pageok
pageok
pageok
If I were supporting Obama....

here are three things I'd keep quiet about with regard to Sarah Palin.

(1) How can she do her job as vice-president and take care of her kids? Which leads to the question, how can Obama do the much more demanding job of president and take care of his kids?

(2) What makes anyone think that Palin has enough experience to be "one heartbeat from the presidency?" Which leads to the question, what makes anyone think that a one-term Senator from Illinois who has been running for president for most of his term has enough experience to actually be president?

(3) Is Sarah Palin's church/pastor nutty? Which leads to such an obvious question that I won't bother raising it!

In short, it strikes me that Obama's allies may be succeeding at discrediting Palin to some extent, but only at the expense of undermining Obama. Even if raising such questions undermines Palin more than it does Obama, even much more, given how many people vote based on the top of the ticket versus based on the bottom, this is hardly a winning strategy.

The General:
you're assuming that the Obots have brains and restraint, which they obviously don't. They're a bunch of smear artists and liars and Obama panders to them, which is despicable.
9.3.2008 11:36am
huskerfan:
So who is the Obama suppporter besides Andrew Sullivan? Don't you think with all of the talking about Pastor Wright that if Sarah Palin has a crazy pastor that should be discussed as well?

I don't see Obama having many Fox news supporters, so that doesn't make any sense.

Is the WashingtonPost or Newsweek in the bag for Obama as well?

Who are these allies you are talking about?
9.3.2008 11:37am
Suzy (mail):
Well, maybe I don't qualify because I'm not an "Obama supporter", but none of these would be my objections to Palin. The problem is, what qualifications DOES she have? Where are her good ideas and policy decisions? Where's her good judgment, which frankly has seemed to be the opposite? Is this really the best McCain could do for us, or was it just a cynical ploy?
9.3.2008 11:38am
Davidbernstein (mail):
Suzy, I agree Palin was a bad choice, as I expressed at the time. A simple message like, "McCain is pandering to his base by nominating a right-wing extremist [no abortion even in cases of rape?] who has never been through the rigor of a national political campaign" would suffice. Opposition research, carefully done, might expose a glass chin later, and maybe she will wilt in the debate with Biden. But instead Obama's people are going after the very weaknesses she shares with him.
9.3.2008 11:42am
huskerfan:
So, is Andrew Sullivan the only supporter you can find saying this stuff? Sounds a lot like concern trolling if you ask me.
9.3.2008 11:44am
Davidbernstein (mail):
The "nutty church" issue appears to be all over the internet, and I've received several emails about it myself. Sullivan is just the most prominent blogger pushing the story.
9.3.2008 11:48am
speedwell (mail):
It's not that she has kids and he has kids and she's getting a raw deal for having kids. It's that she has a very young special needs baby and a teenager "in trouble" and three other teenage kids, and their dad has a full time job, and she nevertheless decided it would be a fine idea to leave him holding the bag while she ran off in a cloud of flattered glory and joined the political circus.

Obama has two little girls. If one of them was a special needs child and the other one was pregnant, I would be saying the same things about him.
9.3.2008 11:48am
JWG (mail):
The argument cuts both ways, of course. If you're McCain/the Republicans, you probably don't want to spend months hammering your opponent for being inexperienced and having ties to a "nutty church" only to pick a woman who is inexperienced (in my opinion, breathtakingly so) and has ties to a nutty church.

True, the will-she-be-a-good-mommy taking point is complete vapid -- as is the church point on both sides, for that matter. But to be fair, both Obama and Biden have disowned this line of attack in no uncertain terms.
9.3.2008 11:49am
huskerfan:
Again though, this doesn't amount to Obama supporters right? To be fair, you have named one supporter? No more right?
9.3.2008 11:49am
MarkField (mail):
Concern trolling is now the standard for posts at VC? Who knew?
9.3.2008 11:49am
arg11 (mail):
As regards number 1, I think a mother of one or two children (Hillary Rodham Clinton) and a mother of five, one of whom is an infant, are going to have very, very, very, very different time commitments for their children. Republicans should stop pretending that two children and five is even in the same ballpark of experience, for a man or a woman.
As for number 2, Obama has been Senator for one of the larger districts in the country (with a larger population that Palin's state), and he has been studying politics since he was about six years old. He is policy-savvy and understands what is going on in the world. Contrast that to Palin, who "doesn't know what a vice president does."
Finally, as regards number 3, it will probably be strictly used as a defense mechanism, as in, "So Obama's pastor is nutty? What about Palin's?" Moreover, almost nobody is bringing it up, which would incline me to say that "liberals" are not talking about Obama's pastor, one liberal blogger is.

Also, I would add that Liebermann last night on MSNBC, in response to the question, "Would Sarah Palin make a good president?" hemmed and hawed about the fact that John McCain is not going to die anytime soon before saying, "Yeah, sure, she'd be ready to lead the country."
9.3.2008 11:50am
Hoosier:
Is the WashingtonPost or Newsweek in the bag for Obama as well?

And, if so, does anyone actually read Newsweek?
9.3.2008 11:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
db:

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


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

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

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

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

Aside from all that, Obama did not make his parental decisions a key part of his political resume. But that's what Palin did (e.g., when she presented her three-day old special-needs infant to the press, which very quickly led to headlines glorifying her anti-abortion decision; which was apparently the intended result). Since she has invited us to believe that's she's a terrific mom, it's very appropriate to consider the question of whether or not she's actually a terrific mom.
9.3.2008 11:50am
Sk (mail):
Re: Your concerns about experience. Here is one blogger who disagrees with you.

"UPDATE: She has "executive experience," but Obama doesn't? Obama has run one of the most successful presidential campaign upsets in modern history. And less than two years as governor of Alaska (the second-least populous state in the country) when oil prices have been booming is not exactly trial-by-fire."

That blogger is David Bernstein, 31 August 2008, on the well known blog 'Volokh Conspiracy.'

Sk
9.3.2008 11:52am
Bill Twist:
I'd be ESPECIALLY quiet about the experience thing. Obama voted "Present", or actually missed, about 40% of the votes in the Senate (out of roughly 570ish votes, he missed about 230 of them).

He doesn't even have full time experience as a Senator.
9.3.2008 11:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
db:

instead Obama's people are going after the very weaknesses she shares with him.


Obama used the power of his office to conduct a vendetta against someone on behalf of his sister? I hadn't heard.
9.3.2008 11:53am
PC:
Concern trolling is now the standard for posts at VC? Who knew?


Seems to be SOP.
9.3.2008 11:54am
Gabriel Malor (mail):
1. All you people pretending that these questions aren't being asked and bandied about by lefty bloggers and on TV channels like MSNBC are ridiculous. And why go to such lengths to protest that it isn't happening when it's so easy to simply turn on a television and watch it or peek at memeorandum.com or look at the comments here at Volokh.com?

2. speedwell, perhaps we should simply bar from high office all parents of special needs kids? After all, it's for the children!
9.3.2008 11:55am
Anderson (mail):
The "kids" argument is beneath contempt -- agreed w/ DB on that one. (How many affluent people really "take care of their kids" anyway?)

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

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

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

Nothing there, really.

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

What does it say that McCain "the maverick" was too afraid of his party's base to go with his real choices, Lieberman or Ridge?
9.3.2008 11:56am
JosephSlater (mail):
Obama and his campaign have taken the high road on all these issues. It's interesting the way the Repubs want to focus on some of the more radical elements of the blogosphere, as if it's shocking or even important that some folks there are saying odd/dumb things. Maybe Obama should center his campaign around denouncing even more outrageous things posted on FreeRepublic or LittleGreenFootbals.
9.3.2008 11:57am
Davidbernstein (mail):
Hello, but Palin's oldest kid is 19, in the military. The daughter is getting married. She's 17, and will be 18 in January I think. I.e., an adult. That leaves her with three underage kids, compared to two for Obama. She can spend as much or as little time taking care of them as she wants. I heard someone today refer to the "jetsetting lifestyle of the vice-president." There is no reason the vice-president needs to go anywhere outside Washington. Obama, meanwhile, has to be president. If you were a kid, would you rather your parent be president or vice-president, strictly on the question of who is likely to spend more time with you (assuming they are so inclined)?
9.3.2008 11:57am
Reinhold (mail):
Yes, ironically while the media has become the self-appointed mouthpiece for the Obama campaign, they may actually cost him the election.
9.3.2008 11:57am
Davidbernstein (mail):
I agree that Palin has less of the experience that I'd want to see in a president than Obama. I also think that Obama has little enough experience that it's a negative. So you succeed in showing that Palin is too inexperienced, less than Obama, but then your raise the whole experience issue, which is not to Obama's benefit, and he, not Palin is running for president.
9.3.2008 12:00pm
Hoosier:
arg11
As regards number 1, I think a mother of one or two children (Hillary Rodham Clinton) and a mother of five, one of whom is an infant, are going to have very, very, very, very different time commitments for their children. Republicans should stop pretending that two children and five is even in the same ballpark of experience, for a man or a woman.


This is the best you can do? Three of Palin's children are older than both of Obama's. One is the same age as his younger daughter. Will the 19 and 17-18 year olds take as much time as Obama's girls?

Past evidence is that the lucky kids are those whose parent happens to lose in November, at least if Doug Wead's "All the Presidents'Children" is any indication. Raising kids in that sort of spotlight is quite an awful thing to do to them. (Can Clinton-bashers agree that Bill and Hill seem to have done a better-than-average job with Chelsea?)

To make this a partisan issue is really quite stupid.
9.3.2008 12:00pm
PC:
If you were a kid, would you rather your parent be president or vice-president


Is a VP's kid off limits from being called the new White House dog by a radio host that is nationally syndicated or being called ugly by a senator and now presidential candidate? If so, I'd like to be the VP's kid.
9.3.2008 12:01pm
Anon123 (mail):
All this phony concern about Palin's baby! Is there any doubt he'll overall get more and better care for his condition as the Vice-president's son than as the governor of Alaska's son?
9.3.2008 12:02pm
NowMDJD (mail):

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

Or so you say now. This is easy to say as a hypothetical point. Not many people made this point about Aenator Biden when he had two small kids who were seriously injured and had just lost their mother and sister. Certainly not too man of the people who elected him.
9.3.2008 12:05pm
speedwell (mail):
speedwell, perhaps we should simply bar from high office all parents of special needs kids? After all, it's for the children!

If I had advocated some such legislative "solution," your question might be pertinent enough to be worth answering.
9.3.2008 12:05pm
Justin (mail):
Republican concern troll is very concerned!
9.3.2008 12:07pm
billpitcher:
jbg, Mr Obama, however, made his parents' pre-marital conception decisions a part of his political resume. Pointless, then, to jump Palin and her family, who've made serioius choices and no effort to hide them. Now that they have, and since you've raised the question, what sort of mom do you think Ms Palin is? You might try comparing her to Ann Dunham and Ms Dunham's mother, Madelyn. Mr Obama, I believe, would compare them sympathetically, but privately of course.
9.3.2008 12:07pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
Re criticisms of Palin not taking care of her kids, it is just sexist. It does not raise issues as to Obama being able to do the same, but that is just because we don't expect dads (at least married ones) to have to stay at home and take care of the baby.

As to criticisms of Palin, the biggest one is why won't she let herself be interviewed? Press Conference? Anything????? She wants to be VP, and the campaign is not letting her take questions from anyone. Joke.
9.3.2008 12:07pm
speedwell (mail):
Not many people made this point about Aenator Biden when he had two small kids who were seriously injured and had just lost their mother and sister.

And why didn't they?
9.3.2008 12:09pm
mbsch13:
arg11: The fact that Obama has been "studying politics since he was six years old" is one of the single most DISqualifying attributes Obama has. Alan Greenspan once facetiously proposed the following constitutional amendment: "Any one willing to do what is necessary to become President of the United States is thereby disqualified from that office." The only thing more frightening than someone who wants power over his fellow man is someone who has been plotting how to obtain that power since he was six.
9.3.2008 12:10pm
byomtov (mail):
While it may not be a good idea to tie Palin to her pastor's nutty beliefs, isn't it reasonable to ask whether she shares those beliefs? Indeed, isn't it more likely that a churchgoer will share the pastor's religious beliefs than his political opinions?

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

If it was OK for Republicans to raise all kinds of hell about Obama's church, why is Palin's off-limits?
9.3.2008 12:10pm
Waldensian (mail):
DB forgot to post pictures of Obama with Wright.
9.3.2008 12:12pm
jrose:
David makes a valid point, but misses something important. By choosing Palin, the Republicans can no longer bring up experience or crazy preachers unless the Democrats do so first. Thus, there criticisms about experience and crazy preachers should be filed under "Never Mind, we were kidding".
9.3.2008 12:13pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
by She left the church. Before it was politically useful to do so.
See the difference?
9.3.2008 12:14pm
Hoosier:
mbsch13--The "Greenspan Amendment" is going to have to be implemented eventually. Then we can just choose a president at random out of a list of--say--100 office holders. The rule: They get one term, and they can't say "no."

And any conservative who attacks them through their children is forced to kiss Helen Thomas full in the lips. Any liberal kisses Greenspan. (It's called deterrence.)
9.3.2008 12:15pm
Angus:
The experience issue is unavoidable, largely because the right wing is pushing it hard that Palin is "obviously" more experienced than Obama. From what I've read today, it seems like Palin's speech tonight is going to be largely about her experience and how it is superior to Obama's.
9.3.2008 12:17pm
Pete Guither (mail) (www):
In an ideal world, none of these things would be up for discussion and we'd be talking about the issues.

But the way our media works, and the way the people respond, not enough people are interested in hearing about the issues. They want character assassination. Recent years have tended to show that those who take the high road and don't attack (or have someone attack on their behalf), lose.

It may seem logical that it would be unwise for Obama supporters to promote these items for the reasonable suggestions listed in this post. But that's not how it works. If enough lines of attack can get into the mix quickly enough, none of it will bounce back on Obama, and in the minds of the general public, Palin will be viewed as damaged goods (if not already).

This is the lesson that the Democrats have learned painfully from Rove. Rove was a master at identifying a weakness in his own candidate and attacking the other candidate for that very trait. Democrats were left baffled and flat footed as this happened over and over again.

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

I'm not saying this is right, or proper, or the way I'd like to live my life. But it's good politics in today's horrible political market.
9.3.2008 12:17pm
hawkins:
I definitely agree with #2 and 3. But #1 seems disingenuous. As wrong as it may be, women are expected to spend more time with their kids than men (especially true for her daughter that is less than 1 year old). Also - Palin has three more children than Obama.
9.3.2008 12:18pm
Apodaca:
what makes anyone think that a one-term Senator from Illinois who has been running for president for most of his term has enough experience to actually be president?

Exactly right -- I mean, what kind of hack with limited experience in the Illinois state legislature and a measly two years in Congress could possibly be competent, let alone successful, as President?
9.3.2008 12:20pm
LTDan (mail):
The elephant in the room no one wants to mention is that a woman's and a man's relationship and often (though not always) responsibilities in regards to their children is different.

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

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

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

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

Does this mean we should bar people (particularly women) from high office? No. It means to me that I would prefer someone older or with with less immediate distractions from a job that can be critical to the lives of millions of people. A young, special needs child can present situations that would demand (rightfully so) Sarah Palin's attention from her job. It's politically relevant.
9.3.2008 12:22pm
Observer:
This post assumes an unbiased media. Given that the media pretty much only reports on the flaws of one of the two major presidential tickets, however, it makes a great deal of sense as a tactical matter for Obama supporters to emphasize all three of the points mentioned by Bernstein.
9.3.2008 12:25pm
runape (mail):
And all of this to say nothing of the fact that Bernstein insists on positing that because the vice presidency has only a minor role defined in the Constitution, therefore it's a realistic possibility that the vice president can stay home and babysit. A point that (a) ignores the significant (and only growing) role of modern vice presidents, (b) ignores the political reality that Americans don't like politicians who are perceived as taking too much time off from work (exhibit A currently in office), and (c) is (normatively) just lame. Why should we be OK with a vice president who does nothing when we could have a vice president who would do something? Give it a rest.
9.3.2008 12:27pm
alkali (mail):
As a matter of rhetorical strategy, the proposition that if your opponent is saying X about you, you should refrain entirely from saying anything remotely resembling X about your opponent does not make a lot of sense. Obviously some thoughtfulness is required, but in general if you have ammunition you must use it.

Vincent Bugliosi's book about the OJ Simpson trial, Outrage, describes the mountain of incriminating evidence that the prosecutors chose not to introduce for one reason or another. For example, evidence regarding Simpson's statements to police about cuts on his hand were not offered because they didn't want the jury to hear Simpson's exculpatory explanations, however absurd. Bulgliosi writes:

When you have exceedingly powerful evidence of guilt, you automatically offer it. You don't stumble on your way to the courtroom over the smallest thread in your path. Of course, the defense will always raise some arguments against your incriminating evidence, even if they are totally spurious. If a defense attorney doesn't do this, he would have pled his client guilty. And sometimes your evidence actually does have a carbuncle or two on it. But you balance the strength of your evidence against its weakness.
Here, the Republicans are going to question Obama's readiness to serve in any event. The fact that Palin was governor of a small state for a year and a few months before being nominated as VP, and before that was a mayor of a very small town, is very strong evidence that she is not qualified to be Vice President and that John McCain chose her rashly. Does it really make sense not to raise those facts at all?
9.3.2008 12:28pm
mbsch13:
Hoosier--Greenspan is married to Andrea Mitchell, so there's already a liberal (presumably) kissing him on the lips!
9.3.2008 12:28pm
Fub:
Hoosier wrote at 9.3.2008 11:15am:
And any conservative who attacks them through their children is forced to kiss Helen Thomas full in the lips. Any liberal kisses Greenspan. (It's called deterrence.)
So, it's come to this? The 8th Amendment is just an inkblot?
9.3.2008 12:29pm
Hoosier:
It's too late for the Democrats to use this technique against McCain -- he's had too many years to establish his P.O.W. sainthood to attack it. But Palin is another story. And by attacking Palin and creating the cloud over her, it transfers to McCain's judgement.

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

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

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

And, Senator Quayle, you are no Sarah Palin.
9.3.2008 12:29pm
PC:
Other issues Obama supporters shouldn't bring up:

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

Bringing up any of these things would be bad for Obama. I'm only saying this because I care.
9.3.2008 12:31pm
armchairpunter:
Methinks the Democrats protest too much.
9.3.2008 12:33pm
Hoosier:
mbsch13:
Hoosier--Greenspan is married to Andrea Mitchell, so there's already a liberal (presumably) kissing him on the lips!


Am I the only one who always thinks of this when I see Mitchell on the news? It does creep me out a bit.

Totally off-topic: I really thought she was the best candidate NBC had for NN after Browkaw retired. Sexism that they gave the job to Brian Williams?
9.3.2008 12:34pm
PLR:
If I were supporting candidate A, I would not purport to tell the supporters of candidate B what I think they should do. That's not to say I don't have an opinion, I just have no particular expectation that B's supporters give a rat's ___ what I think.

In this particular case, I don't foresee the Obama campaign exploiting Ms. Palin's 20 months of full time government service abovbe the rank of suburban mayor. When everyone is talking about it already, there is no need to bring it up.
9.3.2008 12:35pm
MarkField (mail):

And, if so, does anyone actually read Newsweek?


Nah, it's a right-wing rag.


How many affluent people really "take care of their kids" anyway?


[Raising hand, but now nervous this is a trick question and I'll be exposed as uncool]
9.3.2008 12:36pm
AKD:
Anderson,

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



You might want to check out the history between Lyda Green and Palin before becoming too fascinated.
9.3.2008 12:36pm
Hoosier:
Why should we be OK with a vice president who does nothing when we could have a vice president who would do something? Give it a rest.

So you're a Cheney fan I take it.
9.3.2008 12:36pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Some of these are dubious (who cares what party her husband belongs to), but there is no "boomerang" reason not to bring them up. But Hoosier, I think, is right--when's the last time a candidate one by attacking the vice-president?


Other issues Obama supporters shouldn't bring up:

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

Bringing up any of these things would be bad for Obama. I'm only saying this because I care.
9.3.2008 12:37pm
runape (mail):
"So you're a Cheney fan I take it."

Hate the guy and disagree with his policies, but appreciate the fact that at least he did something.
9.3.2008 12:37pm
Fury:
PC writes:

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

Gotta love 'ya PC. Using guilt by association and trumpeting claims without citations make for interesting reading. Not informative reading mind you, but interesting reading...
9.3.2008 12:37pm
Joe Kowalski (mail):
The way I look at it, Gov. Palin isn't running for Mother of the Year. If she were running for Mother of the Year, I would personally and gladly spell out why she wouldn't be fit for that office. But that isn't the office she's running for, she's running for Vice President, and the congruence between what one looks for in a Mother of the Year and what one looks for in a Vice President is rather small, and in any event, there's bigger fish to fry.
9.3.2008 12:37pm
MartyA:
I disagree! Hussein's sewer-dwellers HAVE to attack on all three points to, in fact, divert attention from his weaknesses in all three areas. You are dealing (examples all over this site) with ignorant neo-communistswho believe that an absolute response to a factual charge is "is not!"
These people learned from Bush Derangement that if they repeat a lie often enough and loud enough it becomes truth, ay least to them.
And, they have to try to keep the focus off the Biden/Hussein criminality. Biden's son, even as we speak, is selling his father's influence to wealthy lobbyists. Hussein is a Chicago political hack and will eventually be shown to have shared in Chicago criminality, kickbacks of Annenberg money, other Rezko deals, kickbacks on developer loans, etc.
No, Hussein's minions MUST make big deals of all these issues, real and imagined, to give their media folks something to cluck about.
9.3.2008 12:38pm
byomtov (mail):
She left the church. Before it was politically useful to do so.
See the difference?


The sermon quoted was delivered about two weeks ago.
9.3.2008 12:39pm
kevin r (mail):
This post assumes an unbiased media. Given that the media pretty much only reports on the flaws of one of the two major presidential tickets, however, it makes a great deal of sense as a tactical matter for Obama supporters to emphasize all three of the points mentioned by Bernstein.


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


(in the tank... filled with water... swimming... Michael Phelps...? No? I'll get my coat.)
9.3.2008 12:40pm
Bill Twist:
Apodaca:


what makes anyone think that a one-term Senator from Illinois who has been running for president for most of his term has enough experience to actually be president?



Exactly right -- I mean, what kind of hack with limited experience in the Illinois state legislature and a measly two years in Congress could possibly be competent, let alone successful, as President?


You mean the Lincoln who "missed few roll calls, and never 'skulked' a vote on touchy issues" when in Congress, as compared to the candidate who has missed or voted "present" in 40% of the votes in his entire (short) Senate career?
9.3.2008 12:43pm
iambatman:
Here I thought this was some sort of legal blog. Well, maybe in december.
9.3.2008 12:44pm
PC:
btw, it would be great to discuss the issues, but McCain's campaign manager has said this election is not about the issues:

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."
9.3.2008 12:46pm
Cornellian (mail):
You could say the same three things about McCain supporters, just substitute Obama for Palin.
9.3.2008 12:46pm
Hoosier:
Here I thought this was some sort of legal blog

(I think this blog is still legal . . . But IANAL)
9.3.2008 12:47pm
Anderson (mail):
You might want to check out the history between Lyda Green and Palin before becoming too fascinated.

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

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

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

Hussein's sewer-dwellers

How unintentionally self-deprecating can you get? Sheesh.
9.3.2008 12:47pm
hawkins:

Totally off-topic: I really thought she was the best candidate NBC had for NN after Browkaw retired. Sexism that they gave the job to Brian Williams?


Are you joking? Looks matter on TV. Brian Williams is much easier on the eyes than Andrea Mitchell.
9.3.2008 12:47pm
Richard Riley (mail):
The National Enquirer is now going after Sarah Palin on its website, claiming that Palin had planned to delay announcing the daughter's pregnancy until after an announcement of the wedding, but that the daughter refused to go along with the plan and the Enquirer then forced Palin's hand.

Is the Enquirer one of those MSM outlets that are in the tank for Obama? Or the Democrats? Will we see a pivot from some of the Enquirer's new fans who thought it was great when John Edwards was the target?
9.3.2008 12:50pm
Anderson (mail):
Oh, and this is not good:

Steve Branchflower, the lead investigator, began trying to arrange a deposition of the governor days before her veep selection. And despite claiming executive privilege to shield requested emails, up until that point Palin had promised full cooperation with the probe.

Now, however, she is refusing to submit to questioning by Branchflower unless he and the legislative committee that appointed him agree to relinquish control of the investigation and turn it over to a state review board made up of three Palin appointees.


Stonewalling has worked pretty well for the Bush administration; I don't think it's going to work for a newcomer candidate for Veep.

The trooper story always seemed to me a wash for the Dems, because voters would sympathize that she was protecting her sister from a scumbag. But acting like she has something to hide is the very worst thing she could do here.

Her new DC friends are not advising her well. And I wonder what the Alaska courts are going to do?
9.3.2008 12:51pm
DiverDan (mail):
jukeboxgrad stated:


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


Just wondering if he knows more than has been reported, since the Public Safety Commissioner who she fired has stated on the record that Palin never talked to him about her State Trooper ex-brother-in-law. It's clear that he knows LESS than has been reported, since he's apparently unaware that the State Trooper: (a) used a Taser on his 10 year old stepson (I'm sure that was of no consequence in his "messy custody battle"); and (b) had been found to have made a death threat against Palin's father if he hired a lawyer to assist his own daughter in their divorce (a death threat witnessed by Palin and several others, which Trooper Wooten denied, but which was found to have occurred by an independent investigation by the Alaska State Police conducted BEFORE Palin was elected Governor (indeed, before Palin even won the Republican Primary for Governor); and (c) had been disciplined at least 12 times for various violations of state law and breaches of Department Policy. After an internal investigation by the Alaska State Police in 2006, Julia Grimes, then Chief of the Alaska State Police reported on March 1, 2006 (BEFORE Palin was Governor, before she even won the Primary to become the Republican Candidate for Governor), the results of the investigation, and stated of Wooten, the Trooper at issue, that "[t]he record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession". Now, if this same Trooper WAS NOT Palin's ex-brother-in-law, would the screaming be about her dereliction of duty in NOT making sure this bozo was fired?
And why, in all of the TV reporting on this so-called scandal, do NONE of the talking heads report the underlying facts regarding the Trooper whom the Public Safety Commissioner refused to fire?
9.3.2008 12:54pm
Jeff Boghosian (mail):

10) Gov. Palin being for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it


I'm curious why you think this would be bad to bring up? In her introduction to the national audience, she claimed "Thanks but no thanks. If we want a bridge we'll build it ourselves!" - it was the line of the speech. As far as I can tell, she was for the bridge when Alaska only had to pay for 40% of it, but when it became unpopular politically and they would have had to pay for 80%, she became against it. They didn't send the money back, they used it for different projects. And the federal money that went for the road to the bridge couldn't be used for other projects, so they built it. What Palin stated wasn't just an exageration, but the complete opposite of what happened.

You don't think that will play well - too complicated to explain in a sound bite or other reason?
9.3.2008 12:56pm
Joe Kowalski (mail):

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

Which is why the Obama campaign has been doing relatively little in all this and has defended Gov. Palin's family. However, the all those fine paragons of journalistic integrity at Kos, have been going nuts, and for one simple reason: They smell blood. The thinking there goes that if Palin turns into an Eagleton, then McCain is toast. Whether the blood they smell is real or if it is merely bait will be telling.
9.3.2008 12:57pm
BillW:
JosephSlater: Obama and his campaign have taken the high road on all these issues. ...

Actually, Obama has personally attacked Palin on the experience issue:
Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We've got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.
Feigning unawareness that the state of Alaska has thousands of employees and a multi-billion-dollar budget?

Nevertheless, I look forward to the debate between Obama and Palin. ...Oh, wait.
9.3.2008 12:57pm
Anderson (mail):
DiverDan: paragraphs, man. Try them!
9.3.2008 12:57pm
NowMDJD (mail):

And why didn't they [criticize Biden for not quitting the Senate to take care of his two young kids after his wife's death]?

Because he was male?

Because he was a Democrat?

Becasue it was between elections and nobody felt any particular reason to flog him?

Because people were more restrained from this sort of despicable attack politics in those days?

I don't know-- I'm not the one who's criticizing Palin
9.3.2008 12:58pm
Anderson (mail):
Actually, Obama has personally attacked Palin on the experience issue:

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

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

And how is discussing their mutual resumes a "personal" attack? Do you know what the word means?
9.3.2008 1:00pm
PLR:
Bringing up any of these things would be bad for Obama. I'm only saying this because I care.
Db wins his own thread.
9.3.2008 1:01pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Karl Rove has to be behind this. Complaints about her church and pastor? I am telling you, Karl Rove sent her to that church because he knows that liberals would bring it up and Reverend Wright would come back up front and center. Combined with the jabs at her inexperience, the same exact ones that could be hurled at Obama, it has to be Rove.

Rover, you magnificent bastard!
9.3.2008 1:02pm
rarango (mail):
I continue to be amazed that Obama seems to be running against Palin. And as David outlines above the criticisms reflect more on the Democratic PRESIDENTIAL candidates weaknesses than the Republican VP candidate.

Whatever--Team Obama knows what its doing.......
9.3.2008 1:03pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Whoops. I meant:

Rove, you magnificent bastard!
9.3.2008 1:03pm
Justin (mail):
"Hussein's sewer-dwellers"

Awesome. I take personal offense. I like my house :).
9.3.2008 1:03pm
josh:
I have never understood why anyone tries to engage DB in these threads. No matter what points are made, what facts exist in the world (be it Green Helmet Guys in the Middle East or US politics), he is going to work his way backwards into the conservative position he wants to end at.

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

What a hypocritical and transparent line of argument this has devolved to. Believe me, no matter what happens in the next two months, according to DB, it'll be bad for Obama, but not a big deal for McCain/Palin (and please, no anecdotal examples of isolated disagreements with the occassional republican, perfessor Reynolds ... I mean, Bernstein)
9.3.2008 1:04pm
Anderson (mail):
Man, it just keeps on coming:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

According to Passage House's web site, its purpose is to provide "young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives" and help teen moms "become productive, successful, independent adults who create and provide a stable environment for themselves and their families."


Michelle Cottle's post title for that WaPo quote?

"Palin's Handling of Other People's Pregnant Teens."

She adds:

I'm sorry, but a politician who opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and who opposes comprehensive sex education should be at the forefront of championing support systems that make it easier for young mothers to keep their babies.

Yeah, unless you're a callous ideologue with no sympathy for other people.
9.3.2008 1:04pm
Apodaca:
DiverDan boldly claims
the Public Safety Commissioner who she fired has stated on the record that Palin never talked to him about her State Trooper ex-brother-in-law
Not so much:
The governor raised the issue again in February 2007 during the legislative session in Juneau. "As we were walking down the stairs in the capitol building," Monegan said, "she wanted to talk to me about her former brother-in-law."
9.3.2008 1:08pm
Suzy (mail):
Again, I wait in vain for any positive reason to support her as a candidate. Tell me what is GOOD about this woman or her policies or ideas. Anyone? I see boilerplate religious right extremist, second amendment supporter, and nothing else of note.
9.3.2008 1:10pm
Nunzio:
In an effort to reach some common ground, can we all agree that both McCain and Obama will be a better President than W.?
9.3.2008 1:10pm
MG:
I think the original post looks at the issue a little backward. Of course it's correct that Obama supporters should refrain from raising these issues specifically about Palin. But she's just the VP and doesn't really matter that much. Doesn't McMain naming her as VP, when she has many of the same weaknesses as Obama, undercut much of the strongest criticism of Obama? How can they argue Obama lacks the necessary experience to be president when they are supporting someone with similar experience? How can they say "be afraid of someone with a goofy minister" when they are supporting someone with a goofy minister?

Maybe the genius of the Palin pick is that it puts Obama supporters in the position of indirectly criticizing their candidate when they raise the glaring weaknesses of McCain's VP pick. But is still seems like a net loss to the Republican side when it takes these criticisms off the board for both sides.
9.3.2008 1:11pm
Joe Kowalski (mail):

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

Don't set that bar too high now....
9.3.2008 1:15pm
Anderson (mail):
I see boilerplate religious right extremist, second amendment supporter, and nothing else of note.

But she's perky!
9.3.2008 1:16pm
Observer:
Nunzio: I believe that either one would be significantly worst.
9.3.2008 1:17pm
Clastrenster:
If I were against Obama, I would start as many discussions as possible about Sarah Palin's lack of experience and teeteringly over-filled family life, so I could find some way to keep criticisms of Obama's experience alive. Of course, as David Bernstein and others have rightly pointed out, Palin was a terrible choice, and there is only so much that can be done to use her weaknesses against Obama.
9.3.2008 1:21pm
anon789:
The Obama campaign has not been talking about Palin much. It's the media that is.

And as noted above, Obama made a comparison between Palin's town and his campaign when he was directly asked about the GOP claim that Palin has more executive experience than he does.
9.3.2008 1:21pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
I agree with Professor Bernstein, but largely for different reasons. First, the Obama campaign doesn't have to bring up these points about Palin, as the media is already dwelling on each point because they are so obvious to anyone. Second, it is far more persuasive to let the voters themselves discover these weaknesses than to hammer the voters over the head with them. Third, if Palin does not come across well in the debates, she will make the case that she is too inexperienced by herself. If she does well, I think this point won't matter too much.

No, I would jump on Palin for the little inconsistencies that are in her record (they are in every politicians, I am not picking on her). She claims she is a maverick reformer, and she served on the board of Stevens' 527 organization, she lobbied for earmarks for Wasilla and she raised taxes repeatedly as mayor, and left the town in worse shape than she found it. Also, I would ask her about teaching creationism in schools and her views on abortion, which are more extreme than most voters.
9.3.2008 1:24pm
DCP:

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

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

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

Jesus H. Christ, let the woman speak at least. Let her give her speeches. Let her answer reporters questions. Let her particiapte in debates and town hall meetings. Let her and her staff outline their platform and viewpoints and disseminate that information to the public.
9.3.2008 1:25pm
Anderson (mail):
Let her answer reporters questions

Um, no, she's not allowed to do that just yet. Her handlers won't let her.

More fun -- I swear, every 15 minutes something pops up:

Three times in recent years, the Arizona senator's lists of 'objectionable' pork spending have included earmarks requested by his new running mate.

Flip! Flop!
9.3.2008 1:27pm
Crust (mail):
What jukeboxgrad said @10:50. DB's first point makes little sense.
9.3.2008 1:28pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
I forgot to add: I don't understand the criticism of her having too many kids to be a vice president, and do think that is the one highly sexist remark I have seen on the Internet.
9.3.2008 1:28pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
So what are the chances that McCain will die in office and make Palin POTUS? Here are my calculations for the mortality probabilities for a 72 year old.

1 year: 4.6%

2 year: 9.5%

3 year: 14.6%

4 year: 19.9%

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

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

I used the basic model for oldsters from here. Of course McCain is not 80 but the model matches the life tables pretty nicely.
9.3.2008 1:29pm
Fury:
Anderson writes:

Man, it just keeps on coming:

/various snippets from his link provided /

Yeah, unless you're a callous ideologue with no sympathy for other people.


Of course, you left out that the $5 million dollars was for a one-time grant request over and above the annual budget of Covenant House Alaska. That request was pared down to $3.5 million.

More here.

Apparently an increase is seen as a cut? Yes? No?

And I only had to Google it - of course once I got past the stories from the MSM about this being a cut...
9.3.2008 1:29pm
Anderson (mail):
Oh, and then there's the book banning:

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

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

I've got a great idea for a new book: Conservative Fascism. Sounds implausible, I know, but Jonah Goldberg has convinced me that it can be done.
9.3.2008 1:31pm
Fury:
Oops.

"That request was pared down to $3.5 million."

should be:


"That request was pared down to $3.9 million."


I guess I could write this as:

"That request was brutally slashed down to $3.5 million, as Governor Palin laughed and stated she was going to steal apples and milk from children after drinking a pint of moose blood."

I expect this latter remark will get picked up by the MSM in about 5 minutes or so...
9.3.2008 1:33pm
Anderson (mail):
Gotcha, Fury, but it's an odd thing that the *Legislature* thought that $5M was the right number. This was a line-item reduction, wasn't it?

Legislature authorizes $5M.

Palin says no, $3.9M.

That is a ... what is that? Anyone got a verb for me?
9.3.2008 1:33pm
Fury:
My apologies if my initial post seemed snarky or rude.
9.3.2008 1:35pm
Clastrenster:
I'm an occasional-McCain-lover, but the guy's a complete mudslinger at times (sometimes it's one of his more endearing traits, even). But his own press core is in a mode now of introducing every possible smear into political discourse, in order to blame it on the other side.
9.3.2008 1:35pm
PC:
of course once I got past the stories from the MSM about this being a cut...


But this election is about the composite views that people take away of the candidates. Damn the facts, full smear ahead!

Remember, Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate that was born on a boat outside of Hawaii (or in Kenya), faked his birth certificate, attends a church that hates whitey and America, has a wife that said she hates whitey and America, and if Obama is elected as president we will all live under Sharia law and bow to Mecca five times a day. Not to mention the forced gay marriages and mandatory abortions.

Just the facts...
9.3.2008 1:36pm
Anderson (mail):
(N.b., re: the alleged list of book titles, if you follow that link, it pretty clearly proves to be fake.)
9.3.2008 1:36pm
Hoosier:
Wow.

All-righty then.

I'll leave off the political comentationizing with the following:

If I were supporting Obama, I'd want him to win

Flame away.
9.3.2008 1:36pm
Not Ace:
"used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live."

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

Or maybe it's just malicious agitprop.

(more analysis here)
9.3.2008 1:37pm
Anonymous #000:
But this election is about the composite views that people take away of the candidates. Damn the facts, full smear ahead!
"Tu quoque," you say. That says more about you than anyone else.
9.3.2008 1:39pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Reading the first link, I see Sally Quinn writes:
Not only do we have a woman with five children, including an infant with special needs, but a woman whose 17-year-old child will need her even more in the coming months. Not to mention the grandchild. This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil. Not only in terms of her job, but from a media standpoint as well.
She evidently thinks the vice president is one very busy person. So just what would Palin be distracted from? Sitting in the Senate and looking bored the way all vice presidents do? Her grandchild will have both a mother and a father to look after it. Palin's husband can quit his job and he can look after their kids. I don't see a problem here. But I do see a problem with her lack of experience should be become president. Of course I have the same concern about BHO, and I know what kind of president Biden would make: a lousy one.
9.3.2008 1:39pm
Anderson (mail):
But his own press corps is in a mode now of introducing every possible smear into political discourse, in order to blame it on the other side.

Exhibit A:

Now look at this comment from McCain honcho Steve Schmidt to Katie Couric last night: "Members of this campaign went to off-the-record lunches with reporters today, and they were asked if she would do paternity tests to prove paternity for her last child. Smear after smear after smear, and it's disgraceful and it's wrong. And the American people are going to reject it overwhelmingly when they see her."

First of all, that's the first time I've heard anyone in the campaign/political press throw out the notion of paternity tests. So Schmidt is to blame for bringing that issue into the mainstream. If anyone is smearing the candidate, it's Schmidt. This is as cynical a tactic as I've ever seen in politics.

Secondly, how can it be a "smear" if it was during an off the record lunch with McCain campaign aides?
9.3.2008 1:40pm
rarango (mail):
Zarkov reaches the startling conclusion that peoples' chance of dying rise as you get older. Here is the horrible secret we epidemiologists don't tell you: your chance of dying, zarkov is 100 percent. And unfortunately nobody can tell you when (that is the inherent limit of epi figures that you are using). Now, if age is such a big deal perhaps there should be an amendment to the constitution restricting the age from, say, 35 to 60. At this point, I don't see a problem with McCain's candidacy based on your numbers, but I assume you will be an ageist , and use these life expectancy table to vote against McCain?
9.3.2008 1:40pm
JosephSlater (mail):
The trick, Anderson, will be to try to focus on the substance.
9.3.2008 1:45pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
db:

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

who cares what party her husband belongs to


She copies him on official emails and claims executive privilege because he is supposedly one of her "closest advisors." So we have reason to wonder who he is, and what role he would have in a Palin White House.
9.3.2008 1:50pm
Bill Twist:
rarango:

Zarkov reaches the startling conclusion that peoples' chance of dying rise as you get older. Here is the horrible secret we epidemiologists don't tell you: your chance of dying, zarkov is 100 percent. And unfortunately nobody can tell you when


This is not true. It is a trivial exercise to successfully predict the date of your own death, or the death of another person.

It's a simple two step process:

1. Pick an arbitrary date in the near future.
2. Kill yourself, or the other person, on that date.
9.3.2008 1:50pm
MLS:
Assuming the following can be shown to be accurate (and the site on which it appears seems to be legit), any politician who makes a decision like this is precisely what I call a maverick, which I believe is a good thing:

http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/04/news/ebay_jet.pdf
9.3.2008 1:50pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
arg:

Obama has been Senator for one of the larger districts in the country (with a larger population that Palin's state), and he has been studying politics since he was about six years old.


But does he know how to skin a moose? Please try to focus on what's relevant.
9.3.2008 1:50pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
gabriel:

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


No. Just "all parents of special needs kids" who invite us to take a close look at their parental decision-making even though their parental decision-making reveals various signs of poor judgment.
9.3.2008 1:50pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
anderson:

How many affluent people really "take care of their kids" anyway?


The ones who care about how their kids turn out.

the guy was Palin's pastor for only 3 years, and she left his church in 2002


Some interesting things were said in that church (from the pulpit) just a few weeks ago. I know, it's legitimately hard to keep up.
9.3.2008 1:50pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

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


Track is fine, but Bristol is about to multiply herself. So she counts as two. From that perspective, Palin will soon be effectively responsible for six kids, not five.
9.3.2008 1:51pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
anon:

Is there any doubt he'll overall get more and better care for his condition as the Vice-president's son than as the governor of Alaska's son?


I would tend to think the "the governor of Alaska's son" has access to health care that is second to none. You're talking about the difference between the 99th %-ile and the 99.9th %-ile.
9.3.2008 1:51pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
now:

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


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

In my opinion, using a special-needs infant as a political prop is spectacularly despicable.
9.3.2008 1:51pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bill:

Mr Obama, however, made his parents' pre-marital conception decisions a part of his political resume.


Yes, I guess he said something about that. But he is obviously not responsible for the choices they made. However, Palin is clearly responsible for her own choices. And she has invited us to evaluate her choices.

Pointless, then, to jump Palin and her family, who've made serioius choices and no effort to hide them.


On the contrary. Bristol's pregnancy has indeed been hidden, until just now.

what sort of mom do you think Ms Palin is?


Not a very good one. Look around and you'll see I've explained why several times.

You might try comparing her to Ann Dunham and Ms Dunham's mother, Madelyn


That comparison might be something other than quite irrelevant if Ann and Madelyn were candidates.

Also, one thing I'll guess about those two is that they weren't part of a political party that put a lot of effort into moralizing about allegedly superior 'family values.'
9.3.2008 1:51pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
crazy:

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


I know it's still considered radical, but there are actually households that are organized that way. If Todd was home with the kids, my analysis would be very different.
9.3.2008 1:51pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kowalski:

Palin isn't running for Mother of the Year


You would have a point, if she hadn't gone out of her way to make her motherhood a key part of her political resume.
9.3.2008 1:51pm
PC:
"Tu quoque," you say. That says more about you than anyone else.


I'm not attempting to justify it. "They do it too," is certainly a fallacy, but that's political discourse.
9.3.2008 1:51pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
anderson:

voters would sympathize that she was protecting her sister from a scumbag


I see your general point. But most of Palin's accusations against Wooten turned out to be unsubstantiated. And he was punished for the ones that were substantiated. And then Palin kept trying to ruin him, anyway. And then lied about that. It's a great story, but there are so many other great stories. Palin is the perfect candidate, if you're a stockholder in media companies.
9.3.2008 1:51pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
diver:

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


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

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

used a Taser on his 10 year old stepson


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

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


There were no neutral witnesses to the alleged death threat. Also, the threat was not reported to the father until a month later, and it was not reported to the police until two months later. That's hard to grasp, if we're supposed to perceive it as a serious threat.

a death threat witnessed by Palin and several others


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

It is an honor to know Mike and I am confident he will continue to grow in character and internal strength as he moves through life. I do not hesitate in praising this man …
9.3.2008 1:52pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
rarango:

I continue to be amazed that Obama seems to be running against Palin.


Given McCain's age, there's good reason to look at the situation that way.
9.3.2008 1:52pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
cooke:

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


My concerns in this regard have nothing to do with gender. I've explained this in many places, including here.
9.3.2008 1:52pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
zarkov:

Palin's husband can quit his job and he can look after their kids.


History seems to indicate he has no interest in that.
9.3.2008 1:52pm
The Ace (mail):
-- the Wright stuff is old news

Hilarious.

Translation:
We don't want to talk about it.
9.3.2008 1:53pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
rarango:

"Zarkov reaches the startling conclusion that peoples' chance of dying rise as you get older. Here is the horrible secret we epidemiologists don't tell you: your chance of dying, zarkov is 100 percent."

I'm not sure what your problems is. I simply gave the numbers that most people don't know offhand, and that's more information than simply saying the chance of dying increases as one gets older. I took no position as to whether these mortality probabilities disqualify McCain. Your second statement is pure snark and contributes nothing.
9.3.2008 1:53pm
JohnCK (mail):
PC,

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly, can all please agree that Andrew Sullivan is an old pervert and loathsome human being? The right already threw him out over his turning on the Iraq war. If the left would throw him out over his loathsome writing on Palin's daughter, it would finally get him out of public life. If you are sincere about this stuff being garbage, then make someone pay for repeating it.
9.3.2008 1:53pm
The Ace (mail):
That's why he crashed so many planes

You are simply a piece of scum.
Saying I wish the most awful things in life to happen to you jokebox is an understatement.
9.3.2008 1:55pm
Anonymous #000:
I'm not attempting to justify it. "They do it too," is certainly a fallacy, but that's political discourse.
Political discourse is regonizing the fault in your argument's logic and asserting that the conclusion may be false, but it's still true. Gotcha.
9.3.2008 1:57pm
Fury:
Track is fine, but Bristol is about to multiply herself. So she counts as two. From that perspective, Palin will soon be effectively responsible for six kids, not five.

"Multiply"? That's a classless comment.

And she will be effectively responsible for Bristol's child. If have a citation for that, that would be appreciated. How did you come to that conclusion?
9.3.2008 1:57pm
The Ace (mail):
The fact that Palin was governor of a small state for a year and a few months before being nominated as VP, and before that was a mayor of a very small town, is very strong evidence that she is not qualified to be Vice President

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

You people are such silly hypocrites it is obscene.
9.3.2008 1:58pm
Dan Hamilton:
Palin listened to the nutty Rev for 3 years before he went over board and then she left. All this about 7 or 8 years ago. Way before she really got into politics.

Obama listened to his nutty Rev for 20 years and only left after the nutty Rev's over board ideas were exposed in the press within the last year. Also Obama's nutty Rev was his spirtual advisor for all that 20 years. Also being in that nutty Rev's church HELPED Obama in politics. When it didn't Obama dumped the Rev.

Please explain to me HOW you compare these.

If Palin is SOOOOOO... bad for the Repubs WHY are the Dems trying so hard to get her dumped? The Dems WANT A STRONGER Repub ticket???? Yes, the Dems protest to much.
9.3.2008 1:59pm
The Ace (mail):
Remember, Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate that was born on a boat outside of Hawaii (or in Kenya), faked his birth certificate, attends a church that hates whitey and America, has a wife that said she hates whitey and America,

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

Obama's church does indeed hate America, and so does his wife.
They both also hate whitey.
9.3.2008 2:01pm
Fury:
Jukeboxgrad writes:

You're failing to take into account what the Palin choice tells us about McCain: that he's reckless and impulsive, and inclined to take dangerous risks. Always has been, always will be. That's why he broke so many rules that he barely graduated from college. That's why he crashed so many planes.

Re: planes. Have you read the accident investigation reports from the aircraft crashes or is that you considered opinion being represented by you as a fact? If those are on-line, I'd like to see them. Don't post what someone else says about the mishaps, cite the actual accident reports.
9.3.2008 2:01pm
srg:
Anderson,

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

It says that he wants to win.
9.3.2008 2:02pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"That's why he crashed so many planes."

I think you have revealed yourself as a troll from something like moveon or the equivalent.
9.3.2008 2:02pm
The Ace (mail):
This mentalilty sums up jokeboxes posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Isn't it cute how "tolerant" liberals like jokebox really are?
9.3.2008 2:07pm
The Ace (mail):

Yes, in 2003, after the son asked for a demo

You are a complete liar.

No such thing happened.
9.3.2008 2:10pm
Anonymous #000:
I saw that too, The Ace. For those that didn't, that's a quote from Democratic Underground, where the fascists and Leninists play.
9.3.2008 2:11pm
Grover Gardner (mail):

Is Sarah Palin's church/pastor nutty?


Who cares? She's in favor of teaching creationism as science in public schools. That's nutty enough for me.
9.3.2008 2:12pm
The Ace (mail):
She's in favor of teaching creationism as science in public schools

You sir, are a liar.
9.3.2008 2:14pm
Anonymous #000:
Who cares? She's in favor of teaching creationism as science in public schools. That's nutty enough for me.

She's in favor of debate about it, unlike Leftists. No stronger statement was made.

And yet, if it had been, I'd support her more. That's God's honest truth. That's something some people don't understand, and take for lying -- "they can't possibly mean that, so they're lying, so I can lie, too!"
9.3.2008 2:17pm
r78:
David

Do you agree with Ms. Palins long-time pastor that Palestinians killing Israelis is G-d's punishment because the Israeli's haven't converted to Christianity?
9.3.2008 2:19pm
Used car dealer from rural WV:
Have you noticed dear fellow VC readers how VC crew lowered posts on Palin, once the crap started showing up left and right? Yesterday came out her trip to Ireland was refueling stopover, actually a visit to duty free shop. So much for
1/3 of international expiernience. Today WAPO brings local police chief suit over Palin trying to keep drunk drivers on the road.

She is Mccain's Kerik. In fact Guiliani promotes her very much.
9.3.2008 2:19pm
PC:
Political discourse is regonizing the fault in your argument's logic and asserting that the conclusion may be false, but it's still true. Gotcha.

I'm summing up political discourse here and other places. For example:
What I find funny is that you actually think this is over the top parody, PC.

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

It's really, really funny, but I have a twisted sense of humor. There is absolutely nothing that someone can say about a given candidate (or their family!) that isn't so over the top that some people won't take it seriously.
9.3.2008 2:21pm
Virginian:


Here I thought this was some sort of legal blog



(I think this blog is still legal . . . But IANAL)


At least until BO is elected and the Fairness Doctrine is in place. Then EV will need to carefully balance the comments of Ace and Jukeboxgrad to stay legal.

*****************


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


BO will have all the incompetence of W with none of the willingness to take on the bad guys.

***********************


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


The only difference is who signs the paychecks.
9.3.2008 2:22pm
Connecticut Lawyer (mail):
David,

I think you are a little behind the times. The Democrats and their allies in the media have found a way to smear Palin while pretending not to. It's actually quite brilliant. Rather than openly attacking Palin for her family issues, they say they are concerned about McCain's supposed failure to vet her. This way, they get to drag up all the mud while claiming to be taking the high road. The Obama camp has led with this line and from listening to NPR this morning and reading the press, it looks like their media pets are following right along. Sleazy, no? but effective.
9.3.2008 2:24pm
Anonymous #000:
There is absolutely nothing that someone can say about a given candidate (or their family!) that isn't so over the top that some people won't take it seriously.
And you wonder why?
9.3.2008 2:24pm
The Ace (mail):
There is absolutely nothing that someone can say about a given candidate (or their family!) that isn't so over the top that some people won't take it seriously.

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

Not that your continued silly posts demonstrate a lack of critical thought on the matter.
9.3.2008 2:26pm
DCP:

I see jukebox has highjacked yet another thread.

Honestly, this one poster is single-handedly responsible for making me dread visiting a blog I once loved.
9.3.2008 2:27pm
PC:
And you wonder why?


No, I don't. I just think it's interesting to point it out. It's especially interesting when one side (doesn't matter which to me) gets the vapors and needs to grab a cold rag when some surrogate says something mean. Compared to early American politics this stuff is downright civil.
9.3.2008 2:28pm
AKD:
Anderson,

Seems that a lot of the demands for medical records and DNA testing to prove paternity for the baby have since been scrubbed. Certainly it was a prominently circulating around the internet until her daughter's pregnancy came to light.

Frankly, after some of the behavior in the press the last few days, I see no reason to doubt that at least some members of the media made inquiries with the campaign. Having that info would certainly have been advantageous to a particular news outlet given the media coverage climate.
9.3.2008 2:29pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
I'm an Obama supporter. I agree that the child-care issue is a non-issue. On experience, however, Obama wins hands down. If we're talking purely executive experience, yes she has more experience in executive positions in government. There are three areas, however, in which Obama has much more experience. Number one is law. He's a lawyer and has taught con law. She knows nothing about law. You don't have to be a lawyer to be President, but it certainly is desirable to know something about the law and particularly the Constitution. The second is how Washington works. Obama has been a Senator for four years. She has no Washington experience whatever. The third and most critical is foreign affairs. Obama has traveled extensively and lived in Indonesia for four years as a child. He majored in International Relations, then worked for a year for a firm that helps businesses with international trade. As a Senator he has been involved in foreign affairs in various ways. Palin has no background whatever in foreign affairs. She has hardly even been outside of Alaska.

As to the third point, the relevant question is not whether the candidate's church or pastor are whackos but whether the candidate's own views are. Obama has shown no sign of holding the insane views of Pastor Wright and indeed has explicitly denounced them. Palin, on the other hand, is a creationist, opposes sex education and contraception, and believes that believes that human activity plays no role in global warming. Those are her own views, not merely those of her church, and they show a disdain for science and reason that is highly relevant to her politics.
9.3.2008 2:29pm
Anonymous #000:
Compared to early American politics this stuff is downright civil.

Well, it's certainly more armchair-lawyerly. But "What choice do we have? When faced with monsters, we have to be monstrous ourselves."? Could you point me to some pre-20th century (prefereably pre-Marx) parallels? Such a chronicle would make a fascinating addition to my small collection of political histories.
9.3.2008 2:33pm
The Ace (mail):
but it certainly is desirable to know something about the law and particularly the Constitution

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

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

I'm in tears laughing at that one.
9.3.2008 2:34pm
Deoxy (mail):

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


If by "long-time pastor", you mean "the pastor of a church she went to for 3 years, but left many years ago, and before there was any political reason to do so", then sure... but I doubt many people would consider that an honest usage of the term "long-time pastor".
9.3.2008 2:38pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
john:

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


Really? Prove it.
9.3.2008 2:41pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

If have a citation for that


I think you're asking me to explain why I claimed that Sarah will effectively be responsible for Bristol's child. Here's why: there's reason to understand that Bristol is not ready to take care of herself, let alone someone else. And I think if you look into Levi, you will draw a similar conclusion about him.
9.3.2008 2:41pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dan:

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


Some interesting statements were made in that church just a few weeks ago.
9.3.2008 2:41pm
JohnCK (mail):
"Number one is law. He's a lawyer and has taught con law."

He taught Conlaw as an adjunct and he has never been a practicing lawyer. If Obama had been a successful DA or defense attorney or worked for the public service or even made partner at a big law firm or had a tenured track position, you might have a point. Since he did none of that, I don't think you do.

"The second is how Washington works. Obama has been a Senator for four years."

I am not sure that is a defect. What did Reagan know about how Washington worked? What about Carter or Clinton or any other governor who came to the Whitehouse? Did you not support them because of that? Is it the case that you must be a Washington insider to be qualified for the VP or Presidency? If it is, that is pretty depressing.

"The third and most critical is foreign affairs. Obama has traveled extensively and lived in Indonesia for four years as a child."

Living in Idonesia as a child is a big stretch. So what? Further a litle bit of experience working for an international trade company is pretty thin gruel. If Obama had been an abassador or served as a advisor during a previous administration or was a serious scholar like Condi Rice or Kisinger, you would have a good point. As it is, it is pretty much a wash.

The fact is that there just isn't a whole lot of difference between Obama and Palin's experience.
9.3.2008 2:41pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

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


Let me know if you're really claiming that his record of crashes would be considered normal.
9.3.2008 2:41pm
The Ace (mail):

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

Um, and then what?

What are these "statements"? Was Palin present for them?
9.3.2008 2:43pm
PC:
There's the famous Hamilton-Burr duel. There were a few books I read back in college about the subject, but that was years ago, so I can't recommend anything specific. This seems like a decent primer article. Describing Lincoln:
A horrid looking wretch is he, sooty and scoundrelly in aspect, a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse swapper, and the night man... He is a lank-sided Yankee of the uncomeliest visage, and of the dirtiest complexion.

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

And congratulations to Prof. Bernstein on such a successful concern troll.
9.3.2008 2:43pm
Serendipity:
Can someone please just explain to me why there hasn't been a revolt in the Republican party. The argument seems to be "well, even if she's bad, she's no worse than Obama." Even if that's true, why is the solution to accept her? Shouldn't the Republicans want MORE for their party than the Democrats do? "You guys picked an unqualified hack, so we're going to do it too!" Really? Is this really how much this country has fallen?

Where is the same level of outrage that happened when Harriet Miers was nominated to the Supreme Court? Sarah Palin may well be a nice woman, and quite well accomplished, but is she truly the party's best representative to represent them to the country and to the world? If someone can honestly answer that question in the affirmative, maybe it really is time to cash in my savings and move somewhere else.
9.3.2008 2:44pm
The Ace (mail):
Obama has shown no sign of holding the insane views of Pastor Wright and indeed has explicitly denounced them.

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

And you think he "denounced" Reverend Wright out of his own beliefs or political pressure?
9.3.2008 2:45pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
anon:

She's in favor of debate about it, unlike Leftists. No stronger statement was made.


Wrong. She did make a stronger statement. The next day she backpedaled and made a weaker statement. The stronger statement is here:

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
9.3.2008 2:46pm
MarkField (mail):

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


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

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

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

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

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

The newspapers were just as bad. Google the name "james callendar", for example, or "peter porcupine". There are some good histories of early American newspapers.
9.3.2008 2:46pm
PC:
What are these "statements"?

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

"Palin was in church that day, Kroon said, though he cautioned against attributing Brickner's views to her."

Source.
9.3.2008 2:47pm
Anonymous #000:
Thanks, PC, I'm going to take a look at the duel for fun.

Though the excerpted portion resembles McCain's Chelsea joke more than the "Palin is covering for her daughter by claiming Trig is her own" fabrication.
9.3.2008 2:47pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
What are these "statements"?


Look it up. Or just wait, because sooner or later you'll hear.

Was Palin present for them?


Yes.
9.3.2008 2:48pm
Deoxy (mail):

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


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

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


He's a lawyer and has taught con law.


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


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


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

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

3) you mean like a significant portion of the scientific community? And anybody who's bothered to look at the history of this planet? And anybody who has been paying attention to the temperature of this planet for the laast 10 years? (Hint: the temperature has been flat or decreasing for 10 years now.) Points like this are going to look so funny in a few more decades... just like the other global warming/cooling scares, every 20-30 years for the past century. I expect a "global cooling" scare in the 2020's, based on the historical pattern.
9.3.2008 2:49pm
tvk:
David,

Given the 180 comments so far, I'm guessing you won't read this. But:

1. The "how can she take care of the kids" point almost invariably hurts a female candidate more than a male candidate, due to gender stereotypes. Sexist? Yes. Reality? Yes also.

2. The experience point initially might seem to hurt Obama much, much more than Palin, given that Obama is at the top of the ticket. But you are missing one thing--Obama has been attacked on this point for ten months already. At this point, any voter that has not been dissuaded from voting for Obama due to the experience meme isn't likely to be simply because a few more media cycles focusing on experience. On the other hand, a few voters who were persuaded to vote for McCain because of Obama's lack of experence might well be persuaded to stay home because of Palin's brand new equivalent lack of experience. In short, in economics speak, it is the marginal contribution that counts.
9.3.2008 2:49pm
Mad Max:
Shouldn't the Republicans want MORE for their party than the Democrats do?

Yeah, and with Palin we do get MORE than the Democrats are getting. I'd vote for her - for anything - before I'd vote for the young megalomaniac or the ancient buffoon who are in the D column.
9.3.2008 2:50pm
rarango (mail):
Zarkov--I do apologize for the snark, it was over the top.

My point, speaking as an epidemiologist is that the numbers you cite are good for insurance pools, but they are worthless for predicting the risk of dying for an individual. Too many other factors intervene. When you put out numbers, that while true in the aggregate, and then worse, proceed to make uninformed adjustments in those numbers without access to a candidates medical record, you are putting out really bad and totally misleading information. I do hope you see my point here and I have tried to present it without any snark.
9.3.2008 2:52pm
Anonymous #000:
they show a disdain for science and reason that is highly relevant to her politics

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

Consider researching how Europe's enlightenment came about, and what's happened to the continent since socialist democracy, the Orwellian "social justice" meme, and liberalist welfare immigration became major policies there.
9.3.2008 2:53pm
Anonymous #000:
But you are missing one thing--Obama has been attacked on this point for ten months already. At this point, any voter that has not been dissuaded from voting for Obama due to the experience meme isn't likely to be simply because a few more media cycles focusing on experience.

Yes, the media's spent a lot of time on it, but does that mean most people beside us blog junkies actually care? I would say no.
9.3.2008 2:55pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

You are a complete liar.

No such thing happened.


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

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


This is what Bristol said:

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

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


This is what Wooten said:

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

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

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


This is what Molly said:

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


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

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

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


The above police interviews took place in 6/05. The Taser incident apparently took place in 2003. Molly and Wooten became separated in 1/05. Molly filed for divorce in 4/05. It should be noted that no one made a fuss about the Taser incident until the marriage started falling apart. Just like Bristol said.
9.3.2008 2:56pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
David

Do you agree with Ms. Palins long-time pastor that Palestinians killing Israelis is G-d's punishment because the Israeli's haven't converted to Christianity?
Actually, it was a one-time guest lecturer from "Jews for Jesus" who said something like this, not her pastor.
9.3.2008 2:56pm
dr:
Gold star to rarango for the snarkless re-phrasing. That's not me being snarky. I wish this blog would go back to intelligent disagreement, rather than the overheated bleating we see as the extremes close in on the middle.

There should be an "Olympic judging" feature that would automatically throw out all comments on either extreme and leave only the less hysterical comments.
9.3.2008 2:57pm
rarango (mail):
Zarakov: I do apologize for the snark, it was over the top. But you ask what my problem is. It is with your use of the numbers. The ones you cite are accurate, but only useful in insurance pools. They cannot be applied to an individual. So that is the first problem: you are using epi data without demonstrating much understanding of the limitatios of that data.

The second problem occured when you proceded to make adjustments in those numbers with no specific medical files available. Then you adjust the basic numbers based on your uninformed speculation about Senator McCains specific conditions. The result of your good faith to educate, is the promulgation of numbers that have no meaning to the candidate specifically.

I do hope you see my problems with your analysis and you have an apology for the snark.
9.3.2008 3:01pm
Fury:
jukeboxgrad writes:

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

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

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

If you're willing to make the claim without the benefit of the primary source documents, it's perhaps another sign of intellectual laziness.
9.3.2008 3:02pm
rarango (mail):
aaarggghh--apologize for the double post. delete the 2:01 post please. (even if its not possible)
9.3.2008 3:05pm
Anderson (mail):
Science is not equivalent to materialism

Ummm ... okay.

Please offer some examples of non-materialist science.
9.3.2008 3:08pm
The Ace (mail):
Look it up. Or just wait, because sooner or later you'll hear.

Really?
Because you think the party you vote for is going to try and make issue of what a pastor says in church now?

Yes.

And then what?
You think the party you vote for is going to try and make issue of what a pastor says in church now?

You do realize you're posting nothing more than talking points, right? You can't even begin to explain why this matters. You're simply playing a silly moral equivocation game.
9.3.2008 3:09pm
whit:
i probably have a unique experience here because I have been tased (no "taping" either. a real tasing), and also carry a taser daily.

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

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

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

i know some (very liberal) domestic violence advocates who would argue that what the trooper did was domestic violence. I would disagree, but those people are out there and in the war against domestic violence, it pays to be aware that they are
9.3.2008 3:10pm
The Ace (mail):
As a Senator he has been involved in foreign affairs in various ways

You couldn't name 2.
9.3.2008 3:12pm
The Ace (mail):
You're claiming the son didn't ask for a demo.

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

It doesn't. Which is why the officer was reprimanded for tazing the 14 year old.
9.3.2008 3:13pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

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


I can form an opinion, based on the information that's readily available, without launching a new career as a crash investigator. And my opinion might be wrong.

I noticed you ducked the question.
9.3.2008 3:14pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

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


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

This shoddy behavior is so typical of you.
9.3.2008 3:17pm
Anonymous #000:
Anderson, there are some prerequisites that might be helpful in intepreting my previous comment. Suffice it to say that begging the question isn't a good way to ask a scientific question or an effective way to construct a hypothesis.
9.3.2008 3:17pm
The Ace (mail):
I said the son asked for a demo. You said this claim was a lie.

I actually still don't belive it.

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

Note: you don't have an answer.

This shoddy behavior is so typical of you

See above.
You're nothing but a silly hack.
9.3.2008 3:20pm
Justin (mail):
"Palin isn't running for Mother of the Year"

Could have fooled me.
9.3.2008 3:21pm
The Ace (mail):
now you're trying to change the subject with a straw-man argument.

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

I suggest you look up the term "staw-man" because you obviously have no idea what it means.
9.3.2008 3:22pm
ejo:
jbg can form an opinion based on information that's readily available when combined with the vast intelligence he/she possesses. that's why JBG was able to opine so wisely on the child rearing and obstetrical issues on other threads, all without sounding like a childless moron pulling thoughts from daily kos.
9.3.2008 3:22pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
whit:

this trooper showed VERY bad judgment


Indeed. That's why he was suspended.

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

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


His age is usually reported as 10 or 11.
9.3.2008 3:22pm
The Ace (mail):
Yes, in 2003, after the son asked for a demo

And then what?

You can't explain why asking for a demo is important, yet keep typing it.
Why do you think that is?
9.3.2008 3:27pm
The Ace (mail):
that's why JBG was able to opine so wisely on the child rearing and obstetrical issues on other threads,

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

Which is why you can't parody the left anymore.
9.3.2008 3:28pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

saying "the son asked for a demo" is irrelevant.


You're entitled to your opinion. But your original position is not that this statement is "irrelevant." Your original position was that this statement is a "lie."

The way you so reliably run away from your own words is part of what makes you such an entertaining waste of time.

why do you keep posting "the son asked for a demo"?


Because tasing a kid who asked for a demo is materially different from, say, tasing a kid as an act of punishment, discipline or torture.

The fact that you weren't able to figure that out on your own is no surprise to me.
9.3.2008 3:28pm
Federal Dog:
"She's in favor of teaching creationism as science in public schools."


This is a completely fraudulent claim. The sheer number of lies told about this one woman is staggering.
9.3.2008 3:30pm
ejo:
I think I will ask the next police officer I see to kick me in the groin. After all, if I asked him to do it, why should that call the officer's judgment into question? Maybe, if the officer were learning to make a fire, his son would have asked him to burn him-perfectly appropriate conduct in JBGVille. Similarly I am sure most abused wives just asked their husbands to punch them in the face as well, or provoked them with their smart mouths.

as to running for mom of the year, when was this made an issue by anyone but the left. she has five kids-is that many offensive to Justin (is justin another childless wonder dispensing wisdom like johnny appleseed as to how to raise kids). Which leads me to ask, does anyone think justin or jbg were ever disappointments to their parents-perhaps they could show their wise posts to their parents to get an idea of the look Sarah Palin probably had on her face when she learned her daughter was pregnant.
9.3.2008 3:31pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

This is a completely fraudulent claim.


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

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


The next day, she did backpedal somewhat. But I think it's fair to believe that her initial answer is the more authentic one.
9.3.2008 3:34pm
Hoosier:
Anderson
Science is not equivalent to materialism

Ummm ... okay.

Please offer some examples of non-materialist science.


Well, gee, ok.

Orgone energy.

Creation science.

Parapsychology.

AIDS denial science.

Dianetics.

Cryptozoology. (Theoretically based on amterialism. But they haven't found any "material" yet. By definition.)

Political science.

The list goes on. Geez. Do I have to do your research for you?
9.3.2008 3:37pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ejo:

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


I guess you missed the part where I agreed that Wooten showed "VERY bad judgment." But I hope you and your straw man keep having lots of fun together.
9.3.2008 3:37pm
whit:
jukeboxgrad.

oh, well if he was 10 or 11, i will also add to my analysis that he was NOT old enough to ask for a demo. so, the cop's judgment was even worse than i thought.
9.3.2008 3:39pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
For Bill Poser, the church Palin used to go to--the "nutty church"-- is not all the religion there is. There's also AGW and on that Palin is an atheist.
It sure is tough to keep up. More turns than a velocidrome.
And people like Poser are losing the tempo here.
9.3.2008 3:39pm
Fury:
Jukeboxgrad writes:

I can form an opinion, based on the information that's readily available, without launching a new career as a crash investigator. And my opinion might be wrong.

I noticed you ducked the question.


No, you don't need to launch a new career - just read the primary source documents, instead of ostensibly relying on someone that has not.

I'm not going to offer any conclusions on his aviation prowess (or lack thereof) until I see the primary source documents. That you are willing to do so without the benefit of viewing, well, it's weak when you draw conclusions without the benefit of facts. If you count that as a duck - Ok...
9.3.2008 3:40pm
Federal Dog:
Here is what she said, and what you completely ignored and failed to include in your quote:

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

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum."
9.3.2008 3:46pm
Anderson (mail):
The list goes on. Geez. Do I have to do your research for you?

No, that was pretty much what I had in mind -- thanks!

Changing the subject ... does anyone give a damn how many planes McCain crashed in the USAF?

"Most Irrelevant Talking Point Ever" is a high honor, but I think that the planes bit is a good nominee.
9.3.2008 3:47pm
Anderson (mail):
I see that Fafblog has the truth behind the Palin pick:

Things are looking up for John McCain. Last week ended with a bang with the announcement of his fresh-faced new running mate Sarah Palin, who should provide McCain many more years of extended existence through gradual consumption of her life force, and, if needed, a new host body should his current vessel fail him.
9.3.2008 3:51pm
Arkady:

Changing the subject ... does anyone give a damn how many planes McCain crashed in the USAF?


Ummm. I suppose that would be zero, given that he was a naval aviator.
9.3.2008 3:54pm
Anderson (mail):
Doh!!!

Obviously, time for me to get back to work.
9.3.2008 3:54pm
Mad Max:
Changing the subject ... does anyone give a damn how many planes McCain crashed in the USAF?

"Most Irrelevant Talking Point Ever" is a high honor, but I think that the planes bit is a good nominee.


The Left doesn't have the chickenhawk thing this time, so "yeah he served in combat but he was a lousy pilot" is the (pathetic) best they can do.

Speaking of the chickenhawk thing,


"Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden received five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War, the same number of deferments received by Vice President Dick Cheney,"
9.3.2008 4:00pm
Dr. Ethiopia (mail) (www):
@ Arkady - I must agree with you. Who says being a POW is a door-opener to the presidency. Enough with it alrady.
9.3.2008 4:02pm
Fury:
You know it's interesting. One wonders if all this media attention on Sarah Palin will result in more people watching her speech this evening than would have. Maybe, maybe not...
9.3.2008 4:10pm
Concerned:
Professor Bernstein,

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

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

Indeed, Brickner has been quoted as stating:


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


Assuming the Brickner quote is fact, and that Palin attended (and, continues to share a spiritual affinity for) Brickner's chuch, I invite you to comment about the reasonable conclusions an objective observer or a hawkish advocate for the interests of Jews around the world might be fairly entitled to draw.
9.3.2008 4:12pm
ejo:
nope, jbg can form opinions based on what's out there along with the information that's readily available, primarily what Kos tells him/her to think. essentially, the media has tried to transform a normal person into some sort of ogre-when the people see the normal person with common problems tonight, what happens to the media's credibility?
9.3.2008 4:14pm
Federal Dog:
"what happens to the media's credibility?"

Nothing, because they have no credibility.
9.3.2008 4:17pm
Kirk:
jbg,

I notice that McCain retained his assignment as pilot after every single one of those crashes. Why don't we just accept the accident investigators' conclusions and Move On™?
9.3.2008 4:18pm
calmom:
When I was being interviewed out of law school 30 years ago, I was asked questions about how I would handle a career and a family, even what form of birth control I used (I walked out of that interview). Now 30 years later, no progress has been made. The double standard persists. Very, very sad.
9.3.2008 4:30pm
Justin (mail):
I'm not entirely sure why I bother, but Fitzgerald and Giuliani are far more obvious picks if that's what you are going for. You don't go anti-corruption by picking someone under investigation for corruption.
9.3.2008 4:37pm
Kirk:
Suzy, if her being a sorta-conservative/sorta-libertarian small-government person doesn't do it for you, then presumably you would find Obama (who will require us to work, and demand that we shed our cynicism) more to your liking after all?
9.3.2008 4:38pm
David Warner:
"'Palin isn't running for Mother of the Year'"

Could have fooled me."

Not the most difficult of tasks.

The more pressing question, however, is:

Are there enough quarters in the world to keep up with the JukeBoxSpam?
9.3.2008 4:40pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):

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

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


Michael Savage has found another listener/sheep.
9.3.2008 4:43pm
Justin (mail):
Whoops - posted on wrong thread. Sory.
9.3.2008 4:44pm
Justin (mail):
I don't think David Warner's most recent post, which lacks anything of substance and just insults other commenters, fits the terms below.
9.3.2008 4:45pm
The Ace (mail):
Because tasing a kid who asked for a demo is materially different from, say, tasing a kid as an act of punishment, discipline or torture.

Hilarious.

Good luck with that one.
9.3.2008 4:50pm
Kirk:
Justin,

You can't possibly think picking Giuliani would have resulted in the same outpouring of contributions that the R's are currently receiving, can you? (Yes, big surprise--the VP selection was probably based on multiple considerations.)
9.3.2008 4:51pm
The Ace (mail):
But your original position is not that this statement is "irrelevant." Your original position was that this statement is a "lie."

The way you so reliably run away from your own words



I don't belive a 10 year old child asked for a tazer demo.
And, given that the officer in question was punished for his actions, I think it fair to conclude that the kid did not.

So yes, it is a lie and I am not "running" from anything.
9.3.2008 4:53pm
ejo:
that child should be lucky that he didn't ask dad to shoot him-although, to be fair, in JBGVille, that would be perfectly appropriate. Calmom, according to JBG, if you want a big time career as a lawyer or anything else, you better have a full time stay at home spouse. otherwise, you need to shut your yap and your kids are fair game. did I miss some nuance, JBG?
9.3.2008 4:55pm
Grover Gardner (mail):

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

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

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



Well, good. Let's hope she sticks to that.
9.3.2008 5:00pm
Fury:
The Ace writes:

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

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

Hooten should have known better and not done that - period. It shows a lack of judgement.
9.3.2008 5:04pm
Arkady:

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


Unless the selection of the person on the bottom of the ticket demonstrates a clear lack of judgment on the part of the person at the top of the ticket. The next 30 days in the campaign are going to be telling, I think
9.3.2008 5:20pm
Big Bill (mail):
The concern trolls that keep harping on Palin's "special needs infant" know little about infants, Down syndrome, or big families, apparently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, if liberals trolls feel like kids are such a critical part of a Palin's job performance, why on earth do they prevent us from asking all female job applicants whether they plan to have kids, how soon, how many, whether they will be available for advancement in five years, and what plans they have made for a baby-support network?
9.3.2008 5:22pm
whit:

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



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

iow, your "fair" conclusion shows ignorance.
9.3.2008 5:23pm
Xanthippas (mail) (www):
1) Because nobody cares about this when it comes to men. That's true of both conservative and liberals. And since largely women are worried about this issue, you can't really just dismiss it as sexist and hope that'll make the issue go away.

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

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

And this has been another edition of why you don't take advice from people who want you to fail.
9.3.2008 5:28pm
ejo:
in an insensitive way, big bill pretty much hits the nail on the head. the andrew sullivan posse doesn't have much experience raising anything other than beagles (probably neurotic ones). the most vociferous commenters here such as JBG probably think regular babies are like the dancing one remembered from Ally McBeal or the cigar smoking one from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I do like the suggestion of reversing employment law to allow those unaskable questions on what you plan to do in terms of a family-very progressive. under the jbg standard, if the spouse doesn't intend to raise the kid, don't hire'em.
9.3.2008 5:32pm
The Ace (mail):
that's not a "fair" conclusion. it's unsubstantiated and illogical. i have already explained (i carry a taser and am familiar with dept. rules regarding same in several agencies), it is entirely inappropriate EVEN IF ASKED by a family member or friend, to provide a "demo tase", using your dept. taser. and if the person desiring a demo tase is only 10 or 11, it's even more inappropriate.

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

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

Which is why the officer in question was punished.
9.3.2008 5:37pm
The Ace (mail):
Sorry, I see that I am being unclear.

I do not mean to type that the officer was punished becasue the child did not ask.

I simply do not believe a 10 year old kid asked. And his statement 4 years later doesn't convince me he did.
But, as has been pointed out, it was wrong and jokebox keeps typing it as if has any significance.
9.3.2008 5:39pm
Crackmonkeyjr (www):
Each of these things have been pointed out many, many, many times as negatives for Obama. Overall, supporters of Obama have presumably decided that his positives outweigh these negatives, otherwise they wouldn't be his supporters. This does not mean that they are not negatives for Palin. The question is, does she have any positives that outweigh these negatives? So far, I haven't seen any.
9.3.2008 5:57pm
whit:
fine. as long as you realize you have no rational reason to conclude that the kid did NOT ask.

you are free to believe that. just don't pretend you have any rational basis for believing it.
9.3.2008 5:59pm
Anonymous #000:
Overall, supporters of Obama have presumably decided that his positives outweigh these negatives, otherwise they wouldn't be his supporters.

Assuming they're aware of them. Not everybody has been following the election since last November.
9.3.2008 6:03pm
Big Bill (mail):
JukeBoxGrad gives me cold chills.

As a preacher's kid my family had to deal with all the moralizing Mrs. Grundys that inhabited the darker recesses of my father's churches.

The evil-minded busy-bodies would look for flaws in my sibs' and my behavior and pillory my mother (they were too gutless to go after his father directly) for being unfit.

Scuffed shoes, acting out, running instead of walking, failing to take a message to Dad, etc, were all commented on. I knew that any serious screwup (pregnant girlfriend) or even some less serious ones (using a BB gun to shoot out a window) would likely lose my father his job. Every church has at least one or two of these moralizers.

And politicians have it much, much worse, if JukeBoxGrad is typical. It must make every politician's blood run cold to know that merely standing up in front of an audience with the kids for a photo op puts all of them "in play" as being nefarious JukeBoxian political "props".
9.3.2008 6:04pm
Deoxy (mail):
3) I'm not sure why Obama supporters wouldn't want to raise that issue, as Obama's connections on that end are pretty much played out. I don't really see conservatives getting that much more traction out of it by raising it as a defense to criticisms of Palin's pastor; "But...but...look what we said about Wright six months ago!"


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

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

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

Oh, well, you're right, then. Excuse me while I weep for the future of western society.
9.3.2008 6:04pm
Crackmonkeyjr (www):
Anonymous #000:

You would basically have to have lived in a cave for the past 6 months to have missed the argument that Obama is inexperienced or the fact that his Minister is a nut job.
9.3.2008 6:06pm
LM (mail):

"If I were supporting Obama..."

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

Translation: What Mark Field said.
9.3.2008 6:16pm
davod (mail):

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

Bull
9.3.2008 6:18pm
davod (mail):
"Whatver you think of the Wright kerfuffle, Obama did explicitly reject Wright's extreme views. Will Palin do something similar?"

Only after Wright disrespected Obama.

Palen left the church. Something Obama never did.
9.3.2008 6:26pm
davod (mail):
"Obama has shown no sign of holding the insane views of Pastor Wright"

Read his books.
9.3.2008 6:49pm
dr:

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

Read his books.


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

i'm being sincere.
9.3.2008 6:52pm
davod (mail):
"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."

Well, good. Let's hope she sticks to that."

Has there been any indication she has pushd for changes as governor?
9.3.2008 7:02pm
Anderson (mail):
i'm being sincere.

Then you've come to the wrong place. ;)
9.3.2008 7:03pm
Smokey:
Concerned:

Concerning your self-righteous 3:12pm post above, I'll bet you didn't post anything similar, screaming in bold text, regarding Rev Wright's twenty years of preaching, on a weekly basis, to 0bama -- who presumably just woke up the week that Wright's America-hating YouTube video came out.

Betcha didn't. Bet. You, Didn't.

Hypocrite.
9.3.2008 7:28pm
DangerMouse:
if JukeBoxGrad is typical. It must make every politician's blood run cold to know that merely standing up in front of an audience with the kids for a photo op puts all of them "in play" as being nefarious JukeBoxian political "props".

He's just a member of the cult of Obama - THE ONE. I don't think he's deliberately evil, just caught up in the intense tribalism of his cult and the personality-driven Obama. Or, he could have some mental issues that we don't know of. Either way, he's exposed himself as more of a religious fanatic than any church that Palin attended. Liberalism as a religion is really the only explanation for this kind of mentality. You'll see the Stalinist tactics at DemocraticUnderground and Kos. Jukeboxgrad is just bringing that here in the service of his mission. He's a cultist. It's really just best to close the door in their face.
9.3.2008 7:48pm
Waldensian (mail):
I probably won't vote for McCain, but anyone who thinks McCain was a "bad pilot" is just a roaring ignoramus.

He may possibly have been worse than some OTHER carrier pilots -- but if you can repeatedly land a jet on an aircraft carrier, you are not a "bad pilot." Heck, in my book if you can do it ONCE you are a pretty good pilot.
9.3.2008 7:51pm
Concerned:
http://volokh.com/posts/1220451914.shtml#427589

Smokey,

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


Professor Bernstein,

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

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

Indeed, Brickner has been quoted as stating:

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

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


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

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

Anyway, thanks for playing and my invitation to Professor Bernstein remains open.
9.3.2008 7:52pm
byomtov (mail):
Palen left the church. Something Obama never did.

She left her previous church, the one she was in most of her life, the one with the total nutbag pastor, a few years ago. I'm not aware of her reasons. She maintains ties to it, and spoke there a few months ago.

Be that as it may, the sermon being quoted above was given at her current church, just a few weeks ago.
9.3.2008 7:57pm
Eeek!:
"the sermon being quoted above was given at her current church, just a few weeks ago."

PALIN CHOICE = EPIC FAIL
9.3.2008 7:59pm
josh:
DB:

"Do you agree with Ms. Palins long-time pastor that Palestinians killing Israelis is G-d's punishment because the Israeli's haven't converted to Christianity?
Actually, it was a one-time guest lecturer from "Jews for Jesus" who said something like this, not her pastor."

So my church's (synogogue's) one-time guest lecturer spewing hate (unrenounced by me or my church/synagogue) OK

My pastor (rabbi) doing so over a period of years, not OK.

Got it.

What if I go to church/synagogue once a week and hear such awful things 14 times over a period of 7 months? OK? Not OK?

What if I hear it 12 times over a period of 3 months? 23 times over 16 months?

Just trying to get my arms around when it is permissible to attribute someone else's words to me and when it isn't.

Oh, that's right .. The answer is when the speaker is associated with the GOP, OK!!!! When associated with the Dems, NOT OK!!!!!

GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9.3.2008 8:15pm
Dave N (mail):
Concerned wrote (in part):
You have made clear that you think it is bad political strategy for Obama supporters and others to push the news that Palin belongs to a church now headed by David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.
You might have a point, if in fact Brickner was pastor of Governor Palin's church. He is not. At least according to the church's website, the pastor is someone named Larry Kroon.
9.3.2008 8:21pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
rarango:

"My point, speaking as an epidemiologist is that the numbers you cite are good for insurance pools, but they are worthless for predicting the risk of dying for an individual. Too many other factors intervene."

I know that, and if you read me carefully I pointed out that those probabilities for for an average person, and not a specific person such as McCain. I then inflated the force of mortality curve to account for the extra stress of being president and possible health problems. Thus we get a feeling for how sensitive the survival probability is to the changes in the force of mortality. For McCain I think a 28% of not surviving his first term is a reasonable and conservative number, and if anything a little on the high side.

Since almost anyone is fit for the do nothing job of vice president, the chances of Palin becoming president is useful to the discussion here.
9.3.2008 8:52pm
Randy R. (mail):
Here's the transcript from some top REPUBLICAN pundits on the choice of Palin. You can see it on youtube. It proves that it isn't the Dems who are freaking out, but the Repubs. (The mike was still on and they didn't know it, so it gives their honest opinion on the matter).

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

PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah.

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

PEGGY NOONAN: It's over.

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

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

PEGGY NOONAN: Saw Kay this morning.

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

MIKE MURPHY: They're all bummed out.

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

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

CHUCK TODD: Yeah they went to a narrative.

MIKE MURPHY: I totally agree.

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

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

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

MIKE MURPHY: Yeah.
Label
9.3.2008 9:20pm
rarango (mail):
Zarkov--thanks for your response--I appreciate it.
we will have to disagree on this, but again, I apologize for my snark that you called me on. But I continue to believe that your extrapolation is off base and ill informed. That said, its a free country and you are more than welcome to express your opinions. May we end this by saying I look forward to hearing from you again?
9.3.2008 9:27pm
Moneyrunner43 (www):

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

Sarah Palin Naked
9.3.2008 9:37pm
Dave N (mail):
Randy R.

And here is Peggy Nonnan's explanation for what she said, too.
9.3.2008 9:39pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
rarango:

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


Apology accepted. I am still curious as to what your objection is. Don't you think each person carries around his own force of mortality curve? And a whole population of individuals can be described by a "bundle" of curves. Why can't we modify the average of the bundle to get the curve for a specific individual? In reliability engineering we do the reverse. We assume identical units and select one or more, put on extra stress (accelerated life testing) and measure the time-to-failure. Then in effect we "un-stress" the curve to get back to the population curve. So I really think there is a linkage between group time to failure and individual time to failure. This is of course a Bayesian viewpoint and perhaps that's the root of the problem.
9.3.2008 10:37pm
dakotan:
Barbara Tuchman(The Proud Tower)describing the French intellectual turmoil over the Dreyfus affair: "In the most famous of the Caran d'Ache cartoons the father of a large family at dinner commands, "No one is to speak of it!" The next panel shows a wild melee of overturned table, knives and forks flying and chairs used as weapons, under the title, "They spoke of it!"
I hope these debates will be permanently archived. To see the forks flying even at this blog is really quite remarkable. I think that it will require at least 20 years to begin to figure out what the hell is going on. It's still fascinating to watch. (And I too am feeling quite polarized right now.)
9.3.2008 10:56pm
Cornellian (mail):
but if you can repeatedly land a jet on an aircraft carrier, you are not a "bad pilot." Heck, in my book if you can do it ONCE you are a pretty good pilot.

Heck, even I can land a jet on an aircraft carrier once, depending on your definition of "land."
9.3.2008 11:11pm
CB55 (mail):
Did Noonan think of her alibi before or after her statement. If you ask the village idiot he will tell you that Noonan knows that the party is over, but then if she did not have an alibi she would not see another paycheck from the GOP.

People are tired of being tired. They know that they had 8 years for the GOP to carry thru on lower taxes, but the only folks with a lower tax bill or no taxes are multinationals. The GOP whine about big government but the GOP created Homeland Security and a Total Awareness Program, and are more than happy to regulate birth control and end abortion as we know it. They know that Bush and the GOP has lied from 9/11, Iraq and Katrina. They know that carly fiorina is happy to outsource jobs but is not happy raise taxes to retrain and educate workers, and like most employers pay lip service to the American education system because they degrade it - a real Harvard college degree is not worth much if IBM can find a cheaper hire from India.

The GOP example of helping families is by opposing unions, disability rights, discrimination laws, work place safety, and most other labor rights
9.3.2008 11:36pm
Xanthippas (mail) (www):
Again, perhaps Bernstein can explain why this shouldn't be an issue given how affiliations with preachers is supposed to be some crucial determinant of qualifications for office.

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

As they say, turnabout is fair play.
9.4.2008 12:01am
Overgetter:
I think this post by David Bernstein is pretty convincing.

However, Bernstein's insistence that he is not a conservative? Sorry, but after reading this post: still not convincing.
9.4.2008 12:32am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Assuming the Brickner quote is fact, and that Palin attended (and, continues to share a spiritual affinity for) Brickner's chuch, I invite you to comment about the reasonable conclusions an objective observer or a hawkish advocate for the interests of Jews around the world might be fairly entitled to draw.
Your assumptions are wrong, because there is no "Brickner's church." Brickner was a guest speaker at Palin's church.
9.4.2008 3:13am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

well, it's weak when you draw conclusions


What's "weak" is you pretending you don't understand the difference between an opinion and a conclusion. What's also "weak" is you refusing to offer your own opinion, even though you're willing to criticize mine.

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

Why was he "flying too low?" Does anyone know? Does anyone care? Has anyone asked him? Has anyone asked him to sign SF180 so we can find out? I think we have a right to know if poor conduct on his part was ignored because of AA (Admiral Action).

His entire biography is full of indications that he's reckless, impulsive, and loves to take dangerous risks. That's why he loves to gamble, and that's why he picked Palin. Who wants a gambler in the White House?

mad:

yeah he served in combat but he was a lousy pilot


We're not hiring him to be a pilot, so I don't care if he was a "lousy" pilot. But I do care if he was a reckless pilot. There are many signs of recklessness in his biography, and a tendency toward recklessness is a disqualifier for the job he's seeking.

kirk:

I notice that McCain retained his assignment as pilot after every single one of those crashes.


Indeed. I think we have a right to know if AA was a part of that.

Why don't we just accept the accident investigators' conclusions and Move On™?


I think I just explained why.

wald:

anyone who thinks McCain was a "bad pilot" is just a roaring ignoramus … if you can repeatedly land a jet on an aircraft carrier, you are not a "bad pilot."


it's possible that he was both skilled and also inclined to take unnecessary risks (and someone who's too simpleminded to realize this is indeed "a roaring ignoramus"). We have a right to know more than we know.
9.4.2008 4:08pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

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


I did indeed say that the next day she backpedaled. That part of my statement is what's been "completely ignored."
9.4.2008 4:08pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ejo:

the media has tried to transform a normal person into some sort of ogre


A "normal person" gets pregnant at age 43, even though they already have 4 kids, and even though they are undoubtedly aware of the heightened risk, and even though the number of parents available to stay home and take care of the kids is zero? Really?

A "normal person" has a special-needs infant and goes back to work three days later? Even though dad's not home, either? Really?

A "normal person" presents their three-day old special-needs infant to press photographers, apparently for political purposes? (This quickly led to headlines adoring her for being so anti-abortion.) Really?

A "normal person" gets on an 8-hour airplane flight, even though they are leaking amniotic fluid, and even though their doctor has advised them to "put her feet up to rest?" Really?

You have a funny idea of "normal."
9.4.2008 4:08pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
calmom:

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


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

I think you're finding it easier to not notice that I already said this.
9.4.2008 4:08pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kirk:

if her being a sorta-conservative/sorta-libertarian small-government person


You should try looking at her actual record, instead of promulgating mythology. In Wasilla she greatly increased government spending and left behind millions in new debt. Tell us how this makes her a "small-government person."
9.4.2008 4:08pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
justin:

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


Thanks for speaking up, but what else is new. Comments like his are rampant here.
9.4.2008 4:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

I don't belive a 10 year old child asked for a tazer demo. And, given that the officer in question was punished for his actions, I think it fair to conclude that the kid did not. So yes, it is a lie


Pay no attention to the document I cited, which is the official transcript of police interviews of the four people who were present. Including Sarah Palin's daughter and Sarah Palin's sister. Every witness acknowledges that the kid volunteered to be tased.

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


And you're sticking with your story even though there are four witnesses contradicting you. Your willingness to dismiss reality is remarkable.

And Wooten was punished because what he did was wrong, even though the kid volunteered. Duh. Whit did a nice job of pointing out your illogic.

Which is why the officer in question was punished.


You're implying that the officer would not have been punished if the kid "asked to be tazed." As if there's nothing wrong with Tasing a kid as long as the kid "asked to be tazed." I think this tells us everything we need to know regarding your grip on reality.

Sorry, I see that I am being unclear. I do not mean to type that the officer was punished becasue the child did not ask.


Sorry, but you're still being unclear.

I simply do not believe a 10 year old kid asked. And his statement 4 years later doesn't convince me he did.


Your ability to get your facts straight is sorely limited. It was 2 years later, not "4 years later." And there were three witnesses besides the kid.
9.4.2008 4:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ejo:

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

did I miss some nuance


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

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


If a job applicant goes out of their way to show off their parental decisions, and then I notice that their parental decisions reflect poor judgement, you're right, I won't hire them. And that's exactly what Palin did.
9.4.2008 4:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
fury:

He indicated that using a taser in that manner is essentially no different than unholstering a service weapon - if you do so for a reason you can't justify was necessary, then (at least in these parts) you will be subject to disciplinary action.


Makes sense. And Wooten was indeed disciplined, in 2006. But that wasn't enough to convince Palin to let go of her grudge.

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


That's exactly what I've been saying.
9.4.2008 4:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bill:

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


It's not that "kids are such a critical part of a Palin's job performance." It's that she invited us to evaluate her parental decisions, even though her parental decisions reflect poor judgment. Judgment is definitely "a critical part of a Palin's job performance."
9.4.2008 4:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bill:

As a preacher's kid my family had to deal with all the moralizing Mrs. Grundys that inhabited the darker recesses of my father's churches.


Your irony impairment is severe. It's the GOP that has a lock on "moralizing."

It must make every politician's blood run cold to know that merely standing up in front of an audience with the kids for a photo op


Setting up a photo shoot with a three-day old special-needs infant goes a bit beyond "merely standing up in front of an audience with the kids for a photo op." Especially when it seems clear enough that the purpose was to produce a very specific kind of headline.
9.4.2008 4:10pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
xan:

Because nobody cares about this when it comes to men


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

I think you're finding it easier to not notice that I already said this.
9.4.2008 4:10pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
davod:

Palen left the church.


Palin definitely did not leave the church when certain offensive statements were made from the pulpit just a few weeks ago.
9.4.2008 4:10pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dangermouse:

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


I realize that asking you for a shred of proof would be expecting way too much.
9.4.2008 4:10pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
josh:

So my church's (synogogue's) one-time guest lecturer spewing hate (unrenounced by me or my church/synagogue) OK


Brickner is a lot more than just a "one-time guest lecturer." His relationship to Kroon (Palin's current pastor) goes back to 1974.

nieporent:

Brickner was a guest speaker at Palin's church.


True. But he is a guest speaker who has a long relationship with Palin's pastor.
9.4.2008 4:10pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dave n:

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


The tape speaks for itself. Her desperate retroactive spinning is singularly unconvincing.
9.4.2008 4:10pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
xan, when you said this:

Because nobody cares about this when it comes to men


I failed to take into account the context, and what you were actually trying to say. Sorry, my mistake.
9.4.2008 4:12pm
Seamus (mail):
Even worse than what Brickner said -- and something the press has been strangely silent about -- is that both McCain and Palin are members of churches that regard as "inspired" scripture the ravings of a preacher named Jeremiah who claimed that the violent overthrow of the Jewish state in 587 B.C.E. and the expulsion of its population to exile in Babylon were God's judgment on the Jews for their various "sins," including religious "idolatry."
9.4.2008 4:43pm
ejo:
all the more reason to believe that JBG's only contact with children is from watching them on TV. the rants get more ridiculous all the time. ravings of a preacher named Jeremiah-I can't quite figure out if this is sarcasm or not. although, come to think of it, wasn't there a crazed preacher named Moses who argued something similar when he came down from some mountain with a couple of rocks and saw the jews had returned to idolatry?
9.4.2008 6:55pm
Seamus (mail):
McCain lost five planes. Why so many? Here's the story of one of them: "flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines." (From "The Nightingale's Song," p. 94.)

JBG needs to form a 527 group. He could call it "Swift Plane Veterans for Truth."
9.4.2008 7:19pm
davod (mail):
I read tht he lost three planes.
9.5.2008 12:48am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
seamus:

Even worse than what Brickner said


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

If Jeremiah were to miraculously appear in Palin's church and be applauded for saying the things he said a few thousand years ago, that would concern me roughly as much as the Brickner event concerns me. So please let me know if you get wind of such a thing happening.
9.5.2008 2:57am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
davod:

I read tht he lost three planes.


The count is three if you omit the Forestal, and if you omit the one he left in Hanoi.

I include both of these in my count for completeness. I don't intend to imply that the Forestal was his fault, or a sign of recklessness. But the one he left in Hanoi raises that question. By his own account, he had a chance to evade the missile, but instead made a decision to stay locked on his target. This was unmistakably an act of great courage. He paid a huge personal price, for this choice he made. He earned the right to be seen as a hero for making this choice, but it nevertheless remains possible that it was a reckless choice, and a choice that should not have been made.

Aside from the enormous price he paid himself, we lost the plane, and we also (effectively) lost a pilot. Was it worth it? I think we just don't know, because there's a lot of information missing (like the strategic importance of the target, and the effectiveness of other planes that were part of his mission).

In any case, it's the other three crashes that are most relevant to the point I'm making. But we know very, very little about them. By comparison, we know infinitely more about the details of Kerry's medals.
9.5.2008 2:57am
Seamus (mail):
If Jeremiah were to miraculously appear in Palin's church and be applauded for saying the things he said a few thousand years ago, that would concern me roughly as much as the Brickner event concerns me.

Conversely, I guess that if you had been around in the time of kings Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, you'd have found Jeremiah's prophecy offensive (as did Jehoiakim and Zedekiah).
9.5.2008 11:23am