CAMPOS: Alaska uber alles?
By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published September 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Here are a couple of questions for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: What do you think of the following statement? "I'm an Alaskan not an American. I've got no use for America and her dammed institutions." Or how about this one? "The problem with you John Birchers is that you're too dammed liberal!"
These might seem like odd questions to put to a governor, but more than a few things about Palin, currently the GOP's presumptive vice presidential nominee, are very odd indeed.
For instance, several members of the Alaskan Independence Party, including its chairman, say Palin was a member of the AIP in 1994 and 1995, and attended the party's 1994 biennial convention in Wasilla, where she was a City Council member, and would soon become mayor. The McCain campaign says these claims are false, while as of this writing Palin herself hasn't addressed the issue.
What's not in dispute is that earlier this year she sent a videotaped welcome to the party's convention. And Palin's husband was a registered member of the party from 1995 until 2002.
The AIP was founded by one Joe Vogler, who is described on the party's Web site as a "plain-spoken gold miner, nonpracticing attorney, and charismatic icon of local politics." Another way of describing Vogler, who disappeared under mysterious circumstances in 1993, is as a far-right lunatic, who believed that Alaska's admission to statehood was illegal, and that Alaskans should hold a referendum on whether to become a sovereign nation. (The quotes about American institutions and the John Birch Society are Vogler's.)
This remains the official position of the AIP. The party wants to hold a statewide vote on whether to become a commonwealth, to remain (become?) one of the 50 states, or to become a wholly independent nation.
In other words this is, to put it mildly, an extremist political group. And surely it's appropriate for someone on a major presidential ticket to explain her precise relationship to a party whose platform calls for a vote regarding secession from the United States.
This is especially true given that the unofficial motto of the McCain campaign's political advertising has been "Country First." Ironically, the motto of the AIP is exactly the opposite: "Alaska First, Alaska Always."
All this might throw light on a mystery: Why did Palin decide to take a nine-hour flight from Dallas to Anchorage five months ago, after her water broke? (This means she was either about to go into the last stages of labor, or the birth of her fifth child would have to be induced within hours).
This, to all appearances, was a remarkably reckless act - it's hard to believe any responsible doctor would approve of the decision, nor would any airline aware of the circumstances allow a passenger to fly, let alone from one end of North America to the other.
Indeed, it was such an inexplicable thing to do that news of her actions helped generate bizarre theories that she wasn't really having a baby at all, and was instead covering up her daughter's pregnancy.
The alternative theory would seem to involve a disturbingly cavalier attitude toward the health of a baby she knew was going to be born with Down syndrome. All sorts of explanations leap to mind for why a woman in Palin's position, who had just leapt from political obscurity to prominence, and who is deeply committed to outlawing abortion, might be ambivalent about the birth of a developmentally disabled child.
Now another explanation is available - one that reflects more generously on her potential psychological motivations, if not her overall mental state. If Palin is indeed a true believer in the views of the AIP, it may have been overwhelmingly important to her that her child be born in the right country.
And that country, in her mind, would be called Alaska.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 3, 2008
7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Miseslover writes:
THANK YOU PAUL!!
You have given me a great reason to vote for the McCain ticket.
Secession should always be on the table. Ever since Lincoln decided to take it off the table by using a cannon, the states have had no real check on the federal government, and thus it grows into the Leviathan of today. Those who oppose secession as an option are to thank for the extravegances of administrations like the current one.
September 3, 2008
7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Paul - Dan Caplis is not going to like your article at all and will probably throw numerous tantrums and hang up on more callers than usual this afternoon on his KHOW entertainment show. Right Wing Danny has serious anger management issues - He can obsess and bloviate continuously about Barack Obama but please don't say anything remotely critical about his party, his popular president and his political hack Sarah Palin. The RNC - Dr. Strangelove Meets the Stepford Wives.
September 3, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
Right wing Danny? Wow.. I guess right wing to you would be centrist in 1980...
Now we quote that she was a member of such and such a group in 1995.. wow....
Where Obama (who is actually running for President and for whom we will either vote or not vote) was a member of a racist black separist church up until 3 months ago!
Moral Equivalent? Hmmm about as much as it being the same that a tyranical government of Russia attempts to crush a democracy as the United States freeing 25 million people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein...
They sound so stupid yet these ideas get coverage from every socialist rag in the United States..
Who is George Obama?
Where's George Obama?
Why?
We're all suppose to be "our brother's keeper", right?
Isn't that what we are all lectured about as we give up our sovereinty to the millions of illiterate poor that cross our borders illegally?
Political hack Sarah Palin? Just some more vile bile from the left..
Taoistblockhead is an appropriate moniker.. me thinks TAO is not really your cup of tea.. much too hateful, much too myopic..
You might want to change your moniker to MAOistblockhead.. me thinks that is more appropriate to your mindset...
Now for some good sites to go to:
www.votesmart.org (Think you’re being ‘spun’? Effortlessly find out who your local, state, and federal reps are by your zip. Investigate their “stands” and voting records)
www.fairtax.org (Completely un-tax those in poverty, tax on consumption of New retail goods and services, start nurturing success instead of taxing it.)
www.numbersusa.org (This group was a major player in shutting down the Capitol Hill telephone exchange the day the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill was defeated by WE THE PEOPLE. Secure our borders and fully enforce Title 8 of our Nationalization Act)
www.grassfire.org (Ramos and Campeon, now serving ten years in solitary confinement for shooting a Mexican drug dealer in the buttocks in a federal high security prison)
www.knowledgepublications.com (Real Science about converting to the Hydrogen Economy from a carbon burning based economy. Develop new carbon sequestering industries that manufacture carbon based durable goods, including tires, building materials that are stronger and lighter than steel)
www.jihadwatch.org (Ignore the white noise propagated by the media, politicians and domestic Islamic special interest groups, walk on the wild side)
Or go to www.fatheormalley.com for click through’s to all the above..
Participate in this grand experiment of individual freedom..
Love to all,
Father O’Malley
September 3, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
The level that the left has stooped to in its attack on Sarah Palin is truly sickening.
Now, Paul Campos, a slanderous sc_mbag, floats the idea that Palin might have attempted to kill her Down syndrome newborn. How could the RMN print such a thing?
The McCain campaign has said that Palin has never been a member of the AIP and that she has been a registered Republican since 1982. But, after seeing how petty and mendacious the mainland Left has become, I cannot blame her for wanting Alaska to secede.
September 3, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnStockwell writes:
Boy, I sure hate it when I enjoy a Paul Campos editorial.
September 3, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Mr. Campos pulls out a J. Wright-like smear-by-association on Palin and speculates wildly as to her reasons for taking a flight while pregnant. I guess the shameless smear is not a tactic limited to the right--where we usually see them.
September 3, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
bellagrazi writes:
I have never seen such an ugly display of attacks against a candidate before by the MSM. And we just lived through the Hillary Clinton debacle, so that's saying a lot. To suggest that Sarah Palin wasn't concerned about the health of her unborn baby because it was going to be born with Down's Syndrome is a new low. And there have been a lot of unbelievably ignorant things said since she was tapped to be VP. Fred Thompson is absolutely correct in saying that the liberal media is in an absolute panic at McCain's choice of VP. She's fired up the conservative base and has given McCain an actual chance of winning this thing. It's been fun watching all of you falling all over yourselves to take Sarah Palin down. But she will triumph in the end. And so will John McCain. And a lot of that will be because of people like you. So I thank you.
September 3, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
bobjohnson writes:
You opened your column with outrageous quotes, clearly impling Sarah Palin had made them. Buried at the end of the fifth column down is the fact that she had not.
September 3, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
bellagrazi: who knows what her motivation regarding the flight to deliver the down syndrome baby. nevertheless, it was pretty stupid and lacked judgement. she also lacks judgement, as a supposed family values mother, in what can be regarded to be exploiting her current prego teen, by exposing her to the attention and ridicule that the entire world is watching. would you do that to your kid? maybe so, given your opinions. furthermore, i find the fact that this is a woman who would shove abstinence programs as THE sex ed curriculum, down all of our throats and she can't even keep track of her own kid in small town alaska. either she isn't paying attention, abstinence propaganda doesn't work, or she is too focused on her small state governor job to pay attention to all of her kids. whatever it is, we don't need the hypocrisy in our govt a heartbeat away from the presidency.
September 3, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"i find the fact that this is a woman who would shove abstinence programs as THE sex ed curriculum, down all of our throats and she can't even keep track of her own kid in small town alaska." - oma
Interesting use of words. But I do not get the link between her daughter's behavior and her desire for abstinence programs. I think your attack on her parenting skills, when you know nothing about her or her kids other than one daughter who is pregnant, reflects poorly on your character.
Kids screw up even when raised with the best values. Her daughter is 17 - one year away from being allowed to vote for our leaders. No one has argued that abstinence programs will completely eliminate teen pregnancy. I'm sure your position is that the daughter would not have become pregnant if she had been given condoms and sex ed at her school.
First, do you know if she received sexual education at her school? Even if she didn't, you would have to believe that this girl, only a year away from being allowed to vote, did not know that sex is the leading cause of pregnancy in America. And, having school access to condoms does not mean kids (or adults) will use them.
So, I see no "hypocrisy" on Palin's part. But, perhaps that is because I am not a Lilliputian like you are.
September 3, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
on the contrary, john_II, the christian right does argue that the only way to reduce teen pregnancies is through abstinence only education plans even when the evidence shows they are ineffective. maybe naivete would have been a better word, but if hypocrisy is defined as the false assumption of virtue as it is in Webster's, and these programs show they are ineffective, and the lunatic fringe on the right continues to promote the programs in lieu of typical sex ed programs, then it is hypocritical. it is further hypocritical to "force" these kids to get married in order to promote their narrow world view and give the appearance of family values. i am not criticizing what they want to do, but palin could be in a position of promoting these issues, and it is fine for her life, but leave the rest of us out of it. this goes for abortion, creationism and all their other ideas. if they don't want to have abortions, then don't. but personally, leave me alone. i can make my own decisions. i grew up fundamental baptist, and the people i know from that life are no more virtuous than the non-believers i know.
September 3, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
4gColoNative writes:
How can anyone think or assert "no 'hypocrisy' on Palin's part?" Have you lost all reasoning ability?
She risked the life of a fully-formed fetus by taking an airline flight.
September 3, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
BuffDriver writes:
I have it on very good authority that Campos (and 90% of CU's professors are card-carrying members of the Socialist/Progressive/People's/Communist/Democrat Party. This 'no proof' rambling proves my point. Oh, and the correct term in Alaska is 'birch john'.
September 3, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"on the contrary, john_II, the christian right does argue that the only way to reduce teen pregnancies is through abstinence only education plans even when the evidence shows they are ineffective." - oma
I am a member of that the "Christian Right". I do not argue that abstinence education is the "only" way to "reduce" teen pregnancies.
The key word in your statement is "reduce". Reduce means to lessen, not eliminate. So, even when taught abstinence, some teens will still get pregnant.
"but palin could be in a position of promoting these issues, and it is fine for her life, but leave the rest of us out of it. this goes for abortion, creationism and all their other ideas." - oma
Don't stop at "all their other ideas." Tell me, what other ideas? Palin opposes the killing of pre-born life. She favors teaching creationism in schools. She also favors abstinence-only school programs. Now, tell me something, if liberals had not unconstitutionally expanded the federal government into the realm of public education, how would any president, situated thousands of miles away from you, be able to impose on your school's curriculum? It is your own fault that politicians, both liberal and conservative, are able to interfere with our schools.
If you are truly worried about education, you should be opposed to the Dept. of Education.
I dare you to match up her positions with Obama's, and you will find that she would decrease government control in your life while Obama would dramatically increase it. So, when you say "i can make my own decisions", I hope you also apply that mentality to your retirement, your health care, your education, your medicine, your car, your self-protection, and your savings. Because I have a wild suspicion that when you say "personally, leave me alone", you really mean, 'I only want tell others what to do, but you cannot tell me what to do.'
September 3, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
corwith writes:
Sucession should be always on the table. You of the political Left almost certainly know of the New England Confederation movement. Republicans being in short supply in that region, the dominant Left has some activists who feel the six states should form their own republic (Soviet perhaps?). Ever since Al Gore was counted out, they feel they obviously can't get their way.
September 3, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
4gColoNative writes:
Modern secession movements remind me of Waco.
- and the idea is wacko.
Consider that if secession could actually happen for those who want to do it and can pull it off, the richer States could band together and leave all the poorer states to fend for themselves*. What a way to treat people, eh? Former Fellow Americans, for all you jingoistic types.
Kind of like DC abandoning New Orleans LA in their time of need.
And 99.9% of people have no understanding of how much their current standard of living is buoyed up by the federal government.
Secession is a topic of interest for people whose social and political development stalled out at the age of 16. Go play in the Idaho and Montana woods, boys.
* Some States in Bolivia are trying to do this very thing.
September 3, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
sorry john_II you are stretching and using the typical, inane conservative talking points. first, "personally leave me alone" means I can make my own decisions about my body. I used it in reference to abortion. it is your brethren who want to tell a woman what to do, it is your brethren who think gay people are sinners, it is your brethren who want to teach intelligent design as if it is a valid scientific theory. no, john, you can do what you want. if you want to handle snakes, go ahead and handle snakes if that is what turns you on. i will stay out of your life and let you handle snakes. if you want to go to church 5 nights a week and believe the mythology, go ahead. i went through that phase and am glad i am out of it. just don't tell me that because i don't believe that somehow i am inferior to you or i am going to the mythological hell. there are plenty of instances of christian hypocrisy throughout history like the inquistion that indicate to me that christians have no corner on virtue. one of the tenets of the conservative movement is that things are black and white, there is good, there is evil and nothing in between. sorry, there is plentey of grey area in all aspects of life. now as far as your statement about making my own decisions about education, retirement etc, i don't see the govt anywhere in there making these decisions in my life now or in the future. don't know where you are getting these ideas. be more specific.
September 3, 2008
3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
since you are said you are christian right guy, john_II, then what do you think of sarah palin out right lying about her being against earmarks when it turns out she vigorously pursued them as the mayor of that dinky little town she is from. she had more federal money that boise, idaho, yet she blatantly lied about being against earmarks. that isn't very christian. the bush admin has been the least christian of any admin in my lifetime yet you guys still think the incompetent hangs the moon. that is what i don't get about you guys.
September 3, 2008
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
oma,
Your posts to me are absurd. You seemed to have erected a giant strawman and then proceeded to attack it.
""personally leave me alone" means I can make my own decisions about my body" - oma
No. You also mentioned various school programs. But, if you are now referring only to your body, are you saying you support telling other people what to do with their own finances? I am sure you do. You favor a policy that forces me to fund someone else's retirement. I favor a policy that prevents women and doctors from killing pre-born life. The latter policy seems much more fair and reasonable than the former.
"just don't tell me that because i don't believe that somehow i am inferior to you or i am going to the mythological hell." - oma
When did I tell you that? Are you arguing against me or your own imagination? You brought religion into the thread, not me.
"as far as your statement about making my own decisions about education, retirement etc, i don't see the govt anywhere in there making these decisions in my life now or in the future. don't know where you are getting these ideas. be more specific." - oma
The government takes money out of your paycheck and gives it to someone else. The government tells you that its ok because when you are ready to retire, the government will rob other people and give some back to you. Well, would like to opt out of that forced retirement scam. I'd rather save for my own retirement. You want to force me to do otherwise. Please, leave me alone.
The same goes for MediCare, MedicAid, and the latest talk of Universal Health Care. Please, leave me alone.
The same also goes for education. Where in the Constitution does it authorize the Dept. of Education? Why is my money going towards the liberal indoctrination of America's youth. Why is my money taken from me and given to powerful teacher's unions? Why are my nieces being taught Swahili in the 6th grade?
If you do not like federal politicians meddling in local education policies, you should oppose the Dept. of Education. Liberalism granted the federal government this power. And now you are complaining because politicians you are not voting for want to shape school curriculum.
You would realize your folly if you thought more and emoted less.
September 3, 2008
4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
VeryOpinionated writes:
Hey Campos, it seems like you have selective inquisitiveness. Why don't you write a piece on Obama, Ayres and the Annenberg papers? It would certainly be more worthy of an editorial than the drivel you try to pass off as news worthy.
September 3, 2008
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
This article was some of the worst political mudslinging in this race!
September 3, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
oma writes:
johnny_II: my tax dollars are being redistributed to iraq where the thieves from blackwater are profiting. the rest go to roads, govt services, bridges. you guys must think our complex society can be run on glue and tape. i would have gladly paid more tax if it would have prevented the loss of my portfolio due to the last three market collapses, enron, worldcom and subprime. my portfolio lost 20%, how bout yours? my little tax give away of $600 didn't do squat. regarding the education system: you listen to too much propaganda. last i checked, we became the greatest country in the world due to the output of our public education system and our university system. people like you only started questioning it when newt got into power and started assaulting the public schools. i would suggest that you go tutor in our public schools like i have and maybe you would have different perspective as to the problem. the overwhelming problem is unconcerned parenting, not union teachers.
September 3, 2008
4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
This article stunk like a heaping, steaming, pile of cows**t! Campos is a moron. I knew he wasn't the columnist I thought much of to begin with, but after reading this, I think I'd be better informed about the relevance of politics by reading the funny pages. The one thing that does stick out is Campos is a law professor at CU. Out-of-touch professors at CU seem too common these days.
Hey Campos, attempt to write something degrading about Chelsea Clinton and her mother Hillary. Equal exposure, right? Wait, Bill and Hillary said they didn't want their daughter in the national media, yet columnists like you don't mind when it's a Republican. Smear away, but you'll only find it's the stink from that cow's backside.
September 3, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
oma, what do you think of the liberal Overland teacher who was supposed to teach Geography in his class yet taught political science of some sort instead? This is the type of teacher many parents don't want in front of their children. Realize this, you're the teacher and the children already have parents.
September 3, 2008
6:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"i would have gladly paid more tax if it would have prevented the loss of my portfolio due to the last three market collapses, enron, worldcom and subprime. my portfolio lost 20%, how bout yours?" - oma
If you want to pay more - go ahead. Why make others pay more too just because you supposedly lost money? Enron and Worldcom? How long ago was that? Retirement mutual funds are geared for the long term: 20, 30, 40 years. Of course, during that period, there will be market crashes and market booms. If you honestly got burned on Enron and Worldcom (I highly doubt you did), switch your mutual fund balance to more conservative blue chip companies.
But don't tell me that I have to pay into "Social Security" just because you cannot manage your own money. As you said before, "please leave me alone."
"the overwhelming problem is unconcerned parenting, not union teachers." - oma
Can't it be both? And why have parents become "unconcerned"? Perhaps it is because as the government becomes more and more like a nanny state, parents find it easier to let the government raise their kids. And you, again, have ignored my point about federal control of education. So, I'll ask again: how could a president, situated over a thousand miles away from your school, meddle with your school curriculum if liberals had not granted Washington power to do so with the Dept. of Education?
Liberals wanted federal involvement in our schools. They sowed the wind. Now they reap the whirlwind.
September 3, 2008
8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
There is a much simpler explanation for her actions. By ensuring that her child was born in Alaska she knows he will be eligible for payments from the Alaska Permanent (oil profit) Fund. The Palins do not appear to be wealthy and payments from this fund would be a nice addition to their income. Those born in Alaska are eligible for payments even if they move away.
September 4, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
The state of Alaska has a larger federal presence than any other state in the country. The federal government owns 2/3 of all the land in Alaska and has built fewer roads there than it has in New Hampshire. That kind of treatment is naturally going to get state residents fantasizing about leaving the Union. Toss in a lingering controversy over the 1958 Statehood Ballot and add an iconic, populist founder and you get something like the Alaska Independence Party.
Over the years the party platform has mellowed a bit (they call for the 1958 vote to be reheld, not necessarily succession) and turned into kind of an Alaskan version of the Libertarian Party. Big on individual responsibility, low taxes and minimalist government. They've actually had some ballot box success electing a governor (Walter Hickel), a few state representatives and various other officials over the years. They generally take votes away from Republican candidates, kind of like Ross Perot. And just as Ross Perot was largely responsible for getting Bill Clinton elected twice, the AIP was largely responsible for getting Tony Knowles, a Democrat, elected twice as governor of Alaska in the last 15 years.
I don't know that I would call them an "extremist political organization" like Paul Campos does. They're not gun-toting radicals running around bombing police stations and the Pentagon like the Weatherman group that Obama-mentor William Ayers belonged to in the 1960's.
No, a better way to describe them is as a relatively large 3rd party like the Libertarian or Green Parties nationally or like the Liberal or Conservative Parties in New York state. Since somewhere around 5% of Alaskan voters are interested enough in Alaska politics to be registered as members of the AIP, it's not surprising that Sarah Palin would send a videotaped address to their convention.
Politicians trying to explain their views to voters. Gosh, what a profound concept.
Is it only when a Republican woman does it that's its a problem?
September 4, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
666 writes:
It's not surprising that the right are so mad at Paul for this insightful editorial. The truth hurts, after all.
It's not too surprising that attitudes like the ones expressed by fatheromalley and bellagrazi led to what happened in Germany in the 1930's. They operated on a platform of righteousness and patriotism, too.
September 4, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
heretiger writes:
That trip/baby is certainly an enigma !
If really hers, are there residency requirements
(and the accompanying yearly state oil/gas checks to residents) which foster a desire to have a baby born on Alaska soil?
Her provincial comments about Alaskan interests show
a lack of readiness for the national stage.
Just creepy...
September 4, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
VeryOpinionated writes:
Campos, this editorial hits a new low for you - and that's saying a lot considering the many pitiful editorials you've written in the past trying to prop up Churchill, etc.
I believe that there is no record of Gov. Palin having been a member of AIP. The only proof you offer is someone's "word." Then you proceed to tar and feather her with the beliefs of this loony group.
Gutter journalism at it's worst. Congratulations, Campos!
September 4, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Anymore I can only read Campos to the extent I become ill. And I could only skim this article. This is the most shameless attempt at character assassination Campos has ever carried out for his leftist cohorts—and by extension Obama. There is absolutely nothing but gutter journalism at work here. Raising totally fabricated suggestions Palin was doing something nefarious with the birth of her child is contemptuous. Then suggestions about AIP do not deserve the dignity of a comment.
Campos and the Obama crowd have had a scare thrown into them and they have turned to leftwing radicals to assault this good woman’s character. They see Governor Palin has more executive experience than any of the 3 men running and any comparison to Obama is hilarious.
Obama and Campos too perhaps, are products of affirmative action policies in this country and they and Michelle are fortunate to have been provided for before the practice is changed to a merit system. Look at their employment history. All have gained employment on the basis association rather than contribution to a private enterprise. They chalk it up to their superior intellect and elitist association within the place made for them by an accommodating social elitist crowd of shallow thinkers. Not a one of them understands that and think opportunity alone elevates them to an intellectual. Scarier yet, neither do they understand the risk and rewards of the private enterprise system. They have indeed been educated beyond their intelligence.
September 4, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Talk radio parrots blather on senselessly about things they know nothing of. About the only thing they know is: they can't stand someone and because they're operating on a negative emotion, reason, accuracy, and honesty fly out the window and all we're left with is a villain and a desire to hurt him or her, even if it means making up things out of whole cloth.
September 4, 2008
5:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I never thought I'd see the day when the most frothing nationalists on this forum would reveal themselves as secession sympathizers.
September 4, 2008
7:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
mytwosense,
You don't know who you're talking about. There are no frothing nationalists. Patriotism and unity aren't the same thing. Frothing nationalism is an inaccurate representation of the right. We'll wave the stars and stripes and the left can wave a peace sign, fair enough? The right is always ready to bolt. The right hates Washington with heated passion. Plans for separate nations are always on the table. Half this country wants socialism, the other wants a frontier type of culture as we're projecting into Sarah Palin. Rather than impose your will on me and my will on you, we should part company. You've not read the hatred in these forums and all news forums? I see your socialism as Cuba and your Obama as Castro. You see me as, well ... a savage. And that suits me just fine. We have a divided nation, not over slavery, but over more basic tenants than that, we're going in opposite directions. You need to get out more.
September 4, 2008
8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
This is going to be handy:
"The Sarah Palin FAQ: Everything you ever wanted to know about the Republican vice presidential nominee."
http://www.slate.com/id/2199362/
Seems to contain most of the things people are arguing about here, no snark, they say they’re going to keep adding to it as new questions come in and, best of all, links to original sources on every answer.
Go wild!
September 4, 2008
10:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
Campos (in his title) and 666 have turned to the most pathetic of pathetic liberal ploys. Insinuate that anyone one on the right is a Nazi. This is truly disgusting, as is the other writer who compares Obama to Castro. This sort of partisan enmity is preventing any honest attempts to reform the system. And there is only 1 candidate who has shown the stones to buck his party and reform Washington; John McCain. Maybe one of you Dems can show me where Barack has reached across the aisle. Or maybe tell me about legislation he has authored. McCain blasted his party's failings in his convention speech. I've never seen a candidate do anything close to that. The man has the courage of Daniel. He will go into the lion's den and tackle the tough problems.
September 5, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
bassman, it would be interesting to tally how many times the word "socialist" or "fascist" are used in letters to the RMN as an attack on someone's position. My guess is the ratio would be about 80/20 respectively.
As for McCain, he has made his case in action and word for being independent, and I commend him for it, even if I may not vote for him.
September 5, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
HopiMedicineMan, "the right are always ready to bolt"?
Thanks for proving my point. For years, the right has been castigating the left for not being patriotic enough, for not wearing a flag pin, for not hanging a flag up outside their house, for not parroting "God Bless America," for criticizing the USA, and I could go on and on.
Now we learn after all this that you people have always put secession on the table? That you've always been ready to bolt?
HYPOCRITES. Nevertheless, I pray this becomes part of the rightwing's platform.
And as for your assessment that half this country wants socialism and the other half want to live in a frontier, talk about being out of touch...
You may fancy yourself as a rugged individualist who wants to live off the land, but a good deal of the people I saw during the RNC coverage looked like they wouldn't even survive a weekend camping trip.
As for socialism, I don't know a single soul who wants the government to own the entire means of production in this country. Do you even know what socialism is?
September 5, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
One last thing...you romanticize the frontier culture, which is a bit surprising considering your chosen moniker.
Even when there actually was a frontier left in this country, the over-riding objective was always to get as many of nature's riches as possible, and ultimately re-shape nature into a hyper-orderly society.
Hell, Wasilla, Alaska is a perfect example. It went from being a small Alaskan town to now being a carbon-copy of any other town in the lower 48, complete with a big box Target and sports complex.
But, keep living in the abstract...I guess it's easier than confronting the actual challenges of reality.
September 5, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"Now we learn after all this that you people have always put secession on the table? That you've always been ready to bolt?" - mytwosense
MTS, a strong conservative principle is the preservation State's Rights. This principle was embedded into our Constitution. In fact, we never would have had a "United" States of America if the Constitution did not severely limit the power of the federal government. Because this government is becoming more and more a socialist government, secession is on the table.
There's nothing hypocritical about that.
September 5, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
What is hypocritical is conservatives never mentioning "secession is on the table" until it came to light that your VP pick's husband is, or was, a proponent of seceding.
I am confident most Americans aren't aware that conservatives feel this country is becoming so socialist, they are considering secession. So let's make it a topic of national discussion over the next months ahead!
Unless the GOP would be afraid to have that discussion?
September 5, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
There's nothing hypocritical at all. Secession is always on the minds of true conservatives. This is why we constantly refer to the Constitution and the 10th Amendment when discussing liberalism's desire for larger government.
At some point, if we are going to ignore the Constitution that binds the States together, we have to ask ourselves what really holds us together. Culture? Location? Values? More and more, conservatives and liberals are segregating themselves because we really do not like each other. So, if we do not share common values, culture or even location, why remain united?
I am not saying that secession is the right response to our growing divisiveness. But, it is certainly something we think about.
The Palin non-issue has brought the subject to light. That is why it is being talked about explicitly now. But, if you were to review all the comments on this forum for the past for years, I'm sure you'd find plenty of comments alluding to secession.
But my side is not going to publicly acknowledge its thoughts on secession just like your side does not publicly want to discuss socialism. It is funny, though, when your side lets the S word slip out in public: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3L...
September 5, 2008
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
So let's say for the sake of argument, secession is publicly on the table.
Who goes where? And how is this decided?
Since you people have obviously had it on your minds for so long - according to you - then I imagine you've brought that question up among yourselves at some point.
September 5, 2008
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
mytwosense, secession is on John II's table because he is a despot wannabe, cursed by his residence in a democracy. I doubt that most flag-waving Republicans have given it any serious consideration.
September 5, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
It is not like we have some master plan. The thought of secession is a state-by-state issue. The AIP wants Alaska to secede. I certainly do not want Alaska to secede. I would like to see California and New York go their own way. It would be difficult for Colorado to secede unless it secedes as a bloc of other states.
Ideally, I would like to see the federal government reigned in into accordance with the Constitution so that secession would not be an issue.
September 6, 2008
5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
Anderson, I also decried the attempts to equate Obama with Castro. And calling someone a socialist is quite different from Nazi. I do salute your willingness to see both sides' attacks as a distraction from the real issues.
September 6, 2008
10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
Anderson & bassman,
Explain to me how Obama is not a socialist or Marxist.
September 8, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
John II if you look at my posts you can easily see I am a free market Republican. I just don't think it does us any good to engage in name calling. Certainly Obama and the Dems have some socialist positions but name calling won't win this election. As far as secession goes-not a good idea. If each state or region started to go it's own way it would weaken the country immeasureably.
September 8, 2008
1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
bassman,
It is not 'name calling' in the typical offensive sense. It is simply applying an accurate label to them. Obama is a socialist; a Marxist. I am a conservative. Those are accurate labels. What bothers me is the intellectual dishonesty of someone saying and doing everything that matches Marxism, yet somehow it is offensive to accurately label his ideology.
Too many people seem to think liberalism is something different from socialism. This makes it easier for them to vote for a liberal. So, the people know that modern liberalism/progressivism are synonymous with socialism. Any honest liberal should agree with that statement.
September 9, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ashley writes:
Liberalism is not synonymous with socialism. Liberalism: tolerant, broad-minded; one who favors reform or progress. Socialism:a theory or system of ownership of the means of production and distribution by society rather than by individuals. Source: Webster's New World Dictionary.
Liberalism is a way of thinking and socialism is a political structure. Long way to get from here to there. Liberals tend to care about other people and want to help them so we can all be better off. We aspire to the heights of humanity's capability. Conservatives want to move back into hostility and isolation; an oligarchical system with a few rich and many poor. They segregate, divide and conquer, adhering to a theory of social Darwinism; only the strong survive. Liberals are unafraid of facing changes and challenges; conservatives never wanted to allow women or African-Americans to vote. Liberals want to see this country become better; conservatives don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.
Creating safety nets for people who need help offers a blanket reassurance for us all. If you fall on hard times, I'll reach out a hand to help you stand and succeed, and those nets ensure the same will be offered to me. You and your ilk are so afraid of seeing others move up in the world you'd rather crush them with an iron fist than allow them the chance you have evidently taken advantage of. I don't understand conservatives, and I don't think I ever will. But I can respect your differing opinions; can you respect mine?
You may take issue with my statements now.
September 11, 2008
5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Ashley, you were doing okay with definitions until you tossed aside the dictionary and decided to substitute your own definition of conservatism. While it's true that some self-described conservatives may fit your description, what you give us is not really an accurate representation. Here's what my dictionary says about conservative: "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutations etc. and to resist change." Most of us probably have a little of the conservative (as well as the liberal) in us.