Harry's Place

Yes, there is. Joe Biden was about the worst choice that Obama could have made (except for Tim Kaine, the clueless and catastrophic governor of Virginia) – and he made it knowing that he refused to make the best choice (Hillary) out of pique and vanity. McCain had a number of options – all of them ok as Vice Presidents, none of them capable of doing anything but hurting his attempt to be President. He made a brilliant strategic choice that showed daring, courage, and wisdom (showing, as I argue at hofjude.com , the wisdom of the American tradition of demanding a record of military service of its presidents).
Obama cringed rather than acted, out of vanity and fear – McCain acted wisely and strategically. That’s the conclusion to draw from these choices.

Glad that you’ve realised the Buchanan story has no legs, but nevertheless some absurd statements here from Gene. I’ve not yet seen anything that qualifies as a favourable post from this Democratic stooge about John McCain, in spite of the fact that he represents the best chance for the GOP to break free of the Bush-Cheney years, and to shake up a complacent Congress.

Scaremongering about Reagan’s assassination is beneath contempt, unless you think that Obama’s luvvies really are fanatically deranged.

PS: Sam, impressed with your blog.

I like how she wears her hair on her head like that.
You know, piled up with the straggly bits hanging down.

But, that’s about it.

Since Ronald Reagan, I can’t think of any president, let alone vice-president that had real depth of world view at entry to the office. They have to grow into it. Character is the main thing.

Glad that you’ve realised the Buchanan story has no legs

I haven’t realized that at all.

Gene, you’re spooked. We can tell. It would be a real yawn to list all of Obama’s misdemeanours. Take defeat gracefully. Have you written about her Downs Syndrome child yet?

isn’t it reasonable to compare Obama’s most important and possibly fateful choice so far– Joe Biden– with McCain’s? And isn’t it reasonable to draw some conclusions from those choices?

Yes it is.

1) McCain’s political wisdom and experience allow him to make a bold, forward-looking choice for VP, while Obama was clearly on the defensive with the Biden pick, a decision Obama was forced into after his unreadiness to be President was exposed with his dithering during the Georgian crisis.

2) McCain’s reform ticket inspired him to look for someone fresh from outside Washington who is willing to challenge corruption both within the party and without. The Biden pick looks stale, and reminds voters of Obama’s association with Washington Democrats and the murky underworld of Chicago Democratic politics.

3) McCain puts executive experience first, rather than trying desperately to shore up his ticket with an old guard Washington insider. Whereas McCain has executive experience as a commander in the Navy, and Palin running the USA’s biggest state, neither Obama nor Biden have ever run anything of significance.

Just watched Biden introducing Obama in Pennsylvania today – he came across as a inebriated mumbler, slurring his speech and forgetting his lines. If this is what Palin is facing, Obama is going to end with egg on his face by the end of the VP debate.

Obamas is friends with William Ayers, a self-confessed terrorist and someone who led a group that killed Americans and intended to kill Americans. He launched his career at Ayers house and worked with Ayers on a committee.

All teh Democrats could come up with was that Obama was eight at the time. Doh!!!!

Thanks, O.L. The Buchanan story is dead, since a) she is telling the truth, as, oddly, Sarah tends to do; and b) Gene’s question about whether she would welcome David Duke is moot, since DD is supporting Obama this year, as is Pat Buchanan for that matter (for different reasons: DD out of a belief that electing BO will finally prove that racism is scientific; Pat out of a hope, shared by e v e r y anti-Zionist in the States, that Obama will force Israel to its knees).

Very weak piece Gene, Very weak indeed the phrase Clutching at straw’s come’s to mind.

OT Prediction for 2012 Palin vs Clinton, An all female presidential ticket, Any Taker’s?

“In July I linked to a Time magazine article about the respective gambling habits of Barack Obama (a cautious but winning poker player) and McCain (a risk-taking crap shooter).”

When a state senator plays poker with a bunch of lobbyists it isn’t really gambling.

List of Buchanan’s Alaskan campaign leaders in 1996 here. Palin is not among them.

Busted link, let’s try again here. .

You know, you don’t have to be a liberal Democrat or an Obama supporter to find the Palin selection disturbing. I suspect there are a lot more conservatives like this who are currently holding their peace.

Just noticed the Politico link that Gene has added – more of the same tired refrain from Democrats. If visiting Politico, take the time also to read the news that John McCain raised 4.5 million dollars in donations alone yesterday as a result of the Palin pick, and Jonathan Martin ‘I have never seen a crowd with the energy I witnessed yesterday’ at John McCain’s rally.

This was a masterstroke, which has thrown the Democrats on the defensive.

The best rebuttal to the Democrats’ desperation claim I’ve read from a US pundit, as well as a great explanation of why McCain has trumped Obama with his choice of Palin, is that offered by Ed Morrissey here.

DD out of a belief that electing BO will finally prove that racism is scientific; Pat out of a hope, shared by e v e r y anti-Zionist in the States, that Obama will force Israel to its knees).

Oh, what a weird backwater this is. Buchanan is a fool, but he is not that stupid. I don’t think he believes that. I think he just wants to stick one over to the Reps.

Believe it or not, it may actually be nothing to do with Jews or Israel (which may come as a surprise to folk reading HP over the last week or so)!

I have never seen a crowd with the energy I witnessed yesterday’ at John McCain’s rally

Considering her hardly does rallies, that is hardly surprising.

For those interested in how these smear campaigns are run, here is another interesting link.

The local Alaskan Press seems to be scared shitless.
They all imply thaht Palin doesn’t know much about much.

Most people would acknowledge that, regardless of her charm and good intentions, Palin is not ready for the top job. McCain seems to have put his political interests ahead of the nation’s when he created the possibility that she might fill it.

She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long,” said Charlie Black

Vote for me! I promise not to die until my second term in office!

What’s going to be the test of Palin’s mettle is how she answers questions about Buchanan and the trooper-gate. If she handles it well, probably she will be an asset to McCain’s ticket. Mis-handle it, and bear in mind she has not had to deal with national attention before now, and she’ll become a liability. McCain, in fairness, probably realises this – it’s why she’s a gamble after all.

Remember that in politics it’s the perceptions not the truth that count. If she fails to dispel the doubts and becomes perceived as a Buchananite, then it’s bad for her and bad for McCain.

I know that for the likes of Maven, McCain could give a speech in which he insults a group of disabled children and makes them cry, repeatedly muddles Iran and Iraq, promises to start a nuclear war with Russia and then falls over and needs to be helped to his feet and they would still hail it as a masterstroke. But surely the less crazy McCain fans among you can see the element of risk (calculated, no doubt) in this choice?

Good link chuck.

The Obama campaign reducing itself to underhand smears while trying to disguise the evidence? One would almost think it smacked of desperation!

Another Editorial.

For all those advantages, Palin joins the ticket with one huge weakness: She’s a total beginner on national and international issues.

When McCain talks about the Iraq Pakistan border, I don’t think Sarah will be able to correct him.

The Buchanan story is dead, since a) she is telling the truth, as, oddly, Sarah tends to do; and b) Gene’s question about whether she would welcome David Duke is moot, since DD is supporting Obama this year, as is Pat Buchanan for that matter (for different reasons: DD out of a belief that electing BO will finally prove that racism is scientific; Pat out of a hope, shared by e v e r y anti-Zionist in the States, that Obama will force Israel to its knees).

I’m a lot less concerned about whether a deluded Buchanan is supporting Obama than I am about whether a deluded (or otherwise) Palin ever supported Buchanan.

But surely the less crazy McCain fans among you can see the element of risk (calculated, no doubt) in this choice?

I’m not sure anyone is denying that there is an element of political risk involved in a VP pick. But if that is the key point Gene is trying to make, it is utterly banal, since i) one takes a calculated risk whenever one makes a VP choice, and ii) in comparison to the risk of nominating a presidential candidate with just three years experience in the Senate, most of which has been spent not doing his job but running a vainglorious presidential campaign, the chance McCain is taking looks small fry.

Old Labour

Thanks for making me laugh.

Whereas McCain has executive experience as a commander in the Navy, and Palin running the USA’s biggest state,

“I’m a lot less concerned about whether a deluded Buchanan is supporting Obama than I am about whether a deluded (or otherwise) Palin ever supported Buchanan.”

This statement makes no sense, Gene. At some point in the past, Palin may have supported an odious candidate.

That same odious candidate and other odious folks support Obama out of the belief that Obama will fulfill their racist and/or hateful ambitions. Now why would they think Obama would do that? Could it be that they know more about Obama than you do? Could it be that Obama really is one of their ilk? You don’t spend 20 years listening to folks like Rev. Wright (or his fellow travelers in religious bigotry) and not come out unscathed.

I mean really, if the Republicans were as bad as people think they are, why is it that folks like David Duke supporting the Democrats this time around?

Seriously, Gene, come up for air.

Didn’t there used to be a script that deleted the likes of Mackie? Any links to it would be appreciated.

This is slightly off-topic and may not qualify as racist but it still pisses me off 20 years later. In 1988 or 1989, writing as a columnist, Pat Buchanan advocated a U.S. takeover of Canada. Only the Toronto “elites” would mind, he says. He ended his column with the pompous claim that “the 21st century could then not but be the second American century.”

Perhaps not racist, but a major asshole. And the remark about the Toronto elites shows just how out of touch he was with Canadian sentiments then (and now). Imagine advocating a takeover of your closest ally!

I can appreciate that selecting Palin has diminished somewhat McCain’s ability to attack Obama on the ‘experience’ front.

But isn’t it a bit rich for Obama-ites to now question Palin’s lack of experience? I mean Palin being selected hasn’t suddenly turned Obama into a massively experienced candidate. All that has happened is that the Republicans will now look slightly hypocritical if they attack Obama on these grounds.

Let’s get some perspective here.

Fair point Mark.

But lets hope Palin can educate herself soon.

Palin: I’ve been so focused on state government, I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.

““As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.””
Did Ralph Nader visit Wasilla?

she seems to be a bit of a Ron Paul fan too.

In this interview, Palin calls controversial Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul “cool.” “He’s a good guy,” she added. “He’s so independent. He’s independent of the party machine. I’m like, ‘Right on, so am I.’ ”

Jesus.

http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/08/29/sarah-palin-republican-vice-presidential-nominee-plugs-romney-paul-but-not-mccain-in-mtv-interview/

McCain’s chioce is a good one. Gene’s attempts to smear her as some sort of Buchanan desciple is lame and smacks of desperation

Palin was the runner-up in a the Miss Alaska pageant, is the mother of five children and can cook a mean moose stew.

In other words, she can do more than all the pols in Washington put together.

Palin is a winner because of the names she has given her kids. Different or what. Track ( boy), Bristol (girl, natch) Willow (girl) Piper(girl ) Trig (boy, just born). Original, huh?

Cletus the slack jawed yokels childrens names.

Children: Brandine, Gummy Sue, Tiffany, Andie, Gordon, Lizzie, Jackson, Heather, Cody, Dylan, Dermot, Jordan, Taylor, Brittany, Wesley, Rumer, Scout, Cassidy, Zoe, Chloe, Max, Hunter, Rubella Scabies, Kendall, Caitlin, Noah, Sasha, Morgan, Kyra, Ian, Lauren, Q-bert, Condoleezza Marie, Phil, Birthday, Crystal Meth, Dubya, Incest, International Harvester, Jitney, Witney, Mary, Stabbed in Jail

Holy shit, gene. I may have supported Buchanan in 1996, and I know I cheered him on in ‘92, when he won the New Hampshire primary. And that’s a vicious little way to associate her with David Duke, in my opinion. I think Maven is right. You’re sure acting spooked. Well, Borking is, after all, a Democrat tactic.

“She wrote in a letter to the editor of an Anchorage newspaper: “As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.” (I can’t help wondering if this would have applied to David Duke if he had run for president and visited the town. After all Buchanan’s and Duke’s views on a number of issues– immigration, race, “Jewish power” and Israel– are not a million miles apart.)”

Hm. Guilt by imagined association. Desperate stuff. I get the feeling
Gene´s going to need help if Obama loses.

A (biased) scan of the posts seem to have a reasonable number of posters who also agree that Gene is spooked. A few people identify him clutching at straws. Obama’s stock is so low I guess like teh Democrats the only way is to attack Palin.

I think we will find that Palin turns out to be a “Thatcher”. I get it now. That’s what some are hating. The misogynist Democrats can’t stand a bossy woman who gets her way. That is what’s behind this.

The funniest line I heard from a Republican was that the choice of Palin has made us realise that its actually Obama who is the ‘affirmative action’ candidate.

Tim -

She was responding to

‘A lot of students ask me to ask you. Ron Paul – cult following in Alaska?’

Perhaps you could suggest a response that she might have given instead?

I think we will find that Palin turns out to be a “Thatcher”. I get it now. That’s what some are hating. The misogynist Democrats can’t stand a bossy woman who gets her way. That is what’s behind this.

Whoa there…

But isn’t it a bit rich for Obama-ites to now question Palin’s lack of experience? I mean Palin being selected hasn’t suddenly turned Obama into a massively experienced candidate. All that has happened is that the Republicans will now look slightly hypocritical if they attack Obama on these grounds.

Not in the least. The main argument of the McCain campaign has been that they should receive votes because only they (a) have the experience – and therefore the character and knowledge – necessary to be president) and (b) only they properly value experience.
Appointing Palin extinguishes both (a) and (b). When she’s attacked – correctly, obvs – for being inexperienced, they’ve argued, and will continue to argue, that character matters more than experience. So experience isn’t , after all, the main reason to prefer McCain to Obama. The other response to arguments about her inexperience has been that she has more executive experience than everyone else running. But if that’s the case, then why is she only running for VP? If the McCain campaign values experience as much as they say they do, thenshe ought to head the ticket. Either way, then, they’ve taken the sting out of their best (so to speak) argument.
Of course, the experience argument was always complete BS anyway. I much prefer the honesty of the white racist right:

… I couldn’t be happier about the Palin selection. Palin undercuts McCain’s argument that Obama lacks experience? I assume most persons realize that McCain makes that argument only because he doesn’t think he can get away with denouncing Obama as a Negro Communist.

Sorry, here’s the link.

Simplification coming.

“Palin hates Jews!” – Dems

“Palin loves Jews!” – Republicans

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1016506.html

I happen to know that the Republican comments came first. Are there no depths to the Dems?

And here’s your confirmation: ‘Presidential scholars say she appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.’(Politico.com)

The scholars have spoken! And a Norwegian historian says GW Bush is the worst president ever!! (I didn’t make that up.) Game over!

Tim Kaine is inexperieced, but that wasn’t why he was passed over. Obama didn’t choose him because of his own inexperience.

Emmanuel, you have missed my point entirely.

When you say “update” do you mean “correction”?

She seems like a pretty good choice for the Republicans (just as Biden apepars pretty good for the Democrats so far).

She did seem slightly manic. When she got to the bit in her speech where presumably the speech notes said (hand gesture) at the point where she said “we worked with our hands” I thought she was going to start a fire with her super-rapid hand-rubbing! Mind you in the frozen wastes of Alaska I guess that could be quite useful…

She also has that ultimate attribute of a politician: shamelessness.
We saw how strong a card that could be with someone like Blair. Here she was using her life story to appeal simultaneously to homely soccer mums and glass ceiling breakers! Her confidence that her experience was American experience was quite breath-taking.

No wonder you’re worried Gene!

Tim -

Perhaps you could suggest a response that she might have given instead?

I suspect the honest answer would’ve been “I don’t know”

I reckon this is what spooked Gene:

I think — I think as well today of two other women who came before me in national elections.

I can’t begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984…

(APPLAUSE)

… and of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America…

(APPLAUSE)

… but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

(APPLAUSE)

There are a lot of interesting points being made here. The main thing is, whoever the eventual winner is, that we all get behind them when the time comes.

Emmanuel:

Oh dear – the ’scholars’ quoted in the story appear to be Democrat stooges. No surprise to discover that a large part of liberal academia supports Obama, nor to find supposed ’scholars’ gliding over the fact that Barry Obama is the least experienced and least credentialed presidential candidate in modern history.

Quoted in the story, with thanks to OpenSecrets.org

GOLDSTEIN, JOEL
ST. LOUIS,MO 63105
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LA
6/16/08
$250 Obama, Barack (D)

KENNEDY, DAVID M
PALO ALTO,CA 94304
STANFORD UNIVERSITY/PROFESSOR
4/20/07
$2,300 Obama, Barack (D)

Emmanuel:

Oh dear – the ’scholars’ quoted in the story appear to be Democrat stooges. No surprise to discover that a large part of liberal academia supports Obama, nor to find supposed ’scholars’ gliding over the fact that Barry Obama is the least experienced and least credentialed presidential candidate in modern history.

Quoted in the story, with thanks to OpenSecrets

GOLDSTEIN, JOEL
ST. LOUIS,MO 63105
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LA
6/16/08
$250 Obama, Barack (D)

KENNEDY, DAVID M
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
STANFORD UNIVERSITY/PROFESSOR
4/20/07
$2,300 Obama, Barack (D)

You’re probably right Tim.

I’m not really swinging either way in this election.

I’m just baffled at how the usual reasonableness at HP seems to have gone out the window as partisanship (on both sides) kicks in.

Welcome to an election year!

… but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

How does being No2 to a man do that?

Being No2 to a 72-year-old man does it, presumably!

You guys might be interested in this; http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31096_Obama_Campaign_Behind_Anti-Palin_Smear_Site.
Seems our friends at Fightthesmears.com from the Obama campaign team have been doing a little maskirova.

Please note that this is not proof that the Obama campaign is behind this deceptive web site

Obama plays Chicago-style, Rischard. Can’t beat the other team? Have them taken off the ballot.

There are a lot of interesting points being made here. The main thing is, whoever the eventual winner is, that we all get behind them when the time comes.

I’m not a religious man, but if McCain wins, I’ll probably start praying for his health and safety.

‘Presidential scholars say she appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.’

For a different take on this, MyDD.

Mesquito.
if McCain wanted to put a woman on the ticket, why do you think he passed over Kay Bailey Hutchison in favour of someone who does not seem to know much about politics?

Presidential scholars who contribute to Barack Obama have spoken …

GOLDSTEIN, JOEL
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
6/16/08
$250 Obama, Barack (D)

KENNEDY, DAVID M
STANFORD UNIVERSITY/PROFESSOR
4/20/07
$2,300 Obama, Barack (D)

hat tip: ace

I’m sure the Kos Kids are similarly spooked, Mephisto.

if McCain wanted to put a woman on the ticket, why do you think he passed over Kay Bailey Hutchison in favour of someone who does not seem to know much about politics?

Because she’s going to be the next Governor of Texas?

Because 4 Senators is a bit too much? Even if one served only a few monsths before deciding he shoud be President?

McCain will always be three steps ahead of the game. Compared to Obama, and especially compared to Bush, he is is a political genius.

Look at what he has planned for the coming week, demonstrating just how Republicans put ‘Country First’.

Did anyone else see sicko pseudo-lib Michael Moore claiming that Hurricane Gustav was a gift from God?

As a complete outsider to American politics, it strikes me that Palin is an inspired choice. She will tap into the very strong foundational myths of most of backswoods America. She is a strong woman, with no connection with effete intellectuals, from all accounts she is feisty, she has been a beauty queen, she is not particularly associated with the timeservers in Washington, she is a Thatcher-figure, (not that that is a recommendation in my book, but not everyone thinks like me!). I don’t know who will win, but I can see why the Democrats are rattled.

And of course, the really smart things for Republicans to do is draw everyone’s attentions to these rumours just so there’s no one who is ignorant of them…

Anyway, here’s that well-known ultra liberal David Frum on Palin. I have no idea how representative his view is, though.

Sarah Palin may well have concealed inner reservoirs of greatness. I hope so! But I’d guess that John McCain does not have a much better sense of who she is, what she believes, and the extent of her abilities than my enthusiastic friends over at the Corner. It’s a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I’d be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it’s John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.

But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

He’s probably just rattled.

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2VhOWE0N2VkOWI3MDdlODRlZWE4ODljMDc2NjliZDk=

As for the public reaction. It’s favourable – but 67% of those surveyed want to know more about her before making a decision. So plenty to play for on both sides. A couple of titbits, though.

35% of voters say the selection of Palin makes them more likely to vote for McCain while 33% say they are less likely to do so.

She’s also viewed favourably by 48% of women – so the feminist bounce might be limited.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_makes_good_first_impression_is_viewed_more_favorably_than_biden

Oh, you can find plenty of Republican pundits with opinions similar to Frum’s. They neither like nor understand populists, they think the Republican party should be led by high minded thinkers like themselves. Now, I would be the last to suggest the Palin has a lot of foreign policy experience, or that Obama does either, but there are other qualities that make for successful American politicians. This election is going to be interesting.

There you have it: Governor Palin, who may not really be the mother of a Down’s syndrome baby, might have supported David Duke. Yer only as smart as the crowd you run with, Gene.

According to a bit in that Kos article 87% of Alaskans think she’s lying about the trooper thing.
Anyone got a link to that poll?

What is it with these Republican headbangers that they think they can defeat anyone by repeating the word of the day – today it’s “spooked” – like some ju-ju charm?

Still, that’s about the level of debate for people who are supporting a creationist, eh?

According to a bit in that Kos article 87% of Alaskans think she’s lying about the trooper thing.

I think the important words are “that Kos article.”

CNN has run a pre-selection clip of McCain proclaiming that his top criteria for a vice president would be “finding the person most qualified to step in and assume the presidency.”

Surely this should be

CNN has run a pre-selection clip of McCain proclaiming that his top criterion for a vice president would be “finding the person most qualified to step in and assume the presidency”.

in British English.

When is comes to English, we Merkins are the boss hoss now.

As to the rumor Palin named two of her kids after witches.

TODD: Sarah’s parents were coaches and the whole family was involved in track and I was an athlete in high school, so with our first-born, I was, like, ‘Track!’ Bristol is named after Bristol Bay. That’s where I grew up, that’s where we commercial fish. Willow is a community there in Alaska. And then Piper, you know, there’s just not too many Pipers out there and it’s a cool name. And Trig is a Norse name for “strength.”

Just thought I should settle that before someone made an issue of it.

And Trig is a Norse name for “strength.”

Can you guess Who Else was really into Norse mythology? Hmmm?

Tryggve Olafson?

(His son, Olaf Tryggvason was keener on Christianity, though).

Rhymes with “Pazis.”

Can you guess Who Else was really into Norse mythology?

It gets worse than that: be worried, very, very, worried. Like Gene.

As per my policy, I am deleting unsourced rumors about a candidate.

Perhaps Piper is named after the Piper oilfield in the North Sea? You Americans really are a bunch of rumour-merchants and intriguers. Conspiracy theorists to a man and woman. By the way, wouldn’t Obama’s preacher be a Creationist? so, won’t he be on sticky ground criticising her on that?

Disturbing indeed, now from People:

Mr. Palin, what does Sen. McCain need to know about working with your wife?
TODD PALIN: She’s a hard worker and she’s not wired normal.

“According to a bit in that Kos article 87% of Alaskans think she’s lying about the trooper thing.”

If that were true that would mean that most Alaskans simultaneously approve of her and believe she’s a liar. Of course if there were any possibility that there was anything behind it then there is no way she would have passed the vetting procedures. Besides which not many people are going to feel sorry for someone who tasered his 11 year old stepson.

Is it me or are all the accusations that have been made against her ones that apply far more to Obama:

Dodgy connections: Palin spent one day with Buchanon, Obama spent two decades with Reverend Wright as well as a lot of time with Bill Ayers.

Experience: She hasn’t been governor for very long, Obama hasn’t been a Senator for long either and is at the top of the Democrat ticket.

Anybody agree that she’s the spitting image of Elaine from Seinfeld? That can only be a good thing.

Besides which not many people are going to feel sorry for someone who tasered his 11 year old stepson.

Wanna bet within a week he’s a Daily Kos martyr-hero?

“Wanna bet within a week he’s a Daily Kos martyr-hero?”

They’ll probably dig up the boy’s permanent record to prove that he deserved to be tasered.

McCain did a political sound choice, Palin complement him on his shortcomings. The strange VP choice is Obamas, Biden multiply the political careerist Washington factor, multiply the lawyer factor and so on, but the striking thing is that Biden is not a mate like Gore to Clinton or even Cheney to Bush but a father figure. Biden could be Obamas father who got the position as alderman, the young whippersnapper that aspire to be the leader of the free world and the mightiest and most powerful nation this planet ever have seen wouldn’t measure up him self.

Oh, well, I suppose I should be glad that at least you have gone off John McCain. And I suppose that I am, although Palin is the best thing about him.

How many people who object to her cranky but, as Vice-President, immaterial creationism cheered on the Blair creature, including when Miliband was his Schools Minister, that handed over state school pupils, at public expense, to at least one creationist organisation?

And since all you neocons cannot support any ticket with either her or Obama on it, is it time for a third party or an Independent candidate from that stable? Who, exactly? And why, exactly?

Good luck…

“And since all you neocons cannot support any ticket with either her or Obama on it, is it time for a third party or an Independent candidate from that stable? Who, exactly?”

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 44th President of the United States of America: David Lindsay.

Governor Palin has useful, specialist knowledge of energy policy. She served as Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner prior to being elected as Governor and accepted chairmanship of the important Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) upon her election.

The IOGCC began in 1935 after six US states took advantage of a constitutional right to “compact,” or agree to work together, to resolve common issues. Faced with unregulated petroleum overproduction and the resulting waste, the states endorsed and Congress ratified a compact to take control of the issues. Today, the IOGCC’s membership is comprised of 30 member states, eight associate states and eight international affiliate country members.

See: http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us

But surely the less crazy McCain fans among you can see the element of risk (calculated, no doubt) in this choice?

Oh indeed.

Long and short of it is that I think she is fantastic. (I must confess I had never heard of her until about four months ago, but pretty much all that I have heard engenders immense respect. She is one honourable person)

And if (and, yes, it IS – still, now, anyway – a rather big “if”) she can transfer her evident talents and extremely sound moral principles (which it must be said are almost entirely lacking on the Obama side, not even to speak, heaven forbid, of Hilary C, or indeed of any political figure named “Clinton”) to the US-wide stage, I have no doubt whatsoever that she will but not just an inspired choice, but also a great asset and benefit to the USA, and to the USA in the world.

(It depresses me immeasurably – although it does not surprise me in the slightest – see chapter 94 of my book “Why I am not left wing – that even decent and honourable supporters of the Democrats – feel obliged to sum up such a hard-working, competent and honourable candaidate as “disturbing” or dredge through the ashes about some time she wore a Pat Buchanan badge. Buchanan may have some dodgy views in some areas – but he extremely sound ones in others – ie pro-life concerns, above all – and, well, as much as I am glad that he has not had any chance of acheiving really high office in the world – he’s hardly an out-and-out piece of evilness like Duke)

So, Go McCain and Palin, I say.

Venichka:

Given that you believe that Palin has “extremely sound moral principles”, what do you think of her evident belief in the stupidity of creationism and what that says of the maturity of her theology?

but pretty much all that I have heard engenders immense respect. She is one honourable person

Even the possible abuse of public office to settle family business? That she *might* have campaigned for a racist bigot (but hey, he’s anti-abortion so he can’t be all bad)? That she wishes to give superstitious nonsense an equal footing with hard science in the classroom?

None of these even make you pause to think “Well, I hope there’s an innocent explanation”? This is the faith of a zealot who sees a fellow crusader for righteousness; and it is always dangerous.

Venichka, you do sometimes give the impression that you believe abortion is *the* moral issue that trumps all others, the only benchmark of any worth. And that there is no room for the thought that people who hold the opposite view to your own can be equally scincere and principled. Your comments only really make sense to me when viewed through that prism – I may be wrong of course, so I won’t push this line of thought too far. It’s worth remembering, however, that if you judge a candidate’s worth by the moral and religious views they espouse it is a massive invitation to polticians to lie about or exaggerate those views (Bush and the religious right provide a good example).Read Jefferson’s Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom in Virginia; it will provide a much-needed sense of perspective on this.

As for unsourced rumours – and I hope Gene will permit this entirely political one – I’ve seen suggestions that McCain really wanted Lieberman but was persuaded/brow-beaten/pushed into chosing Palin by the party’s strategists. Does anyone know a source for this and whether much, or any credence to it?

“According to a bit in that Kos article 87% of Alaskans think she’s lying about the trooper thing.”

If that were true that would mean that most Alaskans simultaneously approve of her and believe she’s a liar…

***

Yes it would. And is that so difficult to believe? It’s a bit like saying 90% of Russians believed Yeltsin was a drunk but they still voted him President.

My favorite fake of the moment is the nude picture of Julia Louis Dreyfus circulating under the heading of Sarah Palin nude. I always thought Julia was hot.

Maven:

YOur comment re: the democrats (i.e. Palin hates jews) was egregious bullshit. The jewish democrats gave sound reasons why they don’t think she’s a good candidate. You can think what you like about those reasons, but how you can infer “Palin hates Jews” from them is totally beyond me. You sound like a dumb right wing political hack.

I’m really surprised at the number of people here who are not alarmed by this choice of McCain’s – if indeed it was McCain’s and not that of the far right.

This has nothing to do, by the way, with differences between Liberals and Conservatives. I respect my fellow Americans regardless of party or position, if their positions are rational and if indeed they respect the need to separate issues of state and religion.

This candidate, I think, exposes a rather obvious assertion of power by the religious right in the US.

Governor Palin may be a fantastic person and could over time prove to be a competent governor – but the Buchanan issue, the creationist issue, the ANWR issue, insensitivity to the environment and to the human element involved in global warming – forget her relative inexperience in foreign affairs – this is a person who could well assume the most powerful office in the world. And theoretically at least we are living in modern times and I feel rather strongly that we’d all be better served by a person strongly supportive of science, conservation of the environment and women’s rights, for starters. I also think it’s critical that any holder of national office in the US already be sensitive to and well versed in foreign affairs.

I cannot seriously believe that McCain had no better choices. Of course he did. I think his hand was forced by the ultra-conservative element within the GOP. Their obvious glee supports this assumption.

This will surely drive away independents and all but the most cynical of “Hillary supporters,” some of whom may have been part of Karl Rove’s “Operation Chaos,” and thus weren’t even Democrats to begin with. So, apart from satisfying this one particular segment of the GOP, I think it might well be a divisive move, a very bad political move.

Finally, as a feminist, the idea that women would blindly support any female is insulting. I should reveal by the way that I was a fervent Hillary supporter and am angry that she isn’t on the ticket. I also respect McCain as a person and a leader. But this choice of VP isn’t reassuring to any moderate.

I seriously hope my thoughtful sisters, Left and Right, will now consider their vote very carefully. And people concerned with the future of Israel, the economic well-being of the US, the Enlightenment values that support our Constitution, the possibility of bridging differences between people around the world, as well as trying to help salvage this severely threatened planet, will also do some serious thinking before they vote for and/or blindly support McCain at this juncture.

“what do you think of her evident belief in the stupidity of creationism and what that says of the maturity of her theology?”

The evidence for Palin’s “Creationism” seem to be as slender as the evidence that her last child was really her daughters.

Apparently she once said that if ID/Creationist arguments came up in a class discussion, they should not be suppressed. That’s a long way from advocating Creationism in the curriculum. Needless to say, that won’t stop the smear merchants.

There is no ”Buchanan Issue”, But there is a ”Wright Issue” and an ”Ayres Issue”. Obama is toast.

Excuse me, but Little Green Footballs carried the story about Palin’s belief in creationism:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31088_Sarah_Palin_and_Creationism

It is her right, as an individual, to believe in Creationism.

Do we, in the 21st century, want a person who believes in Creationism in the White House? That point of view is extremely limiting when it comes to dealing rationally with scientific and medical challenges which are only going to become more acute as global populations surge and climate change wreaks havoc and the economic and geopolitical implications of challenges to the oil monopolies begin to assert themselves. So again, I think the GOP has done us all a disservice here, regardless of Governor Palin’s personal qualities or charms.

As far as Rev. Wright and Ayers are concerned, they’re clearly a problem – they are part of what caused many Democrats to support Clinton in the primaries, and continue to bother people.

However, I also think there are limits to the “guilt by association” argument. People like Wright and Ayers are part of the political landscape in big cities like Chicago. It’s almost impossible to avoid them – and for that matter, curious, open-minded people often seek out others who might appear strange and exotic, simply to learn, to educate themselves. How many of us who grew up in the sixties, who went to college in the the Vietnam era, rubbed elbows with “revolutionaries”? We didn’t have to share their ideology to have spoken with them; they were our classmates. Should we all be considered Dangerous Radicals now?

And, no doubt, if Hillary were the candidate, she’d be smeared by the Right for any number of issues including her marriage to Bill.

Past a certain point I believe people need to listen to what Obama himself has to say. I have never, ever heard him espouse or echo a position supportive of radicalism – indeed he comes across as quite conservative in his personal ideals – he believes in hard work, education, good parenting, the value of labor, the possibility for anybody in America to become anything he or she wishes to be. He’s also been associated with the University of Chicago, which is hardly a hotbed of anticapitalist activity.

Finally I think people are going to have to come to grips with their fear of Obama’s race. That is an issue for all too many people who are masking it by jumping on the Rev. Wright situation, without looking more deeply at the context in which churches like Trinity evolved.

If you haven’t been to the South Side, you really have no idea. But you can try to empathize with the people who live there. There are far worse things than trying to help the poor and instill some pride in historically oppressed groups, who continue to suffer from the effects of racism.

Obama maintained a 20 year association with Wright, He married the Obamas and Obama contributed thousands of dollars to his church, the title of Obamas autobiography was a phrase taken from one of Wrights sermons.

As for Ayres Obama held a fundraiser at his house.

All that goes well beyond rubbing elbows, Obama was a part of that for two decades and in my opinion has not gone far enough in distancing himself from what is a very recent and problematic past.

Palin wore a Buchanan badge for one day and has a personal belief in creationism while Obama associated for 20 years with a nutter who believes AIDs was invented by the US Government to kill black people and a terrorist who is unrepentent about bombing his own country’s capitol !, Which of these is more irrational?.

Palin took on her own party’s corruption and old boy network while Obama went along with his just to get on in Chicago, I know who i think is the better person.

From LGF:

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

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

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.”

Seems reasonable to most Americans.

“Finally I think people are going to have to come to grips with their fear of Obama’s race.”

Yawn. Not an issue. BO is to the left of Bernie Sanders for fuck sake – an admitted socialist! That does not play well in the USA. Republicans did not revolt over Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell or Clarence Thomas. It’s not his race, it’s his politics!

Hey what’s the problem with Pat Buchanan? If I remember correctly he walked away with the Bronx retiree vote in Palm Beach County, FL in 2004, Good for the Jews, evidently, but not so good for Al Gore.

“CNN has run a pre-selection clip of McCain proclaiming that his top criteria for a vice president would be “finding the person most qualified to step in and assume the presidency.” Does even the most fervent McCain supporter think Palin meets– or even comes close to meeting– this requirement?”

That really is rich coming from an Obama supporter.

One thing is for sure, she is at least as well qualified to be president as Obama. After all, she does actually have 2 years executive government experience – unlike Obama, who does not ever seem to have run so much as a pie shop.

Obama and Biden haven’t a principle between them, Both are hacks and placemen who will say anything, do anything and go along with anything and anyone to make their way, And if it means cosying up to Hate Filled Nutter’s like Wright and Communist idiot’s like Ayres or plagiarising Neil Kinnocks speeches then that’s OK too.

McCain and Palin by contrast have taken on their own party’s entrenched interests and won, If it’s courage and integrity you want they have it , Both are mavericks who do what they believe is right not what is politically expedient at the time.

Obama and Biden are old school Chicago Machine Politicos of the worst type who think that by putting a black face on there clapped out 1960s policies they can fool the voters into thinking it’s new and different when it’s business as usual.

Gene wrote:

CNN has run a pre-selection clip of McCain proclaiming that his top criteria for a vice president would be “finding the person most qualified to step in and assume the presidency.” Does even the most fervent McCain supporter think Palin meets– or even comes close to meeting– this requirement?

Well that question raises a moot point given that Palin as the Republican VP candidate is undoubtedly more qualified than the Dem’s Presidential candidate to hold the Presidential office!

I think Gene’s clutching at straws, and I think he knows it; Palain’s a very savvy choice indeed by the Republicans.

I think this coming November is all but a done deal; if she raises to the challenge – and she might well, she could have the legs to run successfully for president in 2012 or 2016.

Apparently she once said that if ID/Creationist arguments came up in a class discussion, they should not be suppressed. That’s a long way from advocating Creationism in the curriculum.

No it’s not.

It’s the current de facto position of the religious right, who are currently engaged in trying to impose legislation area-by-area to ensure that “the debate should be taught” in schools, i.e. to force teachers to say that creationism is a scientifically viable alternative to evolution. It’s sly, dishonest and deliberately anti-scientific.

“Palin wore a Buchanan badge for one day and has a personal belief in creationism while Obama associated for 20 years with a nutter who believes AIDs was invented by the US Government to kill black people and a terrorist who is unrepentent about bombing his own country’s capitol !, Which of these is more irrational?.”

Ummm…..believing in creationism.

Typical commie Crap, Everything is perfectly understandable except a person’s private and personal religious beliefs,(Unless their a muslim in which case they can spout any old Mohammedan Shite and that’s fine too).

Terrorism and attempted murder of your fellow citizens, Lunatic tin foil hat conspirazoid ravings are all perfectly understandable to a commie, But a private belief in god put’s you beyond the pale.

I suggest you buy kleenex in bulk know because come november you will need them, Obama and Biden are yesterday’s men, They are all washed up but like all Dickheads they are a bit slow on the uptake.

You guys are really scraping the barrel with this Buchanan angle and then linking it to your curren bogeyman of the month, David Dukes.
Hit the girl for being inexperienced if you like but don’t then attack her for meeting someone back when she was so inexperienced and clearly wouldn’t have done copious research into his jew views.

Yes, phil I am clearly a communist for thinking that a belief in creationism is irrational.

You seem to be a rather sharp customer, I won’t try debating you in the future.

Sarah is a:

Conservative. Reformer. Giant Slayer.
Mother. Wife.
Basketball player. Runner.
Fisherman. Hunter. Snow machine rider.
NRA member. Feminist for Life member.
Beauty Queen. Sportscaster.
Business woman.
Elected Executive (at all level of city & state governments)
Energy hawk.
Rainmaker (raised 7 million since VP)

If she weren’t so real and authentic, you’d think that those evil genius Republicans asked a Hollywood casting agent to give us an Everywoman that has a dash of:

Norma Rae (for self confidence in taking on the good ol boys & corruption)
Katharine Hepburn (for intelligence & athleticism)
Margaret Thatcher (for making it in a man’s world)
Princess Diana (for warmth and beauty)
Margie Gunderson from Fargo (sor the cheerful mother & happily married wife who just so happens to have a serious day job that she’s wicked smart at)

It must be a comfort for all Republicans that the entire obamamania crowd is so worried that McCain did pick the “wrong” VP.

Sarah Palin isn’t so much an advocate of creationism being taught in the class rooms per se, but more of an advocate for freedom of inquiry in the classroom.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

• PALIN: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. “Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

Let me share the wackiest conspiracy theory story I heard last night on a troofers radio station. A woman phones up with great glee and joy. She says that Daily Kos has an article (she probably means post from some disturbed person) that the Downs Syndrome child isn’t hers but her daughter’s!!! Its all because she didn’t look pregnant and at 8 months she is supposed to have said to people in a meeting “my waters just broke and I have to go home”. She then flew 8 hours back to Alaska. What these kooks don’t realise is that after already having had four children then she was in a great position to manage her pregnancy so close to term.

What sickos! I just couldn’t believe anyone could come up with this crap

Maven:

YOur comment re: the democrats (i.e. Palin hates jews) was egregious bullshit. The jewish democrats gave sound reasons why they don’t think she’s a good candidate. You can think what you like about those reasons, but how you can infer “Palin hates Jews” from them is totally beyond me. You sound like a dumb right wing political hack.

I said that it was a distillation of what the article said. It was a shorthand parody of the article. Nowhere in the article did it refer to ‘hating Jews’.

You sound like a dumb right wing political hack

You have no sense of humour!

Sarah:- you posted a link to LGF but you seemnot to have read it. As the piece says,

But to quote just the first part of her statements on creationism and ignore the second is misleading; because in the clarification she’s describing a position that doesn’t cause me (a staunch anti-creationist) any discomfort

Incidentally, to your remark that hard work, education, good parenting, the value of labor… are conservative ideals says so much about you.

I imagine that someone who likes to go out into the the Alaskan woods before dawn to shoot and field-dress a moose knows a bit more about nature than, say, Al Gore. She also displays a respect for local governance of schools, which is what the Left finds really unacceptable.

“Sarah Palin isn’t so much an advocate of creationism being taught in the class rooms per se, but more of an advocate for freedom of inquiry in the classroom.”

She is advocating that they be taught in the same science class. Creationism is not a science, it is not even psuedo-science.

I imagine that someone who likes to go out into the the Alaskan woods before dawn to shoot and field-dress a moose knows a bit more about nature than, say, Al Gore.

I had a vaccination.I know more about vaccines than any scientist.

I’ve just seen a Republican politician supporting Palin,and claimin that although she doesn’t know much about Iraq, because her son is due to go to Iraq, she feels it in her heart

From Politico we also learn that running his own campaign is above Obama’s pay grade:

Just hours after his campaign issued a first statement Friday ripping the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, Barack Obama backed away from that statement — or at least its tone — and said that his own campaign had misrepresented him.

Obama often speaks of how important his staffers are to his bid and would be to his administration, and he’s praised them for covering for each other’s mistakes. But in the heat of the campaign, he’s publicly called them out for everything from missing an event to misrepresenting his policy positions to using his office to aid a donor.

When asked about his campaign’s attack on Palin, attributed to top spokesman Bill Burton, at a Friday afternoon media availability at a Pennsylvania biodiesel plant, Obama referred to a statement he and running mate Joe Biden had since issued that hardly touched on policy issues and called Palin “an admirable person and … a compelling new voice.”

Obama disavowed his campaign’s first response, telling journalists that “I think that, uh, you know, campaigns start getting these, uh, hair triggers and, uh, the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments,” he said.

Yes Mesquito, because Obamas campaign has performed poorly so far.

Never mind,I’m sure that armed with her bible and her feelings “in her heart” she’ll provide invaluable in correcting McCains forgetful Shia/Sunni moments.

Insofar as this is true and not cherry picked, it goes some towards easing my concern over Sarah Palin and the ‘experience’ debate. But I still have some. While I like her as governor of rambunctious Alaska, I worry she does not have the gravitas to be CinC. I shudder at the prospect of her inheriting the job and facing off with Putin with “yup, yup” and “cool”.

Granted the piece stacks her against Obama and not Biden. That is interesting in itself because it implies the top of the D ticket is the weak half.

America cannot afford VP Sarah Palin: she’s too hard on racist, child-abusing wifebeaters.

Sorry, I’ve been away from the PC. Are we going with Obama, McCain or Lindsay?

So let me get this right. From what I’ve been reading, Palin is not ready to be vice president but Obama is ready to be president.

The only explanation I can think of for that is sexism.

I wonder if Palin were a man, would ‘he’ still be seen as ‘not ready’? I suppose you’ll say that Palin wouldn’t have been chosen for the job if she were a man.

Er, what if she were a black man?

Don’t know about you, but from where I’m sitting at this moment, in an office in the northern part of Jaffa, Obama scares the hell out of me.

What scares you about Obama?

The McCain campaign is saying Palin got full vetting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083002377.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Slightly off topic: If you are interested and have 20 minutes to spare, this is an excellent opportunity to get the flavor of black liberation theology – James Cone in his own words.

Disclaimer: I am an independent non-affiliated Christian, I don’t agree with all of the above linked site’s commentary, but I found it useful as a reference point for understanding Cone. I don’t demonize Cone, and found some of his later statements reasonable, but this is the theology that informs Jeremiah Wright and was passed on for 20 years to Obama, so it is very germane to the election.

Here is a comparison of Palin vs The One. Its not very flattering for The One.

You were scooped by jdwill, Morgoth.

The McCain campaign is saying Palin got full vetting

Did they find any knowledge of politics?

From jdwills link

Foreign Relations experience Governor of state that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia)

Anyone fancy a bet that she’s never been outside of the US and Canada?

I am a conservative Democrat who voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. After Obama defeated Clinton, I was pretty much decided to vote for McCain this year until two things happened: 1) Biden; 2) Palin. Palin is a disastrous choice for all intelligent voters. She a gimmick at best, a bad joke at worst. And the more I learn about her the worse it gets. And my opinion of McCain has now taken a hit from which it will be highly unlikely to recover. This is a man who was thinking of his campaign first, not his country. I will NEVER vote for an administration that has someone so patently unqualified — indeed dangerous — next in line to the Presidency and, or, as the old Cold War slogan used to go, the “leadership of the free world”. The people above who are defending this choice are either deluding themselves or are so thoroughly indoctrinated to vote Republican that they too are willing to put our country at risk.

Peter, two questions:
1. As a conservative Democrat, why not Al Gore in 2000?
2. Are you a boomer? Could your negativity on Palin be due to her generation X ‘lightness’?

“I will NEVER vote for an administration that has someone so patently unqualified — indeed dangerous — next in line to the Presidency”

Peter, but you WILL vote for someone less qualifed to be, not next in line, but the CinC himself?

I could care less if she put a bag over her head, gave birth to a three headed monster, or was a squab eating survivalist. She has absolutely no experience in terms of foreign relations. In time of a tense geo-political environment, her lack of experience could inadvertently drag our country into another quagmire. I don’t know about you but, I certainly wouldn’t want to wait 4 years before she learned enough political muster for the 2nd most important job in the country. With Biden serving 7 terms in the Senate with service in both the Armed Service Committee and Foreign Relations Committee, he is clearly a more experienced VP pick. McCain’s choice of Palin only shows he is desperate to pander to disgruntled Clinton voters. Any Democrat in their right mind would be foolish not to see McCain’s obvious bait and switch. Like Hillary told her constituents at the DNC. No McCain…No how, no way, no where. Clinton supporters would be well advised to take that advice. Even Hillary has more experience serving in the Senate or Foreign Relations Committee, than Palin. Not to mention that Hillary also gained political experience as first lady. Alaska is by no means the largest state in the union. It’s also the state with the least population. I don’t see how running a state with a few hundred thousand people equates with politically managing a highly populated and industrialized state like New York, like Clinton has. If you ask me, voting for someone that inexperienced just because she was a woman would really be throwing my vote away.

Anyone fancy a bet that she’s never been outside of the US and Canada?

As a member of the board of governors of the Northern Forum (members include Finland, China, Japan, various bits of Russia all the way from Chukotka to Vologda, Korea) I suppose it’s just about possible – although surely unlikely.

She’s visited Kuwait too. (to visit US troops based there)

And that took all of 2 minutes with google to discover

How much were you betting, Tim?

University of Idaho!! Ewwwww! Clearly not the Right Sort. Obviously not One Of Us.

Whoop.
You should’ve taken me up Ven.
Apparently she got her first passport last year to make that visit.

Palin in women in politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEUG0XZ9OpY&eurl=http://althouse.blogspot.com/

Just to add another data point to the measure of Palin experience: Sarah Palin manages a state government budget nearly twice as large as Bill Clinton ever did.

In 2007 Alaska had total state government expenditures of over $5.5 billion dollars in 2007, making it the 32nd largest state government in the US.

In 1991, when Bill Clinton was governor, Arkansas was the 37th largest state government, having spent $1.86 billion dollars. This is $2.79 billion in 2007 dollars.

Plus she knowingly chose to have a Downs child, and not abort. At last a pol who’s personal life choices are in line with their expressed beliefs.

Thing is, it doesn’t matter whether Mrs Palin has travelled outside the USA or not, or knows anything about anything. What matters is her ‘decision-making ability’. The Government has thousands of advisors and consultants to do their thinking for them. All the elected politicians have to do is take decisions. You know, the President and Vice-President don’t do it single-handedly. As for the C-in-C business, presumably, there is a process that has to be gone through before wars are started or nuclear bombs are launched?

Gene and Andrew Sullivan really are shrill soundalikes on the Palin issue. It is obvious why Sullivan may have no interest in attractive women but why Gene?

Has anyone been following the current conspiracy going around the web

http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/follow-up-to-bristol-palin-pregnancy-rumor/

Is it in the Edwards having an affair category, or the Obama is a Muslim category?

Here is a quote from a friend of hers:

I know Sarah Palin professionally, although I wouldn’t describe myself as a close friend. My quick take is that she’s short on elected experience, but has been politically active for about 15 years. She reminds me a bit of Reagan. Not a deep thinker but absolutely committed to her beliefs and fearless to the point of a fault. She never lays down the bunt but patiently waits for the right pitch and then swings for the fence. She is far more politically savvy than people give her credit and the democrats better not underestimate her.

JDWill,

1. As a conservative Democrat, why not Al Gore in 2000?
2. Are you a boomer? Could your negativity on Palin be due to her generation X ‘lightness’?

1. I should not have voted for Bush in 2000. It was a mistake. As McCain has now done with Palin, Bush has consistently put partisan politics (his domestic politics have been far more disastrous than his foreign affairs) above the good of the nation. I was fooled by his “compassionate conservatism”. I was turned off somewhat by Gore (and still am to some extent); in that light, Bush looked better. I was wrong.

2. Palin isn’t so much “light” as wrong. On almost every domestic test — religion, science, environment, economics — I can think of. And while her knowledge of world affairs might be just fine for a runner-up Miss Alaska or a small-town mayor, it is grossly insufficient for a potential President. Her selection by McCain (I would have held my nose for Romney or Pawlenty, and think Lieberman would have been an interesting choice) has lost him my vote… as it should that of every serious elector.

As often when Gene posts his Andrew Sullivanesque talking points, the discussion that follows is more intelligent and informative than the post itself. Good to see such a range of perspectives refuting the smears that the Democrat spin machine is pumping out about Palin, from the laughable (a desperate choice) to the absolutely sickening (questioning the maternity of her baby).

Just to add to the good points made above, here is the Washington Post on the deliberate and careful process McCain underwent to choose Palin.
When compared to Obama’s bungled selection process, the text-message fiasco, and the leak of his choice in the middle of the night, McCain’s team looks a model of clear-sighted, careful strategists.

Palin wore a Buchanan badge for one day and has a personal belief in creationism while Obama associated for 20 years with a nutter who believes AIDs was invented by the US Government to kill black people and a terrorist who is unrepentent about bombing his own country’s capitol !, Which of these is more irrational?.

Spot on!

Obama’s ‘pastor’ is no different than David Duke. Liberals and anti-racists here are rooting for a guy, a presidential candidate, who was married by a Black David Duke and who associated with a Black David Duke for two decades.

Some leftists can’t recognise Far Rght tendancies in the likes of Joe Quinn, and others the same tendancies in the *reverend* Wrights of this world.

And imagine rejecting a VP candidate based on whether or not she briefly sported a Buchannan badge 12 years ago?!

For those thinking of doing so, would there be any use in pointing out that both David Duke AND P. Buchannan are supporting Obama?

What fine company they’re keeping!

The Dem candidate has had very close and very sustained ties to Black supremacists for many years, but the moral retardation of so many atheist leftists means that those Far Right associations don’t even raise an eyebrow.

Had Obama been white and had he been associating with White supremacists for 20 years, not only would he NOT be running for prez, he would’d have even made it into the democratic primaries, and nor would he even have been allowed to become a senator.

Get that?

But he’s Black and that’s ALL that matters, and so lefties give him a pass for grevious, racist transgressions that’d get a white guy drawn and quartered in a new york minute.

And I’ve also parused a few of the shrill whitey-hating anti-american screeds written by Obama’s ‘charming’ wife. Amazing that someone who has spent so much of their life denouncing America suddenly has no complaints whatsoever, seeings she is now slated to become First Lady.

In light of that, who gives a shit if Palin has expressed some support for creationism or that she once wore a Buchannan button?

Obama supporters can’t distinguish the salient characteristics of a Far Right world view from the anodine musings about creationism that someone may have entertained for all of two or three minutes.

Is it any wonder, then, that largely atheist leftists are elevating Obama to the ranks of a proto-fascist ‘Obamessiah’ for what can only be described as cryptic religious reasons?

We can no longer distinguish right from wrong.

old Labour.
Are the Democrats behind the maternity story?

What I would say on that though,is that if, in her fifth pregnancy her waters broke in Texas and then she decided to get on a plane to Alaska, then she’s a dangerous nutjob.

“Are the Democrats behind the maternity story?”

Mostly it comes from the partisan Deomcrat site Daily Kos, whose posters include Keith Olbrermann and any number of Democratic politicians, including John Kerry.

The first national polls on John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin yesterday came out today from Rasmussen and Gallup — and contrary to what the GOP probably hoped, she scored less well with women than men.Here’s a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women — including those who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination — 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely.

Gallup numbers from Friday showed 39% of respondents believe Palin is ready to serve as president if needed. It’s the lowest confidence rate in a running mate since Dan Quayle in 1988.

Peter,

I am toying with the idea that the theories of Blink and the Wisdom of Crowds have something to them. I think the electorate which usually has been shown by history to have made the best binary choice had a close one to call in 2000 but made the right decision (but which one? 8-; ). I too voted for Bush, in part because of ‘compassionate conservatism’ and have often wondered if Gore would have handled the response to 9-11 better.

However, later speeches by Gore, and his messianic approach to AGW have convinced me that he is likely a carefully self-managed megalomaniac and somewhat unhinged. Or a huckster. On the other hand, Bush did not get the presidency he planned for and I think the neo cons took him for a ride. If you voted for him, you probably wanted some relief to SocSec and health care with a fiscally responsible basis. The record seems to show we would not have gotten that from the current crop of Republicans.

Back on topic: Stu @2:34 made an excellent point about the Alaskan governor experience, so I think the ‘runner-up Miss Alaska or a small-town mayor’ is like beating Obama as a ‘community organizer’. It is a cherry pick in time. And, if you disagree with her on pretty much every domestic topic as you say, how conservative are you?

tim – comments like yours above demonstrate precisely why so many are repelled by the current Democratic party and its supporters.

I’d question the judgement of anyone who got on a long flight after their waters have broken.
Do you have any idea how dangerous that is, particularly in a fifth pregnancy?

“My country has contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”
John Adams appointed to VP

While scraping the barrel about the talented Republican VP newcomer, Sarah Palin – apparently she wears fur in Alaska in winter to keep warm, as people there have done for generations.

tim – you say, I’d question the judgement of anyone who got on a long flight after their waters have broken.

Well she’s the one who’d already had four children; you might credit her with some sense. Still, if you say you’d question her judgement, I’ll listen to your medical opinion.

You are medically qualified, aren’t you?

JDWill,

I am variably “conservative” on foreign affairs. My domestic politics are generally liberal on social issues, centrist and “fiscally responsible” on economic matters. My main concern in each area is competency. The Bush gang have proved themselves to be grossly incompetent, when they aren’t being duplicitous. After Clinton conceded, the thing about McCain that attracted me was that he was “serious”. Picking Palin is the opposite of seriousness. It’s a gimmick. It’s American Idol politics. He seems to have been kidnapped by the Rove gang or other sleazy operatives. He won’t get my vote.

No, and I’m not a pilot either.
If you wan’t to make a case that its not dangerous to get on an eitgt hour flight after your waters have broken,then good luck.

HP will condemn Buchanan as beyond the pale not for his obnoxious views against Muslims but only against Jews. Indeed HP supports politicians and columnists (Mel Phillips) whose views on Muslims mirror those quoted by Buchanan on Jews

“She has absolutely no experience in terms of foreign relations.”

But neither has Obama, unless having a Kenyan father counts.

Neither did Bill Clinton.

Why am I afraid of Obama? For the same reason a lot of Israelis are, I think. Because he doesn’t appear to ‘get it’ (and nothing about his biography as an adult gives me any reason to feel less uneasy about him). His wife has me worried as well.

Peter,

Gotcha, not exactly a Reagan Democrat, maybe more like a liberal hawk (I could be reaching there).

That’s it for me today. Good insider horse race article from the NYT (not too much spin) about Sarah Palin’s impact to the campaigns.

That tentativeness reflected what Mr. Obama’s advisers said was their struggle to figure out how to challenge the credentials and the ideology of a woman whose candidacy could be embraced by many women as a historic milestone.

Yeah. Tentative (tender tushed) after their initial releases cheap shot was spanked. That was the main disinformation item I spotted.

And Dowd is actually funny today: actually funny today

The movie ends with the former beauty queen shaking out her pinned-up hair, taking off her glasses, slipping on ruby red peep-toe platform heels that reveal a pink French-style pedicure, and facing down Vladimir Putin in an island in the Bering Strait. Putting away her breast pump, she points her rifle and informs him frostily that she has some expertise in Russia because it’s close to Alaska. “Back off, Commie dude,” she says. “I’m a much better shot than Cheney.”

This morning John Kerry attacked McCain for choosing a running mate with no experience in foreign affairs.

Heh.

this is funny too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zP8uFPWxaA

McCAIN: You know, the experience that she comes from is what she’s done in government, and remember, Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. It’s not as if she doesn’t understand what’s at stake here.

From “How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment Upside Down“
“When the family wasn’t running or hiking, it was hunting or fishing.”, … “We could literally go hunting out our back door,” Chuck Jr. said. Sarah shot her first rabbit at age ten not far from the back porch. In her teens, she hunted caribou with her father. The family’s freezer was always full of fish and game.“

“During the summer, their father put away the television. For entertainment, he put up a basketball hoop with a dirt court in the back yard.”

“Heather— a year older in school—often enlisted Sarah’s help with book reports. “She was such a bookworm. Whenever I was assigned to read a book, she’d already read it,” Heather said.”

“Sarah’s thirst for knowledge was nurtured in a household that emphasized the importance of education. There was never any question that all the Heath kids would go to college. “
…
“The rest of the kids, I could force them to do something,” Chuck Sr. said. “But with Sarah, there was no way. From a young age she had a mind of her own. … Later, when his daughter became governor, Chuck found it immensely amusing that acquaintances asked him to sway Sarah on particular issues. He says he lost that leverage before she was two.”
—–

One do understand the panic, fear and disorientation in the Obama camp, we will probably see a row of even more desperate potshots.

“The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who have crossed Sarah,” pollster Dave Dittman told the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes.

tim:- so youre not a doctor, you’re not a pilot, you don’t know what happened – you’ve read the odd news site and repeated the odd talking point. Not as a serious assessment of facts, of course, but out of sheer bias.

What’s the point of doing that?

On a serious assessment of the facts I think it shows a lack of judgement to get on an eight hour flight once your waters have broken and you’re eight months pregnant.

don’t you?

She also claims she didn’t tell any of the flight crew

Of course its a talking point.

On a day when the Republicans are claiming the proximity of Alaska to Russia gives her some foreign Policy experience,I think all we’ve really got is talking points.

If it is true that Mrs Palin is the grandmother and not the mother of a Downs’ syndrome child, what does it matter? She’s still looking after it.

No, and I’m not a pilot either.

Sarah Palin is, and have extensive experience in how her body functions during pregnancy.

when the Republicans are claiming the proximity of Alaska to Russia gives her some foreign Policy experience

Well, even though I do favour the McCain/Palin ticket, i’m no Republican: but, in any case, it’s not so much the “proximity” of Alaska to (what was until v. recently Roman Abramovich’s bit of) Russia that is of significance, as the establishment of working relationships across the Bering Straits. I’ve no idea what Palin may or may not have acheived in this regard, but certainly earlier governors of Alaska (I think in the first half of the 2000s, but possibly earlier) played a part in various co-operation agreements with their counterpart in Chukotka. Mainly business focussed, sure, but what else could these agreements be? And it is true that Alaska’s location, and the particular challenges it faces, means that the governor of that state does have (or is in any case responsible for) international involvements in a way that the Governor of most other states would not have, as a matter of necessity.

Anyway, all other factors being equal, it’s gotta be good to have someone from beyond the beltway, anyhow.

She’s eclipsed the euphoria generated by Obama’s acceptance speech.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4641030.ece

Too many gullible wanna believe in TRUE smears haram baloney hereabouts.

Buchanan came to Wassila, she was mayor, she wore a button – AFTER, she called the newspaper to ensure that they understood she was being COURTEOUS to a guest, and THAT’S ALL.

The granddaughter things is unbelievably sickening, and demonstrates just how shaken the opposition is.

Obviously to some people around here, JOHN FORD never existed, and no one can believe Norman Rockwell painted WHAT HE SAW. There are still such people, warts and all, and McCain seems to have found AT LEAST an approximation.

It is JUST THAT which scares the living shit out of those whose revolutionary change nominee demonstrated JUST WHAT HE IS with the pick of Biden.

jdwill:

If you get back to read this, might I suggest that in the case of the
Obamassiah and his followers, the operative text to be devoutly
used as the ultimate insight as to their actions is not “The Wisdom of Crowds,” but rather Charles MacKay’s 1841 work “Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds.”

I’ll concede that Obama may be slightly better qualified than Palin to be Vice-President. But it’s close. A real squeaker.

Tim asks:
What scares you about Obama?

ALOT:

his 20 years relationship w/racist, anti-American, homophobic, intolerent preacher Rev. Wright

his close relationship w/the racist, anti-American, intolerent Fr. Phleger

his terrorist friends William Ayers and Bernidine Dorhn and Obama’s work with them on the Anneberg Project. This connection has the Obama campaign so panicked that they have tried to keep a respected journalist from investigating it. And have sicked their lawyers on a legal 527 group from running ads that are connecting Ayers/Dorhn to Obama.

Exit question to Obama lovers: Is it fair to ask a politician where did 100 million dollars go and what was accomplished? If yes, then why are you trying to block free and fair inquiry?

Actually his whole connection to the corrupt/dirty Chicago political scene and how he didn’t lift a finger to help clean it up but rather dove head first into the cesspool to gain political power. This forcasts that Obama would be the absolute wrong leader to clean up Washington’s corruption and ineffectiveness. And Joe Biden has no real solid as a reformer inside the beltway either so Obama choosing him as VP isn’t hopeful.

Plus Obama seems to surround himself and attracts people (including his wife) groups that don’t really think that highly of America and even hates America. Everyone from your run of the mill Che Cuevera t-shirt wearers to Hamas.

Following on Venichka, I would point out that as Governor Palin is head of the National Guard, and as such is perforce intimately involved in disaster planning, etc. Further, Alaskan oil is sold mainly to the Japanese(it’s cheaper to ship it to Japan, book the profits and buy Venezuelan oil for short trip to near-by gulf-coast refineries than to build a pipeline all the way from Alaska to the refineries) and thus Palin has undoubtedly been deeply involved in those commercial international negotiations/agreements.

Also not to be forgotten is the fact of all the Federal military installations (airfields, Alaskan Command HQ, the BMEWS sites, etc.) that require logistics support from the State (roads, housing, dependent schools, land-line comm., etc) with all the associated planning/coordination that such things entail.

Taken together, the above, when combined with her legislative reform accomplishments, strongly suggest that in two short years as Governor, Palin has accrued more real hands-on executive experience, and accomplished more concrete achievements than Obama has in a lifetime spent “achieving”/grasping.

I think we can see from the posts above, that McCain has truly nullified the inexperience charge.Probably his strongest card.

You were scooped by jdwill, Morgoth.

Arsebiscuits!

PS RE Obama’s achievements, add: …….and TALKING

Palin is already hitting Biden on his lack of leadership on probably the biggest domestic issue facing America, energy. The hit happens at around the five minute mark and then hits Obama and Biden at the 10 minute mark…..impressive:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26455570

Obama’s experience:

he has never served in an important leadership position in government, business, or the military. His ability to perform as a chief executive officer is completely untested.

Obama has prestigious degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, but no significant professional achievements to his name. No businesses or organizations he has founded or managed. No law firm partnerships. No important cases he has tried. Not a single work of legal scholarship he has authored, despite having been Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review and a part-time law professor at the University of Chicago for twelve years. (This is unheard of in the elite ranks of the legal profession, and calls into question the bona fides of Obama’s professorship.)

Obama’s principal occupation before entering politics was as a “community organizer” in Chicago. By his own admission, these efforts achieved only “some success,” and none worthy of highlighting on his campaign website.

Obama then served eight unexceptional years in the Illinois Senate, and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, where he is not even considered one of the Democratic Party’s legislative leaders.

The only thing he authored was two books about…….himself.

Gene I think your support for Obama is deeply disturbing.

Heres a photo of Sarah Palin pregnant with her first child.
And one with her fifth.

http://i33.tinypic.com/mt70d4.jpg

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Sarah_Palin_s_pregnancy_1_vs_5

more like karl roves idiot brother.

I’m not a midwife, but I believe that the amount of ‘bump’ that shows depends on how the baby is lying inside the womb. It is possible for the baby to lie in such a way that it does not show. Anyway, I think it is a stupid thing to throw at the women. Whether she is the child’s mother or grandmother is irrelevant. She has accepted parental responsibility for her. Are those people who are flogging this particular smear, trying to claim that there must be something wrong with Mrs Palin for producing a damaged child? Isn’t that deeply reactionary? And anti-evolutionary? (ie genetic mutations happen).

I was enormous in my second (and last pregnancy). It does seem strange.

But they’re using this photo http://www.adn.com/photos/v-gallery/story/509850.html?/1521/gallery/509852-a509987-t3.html as proof and according to the link the photo was taken in 2006. That is one pretty long pregnancy.

If there is nothing in this, well, poor kid. Now she probably feels awful that everyone’s making a big thing of her being a bit chubby. It’s cruel.

How about Palin’s covering up for someone else?

Then again, wouldn’t you think Palin would have made more of an effort to LOOK pregnant if she wasn’t really pregnant, if she was covering up for a loved one?

Ah, here she is looking pregnant.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:H0AvasrVOeEJ:gov.state.ak.us/large_photo.php%3Fid%3D104+sarah+palin+hoover+institution+board&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Good grief, people asking this question are absurd and should really examine their sanity leveling this kind of hateful vicious lie towards Mrs. Palin.

Then again, wouldn’t you think Palin would have made more of an effort to LOOK pregnant if she wasn’t really pregnant, if she was covering up for a loved one?

Equally, if the Palins were trying to hide the fact that the daughter was pregnant, why – in all these photos – is she wearing tight tops that show a belly?

This really is quite desperate.

Here’s another pregnant photo. http://alaskareport.com/news48/x61145_trig.htm

I am reminded of the fourth pregnancy of our neighbor from downstairs when I was growing up. No one realized she was pregnant until she was six months gone, even though she was quite slim. She didn’t even know herself. She was just too busy to notice.

Then again, wouldn’t you think Palin would have made more of an effort to LOOK pregnant if she wasn’t really pregnant, if she was covering up for a loved one?

It doesn’t even stand up to basic scrutiny. If Palin was supposedly faking her pregnancy, and the evidence of this is the fact she took an 8 hour flight from Texas to Alaska after her water broke, why on earth would she choose such an apparently unconvincing way of entering labour?

Why not just fake it happening when she was already in Alaska?

It’s a disgusting, stupid, irrational and nasty smear.

Sadly Mephisto ‘basic scrutiny’ is something beyond these people.

The net result is a young girl being put through the mill, on the basis that her belly looks a bit fat in some pictures.

Disgusting is indeed the word.

Oh hell, let’s be gratuitously trivial….it has to be said….she’s even more of a turn-on than the Virgina Bottomly of yore!

This nonsense about covering up for her daughter is unbelievable, pure stupidity by obvious mental retarded Obama fans.

Ill guess even a remote state like Alaska have modern health care and some maternity care where expectant mothers go for regular check up, how on earth should this have been covered up without any one leaked.

The family released the following statement:

“Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed.”

The Daily Kos kooks who are floating this vicious lie towards this almost angelic mother is disgusting….just disgusting.

JP wrote:

Had Obama been white and had he been associating with White supremacists for 20 years, not only would he NOT be running for prez, he would’d have even made it into the democratic primaries, and nor would he even have been allowed to become a senator

Yup….I think our JP has made a rather germane point, and that’s to endorse it with English understatement!

I posit that Obama just is not going to get in on the basis of Liberal angst and the Lefty /Liberal racism of low expectation. You can smell the fear….the better informed of them know, at some visceral level, it’s all over.

tim :- you say I think we can see from the posts above, that McCain has truly nullified the inexperience charge.Probably his strongest card.

On the contrary. Every single time anyone brings up Palin’s experience it immediately reminds you of Obama’s lack of experience.

Strange behaviour.
Did they even do anything CLOSE to vetting Sarah Palin?

Well done, John McCain. You’ve shown possibly even worse judgment than George W. Bush, which until now was almost an impossibly high bar to meet.

If you can read this, HP can handle 200 comments.

The Obamatrons are getting desperate. Compared with their candidate acting as a patron for the likes of Wright, Rezko and Ayers, Governor Palin looks saintly. Let’s take a closer look at one of their more rabid ravings over Troopergate! (with thanks to ed morrissey).

The case runs as follows: supposedly Palin fired the commissioner of public safety because he wouldn’t fire her brother-in-law, a state trooper who had become estranged from Palin’s sister. Brother-in-law Mike Wooten only got a suspension, and last month, she allegedly dismissed commissioner Walt Monegan over his handling of the case. Palin says that wasn’t the reason, and indeed the investigating legislature noted that Monegan’s was a political appointment and he served entirely at the pleasure of the governor. Moreover, they have also stated on the record that Palin has been so cooperative that they will not need to issue subpoenas — which hardly sounds like a cover-up.

So what did Wooten do, anyway?

Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:

• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.
• He illegally shot a moose.
• He drank beer in his patrol car.
• He told others his father-in-law (Palin’s father) would “eat a f’ing lead bullet” if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

Now excuse me, but any of these four should have been a firing offense, let alone having done all four. He Tased his stepson? He threatened to shoot Palin’s father? Do the Democrats seriously think that this is going to win them votes?

Smart move by McCain re cancellation of Bush’s speech.

“Palin – too tough on abusive, corrupt, violent alcoholic cops who taser their kids”

Yeah, that’s a good line of attack for Obama bin Biden!

Bill wrote:

Well done, John McCain. You’ve shown possibly even worse judgment than George W. Bush, which until now was almost an impossibly high bar to meet.

au contraire

Stop Press! Gene you’ve gotta run a thread on this one!

Governor Palin’s secret criminal past revealed.

I think that warrants a new post, old Labour. Clearly, this changes everything. I hope Gene is working on it right now.

I could care less if she put a bag over her head, gave birth to a three headed monster, or was a squab eating survivalist. She has absolutely no experience in terms of foreign relations.

SO that’s a great reason NOT to vote Obama who is at the top of the ticket.

Don’t people understand that the USA Govt doesn’t consist of two people? Ther ewill be an experienced foreign secretary like Lieberman and a Secretary of State. Its a team

Smart move by McCain re cancellation of Bush’s speech.

Maybe Michael Moore is right. Maybe God sent Gustav to Give Bush and Cheney a graceful way to skip the convention.

At any rate, the storm really tore itself up in Cuba and is moving too fast to regain the feared intensity. It may well make landfall as a category two, and no more than a three. Now, if it moves far enough west, and the surge into Lake Ponchetrain is not too severe, everything may be alright.

I think that warrants a new post, old Labour. Clearly, this changes everything. I hope Gene is working on it right now.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Palins_gillnet.html

Gulp! Is my goose now cooked! (Snow Goose of course!). I’m switching back to Obama. Gene was right all along. There is something sinister and hidden about Palin that has now come to light and McCain has made a BIG mistake! Getting the right sort of net onto the lake to catch salmon is an essential skill and requirement for a Vice President. Anyone who accidentally uses the wrong net because they forgot to transfer the licence is an enemy of teh state and a subversive Red!

Why, this is even worse that Obama admitting to doing drugs at University. Eh?! Wait a Mo! Obama a drug-sodden Marxist, liar associate of a terrorist and supporter of a corrupt slum landlord crook who subsidised him to $300,000 to get $14m in grants.

OK, its back to McCain. Anyway, I doubt that anyone so attarctive could ever do anything wrong. (But then Obama disproves the case)

LOL!!!!!

Maven:

In the US, there is no Foreign Secretary post. That’s what the Secretary of State does.

Her support for the repeal of Roe v. Wade and her belief in creationism (she reportedly wants creationism taught alongside evolution in science class) should render her unelectable on a national level. That would certainly be the case in Canada, where our former Conservative (then Alliance) leader, Stockwell Day, was continuously mocked as “fred flintstone” for his stated belief in the literal bible story. of course the u.s. is not canada but i think she will turn off more than she turns on if the dems hammer away at those two points.

i have to admit that other than those two points — which are MAJOR — she does seem like an inspired choice in some ways. But those two points will kill them if they are criticized approached correctly.

I doubt that the Salmon will evolve into anything.

Maven:

In the US, there is no Foreign Secretary post. That’s what the Secretary of State does.

Even Better! Won’t be any confusion or tension there. Thanks! Whoops!

Her support for the repeal of Roe v. Wade and her belief in creationism (she reportedly wants creationism taught alongside evolution in science class) should render her unelectable on a national level.

I’m essentially pro-choice but I support the repeal of Roe. And she supports the power of comminities to run their own schools, be it in rural Alaska or Berkeley. She doesdn’t “want” creationism taught along side evolution. Her position is the tradtional American one: It’s none of Washington’s damn business what is taught in the schools.

She seems to be claiming she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, but ran in 2006 in favour of it.
Can anyone explain?

Stockwell Day

What a bloody name.

Mesquito,
If I was a Republican choreographer, I’d be a little worried that the Religious Right will use Palins selection for a show of strength.

If I was a Republican choreographer, I’d be a little worried that the Religious Right will use Palins selection for a show of strength.

All choreographers are Democrats.

And what the hell would be worrisome about that?

David Jones: You have it backwards. If the Dems are smart, and i think they are, they will never mention Palin’s inexperience. Why should they, since, as you say, it will backfire against them. What the choice of Palin does is neutralize McCain’s most effective rap against Obama. The only time the Dems should mention Palin’s inexperience is as a counter if McCain dares to bring up the subject, which i don’t think he can any more.

to maven: it wasn’t funny. in fact it was so unfunny it didn’t even appear as though it was trying to be funny. don’t give up your day job.

This is worth deconstructing:
“I’m essentially pro-choice but I support the repeal of Roe. And she supports the power of comminities to run their own schools, be it in rural Alaska or Berkeley. She doesdn’t “want” creationism taught along side evolution. Her position is the tradtional American one: It’s none of Washington’s damn business what is taught in the schools.”

Roe v. wade legalizes abortion, which was illegal before roe v. wade. How someone can be “essentially” pro-choice but against Roe v. wade is beyond me. Nothing essential about that kind of support.

She DOES want creationism taught alongside evolution in science class, that’s exactly what her quote says. And the U.S. constitution says the state (i.e. washington) has EVERY right to keep religion — i.e. creationism — out of the classroom. I would make an exception for religion classes, but in science??? get real
or I’ll have to call u fred flintstone too

Roe v. wade legalizes abortion, which was illegal before roe v. wade.

Are you even an American? Do you know anything about our laws? Sheesh.

When Roe was decided, most women lived in states where aborions were legal. The rest of the country was moving in that direction. Roe raised abortion, on no textual basis, to a Constitional right. In effect it said: We know your legislatures are working this out for themselves, but guess what: You don’t have to worry your pretty little heads about this.

If Roe is overturned, it would return the issue to where it belongs: with the people and their elected legislatures.

to maven: it wasn’t funny. in fact it was so unfunny it didn’t even appear as though it was trying to be funny. don’t give up your day job.

But my day job IS to highlight things which are unfunny or which try to be funny. In that respect it seems like I made the correct career choice. Its a bit like being Graham Norton, without the gay side.

“Roe v. wade legalizes abortion, which was illegal before roe v. wade. How someone can be “essentially” pro-choice but against Roe v. wade is beyond me.”

Perhaps that’s because you don’t understand American law. Prior to RvW, there was no federal law regarding abortion – it was not illegal by federal statute. It was a decision left to state legislatures, which is what the founders intended. RvW was a terrible judicial decision because it usurped the legislative branch’s monopoly on making law (again, as the founders intended). This is known as “legislation from the bench” and it is an assault on the careful balance of power established in the founding documents.

If the supporters of legalized abortion played by the rules, they would have presented a law through congress – but they knew they did not have the popular support, so their partisans on the Supreme Court conjured up the “right” to abortion by judicial fiat.

If RvW was overturned, abortion would not become illegal overnight – the matter would be referred to the individual state legislatures – AS INTENDED – who would make laws that would reflect the will of their voters.

I am pro-choice, and anti RvW. RvW is an assault on the separation of powers, it sets a terrible precedent and it should be overturned. When that happens, I will vote in my state elections for representatives who supports a woman’s right to choose.

What Bubba Thudd said!

And the ever pesky mesquito, of course. BTW, Mes, wouldn’t be named after a certain Central American tribe, by any chance?

No. I’m named, sort of, after a certain ugly Texas tree.

Palin’s first campaign screw-up is depressingly trivial and silly: she was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1HWeeFRLRyGcNH4UYtN1sLp51EgD92TGQ0G1

Now this is hardly Chequers the dog territory, just a damn fool blunder. How small time, how pitifully amateurish. It does however show that at the very least she needs to up her game to compete on the national stage. I’ve already mentioned her Jacqui Smith-like air of being overwhelmed by the circumstances she finds herself in; she’ll want to shake that off.

There’s a couple of other potential hurdles awaiting her. Does she endorse Senator Ted Stevens – very popular in Alaska, facing criminal charges in DC? I can’t see that she has any choice but the throw him under the bus, but it could get messy for her on the home front.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/indicted-hometo.html

Then there’s the Trooper Gate stuff. The Alaska legislature is due to rule on whether she has a case to answer on October 31. Given that the Republicans are in the majority – albeit they seem to have split into two factions – she should be okay. However, if she’s upset supporters of one of the local king of pork barrel politics it could get messy. Moreover it’s going to focus attention on the issue just before the election. At the very least this timing reinforces the sense that her selection is real gamble for McCain.

She may well become more adroit on the campaign trail so it’s too early to make any predictions about how she’ll do. If the Democrats are smart (ahem) they won’t try and push these possible weaknesses too far.

But they – and the fact that she weakens the strongest line of attack against Obama – are reasons to suspect that she may just turn out to be a very bad choice.

PS: there are two Bills on this thread. Note that I’m the one using the lower case. And I got here first, so.

BTW, Gene. Politico says Palin supported Forbes, not Buchanan, in 1996.

But she wear his badge (button)?

vildechaye :- you say, You have it backwards. If the Dems are smart, and i think they are, they will never mention Palin’s inexperience

I take it you haven’t seen the Internet, then…

I suppose if you’re into states rights, which i’m not, there’s at least some logic to the argument. But the notion that they couldn’t get it passed through Congress because it wasn’t popular enough is bull. Pro-choice still is and has always been the majority view, and what blocks it up is what blocks everything in America, namely special interest politics. It’s also disingenuous to say that it was up to the states, because so few if any of them allowed abortion, and if you’re really pro-choice and against women having coat-hanger abortions, that’s more important than the academic notion of states’ rights.

I’m Canadian and don’t give a hoot what the “founders” intended. 18th century america is nearly as removed from 21st century reality as the bible, so i think Roe V. Wade was a good decision, since now the shoe is on the other foot, and the special interests defending choice make it hard to override.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Mesquito, you mean the mesquite tree? Rooted in reality, eh?

Either pro-choice is the clear majority view, which means it would easily prevail, or it is not.

The truth is, most people are in the middle. I have, arbitrarlily chosen 16 weeks and no, I don’t have a good reason for that. And yes, I am flexible.

The founders “intended” nothing about abortion. They probably couldn’t give a rat’s ass either way. But they did set up a system of self-governance, which becomes meaningless when judges set themselves up as philosopher-kings and rule by judicial fiat.

Of course, this works out fine for the political class. No matter what side of the issue they take, they can be utterly irresponsible and demogogic and not have to worry in the least about having to follow through. Roe has been a great money machine for NARAL and The Moral Majority alike.

Rooted in reality, eh?

Actually, I’m crooked, thorny, knotty, and (used to) drink too much.

Palin on Obama

by Philip Gourevitch

September 8, 2008

“Republican Party Before she was running against him, Sarah Palin—the governor of Alaska and now the Republican candidate for Vice-President of the United States—thought it was pretty neat that Barack Obama was edging ahead of John McCain in her usually solidly red state. After all, she said, Obama’s campaign was using the same sort of language that she had in her gubernatorial race. “The theme of our campaign was ‘new energy,’ ” she said recently. “It was no more status quo, no more politics as usual, it was all about change. So then to see that Obama—literally, part of his campaign uses those themes, even, new energy, change, all that, I think, O.K., well, we were a little bit ahead on that.” She also noted, “Something’s kind of changing here in Alaska, too, for being such a red state on the Presidential level. Obama’s doing just fine in polls up here, which is kind of wigging people out, because they’re saying, ‘This hasn’t happened for decades that in polls the D’ ”—the Democratic candidate—“ ‘is doing just fine.’ To me, that’s indicative, too. It’s the no-more-status-quo, it’s change.”

This was two weeks ago, at the statehouse in Juneau. After persistent reports, in July, that Palin was on McCain’s short list of potential running mates, her name had faded back into obscurity. Nobody in Alaska seemed to take her seriously as a national prospect, and she had shrugged the whole thing off on television, telling CNBC’s Larry Kudlow that, before considering the job, she would want to know “what is it, exactly, that the V.P. does every day.” Now, at the statehouse, she sat, unattended by aides, curled up in a cardigan, and explained that what she had done every day since becoming governor was to stick her thumb in the eye of Alaska’s Republican Party establishment. “The G.O.P. leader of the state—we haven’t spoken since I got elected,” she said.

She went on, “I guess if you take the individual issues, two that I believe would be benchmarks showing whether you’re a hard-core Republican conservative or not, would be: I’m a lifetime member of the N.R.A.—but this is Alaska, who isn’t?—and I am pro-life, absolutely.” She continued, “I guess that puts me in a box of being hard-core Republican.” But she said she recognized that “the Democrats also preach individual freedoms and individual rights, capitalism, free market, let-it-do-its-thing-best, let people keep as much of their money that they earn as possible. And when it comes to, like, the Party machine, no one will accuse me of being partisan.”

So the possibility that Obama might win Alaska did not worry Palin: “Turning maybe purple in the state means, to me, it’s more independent, it’s not the obsessive partisanship that gets in the way of doing what’s right for this state, and I think on a national level that’s what we’re gonna see.” And she added, “That’s why McCain is the candidate for the G.O.P.—because he’s been known as the maverick, as the conduit for some change.” In the state’s Republican caucus, McCain came in fourth, trailing Ron Paul. “I always looked at Senator McCain just as a Joe Blow public member, looking from the outside in,” she said. “He’s been buttin’ heads with Republicans for years, and that’s a healthy place to be.” Then again, on McCain’s signature issue—the prosecution of the war in Iraq—she did not sound so gung-ho. Her son is a soldier, and she said, “I’m a mom, and my son is going to get deployed in September, and we better have a real clear plan for this war. And it better not have to do with oil and dependence on foreign energy.”

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/09/08/080908ta_talk_gourevitch?printable=true

If RvW was overturned, abortion would not become illegal overnight – the matter would be referred to the individual state legislatures – AS INTENDED – who would make laws that would reflect the will of their voters.

It’s very unclear just what sort of force the founder’s intentions have on this matter. The founders, it appears, opposed the institution of political parties, supported the perpetuation of slavery and were most certainly opposed to racial equality. Originalism is mostly bunk. (And I say this as a pro-lifer!)

“The founders, it appears, opposed the institution of political parties, supported the perpetuation of slavery and were most certainly opposed to racial equality.”

I’m crushed. I mean, who knew?

“It’s very unclear just what sort of force the founder’s intentions have on this matter. The founders, it appears, opposed the institution of political parties, supported the perpetuation of slavery and were most certainly opposed to racial equality. Originalism is mostly bunk. (And I say this as a pro-lifer!)”

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Clearer?

“18th century america is nearly as removed from 21st century reality as the bible…”

Your ignorance of political history is profound. 18th century American political philosophy is the foundation on which the modern political order is built.

The American revolution is the only great political revolution that succeeded. The U.S.A., while a young country, nevertheless has one of the oldest continuous governments in the world today. And things haven’t turned out too badly for us; we thus have a respect for tradition and the wisdom of the founding fathers. That, perhaps, is why the USA is a predominantly conservative nation.

American exceptionalism rears its ugly head again.

But as to your specific point, If u actually read what i wrote, i wasn’t talking about “political philosophy,” i was talking about social conditions, aside from which, there’s no way to know whether the “founders” would have considered an issue like abortion rights part of the state or federal purview, just like we don’t know what they meant by “the right to bear arms”. Provision of healthcare, including abortion, wasn’t within their scope of imagination, which is what i meant when i said the 18th century is nearly as far removed from us as the bible.

“American exceptionalism rears its ugly head again.”

History rears its ugly head. Deal with it.

“It’s very unclear just what sort of force the founder’s intentions have on this matter. The founders, it appears, opposed the institution of political parties, supported the perpetuation of slavery and were most certainly opposed to racial equality. Originalism is mostly bunk. (And I say this as a pro-lifer!)”

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Clearer?

Not in the least. You argued that Roe v Wade ought to be overturned because the founders envisaged that abortion law ought to be left to the states. We know that the founders’ expressed intentions have often been repudiated, and with good reason. That dog will not hunt. You need some alternative argument for the claim that abortion law ought to be left to the states.

The decision in Roe v Wade was that the Constitution did in fact provide for a right to abortion. No law can validly be enacted that flouts a provision of the Constitution. Therefore, laws prohibiting abortion (modulo some restrictions) were in bad shape. No valid law enacted by states is inconsistent with the constitution. Since Roe v Wade found that there was a Constitutional right to abortion, it’s not obvious what basis there could be for the criminalization of abortion. Therefore, it is not obvious what right the states have to criminalize abortion. That can’t count as a limitation on their power to enact legislation since their power to enact legislation is limited to enacting legislation that is consistent with the Constitution.

Given that argument, the Tenth Amendment is not the additional support you seek for the claim that abortion laws ought to have been left to the states. It refers to powers rather than rights. (You were looking for the Ninth Amendment, I think.) Second, the argument of Roe v Wade is that the rights (not powers) already reside with the people and that the criminalization of abortion is inconsistent with the enjoyment of that right by the people.

was talking about social conditions, aside from which, there’s no way to know whether the “founders” would have considered an issue like abortion rights part of the state or federal purview, just like we don’t know what they meant by “the right to bear arms”.

But we do. There is a specific list of things that the federal government is supposed to have power over them, and abortion doesn’t involve any of them. We also have a pretty good idea of what “bearing arms” meant. It included artillery and military-style ships. We would never pass the 2nd today and don’t want it to be read as it was intended, but it’s complete crap that it’s read as it is. The 2nd should be altered, not raped beyond recognition.

emmanuelgoldstein : RvW is famous for being one of the worst decisions SCOTUS has made, legally speaking. The basis of the decision was simply ridiculous. Briefly, that a right to privacy (not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or anything considered a founding document) that was created in the early 20th century (and hey, if people want to get an Amendment that guarantees a right to privacy, I’ll support it) meant that the government had no ability to prevent abortions.

Asking what basis there could be for criminalization of abortion is completely backwards.

Also, We know that the founders’ expressed intentions have often been repudiated, and with good reason.

In a constitutional government, that’s simply irrelevant. The entire point of the thing is that the Constitution restrains government (and in our case, especially and primarily the federal government). If the people decide they do or don’t want something, they’re supposed to change the Constitution, not wait for a judge or five to realize that they can get away with saying what they like about what it means. That sort of thing means that the Constitution provides precisely no real protections.

And yeah, I’m yet another pro-abortion American who wants to see RvW reversed.

It strikes me that, given the volume and hysteria of posting in this thread at least, one could conclude that it is only on one side of the fence that is “spooked” or “scared”. I’ll give you a clue in case you can’t see it: it’s the ones who are shrieking “YOU’RE SPOOKED! YOU’RE SCARED!!” every 30 seconds.

Also, shall we have a game of spot the barely veiled insinuations that “DEMoCrATs AR FAGgITs!” in otherwise articulate posters’ cleverly-argued tracts?

vildechaye :- I love your remark re the RvW spat here that <em It’s also disingenuous to say that it was up to the states, because so few if any of them allowed abortion.

Can you see the mistake you’ve made there?

THE BALLAD OF SARAH PALIN
(Sung to the tune of Davy Crockett)

Born in the northern part of Idaho,
Destined for fame, she just didn’t know.
Learned to hunt and fish, even in the snow,
Never was one to just go with the flow

Sarah, Sarah Palin,
lady from “The Last Frontier.”

Moved to the North before she was one,
Landed in the “Land of the Midnight Sun.”
Beautiful and strong, she likes to have fun,
She always works hard, but her work is never done.

Sarah, Sarah Palin,
lady from “The Last Frontier.”

With her five kids and a man named Todd,
They carved out a life eatin’ moose and cod.
Alaska had some waste and a lot of fraud,
So she went to work and laid down her fishin’ rod.

Sarah, Sarah Palin,
lady from “The Last Frontier.”

http://palinforamerica.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nOF4cq6qNc

mr. jones: no mistake, because i was referring to the poster’s supposed pro-choice sentiments. So it’s disingenuous for him to say it’s up to the states, knowing that that would mean some if not most states would prevent abortions, and still claim to be pro-choice. I may not have made that point as clearly as i should have.

As for the guy who says “there is a specific list of things that the federal government is supposed to have power over them, and abortion doesn’t involve any of them,” my question is:
does the constitution also list what the states are supposed to have power over, and if so, is abortion on that list? I kinda doubt it.

They weren’t thinking abortion, or healthcare of any kind, when they wrote up the constitution. how could they, the notion of the state paying for medicine (or, for that matter, medicine itself as we know it), did not yet exist.

In any event, the right of women to a safe abortion, in my opinion, supersedes all this constitutional talk anyway. One death by coat hanger is one too many, legal arguments be damned.

They weren’t thinking abortion, or healthcare of any kind, when they wrote up the constitution. how could they, the notion of the state paying for medicine (or, for that matter, medicine itself as we know it), did not yet exist.

That’s why we have legislatures.

In any event, the right of women to a safe abortion, in my opinion, supersedes all this constitutional talk anyway.

Which other Constitutional provisions are “superceded” by your policy preferences? Would the hoi-polloi still be permitted to publicly oppose abortion, or would they be hauled before a Canadian-style “human rights” commission?

“”She doesdn’t “want” creationism taught along side evolution. Her position is the tradtional American one: It’s none of Washington’s damn business what is taught in the schools.”

So you’re quite happy that your government allows schools to churn out morons?

P.

Seems the more Washington meddles with education, the more morons are churned out by American schools. My grandfather left high school (Marion, Indiana) in 1924 fluent in Latin.

“Sarah shot her first rabbit at age ten not far from the back porch. In her teens, she hunted caribou with her father. The family’s freezer was always full of fish and game.”

How cute. Are we talking about the election for VPOTUS here, or Ms. Davy Crockett 2008?

I brought a rabbit down with a home-made bow and arrow once, and have read some books. Where’s my freakin’ nomination?

P.

“My grandfather left high school (Marion, Indiana) in 1924 fluent in Latin.”

My own dad left school at 12 (in Ireland in the 30s) with a smattering of Latin and not much else, so I’m a bit cynical about the value of “classical” education. And really, that has little to do with whether or not schools are teaching religious creation myths as reality.

I mean, if you’re going to do it, pick a good myth. Nordic gods! Ragnarok! That shit is dope.

P.

shall we have a game of spot the barely veiled insinuations that “DEMoCrATs AR FAGgITs!” in otherwise articulate posters’ cleverly-argued tracts?

Err… where?

Err… where?

I suggested earlier that all choreographers are Democrats. Of course, I’ll concede not all choreographers are homosexuals.

Paul Moloney:- And really, that has little to do with whether or not schools are teaching religious creation myths as reality

And that has nothing to do with Sarah Palin, whatever the talking point parrots like to say. In that instance she simply has proper regard for the Constitution – and, re. the ongoing RvW debate here suggests – a proper regard for the Constitution is a fine thing.

Of course she’s close to being an abortion absolutist and – to give her her due – has dealt with that in her personal life. Politically, her personal experience makes her political stance difficult to challenge. Again, good politics on McCain’s part.

When it comes to ID and evolution, I’m coming round to the view that using ID as a counter explanation would be a brilliant way of teaching about the fantastic explanatory power of evolution through Natural Selection, regardless of Dawkins’s pov. On the one hand: a proposition that explains things; on the other, magical hand waving every time there’s a difficulty. What a wonderful way to teach Science.

Politically, her personal experience makes her political stance difficult to challenge

Because someone chooses to have a Downs Syndrome child, makes their view that someone who is raped by their father should be forced to give birth, difficult to attack?

“When it comes to ID and evolution, I’m coming round to the view that using ID as a counter explanation would be a brilliant way of teaching about the fantastic explanatory power of evolution through Natural Selection, regardless of Dawkins’s pov. ”

Except that’s not what Palin and her right-wing religious buddies want. They’re not using creationism (I refuse to use that stupid acronym they’ve coined) as any kind of counter-example to evolution. They’re just smart enough to know they can’t simply dump it from the curriculum straight away. So, Plan B is to bring creationism into schools, and then slowly squeeze out actual science until maybe evolution gets a passing mention (maybe using Mr. Garrison’s method: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7195081253388531054).

I remember Andy Newman over at Socialist Unity suggest that ID start being taught in schools.. presumably this is a sop by Renewal Respect to religious types. THAT’S how stupid an idea it is.

P.

So mesquito has been very honest and owned up to one homophobic insinuation. Who can find any more? There’s at least one glaring one that I can see.

And anyone, but ANYONE stupid enough to think that introducing “ID” in any form in schools – especially to supposedly “teach the debate” – is anything but an attempt to enforce a superstitious agenda has clearly never heard of Russell’s Teapot.

tim</strong :- Because someone chooses to have a Downs Syndrome child, makes their view that someone who is raped by their father should be forced to give birth, difficult to attack?

But the point is that neither the President nor the Vice President will make the law on the issue; it’s just that her personal narrative is made more convincing and honest. This is a fact.

No more principled and honest than someone who made the opposite decision.

I guess her position would be that the fact of a rape doesn’t give you the right to kill someone else.

I bet she does when it comes to the death penalty

The more I read about Palin – particularly the fact that religious fundamentalists are now fapping out ten types of jism over McCain choosing her – the more it seems she was just chosen because she fits a pre-defined “female ultra-conservative” template. And it’s a bit sad that McCain has finally gone all out to pander to the religious right; once upon a time, the bit of respect I had for him was related to the fact that he appeared to be a Republican who had no time for religious nutjobs. Now, he bends over backwards for them.

P.

tim :- No more principled and honest than someone who made the opposite decision

My point was, of course, that she had gone through with the pregnancy. So, an honest woman.

the right to kill someone else.

I bet she does when it comes to the death penalty

but let’s not pretend that the two situations are the same; in the first case of abortion, as far as Palin is concerned, you’re killing an entirely innocent human for your convenience; in the second case, you’re killing an entirely culpable human for their crime.

So the two positions aren’t the same, similar, or remotely comparable. you’ll have to tackle each position on its own merits, or otherwise, rather than try to make untenable links between the two issues. Sorry, life’s a bit harder than you’d like.

Its a shame she wishes to withdraw the choice from everyone else.
Including rape and incest victims.

the more it seems she was just chosen because she fits a pre-defined “female ultra-conservative” template. And it’s a bit sad that McCain has finally gone all out to pander to the religious right; once upon a time, the bit of respect I had for him was related to the fact that he appeared to be a Republican who had no time for religious nutjob

She’s not a nutjob, she is actually quite compassionate.

She is opposed to gay marriage, for example, but nonetheless voted in favour of state benefits and such for gay couples.

And she not only admits to having smoked dope, she also confesses to having inhaled and inhaled deeply.

So you’re quite happy that your government allows schools to churn out morons?

Intelligent design, as opposed to creationism, is an update on the platonist templates of The One, the existence of which can never be proven using the scientific method, but the idea of which is nevertheless embraced by a number of scientists, down to earth scientists, I might add.

I see intelligence and order in the natural world and like to ‘believe’ that that order exists thanks to the influence of transcendant, immutable templates informing it

That said, the only place in school IT belongs, if it belongs there at all, is in philosophy class.

I find it astounding that people are chastised and labelled *nutjob* merely for seeing order and patterns in the natural world.

Creationists are another matter.

I don’t have a horse in this race, I would like to see a socialist states of America, but I appreciate that is not very likely. The Times this morning was slagging Sarah Palin off something rotten, they’d even got a quote from her mother-in-law saying she didn’t know why Sarah was standing as she wouldn’t bring anything to the Vice Presidency and she would be voting Obama. It just seems to me that whatever Sarah Palin’s shortcomings, she is not ‘cuddling up’ to questionable Middle Eastern business men (Auchi) or consorting with anti-Americans. I guess at the end of the day it will be a question of demographics.

I find it astounding that people are chastised and labelled *nutjob* merely for seeing order and patterns in the natural world.

Um, isn’t that what science does?

Um, isn’t that what science does?

It’s what the mind does as well because its very structure is informed and ordered by transcendant templates.

Creationism isn’t the same as intelligent design. The former is biblical literalist and fanatical whereas the latter is much more philosphical in origin and can be engaged in as a kind of parlour game.

Neither approach has any business in science class.

She’s not a nutjob, she is actually quite compassionate

I meant – choosing her as a candidate indicates he is pandering to the nutjob element. She supported a referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.
She has also said “she doesn’t know if people choose to be gay”.
(http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html)

She’s pro-death penalty. Very compassionate, of course, because we know that no innocent people are ever convicted of capital crimes.

As for marijuana, she claims she didn’t like it, which is almost as hackneyed an answer as the “did not inhale” one. (I mean, it was legal in Alaska at the time – she could have just she did it but won’t do it if it’s legal.)

Sorry, but underneath the mumsy ex-beauty queen exterior, she’s just your average boilerplate Religious Rightist. I imagine a lot of centrists/soft left who might have been tempted to vote for McCain
on security issues won’t touch her with a bargepole.

P.

Sorry, but underneath the mumsy ex-beauty queen exterior, she’s just your average boilerplate Religious Rightist. I imagine a lot of centrists/soft left who might have been tempted to vote for McCain on security issues won’t touch her with a bargepole.

Well, there is of course the converse – the more religious right might now be tempted to vote for McCain, when there wasn’t a chance they would have done so before.

This is a calculated gamble.

“She’s pro-death penalty.”

So are many elected Democrats, and a clear majority of American voters.

So doesn’t a woman (or a man, for that matter) with a Down’s Syndrome baby and a pregnant teenage daughter have a greater responsibility to her family than she does to the rather time-consuming task of running for vice president?

A fine example of just how sexist liberal males can be.

So women should stay in the kitchen?

Her daughter is 17 and knows how babies are made.

What is Sarah Palin to do with her daughter that precludes being VP?

Rub her belly for the next 9 months, or something?

And having a Downe’s Syndrome child isn’t the end of the world.

And you needn’t feel threatened by a women who ‘can do it all’!

My class instincts tell me that Mrs Palin will be acceptable to a wide section of what the Aussies call ‘battlers’. The news that her 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and will marry her boyfriend, (no doubt a shotgun wedding) will sit happily with this constituency. As I said before, it comes down to demographics.

She’s in favour of “abstinence only” sex education.

What is Sarah Palin to do with her daughter that precludes being VP?

Rub her belly for the next 9 months, or something?

Be there for her at the most difficult time of her life? I think if I were a pregnant 17-year-old, I would kind of appreciate that.

Gene,
I don’t agree with you on that.
The father is the primary childcarer.
And there’s nothing wrong with that.
Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron have disabled sons,and noone would question whether they should work.

On the other hand,I really hope the Republicans learn a lesson about putting a religious fundamentalist on their ticket.

A woman who preaches abstinence for other peoples children should not be taken seriously.

Good lord Gene, that is a grotesquely sexist post. As John says, unfortunately typical of the hypocrisy of pseudo-liberal Democrats. If a male politician had a young child and was expecting his first grandchild, would we seriously be reading on HP that he should be disbarred from office? Revolting.

tim – since you seem to be so obsessed with Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy (for sane people a cause for celebration rather than scorn), guess which presidential candidate’s mother was an unmarried teenage girl when she conceived him?

Get over yourself, Gene.

I guess I’m just an old-fashioned guy.

Gene seems to have lost the plot.
Can we have a new HP-er covering the Presidential elections please?

Maybe it’s because I grew up in a family where, if my sister had become pregnant while still in high school, my mom would have been there for her every step of the way. But yes, I know, that was another era.

old Labour,
Obamas.

But I suspect she wasn’t a governor refusing to fund sex education and pushing abstinence programmes at other peoples children.

While we’re at it.
Given McCain left his wife after a car crash for a thieving drug addict beauty queen, and Palin believes her daughter is a sinner, perhaps we’ll hear a little less on morality from these hypocrites.

Obama’s response to the news is classier than mine. So I’ll shut up about it.

Congratulations to Palin’s daughter for making the right choice and to Palin for supporting her. Perfectly exemplfies the difference between the American Right and the Daily Mail morons in this country.

“Maybe it’s because I grew up in a family where, if my sister had become pregnant while still in high school, my mom would have been there for her every step of the way. But yes, I know, that was another era.”
And you’d be encouraging her to, ahem, dispose of it. You are seriously, seriously embarassing yourself.

It’s been asked time and time again. What is it exactly that makes mysogynist freaks so attracted to Obama, from Chicago to the Gaza strip to HP?

What John P said @ 5:50 PM!

And you’d be encouraging her to, ahem, dispose of it. You are seriously, seriously embarassing yourself.

You, of course, know nothing about me or what I would be encouraging. Which makes you a lot more embarrassing than I am.

TO John P: On further thought you should hit the web site of a British astronomer named Brian Darling who not only has HIGHLY interesting things to say about a number of things, but holds forth rationally about intelligent design (with a small “i”). Check out his VERY interesting bibliography/biography on Wiki.

From: Senator Barack Obama
To: Andrew Sullivan, Markos Moulitsas, Gene

Gentleman:

Chill.

Cordially,

Barry

Be there for her at the most difficult time of her life? I think if I were a pregnant 17-year-old, I would kind of appreciate that.

Well, Sarah Palin is already govenor of Alaska, and as such has unlimited access to free airfare.

As VP, should the republicans win, she’ll have unlimited access to a entire 747.

She’ll be there for her!

The slandering and vilification of this women is incredible. Some leftwing pundits, all good progressives, are claiming to be in possession of nude photos of Mrs Palin, but they’re actually photos of a very young Julia Louis Dreyfus.

Others, progressives as well, are noting the fact her first child was born only 8 and a half months after her marriage, as though no children are ever born a few weeks premature.

She is a slut and a hypocrite, whereas whoring pols like Bill Clinton were just being boys, I guess.

To Virgil X.

All I get when searching Wiki is a David Darling as astronomer.

Can you provide a link?

“Sen. McCain believes the correct policy for educating young children on this subject is to promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other here is the way to go about it. As any parent knows, ambiguity and equivocation leads to problems when it comes to teaching children right from wrong. Sen. McCain believes that there are many negative forces in today’s society that promote irresponsible and dangerous behavior to our children. The public education system should not join this chorus of moral equivocation and ambiguity.”

Goodness sake, were none of you miserable men never young? Never overwhelmed by adolescent passion? Ha, probably not from the way you pontificate. In the words of the sage, ‘Shit happens, deal with it.’. In my opinion, such an event as this will only firm up Mrs Palin’s support among her constituency, quite a few of whom will have had exactly the same problem. And Obama knows it, that’s why he’s given a diplomatic answer.

Luckily for me Sue, my parents and my school encouraged me to read a condom packet rather than a bible.

As for the guy who says “there is a specific list of things that the federal government is supposed to have power over them, and abortion doesn’t involve any of them,” my question is:
does the constitution also list what the states are supposed to have power over, and if so, is abortion on that list? I kinda doubt it.

Correct, there is no such list. You seem to have missed the point of the American Constitution: it’s a list of the powers of the federal government. When people realized that it wasn’t clear enough that it was only meant to state the only powers the federal government had, they included the 9th (which says that just because something isn’t specifically protected doesn’t mean the feds can infringe upon it) and 10th Amendments (which gives the states/their people virtually unlimited power of government). The Constitution had almost nothing to do with the state governments, and they were to be left to themselves when not interfering with it.

Before the Civil War, for example, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. They could do as much curtailment of the freedom of speech as they wished, if their state constitution allowed. They would have been quite free to ban or allow abortion, as they pleased. After the war, the 14th Amendment was gradually used to apply the 1st, 4th-8th Amendments to the states. Abortion would still not have been covered. Then SCOTUS “discovered” a right to privacy, which it expanded from a (quite reasonable, I’d say) 4th+9th Amendment right having to do with searches to the simply bizarre Roe v Wade situation.

During the FDR administration, he bullied the Court into allowing the federal government to make any law it wanted that didn’t infringe upon specific civil liberties, effectively killing off most of the Constitution. We now watch as the civil liberty side of the Constitution is washed away by Bush+McCain/Obama.