The Sarah Palin “sigh” factor

I’ve supported the Constitution Party presidential candidate in every general election since 1992. I still plan to vote Constitution Party. I will write on that shortly, but first I wanted to give my reaction to the Sarah Palin V.P. nomination.

If Palin was running for president against Barack Obama, I’d support her with no qualms. She’s pro-life and would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. She would lower taxes and return America to a supply-side free market in the philosophy of Adam Smith and Ronald Reagan. She’s a strong Christian who isn’t afraid to confront moral issues and corruption in politics.

Palin is going to win this election for John McCain.

I can think of many reasons why. Here are just three.

1. She is going to be extremely popular among young voters who tend not to walk lock-step with one party. This will hurt the Democrats among young would-be Obama and Clinton supporters who tend to be influenced more by the “sigh” factor than on the issues. In general, a large block of American voters are incredible shallow and Palin … well, just look at her.

2. She is also a great person. She has a sparky personality you can’t help fall in love with. She’s strong, uncompromising, spiritual and practices what she preaches. Barack Obama’s appeal is that he represents change, but Barack has also been shown to be the ultimate contradiction on many levels. Obama claims to represent the common people, but many can’t help but wonder if he is really one of us. It’s almost as if he is trying to be liked by everybody. Sarah Palin is just the opposite. She really is one of us and she doesn’t care if you like her — even people in her own party.

Now here is the most obvious selling point:

3. Scientists claim there is more untapped oil in the Arctic than in Saudi Arabia. When gas prices start climbing way above $4 a gallon in the aftermath of a few Gulf of Mexico hurricanes, Palin is simply going to look into the camera, smile, and with her sparky sanguine squeaky voice, she is going to say: “For the good of our economy, we need to tap America’s oil wealth! We’ve also got to protect the habitat of those caribou, moose and polar bears. So we will drill in a way that’s environmentally sensitive. And I am just the woman to do it!”

(Note: one reader pointed out that I ought to include all American territory in this claim as well. The point is that we have enough oil within our borders to supply our energy needs.)

Let’s face reality for a moment. When people see gas prices hurting their wallet and then see an attractive, young woman politician on television saying she’ll help them because she’s from Alaska, has hunted moose, and has been trying to get the drill ban on federal lands lifted all along, the choice is going to be very obvious.

I was hoping for a good showing for a pro-life third party candidate in this cycle, which could in turn affect the next elections in favor of conservative Christians. I’ll explain my thinking on that later. The Palin nomination turned that chance on it’s head. Even James Dobson, the Constitution Party’s most well- known supporter who said he’d “never” support John McCain, has now reversed his decision based on Palin’s nomination.

So here is my three point plan:

1. Vote Constitution Party. (I vote my conscience and cannot support McCain even with Palin.)

2. Hope and pray for McCain/Palin to win. (I am an idealist, but also a realist!)

3. Pray for John McCain’s salvation and pray specific imprecatory prayers if he fails to pro-actively defend the sanctity of human life.

Note: If you don’t understand this term, Google The Forerunner’s articles on Imprecatory Prayer.

In a few days, I’ll write my explanation on why the Constitution Party is the way for Christians to go. But I want to see what happens at the Republican convention first.)


Well, I was hoping aginst hope that John MCcain would actually put Ron Paul on the VP ticket. I am very intriqued with Mrs. Palin. Should we vote for the constitional party and then pray that the MCcain/Palin ticket wins and then pray that MCcain gets saved and then dies shortly afterwards. I hope either way that Palin will shed light on true conservitive politics and not the pretend kind that is so pervasive in the Republican party. I hope she can shed light on the constitutional party.

Also is there any that a constituional party canidate can get elected to congresss or a state govenor?

I don't think I would say with certainty that John McCain is not a Christian.

His policies are not in accordance with God's Law and therefore, if he wins and Palin is Veep, we need to pray the blessings of God on Palin if she would be the one who would do the most to uphold God's Law and the curses on McCain if he does not.

Besides Dan Quayle, she would be the most overtly evangelical person elected to the executive office in our lifetime. She has only a little little policy experience on record. Her positions are solid though. We will see what happens!

I don't know why, but I just get a good feeling from her. She's far from perfect, but she is more than acceptable -- especially given the other possibilities in this cycle.

P.S. Don't tell me you'd vote for McCain if he picked Ron Paul as Veep! I would not vote for McCain under any circumstance in 2008. I'll explain why in my next entry.
Jay, thanks for this enlightening and thought provoking post. I've been in a quandary. I finally became disgusted with the repubs 3 years ago and joined the Constitution Party.

In the primary season since the Constitution Party takes too long to kick off, I supported Alan Keyes. He was too late in joining the fray.

I didn't particularly like the way he was treated at their convention but so be it.

At first I thought the Palin pick was nuts but I now agree with you. Hard to believe though that if McCain became pres and didn't survive his term that a hockey Mom with a few years of political experience would be running the country. I bet hockey would be on the rise in the U.S.!

You plan to vote your conscience but pray against your conscience? Wow, that's pretty different.

How do you continue to deal with the age old dilemma of knowing a vote for Baldwin or whatever 3rd party candidate we choose, is a vote for Obama? I constantly clash with Gary Bauer over that issue.

As I look at the absolute evil represented in Obama's presidential aspirations, he's pushing me ever closer toward McCain, especially with the addition of Palin.

Chuck <><
Hi Charles,

Look for my post in a few days.

We do need to vote our consciences. That's the whole point. If you think it's best to vote McCain/Palin so be it. Vote for them and pray for them.

I'll be giving my vote and my money to the CP.

I will be praying for all the candidates.

I am a realist. I know that the CP won't win in 2008 barring a miracle or some unexpected phenomenon.
Jay, a friend of mine found the following on the internet and I thought it was apropos:

"Apparently, some libertarians and former Ron Paul supporters are switching to McCain because of his choice of Palin. If McCain wins, they will regret their foolish decision.

While McCain made a clever move in picking Palin, he is still….well…John McCain. He shows no sign of abandoning his disdain for the Bill of Rights and, most importantly, his recklessness in foreign policy. By every indication, this decision has nothing to do with a change of heart on a single issue.

The best comparision would be to 1976 when Ronald Reagan picked Richard Schweiker, probably the most pro-big-government Republican in the Senate, as his veep. It was purely a political decision in his case; just like this one."

McCain is still McCain no matter who he partners with.

Chuck <><
Not sure how you can equate godly with what the right wing extremists, led by the cute 'n' perky Sarah Palin, are concocting for this nation and the world.

For one, daydreaming about Sarah Palin is a violation of one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Need I quote to you which one?

Secondly, the pack of lies the right-wingers spew about cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations will trickle down and save the world economy is not only incredibly naive, it's a total FALSEHOOD, because the orchestrators fully well realize they are lying. Need I tell you which commandment that violates?

Thirdly, the right wing in this country likes to shoot guns around and run drugs to fund their shooting. besides the fact the ethical implications of this are beyond the pale, I really don't think Jesus would look kindly upon it. What kind of sick religion prays for death? What kind of sick religion builds its church on the bones of the dead? On the scorched bodies of millions of dead men women and children who happened to be in your way?

Doesn't sound very Christian to me, in fact, quite the opposite. How can you look at yourselves in the mirror and deal with the hypocrisy? I know I wouldn't be able to.
Well, the election is over, the people have spoken. All I can say to the right-wingers is: Better luck in 2010.

My reading is that this election is a clear rejection of the right-wing theocon agenda. This is a centrist of center-left county, and will not long be hoodwinked by the theocrat wannabes that you represent.
Anonymous quotes are cowardly. Calling people idiots is childish.

Were it not for "freedom", we'd still be living in the dark ages and you'd have no computer with which to spew your drive-by's.

Too many confuse the abuse of freedom with the concept of freedom. The reason for our current financial crisis has nothing whatsoever to do with the efficiency of free markets and everything to do with our socialistic tinkering.

Overtaxing the productive always leads to envy, greed and irresponsibility.
Further, idiot detractors can always just Google "freemarket economics Adam Smith" to see how idiotic their statement is.
The first thing I got on Google: P.J. O'Rourke describes Adam Smith as the "founder of free market economics."
Anonymous 8:23PM must have missed the post election reports. Obama was so afraid that his views would be exposed, that he ran under the well-defined motto of "change". Anyone would have to have been living under a rock to think that conservatism was rejected. Just look at the post-election polls. 57% of the Obama voters polled didn’t even know which party controlled congress and 72% didn’t know that Joe Biden dropped out of a previous campaign due to plagiarism.

Only those with their hands extended into the pockets of the "rich" ($150k and above—real rich right?) actually voted FOR Obama. The majority of the 64,000,000 were voting against Bush and if anyone thinks Bush represented the conservative movement they have no clue.

The repubs in power clearly ruined their advantage but not because they were too "right wing" but because they were mirror images of their socialistic counterparts. The repubs were defeated because they couldn't martial the conservative forces who were so severely disillusioned by their bankrupt spend-thrift policies.

So if you chant the old tax the rich greed oriented mantra, you will get your way for a while until the money runs out and productivity is destroyed. Socialism is a parasitic organism.

Those who embrace it pretend to be compassionate, when in reality it’s only benefit is producing envy-induced class warfare. By 2012, 4 years after the failures of Obama's left wing oligarchy runs totally aground, it will truly be time for the right kind of "change". Don’t delude yourself into thinking conservatism is dead. Freedom is inextricably tied to free-enterprise. You want socialism then you shall have tyranny.
Really. Palin is going to connect to the YOUNGER voters?

First off, the younger voters don't usually vote. They register when they get their license, then they forget about it and go get drunk.

Second off, the younger voters are tending to snub religous nonsence, as less parents are around to force-feed religion into their children on a regular basis at a young age, and this has been the case for a while.

Third off, she's a terrible governmer. Younger voters have the internet. Older voters have a phobia of html and Fox News.

McCain shouldda picked Jindal.
"There is more untapped oil in Alaska than in Saudi Arabia."

You know that's not true, don't you?

"No one is certain how much oil is beneath the Alaskan coastal plain. In assuming 876,000-barrel-a-day production, the EIA assumed the “mean” estimate provided by geologists of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable reserves."

"James Kendell, one of the authors of the study, said the refuge would add to domestic production, but “when you’re talking of a world oil market of over 75 million barrels a day, adding 900,000 barrels by 2025 is a drop in the bucket.”

Saudi Arabia appears to have 260 billion barrels, about 25 times what is estimated to be in Alaska.

Yes, it's a lot of oil.

No, Alaska does not have more reserves that Saudi Arabia.
Thank you for making such an inspiring, truthful post. The liberals are really tucking their tails in, now! God gave us Dominion over the Earth; let's make sure it stays that way.
Dude, where did you get the bizzare notion that Alaska has more oil than Saudi Arabia? By the tradition method of using proven reserves, Alaska has about 13 billion barrels. Some people think the ANWR might have as much as 30 billion barrels ( but only 16 billion recoverable with current technology). Some very optimistic geologist speculate that there might be up to 90 billion barrels in the Arctic Ocean but even if all of that were in US controlled territory (and we probably would have no more than 1/3 of it) and the ANWR was as large as hoped and we could recover all of it, you are talking a grand total of 133 billion barrels, about 1/2 of Saudi Arabia's 260 billion. A more realistic estimate is probably around 40 - 50 billion.
Is there more crude oil in Alaska than Saudi Arabia?

Salon magazine says: "Get real."

It's not a partisan view that only "crazy right wingers" believe. It's a view that has been repeated by many scientists who have been speculating for 30 years that there is more oil off the coast of Alaska (yes, some belongs to Canada) than in the Persian Gulf.

The Alaska claim all by itself MIGHT be wrong. If so, I include other areas of American territory as well. But there is at least enough oil within our borders to supply America's fuel needs for many years until we can find alternatives.

This is what that crazy right wing magazine NEWSWEEK had this to say:

Royal Dutch Shell, the international oil giant, thinks the solution to America's oil crisis may lie in the heart of Colorado. Since 1981, the company has quietly funded a multi-million dollar research project that many call a quest for energy's Holy Grail. The mission: to discover a way to safely and economically extract fuel from oil shale, a type of sedimentary rock found in Wyoming, Utah, and especially Colorado's Western Slope. The potential windfall is staggering. Studies over the years by industry and government alike estimate that there may be between 800 billion and more than one trillion barrels of oil locked up in these rocks--nearly three times the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. That would be enough oil to supply America for the next 400 years. "It's coming eventually. It's just a matter of when," say Roy McClung, mayor of Parachute, Colorado, a community in the heart of oil shale country. "Should all the stuff come into place, this area is going to--well, I don't know if anyone is ready for that kind of growth."
Apparently, Russia thinks there is more oil under above the Arctic circle than in Saudi Arabia too.

Here's what that crazy crackpot right-wing media outlet CNN wrote last may:

The excitement extends even farther north, where the shrinking ice cap is helping spur a new race for territorial supremacy. In August, Russia planted a flag 2-1/2 miles below sea level at the actual North Pole, laying claim to what it says are vast quantities of oil and gas. Some experts estimate that a quarter of the planet's undiscovered energy resources are buried at the top of the planet. But that figure is highly speculative - much of the Arctic is unexplored - and even if you find something, how do you transport it through a sea of ice?
I like the poster who compared Palin favorably with Quayle.

Right on!
For all the conversation about Sarah Palin, there are very few factual references materials regarding who this woman is and what she has actually done as a leader. There is a new book set to hit the shelves by mid October that will finally end that void. The book is being published by Petroleum News Alaska and is call 'Sarah takes on Big Oil'

This book is the story of Gov. Sarah Palin's battle with Alaska's 'Big3' oil companies, as told by the state's top oil and gas writers Kay Cashman and Kristen Nelson. These woman are uniquely qualified to tell the story of Palin and her dealings with the oil industry. Cashman is the publisher and executive editor of Petroleum News, an independent news-driven weekly newspaper. Nelson, editor-in-chief of Petroleum News, has maintained a long-time eye on Alaska government and its interactions with the state's most lucrative industry.

Cashman and Nelson deliver a three-dimensional portrait of the Palin administration and the unusual circumstances that have bracketed her leadership. The authors bring a perspective based on knowledge rarely available to general news reporters. As a result, "Sarah takes on Big Oil" is a good read, full of lively personalities and verifiable facts.

My mom is the co-author and while this book lacks the entertainment of SNL, it will give you some facts and insight into a woman who has us all asking, regardless of political persuasion: Who is Sarah Palin?

To find out more visit
Thanks Trish,

I read all the excepts from the Srah Palin book and it looks very even-handed -- even the "God's will" quote on the Alaska pipeline is put in proper context.

That is, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE God's will for all sides to work together and get it done.

And since the author obviously wrote most of this before the VP nomination, it is not politically motivated.

I like the picture of her baking cookies! Is that intentionally ironic? You Alaskans have a wry sense off humor.
You say "...return America to a supply-side free market..." This is any oxymoron. Goods are made much cheaper overseas therefore a true free market would end with even more imports and fewer exports than currently take place.

You say "...who isn't afraid to confront moral issues and corruption in politics." You mean by outright lying about taking money for the so-called bridge to nowhere and trying to ban books from the library then attempting to fire the librarian who refused to do so?

You say "...who tend to be influenced more by the "sigh" factor than on the issues." Oh, come now. with all your talk of who physical appearance, I think it's you who is sighing and ignoring the issues.

You say "She really is one of us and she doesn't care if you like her..." She doesn't care? Isn't that rather antithetical to running for office? In order to win, one needs to convince a majority to vote for you.

You say "We've also got to protect the habitat of those caribou, moose and polar bears." You mean by suing the federal government when polar bears were listed as endangered? Or offering $150 bounties on the front left forearm of every wolf killed?

You say "Even James Dobson..." Oh, the guy who for years has said women should stay at home and take care of the kids. Funny that.
Seperation of church and state. Any thoughts?
I strongly support the separation of church and state. I do not support the separation of the state from God and God's moral law. There is a vast difference.
'I strongly support the separation of church and state. I do not support the separation of the state from God and God's moral law. There is a vast difference.'

I'd like some explanation of this. In my view, any time I've got someone (anyone) shoving their agenda and ideals down my throat - I've got a pretty serious problem with it. As do many Americans. Are you saying that YOUR IDEALS and the ideals of your church-mates trump mine?

One of the problems with Christianity, in my book, is that it often appears on a sliding scale. With a lot of inconsistencies and is almost always conveyed in a sense of "I'm with God, therefore I'm better than you are". This turns off folks like myself, who used to be pretty devout partakers in fellowship - that have since retreated from this load of self-important crap. A relationship with God is between a man or woman and himself. Yet, the nation of Christianity, not unlike the nation of Islam, see's fit to judge others as a matter of course. Even at the tamest end of the scale, judgement of others is built into the equation, at the more extreme end of the scale morals are a flexible commodity if the ends are attainable.

There is an undeniable sense of this in practically every media outlet (including the Bible) and is particularly evident in televised evangelism. What a crock of nauseating crap.

There absolutely MUST be a separation of church and state just as there MUST be a separation of commercial industry and state. Partly because, let's face it, church IS A BUSINESS. Only difference is that church sells mortal intangibles.

If Christian hardliners take power in this country, I have NO DOUBT that turmoil will follow. I draw little difference between your attitude and what I read about the Taliban in Afghanistan.
There is always great freedom in a Christian society for people to hold other views and practice their religion in private just as long just as they do not break the civil laws of the society. Of course, Christians want these laws based – if not wholly, then at least in principle – on biblical law.

As a person who was converted to Christ as an adult, I realize that everyone is in a different place in their journey toward God. We can offer a great deal of tolerance when dealing with groups who do not share our worldview. It took me 23 years to see the truth. I try to keep that in mind and that I should bear with people who don't see it my way.

My vision for a Christian America is the Puritanism of Oliver Cromwell – a ruler who invited Jews to return to England 100 years after being banished by King Henry VIII. Cromwell also protected the rights of Roman Catholics to worship publicly in Protestant England – although he was adamantly opposed to their theology on a personal level. He strengthened a republican form of government in England and fought the idea of the "divine right of kings."

Atheists have more freedoms in our Christian society than they did in atheistic societies such as Stalinist Russia or Maoist China.

Where would you rather be a Buddhist? In Tibet or in America?

Where would you rather be a Hindu? Downtown Madras or America?

Where would you rather be a woman Muslim? In Tehran or in America?

The umbrage of freedom because of our Christian Founder's love for the Law of God gives more liberties, freedoms, rights and protections to Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims in America than in cultures based upon their own religion.
I'm down for participating in a revolution if one was to spark from Palin's ascendancy.

State decisions should be totally removed from the influence of deities.
"Atheists have more freedoms in our Christian society than they did in atheistic societies such as Stalinist Russia or Maoist China."

Sorry Jay. That's the wrong way around. The truth is that as a secular society which secular foundations, Christians have the freedoms in America. As do Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and the infinite variations of Christians.
Since "secular" means outside the church, I agree. America was not founded by the institutional church. No church should attempt to subordinate the civil government.

America was founded by individuals -- 90 percent of whom were members of Christian churches.

Christians founded America. Christianity is the majority religion of the culture.

And therefore, the freedom you enjoy is given to you in a Christian culture.

Your comments are welcome

Use Textile help to style your comments

Suggested products



The Model of Christian Liberty. This DVD includes “Dawn’s Early Light: A Brief History of America’s Christian Foundations” and bonus features.

Read more