Newsweek: Palin Too Common, Too Stupid to be Vice President, She’s ‘Dangerous’
-By Warner Todd Huston
Newsweek’s Jon Meacham thinks that Governor Sarah Palin is too much a commoner and too stupid to be allowed to become vice president of the United States of America and apparently his employer agrees with him. The October 13 cover of Newsweek features a close up photo of the Governor with the headline “She’s One of the Folks (And that’s the problem),” and Meacham writes the accompanying cover story. Be clear about what this means: This is a direct attack on Mr. and Mrs. America. We are all too stupid to be president in the elite opinion of Jon Meacham and Newsweek magazine.
Meacham finds Palin to be incurious, unprepared, and even finds it “dangerous” if she were to become our vice president but he offers us nothing but his opinion to judge by. And it’s all because she doesn’t measure up to his personal standards. Sadly for Meacham’s elitism, however, Palin easily satisfies the standards that the Founding Fathers set as criteria for stepping into the highest office in the land. Curiously, Meacham does not once mention the actual Constitutional requirements to run for office in his entire sarcastic attack on Sarah Palin. Like most of his ilk, the Constitution seems meaningless minutia to him.
To be sure, there is an argument raging among the iliterati concerning who should be allowed to be president or vice president and it all centers on the experience issue. Whether a long resume of government positions makes one “qualified” for president or not has taken center stage, especially since Governor Sarah Palin was chosen for his VP candidate by Jon McCain. Hypocritically, this “experience” issue didn’t bother these same members of the chattering classes when Barack Obama announced his quest for the White House with his less than 200 days in federal service now behind him. But now these same worriers find themselves suddenly concerned.
Before we begin, we need to find out the true qualifications for president of the United States as we see in the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
That’s it. The Founders wanted no test, no requirements but these so as not to restrict the people in their choice. They, unlike someone like Jon Meacham it turns out, trusted the American people.
Early in the piece, Meacham sets up the argument in favor of Palin, yet even as he does he attacks.
A key argument for Palin, in essence, is this: Washington and Wall Street are serving their own interests rather than those of the broad whole of the country, and the moment requires a vice president who will, Cincinnatus-like, help a new president come to the rescue. The problem with the argument is that Cincinnatus knew things. Palin sometimes seems an odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from “Being There” and Marge from “Fargo.”
This is but one of the many slams that elitist Meacham engages in here. Not to belittle the selfless life of Cincinnatus, but to merely assume that he “knew things” and that this assumption somehow speaks against Palin hardly passes the smell test. In fact, the figure of a Cincinnatus does, indeed, seem to elicit a comparison with Sarah Palin. But Meacham does not elaborate on the “things” Cincinnatus “knew” and why it is that Palin doesn’t measure up. He assumes that a mere dropping of an ancient Roman name will be enough to convince that he’s on to something.
To elaborate for the uninitiated, Cincinnatus is known as the Roman dictator that left his small farm to lead Rome to victory in a short war and then, in a perfect example of public virtue, resigned his dictatorship and returned to his plow. He is known for simplicity of life, virtue in duty, and fairness in leadership. He is not, however, known as some great philosopher King. He was just a dutiful, humble citizen that knew how best to get the job done. Why is Cincinnatus so much different than a Sarah Palin? In any case, Meacham doesn’t bother to say, leaving the charge hang there unexplained.
The crux of Meacham’s argument is in favor of elitism of a sorts, though he claims it is not one of station.
Is this an elitist point of view? Perhaps, though it seems only reasonable and patriotic to hold candidates for high office to high standards. Elitism in this sense is not about educational or class credentials, not about where you went to school or whether you use “summer” as a verb. It is, rather, about the pursuit of excellence no matter where you started out in life. Jackson, Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Jonson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton were born to ordinary families, but they spent their lives doing extraordinary things, demonstrating an interest in, and a curiosity about, the world around them. This is much less evident in Palin’s case.
Meacham argues that the past presidents he mentions were so obviously more qualified by their “pursuit of excellence” and that Palin has no such history. But, for many of those he mentions, we only know of these pursuits in retrospect. At the time they ran, several of those Meacham mentions were just as blank a slate to the public as he claims Palin to be to us now. Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Jonson and Ford were all thought to be either extremely common of intellect or not well educated by most people when they achieved office. In fact, in Andrew Jackson’s case, he was quite uneducated to which any look at his writings can quickly attest (Spelling and punctuation was unknown to him it is obvious). That they all turned out later to have been misunderestimated is the stuff of history, but using these folks as arguments to prove Palin’s unfitness for office is rather shaky grounds.
Meacham even attacks Palin for presenting herself as one of us.
Even devoted Republicans doubt whether the Sarah Six-Pack case is the best one to make. After the vice presidential debate, a senior figure in the party, who asked not to be named because he was telling the truth, told me that Palin should talk less about being “just-folks” and more about being governor of a large state.
I love how Meacham asserts that this unnamed source was “telling the truth.†Telling whose truth is the question that remains unanswered.
William F. Buckley, Jr. once famously quipped that he’d “rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” This remark, albeit a humorous one, holds the germ of true American principle at its heart and it is a principle that Meacham is arguing against. For his part, Thomas Jefferson agreed with Buckley’s intent that the common American was suited for any office in the land, a notion that the Meacham’s of the world seem to be arguing against.
Jefferson once said, that “whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” The election of a Sarah Six-Pack like Sarah Palin can easily be considered a corrective action by the American people tired of being ridden by those imagining themselves “born booted and spurred” to dictate the terms of our lives from on high.
The main problem with Meacham’s position is that it would tend to create a permanent political class from which we would draw our leaders. This is a concept quite outside of what the Founders wanted.
Then Meacham conjures up the death of McCain as so many are wont to do.
… it is only prudent to ask whether she is in fact someone who should be president of the United States in the event of disaster. She may be ready in a year or two, but disaster does not coordinate its calendar with ours. Would we muddle through if Palin were to become president? Yes, we would, but it is worth asking whether we should have to.
Besides his pronouncement that she is stupid, we really don’t find much in Meacham’s column to doubt Sarah Palin’s capacity to be president. We have to take as given that she is unfit because he does not really do much to settle the question. Assuming he’s right, maybe it would be a bad thing to have a Sarah Palin as next in line for the Oval Office. But, there is nothing in this piece that compels one to agree with Meacham’s premise. He fails to prove his case.
He saves his best slam for last; she’s “dangerous.”
I could be wrong. Perhaps Sarah Palin will somehow emerge from the hurly-burly of history as a transformative figure who was underestimated in her time by journalists who could not see, or refused to acknowledge, her virtues. But do I think I am right in saying that Palin’s populist view of high office — hey, Vice President Six-Pack, what should we do about Pakistan? — Is dangerous? You betcha.
As far as ninety-nine percent of the country was concerned, Abe Lincoln, the rough-hewn western hick, was a surprise as president. Few people respected Andrew Jackson as an intellect. Truman was thought a country bumpkin. Ike was perennially depicted as a golf-playing dunderhead and Ford the well-meaning fool. In retrospect they turned out to be far better than their detractor’s worst claims. Meacham wants us to see Palin in the same dismissive light that these American presidents were cast in until they proved their mettle. Sure we should seek a good, qualified candidate. But why is it that Palin isn’t one?
If Meacham meant to convince us that Palin presented the worst-case scenario that was suspected in past American leaders, he failed to do so. But he did insult every normal American out there as he made the attempt.
| More from Warner Todd Huston
Stumble It!
October 9th, 2008 at 5:09 am
The only dummies are those uber liberals who all think alike. Palin is the little girl in pants in the Emperor’s New Clothes. “When every liberal thinks alike, none thinks at all.”
October 9th, 2008 at 6:14 am
—“William F. Buckley, Jr. once famously quipped that he’d, “rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.â€
Who’s laughing?
I think it makes perfect sense, especially when you consider that someone like Barrack Hussein Osama was so highly regarded there. That wasn’t an aberration. The country has plenty of people just like Obama who graduated from Harvard.
I’ll take Sarah Palin over a whole army of Harvard graduates.
October 9th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Can’t believe there are people out there who are stupid enough to buy Newsweek, Time, etc.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I’m sorry, I just stumbled on this blog… is this a joke?
October 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
“That’s it. The Founders wanted no test, no requirements but these so as not to restrict the people in their choice. They, unlike someone like Jon Meacham it turns out, trusted the American people.”
Trusted the American people? The Founders?? I’m not sure if you remember, but they were the ones who, essentially, only gave the right to vote to wealthy, white males. They didn’t trust “the Folks” in the least bit. That is why they set up the electoral college.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:34 am
This country is a Republic, which relies on democratic principles, not a democracy.
Maybe that’s why Barrack Hussein Obama has so much trouble reciting the pledge of allegiance.
Obama has no intention of upholding the Constitution. He will dedicate his Presidency to finding new and creative ways of subverting it.
I can’t stand the idea of mob rule.
I think only people with an intricate knowledge of the Constitution, who are sworn to uphold it under penalty of treason, should be allowed to vote on anything. Even then there is no guarantee that the people entrusted with that power would always do the right thing, which has been demonstrated, time and again, in Supreme Court rulings like Roe v Wade and others.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
ah yes, populism. The theory that catering to what the electorate actually _wants_ is a bad thing. Any politician accused of populism gets extra scrutiny from me as they’re more likely to be the sort of politician I want to vote for.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
It’s a fact that at least 65% of the American People want more restrictions on abortion … *at the very least* … but if Obama is elected, he will ignore the wishes of those Americans by making sure there are *no restrictions* on abortions at all.
Regrettably, for the 1,500,000 children aborted every year, it seems the American People are more concerned with their checking account, (or so the media would have us believe) than the lives of so many innocent children, so they are likely to vote for the person they think can deliver the best economic package as President. Unfortunately, enough of them may be deceived into thinking that Obama is that man. We’ll have to wait and see.
It’s worth repeating, if elected, Obama will ignore the wishes of at least 65% of the American People on the issue of abortion.
Some Populist.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
For this Newsweek reporter to show such lack of Character in attacking Palin in this manner – the ad hominem attack, for the educated reader – is almost irony. It is definitely satire even if not meant that way. It satirizes the state of reporting.
I hate to say this chaps but ‘common, stupid and dangerous’ is what most people around the world think of most Americans. The reporter is an example. They are very rude to think this way of course. But you don’t come much ruder than holding Presidential office in one hand and your dick in the other like Bill Clinton.
Fortunately there are durn furriners who hold America in very hight regard and the ‘American Idea’ as humanity’s ideal. There are some out here in the great unwashed world who see the American Constitution as the greatest Human document ever written. If Mrs Plain, (whoops, sorry, Palin), the fisherman’s wife, values that Constitution, she will do a lot better than a Harvard Professor who threatens to vomit as a negotiating position.
Over the past twenty years of so, more and more people out here have seen the American Constitution rubbished or simply ignored by many if not most of your Congressmen and Representatives. They have watched the American Character deteriorate like some executive-turned-wino in a backstreet. That is the really sad part. The Character issue.
Mrs Palin knows about life as well as most. She is of modestly good character as far as I can tell. She seems to have an authentic love for her country and its traditions and mores. I wish I knew more about her other than the ability of her voice to strip paint. But she is unlikely to turn the White House into a strip-joint.
Of course, if America wanted to do really better in its choices for Leadership, then…
Vote #1 Amfortas. Uncommon; very bright; and damned dangerous to some. It’s two and a half out of three at least.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
WOW!!! I really hate knowing you people are going to be voting!!! Do you all really think that just anyone can run the most powerful country in the world?!?!? Which will only stay that way as long as the rest of the world sees us that way — which won’t be long if you have a 72 year old man with a good ole gal from Alaska running the country!! I mean please! She has sounded like a bumbling idiot on every interview she has had. There are more jokes about her on the internet than of Bush who had 8 years to rake them in, and she knows squat about foreign policy!
Can we please face it, folks?!?! The life expectancy for a male in the USA today is 75.29 years. That give McCain statistically less than 3 years. Obama is black. If he wins, unfortunately for our great country, he might have less than that. It is imperative we look at our VPs more than ever this election!!! Think of it less as an Obama vs. McCain and more of it as a Biden vs. Palin. Is there really any question, seriously?!?!?!
I drive the streets all day long. I am in the classroom. I deal with parents, business executives, vendors, etc. Do I think any Joe Schmo can run this country especially in a time like this? Hell no!!!
One last point. Merck, your an idiot and a racist. “Barrack Hussein Obama” and abortion? You make your party look bad. Please come up with something better!! I will have you know that on a similar blog, I also criticized someone for saying “George Hitler Bush.” It is weak and irresponsible and proves you have no point whatsoever. I would say that Obama is more Christian than you! I have never heard of Christ speaking badly about anyone nor Obama. As for abortion, to each his own. While I in no way compare myself to Christ, I do believe that like it says in Mt. 7:1 KJV — Judge not, that you be not judged. But I do judge you, merck! And I think too. Try it… with the economy crisis the way it is, and natural resources diminishing at the rate they are, and crime, and poverty,and 210 million orphans in the world right now, and I could go forever … where would you like to put these 1,500,000 children aborted every year?
October 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
This election is the most important in our lifetime.
Two or possibly three Supreme Court Justices will be appointed by the next administration shaping the Court for years to come. It’ll make a huge difference in not just abortion, but on every single issue we face as a nation.
There has never been a more important election in the life of anyone alive today, and in the lives that will surely never have a chance at all, if Obama is elected.
The office of the President is obviously above Obama’s pay grade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us_y9GP_-DA
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort29.jpg
October 9th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Professor N:
Thanks for responding.
It lets people see exactly what type of supporters Barrack Obama has.
I think any reasonable person who reads your hate filled diatribe will immediately see what kind of person you really are.
I used the “Barrack Hussein Osama†in order to stir the pot a little. I was hoping to flush out a few Obama supporters and it worked magically.
Like our good friend the Reverend Al Sharpton said, “If your washing machine didn’t have an agitator, all you would end up with is a bunch of dirty drawersâ€.
Thanks for helping me expose some of Obama’s dirty laundry he refers to as his constituency.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
merck,
There was no hate in my message. There was fact, opinion, and sarcasm — no hate. I am sorry if you took it as hate. That is something that we have way too much on in this World and I would never support that. I wrote what I wrote because I believe it and would have liked to hear your challenge back. I was disappointed that all you had was that I was spreading hatred. Please don’t take this as hate — it is just my opinion — but I think your response also proves that you have nothing valid to say.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Professor N.
Again, thanks for responding.
Your message was obviously one of hate.
Simply because you now respond with a pathetic attempt to whitewash your hate mail doesn’t change anything.
I won’t debate anything with an obvious hate-monger. What’s the point? I equate it to rolling around in the mud with a pig. Pretty soon, you realize that you’re just wasting your time, and that the pig actually enjoys it.
The bottom line is; anyone who defends killing innocent children has absolutely no credibility in my mind whatsoever. Look at the reasons you give for justifying killing 1,500,000 children every year. I don’t know how you live with yourself.
I hope you take a good, long, hard look at yourself.
October 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
[...] During Sarah Palin’s interviews, its become clear to many that Palin doesn’t really have the intelligence expected of a Vice President. [...]
October 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“Judge not, that you be not judged”. Move the comma a word to the left.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
merck,
Not that I necessarily want to humor you in this silly “you are mean and want to kill babies” argument, but I will entertain you just to clear the air.
The notion that supporting Obama means you want to kill children is a ridiculous one. Abortion is an issue that people individually choose. In my experience it is also one that people are hypocritical about. I have personal knowledge of very conservative people who are very staunch supporters of McCain and the republican party in general – meaning they are against gay marriage, are against abortion, don’t believe in pre marital sex, etc etc etc. People who to this day deride and are disgusted by people who have abortions – YET, when their 14 year old daughter became pregnant they drove her to the doctor and forced her to get an abortion.
You talk a big game, but it is a persons choice and I truly believe that you won’t know what that choice is until it is upon you. Allowing a choice is not making the choice for you.
This is merely one issue though and not one that is preeminent in most people’s minds. You may be stuck on it, perhaps due to some personal event, but to most people the economy and the war are the most important issues at this point. I assume from your belaborment that you assume your ideals to be of higher worth or value than the populaces, but they are not.
A lot less people will be concerned with whether or not to have an abortion this year than whether they are going to be evicted or foreclosed on. A lot less people will be concerned with making the hard choice of keeping the baby than will be concerned with a coffin and flag.
Abortion has not been an issue recently because most people realize that it is not at the top of the priority list for most people.
I know – you’re not most people —- and thank whatever power you believe in for that! And just for the record, I wasn’t being nice to “backwash.” You are obviously very sensitive and I was trying not to make you cry. If you think my post was hate filled, I hope you never hear any harsh criticism. I believe you couldn’t handle it. I have 4 degrees, an amazing spouse, a great paying SECURE job, and live in a beautiful city — just so you know — I live with myself just fine
)
Professor N
October 10th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“Silly”, “hypocritical”, “trying not to make you cry”; What was that about ‘Judgemental’ again, Professor? How are you with Jesus’ knotted rope in the Temple?
We can’t make an issue of abortion because its a person’s choice, eh. How about murder? Isn’t that a person’s choice too? Yes, its a tad extreme. How about someone just tipping the pram over. Would you just walk by to the fish shop?
Everything we do is a choice. Some choices though are on the nose. Tearing a baby’s nose off in the womb, along with its arms and legs, is a choice I would restrict. I am not at all surprised that many agree with Merck. I am not surprised either that a ‘modern’ professor in an American University cannot come up with a better arguement than ‘choice’. It is a mindless mantra. You haven’t managed a D- yet.
I don’t have an ‘event’ in my life as you suppose (without evidence) that Merck has. Heck, I don’t even have a murder close by. But I do have an view and a set of priorities, vicarious though the incidents that I might consider might be. Yep, it doesn’t have to be personal. Astonishing, isn’t it !
Does abortion have to be at the top of your list before anyone else can prioritise it? Can we not allow a plurality of priorities? Is it not relevant to look at a would-be President’s list?
If Obama – or you – does not see the evil inherent in some ‘choices’ then frankly he is not fit for the job. That is relevant. You might consider your own fitness too.
I have said before here on MND, several times, that America’s most pressing problem is Character and Integrity. There is s disposition to chant cant, slogans, mindless drivel, in place of considered thought and Value. Morality has fallen by the wayside and languishes like an old tatty book beneath a roadside billboard which tells passing motorists to buy the latest whizbang vehicle and drive as fast as they like.
Presidential candidates rabbit on, eloquently sometimes, with drivel that simply devalues life further. They miss the Point.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:33 am
First, amfortas, let me say thank you for responding in an intelligent manner. However, yes — I stick with my word choices that you questioned: ‘amfortas: “Sillyâ€, “hypocriticalâ€, “trying not to make you cryâ€; What was that… Professor N’
What was that? Well, trying not to make you cry — was about merck saying my email was full of hate simply because I am pro choice. If merck believes that anyone is full of hate who simply believe in a woman’s choice, than I believe he is too sensitive. These forums are tools that allow people to express their views. Maybe I was too harsh, but I thought “full of hate” was equally harsh.
Silly? Well I think that placing this election on abortion is silly when we are spending billions of dollars a month on a war that we have already won in a country that has billions of dollars in surplus. I think that is very silly. McCain is not going to be able to reverse Roe V. Wade. There would be a ridiculous amount of upheaval from not only women advocate groups, but also the medical community at large. So, looking at just that one issue only — is extremely silly.
Hypocritical — yes! I find it very hypocritical that for the most parts republicans scream “Less government, fewer laws, smaller government!” Yet, at the same time say, ban abortion, don’t let gays marry, keep orphans in orphanages rather than letting them be adopted by loving same sex couples. Yes. That is the definition of hypocrisy!!!
October 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Prof. N., I read Merck’s posts and nowhere does he speak any hatred or accuse Obama on any racial issue, or you for that matter, in the terms that YOU use and attribute to him. “your (sic) an idiot and a racist”. Merck had not said anything that could be construed as racist, nor idiotic.
(Borrow the Grammar primer from the University Library next time you are there.)
You attribute a lot to Merck which I cannot see in his posts, but you did however claim to adhere to Christian principles – one at least, and in your own interpretation – about not judging people. Yet you are very quick to do just that, and on a calumnised basis to boot.
To my mind you can use critical words if you wish, even rude ones, but in doing so, given your seeming desire to be seen as an intelligent man, a Professor no less, you must expect some criticism in return. Your demeaning words though, to a commentator who so far has merely put a case that the majority want a more balanced Policy about abortion, are turned back on yourself.
On the ‘racist’ issue, that you brought up, may I ask for your view about a man who is continually portrayed as ‘Black’ – and happy to be so labeled – when in fact he is just as much White. I have not heard Obama stake any cogent or emotional claim to Whiteness, while his appeal to Black voters is clearly stated. Now, that is what I would call ‘Racist’. And hypocritical.
Lastly, in your post #10, you ask:- “where would you like to put these 1,500,000 children aborted every year?”
Is this a serious question from a serious person?
A lot of someones have already decided to put them to death, wheras Merck – and I too – would ‘put them’ in life, where they were intended to be. My view may not be Professorial, but neither does it condemn 1.5 million to death with such ease. What are you a Professor of, for goodness sake?
Merck is representative of millions of Americans and along with them asks that Abortion Policy be considered by Obama. It is not a huge ask. It isn’t silly; it isn’t hateful; it isn’t racist. Yes, there is a war going on and a financial crisis and so on, but if Obama cannot deal with several diverse matters throughout his managed day, he isn’t fit for the job. Mrs Palin seems to manage to juggle muliple demands on her time and mind, despite being just a ‘good ol’ Gal’. Perhaps she could teach Obama the rudiments of multi-tasking. I, for one, assume he can learn; do you?
October 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Whoa!! Sarah Palin( in a dopey, beach bums voice) isn’t she that chick who owns a gun and said the government is the problem. Well for dufuses like that Meacham fellow, that means she gets what is going on in this country.
We need people in our government, not afflicted with “Ivory Tower Syndrome” ie so far removed from the real world they are clueless as to what people actually think and how people actually live. Sarah Palin may not know much about foreign policy, but she know more than Bush does and he is a career politician. She has a good graspe on reality and what she does not know, she is humble enough and smart enough to learn. WE have had too many idiots who have experience in government, maybe we need someone with some common sense.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Thanks amfortas.
Great point on Obama’s obvious racist mentality.
Most feminists support Obama. Feminist icon Margaret Sanger would have supported him too. Not because he is black/white, but because he is a passionate supporter of abortion. He is fully aware that Planned Parenthood unabashedly targets the black community for abortion.
These are the words of feminist icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiGgK3VJYu4
October 13th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
S’a pleasure mate. I should point out to anyone that I am not Merck’s lawyer (wash yo’ mouf out, Amfortas), but I just might send you a bill.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:06 am
The abortion issue isn’t going away. Both sides are being lobbied over it.
It WILL change no matter who gets in.
http://tinyurl.com/4gk45k
October 14th, 2008 at 5:45 am
If Democrats get elected, there will be fewer restrictions on abortion and you may see Hillary Clinton or worse, (if that’s possible) wearing a black robe.
If Republicans get in, it will mean more restrictions on abortion with respectable people nominated to sit on the Supreme Court.
Not only is this election important for the issue of abortion, but on every issue we face as a nation. Who would you rather see in charge of appointing judges? I think the answer most people would give is John McCain.
Two or three judges will be appointed by the next administration. It’s by far the most important issue we face. The economy will recover no matter who the President is. The Supreme Court appointees are there for life, and will have far reaching consequences for our society, that will last indefinitely.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
agreed, merck. Now if you could just go ask McCain to try to actually win the election.
October 16th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Prof N
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight:
“One last point. Merck, your (sic) an idiot and a racist.”
followed by …
“There was no hate in my message”
Have you HEARD of cognitive dissonance?
criolle johnny
October 16th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The first anti-intellectual in the recorded history was Socrates, who said “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothingâ€
Only pseudo-intellectuals are fans of intellectualism.