I <3 Sarah

Let me count the ways? Nope, space does not permit. Also, mine turns out to be so widely shared a crush that everybody seems to have his own long list of reasons for Sarah Palin's appeal. Here are my two personal favorites:

1.) She has widened the meaning of the Constitution's ban against any religious test for public office ("'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." -Article VI).

It took a while to extend that protection to exotic types like us Jews, not to mention Muslims, Mormons, atheists, secular humanists but widespread prejudice persists against Sarah Palin's kind of people. I'm talking about bible thumpers, holy rollers, Jesus freaks, Christers and other such less than affectionate terms I've heard in elegant living rooms, college classrooms and, of course, newsrooms. Now all those once unmovable prejudices have encountered an attractive, indeed irresistible, force. You can almost hear the stereotypes crumbling.

The same enlightened types who don't have a problem with Muslim women wearing scarves or Jewish men wearing those little skullcaps might raise an eyebrow at the kind of Pentecostal 'do that Sarah Palin sports. Not any longer. I have an idea you're going to see it all over hair stylists' magazines. It'll soon be as fashionable as Jackie Kennedy made bouffant hair and pillbox hats in her time. The Constitution is one thing, fashion another. In this case, they're about to reinforce each other.

I'm not sure what the right term for Sarah Palin's religious persuasion is. Evangelical? Fundamentalist? Post-denominational Christian? All of the above? Whatever her religious flavor, it's about to become much more acceptable in polite society.

2.) Sarah Palin is reshaping not just this presidential election but the country's political future. She's done more than turn this campaign around, revive the Republican Party (which very much needed it), and put a new spring in old John McCain's step. The young people she's attracting to politics this year will be influencing the outcome of many a presidential election to come.

Until a couple of weeks ago, it was Barack Obama who was attracting - and shaping - the next generation of Americans, even the next America. Now the magic has dissipated, the momentum has reversed. Today, when the more far-sighted Democratic strategists look at Sarah Palin, they have to be concerned not only about the outcome of the presidential election of 2008, but of 2012, 2016, 2020... Political icons cast long shadows. Before them.

When old John McCain introduced young Sarah Palin as his running mate, it was clear from her first, poised appearance that he'd found political gold in the Klondike. That's when a friend told me he wished he could be a fly on the wall as Democratic strategists try to figure out how they're going to counter the appeal of this hockey mom, moose hunter, long-time small-town mayor, reform governor, new hope of the Grand Old Party, and just plain capital-P Phenomenon.

It's going to be quite a challenge. Has a vice-presidential candidate ever stirred such immediate enthusiasm? Well, maybe Teddy Roosevelt. (He's also the only other one who might have known how to field dress a moose.) My infatuation seems to be shared by millions. "SA-RAH! SA-RAH!" the large and enthusiastic crowds shout at every stop. No wonder John McCain has decided to campaign with her; she's the one who brings out the people.

How in the world are the Democrats going to fight this new star? So far they don't seem to have a clue. The condescension, the baseless accusations, the personal attacks, the distortions - all that will only backfire, firing up her defenders and attracting more admirers to her cause. Who wouldn't rise to the defense of the lady? Her critics don't dare attack her too harshly - she's a deft counter-puncher - and yet they can't afford to ignore her, either. I, too, would like to eavesdrop on that Democratic strategy session. There's something fascinating about watching barely controlled panic in action.

From the article: 1.) She has widened the meaning of the Constitution's ban against any religious test for public office ("'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." -Article VI).

OK, why is the fresh aroma of ignorance wafting from a statement like this? This "ban" Greenberg references is aimed at candidates, not at voters. Our constitution wasn't drafted in "tidbits" of freedom & candidates like Palin haven't just widened it! (Give me a break!)

When it comes to issues like candidate eligibility, Newsflash, Greenberg!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!

From the article: It took a while to extend that protection to exotic types...

No, it didn't. (Either Greenberg is accusing our constitutional authors of failing to offer built-in protection or he is saying there's been candidates through the years who've been dumped from ballots purely because of their religion).

From the article: It took a while to extend that protection to exotic types like us Jews, not to mention Muslims, Mormons, atheists, secular humanists but widespread prejudice persists against Sarah Palin's kind of people. I'm talking about bible thumpers, holy rollers, Jesus freaks, Christers and other such less than affectionate terms I've heard in elegant living rooms, college classrooms and, of course, newsrooms.

Sadly, Greenberg confuses "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates! (otherwise no voter could frown upon a Satanist candidate due to his Satanism).

"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot -- and if we pass citizenship requirements (and for POTUS, age requirements), we're all eligible. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.

From the article: Now all those once unmovable prejudices have encountered an attractive, indeed irresistible, force. You can almost hear the stereotypes crumbling.

Hey, if a Wahhabi Muslim who believes in imposing sharia law in this country (like what's happening in other countries) runs for U.S. office, tell me exactly who would keep him off the ballot if he wanted to run? (I haven't heard of "unmovable prejudices" dumping specific candidates off of ballots, has anybody else?) But just because such candidates have such ballot protection doesn't equate that he/she has "unmovable" voter protection...if a voter doesn't want religiously based sharia law imposed in this country, then yes, a voter can take that into consideration and it's not an "unmovable prejudice" to do so!

By all means, just as the #1 reason why LDS voters in Utah told the Salt Lake Tribune why they voted in the mid-90s percentiles for Mitt Romney ("personal qualities"), voters do not have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.

I'm sure if Amish voters in Pennsylvania, Baptist voters in the most Baptist part of Texas, and Mormon voters in Utah all voted for their respective Amish, Baptist, and Mormon candidates in those areas, they are not engaging in "unmovable prejudice" just because they took that quality of a candidate into consideration when they voted.

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.