Hitchens is not great (but I like him anyway)
September 9, 2008 by Alexandra Windsor
Filed under Politics
Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787
Christopher Hitchens is guilty pleasure for me. Even when he’s foaming at the mouth and hurling insults at Christians he still gets me to chuckle. Perhaps part of me admires him for actually saying the things he thinks about the faith rather than trying to cloak his impiety in the garb or mutual respect or some nameless spirituality.
He writes today in Slate about the Left’s attack on Palin and, in his own blasphemous way, gets to truth:
Her local shout-and-holler tabernacle apparently believes that Jews can be converted to Jesus and homosexuals can be “cured.” I cannot wait to see Obama and Biden explain how this isn’t the case or how it’s much worse than, and quite different from, Obama’s own raving and ranting pastor in Chicago or Biden’s lifelong allegiance to the most anti-”choice” church on the planet. The difference, if there is one, is that Palin is probably sincere whereas the Democratic team is almost certainly hypocritical.
Not such a “splendid system” anymore I guess
September 9, 2008 by Alexandra Windsor
Filed under Politics
Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787
Excerpt from a New York Times editorial on July 3, 1984 entitled “Of All the Feminist Nerve” (emphasis added by me):
Yet to be shrill is no worse than to be righteous, like the people who insist that the women Vice Presidential candidates so far proposed lack the requisite standing and experience. Why, it is said, none of them is even a senator.
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? Surely Ronald Reagan does not subscribe to that maxim. Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens? Representative Morris Udall, who lost New Hampshire to Jimmy Carter by a hair in 1976, must surely disagree. So must a longtime Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford.
Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial? That didn’t stop Richard Nixon from picking Spiro Agnew, a suburban politician who became Governor of Maryland. Remember the main foreign affairs credential of Georgia’s Governor Carter: He was a member of the Trilateral Commission.
Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. One might even say demography is destiny: this candidate was chosen because he could deliver Texas, that one because he personified rectitude, that one because he appealed to the other wing of the party.
On occasion, Americans find it necessary to rationalize this rough-and-ready process. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?
We may even be gradually elevating our standards for choosing Vice Presidential candidates. But that should be done fairly, also. Meanwhile, the indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who – one who helps the ticket.
And this is from an New York Times editorial on August 20, 2008 entitled “Senator McCain’s Choice” (emphasis added by me):
Governor Palin’s lack of experience, especially in national security and foreign affairs, raises immediate questions about how prepared she is to potentially succeed to the presidency. That really is the only criterion for judging a candidate for vice president.
Palin=More Women Voters
September 9, 2008 by Alexandra Windsor
Filed under Politics
Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787
The new polling data coming out in the last couple days has to be all take with a grain of salt. We need a week to let the effects of the convention and news of Palin’s nomination settle down so that we can get some equilibrium. More importantly we need to find out if the change in national numbers will translate into gains in the crucial swing states.
BUT . . . . One thing I do feel entirely confident saying is this: The much debated question of whether Palin would actually make a difference with women has been answered in the affirmative.
The Rasumussen tracking poll for today reported:
McCain leads by four points among men while Obama leads by three among women. On Tuesday, when Obama’s lead peaked, he had a fourteen point advantage among women.
An 11 point swing! That’s huge and can’t be explained as simply a slight shift that may be a result of the margin of error or pollster induced error. Perhaps those 11 points won’t hold up but I think it’s safe to say that regardless, Palin will result in a net gain in women votes for the GOP ticket.
—————-
UPDATE: The ABC/WaPo polls has even starker numbers:
White women have moved from 50-42 percent in Obama’s favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift in the margin that’s one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences.
