1. Sarah Palin was the Mayor of a city.
2. Sarah Palin is a governor of a U.S. State.
3. Her approval rating as governor is 75%+.

Those two statements alone make her a fit Vice-Presidential Candidate.

You can whine about Obama’s Senatorial Experience in a Congress with low teen approval ratings all you want; but those three points “qualify” her as a VP. Both parties have run far worse.

In speaking before her church about her son going to war in Iraq, Palin urged the congregation to pray “that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.” When asked about these remarks in her interview with Gibson, Palin successfully dodged the issue of her religious beliefs by claiming that she had been merely echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times later dubbed her response “absurd.” It was worse than absurd; it was a lie calculated to conceal the true character of her religious infatuations.

And he goes on and on in this vein, but this exemplifies his dishonesty. Palin was specifically praying that she would pray according to God’s will, rather than assume that whatever she wanted was God’s will. If she had not defended herself by referencing Lincoln, I would have still picked up on Lincoln’s quote on a similar subject. It’s that obvious. Reportedly, someone asked Lincoln if God is on our side, and Lincoln answered that he didn’t know, but that the important question was really whether we are on God’s side.

The significance of this is that we should not confuse our viewpoint with God’s. This is exactly what Palin was praying for: that rather than just assume whatever we’re doing is right, and ask God to bless it, we should pray that what we are doing is what God would want us to do.

Far from lying, this is a statement of humility, that “I will not presume that I speak for God, or that God wants whatever I want.”

Put all this in context of Harris’s article, and it becomes clear that he uses this quote to prove the opposite of what it means: that Palin is somehow confused into thinking God has chosen her to bring about the apocalypse.

And what is with these silly reporters thinking that those who believe in an apocalypse one day are somehow going to go out and try to force it to happen. That’s like saying that those who believe they’re going to Heaven when they die will run out and commit suicide. (Even Muslims only martyr themselves in conjunction with a belief in jihad: a belief that Christians don’t have.)

I think the bottom line for Harris is that Palin is a believing Christian, and therefore a dangerous extremist.

Silly reporter.

Saltysam on September 20, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Not me.

Oooh, oooh, oooh — I know that one Mr. Kotter!
He was a failed Rhodes scholar and a disbarred lawyer.

Y-not on September 20, 2008 at 10:47 PM

FTFY

U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla said he was concerned over “the very great control Mr. Alamo has over a number of people.”

This is not a defense of what Alamo has been accused of, but does anybody else find it creepily ironic that a U.S.District Judge is concerned about very great control…over a number of people?

I’d like to get your opinion on this.

Does she look like she’s using a telepromter?

Scoot up to 8:15 if you get bored.

She didn’t like the Annie Oakley bit, either.

My first taste of this was a couple years ago when Harriet Myers was nominated for the SC. Like most, I knew little about her; like most, I am not a legal scholar. As such, I had little opinion of her other than what I read from ‘reliable sources’ which included those from my own party.

But I was struck by those from my ‘own side’ whose argument was seemingly based not upon her intelligence or grasp of law, but upon her pedigree. Needless to say, this left a bad taste in my mouth. I realized then that elitism is not reserved for only the ‘other’ party. It is a taste I shall never forget.

I argued with several like-minded friends during this nomination. My rationale was that I did not care the method of arriving at correct interpretation of law – whether by Ivy-league or self-teaching – so long as one drew the proper conclusion at the end of the day. And I was further dismayed that many on my side sought the infamous litmus test, justifying the means by the predetermined end. This smacked of a hypocricy I could not tolerate, even if I believed their conclusion to be correct.

So now we have Palin before us. Inexperienced, yes. But how is that so bad? I mean, we here writing on blogs and commenting on them have far less than she. Afterall, she has risen through the ranks, proved herself competent by the vote of a majority of her constituency. So why is it a demerit against her that her past does not contain an Ivy-league stamp? And why does it matter that she has not cocktailed with those who have spent their careers justifying themselves as my better?

Give me good, old fashioned horse sense. Give me one who stands for what she believes. Give me one who has been given the chance to choose, and has chosen my values when it was the one more difficult. I for one do not care anything of pedigree. I care about my values and the adamant furtherance of them. Unapologetic, proud and determined. And I care that, along with Buckley, I’d rather follow the first few names in the Boston phone book than I would the first few names on the Harvard faculty roster.

Senility; can be a not so subtle and very depilating problem for the potential leader of the free world.
J_Gocht on September 21, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Is this the weekly talking point from the CPSUA? On McCain’s worst day (which is usually when he’s trying to bash Republicans) he runs rings around Team Barry and Biden. Anyway, I don’t think you are in the least bit interested in a “free world”.

Bottom line: anti-intellectualism is not the answer to our problems.
Send_Me on September 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM

I am not an “anti-intellectualist” (whatever that is). I am an anti-leftist, and the infiltration of academia with Leftists is not only not an “answer to our problems”, it is to blame for a great many of them.

C’Mon!

What, J_Gocht, qualifies Obama to be President?

C’Mon!

Donavan McNabb opens a large can of “whoop arse” on Rush Limbaugh’s Pittsburg Steelers today…!

Whooaah, momma stay up…!
Where’s my little “blue pills”…
Maid, where’s the damn maid…?

LOL

A great team, IMO, but the Green Bay fans I know would not be fazed by such rudimentary questions.

In fact, I’m quite bewildered at the lack of courage in the face of such an innocuous engagement.

Aren’t you?

Salty_ catch you in the AM.
Packer’s game starting..!

J_Gocht on September 21, 2008 at 7:56 PM

Checkmate.

Saltysam on September 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Actually I believe that the Packers are a football team and they do touchdowns and field goals and not checkmates. But I could be wrong as I have been dead for some time.

Checkmate.

Saltysam on September 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM

Salty_ catch you in the AM.
Packer’s game starting..!

J_Gocht on September 21, 2008 at 7:15 PM

It’s not a trick question. After his name, date, and social security number, it’s only the first question on the job application.

What, exactly, are Obama’s qualifications to be President?

Yes, I actually think Sarah has many fine qualities;

Salty: Such as?

however, I don’t believe she’s qualified to be President.

J_Gocht on September 21, 2008 at 1:08 PM

Many fine qualities…How would describe those “many, fine, qualities”?

Sigmund on September 21, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Actually “felensy luvs” Sarah….!

flenser, secretly hates McSame because he doesn’t know anything about the intertubes…!

YourYou’re dancing, etc…

J_Gocht on September 21, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Your dancing, as if I’m shooting rounds at your feet. Relax. It’s just a simple question.

What, exactly, are Obama’s qualifications to be President?

Yes, I actually think Sarah has many fine qualities;

Salty: Such as?

however, I don’t believe she’s qualified to be President.

J_Gocht on September 21, 2008 at 1:08 PM

You said it, not me. Just looking for some clarification.

“Darn those hateful Jews anyway, always complaining about Hitler.
flenser on September 21, 2008 at 4:07 PM

flenser, what the hell has that comment got to do with anything we’ve been discussing?

Are you going “nutso native” on us?

I’m half Jewish jerk; [if you can be half Jewish?] what’s your bitch…?

You’re carrying your post at least one comment too far!

“verstehen”

J_Gocht on September 21, 2008 at 4:27 PM

Give up your attempts to help him Mr. Gocht, this flenser has gone quite mad. Even a trained professional like myself can not help him. Maybe the church can help him.

Saltysam on September 21, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Salty_, here’s a definition I’m not certain you and your compatriots might understand…?

Buy the farm… olde military lingo there….!

“ To die, espescially in combat; [or from really olde dottering age while running for office as a politician] most likely from the idea that a dead soldier’s [or politician’s] death benifit would serve to pay off his family’s morgtage [or put his young hot running mate in office].

McSame’s gott’em all paid off…!

Often shortened to “he bought it;” or… “he bought the farm”.

Chuckie Lindberg later recalled the hazards of lugging a tank that carried seventy-two pounds of… napalm… under twelve hundred pounds of pressure… “It was dangerous work. A lot of guys bought the farm trying that.”

No Shit…!

How’s about luggin’ a young hot momma around, who’s damn well sure after your job…geezer?

Hot stuff…!

Even without knowing your previous name, I’m confident that you were always an empty headed troll.

flenser on September 21, 2008 at 2:34 PM

You sound like a helpless and petulant child. If most Gringos are like that as well as with Juan remaining under our control we will take over the rest of America del Norte even faster I thought.