Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Some interesting things have been happening at Palin and McCain rallies lately.
"[Obama] said, too, that our troops in Afghanistan are 'air raiding villages and killing civilians,'" Palin said, mischaracterizing a 2007 remark by Obama. "I hope Americans know that is not what our brave men and women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is fighting terrorism and protecting us and protecting our freedom."Shortly afterward, a male member of the crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, yelled "treason!" loudly enough to be picked up by television microphones.
And it gets worse:
At a McCain rally on Monday, television stations caught audio of a crowd member calling Obama a "terrorist," while Dana Milbank reported that "[o]ne Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'" Also on Monday, at a Palin rally, one member of the audience yelled, "Kill him!"
Very nice. Palin is also repeating lies that even McCain has had to stop using:
Later, in the tax policy section of her speech, Palin managed to repeat a thoroughly debunked claim about Obama's voting record that even McCain himself has stopped using."He voted 94 times for higher taxes. Even on middle class -- hard working everyday families across this great nation -- making $42,000 a year," she said.
As FactCheck.org noted in August, McCain's campaign originally claimed Obama voted to raise taxes on families making $32,000 a year, but have since changed their tax ads to say that Obama's vote would impact individuals making $42,000 per year -- not families as Palin repeated today. Still, FactCheck called the new McCain ad script "better, but still deceptive" -- a standard that Palin failed to meet this morning.
Just wait. It's gonna get much worse.
Politics
Comments
I thought Chris Matthews made a good point about this topic on Hardball last evening. He expressed concern that this sort of hateful rhetoric by Palin raises the heat for all crazies, not just those on that agree with Palin on this point. He then used the example of Kennedy, hated by those on the right, but killed by someone on the radical left.
Besides increasing the risk to Obama, I would argue this increases the risk to McCain as well, especially given the fantasy held by some Christian reconstructionists that Palin is their "One" and she'd be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Source: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/reconstructionists_pray_for_mc.php
Note Rogers edited his link, however there is a cached link in the comment section under one of my comments if you want to see the original blog post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 8, 2008 10:01 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 8, 2008 10:05 AM
I'm not plugged into the MSM, but I'm guessing that these supporters comments would be all over the airwaves if they were made by non-whites at a big non-Republican rally. I'm just saying: double standard.
It also seems - to me - that watching clips of RNC rallies looks like a bunch of people living in a la-la land similar to that of the strangely popular 1990s NBC show, Friends: it kind of looks like America, but it doesn't have many (if any) minorities, no major social problems, a vapid central cast of characters, and episodic misunderstandings between people that lead to hilarious - yet sadly appropriate - outcomes.
Posted by: Umlud | October 8, 2008 10:07 AM
And lets not forget that US forces in Afghanistan do have quite a record of "air raiding villages and killing civilians". Maybe not exactly on purpose, but it does happen, and anyone who says it doesn't is a fool or a liar.
Posted by: Dunc | October 8, 2008 10:19 AM
Dunc: it is TREASON to not forget that.
Posted by: rpsms | October 8, 2008 10:24 AM
If you keep pumping your votaries with frenzied rhetoric, while maintaining the plausible deniability of 'campaigning', it makes a pretty ugly mess to clean up when the fringe inevitably carries out the spirit of the message. Palin of course doesn't get this. She's flailing around carelessly riling up people's deep-seated irrational partisanship.
It trouble's me that anything good or positive that McCain might have stood for (such as expanded nuclear energy) are soiled by his campaign's kowtowing to, and indeed cultivating, those on the right who are barley able to choke down their atavistic hate for anything that doesn't fit their egotistical worldview.
The thin veneer of polite rational discourse is beginning to crack.
Posted by: John | October 8, 2008 10:26 AM
Wonderful. You know, probably most of these Palin rally attenders consider themselves to be Christians. Does anyone else recall a rather important incident in the history of Christianity when members of an angry mob openly called for a wrongly accused man to be put to death?
Posted by: Adrienne | October 8, 2008 10:30 AM
The ambiance here is starting to eerily resemble the ambiance in Israel just before the assassination of Yitzak Rabin. I hope that the secret service is taking names and investigating the shitheads making these comments. The assassination of Senator Obama would probably lead to riots in the black communities that would make the riots that occurred in the mid sixties look like a Sunday school picnic.
Posted by: SLC | October 8, 2008 10:42 AM
Umlud,
Yes, I'm sure you are correct that the MSM is in the tank for Palin and McCain. Why, the evidence is beyond dispute. I can hardly watch MSNBC without puking over how they fawn all over Palin. All the data would surely demonstrate that reporters contribute far more to McCain's campaign. College faculty too. What a damn shame.
Posted by: heddle | October 8, 2008 10:43 AM
heddle,
it doesn't matter who reporters contribute to. it matters who EDITORS and PUBLISHERS and MEDIA OWNERS contribute to. Get that?
Posted by: lauram | October 8, 2008 11:11 AM
Heddle, do you have to be an idiot? Seriously, you've got an advanced degree in physics, so we know you've got a damned good brain in your cranium, but you react emotionally, rather than analytically, to any perceived criticism of McCain/Palin.
Let me clarify for you what was Umlud's clear intent: It was not about the media liking McCain/Palin better than Obama/Biden. It was a claim that the media would react more vociferously if a black person had yelled "kill him" in reference to McCain, than they did when this white person yelled that in reference to Obama.
That's a debatable point, and I'm not sure I agree. But it was clearly about race, and not about ideology.
I know you have to be an intelligent person, as I've seen very intelligent and thought-provoking comments from you on occasion, but when it comes to this election you consistently say such stupid things that I'm beginning to wonder if you got your Ph.D. from a Crackerjack box. I'd like to respect you more, and I'd love it if you'd tap into your real abilities and make that happen.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 8, 2008 11:11 AM
And lets not forget that US forces in Afghanistan do have quite a record of "air raiding villages and killing civilians". Maybe not exactly on purpose, but it does happen, and anyone who says it doesn't is a fool or a liar.
We use SMART bombs with CIVILIAN-AVOIDING shrapnel. At least that's what I choose to believe.
Posted by: libarbarian | October 8, 2008 11:12 AM
Heddle said:
"Yes, I'm sure you are correct that the MSM is in the tank for Palin and McCain. Why, the evidence is beyond dispute. I can hardly watch MSNBC without puking over how they fawn all over Palin."
I'll bet you CAN "hardly watch MSNBC" ! :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 8, 2008 11:16 AM
heddle, your attempts at what seems to be sarcasm fail you. Why the quip at college faculty? Why the selection of MSNBC? As far as I recall, college faculty are not MSM, and MSNBC is a single channel on cable.
Maybe I'm missing some connection you are trying to make, though. However, from what you write, I would suggest that in order to stop puking, you should stop watching MSNBC. That will do wonders for your esophagus and palate as well as your food bill. (I mean, from what you say you hardly watch it anyway, so why put yourself through that agony? There are other things about which to be a martyr.)
Posted by: Umlud | October 8, 2008 11:16 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 8, 2008 11:21 AM
Herod the Freemason:
You forgot to mention the Mafia.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | October 8, 2008 11:34 AM
It seems to me that Palin attracts pretty much the same crowds that attend dog fights, smack-down rassling, revival meetings and KKK rallies. It is a shame that as a candidate for national office she gets media attention. But if her lying and hate-mongering count for nothing, that will show that we have come a long way.
Note to Michael Heath:
Kennedy was not shot by Oswald.
Posted by: Rod | October 8, 2008 11:39 AM
lauram,
Why yes, that just clarifies everything. The capitals helped. Quite so.Gingerbaker,
Actually I now enjoy watching MSNBC, because I always prefer to be a contrarian rather than to hang around people I agree with. I'm here, aren't I?
James Hanley,
That is because any criticism, such as the one I responded to, that there is a double standard in the MSM that protects white racists shouting at Palin rallies, is so absurd that sarcasm is the appropriate response. Maybe what Umlud meant is that the MSM doesn't pay much attention to the occasional idiot at a campaign stop, because it is busy calling the candidate herself a racist. That would be a sort of double standard.
You never know--I might have taken a lesson from Biden and padded my cv. In any case, I don't desire or nor give a rat's ass about your respect.
Posted by: heddle | October 8, 2008 11:46 AM
Didn't McCain, back in the early 90s (1990s, not 1890s -- McCain is old, but not that old) say basically the same thing regarding NATO's peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia? He decried the fact that Clinton (a liberal war-mongering nation-builder) had put US forces in a position in which they were bombing civilians.
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | October 8, 2008 11:48 AM
Uh, I've never even heard of the people you linked to heddle. Maybe they are "MSM" by some standard, but I've never heard anybody even on MSNBC come close to accusing either Mccain or Palin of being racists. Of inciting racism in their followers, yeah probably, of being racists, no.
But nice dodge, I notice you won't even comment on whether you think people shouting "kill him" are a problem or not. I guess it's cool eh? Maybe next time Obama can go to a rally at Harlem and some black guys could say that it's about time to put a cap in his ass and that would be just fine too.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 8, 2008 11:58 AM
Well, Billy, we also have folks like Hannity claiming that to criticize the 'commande in chief' when we have troops deployed overseas is treason, yet when Clinton was CinC and we had troops deployed overseas, the right-wingers were gearing up the impeachment machine.
Totally different though...
Posted by: slpage | October 8, 2008 12:00 PM
Re heddle
Gee, MSNBC is the liberal version of the fascist news channel. If Prof. Heddle doesn't like MSNBC, I suggest the latter which should be more to his liking. Nothing like those left wing pinko commies Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc.
Re James Hanley
Hasn't Mr. Hanley figured it out by now. Prof. Heddle has the hots for Governor Palin and is letting the little head run the big head. Just because he has a PhD in nuclear physics doesn't mean he is immune to stupidity. Brian Josephson not only has a PhD in physics but he is a Nobel Prize winner which doesn't prevent him from falling for cold fusion, ESP, and PK, which are just about as likely as Governor Palin being qualified to be POTUS.
Posted by: SLC | October 8, 2008 12:17 PM
Coriolis,
You never heard of the Associated Press? Also, you're wrong--Olbermann used the same "reasoning" as the AP article, along with Palin's mention of Rev. Wright, to paint Palin the racist. Because everyone knows that any mention of Obama's pastor of 20 years means you are a racist, while any mention of Palin's pastor demonstrates that you are an enlightened, critical thinker.
And, by the way, this insinuation:
proves that you are a pitiful jackass.
Posted by: heddle | October 8, 2008 12:24 PM
Looks like the dog whistles are working correctly.
Posted by: IasonOuabache | October 8, 2008 12:29 PM
Am I the only one who noticed last night that McCain praised the "heroic Mujahedeen" and followed that with how we need to destroy the Taliban? If you heard someone screaming at their TV, it was me.
As for the killing of civilians, I was set straight this weekend by a sweet old woman from my church who assured me we were only killing ragheads who were bound for hell in any case. And did you know that Obama is only pretending to be a Christian?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 8, 2008 12:29 PM
@James,
Back in the day, there was a fellow in my class who was a YEC, despite studying theoretical physics. Needless to say, we used to tease him mercilessly. He ended up studying Cosmology of all things... (presumably to try to take down the system from inside??)
So while a PhD in Physics is highly correlated with rationality, it is not enough. And I'm embarrassed to say that in the sciences we get a greater than usual proportion of 'socially challenged' individuals (dicks, basically), which also explains some of heddle's symptoms.
Josephson is a curious case, since he got his Nobel at such a young age (essentially for his PhD work). It seems to be the case that he went a bit nuts after that. I've actually met the guy, and he's wacky in a very gentle, quiet and unassuming way. Most other Nobels I've met are eccentric in an arrogant way.
Posted by: Dan | October 8, 2008 12:41 PM
Re Coriolis
The only thing motivating Prof. Heddle is his desire to entice Governor Palin into the sack with him.
Posted by: SLC | October 8, 2008 12:46 PM
Re Dan
I would agree that many top flight physicists are quite arrogant (they have much to be arrogant about). However, I have to say that two that I took courses from, Steven Weinberg and Julian Schwinger, were quite polite and patient with what must have seen to them to be not very intelligent questions from me, despite there reputations for arrogance.
Posted by: SLC | October 8, 2008 12:51 PM
kehrsam,
The strange thing is that some of Obama's supporters are expressing the hope that this is true. I believe Bill Maher has stated that he hopes Obama is lying. I have also read many comments, from Obama supporters, that express the same sentiment--that Obama is playing a "wink, wink, nod, nod" game with the electorate over his Christianity, and that's OK.
So the question of the authenticity of Obama's Christianity comes from both sides of the aisle.
Posted by: heddle | October 8, 2008 1:16 PM
Prof Heddle said:
I'm sorry, but could you point out in the article where the author called Gov. Palin a racist.
Posted by: Joe T. | October 8, 2008 1:35 PM
Re Heddle
As usual, Prof. Heddles' ruminations are highly inaccurate. The view from the atheist side is the hope that Senator Obama is actually less religious then he professes to be. The charge from Prof. Heddle' palls on right wing side is that he is really a Muslim (i.e. Daniel Pipes). Mr. Maher is hardly representative of the atheist side as he is a nut on a number of topics.
Posted by: SLC | October 8, 2008 1:37 PM
"So the question of the authenticity of Obama's Christianity comes from both sides of the aisle."
Pretty shrewd of the cryptoMuslim B. Hussein to have attended private Christian elementary school in Kenya, a country which is 80% Christian.
And then, of course, to regularly attend christian church services his adult life. What a schemer! Who is the REAL Obama?
When did he secretly attend those Wahhabi madrases?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 8, 2008 1:38 PM
@heddle:
No. There is no equivalence here. From this side of the pond it looks like the Republicans are saying he is a MUSLIM - LOOK AT HIM - HE'S (black and) SCARY (hence the use of his middle name and constant references to his "otherness"); the Democrats however are saying the same thing about Obama that many McCain supporters were saying about their man - that in office he will not be beholden to explicitly Christian religious interests. And Maher - he was expressing the hope that he had no religious belief, because he considers religious belief a neurological disorder.
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 8, 2008 1:40 PM
I'm too lazy to look up his exact comment right now, but it was clear that he distinguished between the "heroic freedom fighters", and the evil Taliban who "came in afterwards", or something to that effect, which makes me wonder if his knowledge of history is as good as his knowledge of geography.
And with his railings against Russia (they're maybe an evil empire??), I couldn't help but be slightly more worried about his hawkishness after reading the article linked below, that Andrew Sullivan posted. I wasn't aware of that information at all, before now.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2008/10/the_august_surprise_that_didnt.html
Posted by: Kaerion | October 8, 2008 1:48 PM
Dear Dear Heddle - I am absolutely floored that you continue to defend Palin. You have critical thinking skills please use them. I want my VP to be able to make it through an inteview and answer simple questions. Palin failed. I want my VP to form coherent thoughts on the fly without resorting to obviously scripted responses which in no way relate to the question. Palin failed. I expect a VP nominee to have at least traveled outside of the US and have actual foreign policy experience beyond seeing the Russian landscape without actually setting foot on it. Her first experiences abroad didn't occur until 2007. What does that say about her interest in knowing and understanding the world outside of the US? Palin again fails. This is not a job one can learn by cramming, or to believe governing a state where the entire population is less than mroberts' stomping ground the OC, makes you somehow qualified to run a country. Repeatedly, she has shown an ineptness that can't be explained away and I would not hire her at my place of business much less for VP! It isn't my liberal bias that makes me think that Palin is ridiculous, she has done this all on her own. She is being mocked and ridiculed from even those in her own party because she is truly clueless in her belief that she is prepared and equipped to be VP. Now before you go on another Biden/Obama bashing trip, this opinion is independent of how I feel about any of the other candidates. It makes no sense to sling mud at someone else to make her look better because it doesn't. It is painfully clear that you have lost any sense of logic and perception here when it comes to Palin. I'm no expert on Physics but I have a good idea on how to get a decent grade in one of your classes.
Posted by: Anna | October 8, 2008 1:49 PM
What exactly do you think I'm insinuating that warrants your whining? If you think what's happening is a problem, you can say so, you've yet to even comment on your "goddess" rousing such hatred among people. Instead of whining about who's insinuating what, state your position on this bullshit.
I don't doubt that you are against murdering Obama. What pisses me off is that you can't even come out and say that what Palin is doing right now, is vile rabble rousing of the lowest order.
Unlike you, most of us so-called Obama "fanatics" can clearly see faults in him as well. For me, those are his rather sincere christianity (not that much of a problem), his healthcare plan (I liked clinton's better) and his unwillingness to be seriously critical of our entire approach to this war on terror. There are other problems as well, but those are probably the main ones for me.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 8, 2008 1:50 PM
Kehrsam said:
"If you heard someone screaming at their TV, it was me."
I didn't hear you specifically, kehrsam, it was more like when Spock grimaced at the very instant when an entire planet full of people was vaporized. So, I heard a lot of screaming, but could not make out the mellifluous tones of your voice.
Actually, I could only bear to watch about five minutes. I tuned in when McCain accused Obama of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class, then Obama corrected saying he wants to give the middle class a tax cut.
Then McCain said that he wanted to give everybody a tax cut, not just the middle class. I guess because he wanted, as always, to be scrupulously fair about tax cuts. And that was when my brain vaporized like a planet full of Vulcans.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 8, 2008 1:52 PM
Kehrsam said:
"If you heard someone screaming at their TV, it was me."
I didn't hear you specifically, kehrsam, it was more like when Spock grimaced at the very instant when an entire planet full of people was vaporized. So, I heard a lot of screaming, but could not make out the mellifluous tones of your voice.
Actually, I could only bear to watch about five minutes. I tuned in when McCain accused Obama of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class, then Obama corrected saying he wants to give the middle class a tax cut.
Then McCain said that he wanted to give everybody a tax cut, not just the middle class. I guess because he wanted, as always, to be scrupulously fair about tax cuts. And that was when my brain vaporized like a planet full of Vulcans.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 8, 2008 2:01 PM
And lastly, as someone who's in the final years of doing a Ph.D. in condensed matter physics, don't assume that just because someone is doing physics, they have a brain on other topics because of that. Physicists are human too (last I checked).
Although to be honest I don't know any other physicist who would consider voting for Palin. Even one of my close friends who is probably about as seriously christian as heddle is despises her, so religion is no excuse for this.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 8, 2008 2:02 PM
SLC and Dan,
Yes, you're right. It's just disheartning. At my college we had a YEC chemist--I never could make sense of that, and although he was a likable guy, no one was too sad when he left to take a job at a bible college.
Heddle, it's not the fact that you're voting Republican that bothers me. It's not even the fact that you like Palin, although god knows I can't figure out what's to like about her. Vive le difference and it's a free country, so vote for and like whomever you want.
But do you really enjoy being relentlessy stupid on this blog? Or do you actually think you're somehow being clever? I don't buy for a second that you were just shifting the discussion from racism to Palinism because all the prior comment deserved was a sarcastic comeback. You could have come back with a sarcastic crack that kept it on topic. No, I think you actually missed the point, and now you're too embarrassed to admit you did. Which means you really are embarrassed by your own stupidity. And the simple solution to that is to stop being stupid.
Please, as a favor to me? Pretty please?
(By the way: I'm an academic, and I'm not an Obama supporter--so nuts to your stereotyping of all us other academics!)
Posted by: James Hanley | October 8, 2008 2:03 PM
Anna,
Why? Will she carry out her job by the process of interviews on national TV? If she can make it through an interview as well as Cheney, would she then be as "good" of a VP as Cheney?
Why? will she carry out her job by the process of oral examination? If she can speak on policy as elequently as Cheney (and he can, I've heard him in person) will she be as "good" of a VP as Cheney?
But apparently the foreign policy credentials for the top of the ticket are not so stringent.
Why? Why is a stamped passport so important? Who says you can't learn on the job? (Well, yes, Biden said that, but besides Biden, who says that?)
Nor would I, as she has no qualifications as a physicist. We are searching for a physics faculty right now. She need not apply. So what?
Oh no mudslinging here! No siree--keep moving. No innuendo about how good grades are obtained in my class! If you are looking for cast aspersions, move right along! Nothing to see here!
Posted by: heddle | October 8, 2008 2:23 PM
the good professor heddle has been referred to as having a functioning brain - possibly, but that isn't clear from the muddled and illogical things he posts. either he is incapable of putting his thoughts and opinions into a coherent form, or he is so ashamed of them that he won't.
back to the main point - Gov. Palin and her tactics. My neighbor, and others, hold a point of view that is chilling, and i hope not widely shared: to quote him:
"I really don't care about the things she says that might not be technically true, because she has to do that to get elected. I'm impressed with how she lives as a practicing Christian."
He makes that statement, and is serious in saying it.
Posted by: dean | October 8, 2008 2:29 PM
the good professor heddle has been referred to as having a functioning brain - possibly, but that isn't clear from the muddled and illogical things he posts. either he is incapable of putting his thoughts and opinions into a coherent form, or he is so ashamed of them that he won't.
back to the main point - Gov. Palin and her tactics. My neighbor, and others, hold a point of view that is chilling, and i hope not widely shared: to quote him:
"I really don't care about the things she says that might not be technically true, because she has to do that to get elected. I'm impressed with how she lives as a practicing Christian."
He makes that statement, and is serious in saying it.
Posted by: dean | October 8, 2008 2:32 PM
Heddle, calm down please. I know you are angry, perhaps a bit frustrated on how Palin turned out to be, but getting more angry wouldn't help.
It's obvious that she doesn't have the knowledge required for the VP position and the only reason the GOP picked her to fool you.
Remember what you said on your blog about the first night you hear her speak and contrast it with how she is acting today. Think clearly Prof. Heddle, you are smart enough to do that
Posted by: Draconiz | October 8, 2008 2:35 PM
Heddle, calm down please. I know you are angry, perhaps a bit frustrated on how Palin turned out to be, but getting more angry wouldn't help.
It's obvious that she doesn't have the knowledge required for the VP position and the only reason the GOP picked her to fool you.
Remember what you said on your blog about the first night you hear her speak and contrast it with how she is acting today. Think clearly Prof. Heddle, you are smart enough to do that
Posted by: Draconiz | October 8, 2008 2:47 PM
@SLC
I should qualify my sentence. "Most other" = 3/5 (not including Josephson). "eccentric in an arrogant way" = if they were eccentric, it was slight arrogance, not slight nuttiness.
Posted by: Dan | October 8, 2008 2:58 PM
Would you say the same thing about your heart surgeon? Your plumber? Your lawyer? You think running the Free World, managing the world's most important economy, and controlling one of the world's largest nuclear stockpiles is easier than those jobs, something you can "pick up" like flipping burgers during a summer stint at McDonalds?
What a profoundly cynical and small view of governance you have.
Posted by: Tulse | October 8, 2008 3:01 PM
Heddle, calm down please. I know you are angry, perhaps a bit frustrated on how Palin turned out to be, but getting more angry wouldn't help.
It's obvious that she doesn't have the knowledge required for the VP position and the only reason the GOP picked her to fool you.
Remember what you said on your blog about the first night you hear her speak and contrast it with how she is acting today. Think clearly Prof. Heddle, you are smart enough to do that
Posted by: Draconiz | October 8, 2008 3:08 PM
Posted by: WScott | October 8, 2008 3:23 PM
Folks: Don't blow it all out of proportion. Next month somewhere around 47% of voters will be in agreement with Dr. Heddle. As long as Palin has some good advisers she trusts, she'll be fine, as long as it comes to that. I've advised several candidates for office that really shouldn't be in charge of a two-car funeral. It's like Albert Brooks said in Broadcast News, "It goes in here -- and it comes out there!"
Personally, I worry a lot more about McCain's temper particularly after he spent all last night telling us to respect his demeanor.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 8, 2008 3:25 PM
To clarify: I'm not saying I think beliefs matter more than facts, I was agreeing that's a widespread (if often unspoken) attitude.
Posted by: WScott | October 8, 2008 3:27 PM
I assume you're sniping at Obama here, but he is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs. Ya think maybe those posts have anything to do with foreign policy maybe? You are looking for what exactly as far as 'credentials'?
Posted by: Spartan | October 8, 2008 3:27 PM
No, she won't be fine. She'll alternate betweeen being a moose in the headlights and being insufferably arrogant about her own ignorance. Palin won't be fine as VP, and neither will this country, kehrsam.
We're not talking Jack Kemp or Joe Lieberman here. Or even Kay Bailey Hutchison. Or Christine Todd Whitman. Any of those people ending up as a GOP VP, and I'd still be disappointed, but I'd not worry as much as I will if we end up with a VP Palin, especially with a 72-yr old prez with a bad temper and health history.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 8, 2008 3:40 PM
Re Heddle
Give it up Prof. Heddle. Governor Palin is not going to join you in the sack.
Posted by: SLC | October 8, 2008 3:43 PM
- She said she had been against the Bridge To Nowhere. She lied.
- She said she did not fire of the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska. She lied.
- She said she did not put pressure on Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She lied.
- She said she had never denied humans were causing climate change. She lied.
- She said Alaska produces 20 percent of US energy. She lied. When called on it she said she meant 20 percent of oil and natural gas. She lied to cover her lie.
- She said she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president. She lied.
- She said she secured and began the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska. She lied.
- She said Obama wants to secure Miranda rights for suspected terrorists. She lied.
- She said she was for equal rights for homosexuals, except the right to marry. She lied (about the first half).
- She said that the powerful speech she gave at a fundraiser in Canton, Ohio, was the result of winging it after a TelePrompter malfunction. She lied.
- She said she took a pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla. She lied.
- Now she says she's pro-life. I want to believe her. But why should I?
Posted by: Concerned Christian | October 8, 2008 4:14 PM
Heddle, you're response to Anna sounded like,
And while I can't speak for Anna, yes, that's what I'd agree with.As to Obama's foreign policy experience, I've critiqued it plenty myself. I think it's too soon for him to be president and it worries me a lot. However, as Spartan noted, he's spent several years now on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. I'm willing to bet he's got a shitload more FoPo knowledge than, "You can see Russia from an island I've never been to" Palin.
And, by the way, he pleasantly surprised me in the first debate. He managed, to my shock, to convince me that he wouldn't be as disastrous a president, foreign-policy wise, as John McCain.
Seriously, man, wake up and see the actual facts, which you have so far so assiduously ignored. I thought physicists studied reality? Are you some kind of weird student of fantasy world physics?
Posted by: James Hanley | October 8, 2008 4:27 PM
Heddle:
and
Why? will she carry out her job by the process of oral examination? If she can speak on policy as elequently as Cheney (and he can, I've heard him in person) will she be as "good" of a VP as Cheney?
Why? Because speaking clearly and coherently, and answering questions concisely are both indicators of knowledge and intelligence about a subject. These are qualities that should be expected and will be part of her job. Dodging the questions and throwing out information not pertinent to the question is a good indicator of bullshit. I would not want to see her negoitiating on my behalf with heads of states elsewhere. I don't see how you think that those skills are unimportant or irrelevant. I also believe that she is on a extensive job interview here and what she does and says are indicators of what to expect from her. I stand by my post. She is unqualified and continues to reinforce this notion.
Quit comparing her. You seem to think by bashing her opponent it makes her qualifications OK? Nope, she still lacks the skill set required to be VP and you haven't made a case for how she does.
Wow. You think that being VP is an entry level position or one with very low job requirements. I've travelled and yeah it is not someting I think can be learned "on the job" as a VP. As you wouldn't want her hired as a physicist because you deem her unqualified, I feel just as strongly about her lack of qualifications for VP. It is the same thing. I just have higher expectations for my county's leadership than you seem to have. Tulse is exaclty right this is not "something you can "pick up" like flipping burgers during a summer stint at McDonalds"
Kersham - I agree with you often but I don't buy that just having good advisors will help her. One must be willing to listen and understand and I have no confidence that she would do either. She already believes that she is qualified and that is quite terrifying to me.
Posted by: Anna | October 8, 2008 4:39 PM
heddle:
Um, John McCain in the debate last night?
Posted by: chasmotron | October 8, 2008 5:04 PM
I'm speaking from total ignorance here, but what is McCain's foreign policy experience? I've checked wiki and his website, and I don't see much other than his military service, which seemed to have ended in 1981. Is the argument that it's accumulated by osmosis by being a Senator for so long (which is legitimate) or does he have something more specific?
Just curious, especially since I find Obama's involvement in those committees to be one of the best ways to get foreign policy experience as a senator, although getting more face-to-face time with foreign leaders (as I'm assuming McCain has had) would most likely be just as valuable.
Posted by: Spartan | October 8, 2008 5:35 PM
I don't think Heddle is completely off base for questioning this. I haven't noticed that mainstream media makes a habit of exhibiting completely unknown black people who shout provocative, racist things in a crowd.
With celebrities, it's different. Whether it's Belafone calling Powell a "house n*," Imus calling basketball players nappy-headed hos or Farrakhan calling Judaism a gutter religion, the MSM seems more likely to report racially charged stories if the figures involved are well-known.
None of this diminishes the point Ed is making. The McCain-Palin campaign is dog whistling to those most prone to demonizing/otherizing and the tactic does fly with some voters.
Posted by: Dr X | October 8, 2008 5:41 PM
Spartan,
That's a good question. McCain has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which, because our armed services generally only get used outside our borders, actually pays quite a bit of attention to foreign affairs. The biggest difference between that committee and the Foreign Relations Committee is that the latter has oversight over the state department.
Also, just as a matter of personal interest, McCain has paid close attention to foreign affairs throughout his career.
I have no doubt that he knows more than Obama about the issues/history of various parts of the world, particularly Russia. And that's why, a year ago, I fairly strongly supported him for pres.
But as time goes by he seems to be adopting Bush's approach to foreign policy--other countries should do what we want them to do, and if they don't we'll just go do it alone; but damned if we'll ever take their views and interests into consideration--they should be the ones taking our views and interests into consideration: Oh, and Iraq is, always has been, and always will be ground zero in the war on terror, even though as a secular socialist (what the Baath party was about, along with a big dose of Arab nationalism), Saddam Hussein was the mortal enemy of religious whackadoodles like Osama bin Laden.
I miss the John McCain I thought I knew. It seems as though he's made a serious effort to lose my vote, and the last straw was picking a mutton-headed twit as a running mate just so he could throw a meaty bone to America's own Taliban.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 8, 2008 6:40 PM
Chasmotron,
Excellent post! Kudos.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 8, 2008 6:44 PM
A little more information about Ayers:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308271974461547
How is it that Obama gets a pass when guys like this are his friends??
Posted by: mroberts | October 8, 2008 7:09 PM
Ayers is not one of Obama's "friends", fer chrissakes. He's a guy who has sat on some boards with the guy. And how is Obama getting a "pass" on this? The relationship has been explored by the media, particularly Faux News, ad nauseam. Give it a rest already.
From that article mroberts linked to:
Wow, such damning evidence. Not.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 8, 2008 7:17 PM
Ayers is not one of Obama's "friends", fer chrissakes.
Obama started his Senate campaign in Ayer's home. Why would one not conclude that he and Ayers are friends? What if they are? Would that change your thinking about Obama? It's funny how Obama supporters always want to minimize the fact that Obama appears to have a personal relationship with an admitted and proud terrorist. Doesn't that bother you?
Posted by: mroberts | October 8, 2008 7:25 PM
Prof Heddle just gets off on drama.
In other news..."will she be as "good" of a VP as Cheney?"
/*snort!
Posted by: SharonB | October 8, 2008 7:42 PM
@ Mr. Roberts:
It bothers me about as much as Sarah Palin's involvement with a secessionist group apparently bothers you.
Posted by: SharonB | October 8, 2008 7:45 PM
mroberts,
Did you realize that what Ayers did he did nearly 40 years ago, when (a) he was young, and (b) America really was fucking over black citizens on a daily basis?
Do you think if you were 20 years old and Obama had a totally black FBI and totally black police forces bugging you, infiltrating your peaceful civil rights groups, allowing blacks to lynch whites with impunity, and disprortionately drafting white boys to serve in a futile war in a third world country, that you might not consider throwing a bomb or two? I call bullshit. I think you'd be proud if one of your family or friends did so in those circumstances.
Second, did you realize that since then Ayers has led a clean life, that Chicago voted him its citizen of the year, that he's a professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and that he and Obama worked together with an education grant courtesy of the Annenberg Foundation, a foundation set up by a conservative industrialist?
Are you saying Obama should not hang around with a guy who's been so honored by his community and proved himself so successful in life?
Guess what? Ayers is a real American. Neither you nor I would praise what he did back then, but if you can be honest, you'll recognize that back then real Americans--the black ones--had to fight back against the abuse of their own government. That's what being a real American is about, taking risks to demand that your government live up to its ideals.
Yes, Ayers stepped over the line, but if you really think you would have proudly saluted the American flag with tears in your eyes if you were in his situation, then you're deluding yourself.
I'm not at all excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency, but I'm so sick of pathetic and racist right-wingers like you that I'm really going to enjoy your dismay when the majority of Americans vote for this alleged traitor.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 8, 2008 7:47 PM
Re mroberts
As usual, Mr. mroberts is in high dungeon over Mr. Ayers, a man who has never been convicted of anything while given G. Gordon Liddy, a pal of Senator McCain, and a convicted burglar, a pass. Typical of right wing shitheads like him.
Posted by: SLC | October 8, 2008 7:56 PM
mroberts - Obama was young, a political neophyte, and relatively new to Chicago when an established political player hosted his campaign event. He made a one-time mistake. The very fact that Obama disassociated his campaign from Ayres so quickly even though he was a newcomer speaks well of Obama merely making a mistake rather than having some treasonous desire to terrorize America.
Contrast that one-night association when he started his career with McCain. McCain had plenty of D.C. experience under his belt as Navy Liaison to Congress, as a Congressman, and as a Senator when he pushed for regulators to ignore Charles Keating's criminal behavior, behavior that led to the worst bank melt-down in history, at that time, where many of McCain's constituents where victims: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo
Hmmm, inappropriate meeting with established political player, once, versus helping a guy out with his criminal enterprise. . .
Also mroberts, if one is to analyze associations, one should analyze the affect on the candidate and his campaign. I can find nothing in Obama's campaign or what he says this electoral season that makes me believe he has anything to do with people like Ayres or black liberation theology.
McCain on the other hand has been so influenced by his recent associations he's already committed SCOTUS nominees to them and given them a VP who harbors Armageddon fantasies and potentially her having a major role in such.
So let's make sure when we judge "associations", we take a holistic approach to both candidates rather than doing one candidate in a vacuum.
Given your supposed high standards and willingness to reach back to a candidate's youth to gauge their qualifications today; were you consistent enough to vote for Kerry given his stellar service fighting in Viet Nam vs. Bush 43's ability through his connections to avoid such service? Surely that was a good indicator regarding commitment to country along with a good test of character.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 8, 2008 7:57 PM
No, actually, it wouldn't. Ayers may never have apologized for his terrorist actions (which I consider reprehensible, and which Obama has likewise denounced), but Ayers has lived as a law-abiding tax-paying citizen for a long time now. As has been said, the radical stuff he endorsed took place when Obama was 8.
And more importantly, has Obama ever endorsed this kind of domestic terrorism? No. In fact, he has denounced it. Case closed.
My goodness, you make it sound like the Obamas have Ayers as close personal chum chums, which they don't. Is Ayers the godfather of their two kids? No. Are the two girls named after him? No. Did Obama dedicate any of his books to Ayers? No.
And even if the Obamas and Ayers were *thisclose* it still wouldn't "bother" me. Because *Obama* doesn't condone Ayers's actions of the past, and *Obama* doesn't endorse or condone domestic terorrism. All clear now?
Posted by: Adrienne | October 8, 2008 7:58 PM
mroberts would probably feel a bit differently if Obama had Eric Rudolph as a "myspace" friend.
Posted by: democommie | October 8, 2008 8:17 PM
NOT TRUE.
Three or four days after the NY Times article came out in 2001, Ayers posted on his own site, complaining that the reporter conflated his opposition to the war with his use of violence then.
Also not true. The friend=raising party was instigated by Obama's mentor as a way to introduce him to some of her supporters.
By the way...Ayers has been a part of the Chicago establishment for nearly two decades. He's worked with a wide array of people. Some of the people who've been on the same boards as these two include a president of the local Presbyterean seminary, a former United Way executive and a supporter of Senator Orrin Hatch. And he's received millions of dollars from a foundation founded by a staunch Republican. The Chicago area, Democrats and Republicans alike, don't have that much a problem with Ayers. What kind of idiots do people take us for, to believe that the Ayers/Obama relationship is dangerous????????
Posted by: gwangung | October 8, 2008 8:17 PM
Thanks for the correction re: Ayers apologizing, gwangung.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 8, 2008 8:57 PM
And you know, even if Obama was a big chum of Ayers, so what? My late father was good friends with a guy who held diametrically opposed views on religion, politics, you name it. They loved watching football together (they both rooted for the home team on that). It's possible to be friends with someone whose actions you disagree with. And even if Ayers never apologized, the fact that he's been living a law-abiding life for decades now and actually doing good in the Chicago community hardly marks him as a terrorist "threat".
As someone already pointed out, Sarah Palin may be married to a guy who flirted with Alaska secessionism, but I don't believe she has any extant desire for Alaska to secede from the United States. Not when she's so close to being elected to help ruin the whole Union!
Posted by: Adrienne | October 8, 2008 9:08 PM
I guess the Timothy McVeighs of the GOP are coming out in droves.
Posted by: ebina2 | October 8, 2008 9:56 PM
gwangung : "What kind of idiots do people take us for, to believe that the Ayers/Obama relationship is dangerous???"
Uh, Palin supporters?
- Charles
Posted by: ctwiii | October 9, 2008 1:13 AM
As usual, Mr. mroberts is in high dungeon over Mr. Ayers, a man who has never been convicted of anything while given G. Gordon Liddy, a pal of Senator McCain, and a convicted burglar, a pass. Typical of right wing shitheads like him.
SLC, I usually don't respond to you because you are such an irrational nutcase, but I couldn't resist. So what if Ayers was never convicted, he ADMITTED to the bombings. Unbelievable. And as for McCain, I don't care what you dig up about the guy. I think he's a slimeball and I have no intention of voting for him anyway. In fact, I think BOTH candidates are slimeballs. I just like picking at the "Messiah", Mr. Obama, because so many of you adore him so much.
@ Mr. Roberts:
It bothers me about as much as Sarah Palin's involvement with a secessionist group apparently bothers you.
SharonB, I couldn't care less what you say about Palin. I never had any intention of voting for that ticket. I don't know why you people constantly assume that because I bash Obama I am somehow enamored by McCain. You guys live in a simple world - everything is either Democrat or Republican I guess. McCain is just slightly better than Obama, but he is a lousy candidate himself in my view.
Guess what? Ayers is a real American. Neither you nor I would praise what he did back then, but if you can be honest, you'll recognize that back then real Americans--the black ones--had to fight back against the abuse of their own government. That's what being a real American is about, taking risks to demand that your government live up to its ideals. Yes, Ayers stepped over the line, but if you really think you would have proudly saluted the American flag with tears in your eyes if you were in his situation, then you're deluding yourself.
Sorry Hanley, there is no excuse for what Ayers did. What happened to Martin Luther King, with his exhortation to peacefully protest? Ayers is a dirtbag, pure and simple. He's even proud of what he did.
I'm not at all excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency, but I'm so sick of pathetic and racist right-wingers like you that I'm really going to enjoy your dismay when the majority of Americans vote for this alleged traitor.
Yeah, I figured your "arguments" would devolve to something like this eventually. Yeah Hanley, I'm a racist for not voting for Obama. And this is the kind of thinking you get on scienceblogs? Yeah Hanley, go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your deep, enlightened intellectualism with that one. And all you people on this blog call conservatives the stupid ones.
What kind of idiots do people take us for, to believe that the Ayers/Obama relationship is dangerous????????
I wasn't trying to make the point that the association was dangerous, only that it shows Obama has pretty poor judgment when it comes to selecting friends. It is entirely fair to judge a man by the company he keeps. I have no doubt that if McCain had been associated with a domestic terrorist, the lefties would be raising the biggest stink in history. Lefties have no principles. If he's their boy, he gets a pass.
Oh, and was Obama lying about his associations with this party?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party
Posted by: mroberts | October 9, 2008 2:19 AM
Ohh "spot the terrorist" - that's a fun game. Can I Join in?
MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. How many people did the Weather Underground kill?
a) none
b) three
c) one hundred and sixteen
d) twenty thousand
2. In the lead up to the 1968 Presidential Election, private citizens Richard M Nixon and Dr H Kissinger ILLEGALLY negotiated with the South Vietnamese Government*. How many American soldiers did this kill?
a) none
b) three
c) one hundred and sixteen
d) twenty thousand
Nelson Mandela (and the ANC) used explosives to bring down power pylons to undermine the Aparthied regime. True or False?
DJ
*The Logan Act makes it illegal for private citizens to negotiate with foreign powers. To do so (for example to seek a separate peace) would be considered treason.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 9, 2008 4:40 AM
But wait. Mccain rubbed shoulders with Jerry Falwell (before Falwell died).
Why isn't this explored ore. We all know Falwell was a crazed proponent of segregation. He spoke against mixed marriages etc.
Why don't anyone accuse him of having poor judgement in friends.
And it gets worse! He also made friends with Pat Robertson. Mr Robertson blamed 9/11 on Americans! He even blamed Katrina on Americans!
If reverend Wright was wrong in blaming 9/11 on the US, why isn't the same scorn heaped on mr Robertson and his friend, John Mccain?
Posted by: Soren | October 9, 2008 5:16 AM
He won't, and he told us so. He explicitly wrote, on this blog, that he deliberately tries to not think about his decisions on who to vote for.
I can't get rid of the impression that he prefers coveting his neighbour's wife over thinking.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 9, 2008 6:14 AM
mroberts:
here's a nice GOP campaign poster:
http://fishwars.blogspot.com/2008/10/ugly-face-of-racism.html
Lee Atwater's legacy lives on, unlike his rotting corpse.
You can be very proud, mroberts, that it's folks like you and heddle, whose support of a deranged fuckwit like Sarah Palin helps to promote the sort of political discourse evident in that wonderful GOP poster art.
I guess they forgot to mention Barney Frank, maybe you need ot call and remind them.
Posted by: democommie | October 9, 2008 6:22 AM
No, I never wrote that. If I did write that "explicitly" you should be able to provide a link. Otherwise you are a run of the mill liar and, congratulations, qualified for a job as an ACORN executive. I'll remind you that what I wrote is that I don't vote the issues, which is certainly true.
Well cut me some slack. Have you ever seen my neighbor's wife? Good thing my wife is teh hawt.Posted by: heddle | October 9, 2008 7:27 AM
Heddle seems to have turned off his functioning brain and sold his critical thinking skills, as this line
"We believe there is an important ramification of this. When we have a collision between one scientific theory and another, or between theology and science, we should be willing to examine the possibility our erroneous scientific theory is the source of or contributes to the conflict."
Gotta feel very sorry for his students.
Posted by: Dean | October 9, 2008 7:50 AM
mroberts said
*snort pfft* Fabulous! This is how I've always felt about mroberts. Thanks for making me snort my coffee, I don't even mind that I had to change shirts. This made my day!
Posted by: Anna | October 9, 2008 7:53 AM
mroberts,
You're a viruluent homophobe. And I'd be deeply surprised if you're not racist as well. Not necessarily Nazi/KKK let's kill all the mud people racist, just your garden variety uncomfortable with black people and think it's all their fault and that they can't succeed without affirmative action racist.
Please prove me wrong. I'd be happy to know you're not as much of a piece of shit as we all think you are.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 9, 2008 8:01 AM
I'd like to know just who here mroberts thinks "adores" Obama. I don't adore the man, I don't think he's a "messiah", religious or secular or otherwise. Other commenters here, even those who support Obama, have criticized him. Ed has criticized Obama and is not intending to vote for him.
Obama is, like the rest of us, an imperfect person. He's made some mistakes as a politician. And he doesn't have a huge amount of experience. But I still *really* want Obama to win the presidential race, just because I think his policies and overall approach to politics is orders of magnitude better than that of his major opponent.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 9, 2008 8:20 AM
Oh yeah, and let me add this: I also think Obama is just a better human being overall than McCain. The more I read about McCain, the more of an asshat I think he is. And then there's his rage problem; not a good problem for a potential POTUS to have. Obama, unlike McCain, is a decent human being who can stay calm and cool--and even classy--under pressure. If you want to judge the two men just on their character, Obama comes out clearly on top.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 9, 2008 8:25 AM
Yes, this is a bizarre form of projection. Every time you say anything even slightly positive about Obama someone always accuses you of being a Kool-Aid drinking Obama cultist who worships him as your new god. What's funny about this is that to find people who actually do have a creepy messianistic view of Obama you have to do some serious digging to find some lone kooks who are utterly unconnected to either the Obama campaign or the political mainstream. To find people with a creepy messianistic view of Sarah Palin, on the other hand... when does the next issue of the National Review come out, again?
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | October 9, 2008 8:36 AM
What I don't understand about Prof. Heddle is how he can stay so calm and generally make excellent contributions when people offer scathing, insulting and condescending criticisms of his religion, as I have seen take place on here, and yet be so utterly immune to information as he is on this issue.
Genuinely, there have been times when I have been hugely impressed with his grace under pretty dirty fire about religious topics - the whole foundation by which he interprets his life. And on this topic, as soon as someone points out anything negative all he responds with is blatant nonsense - like picking up knowledge of the rest of the world on the fly, from total scratch, being in any way acceptable for higher government office - or simply points at Obama and screams BAD MAN BAD MAN by way of misdirection.
mrroberts has always been a complete fool, but I find Prof. Heddle downright baffling. It's not about the sex either, surely. He'll have seen pretty girls before. It's almost like a trance. The very same euphoric trance you found at the RNC when Palin was announced, and find in her kind of looney pagan church just about every other week, I presume. People are fucking strange.
Posted by: Matthew | October 9, 2008 8:58 AM
Who says you can't learn on the job?
McCain, in Tuesday's debate.
Posted by: Josh | October 9, 2008 9:16 AM
Matthew,
Well the truth is , I find all of this great fun. It is a weird, interesting Dali-like scene when so many take the attitude: you disagree with me, therefore you are irrational and stupid. God forgive me, I love playing in that schoolyard. Especially enjoyable are people like SLC who pretend to be bastions of rationality but then litter the comment landscape with obscenities and questions of motivations based on sexual innuendo. In such cases as that, I like it that he can't understand why I would like Palin; it validates my Calvinistic view of the world. And then there is Michael Heath who argues that "clearly" this is so and "obviously" that is so and that he has "vetted" Palin and found her lacking, and his authoritative scorecards of the debates--and all that charging people with the fallacy of balance while routinely posting that any sin of Obama/Biden is not nearly as bad, clearly so, as a McCain/Palin sin. All spoken with such self-seriousness--well I find it all kind of funny.
My favorite argument, if I have to pick one, is that Obama's qualifying experience stems, in large part, from his running a successful campaign for president. Now, I don't think Obama's lack of experience is a problem--but that explanation is just priceless. Who can't enjoy such discussions?
It's a guilty pleasure, I admit, to poke at such a beast and step back as it takes an swipe. But people who get upset (if not apoplectic) when someone disagrees with them in politics are just very, very comical.
Sigh. Come Nov 5, Obama will be elected and the fun and games will be over.
Posted by: heddle | October 9, 2008 9:41 AM
What I don't understand about Prof. Heddle is how he can stay so calm and generally make excellent contributions when people offer scathing, insulting and condescending criticisms of his religion, as I have seen take place on here, and yet be so utterly immune to information as he is on this issue.
Agreed. David's comments on ScienceBlogs are, IMO, nearly always well worth reading and his behaviour particularly impressive given the unwarranted and excessive abuse he gets in response. His arguments regarding fine tuning, for example, are particularly interesting. Whilst I find myself mostly disagreeing with his positions, I respect the fact that they are both well thought out and thought provoking. Sadly, this isn't the case in this instance. Oh well.
Posted by: SteveF | October 9, 2008 9:46 AM
Re mroberts
SLC, I usually don't respond to you because you are such an irrational nutcase, but I couldn't resist.
I must say that it's a great honor to be called an irrational nutcase by an asshole like Mr. mroberts. However, I don't think that his characterization of either Senator Obama or Senator McCain as slimeballs should go unchallenged.
Senator Obama rose from extremely humble beginnings, raised by grandparents and a single mother to attend Columbia Un. where he graduated summa cum laude, received a law degree from Harvard Law School where he served as editor of the Harvard Law Review, held a post of adjunct professor of constitutional law at the Un. of Chicago, was elected to the Illinois State Senate and later to the United States Senate.
Senator McCain was a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, was a carrier fighter/bomber pilot (by the way Mr. mroberts, that's one of the most dangerous assignments in any military; just for Mr. mroberts information, I took Air Force ROTC while at U. C. Berkeley and was told by the instructors, all of whom were fighter pilots, that they would be scared stiff if required to land a jet aircraft on an aircraft carrier. In fact, if given the option of ditching or attempting such a landing, they would choose ditching). He served in the Vietnam War (what did Mr. mroberts do during that war?) flying dangerous missions over North Vietnam where he was shot down and imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton where he was not treated according to the Geneva Convention. Since he was released, he has been elected and reelected to the United States Senate.
Whatever one may think of the service of these two men, or their positions on the issues, I would be willing to bet that their accomplishments far exceed anything Mr. mroberts has done in his lifetime. No Mr. mroberts, you are the slimeball.
Posted by: SLC | October 9, 2008 9:51 AM
heddle:
Do you own a mirror. If you do, please, gaze into it while saying:
"you disagree with me, therefore you are irrational and stupid."
It appears that what you're saying is that you're just enjoying yourself by being a contrarian. Therefor your genuine views are immaterial. You can pick on folks like me who don't bother to refute you by doing a lot scholarly work--I don't want to argue with a whanker like you, I just wish you'd shut the hell up--but you don't have arguments that carry any weight. It's always informed opinion, badly informed on all matters Palin, btw.
So, none of this matters to you, apparently, except as an exercise to prove your mental and KKKristian superiority. Good luck with that.
Posted by: democommie | October 9, 2008 10:17 AM
democommie,
Like I asked you before, do you smile at your own inestimable cleverness when you write "KKKristian"? Do you squirm in your seat at the thought of such a erudite zinger finding its intended target, and at the praise, explicit or implied, that it will garner among your similarly gifted comrades?
By the way, you are wrong about the mirror, at least on this occasion. I don't think anybody is dumb for supporting Obama. Or anyone else I don't support. I just think they have different opinions. I know that, for you, that is a difficult concept to grasp.
Posted by: heddle | October 9, 2008 10:39 AM
David Heddle,
I think many people's objection is not to your opinion but that you rarely express the assertions your opinions are based on; or when you do, you seem to focus on the prick in the eye while ignoring the board in the other, the latter trait a frequent infliction you also oppose on others' arguments as well. To mix metaphors, I'll throw in your arguments are also frequently made where you ignore the elephant in the room.
I still have not read a rational argument on how somebody could support Palin as the VP nominee, including you. You claim it's not about issues, fine, I don't support Obama on issues either. A person can also be reasonably certain a rational argument can't be based on her knowledge, credentials, integrity, committment to transparency, or honesty - the evidence to date shows clear evidence she has either none or close to none of these attributes.
So what's left? How does a professor of physics conclude that Palin is a worthy backfill to McCain if he were unable to either start or complete his term of office?
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2008 11:05 AM
ok enough thinking time.
1. How many did the Weatherman kill?
Three. The Weatherman choose government buildings, detonated their bombs at night, and gave telephone warning to reduce the number of casualties/fatalities. The three people killed were Weatherman who were killed instantly when the bomb they were preparing accidentally detonated.
2. How many American soldiers did Nixon/Kissinger kill?
Approximately 20,000. By undermining the negotiations to get into power, Nixon/Kissinger delayed the resolution of the war by 4 years and cost 20,000 Americans, plus an untold number of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians. Plus, of course being the proximal cause of the killing fields in Cambodia. (John McCain would have been crashing planes in the US due to his inattention, rather than Vietnam, had the Dems won in '68.)
3. Did the ANC use explosives against power poles?
Yes. But the ANC only targeted infrastructure, never people.
So Mrroberts which is worse - A candidate who hangs around a reformed 'terrorist' who never killed anyone (except, due to stupidity, themselves), or a candidate who is advised by a man who committed treason, killed 20,000 American soldiers and encouraged genocide?
Weird how all those world leaders (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Blair, even little 'Honest' Johnny Howard) are happy to be photographed with that notorious 'terrorist' Nelson Mandela (well he did pretty much the same as the Weathermen).
Is is a shame that you know so little American History. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 9, 2008 11:18 AM
Wait, so, even if our soldiers were air raiding and bombing villages out of existence, according to Palin it wouldn't count, because they are American? I wonder how that wedding party that we blew up, which is what Mr. Obama was referring to, threatened our freedom?
Posted by: Julian | October 9, 2008 11:47 AM
Michael Heath,
Fair enough.
First of all, all the comments on here along the lines of "in spite of all the evidence presented here you [heddle] still support her, which proves you have no critical thinking" are nonsense. (To clarify: it's possible my critical thinking is weak, but the fact that the comments on here have not caused me to stop supporting Palin is not evidence to that effect.) Go to a site that supports Palin, say National Review Online. After reading all their reasons why you should support Palin and not Obama, neither you nor anyone else will change his mind--in spite of "everything that you read" on the site. Now you can say it is because they are all wrong while the commenters on Dispatches are right, but to that I would say phooey. Politics is a first and foremost a visceral response, not an analytic one. Obama is so popular because he is an attractive candidate in many regards. If we had never seen the candidates, if we could only read position papers, the polls, in one direction or another, would probably be vastly different. It would otherwise be hard to explain why Biden got trounced in the primaries.
The reasons I like Palin are as follows:
1) I think the experience issue is overrated. If not, I would not have first supported Obama.
2) I think the extemporaneous speaking ability is overrated.
3) I don't think Palin is dumb, but at any rate I think the IQ contest is overrated. I think IQ in general is overrated.
4) Present, detailed knowledge is overrated. People don't run into the President's office and say: "There's a new radical faction uncovered in Uzbekistan. Tell us what to do, right now!"
5) A president that makes people feel good about the country is underrated. Reagan could do that. Kennedy could do that. Clinton could do that. Carter and Bush and Bush could not. Palin, I think, can do that.
6) Attractiveness--not physical but overall--call it likeability, is also underrated.
7) I also think that a President having a sense of something bigger than himself, typically religion, but it could be "the people" is underrated. In Obama's case, I have a sense that he does--and in Palin's case as well. Not with McCain or Biden--especially given the latter's propensity to ring his own bell and talk about himself in the third person.
8) I think good leadership is important and also underrated--the ability to get people to do what you want and have them think it's a good idea. In my opinion, of the four, Palin sends the best vibes as a natural leader, and from what I read of her work as governor she has demonstrated that ability.
Posted by: heddle | October 9, 2008 12:13 PM
Thanks David for taking the time to make your case.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2008 1:16 PM
D Heddle
I was strongly considering not voting at all, due to Obama's selection of Biden. I did not yet, until recently, realize why Palin's nomination bothered me so much. It has a lot to do with the original topic of this post.
I don't think that Palin (or McCain) believe that Obama is a terrorist (as far as I can tell, writers at NRO do think this, and have recently been trying to figure out if Obama is the reincarnation of Mao, Stalin, or perhaps a Manchurian candidate of some kind). However, the McCain campaign seems willing to insinuate this in public. It struck me the other day that a campaign willing to do this is serious about winning the election, but is not serious about governing once the election is over. It is not just "attack politics." The nomination of Palin is designed to generate the sort of emotion described in this post.
Posted by: Bob Natas | October 9, 2008 1:17 PM
What is not underrated is that Sarah Palin is a fundamentalist wacko even worse than Bush. Anybody who believes that they should be prayed over to avoid being influenced by witches and believes that a supernatural being tells them to go initiate a war, in NO WAY whatsoever is qualified or mentally fit to be leader of this country or any other...period.
The last thing we or the world needs is some religious kook, empty headed,folksy speaking,anti-intellectual "wink-wink" chorus cuty,(code signals for all her other mindless devotees and religious nuts)as a VP or even more scary as a potential replacement president. And to add that she is a LIAR.
Posted by: anonymous | October 9, 2008 1:43 PM
What is not underrated is that Sarah Palin is a fundamentalist wacko even worse than Bush. Anybody who believes that they should be prayed over to avoid being influenced by witches and believes that a supernatural being tells them to go initiate a war, in NO WAY whatsoever is qualified or mentally fit to be leader of this country or any other...period.
The last thing we or the world needs is some religious kook, empty headed,folksy speaking,anti-intellectual "wink-wink" chorus cuty,(code signals for all her other mindless devotees and religious nuts)as a VP or even more scary as a potential replacement president. And to add that she is a LIAR.
Posted by: anonymous | October 9, 2008 1:46 PM
What is not underrated is that Sarah Palin is a fundamentalist wacko even worse than Bush. Anybody who believes that they should be prayed over to avoid being influenced by witches and believes that a supernatural being tells them to go initiate a war, in NO WAY whatsoever is qualified or mentally fit to be leader of this country or any other...period.
The last thing we or the world needs is some religious kook, empty headed,folksy speaking,anti-intellectual "wink-wink" chorus cuty,(code signals for all her other mindless devotees and religious nuts)as a VP or even more scary as a potential replacement president.
Posted by: anonymous | October 9, 2008 1:50 PM
Sorry for the redundant posts. The submission time out warning kept being presented and when I used the back button my entry was not in view, until I closed out the page and re-clicked on the link.
Posted by: anonymous | October 9, 2008 2:04 PM
Heddle
Thanks for a more clear answer. I would just say that what you have listed relates to characteristics rather than to how Palin actually meets what I consider to be the minimum requirement for knowlege and training to be VP. What I find most disturbing is that your list seems more like a set of excuses to make her nomination appear more reasonable rather than a list of what one would expect in a job candidate for VP. The reason I question your logic on how you see Palin is simple. I look at the job, I look at what the job requires, I look at all of the skill sets necessary to do that job and then I look at the applicant and see how he or she fits, not the reverse. I understand your desire to want to make her appear capable and ready but that is not how the process works. She needed to be ready before accepting the nomination. A "smart" person would have recognized this. Instead, she is making a fool of herself. You may want to ignore this, but it is happening and it isn't just the liberals or Dispatch readers. If people actually believed she was competent, there wouldn't be the widespread mockery of her that there is and instead people would be looking hard for reasons to trash her. With Palin, it is just too easy.
Posted by: Anna | October 9, 2008 2:13 PM
A letter write in our local paper wrote that even if Palin speaks in code to her true believers and distorts the facts,appealing to the "baser instincts", so be it,if it means she and Mcain win the election.
There is the family values and core principles of these zealots laid out in in black and white...all that matters is winning as if it was a football game. The same mindless,drooling,mediocrity loving,self-absorbed idiots who shout USA,USA,USA...Drill,Baby,Drill.
Posted by: anonymous | October 9, 2008 2:26 PM
Nice list heddle. Unfortunately, it's a list of statements, without much argument for why you think that they are important. In particular, I'd generally agree with your 1), 7) and 8) to a large degree. But your 2) doesn't make much sense with 7)&8) - good leadership is oftentimes based on being able to speak confidently and "making a connection", even if it's not based on being right.
The rest.. I pretty much don't know how you can claim that. 3)&4) is probably the most absurd. I haven't seen anyone here claim that she hasn't scored high enough on her SATs, or even talk about IQ.
As a grad student in physics, when someone asks you a specific question, and you don't know the answer, that's not the end of the world. But if you do not have enough background knowledge about physics principles to be able to figure out something roughly related to it at least, that's a problem. And it's not that hard to tell when you're missing that background knowledge in physics.
In the same way, it's irrelevant that she doesn't know the name of the particular general in Afghanistan. It is relevant that she cannot feel comfortable talking at length about anything related to economic policy, foreign policy, or any other topic of substance related to being a president. What does she think about the benefits and pitfalls of free markets and their possible regulation? How does she see the tradeoffs in America intervening in other countries? She hasn't even tried to give an opinion beyond a soundbite on these subjects.
And 6)... you do know that she has lower approval ratings than Mccain, obama and biden right? How can you claim she's generally likable, as a VP? The people around you may like her. Between people in my physics department, the only discussion is on whether she's an evil lying scumbag, or just the type of total idiot that would be out of her depth on wet pavement.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 9, 2008 2:40 PM
Michael Heath:
There it is.
"6) Attractiveness--not physical but overall--call it likeability, is also underrated."
heddle's real reason for voting for Palin.
heddle:
"Like I asked you before, do you smile at your own inestimable cleverness when you write "KKKristian"? Do you squirm in your seat at the thought of such a erudite zinger finding its intended target, and at the praise, explicit or implied, that it will garner among your similarly gifted comrades?"
your question was answered where it was asked. It seems to annoy you, that alone is enough for me.
"By the way, you are wrong about the mirror, at least on this occasion. I don't think anybody is dumb for supporting Obama. Or anyone else I don't support. I just think they have different opinions. I know that, for you, that is a difficult concept to grasp."
Absolute bullshit. You have ragged on people for not being smart enough to see that Obama is no better than Palin for weeks. It's quite possible that you never used the exact construction, "I think X is dumb for supporting Obama" but that's about it.
But then again, you're voting for a presidential ticket based on your "gut" feelings about his the VP candidate. So, are you hoping that McCain infarcts or strokes out, right after he takes the oath of office so sweet, sweet Sarah can do all of the things you think she should to get the republic out of Sodom and back into the graces of your GOD?
Posted by: democommie | October 9, 2008 2:48 PM
Coriolis stated in response to heddle's list of attributes that causes heddle to support Palin:
Actually I've called her out several times in this forum for not having any where near enough general and emotional intelligence. These happen to be the first two criteria I use to evaluate a candidate.
When I was young I voted on the issues. As my business career advanced and I became a more senior manager, I began to appreciate how important both aspects of intelligence are as causal factors for success, especially when hiring senior level executives who have responsibility for several functional disciplines which differ from one another enormously. My perception has been validated by science as well, so most well-trained managers now train their reports to cull the herd quickly rather than wasting time developing someone who lacks intelligence. In fact, I've come to appreciate these traits so much so I've made them part of my voting factor litmus test, which includes several other factors though not policy positions unless those positions are radical. That list also includes defense of America's founding ideals and fealty to the Constitution, honesty, integrity, and transparency; all factors where both McCain and Palin both fail miserably, especially relative to their opponents.
I've been much happier with who I hire, and who I vote for since increasing the weight I put on general and emotional intelligence. Especially if you match this list to the Presidents that are generally acknowledged as having been successful, I've found a strong correlation which in my mind justifies my having jumped across party lines if my guy didn't meet my test, which McCain didn't even though I was Republican of 29 years at the time of the Convention.
The only anomaly in my lifetime would be Carter, who I didn't vote for since I was an issues voter then. Carter is generally recognized meeting all the criteria I listed above with one glaring exception, an almost complete lack of emotional intelligence.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2008 4:33 PM
On to my question, which is related to the point I quoted above. Does the fact that the vast majority of the rest of the American people seem to disagree with this (based on her rapidly, and continually, declining favorability ratings) make you reconsider this point, and your support of her?
To explain my thinking (and feel free to ignore this part if you actually got what I mean), isn't it less relevant that you think she might be able to get people to agree with her, if she can't actually get people to trust and agree with her?
Posted by: Kaerion | October 9, 2008 5:18 PM
On to my question, which is related to the point I quoted above. Does the fact that the vast majority of the rest of the American people seem to disagree with this (based on her rapidly, and continually, declining favorability ratings) make you reconsider this point, and your support of her?
To explain my thinking (and feel free to ignore this part if you actually got what I mean), isn't it less relevant that you think she might be able to get people to agree with her, if she can't actually get people to trust and agree with her?
Posted by: Kaerion | October 9, 2008 5:26 PM
So, heddle, you think a person is qualified to be a hearbeat away from being the leader of the free world because:
1. S/he makes people feel good about America.
2. S/he's likeable.
3. S/he believes in something outside herself, whatever it might be.
4. S/he sends vibes of being a natural leader.
And it's irrelevant that:
5. S/he has no experience.
6. S/he can't think on her feet (which is what extemporaneous speaking ability is).
7. S/he may not be very intelligent.
8. S/he lacks any detailed knowledge of world affairs.
Personally I don't trust leaders whose great asset is to "make people feel good about their country." I call that demagoguery. I do agree that leadership abilities are important, but I like to see them demonstrated at some level beyond small-town mayor and small-population state.
And all the things you think are unimportant are, in my view, exceptionally important. Not only that, I have a hard time understanding how someone could think intelligence, experience, and knowledge don't matter. It makes me wonder if you understand what the president does? You claim that no one rushes in saying, "radical new faction in Uzbekistan, tell us what to do!", but in fact that really isn't far from what happens. Every day the president gets a national security briefing and is expected to know what to do with the information.
Believe me, the intelligence agencies, the military, and the state department are not eager to have to put the president through remedial school to learn the things they should already have learned. What you are promoting is having a president who spends their first 2-3 years in office learning what they should already have known--and during those first years wholly lacking the knowledge and insight to make good decisions about national security.
Perhaps it's just me, but I think you must underestimate the responsiblities, and dangers, of the office if you're so cavalier about intelligence, knowledge and experience.
And that's why I don't respect your opinion on this--it doesn't comport with what I know about the presidency. And I'll gladly wager that I know much more about the presidency than you.
I'd never try to tell you who to vote for, but I've been curious about why you could be so supportive of Palin. Now that I know, I still wouldn't tell you who to vote for, but I have no qualms about critiquing your criteria as naive and dangerous.
Your set of standards, likeable, natural leader, makes me feel good about my country, promotes something bigger than ourselves--that's exactly what demagogues are and what they do. Palin, from her first speech at the RNC, struck me as a demagogue. There's a perfect fit between your standards and the person you're supporting--and I find it very disturbing.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 9, 2008 5:32 PM
Well, let me clarify why I partially agree and partially disagree with you Michael. Although in your post, you didn't actually say that you consider her "IQ" as such to be important (and IQ was what heddle said). I wouldn't say that someone with high IQ (or graduate education, SATs, etc.) is necessarily intelligent, and that's my major objection. So perhaps we don't disagree.
Of course statistically you can make a correlation - being more educated, having a higher SAT/IQ/whatever score probably leads to being more "intelligent", on average. But when it comes to making a judgment about a single individual (like in this case), I'd rather make my judgment without much reference to such metrics. So I don't particularly care that she spent 6 years in 5 colleges and that her grades were probably mediocre - if she came out and talked like she knew anything it wouldn't matter. Just as it wouldn't matter if she graduated top of Harvard and couldn't string a coherent sentence together.
And I don't think anyone here has made much of a fuss about her lack of credentials, at least compared to what she's actually done in her interviews.
Somewhat off topic, my advisor in his relative youth was interviewed for a business/financial type of job. He was apparently asked various questions that were supposedly meant to figure out if he was smart (if he could figure out some pathological math problem, or what the bug in a piece of code was, etc). As it happens, he could do everything and got an offer (although ultimately didn't accept). Of course to us this was a mark of the stupidity of finance people - who gives a damn about whether you can figure out the bug in some code in a few minutes.
Of course, when you're making 1/20 of the money of people who you think are dumber than you, you have to have some fun at their expense.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 9, 2008 5:56 PM
Damn Hanley, you're good.
A couple of observational points. . . Reagan obviously acquired executive and domestic policy skills as gov. given his success in that position. After being gov. he spent years studying foreign policy, he was therefore able to hit the ground running as POTUS. This kind of corroborates your point about experience though I would label it more broadly as "credentials" given Reagan's suite of credentials were strong but lacked experience on foreign policy.
Clinton on the other hand also had executive skills and a firm grasp on domestic policy, but was not as educated on foreign policy nor did he build the network of foreign policy experts that Reagan had, the differentiation being more on the latter than the former, the educative side being tough to achieve since the world had become more complex when Clinton entered office. Clinton therefore initially languished on the foreign affairs side of the presidency most over-looked by American voters given that Presidents always spend more time on foreign policy they both expect and desire with the exception of Bush 41. Clinton did "get it" by the last few years of his tenure, but our national security was not optimal given his relative ignorance our first few years.
This ignorance hurts most, as we can see in the Bush 43 presidency, in decisions on staffing and in office dynamics. With Bush, he staffed two big alpha males, Cheney and Rumsfeld with a lot of talent and strong networks, but also guys that needed a strong manager to ride herd over them. His NSC Advisor Condi Rice had zero executive skills to operate with players rather than eggheads at that level. Her and Powell got squashed like bugs. Rice is a smart lady and has acquired those skills since then, but it was too late for 9/11 and the decision on Iraq. Root Cause? Bush lacks strong management skills, and didn't fit his staff to his strengths and weaknesses.
It is my understanding that Palin would have no clue as to what I'm even talking about regarding these sorts of issues in terms of staffing and creating a culture based on the strengths and weaknesses of the executive. Carly Fiorna, who does get this, also noted the same. I'm convinced McCain probably has a network, but I highly doubt he understands how to staff and will consider counsel on such.
I have no doubt Obama also lacks these experiences which is I've always advocated for other Dem candidates, I do think he's smart enough to note and mitigate his weaknesses with a process for staffing and work flow that complements his lack of experience. He's certainly done it in his campaign, which is the most impressive campaign operation I've ever witnessed.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2008 6:15 PM
Coriolis - My point on both general and emotional intelligence related to IQ though widely defined, not narrowly. I had an industrial psychologist on retainer who gave a suite of intelligence tests, including IQ and more importantly, critical thinking tests.
I usually used a five person teams, myself included. The test results were considered perspective and the sixth vote. The test results had a strong correlative relationship to the success of the employee if we hired them.
The little test you referred to sounds like an amateurish attempt to test some combination of logic or critical thinking skills under pressure. I preferred to use actual tests to grade both.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 9, 2008 6:28 PM
James Hanley,
Did you like Clinton? Did you think he was good on foreign policy? I thought he was. Did he have any foreign policy experience? No. None whatsoever. You can't even see Mexico from Arkansas. And he was on the top of the ticket. (Oh, he did travel overseas--maybe that prequalified him as an expert on National Security.)
And I didn't say intelligence doesn't matter. I said IQ is overrated.
So? Of course you disagree with my priorities--is that supposed to be astute?
How very Biden of you.
Posted by: heddle | October 9, 2008 7:25 PM
heddle, I voted for Clinton in '92, and by '96 realized I had made a mistake and should have voted for G.H.W. Bush. I was also younger, and knew damn little about the presidency in '92. I think Clinton can be critiqued on many levels, including his foreign policy.
But since I never brought him up and defended him, it's a strange straw man you're throwing out there. Once again, each time someone critiques Palin, your best defense is to say, "but X is just as bad, right?" You're a scientist, think of how you'd react if someone tried arguing for their favorite crackpot scientific theory that way. No one would be impressed.
Re: IQ vs. intelligence. I can't comment on Palin's IQ, since I've never seen her test scores. I can say that she has not demonstrated much intelligence so far. If she's not in fact a halfwit, she's putting on a good act.
Yes, my disagreement with your priorities is rather astutem, because my critereia for a president are clearly more relevant to job performance than are yours (although we do both agree on the value of leadership skills). Your criteria point toward wanting someone you can believe in and follow. I'd rather have a president I don't like, but who is competent in the job.
Unfortunately, I don't see anyone like that running this year.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 9, 2008 8:22 PM
And of course Clinton's college studies and interning in the U.S. Senate are nowhere near as good foreign policy experience as living close to the Russian far east.
Posted by: democommie | October 9, 2008 8:28 PM
@democommie:
This is the bit I can't understand with many Palin supporters. According to them Obama, who spent 4 childhood years in Indonesia, and Clinton, who took up a Rhodes scholarship and spent two years studying in England, have (or had when coming into office) no greater foreign policy credentials than Palin, who got hers looking out of a window at the Bering Straits. They actually lived abroad in formative years of their lives; she didn't even have a passport until a year ago.
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 9, 2008 9:50 PM
Robin Levett:
But she got hers without philandering or becoming a mooslim.
Posted by: democommie | October 9, 2008 10:29 PM
I have been a Reagan Country Orange County Republican for over 40 years.
Sarah Palin is an absolute disgrace and so is their 7th grade rhetoric to discredit Obama. They have abandoned party dignity, respect and above the fray level of intellect where more coherent articulation of addressing important issues in ways that can't be successfully rebutted used to always win the day and the election.
To reach down and grovel in the pig sty is beneath any true Republican I ever knew and only serves to elevate Obama. Besides, after what Bush did to this country over the last 8 years, and as leader of the Republican party to adopt the 5th plank of the Marxist doctrine to socialize the financial markets, and what Mc Cain wants to do with buying up mortgages represents a political party I don't recognize, but Red would be the right color, only the hammer and sickle are missing and is in name only. Mc Cain must of become the real Manchurian Candidate when locked up in the Hanoi Hilton and I take liberty to say this as a former Viet Nam Vet myself.
What we really have since the death of Ronald Reagan is a Republicrat Congress and Executive Branch in the Federal government.
Which is why I lean to Nader this time around who will finally clean up this mess in Washington DC.
Posted by: Robert Sweetman | October 10, 2008 4:31 AM
And of course Clinton's college studies and interning in the U.S. Senate are nowhere near as good foreign policy experience as living close to the Russian far east.
Oh crap, honesty compels me to praise democommie. Good boy, dc, good boy.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 10, 2008 9:44 AM
If only I hadn't been told this about 3 weeks ago, it would be show how smart I be.
Posted by: democommie | October 10, 2008 2:27 PM