Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You have to love this vapid answer to a question about the pledge of allegiance during Palin's campaign for governor:
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.
Uh, Sarah....the pledge of allegiance has absolutely nothing to do with the founding fathers. It was written decades after they all died. And "under God" was not added to the pledge until 1954. This ranks up there with the Texas politician who said, "If English was good enough for our lord and savior, Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me."
Politics
Comments
Well, I agree with her: "If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me".
Of course, since I seem to know history a little better, my interpretation of that statement is a wee bit different, but I do agree with that statement in this case.
Posted by: chancelikely | September 2, 2008 9:39 AM
Seriously, why isn't this enough for everyone in the country to say "okay, you're way too stupid for this." Because no one else is more informed? Oh, right.
Posted by: nicole | September 2, 2008 9:48 AM
I tried yesterday to find a reliable reference to this but couldn't. The closest thing I found was a supposed conservative blog out of Alaska that generated the list, with a link that didn't work.
Posted by: Steve | September 2, 2008 9:52 AM
How about #12 where she will crack down on the infringement of our liberties by cracking down on drug use?
And I guess "marriage" is defined in the Alaska constitution?
Posted by: wheyghey | September 2, 2008 9:59 AM
Nicole, I'm with you on this one, but as someone who's got a serious problem with McCain and the way he's run his campaign, the mistake of picking Palin is worth savoring, and it'll be that much better during the VP debates.
Posted by: JStein | September 2, 2008 9:59 AM
These answers deserve national media attention.
I posted a comment there last evening before I realized it was a blog by a Schafly disciple. My comment has not been posted, maybe because I called Palin an idiot given her answers. If I'd known who the blogger was I would have tried to restrain myself a little more.
There is another huge contradiction in her answers, typical of conservative delusionalism. On the one hand she makes it very clear she opposes equal rights for gays, their children, and their families, but also claims she'll "crack down" on the infringement of liberties.
Look for this link to disappear. I downloaded it as a PDF but don't get the URL when doing this, I also saved this page onto my hard drive. It'd be great if someone with better tech skills than me archived it on-line.
I really, really, really hope this story has legs.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 10:07 AM
MIchael,
This story is all over the web, including mainstream blogs from major news organizations. It can hardly be "disappeared" by Rove's e-ninjas. If it has legs or not is to be determined, but there is no need to worry about archiving it.
Posted by: heddle | September 2, 2008 10:15 AM
Obama stated that there were 57 states in the US. ROTFL!
Posted by: jsp | September 2, 2008 10:15 AM
jsp - Obama misspoke while answering a question. He didn't submit it as a response to a questionnaire. You right-wing trolls are pathetic.
Posted by: Taz | September 2, 2008 10:22 AM
jsp's comment brings to mind a problem with our (Western) media. People, even important ones like politicians occasionally make mistakes when they speak. These days, every little slip is recorded for posterity and played back endlessly. Apart from the foolishness of taking off-hand comments as a real indication of what a person thinks, it probably accounts in large part for the difficulty of getting politicians to answer any but the most anodyne of questions in interviews.
I'd love to see an interview one day where the subject gave succinct and open answers to the questions rather than drawing out every response to leave as little time as possible for more questions.
Posted by: SimonG | September 2, 2008 10:35 AM
The sad thing is, most people who hear this story will side with her because they also believed the pledge was written by the Founders. This is why we should never have let civics classes be nixed from the curriculum.
Posted by: Julian | September 2, 2008 10:36 AM
I suppose it would be nice if a person running for the second highest office in this country actually had a clue about some of the history of this country. Of course, learning history may well have interfered with obtaining some other qualification like being a beauty queen.
Posted by: James | September 2, 2008 10:37 AM
I don't fault Palin for not knowing this. For those of us who follow Church/State issues, it's common knowledge, but mere trivia to most others. It doesn't at all compare with not knowing that English didn't exist 2,000 years ago.
However, I do fault her for not researching her answers.
Posted by: Greg Esres | September 2, 2008 10:49 AM
I wonder what her thoughts on slavery are
Posted by: Paul | September 2, 2008 10:59 AM
How about her 3rd response to question #12: In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected governor?
I'm no Constitutional Scholar but exactly how does an attack on the 2nd Amendment harm families?
Posted by: Pi Guy | September 2, 2008 10:59 AM
Greg - you let her off way too easy. She is arguing a position that denies equal protections to many Americans while running for gov. There is no excuse for setting policy on false assertions where Palin shows evidence of intellectual laziness even if people's rights are at stake. I would hope a gov. would base their positions on well-thought positions that support our founding ideals. Anything less is a tragedy.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 11:01 AM
Quoting myself elsewhere,
"Just so you know, that response can be read as "If our nation being under god was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance." That's how I initially read it. That also is a wrong, though very common belief among conservative evangelicals, but it has the benefit of not admitting ignorance to when the pledge was written and later edited."
Posted by: Jason S. | September 2, 2008 11:02 AM
She is just coming off worse and worse. I think McCain really FUBAR'd with this selection.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 2, 2008 11:12 AM
I have read about Palin's responses to the questionaire in several places, so I went to read her answers for myself. When I clicked on the link for her questionaire (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html), it took me to the McCain for president website (http://www.johnmccain.com). Has anyone else tried it recently? Do I have the right original website for the questionaire? Have they already tried to hide this from the public?
Thanks,
Margot
Posted by: Margot | September 2, 2008 11:14 AM
Michael wrote:
So would I, but how often does that really happen? :-(
Posted by: Greg Esres | September 2, 2008 11:38 AM
Margot: the link still works fine. Don't know why you're having problems linking to the sites.
Palin reminds me so much of the twit beauty queen who answered the question about why Americans couldn't locate countries on a map. I love it! McCain really fouled it up this time. Let's see Rove try to spin this one! Bwa ha ha ha!
Posted by: Yar | September 2, 2008 11:39 AM
Margot: the link still works fine. Don't know why you're having problems linking to the site.
Palin reminds me so much of the twit beauty queen who answered the question about why Americans couldn't locate countries on a map. I love it! McCain really fouled it up this time. Let's see Rove try to spin this one! Bwa ha ha ha!
Posted by: Yar | September 2, 2008 11:40 AM
Margot, that URL still works for me too, but you can try the Google cache if the link isn't working for you.
Posted by: Tophe | September 2, 2008 11:43 AM
Margot, the website you were at contains the complete questionnaire and answers - scroll down and look at each answer preceded by her initials, SP. The links by each name are to each candidate's site, not to that candidate's answers.
Posted by: BobApril | September 2, 2008 11:43 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 2, 2008 11:50 AM
Oh mercy!
Seriously though, please allow me to welcome you to planet Earth. You're probably not going to like it much, but we do have some great ethnic food.
Because nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. There is no such thing as "too stupid" - there are people out there who would vote for a rutabaga if it promised to cut income tax and protect the 2nd amendment.
Posted by: Dunc | September 2, 2008 12:03 PM
What's the problem? According to the tenets of Americianity, the mythical Founding Fathers oversee everything that happens in America from their seat at the right hand of God's throne. Any addition of religious or nationalist rhetoric to the texts and laws of the nation can only be in line with their eternal desire to see an ever more perfect and insoluble union of American Christians.
You think this is a satirical comment, too, don't you? I think you'll find that most Americanists (which would be the majority of American Christians as well as some whackjobs) don't give a shit about her answer not making any sense even if they know the facts. Beliefs are far more important than facts.
Posted by: McDuff | September 2, 2008 12:19 PM
Pi Guy - the 2nd amendment is vital to family values. Without a guaranteed right to shotguns Bristol's baby and many more might not have daddies.
Posted by: snoey | September 2, 2008 12:23 PM
Given that families are made up of individuals, any attack on individual rights could be described as harming families. Unlike Palin, however, I would say that the freedom to ingest drugs is also an individual right.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 2, 2008 12:30 PM
Margot - in your defense, the page is poorly designed. Last evening I too first clicked on Palin's link assuming that was where her answers were archived rather than scrolling down the page.
BobApril - nice to see you are still around. I've always enjoy your insight.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 12:42 PM
Without a guaranteed right to shotguns Bristol's baby and many more might not have daddies.
And a lot of babies already don't have daddies (and/or mommies) because convicted felons, lunatics, and unsupervised minors seem to have a guaranteed right to automatic rifles. Quit pretending guns are a life-saving cure-all.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 12:43 PM
"I'm no Constitutional Scholar but exactly how does an attack on the 2nd Amendment harm families?"
It would harm her ability to force the 18 year old boyfriend of her pregnant teenage daughter to join her family.
Posted by: Amar | September 2, 2008 12:44 PM
In all fairness, if you asked a number of people on the street when "In God We Trust" was added to the pledge, I doubt you would get any correct answers. That being said, it would be much better if she was aware of these things.
I don't think you can equate that statement with a real idiot who would think that someone born in the middle east over two thousand years ago would speak english. For a grown, educated person to think such a thing is beyond belief.
Posted by: JED | September 2, 2008 12:56 PM
Just for the fun of it, here's a YouTube clip from "The Bells of St Marys" with the kids reciting the pledge pre-1954. Why do those kids hate America?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEC1HV1MCjM&eurl=http://www.crooksandliars.com/
Posted by: Taz | September 2, 2008 1:08 PM
Bee -
you might want to check your sarcasm detector. I think Snoey's comment was a snark on the same lines as Amar's (below yours).
J
Posted by: James W | September 2, 2008 1:08 PM
Umm, JED...
The phrase "IN God we trust" was never added to the pledge. It's on our currency, added to individual coins and bills beginning in 1864. You're thinking of "under God", shoveled into the pledge in, IIRC, 1954, during one of our periodic spells of national paranoia and meatheadism.
Regarding Palin's ignorance of the history of the pledge, you may recall some recent brouhaha about the "under God" bit (try Googling "Neudow". There was so much discussion about it that it's impossible that anyone with an Internet connection and a functioning brain could have missed picking up the basic facts.
Palin thus stands exposed as yet another RWA who would rather pull a cheap sound bite out of her nethers than know what she's talking about.
Posted by: Ktesibios | September 2, 2008 1:23 PM
Errr...I think you misunderstood the poster's point.
Posted by: Shygetz | September 2, 2008 1:40 PM
I was being facetious Dunc. You might want to get know the posters a little better before assuming rank naivete.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2008 1:43 PM
That reminds me of a joke -- at least I think it's a joke -- that goes:
A old red neck was asked what language Jesus spoke. He replied, "The same language he spoke in the Bible. American."
Posted by: Neural T | September 2, 2008 1:51 PM
Gangs are a canard. In my local high school, administrators have used "gangs" as an excuse to ban red, white, blue, yellow and purple solid-colored shirts, hats, trench coats, lockers (wtf?!?), and continue to use it in their 8-year long attempt to ban backpacks and purses, which raises the question of how exactly students are supposed to carry five five pound books around all day. All of this in a high school that hasn't had a serious violent episode in more than almost two decades.
Barring certain urban areas and in reference to a handful of extremely successful, disciplined, and high profile organizations, a politician speaking about "gangs" is either expressing a desire to clamp down on adolescent freedom of expression or covertly appealing to racist voters. I doubt such a point will be made at the national level anytime soon though.
Posted by: Julian | September 2, 2008 1:54 PM
It would be laughable... but it's not, simply because so many people will hear this and nod their heads in agreement with her.
Posted by: akasha | September 2, 2008 2:13 PM
Raging Bee,
"And a lot of babies already don't have daddies (and/or mommies) because convicted felons, lunatics, and unsupervised minors seem to have a guaranteed right to automatic rifles. Quit pretending guns are a life-saving cure-all."
I hope you didn't injure anyone when that knee jerked. As was pointed out by shygetz the remark was sarcastically referring to Palin's out of wedlock grandchild and was not a defense of gun rights.
Posted by: Lance | September 2, 2008 2:14 PM
Geez now I KNOW I'm a nerd! I knew that "under god" was added to the American Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, I'm not even American. -DJ
PS Can you name Australia's first Labor PM (no peeking)?
Posted by: DingoJack | September 2, 2008 2:35 PM
in the 50's I had to recite the pledge every morning in Catholic grade school for 8 yrs, so it was in my memory (no under god during those yrs), in 2001, I was asked to lead the pledge at a trade meting, most attending were very upset that I didn't say "under god", I barely got out alive, I thought what a bunch of _____!
Posted by: richCares | September 2, 2008 2:59 PM
Ktesibios, thanks for pointing out my error. My only defense is a brain fart. Although, not much difference in meaning between "Under God" and "In God we Trust." :)
Posted by: JED | September 2, 2008 3:45 PM
Posted by: Taz | September 2, 2008 4:22 PM
The problem with idiots like jsp (and, yes, he is an idiot), is that he's going to vote for a guy who thinks that middle class should be defined as anyone who makes less than $5 million because he thinks the other guy is out of touch.
If only people paid attention to what these morons were actually saying.
Posted by: JStein | September 2, 2008 4:57 PM
The Alaska Eagle Forum has attempted to use the memory hole. The blog post has now been del4eted. Foolish Fundies shouldn't use blogspot if they wanted to run from history.
The Internet Archives Link
Now they look twice the fool.
Posted by: a knight | September 2, 2008 5:13 PM
The gift that keeps on giving:
Todd Palin was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party,
"a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state."
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 2, 2008 5:51 PM
The gift that keeps on giving:
Todd Palin was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party,
"a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state."
What is so unusual about someone belonging to an organization? I used to go to church, then I thought better of it. Big deal.
Posted by: JED | September 2, 2008 6:11 PM
Re Dingohawk
I seem to vaguely recall that Australias' first Labor Prime Minister was a fellow named Hawke.
Posted by: SLC | September 2, 2008 6:45 PM
DingoJack, yes, I live in Watson and there's a mural up the road at the shops.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | September 2, 2008 7:28 PM
Let's try again.
Re Dingojack
I seem to vaguely recall that Australias' first Labor Prime Minister was a fellow named Hawke.
Posted by: SLC | September 2, 2008 8:03 PM
a knight,
you nailed it. I tried the link from two different sources and both times it said "page not found". Fortunately, some good soul had the google cache link above so I got to see the original post.
It seems to be taking an awful lot of work to make this woman look presentable.
Posted by: boggsy | September 2, 2008 9:22 PM
Last night, I was curious to see what Conservapedia had to say about Sarah Palin. They already had a defense of her ignorant comment. Of course, the explanation meets Conservapedia's demented standards:
How does one begin to untwist such twistedness?
Posted by: Dr X | September 2, 2008 9:39 PM
"How does one begin to untwist such twistedness?"
Posted by: Dr X | September 2, 2008 9:39 PM
By imitating Frau Farbissenau from the Austin Powers movies at every opportunity:
"LIES! ALL LIES!"
...delivered at the top of our voices. It will likely be drowned out by American Idol, but at least we can say we didn't fiddle while Rome burned.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2008 12:10 AM
"What is so unusual about someone belonging to an organization"?''
Good grief, how much idiocy can someone pack into one sentence? 1. No one was saying it is "unusual" for someone to belong to a generic "organization". What Herod the Freemason was saying is that it is bad for THE SPOUSE OF A MAJOR PARTY VP CANDIDATE to belong to one particular organization THAT DESIRES TO HAVE A STATE SECEDE FROM THE UNITED STATES. If you believe that is mainstream thinking, I can't help you.
"I used to go to church, then I thought better of it".
A church isn't an "organization".
Posted by: daniel rotter | September 3, 2008 1:17 AM
Ya know what's even more twisted? Of the four Pres/VP candidates, Sarah Palin is the most socialistic. Think about it. She wants ideology to trump science in the classroom (that's Lysenkoism). And she presides over a state that hands out money to citizens that the state owns.
Posted by: gwangung | September 3, 2008 1:18 AM
"Under God" wasn't in the Pledge, the Founding Fathers were pretty hard-line about the separation of church and state, and Jesus spoke an early type of Arabic.
The Lord's prayer itself was originally in Aramaic.
There are lots of translations and meanings derived from the original. Here's a few:
The words are here:
http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm
and here is a reciting of it without the usual church music and Christian iconography attached, just a guy reciting the prayer, no frills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJGAuYyKiw&feature=related
There's nothing in the prayer itself that condemns abortion, or promotes creationism, or pre-emptive war, and nothing in the prayer talks about deregulating industry, punishing homosexuality, torturing detainees or any of the other political platforms that the religious right has come to stand for in America.
In short, there's nothing in the prayer that supports the GOP platform, and the original language of the prayer is much more closely related to Arabic than English.
So I have to ask: WTF?
Posted by: yogi-one | September 3, 2008 3:25 AM
Dishonorable mention to SLC (John Curtin, Ben Chiefley, Gough Whitlam and the rest will be turning in their graves [well OK Gough's not dead yet but it'll at least gibe him an opportunity to filch from Twain]).
Honorable mention to Taz. I never knew that, if you can source that splendid piece of idiocy I'll give you a slightly used "Joh for PM' badge.
Cath from Canberra (and as she said, she should know), gets the prize. It was in fact Chris Watson, member for Bland (NSW), Prime Minister from 27 April to 18 August 1904.
This complete waste of time was brought to you by the letters 'D' & 'J' ☺
Posted by: DingoJack | September 3, 2008 6:07 AM
@ Dr X - Parson Weems? ROTFLMAO! You cannot argue with these people. Logic and truth have no meaning to them.
Mason Locke Weems aka Parson Weems is best known for the fiction that Washington cut down the cherry tree and then admitted it to his daddy saying, "I cannot tell a lie".
No serious historical biographer would ever cite Weems as an authoritarian source for fact. It would Death Comedy Wham at the peer review. Weems was a writer of fables.
Posted by: a knight | September 3, 2008 6:18 AM
Obama did suggest that people should lay off the Babygate stuff, but he was probably talking more to his people (the dems). Since I'm an independent...
http://www.xenex.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1220245418/3#3
another photo! (and other stuff--sorry)
Posted by: democommie | September 3, 2008 6:54 AM
Here's a Youtube video of a presentation given by Governor Palin to her church. This is the mentality that a PhD physicist like Prof. Heddle considers to be A OK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/palinanity.php
Posted by: SLC | September 3, 2008 8:08 AM
SLC,
Thanks! I like her even more now. Though she did use the word "destiny." Was that some sort of signal to her dominionist overlords' star chamber? (Cue Twilight Zone theme song.)
I'm going to show that clip to my wife, I think it will get her to register and vote.
Posted by: heddle | September 3, 2008 8:25 AM
That same church had a guest pastor last month (whose sermon Palin was in attendance for) who is a leader in the organization "Jews for Jesus" and who preached that terrorist attacks in Israel are God's punishment against the Jews for not accepting Jesus as Messiah.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13098.html
Posted by: Alex | September 3, 2008 9:32 AM
Re Heddle
Actually, Prof. Heddle doesn't bother me much as my PhD thesis adviser was an old earth creationist whose political views were as right wing as those of his. Oddly enough, my adviser also was pro choice on abortion, despite his reactionary religious views.
Re Alex
I'm sure that Prof. Heddle, who is a born again Christian of Jewish ancestry, is in complete agreement with the views of the guest pastor.
Posted by: SLC | September 3, 2008 9:53 AM
DJ - Here's one reference - it's not very specific and I don't know how reliable it is:
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-0526(198312)32%3A4%3C444%3AQDQA.%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23&cookieSet=1
It's in the "Quotes, Damn Quotes, and..." section. A blog post somewhere else dates it in 1973 and attributes it to Minister of Labor. (Which, of course, is not the same thing as a Labor Party Prime Minister.) The whole thing could be an urban legend.
Posted by: Taz | September 3, 2008 11:32 AM
SLC,
Um, no.
Posted by: heddle | September 3, 2008 11:37 AM
This site has the following:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/manifesto/testimonials.shtmlPosted by: Taz | September 3, 2008 11:39 AM
Thanks Taz, the first link didn't like my cookies (and I baked them myself too!).
That would be The Honorable Clyde Robert Cameron MP, Minister of Labor in the second Whitlam ministry (19 December 1972 to 6 June 1975). What's even more frightening is that he was later Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (6 June 1975 to 11 November 1975). Cheers for that Mal, all is forgiven (just keep your trousers on) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 4, 2008 12:56 AM
This is a really scary situation! Mccain should be ashamed of himself...he will do and say anythimg to win.This woman nullifies the word RESUME! the country will surly pay for this mistake if he (Mc Cain) wins.
Posted by: hazon h.. | September 4, 2008 2:26 PM