you're assuming that the Obots have brains and restraint, which they obviously don't. They're a bunch of smear artists and liars and Obama panders to them, which is despicable.

Well, maybe I don't qualify because I'm not an "Obama supporter", but none of these would be my objections to Palin. The problem is, what qualifications DOES she have? Where are her good ideas and policy decisions? Where's her good judgment, which frankly has seemed to be the opposite? Is this really the best McCain could do for us, or was it just a cynical ploy?

So, is Andrew Sullivan the only supporter you can find saying this stuff? Sounds a lot like concern trolling if you ask me.

It's not that she has kids and he has kids and she's getting a raw deal for having kids. It's that she has a very young special needs baby and a teenager "in trouble" and three other teenage kids, and their dad has a full time job, and she nevertheless decided it would be a fine idea to leave him holding the bag while she ran off in a cloud of flattered glory and joined the political circus.

Obama has two little girls. If one of them was a special needs child and the other one was pregnant, I would be saying the same things about him.

Again though, this doesn't amount to Obama supporters right? To be fair, you have named one supporter? No more right?

As regards number 1, I think a mother of one or two children (Hillary Rodham Clinton) and a mother of five, one of whom is an infant, are going to have very, very, very, very different time commitments for their children. Republicans should stop pretending that two children and five is even in the same ballpark of experience, for a man or a woman.
As for number 2, Obama has been Senator for one of the larger districts in the country (with a larger population that Palin's state), and he has been studying politics since he was about six years old. He is policy-savvy and understands what is going on in the world. Contrast that to Palin, who "doesn't know what a vice president does."
Finally, as regards number 3, it will probably be strictly used as a defense mechanism, as in, "So Obama's pastor is nutty? What about Palin's?" Moreover, almost nobody is bringing it up, which would incline me to say that "liberals" are not talking about Obama's pastor, one liberal blogger is.

Also, I would add that Liebermann last night on MSNBC, in response to the question, "Would Sarah Palin make a good president?" hemmed and hawed about the fact that John McCain is not going to die anytime soon before saying, "Yeah, sure, she'd be ready to lead the country."

db:

how can Obama do the much more demanding job of president and take care of his kids?

You asked this question in another thread, and as far as I can tell you ignored the answer that I provided. And I think the answers are so obvious it's hard to understand why the question is being asked.

Obama has this many children with Down syndrome: zero. Obama has this many children who are currently less than six months old: zero. Obama has this many children who are pregnant: zero.

Also, taking care of five kids is harder than taking care of two. Really!

One other factor that's minor (compared with the above) but still worth mentioning. The distance from Wasilla to DC is 6 times greater than the distance from Chicago to DC. Obama's kids can live with dad and still see their old friends and relatives quite frequently. Not so for Palin. Flying 4244 miles (one way) takes a long time, even when your mom is the VP.

Aside from all that, Obama did not make his parental decisions a key part of his political resume. But that's what Palin did (e.g., when she presented her three-day old special-needs infant to the press, which very quickly led to headlines glorifying her anti-abortion decision; which was apparently the intended result). Since she has invited us to believe that's she's a terrific mom, it's very appropriate to consider the question of whether or not she's actually a terrific mom.

I'd be ESPECIALLY quiet about the experience thing. Obama voted "Present", or actually missed, about 40% of the votes in the Senate (out of roughly 570ish votes, he missed about 230 of them).

He doesn't even have full time experience as a Senator.

Concern trolling is now the standard for posts at VC? Who knew?

Seems to be SOP.

The "kids" argument is beneath contempt -- agreed w/ DB on that one. (How many affluent people really "take care of their kids" anyway?)

Experience -- I defer to the Republican woman from Wasilla who's president of the Alaska state senate. (Fascinating interview, click through if you haven't read it.)

Pastors -- the Wright stuff is old news; if it's dragged back out, it's like "what else ya got?"

Frankly, if I've got the dates right, the guy was Palin's pastor for only 3 years, and she left his church in 2002, after he started some of his offensive 9/11 gibberish &before the 2004 election when he threatened Kerry supporters with hellfire.

Nothing there, really.

DB of course ignores the real gorilla under the table -- what does McCain's snap choice of Palin say about his judgment?

What does it say that McCain "the maverick" was too afraid of his party's base to go with his real choices, Lieberman or Ridge?

Hello, but Palin's oldest kid is 19, in the military. The daughter is getting married. She's 17, and will be 18 in January I think. I.e., an adult. That leaves her with three underage kids, compared to two for Obama. She can spend as much or as little time taking care of them as she wants. I heard someone today refer to the "jetsetting lifestyle of the vice-president." There is no reason the vice-president needs to go anywhere outside Washington. Obama, meanwhile, has to be president. If you were a kid, would you rather your parent be president or vice-president, strictly on the question of who is likely to spend more time with you (assuming they are so inclined)?

I agree that Palin has less of the experience that I'd want to see in a president than Obama. I also think that Obama has little enough experience that it's a negative. So you succeed in showing that Palin is too inexperienced, less than Obama, but then your raise the whole experience issue, which is not to Obama's benefit, and he, not Palin is running for president.

If you were a kid, would you rather your parent be president or vice-president

Is a VP's kid off limits from being called the new White House dog by a radio host that is nationally syndicated or being called ugly by a senator and now presidential candidate? If so, I'd like to be the VP's kid.

Obama has two little girls. If one of them was a special needs child and the other one was pregnant, I would be saying the same things about him.

Or so you say now. This is easy to say as a hypothetical point. Not many people made this point about Aenator Biden when he had two small kids who were seriously injured and had just lost their mother and sister. Certainly not too man of the people who elected him.

Republican concern troll is very concerned!

Re criticisms of Palin not taking care of her kids, it is just sexist. It does not raise issues as to Obama being able to do the same, but that is just because we don't expect dads (at least married ones) to have to stay at home and take care of the baby.

As to criticisms of Palin, the biggest one is why won't she let herself be interviewed? Press Conference? Anything????? She wants to be VP, and the campaign is not letting her take questions from anyone. Joke.

arg11: The fact that Obama has been "studying politics since he was six years old" is one of the single most DISqualifying attributes Obama has. Alan Greenspan once facetiously proposed the following constitutional amendment: "Any one willing to do what is necessary to become President of the United States is thereby disqualified from that office." The only thing more frightening than someone who wants power over his fellow man is someone who has been plotting how to obtain that power since he was six.

DB forgot to post pictures of Obama with Wright.

by She left the church. Before it was politically useful to do so.
See the difference?

The experience issue is unavoidable, largely because the right wing is pushing it hard that Palin is "obviously" more experienced than Obama. From what I've read today, it seems like Palin's speech tonight is going to be largely about her experience and how it is superior to Obama's.

I definitely agree with #2 and 3. But #1 seems disingenuous. As wrong as it may be, women are expected to spend more time with their kids than men (especially true for her daughter that is less than 1 year old). Also - Palin has three more children than Obama.

The elephant in the room no one wants to mention is that a woman's and a man's relationship and often (though not always) responsibilities in regards to their children is different.

My wife and I have small children and have alternated between being the primary breadwinner in the family. She served in the Navy, and I am currently in the Army.

The difference is that even when she was working and I was home, she was still required by facts of biology (during her period of breastfeeding) and social norms to be more involved with the kids than I am able to be while I work. And I am an involved Dad who can and has done everything for the kids my wife has done for extended periods of time (outside breastfeeding, anyway).

I'm sure I'll be called a sexist pig or variations for this. But women, much more so than men, often are given a "pass" for child related issues that impact work. Now I am sure this is not the case in every circumstance, but I would argue it is generally true. And that is not a bad thing, as nothing we do today is more important than ensuring our kids are good honest people.

My issue with Sarah Palin and her kids (and the argument about how Sarah Palin's "averageness" is such an asset) is that I can't give a VP a pass (and I don't want high elected officials who are average, I want better).

Does this mean we should bar people (particularly women) from high office? No. It means to me that I would prefer someone older or with with less immediate distractions from a job that can be critical to the lives of millions of people. A young, special needs child can present situations that would demand (rightfully so) Sarah Palin's attention from her job. It's politically relevant.

And all of this to say nothing of the fact that Bernstein insists on positing that because the vice presidency has only a minor role defined in the Constitution, therefore it's a realistic possibility that the vice president can stay home and babysit. A point that (a) ignores the significant (and only growing) role of modern vice presidents, (b) ignores the political reality that Americans don't like politicians who are perceived as taking too much time off from work (exhibit A currently in office), and (c) is (normatively) just lame. Why should we be OK with a vice president who does nothing when we could have a vice president who would do something? Give it a rest.

Hoosier--Greenspan is married to Andrea Mitchell, so there's already a liberal (presumably) kissing him on the lips!

It's too late for the Democrats to use this technique against McCain -- he's had too many years to establish his P.O.W. sainthood to attack it. But Palin is another story. And by attacking Palin and creating the cloud over her, it transfers to McCain's judgement.

This seems to be the plan. But--painful as it is for a Hoosier to admit--Dan Quayle was worse from the outset. And it didn't matter. I don't think you get very far in politics by attacking the running mate of a major party nominee. Is there evidence that this works? It strikes me that you DO have to go after the nominee.

The approach that says "This is really a commentary on McCain's judgment" was tried in '88 as well. (Bush claims long experience, but THIS is what he's learned?) And I think the Democrats really blew it in 1968 by spending energy on Agnew, when Nixon ought to have been the focus.

I'm willing to stipulate that anyone who takes campaign advice from me is insane. But I try to make up for my lack of political savvy by being a decent historian. And I just can't see how the Democrats "win with Palin." Quayle was a remarkable phenomenon, and seems not to have mattered.

And, Senator Quayle, you are no Sarah Palin.

Methinks the Democrats protest too much.

If I were supporting candidate A, I would not purport to tell the supporters of candidate B what I think they should do. That's not to say I don't have an opinion, I just have no particular expectation that B's supporters give a rat's ___ what I think.

In this particular case, I don't foresee the Obama campaign exploiting Ms. Palin's 20 months of full time government service abovbe the rank of suburban mayor. When everyone is talking about it already, there is no need to bring it up.

Anderson,

Experience -- I defer to the Republican woman from Wasilla who's president of the Alaska state senate. (Fascinating interview, click through if you haven't read it.)

You might want to check out the history between Lyda Green and Palin before becoming too fascinated.

Some of these are dubious (who cares what party her husband belongs to), but there is no "boomerang" reason not to bring them up. But Hoosier, I think, is right--when's the last time a candidate one by attacking the vice-president?

Other issues Obama supporters shouldn't bring up:

4) Troopergate and Gov. Palin's possible abuse of power.
5) Gov. Palin's extreme abortion views
6) Todd Palin's membership in a fringe political party
7) Gov. Palin's attempt to censor library books
8) Mayor Palin's spending habits that left her small town in over $20 million in debt
9) Mayor Palin hiring a lobbyist tied to Jack Abramoff to secure over $27 million in earmarks for her town
10) Gov. Palin being for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it

Bringing up any of these things would be bad for Obama. I'm only saying this because I care.

PC writes:

ringing up any of these things would be bad for Obama. I'm only saying this because I care.

Gotta love 'ya PC. Using guilt by association and trumpeting claims without citations make for interesting reading. Not informative reading mind you, but interesting reading...

I disagree! Hussein's sewer-dwellers HAVE to attack on all three points to, in fact, divert attention from his weaknesses in all three areas. You are dealing (examples all over this site) with ignorant neo-communistswho believe that an absolute response to a factual charge is "is not!"
These people learned from Bush Derangement that if they repeat a lie often enough and loud enough it becomes truth, ay least to them.
And, they have to try to keep the focus off the Biden/Hussein criminality. Biden's son, even as we speak, is selling his father's influence to wealthy lobbyists. Hussein is a Chicago political hack and will eventually be shown to have shared in Chicago criminality, kickbacks of Annenberg money, other Rezko deals, kickbacks on developer loans, etc.
No, Hussein's minions MUST make big deals of all these issues, real and imagined, to give their media folks something to cluck about.

This post assumes an unbiased media. Given that the media pretty much only reports on the flaws of one of the two major presidential tickets, however, it makes a great deal of sense as a tactical matter for Obama supporters to emphasize all three of the points mentioned by Bernstein.

This was my reaction as well. Most members of the media are so far in the tank for Obama that Michael Phelps couldn't get them out.


(in the tank... filled with water... swimming... Michael Phelps...? No? I'll get my coat.)

Here I thought this was some sort of legal blog. Well, maybe in december.

You could say the same three things about McCain supporters, just substitute Obama for Palin.

You might want to check out the history between Lyda Green and Palin before becoming too fascinated.

Of course they have a history. But it still looks bad for McCain when Alaska Republicans are bashing Palin. They presumably know the lady, right?

What if Lyda Green starts doing the TV circuit about how terrible Palin is?

Did McCain's people make *any* contact with Green before Palin was picked? Was Green given any incentive to smile &nod about Palin?

Hussein's sewer-dwellers

How unintentionally self-deprecating can you get? Sheesh.

The National Enquirer is now going after Sarah Palin on its website, claiming that Palin had planned to delay announcing the daughter's pregnancy until after an announcement of the wedding, but that the daughter refused to go along with the plan and the Enquirer then forced Palin's hand.

Is the Enquirer one of those MSM outlets that are in the tank for Obama? Or the Democrats? Will we see a pivot from some of the Enquirer's new fans who thought it was great when John Edwards was the target?

jukeboxgrad stated:

Obama used the power of his office to conduct a vendetta against someone on behalf of his sister? I hadn't heard.

Just wondering if he knows more than has been reported, since the Public Safety Commissioner who she fired has stated on the record that Palin never talked to him about her State Trooper ex-brother-in-law. It's clear that he knows LESS than has been reported, since he's apparently unaware that the State Trooper: (a) used a Taser on his 10 year old stepson (I'm sure that was of no consequence in his "messy custody battle"); and (b) had been found to have made a death threat against Palin's father if he hired a lawyer to assist his own daughter in their divorce (a death threat witnessed by Palin and several others, which Trooper Wooten denied, but which was found to have occurred by an independent investigation by the Alaska State Police conducted BEFORE Palin was elected Governor (indeed, before Palin even won the Republican Primary for Governor); and (c) had been disciplined at least 12 times for various violations of state law and breaches of Department Policy. After an internal investigation by the Alaska State Police in 2006, Julia Grimes, then Chief of the Alaska State Police reported on March 1, 2006 (BEFORE Palin was Governor, before she even won the Primary to become the Republican Candidate for Governor), the results of the investigation, and stated of Wooten, the Trooper at issue, that "[t]he record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession". Now, if this same Trooper WAS NOT Palin's ex-brother-in-law, would the screaming be about her dereliction of duty in NOT making sure this bozo was fired?
And why, in all of the TV reporting on this so-called scandal, do NONE of the talking heads report the underlying facts regarding the Trooper whom the Public Safety Commissioner refused to fire?

I don't think you get very far in politics by attacking the running mate of a major party nominee.

Which is why the Obama campaign has been doing relatively little in all this and has defended Gov. Palin's family. However, the all those fine paragons of journalistic integrity at Kos, have been going nuts, and for one simple reason: They smell blood. The thinking there goes that if Palin turns into an Eagleton, then McCain is toast. Whether the blood they smell is real or if it is merely bait will be telling.

DiverDan: paragraphs, man. Try them!

Actually, Obama has personally attacked Palin on the experience issue:

Bullshit. What you quote is Obama's *response* to attacks on Obama, the "Palin has more executive experience" dig.

It's not a "personal attack" to retort to one attack with a comparison that suggests your attacker's on weak ground.

And how is discussing their mutual resumes a "personal" attack? Do you know what the word means?

Karl Rove has to be behind this. Complaints about her church and pastor? I am telling you, Karl Rove sent her to that church because he knows that liberals would bring it up and Reverend Wright would come back up front and center. Combined with the jabs at her inexperience, the same exact ones that could be hurled at Obama, it has to be Rove.

Rover, you magnificent bastard!

Whoops. I meant:

Rove, you magnificent bastard!

I have never understood why anyone tries to engage DB in these threads. No matter what points are made, what facts exist in the world (be it Green Helmet Guys in the Middle East or US politics), he is going to work his way backwards into the conservative position he wants to end at.

In response to "PC"'s very reasonable list of Palin concerns, DB writes above, "Some of these are dubious (who cares what party her husband belongs to)." This is literally the same guy who breathed fire for weeks about Obama's ties to Wright, Ayers, etc. Are we honestly to believe that Obama's nutty pastor is any more relevant (and damning) than a husband's support of secession?!?!?!

What a hypocritical and transparent line of argument this has devolved to. Believe me, no matter what happens in the next two months, according to DB, it'll be bad for Obama, but not a big deal for McCain/Palin (and please, no anecdotal examples of isolated disagreements with the occassional republican, perfessor Reynolds ... I mean, Bernstein)

DiverDan boldly claims

the Public Safety Commissioner who she fired has stated on the record that Palin never talked to him about her State Trooper ex-brother-in-law

Not so much:

The governor raised the issue again in February 2007 during the legislative session in Juneau. "As we were walking down the stairs in the capitol building," Monegan said, "she wanted to talk to me about her former brother-in-law."

In an effort to reach some common ground, can we all agree that both McCain and Obama will be a better President than W.?

In an effort to reach some common ground, can we all agree that both McCain and Obama will be a better President than W.?

Don't set that bar too high now....

Nunzio: I believe that either one would be significantly worst.

The Obama campaign has not been talking about Palin much. It's the media that is.

And as noted above, Obama made a comparison between Palin's town and his campaign when he was directly asked about the GOP claim that Palin has more executive experience than he does.

What is wrong with people these days? Has everyone gone crazy?

The election is still 60 days away. She will have plenty of time to introduce herself and her policies to the nation and show what type of person she is.

Up until a week ago, this woman was focused on dealing with the issues of running Alaska. Within days, ney hours, of her nomination everyone goes wild with unfounded rumors and opinions, including classy insinuations that she faked her pregnancy and all sorts of other crazy stuff.

Jesus H. Christ, let the woman speak at least. Let her give her speeches. Let her answer reporters questions. Let her particiapte in debates and town hall meetings. Let her and her staff outline their platform and viewpoints and disseminate that information to the public.

What jukeboxgrad said @10:50. DB's first point makes little sense.

So what are the chances that McCain will die in office and make Palin POTUS? Here are my calculations for the mortality probabilities for a 72 year old.

1 year: 4.6%

2 year: 9.5%

3 year: 14.6%

4 year: 19.9%

These numbers are for an average person. But McCain would lead a much more stressful existence than the average 72 year old will over the next 4 years. So let's arbitrarily boost up the force of mortality curve by 50% and see what happens.

In this case McCain has a 28.3% chance of dying within 4 years. If you believe that McCain is much healthier than average then the prior calculations might be more realistic. In any cases it looks like Palin has roughly a 1 in 5 chance of becoming president if McCain is elected. At this point I give that even odds, so Palin has roughly a 1 in 10 chance of becoming president.

I used the basic model for oldsters from here. Of course McCain is not 80 but the model matches the life tables pretty nicely.

Oh, and then there's the book banning:

Time has a story about Palin's theocratic rule as mayor, including her book banning efforts. A commenter on Librarian.net who has not yet answered other commenters' requests for his source offers a list of what he says are the 90 books Palin wanted removed. I'm not going to discuss them until the titles are verified, but here's the link. The NYT also runs the book banning story, saying Palin discussed the topic at a city council meeting.

I saw this yesterday but since the only source was the guy she beat for mayor, I wasn't sure what to think of it.

I've got a great idea for a new book: Conservative Fascism. Sounds implausible, I know, but Jonah Goldberg has convinced me that it can be done.

Gotcha, Fury, but it's an odd thing that the *Legislature* thought that $5M was the right number. This was a line-item reduction, wasn't it?

Legislature authorizes $5M.

Palin says no, $3.9M.

That is a ... what is that? Anyone got a verb for me?

I'm an occasional-McCain-lover, but the guy's a complete mudslinger at times (sometimes it's one of his more endearing traits, even). But his own press core is in a mode now of introducing every possible smear into political discourse, in order to blame it on the other side.

(N.b., re: the alleged list of book titles, if you follow that link, it pretty clearly proves to be fake.)

"used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live."

I find it amusing that proponents of the welfare state consider a reduction in growth to be a decrease. I guess it's similar to that depression we're in.

Or maybe it's just malicious agitprop.

(more analysis here)

Reading the first link, I see Sally Quinn writes:

Not only do we have a woman with five children, including an infant with special needs, but a woman whose 17-year-old child will need her even more in the coming months. Not to mention the grandchild. This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil. Not only in terms of her job, but from a media standpoint as well.

She evidently thinks the vice president is one very busy person. So just what would Palin be distracted from? Sitting in the Senate and looking bored the way all vice presidents do? Her grandchild will have both a mother and a father to look after it. Palin's husband can quit his job and he can look after their kids. I don't see a problem here. But I do see a problem with her lack of experience should be become president. Of course I have the same concern about BHO, and I know what kind of president Biden would make: a lousy one.

Zarkov reaches the startling conclusion that peoples' chance of dying rise as you get older. Here is the horrible secret we epidemiologists don't tell you: your chance of dying, zarkov is 100 percent. And unfortunately nobody can tell you when (that is the inherent limit of epi figures that you are using). Now, if age is such a big deal perhaps there should be an amendment to the constitution restricting the age from, say, 35 to 60. At this point, I don't see a problem with McCain's candidacy based on your numbers, but I assume you will be an ageist , and use these life expectancy table to vote against McCain?

db:

Even if raising such questions undermines Palin more than it does Obama, even much more, given how many people vote based on the top of the ticket versus based on the bottom, this is hardly a winning strategy.

You're failing to take into account what the Palin choice tells us about McCain: that he's reckless and impulsive, and inclined to take dangerous risks. Always has been, always will be. That's why he broke so many rules that he barely graduated from college. That's why he crashed so many planes. That's why he decided to risk chasing after someone barely half his age, even though he had kids at home. That's why he's so famous for losing his temper. That's why he plays craps in Vegas for 14 hours at a time.

Picking Palin is classic McCain. That's why the more we learn about Palin, the more we understand who McCain is. So you're mistaken to think that Palin's unraveling is not going to discredit McCain himself.

She's 17, and will be 18 in January I think. I.e., an adult. That leaves her with three underage kids, compared to two for Obama.

Bristol is not magically going to turn into a grownup the instant the calendar says she's 18. She will still need parenting, and so will her infant. Meanwhile, it seems that she's playing surrogate mom to Trig. Not a heallthy picture.

You can equate the picture to Obama only if you airbrush Trig, Bristol and Bristol's unborn child out of the picture. And even then, you still haven't accounted for the fact that Palin made her family life a significant part of her political resume, and Obama did not. Palin has invited us to hold her to an especially high standard, so we should.

So you succeed in showing that Palin is too inexperienced, less than Obama, but then your raise the whole experience issue, which is not to Obama's benefit, and he, not Palin is running for president.

But the problem is that right at this moment, without Obama saying a word, it's self-evident that McCain was being cynical and insincere when he spent months beating the 'experience' drum.

It underlines how impulsive the Palin pick is. Presumably a rational person who anticipated picking Palin would not have hammered Obama so hard on 'experience.'

who cares what party her husband belongs to

She copies him on official emails and claims executive privilege because he is supposedly one of her "closest advisors." So we have reason to wonder who he is, and what role he would have in a Palin White House.

Assuming the following can be shown to be accurate (and the site on which it appears seems to be legit), any politician who makes a decision like this is precisely what I call a maverick, which I believe is a good thing:

http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/04/news/ebay_jet.pdf

gabriel:

perhaps we should simply bar from high office all parents of special needs kids?

No. Just "all parents of special needs kids" who invite us to take a close look at their parental decision-making even though their parental decision-making reveals various signs of poor judgment.

hoosier:

Will the 19 and 17-18 year olds take as much time as Obama's girls?

Track is fine, but Bristol is about to multiply herself. So she counts as two. From that perspective, Palin will soon be effectively responsible for six kids, not five.

now:

Not many people made this point about Aenator Biden when he had two small kids who were seriously injured and had just lost their mother and sister.

Was he running on a platform that invited us to think well of him because of his parenting decisions? That's what Palin is doing. Here's one example of how she did this: presenting Trig to the press (reporters and photographers) when he was three days old. This led to the obvious headlines that excited her base.

In my opinion, using a special-needs infant as a political prop is spectacularly despicable.

crazy:

we don't expect dads (at least married ones) to have to stay at home and take care of the baby

I know it's still considered radical, but there are actually households that are organized that way. If Todd was home with the kids, my analysis would be very different.

"Tu quoque," you say. That says more about you than anyone else.

I'm not attempting to justify it. "They do it too," is certainly a fallacy, but that's political discourse.

diver:

the Public Safety Commissioner who she fired has stated on the record that Palin never talked to him about her State Trooper ex-brother-in-law

You are so very wrong (as Apodaca already pointed out). Start here.

This is what you might be thinking of: Monegan has said that he was never directly told to fire Wooten. But there were a long list of pressuring statements that fell short of a direct order. Those statements came from Palin's staff, Todd, and Palin herself. There is a taped phone call. Monegan has emails. Look around.

used a Taser on his 10 year old stepson

Yes, in 2003, after the son asked for a demo. And then the kid immediately told his mom he was OK, and asked to be tasered again, and bragged about it to his friends. In a short demo like this, "it would feel like your funny bone was hit." While this was happening, mom was upstairs, and she knew what was happening, and she didn't go downstairs to intervene. No one complained about this until 2005, when a messy divorce was happening. That's when the Palins finally decided to report this event to the police. A police investigator asked Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol why they were finally reporting it two years later, after being silent for so long. She said "because of the divorce."

had been found to have made a death threat against Palin's father

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.

a death threat witnessed by Palin and several others

The "several others" are exactly two: Sarah's sister Molly and Sarah's son Track. And only one of those witnesses (Molly) was in the room with Wooten. Sarah and Track were listening over a phone line.

Please explain why an allegedly serious threat was not reported to the police until two months later. By the way, it was reported to the police on the exact day that Molly filed for divorce.

had been disciplined at least 12 times for various violations of state law and breaches of Department Policy

Yes, there are number of minor things on his record such as not using turn signals properly.

if this same Trooper WAS NOT Palin's ex-brother-in-law, would the screaming be about her dereliction of duty in NOT making sure this bozo was fired?

One of the many problems with your narrative is that Palin claims she wasn't trying to get him fired.

Wooten was investigated and punished. This happened before Palin ran for office. If she felt there was good reason to question the adequacy of Wooten's punishment, then she needed to find some other legitimate authority to carry that ball, and she needed to hand off her concerns in an open, transparent manner. In other words, she needed to recuse herself, because of her personal connection to the matter. Instead, she used her office to conduct a personal vendetta. She showed very poor judgment, and she lied.

why, in all of the TV reporting on this so-called scandal, do NONE of the talking heads report the underlying facts regarding the Trooper whom the Public Safety Commissioner refused to fire?

Let me know if you can find any reporting that mentions this:

It is my pleasure to provide character reference examples for Mr. Mike Wooten. Since I have become acquainted with Mike I continue to be impressed with his integrity, work ethic, community spirit and trustworthiness.

Mike has assisted the City of Wasilla with community events … Mike is a strong supporter of the youth in our community … Mike gained respect for his patience and dedication to the young men in his care [coaching football, age 7-9]…

…I have witnessed Mike's gift of calm and kindness towards many young kids … I have never seen him raise his voice, nor lose patience, nor become aggitated [sic] in the presence of any child. Instead, Mike consistently remains a fine role model for my own children, and the other young people in Wasilla. I wish America had more people with the grace and sincerity that mirrors the character of Mike Wooten … we would have a much kinder, calmer, trustworthy nation as a result.

I beleive [sic] the United States Air Force has been fortunate to have the services of Mike these past 10 years. His work ethic, his American patriotism, his obvious dedication to traditional values, and his strong faith in God and truth is witnessed in Mike's everyday living.

It is an honor to know Mike and I am confident he will continue to grow in character and internal strength as he moves through life. I do not hesitate in praising this man …

cooke:

I don't understand the criticism of her having too many kids to be a vice president, and do think that is the one highly sexist remark I have seen on the Internet.

My concerns in this regard have nothing to do with gender. I've explained this in many places, including here.

-- the Wright stuff is old news

Hilarious.

Translation:
We don't want to talk about it.

PC,

Obama did attend a church that hates white people and America. Obama had to publicly condem Wright and leave the church. That is a fact, not a smear. Everyone has seen Wright's sermons and knows where he stands.

Michelle Obama did say in a speech that you can find on Youtube that she had never been proud of this country until it voted for her husband.

Obama did begin his political career with a fund raiser at Bill Ayers house and did serve on the board of the Chicago Annenberg challange with Ayers.

Obama did get a his house with help from a now convicted felon.

Make of those what you will but those are facts not smears. Further, I have never seen one instance of the birth certificate hoax being in a major newspaper much less in a publication like the Atlantic. Moreover, anti-Obama websites debunked them because they were so rediculous and wrong.

Lastly, can all please agree that Andrew Sullivan is an old pervert and loathsome human being? The right already threw him out over his turning on the Iraq war. If the left would throw him out over his loathsome writing on Palin's daughter, it would finally get him out of public life. If you are sincere about this stuff being garbage, then make someone pay for repeating it.

I'm not attempting to justify it. "They do it too," is certainly a fallacy, but that's political discourse.

Political discourse is regonizing the fault in your argument's logic and asserting that the conclusion may be false, but it's still true. Gotcha.

The fact that Palin was governor of a small state for a year and a few months before being nominated as VP, and before that was a mayor of a very small town, is very strong evidence that she is not qualified to be Vice President

Um, so what would make her "qualified" then?
Also, do you then think Obama is "qualified" to be President (since you'll be voting for him of course the answer is yes).

You people are such silly hypocrites it is obscene.

Remember, Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate that was born on a boat outside of Hawaii (or in Kenya), faked his birth certificate, attends a church that hates whitey and America, has a wife that said she hates whitey and America,

What I find funny is that you actually think this is over the top parody, PC.

Obama's church does indeed hate America, and so does his wife.
They both also hate whitey.

Anderson,

"What does it say that McCain "the maverick" was too afraid of his party's base to go with his real choices, Lieberman or Ridge?"

It says that he wants to win.

This mentalilty sums up jokeboxes posts:

What many here don’t understand. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH.

The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet:

Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

If people start to think that there might be something fishy with Palin’s last kid (if hers), then that’s FINE. One more doubt (whether tied to reality or not) is another hesitation at the ballot box.

GET WITH THE PROGRAM PEOPLE. The “rising above it” bullshit has served us so well in the past, hasn’t it?

If you have problems with the story, then STFU and get out of the way of Dems who are engaged in MODERN POLITICAL WARFARE. Go tend your garden or some other pedestrian task, because the “concern trolls” are not helping shape the message.

Isn't it cute how "tolerant" liberals like jokebox really are?

I saw that too, The Ace. For those that didn't, that's a quote from Democratic Underground, where the fascists and Leninists play.

She's in favor of teaching creationism as science in public schools

You sir, are a liar.

David

Do you agree with Ms. Palins long-time pastor that Palestinians killing Israelis is G-d's punishment because the Israeli's haven't converted to Christianity?

Political discourse is regonizing the fault in your argument's logic and asserting that the conclusion may be false, but it's still true. Gotcha.

I'm summing up political discourse here and other places. For example:

What I find funny is that you actually think this is over the top parody, PC.

Obama's church does indeed hate America, and so does his wife.
They both also hate whitey.

It's really, really funny, but I have a twisted sense of humor. There is absolutely nothing that someone can say about a given candidate (or their family!) that isn't so over the top that some people won't take it seriously.

David,

I think you are a little behind the times. The Democrats and their allies in the media have found a way to smear Palin while pretending not to. It's actually quite brilliant. Rather than openly attacking Palin for her family issues, they say they are concerned about McCain's supposed failure to vet her. This way, they get to drag up all the mud while claiming to be taking the high road. The Obama camp has led with this line and from listening to NPR this morning and reading the press, it looks like their media pets are following right along. Sleazy, no? but effective.

There is absolutely nothing that someone can say about a given candidate (or their family!) that isn't so over the top that some people won't take it seriously.

So you are actually contending Reverend Wright loves America and white people?

Not that your continued silly posts demonstrate a lack of critical thought on the matter.

And you wonder why?

No, I don't. I just think it's interesting to point it out. It's especially interesting when one side (doesn't matter which to me) gets the vapors and needs to grab a cold rag when some surrogate says something mean. Compared to early American politics this stuff is downright civil.

I'm an Obama supporter. I agree that the child-care issue is a non-issue. On experience, however, Obama wins hands down. If we're talking purely executive experience, yes she has more experience in executive positions in government. There are three areas, however, in which Obama has much more experience. Number one is law. He's a lawyer and has taught con law. She knows nothing about law. You don't have to be a lawyer to be President, but it certainly is desirable to know something about the law and particularly the Constitution. The second is how Washington works. Obama has been a Senator for four years. She has no Washington experience whatever. The third and most critical is foreign affairs. Obama has traveled extensively and lived in Indonesia for four years as a child. He majored in International Relations, then worked for a year for a firm that helps businesses with international trade. As a Senator he has been involved in foreign affairs in various ways. Palin has no background whatever in foreign affairs. She has hardly even been outside of Alaska.

As to the third point, the relevant question is not whether the candidate's church or pastor are whackos but whether the candidate's own views are. Obama has shown no sign of holding the insane views of Pastor Wright and indeed has explicitly denounced them. Palin, on the other hand, is a creationist, opposes sex education and contraception, and believes that believes that human activity plays no role in global warming. Those are her own views, not merely those of her church, and they show a disdain for science and reason that is highly relevant to her politics.

but it certainly is desirable to know something about the law and particularly the Constitution

I would love for you to explain Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment.

Obama has traveled extensively and lived in Indonesia for four years as a child.

I'm in tears laughing at that one.

john:

Obama did get a his house with help from a now convicted felon.

Really? Prove it.

dan:

Palin listened to the nutty Rev for 3 years before he went over board and then she left. All this about 7 or 8 years ago.

Some interesting statements were made in that church just a few weeks ago.

fury:

Have you read the accident investigation reports from the aircraft crashes or is that you considered opinion being represented by you as a fact?

Let me know if you're really claiming that his record of crashes would be considered normal.

There's the famous Hamilton-Burr duel. There were a few books I read back in college about the subject, but that was years ago, so I can't recommend anything specific. This seems like a decent primer article. Describing Lincoln:

A horrid looking wretch is he, sooty and scoundrelly in aspect, a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse swapper, and the night man... He is a lank-sided Yankee of the uncomeliest visage, and of the dirtiest complexion.

I'm sure there was much pearl clutching then, like today, and calls for civility and sticking to the issues. But politics is politics and when people make pleas for civil discourse I just have to laugh.

And congratulations to Prof. Bernstein on such a successful concern troll.

Obama has shown no sign of holding the insane views of Pastor Wright and indeed has explicitly denounced them.

So he just sat in the church listening to a bunch of ideas he disagreed with for 20 years then?
You actually believe that?

And you think he "denounced" Reverend Wright out of his own beliefs or political pressure?

Well, it's certainly more armchair-lawyerly. But "What choice do we have? When faced with monsters, we have to be monstrous ourselves."? Could you point me to some pre-20th century (prefereably pre-Marx) parallels? Such a chronicle would make a fascinating addition to my small collection of political histories.

Pretty much any history of the 1790s (good ones are by Stanley Elkin and by James Sharp) or the 1850s (many) will give you a good sense. Here are some incidents:

1. In the late 1790s, Rep. Matthew Lyon spat in the face of Roger Sherman, who proceeded to beat him with a cane. On the floor of the House.

2. In roughly 1825 (off memory) Henry Clay and John Randolph fought a duel. While Clay was Sec'y of State and Randolph was in Congress.

3. In the 1830s, Senator Henry Foote drew a gun on Sen. Thomas Hart Benton on the floor of the Senate.

4. In 1856, a representative from SC beat Sen. Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of the Senate. It was a sneak attack, with Sumner caught at his desk and Southerners preventing any rescue. Sumner was permanently crippled.

The newspapers were just as bad. Google the name "james callendar", for example, or "peter porcupine". There are some good histories of early American newspapers.

Thanks, PC, I'm going to take a look at the duel for fun.

Though the excerpted portion resembles McCain's Chelsea joke more than the "Palin is covering for her daughter by claiming Trig is her own" fabrication.

Obama has shown no sign of holding the insane views of Pastor Wright and indeed has explicitly denounced them.

A) other than attending his church for 20 years and officially and privately calling him his "spiritual mentor", and

B) only leaving and denouncing him after several weeks of extreme political pressure

He's a lawyer and has taught con law.

This is not a plus with a large majority of the US population, just so you know.

a creationist, opposes sex education and contraception, and believes that believes that human activity plays no role in global warming.

1) like a significant (though admittedly not majority) portion of the US, and many more don't give a crap

2A) as best I can tell, this is a lie (she just supports a form of sex-education you don't like)
B) if this were the case, she'd have a lot more than 5 children - another lie

3) you mean like a significant portion of the scientific community? And anybody who's bothered to look at the history of this planet? And anybody who has been paying attention to the temperature of this planet for the laast 10 years? (Hint: the temperature has been flat or decreasing for 10 years now.) Points like this are going to look so funny in a few more decades... just like the other global warming/cooling scares, every 20-30 years for the past century. I expect a "global cooling" scare in the 2020's, based on the historical pattern.

Shouldn't the Republicans want MORE for their party than the Democrats do?

Yeah, and with Palin we do get MORE than the Democrats are getting. I'd vote for her - for anything - before I'd vote for the young megalomaniac or the ancient buffoon who are in the D column.

they show a disdain for science and reason that is highly relevant to her politics

Science is not equivalent to materialism, and reason is not equivalent to nihilist short-circuiting of logic (see the First Things piece again).

Consider researching how Europe's enlightenment came about, and what's happened to the continent since socialist democracy, the Orwellian "social justice" meme, and liberalist welfare immigration became major policies there.

ace:

You are a complete liar.

No such thing happened.

You're claiming the son didn't ask for a demo. The following text is from a police interview of the boy (pdf):

Payton advised that a year or two ago Mike Wooten had tased him … he [Payton] was in the living room when Mike was showing him and his cousin, Bristol his equipment [Bristol is Sarah Palin's daughter; Bristol was 14 at the time]. He [Payton] stated that Mike asked him if he wanted to try it (the Taser) and he agreed. … Payton stated that he wanted to be tased to show that he's not a mommy's boy in front of Bristol. Following being tased he went upstairs to tell his mother that he was fine.

This is what Bristol said:

Molly was bathing the two kids up stairs. Payton and her [Bristol] were looking at items on Mike's belt. When they asked about the Taser Mike advised that it shocks and asked them if they wanted to try it … Payton agreed to try the taser. … Bristol stated that Payton volunteered to be tased, and that Mike had offered to see if she wanted to try also. Bristol refused stating that she was scared.

Bristol was asked why she waited so long and brought the incident up after two years. She then stated "because of the divorce and stuff."

This is what Wooten said:

Wooten stated he had just returned home from Taser instructor school, and that Payton was fascinated with his equipment. Wooten … showed Payton the Taser and what it does. … Payton was riding him about being tased and wanted to try it.

Wooten stated that he used a training cartridge and taped the probes to Payton. He then placed him on his knees and gave him a quick shock and believed it lasted a second at the most. Wooten stated that Payton is an adrenaline junky, and that he was bragging about it to his buddies when they would come over to his house. Wooten advised that he didn't think it hurt Payton and that Payton wanted to do it again.

Wooten stated that Payton is extremely interested in law enforcement. He also advised that he was a father teaching his son. Wooten advised that Molly was up stairs during the Taser incident and knew what he was doing. Wooten said Molly didn't have a problem with it, however didn't want him to do it again.

This is what Molly said:

she was up stairs giving a bath to the kids … Mike was going to show Payton what it feels like and she told Mike that he better not … Mile then tased Payton … Payton was shook up … Bristol was really upset … Mike thought that she was totally overreacting to the event … Payton didn't cry but was upset.

It should be noted that Sarah Palin wrote (pdf) that Molly "aggressively protested during the Taser gun incident." But by all accounts, Molly never interrupted what she was doing (giving kids a bath) to go downstairs. By Molly's own account, she simply "told Mike that he better not." Apparently yelling this down the stairs, while continuing to give kids a bath. This is what Sarah called "aggressively protested."

Some information about what happens during a Taser demo (because that's essentially what it was):

The probes are attached by thin wires to the Taser cartridge. In the field, an officer fires the probes into a suspect's skin or clothing and the suspect receives a jolt of electricity for five seconds, said Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for Taser International, which makes the devices. They are only incapacitated during that time. In demos, the probes might be taped to a person so that they don't accidentally strike an eye or injure the volunteer, he said. If the Taser is fired for just a second, it would feel like your funny bone was hit but the quick jolt wouldn't knock you over, Tuttle said.

The above police interviews took place in 6/05. The Taser incident apparently took place in 2003. Molly and Wooten became separated in 1/05. Molly filed for divorce in 4/05. It should be noted that no one made a fuss about the Taser incident until the marriage started falling apart. Just like Bristol said.

Gold star to rarango for the snarkless re-phrasing. That's not me being snarky. I wish this blog would go back to intelligent disagreement, rather than the overheated bleating we see as the extremes close in on the middle.

There should be an "Olympic judging" feature that would automatically throw out all comments on either extreme and leave only the less hysterical comments.

jukeboxgrad writes:

"Let me know if you're really claiming that his record of crashes would be considered normal."

Hello, an interesting to deflect attentionf rom the claim you made.

I don't want to make that claim until I see the accident investigation reports. It's not relevant what someone else thinks, but what naval or Marine aviators who sat on the board and wrote the report concluded.

If you're willing to make the claim without the benefit of the primary source documents, it's perhaps another sign of intellectual laziness.

Science is not equivalent to materialism

Ummm ... okay.

Please offer some examples of non-materialist science.

i probably have a unique experience here because I have been tased (no "taping" either. a real tasing), and also carry a taser daily.

this trooper showed VERY bad judgment. first of all, using the DEPARTMENT ISSUED taser to give a demo tase to his son is almost certainly very bad judgment from a violation of dept. policies etc. perspective. frankly, it makes a big difference. a dept. taser is presumably (in every dept. i am aware of) issued to an officer for official use only. contrast with, for example, our dept. laptops where we are expressly allowed to use them for personal use as long as it is not "excessive" or interferes with our duties. iow, it's ok to check our personal email or do a little web surfing. similarly, it is acceptable for me to "occasionally' use my dept. phone for personal phone calls but it must not be 'excessive'. many agencies also authorize officers to use their dept vehicles (take home vehicles especially) for certain personal business, like going to the gym before or after work, or brief errands, like the proverbial picking up some milk before you go home. otoh, giving your son an unauthorized "joy ride" in your cruiser would not be acceptable. this is similar.

there is no way any officer should ever use his dept. taser to "demo" on any citizen unless it's in an official classroom structure and authorized by the dept. that's just incredibly dumb.

that's really the primary issue here - the exceedinly bad judgment. i do think a 14 yr old is old enough to ask for a "demo" and i wouldn't have a problem with it ***if*** the trooper was 1) off duty and 2) used a PERSONALLY owned taser.

i know some (very liberal) domestic violence advocates who would argue that what the trooper did was domestic violence. I would disagree, but those people are out there and in the war against domestic violence, it pays to be aware that they are

You're claiming the son didn't ask for a demo.

You're pretending even if the son did that makes it ok.

It doesn't. Which is why the officer was reprimanded for tazing the 14 year old.

ace:

You're pretending even if the son did that makes it ok.

Let's review. I said the son asked for a demo. You said this claim was a lie. So I showed proof. But instead of taking responsibility for your false accusation, now you're trying to change the subject with a straw-man argument.

This shoddy behavior is so typical of you.

I said the son asked for a demo. You said this claim was a lie.

I actually still don't belive it.

Otherwise, even if the son asked for it, that does not make it ok. And so why do you keep posting "the son asked for a demo"?

Note: you don't have an answer.

This shoddy behavior is so typical of you

See above.
You're nothing but a silly hack.

now you're trying to change the subject with a straw-man argument.

Um, no. That would be you.
See, saying "the son asked for a demo" is irrelevant.
Which is why you keep saying it.

I suggest you look up the term "staw-man" because you obviously have no idea what it means.

whit:

this trooper showed VERY bad judgment

Indeed. That's why he was suspended.

The Palin family also showed bad judgment in waiting two years before they reported the incident. And Molly Palin showed bad judgment in failing to go downstairs to intervene, even though she knew what was happening. This is like the Jerry Springer show, where no one has a monopoly on bad judgment.

i do think a 14 yr old is old enough to ask for a "demo"

His age is usually reported as 10 or 11.

that's why JBG was able to opine so wisely on the child rearing and obstetrical issues on other threads,

Never in the history of the world have people that have known so little, opined on so much.

Which is why you can't parody the left anymore.

"She's in favor of teaching creationism as science in public schools."


This is a completely fraudulent claim. The sheer number of lies told about this one woman is staggering.

federal:

This is a completely fraudulent claim.

You're correct, provided you completely ignore what she actually said. See here:

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

The next day, she did backpedal somewhat. But I think it's fair to believe that her initial answer is the more authentic one.

ejo:

I think I will ask the next police officer I see to kick me in the groin. After all, if I asked him to do it, why should that call the officer's judgment into question?

I guess you missed the part where I agreed that Wooten showed "VERY bad judgment." But I hope you and your straw man keep having lots of fun together.

For Bill Poser, the church Palin used to go to--the "nutty church"-- is not all the religion there is. There's also AGW and on that Palin is an atheist.
It sure is tough to keep up. More turns than a velocidrome.
And people like Poser are losing the tempo here.

Here is what she said, and what you completely ignored and failed to include in your quote:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum."

I see that Fafblog has the truth behind the Palin pick:

Things are looking up for John McCain. Last week ended with a bang with the announcement of his fresh-faced new running mate Sarah Palin, who should provide McCain many more years of extended existence through gradual consumption of her life force, and, if needed, a new host body should his current vessel fail him.

Doh!!!

Obviously, time for me to get back to work.

@ Arkady - I must agree with you. Who says being a POW is a door-opener to the presidency. Enough with it alrady.

Professor Bernstein,

You have made clear that you think it is bad political strategy for Obama supporters and others to push the news that Palin belongs to a church now headed by David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

However, I am curious about how you feel about the merits of the story and whether you think it is fair to critize Palin for her association with a church that, among other things, believes terrorist attacks on Israelis are God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity

Indeed, Brickner has been quoted as stating:

"Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment — you can't miss it."

Assuming the Brickner quote is fact, and that Palin attended (and, continues to share a spiritual affinity for) Brickner's chuch, I invite you to comment about the reasonable conclusions an objective observer or a hawkish advocate for the interests of Jews around the world might be fairly entitled to draw.

"what happens to the media's credibility?"

Nothing, because they have no credibility.

When I was being interviewed out of law school 30 years ago, I was asked questions about how I would handle a career and a family, even what form of birth control I used (I walked out of that interview). Now 30 years later, no progress has been made. The double standard persists. Very, very sad.

Suzy, if her being a sorta-conservative/sorta-libertarian small-government person doesn't do it for you, then presumably you would find Obama (who will require us to work, and demand that we shed our cynicism) more to your liking after all?

Serendipity:
Can someone please just explain to me why there hasn't been a revolt in the Republican party. The argument seems to be "well, even if she's bad, she's no worse than Obama." Even if that's true, why is the solution to accept her? Shouldn't the Republicans want MORE for their party than the Democrats do? "You guys picked an unqualified hack, so we're going to do it too!" Really? Is this really how much this country has fallen?

Where is the same level of outrage that happened when Harriet Miers was nominated to the Supreme Court? Sarah Palin may well be a nice woman, and quite well accomplished, but is she truly the party's best representative to represent them to the country and to the world? If someone can honestly answer that question in the affirmative, maybe it really is time to cash in my savings and move somewhere else.
9.3.2008 1:44pm

Michael Savage has found another listener/sheep.

I don't think David Warner's most recent post, which lacks anything of substance and just insults other commenters, fits the terms below.

Justin,

You can't possibly think picking Giuliani would have resulted in the same outpouring of contributions that the R's are currently receiving, can you? (Yes, big surprise--the VP selection was probably based on multiple considerations.)

that child should be lucky that he didn't ask dad to shoot him-although, to be fair, in JBGVille, that would be perfectly appropriate. Calmom, according to JBG, if you want a big time career as a lawyer or anything else, you better have a full time stay at home spouse. otherwise, you need to shut your yap and your kids are fair game. did I miss some nuance, JBG?

The Ace writes:

"And, given that the officer in question was punished for his actions, I think it fair to conclude that the kid did not."

I asked about this earlier this afternoon where I work of an employee in the security office who also teaches at a police training academy. He indicated that using a taser in that manner is essentially no different than unholstering a service weapon - if you do so for a reason you can't justify was necessary, then (at least in these parts) you will be subject to disciplinary action. Even for a training taser.

Hooten should have known better and not done that - period. It shows a lack of judgement.

The concern trolls that keep harping on Palin's "special needs infant" know little about infants, Down syndrome, or big families, apparently.

ALL infants are "special needs" in the sense that they need billing and cooing and lots of human contact. This can be provided by others as well as mom. Didn't feminists tell us how much better day care is than mom staying home?

Big families know how to deal with babies. You Metro concern trolls should talk to Iowa farmwives. They might be able to explain it, although you probably couldn't grok it.

Small families (e.g. the NYC ones with the OCD Yalie mother who turns a single infant into a Quest for Perfection in Childraising) really cannot appreciate this. You know, the ones who stand on line in the rain outside Miss Smith's Manhattan Academy for Perfect Infants and Toddlers from 10PM until opening the next day at 10AM so they can get the early bird application form for their beloved singleton toddler, Muffie. Different mental world entirely. Way different conception of child-raising and parenting.

Down syndrome infants and toddlers are no different than regular infants. This isn't "Lorenzo's Oil" territory, folks.

The attempt to scam the electorate with "special needs Downs baby" betrays some basic trollish ignorance, as one might expect from pro-abortionist liberals. They have been aborting Downs syndrome babies for 35 years, and have lost all cultural memory of Downs babies and what life is like with them around. It is this culture-wide forgetting that makes the "special needs Downs baby" meme even superficially plausible.

But it won't work. The swing voters Obama is hoping to get don't automatically abort, and are therefore much more familiar with Downs babies and kids. They are not likely to fall for such trollish bogosity as "special needs Downs babies".

Finally, if liberals trolls feel like kids are such a critical part of a Palin's job performance, why on earth do they prevent us from asking all female job applicants whether they plan to have kids, how soon, how many, whether they will be available for advancement in five years, and what plans they have made for a baby-support network?

1) Because nobody cares about this when it comes to men. That's true of both conservative and liberals. And since largely women are worried about this issue, you can't really just dismiss it as sexist and hope that'll make the issue go away.

2) Okay, but neither can McCain really hit Obama on inexperience when he has a VP who's one heartbeat away from the office. Palin more neutralizes this issue than anything else, which is a plus for Obama (McCain clearly is expecting the benefits of selecting Palin to outweigh this particular negative.)

3) I'm not sure why Obama supporters wouldn't want to raise that issue, as Obama's connections on that end are pretty much played out. I don't really see conservatives getting that much more traction out of it by raising it as a defense to criticisms of Palin's pastor; "But...but...look what we said about Wright six months ago!"

And this has been another edition of why you don't take advice from people who want you to fail.

that's not a "fair" conclusion. it's unsubstantiated and illogical. i have already explained (i carry a taser and am familiar with dept. rules regarding same in several agencies), it is entirely inappropriate EVEN IF ASKED by a family member or friend, to provide a "demo tase", using your dept. taser. and if the person desiring a demo tase is only 10 or 11, it's even more inappropriate.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here?

To be clear, I do not believe for 1 second a 10 year old child asked to be tazed.

Which is why the officer in question was punished.

Each of these things have been pointed out many, many, many times as negatives for Obama. Overall, supporters of Obama have presumably decided that his positives outweigh these negatives, otherwise they wouldn't be his supporters. This does not mean that they are not negatives for Palin. The question is, does she have any positives that outweigh these negatives? So far, I haven't seen any.

Overall, supporters of Obama have presumably decided that his positives outweigh these negatives, otherwise they wouldn't be his supporters.

Assuming they're aware of them. Not everybody has been following the election since last November.

3) I'm not sure why Obama supporters wouldn't want to raise that issue, as Obama's connections on that end are pretty much played out. I don't really see conservatives getting that much more traction out of it by raising it as a defense to criticisms of Palin's pastor; "But...but...look what we said about Wright six months ago!"

Because everyone knows that 20 years of close association and "spiritual mentoring" is entirely irrelevant the moment one politely breaks ties with that person (after taking several weeks of major political heat over it).

Obama wants a debate about judgement? There's a prime example.

It's only "played out" because the "swing voter" (the ones that will decide this election, as usual) are morons with an 11-day memory, at best...

Oh, well, you're right, then. Excuse me while I weep for the future of western society.

"If I were supporting Obama..."

Az di bobe volt gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde.

Translation: What Mark Field said.

"Whatver you think of the Wright kerfuffle, Obama did explicitly reject Wright's extreme views. Will Palin do something similar?"

Only after Wright disrespected Obama.

Palen left the church. Something Obama never did.

"Obama has shown no sign of holding the insane views of Pastor Wright"

Read his books.

i read both. i have them right here. can you point me to relevant passages that show that he shares the insane views of pastor wright? i didn't notice any.

i'm being sincere.

i'm being sincere.

Then you've come to the wrong place. ;)

if JukeBoxGrad is typical. It must make every politician's blood run cold to know that merely standing up in front of an audience with the kids for a photo op puts all of them "in play" as being nefarious JukeBoxian political "props".

He's just a member of the cult of Obama - THE ONE. I don't think he's deliberately evil, just caught up in the intense tribalism of his cult and the personality-driven Obama. Or, he could have some mental issues that we don't know of. Either way, he's exposed himself as more of a religious fanatic than any church that Palin attended. Liberalism as a religion is really the only explanation for this kind of mentality. You'll see the Stalinist tactics at DemocraticUnderground and Kos. Jukeboxgrad is just bringing that here in the service of his mission. He's a cultist. It's really just best to close the door in their face.

http://volokh.com/posts/1220451914.shtml#427589

Smokey,

Regarding my earlier http://volokh.com/posts/1220451914.shtml#427401 comment, in which I asked Prof. Bernstein the following question:
-----------------------------

Professor Bernstein,

You have made clear that you think it is bad political strategy for Obama supporters and others to push the news that Palin belongs to a church now headed by David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

However, I am curious about how you feel about the merits of the story and whether you think it is fair to critize Palin for her association with a church that, among other things, believes terrorist attacks on Israelis are God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

Indeed, Brickner has been quoted as stating:

"Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment — you can't miss it."

Assuming the Brickner quote is fact, and that Palin attended (and, continues to share a spiritual affinity for) Brickner's chuch, I invite you to comment about the reasonable conclusions an objective observer or a hawkish advocate for the interests of Jews around the world might be fairly entitled to draw.

-----------------------------

Your hyperbole is amusing but you failed to address the substance of my question. Indeed, instead of doing so, you simply assumed my intentions and insulted me. That might be considered thoughtful debate where you come from but I suspect that most would agree it reveals a cowardly intellectual poverty.

Anyway, thanks for playing and my invitation to Professor Bernstein remains open.

"the sermon being quoted above was given at her current church, just a few weeks ago."

PALIN CHOICE = EPIC FAIL

Concerned wrote (in part):

You have made clear that you think it is bad political strategy for Obama supporters and others to push the news that Palin belongs to a church now headed by David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

You might have a point, if in fact Brickner was pastor of Governor Palin's church. He is not. At least according to the church's website, the pastor is someone named Larry Kroon.

Here's the transcript from some top REPUBLICAN pundits on the choice of Palin. You can see it on youtube. It proves that it isn't the Dems who are freaking out, but the Repubs. (The mike was still on and they didn't know it, so it gives their honest opinion on the matter).

CHUCK TODD: Mike Murphy, lots of free advice, we'll see if Steve Schmidt and the boys were watching. We'll find out on your blackberry. Tonight voters will get their chance to hear from Sarah Palin and she will get the chance to show voters she's the right woman for the job Up next, one man who's already convinced and he'll us why Gov. Jon Huntsman.
(cut away)

PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah.

MIKE MURPHY: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --

PEGGY NOONAN: It's over.

MIKE MURPHY: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CHUCK TODD: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

PEGGY NOONAN: Saw Kay this morning.

CHUCK TODD: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --

MIKE MURPHY: They're all bummed out.

CHUCK TODD: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

PEGGY NOONAN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --

CHUCK TODD: Yeah they went to a narrative.

MIKE MURPHY: I totally agree.

PEGGY NOONAN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.

MIKE MURPHY: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.

CHUCK TODD: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.

MIKE MURPHY: Yeah.
Label

What does Obama do with those gerbils? I'm asking that Michelle Obama take a DNA test to put to rest that Barack is not the father.

Sarah Palin Naked

rarango:

"I apologize for my snark that you called me on. But I continue to believe that your extrapolation is off base and ill informed."

Apology accepted. I am still curious as to what your objection is. Don't you think each person carries around his own force of mortality curve? And a whole population of individuals can be described by a "bundle" of curves. Why can't we modify the average of the bundle to get the curve for a specific individual? In reliability engineering we do the reverse. We assume identical units and select one or more, put on extra stress (accelerated life testing) and measure the time-to-failure. Then in effect we "un-stress" the curve to get back to the population curve. So I really think there is a linkage between group time to failure and individual time to failure. This is of course a Bayesian viewpoint and perhaps that's the root of the problem.

but if you can repeatedly land a jet on an aircraft carrier, you are not a "bad pilot." Heck, in my book if you can do it ONCE you are a pretty good pilot.

Heck, even I can land a jet on an aircraft carrier once, depending on your definition of "land."

Again, perhaps Bernstein can explain why this shouldn't be an issue given how affiliations with preachers is supposed to be some crucial determinant of qualifications for office.

http://www.memeorandum.com/080903/p185#a080903p185

As they say, turnabout is fair play.

Assuming the Brickner quote is fact, and that Palin attended (and, continues to share a spiritual affinity for) Brickner's chuch, I invite you to comment about the reasonable conclusions an objective observer or a hawkish advocate for the interests of Jews around the world might be fairly entitled to draw.

Your assumptions are wrong, because there is no "Brickner's church." Brickner was a guest speaker at Palin's church.

federal:

Here is what she said, and what you completely ignored and failed to include in your quote

I did indeed say that the next day she backpedaled. That part of my statement is what's been "completely ignored."

calmom:

Now 30 years later, no progress has been made. The double standard persists.

My concerns in this regard have nothing to do with gender. I've explained this in many places, including here.

I think you're finding it easier to not notice that I already said this.

justin:

I don't think David Warner's most recent post, which lacks anything of substance and just insults other commenters, fits the terms below.

Thanks for speaking up, but what else is new. Comments like his are rampant here.

ejo:

that child should be lucky that he didn't ask dad to shoot him-although, to be fair, in JBGVille, that would be perfectly appropriate

I hope you and that little straw man of yours are having lots of fun together. Please show where I claimed the Tasing was "perfectly appropriate." I haven't. What I've said over and over again is that it was bad conduct and poor judgment, and worthy of punishment.

according to JBG, if you want a big time career as a lawyer or anything else, you better have a full time stay at home spouse

That's one way to behave responsibly. Here's another one: use common sense when you think about how many kids you should have. Here's another one: manage your career in such a way as to make sure someone is available at least during the years that your kids need you most. On the other hand, here's a way to behave irresponsibly: have more kids than you can handle. In particular, get pregnant in your forties, even though you already have four kids, and even though you are inevitably aware of the heightened risk, and even though the number of parents who are willing to stay home is zero, and even though there are signs that your other kids could use more parenting than they're getting.

I realize that Trig was conceived before Bristol got pregnant, but I doubt that Bristol's pregnancy was the first sign of trouble in her life. It's just the first sign that has made it onto the front page.

And here's a way to compound that irresponsibility: jump at a chance to get a job that's even more consuming than the one you already have. Even though it means relocating your kids 4200 miles away from their friends, relatives and schools.

otherwise, you need to shut your yap and your kids are fair game

No one ever said her "kids are fair game." You are the one who is holding them up as a shield. What's fair game is Palin, and her parental decisions, because she's invited us to evaluate those decisions.

did I miss some nuance

You missed more than just "some nuance." I just explained what you missed.

under the jbg standard, if the spouse doesn't intend to raise the kid, don't hire'em.

If a job applicant goes out of their way to show off their parental decisions, and then I notice that their parental decisions reflect poor judgement, you're right, I won't hire them. And that's exactly what Palin did.

bill:

Big families know how to deal with babies. You Metro concern trolls should talk to Iowa farmwives. They might be able to explain it, although you probably couldn't grok it. Small families (e.g. the NYC ones with the OCD Yalie mother who turns a single infant into a Quest for Perfection in Childraising) really cannot appreciate this.

If I accept what I think you're implying, it becomes hard to explain this:

In each of the red states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico, 46.3 percent of all births were to unwed mothers … In blue states, on average, that percentage was 31.7 … Delaware has the highest rate of births to teenage mothers among all blue states, yet 17 red states have a higher rate … Of those red states, 15 have at least twice the rate as that of Massachusetts … There were more than 100 teen pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 5 red states in 2002 … None of the blue states had rates that high … The rate of teen births declined in 46 states from 1988 to 2000 … It climbed in 3 red states and saw no change in another … The per capita rate of violent crime in red states is 421 per 100,000 … In blue states, it's 372 per 100,000 … The per capita rate of murder and non-negligent manslaughter in Louisiana is 13 per 100,000 … In Maine, it's 1.2 per 100,000 … As of 2000, 37 states had statewide policies or procedures to address domestic violence … All 13 that didn't were red states … The 5 states with the highest rates of alcohol dependence or abuse are red states … The 5 states with the highest rates of alcohol dependence or abuse among 12- to 17-year-olds are also red states … The per capita rate of methamphetamine-lab seizures in California is 2 per 100,000 … In Arkansas, it's 20 per 100,000 … The number of meth-lab seizures in red states increased by 38 percent from 1999 to 2003 … In the same time frame, it decreased by 38 percent in blue states … Residents of the all-red Mountain States are the most likely to have had 3 or more sexual partners in the previous year … Residents of all-blue New England are the least likely to have had more than 1 partner in that span … Residents of the mid-Atlantic region of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were the most likely to be sexually abstinent … Residents of the all-red West South Central region (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana) were the least likely … Five red states reported more than 400 cases of chlamydia per 100,000 residents in 2002 … No blue state had a rate that high … The per capita rate of gonorrhea in red states was 140 per 100,000 … In blue states, it was 99 per 100,000.

Maybe it's actually possible that red-state families could learn a little from blue-state families (instead of the reverse, which is what you are seemingly implying).

Down syndrome infants and toddlers are no different than regular infants.

I realize you're a lot smarter than the famous liberal moonbat who said this:

what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?

Hmm, let's see. She thinks it matters. You say "no different." Hard to know who to believe.

if liberals trolls feel like kids are such a critical part of a Palin's job performance

It's not that "kids are such a critical part of a Palin's job performance." It's that she invited us to evaluate her parental decisions, even though her parental decisions reflect poor judgment. Judgment is definitely "a critical part of a Palin's job performance."

xan:

Because nobody cares about this when it comes to men

My concerns in this regard have nothing to do with gender. I've explained this in many places, including here.

I think you're finding it easier to not notice that I already said this.

dangermouse:

he's exposed himself as more of a religious fanatic than any church that Palin attended

I realize that asking you for a shred of proof would be expecting way too much.

dave n:

here is Peggy Nonnan's explanation for what she said, too.

The tape speaks for itself. Her desperate retroactive spinning is singularly unconvincing.

Even worse than what Brickner said -- and something the press has been strangely silent about -- is that both McCain and Palin are members of churches that regard as "inspired" scripture the ravings of a preacher named Jeremiah who claimed that the violent overthrow of the Jewish state in 587 B.C.E. and the expulsion of its population to exile in Babylon were God's judgment on the Jews for their various "sins," including religious "idolatry."

McCain lost five planes. Why so many? Here's the story of one of them: "flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines." (From "The Nightingale's Song," p. 94.)

JBG needs to form a 527 group. He could call it "Swift Plane Veterans for Truth."

seamus:

Even worse than what Brickner said

Oddly enough, ancient statements about ancient history are not "even worse than what Brickner said" very recently in Palin's church, regarding current events in Israel.

If Jeremiah were to miraculously appear in Palin's church and be applauded for saying the things he said a few thousand years ago, that would concern me roughly as much as the Brickner event concerns me. So please let me know if you get wind of such a thing happening.

If Jeremiah were to miraculously appear in Palin's church and be applauded for saying the things he said a few thousand years ago, that would concern me roughly as much as the Brickner event concerns me.

Conversely, I guess that if you had been around in the time of kings Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, you'd have found Jeremiah's prophecy offensive (as did Jehoiakim and Zedekiah).