I am prepared to like Palin, and she is saying a lot of the right things. However, the fact that she consented to be McCain's running mate, effectively submitting herself to his policy positions, is not a good sign. In my opinion, a principled Christian would not be willing to do this. Ron Paul wouldn't, not a chance.

We can like Palin all we want, but as Wayne points out, we can't vote for her. If we try to vote for her, we will get McCain and all the misery he will bring.

In this column, Chuck Baldwin describes exactly the dilemma that I alluded to in my previous post. In order to work for McCain, Sarah Palin must compromise nearly all of the conservative principles that lead Republicans to support her.

This is as obvious as the nose on my face. Why don't Republican voters see this?

Palin will be more or less irrelevant as VP (as VPs tend to be). If she were to have any influence over McCain, I'm sure it would be better than if McCain were left to his own devices, though. She certainly need not leave her values at home, and it's unlikely she'll be fired if she disagrees with her boss (as has been indicated in the present Bush administration), if only because she's VP (as opposed to merely a cabinet member).

As for voting "for Palin", I've given some thought to the matter. In truth, you vote for the pair of them, not for one or the other. Also in truth, it's the vote for the President that carries the most value, you could say, because he's the one with the power. When seen from this perspective, it's difficult to justify voting for McCain/Palin, because McCain's an ungodly idiot (less so than Obama, of course), and because there are choices other than the two Parties as the powers-that-be would have us believe.

On the other hand, it's also true that it rains on both the just and the unjust. (In this Biblical metaphor, rain is considered a good thing, in case that wasn't clear to you.) In this sense, and given our inability to vote for President and Vice President separately, I do not believe it's inherently sinful to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket (assuming Palin meets Godly criteria--McCain surely does not). While Palin's power as a VP may be minuscule, she's not powerless. In an office of influence, even if relatively little influence, she may do some good. What I'm saying is, if we believe Palin has the Godly criteria for VP (or President should McCain kick the bucket), a vote for Palin may be Biblically ethical even though it means voting for McCain, too.

If a third party candidate that is demonstrably more suitable is available for President or can be written in, it would be ethically superior to vote for him as President than for Palin as VP on the McCain ticket. Just because an ethically superior choice were available, though, does not mean an otherwise ethically acceptable option suddenly becomes unacceptable.

P.S. It's been four years, so I don't recall: can we write-in both President and Vice President? If so, then the most ethical option may be a write-in of a Godly candidate for each, even if culled from disparate tickets, assuming you can't find a pair who are both Godly options on the pre-fab. tickets.

Katrina asks if I am in agreement with all the principles of my boss. It is quite clear that I am not. My boss is not a believer, and his boss, our CEO, is an avowed atheist. However, my situation is not (at least presently) a good comparison with Sarah Palin's position. I will explain why.

Despite my disagreements with my management, I am not being put in a position where I must compromise my principles to do my job. If I were asked to lie to a customer, for instance, that would present an ethical problem for me. I probably would refuse to do it, even if it cost me my job, because I could not in good conscience treat a customer that way. Thankfully, my company has a policy of treating customers with honesty and respect, so I am able to do my job in this regard with a clear conscience. My boss does not understand why I take days off for religious holidays, but he allows me to do it. He does not prohibit me from praying, displaying a Bible, or discussing my beliefs with others, provided none of these activities interfere with my doing what I am paid to do. My boss' principles do not put me in a position where I am required to violate my own principles.

This is not the case in Sarah Palin's position. Her boss, John McCain, has clearly demonstrated through his policies and voting record that his principles are not conservative, biblical principles. He misses, and misses big, in the areas of abortion, gun control, and free speech, just to name a few. If elected, he will have more influence over these areas than perhaps any other individual in the country. Those who work for him will be required to support these positions, at least tacitly if not explicitly, in order to perform their jobs. This is the position that Sarah Palin has agreed to.

In order for her to stay true to biblical principle, she would have to speak out against her boss should he, for example, sign legislation that provided federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. However, doing so would not be consistent with her job as vice president. She might choose to resign in such a situation. (After all, she has resigned in protest in the past.) Given that this is a fairly likely scenario -- McCain has expressed support for embryonic stem cell research, and a Democrat-heavy Congress could pass such a bill -- I have to wonder what her plans are should it occur. However, the fact that she has joined McCain's ticket indicates that she is willing to back her boss.

Even if she says nothing, she puts herself in the position of being stumbling block for believers. A principled stand can be a strong witness; likewise, the lack of such a stand can be a powerful negative witness. It can lead those with a weak faith to adopt similar positions, thus further weakening their faith. Thus, Palin is compromised whether she supports McCain's non-biblical policies explicitly or tacitly. I should note that Alan Keyes has made these points in his latest column.

I may like Sarah Palin personally. I may agree with her on many important issues. However, the Republican ticket this year is the McCain ticket, and she has attached herself to it -- not the other way around, as many seem to want to believe. Ron Paul has stated that he would accept a vice presidential nomination because he could not support McCain's policy decisions. By joining McCain's ticket, Sarah Palin has compromised the very principles that lead me, and others, to support her.

The Vice-President presides over the Senate, and votes in the case of ties. If there were to be a tie when voting on a bill that has to do with embryonic stem cell research, or anything else that Palin disagrees with McCain on, then yes as VP, she would be in a place to choose between voting her conscience and morals, or voting to back her boss.

So while it's unlikely that she'd be put in that position, the chance does exist.

But I do like Gov. Palin as well. I think what the media is doing to her is outrageous, but to be expected. Her family is used to her serving in public office; they will be fine if she and McCain were elected. She is not neglecting them, and the opportunity for her to hold this position (or higher as President) may never come again.

Education? Allowing room for complete unfamiliarity with me, I'll skip my usual roast and just reiterate my position on the value of formal education: it's utterly worthless. If anything, formal education would be a detriment to a candidate's competence.

As for the rest, you'll notice I do have a criterion mentioning the proper interpretation of the Constitution, implying enough. Plus, as these founding documents were written in common English and not legalese, not even a hint of training in "law" is needed to understand them and to interpret them properly.