Paul W. writes:
I have read with dismay the criticism that you have heaped upon the head of Sarah Palin and in general the McCain campaign. I agree with you that John McCain does not represent the conservative values that you treasure so dearly (and I write those words with NO sarcasm, for I have found myself in agreement with a number of things you have written). However, in this election the choice is between an abortionist Marxist, Barack Obama, and John McCain. Clearly McCain is the lesser of two evils. [LA replies: If we follow your premise that we should always vote for the lesser of two evils, then leftism wins. Because if one party is leftist and the other is slightly less leftist, we must vote for the slightly less leftist party. If one party is hard-line Communist and the other is slightly less hard-line Communist, we must vote for the latter. Your reasoning lacks any principle by which leftism can be opposed.] MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 02:27 PM
The British moderate leftist Nick Cohen, who differs from his fellow leftists in being concerned about the Islam threat, is quoted at the Corner characterizing the Democrats’ response to Sarah Palin:
MORE…
As strongly worded as Mitchell B.’s below comment is, it was greatly toned down and cut down by me. I’m not in agreement with everything he says, but I post it because I think his main thesis is exactly right.
MORE…
A left-wing website, Think Progress, details how Phyllis Schlafly, the godmother American social conservatism who has always argued that mothers with young children should not pursue full time careers, is now a strong supporter of Sarah Palin’s nomination. (Of course these leftists are so stupid that they think Schlafly says that women should avoid careers even after their children are raised—which is not her position—and therefore that Schlafly is a hypocritic for working herself, even in her seventies and eighties.)
MORE…
The Gallup daily tracking poll now shows McCain ahead of Obama by 48 to 45 percent. But that’s nothing compared to what Jake Tapper reports at ABC:
Not the daily tracking poll, the actual Gallup poll, has Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pulling ahead of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.A ten point McCain lead! That is sensational news—for those eager to see the triumph of today’s deeply unprincipled Republican party and another four years of neocon rule presided over by an intellectually inert septuagenarian committed to legalizing 12 million illegal aliens and opening America’s borders to the Third World, all in the name, of course, of “Country First.”The numbers among registered voters are 50 percent to 46 percent—and 54 percent to 44 percent among likely voters.
Tapper supplies no link to this actual Gallup poll as distinct from the daily tracking poll (I’m not clear on the difference), and I was unable to find it at the Gallup site.
Mrs. Scottie Kania from Wasilla, Alaska writes:
Dear Mr. Auster,Just wanted to let you know how much I have enjoyed reading the commentary and analyses posted on your web site since Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate. Some of the commentary has been spot on and some has been unimaginably off base. As one who has known this young woman and her husband since they were teenagers in high school (Todd’s father and stepmother live across the street from me.), I can confirm that both are very normal people. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 12:41 AM
I’m getting tired of Sarah Palin.
I realized it this evening watching a profile of her on Fox News.
In many of the clips and interviews of her as governor, she came across as a silly woman with a hick accent. But then I remembered how formidable and impressive she has seemed at other times, contradicting the impression of silliness. And then I realized how we’ve been bending ourselves out of shape for the last ten days trying to figure out just who and what this multi-faceted woman is. And I just felt sick of it all. The point is, such an unknown person, a person with zero record on national political issues, should not, no matter how interesting, intriguing and exciting she may be, have been nominated for vice president of the United States. We should not have been subjected to this experience. America is a great republic, not a quiz show.
However, there is still much to be said about both Palin and the Palin Event, so it’s not quite time to drop the subject. Many comments have come in, including long and substantive ones, that are yet to be posted. Just tonight a Wasilla resident who has known Todd and Sarah Palin since high school wrote to me, and I’ll be posting her e-mail soon.
There probably won’t be any more new posts or comments until late tonight or tomorrow. But recent discussions have been content-rich and may be worth a second look.
Alex A. writes from England:
My assiduous reading at VFR during the convention season has provoked the following thoughts:Critics of Obama’s presidential campaign complain about the lack of specifics in his message of change. But old-fashioned policies are beside the point in an age of emblematic politics. The Obama ticket isn’t based on an agenda of practical measures that will address economic, social, and other questions. Electing Mr. Diversity as president is an end in itself. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 03:08 PM
Haven’t I been saying for years that all the existing forms of conservatism are deeply inadequate, compromised, not based in non-liberal principle, and thus, in reality, forms of liberalism? Haven’t I been saying that the greatest obstacle in the path of true conservatism was these various established schools of “liberal conservatism” which gave conservatives the comforting illusion that a conservative opposition to liberalism existed and was fighting the good fight, an illusion that thus prevented conservatives from actually fighting, whereas in reality these existing forms of conservatism were only facilitating and surrendering to liberalism? Haven’t I wished for the demise of these false forms of conservatism, particularly the most important and dishonest one of all, neoconservatism?
MORE…
I sent the Canadian leftist Ken Hechtman an e-mail with no text but just a subject line:
You’ve been surprisingly silent about Sarah.Mr. Hechtman replies: MORE…
George L. has a counterintuitive theory about Sarah Palin: far from being the formidable hunter, fisherman, and political insurgent we’ve heard about, she is naive and fragile and therefore wholly unable to handle tough leftist opponents, not to mention hostile foreign leaders. When I expressed my doubts, George linked a video of Palin speaking at her local church earlier this summer. The Sarah in the video couldn’t be more different from the Sarah we’ve seen over the past week.
MORE…
In an e-mail under the above title, Jason, a Republican activist in New Jersey, writes:
Good evening, sir,I am hoping the community in here can tell me that I am wrong. That John McCain’s nomination and eventual victory does not mean the title I have posted above. So if anyone wants to tell me where I am wrong please feel free to do so. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 07:08 PM
Ray G. from Dearbornistan writes:
It’s over.I attended the McCain-Palin rally in Sterling Heights, Michigan yesterday. Thunderous applause for Palin. There’s something about her that conservatives/Republicans are hungry for. Americans love the fact that she showed contempt Wednesday night for the liberal-biased, “feminized” Hollywood/New York/Washington media elites. And of course, she skewered Barry Hussein Obambi royally—the Messiah with a thin resume. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 01:41 PM
J.J. writes:
To answer your question about how best to describe no-longer-conservative political figures such as Gov. Palin and other GOP bigwigs, may I suggest the label “reactionary.” MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 12:06 PM
I have often criticized the new regime of personalism that dominates today’s politics, among Republicans as well as Democrats—the increasing occurrence of multi-generational family political dynasties; the extreme focus on a candidate’s spouse and children, especially at national conventions; the emphasis on a candidate’s “compelling story” as a primary reason for supporting him; and, now, the unseemly embrace by conservatives of Sarah Palin’s candidacy because she’s “real,” with her “realness” consisting of the fact that she hunts and fishes, and has five children, and has a five month old, special-needs baby in her arms, and has a 17 year old daughter pregnant out of wedlock.
I’ve explained this personalism as deriving from our loss of a belief in the public sphere of society as the common locus of our loyalties, and its replacement by the private sphere. But perhaps that is only a description, not an explanation. In the below comment, Philip M. from England provides an insightful—and distinctly traditionalist—explanation for the contemporary rule of personalism.
MORE…
Though pedantry denies,Sam H. writes from the Netherlands:
It’s plain the Bible means
That Solomon grew wise
While talking with his queens.
—W.B. Yeats, “On Woman”
I find it ironic, on multiple levels, that, under the influence of Laura W., a woman, you have now essentially adopted the position that women should not hold public office. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 08:23 AM
(Note: see my comment in which I show James Dobson’s implied call to conservatives not to criticize Sarah Palin.)
Clark Coleman writes:
Carol Iannone wrote:“And yet now they snarl, how dare you question if she has enough time for her family, you wouldn’t say that to a man.”
For the record, “they” (meaning conservatives) did not say any such thing. Rudy Giuliani, who is certainly not a conservative on family and moral issues, said that. Jim Dobson and Don Wildmon and Pat Robertson and whoever else would be considered moral and family conservative leaders did not say that. This is not a small distinction. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 02:30 AM
Late last night I posted the National Enquirer’s preview of its story on Sarah Palin’s unsuccessful attempt to get Bristol and Levi to marry prior to the announcement of Bristol’s pregnancy, and I discussed the meaning of it. Today a reader kindly sent me a copy of the full story which he had scanned from the print version of the Enquirer.
Entitled “Sarah Palin’s Dark Secrets,” it deals with three “scandals,” two of which are touched on only cursorily and about which I have nothing to say. I am only interested in the Bristol matter.
MORE…
Terry Morris writes:
Laura wrote:“She has no idea really what it’s like over the long haul to have a child who requires unusual care due to congenital abnormality. Her conviction on this is a show.”
I agree with Laura, but further to her point, if I may, I don’t believe Sarah Palin knows what it is to be a devoted mother and homemaker, given her “career woman” status. What she represents is who she represents, and that is career women who want to have their cake and eat it too. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 06:36 PM
Carol Iannone writes:
How would conservatives be talking if Palin were a Democrat? I don’t believe they would be winking away the teen pregnancy issue and even presenting it as a good. I don’t believe they would be touting the idea that her being a woman and a mother and a hockey mom are big pluses in running for national office. I don’t think they would be saying that because she is a mother with family problems, we can all the more identify with her as being just like us. I don’t think they would be defending her relatively slim record with bared teeth. I think they would be saying the opposite of all this. I believe they would be spinning as negatives what they are now calling positives. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 05:01 PM
(Note: see Sage McLaughlin’s comment on what’s wrong with the GOP’s position on the English language.)
Spencer Warren sends the Republican platform on immigration. He says, “It focuses on enforcement and opposes amnesty. It is silent on immigration legislation, but rejects ‘en masse legalizations.’”
MORE…
“Strikingly bad.” Those were the words, or words like those, with which commentator Jeffrey Toobin summed up John McCain’s speech last night. He said the speech had no theme, no vision, and presented no policies, and was only good in its closing, rousing section. I agree. But this is exactly what one would expect of McCain. McCain has no ideas. He has a couple of pet issues he cares about, such as reducing pork barrel spending, and he has his sense of “honor” and of “service to something larger than ourselves,” and he has his delight in messing up conservatives and Republicans. And that’s about it. His speech perfectly reflected the intellectual and political vacuity that has characterized his entire career.
It also epitomized the rank absurdity that characterized the convention as a whole—the notion that McCain, a Republican running to succeed a two-term Republican president, represents “change.”
And the conservatives attack Obama for using a lot of empty rhetoric!
The best thing about McCain’s speech was the sight of his 96 year old mother, Roberta McCain, listening to him in the convention hall. What a magnificent looking woman.
MORE…
I recommend the very intelligent and revealing profile of John McCain by Mark Leibovich and David D. Kirkpatrick in yesterday’s issue of the New York Times, which, in a rare move, I purchased (now at $1.50 a pop) to read during an out-of-town train trip. It gets into a key aspect of McCain’s psyche, shown in a repeated behavior pattern throughout his life, which is that he will do something, and then very noisily and publicly repent of doing it.
Below is the key section of the article:
MORE…
For those who may be interested, there have been more than the usual number of online references to VFR over the last week in reference to the Sarah Palin controversy. Here are Google search results for that period.
(A follow-up to this entry, discussing the full-length Enquirer article, is posted here.)
Here is a preview of a story in the National Enquirer that reveals the background of Sarah Palins’ announcement of her daughter Bristol’s pregnancy:
MORE…
Late today it belatedly occurred to me that Sarah Palin’s description of herself as a pit bull with lipstick, which I didn’t particularly mind when I first heard it, was unpleasant and wrong. A pit bull is a uniquely dangerous and vicious creature. Every few weeks you read about a person who has been mauled, even killed, by a pit bull. Do we really want a pit bull at the top of our government? Can you imagine any prospective national leader in American history describing himself in such brutal and, indeed, threatening terms?
MORE…
A great many comments have come in today while I was gone, including a few that challenge and criticize me for my anti-Palin stand. I will try to reply to each critical comment, as well as post the other comments, but it may have to wait until tomorrow.
(Note: more comments have been added to this thread as of 9/5 at 7 p.m, on the subject of the new conservatism.)
I will be away from the computer during the day tomorrow. But for now here is my very brief take. Sarah Palin is an interesting and talented figure. To see a woman on the national stage who is obviously capable and tough, yet also young and attractive, is certainly a novelty. As I’ve said before, she is an American original—almost like, say, an Ayn Rand heroine, Dagny Taggart, the beautiful young woman who runs a transcontinental raiilroad. But Palin (like Rand’s heroes) does not represent conservatism. She represents something that has replaced conservatism, at least within the Republican party. I don’t have a name for it yet, though I’ve been arguing intensively against it over these last several days. While there are many things to say about it, the epitome of this new “conservatism” is that under the old conservatism, and the old America, an out of wedlock pregnancy was a shame, while under the new “conservatism,” an out of wedlock pregnancy is proudly displayed before the world, at the highest level of our national life. It is impossible to feel good about this.Thus, paradoxically, the more intriguing, impressive, and novel Sarah Palin becomes, the more demoralizing, desolating, and alienating she becomes.
(Update: The reference to Dagny Taggart was, of course, only meant to suggest that Palin, like Taggart, is an attractive young woman who is tough and knows how to wield power; there is even a physical resemblance between them. Inevitably, a commenter, over at 4W, though I was saying that Palin is a Randian figure or believes in Randian ideas. Heaven save us from the literal minded who are incapable of understanding an analogy!)
Below are some comments on the convention tonight and other miscellaneous points. In other recent threads, further comments have been posted.
MORE…
For VFR’s most active and exciting—and also, for those of us who see conservatism disappearing before our eyes, troubling—debate today on the Palin issue, see “Why Mark Jaws will vote for McCain-Palin.” Also be sure to see the discussion about whether the boy who got Bristol pregnant will on the stage with the Palins tonight.
Gintas writes:
According to Wikipedia:
In Roman mythology, Diana was the goddess of the hunt, in literature the equivalent of the Greek goddess Artemis, though in cult she was Italic in origin.Here’s an up-to-date version:
In Republican mythology, Sarah was the goddess of the hunt, in literature the equivalent of the Greek goddess Artemis, though in cult she was Alaskan in origin.
She’s the magnetic lodestone, the soothing priestess, the
maternal guardian, the pulsing heart, the chiding chieftess
of our nation. We might as well fall into her arms.
— Laura W., VFR, September 3, 2008
I’ve received this comment from one of the contributors at the conservative Christian weblog, What’s Wrong with the World:
From: Steve Burton
Subj.: Shame on you MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 04:40 PM
Will Levi Johnston be on the stage with the Palins tonight? If he is, York continues, that means that Republicans are not just being understanding about the Palins’ difficult situation, but celebrating it. Sounds as if York has been reading VFR.
He writes:
MORE…
Mark Jaws writes:
No doubt some of us who otherwise agree on about 90 percent of cultural and demographic issues are locking horns over this Sarah Palin affair. I was initially astonished at some of the anti-Sarah sentiments expressed in this forum, but since we are reasonable people, we therefore can express honest differences of opinion. Here are my two cents in support of Sarah. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 02:11 PM
Richard W. writes:
I very much enjoyed your call for Palin to step down. That kind of editorial is sure to make you hated among conservative Kool-Aid drinkers, but so what.I’d really appreciate you making your voting intentions public. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 01:35 PM
A reader writes:
I have been devouring your site with fascination for the last few days. I have a question: is there a definition of what you mean by “traditionalism” on your site? I’ve looked but haven’t found it if it’s there.I do not have a single overarching article defining and explaining traditionalism. But the reader’s questions spurred me to create this entry which is the next best thing: a collection of VFR articles touching on traditionalism from a variety of angles. It will also be displayed permanently on the main page under “From VFR’s archives.” MORE…
It’s in an piece in today’s New York Times. When a politician who eight years ago described leading Christian conservatives as “forces of evil” (a comment he later retracted) and “agents of intolerance” (which he did not retract), gets deeply conservative Christian groups like the Council for National Policy in his pocket, you know his people have been doing some serious schmoozing. Thus the anti-Bush maverick of 2000 has become the Bush-like pious Christian of 2008. And it’s all lies. These Christian conservatives WANT to be lied to. They don’t mind if their romancer beds them and abandons them. It’s his promises of love that they really prize.
It bothers me a great deal that this person of whom we knew nothing prior to last Friday, Sarah Palin, has been dropped into our lap, just a few days before she is to be nominated for vice president and thus become a possible next president of the United States.
The whole process seems imperial rather than republican. I understand the custom whereby the designated presidential nominee announces his choice for vice presidential nominee, and his pledged delegates honor his preference. But when the vice presidential nominee is as new and unconventional as Palin, shouldn’t McCain have named her at least a couple of weeks prior to the convention, so as to give the country time to figure her out and “assimilate” her? In other words, give the public time do its own “vetting” process of her in addition to the McCain team’s? Look at what we’ve gone through in just the last four days—first, taking in this startlingly new political figure on Friday, and then, three days later, finding out things about her family that seem highly improper for a national candidate, and having to figure that out and adjust to that, and so on. We’ve been run through the wringer. And now tonight, five days after we first heard about her, and two days after we found out that her daughter is pregnant without benefit of matrimony, she is going to be nominated and give her acceptance speech. This is not the way a self-governing people ought to pick its national leaders.
This Palin situation has a “jump the shark” quality. It’s deeply disordered and suggests a country that about to go off the rails. But that’s what happens when a major political party elects as its nominee a man who in his deepest core is mischievous and irresponsible. Remember that according to all press accounts McCain’s true preference for Republican vice presidential nominee was a pro-abortion, liberal Democrat, a choice he was prevented from making only by pure political necessity.
Wow. I and others have been pointing out how the Republicans have turned into a party of Oprah-esque personalism, non-judgmentalism, and other leftish attitudes. Our view has been a minority view, to say the least. But so radical and unsettling has the Republican transformation been that now even a conventional Republican, Paul of Powerline, is noticing it. He writes:
The “Life Happens” RepublicansSince watching the Democratic Convention in 1960, I’ve dreamed of attending a national convention, and for years now that dream has focused on the Republican one. Now, I’ve finally made it to a Republican convention. At least I think I have. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 11:47 PM
Carol Iannone writes:
Unbelievable. It took the New York Times to find people to say the obvious: that it’s too much for a woman to run for veep with a small baby and now the pregnant 17 year old. The Times quotes mothers saying that even less demanding jobs are difficult with young family, let alone veep. Meanwhile the social conservatives are making fools of themselves defending everything about Palin.
While all the conservatives, like knights of the Round Table, are defending to the death the honor of Queen Guenevere of Wasilla, consider this. Why is Bristol Palin now a household name in America and probably other countries as well? Why do hundred of millions of people know about this 17 year old girl’s pregnancy?
Because her mother accepted John McCain’s invitation to be his vice presidential nominee.
MORE…
A large number of readers’ comments—totaling about 5,500 words—have just been posted in the various threads on the Palin situation.
A request to readers: If you send a comment on Palin, please include the name of the blog entry to which you’re directing the comment, as there are so many different entries on this subject at the moment.
As a follow-up to the linked discussion, I urge that Gov. Palin withdraw her name from consideration for the Republican vice presidential nomination. Since her announcement yesterday of the pregnancy of her 17 year old daughter, the country is now offered the ludicrous and unseemly prospect of Palin campaigning around the country for the vice presidency even as her five month old, special-needs son is receiving his primary care from her 17-year-old, out-of-wedlock pregnant daughter. This is a spectacle worthy of a trailer park, not the White House. It should not be imposed on the American people, let alone on the Republican party.
I realize that this is tiny minority position within the so-called conservative movement. Many, perhaps most conservatives, far from thinking that Gov. Palin’s family situation requires her to devote greater attention to her family, fervently believe that her family situation makes her candidacy a great victory and symbol of conservatism. Also, many conservatives will be repelled at my calling for the withdrawal of the person they see as most exciting and promising conservative figure to appear on the scene since Ronald Reagan. However, even if the entire conservative movement, and many VFR readers, oppose and and dismiss what I say here, it had to be said.
MORE…
(This entry contains comments on the Sarah Palin controversy from September 2 and now September 3.)
Steve D. writes:
Laura W. is absolutely right, and this situation has suddenly become profoundly depressing. You warned that McCain could signify the end of the conservative movement in America, but you never provided details. Well, now we know: McCain just handed a gun to conservatism, and the movement shot itself in the head. Willingly. Eagerly. It makes me wonder if there is, in fact, anything left of traditional America outside of a few people talking to each other online. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 08:55 AM
Laura W. writes:
I’m not sure what you’re thinking, but I hope you will urge McCain’s immediate withdrawal of this nomination. This is his Eagleton moment. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 08:08 AM
Laura W. wrote:
Palin has not just forced Republicans into the uncomfortable position of indulging her decadent brand of liberalism, she has put her family in a very embarrassing spotlight. Selfish and ruthless are the adjectives that come to mind. These are not the actions of a “pro-family conservative,” no matter how widely she opposes abortion. For the record, supervised teenagers rarely become pregnant.LA to Laura W.:
“For the record, supervised teenagers rarely become pregnant.”That’s a dynamite statement. If you’d care to expand on it, that would be great. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 07:40 AM
John D. writes:
You wrote:“All that the evangelical and Catholic conservatives care about is opposition to abortion. All that’s required for them to be happy is an illegitimate or defective pregnancy, followed by birth. They have no vision of social order, no vision of an overarching good, but have reduced all goods to the good of avoiding abortion. Which means that they embrace every kind of disorder, so long as rejection of abortion is thrown into the mix.”
I think you’re vastly overreaching here. You can’t possibly believe what you’ve written in this statement, can you? In fact, I know you don’t.… MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 07:15 AM
Since discussion threads at Lucianne.com only remain online for a couple of days, I have copied the entire thread of September 1 in which L-dotters responded to the announcement that Bristol Palin is pregnant. I have not read the entire thread. But the comments I’ve read so far are overwhelmingly, indeed virtually unanimously, supportive of Bristol, with not a single critical word being spoken about the situation, but rather with gushing congratulations.
MORE…
There is so much to say about the unfolding events, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.
For the moment, here’s an appalling article at Time by someone named Nathan Thornburgh who went up to Wasilla and asked the locals what they thought about the Bristol Palin situation. Note the way he seeks to banish the very notion that there’s any problem with illegitimacy. “Real” Americans from the wilds of Alaska don’t care about illegitimacy. Only effete Americans from the lower 48 care about it.
He says this, when for 45 years we’ve seen the devastating effect of fatherlessness on individuals and society. How many lives and neighborhoods have been blighted, how many people have been murdered, how many women raped, by savage young males raised without fathers. And now the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates have put conservatives into the position where no negative judgment can be expressed about out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and the whole conservative movement, with panting eagerness, are going along with them.
Also, see James Wolcott, not previously a fan of mine, quoting me at his blog at Vanity Fair:
The Bristol Stomp
A notable exception is Lawrence Auster, a model of political and intellectual consistency who refuses to board the Sarah Palin love train with the NRO crowd and that malleable lump of Jello-O known as the conservative base.… MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 01:04 AM
Focus on the Family has issued a statement expressing their complete support for the Palin family regarding Bristol Palin’s pregnancy and her upcoming marriage to the father, as quoted at the Corner. But of course the issue is not Bristol’s unmarried pregnancy and how the family is dealing with it—the same situation has happened a billion times before and will happen a billion times again. The issue is whether McCain should have chosen as his vice presidential running mate—and thus required the Republican party to approve that choice—a woman who has all these issues going on in her family. The issue is that McCain chose her and announced her selection, thus getting all the Republicans lined up behind her, with full knowledge that shortly after he announced her selection, there would be the further announcement that her unmarried daughter was pregnant. The McCain campaign itself told Fox News that McCain knew about the situation when he selected her. What kind of conduct is that by the leader of a party? Is this really what we want to be dealing with in the middle of a presidential campaign? Are conservatives now to raise as their co-leader and new icon a woman who is neglecting her children in order to pursue her political career and whose unmarried pregnant teenage daughter is getting married while the mother is running for vice president? McCain has put the conservative base in a position where it has to bend itself out of shape to maintain its support for the Republican ticket.
McCain has been lauded for his brilliant stroke against the Democrats in choosing Palin. But it appears that McCain’s truly brilliant stroke in choosing Palin has been against Republicans and conservatives. Which is no surprise, since, as we all know, sticking it to conservatives and defeating conservatism is McCain’s main goal in life, something he cares about, I suspect, even more than being president.
Update: But, no surprise, I am way out of step with the conservative base. They don’t have to bend themselves out of shape at all. Read the reactions at Lucianne.com. It’s an endless string of encomia for the wonderfulness of life and the fact that life is often messy and that many of us started out as the children of unwed teenage mothers and that the Palins are just so “real.” That’s what conservatism now stands for—getting “real” people with their “real” issues into the White House. Talk about the Obrah-ization of conservatism!
Or, rather, the McCainization of conservatism. Which is why I have opposed his candidacy from the start and still do.
MORE…
Sarah Palin’s 17 year old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant. McCain knew this when he chose Palin as his running mate. The Palins have announced that Bristol will marry the child’s father. I don’t know how this news will affect conservatives who have been uncritically celebrating Palin’s candidacy and seeing her and her family as the incarnation of conservatism.
An hour ago, before I heard the news about Bristol, I said to a friend that if I were the presumptive Republican nominee and was looking for a running mate and was considering Palin, I would have thought, “This is an excellent, gifted person, I think very highly of her, she would add a lot to my ticket. But it would not be appropriate to nominate for vice president a woman with a five month old baby.”
I think the same considerations would have applied to the Bristol situation.
Furthermore, is it not a reasonable guess that if Palin had not been consumed with her political career and had had more time for her children, 17 year old Bristol might not have gotten pregnant? And does not the fact that Palin’s high school daughter got pregnant reflect on Palin’s credentials as a Christian conservative parent and political leader?
I mean, come on, my fellow traditionalists, the Palin family has issues.
MORE…
I agree with everything John of Powerline says in his entry about the suspension of the Republican National Convention because of the hurricane in Louisiana. It’s absurd. There is no connection between the two events. There is nothing that the delegates can do about the hurricane. Correctly describing the quasi-cancellation of the GOP gathering as the Oprah-ization of American politics, John suggests that, instead of continuing to run scared from the specter of Katrina, the Republicans ought to use the convention to pinpoint the media lies about Katrina.
But, hey, Powerline wanted McCain to be the nominee, and this is exactly the kind of liberal move one would expect from McCain, right?
I would go further and say that by McCain’s reasoning, even without the hurricane, the convention should have been cancelled. After all, we’re in a war, aren’t we? Americans and Iraqis are being killed in Iraq. Lots of Iraqis—our allies and clients—are still being slaughtered by suicide bombers. The same is going on in Afghanistan. How can Republicans hold a celebratory convention when our allies are being killed? Indeed, by McCain’s reasoning, since “we’re all children of God” (his justification for legalizing 12 million illegal aliens), how can Republicans hold a celebratory convention so long as anyone is suffering anywhere in the world?
MORE…
LA writes to Laura W.:
I think Palin is remarkable.At the same time, a woman running a state, and running for VP, with a five month old baby, is wrong. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 08:24 AM
As broadcast on CSPAN between 10:00 and 10:15 tonight Eastern time (and the same event is being broadcast now, at about 1 a.m.), Sarah Palin, standing next to McCain, spoke at a rally on Sunday in Missouri. Notwithstanding my own warnings against excessive enthusiasm for her, I have to say that she is extremely impressive, a gifted politician, an American original. When she talks about wanting government that is “free of corruption and self-dealing,” her old-fashioned American idealism makes her sound like a female—and also a more forceful, canny, and confident—version of James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I don’t think Palin is going to fold or be embarrassed in debates and interviews. She clearly knows how to handle herself.
MORE…
In the thread, “Palin: the debate continues,” Carol Iannone writes:
It may seem like a cheap shot but Sarah Palin really is a form of Viagra. I just heard a commentator on ABC say, joining with her has energized McCain again, he’s got his mojo back, there’s a smile on his face, a bounce in his walk, and so on! Good grief, it’s practically the scenario of those offensive commercials for male enhancing drugs! MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 07:30 PM
In a cogently argued piece, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek says flatly that McCain’s “choice for veep is all but set up for failure in the fall,” because she is simply not prepared to discuss national issues at the presidential level. Here are excerpts:
MORE…
Dan Balz and Robert Barnes in the Washington Post describe the vetting process that led to the selection of Sarah Palin. Far from being a last minute choice, she was at the top of the list from the start. But the McCain circle was so secretive in their deliberations that no one knew it.
MORE…
At his blog, Terry Morris calls this recent remark of mine the “quotation of the day”:
MORE…
On a subject seemingly made for her in heaven, the choice of Sarah Palin as GOP vice presidential nominee, Maureen Dowd in today’s New York Times speaks of “my delight, my absolute astonishment,” that a real-life
hokey chick flick came out on the trail, a Cinderella story so preposterous it’s hard to believe it’s not premiering on Lifetime. Instead of going home and watching “Miss Congeniality” with Sandra Bullock, I get to stay here and watch “Miss Congeniality” with Sarah Palin. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 02:17 PM
Someone named Shannen (with an “e”) Coffin writes at the Corner:
Sarah Palin is a remarkable American success story—the kind of person that most Americans would love to befriend. She also is a huge political gamble, one that blunts the most effective line of attack on Barack Obama [that he is inexperienced].The belief that Obama’s lack of experience is his most vulnerable point reveals the stunning intellectual emptiness of the many conservatives who hold that belief. It shows an inability to oppose Obama based on the things that really matter: namely, who he is, what he stands for, what he would do as president. Very few people vote for president on the basis of the candidates’ experience; they vote based on who they think would be the best person to lead the country. The Founding Fathers never spoke of number of years in office as a qualification for the presidency. They said, over and over, that the qualifications for the presidency were virtue and wisdom. MORE…
In her speech yesterday in Dayton, Gov. Palin said:
Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.From what I’ve seen of Palin so far, I like her, as I indicated yesterday. But enthusiastically mouthing this cheesy and destructive feminist slogan hardly makes her seem like a conservative. I suspect that, as is the case with most conservatives, her conservatism consists of conservative stands on a handful of discrete issues (pro-gun, pro-life, pro-national defense, etc.), combined with insensible adherence to the overarching liberal principles, assumptions, and attitudes that dominate modern society. MORE…
Paul Nachman writes:
Edward Luttwak’s 1999 article, “Give War a Chance,” is a worthy technical explication of Kristor’s and Richard W.’s ruminations in the entry, “Has the madness of liberalism gone so far that only a world war can end it?” MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 03:25 PM
Our discussion of Sarah Palin, which began in this thread yesterday morning, continues below.
John L. writes:
As a traditionalist I’m not sure yet how I feel about Governor Palin as a VP choice, but watching the news last night with my mother (a right-leaning liberal), I thought that Palin was a good strategic choice by McCain. It spikes the enemy’s guns on one of the chief battlefields, the media. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 02:50 PM
Here are a a couple of threads from recent days that are worth checking out if you missed them or didn’t follow the ongoing discussions:
Has the madness of liberalism gone so far that only a world war can end it?
A reader absolutely dismisses the idea of removing Muslims from the West
The centrality of race
Europe’s new pariahs—the British
A reader sends Simon Heffer’s commentary on the Democratic convention:
It is interesting how the Americans, having rejected the British Constitution in 1776, now seem entranced by the idea of what Walter Bagehot (explaining the appeal of monarchy) called the constitutional device of “a family on the throne.” We have had the Bush family ad nauseam, the Kennedys ditto (with old Ted yanked from his sickbed to endorse Mr Obama in a stunt that made On Golden Pond seem light on sentimentality), an attempt at the Clinton family, and now the extended family of the Obamas. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 02:40 PM
Sebastian writes:
I though this item out of Mexico would interest VFR, re: your recent discussion on the possible spread of beheadings as a result of the influence of Islam: MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 12:35 PM
Who the heck knows?
Front page photo in today’s New York Times of Obama during his acceptance
speech. This is not the iconography of republican government, but of empire.
Philip M. writes from England:
I am loving VFR at the minute. For me it is the main reason I have the Internet, having given up on all other papers and media outlets. I find the analysis and contributors so refreshing. It is a relief to know there are others out there that are as scared witless by the falsity and shallowness of the West as I am.Speaking of which, as an outsider I am finding your Obama coverage fascinating. He has been compared on your site to Hitler, Kennedy, even Ozymandias. But can any of these come close to describing the character of this man—insofar as he can be said to have one? The guy is just one big question mark to me. MORE…
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 07:50 PM