Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide

She makes good points. Now she just needs to run.

Did not know that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital. Clearly we need a bigger asteroid.

Permanent political class. I'm totally stealing that some day.

Waits for Rick to come by say "I saw Sarah Palin and that's as far as I read.".

Not so strange - and not unbelievable.

Unlike the bulk of the population - including many who post here - it's not the fact that she's Republican (or Democrat to those on the other side), it's her insane ideas about combining politics and religion.

She could be the most extreme supporter of the environment and social safety nets, I'd still not take her seriously if she can't leave her religious beliefs out of her political decisions.

Much of this is old news to those who've been paying attention. Palin was misbranded from the beginning, and even a new set of handlers would be hard pressed to rebrand her at this late date.

Besides, she has no reason to run now. She's got what she wants.

Yea, the wife and I were discussing her last night. She has all she needs and is set for life right where she is now, can't see any reason she'd run for the big chair.

We do get a kick out of how she keeps everybody guessing her intentions though.

This is no surprise, nor anything new.

Show were she combines the two.

I see her running as a way to keep her name in the spotlight though. Think of the free publicity!!

And what about the people who make the environment and/or those social safety nets their "religions"? They often have no more basis for their actions than you claim the traditional religions do when they advocate political action.

Yea but that would detract from candidates who are running for real and I can't see her doing that. I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.

She'll stay in the spotlight anyway, there are too many Palin haters out there to let her slip into oblivion.

Glad she has come to recognize that the megacorps are anti-capitalist. They've done such a good job PsyOping the country that most people (on the right and left) believe they are one and the same.

HOWEVER, it's one thing to say you recognize a problem and quite another to actually do more than talk, to offer solutions. I'd actually be interested to hear her plans for that, something I don't believe I've ever thought when listening to Sarah Palin.

It could be that her beliefs / politics have done some evolution over the years since she was basically plucked from obscurity. One of the possible explanations (and I admit I'm guessing here) is that the McCain campaign picked her to satisfy a lacking constituency he didn't appeal to and she got steamrollered. The experience may have got her to seriously thinking about the whole political environment (including McCain). It shows up in her comments here. She may actually be a better candidate for the experience if she has evolved.

Huh. Need to reassess her some.

I don't think she'll run on her own, but I wouldn't be surprised if she'd go for the VP spot for whoever wins the primary.

anti-gay marriage
anti-abortion
anti-porn

Those are political issues, not religious ones. You don't have to agree with them, that's why you vote against them. One can be passionate about the environment and it's still a political subject. One cannot be passionate about Christianity - or Islam - and want to bring those ideas into the political arena.

Spoken like a true non-believer. So basically anything that I might think is important (and you don't) is automatically a non-political issue?

Sorry, but that's way too self-serving and too unaware of the issues. There are plenty of issues that Christians are divided about but that are still valid political issues. Welfare, never-ending unemployment benefits, etc. I can very easily argue that they are religious issues. Would that automatically make you say they should be taken out of the political arena for consideration?

I didn't think so. See? So let's stop pretending that passionate Christians can't pursue their beliefs at the ballot box.

You could, but those concepts don't wink into existence on the say-so of the clergy, and it does nothing to change the fact that anything deriving its sole justification from religion has no fucking place in government whatsoever.

The man in the White House
The man under the steeple
Passing out drugs
To the American people

How about human rights? Those are beliefs that aren't necessarily based on religion. If I passionately believe that, say, everyone has the right to healthcare, can I bring that into politics? Now, what if that belief is based on my faith? Is it still valid? What if I have passionate beliefs for or against the death penalty? Does the path I took to get to my conclusions affect the validity of my conclusions that much?

If you decree the absolute absence of religion in political thinking, isn't that at least as extreme as decreeing the absolute adoption of a particular religion in government?

She's basically right about this one thing, and I applaud her for that.

But recognizing the grain of the problem is a far cry from a full diagnosis, having a coherent strategy or the credibility to do anything, to say nothing of the rest of her crazy ideas.

NO!

Yeah, God forbid someone should have an actual philosophical underpinning for their belief system and values.

Pity she didn't remember that when she let herself get swept up in the McCain train.

I think there's probably been some personal growth since the "who the hell is that?" Governor of Alaska was suddenly and unexpectedly swept up into a Presidential election. She's had three years to digest the lessons of living in a fishbowl at the national level.

I don't think she'll run for President and I wouldn't vote for her if she did (altho there is the "My president is hotter than your president" factor), but her presence on the national political scene certainly makes it more interesting for all involved.

Explain to me why you would be against gay marriage - as the law specifically states one cannot be discriminated against due to sexual preference - without bringing religion into your argument.

One can be the most adamant believer, yet still keep it out of politics - many politicians can and do. But, one must be able to make a credible argument about an issue without bringing religion into the arguemnt.

See above.

This country is based on separation of church and state. Laws cannot be based on religion. Explain to me how your important religious issues can be argued without bringing religion into the argument - then, you can claim it's not a religious issue, but a political one - regardless of the issue.

Jenee, I didn't bring gay marriage into this discussion, you did. But there are enough issues that passionate Christians can have passionate beliefs about that you don't have to dredge up a discrimination issue to defend yourself with.

Welfare, for instance. Many Christians think that government should be obligated to help the poor because it's what they interpret the Bible to mean. They want a society set up on their interpretation that a truly Christian society would take money from the rich and give it to the poor. By extension of your stated belief that the religious should keep their beliefs out of society, those people should not be allowed to support welfare programs. Society itself should stay out of it because it's obviously a religious topic.

On the other hand, there are also many Christians who believe that God wants each person to be motivated to do their own good works as the spirit leads, not as they are forced to do at gunpoint by Big Brother.

Now, whose interpretation (of these conflicting ones based on the same Bible) is right? According to your wisdom on politics, religion, and the definition of separation of church and state, how should this be handled?

It's my opinion that your already stated opinion here is wrong. You can't separate people's closely held religious opinions from their political actions except as yet another function of keeping government to as small an entity as possible. This way, people aren't forced to do things they don't believe in (or those things are kept to the barest minimum) and they are further encouraged to bind together in smaller, more accountable groups to do things on their own.

Leave government to its constitutionally defined functions like making sure that those groups don't do anything stupid (and that does include corporations, btw) and everyone, again IMO, is better off. Nearly 3 years of government intervention in the economy and the resulting extension of the economic crisis should show anyone that we definitely need to do something different.

Because the reason I would not vote for Sarah Palin is because she will not recognize gay marriage - not because of any political reason, but because of her own personal religious beliefs.

This thread is about Sarah Palin, not you speciifcally.

So you have a litmus test? lol

In any case, I wasn't talking about me. I don't know where you pulled that one from.

I posted in the thread on why this country will not anytime soon become a theocracy about why a pro "traditional" marriage movement will never gain any traction. If you don't like her, that's fine. But using this is just an excuse. Any real legislation or position to do so is DOA. It may be used to gin up support among fringe elements but it's going nowhere. This is a secular country and any politician at her level knows it.

And, since it's about Palin, I'll repeat. It's more than possible that her positions have evolved over time. She bears watching and I wouldn't be surprised if she winds up in a high position in the Republican party (maybe pushing Tea Party positions based on this) in the next few years.

I also don't care for her position on gay marriage, but in the end, so what? So what if she won't recognize gay marriage? If she ran for President, she wouldn't be able to write the laws, she can only sign them, so there's no constitutional danger of her introducing legislation that would ban gay marriage, etc. The worst she can do is veto anything congress gives her, and hopefully they'd have the sense to override her on these issues.

Now if she were to run for congress or the senate, then yes, this could be a good reason to vote against her. But in the end, these social issues, like Bock mentioned, are non-starters. Personally, I think the government should get out of our bedrooms and out of defining marriage save for in very limited cases, which I won't get into.

A politician doesn't like gay marriage? They're of a certain denomination (ones based out of Utah seem to be popular in this regard)? It's a point against them, yes, but it shouldn't be a guaranteed vote against them. They'll gladly take the rope from your hands to hang themselves on other issues.

Don't knee-jerk vote against someone, Jenee. That's what contributes to the GWB's and the BHO's.