Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Andrew Sullivan discusses the first poll to come out that looks at how Palin is viewed by voters. It shows some pretty interesting things. In particular, it looks like she doesn't appeal much to those undecided voters both campaigns are looking to woo. Long excerpt below the fold:
On the critical question, "With Palin As Vice-Presidential Nominee, Are You More Or Less Likely To Vote For McCain," there's a striking result. Among those already for McCain, 68 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him; only 6 percent say less; and 23 percent said no impact. Among those already for Obama, Palin made only 9 percent of them more likely to switch to McCain, 59 percent less likely, and 30 percent said it would make no difference.But among the critical undecideds, the Palin pick made only 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain; and it made 31 percent less likely to vote for him. 49 percent said it would have no impact, and 15 percent remained unsure. More to the point: among undecideds, 59 percent said Palin was unready to be president. Only 6 percent said she was.If the first criterion for any job is whether you're ready for it, this is a pretty major indictment of the first act of McCain's presidential leadership.
One other striking finding. If McCain thought he could present Palin as a moderate, he was wrong. A whopping 69 percent view her as conservative (37 percent as very conservative), and only 13 percent see her as moderate.
From this first snap-shot (and unsettled) impression, Palin has helped McCain among Republicans, left Democrats unfazed, but moved the undecideds against him quite sharply.
It's far too early to reach any conclusions on this. This is a snapshot reaction to someone the public doesn't know at all. As they get to know more about her, this could change. But if you only get one chance to make a first impression, this can't be what the McCain campaign hoped for that impression.
Politics
Comments
Only 6 percent said she was
Even that much is depressing.
Posted by: cipher | September 1, 2008 10:19 AM
Does someone have a pointer to the original data?
When I searched for it, all I could find were interpretations of the poll.
Posted by: TomS | September 1, 2008 11:01 AM
Well, I happen to be one of those undecided voters that you mention in your post, and I can tell you that the choice to select Palin has made up my mind. I am no longer an undecided. McCain's decision to pick Palin has COMPLETELY moved me over to the Democrats. I am certain that I will be voting for Obama in November.
What's funny is that before this pick I was actually leaning towards McCain.
Posted by: Brad Hart | September 1, 2008 11:05 AM
About six months ago, I was someone who was leaning McCain. The ensuing time took me further and further away from candidate McCain. I don't know if it was voting against his own immigration bill or going against the things I thought would make candidate McCain at least a passable president. By the time of last week's bombshell announcement, I had been well enough driven away from McCain to know that unless he chose a very liberal candidate there was no chance of this independent even considering the ticket when I walk into the booth in November.
The choice of Palin made me think, "Hello, what? Who?" Learning that McCain spoke to Palin only a couple of times before he gives her the nomination means - to me - that he doesn't really hold the position in very high regard. If anything, I'm part of that group that is in the same camp as Brad Hart: "McCain's decision to pick Palin has COMPLETELY moved me over to the Democrats."
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2008 11:50 AM
I think that if Biden doesn't get overconfident that the vice presidential debate will be a wake-up call for everyone. And hopefully all that BS about how she stands up to the oil companies (but only when it would be political suicide in Alaska to do otherwise) will be seen for what it really is.
Posted by: Lisa D | September 1, 2008 12:04 PM
Helloooo.........
Doesn't anyone realise that her tagline is going to be....
SHE'S NOT DICK CHENEY!
Posted by: Pineyman | September 1, 2008 12:26 PM
She said that? But aren't oil companies sacrosanct to mor... to many republican voters?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 1, 2008 12:32 PM
This move by Rove ... er, I mean the McCain campaign ... will not work. Sure they might re-energize some social conservatives to go out and vote when they might have stayed home, but I can't see it attracting any true Independents or undecided voters.
The question now is to what degree will this backfire ... could it be as bad as the Harriet Miers fiasco? Probably not, but it's possible.
Posted by: BrianR | September 1, 2008 12:39 PM
I'm curious to see what if any effect this has in the long run. Palin herself aside, I tend to think all the bruhaha around picking a VP is exaggerated. Everyone agreed Dan Quayle was an unqualified idiot, but that didn't stop them from voting for Bush I anyway. Of course, Bush I was a stronger candidate running on a popular legacy, and facing a (sorry Mike) much weaker opponent. McCain clearly needs all the help he can get, so Palin just not hurting him might not be enough.
Posted by: WScott | September 1, 2008 12:45 PM
Just came across the wires ... Palin's unmarried 17 yr-old daughter is pregnant ... normally, I would say "so what, that's their business", but it's the social conservatives who want to bring so-called "family values" back into this. Careful what you wish for, eh?
Posted by: BrianR | September 1, 2008 1:04 PM
Thing is, the people who know her best, in Alaska -- some Republicans, and not all enemies of hers -- are absolutely stunned that she was asked, saying that there is no way in hell that she is ready for this kind of promotion.
If you think about it, there is a chance she could be president of the USA and leader of the free world in a little over four months.
That thought scares the crap out of me.
Posted by: tacitus | September 1, 2008 1:43 PM
Yeah, these people haven't gotten to meet Sarah Palin yet. Only the pols really know who she is and what she's about.
As people get to know her and see her up against Joe Biden, they're going to understand what this means.
Obviously, there's something mildly scandalous about a socially "pro-family" conservative having a pregnant daughter. While I'm not going to vote for that ticket based on the issues, if this scandal continues, it could change the way that alot of people see the campaign.
Still, as has been pointed out, the VP choices don't tend to matter that much (except for in home states). I would just like Palin to fall apart and really bring some credibility issues to the McCain campaign. That would make me really happy.
Posted by: JStein | September 1, 2008 1:44 PM
I think the other thing is that she has so little of note to talk about in her record that as soon as one or two things get out there -- like her support for the "bridge to nowhere" (until it became a national joke) and all the messy details about troopergate -- then she has nothing left.
The main landmine for the Dems is the VP debate. I have absolutely no doubt that no matter how fair Biden is to her, the GOP will find a way to cry foul over his treatment of her.
Posted by: tacitus | September 1, 2008 1:47 PM
Some anecdotal evidence regarding the conservative Christian vote.
Myself, I was planning to vote for Obama. The selection of Biden was a real turn off, because of the plagiarism (by itself forgivable), the "my IQ is higher than your IQ" incident (which speaks to the general blowhardiness of the man), and especially because, short of Robert Byrd, Obama couldn't have chosen a more entrenched Washington insider. After the Biden pick, I was leaning toward not voting. Because of Palin, as it stands now, I'll vote for McCain, after having never in my life expecting to say that.
But I am not the standard evangelical. Most of my conservative Christian friends were roughly, as near as I could tell, 1/10 (or less) Obama, 1/3 McCain, 1/4 Barr, and the rest ambivalent with a real possibility of not voting at all.
I just spoke to a friend who attended a Presbyterian PCA (the conservative Presbys) retreat over the weekend. He said that the buzz was palpable and universally favorable toward Palin.
I am guessing from this anecdotal evidence there will be a considerable strengthening of evangelical support for the GOP ticket. How important that is, or whether it will be offset by people turned away because of Palin, I couldn't say. But the evangelical base will, I believe, be energized. And the pregnancy of her daughter will only in a strange way help, not hurt. Evangelicals will respond warmly to a family that clings together under those circumstance. It will make her all the more "a real person, one of us" which at this early stage is a huge part of her appeal.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 1:49 PM
When she ran for governor in 2006 she responded to a questionnaire: http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html
There's a lot of bad answers there, but this one really jumps out:
11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
Ignorance is not a very attractive quality.
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2008 1:50 PM
I agree that Republicans (and their media lackeys) will be looking for the slightest hint of evidence (real or imagined) that Biden is disrespecting Palin in debate, and use that to enrage their sheep-like masses.
However, Biden has two big things on his side: a) he has the experience of having run against Hillary for over a year without any apparent sexist gaffes, and; b) Biden need barely acknowledge Palin during the VP debate - all he needs to do is discuss what he knows in terms of concrete, real-world examples.
IMO, Palin is going to come off during the debate as charming, but extremely lightweight on larger issues.
And if she dares to parrot some of the bone-headed spin the GOP is desperately trying to sell about her (i.e. her being governor of a state close to Russia qualifies as foreign policy experience), Palin will be laughed off stage.
Posted by: CHV | September 1, 2008 1:57 PM
heddle - And the fact that she lied about the "bridge to nowhere" in her first speech as vp nominee doesn't bother you a bit? I thought there was a commandment about that.
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2008 2:10 PM
I believe heddle is repeating what he's heard, not that he's energized by her selection.
Posted by: tacitus | September 1, 2008 2:16 PM
he has the experience of having run against Hillary for over a year without any apparent sexist gaffes
Except that when he was introduced as VP pick,his first sentence was a joke about his "drop-dead gorgeous wife who has a doctorate...which is a problem". Girls getting all edumacated and stuff is bad! Yuk yuk! Biden avoiding sexism, not so much.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2008 2:18 PM
I agree that Biden was a "safe" bet and he is obviously an insider, but at least he hasn't jumped on the usual gravy train that many who go there end up on (he's doing well, no doubt, but he's still one of the less well-off and has just as compelling, if not more-so, family history than Palin.
And it's not as if he's oversold it either -- even though he's always on the talking heads shows, I never knew he'd lost his first wife in an accident as he was elected senator until he was introduced as VP.
And none of the speeches last week directly mention the fact that Biden's son is soon to be deployed to Iraq. I am better we're going to a lot more about Palin's son (who's either already there or soon to do) at the Republican convention.
Posted by: tacitus | September 1, 2008 2:23 PM
tacitus -
Maybe you should read his post again. He clearly states that he is now going to vote for McCain because of Palin.Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2008 2:26 PM
Am I really the only one that sees that McCain wasn't given a choice about his VP pick? It's obvious to me that this choice was dictated by big oil and is further evidence that Obama was correct when he said that the Republican Party is bought and paid for by big oil.
Palin is their insurance policy.
Posted by: TomTallis | September 1, 2008 2:41 PM
Yeah - serves me right for skimming. How on earth voting ideology over competence (and picking Palin don't help bolster McCain's reputation of competence) is going to help America in the next four years is beyond me, especially after what we've seen from the Bush administration over the past eight. Andrew Sullivan is right when he says that a McCain administration would look like Bush's, only on steroids.
One thing that people forget when electing a president is that it has a ripple effect down the line to the type of people appointed in the rank and file of government. Just remember how the cadre of underqualified lawyers church out from the ideologically extreme Liberty University (Pat Robertson's graduate law school) appointed to positions in the Justice Department worked out. If McCain/Palin gets in, it will be more of the same.
Whatever one thought of Bill Clinton, his adminstration, by and large, appointed well qualified people into those positions (the one's below the cabinet level). From what we've seen from the Obama campaign, which everyone agrees has been an efficient, well-oiled machine, and from the shoot-from-the-hip mentality of Palin's appointment, there is no doubting that Obama's appointments will be more thought out and much more qualified than McCain would be.
It will be nice to have grown-ups in the White House instead of a bunch of insecure neocons who pride competence over ideology. McCain has shown no evidence that he will do anything different from Bush. Indeed, if the rumors are true and he really wanted Lieberman and was talked out of it, what does that say about his ability of buck the religious right when he gets into office?
There is 100% guarantee that there will be a hard-right Supreme Court for the next 20 years if McCain wins this election. That is not a future I look forward to at all.
Posted by: tacitus | September 1, 2008 2:58 PM
Taz,
I am sure tacitus read the comment, and he was correct that the gist of it was that I have limited anecdotal reason to believe that evangelicals as a group will be energized. My own decision to switch my vote would not constitute such evidence for the reasons a) that I am just one person and b) as I stated, I am not a typical evangelical, especially when it comes to politics.
As for your other question, most evangelicals would acknowledge that all candidates break most of the commandments. Since Jesus is not running for office, we all are resigned to vote for sinners.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 3:04 PM
Oh, based on his comment above that crossed paths with mine, I retract my certainty that tacitus understood my original comment.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 3:06 PM
Dave, the fact that McCain choosing Palin as his running mate was enough on its own to tip the balance into you voting for him differentiates you from the "typical evangelicals" how?
Palin's selection was a pure pander to women and the religious right. It might win him the election, but heaven forbid what it means about his administration and doubly so should she have to take over.
This is a woman who appeared profoundly incurious about anything political beyond her current job and didn't even know that the Pledge of Allegiance was a modern invention. She has a messy family life (but that's ok since the Clintons, it seems -- I don't remember them getting the benefit of the doubt from the right) and there appears to be strong evidence that she used her position to exert undue pressure on an official to get her brother-in-law fire (at the very least she lied about there being pressure). And she was caught in a lie her *very* *first* *speech* as nominee -- she was for the "bridge to nowhere" right up to the point it became a national joke, and even then kept the earmark money to spend on other stuff. This is the reformer McCain is selling to you?
I must say I am surprised at you. I could understand if there were policy issues that swayed your vote to McCain -- you are a right-winger after all, but to have made your choice over such a shallow thing as Palin being nominated as VP? I would have expected more.
Posted by: tacitus | September 1, 2008 3:29 PM
I take heddle comments, both anecdotal and personal, as evidence that evangelicals are still one-issue voters. Abortion is the only thing that matters to them.
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2008 3:43 PM
This is the type of decision making we can expect from a McCain administration??
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200808u/mccain-palin
Just, wow.
Posted by: tacitus | September 1, 2008 3:45 PM
tacitus,
What makes me distinct from most evangelicals is my strong support for separation of church and state, being totally for it. Gay marriage doesn't ruffle my feathers, nor am I for overturning Roe V. Wade. I take the position that the bible doesn't command us to try to make sin illegal.
My reasons for switching votes is not because Palin is a Christian, because, after all, Obama is a Christian. (I don't think either Biden or McCain are, regardless of what they say.) My reasons, at least at the moment, are entirely because I was enamored by her biography and by her speech when she was introduced. Of the four people on the national ticket, I (at the moment) would rank them, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being good, Biden:1, McCain:3, Obama:8, Palin: 9.
As for the pledge, you may be right, or she may have been saying that "Under God" was a phrase not unknown to the founding fathers.
As for McCain pandering--I am sure there is some truth to that. He made a calculated decision--what candidate isn't pandering to some group with their VP choice? I don't care. I thought the experience card was overrated when used to attack Obama, and even more so for someone on the second slot. Cheney had an impeccable resume.
I am sorry to have disappointed you--but as I said earlier the choice of Biden really turned me off. I don't analyze deeply when I vote, for me it is almost always a gut-level reaction.
I could change my mind again before the election. The VP debate will be particularly interesting. (A few days ago I would have told you I wouldn't watch any of the debates, let alone the VP debate.)
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 3:46 PM
heddle - So Biden's plagiarism is a black mark against him, but you're enamored by a Palin acceptance speech in which she told a deliberate lie. So much so that you've changed your vote. Your reasoning seems so shallow that I have to doubt if you're being completely honest. For myself, the fact that she supports ID is enough to make me question either her judgment or her honesty. Not that there was ever a chance that I would vote for McCain.
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2008 4:06 PM
Judging from the action on the prediction markets (Intrade and Iowa School of Business), the Pallin selection had a minor (~3 cents) effect that's already almost wholly washed out.
Posted by: RBH | September 1, 2008 4:19 PM
The hypocrisy of the Religious Right is utterly disgusting. They hound Clinton for a decade plus over his infidelities, but ignore those of McCain, Reagan, etc. They harp on and on about "family values" but have no problem with a VP candidate whose 17 year old daughter is pregnant. If it came out that Biden or Obama's daughters were pregnant, they would be screaming high and low about how obviously neither is qualified for leadership if they can't provide a "proper" moral foundation for their own home.
The issue itself isn't as important as the hypocrisy. I don't particularly care that Palin's daughter is pregnant, I didn't consider her qualified for the job of VP (let alone president), so it really doesn't impact my position on her. The neo-con slither over the issue though is nauseating. Their "standing behind her" shows that the family is "tight knit?" How about the fact that she was out with a boy getting pregnant in the first place, what does that say about their "tight knit" nature?
More and more, social conservative, family values, etc., really means:
"What my family does is my business, what your family does is my business."
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 1, 2008 4:24 PM
Posted by: T_U_T | September 1, 2008 4:24 PM
heddle wrote:
So now "gut feelings" are ok?
Hmm. That's interesting.
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 4:26 PM
I think this choice will prove to be a trainwreck long term. You need to hold the center to get the election. W held the center via fear the second time around and the ineptitude of the Kerry campaign. Can McCain fear monger enough to offset the fact that Palin is a fundie right winger? I doubt it.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | September 1, 2008 4:28 PM
Ian - I think it would be more correct to say you need to hold your base and win the center. The Palin selection is a tacit admission that the Republican Party is still under the nearly complete control of the fundamentalists.
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2008 4:36 PM
Leni,
I don't know if they are OK, but that is how I vote. That is, I don't care all that deeply whether they are for or against ANWR drilling, because to first order whatever they say will become a victim of expediency, such as Obama on FISA and public campaign finance and Hillary on the Iraq war and perhaps Palin on the bridge. So my first and by far most important selection filter is always a character assessment (which I am calling gut feelings), which is why I like Obama and Palin and dislike Biden and McCain.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 4:39 PM
Heddle, however you choose to make your voting decisions is not really an issue for me.
I just found it ironic and amusing that you said this after chastising me for what you supposed to be a negative "gut-level reaction" to Palin not, what, two hours ago?
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 4:49 PM
Leni,
Maybe that's fair--I'd have to go back and reread my comments. But what I thought I was chastising you for was assuming facts not in evidence relating to her pregnancy. If you had said: "Palin strikes me as a lightweight and I refuse to vote for her" I would not have commented.
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 5:02 PM
heddle, you are perfectly free to make your own decision, based upon whatever reasons are most important to you. Just be careful to check out charges against candidates before letting them affect your opinion. Biden, never plagiarized. He had mentioned that statement at least 50 times, always attributing it properly. The one time he neglected to attribute the quote (an easy mistake for anyone to make), and suddenly he's a plagiarist. Be aware that people with an agenda (either party) are always trying to take things out of context or distort something for political effect. Try to determine the truth before letting it sink in.
Posted by: bigTom | September 1, 2008 5:10 PM
Another less sexy problem with Palin is with her experience as governor of Alaska. We should not just assume that all governors' experience is equal. Obviously a state like New York or Florida or California functions like a small nation, with large scale problems, trends, and issues. Alaska is nothing like this. Governing Alaska isn't much of a challenge at all.
First, Alaska is tiny in terms of population, programs, budget, and in every other political measurement. There are 85 US counties with larger populations than the entire state of Alaska. (USCensus.org)
The budget of Alaska, however, is much larger than you might expect based on the population. The reason is that most of the budget is, literally, free money. Depending upon how you evaluate revenue, Alaska receives between 60 and 87 percent of its entire budget from oil revenue. Of course, it can be argued that taxation of extracted oil or minerals is a perfectly reasonable revenue source, but it is not the same, by a long shot, as managing the complexities and stresses of running a real budget. The money literally flows directly into the state's coffers.
For one thing, that means that the comfort of oil companies is intertwined organically with the comfort of the government. It also means that the state's budget process and priorities are related to the price of oil in a relationship that is completely reversed to the rest of the nation. As the price of oil per barrel rises, Alaskans' prosperity rises. The cost of gas--always high there, by the way, like every other staple, because of the state's remoteness--becomes a small political issue offset by the secret glee many Alaskans feel as the rest of the nation suffers at the pump.
To be fair, Alaska has a lot of social stresses. Delivery of resources is very challenging over great distances, and the large population of indigenous people require more state support than the average population does. On the other hand, Alaskans are highly self-sufficient, and tend to function well in conditions most of the rest of us would not tolerate.
It all adds up to an interesting piece of experience, but in comparison to running an enormous, diverse, complex government it is no more challenging than being county executive of, say, Orange County, CA with 3 million people, or my home county of Fairfax, Virginia with 1 million people, a single school system, a diverse but steady revenue base, a dense road network, a single sewer and water grid, and so on.
ice
So the qualifications Palin might claim must be taken with a bunch of salt. For example, balancing the state's budget or holding taxes down is easy if your state rests on a pool of oil. Because the state government is tightly linked to oil companies, it's easy to "stand up" to them--negotiate firmly in the knowledge that they are profiting hugely and aren't going anywhere. The existing extraction infrastructure could handle the ANWR drilling plan easily, and so it's profit on the hoof--a great reason for big oil to give Palin what ever she wants now, knowing that the clout will pay off if she's elected.
Alaskans also reap a tremendous amount of the revenue per capita from the federal government. They receive far more than they pay in taxes, mainly because they pay little of their direct labor in taxes in the first place, and because Alaska has always had very senior, and very powerful, legislators (though the two most senior and powerful are in hot water right now.)
All of this means that Palin, whatever her positives in attitude or gumption or fertility, can't with a straight face claim much of anything in the way of experience.
And that "budget, like a family" meme is comical. If your family has a trust fund, maybe.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | September 1, 2008 5:17 PM
heddle wrote:
And what I was chastising you for was assuming facts not in evidence relating to her candidacy.
Gotcha!
Posted by: Leni | September 1, 2008 6:27 PM
Someone over on Pharyngula called her "Dickless Cheney" yesterday.
Oh, and she & McSame are with Exxon, not with Halliburton.
Because Bush the Elected wasn't in immediate danger of dying and leaving Quayle with the red button. That's why.
She voted for it before she was against it.
:-o
And there I thought your theology was slightly silly.
Man.
Love thy neighbour, unless he hath no health insurance or cometh too close to Mess-up-potamia, eh?
You just want to believe.
Come on, people. Who here has stolen heddle's name and posted parodies under his name?
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 1, 2008 6:47 PM
Heddle:
You said:
"I thought the experience card was overrated when used to attack Obama, and even more so for someone on the second slot. Cheney had an impeccable resume."
I think it's the second time you've made reference to the DorkLordCheney's qualifications (although this one seems a bit nonsequitur).
What exactly are the qualities of that impeccable resume?
Posted by: democommie | September 1, 2008 9:12 PM
decommie,
1) It is the first time, and in case it is not obvious I am not a Cheney fan.
2) He was, for a short list, white house chief of staff, congressman, secretary of defense--an impeccable resume for a VP. The point was, so what? What good was the resume?
Posted by: heddle | September 1, 2008 9:22 PM
Dear Heddle,
So let me try to get this straight?
You LIKE Obama, who is actually running for president, but you WON'T vote for him because of the vice-president he's chosen, and you DISLIKE McCain, who's actually running for president, but you INTEND to vote for him because of the vice-president he's chosen, of whom you know virtually nothing, apart from hearing her speak on a single occasion?
WTF??? : O
You need to urgently sort out your priorities mate.
Talk about getting things arse about backwards!
Are you a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic by any chance?
On second thoughts, I notice that you admit to being some sort of mutant evangelical Christian, so I guess that goes a long way towards explaining your complete lack of logic.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 1, 2008 10:51 PM
DingoDave ,
And that comment goes a long way to proving you are a jackass.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 5:10 AM
Heddle:
Well, I guess I'm glad you're not a fan of Cheney's.
I won't argue about the posting, although I think you used that line on a thread a few weeks back.
In any event, Cheney's "resume" is not just a list of jobs. It's what he did when in those positions that matter. It's also what he did, "between jobs" so to speak, at Halliburton. Not that any of it mattered as he was selected himself as the most qualified man for the job.
Posted by: democommie | September 2, 2008 5:57 AM
By the way DingoDave, I see an example of your irrefutable logic on the other Palin thread:
That post came late on the thread, long after the embers had started to die on the on the issue of who's issue the baby was. After the news of the daughter's current pregnancy came to light. Late in the game when quite a few were delicately backing away, you added the crushing "evidence" that the baby's picture was not on the hospital's web site. Thus faced with two options:
1) The Palins did not give their permission for the picture to be posted.
2) Having fomented this crafty plan of a fake pregnancy, deceiving even Laura Bush who met with Palin while Palin was faking it (or is Laura Bush in on the conspiracy?) Having convinced the doctor and at least some hospital staff to go along with their plan, after having coerced their own daughter into getting pregnant again immediately (preventive hormones be damned, and even then they'd have to fudge the new pregnancy by at least a month--or wait, maybe she is not really pregant, after all the Palins are fake pregnancy savants) they forgot, after all of that, to post the baby's picture--even though there was a baby Trig readily available, just not Sarah Palin's, so this would seem the simplest part of the ruse--they simply couldn't pull that one off! Maybe the webmaster was the only ethical person, and he wouldn't go along. Better look for him. He might having been taken on a "fishing trip" and you know how treacherous those Alaskan waters can be.
You assumed option 2 was entirely plausible!
Why, you are a regular Aristotle!
democommie,
Memory being what it is, I couldn't say for sure that Cheney's name never appeared in one of my comments. But since, prior to yesterday, 99.9% of my comments are on religion or science, I doubt it. And in any case, it would have had to have been an unfavorable comment.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 6:12 AM
I've soured on Obama. Man is just too wishy-washy and phony and, frankly, too ready to give up protections in the name of peace. This move on McCain's part has proven he is not shrewd. (What was he thinking? A woman? Any woman to counter the race card? Qualified or not?) So I'm either voting third party or not at all. I've been one voice saying I'm not Libertarian on this board -- but I just may vote Liberatarian this year.
Posted by: T's Grammy | September 2, 2008 6:23 AM
Taz wrote:
Great find Taz! I'd be surprised if this page stays up since her answers portray her as an idiot. It'd be great if the media got a hold of this. It appears she doesn't have an original thought in her head plus a lot of misinformation swimming around in the noggin'.
I posted a comment there last night correcting the record on the pledge along with pointing out that her position on wanting to deprive gays, their children, and their families of equal rights contradicted her statement that the she wanted to "crack down" on government limiting our liberties. Given this blogger is a Phyliss Schlafly disciple, I'd be surprised if my post get published, none have to date.
I'm guessing if the McCain campaign knew this page existed, they would delete it. I saved the page as a PDF download, but that doesn't save the URL. I recommend someone with better tech skills insure that page is not lost.
Ed - a commentary by you regarding Palin's answers would be a great addition to your blog and to the Michigan Messenger.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 7:32 AM
Michael -
There are no comments, but I noticed there were plenty of links, including one calling Palin an 'ignorant wingnut' I think the term was. Little late to delete it now methinks.
Posted by: Dave S. | September 2, 2008 7:49 AM
Heddle: The daughter's current pregnancy is consistent with Trig being her baby as well. All it takes is some fudging of dates - and not even by much - a conception date less than a month after the stated estimate would do.
Furthermore, DingoDave's argument, if read as intended, is clear: It seems likely that nobody at the hospital wanted to do anything illegal. Not releasing information is legal. Releasing falsified information is not. Yeah, maybe they just didn't get permission - after all, Gov Palin considers Trig's birth enough of a secret to make the fact he wasn't aborted part of the reason people should vote for her - or maybe nobody wanted permission. It's arguably not even unethical for a hospital to cooperate in fudging parentage in teen pregnancy situations, in the case where that wouldn't be relevant to a major politician's credibility, anyway...
Posted by: Michael Ralston | September 2, 2008 7:58 AM
Heddle:
Fair enough.
Posted by: democommie | September 2, 2008 7:58 AM
Michael Ralston,
I bow to you sir. Your willingness to add another layer of conspiracy (a new, date-fudged pregnancy to deflect questions of the old, faked pregnancy) is matched only by, well, the willingness of others such as DingoDave.
To me, the first round of conspiracy theorizing, that Trig wasn't Sarah Palin's, sounded exactly like those claiming Obama is covering up his Islam. Exactly. Two peas in a pod. The willingness to go the next step, to shoe-horn Bristol's pregnancy (If there really is a pregnancy-I demand they release an ultrasound taken in the presence of Geraldo, and shown live on network TV!) puts you, and the others, in a class by yourselves.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 8:46 AM
Heddle wrote:
...short of Robert Byrd, Obama couldn't have chosen a more entrenched Washington insider.
He also couldn't have chosen a wiser or more experienced seasoned politician to help him get things done. Since when did "evangelicals" like you consider that BAD? Are you -- to use Palin's own words -- "afraid of information?"
After the Biden pick, I was leaning toward not voting. Because of Palin, as it stands now, I'll vote for McCain, after having never in my life expecting to say that.
So huge amounts of shameless Republican corruption, and a war that's killed hundreds of thousands of people, doesn't affect your voting decision as an "evalngelical" "Christian?" But McCain picking Palin swung your vote? Is that representative of today's "Christian" "values?"
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 9:12 AM
RagingBee,
My goodness, he certainly could have chosen a wiser person. At least that is my opinion based on listening, over the years, to Biden when he attempts to speak extemporaneously. All of the other short-list candidates are arguably wiser than Biden. More experienced--perhaps not, although I am not of the view that 35 years in the senate, on either side of the aisle, is a compelling resume.
I couldn't say, not being a spokesman for "Christian Values."
But I'll say it again, I am not an issues voter. Primarily because of libertarian leanings I am normally between an irreconcilable rock and a hard place--what is supposed to be (but hasn't turned out to be) the small government of the Republicans and the personal liberty (and based on Obama's FISA flop, also turning out not to be) of the Democrats. That said, I was willing to pull the lever for Obama because, all things being more or less equal, why not make history and put an African American in office? The desire to punish the present party was never part of the equation. But, at least at the moment, I am enamored enough with Palin to switch my vote.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 9:36 AM
heddle-
You are really truly funny. Are you a parody? In addition to your bizarre religious arguments you come up with
Perhaps you see yourself there.
And dingodave is correct on his first comment your bringing his prior thread comment in for some form of unrelated argument not withstanding. It doesn't affect the solid point he made just because you don't like it.
You like the actual person running for office and dislike the other but instead will vote for the person you dislike because of a single speech and precious little else?
So in essense you'll put the person you dislike in office on the wing and a prayer he'll drop dead and get the one you want?
How on Earth do you give Palin a 9 and Obama an 8? She has done nothing, really virtually nothing as a politician and you want to give her the keys to the USA over everyone else?
No one expects logic from you after your many posts but the above is really odd even by that standard.
Posted by: GH | September 2, 2008 9:44 AM
Missed this while posting:
Believe it or not you and I are very similiar in this area. Really similiar. I have no idea why your enamored of Palin or the dubious logic you displayed above given you make sense(at least to me) here.
Posted by: GH | September 2, 2008 9:49 AM
I guess, then, to return to the topic, that there really is no such poll.
Posted by: TomS | September 2, 2008 10:00 AM
GH,
I was willing to vote for Obama because he was different, smart, more or less an outsider, and it would be history-making to have an African-American president, but never for what he has done. What has he done? Based purely on what they have done, McCain is better--one of the only politicians who has a actual track record rather than a campaign promise of reaching across the aisle. My support for Obama is for his biography, not for his experience. Likewise for Palin. My dislike for McCain and especially for Biden is, in part, in spite of their experience.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 10:06 AM
Fair enough. Although I will add Obama does have a record and it's much more than being the mayor of a small town and governor for a year.
Likewise it's impossible to know anything about Palin past the campaign image right now as well.
I don't dislike her, I just think her as President would be unfortunate for the nation. We can do better. Either of the Dems I think are so.
Posted by: GH | September 2, 2008 10:11 AM
There were a couple of posts over at Pharyngula mentioning that Palin had belonged to an Alaskan Secessionist party and had recently addressed a meeting of the same. If the Alaskan Secessionists are anything like the Alberta separistists, they are probalby a collection of right wing wackaloons with the occasional white supremacist and holocaust denier thrown in.
I suspect there may be more skeletons in the closet in that direction. I think looking into this would more productive than the teen pregnancy thing.
I do find it hilarious that she is described as being against abortion and sex education. Doesn't the latter prevent the need for the former?
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | September 2, 2008 10:15 AM
That said, I was willing to pull the lever for Obama because, all things being more or less equal, why not make history and put an African American in office?
News flash: one party invaded a country we didn't have to invade, the other didn't. And one party has trampled on our basic rights like no other party since WW-II. If you really think the two parties are "more or less equal," then you're even dumber and more uncaring than you normally sound.
And even if you're not an "issues voter," doesn't Obama's previous work with the poorest residents of Chicago impress you at all, as a Christian?
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 10:17 AM
RagingBee,
I do, although I arrive at that conclusion not because I think they are indistinguishable but by some private calculus of weighing their respective pluses and minuses. This results, more-or-less, in a wash. So I guess I am even dumber and more uncaring than I normally sound. I hope Biden doesn't challenge me to an IQ face-off.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 10:25 AM
do, although I arrive at that conclusion not because I think they are indistinguishable but by some private calculus of weighing their respective pluses and minuses.
So you know the two parties are different, but you use "some private calculus" to pretend they're not different enough to affect your actions. So as a result of your "private calculus," a guy who married into wealth and blindly supported an unnecessary act of butchery is not really that different from a guy who sacrificed good opportunities to minister to people less fortunate than himself and opposed the un-Christian butchery that is now bleeding our country and damaging our ability to see to our own people's needs.
I'm not sure what your "provate calculus" is based on, but I'm pretty sure it ain't the teachings of Christ.
Posted by: Raginb Bee | September 2, 2008 10:33 AM
David Heddle - you ask, "what has Obama done?"
I think one of the most of the most unappreciated attributes of some candidates is the energy they put into studying for the presidency. I can't imagine a better formal educational trail to leave than Obama's going to Harvard Law and finishing magna cum laude, and then teaching Constitutional Law given the only oath demanded of a president is to defend the Constitution. It didn't stop there, his self-education is also clearly evident, as evidenced in the recent NYTs magazine cover article regarding his process for developing economic policies.
Voters clearly saw that while Obama did not have the experience we'd all like see, he easily passed the test with Democratic voters that he's substituted a lack of experience with an incredible amount of effort to bone-up. For example, Bill Richardson had an almost perfect resume for being our next President along with a personality and character that would lend itself well to bridging the cultural divide; I favored him much more than Obama when the primary season began, however, Obama's general attributes and the amount of knowledge he's accumulated and how this knowledge affects his approach convinced me that Obama's capabilities for the job far exceeded Richardson's, as it did the vast majority of the Democratic primary voters given I saw in Richardson the same intellectual laziness and lack of smarts that our current President and GOP candidate suffer from.
So too with Reagan; given no foreign affairs experience, Reagan did a ton of self-education to get up to speed after leaving as governor, evidence that is clearly provided in his radio speeches during the late-70's where he critiqued Carter and proposed an alternative strategy that worked brilliantly in most, but not all aspects. It also provided Reagan with the wisdom to pick Bush 41 for office. (Reagan's book "In his own Words" collected many of these speeches and killed any notion that Reagan was a shallow thinker and not very bright).
Obama proved himself by beating the strongest Democratic field in my lifetime, all of which had a much better resume than his. He out-organized them, out-administrated them, and convinced more voters than any other candidate. Obama has clearly shown an enormous amount of general intelligence, emotional intelligence, character, integrity, and has shown no evidence he would doing anything but govern to the national interest.
We always need to be careful when we parse our analysis that we thereby mischaracterize the fuller context that exists and is meaningful like I believe you do by parsing Obama's lack of experience without noting the evidence an alternative approach exists and according to Dem voters, did prepare him for the task.
I am quickly beginning to learn that McCain deserves being accused of running for Bush 43's third term. Both appear to be completely lacking in desire to base their positions on intense study, instead relying on their gut instincts that sound great without any exhaustive consideration like we see with Obama. Experience does not overwhelm a lack of intellectual rigor or intelligence.
If we consider all aspects of Obama v. McCain, to me this is no-brainer. The Palin picks just amplifies that McCain's years in the Senate were not put to productive use in readying him for the presidency by making wise decisions that best serve the national interest. I view Obama's pick of Biden to be the best possible pick he could have made, not because Biden best complements the message Obama is trying to send, Biden fails that test, but instead because Biden is a safe pick from within the Democratic party to best replace a fallen president if something should happen to Obama.
McCain chose Palin for purely selfish reasons. Obama selected Biden as the most prudent pick possible to serve the national interest.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 10:57 AM
Michael: can I steal your post in its entirety? (Credit will be given, of course.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 11:09 AM
Michael Heath,
It seems that you are arguing that Obama's primary experience suitable for the presidency is that he successfully obtained his party's nomination. I don't really care one way or another, because experience is overrated in my book, but that hardly seems like a compelling argument.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 11:17 AM
It seems that you are arguing that Obama's primary experience suitable for the presidency is that he successfully obtained his party's nomination.
heddle, that's gross oversimplification bordering on false witness. Don't you Christians have a Commandment against false witness?
Heath tried to explain exactly how the skills that got him nominated are relevant to his ability to govern. You ignored all of it.
I don't really care one way or another...
'Nuff said. I hear that a LOT from peole who call themselves "Christians" these days.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 11:56 AM
Raging Bee - I'd be honored if you used my post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 11:58 AM
Raging Bee,
You are a raging ass. Unlike Michael Heath, the only argument you can muster, time and time again, is to question whether one is faithful to one's claim of being a Christian. You have no other arrow in your quill, as far as I can tell. Please stop responding to my posts, I have wasted more than enough time on your asininity.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 12:01 PM
Palin's daughter should be the poster child for the Republican solution to teen pregnancy: "Abstinence"
Unfortunately, after a few beers that theory goes out the window. Its obvious that Palin believed her daughter was practicing abstinence or she would have taught her how to use birth control and she wouldn't be an unmarried, pregnant teen.
One question that I have, why did Sarah say that if her daughter were raped she would want her daughter to have the baby anyways? Why did she drag her daughter into the analogy? Can somebody answer that?
On the subject of the baby with Downs Syndrome: *IF* it is Sarah's baby and not her daughter's, then maybe God is telling Sarah to stop having babies.
Finally, word from Washington insiders is that the McCain/Cheney/Bush team and the Todd/Sarah Palin teams aren't getting along as they expected and he may cut her from the ticket and introduce Pawlenty or Ridge as his running-mate.
Posted by: James D. | September 2, 2008 12:06 PM
heddle: you invite such arguments every time you identify yourself as a "conservative Christian."
Please stop responding to my posts, I have wasted more than enough time on your asininity.
Well, instead of wasting time, why don't you actually respond directly to my points? (Oh, and why did you have to post so many comments here before you suddenly decided you were "wasting time?")
Your last few responses disappoint me. You've proven yourself smarter than that in the past. Did Palin make you stupid? Good-looking women have a way of doing that to men, even when they're married and unavailable.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 12:15 PM
Raging Bee,
Look, I am happy to answer questions and have a dialog. But when you frame your questions with things like "Oh I thought Christianity had something against bearing false witness" then you are essentially begging the question--so what's the point? If you actually care about my answer, ask me in a straightforward manner and I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability.
However, if you ask me now the answer will be delayed, because I have to get ready to teach astronomy.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 12:27 PM
Heddle stated
No that is not what I am saying and after re-reading my post I'm not sure how one could assume that is my point. What I am saying in the above post has two aspects:
1) Obama's management of his campaign has been incredibly impressive and these campaigns are often under-rated in determining the qualifications of a candidate. That does fit your point, but it is only one of many data points (I presented two in my above post).
2) The second data point, again merely one of all the many points I've considered; is that experience is not the only path to competency, there are alternative paths that in this case, has me convinced he's prepared himself in a manner far superior to any other candidate that is running or ran with the possible exception of Romney at the end of the primaries (who lost me on his lack of character and his lack of integrity). Instead Obama's alternative path, similar in some aspects to Bill Clinton and Reagan's on foreign affairs, has him more ready and suited than any other candidate has shown IMO.
Of course I would have preferred an Obama with a successful governership under his belt and some time in the Senate as a committee chairman. But given the current talent pool we were presented with as voters, Obama's work to date that started as a college student all the way through Chicago, the Senate, and the primaries has made him the most qualified candidate we have to choose from in this election cycle, in my opinion of course.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 12:32 PM
Look, I am happy to answer questions and have a dialog. But when you frame your questions with things like "Oh I thought Christianity had something against bearing false witness" then you are essentially begging the question--so what's the point?
Quit being deliberately obtuse -- you know as well as I do that I only raised the "false witness" point AFTER you misrepresented what someone else said. Previous to that, I've made plenty of substantive points to which you were -- and still are -- perfeclty free to respond. The only one refusing to "have a dialog" is you.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 12:37 PM
David Heddle - A question for you. Was my communication so poorly laid out above that you didn't understand it, or were you merely engaged in sophistry and yanking my chain?
Reason I want to know is that I'm working hard at being more pithy while still insuring my points are clearly understood. Given your response to my post and assuming it was an intellectually honest one; the anecdotal evidence displayed here would argue I still have some work to do on my writing skills.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 12:48 PM
Michael Heath,
I still read your argument as claiming that Obama's experience derives, to a large and important extent, from his successful campaign. I have read both of your posts several times, and that is what I honestly get from it. This is weird for me to request, because I like Obama and don't care about the lack of experience, but perhaps you could enumerate bullet-like his experience that is not related to his campaign
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 12:56 PM
What (I think) Michael is trying to say heddle, is that one can learn about alot of things even without direct experience. I.e. your time as a graduate student teaches you to be alot of the skills necessary to be a independent researcher, even though you don't get real "experience" being an independent researcher, until you are one.
In the same way, Obama's extensive knowledge of the american constitution, political system, internal and foreign policies, and economics gives us alot of confidence that he could do well in these areas (and there are long articles even in the NYT expounding on these issues, which you'd have read if you cared about whether he's qualified or not). Or that he'll know enough to pick smart people to advise him on them, which is really what's more relevant to a president. For example, I'm guessing that Obama personally doesn't really know enough about science to answer the questions posed by this recent "science debate", in the detail that was given by his campaign. However, he clearly knows enough to get smart people who do understand it, and give good responses, which might even lead to good policies.
Oh, and he managed a campaign that is by all accounts one of the most successful and professional in recent history. That's alot more "executive experience" then managing some state with the population of Alaska.
Your support of Mccain because of Palin is completely inexplicable and disappointing (and I notice that nowhere have you explained WHY you support her). I know that we are "all sinners", but saying a direct, clear lie, in your very first acceptance speech? How is that acceptable, or excusable to anyone? Especially after you're complaining loudly that Biden didn't properly attribute something he used after he had previously properly attributed it many, many times? This is really pathetic.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 2, 2008 1:32 PM
heddle -
It seems to me that MH is saying that the successful campaign is one manesfestation of Obama's ability to study and make himself an expert on things. It's this ability that is relevant to being president.Posted by: Taz | September 2, 2008 1:44 PM
I think Michaels point is a good one and for what it's worth Michael it was conveyed well through your writing.
Obama has shown to be an excellent student and when given the oppurtunity to use his education in practice has done so.
To me it's so, to borrow a pun, black and white in terms of intellect and ideas I think after a debate or two it'll be hard for anyone outside of a diehard repub to vote McCain.
All it will take is a side by side comparison.
Posted by: CheTaylor | September 2, 2008 1:55 PM
To everyone clarifying my points to heddle. Thanks, well done.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 2:05 PM
Taz,
I have no doubt that running a successful campaign is a Herculean effort. I have no doubt that the skill Obama demonstrated managing his campaign speaks well of his ability to govern. I have no doubt that the ease with which he came up to speed also bodes well. But to first order all nominees have, by definition, run a successful campaign.
By the same argument, the experience question is rendered irrelevant-because if I am successful in acquiring the nomination it thereby demonstrates the requisite experience.
Personally, that's OK with me, but my point was that that is hardly the traditional argument made for experience.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 2:06 PM
By the same argument, the experience question is rendered irrelevant-because if I am successful in acquiring the nomination it thereby demonstrates the requisite experience.
That would depend on what, exactly, you would have had to do to get the nomination. If you did roughly what Obama did, then yes, you'be judged similar to Obama; but if you got it by lying out your ass, or relying on a good-ol-boy network, or killing all of your rivals, without ever having to demonstrate any understanding of anything, then no, you'd be judged differently.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 2:15 PM
Heddle stated:
I would argue against this conclusion. Obama is not the perfectly imagined candidate, he does lack experience at being successful at endeavors most students of the presidency believe prepares them for the office, e.g., Reagan's tenure as CA gov., LBJ's mastery of the Senate. We should consider Obama's lack of experience as a strike against him and have some skepticism in that regard. For the record, I don't believe McCain has hardly any releveant experience either given what he actually did day-to-day in his tenure in both the Navy and Congress (I don't see McCain leveraging his tenure in the Senate to actually learn the tasks of Senate leadership, let alone the presidency) nor do I believe Hillary had an adequate amount of experience, only Richardson and Romney met my test in that regard, though they failed my test in other areas.
A factor such as experience should never be irrelevant. But again, there are other factors that are also relevant and in those aspects, Obama's capabilities that were judged during the primaries shined so brightly, they overwhelm the weakness regarding some, but not all, aspects of his resume. This point was drove home by the majority of Democratic primary voters who voted for Obama over other high quality candidates.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 2:35 PM
Heddle, you claim that Palin's Christian beliefs are not what has swayed you to the McCain ticket, but you have not elaborated on what exactly it is that you like about Palin. Would you care to share with us why you regard Palin so highly?
Please note, I'm not trying come off as snarky or condescending. I am genuinely curious.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 2, 2008 2:38 PM
Sadie Morrison,
I thought I did explain, but to put it in more of a nutshell format:
1) I am not an issues voter (not that that can be extended ad absurdum) for two reasons: a) being libertarian-leaning I am at odds with both parties -- and so I have no real allegiance to either. And b) to first order everyone seems to cave to expediency anyway--hence no reduction in government even under allegedly fiscally responsible Republicans. Raging Bee seems to argue that punishing Republicans for the war is a sound reason, and maybe it is, but I don't think along the lines of punishing or rewarding parties.
2) That said, I tend to vote my gut, and I like Obama, he is a Christian, and he seems smart, and I think it would be great to have an African American president.
3) That said, I like Palin (so far) even more. That is, I identify with her even more. We are both evangelical Christians, both had lower middle class parents, both with a handicapped child (wait, maybe mine is my grandchild--impossible!) Both down to earth types. I immediately liked her a lot.
When combined with the fact that I dislike McCain but really, really dislike the pretentious Biden, plus a recency effect, plus Obama's FISA flip--it was enough to tip the scales.
Sorry for those of you who are more analytic, or at least think you are, but ever since my first Presidential election where I voted on principle for the Libertarian candidate, my vote was always determined thusly.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 4:08 PM
@heddle:
Does the fact that as a millennialist (certainly) and a dominionist (possibly) Christian she is implacably opposed to the separation of church and state not give you pause?
Posted by: Robin Levett | September 2, 2008 4:28 PM
So you basically vote based on how personable and "nice" in your view a person is, without considering their policies, qualifications, knowledge or ability. Hell, it's only the most important position to the future of all people living in this country, why would we scrutinize them as much as a undergrad student even? Just pick the cute one.
This is what makes me mad.
Here we have exhibit A) of why democracy may infact not be such a great idea after all. If you don't think the leadership is important, if you don't think there are real decisions to be made that must be made competently and correctly, then why are you participating in a democracy at all?
I can understand people who disagree with me on the political issues within politics but there's no argument to be had with those who don't even think there are issues at all.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 2, 2008 4:30 PM
Wouldn't the proper response be, then, not to vote for either of them?
Posted by: Gretchen | September 2, 2008 5:01 PM
Ronin Levett,
If she is a dominionist, so am I since you can link denominations I have belonged to (Presbyterian PCA, postmillinealists) to the intellectual godfathers of the dominionists. I don't see her, or myself, as guilty by association.
Coriolis,
I was hoping people wouldn't take it ad absurdum, but you did. If Palin advocated, say, nationalizing the automotive industry I would not vote for her regardless how much I liked her. But as long as we are talking about mainstream democrats and republicans, I don't have a real preference based on issues, so I vote my gut.
Them's the breaks, sucks for you that you live in a democracy. I gather you are equally upset by what has to be an appreciable vote for Obama based on the fact that a great deal of people identify with him? Surely you don't deny that?
Gretchen,
Yes it could be and I was leaning that way after Obama chose Biden, and could end up there yet.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 5:24 PM
2) That said, I tend to vote my gut, and I like Obama, he is a Christian, and he seems smart, and I think it would be great to have an African American president.
3) That said, I like Palin (so far) even more. That is, I identify with her even more.
So you acknowledge that Obama is a Christian, and you don't seem to dispute or deny any of his previous work with the neediest residents of Chicago; but you still prefer Palin because you consider identity politics -- a.k.a. tribalism -- more important than Obama's work? Is this a fair assessment of your position here?
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 5:26 PM
I just want to take teensy-weensy issue with one of tacitus' earlier posts, in which it's suggested that the President of the USA is the "leader of the free world"
I think you'll find that if McCain becomes President, the "free world" will pretty much finish up its obligations in the Iraq and Afghanistan businesses, dust off its hands, and get on politely but firmly with being free in its own way.
Europe in particular desperately wants Obama to win, in the hope of being able to maintain at least the semblance of a two-way relationship across the Atlantic.
Having Ms Palin as McCain's running mate just reinforces that.
Posted by: damitall | September 2, 2008 6:04 PM
heddle:
You don't appear here to have addressed her millennialism - which I described as certain, since it is clearly part of the theology of the church she converted to, rather than the "possible" rating I gave dominionism.
Posted by: Robin Levett | September 2, 2008 8:31 PM
Robin Levett,
What about her millenialisim? I don't even know what her position is--I assume since you are asking and you have associated her with dominionism that she is a postmillennialist? (as am I.) Or is she a classic dispensational pre-mill? (which is inconsistent with dominionism.) I have good friends in all millennial camps. About the last thing I care about in a person is his or her millennial position.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 8:45 PM
Say Heddle
Don't let them wear you down about your vote. After all, you only have one vote, and it can't effect the election anyway.
(runs for cover)
;D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | September 2, 2008 9:19 PM
@heddle:
She moved from Catholicism to Assemblies of God as a teenager - and while her home church in Wasilla is no longer the Wasilla AoG, she hasn't rejected the doctrines, since her church in Juneau is an Assemblies congregation.
Until I see otherwise, I am entitled to assume that someone who has actually moved to a particular church positively accepts its doctrines; particularly soemone moving as far as Palin has.
AoG are (pre-?)millennialist - they believe in Christ's second coming and an earthly kingdom - see their doctrinal statement head 14:
"The second coming of Christ includes the rapture of the saints, which is our blessed hope, followed by the visible return of Christ with His saints to reign on earth for one thousand years."
(http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_full.cfm#14)
That belief in itself is loony-tunes and says a lot about the believer; but the issue here is whether someone with those beliefs can possibly be a staunch upholder of the separation between church and state.
My comment on possible dominionism was derived from suggestions that Juneau Christian Centre is linked with dominionism at Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213
Posted by: Robin Levett | September 3, 2008 9:23 AM
Robin Levett ,
Well, three points:
1) That view (rapture, tribulation, 1000 year earthly kingdom) of the end times (dispensational millennialism) is incompatible with dominionism. Dispensational premillennialism anticipates things will get worse and worse before the rapture. The post-millennialists (like me) think the opposite, that the world will get better before the end, and the dominionist subset thereof hopes to speed that process along by creating a theocracy that Jesus would be proud of. That is why almost all true dominionists are postmills. They are a tiny minority of a minority.
2) Dispensational premillennialism is still, by far, the majority end-times view of American evangelicals. So if that is her view, she is mundanely mainstream. And it certainly doesn't bother me.
3) Contrary to what perennial John-Birch-like "death cult dominionist under every bed" commenter Raven believes, the vast majority of Christians have an eschatology, often vague, but do not organize their lives around it. That is, even though I know many, many dispensational premills like Palin (if your info is accurate) I don't know a single one who actively hopes things get worse or that Russia invades Israel because it means the end is near. And in fact in many churches there is an official eschatology in the doctrinal statement but eschatology itself is rarely discussed (it is, after all, pretty boring and confusing (reading Revelation is very tiresome.) I would say the only realistic, predictable effect of holding a dispensational premillennial view is that it would almost certainly make you a strong supporter of Israel.
Posted by: heddle | September 3, 2008 9:52 AM
Ginger, my beef is that he's voting for these idiotic "who I want to have a beer with reasons" rather than anything that might have to do with the job they'd do as president. Not that I wouldn't be arguing otherwise, but I can respect other points of view somewhat better than this type of cluelessness. Although that idiotic comment about your vote not effecting the election is very annoying as well. If you have any strength in your conviction to vote for someone you should at least be able to acknowledge the value of your vote for him/her.
Please heddle, get serious. If you hadn't noticed in the past 8 years we went to war clearly by choice and for reasons that are still unclear (at least to me). While I think this country has waged unnecessary wars in the past, it's still a pretty damn big and important break in our usual doctrine. If you don't think the death of probably at least half a million people for no good reason is a bigger problem then say nationalizing GM, than I don't know who the christian is around here.
Especially since in the past few months the federal government did essentially nationalize the 2 biggest lenders in this country by backing their debt, and many people believe the same will happen if (or when rather) GM collapses.
So if you're going to claim that I'm going into absurd territory, at least get your comparisons right in terms of what's already happened. If you had said "well at least she doesn't want to nuke half the globe", then I'd agree with you - that's worse then anything that's happened yet. But if you don't think the shit has hit the fan hard enough lately for there to be real issues in this election, you haven't been paying attention. Not that that's not obvious from your comments.
And I do think some people are voting for Obama because of "obama-mania" and that is stupid as well. However, considering his highly unusual biography, I doubt many people "identify" with him. There is a difference between being "inspired" by somebody, because of what he/she has done in their life and the odds they've overcome, and recognizing someone as being in your tribe. Which is really what your comment about him being a christian reveals to be part of your own motives. At the end of the day, both are pretty stupid and I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: Coriolis | September 3, 2008 9:53 AM
Dear Heddle,
Have I mentioned before about what an unhinged religious whackaloon Palin is? : )
If you don't believe me about how unhinged the woman is, then take a look at this if you have not already done so. Make a special point of watching the video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Do you really want such an obviously demented individual to be Vice President (and one day possibly President) of the United States of America?
Posted by: DingoDave | September 3, 2008 7:13 PM
@heddle:
And you still haven't addressed the issue; without going into the finer points of loony-tunes theology, are you happy that your core objective, protection of separation of church and state, is safe with Palin?
On your individual comments:
1) As I understand it, your distinctions between pre- and post-millennialism are non-standard. Whether that be the case or not, I understand that Reconstructionism is arguably incompatible with premillennialism, but dominionism isn't.
Given the absurdity of the entire end-times premise, I really cannot see that "incompatibility" is going to stop her. The Alaskan Independence Party, which she ahs addressed and of which her husband was a(n inactive) member, is the local branch of the Constitution Party, according to the CP (although strangely that party doesn't appear in AIP's links page). The CP wants to return the US to its "biblical common-law foundations".
The question is - are Palin's beliefs (whether she agrees fully with the AIP or not) compatible with church-state separation? Particularly when held by someone who seems to believe not only that the Founding Fathers subscribed to a pledge of allegiance but that that pledge included the words "under God".
2)
It may not bother you. It does though bother me if someone who believes that "Left Behind" is a future history rather than fiction is allowed within a 72 (73 now?) year-old man's heartbeat of the big red button.
3)
The vast majority of Christians do not convert from mainstream Roman Catholicism to looney-tunes end-times pentecostalism. Again, I made this point before - but you ignored it. Sarah Palin is not soemone who was brought up in this tradition and didn't care enough about the theology of her church to move on; she is someone who has made a conscious choice of church.
Posted by: Robin Levett | September 4, 2008 1:27 PM
heddle:
Two further comments (one a change).
Firstly, having now seen the video linked to by DingoDave; she is choosing to share a stage with someone who believes that Alaska will be a "refuge state" in the end-times, and that the churches must be ready to minister to those who seek refuge there.
Secondly, I see that her "conversion" was at age 12 or 13; that diminishes, but does not completely eliminate, the force of the conversion point - but her continued involvement in the church notwithstanding that it is no longer her home church doesn't suggest someone whoi violently disagrees with its eschatology.
Posted by: Robin Levett | September 4, 2008 1:48 PM
heddle wrote:
That is, even though I know many, many dispensational premills like Palin (if your info is accurate) I don't know a single one who actively hopes things get worse or that Russia invades Israel because it means the end is near.
ALL of the "dispensational premills" I've encountered do indeed fervently hope to see things get worse. They WANT to see Armageddon in their lifetimes, because that means the evil world they can't deal with will end, and all the people they hate for not believing what they believe will get their reward. In "The Late Great Planet Earth," Hal Lindsey explicitly said that your reaction to the news of the impending End Times is an indicator of your spiritual condition: if it makes you happy, that means you're Saved and know you'll go to Heaven; if it doesn't make you happy, that means you know you're Not Saved and will surely go to Hell.
They WANT the world to end, they believe it will end soon, and thus they feel absolutely no responsibility to, you know, obey Christ's teachings. Who needs responsibilities when it's all gonna burn anyway?
If Palin is a dispensational premill, that's one more reason to keep her as far away from real power as possible. It's nothing but an insane escapist fantasy.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 4, 2008 2:08 PM