Squaring the Culture

"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

10/02/2008 (9:44 am)

A Little Debate Prep

Let’s begin by acknowledging that I’m not expecting much. Joe Biden is a pompous idiot who repeatedly says the wrong thing. Sarah Palin has not thought much about national topics, and by all appearances does not know much about them. From an informational standpoint, tonight’s debate will be a waste of time, and it will probably be painful to watch. I almost wish the Phillies/Brewers matchup would still be running at that hour.

However, from an electoral standpoint, it’s pretty crucial. If Palin does not produce a performance that’s just about as engaging as her speech at the Republican convention, this debate is going to hurt the Republican ticket badly. She doesn’t have to be the policy wonk that she isn’t, she just has to be cogent and likable. I have my doubts that she can deliver.

Unfortunately, that’s not true for Biden. He’s already proved dozens of times that he can say the stupidest things and it won’t hurt him. This would not be true if the press treated Biden the way it treated, say, Dan Quayle, or even the way it treated George W. Bush. Hell, the British press observed that in England, Biden would not even have a career anymore after his hilariously inept plagiarism of Neil Kinnock’s speech.

It would be very difficult for a politician in this country to be taken seriously ever again, after such a humiliation; but Americans are a more forgiving people, and so Biden was able to entertain them once again during the current race for the White House. Thus last year he declared that his then rival, Barack Obama, was “not yet ready for the Presidency”, which was not a post suitable for “on-the-job training”, but graciously acknowledged: ” I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

And we’re supposed to be more sanguine about the prospect of this buffoon being a heartbeat away from the Presidency than we are about the woman who delivered the natural gas pipeline to Alaska after 30 years of other peoples’ failures. But, you know, she hasn’t thought very much about Supreme Court decisions or why the Palestinians electing Hamas to represent them might be a bad thing, so clearly the fact that she’s on the ticket makes it imperative to vote Democratic. I’ve been told this more than once already.

About the only thing he could do to hurt himself would be to act supercilious and arrogant toward Gov. Palin in clear view of the TV audience; it’s the measure of Biden’s character that there’s actually a pretty fair chance he’ll do the one thing that could hurt him, and blow this.

Giving us some unexpected entertainment and a possible source of respite for Gov. Palin, it turns out that moderator Gwen Ifill has a clear, financial conflict of interest that should be grounds for her to recuse herself from moderating the debate. She’s written a book slated for release the day after Inauguration Day, entitled “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” That her book sales will be better if Obama wins is beyond dispute. That’s a matter of journalistic ethics which she has failed so far, but even aside from the book deal, the notion that Ifill is anything remotely resembling objective is too silly for words. I want anybody who thinks Ifill is a professional who will rise to the occasion and perform objectively to view the video below and explain the look of utter contempt on her face, or her dismay about how Palin “mocked” and “belittled” Obama, as she reports on Palin’s speech at the Republican convention:

But, of course, Brit Hume was too biased to host a debate.

Jim Treacher has a pretty funny list of proposed questions for the debate, with Ifill’s conflict of interest in mind. She’ll moderate the debate, of course — Democrats genuinely believe they’re above bias, and they have no shame about violating ethical rules because they’re the Good Guys, after all, and the rules aren’t really for them — but if enough of the public gets wind of the conflict it may affect their view of the debate. Stay tuned. McCain himself has already mouthed the obligatory “I’m sure she’s objective” mantra, but it’s not clear how widely the news will spread today.

I’m pretty disappointed at this point with McCain’s choice for VP. I thought her speech at the convention was terrific, but since then she’s proved inept at handling the press. (Of course, nobody’s mentioning the fact that Obama, himself, avoided press questions for the first 9 months of his primary campaign; he wasn’t so good with them at first, either.) I was opposed to either Palin or Bobby Jindal as VP because of their lack of seasoning, but I think it’s fair to say that Bobby Jindal would not be drawing blanks in front of Katie Couric over with which Supreme Court decisions he disagrees. McCain could have done better.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the link to the Ifill video.

09/14/2008 (7:32 am)

Proletarian Palin

At last, some actual insight concerning the introduction of Sarah Palin to the presidential race.

Stephen Hayward at the Weekly Standard discusses the impact of Palin’s nomination on the political class in terms of Adams’ and Jefferson’s debate concerning aristocracy in politics. Do we still, he asks, believe in the citizen’s capacity for self-government, or have we accepted a political aristocracy that demands membership as a qualification for holding office? I highly recommend you read it; it’s brief but entirely relevant.

It struck me as I was reading that Gov. Palin understood the points he’s making (and so did the folks who wrote her convention speech) before she was introduced. In the acceptance speech, she deflected the vicious assault on herself and her family by observing that she’s considered unqualified, first, simply because she’s not a member of the Washington elite. She also introduced herself with a reference to Harry Truman, the one US President in recent history who had no college education (sending younger listeners scurrying to the dictionary to discover what a “haberdasher” was). The “Washington elite” line is a sound bite, but it’s not only a sound bite; there’s relevant content behind it, and that’s what Hayward discusses, and what Palin evoked. She may be inexperienced, but she’s far from unaware.

A tip of the blogging cap to Power Line for the link.

09/12/2008 (9:01 am)

Professional Governor, Unprofessional Journalist

It took me a few hours this morning to digest Gov. Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC last night and the internet reactions to it. The reactions are a bit frightening; so many can see only what they want to see, and not what was there.

The take from the interview is that Gov. Palin succeeds because she has a natural skill at focusing on high-level principles and goals rather than getting lost in details. This characteristic dominates the themes of the interview.

1) Gov Palin had obviously not thought through the details of our relationship with Pakistan, she offered no specifics on how we might impress Putin not to gulp down any more satellite nations, and she did not recognize Gibson’s reference to “the Bush doctrine.” However, her answers to the questions Gibson threw at her requiring that level of detail were sound, general policy positions — which is the most important detail for a high official to know. From her answers, some of which she repeated three times or more because Gibson would not stop digging for details that just weren’t there, we derive the following:

  • We intend to work with foreign governments, not against them;
  • We will be developing new relationships rather than merely taking old ones for granted;
  • War is a last option, not a first one;
  • We do not intend to allow Russia to return to Cold War boundaries, and do not accept Putin’s refusal of the Caucasus to NATO;
  • We have a right to defend ourselves against an imminent terrorist strike, even if it requires violating a national border.
  • We’re not going to second-guess Israel’s decisions on its own defense.

This is all sensible, conservative foreign policy at a very high level. The specifics are missing. At this stage in the process (both the election process and Gov. Palin’s learning process,) that’s appropriate. It’s the right place for an election debate, and the right place to start learning foreign policy.

Of course, if Palin were not a neophyte in the world of international politics, we would not assume that her lack of specifics was due to ignorance. Diplomats are wise to make their goals clear and their tactics obscure; it’s how diplomacy works. It’s likely that Palin is taking this approach because she does not know the details, but it’s not certain.

The Left, of course, is jumping all over the blank she drew on the Bush Doctrine, but not for any good reason. She was Mayor of Wasilla, AK at the time “the Bush doctrine” was being tossed around as a catchphrase, not a Washington policy wonk, so it’s no surprise she didn’t immediately associate that phrase with pre-emptive attacks. Her answer correctly encapsulated Bush’s broad policy strategy for the War on Terror. I would have preferred that she simply say, “Remind me what you mean by ‘the Bush Doctrine,’ Charlie,” but the course she took was good enough.

2) Gov. Palin’s grasp of how policy gets formed is a lot better than Charlie Gibson’s. This showed up twice:

Gibson: “This is not just reforming a government, it’s running a government.”
Palin: “But it is about reform, and about putting the government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy…”

And here:

Gibson: “National security is a lot more than energy.”
Palin “It is, but I do not want you to lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security.”

Policies arise from principles. Domestic priorities drive foreign policy objectives. Gibson wanted to emphasize her lack of experience, but Palin correctly pointed out that what creates good policy is the stuff she already knows about and focuses on — domestic priorities.

3) Gov. Palin obviously possesses the right personality to lead, and the Left truly does not understand this. This became apparent in the opening minute of the interview. Gibson seemed nonplussed that Palin did not hesitate to accept the nomination as Vice President when McCain offered it to her, but her reason was the right one. It was her “Game Face” attitude:

You can’t blink.You have to be wired in a way that you’re so committed to the mission…

Gibson was incredulous that Palin did not hesitate, but this is why Palin succeeds at everything she does. She most likely learned it, appropriately enough, playing sports: heart determines everything. She wins because she’s wired to win. She figures out where the goal is, and goes directly toward it.

This is not just a good trait, it’s an essential one; it’s the difference between success and disaster. Barack Obama does not have it, and that’s one of the things that makes him so dangerous. He’s an academic; his carefully thought-out answers to policy questions have withstood the test of other academics hurling questions but not of reality. They have the virtue of sounding erudite in a discussion, or in a classroom. They’re like Monopoly money; they cost him nothing, therefore they’re worth nothing. He’s never, in his entire life, had to make decisions that would actually affect the lives of real people in practice, aside from his own family decisions. Put him into a genuine policy crisis, and he’ll have to change his underwear three times in the first hour, and if he manages to keep from panicking, eventually will come to a decision that seems sensible from some academic standpoint but will have no relation to the reality in front of him. Putting the nation into the hands of a theorist is senseless.

Leftists are going to express incredulity and accuse me of pandering and spinning for this observation. I’m neither pandering nor spinning; this truly is the crucial personality trait of a successful leader. Palin has it. Obama does not. (I think both McCain and Biden would do well enough making decisions in a crisis; they’re both experienced enough to understand that any decision is better than no decision.)

Of course, what the public is going to take from the interview is a lot different from what I discuss here.

The hard-lefties are already screeching about how insanely stupid she is. Let’s recall, though, that they also assure us that Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower were stupid, and that Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and Clarence Thomas are stupid. No surprise here; they see what they want to see.

The same is true of the Palin fanatics on the right, who can’t bring themselves to admit that she really didn’t know what “the Bush doctrine” referred to. They see what they want to see. Neither of these groups was moved by the interview.

Those not infected with partisan diseases, however, saw a dismissive and disrespectful journalist assaulting a capable, professional woman who just happens to be new to international politics outside her state’s purview (she handled relations with Canada as governor, and did so very well). Gibson’s disdain was evident in the opening seconds of his introduction; he could not even speak her name without sounding smug. He looked as though he had to force himself to keep a straight face just to sit and talk with her. He horribly distorted a quote from a prayer she offered in a service in Wasilla, even after she correctly paraphrased Lincoln and explained how her comment was parallel to his. He repeated some questions as many as five times, by my count, even though she’d clearly given him as much detail as she was going to.

I also should mention that the editing of the interview was the most unprofessional job I’ve ever seen on a national news broadcast; it was painfully obvious where they clipped the tape, and sometimes it was clear that they’d excised relevant discussion.

ABC came off looking pretty bad last night. Palin held her own, and that can only help her.

On a side note, the Washington Post this morning positioned itself alongside the New York Times as the next major newspaper to disintegrate due to partisan bias. Anne Kornblut lied outright in her opening paragraphs about Palin’s performance, and the editors put it on the front page. They got called on it immediately by better journalists. They should fire Kornblut, but probably won’t; if they repeat this enough times, they’ll hit the skids and disappear into the ocean.

09/10/2008 (1:36 pm)


Barack Obama apparently took a shot at Sarah Palin yesterday, using a homey expression for faux change: “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” The McCain campaign complained.

I wish they hadn’t. Yes, it’s pretty obvious that Obama’s making a sly reference to Palin’s joke about the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom, only in a manner that’s (implausibly) deniable. No, it’s not nice. But then, anybody who expected Barack Obama’s campaign to be nice has not been paying attention.

What Obama was doing was saying “Game on. You want to take shots at me? I’ll shoot back.” Yes, it’s nastier and more personal than anything Palin said about him, but the voters can see that. We’re not stupid. Nobody’s going to mistake it for anything but a tasteless, classless shot at a smart and funny lady. They should let him do it, and let him suffer the PR hit that he would inevitably suffer.

One thing’s good, though; at least he’s stopped pretending to be engaging in a “different kind of campaign.”

09/09/2008 (5:27 pm)

Palin Experience

Jim Bennett, who runs a think tank in Washington called The Anglosphere Institute, wrote a revealing piece for the London Telegraph explaining Gov. Palin’s experience in Alaska. It’s brief and pithy, and deserves to be read and digested. Here’s part of the conclusion:

The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska’s energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes – the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having “no international experience” particularly absurd.

In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great odds.

Her sudden elevation to the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket shocked no one more than her enemies in Alaska, who have broken out into a cold sweat at the thought of Palin in Washington, guiding the Justice Department’s anti-corruption teams through the labyrinths of Alaska’s old-boy network.

It is no surprise that many of the charges laid against her have come from Alaska, as her enemies become more and more desperate to bring her down. John McCain was familiar with this track record and it is no doubt the principal reason that he chose her.

Compared to the utter lack of legislative leadership in Barack Obama’s career, Ms. Palin appears to be an achiever of the first order. Read it.

Meanwhile, the steady rainfall of faux scandals and their clear rebuttals continues unabated. Also, it should not come as a surprise, but you might want to read this brief expose’ of the web site that first posted the “Sambo” rumor about Palin over the weekend. There seems to be a consistent pattern of carefully timed smears here, items with neither merit nor support. Please note that this is of a very different nature from debatable interpretations of facts, like my own expose’ on Obama’s possibly radical roots. My intent was never to smear or to start a whisper campaign among the uneducated, as appears to be the goal of this site. Nor am I connected in any way to any campaign. By contrast, these folks appear to be posting things they know to be false, and to do it in such a way as to develop Google hits and stimulate repetition. Michelle Malkin joins in the query. I’ll go out on a limb: I have very little evidence, but I suspect David Axelrod is behind this. Astroturf is his bag.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has dispatched an army of lawyers and research assistants to Alaska to dig up more dirt on Ms. Palin, as though the press was not already doing their legwork for them. Democrats are never so efficient as when they’re attempting to ruin somebody’s reputation; it’s the one thing they do best.

09/06/2008 (9:32 pm)

Palin Rumor Lists

For those who want to review the list of attempted smears against Gov. Palin, I found two sites listing them all. The first is Chris of Rights, which has copious links to supporting material. The other is Explorations by ChasRMartin, and this one is pretty entertaining.

I don’t have the energy to keep up with them all, so thanks, guys.

09/06/2008 (11:26 am)

A Useful 12-Minute Infomercial

I’m not going to pretend that the following is anything but a 12-minute infomercial for Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, because that’s what this series of interviews of Palin’s former work associates by Fox New’s Greta van Susteren sounds like. It’s useful, though, because it provides detail about Palin’s work as Mayor, as Governor, and as Commander-in-Chief of the Alaskan National Guard.

Besides, after 14 months of non-stop infomercials for Barack Obama by ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, MSNBC News, CNN News, and Oprah Winfrey, it’s a little refreshing to hear from the other side. Also, I’m not entirely sure this was planned to be a sales pitch for Palin; it sounds as though her co-workers really do feel that strongly about her.

One thing that’s important to take away from this clip is that whereas Barry Obama is engaging in brownshirt tactics to prevent details from his past from reaching the public, Sarah Palin’s reputation is enhanced by providing such detail. That says pretty much everything that needs to be said here.

There are other relevant facts, though. For example, a commander in the Alaskan National Guard explains how it is a real military force and Sarah Palin really did lead it, and led it exceptionally well. Also, her former press secretary mentions Palin’s success at negotiating a contract for the trans-Canada natural gas pipeline, where the state had failed to produce one for three decades. What got my attention the most, though, was that she repeatedly took initiative to find out what her constituents needed, rather than waiting for them to come to her.

Check it out:

Hat tip to Hot Air for the story and the video.

09/04/2008 (12:07 am)

Gushing is Unseemly…

…so a lot of Republican commentators are behaving in an unseemly manner in the wake of Gov. Palin’s speech at the Republican convention.

Want to know how well she did? Keith Olbermann, MSNBC’s foul-mouthed attack dog, could not find a single, negative thing to say about her speech. What he said, according to Stephen Spruiell at The Corner, was “People who like this sort of thing will find this… the sort of thing they like.” That’s the worst he could do.

She did a superb job, the more so because this was by far the largest audience she’d ever addressed, and the most widely publicized speech. She was personable, she was likable, she was friendly, her delivery was crisp and pleasant, and she attacked like angry rottweiler — with a smile.

“Want to know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?” she quipped. “Lipstick.”

She had to do well tonight, in order to validate her place on the Republican ticket. If she had performed poorly, the stain against McCain’s judgment could have sunk his candidacy. She passed; there will be no calls for removing her from the ticket. As Ramesh Ponnuru observed, there would be more support among Republicans for flipping the ticket, even before the speech. After it, don’t be surprised to hear “Palin 2012” in the coming weeks.

Here are a few highlights.

On small towns:

Long ago, a young farmer and haberdasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency. A writer observed: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity.” I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman. I grew up with those people. They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America … who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country, in good times and bad, and they’re always proud of America.

That last phrase probably made Michelle Obama wince a little.

On sincerity:

… in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

On fiscal responsibility:

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor’s office that I didn’t believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

On Barack Obama:

We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers. And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform – not even in the state senate. This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign.


My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of “personal discovery.”


On John McCain’s opposition in the Senate:

Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee. He said, quote, “I can’t stand John McCain.” Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we’ve chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can’t stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House.


She spent a lot of time praising John McCain, and a fair amount of time introducing her family… but very little whining about the flood of personal attacks against her. About that, she said only:

And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion…

The full text of the speech can be found here.

Photo is from the LA Times, and was taken by Emmanuel Dunand / AFP/Getty Images.

09/03/2008 (3:20 pm)

David Axelrod for President

I had to hear it to believe it. Barack Obama answered a question put to him by Anderson Cooper on CNN concerning his lack of executive experience by talking about how large his campaign staff and budget are.

Here’s the clip:

Ed Morrissey deconstructs this pretty soundly over at Hot Air. Basically, Obama sets up a straw man by talking about Wasilla, whereas Palin is now Governor of Alaska (she was Mayor of Wasilla for 10 years), and then knocks it down by talking about somebody else’s job. He speaks of how large his campaign is, but Obama is not managing his own campaign; that job is being done by David Axelrod.

If campaigning qualifies as sufficient experience to act as President of the US, then anybody who campaigns for President is qualified, simply by virtue of the fact that they’re campaigning. This has to be the strangest claim I’ve ever heard from a presidential candidate. Kinda convenient, though, because now we never have to worry about vetting presidential candidates ever again.

Of course, if Obama really wants us to consider his campaign management as experience, then I suppose we’re justified in viewing his repeated blaming of policy miscues on his campaign staff as an indication that he’s an ineffective manager. Would that be accurate?

The truth is that David Axelrod is running a pretty tight campaign, except for his inability to control the mouth of his candidate. Axelrod could become White House Chief of Staff if Obama is elected, so it’s possible that at least the White House staff will be managed properly. Would he run more? It’s hard to say; we’re not privy to the sort of day-to-day operational detail that would tell us whether Obama would actually run the country, or whether his handlers would. However, I’ve seen no reason to imagine that Obama has anything but the ability to write position papers and articulate them. It’s entirely possible that despite the historic melanin content of the candidate’s skin, we’re really being asked to vote for David Axelrod to be President. If so, we can chuck Hope and Change out the window; Axelrod is a functionary of the Daley machine in Chicago.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has produced an ad comparing Palin’s experience to Obama. Watch it:

It would be a great ad if Palin were running against Obama, but I think the comparison actually hurts McCain. Palin wins the comparison, but not by enough to make Obama look like the weakling he truly is, because everybody knows the ad is partisan. The real comparison needs to be between Obama and McCain, which McCain wins by so much that it’s not really even fair. The ad does not even mention this. It’s a serious omission. By emphasizing Palin, the McCain campaign is actually making Obama’s job easier.

Some are saying that by comparing Obama to Palin, McCain emphasizes just how inexperienced he truly is; it automatically puts him into her category, which everybody knows is “newbie.” They may have a point. I will wait, watch, and rethink it.

09/01/2008 (12:46 pm)

Pregnancy Police (Updated)

I’m hoping this will be my last post regarding John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, for a while, because I’m already tired of the subject. However, I’m completely enraged by the level of incivility I’m watching, and it deserves mention. Actually, it deserves a severe ass-kicking, but unfortunately that probably won’t happen.

A bit of human scum named John Nail posted an incredibly spiteful, silly, and morally offensive piece on Talking Points Memo attempting to produce a scandal bringing Palin’s integrity and/or judgment into question based on some fairly ordinary gynecological issues that occurred during her latest pregnancy. It seems she experienced some cramping and leakage of amniotic fluid while delivering a speech in Texas. Nail goes into a paroxysm of questions regarding why she did not visit a hospital in Dallas, why she drove to a particular hospital in Alaska after landing rather than visiting a closer one, etc. From this he launches into conspiracy theories, raising what he considers the damning possibility that she wasn’t really pregnant, but only pretended to be in order to cover for her teenage daughter, Bristol. This is the meme the leftie blogs have been floating for the past few days (on a tip from Flopping Aces, I googled “Palin pregnancy fake” and got 37,000 hits). The point of the piece is to question Palin’s judgment based on her choices about her own pregnancy — as though the oblivious-to-real-world-pregnancy-issues author John Nail is fit to judge on the subject.

The rumors are false. The baby Trig was born in May. Governor Palin was the mother, not the grandmother. Teenage daughter Bristol was, in fact, a few weeks pregnant at the time, and is now about 5 months pregnant. Palin made that announcement this morning. Bristol is going to keep the baby and marry the father. The tinfoil hate crowd was dead wrong, as usual. (The mistype of “hat” was as deliberate as deliberate could possibly be.)

Beyond that, Nail actually makes the incredibly silly mistake of thinking “leaking fluid” equals “water broke.” They’re not the same; it’s like comparing an intermittant tire leak to a high-speed blowout on the highway. I’ve fathered four children and was deeply involved in the care of their mother, so I know from personal experience (well, 2nd-hand, but I was there…) leaking fluid is not uncommon in the late stages of pregnancy, nor are cramps. You don’t know when the cramps will turn into the real thing, and if you’re a month before the due date, you don’t expect them to.

I won’t go into further analysis here, ’cause I’m sickened by the entire process. These hypocrites pretend to care about a woman’s privacy when discussing abortion, but don’t consider it a violation of a woman’s privacy to attempt to judge for her, obviously without real-world experience of their own, when it’s appropriate for a woman to board an airplane, how much exertion she can handle, or where she’s permitted to deliver the child. Giving credit where credit is due, this point was made in a comment on Nail’s article by a pro-abortion feminist; it’s correct, and telling.

That they even went down this road in their zeal to find something, anything, with which to indict Gov. Palin is beyond disgusting. They endure strings of dozens of outright lies from their own candidate on subjects directly affecting his core beliefs, but attempt to indict any ordinary human activity as a moral lapse in their political opponents, declaring Republicans unfit for office on the mere suspicion that they might be human beings.

John Nail should have medical dictionaries dropped on his typing hands repetitively from a minimum height of four feet until he recites correctly a medically accurate description of a pregnant woman’s water breaking.

The Anchoress has a meaty rumination on the sickness of soul that has motivated the hard left to react to Palin in this inhuman manner. It’s worth a read, particularly if you’re concerned about the deterioration of Western Civilization.

« More Recent PostsOlder Posts »