DANIELLE CRITTENDEN describes a speech by Sarah Palin in Ontario. She writes:

If you tried to parse it, you couldn’t. There was not a single memorable line, not a single new political idea, not a single proffered solution beyond the cliché of “needing new solutions.” And when the moderator “opened the floor to questions,” guess what? Even those questions had to be written down by the tables and submitted in advance, to be selectively chosen by the moderator. Our table mischievously submitted, “Who is your favorite Canadian Prime Minister?” but for some reason it wasn’t asked.

Guests at the event were warned not to approach Palin. In Crittenden’s words,

Clearly, Palin feared any unscripted or unmanaged engagement–and not for what the unscreened person might do or say, more out of her own insecurity about what she might do or say.

Read More »

Randy writes:

Last Saturday evening I attended a “Constitution” neighborhood meeting in South Jordan, Utah. It was nice to see so many neighbors who are now attempting to contribute to the conservative movement, where just eight years earlier I was told to leave several neighbors alone (door to door campaign walks) because they were Republican and they did not agree with my conservative agenda. Yes, Utah is a state ruled by the Republican Party, but one also where most “Republicans” vote as moderate Democrats.

The format of the meeting is three speeches/presentations on any constitutional topic, followed by a free-form discussion.

Unfortunately the meeting started off with one of the ladies giving a patently distorted, sociological, programmed view of suffrage. Read More »

Kristor writes:

This is almost as bad as Dukakis poking his head out of a tank turret.

Read More »

KEVIN STAY WRITES:

I have enjoyed your site for some time as well as your comments at VFR, but have hesitated to post until now. However, given your additional comments to responses on the Free at Last bit methinks the time to open the suffrage can o’ worms might be at hand. 

I discussed this with my wife some months ago conveying to her my opinion suffrage was a huge mistake, women have no business voting, and our republic would be far better off if they, (among numerous others), did not have the “right” to vote. Read More »

Sarah Palin isn’t against big government. She isn’t anti-abortion in any politically meaningful sense. She isn’t a foe of feminist entitlement.  And she isn’t very bright. What is she? In the words of Newark Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine, Palin “is not so much a political figure as a sort of national fertility symbol.”

Read More »

THE DEMOCRATS could have their health care reform. They could summon the votes if they abandoned the hope of government-funded abortion. Why don’t they concede on an issue ancillary to the goal of nationalized medicine?

On the Stupak amendment, Lawrence Auster writes:

It’s fascinating that the campaign to nationalize health care, which Stupak otherwise supports, is crashing in a heap because most of the liberals who demand the state funding of health care also demand the state funding of abortions. The lesson is that liberalism is unable to stop itself from driving over a cliff, because its inherent egalitarian logic compels its votaries to seek not only material equality, meaning in this case the equal provision of medical insurance, but moral equality as well, meaning the elimination of moral standards and the state subsidization of immoral behavior.

JOHN LOFTON, a former Republican advisor who hosts the American View radio show, attended a question-and-answer session with Maryland lawmakers and grilled them on their understanding of the Constitution and oath of office. The ensuing exchanges are a disturbing glimpse into a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

Read More »

Rita writes:

I’m dying to know what you think of this photo. Do you think this couple is in love or….?

Read More »

There is little doubt at this point that Sarah Palin is running for president. But she is more than an aspiring candidate.  Palin is the spiritual leader of  Desperate America. That is not to say she has no practical talents. She does, but these have very little to do with her appeal. Mystical fervor, born of desperation, is a big part of her popularity. So are celebrity, beauty, and escapist fantasy. She is seen as the key to America’s restoration by middle class, white Red State voters .

Of course, these voters have very good reason to feel desperate. Obama represents the culmination of all our worst fears about the trend toward socialism. And, he is changing America for the worse. Obama poses so much catastrophic harm, even those with reservations about Palin embrace her possible candidacy out of pragmatism. But Obama can’t destroy our souls or take away our principles.

The worship of Sarah, as opposed to the pragmatic acceptance of her, is a grotesque inversion of the admiration for things that are wholesome and good: feminine beauty, vivacity and competence. Sarah Palin puts a pretty face on militant feminism. This insidious ideology which has nearly destroyed our culture and robbed millions of normalcy is now part of the mainstream. Palin represents the ultimate emasculation of America. Sarah can indeed steal our souls.

Read More »

Andrew Sullivan proclaims in his Atlantic Monthly blog that Sarah Palin is a “delusional fantasist” and a “deeply disturbed person.” At the other extreme, a writer for the American Thinker says Palin is the victim of sexual violence by leftists.

To say Sarah Palin is a polarizing figure is an understatement. The vile attacks of her by liberals such as Sullivan are far more unhinged and demented than the remnant of fanatical support for her.  But both sides have become un-glued.

Writing for the American Thinker, a writer named Robin does make a valid point: that it is Palin’s “unapologetic motherhood” that riles the left. It’s true, they hate her for her five children and her refusal to claim any kind of resentment for the duties of being a mother. You won’t hear Palin going on and on like Michelle Obama about how hard it is to take care of children or criticizing her husband for not doing his share.

But, Robin goes off the deep end in using Susan Brownmiller’s loony text on rape, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, to diagnose Palin as a victim of sexual violence because of crude attacks on her appearance. I didn’t know anyone still read the zany Brownmiller, let alone used her as an authoritative source for political analysis.  Inspired by Brownmiller, Robin says conservative men have been reduced to the passive spectators of an act of rape. 

Read More »

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes at her blog:

The most revealing thing about Palin’s re-emergence as an author is that the book, from the many reviews and critiques about it, says very little about her political aspirations. Instead, it seems replete with petty personal grievances about her botched vice presidential campaign, and attacks of her grandson’s father.

A serious person, who has spent years in public office, would surely dedicate the majority of his book to his political work, his political philosophy, and his future aspirations in politics – although not necessarily as a president.

Instead, Palin produces a “tell-all” type of book. And still more revealing was what she said on her recent Oprah interview. We see her driving to her mansion (how come she still lives there?) and says she feels really free to go where she wants and do what she wants.

Yes, after resigning her governorship, which included responsibilities and grueling work, she is now free to hop on a bus and do a tour for a book which has no political significance whatsoever.

This, I think, confirms the shallowness of Palin.

I wrote about her in a previous post looking like an aging country music star. Maybe that is the image she wants to convey – a type of rock star politician, complete with a tour bus. But I wonder how long that will last until she is required to fill in the blanks.

Palin made another revealing and unsettling revelation about her personal life. She told Walters that she was shocked by the news that her daughter Bristol was pregnant and her reaction was, “Didn’t you know there were things you could do to prevent this or not do it all?” In other words, this family-values conservative thought her 17-year-old daughter should have been using birth control.

She described what appeared to be a laissez-fair approach to her daughter’s activities and sexual education. “There was that assumption that you’re [Bristol] not doing it,” she said. By “doing it,” she meant having sex.

Palin addressed once again questions about the rebellious Levi Johnston, Bristol’s former boyfriend, the father of Palin’s new grandson and the man who is likely to hound her for years to come. She maintained that his accusations about the Palin family have no basis in fact.

Palin appeared in a segment on the Oprah Winfrey Show yesterday in shorts and a T-shirt, at one point lying on an exercise mat and cycling her legs. But she told Walters that a photo of her in running shorts on the cover of Newsweek  was “a wee bit degrading.” The news magazine should be more “substance-oriented,” she argued.

Palin, by the way, is in my opinion quite beautiful. She looks wonderful with her hair undone and slightly tousled. She is stunning, but not in the least presidential.

I LIKE SARAH PALIN. There is something refreshingly genuine and un-smarmy about her. But, after watching Oprah’s interview this afternoon with the former candidate, I have not altered my fundamental opposition to her as a future president.

I oppose her possible candidacy for two reasons. One, she is not smart and steely enough. Two, she is a feminist.

Granted, she is not an extreme feminist and she differs with the mainstream movement in her opposition to abortion. But Palin wholeheartedly embraces feminist egalitarianism and the radical transformation of society that it entails.

Palin made a number of interesting revelations in this interview. She said she did not tell her husband that the child she was carrying had Down’s Syndrome until three weeks after she learned of it from doctors. It was three weeks before the couple was alone and she could share this important information.

This amount of estrangement due to busy schedules did not, judging from this interview, seem to bother Palin in the least. She also said that when she learned she was pregnant with Trig, even before she knew he had Down’s, she felt understanding for women who choose abortion.

Read More »

NANCY PELOSI is the most powerful woman in American history. With the passage this weekend of the health care reform bill, the depressing enormity of this statement is clear. Here is a woman who is changing America. This flaky, arrogant, cock-eyed leftist, a grandmother who once attended an all-women’s Catholic college and who now dresses like the hostess of an overpriced steakhouse and likes the idea of men marrying each other, is in charge of our lives and our government. Pelosi is a walking rebuttal to the claim that once women gained power they would transform the world for the better.

When Arlen Specter agreed to become a Democrat, Pelosi told CNN, “Very exciting, very exciting for the American people, because now we can get things done without explaining process.” She has called immigration enforcement officers un-American. She has brandished her own unique form of Catholicism, even before the Pope. This woman doesn’t have a Machiavellian bone in her body. She’s too stupid for that. She is what she is, and that’s what’s so alarming.

VOTERS in Maine yesterday overturned a new law legalizing same-sex marriage, making Maine the 31st state to reject homosexual marriage by popular vote. In every state in which same-sex marriage has been put to a vote of the people, it has lost.

Because of Maine’s proximity to Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut, where same-sex marriage has been approved through court rulings and legislation, this was an important victory for supporters of traditional marriage. Child custody will become a divisive issue between contiguous states that do not have equivalent marriage laws.

Ultimately, the marriage issue must be settled uniformly across the nation. Since the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule against same-sex marriage, a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman is the only hope for protecting the most fundamental of all political institutions. 

I spent some time the other day calling voters in Maine, urging them to get out and vote to repeal the same-sex mariage law adopted by the state legislature last spring. Most of the people on the list I was given by a marriage organization here in Pennsylvania were elderly residents of a small town. It occurred to me how strange it must be for them. After all, Maine is hardly San Francisco.

 “Someone just called me 20 minutes ago,” one man complained.

I apologized.  “Oh, that’s okay,” he said. “It’s a good cause.”

   Read More »

Lawrence Auster writes here:

It appears to be the case that if a society gives equal political rights to women, then over time there will inevitably be an expectation of equal political outcomes for women. How is this dynamic to be forestalled? By stating up front, by establishing it as a fundamental principle of the society, that the sexes are different, that women naturally have different social functions from men, and that the exercise of political power, including the franchise, is not for women. Only the stoutest bulwarks against women’s procedural equality can stop the ultimate devolution of society into gender socialism and the spiritual death and loss of freedom it brings. If liberty is limited, then liberty can be maintained.

But if I’m wrong,–if it’s not possible to contain liberty and equality within strict bounds where they do not ultimate turn into socialism–then the American experiment in government is a failure, its principle are void, and we must start over again on an entirely new basis.

I don’t believe that to be true. I devoutly hope that it is not true. But I’m saying that it might be true. 

Read More »

In the following exchange, a reader challenges my comments about Sarah Palin. I present what I believe to be the traditionalist woman’s case against Palin for president.  

Elizabeth P. writes:

Many of your comments I find great rapport with, until I read the one concerning Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and their husbands [see preceding entry].

It is perhaps stretching it a bit to say that Sarah Palin is a dedicated mother in the light of the unhappy events surrounding her daughter. But there have sadly been many families who have had a daughter go astray in the area of morality, and hopefully everyone is sadder yet wiser and forgiven as well. So to out-and-out say that she is not a dedicated mother is, I believe, a bit uncharitable.

Read More »