Posted on 09/06/2009 3:30:08 PM PDT by radar101
By Adrienne Ross
Governor Palin's support continues to grow, which completely baffles those who never understood her support to begin with. After the media malpractice, after the bogus ethics complaints, even after Levi Johnston, she remains strong when much weaker souls would have been laid to rest by now. How is that possible? Keep reading.
I will always remember the first time a student came to my defense in class. Somebody said something disrespectful, and, before I could open my mouth, someone else said, "Don't be talking to Miss Ross like that!" Silence followed. That was the end of that--until the next time, of course.
That's when you know you've got it.
Now, I don't actually need my students to stand up for me because I do pretty well by myself. In fact, it's a good thing I didn't get a chance to respond--good for the student who uttered the disrespectful comment, that is. I don't take a lot of mess, nor do I have to. Overall my students have always loved and respected me, and I have very few behavioral problems. The reasons, I believe, are simple: I love and respect them first, they think I'm cool, and I can "bust 'em down" in basketball. That's my recipe for success! I'll add to that one more ingredient: I was in a staffing with a parent who relayed the story of why his child said he never gave me trouble, though he gave other teachers trouble. According to this parent, his son said, "'Cause Miss Ross will knock me out!" Nice mix of respect and fear there, I suppose (though I'd never do that!). I say all that to say I can clearly handle myself.
True authority, however, is revealed when I don't have to.
To this day, I have no recollection of what the first student uttered, just that he was put in his place rather quickly by his classmate. Now, I don't advocate students being aggressive with other students, but I do believe that harmless positive peer pressure goes a long way. Because one student came to my aid, I could get on with the business at hand without taking the time to deal with nonsense, saving myself for bigger issues that really need my attention.
I was thinking of this in light of Governor Palin. Some don't understand why so many of us speak up and fight back when we hear her being smeared by the likes of the mainstream media, anklebiters on the Left and the Right, and even her daughter's ex-fiance'. "What's with all these people," some say, "these bloggers, these activists, these supporters, and why won't Palin herself address every allegation thrown at her?" We all know she can handle herself, so why doesn't she deal with every single issue? The answer is simple: she doesn't have to.
See, most of the attacks against Governor Palin are like the comment in my classroom: distractions meant to take her attention from what's important, slurs and accusations intended to sting and bite, and all-out attacks with the hopes of sparking a fiery retort so the process can continue. And for what? To wear her down.
Each year I get new students, several of whom would say in a heartbeat, "We got your back, Miss Ross." Now, they know good and well I'm no pushover and certainly no punk. However, dealing with every individual about every comment is a waste of everyone's time, and it doesn't accomplish anything. Students who speak up, out of respect for who I am and what I represent, allow me to just keep on steppin'-- never missing a beat, never being sidetracked, never wasting energy.
Then, when something big arises, I'll use that reserved energy to deal with it.
Governor Palin, too, has plenty of opportunities to decide to speak or to be silent, to defend herself or to keep on steppin'. More often than not, wisdom tells her to keep on steppin'--and that's when we step up. That, I suppose, is part and parcel of the "online footprint" first written about here and then commented on here and here. She doesn't need to ask anyone to have her back. Before she turns around, we're already there--just as my student addressed his peer before I could even open my mouth. We're there on Twitter, on Facebook, on our blogs, on talk radio. Everywhere you turn, we're there, so she doesn't have to fight every single battle because we're fighting for her.
Again, that's true authority. That's when you've got it, and today, more than ever, public servants need it--and they need a whole lot of it. The more we can step in the ring and throw some punches and block some unfair hits for them--and the more of us who do so--the more strength people like Governor Palin can reserve for the bigger battles.
“That our Congress is now no better than that is simply the result of the people having learned how to vote themselves bread and circuses through their representatives.”
My husband and I often discuss how bizarre it would be to compare the illiterate self-serving criminals in D.C. to the wonderful Founding Fathers. God help us all!
No, a fool is the one in this thread that thinks their gibberish writing is profound, my friend.
The reason we are a democratic republic...
We are not a democratic republic, we are a constitutional republic.
Are you trying to imply that simply because we vote we're a democratic republic.
And where does the Constitution fit into your democratic republic?
From whence does the concept of "rule by law" come in in your democratic republic? Hint: it doesn't!
If we were a democratic republic then the elections of POTUS would be settled by popular vote. But it isn't done that way, is it?
Despite the truth of the matter, how do you think the media would treat Palin for spelling out the deficiencies of the majority of voters?
The truth of the matter? Is that a flippant concession that we actually are a constitutional republic?
And as to the media they're as dumb as dirt on the issue as well and I don't know of too many people who give them any credence whatsoever anyway.
And as far as "the deficiencies of the majority of voters" goes it is up to the individual Citizens of this nation to inform themselves and the duty of those who are informed to correct them if they're wrong. If they continue in their ignorance you can't place the blame on others.
Did you take the tests for others when you were in school or were the other students responsible for their own results?
Were you responsible for the deficiencies of the other students in not preparing for those tests?
For the both of you...whose ignorance I'm trying to cure.
From Conservapedia...Constitutional Republic
A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
A Constitutional Republic is the current form of government in the United States.
Do you believe America was founded as a Communist state?
Final Jeopardy theme song continues to play...
I’ll look for your replies tomorrow, if there are any. I’ve got to go to work in the morning and it’s bedtime. Good night.
We are, indeed, a democratic constitutional republic.
If you think that democratic principles are implied by the word "republic", I suggest you review the nature of the governments of some of the communist REPUBLICS.
As for the election of the President, the Electoral College is simply a compounding of the republican principle. The voters vote for the Electors, who then represent them.
My point was that the justification for having a republic of any kind always boils down to the deficiencies of pure democracy. Expecting Palin to touch this topic at all is unreasonable, given that the liberals will always opt for direct democracy when the existing mechanisms fail them.
When I was in school, I took my own tests and received a grade of my own. The behavior of the majority of students was typically of no import whatsoever. That situation has little bearing on how government works, where I am entitled only to that which the majority will approve and obligated for anything the majority wishes to provide to others.
Calling the U.S. a democracy is in no way wrong, misleading, or subject to criticism. Most educated people I know use the term "pure democracy" to describe a situation where no republican elements are present.
We really aren't in disagreement about anything other than whether Palin can reasonably use the term "democracy" to describe the United States.
The definition or applicability of the term "constitutional republic" does not preclude use of the words "democratic" or "federation", which also applies.
Please quote again the words that Palin used and what you believe she should have said. Let's see how comfortable you are with such a substitution.
If you think that democratic principles are implied by the word "republic"...
Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?
...I suggest you review the nature of the governments of some of the communist REPUBLICS.
See reply 65. Tell me something I don't know.
As to your subsequent request in reply 69...No thanks! The rules to your game keep changing, and to only your advantage.
Have a nice day and may your goalposts always remain stationary, instead of constantly fluctuating.
Great stuff Adrienne. Your ongoing support for Sarah is admirable. I’m with you.
But I really thought that she should have made time to appear at the Reagan library event, and that she should also have spoken at the national meeting of Republican Women meeting. These, in my mind, were critical events that could have advanced and given her valuable support, whatever path she chooses.”
I’m under the impression that she never had any intention to appear at those events promoting her. She would have attended if there were mutual agreement. If any of them had a signed contract, surely we would have seen one by now.
I suspect she is choosing her venues carefully, afer the Republicans threw her under the bus during the Mc Cain campaign.
She really could have made all the difference in the two weeks after the convention, but she was misdirected in a manner that was so bad, it could have only been planned on purpose.
Why should she jump right back in to that? I suspect she will be running her own game heading into the 2010 elections,meeting with Republicans only when it suits her. I wouldn’t blame her for rounding up 200 of the most conservitave congressional candidates, and working with them to uproot the liberal/moderate insiders at the state and local level within the party.(thats what I would be doing if I were in her shoes)
The original "goal post" had to do with whether Palin was justified in using the word "democracy" to describe the U.S.
Perhaps we disagree, but I see no problem in doing so. Certainly it would be incorrect to describe our nation as an "undemocratic constitutional republic".
EVERY elected representative is elected DEMOCRATICALLY, except the President and Vice-President (and perhaps just a few others).
Further, to suggest that there are democratic elements to our form of government, but that there are no democratic principles, is just a little too far out for me. Certainly there are SOME principles to our form of government. I would be very surprised if none of them could be described as "democratic principles".
So you're sticking with "America is a republic and not a democracy"?
Without a further lengthy explanation, people would be laughing at Palin, suggesting that there was no distinction between the U.S. and the various communist republics already mentioned.
The Association of Republican women is a bunch of liberal to moderate rinos. She was smart to ignore them.
It's very nice. I recommend it. Though for some of us there are still not enough hours in the day.
But let's review, just in case...
William Tell said...When somebody asks, "Why does Palin keep on emphasizing that our nation is a republic and not a democracy", what short answer would you suggest that she give?
A completely, and intentional I might add, rhetorical question.
However, I deigned to answer it anyway by agreeing with the short, simple answer someone else gave...
Um... she could say, “America is a republic and not a democracy.”
Nice answer.
Easy.
It is, isn't it.
You obviously didn't like the answer.
It seems that it is your belief that she is justified in doing so, and you've gone to great lengths, to no benefit, to reinforce your belief and to convince me of that belief.
The change in goalposts that I was referencing was the one you established in reply #59.
William Tell stated...The reason we are a democratic republic...
...which was then moved at reply #68, to wit...
William Tell stated...We are, indeed, a democratic constitutional republic. (which is comical on it's face, IMO)
As I stated in reply #70...If you actually thought we were a "democratic constitutional republic" you would've responded in that manner from the get go...but you didn't, did you?
You changed the goalposts.
Certainly it would be incorrect to describe our nation (slick) as an "undemocratic constitutional republic".
Someone could describe "our nation" in such a manner, though that would be rather silly. But we're talking forms of government, not nations, aren't we. It would be just as incorrect to describe our form of government as a "democratic constitutional republic", as you did.
Further, to suggest that there are democratic elements to our form of government, but that there are no democratic principles, is just a little too far out for me. Certainly there are SOME principles to our form of government.
Perhaps you should be looking for the republican principles of our form of government. You know, things like limited government, private property rights, States rights, etc. Perhaps that's too far out there for you too.
So you're sticking with "America is a republic and not a democracy"?
I am certainly "sticking" with America's form of government as being a Republic and not a Democracy.
Without a further lengthy explanation...
There's nothing stopping you. You have time on your hands.
...people would be laughing at Palin, suggesting that there was no distinction between the U.S. and the various communist republics already mentioned.
You've got it, IMO, bass ackwards. By describing our form of government (a nation isn't a form of government though you've done a yoeman's job of trying to confound the two) as a Democracy she is the one suggesting that there is no distinction. People should be crying, not laughing.
"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." Vladimir Lenin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.