Just for grins: Coyote hearts Sarah Palin
T.A. Barnhart
I'll post all of this because it's short:
Slow day today so I thought I'd take the opportunity to note that, thus far, I'm on board the new Republican party. That which should be led by Gov. Sarah Palin.I'm also still wondering when the moonbats are going to start apologizing for swallowing, hook, line and sinker, the whole "trooper-gate" story? Of course they won't because the moonbats are motivated by hate and hate does not allow room for apologies. Let's just remind the moonbats that she was CLEARED of any wrong doing TWICE.
She has some work to do to make the top of the ticket. But 4 years is a REAL long time in politics. And I remember hearing Barack Obama speak at the Democratic convention when he was still a state senator and thinking...wow...this guy sound GOOD.
I have that same feeling about GOVERNOR Sarah Palin and she is wayyy better looking.
Of course look for the hate filled left to spend the next 4 years trying to mock her.
And under a picture of Gov Palin with her hair down (download the picture: the jpg is called "hairdown") is this hilarious quote:
"We are now the minority party but let us resolve not to become the negative party."
The woman who called Obama a friend of terrorists, questioned the "American-ness" of over half the nation, and is credited with being a major reason for McCain's defeat is saying the Republicans won't be negative. Michelle Bachmann didn't get that message, going on Hannity to renew her attacks on Obama (and probably causing more than a few Minnesotans to wonder why the hell they believed she hadn't gone insane before they voted for her again). The GOP has nothing but negativity; hell, that's all they had when they were the majority party. They couldn't defeat Clinton on the issues, so they took him down on other things. They won't beat Obama on the issues, either, and he'll not give them the material they'd need to drag him through the gutter.
But they'll try.
Contrary to what Ted asserts, few of us will be giving Palin any thought, much less wasting energy mocking her. She represents a small and shrinking portion of a party that itself is growing obsolescent. By the time the 2011 campaign gets here, she may have a base of her own in the GOP, but to think she can pull an Obama? Did he crash and burn in 2004? I'm trying to remember if he came to public prominence by attacking people and destroying a presidential campaign.
Oh no, that's right. He spoke profoundly of a united country and of the shared aspirations of all Americans.
And he didn't need people to promote his candidacy because he was hot.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Nov 19, '08
I have heard that Palin is being urged to run for POTUS in 2012 by a lot of people...
most of them Democrats!
When Palin was selected by McCain, a couple of my coworkers were discouraged, especially when McCain got a small bounce supposedly because of Palin. I told them then that Palin was a much better choice than Romney or Pawlenty in regard to helping Obama win.
Certainly McCain's missteps helped him lose, but Romney may have been able to help him in Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado.
Run, Sarah, run!
4:49 p.m.
Nov 19, '08
Against her?!? In what universe???
My goodness, in the course of a month, she managed to cast such a shadow over McCain's Presidential ambitions, it even outstripped George Bush!
Oh, please, GOP morons. Please please pick Sarah for 2012! I've even got your slogan picked out for you: "She's, like, you know, just totally ready for whatever it is that the President does!"
Nov 19, '08
Run, Sarah, run!!!
Nov 19, '08
Palin is dubbed by some as the champion of the "we weren't conservative enough" wing of the Republican party who blame McCain and the moderate wing for the 2008 election losses.
What some do not realize in their ignorance of history or deliberate denial is that in EVERY presidential nomination, the PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE of a party is the pick of the base, while the VP has traditionally been a political pick where the "do no harm" principle is usually applied.
Honestly, Palin running in 2012 will be interesting. Assuming that President Obama will bring the economy back into some semblance of stability, the absence of a falling economy and the War in Iraq will give the Republicans a clear shot in applying their usual "focus on social issues and tax cuts" style of campaigning.
If the failed ballot measures by pro-life nut jobs in Colorado and South Dakota is indicative of a trend, then the whole issue of abortion will not be an issue that a pragmatic Republican would run on.
If Democrats were smart and had the balls, then they would push ballot measures for Gay Civil Unions in order to preempt the mammoth of an issue that Gay Marriage can be in an election season.
7:11 p.m.
Nov 19, '08
YOMb
i like what you say here, but i'll quibble with you on the last paragraph: what we need to be doing is not pushing gay marriage but "civil" marriage: ending the role of churches in applying a state-sanctioned set of rights and privileges. we need to de-sanctify marriage as a civil act, and not just so gays & lesbians can marry; we need to do it to protect the rights of all people. if marriage remains tied to religion, it could easily be turned against others in the future. Oregon can take this step in 2009 with the Legislature that is now in place. but you are on the right track: let's get rid of this powerful cudgel (so effective in Ohio in 2004) that not only brings out the religionist right but also denies millions of Americans their basic civil rights.
7:16 p.m.
Nov 19, '08
Well, if you wanna go pickin' your presidential nominees not by how, ya know, much of a chance they have to win, but rather how much, ya know, they are loved by yer God lovin', gay hatin' backbone of this pro-American nation of ours, well then, you betcha. Pick Sarah. And, also.
7:33 p.m.
Nov 19, '08
Kristin, i couldn't have said it myself.
Nov 19, '08
There are two types that support Sarah Palin. One type are self-centered people who think that voting for someone who "talks and acts like themselves" is a good idea. The other type is the type of person that loves the fact that Sarah Palin takes every whacked out conspiracy theory from the most whacked out right wing sources and sticks them right into her speeches and makes those whacked out ideas mainstream without batting an eye. Forget the racism and religious intolerance...these are just aspects of the former group that vote for her because they figure she's "like them". People like Coyote REALLY like her because she brings their craziest, nuttiest theories into the mainstream.
Nov 19, '08
The fact is she was slandered during the campaign. Will an Obama justice dept. investigate? Of course not. I've documented Obama's use of the Missouri State Police to counter the same, on my blog . He's a hypocrite. Sarah isn't.
Nov 19, '08
T.A.,
I use the term Civil Union because that is what I believe is the most just way for Gays to marry.
Don't forget the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....
Having Gay Marriage that forces the State (whether it be local, county, state or Federal) to go into individual congregations with armed police officers would constitute a legal case involving "prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."
I have no quibbles with Gays being married down in City Hall by the mayor, but I would have every quibble and quibblet with the Mayor bringing the police force into a church and forcing the church to marry Gays against the church's will, values and history.
That is just my viewpoint on Gay Marriage.
8:47 p.m.
Nov 19, '08
YOMb
you make might point for me: forcing churches to marry people they object to. civil marriages brings the legal aspect of marriage to every citizen. that's all the state should do: provide legal rights. by making marriage a civil act before the law, churches are then free to perform whatever sacraments they choose, for whomever they choose. as it is now, we could easily turn our current version of marriage around and take away the religious freedom of churches: we've already set that precedent with how marriage currently functions. to give churches full religious freedom, we have to remove the legal "sacrament" of marriage from their purview.
M36 was, as you point out, a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Nov 19, '08
Oh, please. The founding fathers had no concept of anyone ever making anyone else do anything. They were thinking about situations like the Anglicans vs Quakers in Connecticut in the early 18th century. Every case they cited or was known at the time involved prohibiting behavior, not requiring it.
"Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" meaning "prohibiting me from prohibiting you" is BS 21st century spin to grab the constitutional talisman. Or blunter, no one that framed the constitution meant that free practice of religion would leave you free to practice religious bigotry!
"Establishing a religion" largely meant renouncing the doctrine of transubstantiation and being in good standing in the Anglican Church. Do they realize that well into the 19th century, if you did not meet these criteria (and have male genitalia), you could not go to university, hold a government job, accept a military commission, vote...the list goes on. Shrub's use of zealots to make policy decisions which directly implement religious doctrine is a case of violating the principle.
Despite the feeble attempts of cognitively challenged zealots to provide evidence, most the currently debated lifestyle issues are not a social problem; their prohibition is. They have it all backwards. Gay is a lifestyle choice. Being a jerk is not. Certainly affects society more. Yes, I'm hearing it now. My religion tells me that you have to shave off your goatee, because it's not healthy for society. I don't want my kids imitating the behavior. So, you really think the Constitution gives me the protection to come into your life and make that requirement, and if the government stops me, they're preventing the free exercise of religion?
All this religion talk is stupid anyway. I've never met two theologians that disagreed with much, be they...name it...unless one was misinformed. It's "the faithful" that have all kinds of conceptions about how their religion is unique.
The religion, the conspiracy theories, it's all about a general lack of normal, everyday, competent reality testing. When Shrub said that 94% of Americans agreed with his actions after 9/11, I thought that was interesting, as only about 84% think Elvis is dead and/or that extraterrestrials aren't directly shaping US policy. Sarah Palin is a pablum puking conservative because the electorate don't know pablum from a lead balloon.
Oh, please, GOP morons. Please please pick Sarah for 2012! I've even got your slogan picked out for you: "She's, like, you know, just totally ready for whatever it is that the President does!"
Shhhhhhh! Please, only propose things they will understand is cynical. Like, "she'll probably adopt Arnie and put him on the ticket." Perhaps that's cynical enough. When the pundits were calling her a "rogue Republican", I was going to do something with Photoshop and one of those nice Indian elephants that gets painted bright pink during the festivals, but they would like that kind of thing!
8:51 p.m.
Nov 19, '08
hey Mick, thanks for the comic relief. and for the unsubstantiated charges. repeating a strident Republican's nonsensical charges about how Obama could somehow use the Missouri State Police as his own personal PC squad is not documentation, dude; it's gossip-mongering. but in the world of Malkin, Hannity, Rush et al, gossip and smears substitute universally for fact. rock on.
Nov 19, '08
Mick sez: Will an Obama justice dept. investigate? Of course not. I've documented Obama's use of the Missouri State Police to counter the same, on my blog .
NOT comic relief, TA, Mick has it right, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for questioning him, just as I'm ashamed of questioning a certain local blogger who's broke the story of Sarah Palin and her daughter swapping bodies, or swapping pregnancies, or some damn thing. And don't forget the supermarker tabloids and their fantastically well documented stories about the sordid affairs of Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain.
Nov 19, '08
"and forcing the church to marry Gays against the church's will, values and history." I'm sorry, I just don't see this scenario happening. My family has attended the same Catholic church in PA for four generations. When my sister wanted to marry a divorced man, the priest said the future husband would have to have his marriage annulled by the church. She got married in a civil ceremony. So I don't see how suddenly the priest would be forced to marry two men. It's against church law. I think it's all a scare-tactic and lie by the extreme right.
Nov 20, '08
Actually, I would like to see the GOP nominate either Alan Keyes or J. C. Watts as their POTUS candidate.
Such a contest would eliminate the "race card" and sex (meaning both gender AND sex appeal wink) from the campaign. This would end once and for all the contention that we are a center-right nation rather than a progressive one. Either of these two conservatives would thrill their base... until the actual results come in.
Nov 20, '08
Reading Kristin's post my brain couldn't decide to read in Palin's voice or Tina Fey's voice. Hilarious.
1:27 p.m.
Nov 20, '08
What do church marriages have to do with anything? They are meaningless in a civil context. You can have any Tom, Dick or Louise marry you in a church, but the government calls you single until you get one of THEIR marriages. So where this whole idea of government regulating church marriage is bizarre.
Eliminating marriage in favor of civil unions sounds good, but simply levels down instead of leveling up. There's nothing wrong with marriage right now, except the people it's open to. Making a fundamental change simply isn't necessary, and tries to solve a problem--one of semantics--that doesn't exist. By far the more logical thing to do is just to stop banning gay couples from getting one. Boom, you're done.
Nov 20, '08
Mick is oddly entertaining. Here, balance these on your nose...
Sarah Palin's shaky grasp of geography stressed out the McCain campaign, the Chicago Tribune reports. A Fox News reporter, sworn to secrecy until after the election, said a campaign insider told him Palin was unaware that Africa was a continent rather than a single country, and she was unable to name the three members of NAFTA—Mexico, the US, and Canada.
And could you explain why she's hotter for the payday loan industry than one of her grizzled slobbering constituents is for a view of her with her hair down?
Nov 20, '08
Coyote, I am appalled. Your medicine is stale.
TA and Batty: good discussion. I would not choose to marry in a church that did not love me and mine, so I'm a bit bleak as to why we assume that anyone would be forcing a churchmeister to marry them if they were not part of that congregation? TA, a bit of a hole in yer argument on that count. People should have the option. I have never yet heard of someone holding a gun to a preacher's head to make him marry them. Batty, doubt it would happen.
3:22 p.m.
Nov 20, '08
CW, when i advocate for civil marriage, in part it's so that churches are free to perform whatever religious ceremonies they deem appropriate. churches should have all due freedom to practice as they believe is right, but right now, we are in a position to limit that freedom -- an ironic possibility that M36 only reinforces.
Nov 20, '08
aww... too bad you can't read. She wasn't cleared, but your head needs to be. Talk about swallowing hook, line and sinker! Apparently all you read was her press release?
6:10 p.m.
Nov 21, '08
Young Oregon Moonbat is seriously confused and raises an non-issue.
In states where same sex marriage is now legal, it does not mean that religious bodies that don't recognize such marriages are forced to perform them, any more than the fact that Jewish people can get married by their rites requires Baptists to perform Jewish rites, or Hindus have to perform Catholic ones, or Muslims have to perform Mormon ones.
What TA and TJ are each talking about in different ways is the fact that at this point a great many religious officiants qualified by their sects or denominations to perform the religious marriages of their religious group are simultaneously appointed civil marriage officers by the state in which they live.
TAs proposal would in essence strip religious marriage officiants of the status of civil marriage officiants.
In the abstract there is a kind of clean logic to this, but in practice I think it is bad politics. Right now extending civil marriage rights (including those performed by religious officiants of some denominations) to same sex couples does not in any way change the marriages of heterosexual couples, including those married in simultaneous religious/civil ceremonies.
The change proposed by TA would change religious marriages, and give much more plausibility to the false claims that same sex marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. It would set the marriage equality movement back decades IMO.
It is fairly common for people to cite the French system in this context, derived from the Code Napoleon. What this fails to recognize is that Napoleon's legal reforms were tied closely to the anti-clericalism of the French revolution & the expropriation of the previously established Roman Catholic Church. It was the product of a violently anti-religious social struggle in the context of a wider violent social-political revolution.
6:12 p.m.
Nov 21, '08
All liberals are haters -- what a wonderful, nuanced, gentle, generous, thoughtful claim, such a contrast to those of those ideologically full of hate.
Nov 21, '08
Chris - that statement was so... concretely contrary I was rendered unable to respond. It would have taken so much more energy to talk back to it than judiciously ignoring it. This just after I'd dropped off bags to the people living under the Hawthorne bridge. Who cares how they got there? It is wet, they are cold, I am not. THe diversity under the bridge baffles my soc. theory - two young girls; a couple; two loner men, one with only a sleeping bag; an older man taking care of a sick older teen. WHo knows what happened? But they are cold and that's all that matters, their fate or will not mine to support or impugn. Basic human necessity the only meanigful requisite, anything else just rationalization.
That's hate, alright.
Nov 21, '08
By the way Chris: when you are finished with that fine mind of yours, could I have it? Mine is all done.
12:36 a.m.
Nov 22, '08
Thanks for your kindnesses, rw. Circumstances increasingly will confound the sociology of more "normal" times I think, together one hopes with the license to judge that some of it is held by some to give them.
Nov 23, '08
Yes, Chris, increasingly it is upon us to abandon the stories we tell ourselves inveterately to gird up our concepts of reality. There are shifts occurring, and the sociological frameworks we learned, tested and know to be true Grand Theory, working paradigms, these now are suffering a shaking. I rarely ascribe "change" to anything even when I"m told I am... or it is. I am wary of asserting that I observe change, as I am a short-sighted human, living on a short timeline; I am an American woman, white, and so, while not mainstream (or I would be successful and stable!!!) still not from another culture that is made of longvision knowing in the bones.
This is s time of change. Increasingly I find myself fallen silent - no answers, to responses, no stories. Only thoughts moving in deeper currents as I become more and more of the sort of backwater where the really old, big trout lie.
I can no longer spout "tested" social theory. It is more storytelling and indicates that I am still trying to assert for outcomes, MY desired outcomes. On other stories and other lives.
So now I'm reduced to a more pure giving or action. If my heart is instructed that I must do this or that, I simply believe there are consequences for doing or not-doing as pierced in the heart. It is not kindness, Chris. If anything, it may be my first acts of deeper obedience and relinquish of a breath of willfulness.
Something is happening in our nation. I feel we need to look and listen more. Much, much more. Everything now depends upon it.
Nov 23, '08