Asked about the housing collapse and emergency government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Sarah Palin said they had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” Both are private corporations — or were until they were bailed out over the weekend by the Bush Administration and, uh, the taxpayers.

If she gets elected, I hope that the Rapture does happen, because only Jeebus H. Ker-rist could sort out that mess.

P.

“Discussing creationism is not the same as teaching it, which implies advocacy.”

And yet she backed down from that remark and did nothing to introduce the teaching of creationism at all. I see no advocacy.

“There’s more evidence that she’s a creationist than there is that creationism is any kind of theory sound enough to discredit 150 years of scientific vindication since the publication of ‘Origin of the Species’.”

Well obviously.

“And then(to paraphrase): ‘perhaps she doesn’t actually believe in creationism, but thinks it should be taught alongside as an alternate theory’. Priceless!”

There is an argument in America – best put by William Jennings Bryant of the Scopes Trial fame – that the State is not best placed to decide what children ought to be taught and it has no place in forcing their children to be taught things that fundamentally offend their values. That would cover people who do not think that Creationism is true but think parents ought to have more control over what their children are taught. Even if she was not just doing it for cynical political purposes.

Whether it occurs to me kinda misses the point. I’m not saying it should matter one way or the other. I’m saying the fact that Palin wants to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds on this one brings its own problems. She’s doing a good impression of someone who thinks it does matter, if not to her personally, then to a segment of GOP opinion.

Once again for the record, in case there is any confusion, I agree that saying Pailin is unequivocally a creationist is, as yet, unsupportable.

Second, it is reasonable to assume that she is looking to her base so that whatever she says is to appease them. Which means if she was a Creationist she would say so.

Nope, for reasons you’ve given previously.

If she wasn’t she might well do something very similar to what she has done.

She’s sending contradictory messages. Whether she’s a creationst who won’t admit as much because she fears the electoral consequences, or whether she’s a Darwinian who won’t admit as much because she fears the electoral consequences, we can’t be certain. And she’s created that confusion, so she’s repsonsible for the speculation.

Third when language becomes a matter of bullsh!t to appease the base, you have to look at what people do and not what they say. The Republicans, for all their talk, have not done one damn thing about abortion for instance which tells you all you need to know about the difference between people like McCain and Bush Senior who run the Party and their base. She has not lifted a finger to advance the Creationist cause. Not one little thing. You might think that she was not one.

Again, she might simply realise she’s not got a snowball in hell’s chance of seeing her dream of creationism taught in schools realised. So why commit political hari kari?

Look, I know the way politics works, too. I’m not suggesting she should be flogged for her equivocations, but equivocations they are. Apart from the odd Dem who might have said she is beyond doubt a dyed-in-the-wool creationist, I don’t know what she and you have to complain about.

Subtlety, every post of yours sounds as if you’re having one off the cuff. Discussing creationism is not the same as teaching it, which implies advocacy. There’s more evidence that she’s a creationist than there is that creationism is any kind of theory sound enough to discredit 150 years of scientific vindication since the publication of ‘Origin of the Species’. And then(to paraphrase): ‘perhaps she doesn’t actually believe in creationism, but thinks it should be taught alongside as an alternate theory’. Priceless!

“Oh come one. I’ts one thing to fling mud, but given you accept her answers are equivocal, laden with politic-speak, open to interpretation, etc., you can’t then complain when people interpret them in a way that you don’t like.”

Actually I can. First of all the complaint is that they are lying about her. As they clearly are. If her statements are ambiguous, then their interpretation might be as good as mine, but what they cannot do is state for a fact what they mean. The MSM can only talk in probabilities. Second, it is reasonable to assume that she is looking to her base so that whatever she says is to appease them. Which means if she was a Creationist she would say so. If she wasn’t she might well do something very similar to what she has done. Third when language becomes a matter of bullsh!t to appease the base, you have to look at what people do and not what they say. The Republicans, for all their talk, have not done one damn thing about abortion for instance which tells you all you need to know about the difference between people like McCain and Bush Senior who run the Party and their base. She has not lifted a finger to advance the Creationist cause. Not one little thing. You might think that she was not one.

“None of us is responsible for the fact that Repubs have to – as you concede – walk a tight-rope when it comes to creationism. That’s their baggage and it’s perfectly valid for Dems to make political capital out of it. This isn’t the same as just making up shit about your political adversaries.”

I agree with the first bit and I don’t mind the Dems making capital out of it. But to claim that she is a Creationist is another thing. Let’s hear people try to draw her out, try to make her state clearly for the record and annoy half her potential voters. But to state as if it were a fact she thinks the world was created in 4004 BC is absurd. It is just dishonest. Although it might be right.