In the 1970’s and 1980’s white-majority Protestant churches in America, in response to the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, anti-war movements and youth unrest met to decide how their churches should better reflect or made more responsive to the modern world and those who lived in it. Some denominations decided to liberalize their viewpoints on the literal interpretation of the Bible, introduce modern hymns and songs and shun traditional ones, and have their ministers address modern situations and advocate the concept of the social gospel and government welfare at the same time downplaying the traditional moral principles that the church was set up originally to espouse. In contrast other churches, some call them ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘Pentecostal’ took a more rigid viewpoint deciding that God’s word was God’s word–it is what it is-and decided that this ‘rebellion’ in America was symptomatic of a breakdown in the moral fiber of the nation and thus the church had to stand firm in its literal interpretation of Biblical moral law and prescriptions of how one should live their lives and uphold the values under which America was founded. Well what happened was the more liberal-directed ‘white’ churches began to lose members in huge numbers while the more traditional ‘Pentecostal’ chruches began to grow exponentially. I believe the GOP is at the same crossroads now. Does the party decide to ‘liberalize’ its platform to ‘adapt’ to the changing social, economic and political situation on the ground or do they decide to affirm their traditional ‘conservative’ principles and stake the future of their party on them. I think you know my answer is the latter but whatever the GOP decides it needs a spokesperson who is a great communicator, charismatic and energetic. Sarah Palin fits that bill to a tee.

technopeasant on December 12, 2008 at 2:01 PM

What I heard from Powell on Meet the Press disturbed me. He claimed that Sarah’s assertion that Obama was ‘palling around with an unrepentant domestic terrorist’ was being divisive, implying it could start a race riot without admitting that Obama was indeed doing just that: Ayres wasn’t just a guy in the neighborhood-Obama worked with Ayres on the Annenberg Project. Obama even supplied a blurb to Ayres book. Funny, Powell never mentions that and the interviewer never asks the question. MSM conspiracy of silence!

technopeasant on December 12, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Sheerq on December 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM

In her debate Sarah talked about the role that ‘personal responsibility’ should play in people’s lives in empowering themselves, at the same time condemning the corporate greed and government regulators being asleep at the switch. If you listen to Sarah closely she rarely talks about ‘traditional family values’ but the transcendent values the government should support and defend that are found in the Constitution of the USA or founded in the economic principles of Adam Smith, Milton Friedman or Reaganomics of free markets, free enterprise, individual initiative, low taxes, balanced budgets, the bane of pork-barrel spending, and overall fiscal responsibility. When Sarah does talk about ’social issues’ Sarah talks about them in terms of how she conducts her life, the role God plays in her life, and why she believes what she believes. The reason I am a strong Sarah supporter is that she does not attempt to ‘ram religion or traditional values down people’s throats’. Who makes it appear that way is the MSM whose MO is to misrepresent or distort anybody who professes that they have a faith that provides them a moral compass and establishes their intellectual foundation. Sarah is a person of private faith, but the MSM would have you believe that Sarah wants to establish a theocracy based on her private faith. That is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

technopeasant on December 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Sheerq on December 12, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Politics is the art of the possible, I agree with you that SP or any conservative will not get city votes in large numbers, but where the battlefield really is is in the suburbs; that is where the election was lost-suburbanites voted with their pocketbook and to ‘right a historical wrong’ rather than their personal ideology in the election. Any student of Politics 101 will tell you that when the economy sucks the Reagan Democrats vote Democratic but when the economy is upbeat or the promise of it is upbeat (Reagan 1980) then they vote Republican. And with the MSM hammering away every day that this was a ‘historical election’ many ‘intellectual’ whites out of political correctness and the attempt to redress perceived historical wrongs voted with their heart rather than their head. The financial meltdown and ‘white guilt’ really decided this election. Hopefully in 2012 neither is a decisive issue.

technopeasant on December 12, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Would your thinking towards Obama and his agenda change much if the 22nd Amendment was thrown out and at 47 Obama could conceivably be President of the USA for the next 30 years? This question is especially addressed to those folks who think it is too early to talk about the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. And to those who ignore the ‘natural born’ controversy, if the Supreme Court ignores this issue in respect to upholding the Constitution, why should the Supreme Court in 8 years uphold the provisions of the 22nd Amendment? Obama could go ahead and run for a third term and his handpicked justices could simply refuse to take any lawsuits questioning his eligibility to do so, as precedent would have been set in the ‘natural born’ matter.

technopeasant on December 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Here’s what the 22nd Amendment says: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…” What if in 8 years Barack Obama changes his name to Barry Soetero or some other name and then claims he is a different person based on his name being different? And then he runs for a third term and the Supreme Court refuses to hear arguments or lawsuits on this matter just as they did in the ‘natural-born controversy? Sound fanciful or ridiculous you say: in eight yesrs anything could be possible!

technopeasant on December 12, 2008 at 4:06 PM

I know many of you think that I have completely lost my mind, but it is what it is. Obama, a flawed candidate that associated with individuals once connected to terrorism or advocated terrorism, should not have been elected President, let alone dog catcher. That he was means that there are manipulative, sinister, omnipotent forces and big money that are hell-bent and will stop at nothing to implement their agenda, and that includes remaking the Constitution in their own image. Folks, I am not making this up. The provision for a Constitutional Convention is in Article V: only requires that 2/3 of the states (34) need agree to it and apply to Congress for its convening. Then it can go ahead and do anything it wants to do and as long as 3/4 (38) of the State Legislatures or 3/4 of the states at the convention go along with it (no need to get assent from 2/3 of Congress) folks your founding document as it now stands could be shredded and sent to Davy Jones’ locker. I am not a truther. Check it out for yourself.

technopeasant on December 12, 2008 at 4:57 PM

ramrocks: it’s in the hands of the states: Obama just needs 38 states to go along with him and America as we know it will be no more and he will become the President for life. And the people will have no say. That’s in the Constitution (Article V). Ramrocks: you don’t believe Obama would do that. Get real. He’s as dangerous as Hitler or Stalin were. Most people are just too charitable by nature to see it until it is too late. Remember Obama is amoral; he has no conscience. And that includes his deceitful merry men and women too. Finally Obama is so well-funded that he could start his own bank.

technopeasant on December 12, 2008 at 5:13 PM