Dispatches from the Culture Wars

1

If McCain has any honor at all, he'll pull it. Yesterday.

Only if the device Cheney and Rove planted in his brain gives him the command to do so.

Posted by: Skip Evans | September 12, 2008 9:42 AM

3

And then we have Sarah Palin, under whom rape victims in Wasilla had to pay for any rape kits used in the investigation. Alaska passed a law to prevent this so that the state could qualify for federal funding (a common theme in Alaska) under the Violence Against Women Act. This act was sponsored by Joe Biden. McCain voted against it.

Honor? That went out the door at John and Cindy's first date.

-TTm

Posted by: Ticktockman | September 12, 2008 9:54 AM

5

James Carville - the Clinton shill is arguing that the McCain he knows would never have approved such an ad and that he probably doesn't even know its out there.

I'm having a hard time swallowing the fact that the McCain campaign doesn't have a process in place to insure McCain approves each ad that goes out. However, given that he had no process to vet his VP, Carville might be right.

So we are stuck with two possible McCains - a liar and hypocrite who will do anything to win, or an incompetent executive who has no concept on the need to establish and honor sound business processes. I also wouldn't exclude that both attributes co-exist.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2008 9:57 AM

7

heddle. Perhaps he thinks all children deserve the protection and support of the state regardless of whether they have responsible parents or not. Or do children's rights become the sole possession of their parents once born?

Posted by: KJC | September 12, 2008 10:01 AM

9

KJC,

First of all, I'm just saying how I'd change the ad. But to answer your question, I certainly do believe that children deserve "the protection and support of the state." And not just "once born", as you put it, but even before that.

Posted by: heddle | September 12, 2008 10:07 AM

11

And not just "once born", as you put it, but even before that.

Let's stay on topic here, please. We don't need to get into one of those discussions.

Posted by: Eric | September 12, 2008 10:10 AM

13

Eric : Indeed
Heddle : Ok so change the Ad from an outright lie, to just a usual political attack full of half truths? I agree you ad would be better because it would appeal to the same fear of state intervention but make it harder to call an outright lie. You agree that it is still and unfair attack in either form though?

Posted by: KJC | September 12, 2008 10:16 AM

15

Let's see here.

A lot of sick people touch children inappropriately. This of course is abuse, but the children don't always understand what that means. Often times they think it's their own fault.

So a bi-partisan bill is passed (in the Illinois Senate, anyway) which addresses that. It establishes very healthy guidelines for educating children. It enhances the public education system. It uses resources that are already in place. And most importantly, it helps children tremendously.

Now heddle comes along and throws a spin on it. Not much substance to his argument, just some key scare words. Stuff that looks good on a bumper sticker. You know, words like "nanny state" and phrase like "he doesn't trust you ..."

He delivers on the lies from the right that anything the gumamint does is "bad". Bad bad bad. Just like Ronald Reagan used to say. Gumamint bad bad bad. (Well, except for the military and shootin' people and blowin countries up and all that! That's when gumamint good good good!) But take care of children? Gumamint bad bad bad.

Nice work heddle.

Posted by: JLO | September 12, 2008 10:23 AM

17

Interesting rewrite heddle. It certainly caused me to reexamine my position on the issue. I ended up at the same place I started, in favor of such education. But for a political attack ad that's not too shabby. It's factually accurate and paints McCain as taking a stand against government interference in the private lives of citizens rather than coming across as merely an attack for the sake of attacking. It would definitely be far superior to the one McCain approved.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 12, 2008 10:29 AM

19

It was an absurd ad when it came out, and none of that has changed.

His campaign is shady, greasy and political, and it makes me furious.

Posted by: JStein | September 12, 2008 10:35 AM

21

Obama should just say outright that this ad puts McCain on the side of child molesters because those are the only people who benefit from kids not knowing what they should do if someone touches them inappropriately.

He should also say "Call me a flip-flopper on this if you must, but if evidence proves me wrong I change my mind. John McCain is NOT an honorable man"

Posted by: Matt Heath | September 12, 2008 10:45 AM

23

Once again this election isn't about right and wrong. It's not about who is best for the job. It's not about who has the exertise, experience or competence to be president. That's what it ought to be about but it's not.

The Repubs have set the agenda. The agenda is purely, solely, and simply about who can best manipulate raw emotion. The Repubs are masterful at this, and they are in process of proving it yet again.

Posted by: Ian | September 12, 2008 11:03 AM

25

heddle once again shows his willingness to turn off his brain to please Sarah Palin:

I don't believe it is demonstratively worse from one camp than from the other.

You "don't believe?" We're talking about the objective Universe here, not your uninformed "belief." And out here in the real world, the differences are obvious, even if all you read is Ed's blog (which we all know you frequent regularly).

When you assert: "but the sheer volume is nowhere near equivalent to what we are experiencing out of McCain." you are begging the question.

No, fool, he's stating a relevant and observable fact. You can't bear to fact this fact, so you pretend it's something else. Your response to this fact is the same as that of the most cowardly and dishonest creationists: when someone states the FACT that evolution is valid and ID isn't, cry "you're just begging the question." (I'm sure a flat-Earther would have exactly the same response to someone who says "The Earth is round.")

Obama is not exactly a paragon of consistency.

And McCain condemned the "Christian" far right as "agents of intolerance," and is now dutifully sucking up to them for support. Oh, and he supported Bush's every mistake, and now pretends to be the "agent of change." Your argument against Obama is so bogus, and so transparently hypocritical, that I'm forced to conclude it's a cover for some less defensible thinking.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 12, 2008 11:18 AM

27

David - a Romney pick would not have kept social conservatives home. Safe VP picks like Romney are not a factor in determining votes. Besides, there is no data that he lost the conservative vote because of his Mormonism, I am sure he lost some, just like Obama will lose some votes due to his color, but it was not a determining factor. Romney instead split conservative votes with both McCain and mostly Huckabee, leaving McCain with all the moderates plus conservatives voters who didn't like Huckabee's spending and Romney's flip-flopping.

McCain won mostly on demographics as his competitors raced to the right while exposing their middle.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2008 11:31 AM

29

"I don't believe it is demonstratively worse from one camp than from the other. When you assert: "but the sheer volume is nowhere near equivalent to what we are experiencing out of McCain." you are begging the question."

Dear the internet - please learn what fallacies are before you go around wantonly accusing people of having committed them. heddle, this is not begging the question even a little bit. You've now cited 1 ad as evidence that Obama is running a typical political campaign, whereas you could look for five minutes on this blog to find at least 10-20 (maybe half as many if you restrict your search to just this comments thread) instances of McCain running a campaign that sinks below even typical politics. Either provide us with more evidence or quit posturing like you're familiar with argumentative logic.

"As far as I can tell, the man does not process his thoughts before speaking. Whatever pops in his head emerges from his lips. He is none-too-bright, loquacious, and condescending, which all-in-all is a bad combination."

Which, insofar as I can tell, are the exact same reasons you like Palin. Don't tell me you also voted for Bush because of these same qualities? Wait, wait - I have it: pretend Biden has an (R) after his name. Want to vote for him now?

"If not enough people believe Palin is qualified, then of course you have nothing to worry about. They'll lose."

The point, though, is that even if Palin isn't qualified - and, more importantly, even if McCain isn't qualified - they're still capable of making the electorate believe they are. And you're not helping any.

Posted by: larryniven | September 12, 2008 11:38 AM

31

David Heddle: I share many of your misgivings about "nanny-statism", but I don't think I'm as sanguine about McCain/Palin's "libertarian" status. As far as I can see, both Republicans and Democrats seem infected by the "nanny bug". Peruse Reason magazines numerous articles on McCain's authoritarian leanings. Personally, I find right-wing authoritarianism a bit more frightening than left-wing authoritarianism (at least the lefties give you a nice smile and pat on the head when they steal your wallet).

Posted by: Bill Snedden | September 12, 2008 11:41 AM

33

LarryNiven

No, I believe I can match you, number for number. Go ahead, you post your 10-20. I'll just zip over to a right leaning blog, like NRO's Corner, and pull off their list. (Oh, but their list is certainly a lie!!)

The point, though, is that even if Palin isn't qualified - and, more importantly, even if McCain isn't qualified - they're still capable of making the electorate believe they are. And you're not helping any.

Uh huh. And you are not vulnerable to this brainwashing because --why-- you are so much smarter than most people? How very Biden of you.

Posted by: heddle | September 12, 2008 11:45 AM

35

I'd have to disagree Hanley, she's not inept. She's very adept at being the lowest denominator, pure emotional piece of garbage politician, with close to zero knowledge of anything. Or what would in other circumstances be called a fascist. Her interview on ABC was a painful regurgitation of talking points that they carefully fed her over the past 2 weeks or so. The more she has to talk about the economy, national security, or hell anything that has to do with her job; as opposed to mooses, pitbulls, lipstick, and how we need to hate people smarter then us, the worse she does.

Posted by: Coriolis | September 12, 2008 11:50 AM

37

Heddle. It is fascinating to hear from a sensible person that the addition of Palin to the ticket has added to the appeal. It seems a little like you were just waiting for a reason to jump to the R ticket, and you initially were against McCain, given your wish to aviod Nanny Statism is a common conservative desire (we can leave aside whether we feal R are *really* conservative). I would be interested to hear what your reasons are behind this? Did you really think that pre Palin social conservatives would not be listend too by a McCaain admin? Do you think Supreme Court judge choices will be markedly different now? I get that her Rhetoric hits some hot button Conservative issues, but as a politician on the National level do you think that Palin really adds to the ability to implement those things if elected? Or are you self aware enough to admit that it really all comes down to popularity (for me as well as you) and we just feel more comfortable voting for someone who we feel (and it has to be *feel* not even believe) shares our values regardless of competance?

Sorry if this is a little off topic (but it is all just politics)

Also in response to another comment "Nanny State" is widely heard in the UK and has being something the current Labour left wing govt has been continually accused of.

Posted by: KJC | September 12, 2008 11:55 AM

39

McCain was on the view this morning. I am sure some one can probably pull up a video. Whoopie Goldberg asked him about the commercial and the putting the lipstick on a pig remark. He lied about the commercial when Whoopie said you know that isn't true. She also said that he used that statement many times and he said he was talking about the economy.

Joy Behar also asked him about how he doesn't seem to be the Maverick he once was. And of course they asked him about Palin.

Posted by: sanford sklansky | September 12, 2008 12:05 PM

41

"I believe I can match you, number for number."

Then do it. If you really don't believe that some of these happened, google for them.

1. McCain's lies in this post
2. Palin's lies about the bridge to nowhere
3. McCain's inconsistent stance on experience
4. His campaign's inconsistent stance on sexism
5. His campaign's inconsistent stance on their family members
6. McCain's continued insistence on a nebulous victory in Iraq while implying that Obama's plan would be a defeat
7. McCain lying about how easy he said that same war would be at its inception
8. The elitism nonsense
9. McCain's continued lies about Obama's tax plans
10. His campaign's stance that the election isn't about issues
11. McCain's lies about his initial lack of support for MLK Day
12. McCain's lies about the possible short-term impact of new oil drilling
13. McCain's transparent lies about fully vetting Palin (note, besides the many ethical violations and the like that she's managed to accrue in her short career, she also supports all the money-grubbing kinds of political moves that his campaign ostensibly is running against)

I'll wait until you get up to 13 before I continue. Note, however, that even if you get up to 13, that in now way means that anybody is begging the question.

"And you are not vulnerable to this brainwashing because --why-- you are so much smarter than most people? How very Biden of you."

Why, yes, I am so much smarter than most people. Why - are you on the other side of the bell curve? How very Palin of you.

Posted by: larryniven | September 12, 2008 12:21 PM

45

The more I read of Heddle's comments concerning Palin, Obama, and the upcoming elections, the less respect I have for his viewpoints. It is one thing to support the McCain/Palin ticket. I do not, but people may have a variety of reasons (legitimate or not) for doing so, and their motivations should be judged accordingly. But Heddle has admitted that he is supporting McCain exclusively because of Palin, and then his support is based not upon an intellectual decision but rather due to a "gut feeling." There's nothing particularly noble about such motivations.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 12, 2008 1:09 PM

47

He has proved no such thing, at least not here, and so his assertion is also just a belief.

No, heddle, it's still a fact. Callng a fact a belief doesn't make your belief a fact. It only makes you a grede-school crybaby-subjectivist. "That's just your o-PIN-YUN, we're all entitled to our own o-PIN-YUNs." Been there, done that, grew up, still waiting for you to catch up.

I think that heddle's eagerness to abandon Obama for Palin, despite having already admitted Obama was a better man, is an obvious sign of escapism and cowardice. Going against the Republicans would be an admission that the world-view, people, religion, and policies he supported all this time, have been COMPLETELY wrong in every respect; so instead of allowing his world-view to be so cruelly smashed to bits, he's escaping into Sarah Palin fantasies. (No, heddle, you'll never get to hump her leg. Try her daughter instead.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 12, 2008 1:21 PM

49

TTm: Under Palin, Wasilla police "charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible."

This is a statement by the Wasilla police chief, not by Palin. As the article I linked to above points out:

...in the four years Palin was mayor before this law was passed, there were only five sexual assaults. It's unclear how many (if any) of those investigations required rape kits. There is no evidence in the slightest than any of those five ever had to pay a cent,...

And:

And even if the Police Chief turns out to have done something so horrible (again, no evidence), there's nothing at all to indicate the mayor would have been aware of a detail of police procedure for a crime that happened about once a year. There's no evidence that Palin was even aware that such a thing was even a possibility under the law.

And finally:

The entire case against her is ambiguous two word "when possible" phrase from one of her employees quoted in a 8-year-old local news article. From that, Palin - who again is not even in the article! - is being cast as a scenery-chewing Nurse Ratched villain.

Like I said. There are plenty of legitimate things to attack McCain and Palin on. Don't start scraping 8-year old news articles.

Posted by: Eric | September 12, 2008 1:35 PM

51

Eric

TTm, the "rape kit" smear isn't accurate. See here and here.

You offered two purported debunkings by the same person, but the evidence available so far supports the accusation against Palin. Moreover, the outrageous policy was introduced while she was mayor, so it wasn't just some omission to change a bad law that had always been on the books. I have yet to see any evidence exculpating Palin.

Posted by: bullfighter | September 12, 2008 1:44 PM

53

Raging Bee,

It is indeed opinion. Where is the proof that one side is telling way more lies than the other? Your only proof is the same that I would find on National Review for exactly the opposite assertion: but it's so obvious! That kind of proof has a name: opinion.

think that heddle's eagerness to abandon Obama for Palin, despite having already admitted Obama was a better man, is an obvious sign of escapism and cowardice. Going against the Republicans would be an admission that the world-view, people, religion, and policies he supported all this time, have been COMPLETELY wrong in every respect; so instead of allowing his world-view to be so cruelly smashed to bits, he's escaping into Sarah Palin fantasies. (No, heddle, you'll never get to hump her leg. Try her daughter instead.)

Hmm. I must admit comments like this go a long way toward discrediting the claim that Obama's support comes from elitist intellectuals.

Sadie Morrison

The more I read of Heddle's comments concerning Palin, Obama, and the upcoming elections, the less respect I have for his viewpoints. It is one thing to support the McCain/Palin ticket. I do not, but people may have a variety of reasons (legitimate or not) for doing so, and their motivations should be judged accordingly. But Heddle has admitted that he is supporting McCain exclusively because of Palin, and then his support is based not upon an intellectual decision but rather due to a "gut feeling."

I don't give a rat's ass if you respect my views. But tell me, when the cameras pan the crowds at an Obama rally there are always a fair amount of people crying. Are they crying at the breathtaking sight of pure intellectual genius? Are they CPAs and policy wonks crying about the unprecedented elegance, creativity, completeness, fairness, economic benefit and attention to detail of Obama's tax plan? Or are they responding viscerally to Obama the man-the person that they simply identify with on a basic level?

Posted by: heddle | September 12, 2008 1:50 PM

55

Eric and I were posting at the same time, so I hadn't seen this before I posted. Eric quoted

And even if the Police Chief turns out to have done something so horrible (again, no evidence), there's nothing at all to indicate the mayor would have been aware of a detail of police procedure for a crime that happened about once a year.

That is not true. First: as mayor, she approved and signed the budget. The contingency budget for rape kits suddenly went down. She knew that, or at least it was her duty to know. She can't escape responsibility based on ignorance. Second, she hired the police chief, and he reported to her, so again she has at least supervisory responsibility for his actions.

Besides, your source's count of rape cases in Wasilla doesn't match the spending on, and billing for, rape kits.

Posted by: bullfighter | September 12, 2008 1:57 PM

57

I don't give a rat's ass if you respect my views. But tell me, when the cameras pan the crowds at an Obama rally there are always a fair amount of people crying. Are they crying at the breathtaking sight of pure intellectual genius? Are they CPAs and policy wonks crying about the unprecedented elegance, creativity, completeness, fairness, economic benefit and attention to detail of Obama's tax plan? Or are they responding viscerally to Obama the man-the person that they simply identify with on a basic level?

I agree. There is more than the fair share of nuttiness on the left for Obama. The way the people worship the guy you would think he was the second incarnation Abraham Lincoln or Churchill or something. And what has he accomplished to earn such adoration from the masses? He gave a great speech in 2004 and wrote a couple of books.

Dems can accuse Republicans of being shallow all they want about Palin, but there is no comparison to the shallowness they display with the unbelievable adoration they have for a guy that has accomplished almost NOTHING. People at the DNC were in tears over the messiah himself giving his grand speech. How much more nutty can you be than to cry over the speech of just another empty-suit POLITICIAN. It amazes me to no end.

If the Dems truly wanted some substance in their candidate, they would have picked Hillary - though I am certainly not a fan of her either.

Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 1:58 PM

59

Where is the proof that one side is telling way more lies than the other?

Ever heard of "news?" History books? Interviews with people close to a given situation, who have seen things with their own eyes?

Your only proof is the same that I would find on National Review for exactly the opposite assertion: but it's so obvious! That kind of proof has a name: opinion.

So you're using a contrary assertion to prove that what we're saying is "opinion?" With no verification? Sorry, that fish don't hunt. Geocentrists make a lot of statements too; but that doesn't make heliocentrism an "opinion."

Yet more proof that heddle is in full retreat from reality.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 12, 2008 2:03 PM

61

...but there is no comparison to the shallowness they display with the unbelievable adoration they have for a guy that has accomplished almost NOTHING.

How about the shallowness of a hateful blowhard who never backs up any of his bluster with facts or references, and denies the existence of well-documented accomplishments, both in and out of government, that he and his party have no hope or desire to match?

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 12, 2008 2:09 PM

63

How about the shallowness of a hateful blowhard who never backs up any of his bluster with facts or references, and denies the existence of well-documented accomplishments, both in and out of government, that he and his party have no hope or desire to match?

Bee, what are Obama's big accomplishments. List them for me.

Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 2:12 PM

65

I don't even know why we bother arguing with heddle. He's stated clearly that he's not an issues voter: i.e. that he's voting for a personality cult, not for anything they may or may not do in office or how competent they would be. I love how evangelicals apparently now don't like bush and they are pro-palin, when the two of them are exactly the same, both on policy and style (mccain was at least different in style although not policy). The only difference is Palin hasn't failed yet like bush. Both don't know a damn thing, both stupid, but both are nice friendly our-tribe people. You'd think they'd make the connection.

If most evangelicals seriously are that fucking stupid, then that's too bad. Let's hope there's still enough people with brains in this country who are actually voting for issues and not mooses.

Posted by: Coriolis | September 12, 2008 2:20 PM

67

I noticed that heddle backtracked quick when Larry rose to the challenge.

Typ. I. Cal.

Posted by: gary l. day | September 12, 2008 2:26 PM

69

Bullfighter, I don't know why you pretended like you read the links if you didn't.

First, I know they're by the same person. If you had read them, however, you would have noticed that they were about two different things, one about a 2000 news article involving Wasilla, and one about the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. They're related, and easily confused, but reading the links would have fixed that confusion for you.

Second, you apparently don't check into articles you link to either. The DailyKos article you linked to had a link to the City of Wasilla webpage. Browse around that site, and guess what you find? This page which lists crime rates, including the sexual assault rates for the years 1996 to 2000 (the years that Palin was mayor before this bill was introduced). Perhaps you could be forgiven for not finding that... except that it was a direct link in the article I showed. Here's the quote, link intact:

...in the four years Palin was mayor before this law was passed, there were only five sexual assaults.

So if you thought the numbers were wrong... then look at them, instead of making assumptions based on the budget.

Finally, the evidence the DailyKos article presents is this: Fannon requested less money for that line item in the 98-99 fiscal year, and only spent $205. This for a year which had at most 2 sexual assaults (I don't know when in the year each of those occurred, so there may be either 0,1, or 2 sexual assaults that actually occurred and would have affected the budget for that particular fiscal year), coming after a year which had no sexual assaults. And there's no indication how many of those 0,1, or 2 sexual assaults would have required a rape kit. So the fact that they didn't use much money for that line item tells you pretty much nothing, without more evidence. Exactly like the article I linked to said. Please read it this time before you respond.

Posted by: Eric | September 12, 2008 2:28 PM

71

Here's a quick sum-up before I go back to more fruitful tasks than trying to reason with bigots and blowhards:

Bee, the hypocrisy is amazing to me sometimes. You are always saying the nastiest stuff about me, yet I am the hater apparently. You are so blinded by your hate that you don't even see the hatred in yourself. The seething anger comes out in your posts, yet you accuse me of the being the hater. Seriously, pot meet kettle.

As for your list, that IS pretty much the complete list. In a perusal of numerous websites that is about the extent of the accomplishments listed. So do you think that list places Obama in the ranks of the great leaders of the past century or two, deserving of the outpouring of adoration that the Dems have lavished him with?

Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 2:32 PM

73

I noticed that heddle backtracked quick when Larry rose to the challenge.
gary l. day

That is just mindless backslapping. For all his thirteen points, I posted a point that you can find on a right-leaning blog. Both sides claim the other side is lying. Both sides claim that their contentions are obvious. Now you, too are making an assertion, something larry is good at. In exactly what manner did I backtrack? I said I'd match his list and I did, with one of comparable quality. ("Oh, but no, our list is obviously true and your list is lies, lies, lies! Just google it!)

Raging Bee,

I wondered how long it would be until you announced we were racists and bad Christians for supporting Palin. You didn't dissapoint.

Posted by: heddle | September 12, 2008 2:37 PM

75

Can I take back this "Heddle. It is fascinating to hear from a sensible person that the addition of Palin to the ticket has added to the appeal"?

C'mon I can understand being engaged by a politician and hence interested in his / her positions. As you find out about Palin though, via for example the Gibson IV last night can you honestly say you would like to see her as VP or even President. I mean send he an email, invite her to come speak at your church, have dinner with her, enjoy the company of her family but please even before we start to discuss whether your values are ones we should see universally enforced find a politician that can competently campaign for and implement them. Palin clearly is not that person (and neither is McCain).

Regardless of your shared values can you honestly say that she would make good executive decsions? (and I do not mean relative to BO). Giving all benefit of the doubt to Conservatives, surely the correct response to this should be the same as to Harriet Miers SC apointment. "Sure we get where you are coming from, right values and all, but have a rethink and pick someone a little more qualified"

I would still disagree with the policies but I could at least believe that there may be some sanity in the advocates of them.

Posted by: KJC | September 12, 2008 2:38 PM

77

Taz,

So it's a comparison between what McCain, Palin and their campaign people have done and what any Democrat anywhere has done?

No, actually it was Obama himself who made a comment along the lines of "Five kids, I don't know how she does it; we have two and they keep us busy." Something like that. You don't have to be Fellini to figure out that he was not complimenting Palin.

As for "Palin is a dominionist" fair enough, Obama himself didn't say that. Nor did he say that her only qualification is that she hasn't had an abortion--although the SC Democratic chair did say that.

Posted by: heddle | September 12, 2008 2:44 PM

79

KJC,

Yeah, I thought she did fine in the Gibson interview. (You have watched the the other three on unscripted interviews? None is stellar, and McCain is probably the best.) The worst you could say is that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

And if she didn't know what the Bush doctrine is, we can take away from the exchange that she quickly built a fairly accurate model in her head about what it must be, i.e., Bush on terrorism, more or less. She then gave a cogent reply. So--it is perhaps more impressive if she didn't know. (And I, for one, don't care.) Quick thinking is better trait than a Gore-like knowledge of the pronunciation of the name of Bogoslavaniastan's Assistant Deputy Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Putting Things on top of Other Things.

Well folks, I am on my university's curriculum committee, and, alas, it's meeting time. TTYL.

Posted by: heddle | September 12, 2008 2:53 PM

81

mr roberts Well consistency is really tough isn't it. It seems like you either have to be for both Palin and Obama ( Obama - Palin - 08 - the unity ticket ;-) )

Proposition
1) Competence is important - we agree it is?
2) Palin is not competent enough - we accept that?
3) BO is less or equally competent than Palin - this is where we disagree?

Note I am not saying experienced. It is common in all Presidential Elections that "Experience" is touted. However no-one is experienced enough to be president of USA it is too important. If Experience is what counts then there are 4 possible candidates and 2 of them are barred by term limits.

If we talk competence then what I have seen of BO so far convinces me (sure he isn't the second coming) he has a long record that has be scrutinized at the national level. Perfect? perhaps not. I am actually encouraged by his willingness to compromise.

Palin - c'mon it isn't even a question. She wouldn't have beaten Huckabee in the primaries no way is she competent enough to be pres (or VP. she doesn't even now what it is).

McCain - Experience in spades. I totally understand why he would get re-elected as Senator. Competence for President? Not so much. Mainly based on his decision to tack to the right to try to win (when with a failing economy and unpopular war seems like bad strategy let alone not what the country needs. Even Bush ran on a ticket of been a Uniter. There isn't even the pretence from McCain that he is doing anything other than going right pretty hard (and that is if you assume he is even honest about it).

I was disappointed when McCain won the nomination because I (viscerally) wanted BO to win and any other candidate was a no-brainer (for me). With McCain's history in the Senate though he had to be given a second look. His campaign has made it very easy not to support him.

Posted by: KJC | September 12, 2008 2:59 PM

83

"Yeah, I thought she did fine in the Gibson interview. (You have watched the the other three on unscripted interviews? None is stellar, and McCain is probably the best.) The worst you could say is that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was."

Bullshit. She didn't know ANYTHING. Every answer was canned, meaningless crap. She couldn't even give a straight answer to whether we have the right to invade Pakistan. She's a fraud, a fake, a SNL skit, the GOP's punking of America, and all of you people pretending you don't get it make me sick.

Posted by: Science Avenger | September 12, 2008 3:06 PM

85

Heddle on a university curriculum committee? We can only hope it's at Bob Jones U.

Posted by: gary l. day | September 12, 2008 3:16 PM

87

mroberts: Look, I'm not trying to cast Palin as the experienced one, I am just making the point that many who support Obama are apparently willfully overlooking his inexperience at the same time as they accuse Palin of inexperience.

Well, I would agree that the "who is more experienced" may not be the most relevant question to ask here.

What is more relevant to me is that the McCain campaign was making a big, big deal about how inexperienced Obama is. Then they went around and pick a very inexperienced candidate for the person who should be President should the post become vacant.

At best, that sounds like Three Stooges Campaign Strategy. At worst, it sounds like hypocrisy.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 12, 2008 3:19 PM

89

We don't accuse her of inexperience roberts, we accuse her of ignorance. Even though Obama is not experienced, he has shown through many interviews over this very long campaign that he has thought about all the serious issues, and he has certain views on them. You can agree to disagree with his conclusions, but he does have views on what we should do, for economic policy, for wars, etc.

Palin on the other hand spends her time talking about shooting mooses, lipstick on pitbulls, and how she likes hockey. All this makes her a decent mom I guess, but it doesn't have shit to do with running a country.

And to answer what heddle said above, if someone told me they are voting for Obama purely because of his biography (i.e. that his dad is kenyan, his mom is an atheist, that his parents were part of WW2 or that he lived in indonesia), yeah I'd call them an idiot. Even though personally I find all those to be good things, by themselves they don't really tell you a damn thing about what he'd do. He's given numerous speeches detailing what his actual views on issues are, and that is where he should be judged.

Posted by: Coriolis | September 12, 2008 3:24 PM

91

What is more relevant to me is that the McCain campaign was making a big, big deal about how inexperienced Obama is. Then they went around and pick a very inexperienced candidate for the person who should be President should the post become vacant.

I agree on that one. It is absurd that McCain would accuse Obama of being inexperienced then pick someone equally inexperienced. Understand I have no intention of voting for McCain, but I still think that Palin has better experience than Obama because of her chief executive experience.

I think McCain made a shrewd decision though, and the wisdom of it is borne out in the enthusiasm Republicans now have for the race. It is probably hard to find a candidate that has all of the necessary qualifications, so he probably just needed to find a running mate that had most of what he needed to get the Republican base behind him.

Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 3:28 PM

93

Apples and oranges is right. This entire experience discussion misses the point entirely. Imagine the Dallas Cowboys hiring a junior high football coach to be their head coach, on the grounds that he's got lots of experience as an "executive", and then refusing to allow the press to question him, and when one finally is allowed to, all his answers amount to "we've got to hunker down and pull together, all for one, and one for all". That's Palin in a nutshell.

Posted by: Science Avenger | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM

97

I would argue that Gov. Palin being ignorant of the Bush Doctrine even after Gibson imperfectly defined it to her would be like Harry Truman circa 1944 not knowing about Chamberlain's appeasement policy and Churchill's vociferous rejection of it. Truman of course was well-versed in both arguments, but that is magnitude of the ignorance on display here with Palin.

I also do not believe Palin really meant to reject the Bush Doctrine given that she didn't even know what she didn't know, it was mere babble - spitting out nice sounding talking points with no realization that Bush even had a contrary argument.

BTW - I happen to be a proponent of the Bush Doctrine. However, I also think we shouldn't elect idiots and no-nothings since they'll muck up even sound policy, not knowing when or how to use it, as Bush so clearly showed the world. I bring this up because I believe it's important to distinguish between policy, strategy, tactics, and execution. We're much better off with mediocre policy if we have OK strategies and excellent execution. But poor execution will kill ya' every time.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2008 3:48 PM

99

What is wrong with teen pregnacy? My mum was a teen when she had me....actually she was 20 and 6 months but you can do the math

Posted by: KJC | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM

101

Am I the only one here who finds the following positions of Palin abhorrent?

-- that a woman should be forced to bear her rapists child, even if it's her dad
-- that non-science should be taught in schools alongside science in science classes
-- that the US Army is on a mission from god (way to repair relations with the Islamic world, Palin! That'll play well in Islamabad. Why don't we just paint white crosses on the chests of our soldiers in Iraq and be done with it?)
-- that it is acceptable to use the office of the governor to go after your ex-brother in law
-- that the rape victim's insurance should cover part of the costs of prosecuting her attacker. Let's remember she didn't just overlook something, her police chief actively resisted an explicit legal ruling. If she didn't know about it, she's even less qualified than anyone ever feared. It's like the President not knowing that the DoD sent troops someplace to fight.

I dunno, call me crazy, but anyone like that seems unfit for *any* office, let alone president.

(I'm not one to quibble overmuch about experience, since for presidents good and bad it's all over the map. But Jesus tap dancing Christ I am certainly interested in what folks believe).

Posted by: Jesse | September 12, 2008 4:14 PM

103

Jesse,

I find all those positions abhorrent, even if I give her a pass on the "mission from God" speech by interpreting it in the most innocent way.

Posted by: bullfighter | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM

105

Yes, there are more than enough glazed over fanatics among Democrats who are virtually worshiping Obama and view him as some sort of political savior. I've been to the rallies and I've spoken to them. They've almost become automatons (and no, I don't mean everyone who supports Obama is anything like that, only that there's a sizable portion that is).

I think too many people miss the point that the ability to generate enthusiasm to the point of adulation generates political power. C'mon, do people here really think Reagan was able to accomplish as much as he did because he was a brilliant political mind? No; he accomplished as much as he did because he was effective at using his charisma to generate popularity and political power, often making other elected officials afraid to stand against him. In other words, adulation of a political figure by large groups of people is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy, so those "mindless koolaid drinkers" may be more correct than you give them credit for.

Posted by: Shygetz | September 12, 2008 4:49 PM

107

The second that should be a they. Oops.

Posted by: Julian | September 12, 2008 4:56 PM

109

I already wrote on your previous thread that Obama was not calling Palin a pig. However, he displayed poor judgment in not anticipating that the comment would create an uproar.

LOL! You can't even bring yourself to concede the baldest of lies without qualifying it by pushing the blame on the other guy.

So it's okay for McCain/Palin to lie about Obama's comments because he should have known they would have deliberately and mendaciously done so? Is Obama also to blame for the shabby, dishonorable campaign McCain is running because he might have believed McCain when he said that this time it would be different?

You truly are becoming a parody.

It never fails to amaze me how selective Christian fundamentalists are when it comes to their so-called "values". I believe the Bible says what God thinks of liars in no uncertain terms:

Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight."

What Palin and McCain did with those ad is supposed to be "an abomination to the LORD". Why is telling the truth held in such low regard by Palin's "values voters"? Don't they read the Bible?

Posted by: tacitus | September 12, 2008 5:18 PM

111

I live in a key swing state, Michigan, and I'm barraged with ads when I watch the News channels. I have no idea what ad heddle is talking about, i.e., Obama's ad that McCain is a luddite nor I have seen any Obama ads with huge whoppers in the like I'm deluged with every night from McCain.

Does anyone have a link? Googling: Obama, McCain, Luddite, didn't bring up anything but people arguing about McCain's computer skills.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2008 5:52 PM

113

Michael Heath:

I think it's a safe bet that I'm not the only person who visits Ed's blog that doesn't think Dick Cheney was qualified for the job he now holds. Oh, I agree that his CV is impressive, but I've seen plenty of those. I think his influence on this country's foreign policy has been an absolute disaster. But, then, it's only my opinion.

I was not a fan of Joe Biden for president, but I do think he's pretty well qualified for the VP slo and would do a credible job, if it came to that, should he be required to serve as president.

The idea of Sarah Palin serving in that capacity, I'm going to be frank, scares the shit out of me. She has demonstrated a lack of thoughtfulness, never mind experience.

Posted by: democommie | September 12, 2008 5:55 PM

115

Heddle's going to vote for the ticket that includes the closest approximation to a True Christian. *shrug* This isn't surprising in the least. Disappointing, in a way, but no surprise.
McCain's a pandering hypocritical liar. Palin's Bob Roberts with lipstick and (to my knowledge) no musical talent.
Next topic?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 12, 2008 6:10 PM

117

Saw a great comment on my post of this very topic earlier today:
http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=80538db92a024e3fa54d4da1891155d1&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a80538db92a024e3fa54d4da1891155d1Post%3ae5fadb06-37a1-4ba9-8562-30a2eee6ac65&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.thespectrum.com

Sorry, don't know how to make that link in one word. I'm a luddite.
Regardless this is the comment--
If we can opt out, then we can opt out. No questions asked. No force-feeding of sex ed on my family. I don't think the government can do a better job of this than I can but it's not my family with which I am concerned. It's the "family" where the 6 and 8 year old are being "reared" by the crack addict who is only partially available and who are shuffled off to here and there for "supervision"... It would strike me that for these children to whom the parental resource is unavailable we can provide this education. Say what you will about the "parent" here but I think this speaks to the "general welfare" issue. And "general welfare", to me, includes the children for whom there is no voice, no support at home. It is a sad day, indeed, but that day is here. And yes, there probably are teachers who would take license (but that's already happened and this has yet to be implemented, yes?)... as there are parents and relatives and pastors and priests and car salespeople and lawyers and judges and doctors and hairstylists and zookeepers and accountants and so on...

Posted by: boggsy | September 12, 2008 6:38 PM

119

Bummer. Sucks to be you.

Actually, it's great to be me. I have the free time to try to persuade people to not vote an ignorant, righteous-about-all-the-wrong-things, lying, sham of a person to the second highest office in the land, merely because they can personally relate to her, and she's parroted all the things you want to hear.

That will always be the majority response (from either side.) Our negative ads are different from your negative ads, because ours are accurate.

Yes, and the argument from the majority of those on the side least able to back their claims with sound evidence is always going to be "Never mind the evidence, just assume both sides are always equally guilty of whatever our side has been doing, er, accused of".

Your intellectual laziness is shameful.

Posted by: Science Avenger | September 12, 2008 6:56 PM

121

boggsy-

Type <a href="http://www.linkhoweverlonghere.com"> at the beginning of the text to highlight, then </a> after it.

Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | September 12, 2008 7:00 PM

123

I don't understand why heddle isn't voting for Bob Barr. He really is anti-nanny-state, running on the libertarian ticket, and he's also socially conservative (like heddle). And he has experience too, something Palin sorely lacks.

Posted by: Adrienne | September 12, 2008 8:09 PM

125

mroberts:

You are such an ignorant fucking fool. You put up dozens of comments on this blog and they all say basically the same thing, that you believe that GOD is in charge of everything--so why don't you go pray for our salvation and leave the it all up to him? Give it a fucking rest, you GODbothering moron.

Posted by: democommie | September 12, 2008 9:03 PM

127

Obama has been buddy-buddy with a proud, unrepentant domestic terrorist named Ayers?

They both served for a time on the board of a charitable organization, and he contributed $200 to Obama's campaign.

That's being "buddy-buddy"?

You are so disgustingly full of shit.

Posted by: DaveL | September 12, 2008 9:37 PM

129

Boggsy - You're doing right when you see the rel=nofollow. Science Blogs doesn't want their advertisement trackers to follow the referral to your link. If the nofollow appears it means they recognized the HTML link as valid.

Posted by: Onkel Bob | September 12, 2008 9:51 PM

131

You're bringing up Ayers? Listen, how many times has Pat Roberts called for someone's death, or implied that it would be desirable? How many times has Limbaugh or Coulter joked about a liberal politician being killed with only silence from the right to greet it? When over the summer there have been two potentially politically motivated attacks on southern liberals and a group of methed-out skinheads caught plotting to snipe Obama in Denver do you really want to bring up liberal terrorism from the 60's? If that's fair game then we should discuss what McCain has said, if anything, about the domestic terrorists at Waco and Ruby Ridge, or what he has done in the Senate to discourage the domestic terrorists of the so-called "Patriot Movement", or what his connections, if any, are to the vigilante organization calling itself the minutemen.

When Obama met him, this man was a school reformer and a professor in high regard at the University of Chicago. He founded the Weathermen, he killed people, either through his direct action or his words, and we should all think less of him for advocating violence in the cause of foolish utopianism and paranoiac opposition to government, but Obama met him as a teacher in high regard dedicated to school reform. Do you purpose that every politician on the right who ever had a kind word for David Duke, or every politician who has ever been associated with groups that advocate succession, be marred by their actions?

Posted by: Julian | September 12, 2008 10:17 PM

133

Oops, I repeated myself in that second paragraph. Please ignore the first sentence of said paragraph. I should probably get off the comp if I'm making such errors.

Posted by: Julian | September 12, 2008 10:20 PM

135

Heddle said: "If McCain innocently used a phrase like 'pot calling the kettle black' or 'let's call a spade a spade' Al Sharpton, Raging Bee, and Keith Oberlmann (sp?) would collapse with paroxysms of indignation."

Again, we see the Republican tactic of presenting a fictional speculation as if it were actual evidence. Further, and also typical, the fictional scenarios don't even match. "Spade" and "black" are words that have meanings that refer to Obama regardless of what he might have said, and one is decidedly derogatory. That would be more akin to Obama saying something like "I can see how Palin has BROAD appeal", not just using a common metaphor containing a word she also used.

Posted by: Science Avenger | September 12, 2008 11:08 PM

137

Followup re: rape kit

A thorough debunking of Eric's source who supposedly showed that the story was inaccurate or a "smear" can now be found here.

Posted by: bullfighter | September 13, 2008 12:17 AM

139

Thanks, Onkel Bob!!

HTML - Iz doin it right!!

Posted by: boggsy | September 13, 2008 12:38 AM

141

I love it: Heddle admits that he's changed to McCain because of pathological liar Palin. Truly, a match made in heaven.

Posted by: Seymour | September 13, 2008 5:46 AM

143

I've been wondering about something for several days now, and I've yet to hear any comment from any media about it. First though, I want to say that I'm for Obama.

Okay. Did anyone else notice that right before and during Obama's lipstick-on-a-pig remark he moved his left hand up to his forehead, covering his left eye? I wonder what that sort of defensive-looking, shielding body language meant in connection with the words simultaneously uttered? I didn't notice any similar odd gesture in the speech.

Maybe it meant nothing at all. But it did stand out to me.

Posted by: Tim B. | September 13, 2008 7:03 AM

145

heddle

Do you think it was a good thing for Obama to say, given that for two or three days all you heard about Obama on TV was related to lipstick and pigs?

Yes, it was a good thing, because now nobody with a brain and a sense of decency will vote for McCain.

Posted by: bullfighter | September 13, 2008 10:44 AM

147

Two quick questions:
1) Didn't John McCain use the words 'lipstick on a pig' in relation to Hillary Clinton's Health Care proposal, several times?
2) What the hell has this got to Sex Ed? -DJ
PS 3) Ed, was that really Larry Niven? - I met him some years ago at a book signing and he was incredibly rude. What an arrogant blowhard!

Posted by: DingoJack | September 13, 2008 11:05 AM

149

Michael Heath -

Could social conservatives be excited about Palin because she's going to hasten and actually bring on the end times as a President Palin?

Actually I thought Obama, being the anti-christ, was suppose to fulfill that role.

Posted by: Taz | September 13, 2008 2:06 PM

151

Michael Heath,

I honestly don't know. (Aside: I'm not a classic social conservative. I don't give a hoot about gay marriage, for example. Nor do I want creationism or ID taught is public school.) The popularity of Palin is even more bizarre given that she is associated with charismatic Christianity--something generally looked upon with skepticism by Baptists. Yet (based on my experience) while they were generally supportive of Huckabee, one of there own, they are absolutely gaga over Palin. I don't have an explanation. I wouldn't attribute it too much to Hagee-types and eschatology, although I have no doubt that Hagee--esque churches support Palin. My own Baptist church is dead set against a Hagee-like eschatology and unconditional support for Israel, and in fact while I have never heard a sermon about the evils of New Atheism, the very first sermon I heard at this church, after moving here from NH last October, was a sermon that essentially ripped Hagee a new one. So whatever the explanation, it is not a simple correlation with Hagee-ism.

Leni,

Anyway, I commend you for your diplomatic approach, but I "have a feeling" that heddle is not in the mood for any reflection on the matter.

Wrong. I am always eager to converse with Michael Heath or anyone who asks actual quations.

Posted by: heddle | September 13, 2008 3:25 PM

153

heddle - thanks for taking the time to provide your perspective.

BTW - I saw the Luddite ad. I think Obama was wrong, and lied, when he stated that McCain was doing "virtually nothing for the middle class". I think this is a good ad, but that phrase should be struck out. As a guy that worked in tech as an executive, it's hard for me to imagine anyone being a good executive of anything that is as clueless about tech as McCain is, adding the HP and eBay people is nowhere near good enough. Saviness in using technology, but more importantly, how it affects institutions, markets, and culture should be an inherent part of all successful executives make-up - tech is a game-changer. So I would have welcomed the ad if I were Obama and believe it's effective with educated independents, but would have nixed the Middle Class comment because it simply is not true.

However, I must take issue with you that that this alone is evidence that Obama is equally guilty in deceiving the public when comparing both campaigns ads. I think I've got as finely tuned a BS detector as anyone and Obama strikes me as one of the most honest pols I've ever experienced with a ton of integrity to boot, while McCain's campaign is putting on the most dishonest presidential campaign I've experienced since I started watching campaigns 40 years ago, contrary to an extremely honest campaign McCain ran in 2000. This really frustrates me given I'm a long-time McCain fan as a sitting senator; it's almost like we're seeing what happened to Nixon after 1960 happen to McCain only McCain's implosion is being played out in public where we only learned the extent of Nixon's implosion when the Watergate tapes were released.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 13, 2008 3:47 PM

155

Leni,

I think she gave a bad answer. I would have to hear it to know is she was being flippant or not, but in any case a bad answer.

Posted by: heddle | September 13, 2008 3:59 PM

157

heddle, the Palin "under God" reference is not a verbal miscue as Leni appeared to imply, but instead her written response to an Eagle Forum questionaire during her campaign for governor in 2006. It's very embarrassing to Palin, showing either a perfect ignorance regarding a basic American History question anyone responsibled for defending the Constitution should intimately know, or she's victim of the historical revisionism popular within the fundie/evangelical Christian community.

The Eagle Forum is Phyllis Schafly's group, which may be why so few candidates filled it out. I found the survey within an hour of the Palin announcement and started working to get this page archived since I assumed they'd try and delete the page given that's a standard protocol by social conservatives. I'm not sure if I was instrumental, but within hours someone archived it and acknowledged so in a blog post on Ed's blog. As expected, the Eagle Forum also took down the original page.

Here's the link: http://web.archive.org/web/20070430110729/http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html

Please also note this survey has been a primary source used by people scrutinizing what I believe is the absurdity of Palin's abortion position relative to the real world of using birth control pills and/or women suffering from health-related issues during their pregnancy (and I'm claiming it's absurd even though I am not pro-choice on many of the abortion rights advocates' arguments, but instead falling in the middle where most Americans reside).

The "under God" statement is one tiny piece of evidence, where we are finding other examples as well, that Palin has done almost nothing on the intellectual side to prepare for national service. This is an aspect that is not granted its rightful place in terms of evaluating candidates and one area where Obama has been able to distinguish himself, doubly important in his case because he self-admittedly lacks optimal experience for the position he seeks. Palin's almost perfect ignorance of history and current national events to me is incredibly frightening given that my reading of history is that those that are historically ignorant and clueless about current events are almost always incredibly incompetent in executing their role, our current president being anecdotal example Exhibit A.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 13, 2008 4:34 PM

159

Thank you for the clarification, Michael. I did indeed think the quote came from a spoken interview. However, that she had the time to think about her response and edit it only makes her answer that much more pathetic.

What I am trying to understand is why even an obvious gaff like this doesn't seem to be a factor in the mysterious and unquantifiable origins of heddle's "love" for Palin.

Posted by: Leni | September 13, 2008 6:12 PM

161

heddle - I agree ignorance on the pledge on its own is a somewhat trivial matter. But far more important is that rather than insure her assertion was correct when she had time to do so (the founders were responsible for the pledge, and "Under God"), she made a false assertion and therefore a very flawed opinion. Not on the fly, but in a written survey. This is an example of her decision-making capabilities and a strong indictator at that, though a sample of one, I will concede that.

I do think you are dodging on the central issue. Palin has proven she has no intellectual interest in our history or current events that are being debated on the national stage that a president must already understand. Based on her Bush Doctrine answer and her pledge answer, she has proven herself willing to make assertions where she appears ignorant on the veracity of those assertions, and of course ends up with really stupid positions based on her sloppiness of thought and her intellectual laziness. Much better to do the research on the pledge and make a reasoned reply and query the interviewer more on their arguments on the Bush Doctrine or claim they'll have to get back to them, that they can't respond at that time - Obama does the latter frequently and I admire him for it - it's a form of intellectual honesty and a love process to make sure he gets it right.

As someone that spent 15 years hiring executives and Director-level people to work for me, the sort of person who approached intellectual questions like this would have never made it past my first-round process of questions, let alone actually be hand-picked for even a lower-level mgt. job (in the fiercely competitive market of electronic mfg'ing).

heddle - I'm not going to question your gut-level attraction to her being on the ticket, you have every right to do so. I would argue that you and everyone else who have tried have failed miserably to make a rational argument that she is candidate in line with our national interest. Your answer here dodges that last point.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 13, 2008 6:46 PM

163

heddle wrote:

Knowing the history of the Pledge isn't even on my radar in terms of what I want in a candidate.

Again, you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you if it bothered you that she doesn't know the history of the pledge.

I asked if it bothered you that she used historical inaccuracies to score points with ignorant religious people.

But I'll take you at your word that it doesn't bother you. I only wish you were as generous with me as you are with Palin. But who knows- perhaps you also think she should "try to stay with the program before vomiting nonsense."

Posted by: Leni | September 13, 2008 6:58 PM

165

David Heddle (I keep forgetting Heddle is your last name) - it can be very frustrating having a dialogue with you because you frequently dodge central points and sidetrack the dialogue rather than engage head-on with the questions asked based on known, factual and properly framed assertions. This creates a ton of work for those that engage with you to get the dialogue back on a more productive path. You have been charged with this many times by many readers here on this blog. Doesn't that bother you? I couldn't sleep if I were accused of mis-framing an argument or using rhetoric or logical fallacies to make a point unless I issued a mea culpa and enhanced my approach to research, framing issues, forming an opinion, and promoting that position to minimize those occurrences. It is my perception you are doing this purposefully.
For example, Palin not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was is not central to my point of her showing a total ignorance of this debate given that Gibson subsequently defined his use of it with a follow-up statement and I quote Gibson:

" The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? "

Krauthammer's rhetorical dodge is applicable to her freezing up when the question is initially posed, but irrelevant when it comes to the quality of her answer. Most interviewers would define such a question more quickly and Gibson should have. But I'm not grading Gibson; I'm grading Palin. Therefore, what is important is to note her answer to that question, which was what I challenged you with earlier. Her answer in its full context once Gibson defined his use of the Bush Doctrine:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

The use of the term, "preemptive" is incorrect on Gibson's part; the correct term is "preventative". I would expect a Vice-Presidential candidate in a post 9/11 and post-Iraq War to know this debate so well, that once they've been clued into what debate Gibson is referring to, they would have corrected Gibson on his misuse of the term preemptive and provided an answer within the context of the debate.

Palin goes on to provide an answer that actually refutes Bush's position. Any reasonable person up on one of the two the most important foreign policy philosophical debates of our time would know what Gibson was referring to, and that Palin would have framed her answer in the context of the Bush position given that her answer rejected the Bush Doctrine, which she did not do. I believe this failure of Palin's to not provide an answer within the context of the debate is out of ignorance such a debate even exists and she stands opposed to our President's position. I believe this ignorance is so shocking it would be equivalent to Harry Truman circa 1944 not knowing about Chamberlain's appeasement policy and Churchill's vociferous rejection of it. Truman of course was well versed in both arguments, but that is magnitude of the ignorance on display here with Palin.

And please do not respond that her answer is a good one. I would respectfully agree her answer is an arguably good one given its consistent with America's historical policy in a pre-9/11 world; that is not the issue here. The issue is that Palin showed all indications she does not keep up with foreign affairs at a level one would expect out of a VP candidate, in fact, nowhere close.

Heddle stated:

How does the fact that she bombed on the Pledge question mean that she has "no intellectual interest in our history or current events that are being debated on the national stage that a president must already understand."

If you note in my previous post I didn't rely on just her written answer to the Pledge question. I also combined her Pledge question with her total ignorance regarding the debate on the justification of preventative war. Is this scant evidence to make such an assertion? You bet. But whose fault is that? We have now learned that McCain had virtually no vetting process, assuming his Plan A.1 or A.2 (Ridge or Lieberman) would fly so need for a thorough vetting process that included acceptance by whomever vetoed McCain's initial preferences (which may have been only him, we don't know) and then being forced to name someone with no time when his preferences fell out of consideration a week before the Convention. I state "virtually" because there was some precursory vetting (creating a list, sending that list a set of 70 questions). If her Pledge answer was a verbal one, than its fine to joke about - but not good evidence of ignorance and/or being a propagandist. The fact it was a written answer shows either a lack of character to base an opinion on an assertion she either didn't know but went with it anyway or was attempting to perpetuate or pander to social conservatives with a false assertion. So to your charge against Leni, we simply do not know, but either result shows a evidence of a lack of intellectual integrity and character on Palin's part, which is revealing and should be cause for concern from Americans who support honesty, integrity, and some intellectual knowledge from which to govern by. Palin shows none.

Obama may be righteous in this regard, be he has his intellectual honesty warts on campaign finance, FISA, and the "Born Alive" vote.

Obama's position(s) on these issues has absolutely nothing to do with Palin's ignorance of history and the Bush Doctrine, these are two entirely separate matters. This again is a logical fallacy given that Palin is not intellectually dishonest in her Bush Doctrine answer, she was ignorant. Obama has positions, some of which have changed. Campaign finance - Obama experienced an unprecedented show of financial support from everyday Americans, this was a pleasant shock to his campaign. He was smart to switch. Obama has been forthright that unexpected grass root excitement to financially support his campaign rejected his original position to run on public funds. I have seen zero experience Obama is beholden to interest groups based on this decision relative to the radical transformation we've seen from McCain now pandering to social conservatives. His decision was made with plenty of time that McCain was not stuck in a situation where it caused McCain harm. His change shows wisdom on his part. Who wants a President who sticks to be an inferior position as new evidence is digested?

FISA - I cannot speak to this matter. I don't know why Obama voted the way he did.

Born Alive - This is one reason why senators have a difficult time running and winning the Presidency; people mischaracterize their vote as you do here. Obama was never a proponent of killing fetuses that were alive during an abortion procedure regarding the vote you are referring to, Illinois law already provided protections to fetuses and their life was not threatened by the outcome of this vote. Instead Obama voted against that bill because, as he states here http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign. What Senator Obama's attackers don't tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. They will not tell you that Obama voted against these laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society -- a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, which did not pose such a threat. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them."

Heddle, it really bothers me when people misrepresent legislator's votes. For example, I admire Sen. Tom Coburn R-OK principled stands on federal spending and fiscal discipline. I despise his positions on social matters, but admire his voting principled reasons for voting no on a ton of spending bills. If Coburn were to run for President, he'd open himself to Democrats mischaracterizing his support of troops if he voted for a bill that provided funds for the troops, but also funded a boondoggle in Alaska for example. I would hope you would reconsider mis-framing reasons why legislators vote for a bill that might have a lot of good in it, but also contains objectionable items, otherwise we as a country open ourselves up to a lot of bad legislation merely with the insertion of items nearly everyone supports.

I have yet to hear one rational argument to support a Palin nomination or one rational argument that her possible appointment to VP serves the national interest if McCain went down. Thinking people from both parties who love their country should consider country over party given this insane nomination. McCain had plenty of options available to nominate a woman or social conservative whose qualities strongly argue their readiness to serve as President if McCain were not. If McCain had nominated such a nominee, there would be no national debate about his VP pick being insane or showing a perfect disrespect for the interests of the country if he went down given in the light of the fact that McCain barely knew her and didn't even know her qualifications to serve as President.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2008 10:35 AM

167

Michael Heath,

David Heddle (I keep forgetting Heddle is your last name) - it can be very frustrating having a dialogue with you because you frequently dodge central points and sidetrack the dialogue rather than engage head-on with the questions asked based on known, factual and properly framed assertions.

I sleep fine because I haven't dodged any questions. I defy you to demonstrate one question that I have dodged. People have either been asking me Why do you support Palin to which I have replied, time and time again, it is visceral You may not like the answer, but tough. Or people are asking me, in light of her Pledge gaffe, or not knowing the Bush doctrine, "how can you support her?" to which I have answered: those mistakes do not matter to me. So what question have I dodged? Or, people are extrapolating from these mistakes to argue that this means she could not run the country, to which I reply: I don't accept your extrapolations. And I do not have to provide you with an argument about what happens if McCain dies in office--I am not trying to convince you or anyone else to vote for her. I'm voting for her for my reasons, and I understand they seem insufficient to you--but, well, democracy sucks in that regard.

As for the Bush doctrine I think she answered just fine after Gibson explained. I am not sure why you characterized Krauthammer's article as a "rhetorical" dodge, other than it was sympathetic of Palin and critical of Gibson's lack of knowledge in his own question.
As for "Born Alive," the indisputable fact is he voted one way in the Illinois senate and another way in the US senate on bills with essentially the same wording. This has nothing to do with organizations that use language like "infanticide." I did not misrepresent his vote--are you disputing the facts above, that he switch his vote on essentially the same bill? Because that is demonstrably true.

To be fair to myself, while I haven't pressed this issue, I don't think the Obama supporters, or at least those who are Hilary detractors, are immune from "visceral" reasoning. It would be hard to convince me that there is enough policy differences between Obama and Hilary to love one and hate the other. Given also that Hilary has the better resume, it seems that if you are ardently and passionately in the Obama camp (vice Hilary) then you too are factoring in non "rational" factors. (And, btw, I understand: I'd be happy with President Obama but aghast at President Hilary, even though their policy difference do not warrant such a huge difference in views.)

democommie,

I think it's largely, if not completely, a waste of time reading or refuting any of Heddle's assertions.

Having never done so (refuting, that is), exactly how would you know?

Posted by: heddle | September 14, 2008 1:13 PM

169

My apologies for the grammatical and clerical mess above. I was rushed to finish and didn't adequately proof prior to publishing. Hopefully this revision of the above is more readable.

Democommie - we have two conservatives regularly willing to engage with us in this forum. I really do want to hear the best conservative argument out there. I also share your observation that both of them are sometimes fairly disengenuous in their responses. In fact, I have yet to meet a conservative who will argue their position based on an accurate set of assumptions. However, I'm an optimistic and willing to keep beating on the castle walls long after others have judiciously moved on, call it a personality quirk.

Draft 2.0 to David Heddle:

David Heddle (I keep forgetting Heddle is your last name) - it can be very frustrating having a dialogue with you because you frequently dodge central points and sidetrack the dialogue rather than engage head-on with the questions asked based on known, factual and properly framed assertions. This creates a ton of work for those that engage with you to get the dialogue back on a more productive path. You have been charged with this many times by many readers here on this blog. Doesn't that bother you? I couldn't sleep if I were accused of mis-framing an argument or using rhetoric or logical fallacies to make a point unless I issued a mea culpa and enhanced my approach to research, framing issues, forming an opinion, and promoting that position to minimize those occurrences. It is my perception you are doing this purposefully.

For example, Palin not knowing what the name of the Bush Doctrine was not central to my point of her showing a total ignorance of this debate given that Gibson subsequently defined his use of it the term with a follow-up statement that referenced the specific debate. Here is Gibson to Palin:

" The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? "

Krauthammer's rhetorical dodge is applicable to her freezing up when the question is initially posed, but irrelevant when it comes to the quality of her answer. Most interviewers would define such a question more quickly and Gibson should have as well. But I'm not grading Gibson; I'm grading Palin. Therefore, what is important is to note her answer to that question, which was what I challenged you with earlier. Her answer in its full context once Gibson defined his use of the Bush Doctrine:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

The use of the term, "preemptive" is incorrect on Gibson's part; the correct term is "preventative". I would expect a Vice-Presidential candidate in a post-9/11 and post-Iraq War world to know this debate so well that once they've been clued into what debate Gibson is referring to, they would have corrected Gibson on his misuse of the term "preemptive" and provided an answer within the context of the debate.

Palin goes on to provide an answer that actually refutes Bush's position. Any reasonable person up on one of the two most important philosophical foreign policy debates of our time would know what Gibson was referring to, and expect that Palin frame her answer in the context of the Bush position given that her answer rejected the Bush Doctrine, which she did not do. I believe this failure of Palin's to not provide an answer within the context of the debate is out of ignorance such a debate even exists and that she stands opposed to our President's position. In fact, I don't believe she stands opposed to the Bush Doctrine, I think she was pretty much spouting gibberish given her ignorance of the debate. I believe her ignorance is so shocking it would be equivalent to Harry Truman circa 1944 not knowing about Chamberlain's appeasement policy and Churchill's vociferous rejection of it. Truman of course was well versed in both arguments, but that is magnitude of the ignorance on display here with Palin.

And please do not respond that her answer is a good one. I would respectfully agree her answer is an arguably good one given its consistent with America's historical policy in a pre-9/11 world; that is not the issue here. The issue is that Palin showed all indications she does not keep up with foreign affairs at a level one would expect out of a VP candidate, in fact, nowhere close.

Heddle stated:

How does the fact that she bombed on the Pledge question mean that she has "no intellectual interest in our history or current events that are being debated on the national stage that a president must already understand."

If you note in my previous post I didn't rely on just her written answer to the Pledge question. I also combined her Pledge question with her total ignorance regarding the debate on the justification of preventative war. Is this scant evidence to make such an assertion? You bet. But whose fault is that? We have now learned that McCain had virtually no vetting process, assuming his Plan A.1 or A.2 (Ridge or Lieberman) would fly so need for a thorough vetting process that included acceptance by whomever vetoed McCain's initial preferences (which may have been only him, we don't know) and then being forced to name someone with no time when his preferences fell out of consideration a week before the Convention. I state "virtually" because there was some precursory vetting (creating a list, sending that list a set of 70 questions). If her Pledge answer was a verbal one, than its fine to joke about - but not good evidence of ignorance and/or being a propagandist. The fact it was a written answer shows either a lack of character to base an opinion on an assertion she either didn't know but went with it anyway or was attempting to perpetuate or pander to social conservatives with a false assertion. So to your charge against Leni, we simply do not know, but either result shows evidence of a lack of intellectual integrity and character on Palin's part, which is revealing and should be cause for concern from Americans who support honesty, integrity, and some intellectual knowledge from which to govern by. Palin shows none.

David Heddle stated:

Obama may be righteous in this regard, be he has his intellectual honesty warts on campaign finance, FISA, and the "Born Alive" vote.

Obama's position(s) on these issues has absolutely nothing to do with Palin's ignorance of history and the Bush Doctrine, these are two entirely separate matters. With Palin we are judging her ignorance and willingness to opine using false assertions, either out of ignorance or to promote an agenda (pledge). Obama has positions, some of which have changed, we should grade Obama's new positions relative to the quality of the old ones and his honesty in communicating there was a change and why.

Campaign finance - Obama experienced an unprecedented show of financial support from everyday Americans, this was a pleasant shock to his campaign. He was smart to switch. Obama has been forthright that unexpected grass root excitement to financially support his campaign caused him to reject his original position to run on public funds while he also admitted it compromised his ability to sell the idea he was not beholden to special interests. I have zero evidence that Obama is beholden to interest groups, which has actually caused a lot of consternation from the far left groups hoping to leverage an Obama presidency. Let's also put this in context; consider the volume of pandering from Obama (fairly insignificant) to the new McCain; who is now pandering to social conservatives at a rate almost equal to the rate Bush 43 employed in 2004 not to mention the imposing presence of lobbyists not only participating in his campaign, but actually managing large aspects of it. Also, Obama's decision was made with plenty of time for McCain to not get stuck in a situation where it caused McCain harm. Obama's change shows wisdom on his part. Who wants a President who sticks to be an inferior position as new evidence is digested?

FISA - I cannot speak to this matter. I don't know why Obama voted the way he did or where he stood before.

Born Alive - This is one reason why senators have a difficult time running and winning the Presidency; people mischaracterize their vote as you do here. Obama was never a proponent of killing fetuses that were aborted alive during an abortion procedure regarding the vote you are referring to in your comment. Illinois law already provided protections to fetuses and their life was not threatened by the outcome of this vote. Instead Obama voted against that bill because, as he states here http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign. What Senator Obama's attackers don't tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. They will not tell you that Obama voted against these laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society -- a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, which did not pose such a threat. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them."

Heddle, it really bothers me when people misrepresent legislator's votes. For example, I admire Sen. Tom Coburn R-OK principled stands on federal spending and fiscal discipline. I despise his positions on social matters, but admire his voting voting no on a ton of spending bills even though he agreed with much of these bill's content, but gagged on the earmarks included in these bills. If Coburn were to run for President, he'd open himself up to, say Democrats or even GOP primary opponents mischaracterizing his non-support of troops if he voted against a bill that provided funds for the troops, but also funded a boondoggle in Alaska. I would hope you would reconsider mis-framing reasons why legislators vote for a bill like you do here with Obama; otherwise we as a country open ourselves up to a lot of bad legislation merely with the insertion of items nearly everyone supports.

I have yet to hear one rational argument to support a Palin nomination or one rational argument that her possible appointment to VP serves the national interest if McCain went down. Thinking people from both parties who love their country should consider country over party given this insane nomination. McCain had plenty of options available to nominate a woman and/or social conservative whose qualities strongly argue their readiness to serve as President if McCain were not. If McCain had nominated such a nominee, there would be no current national debate about his VP pick being insane or showing a perfect disrespect for the interests of the country if he went down. Especially when considering the fact that McCain barely knew her and didn't even know her qualifications to serve as President.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2008 1:26 PM

171

Leni,

I'll answer the question although (1) I wasn't talking about you and (2) you asked it like a jackass.

The answer is: I cringed.

Of course I would rather the person I support give a good answer to each and every question. Do you feel compelled to ask the obvious? Did you feel any disappointment when Obama dodged Warren's question with "that's above my pay grade?" I did.

Posted by: heddle | September 14, 2008 1:42 PM

173

Heddle:

I don't argue with you (or mroberts) because your beliefs get confused with the facts in evidence and you base your decisions on those beliefs, in many cases, instead of logic. Other commenters ask questions which you deliberately ignore (more often than not, I think) and you have an agenda (which you won't really admit to) that, in the instant situation, allows you to think that casting a vote for a couple of people as ill prepared, intellectually shallow, hypocritical and devious as the Palin/McCain ticket is okay based on a "gut reaction". That's just plain sad.

Michael Heath:

Yeah, I would call it a personality quirk; but then, I've got a few of my own and they're lulu's. Patience is not my long suit, obviously. We can all be grateful that I'm only in charge (barely) of my own life.

Posted by: democommie | September 14, 2008 4:09 PM

175

Michael heath,

Again Heddle, you continue to play games with rhetoric (your last reply being an enormous fallacy of balance argument).

Oh give me a break, there is no "fallacy of balance" here. As I was taught the fallacies, they are fallacies when they are being used in an attempt to prove something, rigorously. I have not set out to prove anything. The famous verse in scripture that states "all scripture is inspired" is not a logical fallacy, it becomes one only if one uses it as proof of inspiration.

The premise of this post was dirty campaign commercials. I pointed out that that is a problem on both sides. Then there was some weak list of thirteen sins of the McCain campaign, which I countered with an equally weak list. Charges of flip flops? Easy to point out shifting positions on both camps. Aghast that someone would vote for Palin for emotional/visceral reasons? Show me how you can love Obama and hate Hillary (or vice versa) on purely a rational basis of examining their differences on the issues.

Some of the responses to my comments were "yes, both sides do that, but the McCain side does it worse." And by what name does this fallacious argument go?

If this is "the balance of balance" then any time someone points out hypocrisy they are guilty of the fallacy, because pointing out hypocrisy follows exactly the template I used.

The real fallacy here is the internet fallacy of the hair-trigger response of arguing by charging someone with a logical fallacy.

Posted by: heddle | September 15, 2008 7:30 AM

177

I cannot believe how huge a disappointment heddle has become here. He used to be one of the more honest and articulate people in the "conservative evangelical Christian" category; now he's just turned off his brain and become a Stepford idiot, totally unconcerned even with the teachings of his own religion, knowingly embracing every lie and logical fallacy he needs to hide from reality. If this craven embrace of anti-rationality is any indication, than Christianity in America has indeed been hijacked by lunatics and hypocrites, and may be beyond saving.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 15, 2008 11:11 AM