Posted on 02/27/2009 2:51:53 PM PST by SmithL
IF BARACK OBAMA has been the most remarkable phenomenon of the recent political scene, Sarah Palin must be second. The emotional responses to each — especially by the media and the intelligentsia — go beyond anything that can be explained by the usual political differences of opinion on issues of the day.
That liberals would be thrilled by another liberal is not surprising. But there are conservative Republicans who voted for Barack Obama, and other conservatives who may not have voted for him, but who are quick to see in various pragmatic moves of his since taking office an indication that he is not an extremist.
Anyone familiar with history knows that Hitler and Stalin were pragmatic. After years of denouncing each other, they signed the Nazi-Soviet pact under which they became allies for a couple of years before going to war against one another.
Pragmatism tells you nothing about extremism. But the conservative intellectuals who seize upon President Obama's pragmatism to give him the benefit of the doubt are obviously bending over backward for some reason.
With Gov. Palin, it is just the opposite. The conservative intelligentsia who react against her have remarkably little to say that will stand up to scrutiny.
People who actually dealt with her, before she became a national figure, have expressed how much they were impressed by her intelligence.
Palin's "inexperience" is a talking point that might have some plausibility if it were not for the fact that Barack Obama has far less experience in actually making policies than Palin has.
Joe Biden has had decades of experience in being both consistently wrong and consistently a source of asinine statements.
Palin's candidacy for the vice presidency was what galvanized grassroots Republicans in a way that John McCain never did. But there was something about her that turned even some conservative intellectuals against her and provoked visceral anger and hatred from liberal intellectuals.
Perhaps the best way to try to understand these reactions is to recall what Eleanor Roosevelt said when she first saw Whittaker Chambers, who had accused Alger Hiss of being a spy for the Soviet Union. Upon seeing the slouching, overweight and disheveled Chambers, she said, "He's not one of us."
The trim, erect and impeccably dressed Alger Hiss, with his Ivy League and New Deal pedigree, clearly was "one of us."
As it turned out, he was also a liar and a spy for the Soviet Union. Not only did a jury decide that at the time, the opening of the secret files of the Soviet Union in its last days added more evidence of his guilt.
The Hiss-Chambers confrontation of more than half a century ago produced the same kind of visceral polarization that Gov. Sarah Palin provokes today.
Before the first trial of Hiss began, reporters who gathered at the courthouse informally sounded each other out as to which of them they believed, before any evidence had been presented. Most believed that Hiss was telling the truth and that it was Chambers who was lying.
More important, those reporters who believed that Chambers was telling the truth were immediately ostracized. None of this could have been based on the evidence for either side, for that evidence had not yet been presented in court.
For decades after Hiss was convicted and sent to federal prison, much of the media and the intelligentsia defended him. To this day, there is an Alger Hiss chair at Bard College.
Why did it matter so much to so many people which of two previously little-known men was telling the truth? Because what was on trial was not one man but a whole vision of the world and a way of life.
Gov. Sarah Palin is both a challenge and an affront to that vision and that way of life — an overdue challenge, much as Chambers' challenge was overdue.
Whether Palin runs for national office again is something that only time will tell. But the Republicans need some candidate who is neither one of the country club Republicans nor — worse yet — the sort of person who appeals to the intelligentsia.
If they are not conservatives, it really doesn’t matter if we win the elections. No more RINO’s. I refuse to vote for any liberal anymore, whether they are Republican or not. I will not donate money to the Republican party, I will not vote period if there are no conservatives on the ballot. I will no longer play the game, I will have little nor no income to tax, will try to become self sufficient in all ways and screw your country and it’s government.
I know how much you enjoyed seeing Sarah up and close. I was so tickled that you got to do that!
As to the women who do not like her, we pretty much know the reasons for that. Liberal women don’t like a down to earth happy looking woman who has it all. Faith, beauty, family, and status.
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." (http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, that holding is correct. [[Native born, not natural born]]
Neither of Bobby's parents were yet American citizens when he was born. 'Natural born' is a special category for prersidential eligibility.
I cannot remember the last rant I’ve read that was so well expressed! Congrats ... and dittos.
Limbaugh’s CPAC address today hit most of the right issues, points, and themes. He made the point about nominating the right candidate.
I’m still in love with Palin..... she still gets my vote.
Solidwood...well yes.
Thanks for the thread. I just now saw it posted. I think he nails it again. What a comparison.
Agreed. Saw Sarah and that other guy in Grand Rapids, MI and the crowd was clearly there to see Sarah.
That’s a load of crap.
You don’t really think you can bully people on the internet into supporting Palin do you? Reality check, there is no bus, you aren’t the driver, and Palin is not anyone’s leader outside of the state of Alaska. You don’t have any authority to tell anyone to sit down, shut up, or get off the bus that exists only your mind. Why don’t you join the chic in the previous Palin thread who listed how hot she was 3 times in her list. That’s typical of Palin’s support, and you wonder why others haven’t joined? Lol, give me a break.
Please get off the bus at the next stop. We like Palin, and if liberals like yourself don’t like it, well, that’s your funeral.
Palin is hot, isn’t she ? Or do I have bad eyes.
You are like the lucifer of Free Republic. You kind of show up in the garden and tempt conservatives to your tree of knowledge. because you know it all !
The Palin-aversion is a reaction to a “peasant” trespassing on Elite Territory [both Left and Right intellectuals] - the governance of the drooling masses.
Hardly true.
Though some of her supporters such as Rush Limbaugh and R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. occasionally comment on her comely appearance, some, like Thomas Sowell abstain from doing so. The focus of these men, and many others, though is always on her intelligence and political/governing abilities, which they unanimously concur are admirable and more than apt.
Perhaps you would warm up to her if she ceased bathing and had her body covered with tattoos and piercings?
You are like the lucifer of Free Republic. You kind of show up in the garden and tempt conservatives to your tree of knowledge. because you know it all
[A clique. A snooty, catty...]
Lol, that has become the norm anymore.
Good graphic.
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.