Posted on 07/12/2009 9:15:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
In light of the comments and responses to my WND piece on Sarah Palin's resignation, I think some further observations and reflections are in order.
First it's important to remind everyone that I have never accepted the notion that Palin somehow represents adherence to the moral principles of republican, constitutional government. In a WND article right after McCain selected her as his running mate (Gov. Sarah Palin: Unequally yoked), I gave the reasons why. Later, when Charles Gibson asked her about Roe v. Wade she declared "I think that states should be able to decide that issue." In reaction, I wrote another article (Sarah Palin: Already compromised?) in which I observed that "Palin is being touted as an unequivocally pro-life politician…Her words suggest that, on the contrary, she regards the issue of respect for innocent life as a matter of personal opinion rather than public principle…." I went on to point out that "making a pro-life icon of someone who takes this falsified "states' rights" position and who, at the same time, relegates her pro-life views to the status of "personal opinion", places the pro-life movement firmly on the path of self-destruction." I cautioned that "If the issue of respect for innocent human life is simply a matter of "personal opinion," what justifies government interference (at any level) in the personal decision of the woman carrying the child, or the parents who provided the genetic material from which its life derives?...Where no overriding public interest can be ascertained, the state cannot impose its moral opinions upon individuals without infringing the freedom of conscientious decision essential for the free exercise of religion (which is also counted among our unalienable rights.)"
In these past writings, as in the latest one, I have tried to reason clearly and carefully about the issues of public principle and policy raised by Sarah Palin's words and actions. Unfortunately, both Palin's fans and the leftist media hacks who act as her detractors have focused on her personal life. The fans want people to accept her loving commitment to her Down syndrome child as conclusive evidence that she is a pro-life champion. Her detractors snipe about her temperament, or make reprehensible so-called jokes about her family members, trying with ridicule and character assassination to manipulate public opinion against her. Meanwhile, her fans respond as if these rabid attacks conclusively prove that she is the conservative champion of principled morality they so desperately want her to be.
Unfortunately, as I argued in the articles cited above, ugly media attacks don't' alter the facts that show, logically and conclusively, that she is not such a champion.
Now I find readers like David, who left a comment on this site, declaring his view that my latest piece "is what I would expect from the mudslinging left." This reaction exposes the insidious nature of this whole contrived situation. Once we accept "personal" matters (of action or opinion) as the basis for our support or rejection of political leaders, anyone who opposes them can be accused of mudslinging and slander, even when their opposition is based on careful reasoning about public policy and constitutional principle.
Like so much else going on in our public discussion these days, this makes fear rather than truth the standard of our public discourse. In my case it would be fear of being unfairly attacked as an un-Christian replicant of the left-wing character assassins. This reminds me of what liberal blacks have tried for years to do on account of my rejection of their leftist cant on welfare issues. In both cases my response must be the same, precisely because of Christ's example. I will try to follow what careful and conscientious reasoning from right principle leads me to believe is true. I will leave in God's hands the integrity of my identity. In the end, he knows the right name for me and will recognize me for what I am.
I could of course simply say nothing as others promote Palin as a representative of the constituency of moral principle. Unfortunately, when she proves inadequate to the task, human vanity will lead many to doubt the viability of the moral cause, rather than their own lack of discernment about the flaws in her public policy stances on the key moral issues. Such doubters will sow confusion and demoralization in the ranks of moral conservatives. This may in fact be the result intended by some of those who helped promote Palin to national prominence, though they tacitly despise the moral constituency she is supposed to represent. By speaking out, will people like me help to mitigate this bad result? Will our warnings prevent well intentioned people from relying too much upon a false hope? If so, it's worth the risk of being unpopular with Palin fans who insist that reasonable criticism of her public policy views and actions is no different than the partisan media's malevolent personal attacks.
“It has nothing to do with personalities. What is at stake is the most important non-negotiable principles upon which our republic and our liberty rest.”
It does, in fact, have to do with principles. I couldn’t agree more. In many ways, this feels like our last campaign.
I understand you are talking about global principles, conservative principles, but the gifted leader must carry them personally.
I have not seen anyone with this much courage and commitment to stated personal and political beliefs in my adult life...which now spans many years. I hope I am right...if not, I don’t think I would recover from the disappointment...the shock of the miserable performance of the last candidate will be with me for a long time.
I am sure she has foibles, I am sure she has flaws, but I will not believe she is not true at heart, that she is not just who I think she is. I may be let down or disappointed by her, but I doubt sincerely that I will be surprised. I can’t think of a better starting point. Or a more bitter ending for us all, if we are wrong. I think we are at that point in history exactly...2-3 or more SCOTUS appointments in the next two terms on top of the disastrous handling of the economy so far will put the next POTUS in no less a difficult position than one could possibly imagine.
I can’t think of anything that could have reassured me more than for her to withdraw from the petty politics and the quagmire in which she found herself. I think she will become whatever we allow her to be, that she has the ability to be our rock, that she has that much potential.
Just my opinion.
No, it is you who have it wrong. All officers of government, at all levels, have a sworn duty to the Constitution to protect innocent human life. No officer, no government, no state, no individual, has a right to abet, act, or allow the killing of innocents.
No, nobody has the right to kill an innocent, but it is up to the states to define what homicides are justifiable and which are not. Homicide, including abortion, is reserved to the states and the people. There is no way around it. Our Constitution never defined abortion as belonging to the Federal government, and so it doesn't. Either we follow the Constitution, or we don't. The Left sure doesn't, and I don't really want to be like them.
EV you have the courage to state logic and truth regarding the hysteria over the Palin personality cult. I have not had the stomach to put up with it so I have stayed away from the non-stop Palin threads on FR. Alan Keyes has not joined the left he has respectfully stated his objection to SP and that is not to be tolerated on FR. The devotion to this politician without any hesitation is one of the things that turns me off to the Palinbots of whom I used to belong. It is ironic that this is the same type of unquestioned devotion we criticize of the hussein utopians.
I don’t know why you want to try and conflate the lawful killing of the guilty, which is both biblical and constitutional, with the killing of innocent children. This is nonsensical.
The US Constitution, and the constitutions of all fifty states, forbid the killing of innocents.
The only way the Blackmun court could get away with it was to dehumanize the child, to declare them non-persons. And so that’s exactly what they did.
But even that old devil Blackmun, whose legacy is awash in the blood of tens of millions of innocents, said in the majority Roe decision that if the child in the womb is a PERSON that they are clearly protected by the Constitution.
Do you believe that the child in the womb is a PERSON, “cothrige”?
Because if you admit to the obvious truth that they are PERSONS, and you still say that a state can allow their wanton killing, in a very true sense you’re worse than Blackmun.
“Note to self: Ignore the posters who are acting towards Alan Keyes like the Left has acted towards Sarah Palin and Alan Keyes.”
By making the above remark you have just tried to put Sarah Palin supporters in the same boat with the Left. If that is your true feeling, you leave no room for rational discussion.
Thank you for that.
I’m fine with rational discussion. That’s why I posted this here. But if you’re honest you’ll see that some of the posts on this thread are of the identical quality of the Left’s attacks on both Sarah Palin and Alan Keyes. Hence my remark.
“It is ironic that this is the same type of unquestioned devotion we criticize of the hussein utopians.”
A truly awful comparison. We have enough information about both to make an informed decision as to their character, their performance under pressure and their personal histories and actions. What is it, exactly that SP has done in her entire life that doesn’t mark her as courageous, principled, tough and honest? Got any reason to call me, an unahshamed Palin supporter, a “Palinbot?”
First, why the rude?
Second, what exactly do you have to support a contention that she does not have what it takes?
Anything?
Liking and favoring the candidacy of the most popular GOP candidate that is a sitting Governor and only months ago was the GOP candidate for vice president of the United States makes a lot of sense.
Worshiping at the alter of the “perennial” candidate who has never won a race and never will and that only got 47,600 votes in the 2008 election (his fourth presidential effort) is cult like.
“I am definitely in love with an image I see, yet do not know.”
Hopefully, we are not all THAT shallow.
The devotion to this politician without any hesitation is one of the things that turns me off to the Palinbots of whom I used to belong. It is ironic that this is the same type of unquestioned devotion we criticize of the hussein utopians.
I agree. The Palin euphoria is very disconcerting, and is a cult of personality just as Obamania is. However, I think people are confusing two different motives here. One is the rush to defend The (Other) One, and the other is the rush to defend a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution. I am firmly in agreement with the latter, and not the former. I don't think people should presume otherwise for the others who may disagree with Mr. Keyes on this issue.
Generally I think Alan Keyes is solid, and even though I haven't really followed him lately, I did vote for him in the GOP primary in the past. But, for me this discussion is not about Palin or Keyes, but the Constitution. Abortion simply does not fall under Federal jurisdiction. I agree that abortion is homicide and is wrong, always wrong, but it still belongs to the States to define and enforce. There is no way around that.
Remember, you aren't talking to just a freeper, you are posting directly to Alan Keyes's party chairman, so naturally a candidate from a competing party will be attacked by him, it is his job. EV is at work right now.
Governor Palin has held three elected offices (City Council, Mayor and State Governor) whereas Mr. Keyes has never held elective office, and neither have you or your AIP party. Or am I wrong? Therefore, what business does Mr. Keyes, you or your rump party have telling a successful officeholder what to do? Just sayin’.
“I’m fine with rational discussion. That’s why I posted this here. But if you’re honest you’ll see that some of the posts on this thread are of the identical quality of the Left’s attacks on both Sarah Palin and Alan Keyes. Hence my remark.”
I am honest, and if you are also you would say that some of the posts in support of Keyes were “of the identical quality of the Left’s”. How about for instance the references to the “Palin Cult”? Do you think just because we are supporters of Gov. Palin we are members of a Cult? Your not mentioning some of the off-the-wall comments of your backers does speak of a one-way mindset.
Palin’s answer was DEAD ON:
Roe V. Wade, and Doe V. Bolton TRAMPLED States Rights!
Alan Keyes is part of the crowd that will not let us defeat abortion on demand, since Alan Keyes is a “purist” who will not accept “compromise” legislation or legal action.
A simple majority of Congress can, at any time, instruct the Courts that they have NO APPELATE JURISDICTION over an issue, such as abortion. If signed by a President, the Courts must then obey. If Congress could achieve a 2/3rds vote, over riding a veto, again the COURTS would have to obey.
Alan Keyes will not allow such a strategy.
The purists, like Keyes, want to fight the abortion battle in a way that has NEVER worked, for any other political issue.
Even where slavery is concerned, Abe Lincoln allowed the border states which remained loyal to have slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation only covered the REBEL States.
He did what he had to do, to win!
This is the same strategy we should have, in the abortion battle.
Every abortion gives MONEY to an abortion provider.
A percentage of every abortion providers profits goes into the campaign war chests of pro-abortion politicians.
You win wars, political and shooting wars alike, by making it impossible for your enemy to fight anymore, and by removing the enemy from the financing and support that the enemy needs to survive.
Keyes is an idiot on this issue.
You do what you have to do, to win.
Keyes does not care about victory, he care about being pure and better than everyone else.
The protection of innocent human life is at the very core of our Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Securing the Blessings of Liberty to our posterity is the Constitution's own stated ultimate purpose. Every sworn officer of government swears before God and man to uphold this. And so, not only is it within their jurisdiction, it is their very reason for being, as the Declaration of Independence asserts plainly. This is true at EVERY level of government in these United States.
Nonsense, again.
Name ONE other issue, through out history, where the victorious side refused to compromise?
You simply can’t.
Like yourself, I can only vouch for my own posts.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
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.