A Philosopher's Blog

Palin & Socrates

Posted in Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on July 4, 2009
Sarah Palin Kuwait 13b
Image via Wikipedia

In a somewhat odd speech, Sarah Palin informed the public that she was resigning as governor of Alaska. With Sanford’s recent adventure, this has been a rather weird time for Republican governors.

Palin’s speech was certainly interesting. She seemed to be speaking without notes and apparently with only minimal preparation. On the positive side, she seemed to be saying what she really felt which is a rare thing in politics.

Not surprisingly, the response has been largely along ideological lines. The folks who dislike her are claiming that she is either getting out ahead of a scandal or looking to head down to the lower 48 to start her bid for 2012. Those who like her think that she is doing what is right for Alaska and that she is a victim of various malign forces (such as the media and the Democrats).

While I found her speech to be rambling and a bit strange, she did make a point that I found rather interesting. To be specific, she seemed to be claiming that being in politics had caused trouble and that in order to get things done, she had decided to resign. This made me think of Socrates‘ remarks in the Apology:

Some one may wonder why I go about in private giving advice and busying myself with the concerns of others, but do not venture to come forward in public and advise the state. I will tell you why. You have heard me speak at sundry times and in diverse places of an oracle or sign which comes to me, and is the divinity which Meletus ridicules in the indictment. This sign, which is a kind of voice, first began to come to me when I was a child; it always forbids but never commands me to do anything which I am going to do. This is what deters me from being a politician. And rightly, as I think. For I am certain, O men of Athens, that if I had engaged in politics, I should have perished long ago, and done no good either to you or to myself. And do not be offended at my telling you the truth: for the truth is, that no man who goes to war with you or any other multitude, honestly striving against the many lawless and unrighteous deeds which are done in a state, will save his life; he who will fight for the right, if he would live even for a brief space, must have a private station and not a public one.

Socrates’ view does have a degree of plausibility. Good people who get involved in politics seem to end up compromising away their good intentions or being unable to take action if they stick with their values. People who act outside of politics do often have a greater opportunity to avoid compromise and sometimes can get more done. It will be interesting to see what Palin does. Will she, for example, become a spokesperson for the pro-life movement? Or is this, as some have suggested, just a clever ploy to get lined up for 2012?

Another point worth considering is that Palin is actually acting in accord with the professed ideology of Republicans. One standard line that Republicans often use is that government is bad. Naturally, this caused me (and others) to wonder why they would be so eager to be involved with what they consider to be the problem. In this case, Palin is acting in a way consistent with that view: she is leaving the (alleged) badness of government.

As to why she is really leaving, time will be an indication. If she stays out of government, then it would seem that her speech was sincere. If she ends up running for another office, then the sincerity of her words can be called into question.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

71 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. carly said, on July 4, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    Palin is a quitter and Parnell seems to be a kiss-up. There are related posts at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?p=2052 and http://iamsoannoyed.com/?p=2048

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 5, 2009 at 7:23 pm

      Carly,
      It did seem a bit odd to me that Palin would quit like that. Her personality seems to be the sort that does not give up easy. But, perhaps she has other plans or perhaps she really was pushed to far.

  2. dmellnik said, on July 4, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    Has Palin recently been to Argentina???

    • biomass2 said, on July 4, 2009 at 5:24 pm

      No. But she can see it from her back porch.

      • EMAC said, on July 4, 2009 at 10:39 pm

        Oh my god Biomass, that made me laugh OUT LOUD!

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 5, 2009 at 7:24 pm

      Being something of a sci-fi and horror writer, I did jokingly consider that the Republicans are being afflicted with either a curse or alien mind controlling parasites. 🙂

  3. Mike Licht said, on July 4, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    That image is photoshopped! Everbody knows Ms. Palin drinks Diet Dr. Pepper.

    See:

    http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/palin-product-endorsement/

    And don’t you be pushin’ no hemlock at her, neither.

    • willfuqua said, on July 4, 2009 at 7:25 pm

      I was really surprised when I read about Palin giving her resignation. I personally don’t want to speculate too much, but one thought does stay in my mind…that she quit too easily. I wonder if she would have quit as Vice President if McCain had one the election instead of Obama. But maybe if I knew all the details, especially from her point of view, then her choice of leaving office would make more sense.
      On a more personal note, I’m actually hoping to see less of Palin and her family in the news. It seems to be an ongoing soap opera with her family, which makes me that much more grateful she didn’t get a higher office.

      • kernunos said, on July 6, 2009 at 10:53 pm

        The media makes it a soap opera. I’m sure all of your family lives are perfect. We just don’t see them broadcast constantly.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 5, 2009 at 7:24 pm

      What, I thought she drank wolf blood. 🙂

  4. Denisa said, on July 4, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Her resignation has everything to do with the investigation of her misuse of office and not the higher calling she claims. Think about it, would God call someone with the intellect of a pea in a pod, not the entire pod mind you, just the pea!

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 5, 2009 at 7:29 pm

      That could be. But, she seems the sort who might well believe she has a higher calling. God is said to work in mysterious ways and intelligence has rarely (never) been a pre-requisite for piety.

  5. magus71 said, on July 5, 2009 at 6:56 am

    You’re all a bunch of Moonbats. Get a life and a woman as hot as Palin and you’ll feel better.

    • biomass2 said, on July 5, 2009 at 10:12 am

      Now now, magus71. ‘Nuf wingnut name-calling.

      $6.45 says Sarah will be divorced in five years. Let’s imagine a “small part” of the long, disjointed speech she will likely give on the occasion of announcing her divorce to the world.(Please note: Like politicians and great musicians, she occasionally plagiarizes herself. . .”)

      “I’m doin’ this for Trak and Trig and whatsisname. For Bristol and sweet Willow and the little girl under the pillow. Besides faith and Alaska, nothing’s more important to me than family. But as you know I prematurely quit the Alaska job for the good of Alaska. And I’ll never give up my faith until it’s tested. But I feel I’ve been offered a better gig family-wise, you know? From this point on, until something better comes along, it’ll just be magus71 and me. I now carry dear mageia 1 and mageia 2 in my aged and over-fertile womb. . . . After all, if God didn’t want us to procreate until we couldn’t walk anymore, why would He give us wombs?. . . .
      When Todd and I first united to create a new life, I knew I could never deny the will of my womb. Even before I was married I learned one thing: LIFE is about choices! . . . .One chooses how to react to circumstances. I choose to work overtime to maximize my ovarian fruitfulness and productivity . . . .
      Life is too short to compromise time and resources. . . it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down–uh, er, please don’t misnterpret– and appease those who demand: ‘Sit down and shut up’–and you know who you are. But that’s the worthless, easy path; that’s a quitter’s way out. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and ‘go with the flow’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      Ect[sic].”

      And thus endeth another chapter in the Sarah Chronicles.

  6. kernunos said, on July 7, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    I wonder why the Left scrutinizes every aspect of her life? You would think she WAS president. Oh, wait. He doesn’t get questioned.

  7. kernunos said, on July 7, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    Oh, I get it. All of the ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’ energy had nowhere to go with him gone. Behold ‘Palin Derangement Syndrome’ from the party of character assassination. If she is gone where will it point next?

    • biomass2 said, on July 7, 2009 at 4:44 pm

      “‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’”
      What “would” we do without Charles Krauthammer?

      “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” (in full force when he entered office in ’93—long before he savored the Lewinskly cigar— yet unidentified by Krauthammer for obviously partisan reasons) leapt seamlessly across the aisle and became “Bush Derangement Syndrome” with “Gore Derangement Syndrome” chugging along on the other side. “Bush Derangement Syndrome” has, without missing a step, become “Obama Derangement Syndrome”.

      I question the staying power of “Palin Derangement Syndrome”. It might last as long as she lasted as governor of AK. But she lacks (dare I say?) gravitas. And consequence. And the “syndrome” is over-balanced on the far right by “Palin Infatuation Syndrome” —a condition suffered mainly by those who think that if you “Get a life and a woman as hot as Palin . . . you’ll feel better..”:)

  8. Desmond Cole said, on July 7, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    Palin said in her speech that she is surrounded with “good public servants” with an “astounding work ethic.” I beg to differ. Whoever posted a copy of her resignation speech on her website wasn’t working very hard to make her look good. It’s full of mistakes and misplaced quotation marks.

    I know it’s hard to capture Palin’s style in writing, but it’s as if they figured, “we’ll just write it the way she said it,” which makes it very hard to understand. Whatever you think of Palin, it’s hard to agree that she surrounded herself with talented people.

    Nevertheless, the opposition’s need to demonize and ridicule her has turned her into a hero now, and a huge commodity for Republicans. They should have attacked her ideas and left everything else alone.

    • biomass2 said, on July 7, 2009 at 9:55 pm

      “They should have attacked her ideas and left everything else alone.”

      Perhaps a question should be posed : “What ideas?”

      One example to consider. Palin was ridiculed for her laughable performance during the Couric interview. Unfair?
      Assuming a potential leader of the free world has ideas worth considering, shouldn’t he/she be able to express them clearly? The ridicule that followed that infamous interview should stick to Palin as long as she remains in politics.

      The loyal opposition, on the other hand, attempts to ridicule Obama for his use of teleprompters, but he’s demonstrated a more than adequate ability to clearly convey complex concepts without teleprompter assistance. Thus, the ridicule doesn’t stick.

      Some of the “personal attacks” (admittedly not all of them, unfortunately) appear to be logical outgrowths of the gap between her expressed beliefs and the real substance of her life. I’m not keeping up with the tabloids, so I have to ask “How is the relationship between her pregnant-before-marriage daughter and Levi Johnston going?” How does Sarah Palin’s belief in abstinence fit with the reality of Bristol’s life? My opinion: Perhaps S. Palin could have considered the impact of a campaign for the presidency on the lives of others in her family before she chose to join John McCain on the campaign trail.

      I think Palin has a limited ideology which she may understand at something beyond gut level, but she lacks the mastery of the language (English) needed to convey her understanding to others. Until then, the only people who will follow her are ideologues.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 8, 2009 at 11:53 am

        Palin does seem to have some ideas, but she has hardly been in politics long enough to have crafted anything like a proper set of them. Plus, she does not seem to be much of an idea person-more of an image person. Of course, most politicians are image people-those with original ideas are rather rare. Newt Gingrich is an idea guy, for example.

        It does seem quite proper to assess more than a politician’s ideas. After all, we are not just voting for her ideas (or against them). Rather, the vote is to put a person into office. How a person will do in office depends a great deal on their qualities as a person and not just the ideas they present. That said, some traits are not relevant to the office and some aspects of a politician’s life should be left (as much as possible) as private.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 8, 2009 at 11:49 am

      Somewhat ironically, the more Palin is criticized, the more influential she becomes. I suspect that if her performance in the interviews had been “just okay”, if she had not faced various problems (like the ethics investigations) and if she did not have those family controversies, then she would not have fired up the base as much. While Republicans often cry out against victim politics, many Republicans do find the politics of persecution (that is, seeing one of their own as being persecuted) very appealing.

      • kernunos said, on July 8, 2009 at 6:55 pm

        “Palin does seem to have some ideas, but she has hardly been in politics long enough to have crafted anything like a proper set of them.”

        Like Obama?

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 9, 2009 at 11:55 am

          Obama has something of an advantage over her, what with his experience with the law.

          • kernunos said, on July 9, 2009 at 12:05 pm

            Is this your opinion or is it a fact. I thought more time being in a government position of leadership gave you more experience at being in a government position of leadership. Obviously logic escapes a simple Conservative like me.

            • magus71 said, on July 9, 2009 at 12:37 pm

              Common, kernunos. Stop being so picky. It’s only governor or Alaska. Pffft.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 10, 2009 at 5:59 pm

              Opinion. The fact is that Biden’s job is being the VP: he is the deciding vote during a senate tie and the President should the original die.

      • magus71 said, on July 8, 2009 at 11:17 pm

        You don’t seem to scrutinize the REAL VP nearly as much as someone who was running for the position…

        Joe Biden cracks me up. Really.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 9, 2009 at 11:57 am

          Biden’s job mainly seems to be to make Obama look good.

          • kernunos said, on July 9, 2009 at 12:06 pm

            The only time Biden takes a foot out of his mouth is to put the other in. Between his complete lies and his public drunken stupors I’m surprised you haven’t given the actual Vice President more attention instead of the Vice President that didn’t happen.

            • biomass2 said, on July 9, 2009 at 12:53 pm

              More experience in”. . .a government position of leadership” trumps knowledge?

              Consider: William J. Clinton, George W. Bush—both with much more “leadership” time than Palin or Obama. One a Rhodes Scholar. One a C student. One leaves the government with a sizable surplus; one exits with a sizable deficit. Both are considered inept (and/or evil!) by a certain segment of the voting population. “And in the end”(to quote Lennon/McCartney) one leaves office with a 66% approval rating and the other leaves with a rating in the low 20’s. . .

              “public drunken stupors”
              As you might write: “Is this your opinion or is it a fact.”

            • biomass2 said, on July 9, 2009 at 9:54 pm

              “his complete lies”

              Just came across this–from a conservative and author of The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back.

              http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html

              I think it shines a different light on the Biden/Palin issue.

            • kernunos said, on July 10, 2009 at 4:02 pm

              Um, he is not really a conservative. He is a gay and even if he is Catholic well so is Ted Kennedy. He may be a fiscal Conservative but he is part of the problem with the new Republican party and why they keep losing votes.

              As much as you all don’t like it. Palin resigning as she did is increasing her support.

            • biomass2 said, on July 10, 2009 at 6:34 pm

              Don’t know why this popped up about ten replies earlier , but I’m going to repost it here,where it belongs, as a reply.

              Seen’em before.
              Vid 1: Drunk or sober, I look more like Joe Biden than the guy in this spurious video.
              Vid 2: In this vid Biden speaks in complete sentences and successfully completes his task (Contrast that with our immediate past president.). Aside from the fatuous claim of the title (”Joe Biden drunk on campaign trail – NOT a joke video”) what evidence do you have that Biden was inebriated?

              “Um, he [Andrew Sullivan] is not really a conservative. He is a gay . . . . He may be a fiscal Conservative”. Okay. So he’s not a conservative . . .but he’s a conservative. Is that what you’re saying? Republicans are no longer the Big Tent party of Ronald Reagan–if they ever were. Someone should have told Larry Craig about the party restrictions against gays before he held his Senate seat for 18 years. Don’t forget Mark Foley. And please inform all those people at gaypatriot.com, logcabin.org, gayconservative.com , and conservativerainbow.blogspot.com/(don’t you just love Google?) that they should exit the party now—though they may be fiscal conservatives and hold socially conservative views that coincide with yours 80% of the time.

              “Palin resigning as she did is increasing her support.” Perhaps this is the real reason the Republican Party “keep[s] losing votes.” It really looks like the big tent Republican Party, though they have no attractive, competent candidate at this early stage, do not see her as a legitimate candidate. As her support among a smaller segment of the party (Let’s call them the puptent conservatives.) increases, her support “overall” decreases.

            • willfuqua said, on July 11, 2009 at 12:17 am

              “Um, he is not really a conservative. He is a gay…”

              Are you saying a prerequisite for being a conservative is being heterosexual?

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 11, 2009 at 1:17 pm

              All depends on how one defines “conservative.” The so-called social conservatives would no doubt say “yes.” But, a person could be a fiscal conservative and be gay. Presumably sexual orientation does not impact on one’s fiscal philosophy.

            • biomass2 said, on July 11, 2009 at 3:05 pm

              “But, a person could be a fiscal conservative and be gay.”

              Michael, now I’m convinced you’re liberal.:) If the online blogs I’ve been reading lately are a true indication, the possibility that one could be fiscally conservative and gay and still be a conservative is apparently much too complex a concept for a straight conservative to comprehend.

              Here’s the mindset. All conservatives should be heterosexual. All gays must be liberal. Except Craig, Foley, etc. Of course, those exceptions are politically dead in the water anyhow, and their 24 hours of fame has passed, so, in the end (no pun intended) who cares about them?

              Andrew Sullivan doesn’t pass the homo litmus test. We can solve that problem by calling him liberal. Such relabeling also works with hetero social conservatives who disagree with hard right conservatives. Colin Powell doesn’t pass the “vote Republican” litmus test. Homosexual or not, he’s a . . .Liberal! The tiny corner this segment of the conservative movement is painting itself into keeps getting smaller and smaller. They would say it’s just getting purer.

              Purity. . .Think black and white. Either or. It’s easy being a conservative. But as a sentient being trying to wade through all the silliness, it makes my head hurt.

            • kernunos said, on July 12, 2009 at 12:17 pm

              That is the problem. Too many Liberals are defining Conservatism for us. Yes, even Democrats can be fiscally conservative. Though not often with all of the extraneous programs they try to push. Baldacci in Maine is trying his best without cutting programs but he is fighting an uphill battle. He has been fiscally more conservative than most Democrats and I commend him for this or at least trying. He did come from a business background with his family though.

            • biomass2 said, on July 12, 2009 at 1:55 pm

              “Too many Liberals are defining Conservatism for us.”

              “Us”. . . Which slice of “Conservatism” is that? The Limbaugh slice? The Gingrich slice? The Schwarzenneger slice? The Palin slice 🙂 ? The ones that can accept Colin Powell as a Republican? Or those who can’t?

              I’m standing on the outside watching as conservatives try to define or redefine conservatism for themselves. I’m not the one who redefined conservatism to exclude the likes of Sullivan or Powell or the log cabin conservatives. I didn’t write “Um, he is not really a conservative. He is a gay. . .” as if to say the two states are mutually exclusive (though that may have been the original intent).

              Here’s another example of this search for definition. There’s the longstanding conservative view that we should adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. As a middle-of-the-road Democrat, I feel adherence to a “coherent interpretation” of the Constitution is important. Yet we now hear many conservatives trying to justify bypassing the “checks and balances” the Founders worked so hard to incorporate into that document, just to cover Dick Cheney’s wide white butt. Suddenly, in the name of “security”, the executive branch need not inform the highest Congressional leaders of “secret” programs? Is the act of defining “conservatism” redefining what is meant by “checks” and “balances”? Is this the direction true conservatives want to go in?

              Let’s say you attend a Baptist church. But the preacher doesn’t preach Heaven and Hell in quite the way you see it. What happens? Perhaps you move to a church where you feel more comfortable with the message. Is the church you used to attend no longer a Christian church? With the switch do you automatically become a better Christian and your former pew-mates infidels?

              This seems to be where the conservative movement is now. Destroy, deny, redefine anything that’s outside very rigid conservative parameters. And the problem seems to be an outgrowth of the a typical conservative view of the world. If something seems out of place, there’s no attempt to move it. It must be destroyed. If an opinion is arguable, it must be wrong. Never debate or accept it.

              Note: Liberals go through similar soul-searching purges when they lose. We’ve heard the joke about the circular firing squad. Thus far, they’ve always survived the bloodbath. But I don’t see the flexibility and resilience in conservatism as it’s currently constituted that will keep the last man (or Palin) from falling.

            • kernunos said, on July 12, 2009 at 5:27 pm

              “Yet we now hear many conservatives trying to justify bypassing the “checks and balances” the Founders worked so hard to incorporate into that document, just to cover Dick Cheney’s wide white butt. Suddenly, in the name of “security”, the executive branch need not inform the highest Congressional leaders of “secret” programs? Is the act of defining “conservatism” redefining what is meant by “checks” and “balances”? Is this the direction true conservatives want to go in?”

              Which true conservatives? They obviously aren’t if what you say is true.

            • biomass2 said, on July 12, 2009 at 6:20 pm

              “Which true conservatives? They obviously aren’t if what you say is true.”

              I was thinking of the following exchange when I wrote my reply.

              This Week, July 12,2009
              STEPHANOPOULOS: But this allegation of the vice president ordering it to be kept secret — do you believe that should be investigated?
              KYL: Look, the president and the vice president are the two people who have responsibility, ultimately, for the national security of the country. It is not out of the ordinary for the vice president to be involved in an issue like this.
              STEPHANOPOULOS: But to order it be kept secret?
              KYL: [ Note: I “wish” I had boldface to emphasize the following sentence.] What if it’s a top-secret program? Of course, he and the president would both be responsible for that. Let’s don’t jump to conclusions is what I’m saying.

              That’s not even near what he’s saying. He’s making it pretty clear that if a president or vice-president determines a program to be “top” secret he/she can withold information about that program from Congress.

              DURBIN:But it is inappropriate for the vice president or the president to be ordering that a program be kept secret and not disclosed at the highest levels of congressional leadership.
              We have to have a check and balance in our system. To give to the president unbridled power and authority goes way beyond what our Constitution has in mind.

              So by your standard is Kyl in or out of the conservative movement?

            • kernunos said, on July 12, 2009 at 7:04 pm

              If they knowingly broke a law then yes. I’m not sure what my opinion means though. Do you have children or do you just sit by the monitor Biomass? I am watching a little dude and then just checking every now and then. I just love what the Dems are doing for his future. I hope there are still jobs when he gets older.

            • biomass2 said, on July 12, 2009 at 7:30 pm

              Don’t ask me why, but this popped up way back before July 7 responses. I know I didn’t set it as a reply to an earlier response. Anyway. Here it is again.

              We have children. My wife and I raised them under both Republican and Democratic administrations. They’re both grown men and successful by their standards and ours, and we now have a grandson. Don’t worry. If you’re good parents, your kids will suffer more from adolescent experimentation than they will from most governmental missteps.:(

              I don’t know how old your son is, but I wouldn’t be too happy with what the Republicans did to his “present” over the last eight years. “Compassionate conservatism” (the bumper sticker version of Bush conservatism–wherever that lies on the conservative scale) was a joke. For pragmatic and totally non-partisan reasons I’m hoping that Obama’s four or eight years have a more substantial and successful and positive effect on the future. It’s a bit early to tell yet, don’t you think?

              I just drop by the computer on my way back from cashing my wife’s and my defined pension and Social Security checks (My grandson’s initials are SSN) and dividend and distribution checks. Life’s a bitch. . .:)

            • kernunos said, on July 12, 2009 at 5:30 pm

              “Note: Liberals go through similar soul-searching purges when they lose. We’ve heard the joke about the circular firing squad. Thus far, they’ve always survived the bloodbath. But I don’t see the flexibility and resilience in conservatism as it’s currently constituted that will keep the last man (or Palin) from falling.”

              I think the conservatives have been losing because they have left their ‘Reagan-esque’ message. BTW, the party didn’t really like him either like Palin. They feared his views too. The more the party moves towards the left the more it loses. You think it is because they haven’t and I tell you it is because they have.

            • biomass2 said, on July 12, 2009 at 6:48 pm

              “Is this the direction true conservatives want to go in?”

              I saw a reply to this by kernounus wherein k* stated that the kind of action I was referring to would not be undertaken by a true conservative. His reply has mysteriously disappeared. I responded, but that reply has vanished as well. So–a quick summary of my reply.
              John Kyl appeared on THIS WEEK this morning.

              http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=8063029&page=1

              DURBIN: Let me tell you, we have a system of checks and balances. There’s accountability in our Constitution. The executive branch of government cannot create programs like these programs and keep Congress in the dark. There is a requirement for disclosure.
              It has to be done in an appropriate way so it doesn’t jeopardize our national security, but to have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate; it could be illegal.

              KYL: Look, the president and the vice president are the two people who have responsibility, ultimately, for the national security of the country. It is not out of the ordinary for the vice president to be involved in an issue like this.
              STEPHANOPOULOS: But to order it be kept secret?
              KYL: [ O’ Michael, I wish you would I could use boldface here] What if it’s a top-secret program? Of course, he and the president would both be responsible for that. Let’s don’t jump to conclusions is what I’m saying.

              Is Kyl saying that if the president and/or the vice-president determine a program to be top secret, they need not disclose the program to important members of Congress? Do I have that right? Is that by-passing checks and balances?

              So, k*, in answer to your question, another question: Does this disqualify Kyl as a conservative?

            • kernunos said, on July 12, 2009 at 12:37 pm

              A true Conservative would have no need to say what their sexual orientation was. There is also no need to say what his religious affiliation is either. He says his religious affiliation as if it validates his Conservatism and says he is gay like it sets him apart from the herd. It may make him more reasonable to a moderate or a Left leaning guy like you that would not read his book otherwise. It just seems like a marketing ploy. Other than being fiscally conservative he says he is for limited government. Well, how limited does he want government to be? A Conservative does not mean almost no government as a Libertarian would believe. The truth is though that neither one either denies or gives validity to one being a Conservative.

            • kernunos said, on July 10, 2009 at 4:05 pm

              Theory maybe. 🙂

              No I did not get him on a breath-o-lizer.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 10, 2009 at 6:03 pm

              Actually, there is little need to blog about what Joe does. You can use the following generic chart (Roll 1D4):
              1. Joe presents a factually inaccurate claim that 1-3) Frightens 4-6) Annoys or 7-8) Confuses the American people.
              2. Joe says something that contradicts the administration’s stated position.
              3. Joe rambles on about something, but no one is really sure what.
              4. Roll twice, combing the results. Roll again if you roll another 4.

          • magus71 said, on July 9, 2009 at 12:36 pm

            He’s doing a horrible job.

      • kernunos said, on July 9, 2009 at 12:09 pm

        Joe Biden is a pathological liar as far as I can tell. He even lies about things that do not matter in the least politically except to make him look bad.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 10, 2009 at 6:04 pm

          I’m not sure if he is a pathological liar or whether he sort of drifts away with ideas that he thinks are true. Seems like a nice enough fellow, though.

  9. magus71 said, on July 7, 2009 at 11:14 pm

    I thought you libs were the accepting and understanding types?

    Nah. I’ve learned over the years. You’re angry and unhappy people. All the anti-war protests in the world won’t won’t change that.

    The fact that you’re even talking about Palin means she threatened you. The second I heard of her being picked by McCain, I thought: “Brilliant.” Not because I knew anything about her, but because she was a woman. The Moonbats went into a frenzy from which they have still not recovered, and they cranked up the personal destruction machine to new levels.

    And lesbians got jealous of her husband….

    • biomass2 said, on July 8, 2009 at 8:22 am

      “The fact that you’re even talking about Palin means she threatened you.”

      Hmm. I pretty certain I write about her for the same reason she apparently became gov. of AK. It’s something to do. It is after all slightly more interesting than waiting for water to boil or paint to dry. On any given boring day, she’s a minor spectacle, in many ways like small town Fourth of July fireworks.

      And the fact that you would think a McCain running mate would be a brilliant choice before you “knew anything about her”. . . What if she had turned out to be an attractive female version of Mark Sanford or John Edwards or Larry Craig?

      But take heart: You can still hang her poster on your bedroom wall. 🙂

      • biomass2 said, on July 8, 2009 at 8:38 am

        Change: “I pretty certain” to “I’m pretty certain” 😦

  10. magus71 said, on July 9, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect liberal bias.

  11. biomass2 said, on July 10, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Seen’em before.
    Vid 1: Drunk or sober, I look more like Joe Biden than the guy in this spurious video.
    Vid 2: In this vid Biden speaks in complete sentences and successfully completes his task (Contrast that with our immediate past president.). Aside from the fatuous claim of the title (“Joe Biden drunk on campaign trail – NOT a joke video”) what evidence do you have that Biden was inebriated?

    “Um, he [Andrew Sullivan] is not really a conservative. He is a gay . . . . He may be a fiscal Conservative”. Okay. So he’s not a conservative . . .but he’s a conservative. Is that what you’re saying? Republicans are no longer the Big Tent party of Ronald Reagan–if they ever were. Someone should have told Larry Craig about the party restrictions against gays before he held his Senate seat for 18 years. Don’t forget Mark Foley. And please inform all those people at gaypatriot.com, logcabin.org, gayconservative.com , and conservativerainbow.blogspot.com/(don’t you just love Google?) that they should exit the party now—though they may be fiscal conservatives and hold socially conservative views that coincide with yours 80% of the time.

    “Palin resigning as she did is increasing her support.” Perhaps this is the real reason the Republican Party “keep[s] losing votes.” It really looks like the big tent Republican Party, though they have no attractive, competent candidate at this early stage, do not see her as a legitimate candidate. As her support among a smaller segment of the party (Let’s call them the puptent conservatives.) increases, her support “overall” decreases.

    • kernunos said, on July 10, 2009 at 6:12 pm

      ““Palin resigning as she did is increasing her support.” Perhaps this is the real reason the Republican Party “keep[s] losing votes.” It really looks like the big tent Republican Party, though they have no attractive, competent candidate at this early stage, do not see her as a legitimate candidate. As her support among a smaller segment of the party (Let’s call them the puptent conservatives.) increases, her support “overall” decreases”

      So you say from the outside. That would be similar to me guessing what a Liberal wants.

  12. magus71 said, on July 11, 2009 at 1:10 am

    Congrats. You Palin-obsessed folk have joined the media in their slow, twisted decline: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/08/sarah-barracuda-palin-and-the-piranhas-of-the-press/

    Will…do you know a lot of homosexuals that claim to be conservative? Must be Reagan Democrats.

    None of the Palin song and dance has changed one fact: Obama’s approval numbers are down, the economy continues to decline (yes, this is his economy now) and at this rate, in three more years there’ll be a different president.

    So often, Democrats fail to understand America. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat who did, in my lifetime. All the other still carry with them the idea that what Americans REALLY want is to be taken care of. Most of them just want to be left alone.

    The elites should go try to fix a country that’s really broken. Go help out Afghanistan or something.

  13. magus71 said, on July 11, 2009 at 1:21 am

    “The first thing reporters and commentators seemed to have noticed about Gov. Palin was her physical beauty. The second was that she had a bunch of kids, the last one born with Down’s syndrome in spring 2008. For some reason, these two facts infuriated many Democratic activists and bloggers – and some liberal journalists.”~Carl Cannon, Politics Daily.

  14. kernunos said, on July 12, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    “Here’s the mindset. All conservatives should be heterosexual. All gays must be liberal. Except Craig, Foley, etc. Of course, those exceptions are politically dead in the water anyhow, and their 24 hours of fame has passed, so, in the end (no pun intended) who cares about them?”

    It is not that he is gay, it is that he has to let us know he is gay. It has to be a part of his title. He has to show it off as a badge of courage and a gimmick to set himself apart from the left so it is easier to get published. A gay Conservative. The Left will love it and publish him. Why were you so interested in his writings? I bet if the book just said ‘I’m a Conservative’ you might not even pick it up. A Conservative would have no need to say what their sexual orientation was. It has nothing to do with Conservatism.

  15. kernunos said, on July 12, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    “Us”. . . Which slice of “Conservatism” is that? The Limbaugh slice? The Gingrich slice? The Schwarzenneger slice? The Palin slice 🙂 ? The ones that can accept Colin Powell as a Republican? Or those who can’t?

    Definitely not you, that is for sure.

  16. biomass2 said, on July 12, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    Interesting phenomenon with my last two responses. Note that the earlier response (6:20) appears after the later (6:49)* modified repeat. What’s with that?

    Oh,kernunos. You know I disagree with you about conservatives painting themselves into smaller and smaller corners (“The more the party moves towards the left the more it loses.”)–and almost everything else 🙂 . . . so there you go.

    *I posted the 6:49 repeat because for a while there kernunos’ last two responses and my reply had miraculously disappeared from the screen even after closing and reopening Firefox a few times. . . . So I decided to reply again even if his responses weren’t showing. 🙂

  17. kernunos said, on July 12, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    “I saw a reply to this by kernounus wherein k* stated that the kind of action I was referring to would not be undertaken by a true conservative. His reply has mysteriously disappeared.”

    I did not take anything away. Can I even do that?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 13, 2009 at 11:35 am

      I don’t think so. I don’t delete comments unless they are spam or “vandalism.” If anything doesn’t show up, it is usually the Worpress Spam filters blocking it. I check every so often, but might miss something.

      • kernunos said, on July 13, 2009 at 11:43 pm

        I agree. I have said some pretty silly things and they get through. 🙂

  18. biomass2 said, on July 12, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    We have children. My wife and I raised them under both Republican and Democratic administrations. They’re both grown men and successful by their standards and ours, and we now have a grandson. Don’t worry. If you’re good parents, your kids will suffer more from adolescent experimentation than they will from most governmental missteps.:(

    I don’t know how old your son is, but I wouldn’t be too happy with what the Republicans did to his “present” over the last eight years. “Compassionate conservatism” (the bumper sticker version of Bush conservatism–wherever that lies on the conservative scale) was a joke. For pragmatic and totally non-partisan reasons I’m hoping that Obama’s four or eight years have a more substantial and successful and positive effect on the future. It’s a bit early to tell yet, don’t you think?

    I just drop by the computer on my way back from cashing my wife’s and my defined pension and Social Security checks (My grandson’s initials are SSN) and dividend and distribution checks. Life’s a bitch. . .

    • kernunos said, on July 13, 2009 at 11:38 pm

      Well, at least I didn’t have him aborted like the left thinks it is ok to do.

    • kernunos said, on July 13, 2009 at 11:39 pm

      lol, Bush wasn’t very conservative in action.

    • kernunos said, on July 13, 2009 at 11:42 pm

      I do not think it is too early to tell about Obama’s 4 years in office. 12 trillion dollar deficit tells it all. That didn’t even take 4 months. Wait, that’s not all…If you order now you can be in debt for nationalized health care and maybe even a second stimulus package! Those advisors say the darndest things. Who knows where we will end up in debt. Your children as well as mine will have to pay for our mistakes. Happy days!

  19. magus71 said, on July 14, 2009 at 7:58 am

    The Republican Party is definitely more left than when it was crushing weak minded libs in the 80s.

    The Left WANTED John McCain to get the nomination. They lauded him and drooled about his ” bipartisanship”. Then, just as Limbaugh projected, the Personal Destruction Machine (PDM) was cranked into high gear when McCain got the nod.

    Suddenly it was, The Keating Five, McCain has a temper (Oh No!), he’s to close to one of his female workers… He’s crazy he’s old. No–McCain was a moderate. I don’t agree with everything Limbaugh said about him. He would not have destroyed the Republicans. He has been a Senator for a long time and by every account is one of the most truthful, honest and straightforward representatives–EVER. He understands foreign policy a heck of a lot better than the new guy, who’s surrounded himself with some many political activists that even he can’t control them. Then it’s back to nice nice, ’cause McCain doesn’t threaten them anymore. Sarah Palin still threatens them. She may run for president in 2012 after America remembers it hates having no jobs and having taxes increased and trillions of dollars spent to have no jobs.

    It’s always about the jobs in the end. Don’t forget it. Not war. GWB was president for two terms–with a very unpopular war. He father was a one termer with a popular and quickly fought war and a terrible economy.

    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: