I can't deny it. He has some points. He just couldn't leave us to be happy for a few more days, but I have to give him his due here. He's partially right. And...he's partially wrong. Because he's too cynical.
Let's be clear, LewRockwell and I parted company as soon as most Americans learned to point out Afghanistan on the map. An act of war was committed upon us, and going after the networks that perpetrated it, and the countries that host them and cheer them on and fund them, was necessary. Rockwell of course didn't see it that way.
Cheerfully titled "Sarah Palin's Career Ends in Tragedy," we find that Mr. Rockwell likes Sarah Palin very much in fact. A lot. So much, that he doesn't want to see her ruined. Which, let's face it, can happen.
"The frenzied reaction of the middle class all over the country toward Sarah Palin has no real precedent that I can remember. Indeed, the reaction especially among women is completely understandable. She provides a much welcome cultural break from the chip-on-the-shoulder, grudge-against-the-world model of public women that have been held up to us for years, embodied in the belligerent and insufferable person of Hillary Clinton.
Sarah, on the other hand, is both beautiful and professionally accomplished, a wife and mother and a natural politician, both religious and secular, both feminine and fearless of tasks — such as hunting — that are usually associated with men. She offers a different model of a woman who has excelled not through intimidation and aggressive demands for reparation, but through her own efforts, charms, and intelligence."
Yeah, like that. He goes on to applaud her libertarian outlook and political stance.
"The claim against her that she lacks "experience" is one of the most bogus things out there. For starters, the vice presidency shows a long history of people with very little of what is called "experience" today. And contrary to what media pundits say, what is far more important than experience are the political values you hold."
"The demand for experience seems to imply that somehow we are seeking social and global managers for public office, and that is manifestly what we do not want. In a truly liberal society, the job of a White House executive could be held by anyone or no one."
Quite freaking true. I was glad he dealt so cleanly with this nonsensical bit about "experience." That kind of experience is not what is needed. What is needed are people who truly believe in what they believe, and understand the proper place of government and the sovereignty of the individual.
He then goes on to tell us the bad news; how we get excited when good people are elected, not realizing that they have to, of necessity, become part of the machine they once opposed, or fail. That there are now high-ranking people who used to be libertarians but who have become part of the machine instead of changing it. Now I know that is the case, but have a little hope, man. I know - and I saw hints of it during her speech - that she has to support McCain's policies and be an apologist for him (and we didn't love his policies so much to begin with, right? Which is why she energized the base where he couldn't.) However, that does not mean that she will sit back and be window dressing while letting him do whatever she wants. She just might be the one who can stand up against being caught in the combine. I'm counting on it. And that's where we differ, LewRockwell - I have a little hope. It doesn't have to get THAT bad; indeed it might not.
He also mentions the oft-whispered about bit regarding her alleged involvement in the secessionist party, the AIP. When I first heard about that, that she was supposedly a "member" of this secessionist party, I kinda said, "So? So what?" Because that, as rockwell points out, is a perfectly reasonable and liberal thing to do. Except she totally wasn't a member of the party - she gave a remote address to kick off their convention, in which she expressed what they had in common, and that she too believed in competition. That they shared the goal of a financially independent state that adhered to their own constitution. As to secession, well frankly if their state is independent financially, and their liberty exceeds that which exists on the mainland (because, perhaps, they actually adhere to their constitution where we don't) then why not? This is supposed to be a loose conglomeration of *Sovereign* states under a constitution that is there to promote free trade and to *stop* people's rights being infringed upon. So whatever. Here is the actual tape, and clearly she is not a member of the party and the secessionist claim is shown to be false:But you know what? I'm counting on this. I'm counting on her to be stronger than that. I'm counting on a lot of things. I have faith in Americans, even when they become politicians. (Hey, it's funny and I hope it's largely true.)