The American Spectator

/p>

In her debate performance last evening, Sarah Palin was clearly somewhat successful in portraying herself as the common man’s common-sense alternative to Joe Biden’s elitist, liberal, and intrusive, big-government agenda. In doing so, I fear that she likely diminished McCain’s chances in the forthcoming election.

The contrast was clear, but barely so: Joe Biden espouses the furtherance of big government involvement in individual lives; Sarah Palin espouses a more federalistic, Reagan-like “get the government off the backs of the people” approach to governance. Unfortunately, while the children of the “Greatest Generation” could find some merit in Reagan’s minimalist government message, their children, I believe, cannot. Leftist input into our education system has been successful to the point where an entire generation of young Americans now actually fear living lives where the onus of responsibility lies primarily with themselves. They lack the self-esteem necessary to live independently and fear the traditional American values of self-reliance, self-determination and the acceptance of personal responsibility for their lives. Indeed, they not only want, but in many cases demand, that the federal government provide support to them. Whether they be the citizens of New Orleans, farmers, Wall Street tycoons or simply those who over-extended themselves and resultantly find themselves on the verge of loosing their homes, many now whine unabashedly if faced with the prospect of suffering the consequences of their actions. Like spoiled children throwing a tantrum, they criticize the government incessantly for not adequately catering to their ever-increasing demands. The rest of us, unfortunately, are insidiously coming to realize that the federal government is now literally brimming with political leftists, all of whom are only too happy to accommodate the wishes of self-indulgent thinkers by legislating away our constitutional freedoms, confiscating our wealth and redistributing it to those who clamor the loudest.

p>To me, the most telling (and frightening) aspect of the vice-presidential debate was the insight it provided into the political power of the American Left. It demanded homage from Mrs. Palin and she paid it. While clearly the more conservative choice, she at one point literally groveled at the feet of the leftist National Education Association and it’s cronies in the Department of Education, promising them ever-more of the wealth which the rest of us create. Likewise, she used the left-wing phraseology of “working towards the common good” without adding a concise addendum that the conservative approach to effecting this goal is through reducing taxation, diminishing the size of government and enhancing individual liberty. Indeed, during the entire debate, she sounded not a single clarion call to substantially downsize the federal government. However, is there any other logical solution, aside from cutting costs, to the problem of dealing with a government hovering on the very edge of financial collapse due to at seventy consecutive years of socialistic over-spending and profligate borrowing. Sadly, Mrs. Palin never once even mentioned the word “socialism,” surely the greatest internal threat to our individual liberties, nor did she point out that the current financial crisis is due solely to liberal, “Great Society”-type legislation which ushered in the federal government’s unconstitutional entry into the housing market. She placed the blame primarily on the free market as opposed to more accurately blaming governmental manipulation of it. Likewise, Democrat Franklin Raines and his consorts, who enriched themselves with tens of millions of the taxpayer’s dollars while simultaneously resisting Republican attempts to effect oversight of their criminality, were conspicuously absent from Mrs. Palin’s assessment. So, why is it that she didn’t even try to forcefully seize the conservative mantle and, like Reagan, characterize herself as a true champion of American ideals and individual liberty? I think its because she’s very smart — smart enough to realize that America is no longer a place where one win election to national office if running on a platform of traditional American conservative values. How sad that America has finally fully de-evolved into a nation where those with an attitude of entitlement can use the apparatus of government to systematically extract wealth from their friends, neighbors and countrymen. Look down and say “hello” to socialism, folks. It’s putrid waters are quite literally now swirling around your feet. br> — Thomas Donley br> Remus, Michigan /p>

“THE REASON Governor Palin has performed badly up until last night is, by all accounts, because she’s been cramming for a test.”

“…the idea of “letting Sarah be Sarah” is probably the best strategy (and Thursday night’s debate is a perfect argument for it)”

p>I don’t understand. How can you be “over-prepared” for the question, “What magazines do you read?” and why is it that Sarah can only “be Sarah” when she has note cards or a teleprompter in front of her? br> — Teri Gray /p>

I agree with Mr. Freire that Sarah did well in Thursday night’s debate. I was talking with a Barack Obama supporter the next day — call her “Sally” — and she gave a negative evaluation of Sarah’s debate performance. I said that Joe Biden made numerous mistakes during the debate, and “Sally” claimed she could not vote for Sarah Palin because Sarah was too inexperienced. I then asked why she would support Obama, who has virtually no executive experience. Sally started talking about Obama’s judgment, and I pointed out this was sexism, attacking the woman, who has had eight years of executive experience, while giving the inexperienced male a free pass. Instead of responding to that, Sally started talking about Bush, and I asked her what Bush had to do with Obama’s lack of experience or his supposed good judgment.