Sarah Palin as a Debater:
If you want to see her in 2006, when she debated Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, see below:
Thanks to PrestoPundit and to my colleague Joe Doherty for the pointer.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
CatholicChristian RNC fraud. I think McCain would be better off having Kerik.Oh, there is more. Liar Christie Whitman recommend Palin too. That tells you something.
Seem to me, that RNC strategists using Mike's Election Guide to blow it big time.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Palin received 48.33% of the vote; her two top rivals received 40.97% and 9.46%.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13098.html
I didn't watch the whole thing, but in the part that I did watch, she said that she would "choose life" in the case of rape. She didn't say anything about making abortion illegal even in the case of rape. She just said that she was personally pro life.
Also, odd how that moderator asked her what she would do if her daughter was pregnant. Did he know something?
That's why liberals hate her. They hate pro-lifers. Sex is about power to them, not about families, and certainly not about children. All the barren beltway harridans harping on Palin hate her because she's a real woman.
They're either an unwanted "punishment," and/or the equivalent of an STD. Can't you just feel the love and compassion? [/s]
Whenever I hear 0bama talk off the cuff, I feel like I want to take another shower. Such a nasty vermin. *Yeech!*
Scary thing is... Biden's worse.
Most states don't have anywhere near the same agenda- oil and gas, game management, rights of native peoples, totally undeveloped villages, etc.
Palin does real well, but the topics are not very universal. I do believe that seven percent is a landslide in a three way and "close race".
From everything I've read, it's a mistake to underestimate Sarah Palin.
That's the most lucidly misogynistic phrase I've seen in far too long!
It's not misogynistic, the media is "fair game." I can play by those rules too, you know.
And calling liberal females "not real women" merely acknowledges the fact that ALL liberals are transplants from the planet Marxia, whether gynoform or androform
Even by Noonan’s standards, it’s a dynamite piece.
Actually, I was referring to women in the media, not ALL liberal women.
I thought the secession issue was settled by a little dust-up called the Civil War. This thing is so bizarre I wouldn't be surprised if Palin's secessionist group had ties to some of those conservative militias so common out west.
As President Bush has made clear, if you're not with us, you're against us. And it sounds like Palin was part of group that is clearly against us. Does that make her a terrorist? Just asking.
You can be satisfied that that information is a complete lie.
Of course, don't doubt that members of the Cult of Obama will continue to lie about it.
Gee, I guess you're behind the curve a bit. Go over to TPM and see what La Noonan really thinks of Palin's selection. Looks like the Angry Left's got nothin' on the Angry Right.
Now on to jousting with my fellow commenters. I LOVE her. Love that she disturbs you. HAHAHAHA. I feel like Cartman feeding your parents to you in Chile, and thinking licking up your tears.
OK. The score is tied at 2 to 2. Can we please call it a draw and get out of the gutter?
DangerMouse doesn't count as his is funny and clever and can only offend Marxians and they don't count. (I hope.)
I shouldn't be surprised, but I was at the number of questions about life, pregnancy etc. I guess it was a "just in case missed the fact that Palen is pro life" moment in journalism. I imagine we can expect a lot more of the same when she debates Biden.
Thank you Prof. Volokh. I enjoyed listening to the entire debate.
I don't think Noonan's being inconsistent, as she said that the pick was a Hail Mary pass. Nevertheless, Noonan's right about why the left feels like they have to destroy Palin. It's not only her who's saying these things:
Yeah, "Hail Mary Pass" sounds a lot better than this:
badnessfun.Now, you can try and say she was only doing this in some official capacity -- except she was a nobody in 1994. Furthermore, what business does any elected official have lending credibility to an organization openly hostile to the U.S. Constitution and our country?
The other important thing to note is that Sarah Palin did deliver the opening address at the 2008 Alaska Independence Party convention saying that the Alaska Independence Party “plays an important role in state politics” and that she “shares [the party's] vision of upholding the Alaska constitution”, with the implication that she supports ‘the vote’, and wishes them luck on a successful convention. She was present, and encouraging and supportive.
Get a clue, that group is not a secessionist group. It's an Alaska first group with some cranks in it who want to secede, like liberals are known to say after losing to Republicans after 2000 and 2004. Remember "Jesusland" images? That was a liberal fantasy of secession.
If you look at their website, they're not hostile to the Constitution because they speak highly of it.
You need to get new talking points from your Cult leader.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
From Ferraro to Palin: My, How The Times Change [Andy McCarthy]
The New York Times, that is
.
At TheCatholicThing.org, George Marlin unearths the Gray Lady's editorial from July 3, 1984, gushing over Geraldine Ferraro's nomination and the welcome prospects it presented that little known women would be selected to serve as Vice President despite arguable inexperience and given the opportunity to grow in office. Here are the highlights:
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President?... Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens?... Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial?... Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy…. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen.... Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?... [T]he indispensable credential for a Woman Who [sic] is the same as for a Man Who [sic] – one who helps the ticket.
Liberal bias, ya think? Just, maybe?
And you can watch Palin here introduce the AIP convention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
Also, there seem to be pre-VP nod confirmation that she was an AIP member (at 1:45): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E46_ZVzBf9U (As an aside, the lead-in to this video is quite interesting).
I don't know about the "as usual" part, but where the is the argument? And if there is one, why is it with me? I simply reported what some prominent Republicans said in an unguarded moment and, then, in response to your post, suggested you direct your ire at them. As for dirt, perhaps I misunderstood what your tag about liberal bias meant. I took to mean the Noonan and Murphy were displaying liberal bias. But now that I reread it, just what the devil did you mean?
I suggest reviewing this blog post on Palin, which has some interesting background info on Alaska politics and third parties:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0134204/2008/08/29.html#a309
Please read my post above re what the NY Times had to say in 1984 about Ferraro. Compare that to what they are saying about Palin. That is Liberal bias. I also just heard Sally Quinn of the Washington Post say that Palin should stay home with her baby. Sally Quinn for pete's sake. My head is spinning.
However, there was a Minn. Congresswoman Michele Bachman, a Republican, who has 5 kids and has some portion of 23 foster kids at home. She seemed to think it could be done just fine and Palin could do the job and be a mother quite well.
I, for one, am afraid to look outside. I fear I will find that the sun has switched places with the moon and the stars have left the sky.
As a semi-retarded Catholic, I resent that.
As someone who cares about language, I resent the pleonasm "Catholic Christian."
As a man who despises the use of the phrase "as an X, I resent Y," I resent this post.
And the NEXT ONE.
At least he's counting Catholics as Christians. Maybe we should take what we can get.
Hey! Now that's STINKIN' THINKIN'. EVERYBODY is SOMEBODY. And somebody special too.
Just like YOU!
Here are the relevant excerpts from Noonan's later comments on Noonan's "open mike" conversation [using truncated sections instead of the whole thing so this can be fair use on the point]:
'...In our off-air conversation, I got on the subject of the leaders of the Republican party assuming, now, that whatever the base of the Republican party thinks is what America thinks. I made the case that this is no longer true, that party leaders seem to me stuck in the assumptions of 1988 and 1994, the assumptions that reigned when they were young and coming up. ... That is, McCain may well win. I do not think the campaign is over, I do not think this is settled, and did not suggest, back to the Todd-Murphy conversation, that "It's over."
...The other, more seriously, is a real criticism that I had not previously made, but only because I hadn't thought of it. And it is connected to a thought I had this morning, Wednesday morning, and wrote to a friend. Here it is. Early this morning I saw Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and as we chatted about the McCain campaign (she thoughtfully and supportively) I looked into her eyes and thought, Why not her? Had she been vetted for the vice presidency, and how did it come about that it was the less experienced Mrs. Palin who was chosen? ... The story the campaign wishes to tell about itself, and communicate to others. I don't like the idea of The Narrative. I think it is ... a barnyard epithet. And, oddly enough, it is something that Republicans are not very good at, because it's not where they live, it's not what they're about, it's too fancy. To the extent the McCain campaign was thinking in these terms, I don't like that either. I do like Mrs. Palin, because I like the things she espouses. And because, frankly, I met her once and liked her. I suspect, as I say further in here, that her candidacy will be either dramatically successful or a dramatically not; it won't be something in between."
http://www.akip.org/platform.html
I am talking about Liberal bias and the truly remarkable about face the heretofore radical liberal women have made regarding women in the work place. It now appears that a woman's place is in the home. Even if that makes total sense to you, I'm confused.
She doesn't disavow the subtance of what she said on the open mic. Let me repost that:
Nothing in the cited graf counts as a rejection of the substance of her outburst--she thinks there are other Republican women more qualified than Sarah Palin for job of vice-president. And I suspect not a little of what lies behind the passion of her outburst is that she's known these women for years and counts them as very close friends of her's. A very human, if impolitic, reaction if you ask me.
No, I am too. I'm just less appreciated.
Gov. Palin is extremely charming and engaging. Governors routinely do public relations for the state. Apparently some people in the AIP were as mistaken about her as comedian Craig Ferguson pretended to be when he speculated that she was coming on to him when she extended his Honorary Alaska Citizenship. Note that in the AIP video, she says:
Competition. Get it? She's being gracious and unafraid. "Best of luck to you folks." We also call that being "classy," something an increasing number of Democrats seem not to understand.
The text Anna blockquoted above is indeed on my blog, but it's me quoting Kaylene Johnson's biography of Gov. Palin.
In that same post, I also transcribed an excerpt from the debate video embedded above by Prof. Volokh. The debate is quite lengthy (84 minutes) and a lot of it was about issues unique to Alaska, but I found one exchange near the end, when Sarah Palin was invited to pose a question directly to former governor Tony Knowles, particularly interesting.
Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy are both a little too immersed an East Coast/Inside the Beltway mentality. They ought to go vacation somewhere like Alaska. They also don't know Sarah Palin very well yet. There's a phrase in Alaska for people who've underestimated her and expected to roll over her easily: "Roadkill."
Joe Biden ought not be overconfident; she debated more often in that election than he did in his 2007-2008 presidential run, and with rather markedly better results.
Also, I don't think that the reason they're asking for a "revote" is so that they can reaffirm statehood.
If the argument for pro-choice is that a woman has the right to control her own body, why aren't any of the pro-choice advocates campaigning to allow organ sales?
Sorry again for the off topic nature of the post.
In 1990, Wally Hickel was elected governor on the Alaska Indepdence Party ticket, beating the Democrats and Republicans. Hickel, who had been a former governor and Secretary of the Interior under Nixon, is a lifelong Republican who did not see much of a problem in crossing over to the AIP temporarily.
Joe Vogler, who founded the AIP many years ago, did frequently make secession type noises, but the AIP folks are more like the Sagebrush Rebellion than like the Confederacy.
Don't ask me to name them, please, I haven't got all day. [Disclaimer: IANARepublican. Independent/Decline to State, 40+ years]
Looks like you scored game, set and match with:That puts the AIP tempest in a teapot into perspective. Thanks.