you can try to change it while you still have time, but please don't attack me for pointing it out.

I also said that if immigration continues at current levels, life in the U.S. will become like life in Mexico City, Sao Paolo, or Johannesburg. That too is an observation of reality. Immigrants tend to behave in ways similar to the way they behaved back home – especially if they come in such large numbers that the original population is simply displaced.

Current projections show that the U.S. population will grow by 135 million in the next 42 years—a 44% increase almost entirely due to immigration and the higher fertility of most immigrants. Even if we assume that people differ in behavior for purely cultural reasons, how will these immigrants assimilate to American cultural norms? They won’t. They will just replace the existing U.S. population.

Perhaps you believe that American soil has some kind of magical transforming effect on newcomers. I don’t.

@maplesyrup

Submitted by onecent on Tue, 2008-09-09 17:55.

Race is NOT the exclusive factor in white parents pulling their kids out of public schools. The bottomline is that the public schools across the board, white, black or mixed, are becoming worse academically. Most blacks are middle income Americans. They are pulling their kids out of the public schools for the same reasons. The public schools are increasingly rotten. To make it appear as a racial issue alone is disingenuous.

And, America is still a melting pot. That's rooted in our culture. The large influx of Mexicans is a problem, but, unlike many places in the world bunkered ethnic ghettos don't last long here if the numbers are sane. As good capitalists isolation would be stupid. Mexicans aren't educated, but, they are risk takers. No welfare is handed out to illegals. One son-in-law is a successful second generation Cuban, he speaks no Spanish, he only sees himself as American. Americans relocate more than Europeans. It's a seamless and comfortable culture to move through. I've lived in Europe, it's not the same.

Of course we need to stop this rampant violation at our border. What we are stuck with now due to politcal neglect can be more easily resolved here than in Europe. Mexicans aren't Muslims that basically hate us, our culture and our secularism. I'm not a pessimist.

melting pot

Submitted by Armor on Tue, 2008-09-09 21:58.

OneCent: "Race is NOT the exclusive factor in white parents pulling their kids out of public schools."

But it is the main factor.

"And, America is still a melting pot. That's rooted in our culture."

Are you saying that racial miscegenation is rooted in American culture? It's like saying that suicide is rooted in American culture!
Besides, if you blend Americans and Mexicans together in a melting pot, you should expect the result to be partly American and partly Mexican. If you expect the result to be 100% American, then you should not use the melting pot image.

"The large influx of Mexicans is a problem, but, unlike many places in the world bunkered ethnic ghettos don't last long here if the numbers are sane."

But you know the numbers are insane. So, please stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

What matters is what happens now. People should not satisfy themselves with the hope that things will get better in the future. We know it won't get better. By the way, the sons and grandsons of Mexican immigrants are usually more violent and more parasitic than their parents.

Even if America becomes a peaceful prosperous place in the future, it will not change the fact that the whites have been displaced against their will. That is what must be prevented. It shouldn't matter to white people what happens to Western countries when we are gone. Except that our descendants won't disappear suddenly. The white minority will continue to exist for a few centuries, and their lives will probably be miserable. But the important thing is not to preserve the existence of a small white community that will keep getting smaller and smaller. What we need is a White America and a White Europe. The method to achieve that is repatriation of the non whites.

What is worse? the death of the last of the Mohicans, or the destruction of the Mohican nation that occurred prior to the sorry existence of Chingachgook? There are more and more places in western countries where only a handful of white residents are left. And we tend to think that all is not lost, so long as a few of us remain. This is an absurd point of view. What we need to preserve is a white society where we can live among white people.

"As good capitalists isolation would be stupid."

Are you a fat plutocrat?

"Mexicans aren't educated, but, they are risk takers."

Especially Mexican car drivers.

"No welfare is handed out to illegals."

But they find ways to milk the system anyway, with the help of white liberals. And welfare is handed out to their children. Have you never heard of "anchor-babies"?

"One son-in-law is a successful second generation Cuban, he speaks no Spanish, he only sees himself as American."

The only way a Cuban can see himself as American is if he redefines the word 'American'.

"Mexicans aren't Muslims that basically hate us, our culture and our secularism."

If you read the British and French press, you will find that militant anti-Americanism largely comes from the western media, and especially the Jewish owned media, the same people who support mass immigration from muslim countries, and the building of mosques in Europe. But Muslim immigrants do not hate the West. They want to use us to improve their material comfort, not to destroy us.

@Armor

Submitted by onecent on Tue, 2008-09-09 22:24.

Armor, I really don't have the time or desire to refute your erroneous drivel.

That's my response to it.

partial answers # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2008-09-09 16:16.

@ pvdh

 

1) It is better to capitalise Democrats and Republicans.  These words refer to party names, and there is little doubt that today some Republicans and even more Democrats are not really 'democrats' (judging by their intolerance of 'free speech' and their willingness to distort the truth). 

2) I agree that tolerance of political opposition is essential for democracy.  Whoever rules needs to be kept 'straight' by media freedom and media diversity, as well as by a functioning 'opposition' in (local and federal) parliaments. But, democracy can only survive among humans in a well-functioning state, and that requires a 'loyal' opposition as well as honest government.  Corruption among individuals is a universal problem, but the matter of 'disloyal' opposition has been more of a problem among Democrats than among Republicans in recent decades in contemporary America. 

3) Regarding my point three, yes it was very generally phrased.  The main point was that latino immigrants to the US are NOT "christians of European descent". Most of them are of 'mixed' descent, and many of them are of 'Amerindian' descent.  And, in my opinion, the reality is that most of them do not realise that the social/economic and political conditions of their home countries (which they choose to 'flee') are intimately tied with their cultures (or behavioral attitudes).  If they do not understand the need for cultural change, and for embracing a different culture, how could many of them possibly function well and contribute to a democratic host country?   Now, this lack of awarenenss is not limited to latinos, nor Amerindians.  Many leftist Westerners have lost that awareness too, and that is why the survival of democracy is not assured for future generations.

4) I agree with you, in general, that government regulation is needed in specific cases of 'market failure', essentially to capture what economists call 'externalities' (in both consumption and production).  In such cases, and when possible, that regulation should be market-friendly and not work against market forces.  In effect, it should be aimed at approximating (or re-creating) genuine free market conditions as much as possible.  

5) On the matter of global warming  I remain a sceptic.  I think that political democracy in general will lead to more sensible environmental 'regulation' under public pressures from the bottom up than political autocracy will from the top down.  I also think that market forces will take care of most real potential 'costs' of higher or changing temperatures (which does not exclude some imposed regulation in specific cases), just as market forces will absorb some of the potential benefits from changing temperatures.  Finally, on the matter of dependancy on imports of fossil fuels (and some food staples as well), there seems to be a growing recognition of the importance of security considerations over short-term economic considerations.  And that is a good thing.  As human beings, it is nice to be able to live in a rich or wealthy society, but it is much more important to be able to live in a genuinely 'free' one.   

@onecent

Submitted by USAntigoon on Tue, 2008-09-09 00:26.

Thank you........Thank you......
pvdh might have problems understanding that..Most of Belgium is brainwashed by their "Socialistic Welfare" systems..

partial answers

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2008-09-08 16:46.

@ pvdh

Onecent can speak for herself, but since you mentioned me I feel I am entitled to clarify matters.

1) Yes power alternation is necessary over time, but power is generally more 'divided' in the US than in a small European country like Belgium. Because of continental federalism (powers of the individual states) and because of separate elections for the Executive and for the Legislative powers in the US.  As you know, the US Congress is currently controlled by the left, whereas the Executive (or Presidency and Cabinet) is not. I meant "divided" in an ideological sense. As you should also know, three quarters of the multitude of parties in small Belgium all basically adhere to the same naive-left ideology.

2) In order to become "American", latino immigrants (just like any other immigrants) would have to adopt the 'American creed' or civic culture, i.e. the values embodied in the US Constitution.  Adherence to 'rule of law' provides a good example.  When one sees major figures from latino cultural associations and lobby groups publicly advocate breaking the law and undermining immigration legislation (that emanates from the democratic legislature) then one knows that many of these immigrants lack the proper character and disposition to become 'good' immigrants. One cannot observe leaders of other large ethnic immigrant groups (e.g. Chinese, Koreans, Russians, etc...) publicly advocate law breaking.   If one wants to enjoy the blessings of absence of 'rule of law', all one has to do is stay or move to Mexico City or Tijuana.

3) Most latino immigrants are NOT "christians of European descent".  Whether they are "christian" is a matter of opinion, but that they are of 'mixed descent' is a matter of observable fact.  Latin America is a complex and large continent.  To superficial observers in far-away Europe it may seem that the ideological left-right split is the dominant one, but underneath lies a much deeper cultural split between 'native Amerindian' cultures and descendants from 'Europeans'. In some countries (like Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, etc...) this is more obvious than in others.  And different views about 'rule of law' lies at the core of this unspoken etnic 'civil war'. It should not surprise you one bit that many of the ideologues behind these civil wars are often radical lefties from 'European descent', whereas their political point men and heroes (Morales, Chavez, etc...) are more of 'native cultural' descent.  Self-hatred (as a politico-cultural aberration in radical individuals) is, after all, largely a 'Western civilisational' phenomenon. This is a complicated subject, but things are not as simple as you seem to think.

 

@marcfrans

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Tue, 2008-09-09 11:10.

@marcfrans

I totally agree with your first point. Indeed, alternation is sufficiently present in the US. But I guess that if onecent had it her way, the republicans would have the power for ever. To see the need for the other is mostly a first step in becoming less radical.

I also agree with your second point, but I’ve more problems with point three. I’m definitely not a fan from Chavez and Morales (I think they both are bringing and will bring a lot of troubles and poverty to their countries.) But the “radical lefties”, “native cultural” and “self-hatred” stuff is a bit to generalizing and to fatalistic to buy. There definitely are some good explanations why things are what they are, why the obviously bad solutions were chosen, and what the good solution would be, without the need to blame it all on a few European lefties and the wrong cultural descent.

nationalization

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-09-07 17:39.

Finally, Americans copy Hugo Chavez in nationalize the important credit giving institutions. Yet, it's for another purpose: common American will have to pay the debts of Fanny and Frankie, and then - of course - it will return to be privatized. Will there be a wake-up-roar in the American public? No, no way!

The two of you are so predictable and add nothing

Submitted by onecent on Sun, 2008-09-07 17:55.

maple syrup - you throw out ridiculous absolutes of what will happen. Refuting your nonsense is a fool's game, there is also a nasty undercurrent of blatant racism to every thing you write. You are ignorable.

keppert - is there some masochistic reason that you hang around to be scorned with every silly utterance of yours? And, Freddie and Fannie are quasi-private, they have always been under federal oversight. They will most likely be broken into smaller more transparent and manageable units. Educate yourself before you speak.

@onecent

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-09-07 18:13.

"They will most likely be broken into smaller more transparent and manageable units." Don't make me laugh, do you have some assets in that business. Since when 'construction' is 'transparent'. Frankly, Fannie beats'em all.

questions for OneCent

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Mon, 2008-09-08 10:17.

As you seem to become a much respected member of the “Brussels Journal society” and as your opinions are in many respects that much different from mine, I would like to ask you a few questions:

1) Don’t you think that democracy is best served by shifting the power now and then? Getting used to power often induces corruption. (In the French speaking part of Belgium, we have a fine example of this theory.) Of course, one might hope that with McCain there has been a power shift within the Republican Party. Back to the center, that is. But I guess that’s not the direction you are advocating.

2) On the oil drilling: I often wonder what makes people like you so certain that the warming of the earth is not man-made and that increasing the CO2production want induce tragic situations around the globe? There is no question that the big majority of scientific studies are pointing in the direction of man-made warming. Reading this studies, and then watching my children I automatically think “Lets try to do what ever we can to stop it.” Your answer by contrast is “just ignore it.” So how do you make up your mind, and why?

3) And then about the Latinos. What makes those people so different from other Americans? They are Christians of European descent. MarcFrans says: “he (McCain) clearly wants them to become 'Americans', not just in a legal sense.” What has an average Latino to do to become “American”?

@peter

Submitted by onecent on Mon, 2008-09-08 16:36.

Peter, democracy is best served here in the US when our constitution is respected and the free market that has made us a wealthy country isn't altered. It's pretty simple. The Democrats at this time in history are socialists that would impose a European style Nanny state upon us with higher taxes, activist judges just like Brussels, an enlarged public employee sector, etc, all very bad for us as socialism isn't compatable with our democracy as those of you ruled from Brussels are finding out too.

There is no definative hard science that endorses man made global warming. The earth has been through warming cycles before when the human population was under a million. Al Gore isn't a scientist. The biggest reason to get off of carbon energy is that it is finite and expensive and we are puchasing it from some very bad people. The market place will determine the winner as it always does, not the government. Kyoto is a transparent transfer of wealth scheme from rich to poor countries. China can clean up its own filthy air. It's their problem not mine. They have the money.

Hispanics are nice people. I'm originally from New Mexico. The issue is respecting our laws. We have a right to sovereign borders. We have a right to decide who comes here, how many and with what skills. Would it be fair to you if you wanted to legally immigrate here to spend lots of money and years in the process only watch illegals simply cross our southern border and stay for life?

Think of all of the things that you wish you could change in Europe, if they match my principles then voting Republican here is a no brainer.

Have I answered your questions?

@onecent

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Tue, 2008-09-09 10:51.

Thank you for your answer.
Your answers show a very strong belief in your choices. That has the disadvantage that they fail to answer the question why? It is simply obvious for you.

The first question was about the need alternating power in democracy. But for you democrats are such a disaster that the treat of corruption is a lesser evil than giving the democrats the power. Fair enough. But I liked more the answer of MarcFrans.
About the Hispanics: I agree that respecting the law is necessary. But for a country as the USA, where there is still an abundance of space, one should perhaps consider to make legal immigration a bit easier. Anyway it’s none of my business and I definitely don’t seem to grasp the cultural differences.

About climate change, you definitely avoid answering my question. Let’s split it up in two different questions.
1. How do you decide for yourself that the proof for man made global warming is insufficient to actually do something against it?
You state that Al Gore is not a scientist, which is true. But the same goes for you and 99.9% of the rest of the world population. That doesn’t stop you from giving a “scientific-like” explanation: “There have been non-manmade global warmings before.” A statement nobody denies. The theory is however: global warmings are always a disaster; this one is man-made so we can do something to perhaps not stop it but at the least make it less important.
How did I make up my mind? I read a lot about it. And I found out that there is an overwhelmingly big consensus within the scientific world in Europe and the USA as well that it is man-made. (If you want to know how big the consensus is try Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming )That’s all I can go for. Although I’m pretty good with statistics and models, it’s practically impossible to remake the calculations. But the same goes for you.
I did also read the reasoning of the people that deny global warming. (Try again wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy ) They attribute the overwhelming majority of scientists that agree with Global Warming to a conspiracy theory. Until now I haven’t heard of any global-wide conspiracy that was actually true. It seems rather difficult to organize. So here is my conclusion:
“odds that global warming is actually man-made are fairly big.”
You obviously came to an other conclusion I would like to know how.
2. Is the free-market going to solve the problem "if-any" automatically?

Here is my point of view:
Free market is a great thing. It seems to solve a lot of problems automatically, so marvelously explained beneath by MarcFrans. It’s like water always floating to the lowest point and so leveling out market imperfections. By doing so it actually maximizes wealth creation, given a few necessary conditions like a good working legal system and basic infrastructure (monetary roads…) But it is only a tool, not the goal on itself. And it’s not perfect. The antitrust law is a fine example of a necessary “correction”. I’ve the distinct feeling that there is a certain slowness in the floating. As it comes to natural resources, the free market doesn’t seem to capture the possibilities of wealth creation by actually holding on to the resources for future generations, when the resource will have become scarce. I’m not going into details, but that has possibly something to do with the risk that a resource may suddenly become worthless if a good alternative has been found. A risk that can obviously be measured and valued, but that’s an other discussion. My opinion is that we need a correction, for capturing this market imperfection. For global warming the Kyoto-protocol tries to do this with tradable emission rights. I recognize however that the price setting is very much influenced by “well mend but naief-left” considerations about third world rights to develop. That and the fact that not the all countries are participating, makes the system pretty worthless. The idea is good, but it’s very badly implemented.

@peter

Submitted by onecent on Tue, 2008-09-09 16:11.

peter - I don't understand what you mean by "alternating power in democracy" - going back in forth from socialism to conservatism on regular intervals? If we make a mistake like one term Carter, we fix it. I fail to see the "the threat of corruption" as an issue. We have a fixed four year election cycle here. Ours is a winner take all system unlike parliamentary Europe, it works better for us. We don't have the deadlock and tyranny of the minority to dilute goals. If you are corrupt the voters will solve that or you expediently get indicted, resign, and go to jail. It happens here on a regular basis. The mayor of Detroit was arrested and has resigned as of last week. Ditto for a few corrupt slobs in Congress. Clinton was impeached with the option exercised to not remove him for lying under oath. He can never remove that stain in the history books. The Republicans in Congress didn't act like conservatives and were thrown out at last mid-term, the Dems are now greedier and will probably suffer the same fate. The system works because unlike the EU we have one man, one vote as our principle.

Man made GW isn't endorsed by many high profile scientists in the field of climatology and as science is a fact based empirical field that unless the definative proof is there it is all hypothesis. Why would any sane country transfer its wealth, my taxes mind you, based on nothing of substance but the usual lefty transfer of wealth schemes. India and China will build hundreds of coal-fire power plants in the next ten years and the combined carbon dioxide emissions of those new plants alone are five times larger than the savings mandated by the Kyoto accords. How stupid is that? Let the Europeans throw money down that rat hole if they want.

There isn't "an abundance of space" in America. Mexicans don't come here as farmers. Most of our west has little water and the best land is long gone. Our major cities are congested like others in the world. I agree about making legal immigration easier. We need bright energetic young Europeans and Indians with educations and skill sets and we aren't getting them because our immigration laws thanks to JFK were rewritten to favor the unskilled Third World. That needs changed.

My attitude of confidence in my ideals is typical as a conservative. It's what is being lost in Europe that is sad. As a citizen there you are not in control anymore.

A vote for McCain is a vote for endgame

Submitted by Maple syrup on Sun, 2008-09-07 16:04.

One-cent: On the issue of illegals and our southern border the American people have spoken loudly and clearly across party lines. The recent lame immigration bill got shelved. Politicians that didn't get it, got it.

 

You're tragically mistaken. Within three months of taking office, McCain will re-introduce his amnesty bill. Most Republican congressmen will vote against it, but he should be able to pressure enough of them to get it passed.

 

It will then be game over. Officially, there are an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. If we go by the last amnesty (in the 1980s), the real numbers should be much higher, perhaps 20 million. And those new Americans will bring in their families, who will in turn bring in their relatives. The message to the Third World will be clear and overwhelming.

 

Once you have a large mass of legal and semi-legal immigrants within your borders, how will you keep out illegal immigrants? You won't. You will have created the sea, so to speak, in which they can freely swim. They will simply disappear into huge Third World communities where the police will have only a token presence, if at all.

 

I hear Americans regularly complain about the cost of sending their kids to a private school because the public schools are 'no good' (translation: they're no longer white). Well, think about the security bill you'll be paying once the U.S. has become like Mexico City, Sao Paulo, or Johannesburg. If you're not lucky enough to inhabit a gated community, the cost will come to $10,000 a year. Minimum.

 

In any case, however safe or unsafe life will be, it will no longer be your country. You will be strangers in your own land. And this is not a scenario that will play out in the distant future. Most of us here will live to see it happen.

@maple syrup

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-09-07 17:41.

"Well, think about the security bill you'll be paying once the U.S. has become like Mexico City, São Paulo, or Johannesburg."
Check it out!!!! You'll be surprised.

No styrofoam Greek columns required.

Submitted by RoyE on Sun, 2008-09-07 15:37.

Sarah Palin has clearly  unleashed a tremendous amount  of pent up frustration and energy in the US  electorate. 

 Her arrival on the scene is most welcome. The   common sense  she brings with her is long overdue! 

Bravo Sarah, Bravo!

 
 

Atheling

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2008-09-07 03:43.

@ onecent

For your information, 'Atheling' is/was a conservative American lady (probably residing on the 'left coast') who used to engage several continental-European extreme moral-relativists on this website in heated exchanges.  She 'disappeared' a number of months ago, but you 'sound' much like her.

 

So, once again # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-09-06 23:05.

@ onecent

1) Thanks for the compliment. Now, if I had managed to spell "sponge" correctly, perhaps it would have been a step in the direction of a "great post".  Have you ever gone by the name of 'Atheling'?  It's just a shot in the dark, but I suspect that also Atlanticist is regretting her absence from this website.

2) We agree on the first point.  In economic terms, trade is beneficial because it allows for capturing the benefits of increased specialisation (and of more competitive markets).  It also makes relatively-scarce resources (in any particular locale) less scarce, and makes relatively-abundant resources in the same locale less abundant. Thus, in principle, and ceteris paribus, trade in and of itself should not only increase national income, but also improve the income distribution within the nation.  The trouble is, of course, that many other factors, besides trade, are in play at any given moment. But, from an economic as well as a 'nationalist' perspective, the main point is that free trade (of goods and services) is a SUBSTITUTE for movements of people (and even of capital), and not an argument for immigration as such.  Also, free trade cannot be sustained unless other macro-economic policies promote or help to keep the economy 'flexible'. 

3) I hope that you are right in your assesment of the "voter backlash" against last year's 'comprehensive' immigration bill, but I am somewhat less optimistic on that score.  I would not be so sure that the combination of an Obama-White House with a strengthened majority for the Pelosi/Reid-led Congress could not 'overrule' the large majority in the opinion polls on the immigration issue.  As you know, common voters always get to vote for 'a package', not on single issues, and many voters do not look beyond the slogans.

 

Don't know atheling

Submitted by onecent on Sun, 2008-09-07 02:59.

@marcfrans

I have never used the name "Atheling".

Obama in the WH with a Dem majority in Congress would be a nightmare. All bets are off. Keep in mind that once this election is over whatever the outcome coddling Hispanic voters is over until the next election. I still think that trotting back an amnesty proposal would be suicide for the Dems in the mid-term elections and beyond. Stalling on the border wall and enforcement I could see them doing, but, even that wouldn't go unnoticed.

Congress has been polling lower numbers than Bush this year. Energy, illegal immigration, the economy are the priorites not necessarily in that order I think with voters. Iraq is winding down. The Dems have proven useless on these issues. I could be very wrong and will be stunned if Obama wins.

@onecent

Submitted by BollekeBoy on Sun, 2008-09-07 04:04.

I wish I shared your confidence in an Obama defeat. I see another election night where the whole thing may come down to just one ‘swing’ state, just like the previous two elections. While it is quite true that the Democratic congress has abysmal approval ratings, and rightly so, an uninformed electorate tends to blame the man at the top. For instance, the energy problems we are currently experiencing are largely the fault of the Democrats. President Bush has pushed numerous energy proposals that would have helped such as drilling in ANWR and elsewhere, building new refineries, expanding nuclear power, and clean coal technology. The Democrats in congress blocked everything because they are beholden to the radical environmentalists. Despite all that, there are so many voters who blame President Bush for the high price of gasoline, and want to get rid of him and any Republican they can because of it.

Btw your postings remind me of atheling as well.

@Bollekeboy

Submitted by onecent on Sun, 2008-09-07 15:31.

Scary, isn't it, how close this election will be, but, what do you expect when each election cycle has more dumbed down voters thanks to the MSM and our rotten schools where economics, history and critical thinking skills aren't taught. The media is too stupid to define or give an intelligent analysis of issues. That a shallow little jerk like Obama has made it this far is frightening enough. The only consolation if Obama wins is that he and the Dems will perform so badly and cost us taxpayers a bundle that the Republicans will retake the Congress at mid-term elections to act as a buffer. Then, Obama can be thrown out next presidential election.

Bush is to be blamed here too. He vetoed nothing, added his own useless programs and had a poorly defined and communcated domestic agenda. And, his naivete with Putin was pathetic.

Another sick irony is that if Obama's skin color was white the media would have denounced him as an inexperienced idiot. The lefty saturated agenda driven MSM is the biggest enemy of America. They need to be challenged, mocked and boycotted without mercy.

Indeed, so once again.... # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-09-06 17:55.

@ Ernest

I feel compelled to give you the same advice that I gave to PVDH.  Please, make an effort to 'think' about what you read and try not to absord 'stuff' like a brainless spunge. Look behind the superficial slogans.

1) There is indeed some evidence that both Obama and McCain "openly" endorse globalism and multiculturalism.  But there is much more evidence that their visions of "globalism" and of "multiculturalism" are very different.

--  As a minimum, Obama clearly sees "globalism" more as something cultural/political and not economic.  With his (somewhat nutty) academic background, he is all for 'open borders' but NOT for 'free trade', and he certainly does not appreciate American 'exceptionalism' (long story).  On the contrary, many of his past associations suggest 'self-hatred'.   By contrast, McCain has been a consistent freetrader over a 'lifetime', and a strong believer in American values and 'exceptionalism'.

-- There is little doubt that both men see "multiculturalism" very differently, and I have never seen or heard McCain use that term.  With his past military background, McCain believes in the absolute necessity of a common civic culture, and can be genuinely called a 'nationalist'.  Obama is not a nationalist, he is outwardly a naive-leftist, but his voting record and his past associations (and his wife)  suggest that he is a genuine radical leftist.  One may agree or disagree with McCain's past efforts in the area of immigration reform, but it should be obvious that these were either based on genuine concern for humane treatment of individual people or on political considerations relating to Arizona. McCain claims to like latinos, but he clearly wants them to become 'Americans', not just in a legal sense. By contrast, Obama's views in this area reveal a total lack of concern for preserving America's distinctive values and culture. His policies guarantee further balkanisation and victim-status for another political client-group.  

2) As to "openly endorsing.....the undermining of the US".  Are you seriously saying that this could be applicable to McCain?  When McCain travels around the world, and he did so often, can you imagine him travelling to the Middle East - at a time when his country is fighting 2 open wars there -  and (like both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did) publicly attacking his country and its government? And, in so doing, give 'fuel' to his country's enemies, and directly undermine the potential success of his own country's foreign policy goals?  Or, can you imagine McCain speaking in front of tens of thousands of 'cultivated' America-haters in Berlin - like Obama did recently -  and blame his country for "torture"?   Let's get real!  You got to learn to make more subtle distinctions beyond the headlines and the ponderings of superficial pundits.   

Great post, marcfrans

Submitted by onecent on Sat, 2008-09-06 22:00.

Globalism in economic terms is a good thing, case in point is that with this serious housing and credit meltdown we aren't suffering like we would in the past because there is so much more shoring up the US economy because of international trade and markets.

On the issue of illegals and our southern border the American people have spoken loudly and clearly across party lines. The recent lame immigration bill got shelved. Politicians that didn't get it, got it. Ernest needs to get up to speed. He simply refuses to process that. Bush was as big a problem as the clueless in Congress. That element is passing. How stupid would a politician be to cross the public that has been so verbal, organized and in majority agreement about our mess at the border? Unlike our European counterparts our politicans live off of polls and fear voter backlash. There is much more transparency here than in Europe. We know in real time what our politicians are up to unlike the sneaky elites doing deals and writing laws in the shadows in Brussels.

Even if the Empty Suit makes it to the White House, he's never going to cross the public on this issue. He's not an unelected emperor. If he makes it he'll most likely be a one term abberation like the vain and clueless Jimmy Carter. Our Republic will repair itself and move past it.

McCain and Palin restated a key principle for them that both see their role as public servants. It was repeated in both of their speeches. I'll accept that.

pvdh # 6

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-09-06 16:04.

And in return I'd like to apologize to you for even mentioning your name in the same sentence as kappert a.k.a. Self-inflicted     ;-)

 

 

pvdh # 5

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-09-06 14:14.

Quote: "Clashing Worldviews" by Chuck Colson.

[emphasis added]

 

 "Pick any other issue...homosexual "marriage". She [Palin] is against it. But her FIRST act as Govenor of Alaska was to VETO legislation that would have denied state-funded health benefits for gay partners".

 

With a 'Christian fundamentalist' at the helm, it would appear that Alaska is one of the last places on earth homosexuals need the support of the Rama Yade's of this world.On the other hand...

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven09062008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/ahmadinejads_new_enemy_women_127724.htm

 

btw: Rama Yade is not an American but she is  a woman and she is married to a jew. They still have lesbians in Iran, don't they? 

 

So, let's have more 'local' action and less of the empty  Yade,Yade,Yade...

@atlanticist

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Sat, 2008-09-06 15:37.

OK what you and Marcfrans wrote about Palin doesn't sound so bad. Let's give her de benefith of the doubt. The more the ultras of BJ are complaining about McCain, the more i'm beginning to like him ;)

So once again

Submitted by Ernest on Sat, 2008-09-06 11:54.

So once again "conservatives" show exactly how we ended up where we are today. They always complain about how the left is too emotive and then do exactly the same thing. This is the same John McCain of two weeks ago, two months ago and two years ago. When John McCain, the same John McCain, who reaches across the aisle with the likes of Ted Kennedy or openly endorses LaRaza and the invaders turns out to be just as bad or even worse then GW all the now clamoring republicans will just throw their hands up in the air and claim they had no idea. We are so screwed as a country. Both of McCain and Obama openly endorse globalism, multicultualism and the undermining of the US. in favor of it.

 

 

Palin

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 22:26.

Thanks, Rob. I too have a more favorable view of Palin than of McCain or Obama at this time. I just hope she doesn't screw up on immigration and other issues relevant to preserving the American people. Let her stay silent on immigration for now as Onecent recommends. My favorable view of McCain is mainly relative to Obama. I may prefer McCain to big-spending Huckabee, but beyond that he was the least attractive of the Republican candidates. But that is all behind us now. Better a volatile, patriotic centrist than a one-world, America-hating leftist!

Re Oprah

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 18:11.

Apparently the less intelligent members of her staff have not figured out that the New Age Goddess is not a bipartisan institution. If the Goddess determines she can mitigate the enthusiasm for Gov. Palin by interviewing her, it may still happen.

Oprah is an idiot

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 18:51.

Oprah is an idiot with very transparent partisan political motives. Her audience is 6 white females to 1 black female. You simply can't treat that demographic reality the way she is and expect not to find yourself losing a huge amount of viewers and money.

With this news of her obstructing Palin coming on her show going mainstream in the media Oprah now needs Palin more than Palin needs her.

The way to defeat the lefty partisan monoploy in Hollywood and the media is to boycott their products and punish them financially. The NYT's is financially crashing. CBS has never recovered from their Dan Rather fiasco. Us Weekly which did a hit piece on Palin had massive subscriber cancellations this week.

Capitalism is wonderful for fairly reallocating resources by allowing citizens to punishing the stupid and to reward the good. It's why state subsidized lefty media monopolies like the BBC and CBC are so inherently unfair and wrong.

pvdh # 4

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-09-05 16:14.

@ pvdh

I will address your 3 responses.

1) Yes, how could it be otherwise but diffficult to know her true opinions about the 5 "convictions" you falsely attributed to her?  A month ago, neither you nor I knew anything of substance about the elected Governor of Alaska.  My point was not that it's "difficult" to know (as of yet), my point was that you are willing to attribute falsified convictions to the Governor as an 'argument' in a discussion with the purpose of trying to destroy her reputation.   You do not have to know anything about Palin to know that the 5 purported "convictions" are MANIFESTLY false. Do I have to go over each one of them?  I will, if you have been so much manipulated by media bias that you can't make that common sense judgement for yourself any more.  There is nothing "humanistic" about lying, or about participating in manifest distortion of the truth.  That was my point.

2)  If you really want to get to know the "real Palin", you will have to make sure that you yourself can keep an OPEN MIND. And the same thing applies to Obama, of course.  That means that you will have to get to know - and consider!! - real facts, and not distortions, about both persons over a considerable period. Facts about their past and about their present.  That is going to be very difficult in the current state of (morally-empty) education and media, but not impossible.  It means thinking about what you read and see, and not absorbing it like a sponge.

3) Sorry, I find it hard to believe that, in the context of a political discussion, you would interpret "the center" in a geographical sense.  But, then, I do have a suspicious mind. It comes from 'experience'.  

McCain is not one of us

Submitted by Maple syrup on Fri, 2008-09-05 14:46.

if Obama wins, many Republicans in Congress will infer that going liberal is the winning ticket, and will be reluctant to oppose him. ... handing the left a triumph as a means of restraining leftist policy is just too tricky a strategy to be reliable.

The problem is that McCain is not a conservative. He is, at best, a 1960s liberal whose advisors are largely former Trotskyites. If he wins, the Republicans will complete their transformation into a second liberal party. The U.S., like many other Western nations, will have a political duopoly where the only differences are style and image.

 

No Republican congressmen will cross the floor if Obama wins. They will wait for him to slip up, and they will try to blame him for policy positions that McCain himself has endorsed, such as granting amnesty to over 13 million illegal immigrants. (Have you all forgotten his last attempt? His name was actually on it: the McCain-Feingold amnesty bill).

 

As you point out, I am not alone in making this argument. It was also made recently by Lawrence Auster on his blog:

 

(1) A McCain presidency will destroy the Republican party as a vehicle of conservatism and thus gravely damage conservatism itself. (2) If McCain is president, Republicans and conservatives will largely support him in his leftward policies. (3) If Obama is president, Republicans and conservatives will oppose his leftist policies. (4) Thus the net effect of an Obama presidency on the country could in some ways be less leftist than the net effect of a McCain presidency. (5) An Obama presidency would awaken a renewed conservatism and opposition to leftism, while a McCain presidency would complete the transformation of conservatism into liberalism, even while the "conservatives" imagine that they are fighting liberalism.

@maple

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2008-09-05 15:39.

"The problem is that McCain is not a conservative"

Exactly. That's why I felt rather at ease if he would become president. But that's before he brought Sarah in.

McCain's prospects

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 15:59.

That Mr. Vanderheyden finds Sen. McCain acceptable shows why he has a good chance in November. He is a fairly centrist politician, with good prospects in a nation where party affiliation is in decline. Mr. Vanderheyden has little to fear from Gov. Palin because the vice-presidency is rarely of any significance except as a platform for future activity, such as V-P Gore's unsuccessful run for president and his highly successful career as the guru of global warming.

McCain-Kennedy

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 14:52.

I believe McCain-Kennedy was the amnesty bill. McCain-Feingold was campaign finance bill, which Pres. Bush signed in the misguided hope that the Supreme Court would invalidate it. Another overtricky strategy.

@ Self-inflicted ***

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-09-05 11:34.

"You are right-no difference! ... I know which one I prefer".

 

Logic isn't your strongest suit, is it? Tell me, if there's no difference, why do you suggest a personal preference for one over the other?

 

btw: Self- inflicted *** is the new username I 've given you.Think about it.

logic

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-09-05 13:46.

@atlanticist: would you kindly explain what LOGIC has to do either with Michael or with Sarah Palin, and why do you select a preference?

McCain

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2008-09-05 07:55.

Before the appointment of misses Palin (I really don’t like her, not as a person, but for her ideas.) I was rather confident about the US elections. I like Obama, but, as a world leader, I even liked McCain better. I think he would make the thoughtful, intelligent, but incisive president that the world would need today. The parts of his speech I've heard only confirms that Idea. No gratuitious attacs on Obama. So what ever the outcome would have been, the world would be better of. But then he brings Palin on board to spoil the fun. And I think you guys are right. She has a great capacity to win harts and minds. I really don’t like the idea of the conservative Christian right getting a grip on the power in the US. What happens in Washington has sooner or later his effect in Europe.

 

 

 

As a Brit  I can comment

Submitted by THE DOCTOR on Thu, 2008-09-04 21:28.

As a Brit  I can comment without prejudice on the prospective VeeP , she is great and I look forward to the time it is President Palin  .

Voting for someone you hope will die

Submitted by Maple syrup on Thu, 2008-09-04 21:26.

Things are pretty bad when the strongest argument for McCain is that he is old and likely will die in office.

 

Remember, if he gets elected, one of his first moves will be to push through a bipartisan amnesty of illegal immigrants. Officially, their numbers are pegged at 13 million. Unofficially, there will be many more -- and they will then bring in their families. Rightly or wrongly, regardless of how the deal is worded, a lot of people in the Third World will understand that the doors have been thrown wide open.

 

If Obama tries the same thing, the Republican congressmen will laugh in his face. They'll be more than happy to let the Democrats take all the blame.

 

This is the real choice that Americans face:

With McCain: a bipartisan amnesty that will probably get passed.

With Obama: a Democrat amnesty that will stay on the back burner.

@Maple Syrup

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 00:58.

Remember, if he gets elected, one of his first moves will be to push through a bipartisan amnesty of illegal immigrants.

Your drivel is pure speculation and not fact based. It is your opinion and not a fact. To tell us that McCain will do an amnesty program at first chance is a lie and demonstrates a very poor understanding of Americans, our democratic process and the realities of our elections process.

Two years ago prior to a congressional vote on that issue the public through organized mass emails, petitions and internet sites which went mainstream halted all backroom deals, any floor vote and sent politicians reeling. Perhaps you missed that. We aren't ignorable like our Canadian and European counterparts.

And perhaps you've missed that Hispanics can't be entirely ignored thanks to the immigration problem neglect by Bush and the Dems. Reality is never as simple or as black and white as your fact challenged comments.

McCain and Immigration Reform

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 14:28.

I always enjoy Mr. Onecent's spirited patriotism, but he comes down too hard on Mr. Syrup's warnings about Sen. McCain on immigration. Wasn't it Sen. McCain himself who co-sponsored the hated amnesty bill with arch-open borders advocate Sen. Ted Kennedy, who championed the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act? And didn't Sen. McCain try to by-pass the committee process and maneuver for a quick vote on the amnesty bill by the whole Senate? And according to Sen. Santorum, Sen. McCain was outright insulting to opponents of his amnesty plan. And hasn't Sen. McCain told Hispanic groups during the campaign that comprehensive reform--i.e., amnesty--would be his first priority in January 2009, just as Mr. Syrup said? And following Sen. McCain's declaration that he has received loud and clear the anti-amnesty message from the American people, when asked about continuing construction on the security wall to help control our constantly violated border, didn't he growl, "I'll build their g**d*** wall," strongly suggesting that he really opposes the will of the people to preserve their sovereignty first before engaging in any further amnesty programs?

The political realism of Mr. Onecent's final comment that neglect of the immigration problem has made it impossible to ignore Hispanic voters appears to be an admission that concessions have to be made to pro-amnesty Mexican-Americans, which further supports Mr. Syrup's warning about McCain on immigration.

The popular opposition to McCain-Kennedy was a great moment. Hopefully those forces can be mobilized again when the next amnesty bill is put forward. But the amnesty advocates (i.e., businesses seeking cheap labor, ethnic activists seeking supporters, unions seeking new members, and leftist politicians seeking new clients/voters for the welfare state) will never give up, and it is hard for ordinary working people to continuously thwart their machinations and defend the sovereignty and the people of the U.S.A.

@KO

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 16:31.

Here's my point again, the reality of this election is that the Hispanic vote can't be ignored. There is no point for McCain to take a strong anti-illegal stand and alienate Hispanic constituents, that's the reality on the ground. The goal is to get elected. And, by the way, many native Hispanics are in favor of tough enforcement. It's hurting them.

All politicians in the US are aware of the public consensus on this issue. The past amnesty sham get stopped dead in its tracks and shelved because of the public outcry. Congress was put on notice. I don't think that Congress has the guts to do another unpopular bill, they have to stand for re-election too.

And, yes, McCain was a disappointment on this issue, but, what one says before an election and what one does after one is safely elected can be two different things. We'll see. Getting the fence up and secured is what the public wants done first.

McCain was never my first choice as candidate. You can only work with the cards dealt you. The illegal issue has taken on a life of its own outside of partisan politics, both Dems and Republicans in the public are in agreement. It would be very difficult for a politician to ignore that. Congress is more vulnerable to voter backlash. McCain has never offered amnesty. Both candidates are being careful not to stir up this issue for the sake of Hispanic votes before this election. It's a dead space right now that will come roaring back in the near future.

McCain and amnesty

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 17:49.

To Mr. Onecent: Good analysis, thanks. Hispanics should favor tough enforcement and hopefully there will be a time when all minorities will agree that controlling immigration is in everyone's best interest. You still seem to want to shield Sen. McCain from responsibility for McCain-Kennedy, but that doesn't matter. Conservatives hope he learned his lesson and generally believe he would be far better than the socialist Obama.

@KO

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 18:54.

To Mr. Onecent:

I'm a girl. Not that it matters.

I'm not trying to shield McCain from his past amnesty debacle. As I said, he wasn't my first choice. But, there is a place for idealism and there is reality. McCain is, as a conservative, what I'm stuck with. The other option, an Obama win, is too grim to even contemplate.

Congressional elections are on 2 year cycles. A percentage of their 4 year seats change faster. They got the message from furious Americans the last time they tried to pull a fast one. Congressional politicians are very vulnerable. We are better organized at the grassroots here than Europeans thanks to the internet as a dynamic force in our politics now.

Keep in mind that our government is not supply benefits and housing to Mexicans like Europeans are doing with Muslims. There isn't a state sponsored welcome mat. Who's going to dismantle that in the EU? One man, one vote is practically dead in the EU, the elite in Brussels make the rules. I'm not worried about Americans resolving this issue.

Mexicans on the dole

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-09-05 19:27.

Thanks for your reply, Onecent. I will return to your preferred moniker. Mexicans are greatly overrepresented in the consumption of government goods and services; however, I don't want to repeat ad nauseam that we are not as much better off than the Europeans as you think. Why dispirit the troops! I happen to live in a liberal city in a fairly liberal state, so I see some of the worst of what goes on.

I appreciate your hard-headedness and fervor. Keep their feet to the fire! More guns and babies, as Thomas Landen says on another string! Pass the word!

@maple syrup

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-09-05 01:21.

Things are pretty bad when the strongest argument for McCain is that he is old and likely will die in office

One more time, your drivel is pure garbage. That "argument" is made exactly by WHOM? Throwing your opinion out and trying to wrap it as a mainstream opinion is pure disingenuousness.

You've made enough stupid throwaway comments that it's really time you back them up with facts. Got any verifiable links to facts that support your opinions??

Good point

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-09-04 21:56.

Mr. Syrup makes a good point which has been advocated for months by Lawrence Auster on VFR (www.amnation.com/vfr), and not only regarding immigration issues: Auster fears Republicans in Congress will roll over for McCain, thus ending conservatism as a force in the federal government, whicle they will fight Obama tooth and nail and bring conservatism back to life after it has languished under President Bush's centrist, big-government non-conservatism. That is somewhat speculative, however, because if Obama wins, many Republicans in Congress will infer that going liberal is the winning ticket, and will be reluctant to oppose him. There may be even more defections and bipartisanship under a President Obama than under a President McCain. Definitely sub-optimal choices! But handing the left a triumph as a means of restraining leftist policy is just too tricky a strategy to be reliable.

And another thing

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-09-04 22:04.

We won't find out in this election cycle, but odds are Gov. Palin shares the immigration views of 90% of the American electorate, which are not Sen. McCain's. So if she does succeed him at some point in the future, we will be in pretty good shape.

Oh please ...

Submitted by Maple syrup on Thu, 2008-09-04 19:20.

Oh please, put a sock in it. Sarah Palin is running for vice-president, not for president. Her influence on McCain's policy-making will be zilch, nada, absolumment rien.

A McCain presidency will be just that.

 

Good news

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-09-04 19:33.

Win or lose this time, she has a great career ahead of her. Mr. Vanderheyden's fears are typical of the leftist. Funny thing is, so-called far-right Christians just believe what 99% of Americans believed 100 years ago, which is basically what 99% of Europeans believed 150 years ago. Are we all so much better off as a result of the intervening "progress"?

Mr. Syrup's negative view of McCain is widely shared by American conservatives (he is one of the worst on immigration issues), but we compare him to the black preppie leftist on the other ticket and conclude that voting for McCain is necessary damage control. Gov. Palin is a big bonus. She will make such damage control more likely to succeed.

In any case, her speech was full of political principles and statements on issues that were readily recognizable to an American audience.

pvdh # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-09-04 18:48.

@ pvdh

One would hope that a secular humanist would form his opinions based on factual information, not on falsehoods. In your original posting you attributed 5 "convictions" to Ms Palin, which were all false.  These were all caricatures of her true convictions.  We all know how politics are played, and by some (especially in certain media) at any cost, even at the cost of the 'truth'.  But, you as a humanist must try to remain 'truthful' and not abandon the truth.

Your youtube link reveals a lack of seriousness, and undermines your credibility as a commentator.

In the US, elections are virtually always won in the political "center", and in many other democratic countries as well.

Your last little sentence to Truth Serum was really beneath you, and reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge of contemporary America. Misinformation and dishonesty has real costs in real life, for all of us.

@ Atlanticist

Glad to see that you are well-versed in Alaskan rituals.  Thanks for the humor, it was pretty good... 

@Marcfrans

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2008-09-05 07:32.

One would hope that a secular humanist would form his opinions based on factual information, not on falsehoods. In your original posting you attributed 5 "convictions" to Ms Palin, which were all false. These were all caricatures of her true convictions. We all know how politics are played, and by some (especially in certain media) at any cost, even at the cost of the 'truth'. But, you as a humanist must try to remain 'truthful' and not abandon the truth.

You’ve got to admit that she doesn’t make it easy to get “factual information” about her opinions. Like I said, her speech didn’t contain any. But please feel free to enlighten me.

Your youtube link reveals a lack of seriousness, and undermines your credibility as a commentator.
Yes and now. Actually I like her a little bit better on the youtube. She seems a bit more human. You could ask the question if all that “speechwriting and training” does democracy any good. We need to start digging deep to find the real Palin. But the same goes for Obama of course.

In the US, elections are virtually always won in the political "center", and in many other democratic countries as well.
Your last little sentence to Truth Serum was really beneath you, and reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge of contemporary America. Misinformation and dishonesty has real costs in real life, for all of us.

I thought he mend the geographical center of the US. My mistake. Wich doesn't totaly excuses my last sentence. It's indeed out of line. For some reason I was realy pissed of yesterday. sorry, didn't want to hurt anybodies feelings

Beta males beware!

Submitted by RoyE on Thu, 2008-09-04 18:47.

Wow. This lady can body slam Obama without breaking stride.  She's more man than Obama can ever hope to be.  She just may have driven a stake through the heart of Hillary Clinton's aspirations to be the first female US President.

It's refreshing to see real America punch through the distorted  freak show that the media presents to the world. Bravo  Sarah Palin!   Her arrival to the scene is long overdue!   

Bravo!

 

 

Palin is a challenge to the feminist whiners

Submitted by onecent on Thu, 2008-09-04 17:41.

Sarah Palin has challenged the Left's feminist paradigm. Instead of a whinning victim hag she's a self-made young women that with devotion to her family and community got the job done. She didn't play the feminist entitlement game to advance her career.

 

She's smart and obviously a fast learner. Sure, she isn't up to speed on foreign affairs, but, neither is Obama.  At least she has the humility to recognize that whereas the arrogant Emty Suit doesn't admit how little he knows which is what makes him so dangerous.

 

Oh, and, Peter, reminding us to define you as a "secular humanist" is pathetic, dogmatic, boring, and typical of the intellectually bankrupted Left. Perhaps someday with more maturity you can accept yourself, other people and ideas without the need to label nor have a fixed mental address like "secular humanist". 

@ PVH #2

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-09-04 17:02.

Yeah, I can see why you would feel so threatened.Hey, I've even heard rumours that she once proposed a state law which would have required every Alaskan-born secular humanist of European lineage to perform the 'Stations of the Cross' while traversing the state on an enforced annual religious Iditarod.

Straight talk

Submitted by truth serum on Thu, 2008-09-04 16:57.

peter vanderheyden:

 

I would also like to add that what you refer to as vitriol, I would call straight talk...something Europe is not used to in their Orwellian dream world.

 

Europeans always forget about the center of this country...they think for some reason that all Americans think like Hollywood, CNN and New York.  Then when somebody like Sarah Palin comes along they are mystified as to why the "American People" love her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

truth serum

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2008-09-04 17:50.

I know there is a center alright. But face it, they’re irrelevant when it comes to elections. Even if the republican candidate was a ugly blind deaf and dumb 120 year old guy with an IQ of 20, the center would still vote for him. As long as the guy isn’t black.

Clueless

Submitted by truth serum on Thu, 2008-09-04 18:41.

peter vanderheyden:

You really, really have no clue....so you fall back on what most people do in that position...you insult them.

Soooo, let me speak to you in a language you will understand....you are an ignorant, elitist snob.

Almost everything you have posted here has revealed your stupidity, from how our media works to how much more fearful you are of a fundamentalist Christian than an Islamist.

Come back and talk to me when you have educated yourself on how America really works and how Christians are being persecuted in almost all Muslim nations TODAY, then we might have an intelligent conversation.

NEXT....

@ PVH

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-09-04 16:11.

Are you having a kappert moment here?

 

 

First, you ask if this is the way you win an election in America with (a lot of vitriol and) "no issues". Then you go on to list 5 of those non- existent issues. If this lady's convictions aren't issues for you, why take the trouble to pass comment upon them? And if they wouldn't be issues for europeans, why would any of them, given the option,  bother to vote either 'for' or 'against' them?

 

America has got Sarah Palin and we've got Michael Palin. As a potential future leader of the free world, I know which one I prefer.   

@atlanticist

Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2008-09-05 11:03.

You are right - no difference!
America has got Sarah Palin and we've got Michael Palin. As a potential future leader of the free world, I know which one I prefer.