Guess she was for him before she was against him... by Philip Gourevitch September 8, 2008 http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/09/08/080908ta_talk_gourevitch Before she was running against him, Sarah Palin—the governor of Alaska and now the Republican candidate for Vice-President of the United States—thought it was pretty neat that Barack Obama was edging ahead of John McCain in her usually solidly red state. After all, she said, Obama’s campaign was using the same sort of language that she had in her gubernatorial race. “The theme of our campaign was ‘new energy,’ ” she said recently. “It was no more status quo, no more politics as usual, it was all about change. So then to see that Obama—literally, part of his campaign uses those themes, even, new energy, change, all that, I think, O.K., well, we were a little bit ahead on that.” She also noted, “Something’s kind of changing here in Alaska, too, for being such a red state on the Presidential level. Obama’s doing just fine in polls up here, which is kind of wigging people out, because they’re saying, ‘This hasn’t happened for decades that in polls the D’ ”—the Democratic candidate—“ ‘is doing just fine.’ To me, that’s indicative, too. It’s the no-more-status-quo, it’s change.” This was two weeks ago, at the statehouse in Juneau. After persistent reports, in July, that Palin was on McCain’s short list of potential running mates, her name had faded back into obscurity. Nobody in Alaska seemed to take her seriously as a national prospect, and she had shrugged the whole thing off on television, telling CNBC’s Larry Kudlow that, before considering the job, she would want to know “what is it, exactly, that the V.P. does every day.” Now, at the statehouse, she sat, unattended by aides, curled up in a cardigan, and explained that what she had done every day since becoming governor was to stick her thumb in the eye of Alaska’s Republican Party establishment. “The G.O.P. leader of the state—we haven’t spoken since I got elected,” she said. She went on, “I guess if you take the individual issues, two that I believe would be benchmarks showing whether you’re a hard-core Republican conservative or not, would be: I’m a lifetime member of the N.R.A.—but this is Alaska, who isn’t?—and I am pro-life, absolutely.” She continued, “I guess that puts me in a box of being hard-core Republican.” But she said she recognized that “the Democrats also preach individual freedoms and individual rights, capitalism, free market, let-it-do-its-thing-best, let people keep as much of their money that they earn as possible. And when it comes to, like, the Party machine, no one will accuse me of being partisan.” So the possibility that Obama might win Alaska did not worry Palin: “Turning maybe purple in the state means, to me, it’s more independent, it’s not the obsessive partisanship that gets in the way of doing what’s right for this state, and I think on a national level that’s what we’re gonna see.” And she added, “That’s why McCain is the candidate for the G.O.P.—because he’s been known as the maverick, as the conduit for some change.” In the state’s Republican caucus, McCain came in fourth, trailing Ron Paul. “I always looked at Senator McCain just as a Joe Blow public member, looking from the outside in,” she said. “He’s been buttin’ heads with Republicans for years, and that’s a healthy place to be.” Then again, on McCain’s signature issue—the prosecution of the war in Iraq—she did not sound so gung-ho. Her son is a soldier, and she said, “I’m a mom, and my son is going to get deployed in September, and we better have a real clear plan for this war. And it better not have to do with oil and dependence on foreign energy.” ♦
That wasn't exactly a glowing endorsement -- nothing like Hillary and Biden gave to McCain. However, perhaps that's why I like her style. She seems to be a moderate conservative for the most part, and many of us are supporting Obama simply because the GOP deserted its principles. Hence, I can see from whence she was coming.
Hope there's more like her, and you! [edit] BTW a moderate conservative doesn't believe in creationism. or do they these days?
From what I have heard, her appeal is more to hardcore Republicans than it is to moderates and independents. She's more conservative than McCain is on a number of issues issues like abortion.
Technically, if you don't believe in creationism or any other plank of the neo-con agenda, you're officially a gay commie satan-worshipin' atheist jihad-lovin' baby-killin' terrorist LIBERAL! And if you don't wear a flag pin, you're an unpatriotic LIBERAL, which is even worse!
I do believe God created the heavens and Earth. I do believe God created them in six days. However, I don't think God's days are equivalent to the way mankind measures days. I believe the Bible contains a great deal of figurative imagery as well as literal directives. The truth is there. Faith can help one find it.
Desperation is when you come to the end of rational options. The instinctual will to survive and the human imagination never know when to give up. This is never going to end, I will live on forever!
How do you know which part is literal, and which part is figurative? Did you determine, for instance, that God's days aren't the same as mankind's days using faith?
One must read the Bible and decide for himself/herself. Did you notice that I said "I don't think...." meaning that is my personal interpretation? You are entitled to yours. I encourage you to read the Bible to formulate your opinions on what parts are figurative and which parts are literal. I don't tell people what to believe. I do ask that they determine that for themselves. I have faith each person will eventually have his or her own epiphany.
I'm not trying to challenge your interpretation, or any of your opinions. I'm just curious what you meant by faith helping you to determine the truth. How does faith help you distinguish the literal from the figurative? Can you given an example of an interpretive opinion you formed that was based on faith?
Ultimate pwn3rship <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EV14xqelWxY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EV14xqelWxY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
If you utilize the incredibly simplistic definition of conservative as one who believes in the Biblical story of creation....I guess. I thought that whether you were a conservative or a liberal or a moderate was made up of you stance and/or belief on a myriad of things. I had no idea it was that simple.
John 3:16 -- "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." I can't prove it using empirical science, but I believe it. I have faith that this is truth. It is my personal truth regardless of what anybody else thinks. Genesis on the other hand is quite figurative. If Adam and Eve were literally the first human beings, how did Cain go out to find a wife in the land of Nod? I remember my grandfather telling me that women weren't counted in those days, but that would make Cain's wife his sister. No, I believe the story is representative of the rise of man so that early peoples could grasp the concept. The truth is there, but faith that the Word of God is true allows one to attempt understanding. It is a difficult concept to articulate, the same way sometimes that you believe a "gut hunch."
Ok. Thanks. (Edit) I think in your second example, that you're using something other than faith to determine that portion of the Bible isn't to be taken literally. You're using reason. To me, faith isn't a way to distinguish the literal from the figurative. Faith allows one to accept something as truth in the absence of evidence (either in support or against it). This is what you're doing in your first example. It's our way of filling in the gaps in our belief system. But when we have a situation where there's a conflict between two ideas, then we need to use our ability to reason to resolve it. This is what you're using in your second example. I think one must use observation and reason to seek out the truth. After that's done, some system of knowledge may be built up. Then, faith allows one to fill in the holes if one is inclined to do so.
