pageok
pageok
pageok
Byron York reports McCain campaign responses to today's NY Times attack.

Watching both MSNBC and CNBC today, I have been surprised how quickly the press has moved from "Who is Sarah Palin?" — or even "Is Sarah Palin a good choice?" — to "How exactly did John McCain screw up by picking Sarah Palin?"

To say that the press is doing the Democrats' work for them would be an understatement.

I have absolutely no personal knowledge of the vetting process, but the McCain campaign's response has perhaps best been made by Byron York at NRO:

Team McCain Hits Back on Palin, Vetting

Had a long talk this morning with a senior strategist in the McCain campaign. I think it's fair to say Team McCain is seriously unhappy with a New York Times story, "Palin Disclosures Raise Questions On Vetting," which came out this morning and is driving much of the coverage of the issue. The story begins:

A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain's choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.

On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.

Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state's public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.

The story, my campaign source told me, is "materially false." Gov. Palin, the strategist said, was subjected to a "complete vet." "That included her filling out a 70-question questionnaire that was highly intrusive and personal. She was then interviewed for more than three hours by A.B. Culvahouse. There were multiple follow-up interviews." (I asked precisely how many follow-ups there were, but my source stuck with "multiple.") "There was a thorough interview process," the strategist continued. "There was a public records search and political vet. There was a private life and financial vet. Everything that has come out was known by the campaign through the vetting process."

Okay. What about particulars? The strategist started at the bottom and moved up.

"Todd's DUI — we judged that to be immaterial to the selection process. The ticket for fishing without a license — we judged that to be immaterial to the selection process." On the charge that Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party, the strategist said, flatly, "She was never a member of the independence party, because she has been a registered Republican." (Later, the McCain camp put out a statement saying it had provided reporters with "ALL voter registration documentation" showing that Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982 and "has never been a member of the AIP.") And on the issue of Palin's daughter Bristol being pregnant: "John McCain made a decision that did not affect his decision-making in terms of her qualifications." (As far as the allegation that Gov. Palin faked a pregnancy to cover up for her daughter is concerned, it appears the McCain campaign knew about it and looked into it, but never very deeply because it had been proven false to the satisfaction of pretty much anyone outside The Atlantic or the DailyKos.)

From our conversation, it was clear that the McCain campaign paid a lot of attention to the so-called "Troopergate" issue. After all, unlike the "fake baby" story that has preoccupied the press, it is a real issue involving allegations that Palin abused her power. Last night, the McCain campaign distributed a "background guidance" memo to reporters on the issue. In our conversation, the strategist recounted much of the substance of that memo.

"Of course this issue came up in the vetting, and this is what we discovered," the source said. "The man who was fired has said on the record that he was never pressured by the governor or the governor's husband on the issue of firing Trooper Wooten. The governor had a vision for how she wanted that department to be run. The commissioner had a different vision."

"The reason that members of the Palin family were having discussions with the head of the state police about this state trooper, who was her ex-brother-in-law, was because he had made threats against the family. He threatened to kill the governor's daughter, her father, and her sister. He tasered her 11-year-old stepson. And that is why the Palin family was concerned about this trooper."

I brought up accusations that the McCain team has performed a "legal vet" on Palin but did not perform a "political vet." In addition to the accusation that Palin had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party, there were issues like her change in position on the "bridge to nowhere" and her support for raising sales taxes in Wasilla, Alaska. "Change on the 'bridge to nowhere?'" my source asked. "Are you saying there's somebody out there who believes that should disqualify her to be vice president?" Barack Obama has changed his mind on a few things, the strategist added. As for sales taxes in Wasilla, the source said, "Every aspect of her political record is known to us. These people [McCain's opponents] are desperate."

As for what materials the campaign examined in the vetting, the source told me they checked out (almost) everything. "The only thing the campaign did not look at was the microfilm of the local newspaper, because it was impossible to look at the microfilm without revealing the search process," the strategist said. "We made a calculation that we would be able to get all the information from the Anchorage newspaper, that it was unlikely that there would be items in the local papers that were problematic that didn't make it to the Anchorage paper."

I don't get it. Are the New York Times reporters just printing what the Obama people are telling them (as Byron York is explicitly doing for the other side)? Or is one side or the other simply lying? Or both?

I guess we should be happy that there are now alternative sources of information, or too often most of us would hear only one side of the story.

UPDATE: Well, we have a likely answer to one question: it appears that Sarah Palin was never a member of the American Independence Party. The Times had a reason for writing what they did, but they went with the story before checking it out or looking at available state records. In essence, they acted more like a blogger than a newspaper. Let's see if they respond as quickly as bloggers usually do in correcting their errors.

LIly (mail):

To say that the press is doing the Democrats' work for them would be an understatement.



And I, for one, am getting tired of it. Lets have some evenhanded coverage already.
9.2.2008 7:37pm
Cornellian (mail):
"Change on the 'bridge to nowhere?'" my source asked. "Are you saying there's somebody out there who believes that should disqualify her to be vice president?"

If that's the best they can come up with on "Bridge to Nowhere" when being interviewed by the friendliest possible publication (NRO), that does not bode well for the Palin nomination.
9.2.2008 7:39pm
Federal Dog:
"Lets have some evenhanded coverage already."

The NY Times is completely incapable of journalism. Its employees lack the intellectual and emotional maturity, not to mention minimal understanding of professional standards necessary to be journalists.
9.2.2008 7:40pm
loki13 (mail):
Jim,

This is typical CYA. It is already well known (I'll let you source it) that the McCain campaign did not contact/interview other people in Alaska to find out particular problems. IOW, there rushed vetting 'process' consisted of a questionnaire (however highly personal it may have been), a credit check, and asking the candidate if there was anything she would like to add.

Note that even in this story, the remark is that McCain knew about the pregnancy. *Not* the campaign, McCain. This is consisent. If you believe the campaign, the only person who knew about this was McCain, so when the news broke, the campaign was blindsided. What, like it was going to be kept secret until November?

You give the press fresh meat, this is what happens. This is like throwing blood in the waters. Now they are already cancelling events for Palin to appear in front of the Natl. Right to Life people at the convention (earning a rebuke from the older Schafly- maybe Roger can comment?) so as to avoid the press.

Is this unfair? Maybe. Is this predictable? Definitely? Is this evidence of 'mavericky-ness' and poor judgment? The press is reporting- you decide.
9.2.2008 7:49pm
deez:
Has anyone actually read the Times article in question?

Seems to me like the NYTimes piece has both McCain's side of the story, and a lot of actual reporting. I don't see any quotes coming from Obama workers, and the majority of people referenced or quoted are Republicans.

And Byron York is simply printing up what one source in the McCain campaign told him.

Which article more likely to be factual?

Also, if you're going to criticize the New York Times article, you might want to provide a link to it?
9.2.2008 7:49pm
LN (mail):
"The only thing the campaign did not look at was the microfilm of the local newspaper, because it was impossible to look at the microfilm without revealing the search process," the strategist said. "We made a calculation that we would be able to get all the information from the Anchorage newspaper, that it was unlikely that there would be items in the local papers that were problematic that didn't make it to the Anchorage paper."

Ooh, this is highly convincing. Also, it would have taken time and energy to look at the microfilm, and it's not like this decision matters anyway.
9.2.2008 7:49pm
mls (www):
The media narrative on Palin seems to be driven by the idea that she is obviously unqualified, and any "facts", real or imagined, reported are simply for the purpose of that reinforcing that narrative. The media, like the Democrats, looks at her and thinks "hey, she is just an ordinary person who happened to become Governor."


It may turn out that she is as hapless as the media seems to assume. But it is hard to imagine how they have reached that conclusion at this point except on prejudice and stereotypes.
9.2.2008 7:50pm
loki13 (mail):
To add to this, major political figures (the Bayhs, the Bidens, the Liebermans, the Romneys) have, in a sense, already been pre-vetted. The have already gone through cycles of press scrutiny. The onus, in being all 'maverick-y', is to go above and beyond in the vetting. It is clear that the McCain campaign went below and beneath, and both did not fully vet and did not share the little information they gained throughout their campaign apparatus, nor did they share it with others to get their surrogates to front the bad info and shape the narrative.

Just poor, poor campaigning. As a ferinstance, the only VC posts on the GOP Convention, to date, are OK's posts on the protests and DC's poster *heh*.

They've been forced on the defensive; if nothing else, that costs political capital. They could still turn this around, and she could prove an asset, but early returns are not encouraging.
9.2.2008 7:54pm
Scote (mail):
Welcome to the Spotlight.

It seems rather clear that just asking Palin some questions and interviewing her is not a proper vetting process. It seems that the McCain campaign didn't even interview a single person in the Alaska state legislature.

The press isn't "doing the Democrats' work for them," they are doing the McCain campaign's work for them. And you, for some highly partisan reason IMO, object to that.
9.2.2008 7:54pm
Matt Austin (mail):
"Change on the 'bridge to nowhere?'" my source asked. "Are you saying there's somebody out there who believes that should disqualify her to be vice president?"

No, of course not. But why the hell would they then have her mention the damn bridge in her FIRST speech as a VP candidate? She "flip-flopped" on the most notorious pork-barrel project in recent history, and that's one of the first things she proclaims as a qualification?

None of the things being brought up would "disqualify" her, but the sheer number coming out in the first week might just make the American public worried. They really don't get that? Maybe the video of her in her sportscaster days will put all the fears to rest.
9.2.2008 7:54pm
LN (mail):
Quotes from the NYT article (how do I add links here?)"

Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin's background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.

...

At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain's running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.

...

With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain's list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months.

"They didn't seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before," said a Republican close to the campaign. "This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn't get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge."

...

Mr. McCain's advisers said repeatedly on Monday that Ms. Palin was "thoroughly vetted," [emphasis added for dimwits] a process that would have included a review of all financial and legal records as well as a criminal background check. A McCain aide said the campaign was well aware of the ethics investigation and had looked into it.

Lindgren's post is absolutely terrible. WTF is wrong with the Times article? It's not even contradicted by the quality journalism in the fair and balanced National Review Online.
9.2.2008 7:57pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
Here's a crazy idea:

How about if Sarah Palin actually talks to a reporter and answers their questions, like a normal politician?
9.2.2008 7:58pm
Scote (mail):
Even your thread title is biased:

"Byron York reports McCain campaign responses to today's NY Times attack," whereby you label a journalistic investigation as an attack merely because the conclusions are unflattering to McCain and Palin, not because it was false.
9.2.2008 7:59pm
Loophole1998 (mail):
If McCain's team knew all of this stuff, maybe they should have put more work into "vetting" the likely press reaction.
9.2.2008 7:59pm
Hoosier:
"Which article more likely to be factual? "

I can't say anymore. They've done some very slipshod reporting in recent years. And when it comes to McCain . . .
9.2.2008 8:00pm
SG:
None of the things being brought up would "disqualify" her, but the sheer number coming out in the first week might just make the American public worried.

Which is clearly the point. That's why shit is being made up (she supported Pat Buchanan; she belonged to a secessionist party; the baby's not hers). The actual facts aren't that damaging, so try and throw as much against the wall and hope something sticks.

I don't think anybody's claiming she walks on water. Of course she'll have taken positions that can and should be attacked. But the ferocity with which stuff is getting exaggerated or just plain made up is kind of shocking.
9.2.2008 8:01pm
NYer:
Modern partisan politics is increasingly dependent on narratives. Prior to the Palin pick, Obama's lack of experience (especially juxtaposed with Biden's experience) was a major narrative the press was going with. Now, the narrative the Obama camp seems to have won a round with is that the Palin pick demonstrated a lack of judgment. With the 24-hour media networks, politics quickly devolve into broad statements that lack any sense of actual complexity. That it happens now with respect to Palin isn't any more surprising than any of the other narratives we've hear, all of which are overly simplistic and obscure the real issues.

And as a side note, I'm not sure I see why you think the NY Times piece was so bad (this is a serious point, not snark) - is it because the "Republican source close to the campaign" gave different information than Byron York's source? All of the vetting information mentioned in Byron's post above "what about the particulars" is in the Times article, and the article doesn't go into any detail on the particulars of anything. The only real difference I can see is that the Times article goes into great, excruciating detail on which local Alaskan the McCain campaign hadn't spoken with - and then explains that they wouldn't have spoken with them anyway, because the campaign was trying to keep the nomination somewhat of a surprise.
9.2.2008 8:01pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
"she belonged to a secessionist party


Of course it's now well-documented that Todd Palin belonged to a secessionist party from 1995 to 2002, when she ran for governor.

So why does Todd Palin hate America??
9.2.2008 8:02pm
marcystrauss (mail):
LN, i agree with you 100%. Whats with all the VC professors trying to justify the idiotic choice of Palin?
9.2.2008 8:03pm
Richard Riley (mail):
Two things: First, seconding Matt Austin - flip-flopping on the Bridge to Nowhere just means she's a politician, not the high-minded reformer that the McCain campaign is claiming. Fine. But then why make her position on the Bridge the single biggest item proving her "reformer" bona fides when she was introduced last Friday? I think this virtually proves the campaign didn't know about the Bridge flip-flop.

Second, Byron York (or his source) claims "the press" was "preoccupied" with the "'fake baby' story. Baloney. The "press" hasn't been preoccupied with the fake baby idiocy - that was Kos and Andrew Sullivan. That's one of the problems here - the McCain people can't tell the difference between the mainstream media (which is widely followed) and blogs (which are a narrow taste, both right and left). I think that's one of the reasons the Palin pick is going to blow up on them.
9.2.2008 8:05pm
Randy R. (mail):
"I guess we should be happy that there are now alternative sources of information, or too often most of us would hear only one side of the story."

Well, I guess the 'other side of the story' would be that Palin is highly qualified, highly successful as mayor of a small town, and has demonstrated experience in foreign affairs. Where might we find that side of the story, Mr. Lundgren?
9.2.2008 8:05pm
LN (mail):
Hoosier: I can't say anymore. They've done some very slipshod reporting in recent years.

The Times article actually reports the McCain's camp's response (namely: oh yeah, she was vetted, none of the stuff coming out now was a surprise). You should try actually reading it before retreating into a "conveniently, everything that contradicts my worldview is just partisan hackery" stance.
9.2.2008 8:07pm
PLR:
Here's a crazy idea:

How about if Sarah Palin actually talks to a reporter and answers their questions, like a normal politician?

You're right, that is a crazy idea. You ever try to plan a wedding on short notice, especially if it's the first wedding of one of your children?
9.2.2008 8:07pm
DangerMouse:
The media is just disappointed that Palin's daughter didn't have an abortion. If the daughter had killed her baby, the MSM would've praised her for being courageous and defying her pro-life mother. The Media and the Democrats never met an abortion they didn't love. They worship it as their sacrifice to power.

It sure has been interesting reading from liberals how a woman should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, instead of campaigning. So much for women's liberation.
9.2.2008 8:07pm
Randy R. (mail):
This was a terrific tactic made by the McCain campaign staff. Select an unknown woman who has no qualifications for the job. Sit back and watch the conservatives and liberals go bongers wondering why you picked a person so hastily and without proper vetting. Let that dominate the news cycle for at least one week, perhaps more. Keep the focus on McCain's strange pick so that no one is focusing on Obama or Biden or criticizing them. Play defense for several weeks.

What a great game plan for winning the oval office! Why didn't I think of that!
9.2.2008 8:08pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Well, I guess the 'other side of the story' would be that Palin is highly qualified, highly successful as mayor of a small town, and has demonstrated experience in foreign affairs. Where might we find that side of the story, Mr. Lundgren?
I love how the talking point, from the top (Obama) down dwells on Gov. Palin's work as the mayor of a small town, but studiously ignores that she is an elected governor and spent time helping run that oil commission, until she resigned in order to expose the corruption of her co-chair and Republican state chair. I heard exactly this same talking point from Obama himself not a half an hour ago.
9.2.2008 8:10pm
Scote (mail):
@marcystrauss:

Indeed, I'm baffled by the bald partisan support for Palin that seems to be evident here at VC. What, exactly, are her Libertarian bona fides? As mayor, she hired lobbyists to go after federal earmarks and raised taxes. She's for government interference in our private lives through her anti-abortion stance, among others. So why the credulous Hosannas for her?
9.2.2008 8:10pm
Curious Passerby (mail):
The left, including the media elites thought BHO had it in the bag and they are completely freaked out that we may get another 4 or 8 or 16 years of Republican administrations. Expect daily, ruthless unending trashing of McCain and Palin, everything they ever did or said until the polls all close on election day.

At this point it doesn't seem possible that an elite arugula-eating latte-sipping Marxist with no exprerience or paper trail and a gasbag lifetime politician can win the hearts of as many Americans as can a maverick senator and his down to earth reformer governor.

Did you see where the Philadelphia columnist wrote that if McCain wins we'll have a race and class war? (Yawn) Brink it on!
9.2.2008 8:11pm
DangerMouse:
The "press" hasn't been preoccupied with the fake baby idiocy - that was Kos and Andrew Sullivan. That's one of the problems here - the McCain people can't tell the difference between the mainstream media (which is widely followed) and blogs (which are a narrow taste, both right and left). I think that's one of the reasons the Palin pick is going to blow up on them.

The press was certainly preoccupied with the fake baby story. Spend some time reading Newsbusters, bub.
9.2.2008 8:11pm
Randy R. (mail):
Dangermouse: "It sure has been interesting reading from liberals how a woman should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, instead of campaigning. So much for women's liberation."

Perhaps you forgot that liberals selected a woman for the VP back in 1984, about 24 years before the repubs got around to it. And I do believe that there are quite a few women elected into office around the country who are democrats as well. Presumably they were campaigning for their office and not kept barefoot.
9.2.2008 8:11pm
Matt Austin (mail):

But the ferocity with which stuff is getting exaggerated or just plain made up is kind of shocking.


What could the McCain camp have possibly expected? They picked someone that 95% of the country has never heard of (a reminder that Senator Hutchison didn't even have much to say about her the first day). How can you not expect stuff to get exaggerated or made up when there's little or no knowledge from which to build? They wanted a shocking pick ("gamechanger!"), and this is what goes along with it.

And, for the record, running Stevens' 527, "Troopergate", and the Bridge to Nowhere flip-flop are all relevant issues that strongly conflict with how she was introduced (ethical reformer taking on "good-old-boys", anti-pork, etc).
9.2.2008 8:14pm
EH (mail):
Palin was announced the morning after Obama's acceptance speech to the surprise of just about everyone, providing much-needed distraction from how well Obama's speech went. Am I the only person who speculates that after Obama's acceptance speech last week, Palin was the only one who would return McCain's calls?

I'm sure she was on a GOP list of possibilities, but if she was 44th on the list it would make sense that they didn't crawl up her butt as far as they had with, say, Pawlenty.

I find myself interested in the process of selection rather than partisan issues or the identity politics involved in figuring out who would help create an easier-to-elect ticket. I haven't seen anybody support her to the degree that they would say she's the best person to take over for a stroke-addled McCain.

NB: To be sure, the fake baby story was floating around Alaska news stories (haven't found a specific cite yet) before Palin was selected.
9.2.2008 8:15pm
Nifonged:
"Perhaps you forgot that liberals selected a woman for the VP back in 1984,"

And what does that woman think about Palin and the way Hillary was treated by the Dems? Perhaps you forgot to mention that?
9.2.2008 8:16pm
DangerMouse:
Perhaps you forgot that liberals selected a woman for the VP back in 1984, about 24 years before the repubs got around to it. And I do believe that there are quite a few women elected into office around the country who are democrats as well. Presumably they were campaigning for their office and not kept barefoot.

If you're a democrat woman and campaign while you have children, you're courageous and are a trailblazer. If you're a Republican woman and campaign while you have children, you're a bad mother. That's the message the MSM and the Democrats have been peddling over the past several days.
9.2.2008 8:16pm
Pedant:
The main thrust of the NYT article is to say that Palin didn't get the same level of vetting that is normally performed. It's right there in the headline, for Pete's sake. The unnamed strategist labels this "materially false", but nowhere actually refutes it. He/she just says that they knew about various things and judged them not to be important, or that other things maybe they didn't know about are in fact not important. Fair enough. But that's not what the NYT story is about. No material falsehood is revealed by this strategist.

I might also note in passing that the denial of her being a member of the AIP is less than unequivocal. The denial comes not as an assertion of actual fact, but as an asserted necessary logical conclusion from the premise that she was a registered Republican. If you don't see why being registered as a Republican means you couldn't in some meaningful sense be a "member" of the AIP (and I don't; surely it would depend on the internal rules of the AIP), then you will find this denial strangely evasive.
9.2.2008 8:17pm
Randy R. (mail):
"She's for government interference in our private lives through her anti-abortion stance, among others. So why the credulous Hosannas for her?"

i don't know. She campaigned as a fiscal conservative for mayor, then raised spending by one-third and during her tenure tax revenues dropped one third as well.

Sure. she is Gov. For a whole 18 months, of a state has fewer duties on the gov than Texas does, if that's possible.

Curious: "Expect daily, ruthless unending trashing of McCain and Palin, everything they ever did or said until the polls all close on election day."

Unlike the Republicans, who never Swift Boat people or engage in ruthless unending trashing of Obama and Biden.

And please, what's elistist about eating arugula (which is very healthy) and sipping lattes (which are very tasty?) I have news for you, buddy, in Washington, everyone eats arugula and drinks lattes, including the conservatives! But I guess owning 12+ houses isn't considered elitist any more. It isn't elistist until you own at least 20.
9.2.2008 8:18pm
Nifonged:
"Am I the only person who speculates that after Obama's acceptance speech last week, Palin was the only one who would return McCain's calls? "

Of course not, there are plenty of Obama-worshipers with cognitive dissonance concerning the views of others who disagree with them.

This might be the silliest comment since the Palin-hating began.
9.2.2008 8:19pm
LN (mail):
If you're a Republican woman and campaign while you have children, you're a bad mother.

I'd love to know how you would react if Barack Obama had a 17-year-old pregnant daughter. But this is a distraction.
9.2.2008 8:20pm
AKD:
When the majority of accusations have been proven false within a few days, and almost all the remainder shown to have rather dull teeth, can't say the vetting process failed regardless of how it was conducted.

This whole situation does leave us with an important question: why did Barack Obama fail to properly vet and eliminate himself before campaigning for president. This seriously calls into question his judgement and readiness to serve as a vice president...I mean, president.

:P
9.2.2008 8:21pm
wotc (mail):
York's article:

a) does not rebut the claim that McCain's people didn't even arrive in Alaska until the day before he announced the pick;

b) does not rebut the claim that no one in Alaska reports being questioned by McCain's people;

c) does not explain why, if McCain knew that Palin's daughter was pregnant, he didn't let the story leak BEFORE announcing the pick (which would have seriously reduced the public damage here);

d) does not explain why Mrs. Palin herself is still refusing to talk to reporters, which would seem to be the most necessary and obvious step for damage control after the disastrous weekend they've had.

Color me unimpressed. NYT wins this round.
9.2.2008 8:21pm
DangerMouse:
I'd love to know how you would react if Barack Obama had a 17-year-old pregnant daughter. But this is a distraction.


Well, I certainly wouldn't want that daughter to have an abortion. Obama would. He doesn't when them "punished with a baby."

The MSM would be in favor if it also. They love abortion. Democrats are the party of misogynists and baby killers.
9.2.2008 8:23pm
seadrive:
Bloggers, most of whom write off the top of their heads, and never do any independent research on anything, seem to feel that campaign workers, journalists, and just about anyone else who they want to talk about have infinite resources for research, total access to anyone they want to talk to, and all the time in the world. Of course, it's not true; never was; never will be.

People make mistakes, and sometimes I think, they get things wrong more often than they get things write. Anyone who is subject to reporting will tell you that newspaper stores are very rarely 100% correct. That's life in the real world.
9.2.2008 8:25pm
LN (mail):
I LOVE eating babies, DangerMouse. Dee-licious.
9.2.2008 8:27pm
William D. Tanksley, Jr:
Unlike the Republicans, who never Swift Boat people or engage in ruthless unending trashing of Obama and Biden.


I hope you're trying to exaggerate. The repubs and the demos both have trashers, neither side is clean in that respect. But you are yourself one of the trashers by accusing the other side of "ruthless unending" trash talk.

If you'd qualify the statement a little it might be true, for example to say "some republicans", or if you'd be specific your statement might be refuted. As is, you statement is simply rhetorical exaggeration, and as such to vague to be refuted.

My take: both Obama and McCain have been very careful to rebuke the excesses of their party cohorts this cycle. I'm glad to see that.
9.2.2008 8:27pm
Scote (mail):
@wotc:

I'm rather surprised by Prof. Lindgren's thread. He doesn't seemed to have vetted the Byron York article at all, but, instead, has credulously accepted it whole and without even bothering to justify his credulity. I would hope Lindgren's standard of proof is usually higher, because this thread's OP doesn't stand up to a simple sniff test.
9.2.2008 8:29pm
PC:
Of course it's now well-documented that Todd Palin belonged to a secessionist party from 1995 to 2002, when she ran for governor.

So why does Todd Palin hate America??


That is totally out of bounds. If Michelle Obama belonged to a secessionist party as recently as 6 years ago, no conservative would attack her for it. They wouldn't even question her patriotism.
9.2.2008 8:31pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
Shorter Lindgren: The NYT is mistaken about McCain not vetting Palin. I know this because the McCain campaign says so.

Using this logic[?], OJ must be innocent, too.

If the campaign had known about some of this information, they would have been better prepared to handle it. And there's still the fact that people who would have been contacted in a proper vetting, weren't.
9.2.2008 8:32pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
'The media narrative on Palin seems to be driven by the idea that she is obviously unqualified,'

You obviously missed NPR's tongue-bath of Palin today.
9.2.2008 8:35pm
LN (mail):
Once again, the New York Times reported McCain's side of the story, and nothing else in the article has been contradicted by anyone! So WTF is the problem?

Oh yeah, the story is bad for McCain, so the press must be doing the Democrats' work for them! The media is BIASED!
9.2.2008 8:36pm
Anderson (mail):
Lindgren's post is absolutely terrible

Agreed. He's done much, much better.

The anonymous campaign source doesn't seem to've talked to the Wasilla city clerk, since she told a journalist "you're the first person to come asking" for city council records re: Palin.

Regardless of Palin's merits -- which are real -- the issue is, did McCain's campaign do a thorough, professional job here?

They did not. It's not really disputable.

The story we have -- that she wasn't even on the short list, that McCain chose her in what seems to be a fit of annoyance after being talked out of Lieberman and Ridge -- fits the known facts a lot better than any "oh yeah, we knew all about this lady" CYA spin.
9.2.2008 8:40pm
Anderson (mail):
You obviously missed NPR's tongue-bath of Palin today.

DON'T distract me like that, Eagar. I'm a married man.
9.2.2008 8:40pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
It is unfair to criticize Todd Palin for being a member of the AIP. He dropped out right after his wife got involved in state-wide office, when it was no longer convenient to be a member of that party. He proved that he is willing to sacrifice his principles for his wife's political career and chance for power. What more can you want from a political spouse than that?
9.2.2008 8:44pm
roy (mail) (www):
How much more thorough would the vetting have to be to find a candidate who has no non-scandals which people who are already inclined to dislike the Republican ticket might pretend are real scandals? McCain could have named Jesus as his running mate, and he would have been criticized as pandering to the Jewish lobby.

(Not that Troopergate isn't necessarily a genuine scandal, but it'd be the only one so far, and one is a pretty good number for a politician)
9.2.2008 8:44pm
cubanbob (mail):
""she belonged to a secessionist party"

Nope. She never was a democrat. Speaking of vetting, just how are the dims going to explain choosing an empty suit with delusions of grandeur who happens to be the handpicked candidate of the Chicago mob and the communist left along with his trusty sidekick the bloviating, plagiarist hair plug who is old enough to be Obama's father and has had a brain aneurysm ? Some fab job of vetting.

Randy just curious, just what are the onerous duties of a part time state senator, part time US senator and failed community activist? By the Obama metric Palin is ultra qualified. Far more than him. Perhaps he ought to debate her since he seems to be running for VP. Swift boating is pointing out the obvious lies and frauds of the treasonous democrats. Still waiting to see Kerry's discharge papers that promised he would release 4 years ago. And an explanation for meeting with the enemy in Paris while still an officer and an apology for his winter soldier infamy.
9.2.2008 8:45pm
Elliot123 (mail):
I suspect the liberals have seriously misread conservative evangelical's views on mothers of pregnant teenagers. They will not withhold their votes because the kid got pregnant, but will evaluate how the mother, daughter, and family dealt with the pregnancy. On that score, she will gain with conservative evangelicals.

And her husband got a DUI 22 years ago? Calling Ted Kennedy!

It is a bit surprising the liberals have such a poor understanding of their opposition. It's really not that difficult. Do they really think a pregnant daughter and a husband's 22 year old DUI are disqualifying in the eyes of anyone? Who?
9.2.2008 8:45pm
Scote (mail):

You obviously missed NPR's tongue-bath of Palin today.

DON'T distract me like that, Eagar. I'm a married man


Hmm...too bad NPR is radio...

As an aside, it is almost always the case that we vote for attractive candidates, whether they are male or female. So any claims of sexism towards Palin because she is attractive must be judged in that light.
9.2.2008 8:46pm
loki13 (mail):
DangerMouse,

I hate babies; in fact, I was recently turned down for my patent for "Dead babies on a stick" (would have been huge at the fairs next to the deep-fried arugula and frozen latte slurpees). However, I also likey zee ladeez!

Tell me, does the modern Democratic Party have a place for me, or do I have to start hating zee ladeez first?
9.2.2008 8:47pm
William D. Tanksley, Jr:
That is totally out of bounds. If Michelle Obama belonged to a secessionist party as recently as 6 years ago, no conservative would attack her for it. They wouldn't even question her patriotism.


That's well-put.

But let's be specific. Todd Palin belonged to a secessionist party which had just been co-opted by a non-secessionist former Republican in order to launch a successful attack against the corrupt state establishment (because that establishment owned the state Republican party entirely). In that circumstance, the party's plank becomes less useful to determine the candidate's spouse's views, and thus less useful as a proxy for the candidate's views.

And it was already a pretty bad proxy. Or would you disagree with that?
9.2.2008 8:48pm
astrangerwithcandy (mail):

Unlike the Republicans, who never Swift Boat people or engage in ruthless unending trashing of Obama and Biden.


i am eagerly awaiting the phrase we settle on for this rather vile process that has erupted in the media since the announcement of palin as VP. after 4 years of hearing "swiftboat" as the definitive trump card in any political conversation with liberals, the right will now have its own victim card to play!

will it be a simple "palin'd" or something more fun? maybe "media baked alaska" or "the bear treatment"
9.2.2008 8:48pm
Verruckt:
DangerMouse wrote:


The MSM would be in favor if it also. They love abortion. Democrats are the party of misogynists and baby killers.


The above comment clearly violates this blog's comment policy. This kind of thing has been getting rather tiresome of late. The standard of comments around here used to be so much higher.
9.2.2008 8:50pm
someone:

LN: "I'd love to know how you would react if Barack Obama had a 17-year-old pregnant daughter. But this is a distraction."


First, if it's a "distraction," why do you try to make the point?

Second, and although the question wasn't directed to me, I wouldn't give a shit if Obama had a 17-year-old daughter who was pregnant. The question for you is why do you believe it matters that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant? What is your argument?
9.2.2008 8:50pm
Curious Passerby (mail):
I'm with AKD. The Democrats obviously didn't vet BHO enough.
9.2.2008 8:51pm
astrangerwithcandy (mail):

And her husband got a DUI 22 years ago? Calling Ted Kennedy!



someone died when Todd drove drunk?
9.2.2008 8:51pm
loki13 (mail):
a stranger with candy-

Call it bear baiting. The candidate is the bear. The press is the dogs. The blogosphere is the spectators around the pit.
9.2.2008 8:52pm
metro1 (mail) (www):
The mainstream media are almost all in the tank for the Democratic Party.

It's precisely at times like this that it's spectacularly exposed.
9.2.2008 8:52pm
LN (mail):
someone -- I can answer your question quite easily -- I don't give a shit.

Why did you think this is such a hard question for me?
9.2.2008 8:53pm
someone:
Verruckt, if you're not going to put in the umlaut, as least spell it "Verrueckt."
9.2.2008 8:53pm
noname (mail):
To say that the press is doing the Democrats' work for them would be an understatement.

Congratulations, you just discovered what many of us have already known, how intense and fanatic press bias can be when the stakes are high.

Actually, they are just doing to the anti-federal Sarah Palin what VC helped do to the anti-federal Ron Paul. If she wasn't the VP choice of your favorite neocon Senator you'd be sliming her too.
9.2.2008 8:56pm
CJColucci:
Taking York's source's account at face value -- and insofar as he states seeming facts rather than opinions, I see no reason not to -- the McCain people used a quick and superficial vetting process, more or less in line with what the Times reported, and terrible judgment about how to handle what even this quick and superficial vetting process turned up.
9.2.2008 8:58pm
astrangerwithcandy (mail):
you are picking out a single comment that runs afoul of the comment policy? this whole thread runs afoul of the policy! every semi-political post on this blog elicits responses that run afoul of the policy. its tiresome to read nutball comments from the left and the right. of course, i am quite sure you weren't there with your finger wagging when several infrequent conspirators posted and started an absurd mcccain/palin bashing that quickly became incomprehensible.


The above comment clearly violates this blog's comment policy. This kind of thing has been getting rather tiresome of late. The standard of comments around here used to be so much higher.
9.2.2008 8:58pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
I just got off the phone with the very helpful city clerk at the Wasilla City Clerk's office, Kristie Smithers, who is pulling some documents for me from when Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor.

I told her I appreciated her help, since I'm sure she's been bombarded with requests these last few weeks. The clerk's office keeps all City Council meeting agendas, minutes, legislation, ordinances, etc. She chuckled. Then she told me that I'm the first person who has asked her office for anything.
McCain had five months to pick his VP. He seems to have approached it like a teenager with his first high school paper, waiting until the night before it was due.
9.2.2008 9:00pm
dr:
At this point, this entire blog violates the VC's comments policy.
9.2.2008 9:01pm
someone:
LN, I guess I was too subtle. You had previously remarked to another commenter, "I'd love to know how you would react if Barack Obama had a 17-year-old pregnant daughter." The obvious implication was that you thought that commenter was being hypocritical because you thought that commenter would've been hard on Obama but was looking the other way with Palin. You offered nothing whatsoever in the way of evidence to support your insinuation. My question, which was poorly expressed, was meant to make that point.

Further, you didn't answer my question as to why you try to make a point that you yourself deem a "distraction." Seems a little strange, no?
9.2.2008 9:01pm
LN (mail):
The mainstream media are almost all in the tank for the Democratic Party.

It's precisely at times like this that it's spectacularly exposed


Someone else who doesn't know how to read a newspaper article.
9.2.2008 9:02pm
RSwan (mail):
The Washington Post has an article stating Mrs. Palin has been in Senator McCain's site for a since at least February and has met with her several times. It seems to contradict several of the NY Times points, although the thrusts of the articles are different.

The only serious issue is the trooper stuff, all the rest is tickytack stuff only the partisans on her opponent's side care about.
9.2.2008 9:02pm
Jeff Boghosian (mail):
Regarding the 'bridge to nowhere', if the McCain's position is that she was fully politically vetted and he knew about her true position, then McCain was intentionally lying about her true position. Important because it undercuts her appearance as a pork-fighter, it shows McCain to be a liar, and it shows that McCain thinks he can just plain make up a story and not be called on it. Sounds like to me if he wants to have any credibility he'd be better off by saying that she wasn't fully vetted.
9.2.2008 9:04pm
Anderson (mail):
Cubanbob: an empty suit with delusions of grandeur who happens to be the handpicked candidate of the Chicago mob

The newspapers in Cuba are reporting on a very different Obama, it seems.

I'll buy that line the same time I buy that McCain is carrying out the final steps of the brainwashing inflicted by the North Vietnamese under the expert guidance of SPECTRE.
9.2.2008 9:05pm
rarango (mail):
Loki--I assume you were talking about Roger Schafly but since my given name is also Roger I assumed you just might be addressing me--besides you and I have already agreed twice today and the fifth blue moon has set :)
and for the record--I dont care about pro life pro choice issues. Enjoy the convention. I dont have a TV and my view would be that conventions disrupt dismal programs that how matter no dismal, I would rather watch anyway.
9.2.2008 9:05pm
DangerMouse:
The above comment clearly violates this blog's comment policy. This kind of thing has been getting rather tiresome of late. The standard of comments around here used to be so much higher.

Meh. I was asked a question and I answered. If you don't think that the recent reaction to Palin demonstrates that the Democrats and their media allies are misogynist towards Republican women, then you've got your head in the sand. And I reiterate that Democrats are the party of baby killers. They love abortion, and will gladly defend Obama's vote for infanticide.
9.2.2008 9:06pm
LN (mail):
someone -- I was talking to a commenter who thinks that Democrats are primarily defined by being baby-killers and antifeminist.

Let's be honest, if Barack Obama had a 17-year-old pregnant daughter, he'd have exactly ZERO chance of being a Presidential nominee. He's a freaking black man for Christ's sake. And people like DangerMouse would be decrying how liberal Democrats are contributing to the destruction of family values.

And as another commenter noted above, if Michelle Obama belonged to a separatist group, her patriotism would be challenged.

All side points, but all true. My main point here is that there is absolutely nothing objectionable about the New York Times article that Lindgren neglected to link to in his post. And of course, that still stands as well.
9.2.2008 9:07pm
William D. Tanksley, Jr:
"Someone else who doesn't know how to read a newspaper article."

LN, it's not "a" newspaper article. It's three critical front-page newspaper articles in the Times today, all of them spouting first-twitch Democratic reactions as though those were the significant news.

Three front-page articles!

Wow, I hope they spelled McCain's name right.
9.2.2008 9:08pm
loki13 (mail):

you are picking out a single comment that runs afoul of the comment policy? this whole thread runs afoul of the policy!
.....................
At this point, this entire blog violates the VC's comments policy.


Son, we post on a blog that has rules and those rules need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, *someone*? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for DangerMouse and curse the Kosheads; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that DangerMouse's scolding, while tragic, probably saved further nutty comments and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the comment policy because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me at the end of blogpost, you need me as a note to helpful readers. We use words like civility, no profanity, and no personal insults. We use then as the backbone of a blog trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a commenter who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a keyboard and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
9.2.2008 9:08pm
Cold Warrior:
Let this self-appointed voice of reason settle things once and for all:

NYT stories: fair overall, but they could show a bit more NYT-like restraint in their ledes

Why should I care? Teen pregnancy melodrama

I do care, because it says something about her political philosophy: the AIC support, including hubby's membership

I kind of care, for the same reasons: unnecessary sucking up to Pat Buchanan in 1996. In other words, 4 years after the rest of the USA recognized him as a fringe loony rather than a serious Republican candidate.

I care a little, but it wouldn't alter my opinion of her in any meaningful way: troopergate (ok, so she loves her sister and maybe did the hatchet job a bit too bluntly) and Bridge to Nowhere flip-flopped (hey, it was her job to bring home the bacon then, but it'll be her job to kill the pork if she's JC's veep.

In short, I like the libertarian tendencies, but worry that sheay too easily be swayed by the false libertarian-populism of the Buchanan set. And while the kid's pregnancy has no direct impact on me, I have to admit that the apparent lack of commitment to academic success in the Palin family (after all, how often is it that a governor's first 2 kids don't go the normal college route?) tends to make me think the Palins ain't all that smart. Call me an elitist, but I'm telling it like it is. And don't get all worked up about the military thing - I have nothing against ROTC, and that's what high achievers interested in a military career will typically do. Does that make me a bundle of prejudices? No more so than the rest of the electorate, including those who are inspired by the way the Palins respond to adversity.
9.2.2008 9:08pm
rarango (mail):
And to the commenters who have bemoaned the subject matter, count me in--This blog as been a joy to me; I have used it my public admin classes with appropriate permissions. My students have gotten a lot from it. Please Conspirators: leave the political commentary to other blogs and focus on what you do best--
9.2.2008 9:08pm
Verruckt:

you are picking out a single comment that runs afoul of the comment policy? this whole thread runs afoul of the policy! every semi-political post on this blog elicits responses that run afoul of the policy. its tiresome to read nutball comments from the left and the right. of course, i am quite sure you weren't there with your finger wagging when several infrequent conspirators posted and started an absurd mcccain/palin bashing that quickly became incomprehensible.


I'm sorry but calling people "baby killers" crosses a whole different line as far as this thread goes. I'm an occasional reader of VC and I don't read every post. I don't see how I'm required to comment on every single post in order to have an opinion about one of them. But the broader point I was trying to make is that it's an example of how the tone around here has taken a drastic nosedive recently, from the perspective of an occasional reader who used to admire VC for its higher level of discourse.
9.2.2008 9:10pm
deepthought:
The LA Times reports in an article on the subject:

One Republican strategist with close ties to the campaign described the candidate's closest supporters as "keeping their fingers crossed" in hopes that additional information does not force McCain to revisit the decision. According to this Republican, who would discuss internal campaign strategizing only on condition of anonymity, the McCain team used little more than a Google Internet search as part of a rushed effort to review Palin's potential pitfalls. Just over a week ago, Palin was not on McCain's short list of potential running mates, the Republican said.


I guess McCain wasn't kidding when he said:
You know, basically it's a Google," he said to laughter at a fund-raising luncheon when asked how the selection process was going. "What you can find out now on the Internet -- it's remarkable."
9.2.2008 9:11pm
deepthought:
The LA Times reports in an article on the subject:

One Republican strategist with close ties to the campaign described the candidate's closest supporters as "keeping their fingers crossed" in hopes that additional information does not force McCain to revisit the decision. According to this Republican, who would discuss internal campaign strategizing only on condition of anonymity, the McCain team used little more than a Google Internet search as part of a rushed effort to review Palin's potential pitfalls. Just over a week ago, Palin was not on McCain's short list of potential running mates, the Republican said.


I guess McCain wasn't kidding when he said:
You know, basically it's a Google," he said to laughter at a fund-raising luncheon when asked how the selection process was going. "What you can find out now on the Internet -- it's remarkable."
9.2.2008 9:11pm
DangerMouse:
Let's be honest, if Barack Obama had a 17-year-old pregnant daughter, he'd have exactly ZERO chance of being a Presidential nominee. He's a freaking black man for Christ's sake. And people like DangerMouse would be decrying how liberal Democrats are contributing to the destruction of family values.

I can't speak to the racism of the Democrat primary voters that you allude to in your post. Perhaps they are as racist as you claim. Maybe a Democrat here would like to inform us more of the racism inherent in their party?

But anyway, liberal democrats contribute to the destruction of family values by arguing that anytime a teenager is pregnant, she should abort her baby. That destroys family values more than mere out-of-wedlock sex. But that distinction must be beyond you.
9.2.2008 9:11pm
deepthought:
Sorry for the double post.
9.2.2008 9:12pm
DangerMouse:
I'm sorry but calling people "baby killers" crosses a whole different line as far as this thread goes.

Abortion kills babies. Democrats are a party committed to abortion. Obama is such a radical that he basically voted in favor of infanticide. None of this should surprise anyone.

I'm sorry it offends your sensibilities, but abortion is a gruesome business.
9.2.2008 9:16pm
someone:
DangerMouse is indeed over the top, but you still had no reason to pull out the implicit charge of hypocrisy. And certainly not all, or even most, Palin supporters would have criticized Obama had he had a 17-year-old daughter who was pregnant.

Let's be honest, if Barack Obama had a 17-year-old pregnant daughter, he'd have exactly ZERO chance of being a Presidential nominee. He's a freaking black man for Christ's sake. And people like DangerMouse would be decrying how liberal Democrats are contributing to the destruction of family values.

I don't agree at all that Obama would have "ZERO chance of being a Presidential nominee" if he a pregnant daughter, and I was already being honest. I agree that a certain segment of the population on the right, such as DangerMouse, would probably be screaming about Democrats trying to destroy family values, or some such thing.

You refer to your "main point," but as it was made clear from my point in responding to you, my point was that you had no basis for the imputation of hypocrisy, which is an all-too-common (cheap) rhetorical trick in political discourse.
9.2.2008 9:18pm
astrangerwithcandy (mail):
loki, what is that from?
9.2.2008 9:19pm
loki13 (mail):
DangerMouse-

I think there is an apparent contradiction in your logic.

You believe:

1. Democrats love to kill babies.
2. Democrats hate zee ladeez.

However, everyone knows that lady loving leads to babies. So, if Democrats want a constant supply of babies to kill, they'd have to love more of zee ladeez! So which is it? I'd think, given that Democracts love to kill the babies so much, there's be a whole lot of lady-lovin'! It would explain the Clinton years. :P
9.2.2008 9:19pm
ChrisIowa (mail):

Lindgren's post is absolutely terrible

Agreed. He's done much, much better.


Don't dis Professor Lindgren. He's as straight a shooter as they come. I disagree with him sometimes on philosophy, but he reports and analyzes both sides well. If you can't figure out the post that's your fault not his.

The fact is that the press *has* been carrying water for Obama on this and many other things as well.
9.2.2008 9:20pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):

Todd Palin belonged to a secessionist party which had just been co-opted by a non-secessionist former Republican in order to launch a successful attack against the corrupt state establishment (because that establishment owned the state Republican party entirely). In that circumstance, the party's plank becomes less useful to determine the candidate's spouse's views, and thus less useful as a proxy for the candidate's views.


He was a member for 7 years, 1995 to 2002, so I don't think you can say Palin joined just because the Gov. Hickel ran on that ticket. Indeed, Hickel ran on the AIP ticket, and was governor from 1990 to 1994. Hickel left the AIP and Palin joined the party.
9.2.2008 9:20pm
Verruckt:

Abortion kills babies. Democrats are a party committed to abortion. Obama is such a radical that he basically voted in favor of infanticide. None of this should surprise anyone.


Civility in political discourse is what would surprise me, if I were to see it exhibited by you.
9.2.2008 9:21pm
loki13 (mail):
astrangerwithcandy-

I got it from Joe Biden.

(It may have also shown up in A Few Good Men)
9.2.2008 9:21pm
LN (mail):
someone -- I think we can both agree that my engaging DangerMouse was a mistake, and leave it at that.
9.2.2008 9:23pm
Nunzio:
Palin and Obama are both underwhelming candidates with some attractive qualities and some heavy unknowns. Obama is a smart person and maybe Palin is as well. Properly vetted or not as far as her background goes, I have to think she will continue to come off as articulate, rational, and thoughtful.

The reason most people aren't scared to death of Obama is because we've seen him and heard from him a lot in the past year, and, regardless of his political views and some of his affiliations, he seems like a sensible man.

Palin will probably come off as sensible as well, which in the end is all the counts.

I hope we can at least agree that she is a better pick than John Edwards and Dan Quayle were.
9.2.2008 9:24pm
byomtov (mail):
Relying on what some anonymous source told someone from NRO to refute the claims made in the NYT article is pretty lame.

If you were a "senior Republican strategist" who wanted to claim the NYT got it all wrong, without being questioned very much, and wanted to be sure whatever you said got printed, you might well pick York or some other NRO tool, like Goldberg.
9.2.2008 9:25pm
someone:

DangerMouse: "Abortion kills babies. Democrats are a party committed to abortion."



First, as a factual matter, the statement about Democrats is only partially true. It's true that generally Democrats are pro-choice and that generally Republicans are pro-life, but there are many exceptions on both sides.

Second, the claim that "abortion kills babies" assumes that the "things" being aborted are in fact "babies," which is kind of at the heart of the whole debate. I'm not going to get into it beyond that, lest the thread be completely hijacked.
9.2.2008 9:26pm
Per Son:
I am officially retiring from reading comments on this blog.

Game over man.
9.2.2008 9:26pm
CJS (mail):
Check out the wizbang blog from May 29 - I can't figure out how to get the link on here. The head of McCain's vetting team was spotted in Juneau in late May...

It's September. It's the GOP convention. There will be plenty of interviews with reporters for Mrs. Palin in the future. Talk about a tempest in a teacup - this really does make the Dems look desperate...
9.2.2008 9:27pm
Scote (mail):

ChrisIowa (mail):
Don't dis Professor Lindgren. He's as straight a shooter as they come. I disagree with him sometimes on philosophy, but he reports and analyzes both sides well.


Those qualities are completely lacking in this thread. Allegedly good past performance earns him no free pass in this post when he has so demonstrably accepted the NRO article without question. Or as Andrew J. Lazarus put it so sucinctly:


Shorter Lindgren: The NYT is mistaken about McCain not vetting Palin. I know this because the McCain campaign says so.
9.2.2008 9:37pm
someone:

Scote: "Those qualities are completely lacking in this thread. Allegedly good past performance earns him no free pass in this post when he has so demonstrably accepted the NRO article without question."



Did you miss this part of Lindgren's post?


I don't get it. Are the New York Times reporters just printing what the Obama people are telling them (as Byron York is explicitly doing for the other side)? Or is one side or the other simply lying? Or both?
9.2.2008 9:42pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
I'm not aware of any evidence that the NYT is printing material fed them by Obama. They are printing material they found with their own, belated journalism.
9.2.2008 9:47pm
roy (mail) (www):
To those criticising Lindgren: I agree that uncritically passing along McCain campaign claims does not trump the NYT articles, but it's worth re-reading the end of the actual post:

I don't get it. Are the New York Times reporters just printing what the Obama people are telling them (as Byron York is explicitly doing for the other side)? Or is one side or the other simply lying? Or both?

I guess we should be happy that there are now alternative sources of information, or too often most of us would hear only one side of the story.


With that, I don't think it's fair to read the post as endorsing the pro-McCain claims. It's about the problem of one-sided stories, of which both the NYT's York's articles are examples. His complaints about the NYT do not suggest that the the other side of the story is correct, only that the other side of the story should be visible too.
9.2.2008 9:47pm
Scote (mail):
Lindgren didn't even provide a link to the NYT article. His preference is clear from his presentation.
9.2.2008 9:49pm
rarango (mail):
Gee Scote--it is the NYT--ya think you could have looked that up yourself?
9.2.2008 9:54pm
Uthaw:
"Perhaps you forgot that liberals selected a woman for the VP back in 1984,"

Apparently this gives the Democrats the ability to take cheap shots at women candidates forever, and still avoid the charge of misogyny. It's like a Presidential pardon with the name and date left blank! It's probably the most valuable thing the Democrats got out of the 1984 election - other than that, Mondale spent umpteen million bucks on his campaign, and only got 13 more electoral votes than I did.
9.2.2008 9:59pm
Eli Rabett (www):
How many names is Sarcasto posting under in this thread?
9.2.2008 10:00pm
tom (mail):
Members of the Obama cult: if your messiah had ever once taken a political stance half as "ballsy" as Palin's "flip flop" on the bridge to nowhere, he'd have the race in the bag already. It would have been very easy for Palin to just sign off on the federal money for the bridge project, then comment that while she did not think it was wise use of US taxpayer money, she could not stand in the way of an economic development opportunity for her constituents in Alaska. That's what almost every pol in DC does - including your beloved Obama. But, I guess once you start down that path, you better stay slopping at the trough thenceforward (like Joe Biden), lest Obama cultists accuse you of inconsistency.
9.2.2008 10:02pm
Toby:
Funny how a few short moments in Google will demonstrate:

a) Palin has been being discussed as a VP (originally for Rudy) since July 2007
b) McCain has been taken with her since February 2008
c) Newsweek was interviewing her about being VP in March-April of 2008
d) an internet poll of interested voters picked her as their favorite VP candidate in early July

And yet we are expected to believe that serious political reporters, of great expereince, were surprise by her and that this pick was out of the blue.

Those serious political reporters are most generaously viewed as incompetent lazy hacks, or more accurately as lazy partisan hacks. Pick one.
9.2.2008 10:04pm
Dan M.:
I think that 3 front page articles is certainly over the top. And as I understand it the AIP wants a new vote on Alaskan statehood and it's members do not necessarily have a hardline secessionist stance.
9.2.2008 10:07pm
cubanbob (mail):
"Anderson (mail):
Cubanbob: an empty suit with delusions of grandeur who happens to be the handpicked candidate of the Chicago mob

The newspapers in Cuba are reporting on a very different Obama, it seems.

I'll buy that line the same time I buy that McCain is carrying out the final steps of the brainwashing inflicted by the North Vietnamese under the expert guidance of SPECTRE."

You must be one of useful idiots that reads and believes Castro's communist garbage. As for the Manchurian Candidate, that's your guy The Empty Suit, the Trojan horse for the Chicago mob's mouth piece the Chicago Democratic machine.

Someone "Second, the claim that "abortion kills babies" assumes that the "things" being aborted are in fact "babies," which is kind of at the heart of the whole debate. I'm not going to get into it beyond that, lest the thread be completely hijacked." Gee live and learn. Never knew that woman became heavy with "things". Who knew?
9.2.2008 10:07pm
dr:

I'm not going to get into it beyond that, lest the thread be completely hijacked.




...aaaaaaaaaand... too late.
9.2.2008 10:08pm
Dan M.:
As for the "flip flop" on the bridge to nowhere, she killed the project when it became apparent that it wouldn't fit in the state's budget. I don't expect any governor or mayor to oppose federal money. I do expect a governor to responsibly manage the state budget, and a president to responsibly manage the federal budget.
9.2.2008 10:09pm
Matt Austin (mail):

Members of the Obama cult: if your messiah had ever once taken a political stance half as "ballsy" as Palin's "flip flop" on the bridge to nowhere, he'd have the race in the bag already. It would have been very easy for Palin to just sign off on the federal money for the bridge project, then comment that while she did not think it was wise use of US taxpayer money, she could not stand in the way of an economic development opportunity for her constituents in Alaska.

Is this a joke? I really don't understand what you're saying. Which part was "ballsy"? Telling the community that wanted the bridge that she was for it when she ran for governor, telling the country she was against it once it became a national issue, or keeping the money and continuing to build a road to where the bridge *was* going to be?

Yes, real balls.
9.2.2008 10:09pm
someone:

Scote: "Lindgren didn't even provide a link to the NYT article. His preference is clear from his presentation."



rarango: "Gee Scote--it is the NYT--ya think you could have looked that up yourself?"



As for Lindgren's preferences, Scote, I guess you mean the part where Lindgren queries:


I don't get it. Are the New York Times reporters just printing what the Obama people are telling them (as Byron York is explicitly doing for the other side)? Or is one side or the other simply lying? Or both?


A link to the NYT article would've been desirable, sure, but are you serious about complaining about that? Did you have trouble finding the NYT online?
9.2.2008 10:13pm
The Ace (mail):
Loved this gem from the Daily Kos:


"If health insurance for all, an end to the Iraq War, an end to torture and illegal wiretapping, and a sane energy policy can be obtained at the price of destroying one teenage girl, her family, and the surrendering our self-respect I see that as a cheap trade."


As I said earlier, the left has no agenda other than be in power.
9.2.2008 10:14pm
The Ace (mail):
How about if Sarah Palin actually talks to a reporter and answers their questions, like a normal politician?

Laugh out loud funny.

When is the last time Obama held a Q&A?
How did Obama "answer" about his relationship with Ayers again?

You Obama voters are delusional.
9.2.2008 10:19pm
someone:

cubanbob: "Never knew that woman became heavy with 'things'. Who knew?"


You're completely clueless, aren't you? Obviously I put the word "things" in quotation marks so as to avoid calling the fetuses/babies/inchoate humans/whatever in question either "fetuses" or "babies," which would essentially be assuming the point in question. Was that not clear to you?
9.2.2008 10:19pm
Barbara Skolaut (mail):

Are the New York Times reporters just printing what the Obama people are telling them?

Well, yeah. And the LA Slimes and WaPo and CNN and NBC and CBS....

The Left really must be frightened of her. Maybe because she's more experienced and qualified to be President than Obama is?
9.2.2008 10:21pm
loki13 (mail):
Nice trick, The Ace!

Take one unhinged post on DailyKos as representative of "the Left" (boy, I miss those posts). Can I repost DangerMouse, or YOU, as representative of the Volokh Conspiracy. How about a freeper going off on the Caliphate and the 57 Islamic States of HUSSEIN and how he's a Hamas plant over at FreeRepublic ... is that representative of "The Right"?

Synecdoche ad absurdum.
9.2.2008 10:26pm
cubanbob (mail):
Matt Austin like B. Hussein Obama's ear mark to his wife's employer and her miraculous simultaneous 160% pay raise?
When is the NYT going to look in to Obama's role in doling out 49 million to unrepentant communist terrorist Bill Ayers and Ayers friends and associates?
Or how he relied on a convicted criminal who had ties to S. Hussein to purchase his house? His ties to liberation theology priests and Black Nationalist reverends? The only thing Obama can run is his mouth and for that he needs a teleprompter and a script writer.
9.2.2008 10:33pm
Verruckt:

The Ace: "When is the last time Obama held a Q&A?"


Two days ago. Guess you missed 60 Minutes this week.
9.2.2008 10:36pm
loki13 (mail):
cubanbob,

You wrote . . . oh, you wrote Hussein. I thought you had something to add to the conversation.
9.2.2008 10:39pm
The Ace (mail):
Two days ago. Guess you missed 60 Minutes this week.

Hilarious.

Um, those questions can be negotiated and that is not a "Q&A"
9.2.2008 10:44pm
mac (mail) (www):
If America elects McCain/Palin to top office it deserves everything it gets. Could there be a more unfortunate pair of misfits ... doddering John "Amnesiac" McCain, gaffe-machine extraordinaire ("Vladimir Putin the President of Germany" etc etc) and Sarah "barracuda" Palin ... hockey mom/beauty queen/ sports jock/small town avenger ... with beliefs that make Genghis Khan seem progressive.

God help us all.
9.2.2008 10:51pm
The Ace (mail):
Take one unhinged post on DailyKos as representative of "the Left"

Here are two more:


"Are you telling me that you would not use character-destroying lies to ensure a war against Iran does not occur? . . . What choice do we have? When faced with monsters, we have to be monstrous ourselves.


And,

Are you telling me you would not destroy the love a family holds for one another, even if it meant letting someone who would destroy the constitution become president?


By the way, are you seriously suggesting nobody on the left associated say Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's 9-11 quotes with Republicans?
9.2.2008 10:52pm
someone:
After reading mac's comments, I agree that the VC's comments have gone downhill.
9.2.2008 10:54pm
loki13 (mail):
The Ace,


Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are, uh, listened to by many people. There's a difference between them and anonymous posters on political blogs. Surely you can see that. I would not ascribe the worst dreck the freepers write to "the right" nor do I ascribe the worst dreck the kosheads write to "the left". Doing so would be as silly as ascribing your posts to Eugene Volokh.

And you wouldn't like EV when he's angry . . .
9.2.2008 10:57pm
rarango (mail):
Someone: re Scote I see two possibilities--he's a partner and his or her associates do the looking up; or hes a tenured academic and his or her RA look it up. Neither reflects well
9.2.2008 10:59pm
someone:
Ditto for The Ace, because liko13 never said (or even suggested) that "nobody on the left associated Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's 9-11 quotes with Republicans," so it's just plain stupidity to ask whether loki13 was "seriously suggesting" that.
9.2.2008 10:59pm
loki13 (mail):
Also, as an aside, I have a problem with "the right" and "the left" (might explain why I never get my shoes on the correct foot). I don't think Falwell and Robertson are representative of "the Right"; I think they are influential with the religious right. That's a distinction. I don't think that, for example, Ilya Somin (libertarian), Ex. Gov. Whitman (pro-choice), the Governator (R-Opportunist), or even McCain have much in common with Falwell, although McCain has to at least appear to tolerate him after his 2000 flameout.
9.2.2008 11:00pm
The Ace (mail):
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are, uh, listened to by many people

Um, the Daily Kos is the most visited political Web site on the Internet.

--------------------------------------
because liko13 never said (or even suggested) that "nobody on the left associated Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's 9-11 quotes with Republicans," so it's just plain stupidity to ask whether loki13 was "seriously suggesting" that

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking.
9.2.2008 11:03pm
Hoosier:
"LN (mail):
Hoosier: I can't say anymore. They've done some very slipshod reporting in recent years.

The Times article actually reports the McCain's camp's response (namely: oh yeah, she was vetted, none of the stuff coming out now was a surprise). You should try actually reading it before retreating into a "conveniently, everything that contradicts my worldview is just partisan hackery" stance."

You really are over the line now, buddy. That's a rather silly assessment of my posts here on VC. (Which is being generous in my assessment.)

As to the Times: If you can say that you honestly consider it "fair and balanced," then I suggest that one of us is in fact wearing partisan blinders. (Hint: Not me.)

As to "read the story": I read the Times every morning, chief. And even the quote from me that you cut-and pasted indicates that my compliant was not about one story, but about the trend of the Times "in recent years." Are you denying that the standards of reporting have slipped?

Think before you post. You're better than this.
9.2.2008 11:03pm
Hoosier:
"And please, what's elistist about eating arugula (which is very healthy) and sipping lattes (which are very tasty?)"

They're expensive(?)
9.2.2008 11:06pm
Anderson (mail):
How many names is Sarcasto posting under in this thread?

All of them, I hope. I'd hate to think that much of this is meant seriously.
9.2.2008 11:06pm
Anderson (mail):
They're expensive(?)

So is deer hunting.
9.2.2008 11:07pm
Verruckt:

The Ace: ... that is not a "Q&A"


Yeah, there's a lot more to a Q&A than just questions &answers. Oh wait.
9.2.2008 11:07pm
Cold Warrior:
This is absolutely hilarious: NBC is running Pres. Bush's recorded speech to the RNC. They're running it without the audience noise from the convention hall. Bush is leaving in "applause gaps" for all his big lines.

Brian Williams is apologizing now. The damage is done. Bush looked like an idiot. It'll be an instant youtube classic.
9.2.2008 11:07pm
Hoosier:
"Anderson :
They're expensive(?)

So is deer hunting."

Compared to plutonium, certainly.
9.2.2008 11:09pm
loki13 (mail):
The Ace,

I'm afraid you're no longer making sense. I think my own reading comprehension of what I wrote is decent. I never brought up Falwell or Robertson. You did. And I don't equate them with Republicans. Or "the Right" whatever that means to you. I do think they are influential figures with segments of the religious right, as is Dobson (among many others).

Can you pass the Turing Test?
9.2.2008 11:12pm
someone:

The Ace: "Your reading comprehension skills are lacking."



Okay, Ace, kindly point out where loki13 said or suggested that "nobody on the left associated Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's 9-11 quotes with Republicans," and I'll gladly retract my statement and apologize to you. Please, educate me.
9.2.2008 11:13pm
James Lindgren (mail):
deez,

I had to run an errand and added the second link when I got back (before I read your suggestion/complaint).

Also, York was the one who quoted from the Times. I don't usually provide internal links for other people's quotes, just a link to their post, but I sometimes do (for example, it took me a long time to add all the links for the Hurricane charities).
9.2.2008 11:20pm
Sarcastro (www):
Plutonium hunting?
9.2.2008 11:33pm
AKD:
9.2.2008 11:36pm
James Lindgren (mail):
Please read more carefully.

I didn't say which side was right. I said that I was watching CNBC and MSNBC and they didn't even suggest there was another side.

I ended by saying: "I don't get it. Are the New York Times reporters just printing what the Obama people are telling them (as Byron York is explicitly doing for the other side)? Or is one side or the other simply lying? Or both?"

Again, could I have been clearer that either the McCain side or the Obama side could be lying?

I titled the post: "Byron York reports McCain campaign responses to today's NY Times attack." I used such a long title because I wanted to be crystal clear that this was the McCain Campaign's response, filtered through York. And if you don't realize that the Times article is an attack on McCain, then you don't understand how the Times operates.

I didn't express a view on the merits of this dispute because, as I said, I didn't know whom to believe, but if I had been asked at the time, I would have said that the Times article was probably mostly true, but it was probably false in some particulars, and was probably spun as negatively as possible.

It appears to have been wrong in at least one particular: Sarah Palin's membership in the AIP.
9.2.2008 11:37pm
byomtov (mail):
I ended by saying: "I don't get it. Are the New York Times reporters just printing what the Obama people are telling them (as Byron York is explicitly doing for the other side)? Or is one side or the other simply lying? Or both?"

Again, could I have been clearer that either the McCain side or the Obama side could be lying?


So your view is that the NYT is simply "the Obama side?"

That's hard to justify. The article explicitly says much of its information comes from Republican operatives and officials. Do you think the NYT reporters are just plain lying about who their sources are?
9.2.2008 11:47pm
Mac (mail):

After reading mac's comments, I agree that the VC's comments have gone downhill.


someone,

That mac is not me, Mac. I really would not want anyone to confuse the two of us.
9.3.2008 12:03am
frankcross (mail):
Jim, I don't get this one. There's no reason to think the NYT is cueing off the Obama campaign. The WSJ and other papers had less overall coverage but it was basically the same point -- she was vetted but not terribly thoroughly, because the campaign wanted to be sure it was a surprise. I don't think the Obama campaign was the source of the Republican insiders quoted or the Alaskans of the Republican Party who were surprised they weren't asked.
9.3.2008 12:09am
someone:
Duly noted, Mac (not mac).
9.3.2008 12:13am
James Lindgren (mail):
I think some of you are being unfair to Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere. It's hard to turn down federal funds. When the state's share of the project was raised, she killed the project. Pork is popular in one's own town, state, or district.

Remember, both Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted in FAVOR of the Bridge to Nowhere, and John McCain voted against it.

It was part of a huge transportation bill, but it was so laden with earmarks and pork that McCain voted against it. Remember also that Obama was one of the bigger users of earmarks in the Senate, though he also pushed for more transparency in their use.
9.3.2008 12:19am
Brian K (mail):
And as another commenter noted above, if Michelle Obama belonged to a separatist group, her patriotism would be challenged.

haven't both her and obama's patriotism been questioned since essentially day 1 of the campaign?
9.3.2008 12:32am
loki13 (mail):
JL,

I don't think it's a big deal that she brought home the bacon to the state, that's what all local pols do (and what she also did as mayor). As an aside, it's too bad there's no invisible hand in government; that the politician's local self-interest --pork-- turns into national good, but I digress.

Anyway, the point that's being raised is that it might not have been such a good idea to make this a cornerstone of her introduction as a reformer. They could have keyed on her many other reformist qualities (such as the time on the Oil Board) instead of the Bridge. Or fronted in a weak/strong manner (originally, I accepted the federal funding on behalf of my constituents, but once I understood the issue, I rejected that wasteful earmark etc.). Again, had McCain's campaign had proper time to get everything in place, this might not have happened.
9.3.2008 12:45am
MarkField (mail):

I think some of you are being unfair to Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere. It's hard to turn down federal funds. When the state's share of the project was raised, she killed the project. Pork is popular in one's own town, state, or district.


What loki said. For her to say flat out that she opposed it was, to put it politely, misleading. It's hardly surprising if she then gets called on it.
9.3.2008 12:54am
TJIT (mail):
The alaska republicans are slinging dirt to the times because Palin was able to the republican leadership one thing reid and pelosi have been unable to do.....defeat them.

The View on Palin from an Alaskan Anti-Real ID Activist and Democrat

Q: So libertarian-minded people should be fine with that, right?

A: Let me tell you all the nice things about Sarah Palin: Sarah Palin has been a pretty freaking awesome governor. She came in saying that the entire system was corrupt, and that Republicans were evil, and she was going to just mix everything up and get us a gas pipeline and end of story. And she got to power, she was elected overwhelmingly by independents, beat Tony Knowles, who had been governor before.

The Republicans hate her. If you go and talk to the Alaska delegation here, they despise her.

Q: Really?

A: Hate her. Oh my god! This whole thing about her retarded son really being her daughter's was started by Lyda Green, who is president of the senate, a Republican. [...]

9.3.2008 1:04am
LN (mail):
Again, could I have been clearer that either the McCain side or the Obama side could be lying?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html

This article refers to the following people as sources. I don't see too many on the Obama campaign; can anyone help me?

Aides to McCain
A Republican with ties to the campaign
Republicans close to the campaign
several Republicans
a Republican close to the campaign
two Republicans familiar with the process
advisers to Mr. Pawlenty
Mr. McCain's advisers
A McCain aide
People familiar with the process
advisers to Mr. McCain
an F.B.I. official
Mark Salter, Mr. McCain's closest adviser
In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials
Lyda Green, the State Senate president, who lives in Wasilla
Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the State House
The current mayor of Wasilla, Dianne M. Keller
Randy Ruedrich, the state Republican Party chairman
State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat
A number of Republicans
Dan Bartlett, a former counselor to President Bush
Former McCain strategists
Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide
9.3.2008 1:07am
LN (mail):
Furthermore, the McCain camp response described in the York article is contained in the NYT article -- that McCain knew about the pregnancy, that the campaign knew about the ethics investigation, and so on. The suggestion that we need to look for alternative sources of information so that we can learn about the official statements of obscure individuals like John McCain -- the main thrust of the original post -- is therefore completely unwarranted. So is the suggestion that the Times is simply repeating what they are told by the Obama campaign.

The one legitimate objection is contained in the update -- namely, the Times says it was learned that Palin was a member of the AIP, but she wasn't (her husaband was), as the York article says. So now the problem is that the New York Times engages in overly hasting reporting? Interesting.
9.3.2008 1:17am
Grover Gardner (mail):

I ended by saying: "I don't get it. Are the New York Times reporters just printing what the Obama people are telling them


Why must you assume that "Obama's people" had anything to do with the article?
9.3.2008 2:13am
Grover Gardner (mail):
Sarah Palin's being subjected to false rumors and ugly smears?!?

OMFG!!!

CALL THE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!
9.3.2008 2:16am
randal (mail):
I don't think Jim Lindgren even read the NYT article before writing this vapid post.
9.3.2008 2:26am
Dan M.:
I'm not saying that she shouldn't get called on it. She absolutely should not have pushed it in her opening speech.

But then just on Saturday I saw video on CNN where Joe Biden and Barack Obama were being filmed campaigning in Ohio. Joe Biden was doing a "John McCain was wrong; Barack Obama was right!" segment. And he was lying through his teeth.

Joe Biden brought up McCain's criticism of Obama's stance that he would meet Iran without preconditions (leaving out the "without preconditions" part). Then Biden brought up the story that Bush had decided to talk to Iran (with preconditions related to their nuclear program) as proof that John McCain was wrong because now George Bush is talking to Iran. Obama was just standing beside him nodding approvingly.

So apparently candidates lie when they're out on the campaign trail all the time.

If McCain and Palin are still pushing her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere at the convention, then, yeah, I'll think they're being complete morons. Since they've been called out on it I would assume they'll drop it and people will forget about it.
9.3.2008 2:29am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
matt:

why the hell would they then have her mention the damn bridge in her FIRST speech as a VP candidate?


I think it's interesting to notice that Luntz ran a focus group, and supposedly this was the only line in the speech that got a strong positive response.
9.3.2008 4:12am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
sg:

the ferocity with which stuff is getting exaggerated or just plain made up is kind of shocking


I didn't realize we were talking about Obama's birth certificate.
9.3.2008 4:12am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mahan:

Of course it's now well-documented that Todd Palin belonged to a secessionist party from 1995 to 2002, when she ran for governor.


I think this becomes more interesting when we notice various signs that Todd seems to be a co-governor. Would he also be a co-president?
9.3.2008 4:12am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
wotc:

does not explain why, if McCain knew that Palin's daughter was pregnant, he didn't let the story leak BEFORE announcing the pick (which would have seriously reduced the public damage here)


I think this is a very interesting question. I would really love to know when McCain was planning on letting this news out. I think he figured he could keep it secret until past the election.
9.3.2008 4:12am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
toby:

Palin has been being discussed as a VP (originally for Rudy) since July 2007


Then it's even harder to understand one of the key excuses that McCain is using: that they couldn't vet her more thoroughly on account of secrecy. You are correct: lots of people were mentioning her name, for a long time. So what's the big deal if it was found, say, 3 months ago, that she was being vetted? When asked, the campaign could just say that they were vetting lots of other people, too. The excuse sounds hollow.
9.3.2008 4:13am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
loki:

Take one unhinged post on DailyKos


You're giving ace too much credit. I don't trust that it's an actual Kos post until I see the link. Of course he didn't provide one. He just grabbed the text from some loony site that made the same claim he did (I know this because I did some simple googling).

And the post might exist, but people like him don't want us to have the link, and see it in context, because we would inevitably see lots of other people flaming the person who wrote it.

Also, there is a pretty clear history of saboteurs putting up posts like that, for the obvious purpose of defaming Kos. It becomes pretty obvious, because the software there makes it easy to see someone's complete history. It's kind of a giveaway when a very inflammatory post originates from an account that's about 5 minutes old.
9.3.2008 4:13am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mccain via york via lindgren:

The man who was fired has said on the record that he was never pressured by the governor or the governor's husband on the issue of firing Trooper Wooten


That statement is outrageously, shamelessly, brazenly false:

Monegan says he was pressured to fire cop…Former Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan on Friday said that since Gov. Sarah Palin took office, members of her administration and family pressured him to fire a Palmer Alaska State Trooper to whom her sister was involved in a bitter child custody battle.


Monegan has admitted that he was not directly ordered to fire Wooten. But he definitely said he was pressured. Later, Palin was forced to admit this:

Palin staff pushed to have trooper fired…Governor says she's learned calls were made about Wooten's ouster…Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday revealed an audio recording that shows an aide pressuring the Public Safety Department to fire a state trooper embroiled in a custody battle with her sister. Palin, who has previously said her administration didn't exert pressure to get rid of trooper Mike Wooten, also disclosed that members of her staff had made about two dozen contacts with public safety officials about the trooper. "I do now have to tell Alaskans that such pressure could have been perceived to exist although I have only now become aware of it," Palin said.


Also see Monegan's exclusive WP interview from just a few days ago.

What does it mean that York is printing a statement that is so easily proven false?
9.3.2008 4:30am
GaryC (mail):

loki13:
I don't think it's a big deal that she brought home the bacon to the state, that's what all local pols do (and what she also did as mayor). As an aside, it's too bad there's no invisible hand in government; that the politician's local self-interest --pork-- turns into national good, but I digress.

In general, governors don't get credit for "bring home the bacon," that is reserved for members of Congress.

Perhaps "catching the bacon"?
9.3.2008 4:42am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mccain via york via lindgren:

He threatened to kill the governor's daughter, her father, and her sister.


More dishonesty, although marginally less blatant than the above example.

The original allegation was regarding a death threat addressed at the father. Claiming that there was also a death threat against Molly and Sarah is an embellishment of the original narrative.

Also, there were no neutral witnesses to the alleged death threat. Also, the threat was not reported to the father until a month later, and it was not reported to the police until two months later. That's hard to grasp, if we're supposed to perceive it as a serious threat.

He tasered her 11-year-old stepson


That happened in 2003. Elsewhere here I've posted a detailed description of what happened. Molly was upstairs, and knew what was happening, and saw no need to come downstairs to intervene. The kid volunteered, asked to do it again, and immediately told his mom he was fine. He bragged about it to his friends. Wooten used a special demo cartridge: "it would feel like your funny bone was hit" (according to a statement from the Taser company).

This was not reported until 2005. Sarah's daughter Bristol told a police investigator that they were finally reporting it (after being silent for so long) "because of the divorce."

A few years earlier, Palin wrote a glowing character reference for Wooten, calling him "a fine role model for my own children."

An excellent and clear summary of Troopergate is here.
9.3.2008 4:51am
TJIT (mail):
jukeboxgrad,

The obama supporters in the netroots and the liberal talk show hosts, and the utterly in the tank mainstream media have thrown an amazing amount of slime at the palin family.

The one consistent character of these attacks has been the mind boggling vileness of the misogyny and sexism they have displayed.

You can try and minimize the volume of of sleaze and slime thrown at the palin's but the attempt is laughable because there is too much of it for anyone but the most hackish of partisans to deny.

The problem for the obama campaign is that the voting public is going to realize that the election is a packaged deal.

An obama presidency comes packaged with

1. the lunatics in the netroots
2. the utterly biased, sleazy, and untrustworthy mainstream media

As those facts become more obvious it is going to provide a considerable drag to obama's campaign.
9.3.2008 8:28am
TJIT (mail):
jukeboxgrad,

Here is an example of what mainstream liberal talk show host, Ed Schultz had to say on the larry king show. (Schultz statement in bold, comments on the linked site in blockquotes)

This should play well with the parents of teenagers…


"SCHULTZ: The facts are this. What kind of mother is she?"
This kind of argument — which, let's face it, Schultz would never be making were the candidate a man (must be part of the new feminism, incidentally: working women, for all their professional accomplishments, are to be judged by the mistakes of their children)
Fascinating example of just how effectively the palin candidacy has vaporized what used to be the vaunted liberal respect for women with a professional career.
9.3.2008 8:44am
TJIT (mail):
Jukeboxgrad,

Here are some more examples of the breathtaking misogyny and sexism that has been thrown at palin family.

This sliming has been gleefully pushed along by the solid wall of obama partisans in the mainstream media.

BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY! [NOW UPDATED WITH EVEN MORE DASTARDLY HYPOCRISYNESS!]

Time to keep a running list of Sarah Palin's sins — lovingly gathered, mostly in crazed speculative form, by members of the Church of Diversity and Otherness Coddling, and reprinted here, with my gloss, for your delectation.

1) Alan Colmes: Poor prenatal care (waiting too long after her water broke to get to a hospital) on Palin's part created a Downs baby. Reached for comment, Science suggested Colmes shut his ignorant yap — and for Chrissakes, get a tan.

2) Andrew Sullivan, et al: A child needs a stay-at-home-mother! — if that child happens to be the child of a Republican breeder! Or haven't you people been paying attention to the nuances of establishment feminist theory?*

8) The Politico reports, "Presidential scholars say [Sarah Palin] appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era."

…Well, other than Obama, it goes without saying. But just who are these "presidential scholars"?:

UPDATE: After reading this article, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: "The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of vice president. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed-out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Gov. Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Sen. McCain."

Post-partisanship, people. Take a big whiff of the hope and change!


Those are just a few examples of the rivers of slime the liberal establishment in the netroots and media has thrown at the palin family.

People who don't recognize it and aren't appalled by it are willfully ignorant of the facts and their comments can't be taken seriously.
9.3.2008 9:04am
Anonomous Coward (mail):
Hey, wasn't Obama's answer to the "are you more experienced than Sara Palin?" question great? He sure showed us! He explained that running the campaign gives him more experience than Palin's stint as mayor, where she had 50 employees, while he has 2,500. What he didn't mention, of course, was that she is now Governor, and has been longer than he has been running his campaign, and oversees an 11 billion dollar budget and 15,000 employees. Boy Obambi is sure smart to answer the question like that.

Obama is a sexist, old time political hack.
9.3.2008 9:29am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
tj:

the misogyny and sexism they have displayed


It would be nice if you could give an actual example.

What kind of mother is she?


Exactly. And it's a completely legitimate question. It was her choice to make her identity as a mother a key part of her political resume. There are many signs of her doing this. Here's one: deciding to show Trig to reporters and photographers when he was three days old. The obvious point of doing that was to generate headlines like the one I cited ("Mom rejects abortion after Down syndrome diagnosis").

It was the GOP, not anyone else, who came up with the idea of presenting her not just as a model candidate, or a model governor, but as a model mom. Trouble is, the cracks in her "mom" persona are just as gaping as the cracks in her "reformer" persona. It's not our fault that your candidate is not who you thought she was. And it's also not our fault that attention is being paid to her behavior as a parent, since the GOP thought it was a great idea to make her parental decisions a key part of how she was packaged and sold. You were perfectly happy to focus attention on her parental decisions, until it started to become clear that maybe her parental decisions aren't all universally admirable.

working women, for all their professional accomplishments, are to be judged by the mistakes of their children


I've responded to this bogus point over and over again in Palin thread #72348768. (That's a made-up number. I mean this one.) Sarah Palin is not being judged by Bristol's behavior. Sarah Palin is being judged by Sarah Palin's behavior.

There are lots of families where the parents make careful, responsible choices, and the kids get into trouble anyway. That happens every day. Trouble is, this is not that kind of family. In the other thread I went into detail about the choices they made which I cannot respect. And I explained why it has nothing to do with gender or political affiliation.

the vaunted liberal respect for women with a professional career


I don't respect "women with a professional career" who put their career before their kids. Does that make me something other than a liberal? You decide. I also don't respect men with a professional career who put their career before their kids.

If you want to have a professional career, and also have kids, then be a grownup and make some choices. Think realistically about how many kids is the right number. Or marry someone who's willing to stay home and take care of them. Or manage your career in such a way that you are more available to be home during the years when your kids need you most. Or come up with some other creative solution to the problem. Just don't do this: put your career ahead of your kids. Please note that the six preceding sentences have nothing whatsoever to do with gender. They apply equally to both genders.

Those are just a few examples


Just sort of a technical note: when you post 'examples,' it's not that helpful that there are several layers of people like you citing other people like you citing other people like you who maybe, if you're lucky, have a citation to an actual example of an actual statement by a so-called liberal. The multiple levels of indirection are just too tedious, and also give reason to question authenticity.
9.3.2008 9:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
anon:

15,000 employees


That many people work for the State of Alaska? Really? I wonder where you got that number. The state population is 670,053, so that would be 2.2% of the population. "The U.S. average was 142 state employees per 10000 residents" (pdf). You're telling us that Alaska has 220 state employees per 10000 residents. That exceeds the national average by 55%.

I wonder why that would be. Is Alaska some kind of welfare state? Or maybe there's some kind of natural reason why so many people work for the state. I wonder if anyone knows.
9.3.2008 10:09am
byomtov (mail):
What does it mean that York is printing a statement that is so easily proven false?

It means he works for NRO. And that the McCain campaign could rely on him to parrot whatever they said without checking.
9.3.2008 10:21am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
I read the NYTs article. It was full of "campaign" staffers. Like the guy who collects the trash? A data base entry clerk?

There was a top staffer on PBS last night (Tucker Bounds) who said a thorough vet was done and nothing has come up they didn't know about. See I have a source.

BTW seen any reporting on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Ayres/Obama connection and where all the money went? I thought not. Who is pushing the media on that? John Voight. An actor knows more than most of the reporters.

What a joke.
9.3.2008 10:50am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
jukeboxgrad,

We know the mean. What is the standard deviation?
9.3.2008 10:52am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
Obama brought voted for the Bacon for Biden's son who is now caught up in a fraud trial. Charges and counter charges. One thing all agree on: the millions are gone.

See any reports of that?

But you know Obama was vetted.
9.3.2008 10:58am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
simon:

We know the mean. What is the standard deviation?


Good question. I don't know the answer. Do you? If anyone can find out, that would be interesting.

One thing all agree on: the millions are gone. See any reports of that?


Are you sure you meant to say "millions?" Because the amount Keating cost the taxpayers was $125 billion. You were talking about him, right? And McCain had a close personal relationship with Keating. "See any reports of that" lately? I haven't. And it would be quite relevant to report, since it happened a long time ago, long enough that lots of young voters would know little or nothing about it.

Just like many people know little or nothing about the sad story of the crippled woman that McCain walked out on. That story is considered too ancient to report, even though we incessantly hear about an even more ancient story: his POW-ness.
9.3.2008 11:08am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I just noticed that Tucker Bounds claimed that Palin has 24,000 employees. That's an even more curious number. It means that Alaska exceeds the national average by 150%, not 55%.
9.3.2008 12:02pm
William D. Tanksley, Jr:
This article refers to the following people as sources. I don't see too many on the Obama campaign; can anyone help me?


There's no doubt whatsoever that the NYT is a real newspaper -- they DO send out researchers. The problem is that they're a partisan paper; they guide and then twist the research to support their predetermined story. As clearly happened here.

The fact that they didn't NAME any Democratic operatives only makes the fact that their entire story lines up with the Democratic talking points, including the marginal ones, more suspicious. (Yes, there are non-marginal ones.)
9.3.2008 12:10pm
David Warner:
"What loki said. For her to say flat out that she opposed it was, to put it politely, misleading. It's hardly surprising if she then gets called on it."

She was for it before she was against it!. Palin lied, the Bridge to Nowhere died!

We even now?

Are we allowed to consider the fact that she is the only state level pol in the country who would even have considered saying no, and evidently did so as early as 2006? You got other state pols who turned down earmarks?

Pathetic.
9.3.2008 12:25pm
SG:
Jeebus, we get it. jukeboxrad, you don't like McCain, Palin, or anybody else with an (R) after their name. You've made that point abundantly clear. But since intellectual honesty isn't in the cards for you on this, can you at least be a little quieter? There's no need to be 1/3 of the posts in every political topic, at least without having something at least semi-original to say.
9.3.2008 1:26pm
Crimso:

John Voight. An actor

Not to pick nits, but Jon Voight is the actor. John Voight is the periodontist whose Chrysler Le Baron was bought by George (believing the vehicle to have once been owned by Jon Voight). Now then, back to the worst VC comment thread EVAH!
9.3.2008 1:41pm
Crust (mail):
SG @12:26, if you're going to accuse jukebox (or anyone for that matter) of intellectual dishonesty you should at least give a hint of why you're doing so.
9.3.2008 2:25pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
sg:

at least without having something at least semi-original to say


Let me know if you can find anyone, anywhere, who has mentioned the stellar character reference that Palin wrote for Wooten. Or the fact that Bristol admitted to police that they reported the Taser incident two years late "because of the divorce." Or the fact that the death threat wasn't reported to the police until two months later.

Or the fact that Palin presented Trig to press photographers on the third day of his life.

Or the fact that Lindgren quoted York quoting McCain's people telling a blatant falsehood.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Just curious.

Then again, if you prefer I could post a few highly original odumbo-libtard-rezko-ayers-annenberg-wright-hussein-marxist comments.

Crust, thanks.
9.3.2008 2:29pm
Crust (mail):
I didn't put that quite right in my previous comment. SG, if you're going to call one someone intellectually dishonest you should provide some evidence to back that up. That someone may be partisan does not ipso facto mean they are dishonest (or for that matter being non-partisan is not necessarily a guarantee of honesty).
9.3.2008 2:29pm
SG:
Crust,

Fair enough. I don't have the time or patience to trawl through the hundreds of posts over the last few days for reference, but I'm alluding to his:

His blatant double standards. The Palins are problematic because both parents work, yet he has had no issue with both Obamas working or Biden continuing on with as Senator after his wife died in a car crash.

His throwing out every negative rumor as fact (She was a secessionist, she's an anti-semite Buchanan supporter), yet when these are disproven he silently ignores his error (or should I say libel? He's shown willful disregard for the truth) to move on to the next attack.

His attacks are logically inconsistent. Palin was wrong for trying to fire the man who tasered an 11 year-old because the child had asked for it. Apparently an adult shouldn't be held responsible for the bad decisions of an 11 year old child. Yet Palin is at fault for her daughter's pregnancy. Apparently an adult should be held responsible for the decisions of a 17-year old girl above the age of consent.

Anything that he can think to throw is being thrown. Even things that aren't even mud. (She had pictures taken of a 3 day old? That's when my kids' first pictures were taken too. We sent them out as baby announcements, but if reporters had been interested they'd have gotten to take pictures too. Where the hell's the scandal in this?) regardless of how poorly sourced or how inconsistent (or just plain pointless) in the hopes that something can be made to stick.

This is off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more, but this all has the feel of wrestling with a pig. He doesn't like her, that's clear, that's fine. Vote against her. Hell, make a rational, coherent argument against her. We don't know a hell of a lot about her so it's good to start turning over some rocks. But he's just ranting.

And as an aside I note that he didn't contest being called intellectually dishonest, only at being called unoriginal. Fair enough, he's made managed to make some original posts, but complaining that she had pictures taken of a 3 day old baby is only original to the extent that it's so stupid that no one thinks it's an issue. If that's the kind of originality he's going for...
9.3.2008 4:11pm
David Warner:
"He doesn't like her, that's clear, that's fine."

It's far deeper than likes and dislikes with this one, I'm thinking.

Wonder if Machiavelli's ever turned over in his grave before...
9.3.2008 4:51pm
Smokey:
Clueless comment of the week:
Why must you assume that "Obama's people" had anything to do with the [NYT] article?
Um-m... because just about all of the NYT, from Pinchy on down, are "0bama's people." QED

And anyone believing in this bogus list of incredible NYT 'sources' [leaving out the few names, since they are not explicitly quoted, but were thrown in because someone briefly talked at them in a hallway between meetings during the past six months], is asking actual thinking folks to suspend disbelief:

[Un-named] 'Aides' to McCain
A[n unidentified] 'Republican' with 'ties' to the campaign
Republicans 'close to' the campaign [Unidentified? Of course.]
'Several' [unidentified] 'Republicans'
A 'Republican close to' the campaign [no identity]
Two [un-named] Republicans 'familiar' with the process
'Advisers' to Mr. Pawlenty [un-named, natch]
"Mr." McCain's [putative] 'advisers'
A McCain 'aide' [or English-challenged night janitor, take your pick]
'People' familiar with the process
'Advisers' to Mr. McCain [note the downgrade from "Senator"]
An F.B.I. official [Ri-i-i-i-i-ght]
In Alaska, several [un-named] state leaders and [un-named] local officials [Sh-h-h! It's a secret!]
A 'number of' [unidentified] 'Republicans'
'Former' McCain 'strategists'
The New York Times is run by a nest of liars. It's no surprise to anyone that their circulation keeps tumbling -- who wants to pay for their libtard propaganda? Wasn't this nest of liars sued by advertisers for falsely inflating their circulation numbers? If they started telling the truth, their credibility would start to return and their circulation would begin to increase. Hasn't happened yet, though.

So enough with these completely bogus "un-named sources." Woodward and Bernstein were proven to have fabricated significant parts of their Watergate reporting, and Casey's deathbed interview [without the usual recording, and with no one else in the room] is classic fiction masquerading as journalism. W & B blazed the fabrication trail, and it's been downhill ever since. Journalists scribblers need to name names, or find other ways of verifying their stories; it can be done, but it takes what's called "work."

People are no longer reading purveyors of drivel like the NYT because the NYT is incredible. They can not be believed. They invent more "facts" than Dan Rather did on his best day. Their 'sources' named above are bogus. They're invented.

Prove me wrong.
9.3.2008 5:29pm