Reading your post reminded me of another one: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns

Also, I love this shirt he has for sale as well: http://store.theworstpageintheuniverse.com/shirts.html#CIVILBLACKRED

Brilliant!

[...] - Palin for VP? Woot! - 12:17 PM (3 hours ago) …Sarah Palin. On a political level, you have [...]

W00T! indeed! Palin FTW! There, did I get all my online speech right? Seriously, I can finally get excited about voting for McCain.

We’re delighted!

I only became aware of Palin about a year ago, but have liked her a LOT since then. She seems both down-to-earth and savvy. . . both a reformer and a bridge-builder. . .

And she puts Obama’s cry of “Change!” to shame. C’mon, Bill and Hillary were lawyers were political aspirations from the beginning. Barak and Michelle are in the same mold. Sure, McCain has spent decades in Washington. . . so has Biden.

Palin, on the other hand, is the Middle America “hockey mom.” This is where her service and dedication has led. . . not necessarily her early aim. I believe more Americans can relate to her and her family, and will be able to see her as someone who understands everyday citizens. And that goes a long way in today’s political climate.

I love this pick.

I think there were lots of puns intended in that post. She shouldn’t Quayle easily, that’s for sure!

JL Bastiat — Hee! Yeah, maybe a few. “Buzzkill” was another.

My initial thought? I love her glasses! But seriously, Palin was a good (and strategic choice). I think several conservatives who would have sat out this election will be compelled to go to the polls by Sarah Palin.

I don’t like this choice as a person–she comes across as vindictive and silly in this clip:
I was appalled to hear this clip where Sara Palin laughs when a talk radio announcer calls one of her political rivals “a b**** and a cancer”. The woman referred to is a cancer survivor.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=sara+palin+bitch+cancer&hl=en&emb=0#

The Anchorage Daily news reported this on January 25th, 2008 http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/293639.html

Palin for Vice President!
Anyone that has paid any attention to people and there actions,can obviously tell that she is sincere and means exactly what she say’s.This is not true about barak! Only those that need a king,and to be led want him for president.I want neither!!!I would go to war with palin,because when she say’s she has your back you know you can rely on her word as her bond.If barak says he has your back you better make sure your wallet is in your front pocket! She seems to me the true definition of a virtuose woman!
McCain & Palin for president

The blogger before this (Jason) might want to learn how to spell before he gives us his wisdom on who should or shouldn’t be in executive office.
Sarah Palin’s demeanor and tone in her RNC speech was vindictive and her rhetoric was no more than general platitudes. Of course everyone wants a great country and will fight for it. She is a very well credentialed politician in Alaska, and I respect her for being such a great mother. But these things do not make her qualified to be President of the United States. The issues facing our diverse, internationally populated country are not similar to the issues of a state like Alaska. People need to remember you are voting for a President and Vice-President, not a PTA leader, city council person or Governor. She had no specific policies in her speech. Mocking Barack Obama was not necessary. Nor is it necessary to make fun of democrats or community activism. I really don’t understand why it is “Christian” to be pro-gun and a hockey mom and not Christian to be educated and dedicate your life to public service of the under privileged. The issues facing our country are not simple, and the republicans are running their race by trying to inspire fear and bullying the American people with platitudes. Anyone who believes that the DNC was run the same way really needs to watch Obama’s speech and pay attention to the respect that he gave John McCain. I don’t understand why Christian voters don’t pay more attention to foundational issues such as social justice and equity for all people. These are obviously also biblical principals.

Hi Sarah-

Thanks so much for weighing in.

I think this is a false accusation:

“I don’t understand why Christian voters don’t pay more attention to foundational issues such as social justice and equity for all people.”

Evangelicals care a great deal about these issues. They just have a better understanding of the respective roles of church and state than you seem to. Just because someone believes that social justice and equity are best achieved by private means rather than an almight State does not make them uncaring. Rather, it makes them wise.

“really don’t understand why it is “Christian” to be pro-gun and a hockey mom and not Christian to be educated and dedicate your life to public service of the under privileged.”

This is a straw man argument. For the record, I’m not sure that it’s terribly noble to devote your life to “helping” others through destructive social programs which destroy work ethics and family structures and do so through money forcibly appropriated through taxation. It seems SLIGHTLY more noble to do such work through your own efforts and money, as Evangelical Christians tend to do.

To be more specific — Obama gives practically NOTHING to charity and allows his half-brother to continue living in abject poverty in Kenya. Kinda takes a bit of the shine off his “lifetime of service to the poor” halo. . .

Hi J.-Thanks for responding. I understand that Evangelicals care about social issues and there are a number of effective organizations such as World Vision (which I personally support) and many churches that do great work in public service. But the problem with relying on personal non-profit donations is that they cannot be organized or administered at a national level. There is no way to regulate that all American people can be cared for with regards to health and education through disjointed non-profit efforts. Not that these organizations are bad, but there should be foundational government programs for education, health and social aid. It is interesting that you say I don’t understand that the role of church and state should be separate, while the Republicans cater to the conservative Christian base as though they are a political organization! How is that the separation of church and state?

Also, I believe your information about Obama is misguided. I have visited and taught in the “shanty-towns” of Kenya and their economic scale is different than ours. One of Obama’s brothers is perfectly happy living as an accountant. The other one Obama doesn’t even really know. His father dissapeared a long time ago and that was a part of his life he was not connected to. Family matters can be complicated ( as the Palins are the first to attest to!) and we can’t know the details of that interaction. With regards to his tax contributions, the Obamas donated over $70,000 in 2005 and $60,0000 in 2006 to their church, cultural and literacy organizations. Before that they were a new family with very large student loans from Law School to pay off. Also Michelle had been working in non-profit work and than made a switch to an administrator at hospital, which made alot more money.
Also, with the issues in the McCain and Palin families I’m not sure your arguments are the wisest against Obama. The McCains don’t know how many houses they own and have cut their own close sibling out of inheritance. All families will have issues so no side should claim a halo. And Obama’s social programs were absolutely not destructive! They helped empower many people in the Chicago area.

“With regards to his tax contributions, the Obamas donated over $70,000 in 2005 and $60,0000 in 2006 to their church, cultural and literacy organizations. Before that they were a new family with very large student loans. . .”

To expound on that a bit. . .

The “new family with large student loans” was still bringing in a 6-figure-income — and giving was still less than many, many everyday Americans whose income was a fraction of that of the Obama family.

And when giving increased (right around the time running for president began), it was still less than 10% of their income — an amount many people consider a baseline for charitable giving.

Of course, it’s their prerogative to do with their money what they will.

And I’d like that freedom myself — rather than higher taxes and the government (inefficiently) distributing my money to “charitable” causes it deems worthy.

Our country is better off when we each have to struggle with the pragmatic theology of “who is my neighbor?” and giving of ourselves and our own resources to those in need locally and worldwide.