Tuesday, October 07, 2008

The good liberal Palin makes a mockery of conservatives

Did John McCain choose Sarah Palin as his running mate, to spite the party that would not let him appoint his alter ego Joseph Lieberman, as suggested by some? Or was he just determined to get even with a party that allowed for the outrageous vilification of him during the 2000 election campaign? Is it all about smoldering resentments? How could any serious person have bypassed Mitt Romney for this?

It's a pity that the grotesque role the party has given Palin as Attack Dog will probably do the Obama camp more good than they could do for themselves. The wild claims about his affiliations, all of which have been done to death by the media, show utter desperation. Hey, Miz Palin, our ears were filled with all this Wright/Ayers/Acorn stuff for over a year. Ever hear of burn-out?

Palin is making a wonderful mockery of the conservative cause and its supposed adherents. She is as liberal as the day is long, as we clearly see in her disregard of principles that used to be considered major among conservatives -- such as, her acceptance of the notion that mothers of minor children should take on full-time, all-consuming professional jobs; her refusal to express regret for the behavior of her wayward teenage daughter and for her own questionable parenting skills; her enthusiastic promotion of the public school system and the teachers unions, while disparaging vouchers; and her tolerant views on homosexual partnerships. Where's the conservative? On all these points, the lady shows herself to be a good and true liberal. Is she laughing up her sleeve?

Want to guess what the likes of Palin's faithful pro-life worshippers (her only base) would have done, if Chelsea Clinton had come up pregnant at age 17? Can you hear the filthy verbiage that would have spewed forth from them concerning Hillary's failure to pay attention to her mothering duties, instead of busying herself with that health care stuff? Who looks to be the better mother today?

If Palin came out in support of public fornication in the town square, these pro-lifers would begin spouting talking points in favor of the plan, as long as the fornication resulted in pregnancies, which resulted in babies. [See Thank you for nothing, Ms. Palin]

Columnist Paul Mulshine calls Palin a "liberal populist." Well, maybe.

Here are four terrific articles by Mulshine on Palin:

Darn right conservatives have a beef with Palin

Palin sells out conservatives by opposing vouchers

Am I the only one who noticed the other Palin heresy?

Darn right Palin's a loony left-winger


John Sobieski said...

I saw McCain tonight at some rally today, boy, does he look tired and old and lost. Why did he get this nomination instead of Romney? I still don't understand that. "They" voted for him but I never got a chance to vote for Romney against him.

I'll give Palin credit, she is fighting hard for him. Pointless though it is.

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin is not a liberal. I just want to say she is ten times more conservative than John McCain. I think she has enough experience to be vice president or even president at that. She has more experience than Barack Obama. I think it was a wise choice of McCain to choose Palin and I believe the choice was to show his conservative side.

I was formally for Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney never appeared to me though!


Anonymous said...

I loathe to defend Palin who irritates me primarily because she is an unapologetic Zionist cheerleader and Bush gave me a bellyful of wars for Israel.

That said, I do not agree with your implied theory that Palin is responsible for Bristol's pregnancy and that she should have forced the girl to have an abortion because being an unwed teen mother is a disgrace.

None of us know how Palin dealt with Bristol's burgeoning sexuality. I have promoted abstinence as the best protection against pregnancy and STDs to my daughter, but have made it clear it's her body, her choice to have sex or not, and have given her contraceptive information that she can discreetly follow up on. I have made it clear, however, that I expect her to woman up and take responsibility for any child conceived and that abortion is not a responsible choice.

Should Palin have compelled that opportunistic little weasel, Levi Johnston to marry Bristol before parading them both on stage if she could? I would have not only done that, but left them both in Wasilla, married or not.

The working mom of small children being the antithesis of conservative values? Paleoconservative values, maybe. But more families have working mothers than do not, these days. One would assume, had McCain won, Palin would have access to an on-staff nanny or two and servants.

Your position also doesn't take into account that if it was Palin's husband running for the office, she would still utilize staff care for her young children, because she would have many duties, albeit unpaid, as the Second Lady, much like the First Lady does.

I consider myself conservative, but I oppose government defining what marriage is and favor leaving that to the individual churches and private organizations. I feel that only civil commitments, be they hetero or homosexual, should be officiated over and allowed by the government. The old marriage licenses can be grandfathered in.

Loving vs. Virginia leads me to conclude that eventually a leftist court would allow homosexual marriages as a civil right like marital miscegenation. There are still preachers and judges who disagree with race-mixing. They are still required to marry interracial couples This precedent would inevitably lead to radical homosexual activists invading fundamentalist Christian churches demanding to be married or face a lawsuit and possible criminal charges. Allowing the government to only recognize civil commitments would head this off at the pass.

I am a parent who drives a clunker, shops at thrift stores, and lives in cheaper housing so I can afford to send my daughter to private school. I am opposed to school vouchers, because it would inevitably lead to unruly, unmanageable school children destroying private schools just like they do public schools. Private schools that are privately funded can expel problem children. Parents who pay out of their own pocket are more likely to make their children behave themselves and demand the children of others not disrupt what they are paying for by doing the same. Any private school receiving public school vouchers would inevitably have the government curriculum as well as problem children they could not expel foisted on them.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:
I do not agree with your implied theory that Palin is responsible for Bristol's pregnancy and that she should have forced the girl to have an abortion because being an unwed teen mother is a disgrace.

I don't know where you find this in my post, but let's talk about Bristol's "burgeoning sexuality" that you mention. Palin herself has intimated that she knew of Bristol's sexual activities and there's no reason to doubt Levi's contention that they did the down-and-dirty right there in the Palin household.

In an interview, the dense Sarah actually expressed astonishment at the fact that her daughter did not know about contraceptives. She asked the interviewer something like, "How could she, in this day and age, not know about such things?" Well, obviously, dear old Momma wasn't telling her anything, because it would appear, from these remarks, that mother and daughter did not communicate on this subject. Sarah sounded as if she were talking about a stranger, someone else's daughter, not her own.

And she certainly was not expressing "conservative" notions about about how to deal with fornicating children. I suppose, if she and Bristol had talked to one another, she might have suggested that the kid get a diaphragm -- maybe? Considering Sarah's mentality, I doubt that abstinence would have entered the conversation. This Palin woman is thoroughly overtaken with the entire liberal outlook on social issues, beginning with feminism, no matter how much she dissembles and lies.