Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 2:25pm

The Hands of Sarah Palin

My colleague Eric, a man of the Left, and someone who has my strong respect due to his pro-life commitment, has posted that Sarah Palin had a few key words written on a hand as a mnemonic device during the teaparty convention.  Much of the Left is of course in a feeding frenzy about this, betraying  the unending obsession they have with Palin.  This of course is more fun for them than concentrating on the abysmal failure of the Obama administration and that their agenda is only slightly more popular currently with most of the American public than the bubonic plague.  Palin, with the good humor that has been her characteristic response to the nuttiness from the Left, wrote on her left hand “Hi Mom” for her appearances the next day to give the Lefties something more to read.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
65 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Art Deco
Art Deco
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 6:00am

I’m eatin’ up with a spoon.

1. Disbursements under the TARP program are complete.

2. Our observable experience with fiscal priming over the last year suggests that the economists who offered the cautionary that public spending crowds out private spending and the estimate that it only begins to stimulate when unemployment rates exceed 12% were correct.

3. Maybe Eric Brown will explain thus the utility of a 50% nominal increase in federal expenditure over a three year period of time in which one might expect the growth of nominal domestic product to be about 10%.

Jay Anderson
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 7:07am

Yes, thank God we have the “competent” and “post-partisan” guy with the “first-class temper” in the White House as opposed to having this crass philistine with ink-stained hands a whole heartbeat away from the Presidency.

😉

Jonathan
Jonathan
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 7:50am

“Wait, she writes notes on her hand instead of having a teleprompter for every single talk? Oh NO! Wait, what if she uses note cards AND writes on her hand? Frenzy!”

I took public speaking a number of years ago as a college course. We were told, if you’re not good at memorization, or not good with impromptu, then have note cards with major points on them. Seriously, is this different?

Tim Shipe
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 8:13am

I am utterly in disbelief that anyone of sound mind- on the Left or Right- is taking Sarah Palin seriously as a political leader. My impression of her went from hopeful when I first heard about her- to “Oh, no” after I heard her first speech. There are those individuals who could make a pretty good case for “conservative” leadership- Pat Buchanan always struck me as fairly solid even as I completely reject the very notion that faithful Catholic social doctrine understands blends neatly into liberal or conservative ideologies.

Sarah Palin comes across to me politically as a rank opportunist, transparently so. I can’t speak to her personal life, only to what I see and hear of her in public speeches and interviews. It is true that many Leftists would necessary dislike her first and foremost because she talks the talk of pro-life, pro-traditional family. But I am not complaining over that- in fact my first strong reaction against her was that in her first big speech at the Republican convention she failed to make the pro-life issue- The Issue- or even a issue.

The bottom-line here is that if someone on the Right believes that the only people who are completely turned off by Palin are pro-abort Lefties, think again- my wife and I are walking evidence that there are at least some pro-life, pro-family types, who just don’t get the Palin attraction- at all.

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 8:41am
Jonathan
Jonathan
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 8:49am

Sorry, Phillip. I have not been able to stomach Vox Nova for a year now. I am sure the article was…..good…..

Art Deco
Art Deco
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 8:56am

Sarah Palin comes across to me politically as a rank opportunist, transparently so.

Educate me, Tim. How is she opportunistic in manner or degree in ways other politicians are not.

I am utterly in disbelief that anyone of sound mind- on the Left or Right- is taking Sarah Palin seriously as a political leader.

The current President is Barack Obama. In the line of succession are Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd, Hilary Clinton, and Timothy Geithner. Thems our leaders.

Jonathan
Jonathan
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 9:02am

Art,

Opportunism, inexperience, inability to speak without a teleprompter, and populism are only important when it’s a Republican. Otherwise, why would Ben “Buyout” Nelson, Nancy “Family Fly” Pelosi, and President Barack “Narcissomegaloegomaniacalkleptoutopian” Obama get free passes on many of these same things?

🙂

-J.

P.Diddy
P.Diddy
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 9:46am

I look forward to the day when the outright hysteria that left-wing Catholic bloggers exhibit over Palin is reserved for the scandal that we face everyday having a pro-abort, anti-American, anti-Catholic, radically secular President.

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 11:07am

Eric said that he would rather vote for copy toner than vote for Sarah Palin.

I think I’d rather drink the copy toner.

I’m sick to death of this being reduced to a childish “left-right” issue. Please, fellow Catholics, stop abandoning reason to rigid ideological affiliations, as if “right” and “left” were your teams at the Super Bowl, and Palin was your team’s mascot.

I am certainly no leftist, and I think Palin is less fit than Mayor McCheese for public office. I don’t abandon my ability to think, reason, and form independent evaluations because I adopt one set of values and reject another. Yet that’s what it sounds like some of you want.

“Accept Palin’s validity as a political figure or you’re a stupid leftist!”

I reject Palin for the same reasons I would reject a return of George W. Bush, or for that matter, another round of Obama. It isn’t even about her ignorance anymore. It’s about her willing devotion to continuing policies that would further expand the police-state and the military-industrial complex in the name of defeating terrorism – a lie, spending us into bankruptcy, increasing federal power at the expense of local power, and pursuing an insane foreign policy of adventurism and brinkmanship.

She would be like an Obama for conservatives – promise a million things that sounded great, then deliver none of them as she implements the real agenda of the people who usher her into power, like Bush Jr., like Obama. Every candidate promises a “new era” in politics, and because suckers are born every minute, there are always enough people around to believe them.

I think its sad that Palin has hijacked the tea-party movement, which was at one time as opposed to big-government Republican neo-conservatism as it was to big government Democrat neo-liberalism. Now it has been reduced to an appendage of the “warfare” side of the “warfare-welfare” state.

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 11:13am

It also frightens me to death that some of you are unable or unwilling to look into Palin’s past and look at the means and ways in which she rose to small-time power – cronyism, nepotism, favoritism, smear campaigns, intimidation – it’s as if she were nurtured on Machiavelli instead of milk as a baby.

This woman is even more ambitious than Obama, more intoxicated by power. And yet some of you will wail and cheer because she is on “your side”, she’s on “your team”, just like Obama was for so many now regretful, mournful liberals and leftists.

It’s not worth it.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 11:20am

cronyism, nepotism, favoritism, smear campaigns, intimidation – it’s as if she were nurtured on Machiavelli instead of milk as a baby.

You are welcome to discuss it, with references, rather than merely assert it.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 11:28am

I agree with AD. I get suspicious when a critic strings together a series of vague and somewhat synonymous nouns to describe someone. Looks like smear to me.

P.Diddy
P.Diddy
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 11:35am

Joe- Your projections on how a hypothetical Palin Presidency would be a failure are self-defeating. In the first respect because there is no moral equivalency between an avowed supporter of infanticide and a mother of a Downs child. On the second account because this only serves to reinforce the idea that this is most definitely a left-right issue. No one could possibly equate a Palin to an Obama without ignoring the secular radicalism that Obama represents…in other words, without having an ideological blindspot. You don’t have to be a Palin fan to see that.

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 11:52am

Yes, circle the wagons.

I’m not going to write a Palin expose here, at least not now. What I refer to is common knowledge about her history – either look it up, as you did with Obama in order to scrutinize him, or conclude that it doesn’t matter.

As long as we can agree that one doesn’t have to be some radical leftist to want nothing to do with Palin, that’s fine.

Blackadder
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 11:53am

Eric said that he would rather vote for copy toner than vote for Sarah Palin.

I think I’d rather drink the copy toner.

I want to go on record as saying that I’d rather vote for Sarah Palin than drink copy toner.

Henry Karlson
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 12:37pm

“I want to go on record as saying that I’d rather vote for Sarah Palin than drink copy toner.”

I want to go on the record as saying I would rather Joe drank copy toner than I vote for Palin.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 12:38pm

Yes, circle the wagons.

I haven’t any granular knowledge of Alaska politics, Joe. I tend to think if her political enemies had any serious dirt on her they would not have been reduced to filing ethics charges which made an issue of the logos on her clothing and her husband’s clothing, or to filing ethics charges pseudonymously (with the name of a character on East Enders).

Zak
Zak
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 12:48pm

Isn’t there a choice besides Palin, copy toner, and Obama? I understand some people argue that because Palin is pro-life, they’d have to pick her over Obama. I don’t understand why they want her to be the Republican nominee. Besides the fact that she has huge negatives (almost half the country has negative perceptions of her, and that can’t be because they don’t know anything about her), I don’t see how she can be argued to be among the more competent or intelligent Republican candidates.

Henry Karlson
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 12:58pm

Zak

Yes.

Garfield the cat.

Eric Brown
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 1:10pm

Tim and Joe, you both have literally spoke my mind.

Don — While I am a Democrat, I can hardly be judged to be ignoring the “abysmal failure” of the Obama Adminstration, on the contrary. I didn’t even vote for this failure-of-a-president.

DarwinCatholic
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 1:26pm

Just FYI: toner is a powder, not a liquid. Perhaps the brave volunteers could try snorting it rather than drinking it?

Call me crazy, but my theory is that either:

a) Palin will prove to be more substantial than generally considered or

b) She won’t be winning the GOP primary even if she runs.

I’m pretty happy leaving things to that process.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 1:29pm

Tim Shipe writes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 A.D. at 8:13 am
“My wife and I are walking evidence that there are at least some pro-life, pro-family types, who just don’t get the Palin attraction- at all”.

You seem to need to spend a little time in that large area between the coasts.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 1:33pm

Joe Hargrave writes Tuesday, February 9, 2010 A.D. at 11:13 am
“It also frightens me to death that some of you are unable or unwilling to look into Palin’s past and look at the means and ways in which she rose to small-time power – cronyism, nepotism, favoritism, smear campaigns, intimidation – it’s as if she were nurtured on Machiavelli instead of milk as a baby”.

Sounds like FDR, JFK, LBJ, et hoc genus omne.

Paul Zummo
Admin
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 1:34pm

Joe fires off a string of generic assaults on the intelligence and character of Sarah Palin, then he whines about those unimpressed by his less than stellar takedown of “circling the wagons.” Yawn. Wake me up when any of these guys has something substantive to say.

Christine
Christine
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 2:26pm

Jonathan,

Can you sing this word to the Mary Poppins song?

“Narcissomegaloegomaniacalkleptoutopian”

It’s almost as cheeky as Sara’s “Hi Mom” on her hand.

I didn’t know if she could take the heat from those that wanted to destroy her. She has gained some points in my book for this 😉

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 2:37pm

Paul,

I didn’t even really say anything about her intelligence. But there you go, assuming that I did. I’ve even said a number of times that I actually don’t think she’s stupid at all. Ignorant, yes. Unfit to lead, yes. But not because she is stupid. At least, that’s not MY reason, even if it is for some others.

This is just a sad thing to watch. It’s sad because all of you – Paul, Don, Art, Gabriel, and others – are men whose intelligence and knowledge I respect. I think you’re all being hoodwinked by Palin.

You may not see it now, and I hope she is never in a position to prove me right.

One last thing, for Don:

Engaged we may be in a struggle with Islamic jihadists, but that will NEVER serve as an excuse for aggression against other countries or for the loss of civil liberties at home.

I am sure we will disagree on the extent to which those phenomenon have taken place, but lets say in theory that you recognized the wars abroad and expansion of police powers at home for what they were – my sincere hope is that you would not agree with those who would trade constitutional rights for a phony sham of “security.”

Paul Zummo
Admin
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 5:09pm

It’s sad because all of you – Paul, Don, Art, Gabriel, and others – are men whose intelligence and knowledge I respect.

Joe, then I must ask with all due sincerity – shouldn’t you re-consider your assumptions about Palin?

Paul Zummo
Admin
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 5:13pm

To clarify – if all these people whose opinion you respect (and the feeling is mutual with the exception of this one issue) differs from your own, is it just to conclude that they’re all being duped rather than perhaps that your own opinion is misguided? Just something to consider – we could be the ones out to lunch.

Donna V.
Donna V.
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 5:22pm

Conservative politicians seem to have the amazing ability to be both Machiavellian and dumber than sticks of gum – at the same time. It astounds me, since in real life, I have certainly met people who are not bright and (unfortunately)I also have run into a few Machiavellian schemers who still give me the chills when I think of them. But they weren’t the same people. In fact, to be Machiavellian you really have to be pretty sharp.

Yet, somehow Reagan managed the feat of being both stupid and calculatingly evil. To say nothing of Dubya, who was at once the Prince of Evil and a complete dunderhead in the eyes of his opponents. And now Palin has been revealed as not only a bimbo, but an evil one as well. To Andrew Sullivan, she’s our own homegrown Evita Peron.

There is no contradiction in the leftist mind, because if you disagree with their political philosophy, you must be either stupid or evil. If you are smart and good, you are a leftist, say the leftists. Palin survived being labeled stupid, so let’s haul out “evil” and see if that sticks. The problem is that many Americans of genuine goodwill have accepted the left’s characterization of her.

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 5:36pm

Don,

“I fail to see any acts of agression against any other countries Joe, or any diminution of our civil liberties.”

I figured you would. We will, I suppose, disagree over what constitutes an act of aggression. As for civil liberties, we just had a new “cyber security” bill passed in the House that allows the president (Obama) to shut down the internet to combat “cyber terrorism.” I doubt it will fail in the senate.

Why should we assume that this power will always be used for good? Of course this is only the latest example.

We’ve had examples of violations of Posse Comitatus in Pittsburgh recently as well.

http://fromtheold.com/news/pittsburgh-mayor-calls-national-gaurd-do-police-work-2010020916569.html

I mean, these are only two examples that come to mind of a creeping police state – I could dig up thousands of links if I had the time or inclination. I just read the news every day. And every day it seems, in the name of keeping us “safe”, government is asserting authority or control over some new area of life, declaring new institutions, organizations – what is this new “Council of Governors” established by Obama? And why should anyone, let alone children, submit to naked body scans at the airport? Why should they be forced to take vaccines they don’t want to take? Or pay “carbon taxes” on the basis of the biggest scientific fraud in history? It’s not just about the war, though that is part of it.

I think a lot of conservatives can see that Obama is doing his best to expand the police state – what they won’t acknowledge is that he is simply continuing what Bush started. And when Obama leaves, and Palin or some other neo-conservative continues HIS policies, then they will go back to justifying them.

Paul,

“is it just to conclude that they’re all being duped”

Is it “just”? I don’t know. But it’s what I think, based on what I’ve discerned for myself about Palin.

Donna,

It might be too much to ask for, but I sure hope I’m not included in this “leftist mind.” I don’t think Palin is dumb.

Let me say it again, for effect.

I DON’T THINK PALIN IS DUMB.

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 5:38pm

I take it back – not what “Bush started”, but what really kicked into high gear under Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

GodsGadfly
GodsGadfly
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 8:07pm

Joe,
As you know, I’ve come to agree with some of your criticisms of Palin, but I do wonder *which* movement she’s co-opting–the Tea Partyers or the neocons. After all, it was the neocons who initially rejected her.
At this point, I agree that you’re either absolutely right or not, if that makes sense. Palin’s whole mystique, besides living the pro-life message, is her “rogue” image, the claim that she’s an outsider, and I still believe she is. Of course, as you noted on Facebook, the fact that she may not be a member of the Dominant Class doesn’t prevent her from being her own evil.

But I *do* believe her views are essentially libertarian. She endorsed Ron Paul in the early 2008 primary; she was also a Buchanan supporter before that. She has raised eyebrows by endorsing Rand Paul in KY. I really think she’s essentially a libertarian pretending to be a neocon, not a neocon pretending to be a libertarian.

When I first heard of Obama in 2004, I knew he’d be president in 2008. I knew he was totally an instrument of the Machine. Palin didn’t give that impression at first, but, increasingly, she does.

Three governors fought the made-up bailout money: Jindal, Palin and Sanford. Jindal caved. Palin was forced to resign. Sanford had his adultery outed.

If Palin had any real scandals, they’d have forced her to cave in or they’d have come up with something the way they did against Sanford.

If her resignation was sincere, she did it for her children. If she runs for president in 2012, I will not vote for her, because her resignatoin speech was thus insincere. She needs to wait till her kids are a little older if and when she runs for office again.

As for palmgate, my understanding is the *less* notes you need for a speech, the better. When I delivered my master’s thesis, I never went beyond the table of contents. I still needed some kind of prompt to remember my material, but I didn’t have to look at the text itself, which really impressed my committee.

Whether the notes were lecture points or “core principles,” she probably just needed the prompt.

Joe Hargrave
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 8:40pm

Palin as a libertarian?

Her enthusiasm for war with Iran, or war in general, and her endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas instead of the actual libertarian candidate Debra Medina, throws some cold water on that idea.

Maybe the Palin of early 2008, who was chummy with Alaskan secessionists and apparently supportive of Ron Paul would have understood and agreed with the anti-war position of the Pauls and all of their supporters.

The Palin of 2010 is beating the neo-con war drum.

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/palin-war-with-iran-would-help-obama/

She wants Obama to declare war on Iran? This is probably another example of her extreme carelessness with words – especially since, as we all know, this country doesn’t declare war anymore, and hasn’t since WWII. But she obviously wants Obama to pursue an aggressive policy with respect to Iran.

Agree with that or disagree with it, but don’t pretend that Ron Paul libertarians would have anything to do with this madness.

Blackadder
Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010 8:55pm

She endorsed Ron Paul in the early 2008 primary; she was also a Buchanan supporter before that.

There were some media reports to this effect in the weeks after McCain announced Palin as his running-mate, but they turned out to be incorrect.

Cinnamon
Cinnamon
Wednesday, February 10, AD 2010 10:58am

The business/function of the US Government is more than a grand marionette ‘show’ run by ‘others’ with a ‘cheer-leader’ at the helm. It seems to me as neither ‘LEFT’ nor ‘RIGHT’ that Ms. Palin’s function was and has always been a ‘rah-rah’ girl, under her husband’s tutelage in AK and the ‘paucity’ of notes she had detailed on her hand; not much substance between the ears–not enough to ‘lead’ anyway, when the going gets tough…she gets gone.

Donna V.
Donna V.
Wednesday, February 10, AD 2010 11:29am

No, Joe, I don’t include you in with the “left.” But plenty of sensible nonleftists seem to accept the left’s valuation of Palin. Look, I don’t think Palin should be president either. I like her in her present gadfly role, because she is a. making points that need to be made and that the GOP has forgotten, and b. because she drives the left absolutely nuts. The delicious part of this is that if they had not attacked her and her family so viciously and personally and kept on with the attacks after the 2008 election, she would have probably disappeared from the national scene. Sure, Cinnamon, she’s a dolt, controlled by her husband. You just keep right on telling yourself that.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, February 10, AD 2010 1:37pm

Just like Reagan, Sarah has an incredible ability to piss-off intellectuals on the so-called right and the left. It is fun to watch them squirm.

This is testimony to her popularity, which is far greater than any of you give her credit for. Debate her all you want. She is the most powerful force in politics right now and she isn’t in office nor running for it.

The progressive establishment on both sides of the false political spectrum is frightened. Sarah will be a focal point in all the coming elections for quite some time, whether she runs or not.

Go cry your pretty, little intellectual brain to sleep. Americans are overwhelmingly more honest, down-to-earth and straightforward than any complex poll, editorializing journalist or political hack can ever understand.

Most of America gets Sarah. If you don’t it indicates an out-of-touch view. That is not a personal insult, it is an objective observation. Examine yourself as to why she sends you into fits and spasms. I don’t mean you have to agree with her, but why get so violently upset?

Tim Shipe
Wednesday, February 10, AD 2010 3:50pm

Look my friends- I was raised in Ohio so I’m not a coastal limo liberal, and I did not take my impression of Palin from the liberal msm, and I brought up that my first impression of her from reading about her was positive- both my wife and I were encouraged by reports that she was pro-life, had a downs-syndrome child she was proud of and all of that. My buzz kill was her opening speech at the convention- my wife and I were totally aghast- she didn’t get around to using the bully pulpit to preach pro-life values, she came across to us as someone very petty, very divisive, a champion of American warfare- hiding behind the dubious notion that this is what being a patriot is all about. I’m sorry to say that beyond this her whole approach to pro-life is one that is popular in conservative circles- but not in my house- the idea that one can go around and say that you have to respect the original intent of the Constitution framers and thus exclude the unborn from all the current Amendment- and so Palin et al can go into friendly pro-life audiences and claim to be 100% pro-life, and then go in front of a mixed crowd on national tv and say- well these are my personal beliefs, but really this is all about overturning R v.Wade and turning this debate back to every state. It is the conservative attempt to sound sophisticated and ‘progressive’. Meanwhile in the conduct of war pretty much anything goes- geneva conventions become quaint.

Palin wastes her time in the bully pulpit, she spins a ‘hate national government’ message which I don’t find supportive in the official Catholic social teachings where the whole business of governance is in providing assurances for the universal common good- meanwhile the ‘onservative’ notion that while government is inherently untrustworthy, multinational corporations are the ones doing good for everyone- even though their whole purpose in existing is to merely provide increasing profits for the investors in said corporation- if one were to look for an institution that has more probability in being a force for good- I would go with representative government, not to take over the roles of businesses, but to find the proper regulations and oversight that are always needed in our fallen universe. So- no I don’t buy into the Hate Government pitch to get angry taxpayers to buy into another agenda which is designed to allow non-democratic corporate power to wield decisive power over all levels of governance. I am suspicious of all forms of power, I don’t buy into the Left or Right thesis that only government or only corporations or only trade unions are to be feared- all have their weaknesses because of the human dimension- but we need to go back and look at the founding purposes of each such institution and try to locate references back to official Catholic social teaching documents. On that basis we may find some common ground- otherwise we Catholics will remain as lost as Fox news commentators vs. CNBC- those guys will never find any common point or shared vision.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, February 10, AD 2010 4:29pm

I am not a Republican because that party has been hijacked by the socialist progressives of the Rockefeller/Bush I/McCain ilk. Thank God I am not a Democrat because that party jumped the shark with the Great Society and their anti-life/anti religious agenda. So why do I like Sarah?

Because she speaks to plain Americans in easy to understand language. For you intellectual elites that language is simple American English. What the elite and their fellow travelers consider unintellectual is just common sense (natural law) principles in bold primary colors. For those of you confused and mired in pastels she will not make any sense – ever.

Is she going to be an office holder or a king maker? It doesn’t matter. The days of the false left-right dichotomy and the Hegelian dialectic are coming to an end – at least for a little while, like a couple of hundred years.

As for Church teaching being in favor of big national government, hmm? That is a tough one Shipe. How do you square massive centralization of power, wealth, command and control with the principle of subsidiarity? Also, why is it that most Democrats receive more contributions from large corporations than most Republicans if Republicans are the corporate party? Wall Street bankrolled Obama and seems to really, really like him still. Remember the corporatist Mussolini was a leftist and the ultimate blend of politics and corporations was in Germany under the leadership of the National Socialists. How exactly is the Left against corporations?

One of my favorite past times is to go to some lefty, elite coffee house (preferable one based in Seattle) and loudly yell, “Sarah Palin!” with a smile on my face and watch the progressives have seizures. Try it some time – it is a hoot. 🙂

Mary
Mary
Wednesday, February 10, AD 2010 5:10pm

Sarah Palin is a Libertarian with Neocon views on foreign policy in the Middle East. Her Neocon foreign policy views are largely shaped by her religious views regarding the Second Coming of Jesus and the Rapture.

American Knight
American Knight
Wednesday, February 10, AD 2010 6:06pm

Sarah is a libertarian as Ronald Reagan as in small l. Libertarian economic and property principles are completely congruent with authentic conservative Republicans. Most of the rest of the libertine Libertarian ideology is incompatible with traditional views of Christian people, yes, even our separated Protestant brethren heretics as they are.

As for Neocon – I am not sure that is Sarah or if that was McCain campaign influence. She hasn’t sounded like a Neocon except about support of the modern nation-state of Israel but then again blind support of Zionists isn’t limited to Neocons.

Mike
Mike
Wednesday, February 10, AD 2010 9:49pm

She is annoying. Why be a sheeple and follow this buffoon.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top