pageok
pageok
pageok
Media's treatment of Palin:

The "media's treatment of Palin and her family this week has been the quintessence of hypocrisy, the vilest form of the politics of personal destruction." So I argue in my Rocky Mountain News media column today.

Based on e-mail I've gotten from some readers, it's clear that some people have so much emotional investment in their hatred of Palin that they can't read very well. So to be clear, and to amplify a point I explicitly made in the last paragraph of the column, it's legitimate and necessary for the media to ask questions about her public policy positions (including those on sex education), her record in public office, her political philosophy, whether her experience makes her well-qualified to be VP or President, and so on.

And BTW, astute readers will spot a typo: "Ronald Reagan's daughter Nancy Davis" should be "Ronald Reagan's daughter with Nancy Davis."

UPDATE. An excerpt from a reader e-mail:

I do not always agree with your stance on the issues of the day, but I am with you 150% on this issue. I wonder if you saw the op-ed page political cartoon in the Denver Post on Thurs. Sept. 9th ? As the father of an adult special needs individual, slightly older than Bristol Palin, but just as pregnent and just as unwed at this time, I was incensed at the sleeze demonstrated by this portrayal of a McCain/Palin "shotgun wedding" along with the caption undrneath the cartoon. What sent me completely over the edge however was the hand at the left of the frame holding a sign announcing that Bristol Palin is five months pregnant along with two elephant heads whispering and giggling. How low will the media go and is there anything that ordinary people like myself can do to put a stop to such behavior? I know firsthand the emotional toll that an unexpected pregnancy is exerting on our family, (she and her boyfriend have our unyielding support) but more importantly on our daughter. Here in the Palin family's case, the entire world is hearing all the details. How sad to put a confused and frightened seventeen year old through this addttional stress. My dissapointment with the Denver paper is such that I plan to cancel my subscription next week. After I saw this lowdown smear at this innocent minor, I drove down to McCain headquarters and offered my services to the campaign and made a donation to the McCain 2008 campaign. As you can see, I have been touched both emotionally and personally by what is passing for journalism in this election year.

Hoosier:
"some people have so much emotional investment in their hatred of Palin that they can't read very well"

And vice versa.
9.6.2008 3:50pm
martinned (mail) (www):
Sometimes the "media" even end up disagreeing with themselves. How's that for hypocrisy...

P.S. Yes, this clip has been viewed more than 2 million times already!
9.6.2008 3:55pm
martinned (mail) (www):
P.P.S. By the way, whatever happened to "back to our regular scheduled programming"?
9.6.2008 3:57pm
JB:
Considering her political views on issues relevant to her personal life, I don't think media coverage of the latter is inappropriate.

Considering the easy defenses of her personal life that arise from her political views, I don't think complaints about the media coverage are legitimate.

A truly skilful campaign would treat the attacks on Palin as the softballs they are, and use them to demonstrate how responsible she's really being (she kept Trig, she's married to her husband, Bristol is marrying her boyfriend, they all have jobs or are continuing their education...I'd say they're responding about perfectly to unexpected pregnancies, excepting Sarah's mystifying plane flights--why not riposte with that?).
9.6.2008 4:03pm
The General:

"some people have so much emotional investment in their hatred of Palin that they can't read very well"

And vice versa.


More moral equivalency. First, David's impression was based on his e-mails. Secondly, those smearing Palin based on lies is just not the same as those supporting her because she's being smeared based on lies. One side clearly has the moral high ground here, and it isn't the people smearing her based on lies.
9.6.2008 4:04pm
Quarterly Prophet (mail):
I love how the internet allows me to read about how terrible the media is treating Sarah Palin, then spend a few seconds and find someone complaining about how the media has been quick to heap undeserved praise on her and call her reaganesque.
9.6.2008 4:07pm
Hoosier:
The General: I think you misunderstood my point, to wit, perhaps people that can't read well are the ones who hate Plain.

It isn't much. But there it is.
9.6.2008 4:07pm
Angus:
How about the moral high ground of those supporting her with lies like the jet/ebay story, or her brave stand against the "bridge to nowhere"?
9.6.2008 4:15pm
hawkins:

One side clearly has the moral high ground here, and it isn't the people smearing her based on lies.


Clearly, anyone using lies to smear someone never has the moral high ground. However, you cant say that "one side" has it. If anything, there has been much more of this nonsense in regards to Obama than Palin.
9.6.2008 4:18pm
loki13 (mail):
I've been busy with things recently (you know, the offline thing called life) so haven't had a chance to comment recently, and haven't desired to muck up any other threads with a political topical. So this should be fair game.

1. WRT Palin's speech, it was nothing that wasn't expected. In my own nitpicking way, I have to say her accent bothered me (like a cross of the nasty of Megan Mullaly with the flat affect of Frances McDormand in Fargo). Not overwhelming, just offputting. Anyway, that's not substantive, just my own personal quirk. Moving on, it was well-delivered, great for the base (that evil media), but it hit too many wrong notes in the second half for me. Too much sarcasm (or wit, if Jim Jindgren), not enough substance. I'd trust her to deal with an oil pipeline now, not so much to deal with the leader of Turkmenistan. Or go to their funeral.

2. Watching McCain's speech, I realized that my initial observation about Palin was correct- she is a resource drain on the McCain campaign. A good speechwriter can make an awful public speaker look good (see Bush, GHW, 1988). We know McCain is not a scintillating public speaker. And yet he had an bland (at best) speech. Why do you think that is? Because all the resources went into Palin's speech. The same way all the McCain campaign resources (in terms of money, rapid response, news cycles, and, most importantly, time) are going into trying to control the Palin narrative.

3. If someone had told you, at the tail end of the Regan revolution, the following two pieces of information, would you have believed them?
a) The "family values" majority would exercise such control over the Republican party that they could force the GOP Presidential candidate to place on his ticket an inexperienced ideologue who opposes all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
b) The GOP convention would stage a wild welcome for the unmarried pregnant teenage daughter of the VP candidate and her sullen boyfriend.
My mind was boggled (boggling?). Not so much about the hypocrisy, but about the tension between the uncompromising stands on abortion and the sacrifice the GOP has made on almost all the other core "family values" issues (see also Mary Cheney's daughter).

In a way, I understand this- for the truly committed, abortion is murder, and everything else is secondary. But didn't this originally arise in a context of preserving families and core morality? What's going on here?

4. I disagree with Kopel's statement, in a way. The media has nothing else to go on. This is the same as saying "Negative Campaign Ads are bad." Well, sure. But they're still out there. Everyone knows what happens in modern politics (and, heck, politics going back to the founders). Palin entered the fray in her glass house, and people are throwing stones. We can say it's awful &horrible . . . and completely predictable. Moreover, because she is being kept away from the press, the press doesn't have anything from her to go on. As for criticizing her policies . . . what policies? Has she announced them? Did I miss them? Does she have any *national* ones? Has she figured out what the VP can do for Alaska yet? Inquiring minds would love to criticize her policies, when they come out.

5. I still think that the Palin pick could end out coming out neutral, or even be net positive. Media storms are fleeting, and today's scandals are tomorrows bird-cage liners. If Palin has a good debate, and looks polished when (if?) she hits the campaign trail and actually goes unscripted, and provided no major scandals are uncovered, I think she holds appeal, especially for the base GOP. I've talked (fer real, offline) with some younger GOP types, and they're real enthusiastic. But they're all men. The women? Not so much. YMMV.

6. On a personal note, I hope the GOP loses the Presidential race. I think it would be good for the GOP. Currently, it is controlled by the Bush faction-- as a fiscal conservative, I cannot stand Bush Republicans. This is not just an issue of branding- this is a core problem. Just as the Democrats became unhealthy during the 1980s, I think the GOP is unhealthy right now. We are best served by having two healthy parties compete for our votes. Trying to distinguish between the "Tax &Spend" Democrats and the "Don't Tax (but tax your kids) &Spend" GOP based on a few cultural wedge issues isn't doing any of us a favor.

Although it does allow us to come up with creative names to call each other on teh intertubez.
9.6.2008 4:21pm
fullerene:
Is there really evidence of terrible hypocrisy here?

David, your first point is that the media did not make similar criticisms of Clinton after he selected Gore hastily. Then you point out that Gore was well known to the media and it should be said to the rest of the country (at least as much as someone like Pawlenty is). This would be hypocritical if the two situations were parallel. As you point out, much more was known about Gore than Palin. This seems to undermine your claim of equivalence. Clinton could have been relying on publicly available information when he chose Gore. In Palin's case, little was known about her by the public and so it seems sensible to criticize McCain for not getting to know about her more himself. The charge is not so much that he selected her without meeting her a hundred times. The charge is that he selected her without knowing anything about her. This may be wrong, but it seems reasonable given how little McCain researched her himself and how little public information was available at the time he made the selection.

You next compare Chelsea and Bristol. Again, I question the equivalence. Chelsea was 12 years old when Clinton ran for president and people were making fun of her appearance. John McCain himself (something you fail to mention) made fun of her appearance. This hardly seems comparable to the media's criticisms of the actions of a 17 year old for getting pregnant. One is criticism of a preteen for something she cannot control. The other is criticism of teen for something she could control. Now I would agree that both are far from the sorts of things we should be worrying about. But that does not make the media hypocritical. It makes it childish. You know, just like all of us who pay attention to it.
9.6.2008 4:22pm
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):
It is okay to ask questions. But the media (MSNBC, NBC,and CBS, specifically) have gone into a state of delirium over Palin.

Saturday Night Live was pulling Chealsea Clinton jokes off the air due to complaints from the Clinton's because she was "off limits", no matter that her parents dragged in front of the lights every chance they got.

Even when Chelsea Clinton, as a professionally employed, graduate degree holding adult, was giving campaign speeches on her mothers behalf, it was sacrosanct to ask her any questions about anything, particularly her families "private life". She was after all, only the daughter of the candidate.

However, it was okay for the press to hound the Bush twins every chance they got when they were in college, and well, acting like college kids. Not many Chelsea Clinton drinking pictures out there, are there? Of course I am sure she stayed in her dorm room at Stanford for 4 years.

The media, and certain left wingers have transferred BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) onto Palin.
9.6.2008 4:24pm
JK:
While there certainly has been some "inapropriate" criticism of Palin, I'm really not seeing how it is outside of the ordinary. "The politics of personal distruction" seems to be pretty much par for the course. What strikes me as odd about this Palin business is that it seems some people think I should like her because she's been unfairly critisized.
9.6.2008 4:26pm
fullerene:
Come on! The media likes juicy stuff. As best I can tell, the media only went after the Bush twins over their purported drinking habits. Apparently, this is interesting to some people. Not that I know for sure, but I am guessing that Chelsea is just a lot more boring than the Bush twins.

The same idea applies to the Palin family. They have a lot of celebrity gossip-like material to mine. The rest of the candidates apparently don't. McCain and his wife have seven children among them. I have not heard one word of gossip about them. I am guessing that they are rather boring.
9.6.2008 4:32pm
Xanthippas (mail) (www):
If I want to read this kind of nonsense (and this for that matter) I'll go somewhere other than Volokh Conspiracy.
9.6.2008 4:33pm
Dave3L (mail) (www):
Oh, please... enough with the histrionics. Palin herself was the one who made her family and her life political issues. She was the one who, on the first day of her candidacy, was talking about how she was a hockey mom, how her pro-life credentials were in place because she chose to have her down syndrome baby, and lying about her brief record. Lacking any actual experience, knowledge or training, she is the one who made her family the central basis of her candidacy. Suggesting now that her wacky family is now off limits - that we just have to accept her fantastical story - is ridiculous.
9.6.2008 4:34pm
Angus:

I've talked (fer real, offline) with some younger GOP types, and they're real enthusiastic. But they're all men.
I've noticed this too, and it's pretty creepy. Read the comments on sites like Redstate, Hot Air, Free Republic, etc. and see how frequently they write that Palin is "HAWT" and make sexual innuendos about her.

Frankly, I think that's more sexist than anything else I've seen in the whole of the sordid Palin media stories.
9.6.2008 4:37pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
In 1992, a Saturday Night Live skit mocking the young Chelsea Clinton produced such tremendous blowback from the rest of the media that she was, properly, left unmolested by the media during the Clinton presidency.

What bizarro world do you live in? Apparently one where Rush Limbaugh doesn't dominate the airwaves.
9.6.2008 4:45pm
paul lukasiak (mail):
The Gore - Palin comparison is on point....

No one said a peep about Gore because he had been vetted by the media. The media went after Palin not because she was "not properly vetted" by McCain, but because McCain made his choice without allowing the media the chance to decide if she was an acceptable choice -- the media never got the chance to tell America what to think of Palin before she stepped onto the podium with McCain the day after Obama's acceptance speech; McCain did an end run around the media with Palin, and the medis struck back.
9.6.2008 4:45pm
B. R. George (mail):
I don't think the media's claim regarding the pregnancy and conservative Christians was that her decision to bring the pregnancy to term would alienate them (since, obviously, conservative Christians ought to prefer that course of action), but that getting herself pregnant to begin with might. I don't think this justifies the way the media has handled this, of course, but given the amount of energy many conservative Christian groups have invested in negatively portraying unmarried young people who are sexually active, and given how much some significant parts of the American right have historically gone out of their way to demonize unwed parents and complain about the evils of illegitimacy, it doesn't seem crazy to think that those groups might react negatively to this kind of thing (while, of course, emphasizing that Miss Palin had made the right decision on the more important question that her indiscretions had created).
9.6.2008 4:47pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
Angus: I also saw a political poll that had Palin much more popular among men than women (although she's not particularly unpopular among women). I think testosterone is a major factor.
9.6.2008 4:49pm
loki13 (mail):
Paul L.,

That's an, um, interesting take. Another way of putting it is that McCain did an end run around the "American People" (or, at least those that reside in the lower 49 states). I'm something of a political junkie, and while before McCain's announcement I could tell you that Palin was the female governor of Alaska and one of the rising stars in the GOP, I couldn't tell you much else (I know, for example, a great deal more about Pawlenty and Jindal than I do about Palin, even now). Are you saying that only the McCain campaign and Palin could tell us about her?
9.6.2008 4:50pm
jccamp (mail):
I agree completely with the OP.

If Palin were a liberal Dem, does anyone think we would be hearing about her inability to care for her family and simultaneously, hold office? Or any of the other nonsense being bandied about? I can't believe that a pregnant teenager has somehow become fair game for snide remarks that purport to be about grown-up politics.

I don't suppose those on the far left will see anything in Gov. Palin but Dick Cheney in drag. Forget all the rhetoric from the high-minded liberals about gender equality. Undecided voters can see how the hard-core left treats anyone who dares to disagree with the party line as some kind of gender-traitor.

On some of the left blogs, I see any number of posts from voting Democrats, expressing frustration and anger about the way Gov.Palin is being treated. I would guess that Sen. Obama is among them. I hope so anyway.

There was a very apt political cartoon in our local paper. Palin is working a crowd, shaking hands. Standing to one side is a harridan wearing a NOW t-shirt. She waving a sign "Iron My Clothes."

True.
9.6.2008 4:57pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
McCain and Palin invited scrutiny of Palin's personal life from August 29 on.

Introducing her, McCain sold us on the idea that Palin was just like us, and could relate to our concerns, because he described her as "a union member and is married to a union member and understands the problems, the hopes and the values of working people, knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments and health care and the cost of gasoline and groceries; a standout high school point guard; a concerned citizen who became a member of the PTA, ... a devoted wife and mother of five..."

Then Palin expanded on McCain's theme, inviting us to look closely at her marriage and family life -- by implication just like our marriage and family life -- by revealing personal details of her marriage (telling us that day was her 20th anniversary of marriage to Alaskan, oil production operator, snowmachine champion, high school sweetheart, blessing-producer, her personal hero Todd), and her children (five blessings including 9/11-enlisting, 9/11-deploying, brave infantryman Track, and beautiful baby boy Trig).

Bristol's pregnancy would have eventually been manifest.

August 29 would have been the perfect opportunity for her to complete her discussion of her family by noting that Bristol would make her and Todd proud grandparents come Inauguration Day. Pregnancy is one secret that doesn't go away; assuming she continues to use her kids as campaign props Bristol's belly would have spilled the beans by election day.

Delaying the announcement did not favor the campaign. Bristol's pregnancy is a legitimate news story. The first woman VP would also be the first grandmother VP. Moreover, people crave irony -- that's the point of the man bites dog story. Here, Palin advocates abstinence education to prevent early, unplanned children; Bristol demonstrates that it is no bar to pregnancy.

The speech-making, water-breaking story makes Palin look tough and heroic. Is this not a message the campaign wants to send?
9.6.2008 4:59pm
EH (mail):
The "media's treatment of Palin and her family this week has been the quintessence of hypocrisy, the vilest form of the politics of personal destruction." So I argue in my Rocky Mountain News media column today.

The word "ahistorical" comes to mind...
9.6.2008 5:00pm
EH (mail):
jccamp:
If Palin were a liberal Dem, does anyone think we would be hearing about her inability to care for her family and simultaneously, hold office? Or any of the other nonsense being bandied about?


Probably not. The victims of Republican and Democratic policies are different, so the rhetoric of power utilized by each are going to be different. They have (some) different concerns, and the critical targets are shaped around the thrust of party identity. Everybody does it, it's the glue that holds the gears of progress together, and comes as no surprise.

However, you have to ask yourself whether Palin as a "liberal Dem" [sic] would have to endure criticism just as superficial, and I think history tells us that Karl Rove, Tim Griffin, Roger Stone, etc. would be more than happy to come up with some kind of character assassination. Is this really in question?
9.6.2008 5:06pm
byomtov (mail):
I agree with DK that the media made way too huge a fuss over Bristol Palin, (and ignored serious issues surrounding Sarah Palin). Children should certainly be off-limits.

Still, there is a bit of a double standard here. Politicians love to drag out their kids to show what wonderful family types they are, and how great their kids are, and so on. So the question I have for DK and others is where that line is. Beyond having a nice family photograph if they want, shouldn't they just shut up about it?

If it's not OK to criticize a candidate because her son is, say, a high-school dropout, is it OK for a candidate to get credit for a daughter who is #1 in her class in medical school?
9.6.2008 5:07pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Further, by claiming that the Palins were just like us, McCain invited us to put ourselves in the Palins' shoes. Would we, with a baby and a pregnant daughter, want to move to Washington, D.C., far away from friends and family? Heck, just getting a teenager to transfer schools would be a chore. And what if, God forbid, something happened to the 72 year old cancer survivor President? The notion that mothers are the primary caregivers may be sexist, but it is deeply rooted.
9.6.2008 5:07pm
paul lukasiak (mail):

That's an, um, interesting take. Another way of putting it is that McCain did an end run around the "American People" (or, at least those that reside in the lower 49 states).


unfortunately, the media no longer acts as a surrogate for the American people --- back when I was growing up, news divisions were considered "public service", now they are profit centers....and the news agenda is driven by the cable news networks that exist only to make money.

I'm something of a political junkie, and while before McCain's announcement I could tell you that Palin was the female governor of Alaska and one of the rising stars in the GOP, I couldn't tell you much else (I know, for example, a great deal more about Pawlenty and Jindal than I do about Palin, even now).


When did you start learning "a great deal more" about Pawlenty and Jindal? If it was as a result of their names being floated/discussed as serious potential VP picks, then you're reinforcing my point.

Are you saying that only the McCain campaign and Palin could tell us about her?


What I'm saying is that the vicious/sexist mainstream media attacks on Palin occurred because she hadn't received the media "seal of approval" as an acceptable VP pick before the announcement. Had she been "floated" by the McCain campaign in advance (i.e., if her name had been leaked days in advance as being one of the "final three", as the Obama campaign had done) the media would not have responded the way it did when the announcement finally came.
9.6.2008 5:16pm
AntonK (mail):
Kopel says (to reassure the Moonbats):

...it's legitimate and necessary for the media to ask questions about her public policy positions (including those on sex education), her record in public office, her political philosophy, whether her experience makes her well-qualified to be VP or President, and so on.
Legitimate and necessary indeed. Now, why hasn't Obama been on the receiving end of such questions. I mean, considering the length of time he's been on the campaign trail and all.... Seriously, she was targeted with more "questions" by the MSM in 6 minutes than BO was in 6 months.
9.6.2008 5:18pm
Even Older Guy:
She owes to herself. Only herself.
9.6.2008 5:19pm
loki13 (mail):
Paul L.


No, actually I knew a great deal more about Jindal and Pawlenty because they appear on shows I watch, and are part of the national political debate. Palin, before this, wasn't. I think you have your causal effects reversed; it is not that the press 'picks' candidates; insted, the campaign does one of two things:

1. Picks a candidate who has been on the national stage for a while, and has already been under so much press scrutiny that it is unlikely there are any surprises.

2. If they pick a candidate that is not as well known, they vet the heck out of the, AND they float the trial balloon early so that the press can start digging and if there's smoke (or, goodness, a fire) it comes out before the selection.

Running for President tends to be an exercise in risk-aversion, especially when it comes to picking a running mate. This was completely predictable.
9.6.2008 5:24pm
AntonK (mail):
A must-read compliment to Kopel's piece can be found here: Why They Hate Her

From the instant of Palin's designation on Friday, August 29, the American left went into a collective mass seizure from which it shows no sign of emerging. The left blogosphere and elite media have, for the moment, joined forces and become indistinguishable from each other, and from the supermarket tabloids, in their desire to find and use anything that will criminalize and/or humiliate Palin and her family. In sharp contrast to the yearlong restraint shown toward truthful reports about John Edwards's affair, bizarre rumors have been reported as news, and, according to McCain campaign director Steve Schmidt, nationally known members of the elite media have besieged him with preposterous demands.
...

The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was--before anything else about her was known--enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to contradict symbolically one of the central narratives of the left.
9.6.2008 5:24pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@AntonK: To be fair, Sarah Palin = Antichrist isn't that far off the mark.
9.6.2008 5:27pm
Big E:
jccamp:
If Palin were a liberal Dem, does anyone think we would be hearing about her inability to care for her family and simultaneously, hold office? Or any of the other nonsense being bandied about?


If Palin were a liberal Dem and had a unmarried teenage daughter, I assure you it would be on Fox news 24/7. And if Obama had an unmarried teenage daughter, well I think Sean Hannity's head would explode.
9.6.2008 5:27pm
loki13 (mail):
Big E:

In all fairness, I have enjoyed watching Bill O'Reilly's position spin more than Linda Blair's head in the Exorcist switching from

a) unwed teen pregnancies are the downfall of America and a sign of awful parenting that I need to pontificate upon to
b) unwed teen pregnancies are a gift from god and none of the media's business.
9.6.2008 5:37pm
Silly:

Delaying the announcement did not favor the campaign.


Well.. I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure they didn't expect or plan things to work out like this. But in the end, so far it looks like they've had a lot of good luck. Sure, there's negative stuff floating around, but I suspect that most of that is being taken with the proverbial grain of salt. That's certainly an advantage..
9.6.2008 5:41pm
Clastrenster:
Is the only chance McCain supporters have to keep talk of leftist slurs afloat? For the moment, it looks like the only thing keeping the McCain ticket political language going is Palin's charismatic speech and "leftist hate mongers." It's not hard to drum up anger at democrats, but soap opera-driven patience runs on a day-to-day cycle, not month to month cycle. No matter what, it'll be interesting to see how McCain's calculation plays out.
9.6.2008 5:42pm
Rod Blaine (mail):
The Rocky Mtn News sure attracts some keen minds, doesn't it:

'mrfxx writes: I don't recall Dave Kopel defending Chelsea Clinton's "right to privacy" when she was referred to as the "national dog" since she seems to have failed some cuteness standard growing up...'

Why, I bet mrfxx ran Google and FACTIVA searches and couldn't find a single hit for "dave-kopel chelsea-clinton national-dog"! Not one!

1992, and a nation turned its lonely eyes to Dave Kopel, expectng him to chivalrously defend Miss Clinton's privacy and honour. Yet we have no public record of him ever blogging about this throughout the entire First Clinton Presidency. Therefore it didn't happen.
9.6.2008 5:44pm
paul lukasiak (mail):
No, actually I knew a great deal more about Jindal and Pawlenty because they appear on shows I watch, and are part of the national political debate. Palin, before this, wasn't. I think you have your causal effects reversed; it is not that the press 'picks' candidates; insted, the campaign does one of two things:


yet, given the importance of energy/oil in this campaign, you'd think that the governor of Alaska would be someone that the news shows you watch would want to talk to....
9.6.2008 5:55pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):

JB:
Considering her political views on issues relevant to her personal life, I don't think media coverage of the latter is inappropriate.


Keep up the politics of personal destruction. It's doing such wonders for Obama, with his poll lead cut in half in less then a week after the smears started.
9.6.2008 6:02pm
MartyA:
I see no hypocrisy in the the ultra-left wing media's attack on Palin's daughter. Expect more vicious and frequent attacks on all family members and on McCain and Palin.
Huseein is the talentless artifact of the same media and the other masters of the democrat party, including organized labor and, no offense fellas, plaintiffs' attorneys. They have too much invested in this empty suit to not take every shot they can.
You want poor performers in this situation? Look no further than the super-delegates. When Hussein loses big, as I think he will, and, maybe, there are Republican gains in the Congress, the democrat centrists will realize they've been had again by the lunatic fringe. It was the job of the ssuper-delegates to see this didn't happen again.
But, the media? No, they are slime, have been and will be.
9.6.2008 6:10pm
loki13 (mail):
EIDE-

The convention might have something to do with it.

MartyA,

You wrote . . . oh, you wrote Hussein. I thought you had something substantive to post.
9.6.2008 6:14pm
Clastrenster:
I'm guessing MartyA's reference to "Hussein" is not a strong sign for the McCain ticket's legs.
9.6.2008 6:15pm
Smokey:
JK:
While there certainly has been some "inapropriate" criticism of Palin, I'm really not seeing how it is outside of the ordinary.
Classic! So now, inappropriate criticism of a woman is now considered "ordinary" by ethically-challenged liberal apologists.

Hillary can appeal to "soccer moms," but criticism is shoveled Gov. Palin's way if she even mentions "hockey moms." And 0's kids can fend for themselves while both mom & dad work, and that's OK too, but... who's going to take care of Vice President Palin's kids??!??!?

The hypocrisy of the liberals is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Sarah Palin clearly loves all her kids -- so the libs just have to find something wrong there, but when a Democrat mom is proud of her kid, it's totally normal.
9.6.2008 6:26pm
Barbara Skolaut (mail):

it's legitimate and necessary for the media to ask questions about her public policy positions (including those on sex education), her record in public office, her political philosophy, whether her experience makes her well-qualified to be VP or President, and so on

The same can be said of Obama. You'll notice I'm not holding my breath....
9.6.2008 6:29pm
jccamp (mail):
Big E,

I asked "If Palin were a liberal Dem, does anyone think we would be hearing about her inability to care for her family and simultaneously, hold office?"

Some of the loudest screams about Palin are coming from women who have supported the idea that a woman can simultaneously have a family and a career. Suddenly, a woman's place is in the home. Or somewhere. Anywhere actually, but on the Republican ticket. I think that demonstrates the hypocrisy of those self-identified liberals suddenly aware of how children need their mothers home every day. I also assert it proves the vacuity of their positions.

As for Palin's young daughter, if Obama had a pregnant unmarried daughter and anyone tried to somehow propose a link between the young woman's pregnancy and Obama's fitness for high office, i'd be the first to express disgust and annoyance. Like any number of self-identified Democrats are doing. It's sleazy and unnecessary. it says much more about those engaging in such tactics than it does about the Palin family.

BTW, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannitty don't represent me. What they do is provide a price structure for advertisers on Fox. In fact, they both somewhat remind of no one less than Joe Biden.

Why don't feminists just say "She is against abortion so I hate her." Or even, to misquote the song, "I really hate her. I'll think of a reason later." At least there would be some intellectual honesty in that statement.

Having said all that, every time Maureen Dowd or Andrea Mitchell slip something catty or vicious into their news/commentary, I suspect another undecided voter thinks that just maybe McCain/Palin isn't really the End of the World as We Know it.
9.6.2008 6:30pm
Dave3L (mail) (www):
Let's also not forget John McCain's 1999 joke involving Chelsea:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

I wonder what David Kopel has to say about the politics of personal destruction regarding that?
9.6.2008 6:30pm
DangerMouse:
Of course the media's treatment of Palin has been disgusting. Andrew Sullivan and Daily Kos are feeding vicious lies to them.

But they're so demented that they don't realize that they're creating a huge backlash. Palin now has a 58% favorable approval rating, higher than THE ONE's, and it's largely due to their attempts to smear a genuinely decent, good woman.

They can't help themselves. And like the boy who cried wolf, every subsequent lying scandal they try to pin on her will mean less and less, and they'll become more and more inconsequential.

Morons.
9.6.2008 6:30pm
Smokey:
martinned:
To be fair, Sarah Palin = Antichrist isn't that far off the mark.
Ah, the resident UN worshipper trolls from Euroweenieland. Now go back to licking Kofi Annan's boots, there's a good EU bureaucRat.
9.6.2008 6:31pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
If a pregnant teen is a legit target, how about a lobbyist son, a son and a relation involved in embezzlement?
Speaking of Biden, of course.
But you have to look pretty hard to find something on them.
9.6.2008 6:33pm
Lady on the Left:
First I've got to deal with this one:


She could not be allowed to contradict symbolically one of the central narratives of the left.


Sarah Palin, and Bristol's pregnancy in particular, does not contradict any central narratives of the left. It confirms our belief that, despite all the family-values talk, Republican kids have as much sex as Democratic kids. It confirms our belief that, because of this, all kids should be given comprehensive sex education, not abstinence-only. It confirms our belief that, if Bristol's "decision" is to be praised, then all women should have the right to make that decision for themselves, not with the government's help. It confirms our belief that, when it comes to women in politics, Democrats want to get women elected but also want those women to be qualified as individuals, whereas when Republicans want to nominate women, they turn around and pick up anyone (Harriet Miers, Sarah Palin) who happens to be available and looks nice on camera. So my leftist head isn't exactly spinning because of any displaced narratives on this one.

Second, and maybe I really am missing something here, but if someone could point me to some horrific coverage of Bristol that I've missed, please do so. The press coverage that I've seen has basically (1) reported the fact of the pregnancy and upcoming marriage and (2) reported Sarah Palin's positions on issues relating to sex, pregnancy, abortion, etc. I haven't seen any personal attacks on Bristol at all. So if the complaint is basically that the pregnancy is being reported at all, I have to say: really? Let's consider two facts here: (1) Pregnancy is a visually obvious condition (eventually) and (2) the families of candidates are always, at the very least, photographed (if Bristol were absent from photographs, that would be obvious and conspicuous too). Supposedly McCain knew about the pregnancy, Sarah Palin knew about the pregnancy, and they were all fine with it when they made the decision to put her in the VP slot. Since neither Palin nor McCain is an idiot, they saw this coming.

Finally, and I realize the deluge of comments that will follow this, but here's the thing: it is Democrats, and not Republicans, that have been arguing for years that the personal lives of candidates are nobody's business. It is Republicans, not Democrats, that have focused much more on personal character than policy preferences. Republicans nominate war heroes and hockey moms, and the guy you'd like to have a beer with; Democrats once nominated an incredibly intelligent man with great moderate policies who happened to not be able to keep it in his pants. And when we did, the press and especially the Right made no bones about publishing that information to the world as often as possible. I know--so please don't tell me--that Bill Clinton was the candidate/President and Bristol Palin is not. But I also know that the press scoffed when some on the left dared to suggest how humiliating it must have been for Hillary and Chelsea to go through what they did during the Clinton years. How many blow job jokes do you think Chelsea heard in the hallways senior year? And I know the Right likes to think of Hillary as a cold-hearted bitch, but I actually think she has feelings and was probably devastated and humiliated not only to be cheated on but to have it so publicly debated without any sympathy to her. The Clinton scandals were always, after all, about what he had supposedly done to the country--not to her.

And since I know many readers of this blog are already going to think this post is ridiculous, I may as well go ahead and say that Monica Lewinsky was not much older than Bristol Palin. 4 years, to be exact. The choices they made were different, obviously: having an affair with a married man is different than having sex with your high school boyfriend. But nonetheless, as someone who was there not long ago, I know that the sexual decision-making abilities of a 17-year-old girl and a 21-year-old girl are not all that different, and that both of these girls made decisions they may have later come to regret and never thought would become public. But why did the Republicans and the media make the Clinton scandals public? Oh that's right, in the words of Newt Gingrich: "because we can."

So I don't feel all that bad for Sarah Palin and her family. Actually, as others have pointed out, I think the press coverage of this is much more respectful than the shit storm that would have erupted if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant (hell, it would still be a shit storm now, and she's 28 years old). I also think that, for whatever reason, coverage of the Bush twins would have been worse, since the press did seem to have a weird fascination with them (and especially Jenna) for awhile that seems to have abated now.

I guess my main two points are these: (1) If you want elections to be about policy positions and not about personal affairs, then practice what you preach, and if you don't practice what you preach, don't be surprised when it comes back around to you. And (2), if your family wants absolute privacy, then running for national office is probably not the best career choice to make.
9.6.2008 6:34pm
Angus:

genuinely decent, good woman.
The more I see of her, the less I believe this. Maybe it has something to do with her autocratic tendencies and continued lying in speeches.
9.6.2008 6:41pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@Smokey: Yes, thanks for that one. FWIW, I was actually pretty indifferent between Obama and McCain, unlike just about everyone else on this side of the Atlantic, since on many policy issues, not to mention personality, I'd take Mccain over Obama anytime. But now that he's chosen that creepy* Palin woman for his running mate, I have very little sympathy left.

O, and if you want to talk about the UN again, please start by explaining why it is OK for the US to do whatever it pleases, but not for Russia. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer to have them both constrained a bit, if only for the sake of consistency.

* Just so that there are no misunderstandings: It's her politics that's creepy. I haven't seen enough of her in action to be able to comment on her otherwise.
9.6.2008 6:46pm
Federal Dog:
Maybe one day Angus will actually get around to posting proof that Sarah Palin had "lied" about anything. I'm not holding my breath.

Angus, did you start that fake banned book list too?
9.6.2008 6:47pm
Smokey:
Dave3L:
Lacking any actual experience, knowledge or training, she is the one who made her family the central basis of her candidacy.
OK, junior, whatever. But I have the feeling that other lawyers are gonna chew you up and spit you out, if that's what you think are reasonable arguments.

In fact, it is the continuing media, Daily Kos and DU drumbeat that will not accept the plain fact that Sarah Palin has a nice, normal American family.

See, it's OK to be proud of your family. Obama is, and he talks about it. The Clintons have mentioned their family, including Chelsea, plenty. But Bush isn't allowed to be proud of his family by liberals, and Palin can't be either. Because there must be something wrong there... Right, Chief? Great double standard, there. Pure hypocrisy.

According to Dave3L's definitive pronouncement, Governor Palin "lacks any actual experience, knowledge or training."

Better get up to speed on wills and trusts, son. The corporate world will make mincemeat out of you.
9.6.2008 6:52pm
Angus:

Maybe one day Angus will actually get around to posting proof that Sarah Palin had "lied" about anything. I'm not holding my breath.
Federal Dog, Google is your friend. I am not. Google "Palin Jet ebay" or "Palin bridge to nowhere" and see for yourself.
9.6.2008 6:54pm
Smokey:
martinned dodges the point, which is this:

"To be fair, Sarah Palin = Antichrist isn't that far off the mark."

Troll, much?
9.6.2008 6:55pm
Federal Dog:
There is nothing whatsoever that suggests that she "lied" in either regard. You are fabricating garbage out of thin air.
9.6.2008 6:58pm
loki13 (mail):
Smokey,

Other people chewing out Dave3L? Puh-leeze! Refresh my memory- are you claiming that Jimmy Carter is racist because he said "black boy" or "colored boy" today? For you to lecture others, although your modus operandi, is faintly ridiculous.

Comedy= Judd Apatow Flick
High Comedy= Charlton Heston as Mexican Federale in Touch of Evil
Sublime Conedy= Smokey lecturing others on lawyerly reasoning and the corporate world
9.6.2008 6:58pm
DangerMouse:
Notice that Angus doesn't deal with the fact that Palin has a 58% favorable approval rating, fueled by a backlash from efforts such as his. The guy just doesn't get it...
9.6.2008 7:03pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@Smokey: This entire thread is all over the place, and I couldn't resist taking a cheap shot. Yesterday, we were told "The Convention's Over: Now back to our regularly scheduled programming." So, as I already asked in the third comment above, what happened?
9.6.2008 7:04pm
Angus:

There is nothing whatsoever that suggests that she "lied" in either regard. You are fabricating garbage out of thin air.
Talking points done. Check.
No counter to the information. Check.
Counter-accusation of lying. Check.
Hello there, Karl Rove!
9.6.2008 7:04pm
theobromophile (www):
Still, there is a bit of a double standard here. Politicians love to drag out their kids to show what wonderful family types they are, and how great their kids are, and so on. So the question I have for DK and others is where that line is. Beyond having a nice family photograph if they want, shouldn't they just shut up about it?

I've never bought this argument.

Much as third parties cannot waive the rights of other people, only their own, parents cannot waive the right of their children to be left alone. They can brag about them (much as you can endow other people with benefits not owed to them), but that is far from permitting others to besmirch them.

I don't think that parents can ever waive the right of their children to be free from national-level scrutiny that is a direct cause of that parent's actions. It is, first and foremost, the moral right of that child.
9.6.2008 7:05pm
Angus:

Notice that Angus doesn't deal with the fact that Palin has a 58% favorable approval rating, fueled by a backlash from efforts such as his. The guy just doesn't get it...
Irrelevant to the question of Palin's veracity. Clinton's poll numbers during his impeachment were high. Does that mean he was therefore honest?
9.6.2008 7:07pm
Sarcastro (www):
Little known fact: I have a time machine. I'ma gonna go back in time and fix some things.

-Make sure the press criticizes Hillary's personal life and ties it to her character.

-Make sure the press questions Edwards' ability to run for office with a sick wife.

-Make sure Matt Drudge mocks Chelsea Clinton's looks and drool over what might be going on in her bedroom.
9.6.2008 7:14pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
Angus:

* She's not claiming that she always opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere", in the end the earmark was spent for other things.

* So the jet didn't sell on Ebay, it was posted that's all she said. She literally said "I put the jet on Ebay", not "I sold the jet on Ebay"

WTF is the matter with you and your lies?
9.6.2008 7:15pm
loki13 (mail):
theobromophile,

I disagree with you completely. There is a complex calculus that goes into running for office, and the calculus changes depending on the level of office you run for. If a parent does not ant their precious snowflakes to be involved in a national campaign, they *shouldn't run for office*. I say this half with snark, a quarter with sadness, and a quarter with indignity. It is the way of life of modern campaigns; while we can say it is good, or bad, (to borrow a sports saying) it is what it is. To expect any different is to show poor judgment by the principals involved.

IOW, we can say it is horrible that the press is concerned with candidates' sex lives, and that may be true. But if you've been catting around recently, you probably shouldn't run. We can say the same (unfortunate) thing about children- and it applies not just to politicians, but to celebrities of all stripes. It is also true, as pointed out above, that those who 'employ' their children will receive heightened scrutiny; if you look at the world of celebrities, there are those that make much to do about their parenting, and those that seek to keep their children under wraps (guess who I approve more of?). I think this story would have received a lot of play no matter what, but given that Palin has been consistently held out as "Mother of Five" with the children appearing at GOP photo ops, this was bound to happen.
9.6.2008 7:16pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
Sarcastro - sometimes I wonder whose side your on. Why do you favor politics of personal destruction against anyone? Just because of what's being done to Palin shouldn't mean it's ok to do it to liberals.
9.6.2008 7:17pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
loki13 - so because she parades her kids around for photo ops means it's ok to smear them? That's twisted.
9.6.2008 7:18pm
rfg:
Lady on the Left: well said!
9.6.2008 7:21pm
Smokey:
Federal Dog:

We all know exactly why Angus is desperately trying to hang the "she lied! she lied!" label on Governor Sarah Palin. Here's a hint:

"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again... [shaking his bony finger at the country] I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never! These allegations are false!"

Clinton looked the country in the eye, and he lied. Then, Clinton lied in a deposition and got caught, and the Left can not get over it. They just can't MoveOn. They are too filled with hatred.

Recall that Starr was asked to investigate Clinton; he declined, and referred it to the court -- which sent it right back to him. Starr then sent Clinton a subpoena, which Clinton adamantly resisted. But Clinton was eventually forced to testify under oath... and he lied, and he lied and he LIED.

Clinton was subsequently impeached, and then stripped of his law license, for lying under oath. And ever since, the liberals have been desperately trying to prove that everyone else routinely lies, just like Clinton. They can not admit that lying under oath is wrong -- if a Democrat does the lying. [It's all about sex, see? Lying under oath about sex is A-OK.] Now, all they ever do is arm-wave about any Republican who poses a direct threat to them.

Nice try, Angus, and thanx for playing with the big boys.
9.6.2008 7:26pm
Sarcastro (www):
[EIDE_Interface in all seriousness, I agree. The attacks I see in the blogosphere and in some few in the media are in shockingly bad taste. That being said, I do not see this as some kind of targeted departure from the media's usual lowest-common denominator MO.]
9.6.2008 7:27pm
jccamp (mail):
Lady on the L,

First, a reasoned post. Thanks.

I would ask this - does the pregnancy of an unmarried child of any candidate have anything to to do with that candidate's aptitude for office? My sense (and my memory, however distant) is that all 17 year olds are essentially apolitical and pro-sex. Gov. Palin's narrative seems to me to demonstrate that she had the strength of her convictions - whether anyone agrees with those convictions - when confronted with the implications of carrying a Down Syndrome baby to term, and the choice of letting her teenaged daughter assume the responsibilities of parenthood at her age, with all that implies. You may disagree with her stance on women's choice, but you cannot fault her for living with the potential downside of that stance.

"It confirms our belief that, when it comes to women in politics, Democrats want to get women elected but also want those women to be qualified as individuals, whereas when Republicans want to nominate women, they turn around and pick up anyone (Harriet Miers, Sarah Palin) who happens to be available and looks nice on camera."
Ah, but of course, "qualified" is defined as politically agreeable with left wing beliefs. A conservative woman is, by definition, unqualified? I can't believe that's what you consciously mean to say, but it sure sounds like what you said. If Palin were liberal in her beliefs. she wouldn't be unqualified; she'd be fresh and exciting.

As for comparing Bill Clinton's serial peccadilloes, you're right insofar as the initial inquiry. When he perjured himself, his sins did become public property. But if anyone is to blame for what the Clinton women had to endure, that person would rightly be the Big Guy himself. He was the one who seemed incapable of keeping the Presidential prerogative off anything in skirts. I don't see a parallel between Clinton's affinity for groping and Palin's 17 year old daughter acting just like the rest of us did at the same age. I think it an important definer of character in our President that he at least make an attempt not to proposition the entire female gender. Granting the young age and naiveté of Monica, Bill Clinton was close to a sexual predator. He wasn't 17 years old at the time. If Gov. Palin were accused of hitting on all the snowmobile mechanics and moose groomers, maybe there would be some similarity. But that does not seem to be the allegation.

I would only mention re: Chelsea that during HRC's campaign last, Chelsea was essentially given a free pass by the media. No questions allowed, despite her widespread use by the campaign as a serious (speaking) advocate, not a poster girl. When the 17 year old and her boyfriend appear on campuses, giving speeches on policy, then perhaps hard questions are appropriate. Until then, they're just a couple of kids in a hard spot.

Re: your main points, I would say 1) Clinton's conduct defined his character. He lied (under oath) and cheated. Palin's conduct is about policy. If you disagree with policy, is she is subject to personal attack? It's not the same as genuine misconduct. It's a difference of opinion. Unless the left wing's opinions came from a burning bush or the entrails of a chicken, a reasonable and moral person could easily vote for either party's candidates.
2) One should not be automatically disqualified from political office because he/she expects that unfounded personal attacks against family as a smear tactic should be condemned. It might be foolish to expect that no such attacks will occur, but it is just wrong to justify them.
9.6.2008 7:27pm
Angus:

So the jet didn't sell on Ebay, it was posted that's all she said. She literally said "I put the jet on Ebay", not "I sold the jet on Ebay" WTF is the matter with you and your lies?

Obviously you haven't seen any of the stump speeches since the convention. It is now "sold the jet on Ebay" and "made a profit" (when in fact the state sold it for more than $600,000 less than they bought it).

And if that's the direction you want to go with this, I'll match my honesty against yours (or Palin's) any day of the week.
9.6.2008 7:30pm
Angus:

Nice try, Angus, and thanx for playing with the big boys.
Swing and a miss. Try again. I already admitted through my post that Clinton lied. I guess that means Palin didn't in your book.

BTW, back in 1998 I was in favor of Clinton resigning over it.
9.6.2008 7:33pm
loki13 (mail):
EIDE-

You misunderstand me. I do not think it is okay. In my perfect universe, politicians would debate substantive issues. Commenters wouldn't concern themselves with Wright or McCain's X Houses. Sex lives would be off limits (so long as it wasn't criminal, and certainly not for fishing expeditions). And, most importantly, kids would be verboten. Pols wouldn't use them as props (pretty exploitive, if you ask me), and the press wouldn't bother them.

But this isn't a perfect world. McCain knows this. Palin knew, or should have known (constructive notice?) this. Either they're not bothered by what this press inquiry will do Palin's kids, they don't feel it would bother them, or they value power over family.

Anyway, even given that, I am not in favor of smears. I don't see headlines in the MSM like "Bristol's a (insert perjorative here)". Instead, the MSM have picked up on her pregnancy and contrasted it with the GOP's positions on, say, abstinence education and traditional attitudes toward premarital sex. This was inevitable; I assume Palin made an informed choice that this scrutiny was acceptable in her family. I would make a different choice, but that's me.
9.6.2008 7:38pm
loki13 (mail):
BTW,

Before there is any piling on, I do not know the dynamics of the Palin family. For all I know, they had a long conversation over mooseburgers and discussed the issues with Bristol and prepped her. I do not know. Nor am I saying that the conduct of children should be reflected on parents (as I mentioned above, in a perfect world they should be kept out of it). But this was inevitable. While I decry any over-the-top smear, I know that the same suspects who have so much concern for the privacy of Bristol would have none if it was a child of a democratic candidate. The same way that democrats who were so concerned about sexual privacy during the Clinton years are overjoyed every time another Republican gets outted (see Larry Craig, see also Mark Foley, see also every other month).
9.6.2008 7:45pm
jccamp (mail):
Angus,

There's a long thread here on a left leaning blog about this issue.

Palin never said anything but "I put it (the jet) on Ebay." Sen. McCain did say in a stump speech that Palin sold the plane for a profit. According to current government accounting standards, the plane was sold for a profit since the cost basis included accelerated depreciation. The plane was put up for auction on Ebay, but eventually sold through an aircraft broker. So what?

Regardless, do you really want people to believe Gov Palin is a liar over this? Why not stick to issues of substance?
9.6.2008 7:45pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@loki13: That sounds like Europe to me. But don't worry, since both the press and the politicians have every incentive to dumb down everything as much as possible, they will always find some way to make the campaign about something other than "substantive issues".
9.6.2008 7:46pm
zippypinhead:
Yesterday, we were told "The Convention's Over: Now back to our regularly scheduled programming." So, as I already asked in the third comment above, what happened?
Adler lied, bloggers' brains fried?

I'm beginning to think this stuff IS becoming VC's "regularly scheduled programming." And the trolls love it (on another thread this afternoon, Lindgren approvingly noted VC's hits are higher than ever since the heavy political posting started). Sigh...
9.6.2008 7:59pm
Anonymous #000:
martinned (or BDB),

Her politics are "creepy"? Is that a Chris Matthews joke (tingly vs creepy), or just an insubstantial criticism?
9.6.2008 8:00pm
deepthought:
I agree completely with Fullerene, Dave3L and Tony. The McCain campaign and Palin herself brought the "frenzy" on themselves--and probably encouraged it since it riles up the base against the media (they certainly didn't argued the issues during the convention). And now we have stories that the McCain campaign is encouraging an effort to "stonewall" the Alaska Legislature's investigation into her firing of the head of the Department of Public Safety. And the fact Palin is being kept underwraps from the Sunday news shows is further proof of the McCain campaign nervousness about what she might say.

As far as her daughter's "shotgun" wedding (and we know who will be holding the shotgun) goes, I'll bet if the McCain/Palin ticket loses it will quietly never happen.
9.6.2008 8:03pm
Federal Dog:
So your sole response when anyone dares to ask for proof of your serious accusations of deception is to call that person Karl Rove.

Pathetic.
9.6.2008 8:05pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@Anonymous #000: Just a rather inarticulate way of summing up a politician who epitomises everything that sets US politics apart from politics anywhere else in the world.
9.6.2008 8:08pm
jccamp (mail):
Zippypinhead -

I agree, plus there was a lot more humor in apples and oranges.

Although I probably agree in principle with most of the new-style OP's, this place is getting a little more...harsh? Why not lose the election coverage for awhile?

Just a thought.
9.6.2008 8:10pm
Mac (mail):


Dave Lwrote: A

nd lying about her brief record.


What did she lie about?
9.6.2008 8:11pm
Angus:
According to current government accounting standards, the plane was sold for a profit since the cost basis included accelerated depreciation.Proof of this in hard numbers, or are you just assuming? If so, strange that nothing was said about a profit until Palin became the VP nominee. Hard to believe that a 23 year old plane would depreciate that much more in 19 months.

One of the reasons this ends up being a topic is that there is next to zero substance in Palin's stump speech to analyze. So we're left debating whether she and McCain are just fibbing a little or a lot on their biggest applause lines.
9.6.2008 8:12pm
Lady on the Left:
jccamp,

Thanks for your equally reasoned response. A few points:

(1) I don't think "qualified" means "leftist" or that a conservative woman would never be qualified. For the record I think it was smart of McCain to pick a woman. But I also think that Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Olympia Snowe are much more qualified, and still conservative. I don't agree with their policies any more than Palin's, but I do think they are qualified. I felt the same way when Bush picked Harriet Miers, which is why I made the comparison. There are many women jurists (appellate court judges, state supreme court justices) who were much more qualified and also happen to be female. As a woman, I'd like to see as many women as possible achieve higher office, but I think we have to make sure those women are qualified by experience and not by gender. We're lucky enough that both parties have plenty of women to choose from; they don't have to pander.

(2) I don't fault Palin for keeping her personal life in tune with her pro-life stance. I fault her use of the word "decision" because, according to the pro-life position, it is NOT a decision. When you are pregnant, you have a baby. That's the position. So I find it confusing when she refers to either her pregnancy or Bristol's as a decision (choice) that they made.

(3) I realize it may have seemed that I was comparing Clinton's actions to Bristol's, and I wasn't. For the record I don't think Bristol did anything wrong, and I very much think that Clinton did (many times). But in either case, personal matters were made public. My point is that Republicans only really care about familial privacy when it applies to them, and that they are asking for a level of familial privacy that has not been granted to anyone else, and also that Republicans have not been so sensitive to family feelings in the past.

(3) I can't verify this, but I think the media leaves Chelsea alone not out of respect but because she hasn't done anything all that interesting. As I said above, I am certain that if she were pregnant it would be news. If she gets married it will likely be news, if she has a drug problem it will be news, etc. But basically I think she lives in NYC, has a job crunching numbers, and that's pretty much it. For the same reason, the press covered Jenna Bush much more than her twin sister Barbara; Jenna was just more interesting. (Not a slight against Chelsea or Barbara; I like them both).

(4) A candidate has a right to expect that "unfounded personal attacks" be condemned. But this is NOT an unfounded attack. She IS pregnant. It is a TRUE fact, and one that, as I mentioned in my last post, would be difficult to go unnoticed. And I don't think it's personal in the sense that anyone has condemned Sarah Palin as a bad mother (I could be wrong, I don't read all media). It's personal in the sense that people are comparing her life to her policy, but I actually think that's fair. Your personal life should reflect your policy. So if you hold up your Down's Syndrome baby as proof of your pro-life stance (fair), then it's also fair for people to question your abstinence-only policies when your own daughter is pregnant.
9.6.2008 8:13pm
Angus:

Pathetic.

Naw, pathetic is asking someone else to do your work for you.
9.6.2008 8:13pm
Mac (mail):

I don't think this justifies the way the media has handled this, of course, but given the amount of energy many conservative Christian groups have invested in negatively portraying unmarried young people who are sexually active, and given how much some significant parts of the American right have historically gone out of their way to demonize unwed parents and complain about the evils of illegitimacy,

George,

You think having illegitimacy is a good thing?
9.6.2008 8:14pm
Anonymous #000:
martinned,
Just a rather inarticulate way of summing up a politician who epitomises everything that sets US politics apart from politics anywhere else in the world.

I don't think the word you're looking for is "creepy".

It's "free".
9.6.2008 8:18pm
MQuinn:
Let's play a game!! I will pick a comment post, and I will determine how many non-substantive and unsubstantiated conclusory statements -- i.e. useless statements that contain no actual arguments -- are contained therein.

I "randomly" select MartyA's post, which is in italics...

I see no hypocrisy in the the ultra-left wing media's attack on Palin's daughter.
This is not an argument. It is unsubstantiated, and it is conclusory. How many undecided individuals is this likely to convince? Zero.

Expect more vicious and frequent attacks on all family members and on McCain and Palin.
Ditto my above statement.


Huseein is the talentless artifact of the same media and the other masters of the democrat party, including organized labor and, no offense fellas, plaintiffs' attorneys.
Ditto my above statement. Further, I take issue with your use of the word "Huseein." Yes, it is is middle name, and there is nothing wrong with using it. However, Marty A uses it in a way that suggests we should not vote for Obama b/c of his middle name, which is, of course, associated with Islam. That is disturbing and hate-filled.

They have too much invested in this empty suit to not take every shot they can.
Yet another conclusory statement that proffers no real substantive argument. Whom are "[t]hey?" What is "invested?" Why is he an "empty suit?" What proof exists that "they" will take "every shot" that "they can" simply b/c "they" have something "invested" in him? Are you suggesting that "they" will go to any length -- w/o exception -- to see their opponent lose? If so, what proof can you offer? Mere anecdotal evidence probably won't work, b/c we can all give anecdotal evidence of the other party's faults; what other evidence can you offer?

You want poor performers in this situation? Look no further than the super-delegates. When Hussein loses big,
Will Obama lose big? I would love to see the polls on which you base this conclusory statement.

as I think he will,
Oh, I see! You "think" he will lose big! That must transform your argument from unsubstantiated and non-analytic into well-documented!

and, maybe, there are Republican gains in the Congress,
At least you prefaced this with "maybe!" In any event, please provide us with the poll to support this unsubstantiated suggestion. Also, where is the analysis? Is this over the top argument designed to persuade, or to annoy?

the democrat centrists will realize they've been had again by the lunatic fringe.

Again? When have the democrats nominated someone from the lunatic fringe? Also, what is the lunatic fringe? What makes you say Obama is part of it? What makes you say that the previous democratic nominees been part of it? Argument and analysis, please!

It was the job of the ssuper-delegates to see this didn't happen again.
Again? Ditto my previous statements.

But, the media? No, they are slime, have been and will be.
I am exhausted! Phew! I will conclude by simply stating that this is yet another unsubstantiated, conclusory, non-analytical statement that does not pass for an argument but instead is a mere accusation w/o supportive facts.

In other words, a gullible person may read the above post and think: "the power with which Marty A argues must mean that he is right in his conclusions!" But the probing mind will read the above post and think: "whether or not I agree with Marty A's conclusions, he doesn't make an argument, he offers no support for his blind, rapid-fire accusations, and I have no reason to be convinced by his rant."

That was an enlightening game!
9.6.2008 8:22pm
Mac (mail):
Clastrenster:
I

s the only chance McCain supporters have to keep talk of leftist slurs afloat


Are you saying it's difficult for the left to keep making slurs? Most of them are made up. I don't think the left has had any problem keeping it going all on their own. That's what they excel at. Just go to Kos or Huffington.
9.6.2008 8:24pm
Clastrenster:
Actual question about the press: Do Dick Cheney's complex efforts in Georgia, and the reporting they are receiving, a subtle undermining of pro-Palin arguments that the Vice President doesn't really do anything? Or a subtle undermining by the Bush administration of the ticket? Or just bad timing for McCain's ticket?
9.6.2008 8:26pm
Mac (mail):

and I think history tells us that Karl Rove, Tim Griffin, Roger Stone, etc. would be more than happy to come up with some kind of character assassination.


Eh,

But they aren't the vast majority of the MSM now then, are they? And, no neither Rove nor Hannity would be salivating. You really should not project.
9.6.2008 8:27pm
Angus:
I don't think the word you're looking for is "creepy".

It's "free".


And all the other 191 countries in the U.N. are what, tyrannies? Like the extreme oppression in England? New Zealand? Belgium? What a great idea it is indeed to hand over diplomacy to the current iteration of the GOP who are so contemptuous of the rest of the world! (e.g., McCain in his stump speech taking a sarcastic pot shot at the French)
9.6.2008 8:27pm
Mac (mail):
Rod Blaine (mail):
T

he Rocky Mtn News sure attracts some keen minds, doesn't it:

'mrfxx writes: I don't recall Dave Kopel defending Chelsea Clinton's "right to privacy" when she was referred to as the "national dog"


Who said that about Chelsea, please?
9.6.2008 8:28pm
Angus:

Are you saying it's difficult for the left to keep making slurs? Most of them are made up. I don't think the left has had any problem keeping it going all on their own. That's what they excel at. Just go to Kos or Huffington.
Slurs are what the blogosphere is best at, both left and right. Indeed, one lesson to take away from the last week is that the MSM was much more restrained than was the blogosphere. Score one for the dinosaur media, I suppose.
9.6.2008 8:30pm
theobromophile (www):
If a parent does not ant their precious snowflakes to be involved in a national campaign, they *shouldn't run for office*.

Loki,

You miss the point. Completely.

First of all, Bristol Palin - like all children of public figures - have a moral right to privacy which is separate and distinct from their parents' interests in their "precious snowflakes." I know it's hard to believe, but children are not polyps; they are individuals with their own rights.

It is not only about what Sarah Palin, or Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan, may want for their kids. It is about the kids themselves, who need no other sanction.

Bristol Palin is not a "precious snowflake;" she's a HUMAN BEING. You disagree with me because you fail to understand that basic fact.

Second of all, if we follow your logic, we will see that only two types of people ever seek public office: those so hard and uncaring as to not bat an eyelash if their families are slandered, and those with no family to slander. Some of us think that people with close personal ties SHOULD run for public office, and some of us are also aware that there are few, if any, people out there who lack a single skeleton in their closets.
9.6.2008 8:31pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@Anonymous #000: I'm sorry, did I not explain it right? My point is that the things she's saying wouldn't get one elected anywhere else. There are still a few places left where one can get elected talking about abortion (it's still illegal in Ireland, Portugal and Poland, for example), but using one's freedom to defend the full social conservative package wouldn't get one elected in any western country I can think of.

I'm not sure how you went from my saying creepy to "free".
9.6.2008 8:32pm
Clastrenster:
I don't conisder KOS or Huffington or NY TIMES/WSJ editorial press, and especially not what random commentators say-- also, as for those blogs, they laid off the family stuff pretty quickly, and have been hitting better documented untruths it looks like, as with the ebay jet or the earmarks, etc. (not sure what a big deal those are, but still)(and even with the less-well-substantiated stuff, like book banning and creationism, looks like they runs from the family values angle, but I don't really follow those). The smut that's been raised won't go away because, as Kopol's article points out, it would be against the interests of McCain's ticket if it did.
9.6.2008 8:32pm
Anonymous #000:
so contemptuous of the rest of the world! (e.g., McCain in his stump speech taking a sarcastic pot shot at the French)

Socialism smells like stinky cheese. It's not my fault it's fermented in civil unrest and garnished with twenty litres of creeping central economic planning.

McCain would know; the Senate really opens the tap wide on the stuff sometimes. You think it's called a swamp because of geography?
9.6.2008 8:33pm
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):
Can you still be against teenage sex if your kid get's pregnant? They are not mutually exclusive. You can work to prevent teen prengancy; be against abortion; be whatever, and still have things happen which are out of your control and contrary to your beliefs.

I am a Police officer. I am opposed to the legalization of drugs as I see first hand the damage drug use has on society (this is another debate). My parents were against drugs too. I have a brother who is practically on the streets sue to drug use. I have another brother who lost a marriage due to drug use. IT happened in my family, even though most of us are opposed to drugs and their use.

Palin got the story out about her daughter because she had too. If anyone thinks the media would have left it alone had they discovered it by some other means (it would have come out anyway) is dreaming. Remember, when the media didn't have Bristol actually being pregnant, they started reprinting the Daily Kos rumors of the faked pregnancy/switcharoo between her and her mother.
9.6.2008 8:34pm
Mac (mail):
Dave3L (mail) (www):

Let's also not forget John McCain's 1999 joke involving Chelsea:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."


McCain apologized profusely. It is not a pattern with him. Bill Clinton accepted his apology.

When will we get an apology from the Obama campaign and Anderw Sullivan, to name just a very few who need to apologize? When McCain realized what he had done, he felt very bad about it. Seen any of that in the MSM or Democratic Party? I would not hold my breath waiting. You seem to expect Republicans to be 100% perfect, 100% of the time and if they are not, all Republicans are fair game. Interesting. However, you certainly do not apply the same standards to the Democrats. Republican know they are not perfect. When they do something wrong, they apologize, by and large, or resign. When do Democrats ever do either? And, before you start Democrats seem pretty darn judgmental to me, only about different things. So, don't give me the line about Republicans being hyppocrits. Not as long as Al Gore still rides around in his private jet and his SUV and is spending $500.00 a month to heat his swimming pool in just one of his mansions.
9.6.2008 8:41pm
zippypinhead:
jccamp wrote:
...there was a lot more humor in apples and oranges.

Although I probably agree in principle with most of the new-style OP's, this place is getting a little more...harsh? Why not lose the election coverage for awhile?

Just a thought.
Good thought, but don't hold your breath. Although personally, I found EV's recent palindrome and anagram competitions just as good as the witty apples and oranges debate.

At this point, I'd be happy if all the posters on VC just adopted Orin Kerr's philosophy of policing trolls. I cheered like I was on the convention floor (either convention, pick yer poison) when I read his warning a few days ago: "I'll leave comments open for now, but please keep comments civil or I'll delete the thread."
9.6.2008 8:43pm
Clastrenster:
It would appear that Daily Kos is not a wholly positive outlet for Obama's chances. So, as Kopek writes in the article that started this bizarre set of reactions, it's in McCain's interest to make sure its negative effects are milked for all they're worth. That means keeping mean wrong claims made by unhinged bloggers about Gov. Palin's family alive as long as possible. This would work better if the election weren't two months away. It's turned "political" discussions into a pale satire of its already emaciated self. This, as I understand it, is in the interest of McCain's ticket. But... we burn out too fast.
9.6.2008 8:44pm
Anonymous #000:
You seem to expect Republicans to be 100% perfect, 100% of the time and if they are not, all Republicans are fair game.

If they can't live up to their ideals full time, then their ideals are wrong and must be eradicated. We can rise above such irrational superstitions and hope for more. "We are one nation. We are ein volk. And our time for change has come."
9.6.2008 8:45pm
fullerene:

Maybe one day Angus will actually get around to posting proof that Sarah Palin had "lied" about anything. I'm not holding my breath.



Palin: I told Congress, Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere.

Truth: Congress killed the earmark in 2005. Palin was not elected until the end of 2006. There was nothing for her to tell Congress. She literally had no role in defeating the earmark, because she was not even governor when it was considered. That seems like a bald-faced lie to me.
9.6.2008 8:47pm
AB (mail):
I think that Palin's family life is relevant because it exposes the hypocrisy and inefficacy of her positions. It is one thing to preach abstinence, and quite another to have a daughter who is pregnant. It is one thing to preach pro-life, and quite another to say you "chose" to have your special-needs child.

Simply put, the narrow-mindedness and uselessness of "abstinence training" in schools is underscored by Palin's own family. This is indeed quite interesting. And relevant.
9.6.2008 8:53pm
loki13 (mail):
Theo-

Hey, I misunderstand points all the time; sometimes, I even misunderstand them accidentally!

But I didn't misunderstand you. We both agree on the world as it should be. Unfortunately, I acknowledge the world as it is (as your small quote does not take account of). I would prefer a world where politicians didn't drag their kids up on stage with them, and were the press didn't dig into the children's lives. Here's a thought for you- have you ever met someone? Any associates? Well, if they run for President/VP, and they are close to you, the press is going to look into *your* story, moral right of privacy and all. That's the way the world is.

I assume the Palins took this into account when making their decision. For people to now say, "Well, that's the way it is is, and everyone knew that's what was going to happen, but it's inconvenient, so don't do it," is silly.

What, praytell, did you think was going to happen in the next month as Bristol began to show more and more?
9.6.2008 8:59pm
Mac (mail):

Obviously you haven't seen any of the stump speeches since the convention


Angus, the convention just ended. How many stump speeches can there have been and where have you heard them?

Someone made the comment that she was repeating herself and not keeping the speech "fresh" since the convention. That was only a few hours after the convention ended.

From what web site are you getting this stuff? It is so ludicrous and so impossible that I can only guess that someone has made it up and it is getting repeated, but way too soon.
9.6.2008 9:01pm
loki13 (mail):
Theo-

In case it is unclear, let me give you this analogy.

You write: Poverty in the world sucks. We shouldn't have poverty.

I write: Yes, poverty is bad, but it still exists. If you give all your money away, you should expect to be poor and suffer from the effects of poverty.

You write: You misunderstand me. How dare you be pro-poverty! Why do you hate the poor! People who give their money away shoudln't be in poverty!

I write: Agreed. They shouldn't be in poverty, but that's the way of the world.

You write: But apples!

I write: Oranges!
9.6.2008 9:10pm
Kevin P. (mail):

martinned:
... everything that sets US politics apart from politics anywhere else in the world.


martinned, just FYI, Europe is not "anywhere else in the world". Maybe it was so during the colonial days when you imposed your culture upon large blocks of the world at gunpoint. Right now, it's just one continent, and a stagnating one at that.
9.6.2008 9:16pm
TruePath (mail) (www):
First of all I wanted to say that I feel extreme sympathy for Palin's daughter. I feel sympathetic for anyone who has a child at 18 and it's doubly awful that Palin's child has to go through all this under national media scrutiny. Being a teenager is awkward enough and being pregnant only makes it more so. However, the media should no more be blamed for this unfortunate result than Palin herself. In fact Palin could have choosen to spare her child this difficulty without abrogating her responsibilities while the media could not have done so.

Ultimately, as sympathetic as I am for this girl it's hard to believe that one girl's discomfort weighs very heavily against the consequences to millions of one presidential candidate versus another. Now you might argue that these sort of torrid details about Palin's family simply aren't relevant to the selection of president so there is no benefit of media publication but this is wrong both as a theoretical and practical matter.

Practically, these details about Palin's family life do tell us about her charachter. If it's true that she pressured her daughter to get married to further her political career that tells us one thing about her personality. If she didn't try this tells us something else. Heck, merely the fact that she didn't rush her daughter off to get an abortion when she got pregnant gives us important information about the sincerity of her pro-life beliefs while the way she has treated her daughter after this incident gives us insight into whether she is rigidly unbending or practices embracing the sinner.

Theoretically, even if you believe this information happens not to be important to making the choice of president the media shouldn't be making that deciscion for us. If the media starts making these kind of calls it has the potential for real danger. Do they decide that Clinton's potential affair shouldn't be mentioned? Many people in the media are more pro-gay/pro-sex than the rest of the country so should they keep information about an unmarried candidates prolific homosexual encounters under wraps because it "shouldn't be relevant." Ultimately deciding what is relevant is itself an injection of policy preferences, something conservatives seems to usually complain about the media doing.
9.6.2008 9:17pm
Blue:
I'd just like to remind everyone that we do not know whether Chelsea Clinton—or any other female scion of an important family— was pregnant at 17 or not.

All we know is that they did not carry a child to term.

So if Bristol's carrying a child to term is fair game it is also fair game to ask candidates whether their daughters have had abortions. That's the only way we'll know about the important daughter-pregnant issue.

Want to live in a world like that?
9.6.2008 9:19pm
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):

AB: I think that Palin's family life is relevant because it exposes the hypocrisy and inefficacy of her positions.

Even the Grampa of all Liberals, President James Earl Carter, had lust in his heart. At least once.

We do not hold our politicians up to realistic standards, and we adjust those standards to suit our arguments.

Bill Clinton seduced a 21 year old intern into a sexual relationship as well as a string of other women. It wasn't long before that John Tower, Bob Packwood, etc, were run out of town for sexual harrasment. Clinton was guilty of de facto sexual harrasment. Do you think the POTUS can be guilty of Quid Pro Quo sexual harrament (when a boss in power has sex with employees he has control over). In fact, she was less than an employee (an intern), and he was leader of the free world. Not much more of a power role than that.

N.O.W. and many others womens and left wing groups sat by in a deafening silence on that. If he were a pro-lifer, or a republican in general, it would have been a lynching.

Look what they did to Clarence Thomas for allegedly sexual harrasing someone based on no evidence. Ted Kennedy sitting in judgement of somenone for sexual harrasment? Please.
9.6.2008 9:20pm
Michael Drake (mail) (www):
Yes, there was inordinate attention to Palin's daughter's pregnancy (most of which was arguably due to the McCain campaign's own machinations).

No, calls by supporters of McCain and fans of FOX News for greater sensitivity on this score do not have so much as a quantum of credibility.

If anything is "the quintessence of hypocrisy, the vilest form of the politics of personal destruction," it is this thunderous stretto of feigned outrage. Give it a rest.
9.6.2008 9:22pm
SG:
Simply put, the narrow-mindedness and uselessness of "abstinence training" in schools is underscored by Palin's own family. This is indeed quite interesting. And relevant.

Except it doesn't prove what you think it does. My understanding is that Bristol Palin's school taught comprehensive sex education. So, what her pregnancy shows is that teaching sex ed in school undermines the parental values and leads to teen pregnancy. Perhaps the outcome would have been different if the school reinforced parental values?

As long as we're arguing from anecdote...
9.6.2008 9:22pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@Kevin P.: Did I claim otherwise? Logically, the question of what people say to get themselves elected applies only to democracies, and at one point I restricted my statement to "western" countries, just to be sure, but AFAIK, the American political landscape is unique in the world. Even the other former English colonies, like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, don't have Sarah Palin type "social conservatives", just the, euh, non-social kind that all democracies have.
9.6.2008 9:28pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):

It confirms our belief that, because of this, all kids should be given comprehensive sex education, not abstinence-only.


It, however, contradicts the notion that Palin believes differently than you do. See Rumor number 40.
9.6.2008 9:29pm
Fury:
Lady on the Left wrote:

Sarah Palin, and Bristol's pregnancy in particular, does not contradict any central narratives of the left. It confirms our belief that, despite all the family-values talk, Republican kids have as much sex as Democratic kids. It confirms our belief that, because of this, all kids should be given comprehensive sex education, not abstinence-only.

Based on the pregnancy of one person, it confirms such beliefs? Isn't N=1 a little small for that?

Having seen the coverage in the MSM (n.b. I don't consider talk show hosts the MSM), the coverage does appear to focus on areas of Palin's life that are not issues related, but rather related to her being a mother. A candidate talking about their family in the way that Palin did (not talking down to people) should not invite that scrutiny.

And no doubt, as other posters have noted McCain's "joke" about Chelsea Clinton was rude and wrong. He apologized for it, but that was in very bad taste to say what he did.

Regarding comments made about Senator Clinton, there were rude and sexist comments made about her. I will note that she was represented by even President Clinton herself as (paraphrase) "getting two for the price of one". That should have subjected Senator Clinton to scrutiny on the issues - but nothing more.
9.6.2008 9:32pm
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
Just don't ever read political cartoons, even the ones you might agree with. That form of expression oversimplifies and exaggerates by definition.
9.6.2008 9:33pm
jccamp (mail):
Angus,

I'm not a CPA, but this fellow seems to be...quoting
"Statement #34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board ("GASB 34") requires state and local governments (including the State of Alaska) to depreciate most capital assets just as in the business world. So, gain/loss is, in fact, now measured by net selling price minus depreciated cost (not original cost as cpinva incorrectly states). Therefore, McCain's statement as to "sale at a profit" could be correct. CNN commentators like Campbell Brown are IGNORANT of accounting and again show their liberal bias in making attacks without an adequate knowledge basis. Here's a merely sample link that has one Q &A pertaining to depreciation: ...link HERE."

That's why I put up the pointer in my last post for you.

Do really see any value in asserting their stump speeches are lies? Is this is any different than Obama claiming he's for change, and then picking the real world caricature of Senator Foghorn Leghorn as his VP?

Come one, we can all do better than this.
9.6.2008 9:34pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):

But this isn't a perfect world. McCain knows this. Palin knew, or should have known (constructive notice?) this. Either they're not bothered by what this press inquiry will do Palin's kids, they don't feel it would bother them, or they value power over family.


Loki, the problem is that the logical conclusion of this is that only childless people with no prospect of having children n the future should run for office. Palin has kids. So does Obama. Biden too. And McCain's got more than any of them. All of them will be impacted by winning.

Somehow, though, it's only Palin's kids who should keep her from running.

The old saw about walking quacking ducks seems apropos here.
9.6.2008 9:36pm
loki13 (mail):
SG wrote-

My understanding is that Bristol Palin's school taught comprehensive sex education.

My sourced finding (2 seconds to google) was this:


Wasilla High School, one of the schools that Bristol Palin attended, is one of the country's many schools that promotes an abstinence-based sexual education curriculum. A message left with the school was not returned. But on Tuesday, the Boston Herald reported that Principal Dwight Probasco said the school's sex ed program pushes abstinence, and that the school is barred from distributing contraception.


I know everything is debatable during this season- maybe it was evil Fairbanks HS, for example, but I'd love to know where your understanding came from.
9.6.2008 9:36pm
loki13 (mail):
Carlie,

I quack with the best of them. I didn't realize that observing how the world actually works would be controversial. I never wrote that Palin's kids *should* keep her from running, as a matter of fact, they didn't. She made a decision, and now she's dealing with what she knew would be the fallout. I don't understand what is surprising or controversial. If Biden had a 16 yr. old daughter posting on MySpace that "Al Qaeda is wicked cool" it would also be posted far and wide. Such is the modern age.

I do find it ironic that the same posters who decry these attacks as sexist are, *ahem* not the most progressive sorts. Unfortunately, this isn't a sea change in (some) conservatives' thinking, it's just politics. It's just a weapon. Where's all the "using your status as a woman is *whining*" that we were hearing when Hillary was running?
9.6.2008 9:43pm
Dan M.:
loki, your googling does not contradict the understanding that the school had a comprehensive sex education program. Pushing abstinence does not mean that it was pushed to the exclusion of discussing contraception. Barring schools from distributing contraceptives is immaterial to the school curriculum. However, it obviously does not confirm that understanding. So it would still be prudent for someone to share where that understanding came from.
9.6.2008 9:47pm
RPT (mail):
"Mac: When will we get an apology from the Obama campaign and Andrew Sullivan, to name just a very few who need to apologize?"

Since you made this comment in contrast to a specific quote from McCain, can you identify what comments from Sullivan and what comments from which members of the Obama campaign should be the subject of an apology? Part of my interest comes from my background in defamation litigation and successfully litigating retractions. Put another way: who said what? Be specific.
9.6.2008 9:48pm
Dan M.:
Hillary was labeled a whiner because her campaign itself leveled the accusations and because the liberal establishment was on the Obama bandwagon. Palin herself acknowledged that, despite the accuracy of your view that you are being treated unfairly, people will label you as a whiner if you bring it up yourself. She's fortunate to have the entire GOP behind her on this issue so that she doesn't have to bring it up herself.

People love to say that Palin called Hillary a whiner, but in that quote she put the word "perceived" in front of the word "whine" rather than using it to describe the excess scrutiny.
9.6.2008 9:51pm
fullerene:

I'm not a CPA, but this fellow seems to be...quoting


I don't think that the ordinary meaning of profit in any way corresponds to the way that you seem to want to use it. Accounting has depreciation formulas. These formulas are used because figuring out the actual value of every depreciable asset a company owns is difficult. The "profit" you see after an asset is sold for more than its value according to a depreciation chart is really just an adjustment to your earlier calculation. In all probability, the depreciation formula applied to the jet was more aggressive than the one applied by the actual market.

It is a small story, and she did sell the jet. Really, a heart-warming, good-government story. Still, she did not sell it at a profit.
9.6.2008 9:54pm
SG:
I know everything is debatable during this season- maybe it was evil Fairbanks HS, for example, but I'd love to know where your understanding came from.

Where everything comes from - some pseudonymous posting on the internet. Are you saying that's not good enough anymore? I didn't get the memo...

That said, I did a little googling too and the best I can came up with is this:


When asked what type of sex curriculum existed at Wasilla,
Assistant Principal Mark Okeson said the school has a health curriculum that includes a sex education component. When asked whether the curriculum was abstinence-only, Okeson said, “I’m not sure…I don’t believe so. This subject has not come up for a long time. I don’t believe we have an abstinence-only course.”

He said he believe that the school strives for a sex-ed curriculum that is “middle-of-the road,” and added, “I would assume that contraception would be a part of any health curriculum.”

He said he didn’t believe the school was receiving any federal funding for abstinence-only programs.


Which is hardly definitive. Except that it does imply that she wasn't making a big deal out of sex ed in her kids school either way. I assume if the governor was expressing interest in the curriculum, you would be less likely to forget what it is.
9.6.2008 9:59pm
jccamp (mail):
Let's see...

1) OK, I'll buy that. Personally, i thought GB picked Miers out of misguided personal loyalty, one of his faults. i didn't think she belong on the USSC either. I think Palin has, so far, demonstrated at least equivalence to others seeking national office. But there's sure room for lots of debate and difference, I grant you.

2) In the real world, Palin and her daughter both had choices. They each made a decision consistent with their (well, Palin's) stated philosophy. Even if their public position was that there is no moral choice but not to terminate, they certainly had the option to say "Screw that. Call the abortion doctor. I'll ask for forgiveness later." or something similar. No one was going to prevent them from doing exactly that.

3) At the heart of political campaigns are the professional amoral evil geniuses (are amoral and evil contradictory?). On both sides. So, I'll grant that there has been hypocrisy on both sides. But i don't remember so many media personalities, especially women, taking such seemingly anti-feminist stands because the damnable Republicans put up a...you know...a woman.

4) "then it's also fair for people to question your abstinence-only policies when your own daughter is pregnant." Question the effectiveness of such policies if you will, but not the essential value of Palin as a human being. I would also suggest that a pregnancy within the Palin household would not negate the value of such policies if, for instance, teen pregnancies within a demographic were reduced. (I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that similar policies applied [to U S efforts] in Africa re: AIDS did seem effective for a time, although newest numbers may buck that earlier trend.)

Personally, i thought HRC was a far stronger candidate (and far better equipped), but she lost in caucuses what she won in actual votes. But that's history now. I also thought Romney was a better choice for the RNP. But he is seen as so booooring.

If we find out next week that Gov Palin really was fooling around with the moose groomers, I guess I'll have to eat my words. But I doubt that will happen. I think she's just a normal lady with a normal family, with all that entails good and bad. I mean, her sister and brother-in-law own a gas station, for pete's sake. Biden's relatives are all Washington lobbyists making multi-million dollar incomes via thinly-veiled influence peddling. You know, like that Abramoff guy...

Anyway, thanks. Enjoyed it.
9.6.2008 10:05pm
milky loads:
"Since you made this comment in contrast to a specific quote from McCain, can you identify what comments from Sullivan and what comments from which members of the Obama campaign should be the subject of an apology?"

re sullivan
re gutman
9.6.2008 10:08pm
jccamp (mail):
Fullerene -

I'm no expert, but I understand what you're saying. Obviously, the plane was sold for less than the state paid for it. In fact, the previous governor structured the lease-buy contract so that the state's obligation would always exceed the projected market value. i guess he thought that way, he'd never have to give the plane up.

But if by citing some obscure accounting standard ("GASB 34" whatever that is. Originally, i though it meant Gasbag, which applies to lots of what passes for political discourse) Sen McCain can claim Palin sold the stupid thing for a profit, I don't equate that with a deliberate lie. Poetic license, mayhaps.
9.6.2008 10:12pm
Matt Austin (mail):

"Since you made this comment in contrast to a specific quote from McCain, can you identify what comments from Sullivan and what comments from which members of the Obama campaign should be the subject of an apology?"

re sullivan
re gutman



Interesting. Your link to show someone working on the Obama campaign saying this stuff includes the following:

The Obama camp denied that this outburst represented their views. ... He can’t be fired because he is not, to my knowledge, working on the campaign.
9.6.2008 10:16pm
ACCT 101:
jccamp: "The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is currently the source of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) used by State and Local governments in the United States of America."

How to Implement BASB Statement No. 34
9.6.2008 10:18pm
SG:
(Following up to myself...)

I agree her personal opinions (as I understand them) are pretty extreme, but she doesn't seem to have governed that way. You don't get 80% statewide approval ratings from pushing an extreme agenda. I respect the fact that she's able to separate her personal beliefs from her governing responsibilities. For example (I presume she's not typically gay-friendly): vetoing a bill denying benefits to same-sex partners because she believed it unconstitutional.

I don't think she a libertarian, but it's a libertarian sensibility that I find quite appealing.
9.6.2008 10:18pm
fullerene:
jccamp,

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I just think that if you (McCain) are selling Palin on her ordinariness, it is best not say all sorts of ridiculous things to make her seem like some sort of demigod. Selling the plane is enough. Do we really need to constantly add to her legend in ways that go beyond padding the truth? It seems dangerous to me if you are convinced that the truth is so compelling anyway. And McCain's campaign is apparently convinced. So please stop with the Paula Bunyan tales.
9.6.2008 10:20pm
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):
I am a fan of sex ed, but not medical prescriptions being handed out. Though I think children should be presented with something in the way of sex ed. I have a difficult time with any school making medical decisions about one of my daughters, with or without my knowldge.

That said, abstinence should be taught and reinforced, over, and over, and over, and over. Abstinance is 100% effective when practiced. However, to achive 100% effectiveness, the reality is you need 100% participation.

Of course, parents can particpate too instead of abdicating their parental responsibilities to the government.
9.6.2008 10:23pm
milky loads:
abc news

"attorney Howard Gutman -- an original member of the national finance committee for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. -- very directly criticized the parenting of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin."

Gutman: "The Obama campaign firmly believes that the families of candidates should be off limits and I completely agree with that view."

more gutman, bundler
9.6.2008 10:24pm
jccamp (mail):
Fullerene,

Missed your post re: Bridge to Whatever. I seem to remember her staff's take is that she told Rep Young that the state neither wanted nor needed another attempt at said bridge funding. A significant Federal funding allocation was completed for road projects all over the state instead. I don't think anyone, including the Alaska Democrats, questioned the value of the replacement projects.

Her assertion is again, semantics. One could arguably see truth in what she said. She asked her Representative not to seek the funding, although both Sen Stevens and Rep Young wanted to try again.

And again I ask, who cares? Is this really reflective of who she is? We're splitting hairs.

We might as well argue over who has a better football team, Notre Dame or BC...we'll find out soon enough. So argument now is meaningless.
9.6.2008 10:25pm
David Warner:
"yet, given the importance of energy/oil in this campaign, you'd think that the governor of Alaska would be someone that the news shows you watch would want to talk to...."

The news shows you watch, or the ones I do? How about the tens of millions who watch neither? Here's one clip:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836384597&play=1

As for attacks on Palin's family: is the left sure it wants its argument to be "She asked for it?"

So was the cut of her skirt too high, or was it the "come hither" look?
9.6.2008 10:29pm
Matt Austin (mail):
SG:


I agree her personal opinions (as I understand them) are pretty extreme, but she doesn't seem to have governed that way. You don't get 80% statewide approval ratings from pushing an extreme agenda.
...
For example (I presume she's not typically gay-friendly): vetoing a bill denying benefits to same-sex partners because she believed it unconstitutional.


I hope you're right, but that's the thing about picking someone with little or no record to review. The 80% is impressive, but to my knowledge she was responsible for a very large refund check to be sent to every Alaskan ($1200?). I'm certainly not saying that's a bad thing, just that it might effect her approval ratings. I've read (and would need to search for the link, so I could be wrong here) that the approval rating was recently in the 60's and falling.

Also, vetoing a bill one finds unconstitutional doesn't mean one doesn't have an extreme personal agenda since extreme personal agendas and a respect for the rule of law are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

My point? We have no idea at all how she would govern if she became VP and then something happened to McCain. We have several years as mayor and 18 months as Governor of a wealthy state very different from most states in the union.

But then, that's why a lot of people (and not just liberal Democrats) are worried.
9.6.2008 10:30pm
jccamp (mail):
ACCT 101 -

I actually went there and read (parts of) it. I found this suspicious passage...
"Governments should assess their in-house skills and head count and determine whether they need assistance..."

Well, that's the first problem....

but thanks.
9.6.2008 10:33pm
Man Austitt:
I hope you're right, but that's the thing about picking someone with little or no record to review.

My point? We have no idea at all how he would govern if he became nominee and then won the election. We have several years as community organizer and 24 months as senator of a politically-corrupt district very different from most congressional districts in the union.
9.6.2008 10:35pm
fullerene:
jccamp,

I had not heard that version of the story, but I don't doubt it. Still, I would say that her line is lie. Privately telling Don Young not to pursue an earmark that Congress has already killed once and that has been widely ridiculed from sea to shining sea is not telling Congress 'No thanks,' particularly after you originally supported said earmark before and during the peak of its ridicule. The residents of these two islands that were to have received these two bridges are upset now, because they feel she misled them. Notice that they had no idea until she was named VP that she had opposed the bridges. Why did they not know? Because until she was selected, she had never publicly opposed them. Lie or prevarication? You decide.
9.6.2008 10:37pm
SG:
Matt,

I don't dispute that her record is thin and so we're left having to infer. I don't blame people for being concerned with what they hear of her opinions - some strike me as being pretty far out there too. I just think that what evidence there is doesn't support the notion that she's governed with an extremist agenda

I will also note that you're described the reason why I'm worried about Obama. His personal associations (Wright, Rezko) and legislative experience (Born Alive Act) reflect an extremist bent that don't appear in his rhetoric, but his actual record is so thin it's not clear how he'll actually govern. At least she's only the VP - we know he'll be president (with a compliant Congress) if he wins.
9.6.2008 10:39pm
loki13 (mail):

and 24 months as senator of a politically-corrupt district very different from most congressional districts in the union.


Wow. Illinois is a politically corrupt district? Who knew? How is Illinois different than most states in the nation? The mind boggles!

(Sometimes, they just write themselves... I have the strength of a bear that has the strength of two bears!)
9.6.2008 10:40pm
Mac (mail):
Indeed, one lesson to take away from the last week is that the MSM was much more restrained than was the blogosphere.

Angus,


Sally Quinn, Washington Post, to name one.
9.6.2008 10:42pm
Matt Austin (mail):
SG and the fellow two posts earlier who is a true original:

Why are his eight years in the state senate not brought up more often? It might not be President-making material to everyone, but it should certainly qualify as a rather extensive voting record.

No?
9.6.2008 10:44pm
Man Austitt:
loki13
his senate district
- more violence than the middle east
- the chicago machine
- ayers.
9.6.2008 10:45pm
Matt Austin (mail):
SG,

I didn't notice the gaffe you made (pointed out by Loki), but it does seem to make you look a little ridiculous.
9.6.2008 10:46pm
Matt Austin (mail):

his senate district
- more violence than the middle east
- the chicago machine
- ayers.



Oh...well that settles it, then! Thanks! I was hoping someone would come up with thirteen words that, when put into list form, mean absolutely nothing.
9.6.2008 10:49pm
Smokey:
Charlie (Colorado):
Loki, the problem is that the logical conclusion of this is that only childless people with no prospect of having children in the future should run for office. Palin has kids. So does Obama. Biden too. And McCain's got more than any of them. All of them will be impacted by winning.

Somehow, though, it's only Palin's kids who should keep her from running.
Charlie has put a floodlight on the utter hypocrisy of liberals. Will being called on their blatant hypocrisy produce the shame that it would in normal folks?

No. Liberals are different.

Rather, they will instantly begin to split hairs, trying to somehow prove that Gov. Sarah Palin's situation is different enough that she should be rejected because she has kids. They will cherry-pick some words, or they will throw in some ad hominem rejoinder, trying to make one candidate with children unqualified, compared with the other three candidates with children. This hypocritical character assassination has been displayed by liberals and the media [same-same] non-stop since the name Sarah Palin became part of the campaign.

The day libs grow a conscience, wake me.
9.6.2008 10:51pm
Dave N (mail):
fullerene wrote:
Congress killed the earmark in 2005. Palin was not elected until the end of 2006. There was nothing for her to tell Congress. She literally had no role in defeating the earmark, because she was not even governor when it was considered. That seems like a bald-faced lie to me.
I always find it amazing when people can't do simple Google searches but instead latch onto talking points that fit whatever theme they are seeking.

Here is Governor Palin's press release from September, 2007 (a period when she was in fact, the Governor of Alaska:

State of Alaska > Governor > News > News Archive

Gravina Access Project Redirected Printer Friendly

07-192

Gravina Access Project Redirected

September 21, 2007, Juneau, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island instead of proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge.

“Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,” said Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.” The Department of Transportation has approximately $36 million in federal funds that will become available for other projects with the shutdown of the Gravina Island bridge project. Governor Palin has directed Commissioner Leo von Scheben to review transportation projects statewide to prepare a list of possible uses for the funds, while the department also looks for a more affordable answer for Gravina Island access.
So, to recap, Governor Palin did kill the project, something discoverable through basic research and yet you accuse her of lying. Amazing.
9.6.2008 10:52pm
loki13 (mail):

his senate district
- more violence than the middle east


Wow, I'm learning more every day! After this, I'm going to go check on the suicide bombers of Chicago. Oh yeah, the war too. Maybe the beheadings. The constant repression of a government that has destroyed civil liberties, imprisons people for their political beliefs, and tortures them.

Hmmm... that last part wasn't as funny as I thought it might be.
9.6.2008 10:52pm
Mac (mail):

Many people in the media are more pro-gay/pro-sex than the rest of the country so should they keep information about an unmarried candidates prolific homosexual encounters under wraps because it "shouldn't be relevant."


Truth Path,

I can only I suppose, speak for myself. I don't care if someone is gay or straight. Not a bit. And, I don't really want to know.

The calling for Media excoriation, by some here, because Palin said she is a mother of 5, (which is what she is) is absud. The more so since Chelsea was on the stump for her Mom and we were told she is "off limits". Kids have historically been off limits. Chelsea didn't have to deal with this. The Palin children shouldn't have to either. As an adult, Chelsea should have to. As a child, not political, she should not have had to deal with it and she didn't. Nor should Palin's children. What do you want her to say? She hates kids and doesn't have any?
9.6.2008 10:54pm
therut:
Did everyone smoke crack today or what? Our civilized society is just onion skin deep.
9.6.2008 10:54pm
Randy R. (mail):
"George, You think having illegitimacy is a good thing?"

Well, in this post-Palin world, illegeitmacy within the GOP is the new black.

jccamp: "I'm not a CPA, but this fellow seems to be...quoting
"Statement #34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board ("GASB 34") requires state and local governments (including the State of Alaska) to depreciate most capital assets just as in the business world. So, gain/loss is, in fact, now measured by net selling price minus depreciated cost (not original cost as cpinva incorrectly states). Therefore, McCain's statement as to "sale at a profit" could be correct. CNN commentators like Campbell Brown are IGNORANT of accounting and again show their liberal bias in making attacks without an adequate knowledge basis. Here's a merely sample link that has one Q &A pertaining to depreciation: ...link HERE."


Oh please. Palin said that she put the jet on ebay. What is the normal reaction when someone says that? What's the implication? Simple: that you sold it on ebay. So it's a sin of omission -- technically true, but it leaves the listener with the wrong impression.

Same thing with the jet. When you say that you sell anything 'at a profit', that generally means that you sold something at a price MORE than what you paid for it. No one assumes that you are really saying, well, according to generally accepted accouting procedures, it was sold at a profit after taking depreciation.

Outright lies? I'lll give you that they are not. Deliberate misrepresentations? You gotta admit that one. She seems pretty darn skilled at making these not lies but deliberate misrepresentations, and I would think that we have had enough of that in any politician.
9.6.2008 10:54pm
jccamp (mail):
I would recommend this really interesting column by David Brooks re: McCain and Palin. it's a quick read.

link HERE
9.6.2008 10:55pm
Mac (mail):
Mike @ Naughte Relevant,

Briliant!
9.6.2008 10:57pm
loki13 (mail):
Man,

I thought you got the humor; after the last post, I no longer am so sure. The death were in Chicago this year. You realize that he is the Senator for the *entire* state now, and, moreover, this really isn't his problem (most homicides, thankfully, aren't a federal issue). Previously, he was a *state senator* for seven years, so statistics from that time might be more illuminating, in order to compare apples to apples (instead of oranges).
9.6.2008 10:57pm
Randy R. (mail):
Loki: "After this, I'm going to go check on the suicide bombers of Chicago. Oh yeah, the war too. Maybe the beheadings. The constant repression of a government that has destroyed civil liberties, imprisons people for their political beliefs, and tortures them. "

No. You are wrong. George Bush has been telling us for the past years that everything is great in Iraq. Cheney, several years ago, said things are going 'as planned.' All we hear from Fox News is that Iraq is really becoming a stable peaceful society.

So —- either Bush &Co are lying, in which case they are lying. Or they are telling the truth, in which case Obama is correct. Either way, doesn't make the repubs look good.
9.6.2008 10:58pm
Man Austitt:
"The constant repression of a government that has destroyed civil liberties, imprisons people for their political beliefs, and tortures them."

that's what the black criminals claim as the reason for lashing out.

"A viciously circular apartheid process set in."
9.6.2008 10:59pm
SG:
Matt Austin:

The Born Alive Act I referenced was from his state legislature days. And a common criticism of him is that he voted "present" for controversial bills. Again, leaving us with no real sense of how he will come down when he governs.

And for the record, the gaffe loki13 pointed out wasn't made by me, it was made by "Man Austitt". Perhaps instead of commenting here you ought to be polishing the walls of your glass house?
9.6.2008 10:59pm
David Warner:
"I presume she's not typically gay-friendly"

Why would you presume that? The vast majority of people her age and younger are gay-friendly, although they may not be friendly to policies gays favor. Again, looking at what she actually did as governor, in this area as in others, there is nothing of the "extreme" agenda we're supposed to be so frightened of. I thought Bush was the fearmonger.
9.6.2008 11:00pm
milky loads:
"Why would you presume that?"

because she has kids, duh. she indicates an unhealthy heteronormative relationship. if you create overpopulation you're part of the problem!!one!
9.6.2008 11:02pm
loki13 (mail):
Smokey wrote,


The day libs grow a conscience, wake me.


The day smokey could pass a Turing Test, wake me.

Smokey's autobot program:
1. Insert name [Smokey]
2. Insert gratuitous smear [Liberals are subhumans/collectivists/morons/idiots]
3. Insert Specific smear [Poster X is an idiot]
4. Insert Bizarre Legal Reference Betraying Shockingly Superficial Knowledge [Poster X is so ignorant of knowledge, they could never understand how the 4th Am. works in their will &trusts exam]
5. Conclude with self-satisfied conclusion [Suck it libs, because you know I'm right]
9.6.2008 11:03pm
David Warner:
"Well, in this post-Palin world, illegeitmacy within the GOP is the new black."

When born, the baby will not be any more illegitimate than Palin herself. Or Obama. That's been the family-values argument all along. If you couldn't be bothered to actually understand that argument, how is that the GOP's fault?
9.6.2008 11:04pm
Randy R. (mail):
"2) In the real world, Palin and her daughter both had choices. They each made a decision consistent with their (well, Palin's) stated philosophy. Even if their public position was that there is no moral choice but not to terminate, they certainly had the option to say "Screw that. Call the abortion doctor. I'll ask for forgiveness later." or something similar. No one was going to prevent them from doing exactly that. "

All true. However, in Palin's world, she would prevent them from doing exactly that.

"So, to recap, Governor Palin did kill the project, something discoverable through basic research and yet you accuse her of lying. "

Again, another deliberate misrepresentation. She made hay with this during her speech to make is sound like isn't interested in pork money. The fact is that she still kept the money -- it wasn't returned to the federal treasury.

You will recall that people were upset over pork money in the wake of Hurrican Katrina, and these millions only contribute to the federal deficit, or could go into rebuilding New Orleans. Thanks to Palin, of course, neither happened -- she just spent it on something else. So instead of getting the bridge to nowhere, where did it go?
9.6.2008 11:05pm
loki13 (mail):
Man,

I thought that was the defense of all criminals. Not specifically *black* criminals. Also, that didn't really have much to do with the post, which was more of the sarcastic variety. I do recommend caution- your Freudian slip is showing.
9.6.2008 11:07pm
Randy R. (mail):
DAvid: "When born, the baby will not be any more illegitimate than Palin herself. Or Obama. That's been the family-values argument all along. If you couldn't be bothered to actually understand that argument, how is that the GOP's fault?"

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that the GOP was so supportive of unwed teenaged mothers. I'm so glad that they are now.

Since it's so perfectly okay now to have 17 year old's having kids, why are they so adamant about preaching abstinence? Something here doesn't ring right -- maybe you can help me out?
9.6.2008 11:08pm
Matt Austin (mail):
SG,

My apologies. I had read both comments and gone back and forth between them in my head. It seemed out of character for you, and I should have looked again.
9.6.2008 11:10pm
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):

Mike @ Naughte Relevant,

Briliant!


Aw Shucks
9.6.2008 11:11pm
SG:
"I presume she's not typically gay-friendly"

Why would you presume that?

Because political beliefs tend to cluster, and religious anti-abortion absolutists tend to be disapproving of homesexuality.

But this is only a correlation, and I freely admit that I have no knowledge of her position on homosexuality (beyond opposing same-sex marriage), which is why I mentioned that this was a presumption on my part. If you have any evidence on what her true position is, I'd like to know. That way I wouldn't have to presume.
9.6.2008 11:11pm
Mac (mail):
SG wrote"

I will also note that you're described the reason why I'm worried about Obama. His personal associations (Wright, Rezko) and legislative experience (Born Alive Act) reflect an extremist bent that don't appear in his rhetoric, but his actual record is so thin it's not clear how he'll actually govern. At least she's only the VP - we know he'll be president (with a compliant Congress) if he wins.


Yes. Exactly.
Very well put. Democats, pay attention. This is the problem with Obama. Not to mention, Ayers and Dorn and the Iraqi millionaire. Not trying to be nasty. Only very truthful.
9.6.2008 11:14pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

See, it's OK to be proud of your family. Obama is, and he talks about it. The Clintons have mentioned their family, including Chelsea, plenty. But Bush isn't allowed to be proud of his family by liberals, and Palin can't be either. Because there must be something wrong there... Right, Chief? Great double standard, there. Pure hypocrisy.

Palin has kids. So does Obama. Biden too. And McCain's got more than any of them.

Good points, well worth taking a look at. I would still argue that a single standard applies. The difference depends on if the candidate presents him or herself in the role of a parent:

McCain did not merely present Palin with her children, he made a point of describing her as "a devoted wife and mother of five..." I do not ever remember Clinton being presented as a "devoted husband and father of one." People would have fallen off the platform laughing.

Palin herself emphasized her role as a parent: hockey mom, basketball coach, PTA leader. I do not remember Clinton, Biden or Obama ever talk about being a soccer dad, softball coach, or Scout leader. Obama appears to be a good dad, because we have seen pictures of him pulling a training trailer from his bike.

Regarding the Bush twins: we heard very little about them other then their underage drinking bust.

And the difference between Clinton with Monica and Packwood with his office staff is that Monica approached Clinton (I presume that showing him her thong constituted making a move) while Packwood hit on multiple members of his office staff, even though they had made it clear they were not interested.
9.6.2008 11:17pm
SG:
Matt Austin:

Apology accepted. It's hard to keep track of who is who with all the posts flying about here.
9.6.2008 11:17pm
Randy R. (mail):
David: "Why would you presume that? The vast majority of people her age and younger are gay-friendly, although they may not be friendly to policies gays favor."

Perhaps because she stated that she strongly opposed in 2006 domestic partner benefits for Alaska's state employees, her support in 1998 of a state constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage?

In response to a questionnaire from the Eagle Forum about spousal benefits (meaning domesitc partner benefits) for state employees, she replied, No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constiitution.

Then in 2006 in one of her first legislative acts, she signed a bill calling for an advisory ballot issue, saying it would lay the groundwork for a state coinstitutional ban on partner benefits in response to a court ruling mandating partner benefits. Eight days later, she vetoed the bill on the advice of the attorney general, but she reiterated her opposition to the court ruling on the benefits issue as well as her opposition to same sex marriage.

Trying to strip away domestic partner benefits, which are pretty non-controversial in most states, is pretty extreme. So no, she is not 'gay-friendly' in any normal sense of the word. Oh sure, she isn't calling for us to be burned at the stake, but that's not what the ordinary person thinks of when they hear the phrase gay-friendly.
9.6.2008 11:19pm
Mac (mail):

RPT (mail):
"Mac: When will we get an apology from the Obama campaign and Andrew Sullivan, to name just a very few who need to apologize?"

Since you made this comment in contrast to a specific quote from McCain, can you identify what comments from Sullivan and what comments from which members of the Obama campaign should be the subject of an apology? Part of my interest comes from my background in defamation litigation and successfully litigating retractions. Put another way: who said what? Be specific.


The idea the Palin had her daughter's child. Directly attributable to Sulliven. Too numerous to mention from the Obama campaign.

McCain apologized. Heartfelt and sincere. Never did anything like that again. Find a similar Democrat who ever did that.
9.6.2008 11:19pm
fullerene:

I thought Bush was the fearmonger.



Actually, she reminds me a lot of Bush circa 2000: short on political experience, underestimated, very popular governor, strong Christian values, and everyperson image. In reality, Palin is probably nothing like the President, but campaigns do seem to repeat themselves even if candidates do not. My own sense is that the GOP is correcting the errors of President Bush's narrative. People really responded to his everyday guy persona even if this didn't quite fit with the facts. With Palin, it is much harder to argue that she is anything but ordinary. Indeed, every single day we are reminded of just how ordinary she is. And at this point, I don't think there is anything that will make her look bad in a lot of people's eyes. It will just confirm her credibility.
9.6.2008 11:20pm
Randy R. (mail):
Andrew Sullivan is a republican and a conservative. He is not a liberal or a Democrat, although he once in a while takes a liberal position on an issue. Anyone who reads his blog knows that.
9.6.2008 11:23pm
Mac (mail):

I hope you're right, but that's the thing about picking someone with little or no record to review.


Matt Austin,

My point re Obama, exactly. Except, he would be POTUS, not VP.
9.6.2008 11:27pm
fullerene:

Directly attributable to Sulliven.


It is worth pointing out that Sullivan is/was a conservative blogger who is not even a U.S. citizen (although he is a permanent resident). He represents the Mitt Romney, good-governance portion of the Republican Party that seems to have lost almost all relevance. Too bad, really.
9.6.2008 11:27pm
Matt Austin (mail):
Mac:


The idea the Palin had her daughter's child. Directly attributable to Sulliven. Too numerous to mention from the Obama campaign.


I don't understand the obsession with what Sullivan says. He's a blogger who never pretended to be unbiased. He did posts about the possibility that the rumor in question was true. That was one time I thought he went way over the line. But an apology? Do we really request that from every editorialist? Does Sean Hannity often apologize when proven wrong or absurd? Bill O'Reilly? Kos? Huffington? NRO?

They've all been wrong and I would venture that they've all been absurdly wrong at times. I don't recall that many apologies, however.

And so far I've seen one quote attributed to the Obama campaign...except that was from an "original member of his national finance committee", which I think means a major fundraiser. And I'm not sure if "original" is stated because he's no longer a part of it. Someone help me out if you have a better understanding of that committee. I do know this: that committee has 281 members.

So perhaps you can help me with some of these "too numerous to mention" comments from the Obama campaign about her family.
9.6.2008 11:30pm
Smokey:
AB:
I think that Palin's family life is relevant because it exposes the hypocrisy and inefficacy of her positions. It is one thing to preach abstinence, and quite another to have a daughter who is pregnant. It is one thing to preach pro-life, and quite another to say you "chose" to have your special-needs child.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Would one of the half-dozen liberals on this thread like to officially adopt AB? He's one of yours, you know.
9.6.2008 11:32pm
loki13 (mail):
Fullerene,

If we had a good governance, fiscally responsible, uphold the law, conservative foreign policy (real politik) Republican party again, I might come back.

But it would have to bee big tent enough to provide cover for those who actually believe the government should stay out of religion (good for people, good for religion) and individual's lives.
9.6.2008 11:32pm
SG:
Randy R:

Thanks for some facts. It confirms my presumption she's not personally gay-friendly in any common sense of the term. Yet she set that aside and enforced her state's constituion even when it was not politically safe (a bill that passes through the legislature can be safely assumed to be politically popular, or at the least not unpopular). I don't care where you are on the political spectrum, that's admirable.

If only Bush had been willing to do the same with McCain-Feingold...
9.6.2008 11:33pm
Matt Austin (mail):
Mac:


Matt Austin,

My point re Obama, exactly. Except, he would be POTUS, not VP.


Obama has held elected office for twelve years. That doesn't count as a record?
9.6.2008 11:33pm
Cleanthes (mail) (www):
"Since it's so perfectly okay now to have 17 year old's having kids, why are they so adamant about preaching abstinence? Something here doesn't ring right -- maybe you can help me out?"

Abstinence is the only method of birth control that works 100% of the time.
Some governments could fund and have funded abstinence programs.
Result? No change in teenage pregnancy rates.
Some governments could fund and have funded condom use and other birth-control instruction.
Result? No change in teenage pregnancy rates.
The government could just save its money.
Probable result? No change in teenage pregnancy rates.

This whole debate is completely divorced from policy or consequences and, in reality, is about deciding which pointless educanto some silly "teacher" will fail to teach bored teenagers.
The actual point of sex education is to have another line item in the budget in order to increase the power of the teacher's unions and the amount of resources diverted from productive use.
And, for all that, irony still reigns supreme because the LA Times now reports that Sarah Palin actually supports condom instruction.
9.6.2008 11:34pm
Randy R. (mail):
Here is where the hypocracy lies:

For years, the religious right has been angry and has repeatedly denounced the media for making movies and tv shows about casual sex and teenaged pregnancy. The latest was when the movie Juno was a hit, and won and Academy Award for best screenplay. They say that by 'glorifying' teenaged pregnancy and teen sex, that the media does a deservice to everyone by making it look like there are no consequences to such behavior, or that the consequences are minimal.

Now comes a real life teenaged mother, and what does the religious right do? They glorify her. Palin says that it just made Bristol grow up a little faster, and if anything, it's been a *great* thing for the family. It's brought them all closer and they all celebrate -- on national tv at an important policial event -- how wonderful it is.

Well, which is it? I can imagine the poor sex ed instructor trying to convince his teenaged students that having babies when so young will destroy your life, saddle you down with limited choices, and their hands go up and say, nope, look at Bristol Palin and her mother. Not only was it not bad, but they are saying how *good* this is!

I declare that the religious right wing has now officially lost its' soul. It doesn't believe in anything other than power, and it will trade its most cherished beliefs in order to gain it. We have seen that they will throw anything overboard (with the possible exception of abortion and hatred of gays, because they earn them so much money on the fear-based fundraisers) in order to keep the White House.
9.6.2008 11:35pm
Randy R. (mail):
" Yet she set that aside and enforced her state's constituion even when it was not politically safe (a bill that passes through the legislature can be safely assumed to be politically popular, or at the least not unpopular). I don't care where you are on the political spectrum, that's admirable. "

Total agreement. She isn't a monster.

"The actual point of sex education is to have another line item in the budget in order to increase the power of the teacher's unions and the amount of resources diverted from productive use. "

Thanks for the ed on sex. I think many instructors truly do care about the kids and want them to be safe and not get pregnant, so I wouldn't be totally cynical about it.
But I wasn't talking about Palin in particular, but about the religious right's view on premarital sex.
9.6.2008 11:38pm
Mac (mail):

Wow. Illinois is a politically corrupt district? Who knew? How is Illinois different than most states in the nation? The mind boggles!


loki13,

With all due respect, and I mean that, you, I guess. Chicago is and has been for a long time, the dirtiest, most corrupt political machine in the country. I say that as a strong JFK supporter who now realizes that he probably stole the election with the help of Johnson and Daly.
9.6.2008 11:40pm
SG:
loki13 writes:
If we had a good governance, fiscally responsible, uphold the law, conservative foreign policy (real politik) Republican party again, I might come back.

With the notable exception of foreign policy (about which we are ignorant), that's exactly what Sara Palin seems (and I stress seems) to represent. And that's exactly why rank-and-file Reps are so excited about her.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but I have to admit I'm attracted.

(In a platonic way, of course.)
9.6.2008 11:40pm
fullerene:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Would one of the half-dozen liberals on this thread like to officially adopt AB? He's one of yours, you know.


Nah, I don't know if the children of religious folks are more likely to have children out of wedlock. Even if I did know, one person's experience is almost completely irrelevant. This could have happened to anyone.
9.6.2008 11:42pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

Abstinence is the only method of birth control that works 100% of the time.

That's under ideal conditions. What is the failure rate under typical real-world conditions?
9.6.2008 11:44pm
Matt Austin (mail):
Mac,


Chicago is and has been for a long time, the dirtiest, most corrupt political machine in the country.


Funny, I thought Alaska had recently won that award with the help of Stevens and company.
9.6.2008 11:44pm
loki13 (mail):
Mac,

Apparently, humor is not the way to go in these times. I was pointing out the previous poster (Man) had been confused as to Obama's work for his *district* (seven years) and his *state* (the last two years). I think the distinction was lost on Man, but I am sure you realize that despite the presence of de Bears and/or the army of mini-Ditkas, there is more to the state of Illinois than Chicago.
9.6.2008 11:45pm
fullerene:

With the notable exception of foreign policy (about which we are ignorant), that's exactly what Sara Palin seems (and I stress seems) to represent. And that's exactly why rank-and-file Reps are so excited about her.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but I have to admit I'm attracted.

(In a platonic way, of course.)



Yes, but you miss the rub. The reason we know so little about Palin is because McCain chose a near complete unknown to energize the religious portion of his party. She may be everything you hope, but we will not come close to knowing that until she is already on the job. McCain's selection approach reminds me of Bush. In other words, it does not remind me of the Republican Party we have been deprived of for so long.
9.6.2008 11:47pm
Mac (mail):

Wow, I'm learning more every day! After this, I'm going to go check on the suicide bombers of Chicago. Oh yeah, the war too. Maybe the beheadings. The constant repression of a government that has destroyed civil liberties, imprisons people for their political beliefs, and tortures them.



loki13,

Just when I thought you were being sane, you come up with this. Yeah, it is worse in Chicagoe that Baghdad. It is one of the enormous problems we face. And, Chicago, has had Democratic leadership for a long time. Tell me how are they successful? I care. I care deeply as I can place myself in their shoes, but for an accident of birth. I want solutions, not platitudes that the Democrats have given us. I was "there", not Chicago, but another big city inner city. I know. It is pathetic when Army surgeons go to Philadelphia to study advances in gun shot wounds, as did happen recently. If the Dem's would come up with a new idea that would solve the problems, i.e. school choice, ooh, no they are against that, I would be all for them. We have got to get over this if good people ever want to really solve problems. I, personally, despair of it.
9.6.2008 11:52pm
loki13 (mail):
SG-

I disagree. So far, the enthusiasm I see comes from three factors:

1. The "base", as defined by religious conservatives.
2. The "base", as defined by extreme partisans who can now rally and attack the usual suspects (the evil media, liberals, etc.)
3. Younger GOP men. I don't even want to go there. Kind of creepy.

I don't see her as a return to the GOP I knew. McCain 2000 comes a little closer. Rather, she has some qualities that might be good, and some that I know are bad. But given what I know about the powers that be that 'recommended' her to McCain, I am not enthusiastic. I would rather the GOP ticket go down in flames and four years in the wilderness ensue, with some serious housecleaning and soul-searching, than have this ticket win and business as usual continue. McCain's choice of Palin confirmed to me that he is so far indebted to the political operatives of the Bush administration that little will change during his Presidency; while before I could believe that this was all a ruse to get power and then go back to being "his own man", if he lacks the ability to even choose his own VP, I am very concerned about who will be calling the shots in an isolated McCain presidency.
9.6.2008 11:53pm
Man Austitt:
I was pointing out the previous speaker (Barry) had been confused as to Palins's work for her *city* (ten years) and her *state* (lieutenant governor for four years and governor the last two years). I think the distinction was lost on Barry, but I am sure you realize that despite the presence of bleeding moose and/or the army of Palin fishermen, there is more to the state of Alaska than shoreline and tundra.
9.6.2008 11:57pm
SG:
She may be everything you hope, but we will not come close to knowing that until she is already on the job.

That's a completely valid point, but it's just as applicable to Obama. As a practical matter, I vote the top of the ticket, not the bottom. If nothing else, McCain will have a Democratic Congress to check him.

I don't fault people for not falling in love with Sarah Palin. There's a lot of unknowns, and some of what is known isn't attractive. But while conceding that, I find Obama to be frankly worse on the same fronts (limited track record, unclear foreign policy, questionable personal opinions/associations).

I can't help but feel that all the people complaining about Sarah Palin's meager track record wouldn't vote for her even if she had 30 years of public record showing exactly what I and others hope her to be. In which case, methinks thou doth protest to much.
9.6.2008 11:59pm
loki13 (mail):
Mac,

I'm sorry, but now you've lost me. First, the original post was "the Middle East", not Baghdad. That's a lot of area. Second, that's a lot of BS. Baghdad might not be the terrordome it is sometimes made out to be, but it is a hell of a lot more dangerous than Chicago. All those posts linking to the Chicago with more shooting deaths than Iraq... you notice that is comparing Chicago deaths to US Troop deaths? Not Iraqi troop deaths? Not civilian deaths? Not people blown up in explosions? Not people killed in friendly fire?

Answer this question-

Would you rather be in Baghdad (not as a soldier), or Chicago? Honestly?
9.7.2008 12:02am
Mac (mail):
So perhaps you can help me with some of these "too numerous to mention" comments from the Obama campaign about her family.

Matt,
if you are going to accuse ALL REPUBLICANS of anything that is said to the point that Palin's child is fair game, can''t I do the same thing? Give me a break! Turn about is fair play.
9.7.2008 12:03am
loki13 (mail):

to Palins's work for her *city* (ten years) and her *state* (lieutenant governor for four years and governor the last two years)


That's a relief. I was wondering where all of her substantive work was. Clearly, she accomplished most of it while she was Lt. Gov! Maybe you could help us out with some more fascinating details of this exciting period of time the librul MSM missed!
9.7.2008 12:06am
Man Austitt:
"librul MSM missed!"

only Obama was stupid enough to miss that
9.7.2008 12:06am
Mac (mail):

Mac:


Matt Austin,

My point re Obama, exactly. Except, he would be POTUS, not VP.


Obama has held elected office for twelve years. That doesn't count as a record?


Absolutely zero executive esperiencel Plus, many Present votes. Not impressive. And, 2 memoirs. He's only 44 for Chris sqke's. Twop?
9.7.2008 12:09am
Mac (mail):
Sorry. Sale's and Two.
9.7.2008 12:10am
Matt Austin (mail):
Mac:


Matt,
if you are going to accuse ALL REPUBLICANS of anything that is said to the point that Palin's child is fair game, can''t I do the same thing? Give me a break! Turn about is fair play.



I don't recall making the blanket accusation that you claim. When did I do that?
9.7.2008 12:12am
Mac (mail):
Cleanthes,

Yes, very true.
9.7.2008 12:12am
loki13 (mail):
Man,

I honestly don't know if you're a super clever troll of blindingly stupid and incapable of understanding sarcasm. Taking the chance that it's the second, you do realize Palin was *never* Lt. Gov., right? Right???
9.7.2008 12:13am
Mac (mail):
loki13.
Would you rather be in Baghdad (not as a soldier), or Chicago? Honestly?

Interesting question. As a former social worker in the inner city and as someone who just the other day was talking to someone from Chicago, I'd gleefully take Baghdad. Seriously and sincerely. Also, as a parent of an Iraq combat Vet.
9.7.2008 12:18am
Matt Austin (mail):
Mac:


Absolutely zero executive esperiencel Plus, many Present votes. Not impressive. And, 2 memoirs. He's only 44 for Chris sake's. Two?



So now you're agreeing he does have a record, just not an executive one?

And now we'll look at your comments and compare them to the facts:

"Many present votes"??? He cast 130 present votes out of 4000 while in the state legislature. Now that's a real problem for him.

"Two memoirs!" Actually one is a book on politics and campaigning. But that would be hard to tell, what with the subtitle being: "Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream".


In all seriousness, do you just regurgitate what you hear others say, or do you ever research things?
9.7.2008 12:19am
SG:
loki13:

Can you give some pointers to what you've seen about her selection process? Everything I've read has been to the effect of McCain saw a kindred spirit (doing what she thought was right irrespective of party) and chose her over the desires of the powers that be (wasn't that the Democratic/MSM line - that she hadn't been properly vetted by McCain?). But again, I'd be interested in hearing otherwise.

You may be right about who she's appealing to; perhaps I'm projecting. But still, I'm more comfortable with uncertainty at the VP slot than POTUS. And I like divided government - checks and balances are a good thing not just structurally but politically.
9.7.2008 12:20am
loki13 (mail):
Mac,

As someone who grew up in the middle east and has many friends currently there in both a civilian and military capacity, I'd say that is a loser's bet. I would recommend reading some English translations of the local papers (available online) to get a flavor, and then checking out their civilian casualty statistics. That's just the beginning- don't forget the uncertainty. While Chicago has bad aspects, there isn't as much stranger violence or pure ethnic violence. I think that while service to our country is wonderful, the view of an American soldier in Baghdad is decidedly different than that of the populace.

But then again, the plural of anecdote is not data.

(You can always join in The Ace's bet against me!)
9.7.2008 12:23am
Matt Austin (mail):
SG:


Can you give some pointers to what you've seen about her selection process? Everything I've read has been to the effect of McCain saw a kindred spirit (doing what she thought was right irrespective of party) and chose her over the desires of the powers that be (wasn't that the Democratic/MSM line - that she hadn't been properly vetted by McCain?). But again, I'd be interested in hearing otherwise.


What I've read is he wanted either Lieberman or Ridge but was told no by the powers that be. Though I'm not sure anyone knows for sure.
9.7.2008 12:24am
byomtov (mail):
So, to recap, Governor Palin did kill the project, something discoverable through basic research and yet you accuse her of lying. Amazing.

Dave N.,

She killed it when the feds cut back on their contribution and the State of Alaska was going to have to pay. That's a far cry from the clear implication of her statement - that she is opposed to pork even when it benefits her state. So yes, I' think it's fair to say she lied. Of course if you want to grasp at a tiny shred of a defensible statement buried in a mountain of BS you can. But the fact is her intent was to deceive.
9.7.2008 12:26am
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):

Obama has held elected office for twelve years. That doesn't count as a record?


Not when you refuse to take stand and vote "present" versus the usual, oh, I don't know, yeh or ney.
9.7.2008 12:27am
fullerene:

That's a completely valid point, but it's just as applicable to Obama.



That is what everyone says. But the thing is, what was always good about the Republican Party was the sense of responsibility it brought to the table. I vaguely remember Bush's campaign using rhetoric to the effect that the "adults were taking over Washington again." Unfortunately, that did not turn out to be true. Now, we really have no responsible party. I guess the Republicans figured out that they would forever be in the minority if they stayed serious. Their calculation has been that a successful hollowed out shell that runs largely on calling absolutely everyone who is not inclined to vote Republican elitist is better than being in the minority. Country first? Not anymore.
9.7.2008 12:30am
Matt Austin (mail):
Mike:


Not when you refuse to take stand and vote "present" versus the usual, oh, I don't know, yeh or ney.


I guess you don't like to read actual voting records either. He voted "present" 130 out of 4000 times. My calculator tells me that he would still have 3,870 votes of "yeh or ney" for you to peruse to your heart's content.

But where did you get your information?
9.7.2008 12:30am
SG:
What I've read is he wanted either Lieberman or Ridge but was told no by the powers that be. Though I'm not sure anyone knows for sure.

I've heard he wanted Lieberman but Lieberman was a no-go by Republican by-laws (you have to be a registered Republican for some period before you can be nominated). Following party by-laws isn't exactly sucking up to the man.

I heard Ridge's name mentioned as being in consideration, but not at the top of the list.

But nothing I've heard has made me think that Palin was forced on McCain. Frankly she seems way too far out of the box for the GOP powers-that-be to have forced her down McCain's throat.
9.7.2008 12:32am
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):
That's under ideal conditions. What is the failure rate under typical real-world conditions?





The pregnancy rate for those who abstain from sex is 0%.

Of course realistically kids will have sex. But as part of a broader program isn't it okay to remind them frequently that abstinence is the only fool proof way not to become pregnant?

I think in our schools, especially in the more "progressive" districts, abstinence is something that is mentioned with a wink and a nod.
9.7.2008 12:33am
Mac (mail):
Loki13 wrote:


Mac,

As someone who grew up in the middle east and has many friends currently there in both a civilian and military capacity, I'd say that is a loser's bet.



Well, I daresay you may be right. However, I dare say you don't know much about the inner cities of the USA. Also, OK, I've always been a little crazy. I sure as hell didn't want my son there, but me? I'd love to go.. I have a friend who is a UNICEF doctor. He is going to Afghanistan. I'd love to go with him. I would love to be a part of building a new society. Perhaps, I have never gotten over being part of the Great Society and it being such a colossal failure. Maybe, I'd just like another shot at it.
9.7.2008 12:34am
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):

That's under ideal conditions. What is the failure rate under typical real-world conditions?

The pregnancy rate for those who abstain from sex is 0%.

Of course realistically kids will have sex. But as part of a broader program isn't it okay to remind them frequently that abstinence is the only fool proof way not to become pregnant?

I think in our schools, especially in the more "progressive" districts, abstinence is something that is mentioned with a wink and a nod.
9.7.2008 12:35am
Matt Austin (mail):

But nothing I've heard has made me think that Palin was forced on McCain. Frankly she seems way too far out of the box for the GOP powers-that-be to have forced her down McCain's throat.


I also doubt that was the case. I was just bringing up Lieberman/Ridge because my understanding was he caved to the party on those options. I'd not heard about the by-laws...interesting.
9.7.2008 12:35am
Hoosier:
loki--"or, at least those that reside in the lower 49 states"

What is it with you Obamaphiles? First HE can't count states. Now YOU can't count states?
9.7.2008 12:35am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
do you really want people to believe Gov Palin is a liar over this? Why not stick to issues of substance?


Proof that Palin lied is here. And the lie is regarding 'issues of substance.'
9.7.2008 12:36am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
smokey:

And 0's kids can fend for themselves while both mom &dad work, and that's OK too, but... who's going to take care of Vice President Palin's kids??!??!?


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 press photographers, 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 she's a terrific mom (via that stunt and others like it), it's very appropriate to consider the question of whether or not she's actually a terrific mom. And when we do so, we learn important things about her character.
9.7.2008 12:36am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Some of the loudest screams about Palin are coming from women who have supported the idea that a woman can simultaneously have a family and a career. Suddenly, a woman's place is in the home.


I think the issue is not that there needs to be a woman in the home. I think the issue is that there needs to be a parent in the home. This particular household appears to have this many parents at home: zero. Todd is very busy as an oil-rig worker, commercial fisherman, and championship snow-machine racer. If Todd was home, my analysis would be very different.

Yes, I realize that it's extremely common to have a household where both parents are out of the house. However, I believe that parents who live that life are being irresponsible when they create a large family. In particular, such parents are being irresponsible when they get pregnant even though mom is over 40 (and therefore there is obviously heightened risk), and even though they already have four kids, and even though neither parent has any interest in staying home to raise kids.

Lots of people (here and elsewhere) are talking about Bristol's pregnancy. Lots of people are talking about the decision to not abort Trig. I think what's being overlooked is this: the decision to get pregnant with Trig.

Compare the conception of Trig with the conception of Bristol's unborn child. The latter was an act of teenagers. The former was the act of adults. More importantly, one of those adults is currently running for high office. Therefore Bristol's pregnancy is much less interesting to me than the decision that Todd and Sara made, which led to Trig's conception.

When blacks in the inner city have more kids than they can handle, they are properly criticized for being irresponsible. Why do the Palins get a free pass?

I think getting pregnant with Trig is a reflection of poor judgment. And the decision to pursue an even more demanding job, despite Trig's birth, and despite Bristol's situation, looks to me like irresponsible parenting.

I don't think it's personal in the sense that anyone has condemned Sarah Palin as a bad mother (I could be wrong, I don't read all media)


I think Palin is indeed being condemned as a bad mother, and rightly so. I agree with 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?


Why do I care that she's a bad mother? Only because this tells me something about her character and her judgment. Someone who puts their personal ambition ahead of their kids is also going to put their personal ambition ahead of their country.
9.7.2008 12:37am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
That's a completely valid point, but it's just as applicable to Obama


I keep hearing people claim we don't know a lot about Obama. It's as if you don't realize that he has presented an enormous amount of detailed material regarding his position on every major issue. And this is aside from revealing a lot about the way he thinks, by writing two books (and unlike McCain, who had a co-author, it seems that Obama wrote his books himself).

Show me Palin's web site, and her books, and then you'll be in a position to make the claim you made ("it's just as applicable to Obama").
9.7.2008 12:37am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mac:

Absolutely zero executive esperience


Are we discussing McCain? He has thirteen months of executive experience. And for some strange reason, this job is not even mentioned in his official campaign bio. Don't you think that's odd?
9.7.2008 12:37am
fullerene:

So, to recap, Governor Palin did kill the project, something discoverable through basic research and yet you accuse her of lying. Amazing.




Palin claims she told Congress "No Thanks." She never did anything of the sort. In fact, when her opinion could possible have been of any relevance to Congress, she supported federal funding.

The best she can do is claim that she privately told Don Young, Ted Stevens, and Lisa Murkowski to give up all efforts to secure federal funding after Congress had decided to block the earmark. Again, this explains why the residents most affected by the project, those who lived on the islands to be connected to the mainland, only became angry with the Governor after she gave her "No Thanks" speech a couple of days ago. It was news to them that she didn't support federal funding.
9.7.2008 12:37am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I'm more comfortable with uncertainty at the VP slot than POTUS.


That comfort starts to go away when you take McCain's age into account.
9.7.2008 12:38am
SG:
fullerene:

I don't disagree with you. I think expecting either party to police themselves is a fool's bet. That's why divided government is the way to go.

Frankly, I'd think a (D) in the White House and (R)'s controlling Congress is probably a better balance (I was better off in '99...). I think that's a better balance. That's not in the cards this cycle, though.
9.7.2008 12:39am
loki13 (mail):
SG-

A few things.

1. I have to hit the sack soon (go gators!), so I don't have time to google source everything for you. My basic take on the process was that early on (shortly after McCain got the nod), Palin was identified as a possible VP for the long list. She was discarded. McCain really wanted his buddy Joe, or maybe Ridge, and continued to have his campaign float trial ballons to see if they would be acceptable. In no uncertain terms, we found out they would not be. McCain was told (pressured/advised/instructed depending on your source) to take a hard right, pro-life, appease the base type. This is now VERY late in the process. After briefly flirting with the likes of Pawlenty, at the 11th hour McCain remembers Palin, runs it by his advisors (she's good with the base), and decides what he remembers of her 'mavericky-ness' is good enough for him.

So I guess it depends on how you frame it- either McCain wasn't allowed to pick who he wanted, or he picked the person he wanted from a very circumscribed list.

2. I prefer divided government, as a general principle. This shows you how disillusioned I am. While I could support a GOP candidate for a state position (my state has very good GOP governor currently), I cannot support the GOP for an Article II position until there's been some housecleaning. Just can't. I'm looking for my Eisenhower. *grin*

3. I think the whole problem with both sides with Palin is an issue of projection. She such a blank slate that liberals see the things about they don't like, and project their fears on the unknown, and conservatives see the things about her they do like, and project their desires (sometimes, *ahem*, a little too literally) upon the things they don't know.

Nothing else can explain the following:
a. Libertarian GOP sees Palin as a libertarian.
b. Religious Right GOP sees Palin as a fundamentalist.
c. Log Cabin GOP sees Palin as open-minded.
d. Business GOP sees Palin as pro-business.
e. Populist GOP sees Palin as 'tough on oil'.

and so on.
9.7.2008 12:42am
LM (mail):
Hoosier,

IIRC, when Palin's baby was born you lamented that she won't be a VP candidate because she'll certainly want to devote herself to her family -- and you agreed that was the right thing to do. Or words to that effect. If that choice would have been praiseworthy, is it out of bounds to criticize her now for the alternative? What do you think would be a legitimate criticism of her role as mother, if any?

FWIW, if it were up to me, I'd leave everything personal and not policy related out of it, but the same should go for R's vs. D's. And I have not the tiniest doubt that if a D were in Palin's situation, she'd be excoriated by the likes of Rove, Dobsen, etc. Finally, not only do I think it's wrong, but even though the R's would do it to a D, I think it's tactically stupid for D's to go down that road. But I could be wrong. Regardless, I'm virtually certain the idiots like that blogger who posted the fake book list and the Kossaks who came up with the fake pregnancy story (or was that Andrew Sullivan? Didn't he used to be smart?) are 100% counter-productive.

D's are just not good at this kind of thing. So if anyone's going to play dirty from our side, we should leave it to the pros. In which case the only question is, "How much are our souls worth?"
9.7.2008 12:45am
loki13 (mail):
Hoosier-

Isn't Hawaii beneath Alaska? I actually wondered what I should put there- when singling out Alaska, I could write "the lower 48," but that would leave Hawaii out, and I couldn't do that as a "committed Obamaphile." OTOH, you usually think of the main 48 and the outlying 2. Just no elegant phrasing there.
9.7.2008 12:48am
byomtov (mail):
Theobromophile,

I don't think it's about the kids' right to privacy. Of course they have a right to privacy and no one should be following them around to catch them at something.

My question is what about facts that are public knowledge? A candidate who makes a big deal about positive aspects of her childrens' lives in her campaign is, in effect, saying, "look what a good job I've done raising my kids. That's one more reason you should vote for me."

So why can't her opponent cite negative aspects (that are public) to counter that argument?

My answer is that both are wrong. I personally wish all we knew about candidates' children is that they exist. Unfortunately, most voters don't agree with me, or at least no politician in the US thinks they do.
9.7.2008 12:50am
SG:
loki13:

1. That's another way to view it. But in any case, I don't find it scandalous. Does anybody think Joe Biden is the change we've been waiting for? The VP choice inherently has political considerations.

2. Divided government is the only way to fly. Neither party represents me perfectly and competition is a good thing for the country.

3. I am in strong agreement with you here. Somebody (probably me) is bound to be disappointed. Practically though, there probably isn't enough time between now and the election for the bloom to come off the rose.

I found Obama really appealing early in the process too.
9.7.2008 12:55am
fullerene:

I found Obama really appealing early in the process too.


Isn't that the way it works? I felt the same way about Bush in early 1998. It is always the running for office that turns people off. Maybe that is why limiting the public's exposure to Palin is the strategy we most want the GOP to use. People seem to like her now. I am not sure they will feel the same in six weeks.
9.7.2008 1:00am
Hoosier:
loki--Alaskans say "lower 48." So with AK we have 49. And HI makes 50. The other seven were news to me.

What was really funny, though, was the general ignorance of the reportorial-caste re: the capital of Alaska. Oops.
9.7.2008 1:03am
Anonymous #000:
I found Obama really appealing early in the process too.

Honestly: why? I've heard people say that. I haven't understood it.
9.7.2008 1:04am
Bandon:
What are the implications of the statements about the number of deaths in Chicago vs. Iraq?

Let's for a moment pretend this is a meaningful comparison (by ignoring Loki13's valid point that we shouldn't really be comparing all deaths in Chicago to only US soldiers' deaths in Iraq). If Chicago is truly more dangerous than Iraq, shouldn't we be investing US dollars in enhanced security in Chicago (a "surge" if you will) rather than continuing to do the work of Iraqis by policing their country? Of course, this would be decried by some as another example of a move toward "big government." (Why is it that spending money on domestic programs is denigrated as a sign of wasteful "big government" while the same spending on foreign wars is not?)

If Iraq is actually more dangerous than the US, we still have to ask whether it a good use of our limited resources to spend it on policing another country.
9.7.2008 1:11am
Matt Austin (mail):
Hoosier:


Alaskans say "lower 48." So with AK we have 49. And HI makes 50. The other seven were news to me.

What was really funny, though, was the general ignorance of the reportorial-caste re: the capital of Alaska. Oops.


What other seven? Did I miss a comment in here?
9.7.2008 1:16am
Hoosier:
LM--I have a similar anecdote about Obama, when he (also) fooled me onto thinking that he wouldn't run until his daughters were older. Then he went away for a weekend to "contemplate," and came back as a candidate.

I never said 'boo' about that, since I think it's 'out of bounds.' (HAD I said anything like that, rest assured one of you Obama supporters on here would have thrown it back at me by now.) Nor have I ever said anything unkind about Michelle. I don;t think I have a good sense of her at all. But she's smart. And pretty. One also assumes she's very ambitious, or Obama would be home mowing the lawn.

I have strong feelings about this matter. These stem from being a dad with small children. And the son of a dad who was (mostly) busy with other things.

But all families are opaque to outsiders. The Clintons had what seems a tempestuous marriage, with significant infidelity. Yet they raised a daughter in the WH who--as far as I can tell--is a nice and normal person. Go figure.

But those who dismiss observations about the liberal media, and who put those two words in scare quotes, might want to think a bit about why Obama's decision to run when his children are young was never adressed. And why Palin's decision is "an issue." I don't know that Rove or Dobson rasied the issue of Obama's girls. Did they? If not, might you want to rethink your opinion about them on this, and only this, matter?

You raise them as a case of couterfactual hypocrisy. (IF this had been a Democrat, they would have . . . ) But there is nothing counterfactual about those on the left making comments about Palin.
9.7.2008 1:17am
Hoosier:
Matt Austin

The 57 states. You clearly are not Ivy-educated.
9.7.2008 1:18am
Cleanthes (mail) (www):
The discussion having moved past this, I'm going to stubbornly post anyways just because ispe dixit.

Me: Abstinence is the only method of birth control that works 100% of the time.

"That's under ideal conditions. What is the failure rate under typical real-world conditions?"

In this case I can only speak from personal experience. At no time when I was not having any sex did I have any children. The three children I do have came to be during halcyon days of yore when I was indeed having sex. I understand there's some further scientific reason for my current lack of fecundity, but maybe I just have a low sperm count.

"I think in our schools, especially in the more "progressive" districts, abstinence is something that is mentioned with a wink and a nod."
True, and rightly so, but then so is condom use, inasmuch as neither has ever been shown to decrease teenage pregnancy, nor, I suspect, STDs among teenagers.
Among older people, the condom message has occasionally reduced the rate of STDs.

I'm not convinced that sex education is the government's role, regardless of the education.

Randy R : "I think many instructors truly do care about the kids and want them to be safe and not get pregnant, so I wouldn't be totally cynical about it."

Nor would I, at least as far as there being conscientious instructors. My daughter is a school teacher in a Catholic school. Not as much educanto, but still plenty.

On the other hand, many of history's greatest people have been born to teenage mothers, so maybe this is all contemporary blindness to older and better mores.

I tried to link the LA Times earlier for Palin actually supporting teaching condom use.
9.7.2008 1:26am
Matt Austin (mail):
Hoosier:


The 57 states. You clearly are not Ivy-educated.


I get it...He made that verbal slip about visiting all but one of the 58 continental states when he meant 48. That's what your comments are about. Okay. I thought I was missing something relevant or interesting.
9.7.2008 1:29am
loki13 (mail):
Bandon,

But why are you asking sensical questions? Clearly, the only way to understand Iraq is to go down the rabbithole, to embrace the unknown unknowns, to realize that even Iraq has a moral, if only you can find it.

Like, why do we continue to spend billions to reconstruct Iraq while their oil revenue is spiking?

Why are we policing Iraq when we need troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and the remnants of Al-Quaeda (the ones that attacked us on 9/11) are?

How can we believe simultaneously that Iraq is both safer than the United States (due to our wonderful surge) and more dangerous (requiring such a large troop presence that it's hurting military morale and draining resources we could use elsewhere)?

How do we know that the reason we went to Iraq is both because of the WMDs (an existential threat to America) and because we didn't like the leader of Iraq (he was bad to his people). If it was humanitarian, as we now claim, aren't there other invasions we should plan? If it was WMDs, when is the big "oops, our bad" coming out?

Why are we deadset against timelines for withdrawal, except, of course, when we suddenly are for them?

And so on. To be honest, I think the most prescient figure in all this was Powell. Once you get in, you have to do it right, or you own it. But instead of owning Iraq, in the long run, it will end up pwning us. (FWIW, I think the counterinsurgency strategy &the surge have been a nice bandaid, and has given the Sunnis excellent cover to get their weapons and their ducks in a row for one hell of a civil, and perhaps regional, war when we eventually tire of policing the area. We will end up with two choices- either leave soon, and watch the bloodbath, or wait and lose more lives &treasure and then leave, and watch the bloodbath. Hopefully, there won't be too much blood before either one side dominates or they reach some sort of stalemate, and more hopefully, they won't draw in surrounding countries such as Iran.)
9.7.2008 1:31am
Angus:

What was really funny, though, was the general ignorance of the reportorial-caste re: the capital of Alaska. Oops.

I liked Karl Rove initially touting her as having been mayor of Alaska's second largest city. I know Alaska has a small population...but Karl really needs to get an Atlas.
9.7.2008 1:43am
Mac (mail):

Proof that Palin lied is here. And the lie is regarding 'issues of substance.'


jukeboxgrad,
I don't know to what you are referring from this link. Cam you do any better?
9.7.2008 2:17am
Mac (mail):

Proof that Palin lied is here. And the lie is regarding 'issues of substance.'


jukeboxgrad,
I don't know to what you are referring from this link. Cam you do any better?
9.7.2008 2:18am
Mac (mail):

(link) jukeboxgrad (mail):
I'

m more comfortable with uncertainty at the VP slot than POTUS.


That comfort starts to go away when you take McCain's age into account.


Hell, his mother is 96 and looks terrific. I'm betting on his genes.
9.7.2008 2:21am
Mac (mail):
Since she has invited us to believe that she's a terrific mom (via that stunt and others like it), it's very appropriate to consider the question of whether or not she's actually a terrific mom.

jukeboxgrad,

No, it's not.
9.7.2008 2:23am
Mac (mail):
, I am not enthusiastic. I would rather the GOP ticket go down in flames and four years in the wilderness ensue, with some serious housecleaning and soul-searching, than have this ticket win and business as usual continue. McCain's choice of Palin confirmed to me that he is so far indebted to the political operatives of the Bush administration that little will change during his Presidency; while before I could believe that this was all a ruse to get power and then go back to being "his own man", if he lacks the ability to even choose his own VP, I am very concerned about who will be calling the shots in an isolated McCain presidency.

loki13,

You are kidding, right? She has , as has McCain, taken on the powerful interest groups in Ak and in DC. They are both resoundingly hated by those groups. If you can't see that, then you deserve the Government you get. For me, I am going with the gal who drives herself to work, pumps her own gas and shops at Costco..
9.7.2008 2:29am
Mac (mail):
Why do the Palins get a free pass?

jukeboxgrad,

Probably because they won't be asking you or me to Pay for this kid and thier decision. Last time I checked, it was a free country. If you play and are willing to pay, what the hell business is it of mine? If you play and expect me to pay, it is my business.
9.7.2008 2:33am
Mac (mail):

loki13 (mail):
SG-

A few things.

1. I have to hit the sack soon (go gators!), so I don't have time to google source everything for you. My basic take on the process was that early on (shortly after McCain got the nod), Palin was identified as a possible VP for the long list. She was discarded. McCain really wanted his buddy Joe, or maybe Ridge, and continued to have his campaign float trial ballons to see if they would be acceptable.


Oh, come on. You and no one you source has this info. This is just guess work. Admit it. I don't think McCain is subject to anyone. He's my Senator. I don't always even like him. I didn't even vote for him in the last election. But, no one is going to tell him what to do. That is ridiculous.
9.7.2008 2:39am
David Warner:
Randy R.

"Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that the GOP was so supportive of unwed teenaged mothers. I'm so glad that they are now."

Again the distinction is missed. When she becomes a mother, she won't be unwed. Are you trying not to understand?

"Since it's so perfectly okay now to have 17 year old's having kids, why are they so adamant about preaching abstinence? Something here doesn't ring right -- maybe you can help me out?"

Is there somewhere between perfectly okay and disqualifying of her Mom? No one is saying it's ok - do you think it is? What the family values crowd would say is that when you make a mistake, you take responsibility for it, including putting the needs of the child before your own.

I'd imagine they preach abstinence to avoid situations like this one. BTW, Bristol Palin received a conventional sexual education in her school, not abstinence. Neither one have been shown to be effective in reducing teen pregnancies, so the issue is kind of meaningless, except as a dog whistle to turn the sophisticates against folks like Palin.
9.7.2008 2:41am
Mac (mail):

Anonymous #000:
I found Obama really appealing early in the process too.

Honestly: why? I've heard people say that. I haven't understood it.


Because, he is Black and that would assuage all of our white guilt.
9.7.2008 2:44am
Mac (mail):

When blacks in the inner city have more kids than they can handle, they properly criticized for being irresponsible. Why do the Palins get a free pass?


Gee, jukeboxgrad, are the Palin's asking me or you to support their child? I think not.
9.7.2008 2:46am
LM (mail):
Hoosier:

(HAD I said anything like that, rest assured one of you Obama supporters on here would have thrown it back at me by now.)

No doubt. And as I said, I think families should be kept out of it. But if it's OK to exploit them for their virtues, then making them off limits for anything else turns them into human shields. Which is why I don't think they belong in the discussion in the first place.

But all families are opaque to outsiders.

Not just families, but to a great extent individuals. Obama's and Palin's situations are very different in respects, but that doesn't matter for these purposes. I expressed no opinion before or after about whether either of them would or should stay home. I've known people with the talent, energy and time management skills to accomplish more in a day while taking care of five kids than I do with none. I also know smart healthy people who consider a trip to the bank and supermarket a day's work.

But those who dismiss observations about the liberal media, and who put those two words in scare quotes, might want to think a bit about why Obama's decision to run when his children are young was never adressed. And why Palin's decision is "an issue."

OK, I guess I do have to get into the differences, at least politically. And politically, Palin's and Obama's situations are worlds apart. Palin's a cultural conservative, which associates her with "family values" and the related moral authoritarianism. And that exposes her to being hoist by her own petard for her family's "moral failings" (as she would define it). The implicit accusation that's newsworthy is hypocrisy, not immorality. Liberals are essentially libertarian about this stuff, so it's not a loaded issue for them. The liberal analog would be something like the scrutiny Al Gore has gotten over the size of his homes and the use of the private jet. That issue's been very well covered, including features in the dreaded, liberal New York Times, and it's been effective. On the other hand, nobody gives a damn that Mitt Romney has bigger homes and a bigger jet. And rightly so.

I don't know that Rove or Dobson rasied the issue of Obama's girls. Did they? If not, might you want to rethink your opinion about them on this, and only this, matter?

No, they've raised other issues they think are more effective. But if Obama were a woman in Palin's situation I'm as sure they would raise it as we both are that some here would be calling you to task if you had criticized Obama for running for President with two kids.

You raise them as a case of couterfactual hypocrisy. (IF this had been a Democrat, they would have . . . ) But there is nothing counterfactual about those on the left making comments about Palin.

And I've said it's wrong. But it's also wrong that the right has been smearing Obama without pause for I don't know how long. And remember that this Palin garbage is coming from bloggers. McCain himself impugned Obama's patriotism, and that's as wrong as it gets. And those who defended or turned a blind eye to the Kerry swiftboating (and continue to) warn that questioning McCain's service or character won't be tolerated. Again, I partly agree -- I think McCain's military service shouldn't be attacked like Kerry's was, but where's the consistency? Where's the fidelity to principle?
9.7.2008 2:52am
Mac (mail):

If Chicago is truly more dangerous than Iraq, shouldn't we be investing US dollars in enhanced security in Chicago (a "surge" if you will) rather than continuing to do the work of Iraqis by policing their country?


Bandon,

The Governor wanted to send in the National Guard and was dissuaded from doing so by the Chicago establishment. Of course, it is not their Democratic little darlings that are being murdered,k so what the hey?
9.7.2008 2:54am
Mac (mail):


And I've said it's wrong. But it's also wrong that the right has been smearing Obama without pause for I don't know how long. And remember that this Palin garbage is coming from bloggers. McCain himself impugned Obama's patriotism, and that's as wrong as it gets. And those who defended or turned a blind eye to the Kerry swiftboating (and continue to) warn that questioning McCain's service or character won't be tolerated. Again, I partly agree -- I think McCain's military service shouldn't be attacked like Kerry's was, but where's the consistency? Where's the fidelity to principle?


LM.

Why has Kerry NEVER released his military record? Complain about swiftboating when he has done what he said he would do.

Look, it is no


Republican's fault that Obama sat in a church for 20 years listening to a preacher tell him that his God wanted "death to white People". Do you seriously believe that if McCain sat in a pew for 20 years listening to a preacher preach "death to Black people" HE WOULD BE A VIABLE CANDIDATE FOR POTUS?

As for Obama's patriotism, why in the hell was he hanging out with Ayres (sp?) and Dorn? He deserves to be questioned about it. Especially after Wright. Why is he hiding his apparently long relationship with Ayres? What about the Iraqi fellow who put up the money for Obama's lot next to his house? Sorry. I would like to know. If we can wallow in Bristol Palin, can't I have answers to some basic questions here? And, does Biden not talk to his own son? It seems he said he never talks to lobbyists, but his son is one. Now, that's change.

For me, I like a woman who drives her own car, pumps her own gas and shops at Costco. Your beloved Democratic leaders wouldn't be caught dead doing any of those things. So much for "of the People". I do think there are quite a few folks who appreciate her, just like me. If we continue to elect elitist, rich, do nothing talking heads, then we wiil indeed get the Government we deserve. I like the Costco gal and prefer a Government with her in it.
9.7.2008 3:13am
theobromophile (www):
Loki,

From this comment, it's clear that you went off the deep end.

Seriously, dude, WTF?
9.7.2008 3:18am
Mac (mail):


LM wote;

OK, I guess I do have to get into the differences, at least politically. And politically, Palin's and Obama's situations are worlds apart. Palin's a cultural conservative, which associates her with "family values" and the related moral authoritarianism. And that exposes her to being hoist by her own petard for her family's "moral failings" (as she would define it). The implicit accusation that's newsworthy is hypocrisy, not immorality. Liberals are essentially libertarian about this stuff, so it's not a loaded issue for them.


Oh bull sh*t. They tried to prevent home schooling by parents in Calif. And, they can take your daughter for an abortion and never tell the parent. Can't give her an aspirin,m but can get her an abortion. Don't give me that Liberals are Libertarian bull.
9.7.2008 3:19am
David Warner:
Loki13:

"I think the whole problem with both sides with Palin is an issue of projection."

This is largely accurate, I think. Too bad she didn't go with some more of that stealing Hillary's thunder stuff (using her 18 million cracks) at the Convention. Tough crowd though. She is less beholden to the Republican machine than any candidate since Eisenhower, so if she can build a following...

"Nothing else can explain the following:
a. Libertarian GOP sees Palin as a libertarian.
b. Religious Right GOP sees Palin as a fundamentalist.
c. Log Cabin GOP sees Palin as open-minded.
d. Business GOP sees Palin as pro-business.
e. Populist GOP sees Palin as 'tough on oil'."

Fundamentalist? Palin left her AoG church in 2002 to join a megachurch because the AoG church was getting too "weird". Millions (mostly under 40) have made a similar move. Megachurches are about the furthest thing from fundamentalism you can find. I think religious conservatives (especially young ones) have figured out that their concerns are better addressed through culture than policy, hence the libertarian shift embodied in Palin. "Open-minded" means that as those opposing gay marriage die off, her position on it will likely migrate as well.

As for pro-business and tough on oil at the same time, think TR. Representing the interests of the state does not necessarily entail running business into the ground, indeed it is antithetical to it. Here she walks the line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H-26MOxH34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwZNwdowa4

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836384597&play=1
9.7.2008 3:22am
David Warner:
LM,

"Palin's a cultural conservative, which associates her with 'family values' and the related moral authoritarianism."

Show me the authoritarianism. It doesn't necessarily follow from cultural conservatism, especially in the American context where conservatism has been associated with small government since Goldwater. The bums who recently tried to disassociate it are being thrown out.

Conservatives love Palin because she shares their values*. The means for advancing them are secondary.

* - as a liberal, I share many of those values because of their demonstrated effectiveness in furthering the cause of liberty.
9.7.2008 4:17am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Why is it that spending money on domestic programs is denigrated as a sign of wasteful "big government" while the same spending on foreign wars is not?


Good point. The GOP seems to be all for nation-building, but only if it's someone else's nation. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that colossal contract shenanigans are much easier to hide when they happen on the other side of the planet and are obscured by the fog of war.
9.7.2008 4:36am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
why Obama's decision to run when his children are young was never adressed. And why Palin's decision is "an issue."


I answered this question, in this thread, here.
9.7.2008 4:36am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I don't know to what you are referring from this link.


I don't understand your question. Palin lied when she said she didn't know of anything that could even be "perceived" as pressure to fire Wooten.

his mother is 96 and looks terrific. I'm betting on his genes.


I think his father and grandfather were both dead by this age. So be careful which genes you bet on.

No, it's not.


I appreciate all the careful thought you invested in creating that answer.

Probably because they won't be asking you or me to Pay for this kid and thier decision. Last time I checked, it was a free country. If you play and are willing to pay, what the hell business is it of mine? If you play and expect me to pay, it is my business. … are the Palin's asking me or you to support their child


Her choices reflect poor judgment and a lack of character. The fact that she's not on welfare doesn't change that.
9.7.2008 4:37am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
What the family values crowd would say is that when you make a mistake, you take responsibility for it, including putting the needs of the child before your own.


In my opinion, conceiving Trig was an irresponsible act, just as irresponsible as what Bristol did. And "putting the needs of the child before your own" would mean that a parent is going to make some kind of career sacrifice, to take care of him. But it seems clear enough that such a thing is not happening. That's not my idea of "family values."

Likewise, I think there is reason to believe that Bristol needs more parenting than she's been getting. And her baby is going to need parenting, too. From an adult. The fact that Bristol was not quite able to take care of herself indicates that she's not quite ready to take care of someone else.

This is relevant to me because I have a duty to evaluate the judgment and character of the people who want to work for me.

And I am not criticizing the behavior of the children. I am criticizing the behavior of the parents. Both parents (although only one of them is asking me for a job).

Bristol Palin received a conventional sexual education in her school, not abstinence.


Personally I think what counts more is the presence of ample parental supervision and attention. The presence of this does not guarantee success, but I think the absence of this enhances the likelihood of failure.
9.7.2008 4:37am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Show me the authoritarianism


Showing an interest in banning books.
9.7.2008 4:37am
Dan M.:
I'm intrigued that someone thinks that the Christian right condemned Juno. I'd love to see some links. I did find Phyllis Schlafly's critique of the movie, which was negative, but was mainly critical because the subject matter could have been handled a lot better and could've presented a more compelling pro-life view.

My wife and I had a positive reaction to the movie aside from various things about the latter parts of it.

I think Christian values require that the family support their daughter and help her to bring her child into the world in the best environment possible. That's how most Christians that I know deal with these situations.
9.7.2008 5:10am
David Friedman (mail) (www):
For one piece of press dishonesty wrt Palin, see my blog post on the subject.
9.7.2008 5:19am
LM (mail):
David Warner:

"Palin's a cultural conservative, which associates her with 'family values' and the related moral authoritarianism."

Show me the authoritarianism. It doesn't necessarily follow from cultural conservatism, especially in the American context where conservatism has been associated with small government since Goldwater. The bums who recently tried to disassociate it are being thrown out.

I wasn't talking about Palin's denomination of cultural conservatism, or of trends in American conservatism (though I'll believe big government and authoritarianism have been purged from the ranks of self-identified conservatives when I see it the next time conservatives have undivided control of the federal government). The question was why Palin's family situation, and not Obama's might be newsworthy. That's why I said she's associated with family values and moral authoritarianism. To put it another way, irrespective of the trends, the public meaning of "moral conservative" and "Christian conservative" implies a healthy dose of moral authoritarianism, which is what raises the specter of hypocrisy and makes it newsworthy.

FWIW, I'd be thrilled never to read or hear discussions about any of that stuff again, but that has to be taken up with Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly. I had no idea I was even in a culture war until I found out long after, as part of the greater Left, I allegedly started it.
9.7.2008 5:45am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I'm intrigued that someone thinks that the Christian right condemned Juno. I'd love to see some links.


Here's a site that rated it "offensive."
9.7.2008 5:51am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"For one piece of press dishonesty wrt Palin"

In another thread I explained why I think you're wrong.
9.7.2008 5:54am
LM (mail):
Mac,

Apparently you think it's fine to attack Kerry's military service and both Kerry's and Obama's patriotism, but not McCain's (service or patriotism).

Thanks for making my point.

As for home schooling, I never said liberals weren't authoritarian about anything moral conservatives like. Liberals also take a dim view of religious symbols in courthouses and of teaching creationism in biology class. This discussion was about intimate family issues, like procreation, pregnancy and marriage.

Finally, you may not like prohibiting required parental notification (neither do I), but it's hardly an anti-libertarian position.
9.7.2008 6:06am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Is mandatory national service for the pre-pubescent "authoritarian"?
9.7.2008 9:37am
Smokey:
Obama has held elected office for twelve years. That doesn't count as a record?
Of course it does! But Barry's problem is, it's a broken record.

And folks are beginning to see that.
9.7.2008 9:49am
Cornellian (mail):
What sent me completely over the edge however was the hand at the left of the frame holding a sign announcing that Bristol Palin is five months pregnant along with two elephant heads whispering and giggling.

And what did the Dobson wing of the party say when it was Jamie-Lynn Spears who was pregnant, unmarried and a teenager? Does that only herald the downfall of society if the girl's not a Republican? If Sarah Palin goes around telling everyone that abstinence-only sex ed is the ideal policy, is it legitimate to ask her whether that's really effective?

I do sympathize with the daughter as the kids are almost always unwilling victims of their parents' choice to have a career in politics but that's the world we live in, for better or for worse.
9.7.2008 10:02am
loki13 (mail):
Theo-

Just got up and saw you comment. Don't know if you're checking. But if you are, to answer question (wtf)-

Us law-like types like to use the reasoning by analogy. If you're a lawyer, or in law school, you know this. If not, I can best explain this by saying that there are many times, for example, no cases directly on point (or close to being on point) so we find something close, or similar, and reason by analogy.

So I was trying to show that what we arguing about something dissimilar; we both agree that in a perfect world, kids shouldn't be in the spotlight, just as I can imagine a world without hunger, or poverty, or war (thanks, John Lennon!). I simply think it was silly to get all outraged because all the parties involved were aware of the way the world actually works.

Hopefully this clarifies it for you. Perhaps it doesn't. There was a point a long time ago (shortly after I used "dispositive" during a dinner conversation) that my wife claimed law school had rotted my brain.
9.7.2008 10:46am
Federal Dog:
" do sympathize with the daughter as the kids are almost always unwilling victims of their parents' choice to have a career in politics"


So anyone who is right of center and decides to go into politics is to blame? Do you think that malicious media, motivated by the desire to destroy, by any means necessary, anyone they consider a political threat are victimizing those kids?

The media have demonstrated that they will do their best to destroy the family of anyone whose political perspective they don't like, even if it means constantly inventing vicious lies. That's just thuggery, and they can go straight to hell.
9.7.2008 11:18am
loki13 (mail):
David Warner,

I just saw your post (it's *hard work* scrolling through all of them). My characterization of 'fundamentalist' may have imprecise depending on the audience; what I meant to convey was that the Religious Right base of the Republican party believes that Palin derives her political beliefs from her conservative Christian beliefs. But I think you, too, are projecting hopes (just as others project fears) on her. She is extremely parochial in a way that is unprecedented in the modern era of Art. II. I think that the reason she is being kept under wraps isn't because she's a bad public performer; she's glib and quick on her feet. Rather, it's because she's not worldly. It's charming when you're asked a question about the economy and you answer by analogizing to your time as commercial fisherman and trying to make payroll; it's less charming when you're asked a question about, say, Hamas. Or The Northwest territories in Pakistan. And the number of domestic issues that are not oil is mind boggling. People may dislike Obama, but we know he thinks about these issues. People may dislike McCain, but we know he thinks about these issues. People may dislike Biden, but we know he has stolen other people's ideas about these issues and used them for himself.

I honestly don't think that a person who, until recently, wanted to know what the VP could do for Alaska, has thought about some major issues. And I don't trust quickly formed world views.
9.7.2008 11:24am
SG:
People may dislike Obama, but we know he thinks about these issues.

I know that thinks about them, but I don't know what he thinks about them. I don't know what he thinks about Hamas (beyond boilerplate) but I know Hamas has expressed supported for him. I don't know what he thinks about Pakistan's tribal region. He has strongly implied he would send troops in there, but I don't believe it. Or rather, I don't want to believe it (sending in troops against the wishes of a nuclear armed country crawling with jihadis in the goverment? Yikes!)

Joe Biden and McCain, I'll give you. I kinda like Joe Biden - he has always struck he as somebody who does think about things. I don't always agree with the conclusions he draws but I think he's a serious person.

a person who, until recently, wanted to know what the VP could do for Alaska

What's are you referring to here?
9.7.2008 11:46am
loki13 (mail):
SG-

I think you've been influenced too much by your doubt. We could argue forever about the, well, mens rea of any politician. Is McCain pro-choice, or pro-life? He was for abortion before he was against it. Is Biden for consumers? He is, unless they have credit cards. And so on. Obama has more than enough of his positions on national issues, and international positions, for you to go on. If you do not know enough, at this point, it is because you choose not to know enough. Which is fair.

As for Palin:

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Interview on Kudlow &Co, less than *one month* before being chosen.

The first part (what does the VP do) doesn't bother me. It's the last part of the statement that worries me. She is amazingly parochial.
9.7.2008 11:57am
SG:
I also think "having thought about the issues" is less important than what conclusions you reach and how you reach them. The big foreign policy issues that a president has to deal with often aren't things that were big campaign issues. Was Islamic terrorism a big issue in the 2000 election? Was the breakup of Yugoslavia a big issue in 1996? Or Kuwait in 1988?

That was the (valid) point behind Hillary's 3 AM ad. Shit happens and sometimes there isn't time for a thoughtful, considered response. At times like that you draw on your experience and character and make a gut level decision. I don't see how anyone can have strong confidence that Palin or Obama (right now) in such a situation. Either might do fine, but there's no way to be confident.

I can't escape the fact that all of the valid issues that people bring up about Palin are just as valid about Obama. If elected, she might become president; he will be. All the complaints about Palin are making me more and more uncomfortable with the prospect of an Obama presidency.

I don't know if that was McCain's plan, but if so, it's a good one.
9.7.2008 12:01pm
SG:
I thought that was the quote you were referring to. I think you're reading way too much into it. It struck me as the answer of a state's governor who didn't expect to be VP - she's speaking to her constituents saying that she's not looking to move up, she's looking out for her state.

It's in the same category as Obama's 2004 statement about not running for President in 2008 because he was going to be a Senator and wouldn't be ready to run for President in 2008.

Politicians are always telling their constituents that representing them is the politicians first job, and successful politicians are always looking to move up. I don't put a lot of weight either statement.
9.7.2008 12:12pm
AKD:

Here's a site that rated it "offensive."


Haha, good choice jukeboxgrad!


Without giving away the ending, the circumstances Juno goes through cause her to see the errors of her ways and develop a new level of maturity. Her parents are some of the most supportive and well drawn parents in recent cinema history. Yes, there are moments that are objectionable, but overall “Juno” takes a fresh look at tackling a controversial subject, one that has become all too familiar in our society.
9.7.2008 1:14pm
Dan M.:
jukebox, do you even read the reviews that you link to saying that Juno is offensive? I stand by my point.

"However, without giving too much away, these items serve as points from which her character develops. There is a definite growth in all characters involved."

.....

"Yes, there is plenty of material that audiences may find offensive, starting with the fact that the title character is an unwed, pregnant teenager. However, as stated earlier, there is a definite sense of redemption and growth experienced by Juno and all the characters in this film. Audience members who stay with Juno through her pregnancy (and this film) will find a warm-spirited movie with an unusual amount of heart and humor packaged in a quirky, yet very realistic film."
9.7.2008 1:28pm
David Warner:
Loki13:

Largely agreed, except for knowing what Obama thinks. Of course, he likely doesn't either until the thought actually happens (he gives off a very situational ethics sort of vibe). He's the ultimate fox*. As I am. As I'm also a risk-taker, I'll be very comfortable voting for him. I just want to have Palin around to clean up the mess his friends will undoubtedly make. The GOP needs a new base.

Watch the video of the VP thing - I see intelligence and typical gov boosterism, not parochialism.
9.7.2008 1:55pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Haha, good choice jukeboxgrad!


Yes, they said some nice things about the movie, but they still gave it a "moral rating" of "offensive." And if you read the comments, some of the commenters did exactly the same thing.

Does that make sense? I guess not. But I never said the Christian right is rational. On the contrary.
9.7.2008 2:29pm
loki13 (mail):
SG-

We have to agree to disagree on the statement. Palin did not say that she wouldn't run because she was too busy helping Alaska, she said (in the context of not knowing precisely what the VP does) that she wanted to know what it would do for Alaska. You have to remember that in Alaska, federal positions (See Young, see also Stenvens) are measured in terms of what they bring back to Alaska.

But this goes back to the issue of parochialism for me. Call me an arugula-eatin', latte-sippin' elitist, but this matters. For all of Bush's brush clearin', he was a product of Andover, Harvard, and Yale, who was a key helper on his father's presidential campaigns before becoming governor of Texas. That background of learned knowledge (both worldly and political) is important. When the call comes in at 3am, you don't want to have to quickly tell the President where the NW Provinces are, what the differences between the Shia and Sunni have been, why the Pashtuns have grievances against the Tajiks in Afghanistan, and what the blowback will be.

I know that this won't convince you. But that's my opinion. I was an Obama supporter before the Palin pick, but I had a higher regard for McCain before it.
9.7.2008 2:44pm
Bandon:
"We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S."

Unfortunately, this quote from Palin only reinforces one of my worries about her -- namely, that her thinking is much more "Alaska First" than "Country First." She has not demonstrated significant insight or concern about problems outside of her home state, which is understandable given her background. Maybe, after her series of briefings under the protection of the anti-media cocoon, she will emerge like a "policy butterfly" with all sorts of great ideas about how to deal with national and international problems. She never lacks for confidence, so I won't be surprised if she becomes an instant expert on all sorts of stuff she's never even thought about before.

At least there's one idea that she's used in Alaska that could be applied to the country as a whole: her "windfall profits tax" on oil companies. Didn't one of the other candidates bring up that idea only to be greeted with universal scorn from his opponents?
9.7.2008 3:07pm
SG:
Of course the governor of a state is thinking state first. That was her job at that time - she wasn't yet the VP nominee. While I admit that her answer doesn't disprove the notion that she's parochial, I don't think it's strongly supportive of it either, not unless you're extremely uncharitable in your reading (like reading it as saying she's ignorant of the VP's duties when it's clear that she isn't - she's quite aware that the VP's duties are whatever the POTUS wants them to be and she wouldn't want to do it unless she was convinced she'd have meaningful work. It strikes me as a fairly sophisticated appreciation of the VP position).

I find it like calling Biden a liar becuase he said "I'm not the guy" when asked about being VP.

That said, we can agree to disagree. I don't post with the expectation of changing anyone's mind - I'm just trying to understand where people are coming from. Like I've said before, I think there are valid concerns about Sarah Palin. It's just that every concern expressed about her echoes a concerns I have with Obama.

Let's face it: She's following Obama's path precisely. She's a young, attractive person who delivers a good speech and has a thin enough record that a wide variety of different people can map their own beliefs onto her. As more facts come out, some of the enchantment will fade.
9.7.2008 3:32pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

the general ignorance of the reportorial-caste re: the capital of Alaska


Before the Palin nomination, djoo know what the capital of Alaska was?


That comfort starts to go away when you take McCain's age into account.
Hell, his mother is 96 and looks terrific. I'm betting on his genes.


If he got the long-lived Wright genes, it would be all right. If he got the McCain genes, he'd be dead of a heart attack at least two years ago.

An irascible man has to worry about heart attack. Have we heard from McCain's cardiologist? Has he done a stress test lately?
9.7.2008 4:16pm
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):
On Obama's prsent votes from the Boston Globe:


Pam Sutherland said the group feared several senators were going to vote "yes" on the legislation because of attacks from Republicans over their past opposition. Sutherland says she approached Obama and convinced him to vote "present" so that the wavering senators would do the same. For their purposes, a "present" was as good as an outright "no" because it kept the bills from reaching the majority needed to pass.

Clinton also points out that Obama was the lone "present" vote on legislation allowing the victims of rape and other sex crimes to have their court records sealed. Obama explains now that he had questions about its constitutionality, although the law has never been struck down by the courts.

Neither the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault nor the House sponsor of the legislation faults Obama for his vote. Former state representative Lauren Beth Gash, who supports Obama for president, said she ultimately disagreed with his constitutional concerns but that Obama raised legitimate questions and was acting on principle.

Obama also voted "present" on legislation making it easier to send juveniles to adult court. He said in debate that he felt the measure violated an agreement, reached after an overhaul of the juvenile justice system a year earlier, to wait on further changes until the new system had been reviewed.

But he did not explain why he wasn't simply voting "no."



It seems to me he, along with colleagues, were engaging in parlimentary procedures to keep from being attacked for their positions, even when there appears to have been no risk of backlash.

Many of these present votes appear to have been on "important votes". Don't forget, many state legislatures vote on things like naming sections of roads, intersections, proclemations of this and that. I imagine Illinois is not different than any of the other 56 states (lolol) in Obamas U.S. where the majority of their votes are on nothing but proclomations and non-binding resolutions.
9.7.2008 4:26pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
Tony Tutins (mail):

Regarding the Bush twins: we heard very little about them other then their underage drinking bust.


To tell the truth, they were pretty much off the radar from the time they turned 21 until Jenna got engaged, except when Jenna was promoting her book. She seems to have turned out fine after her youthful high jinks. Barbara seems completely off the radar. I have no idea what she's doing these days.
9.7.2008 4:56pm
David Warner:
"I know that this won't convince you. But that's my opinion. I was an Obama supporter before the Palin pick, but I had a higher regard for McCain before it."

And I know that this won't convince you, but if you're an Obama supporter, the Palin pick should raise your regard for him. Her main appeal to him was her willingness to take on (and success in doing so!) the old Republican Party in Alaska.

Of course I tried to convince the Republicans not to hate/destroy Clinton from 89-97 and I didn't have much success then. Every R attack then brought the braindead discredited guilt-trip left back from the grave to defend Clinton, every D attack now does the same for the discredited authoritarian, big-government right.
9.7.2008 6:25pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Her main appeal to him was her willingness to take on (and success in doing so!) the old Republican Party in Alaska.


It's not exactly clear to me that she did something other than replace the old group of cronies with her own new group of cronies. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Aside from that, I don't think this was "her main appeal to him." I think her purpose is to energize fundies, a group he's had trouble with.
9.7.2008 10:24pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
At least there's one idea that she's used in Alaska that could be applied to the country as a whole: her "windfall profits tax" on oil companies. Didn't one of the other candidates bring up that idea only to be greeted with universal scorn from his opponents?
No. There is no windfall profits tax in Alaska. You don't understand the concept. It's a severance tax. Entirely different.
9.8.2008 12:55am
Hoosier:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Now, now. Don't try that sort of thing.

We won't get fooled again.
9.8.2008 10:19pm