Category: Politics

Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential running mater for campaign 2008. Considered from the non-Christian view of political pragmatism McCain’s choice, strategically and tactically speaking is brilliant. Now, no Biblical Christian should be able to vote for McCain solely on the basis of his choosing Palin as his VP but nonetheless from a purely politically pragmatic perspective McCain did himself a favor by choosing Palin.

In this article I am going to examine, from the non-Christian view of pure pragmatism, why McCain’s choice is exceptional. Second, I am going to examine the weaknesses that Palin brings to the ticket. Lastly, I am going to probe as to why it is that Biblical Christians cannot cast their vote against Christ by voting for female civil magistrates.

McCain’s choice of Palin is politically incisive for several reasons. First, it energizes McCain’s base which is something the man has sorely need to do since he won the Republican primaries. Because of Palin’s presence on the ticket many Evangelicals will follow James Dobson’s instant conversion and forget McCain’s weak pro-life stance, and McCain’s essentially liberal (neo-con) persona and positions and pull the lever for McCain in November. By choosing Palin McCain has gone a long way towards repairing the destruction that has been done to the Reagan Coalition by the Bush’s. Now, McCain will not treat that coalition constituency any better than the Bush’s have but at this point, with this choice, he has successfully fooled them into thinking that he will. With this choice enough Reagan Democrats will again vote Republican to convincingly give McCain the election.

Second McCain’s choice of Palin is stellar, pragmatically speaking, because it sets up the Republican future. If McCain wins (and I think he will with this choice unless Palin experiences some kind of Eagleton moment) McCain has bequeathed the Republican party a heir apparent that is Reaganesque in her convictions. Republicans have been looking for the second coming of Reagan since he left office and Palin might be the one who fills that desire. Indeed, Palin is such a good choice that her presence on the ticket could have coatails for the Republican party.

Third, McCain’s choice of Palin undercuts the ability of Democrats to tie McCain to George Bush which has clearly been a large part of Democrat strategy to date. Palin has a persona of fighting corruption within the Republican establishment. She is cast as a Rebel who has never fit into the “good old boy” network. By choosing Palin, McCain underscores his “Maverick” reputation and makes Democrat allegations that McCain will be the continuation of the Bush presidency lose all traction.

Fourthly, on a point I never will get, Palin will gain McCain female votes that he would not have otherwise received. For reasons that I will never comprehend people will vote for people who are like them even if those people they are voting for positions that stand in ideological contrast to them. Why a former Hillary supporter would vote for Palin just because both Hillary, and Palin, as well as the voter have the same genitalia will always baffle me.

Fifthly, Palin’s executive experience stands in contrast to the executive experience at the top of the Democratic ticket. Were I the Republican campaign managers I would put subtly inject this into the campaign as well as the contrast between Palin’s “Serpico” persona vis a vis Obama’s connections with some very unsavory and unethical people.

Sixthly, it is already obvious that Palin can give a speech. This ability is overwhelmingly under-rated today. It’s importance not only lies in the perspicuous attractiveness that it brings to a candidate but it also communicates mega-volumes about a persons thinking ability. People who can speak are usually intelligent people. This ability to speak adds to Palin’s telegenic presence. Already it is easy to see that Palin is one of those politicians that has a charm about her that draws people. This helps McCain because McCain doesn’t have that in any degree.

Part II, the weaknesses of Palin.

Part III, why Christians can’t vote for female magistrates.

I couldn’t help but think of those magnificent outdoor rallies held by the National Socialist Party in 1930’s Germany as I watched the Black nationalist, terrorist connected, Marxist embracing Barack Hussein Obama. In Berlin those many years ago, at those mass outdoor Nazi rallies, the choreography was precision, the rhetoric was magnificent, and the mindless were mesmerized. In Denver last night, the choreograph was precision, the rhetoric was teleprompter perfect, and the mindless were mesmerized.

In order to get to the point of standing before tens of thousands of Germans Hitler had his Goebbels, Himmler, and Rohm that brought him to that point. Likewise, Obama has had his henchman. Men like Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Tony Rezko and William Ayers brought Obama to his moment in the limelight. If a man is known by the company he keeps then Obama is a bad man.

In Obama’s speech, he made it clear at the beginning that the role of the Government is to be the provider for the struggling American. This idea has been a theme throughout the convention. The Democrats believe this to be compassion when in point of fact the idea that the government is responsible to look out after struggling people is an invasion of spheres that belong to family and Church. The issue really boils down to security provided by the government vs. freedom of men from the suffocating hug of a Nanny state.

Obama promised tax cuts for 95% of the population. But the problem with this promise is that there is no way that Obama can create socialized Health Care, provide affordable college education for all who desire it, invest in renewable energy and its research and development, pay teachers higher salaries, and provide for free preschool while at the same time cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. Obama is going to do this by going after corporations and by streamlining American government. Somehow Democrats don’t ever understand that people who have lots of money (corporations) are smart enough to either pass on the costs of taxes or to avoid them all together.

Obama promised to eliminate oil dependence in ten years. He did not say how it he would pursue this ambitious goal. At this point it almost seems as if Obama is smoking crack. In my mind there is no way these United States can be energy independent in ten years while at the same time maintaining a cohesive social order. People just don’t realize the mammoth undertaking it will be to get this country energy independent, and to promise to do so in ten years, starting almost from scratch, is just delusional. It is not only that alternate energy sources have to be discovered and developed its also that those sources have to be manufactured, distributed, and marketed, on a continental scale. This ambition makes Kennedy’s promise of going to the moon look like child’s play. Indeed, this promise of Obama sounds more like Mao’s promise of “a great leap forward,” then it does the rational of a reasonable politician. Obama can get away with this kind of rhetoric because the average person has no idea what it would take to become energy independent. This promise of Obama’s may be the most disconcerting of all because if he is serious the implications for our social order would be devastating.

The inexperienced Obama made the case that he would be a better commander in chief than the former POW Republican nominee. At this point of the speech Obama became almost combative. Obama made it clear that he is not going to be timid in this election. If McCain is willing to mix it up this is good news for McCain. An aggressive Obama is only going to reinforce some stereotypes that some people have. I don’t say this as a partisan for McCain. It matters very little to me whether McCain or Obama wins. The result is going to be the same.

In short the speech was the same thing we have heard from the Democrats since forever. Since 1972 and the McGovernizing of the Democratic party the Democratic party is leftist, Marxist and believers in centralized big government. Whether the candidate is McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or, now Obama, it’s all the same rhetoric and all the same policy. Bigger Government. Increased taxation. More spending. Different year…different face…same verse.

Obama promised that he would never question McCain’s patriotism, believing that the country needed to get beyond that kind of partisan childishness. I believe the reason that Obama did this is not because of his nobility in desiring to raise the tone of political campaigns but rather it is because the issue of patriotism is potentially Obama’s achilles heel. If Obama’s past catches up to him before the first Tuesday in November the issue of his patriotism as it pertains to his connections to William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright is going to be front and center of this campaign. Obama by his high tone on patriotism is trying to do a preemptive strike on this potential problem.

Obama tried to cut his losses on issues like abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and second amendment concerns, by using extreme examples to suggest that even though we disagree we can come together as a people by admitting that abortions should be fewer, homosexuals ought to be able to visit their dying spouse in the hospital, an illegal immigrant mother should never be separated from her child, or that gun owners in rural Iowa can’t object to declining guns to gang bangers in inner city Cleveland. This makes great rhetoric but there really is nothing substantive in Obama’s observation.

Personally, I’ve never been impressed by Obama’s ability to speak. I know I am in the minority in that observation. I’ve spent a good amount of time reading great speeches. I have spent my whole life listening to great speakers whenever possible. I don’t believe Obama is even a good speaker, though I willingly concede that many Americans are mesmerized by the man’s speaking ability.

Overall the speech was sold as one that would give specifics to the change that Obama has advocated for so long. The specifics that were given were concrete enough to satisfy those who are demanding specifics but still nebulous enough to avoid the necessary details.

Obama was not Martin Luther King tonight. Imagine him instead as a political version of Nat Turner closing in on the political kill. He was the resolute Virgil Tibbs in the Hollywood film “Heat of the Night,” battling against all those who would deny him his place. He was, to paraphrase Joe Biden, a clean, articulate, bright version of Malcolm X.

Tonight at the Democratic National Convention the Democrats trotted out Loser Swift Boat Kerry, Adulterer and Perjurer Clinton, and The Mouth Biden.

The themes that united their speeches was the attack of John McCain and the contention that America’s domestic (economy) and foreign (war in Iraq) policy is tattered and in ruins. People need to understand that the way party out of power replaces the party in power is by convincing people of economic downturn or of a major foreign policy blunder. The Democrats, by arguing that everything is coming unraveled are only pursuing a course that they would pursue even if the nation were in the middle of Utopian renewal.

It is interesting that many of the Democrats have emphasized family themes in their speeches. The Democrats have to do this because they are the party of weirdo wiccans, hate-mongering homosexuals, and militant minorities. As such they need to give a botox treatment to their family credentials in order to work out the ugly weirdo wrinkles.

Now, everyone here knows I carry no brief for the Republican party but the idea that Democrats can fix the domestic and foreign blunders of the Republican party that the Democrats are complicit in is like saying that a Bulimic can provide healthy counseling for the problems of an anorexic.

All of the speeches tonight tipped their hats to John McCain in terms of personal friendship or real respect for all the he went through in Vietnam, but after that tip of the hat all the speakers tore into McCain as being out of touch with suffering Americans and hard times. The solution for all the speakers was Government coming to people’s rescue. One speaker after another insisted that Government would fix the various problems of expensive health care, expensive college, and lack of jobs.

In his speech Perjurer Clinton couldn’t resist talking about himself. In his speech Kerry was still working to expunge the damage that the Swift Boat truths did to his credibility from four years ago. In his speech Biden politicized his first wife’s and daughter’s death after he was first elected to Senate. This politicization of personal tragedy, (which most politicians do) in my opinion is not a great deal different than flashers exposing themselves in public. There is something inherently diseased about how politicians emotionally expose themselves.

As a side note — If McCain chooses a US Senator as his Vice President this campaign is going to look like a Senate cat-fight.

There is something ironically fitting about Barack Hussein Obama and Abraham Lincoln both coming from the same state.

We could start with the fact that they both were and are inclined to Marxism.

We could observe that neither gave or gives two hoots about the Constitution.

We could say that each had and has a pushy wife.

We could observe that each is associated with the gods in as much as they each are connected to a Greek Temple structure.

We could say that each ran for President while having almost no experience for the job whatsoever.

As far as speeches go Hillary’s speech was just so so. It won’t be remembered for soaring rhetoric or profound policy proposals. What Hillary’s speech will be remembered for is her accomplishing the necessity to clearly articulate support for Obama’s candidacy for President. On the surface the Democrats will go into the election cycle united, though beneath the surface I believe that there is a great amount of ill will between the Clintons and the Obamas.

Beyond the necessary niceties in her speech Hillary focused on people she met who told her that they needed the government to help take care of them, even citing a soldier who encouraged her to “take care of my buddies.” Clearly Hillary believes that the government is the parental figure in the country and that it is responsible to take care of the people, its children. It is responsible to take care of people without health insurance. It is responsible to take care of women in America who are being disadvantaged. It is responsible to take care of children. Hillary’s America is one where government is the Nanny and we the people are to be obedient to our caretaker.

From here Hillary offered up boilerplate Democrat positions ranging from anti-corporate rhetoric to pro global warming to her fervid desire for universal health care. More than once Hillary stated the Democratic mantra that “government must be about ‘we the people’ not we the favored few.”

Hillary spent only a little time attacking John McCain focusing more on attacking failed Bush policies while insisting that McCain would continue with the failed policies that find our reputation internationally damaged and our economy not fundamentally sound.

In the end this is a speech that was calculated to deliver Hillary from being blamed in any way for an eventual Obama defeat.