Apple Pie and Gunsmoke

tess

Upscale Independent
Article from: HeraldSun, Melbourne, Australia
Andrew Bolt

3rd September 2008 12:00am

IF only Sarah Palin were just some famous guy's wife.

Then, as with Hillary Clinton, the women's groups and activists could love
and pet her like a victim.

But the Governor of Alaska has torn up the script. Confounded the
simpering stereotype.

Here is a caribou-hunting, moose-gutting, corruption-busting,
oil-drilling, anti-abortion, beauty-pageant queen whose husband's greatest
claim to fame is to win the world's most famous race for snow machines.

Her power is entirely her own. And it's the equal of any man's.

No wonder she's unleashed the fury of the castrated Left, which in fear
has attacked her and her 17-year-old daughter with the vilest - and most
misanthropic - smear campaign you'll have ever seen in politics.

And no wonder, too, that this mother of five has set alight a presidential
race that seemed all but a done deal for Barack Obama.

See the electrifying power of a genuinely strong female politician. That
is: a conservative one.

Only last Thursday Obama seemed to have sealed victory in the November 4
election to succeed George W Bush.

Already ahead in the polls, and with the buzz of a Messiah, he'd assembled
the biggest-ever crowd - 86,000 - for a Democratic convention.

He'd also got the biggest-ever television audience for a convention - 38
million - to watch him speak.

And he gave them a speech that commentators agreed was one to match the
best of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King.

Men trembled and women swooned. "I cried my eyelashes off," blubbered TV
queen Oprah Winfrey. If words, not deeds, were the only measure of a
politician, Obama had won already.

Yet 12 hours later it was all blown away. What happened? Republican
candidate John McCain had simply announced his choice of running mate.

Normally a vice-presidential candidate makes little difference to a
campaign. If George Bush Sr could win with a potato called Dan Quayle, and
Bill Clinton with a fencepost called Al Gore, you'd figure the sidekick was about as crucial to victory as a
fork to a funeral.

But McCain's pick of the all-but-unknown Sarah Palin, just 44, changed
everything. With that one pick, McCain, himself a maverick, recast the
election into a battle between heartland America and the urban elite.

He matched Obama's biography of hope with Palin's apple-pie own. He added
youth to a ticket weighed down by his 72 years. He underlined Obama's
inexperience and reframed the brilliant orator as not the voice of change
but of the Washington insider.

What's more, McCain baited a trap to catch out Obama as a man with a woman
problem - the man who'd refused to appoint his defeated rival, Hillary
Clinton, as his own running mate, preferring Senate blow-hard Joe Biden.
Snap! Prey caught.

The Obama camp's first instinct was to patronise Palin as just a pretty
face, mocking her as the former mayor of Wasilla, a mere suburb of
Anchorage, cynically picked by McCain merely to woo disillusioned Clinton
fans.

Jeered Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "Today, John McCain put the former
mayor of a town of 9000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat
away from the presidency."

It's a line picked up by most media commentators, who assumed a woman
couldn't be politically experienced, even one who'd actually been governor
of a US state for two years, giving her more executive experience than
either Obama and Biden, neither of whom have run anything but their
mouths.

Within hours Obama, for one, knew he'd made a mistake in belittling not
just a woman but - even deadlier - a voice of small-town America.

He'd underestimated the former Miss Wasilla 1984 in a way he'd never have
underestimated a man.

So he emerged within hours to excuse his campaign's first response as a
case of tripping over "hair triggers", and say what he really meant was
that Palin "seems like a compelling person" with "obviously a terrific
story, a personal story", and "she will help make the case for the
Republicans".

Obama in fact knows Palin offers voters a life story at least as
compelling as his own - and one that slots even neater into the great
American dream.

After all, she is the wife of a half-Inuit professional fisherman and
mother of five who became a mayor and then head of the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission, a job she quit after complaining that one of her
fellow commissioners, the state's Republican chairman, was a crook. She
was right and he was fined.

She then charged the state's attorney-general, another fellow Republican,
with a breach of ethics. Again she was right and he was fired.

Then she tipped out the Republican governor in the primaries, and won the
election to replace him, running against a former Democrat governor.

Got the picture? Tough lady, with a record of tackling the good ol' boys
of even her own party. No doubt they thought she was just a pretty face,
too, until she buried them.

Her reputation as a principled reformer has grown since she took office.
She sold off the former governor's private plane on eBay, took on Big Oil
over a contract to build a gas pipeline, slashed waste and now has
approval ratings in the 80s.

Obama talks change, but outsider Palin actually represents it. And she
represents it in the iconic Mrs Smith Goes to Washington way that fits so
well with McCain's own record.

It's true she badly lacks experience, and is about to sit the exam of her
life. Everything depends on her being the quick study she's said to be.

Should she stumble, McCain will be discredited as the gambler who picked a
novice just to win an election, not help run a nation - although Palin's
confident acceptance speech on Friday already showed she's no Dan Quayle,
blinking nervously.

And there's one other advantage Palin has. Her critics, largely in the
media, still underestimate her and, once again, underestimate her as a
woman. How she's exposed the inner chauvinist of many of the Left,
accustomed to thinking of female politicians as symbols, not individuals.

Not experienced, they scoff.

But what experience has Obama had? Just two years older, his only job
outside politics was as a community organiser, and since then he's been a
state senator and - for just four years - a US senator, making speeches
and planning his next campaign.

If Governor Palin isn't experienced enough to be vice-president, is Obama
qualified for the biggest job of all? Or are there different rules for
men?

More patronising: She's just a token woman, cry the critics, who assume
that female politicians succeed best by appealing to female voters, when
the very reverse tends to be true.

And, yes, Palin did say nice things about Hillary Clinton in her
acceptance speech, hoping to peel off supporters embittered by Obama's
refusal to make her his running mate.

But Palin - a huntin', fishin', fundamentalist Christian pro-lifer - isn't
at all a magnet for feminist votes. She's more a man's woman whose
strongest support - like that of Margaret Thatcher and even Pauline Hanson
- will come from blue-collar white males and small-town conservatives.

Sneering attacks won't enrage women so much as confirm for many poorer
white voters that Obama, the Harvard lawyer backed by the urban elites, is
in fact sneering at them.

And if such voters need confirmation of Palin's status as the outsider
tackling the Big City oinkers, they've had it in the bizarre attack
launched against her this week.

Some of America's biggest Left-wing bloggers, especially the
Obama-supported Daily Kos, accused her of having pretended to be the
mother of her fifth child, son Trig, born in April with Down syndrome
after she refused to abort him.

The real mother, they hooted, was her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol. The
evidence? Simply that Palin in some photographs taken before the birth did
not look pregnant, but Bristol did.

Would any man have been attacked so personally, so viciously, on evidence
so pathetic that I could disprove it on my own blog after just 30 minutes
of searching the internet for pictures? This was almost literally a
witch-hunt.

Yet so frenzied was the attack that Palin on Monday was forced to prove
her four-month-old baby was indeed her own, issuing a statement saying
Bristol was herself five months' pregnant, and planned to marry the
father. Leave my girl alone.

It must have hurt, but once again Palin had triumphed over those who'd
sought to destroy this uppity woman, this time by peeking up her skirts.

She showed herself as just a mother, doing her loving best, but also as a
politician with more obvious principle than her sniggering critics.

She emerged strong, but human. Not a symbol, but very real. In fact,
McCain may have picked the one politician who could help win him the
election.

Should she succeed, watch out. This clearly isn't a woman happy to simply
help another man be president
 

spinynorman

New member
Aug 25, 2008
92
0
0
in the dumpster behind YOUR place
Then maybe she should be running for president instead of McCain. I would love to hear her explain how she had her brother-in-law fired from the Alaska Troopers immediately after he divorced Palin's sister. Then she can try to explain in one breath how she is a "reformer" who rejects "pork-barrel" politics yet had no qualms in accepting $27 mil' for nothing when she was a mayor and famously both supported Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as governor then rejected it when she became VP candidate. After blowing smoke, she can then make it clear how she rejected big oil but made a speech to a religious group that speaks in tongues and believes in the rapture, telling them that God would make sure they got an oil pipeline contract.

That last point scares me the most.

 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,461
591
113
HuH ! another Dem heard from..

Then maybe she should be running for president instead of McCain. I would love to hear her explain how she had her brother-in-law fired from the Alaska Troopers immediately after he divorced Palin's sister. Then she can try to explain in one breath how she is a "reformer" who rejects "pork-barrel" politics yet had no qualms in accepting $27 mil' for nothing when she was a mayor and famously both supported Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as governor then rejected it when she became VP candidate. After blowing smoke, she can then make it clear how she rejected big oil but made a speech to a religious group that speaks in tongues and believes in the rapture, telling them that God would make sure they got an oil pipeline contract.

That last point scares me the most.

She didn't have him fired, he's still on the job. Even the Public Safety Commisssioner that she did fire admits, she never called him to demand he fire super trooper. But, would you want this guy as a cop. Tasered his 11 year old sterpson, beause the kid wanted to see what it felt like. Hunting out of season, drinking while driving. Just divorced his fourth wife, and he's only 36. Says he has some minor relationship problems with women.

Accepted ear marks when needed, and used them where needed. She did reject the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was tapped for VP, not after. It's just that the State kept the money for other projects that made sense.

Rejects big oil but works towards an oil pipeline, which is a problem how ? She's got no problem with big oil, just big oil profits. She gave $1,200.00 back to every citizen in Alaska. Compare that to our moron in B.C. gives everybody a $100.00 and then adds a carbon tax that claws the money back within a month or so depending on how and what you drive.

As to her religious beliefs, and how she worships, that up to her. You don't like go try to convert her. Religion is a freedom of choice, yours and hers.
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
As to her religious beliefs, and how she worships, that up to her. You don't like go try to convert her. Religion is a freedom of choice, yours and hers.
Not when it affects public policy. She is a fundy whacko that, given the power, would have creationism taught as science, ban sex education except for "abstinence education" (which does kind of make her family situation at least ironic, if not open for public criticism), ban abortions, and, I suspect, happily see the lady that started this post sent to prison.

We complain about the Islamic fundamentalists gaining power in their countries, but it is okay to have the same kind of intolerant people rule over us?
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,461
591
113
Not when it affects public policy. She is a fundy whacko that, given the power, would have creationism taught as science, ban sex education except for "abstinence education" (which does kind of make her family situation at least ironic, if not open for public criticism), ban abortions, and, I suspect, happily see the lady that started this post sent to prison.

We complain about the Islamic fundamentalists gaining power in their countries, but it is okay to have the same kind of intolerant people rule over us?
It just goes to prove that God does have a sense of humour.
As to intolerant people ruling over us, well don't vote for them. We have made the choice to live in a democracy,the will of the people and all that. If the Islamic Fundamentalists gain power through the ballot not the bullet, then obviously the people want them. If they followed the "rules" and we still complain, then we are the problem, not them.
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
uncleg;781434If the Islamic Fundamentalists gain power through the ballot not the bullet said:
Ah...but you see we (in the broad sense of Western Powers) are the problem that you describe. In nearly all Islamic countries, we support the dictators (princes, generals, whatever) that prevent the populace from enjoying a democracy..or having any "rules" to follow. Do you think Saudi Arabia is about to have elections? We fear, probably rightly in many cases, that they would elect fundamentalists, largely in anger that we have supported these bastards for so long. This happened in Algeria -- we (France, in this case), put the generals back in power. Turkey is the only secular democracy in the region, and many argue that they qualify. The US encouraged Pakistan to keep Mushareef in power, and to fudge elections to do so; they are losing that one, and the results are yet to be seen.

Not a simple problem, is it?
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
Besides, Palin stating that their war in Iraq is fulfilling God's will (rather than that of the cabal in power down there) is just plain crazy. Crazy politicians = bad. Sane politicians = a little better.
 

aznboi9

Don't mind me...
May 3, 2005
1,380
3
38
Here Be Monsters
Compare that to our moron in B.C. gives everybody a $100.00 and then adds a carbon tax that claws the money back within a month or so depending on how and what you drive.
In a month or so? Isn't that around 4200 litres of gas?
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,461
591
113
Ah...but you see we (in the broad sense of Western Powers) are the problem that you describe. In nearly all Islamic countries, we support the dictators (princes, generals, whatever) that prevent the populace from enjoying a democracy..or having any "rules" to follow. Do you think Saudi Arabia is about to have elections? We fear, probably rightly in many cases, that they would elect fundamentalists, largely in anger that we have supported these bastards for so long. This happened in Algeria -- we (France, in this case), put the generals back in power. Turkey is the only secular democracy in the region, and many argue that they qualify. The US encouraged Pakistan to keep Mushareef in power, and to fudge elections to do so; they are losing that one, and the results are yet to be seen.

Not a simple problem, is it?
True not a simple problem. But consider that dictators in what ever form or by whatever title where the norm longer and before any democracy was. The middle east is a tribal society, in fact so is Europe. Democracy as we know it was forced on the rulers, not necessarily by the people. It was the Barons/Lords and what have you, that forced the Magna Carta on the English Kings. Democracy as the west practises it, is as the Americans like to call, the worlds greatest social experiment. Not all experiments work. Unfortunately, the biggest practioner of this experiment has been the U.S. and because of the power they have they think the experiment is a success and everybody should try it. Maybe, when they have been around as long as some of the cultures they are trying to change, they will have learned it doesn't work for everybody. A lot of the problems we have today are more the result of the breakup of the Imperial/Colonial Powers then anything anything else. You can't just create countries that didn't previously exist and throw together people that have hated each other for thousands of years and expect them to co-exist without problems.

Like you said, not a simple problem.
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
Unfortunately, the biggest practioner of this experiment has been the U.S. and because of the power they have they think the experiment is a success and everybody should try it.
As I was trying to point out, they only support "democracy" in other countries when it suits their ends. They do not think everybody should try it, most certainly not their current "friends" in the middle east -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. You aren't one of those who has no idea that America has been a colonial power for more than a century, are you?

...and anyway, the point is that crazy God-fearing folk are not the best to run a country, even if they can convince their citizens to put them them in that position. I don't want any country to "elect" Islamic fundies any more than I want the most powerful country in the world to elect evangelical nuts

The point of democracy should be to increase freedoms, not restrict them unless they cause harm to others.
 

spinynorman

New member
Aug 25, 2008
92
0
0
in the dumpster behind YOUR place
Then maybe she should be running for president instead of McCain. I would love to hear her explain how she had her brother-in-law fired from the Alaska Troopers immediately after he divorced Palin's sister. Then she can try to explain in one breath how she is a "reformer" who rejects "pork-barrel" politics yet had no qualms in accepting $27 mil' for nothing when she was a mayor and famously both supported Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as governor then rejected it when she became VP candidate. After blowing smoke, she can then make it clear how she rejected big oil but made a speech to a religious group that speaks in tongues and believes in the rapture, telling them that God would make sure they got an oil pipeline contract.

That last point scares me the most.

She didn't have him fired, he's still on the job. Even the Public Safety Commisssioner that she did fire admits, she never called him to demand he fire super trooper. But, would you want this guy as a cop. Tasered his 11 year old sterpson, beause the kid wanted to see what it felt like. Hunting out of season, drinking while driving. Just divorced his fourth wife, and he's only 36. Says he has some minor relationship problems with women.

Accepted ear marks when needed, and used them where needed. She did reject the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was tapped for VP, not after. It's just that the State kept the money for other projects that made sense.

Rejects big oil but works towards an oil pipeline, which is a problem how ? She's got no problem with big oil, just big oil profits. She gave $1,200.00 back to every citizen in Alaska. Compare that to our moron in B.C. gives everybody a $100.00 and then adds a carbon tax that claws the money back within a month or so depending on how and what you drive.

As to her religious beliefs, and how she worships, that up to her. You don't like go try to convert her. Religion is a freedom of choice, yours and hers.

I feel, and I'm pretty sure history will back me up on this, but those who crow on their back legs, like Sarah Palin has, about her faith, are usually the most full of shit and have the most to hide.

That said, I am happy to say that I find your response informative and well-presented. The level of debate here is healthy. It is nice to discuss issues like this without resorting to slander and slurs like some other discussion groups I have to endure. Keep up the good work.

That said, I must now resort to the "I'm-rubber-and'you're glue" retort so effectively utilized by our politicians.

 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,461
591
113
In a month or so? Isn't that around 4200 litres of gas?

When you spend an average of about $1,000.00 a day on fuel, it doesn't take long.
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
Religious affiliation should disqualify a person from holding public office.
I couldn't agree more, personally. But it isn't going to happen. I'm sure that there a lot of politicians in North America that are not believers, but they won't admit it publicly, and show up with their families at church before election time. Publically declaring yourself an atheist in the US would kill a political career faster than being filmed raping babies in the town square.

However, a lot of people smarter than I am believe in religion, and many of them do not have a harmful agenda at all, so I won't ban it when I become dictator.

...I'll tax the friggen' churches, though.
 

spinynorman

New member
Aug 25, 2008
92
0
0
in the dumpster behind YOUR place
Agreed, Hank. But I'd go even further. It ALWAYS affects public policy. Society has no further need for religion as a social institution. The individual citizens may have a personal need, but there is no more societal need. The premise of all faith-based religions is control over the individual. Behavioral control through law enforcement and mind control through suggestion and guilt. Religion is the antithesis of democracy, unless you accept that the majority has a right to burn witches. Religious affiliation should disqualify a person from holding public office.
Remember the Test Acts?

I have to disagree. Despite my earlier postings about Palin's fundamentalism, I realize religious affliliation should not disqualify anyone from holding political office. Benjamin Disraeli was Jewish but became the leading proponent of the Protestant British Empire. Laurier was Catholic but walked a fne line between placating Protestant and Roman Catholic Canada. The main features of these men were that they were not zealots who tried to force their religious beliefs on the population at large. Barry Goldwater was a paleoconservative against Lyndon Johnson, but he did not use religion as a sledgehammer to bludgeon his opponents.

What needs to be done is to remind the conservatives that they are supposed to honour the same constitution as everyone else, the one that mandates separation of church and state. Thus, it is fine to believe but don't pull any more "e pluribis unum" shit on the public like the US military or the Boy Scouts. Google General Petreus to read what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
Vancouver Escorts