Beck to Palin: Hey, how about a third party?

posted at 6:34 pm on January 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

We all knew it was coming. Credit to her: She gave him the same answer, more or less, that she gave Rush a few months ago. There’s a little wiggle room at the very end about getting rid of pols who aren’t what Republicans should be, but I think she’s talking about primaries there, not third parties. Does that qualify as “haltingly semi-ambivalent”? Eh.

That’s the second half of the clip; the first is their joint invitation to SNL to let them co-host, which, given the guarantee of monster ratings, is surely being worked out even as I write this. (A brilliant idea, as a wise man once said.) I didn’t get to watch but was told on Twitter that the subject of atheism came up briefly, giving me momentary hope that they might both be about to dump on nonbelievers and thereby usher in the Hot Air traffic apocalypse. Alas. Exit quotation: “She’s the Gatekeeper, he’s the Keymaster, and there is no Dana only Zool.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I love the smell of Troll fear in the morning. It smells like Victory!

kingsjester on January 14, 2010 at 8:16 AM

I love the smell of Troll fear in the morning. It smells like Victory!

kingsjester on January 14, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Brainless I can understand, I even feel a little pity, but spineless pisses me off. Hairless is a spineless troll.

pugwriter on January 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM

pugwriter on January 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Yep. He ranks right up there with Blitzer, Decider, Dark-Star, and voxignoramus.

kingsjester on January 14, 2010 at 8:34 AM

singlemalt_18 on January 13, 2010 at 7:36 PM

I thought the question was obtuse too.

Had I been in Sarah’s place, it would have gone something like this:

Favorite Founding Father? My favorite one? Glen, WTF are you talking about?

petefrt on January 14, 2010 at 8:46 AM

I love the smell of Troll fear in the morning.

kingsjester on January 14, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Goes good with morning coffee.

petefrt on January 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM

Baxter Greene on January 13, 2010 at 9:46 PM

You have a memoir of all these idiocies of Obama and the Dems?

I feel your pain while collecting all these lies and inconsistencies of the Maoist in the WH.

TheAlamos on January 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Third party candidates never win – they just help either of the two main parties – Ross Perot was the most successful 3rd party candidate in my lifetime but all he did was help Bill Clinton win.

LODGE4 on January 14, 2010 at 9:08 AM

That’s the sensible answer. Fiorina isn’t doing well in fundraising, apparently, in CA. Oh well. I know DeVore has the backing of conservatives, but I can’t see him persuading the typical CA Independent.

They are fiscal conservatives, but they aren’t that conservative.

AnninCA on January 14, 2010 at 9:27 AM

I’m not sure that all this face time is doing Sarah any favors….I’ve always liked her and there have been more than a few moments during these interviews that just make me cringe. She has a bad habit of using “filler words” to flesh out her answers, and once you start noticing it, it’s really irritating.

anniekc on January 14, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Ross Perot was the most successful 3rd party candidate in my lifetime but all he did was help Bill Clinton win.

Ross Perot’s campaign refocused Bill Clinton on reducing the deficit and declaring that “the era of big government is over”. I supported Clinton. He was a “classical liberal” = not a socialist like Obama. Huge difference.

The tea party movement could do the same with the Republican party, force it back to a classical liberal, pro-capitalist, pro-Constitution position. The threat of third party runs is a good way to achieve that.

modifiedcontent on January 14, 2010 at 9:33 AM

I’m not sure that all this face time is doing Sarah any favors….I’ve always liked her and there have been more than a few moments during these interviews that just make me cringe. She has a bad habit of using “filler words” to flesh out her answers, and once you start noticing it, it’s really irritating.

anniekc on January 14, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Well, these initial debut “interviews” are probably not going to last in this format. It’s just debut stuff.

But more important, she has to get practice on just what you’re noticing. You have to get feedback, correct habits, etc.

Obama drove me nuts with his academese “filter words,” as you call it.

I noticed by the general election, he had corrected speaking habits. He still sometimes slips into it, but far, far less often.

Those are habits of speaking that avoid direct answers. A lot of politicians have it. Pelosi has the same, with “liberal-speak.” Lots of conservatives have it, too.

I agree with you, btw. It’s annoying.

AnninCA on January 14, 2010 at 9:49 AM

anniekc on January 14, 2010 at 9:32 AM

She has to practice to get better at it tho, and Fox at least provides a friendly format in which to do that. She doesn’t need to worry about Glenn Beck going, “Aha! Gotcha!!!!”

I think she suffers from the same handicap that I do: It’s like her brain is going faster than her mouth or vice versa. She feels like she has to fill ever silence with something and she doesn’t. It would be fine to take your time in answering and pause to reflect first. She writes beautifully so I have total confidence that she is at her core a thoughtful and articulate person. She just needs to buff out some of the rough spots.

NoLeftTurn on January 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

My favorite part of this interview was when Glenn was talking about how people don’t trust politicians anymore because all any of them want is the power. They are not “reluctant” to serve, ergo they are not good servants. And they talked about Washington some and then Palin said (paraphrasing), “I would be more than happy to go back to little Wasilla, Alaska and be with my kids and my grandson and just live my life. But if I see my country in trouble, and I am asked to help, I’m going to serve.”

YES!!!! This is the right answer! If I didn’t already support her, this response would have sealed the deal for me. This is exactly what I want from my leaders.

NoLeftTurn on January 14, 2010 at 10:36 AM

I thought the question was obtuse too.

Had I been in Sarah’s place, it would have gone something like this:

Favorite Founding Father? My favorite one? Glen, WTF are you talking about?

petefrt on January 14, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Sarah could have mentioned a Founding Mother, like John Adams’ wife Abigail, who is among the too-historically-silent supporters of the Revolution.

Palin needs to hone her political judo.

And read more history.

To be able to deflect b.s. with wit.

profitsbeard on January 14, 2010 at 10:37 AM

And they talked about Washington some and then Palin said (paraphrasing), “I would be more than happy to go back to little Wasilla, Alaska and be with my kids and my grandson and just live my life. But if I see my country in trouble, and I am asked to help, I’m going to serve.”

YES!!!! This is the right answer! If I didn’t already support her, this response would have sealed the deal for me. This is exactly what I want from my leaders.

Your gullibility is, by turns, astonishing and entirely predictable. The only constituency Doperah is out to serve is Sarah Palin Inc.

Grow Fins on January 14, 2010 at 11:30 AM

I think Glenn Beck can shove it with his self-serving, holier-than-thou questions.

rlwo2008 on January 14, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Grow Fins on January 14, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Yeah, you keep on believing that while you support the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the rest of the Donk thieves.

Idiot.

atheling on January 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Your gullibility is, by turns, astonishing and entirely predictable. The only constituency Doperah is out to serve is Sarah Palin Inc.

Grow Fins on January 14, 2010 at 11:30 AM

….but I bet you believed every bit of the Mob candidate’s prattle about hope and change and a new era of post-racial political brotherhood.

Time for you to go grow fins and back to the water again – leave them landlubbin’ women alone.

Venusian Visitor on January 14, 2010 at 12:08 PM

I’m not sure that all this face time is doing Sarah any favors….I’ve always liked her and there have been more than a few moments during these interviews that just make me cringe. She has a bad habit of using “filler words” to flesh out her answers, and once you start noticing it, it’s really irritating.

anniekc on January 14, 2010 at 9:32 AM

I have to agree with you on this. I watched the interview yesterday and just let it sit with me for a while instead of posting here at HotAir. After a day of mulling it over, I am uncomfortable with the whole interview for many reasons:

1. It had the feel of a blind date. The comfortable laid-back atmosphere, the puppy dog drooling of Beck, the soft voices, long stares at eachother, etc.
2. No serious policy person would make an offer with Beck to do an NBC skit together. This came off as a total joke.
3. Palin does not have an in-depth grasp of history (but to be fair there aren’t many politicians who do).
4. I was initially impressed about her knowledge of the Statue of Liberty — until she volunteered that she had her son Track do a google of it before the interview – oy.

I was not impressed when I learned she had a gig at Fox and now I know why. This gig will totally put her out of any kind of serious political office IMO. It is too cheezy for a serious political person. I hope I’m wrong, but my gut is a pretty good indicator.

KickandSwimMom on January 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM

was not impressed when I learned she had a gig at Fox and now I know why. This gig will totally put her out of any kind of serious political office IMO. It is too cheezy for a serious political person. I hope I’m wrong, but my gut is a pretty good indicator.

KickandSwimMom on January 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM

I had the same sick, sinking feeling that I was watching the end of a brilliant political career and the birthing of a telepundit. It’s wrong for her and, I think, a great loss for us.

Venusian Visitor on January 14, 2010 at 12:48 PM

President Sarah Palin sounds good to me……She does have a excellent grasp of history more than most people. She also has wisdom, and ideas that made this country great. This Palin interview is the most refreshing one I have seen in months.

The fact that the Libs are howling in terror is a good sign.
There is a strength and backbone in her that hasn’t been seen since Ronald Reagan. It must be the faith that she has no problem talking about and the love she actually practices with the people that she meets.

dec5 on January 14, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Grow Fins on January 14, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Words of wisdom from a fish who voted for Barack Obama. Gosh, I’ll have to rethink my whole position now.

NoLeftTurn on January 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Since she’s not going to run in 2012 it’s all a mute point what she does.

If she’s NOT going to run then Fox News is really the only way to keep herself relevant, etc.

Too bad she’s not going to run but we’ll still have Mitt and Marco. Surely they can beat the Caliph and his doofus Home Depot helper.

PappyD61 on January 14, 2010 at 1:13 PM

KickandSwimMom on January 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM

You make some valid points. Although I will say that, even tho I really like Glenn, he’s a lousy interviewer. Even Bolton sometimes looks bewildered when he’s on the show. Glenn is so way out there and every word (and pregnant pause) is just heavy with drama. It’s hard to have a serious policy discussion under those circumstances (although he seemed more content to discuss more esoteric, abstract concepts with her than actual policy). And of course he had that cold so everything was dialed down a couple of decibels. I think she was just following his lead and trying to speak at the same volume level that he was.

Also, I don’t have a problem with daring SNL to put them on as co-hosts. Lots of pols have hosted SNL; it’s good exposure for them. And I know a lot of people had a problem with her appearance on the show during the campaign, but I really didn’t. I think it’s important to show Americans you have a sense of humor and can laugh at yourself. Think about it: Would Obama ever go on SNL and allow himself to be spoofed that way? Of course not; he takes himself MUCH too seriously.

I do think your other points are valid tho. It probably wasn’t a good idea to mention she employed Track to do some research on the Statue of Liberty for her. Even tho I’m sure this is exactly how other pols would handle it — knowing they’re doing an interview in the shadow of Lady Liberty, they dispatch an aide to do some research and collect some factoids to drop during the talk. I mean I doubt very many people are that knowledgeable on Statue of Liberty trivia. But the idea is not to let on that you didn’t already know all of this. I guess I would chalk that up to more of her guilelessness. This is one of the things she needs to work on.

I also think she could benefit from greater study of American history (tho as you correctly point out, so could most politicians). She gets the broad concepts but more in depth study couldn’t hurt. Actually, someone like Newt could be an invaluable resource in this respect, but given he has own ambitions, I’m not sure if he’d be willing to help her.

I know some people will look on all of this as a lack of intellectual curiosity. I don’t necessarily see it that way. She is very knowledgeable on issues that directly affect her everyday life. That she isn’t a pointy-headed egghead who has been cramming for her presidential run since she was 10 years old is not necessarily a negative to me.

NoLeftTurn on January 14, 2010 at 1:33 PM

I think her role as Fox News commentator is going to benefit her if she makes a bid for 2012. It will keep her in the public eye since she does not hold office anymore.

I also think it’s hypocritical to hold her to a higher standard than one holds for oneself. I didn’t know all that detail about the Statue of Liberty myself, and so what if her son googled it for her?

Sheesh, this nitpicking is irrational.

atheling on January 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Sheesh, this nitpicking is irrational.

atheling on January 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Atheling, sad to say, but politics IS all about nitpicking. I admire her honesty in volunteering that Track did the research for her, but it just plays into the left’s narrative of her being uninformed and ignorant.

The Beck interview really bombed. All the careful work Palin has done to raise her game was seriously dented in that interview. Exposure may be good for her, but I submit that the wrong exposure will do more harm than good. I mean, look at Huckabee — I don’t think of him as a governor at all anymore. I think of him as a variety show host. This is what I’m afraid Palin may turn into.

KickandSwimMom on January 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM

KickandSwimMom on January 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM

I disagree. Politics is NOT all about nit picking. That’s the first time I’ve heard that one… maybe it is in high school, but in realpolitiks, “nitpicking” is absurd.

I don’t think the interview bombed either. She was frank, thoughtful, and authentic. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but I think you’ll be proved wrong.

Last, she is NOT hosting a variety show. Unlike Huckabee, she will occasionally appear to comment, not host. There is a big difference. Liz Cheney does it. Newt Gingrich does it. Karl Rove does it. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

atheling on January 14, 2010 at 2:42 PM

The Beck interview really bombed. All the careful work Palin has done to raise her game was seriously dented in that interview. Exposure may be good for her, but I submit that the wrong exposure will do more harm than good. I mean, look at Huckabee — I don’t think of him as a governor at all anymore. I think of him as a variety show host. This is what I’m afraid Palin may turn into.

KickandSwimMom on January 14, 2010 at 2:22 PM

You’re being too smart by half. Conservative criticism of Palin often centers on the idea that she is running for POTUS and her electability hinges on every word she utters. Palin maintains that service is what drives her, not politics–if she can be helpful to the country by helping others, she will. If she is asked by the country to serve as POTUS, she will.

It is her service perspective that her supporters admire. As long as she remains true to her principles, she is a game changer. If she compromises on them we kick her to the curb. Simple as that.

pugwriter on January 14, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Nit picking is for those who have no critical thinking skills.

atheling on January 14, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Nit picking is fine. KSM simply picks different nits than I would. I actually thought the O’Reilly interview bombed and was so happy to see her more relaxed and less stilted (“uh, uh, uh”) with Beck. Her accent is practically gone and she’s deliberately speaking in a lower range, though her odd speech patterns remain. She must learn to place mental periods in her spoken sentences. But that was not even close to a hard interview from Beck, that was practically a tongue bath. And by now, she must know she can’t answer any choice question with “all of them.” Given all that, I liked it. She made me smile almost the whole way through.

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Out of the 300,000,000 people who live in this country (sure, that’s not accounting for those under 35, are felons, or aren’t citizens), are saying we can’t do any better than Sarah Palin? Is the current pool of potential candidates really all we’ve got? I mean, her book was written at a 4th-grade level for crying out loud. Why would I want to vote for a card-carrying feminist (a “pro-family feminist”- if that’s not an oxymoron, I don’t know what is)? Why would I want to vote for someone with absolutely no foreign policy or military credentials? Why would I want to vote for someone with the same views on illegal immigration as John McCain? Why would I support someone who’s “pro-life”, yet acknowledges the “pro-choice” position by saying “choose life”? Why would I wish to vote for someone who thinks the housing bubble/crisis was caused by the deceit of predatory lenders? Why would I vote for someone who supported Bush’s $700 billion bailout? Why would I support any politician who supports capping carbon emissions in order to curtail the effects of the unsubstantiated idea of Global Warming/Climate Change?
Can we not do better?

Send_Me on January 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Smart is good, experience is important, policies can be quibbled about, but what we need is someone with character and integrity and enough guts to clean out that Washington cesspool. If not Palin, then someone else. But smarts and experience are overrated.

Venusian Visitor on January 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Well, I guess electibility is in the eye of the beholder :)

At this point, I’m looking towards Rubio as a more serious contender. I’m starting to become of the opinion that Palin would do more good for conservatism outside of elective office, but I’ll keep my mind open. We’ll see how she comes across on Hannity tonight.

KickandSwimMom on January 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM

I can’t imagine Rubio would be a better presidential candidate than Palin, he has no executive or private-sector experience at all. He has strengths and weaknesses, just like every candidate. Now, a Palin/Rubio ticket would be very, very strong IMO.

alwaysfiredup on January 14, 2010 at 6:05 PM

I like Washington the best. He had an opportunity to become king and declined it. He knew that the country had just been through a long, bloody war so there would be no more kings.

Our current president bows to them.

DrAllecon on January 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM

Out of the 300,000,000 people who live in this country (sure, that’s not accounting for those under 35, are felons, or aren’t citizens), are saying we can’t do any better than Sarah Palin? Is the current pool of potential candidates really all we’ve got?

Send_Me on January 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Barring the success of another last-minute out-of-left-field miracle candidate (unlikely at best) what you see now is what we’ve got to choose from.

It’s a pretty sad commentary on the American public, isn’t it?

Dark-Star on January 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM

It’s a pretty sad commentary on the American public, isn’t it?

Dark-Star on January 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM

You’ve got a lot of nerve, saying crap like that, knowing how you hate children and Sarah Palin.

You’re still a pig.

atheling on January 14, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Send_Me on January 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Still an ignorant fool, I see. But at least you CHOOSE to be an ignorant fool, right? /sarc

atheling on January 14, 2010 at 7:49 PM

@$$thing on January 14, 2010 at 7:49 PM

You do know that the followers of the Sainted Sarah are the source of almost as much humor as the Obamabots?

Dark-Star on January 14, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Dark-Star on January 14, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Who cares? We don’t.

When are you going to support your children instead of dumping them on the state, pig?

atheling on January 14, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Send_Me on January 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM

You are an idiot. The women’s rights movement was founded by women who are pro-life. That a bunch of bra-burning liberal hags co-opted the term “feminist” in order to advance their eugenics agenda does not render the original interpretation obsolete. It’s possible to want equality for women without endorsing abortion.

NoLeftTurn on January 14, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Still an ignorant fool, I see. But at least you CHOOSE to be an ignorant fool, right? /sarc
atheling on January 14, 2010 at 7:49 PM

ad hom•i•nem (hŏm’ə-něm’, -nəm) adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

You are an idiot.

Now there’s an intelligent response.

It’s possible to want equality for women without endorsing abortion.
NoLeftTurn on January 14, 2010 at 8:50 PM

If ever you get the chance (say, if you have Netflix), try watching this documentary. My point was to show the irony of a person who’s running on a “pro-family” platform is also a member of a feminist organization. What is the main point of feminism? Pretty much that they don’t want others, especially men, to tell them what to do. That’s fine. Then you have men, who don’t particularly like for anyone to tell them what to do. So, when push comes to shove, if a husband and wife both want a career outside the home, and have kids, then what? Under the feminist/”masculinist” worldviews, neither has the responsibility to raise the children. So what’s the answer? Either latchkey children or daycare, which aren’t exactly the most wholesome methods of raising children, to say the least.
Now yes, single parents have to do what they have to do, whether because of death or a deadbeat parent leaving. No problem there.
As far as egalitarianism, which is how you seem to define feminism, is concerned: do you consider, as Mrs. Palin does, Title IX in our schools to be a good thing? Is it true equality to have women meet far lower physical fitness standards in order to be in the military? Why not require 18-25 yr. old women to enroll in the Selective Service Program? Why do women get WIC benefits, yet a single man does not?
Do not confuse equality for sameness. Absolutely, women and men are equal in terms of worth and dignity, yet are still different in many ways, such as in terms of sexuality, roles, and responsibilities.
She claims to be a Christian. If she is, then she would be wise to read Proverbs 31, Titus 2, Ephesians 5, among other passages. Regardless of what feminists wish to believe, the Bible does call for hierarchy, which is not to say oppression. As Christ is the head of man, the man is the head of a woman. Is Christ an oppressor? Absolutely not. He died for His bride, the Church. Women are spoken of with grand language in the Bible, such as being more valuable than jewels. Men are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Women are called to respect their husbands. Neither role is more important nor worthy than the other, but they are yet different, very distinct roles.

Send_Me on January 14, 2010 at 11:40 PM

It’s possible to want equality for women without endorsing abortion.
NoLeftTurn on January 14, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Another thing concerning equality. My wife and I have made the choice to live the traditional model (which is only 1 in 6 families nowadays) of me going to work and my wife staying home with the children. We’re a single-income family, which is much harder nowadays than it used to be for reasons I’m about to explain. The other 5/6 of families follow the feminist model, where both the man and woman work. Feminists have achieved “equality” through the courts, legislation and demands of employers. But I ask, why should my wife and I have to subsidize such a lifestyle by paying for such socialist programs as school lunch programs, public school, after-school programs, daycare, Head Start, sex education, among other programs such as welfare, abortion, public housing, social security, medicare, and so on? If feminists are for equality, then how about paying for their own lifestyles and not punishing women who make the choice to be homemakers? But hey, Mrs. Palin thinks that “if we have to still keep going down that road to create more legislation to get with it in the 21st century to make sure that women do have equality, especially in the workplace, then we’re there.” Seems to me that feminism has done anything but foster “choice” for women.

Send_Me on January 15, 2010 at 12:02 AM

.I’ve always liked her and there have been more than a few moments during these interviews that just make me cringe. She has a bad habit of using “filler words” to flesh out her answers, and once you start noticing it, it’s really irritating.

anniekc on January 14, 2010 at 9:32 AM

I have to agree with you. She was on Hannity this evening and though I’m obsessed with politics, I tuned out after 10 minutes. It was going on and on. When I was a campaign manager, I told my candidate to be clear, concise, and to the point. People tune out or get annoyed if you aren’t direct, if you obviously dodge the question, or if it goes on for too long. Simplicity with eloquence does the job. The thing is, she is amazing when she speaks with crowds so she does have the ability to draw people in.
In my opinion, I think she is seriously considering running in 2012 which means that she is carefully over analyzing her rhetoric during these interviews to make certain that they are not going to be used against her or inhibit her in anyway. In addition to that, I think shes nervous because the libtard media is pounding her for every word she uses and she doesn’t want them to bash her as being inarticulate and unintelligent. As others have pointed out in the past, Sarah needs to be Sarah. When she does this, it comes off a little annoying…even to people who like her.

Belondy on January 15, 2010 at 3:37 AM

If Sarah Palin will not fall for the 3rd party, what are these trolls aka “life long republicans who voted for Obama because Bush was evil/wicked/corrupt/spreading fear/wars for oil/a liar/stupid/dangerous as Obowma promised us peace/joy/ unicorns/change/everyone loving America again/change and hope/no more hate/harmony of the races/ hope/change and hope/change and more change” gonna do. They call in to talk radio shows masquerading as republicans and spew the liberal talking points.
Gee who would have guessed they are libs? Who knew Acorn pays them with OUR money?

dthorny on January 15, 2010 at 4:44 AM

Send_Me on January 14, 2010 at 11:40 PM

So your real beef is that you can’t bring yourself to vote for a woman?

pugwriter on January 15, 2010 at 8:38 AM

So your real beef is that you can’t bring yourself to vote for a woman?
pugwriter on January 15, 2010 at 8:38 AM

My “real beef”? No. A beef, of many? Yes. In the book of Isaiah, it is written: “O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray. And confuse the direction of your paths.” A woman ruling over a nation was a sign of judgment, not progress. Besides, why would I want to vote for her and put her in the position where she has to choose between her husband being her head or the country? Serving in political office is outside the prescribed role and duties for a woman, just as homemaking is outside the roles and duties of a husband. Proverbs 31 speaks of what makes a woman virtuous. “Sitting at the city gates among the elders of the land” is not one of those things.

Send_Me on January 15, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4