register |  login
› LONGMONT
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
Blog
Blog Entry 190 of 208 The Subversive Liberal
"If by a "liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "liberal." – President John F. Kennedy...................... Some people find me and that sentiment subversive. I'm here to set the record straight and offer the real typical liberal point of view. Some call it subversive, I call it patriotic.

Blog Url: http://denver.yourhub.com/~BingVanGorden

Palin a horrible VP choice
Contributed by: Bing Van Gorden   on 9/1/2008

Alaska governor Sarah Palin is a social conservative's social conservative. Anti-gay, anti-environment, anti wildlife, anti choice. She has only been a Governor for a couple of years but has already abused her authority. Social conservatives love a politician who is willing to use their position for personal vendetta. She went after her ex-brother in law, a State Trooper, when the head of the police force refused to fire him, he was fired. She is now under investigation. Like so many other social conservatives like Tom Delay and anyone who did business with Jack Abramof. Social conservatives like John Bolton, Harriet Miers, Karl Rove have openly and publicly ignored Congressional Subpoenas. Ah yes. The law and order party seems to be heavily influenced by those who answer to a higher law and feel free to ignore the ones we have here on earth.

Who needs foreign policy experience? Social conservatives don't care about the rest of the world, and certainly not their perception of us. Sarah Palin has been to Kuwait. That and her state of Alaska is close to both Russia and Canada. Who needs experience when they believe God is guiding them anyway? And no worry. God certainly wouldn't allow a 73 year old POW survivor who's battled cancer a couple of times to die making Sarah Palin, hockey mom and part time politician the leader of the free world. (No I don't hope Mc Cain dies nor do I think being a hockey mom is a bad thing, it's just not a qualification for President) Think about that please before pulling the lever for Mc Cain/Palin.

This VP pick by Mc Cain begs the question, does he really believe she was the best candidate? The most qualified? There wasn't any other Republican in the country better suited for this position? Governor Palin has admitted she doesn't have the first clue of the vice president's responsibilities or even a rudimentary knowledge of Iraq. You telling me that Gov. of Florida Charlie Christ, former Gov. Mitt Romney, or Gov. Pawlenty were less qualified than Sarah Palin? What the hell was Mc Cain thinking? Are they really that convinced they can woo disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters with a woman who doesn't support abortion even in cases of rape?

Social conservatives are all about limiting freedom. For homosexuals, they consider the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals as being something extra they don't deserve. The Sarah Palin's out there want the government to get between women and their doctors. They want to limit contraception and stifle sex education. Then when teenagers get pregnant the social conservatives shun them. And all too often, they have but one source that guides them. A narrow interpretation of certain passages in the New Testament. When you go through life believing you have the one and only line on God and the rest of us don't it's easy to become deluded. Holier than thou. Ignorant. In America, you're free to be. But your not free to make your ideology public policy. The Constitution matters and it provides equal protections and right's to personal privacy the social conservative ignores, in their minds, for the good of all of us.

Sarah Palin is as weak a VP candidate since Joe Lieberman in 2000. Who Mc Cain is rumored to have pushed for as his VP pick until aides talked him off the ledge. Frankly, I think that would have been a less deluded pick. Rank and file Democrats dislike him but independents would have admired Mc Cain's willingness to pick him, a former Democrat. The home run ball would have been Powell. That would have made this race much more interesting. Romney could also have appealed to independents but his Mormon faith brought up issues with other social conservatives who consider that little more than a cult. Guilliani; he was wise to stay away from. His infidelity and alienation of his own children because of it is too much for social conservatives to overlook. So it appears clear that Palin was a pick made to shore up a voting bloc of the party that holds great influence, unfortunately. I don't think this helps Mc Cain with independents though.

Palin seems aloof. Surprised and politically naive. She looked more like a lottery winner during her initial speech as the VP nominee, the first time many Republicans laid eyes on her. She gave thanks to Hillary Clinton. Not a smart move considering the crowd. Many of them harbor an irrational hatred towards her. But it was nice, if not pandering to the alleged disaffected Hillary voters the supposed liberally biased media keeps telling us about. Biden's biggest worry in their scheduled debate is looking mean as he picks her apart. The Republicans keep saying she has more executive experience than Obama. She has more then Mc Cain and Biden too. Of the least populated state in the union, a couple years of abusing her power and authority hardly qualifies her to be a heart beat away from the Presidency. Mc Cain has effectively thrown in the towel.


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above blog



Current Rating
Based on 10 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the blog

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 45 comments
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 9/12/2008 @ 1:31:43 PM
Rated Blog Entry
David if you offered an argument on the Constitution based on the entire Constitution I'd welcome it. But the exact things you offered as a reason against Roe V Wade are the ones used by the court to justify it's decision. Just read that decision. You can find it in a abook called "May it Please the Court" of landmark cases. They very thoroughly and methodically justify their belief that the 4th Amendment offers a right to privacy and the equal protection clause overrules the states. Despite what M Cain and others say it is rooted in established case law.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: David Brown
posted on 9/11/2008 @ 8:53:48 PM
(Not Rated)
I think I've changed my mind on the Constitution thing for a couple of reasons. 1. You wouldn't give it the time of day no matter what I said in it. 2. It's way too much work (I have to practically re-read a book I read 2 years ago) for the risk involved with the readers - I'm not comfortable writing a piece on Roe v. Wade yet. Maybe someday but not now. Sorry.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 9/10/2008 @ 12:45:59 PM
Rated Blog Entry
No libs don't ignore that but it's completely changed when you include all the words instead of just some, like you do. Democrats don't want your dam guns David, that's another Republican lie. And stop describing me like you act. I would accept it's raining. Believe it or not, I don't care, but I am actually pragmatic. Give me something to change my mind and I'llconsider it. I think your rain anaology fits your party better than mine.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: David Brown
posted on 9/9/2008 @ 10:01:47 PM
(Not Rated)
Bing - if it were raining you'd argue it was sunny until the cows came home. You'd be drenched - soaking wet and you'd still be arguing with yourself!! OK - I need a few days on the Constitution thing. I have my argument all set but it's late and I think it's best to make a separate post. Besides, my arg revolves around Roe v. Wade and I need room to give a GIGANTIC disclaimer. So give me a few days, will you?
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: David Brown
posted on 9/9/2008 @ 10:01:28 PM
(Not Rated)
And libs ignore "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon." So who's right? Should we let the Supreme Court decide? I know we just did but 5-4 is a little too close for my comfort level. That's 2 votes away from abolishing the 2nd ammendment!
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 9/9/2008 @ 10:07:52 AM
Rated Blog Entry
Yes I also read AIP's platform. I also read elsewhere that the prupose for the party was to secede and to use whatever political means to achieve this including changing their platform. If you want to believe them, fine. I don't. I'll argue law and the Constitution with you until the cows come home David. Bringing up Bush V Gore to bolster your argument was just, well, silly. Excuse my typos, I'm at work and don't have a lot of time to be more careful.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 9/9/2008 @ 10:04:36 AM
Rated Blog Entry
Have you ever read the decision? I have. Are you aware that decision is special? Yes, for the first and only time the Suprme Court declared their decision could not be used as precedent. In other words no furutre court could use the decision in Bush v Gore to bolster an argument of law. What does that tell you? It was an illegal decision!
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Bing Van Gorden
posted on 9/9/2008 @ 10:00:06 AM
Rated Blog Entry
Actually we read the entir 2nd Amendment that includes the provision of a well regulated militita. Republicans merely ignore that part. Roe V wAde is based on the Equal protections clause as well as the 5th Amendment that protects a right to privacy. These apply to all 50 states. I don't see ho w ou your use of the equal protections clause in any way helps your argument. Bush V. Gore!? You really wantto bring up that?
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: David Brown
posted on 9/8/2008 @ 8:21:23 PM
(Not Rated)
Let's see... Rewriting the 2nd ammendment. Ignoring the 10th ammendment by subverting states' rights - see Roe v. Wade. Ignoring the 14th ammendment, Equal Protection - see Bush v. Gore. But hey!! Thanks for defending the constitution!
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: David Brown
posted on 9/8/2008 @ 8:17:33 PM
(Not Rated)
Did you bother to read the AIP's platform? Noooooooope! Oh you did??? Can you tell me where in the platform it says they are for secession??? Noooooope!!
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-10 of 45 comments
< BACK | NEXT >
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Bing Van Gorden

Longmont , CO

Bing Van Gorden has posted 208 blog entries and 985 comments since joining on 3/28/2007. Bing Van Gorden 's average blog rating is 3.47.
BLOG ENTRY RSS FEEDS
SAVE AND SHARE THIS ITEM

BLOG LIST
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is  register,  then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyonewhat events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos