House of Eratosthenes

Awesome. I love everything about her. Almost everything. I still think identity politics are reprehensible, but it is what it is. Millions of people make their decisions according to this…and not just a few of them, are in the support base on which The Messiah was counting.

Palin For those who are not in the know: Palin is young and inexperienced, in a good way. She’s roughly my age, and offsets a resume that is thin like The Savior’s with common sense, which His Holiness has demonstrated over and over again he does not have. She’s up to her armpits in kids — five, including one in the Army, eighteen-year-old son Track, being deployed to Iraq next month. And get a load of this — she goes by a name different from her maiden name, because she happens to be married.

Let me clarify the comments about her resume. Her net (political) resume is thin, but her gross (all of it) resume is not. She’s actually done stuff. Sports reporter. Commercial fisherman. Husband Todd, a Native Eskimo, was Sarah’s high school sweetheart; he works for BP on Alaska’s North Slope and is a champion dog racer. In other words, she is not a career politician. She is a three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood real person.

Pro-life. Lifetime NRA member. Used marijuana once, didn’t like it.

Ran on a clean-government campaign for Governor two years ago — won, based on that — and followed through. Shelved pork projects, opposed other Republicans in doing so; passed an ethics bill; fired a whole bunch of people; took on Ted Stevens. So aside from sporting anti-corruption credentials that are battleship-steel tough, this woman, personal-character-wise, has some real balls. And yet, somehow, she finds it possible to be in love with men…one man…and conduct herself as if she’s pleased to be married to him. So, you see, it can be done.

And what is it about chicks in glasses?

Great move, Maverick. I think you just won this thing. Now tweak your platform in a few places here & there, and who knows you may even get my support. I’m speaking specifically of firing Juan Hernandez. “Immigrant rights” has nothing to do with it and is not an accurate description of this issue. Hernandez is an open-borders whack-job. And, ejecting that whole climate-change thing. Palin does not deliver a hint of change here. She’s drunk some of the kool-aid herself.

But I can get past that.

Palin, in modern times, is the absolute best walking-breathing argument we have for allowing women to continue to vote. There are other walking-breathing arguments for taking the vote away from them…Oprah…those four dingbats on The View…The Pantsuit…my two flibbertigibbet senators…Barbra…

Gov. Palin renews faith. That is exactly what’s needed; this is about the best you could’ve done, Mac. By a long shot. I’ll have to take back some of that bad stuff I said.

Update: Forgot to read the fine print. The cover is ‘shopped, and credit is due to Kodiak Konfidential. Thanks to Gerard for pointing it out.

Update: The man who would have made the very best Next President possible this year, that the powers-that-be didn’t want us to be able to choose, weighs in. Fred Thompson on the Palin pick:

I am absolutely delighted by this selection. Once again, John McCain has shown that he is an independent thinker who paints in bold strokes. Sarah Palin is a conservative reformer with executive experience who will bring a breath of fresh air to Washington. She will be an ideal running mate for John McCain, and will make a major contribution to our country’s future.

I’d heard her name kicked around a few months ago and ~~checked her out~~ I mean checked up on her and I mostly liked what I saw and kinda hoped he’d choose her.

But … as the race went on I gave up on that idea.

So this is the first pleasant surprise I’ve really had in the race, except perhaps that the Obamessiah is starting to get a little more pressure and his rock star appeal is starting to wear on people as the pot smoke clears from their eyes.
- philmon | 08/29/2008 @ 12:10
Oh, and I totally get the chicks in glasses thing. 🙂
- philmon | 08/29/2008 @ 12:11
Morgan… for all my illustration needs….

As I quote over at my place…. when I say this I thought…. “Branca throws… [barely audible crack of the bat]… There’s a long drive… It’s gonna be, I believe….. The Giants win the Pennant! The Giants win the Pennant! The Giants win the Pennant! The Giants win the pennant! [Wahoo! heard in background]…”
- vanderleun | 08/29/2008 @ 12:19
Gerard, I think your favorite guy there just became our next President.

One wonders if he’d have picked so wisely, if he did not have to worry about currying favor with The Blog That Nobody Reads.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2008 @ 12:41
I don’t think so sir. Speaking as(I believe) a conservative, I wouldn’t put any effort into courting the conservative side until it calms down and stops acting like a group of spoiled children. I can’t think of anyone who has done more for the conservatives then Bush Jr., and I can’t think of anyone who has gotten less from them. I’ve watched a bunch of people spin themselves into believing McCain was “Just another RINO”. McCain is, I think, familiar with and kind about the lies people tell themselves, but I don’t think they have ever driven his agenda.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/29/2008 @ 12:57
Bush Jr.’s approval numbers went into the tank when he started acting like a liberal.

And it isn’t spin to believe McCain might be just another RINO. There’s CFR; there’s the gang-of-fourteen; there’s global warming, and there’s Juan Hernandez. That’s four good reasons.

His pro-life credentials are very sound and solid, I’ll give you that. But there’s a lot more to conservatism than just that. He appears to have the intention of keeping genuine conservatism out of the Supreme Court.

There are misconceptions about conservative ideas I can’t depend on him to correct. When liberal politicians say things predicated on the notion that, for example, a 10% tax increase will produce a 10% increase in revenues — I think a real conservative should jump in there and drive home the point that tax increases don’t necessarily increase revenues, nor do tax cuts diminish them. McCain’s had a lot of opportunities to do this, and to my knowledge has taken advantage of none of them. And then there’s business taxes. Businesses do not pay them — they pass those costs of doing business on to their customers. Really, we shouldn’t even be having taxes on corporations. I would expect a real conservative to point this out. Cutting the corporate taxes is a lot better than hiking them, sure; but here, too, McCain has had opportunities to correct the misconception, and to my knowledge has taken advantage of none of them.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2008 @ 13:30
Well, I have thought that in the past as well. But Bush Jr. has tried another path which has been successful in getting conservative goals past congress, and the seventy odd years of preaching to the walls have not. It seems to me that on the national stage Republicans can say something or do something. Pick one. I don’t see that changing while the press is as leftist as it is. People still don’t understand the Laffer curve, and that’s a thirty second concept. It’s a shame we don’t have a “pinch hitter” rule for politics. Thomson sucked on the trail but would make a great spokesman. Again, doesn’t work with the press as it is now.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/29/2008 @ 14:07
With apologies to Eleanor Roosevelt —

— the press CANNOT run this show without our consent.

I think you would have to agree, there is an entire arsenal of weaponry we have not been using. The rhetorical question, by itself, can work wonders simply by shifting the burden of a debate to the opposing side. “Can you promise that when we raise a tax rate 20% we’ll collect 20% more revenue?” People do hear conservatives make arguments like that…but only on talk radio. They don’t see the politicians doing it. And that gives people the impression these arguments wouldn’t withstand critical inspection.

I do believe Bush Jr. deserves credit for making this point, in fact, shaping the public policy through it and in doing so, proving it. Victories like that one, are a big part of the reason why his approval rating went as high as it did for as long as it did. At the same time, I have become leery of the excuse that a conservative had to become quasi-liberal in order to get something signed into law. This doesn’t hold water with me. In fact, I still believe in his first term, a President can easily veto himself into a landslide. Why do we so easily believe there’s something mythical or nonexistent about the conservative base ready to turn out in a show of support for the incumbent who STOPS things? I’m ready to re-elect a guy who “passes” nothing at all, if I think by doing so, it will change what lands on his desk in the next term; other conservatives are similarly inclined. So why should we put any stock at all in the “I had to reach across the aisle to get it passed” excuse?
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2008 @ 15:13
Well, in regard to the message, yes they can. Bush has had some wonderful speeches, and can turn a phrase better then I can. Remember “The soft bigotry of low expectations”? Made the “news” once. Any political has a limited amount of time to work with, and if the press is not getting your message out, then you have to make a choice. Spend all your time pushing the message(stepping all over it if you are a conservative, because you had no time left to do anything) and look like a RINO, or ignore the message and get it done. Pick one. As to your second point first, people don’t elect people to do nothing. Second, people who don’t want to do anything don’t run for office. We were lucky to get Silent Cal. But standing in the back screaming “we can’t afford that!” got us the New Deal and The Great Society. And your guy would lose because a democrat can always get that 10% sliver he needs from the conservatives to get elected. Maybe he promises “closed borders”. Maybe he’ll shut down the “ports deal”. Maybe “He betrayed us all with Miers! vote them all out until they get it right!” Or maybe the shop worn Ross and Teddy show. Taft might have been as good as Silent Cal, but Mr. Yang pissed all over him and we got the anti christ himself, Wilson. We’re still dealing with the fallout of “ethnic self determination”. I have been in school government. I have been in the Boy Scouts. Never seen anyone get elected with a promise to do nothing. So, good luck with finding the proactive sloth.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/29/2008 @ 16:21
this woman, personal-character-wise, has some real balls.

Hey… she was a hockey player in her youth, and ALL hockey players have balls, regardless of gender. Plus, she’s Mom to a hockey player, now. And she’s Hella good-looking, too, which you kindly pointed out, among other things. What’s NOT to like?
- Buck | 08/29/2008 @ 16:41
I think this is absolutely great news. To a degree, I share your concerns about the judiciary in Mccain’s hands. It’s a risk, but it’s a risk worth taking. Especially when you consider the alternative.
- JohnJ | 08/29/2008 @ 17:06
Good call JohnJ. The Democrats never cut us any slack when we Conservatives have one of our “Perfect or nothing!” spells. I remember how many on our side hated Bush Sr. “He raised taxes! He broke his promise! Clinton can’t be any worse!”. And they were the one’s freaking about Fort Marcy park……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/29/2008 @ 17:14
Well Robert, I understand where we disagree now. I do not think that all change from the status quo is good; if Republicans are just in a fight with democrats to see whose bills can be shoved through the mill the fastest, then they’re just democrats of a different flavoring.

To me, the very word “conservative” means if a solid case isn’t made for doing something, you don’t do it. And yes, as I said, I will vote someone in who will bottleneck things up. I think that’s what a legislator or executive truly concerned about this nation’s future, will do.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2008 @ 18:29
Well, we don’t disagree as much as you think. I would love to see much of the status quo changed or removed, probably more then you do. I have, however, watched years of Conservatives charging the line and getting mowed down by Press and Democrat machine guns. I think Bush is a Conservative genus in that he is flanking the Democrat lines, and getting stuff done that I didn’t think would happen without a civil war. If we were on the right path, I agree that doing nothing would be the correct course of action. But if we have been driven down the wrong path, as I believe Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Carter have done, then doing nothing is a crime. Wasn’t that Nixon’s great sin, to validate what Johnson had done? As to the difference between Republicans and Democrats, it would seem to be the difference between ownership and slavery. Insofar as the old choice was between fiscally responsible slavery and slavery with debt, I am pleased as punch. The old, pre Bush Conservatives attempted to change the magnitude of the vector, Bush is changing the direction. If we agree that we have gone the wrong way, this is the way to go. Again, as to voting for someone who will bottleneck things up, Who are you voting for? Thompson wanted to do things, so he’s out. Rudy’s out. McCain’s out. Who was running on the veto platform? Content men do not run for office.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/29/2008 @ 18:52
Certainly getting crowed here in the blog that nobody reads.

Cue Yogi Berra: Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.
- vanderleun | 08/29/2008 @ 20:34
…and whether they do lots of not-agreeing or not-disagreeing, we are plum pleased with all of the nobodies who don’t stop by. Grateful they couldn’t make the time. Each and every one of the ones who aren’t here.
- mkfreeberg | 08/29/2008 @ 21:02

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

PalinFriday, August 29th, 2008

Palin
Friday, August 29th, 2008