Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: Palin and religion

Yikes...what great nickname...but maybe pufferfish would be more appropriate since when ever you apoke her with a sharp question she puffs up with talking points and evades the answer.

Revere, "Like many other questions she didn't answer it but her platitudes and empty rhetoric she was slick as hell."

Thanks Revere, I've had a shitty day, actually -- my Mom's putting on a brave face and I'm putting on a brave face and well, who gives a toss about reality when the Republican's are being interviewed!?!

Alas, the second video "is no longer available."

If it's just a clip from the Gibson interview of Palin, maybe you could replace it with one of a strike-out from an elementary school softball game.

I'm not American and I couldn't help but notice that Palin consequently adressess the interviewer as 'Charlie'. I find this very strange. No Dutch politician (and certainly no German or French one) would ever adress an interviewer that amically. To my Dutch ears it sounds very unprofessional, as if she's desperately trying to be friends. Is this usual for American politicians?

she didn't answer it but her platitudes and empty rhetoric she was slick as hell. Once again I find myself knowing hardly anything about her and what her views really are.

Once again I find myself knowing hardly anything about her and what her views really are.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. People desperately want someone with the qualities she's alleged to have; focusing on the messy, real-world implications of her "faith" would spoil everything.

Kneel, and you will believe, as Pascal said. And once people make that leap of faith, they'll be inclined to defend her tooth and nail when she inevitably reveals herself as yet another ethically challenged authoritarian nitwit, because their own credibility is at stake.

Obama's got a bigger hill to climb in this regard, even without the idiotic, bad-faith "controversy" about his birth certificate and religious views.

Sarah's Steel Ones
Nation

by AMY ALEXANDER

September 12, 2008

Even though I detest her politics, as I watched Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's much-anticipated interview with ABC News's Charles Gibson, God help me, I had to admire her steeliness.

Since the Republican vice presidential candidate's approval rating appears to be immune to facts--notably, that she is entirely unprepared to hold the second-highest office in the land--let's admit that ballsiness is an essential part of Sarah Palin's "relatability."

Last week, Nation columnist Patricia J. Williams examined the "frontierswoman" aspect of Palin's profile, and astutely took apart the reasons why that can-do, gun-toting Annie Oakley image so quickly and firmly grabbed hold of GOP convention delegates and the press. In record time, the number of references to Palin as a g-droppin', huntin', fishin', Wal-Mart Mom, has transported us back to the era of Manifest Destiny, when America's Western expansion (and a hankerin' for gold) required women to man up or die.
This does have some appeal, and maybe it is time we stop fretting about Palin's hypocrisy and contradictions and acknowledge the positive part of her persona. It does exist, and recognizing it does not require you to dismiss her obvious shortcomings.
As Williams points out, there are probably more than a few of us who drift off, from time to time, on the delicious fantasy of what it would feel like to draw down with shotgun on the misbehaving men in our lives. We don't know if Palin has ever done such a thing, but it appears she sure as hell could. I have to own up to the part of me that admires that. After watching her with Gibson, it's safe to say that it took a spine of titanium to stay upright in that chair as "Charlie" scowled at her over the top of his reading glasses: I, too, am a graduate of a state university, and instantly recognized Palin's ginned-up bravado and cramming-before-finals anxiety. Watching her struggle to stay on-message--she never did answer the question of whether its OK for US forces to launch raids in Pakistan without that government's knowledge or approval--a small part of me was rooting for her to pull it off. Does that qualify as situational ethics on my part? I don't know. But I do know that by over-intellectualizing this steeliness factor, and by underestimating its power to sway voters, we are not being true to our cultural history.
It is no accident that in the last century, the women authors who changed the literary game, and the heroines they created, are all of the ballsy variety--Zora Neal Hurston, Eudora Welty, Margaret Mitchell, Maya Angelou. Fiction writers and journalists are mere scribblers of history, while politicians are the high-stakes actors in our national drama. But I think we risk throwing shade across a part of our political future by failing to acknowledge the value of Sarah Palin's abundant moxie.
Is this critique sexist? Should I turn in my feminist card? I'm happy to entertain any charges of sexism that may result from my deconstruction of the catnip part of the Palin aesthetic. Yes, we're entering the rabbit hole of the "why is it okay for blacks to call each other the N-word but not okay for-whites?" territory of feminist critique, but I've got thick skin, and I am also consistent: I'm black, I don't call other blacks the N-word, and I don't want other blacks to use that word, either. I'm a woman who doesn't call other women the B-word, and I will call out anyone who is foolish enough to direct either of those words at me.
As for feminist street cred, eh: I'm more concerned with being scrupulous--and pragmatic--enough to recognize the whirl of ambiguities that make humans so interesting. Dick Cheney manages to love his lesbian daughter, which is good. And yes, the self-disciplined Condoleezza Rice is an appropriate role model for black girls. Plus, as we learned from the Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy, charges of sexism can be the red herring in a procedural crime drama worthy of P.D. James.
Progressives and feminists who sneer at women unwilling to separate that stimulus-response "I heart ballsy women!" from the business at hand--"Does she have the intellect and experience to be vice president?"--are spinning their wheels. They also conveniently overlook the possibility that Palin's raw ambition is very close to the self-confidence we want to encourage in our daughters. Sarah Palin is a strong woman, and that is good. Her politics, and what they may lead her to create for our democracy... not so much.

I am American and I also noted Palin's use of the word "Charlie" in every other sentence. I found it to be incredibly disrespectful, and an attempt to put Gibson in his place, i.e., well beneath her. He did not call her "Sarah," and this was not a social occasion.

Furthermore, regarding the Amy Alexander piece: it's not "ballsy" and it's not a demonstration of "self-confidence" to try to BS your way to an substance-free answer. This is merely the typical response of an underprepared (and, I may add, uninterested) student facing questions they're not prepared to effectively answer. There's no masculine-feminine to it; students of all sorts do this in the transparent attempt to snow the grader and/or to garner some partial credit.

I've also seen job interview candidates (male and female) pull this stunt, sometimes repeatedly, and there is no surer way in my book to take oneself out of the running than to try to BS an answer to a substantive question. It's way worse than simply saying "I don't know" because at least that would be an HONEST answer.

People, even Nation columnists are falling for this ploy? Well, I guess we're in even worse shape than I previously believed.

The Bill Maher video clip is weak and it appears to me that our species is grasping at straws.
It's interesting, and stupid in my opinion, that people can magnitize on one or two sentences and make a mountain out of it. That has basically been the mantra of this entire long drawn out 'race for the WH'.

Is This It? Really?
JENNIFER RUBIN - 09.13.2008 - 10:04 PM
The New York Times does the all-so predictable Sarah Palin bill of indictment for its Sunday front page. It certainly sounds compelling in the paragraph called the nut graf:

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

But what is so remarkable is how little there is in the page after page of minutiae thrown against the wall by the Times. And indeed theres plenty of favorable material there. Up front we learn:

Ms. Palin has many supporters. As a two-term mayor she paved roads and built an ice rink, and as governor she has pushed through higher taxes on the oil companies that dominate one-third of the states economy. She stirs deep emotions. In Wasilla, many residents display unflagging affection, cheering our Sarah and hissing at her critics.

In just the first few paragraphs you have testimony that she was effective and accessible. So where are we going here? Well, despite the testimony that she was accessible, others find her secretive and inclined to put a premium on loyalty. The evidence? The Governors office declined a request for emails that would have cost over $400,000. Proof positive. Oh, and the records sought (about Polar Bears and such) were in fact obtained.

Then there is the she blurs personal and public behavior charge. The evidence? A phone call from Todd Palin to a state legislator about the latters chief of staff, which Palin denies was mentioned. Pretty thin gruel.

Next we have her tenure as mayor, where again all heck breaks loose because are ya sitting down? she brought in her own team. No! Unheard of. Jeeez. Next shell be firing the town museum director. Oh no its true! Palin says (Oh yeah, she says, you can hear the Times reporters hrrumphing) she was cutting the budget.

This is pathetic, really. Is there something illegal here? Is there something nefarious? What is the point?

The next offense: while she was mayor city employees were told not to talk to the press. The horror! Might there have been a procedure, a public affairs or press person for that? We dont know and the Times doesnt tell us.

Then we get to the book banning. But if you read carefully there is no banning, no censorship, no list and no nothing other than someone became scared of Palin:

People would bring books back censored, recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palins predecessor. Pages would get marked up or torn out.

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book Daddys Roommate on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

Sarah said she didnt need to read that stuff, Ms. Chase said. It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didnt even read it.

Im still proud of Sarah, she added, but she scares the bejeebers out of me.

So Palin talked about removing books but the piece doesnt tell us what was said. And we hear about Palins distaste for a book about homosexual parenting. Again, is there some story in here? Were up to page three and it hasnt popped out yet.

We then learn that she did take on her own Republican Party and won the election for Governor by, goodness gracious, preparing for debates with notecards. Color-coded no less.

Then on page four of this eye-popping account, we learn as Governor she had the temerity to have surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church. No! She hired people she knew? And people she trusted because she had just run against a hostile machine of her own party? The Lieutenant Governor offers up that they were competent, qualified, top-notch people, but are you going to believe him? And then the kicker: it seemed to, well, work out pretty well. We learn:

To her supporters and with an 80 percent approval rating, she has plenty Ms. Palin has lifted Alaska out of a mire of corruption. She gained the passage of a bill that tightens the rules covering lobbyists. And she rewrote the tax code to capture a greater share of oil and gas sale proceeds.

Does anybody doubt that shes a tough negotiator? said State Representative Carl Gatto, Republican of Palmer.

The nerve hiring trusted people and running a competent, popular administration. So we veer back to secrecy dastardly tales of using a private email account and reliance on a circle of close advisors. Once again, the sheer banality of it all is both numbing and humorous. Surely the Old Grey Lady hasnt devoted all this space for nothing? But thats the conclusion one reaches as we stumble into page five. And that seems to have more of the same people who didnt get emails returned or thought she was too adversarial, harboring a siege-like mentality against her foes.

Wow, are you shocked and appalled yet? Me neither, and I cant for the life of me figure out the point of the story. Ah, yes: the reporters were told to get the goods and this is all they found. But being the New York Times they made it really long, put it on the front page, and hoped people wouldnt read it all that closely and say, I guess she has a pretty good record if thats all they had.

And if you are looking for any detailed description of any of her accomplishments presumably the reason for her 80 percent popularity forget it. No room for that.

For the second video I get: "We're sorry, this video is no longer available."

This is the second time I've seen a video related to Sarah Palin go missing shortly after it was blogged. (The other time was on Pharyngula.)

"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." -- Auric Goldfinger

Anybody seen a third occurrence?

Dan: I think the take-away message for a lot of people is that style-wise Governor Palin is George Bush in a dress. If you think she's great, nothing said there is likely to make you change your mind. As you illustrate.

Can 80% of Alaskans be wrong?

Dan: Her approval ratings are in the sixties after Troopergate but that's still high. Since GWB also had very high approval ratings I guess you could say the same thing about him. My answer: Yes.

Kathleen...You might be aware that every President has called Helen Thomas "Helen" ? I think she was at the very first Presidential news conference she has been around so long. They also turn in kind and call them Mr. President. She IS the Governor of the State of Alaska. I think that puts it into perspective.

Also, I believe in that same interview that he used an AP excerpt "exact words" in reference to the war and then she did put him in his place. The reference that is mentioned is about when we should go to war......He was all over her right up until the time that she stated that she was quoting Lincoln.... Right in the eye Charlie.

And Revere, I dont think that beyond Bill Maher that anyone would have taken the time or made so much effort to attack someone unless it was agenda based. Hows this? How about doing what you said and go after Obama for 11 days on his issues and they are large, or even Biden. Now the latter has so much baggage that he makes Obama look like a porter for him.
We all remember the Clarence Thomas confirmations where the Republicans turned the tables on him and he looked absolutely stupid. Then there is the comments about foreigners in convenience stores, then his brother and son and the billion dollar bilking (alleged) of investors. How about McCain and Bidens charitable contributions? Biden ? About 900 bucks this year (go get 'em tiger). McCain couple of hundred G's and consistently at that.

Besides, if Obama is elected we will have the smartest guy working just underneath him right? He will be out there trying to get the Internet II underway with the inventor....Al Gore.

But these are legitimate jabs. Obama and Biden are getting asked any real questions and when they do the answers are worse than McCains and Palins. Their straw men have pants on and the left doesnt like it. The left is looking for a government subsidy to buy a straw man and then will have to go to Congress to get a subsidy to buy pants for all Americans, a house for them to live in and since those pants will be substandard we will have to come up with anew set of pants that are energy compliant and made from recycled materials. They will tax for the proper disposal of the pants at a later date.

Gibson Didnt Pound Edwards in 2004; Asked Him If GOP Attacks Made Him Mad
By Tim Graham
September 12, 2008 - 14:35 ET
As Charles Gibson interviewed young vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, some might wonder: did Gibson (then a co-host of Good Morning America) throw tough foreign-policy questions at John Edwards in 2004, since he had only four and a half years experience in public office? No.

Gibsons first John Edwards interview after he was nominated for vice president came on the September 2, 2004 Good Morning America, on the Thursday morning of the Republican convention in New York. Gibson didnt ask any quiz questions about his readiness or about foreign policy. Instead, he asked six questions about how the Democrats would respond to the GOP going after the Democrats "hammer and tong last night." Gibson merely asked Edwards how he felt about it, and then demanded to know: "You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn't they make you mad last night?" Edwards replied in part: "Oh, I thought they were over the top, completely over the top." Gibson repeated: " Did you get mad, though?"

Edwards appeared that morning on ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. At the time, we reported in the MRC Cyber Alert: "After being the most critical of last night's Republican speeches...ABC's Charles Gibson was the gentlest with Edwards, sticking largely to questions about the candidate's feelings. He asked if the Democrats went too easy 'not to engage as directly' in Boston....On CBS, Edwards stammered as Hannah Storm demonstrated a surprisingly hard-news approach, asking for Kerry-Edwards specifics" on counter-terrorism policy.

The Gibson interview -- or lecture about how the Democrats failed to whip Republicans hard enough -- began with this introduction:

CHARLES GIBSON: In the first half-hour, we talked about how direct were the attacks from the Republicans on the podium last night, directed at the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards. A response this morning from John Edwards, the vice-presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. I talked with him a few moments ago.

GIBSON: Senator Edwards, they went at you hammer and tong last night from the podium here at this Republican Convention, saying the fundamental security of this country was at stake in this election, questioning John Kerry's ability to be commander in chief. I wonder how you felt as you listened.

JOHN EDWARDS: I thought there was an enormous amount of anger coming out of the Republican Convention. The contrast couldn't have been more dramatic with our convention and what John Kerry and I talked about. We talked very specifically about our plan to keep the American people safe, to deal with the fact that five million people have lost their health insurance while John, while George Bush has been in office. That four million people have fallen into poverty and almost two million people have lost their private sector jobs, and what we're gonna do about the war in Iraq. Instead, what we heard last night was a lot of angry rhetoric.

GIBSON: Did it make you in any way second-guess the decision at the Democratic Convention not to mention George Bush from the podium so often, not to engage as directly?

EDWARDS: No. In no way. The truth is that what John and I did at the, at the Democratic Convention, which is to portray a vision and a plan of hope and optimism, it's who we are. It's what I believe the American people are, Charlie. I mean, if the American, the American people are not represented by what we heard in that room last night. I mean, that sort of anger and personal diatribe. I mean, they want something better. They believe in something better. They believe, in fact, what John and I believe, that if we're sensible and smart, that tomorrow can be better than today. And that's the kind of America that John and I want to create.

CHARLES GIBSON: You have used this line about two Americas and they have turned that from the podium night after night after night, saying, A, that there aren't two Americas, and, B, that what's really there are two of, two John Kerrys. And they get into this theme about John Kerry's conflicting votes on various issues. How are you going to answer that?

JOHN EDWARDS: Oh, very simply. They're in New York poking fun at, at the fact that there are two Americas and out here in the real world, I mean, I've been out on, meeting with people, meeting with folks who have lost their jobs. These people -across the country, they're living it. I mean, these people who have lost their, millions of folks who have lost their health insurance and whose incomes have gone down, they can't pay their bills anymore, they're struggling everyday just to get by. The millions of people who have fallen into poverty. A lot of folks who've worked hard all their lives and now have nowhere to turn. I mean, the truth is, we can do better than that, and they can make all the fun about it they want in New York, but out here in the real world, people are living it and we have a plan to make their lives better and we're going to fight for these folks.

GIBSON: This crowd was chanting "flip-flop" last night. It is this elemental issue that they're trying to make that there are two John Kerrys, citing his conflicting votes on a number of issues.

EDWARDS: Yeah, but the truth is, Charlie, I know this guy. I know him very, very well. He's somebody who's an American hero, which is actually what Zell Miller said just a couple of years ago. He's somebody that all of us look up to and respect. He's got inner strength and courage and these, these are the kinds of personal negative attacks that you see when you've got the kind of record that this administration has. I mean, the facts are overwhelming about what's happened in this country in the last four years, and what's happening on the ground in Iraq right now, and the American people are looking for an alternative and we want them to know what it is specifically we would do differently.

GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn't they make you mad last night?

EDWARDS: Oh, I thought they were over the top, completely over the top. And, and actually what bothered me more than anything was in the midst of -I mean, there was, if you, if you got up and went to your refrigerator to get a Diet Coke, you would -you would miss everything Dick Cheney had to say about health care and everything he had to say about jobs. I mean, this is the first, we've had 11 straight presidents in this country, Charlie, who have created jobs. This is, until George Bush. You know, we've got all these folks who are having trouble with their health care premiums going up, 26, 27 hundred dollars, and what do they have to say about it? Nothing. I mean, don't people deserve to know from their president and vice president what it is they've done and what it is they're going to do? And instead, all we hear is a lot of rhetoric about, about their opponent. I mean, I just think leaders in this country, the American people deserve leaders who are better than that and do better than that.

GIBSON: Did you get mad, though?

EDWARDS: Oh, yeah. I was, I was, especially about the personal attacks against John Kerry, because they're false. I know this guy and I know what he's made of inside and he's ready to lead this country.

GIBSON: John Edwards, good to talk to you. Thanks very much.

American Viewpoint conducted 400 interviews with registered voters in Alaska on the evening of September 2, 2008. The margin of error for the entire sample is +/- 4.9% at the 85% confidence level. Key findings are summarized below.

Alaskans hold Governor Palin in very high regard. They have rallied behind her and because they know her so well and have seen her perform her job so aptly over the past two years they believe that she, like every other working parent in America, can absolutely handle the demands of her family as well as the demands of running for Vice-President.

The special investigation appears to be politically inspired but voters support a full investigation. The McCain-Palin ticket performs well in Alaska and leads by a 24-point margin.

Governor Sarah Palin remains extremely well regarded in Alaska.

· Her job approval rating is astoundingly high with an 86% overall approval rating and 63% strongly approving of her job performance. Independents approve by a margin of 86% - 10% and there is absolutely no gender gap. 97% of Republicans approve of the job she is doing as do 75% of Democrats. She receives high job approval ratings across all regions of Alaska.

The Obama strategy of targeting and attempting to win Alaska is a fantasy. The McCain-Palin ticket holds a commanding ballot advantage over Obama-Biden, winning 57% - 33%.

· Independent voters cast their ballots for McCain-Palin, 50%-37%. Ticket-splitters vote for McCain-Palin, 48%-33%. Men vote for McCain-Palin 58%-30% with women voting for the GOP ticket 55%-35%.

· McCain-Palin draws 25% of Democrats and lead with those placing their emphasis on energy/gas issues, 74%-18%.

Dan: OK. You make a solid point. Does her high approval in these circumstances mean she's qualified? What does it mean, exactly?

Dan Good: please be more concise. Resist that copy 'n' paste urge!

All of the names I recognized from American Viewpoint's client list are Republicans; I would no more trust their results than I would any numbers given out by their former patrons Bush & Cheney. The ~60%-approval estimate given by Alaska political reporters seems more plausible, and even that has to be taken in context of the abysmal behavior of that state's politicians generally.

There is only one poll in which I have confidence and it will be taken on November 4th. It's more important what you believe, rather than listening to others and this blog will not change anyone's mind. The reason to introduce recent articles is only a short cut to bring sanity, realism and civility to this blog and to try to eliminate wild claims and comments from what would hope to be a more informed community.

Your 4:33 p.m. comment Dan, very true. It takes a balanced and level head to work through the muck and mire with the SP rampage going on here.
It's true this blog will not change anyone's mind, infact more often than not it has sent me in the other direction.

And we hear about Palin’s distaste for a book about homosexual parenting. Again, is there some story in here?

Uhm, that she is homophobic?

And we hear about Palins distaste for a book about homosexual parenting. Again, is there some story in here?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is, and that it has something to do with believing that American citizens and taxpayers who don't agree with her interpretation of the Bible should have fewer legal rights than those who do.

Which is not only legally indefensible and theologically questionable, but also un-American, anti-democratic, and deeply stupid.

Can 80% of Alaskans be wrong?

!00 percent of any group can be wrong on a given issue.

And belief is not a moral category in any case.

Revere:

As far as polls go, SP is faring well. But directly to your point about qualifications, hers are now an open book thanks to Gibson and the MSM, notwithstanding their approach to smear and trivialize her. Personal attributes make her shine compared to her opponents. We will find out soon enough whether there is any substance to the politically motivated and charged second so-called Troopergate scandal (Clinton's was the first and more serious, I believe). We will see if the "Bully Trooper" can hold up to the charges of threatening SP's family as evidenced by decisions by her security detail.

But back to qualifications. Even though there is no constitutional requirement for specific areas, the American Public has a right to expect qualified candidates and an objective Fourth Estate has an obligation to assist the public in making this determination. Unfortunately, opinion writers and editors have taken over the front page and replaced objective investigative reporting with agenda based reporting. The American Public is the loser in this process. Even the most biased pollsters still can't avoid demonstrating that they news agenda has swung far to the left.

To that extent, many of us have to try to wade through the clutter and noise to try to find the truth about candidates. It is difficult, but with the help of smart and educated people globally, we can usually ferret out important information upon which to help shape our opinions and decisions. Thank God for Al Gore's internet! ( Yes, yes, cheap shot.)

All of this boring preamble notwithstanding ( twice?), if we start to match up SP's credentials against either #1 or #2 opponents, we see a sharp contrast in executive decision making but more importantly freshness, honesty, forthrightness and judgment. Compare her also to several past VP candidates (John Edwards comes to mind for some reason) and she shows favorably. Biden has 36 years in the Senate and although he has traveled abroad extensively, knows many if not most foreign leaders and perhaps can spell their names, he seems to fall short in the judgment category, perhaps the most important attribute of all. His voting record is out there for all to see even though no MSM source would highlight it. Perhaps the sole debate might shine a bright light on his vote against Gulf War I, for Gulf War II, against the Surge and against abdication of the Missile Treaty with the Soviets. Space and your attention limits more detail. Verbosity and plagiarism are two other negatives. He has seen his finest days.

But the top of the ticket is the real enigma. Looking beyond "Hope" and "Change" it is difficult to assess his abilities. Granted, scripted public oratory is his best. Impromptu speaking is not. But neither is that important in the final analysis and substance is what we are looking for and we just can't find it. On the surface, Occidental, Columbia and Harvard will get him in any door. Harvard Law Review should put him close to the head of the line. Community Organizing,the Illinois Legislature and the US Senate are important milestones. But when you try to dig deeper into each of these areas for specifics, the Iron Curtain is drawn. Isn't it important to know these details? Or at least what was on his expense accounts as the NY Times revealed about SP? We do know the company he has kept before they disappeared from view, at least until November 5th. But we're left only with these hallow negative images because he won't address them openly and the Fourth Estate won't press him or investigate even the smallest allegation. His own explanations are left wanting.

So where are we with qualifications. We know JM and now we know more about SP than we ever wanted. What we know about JB comes up short and we know nothing about BO. Come to your own conclusions. I have come to mine.

Dan: I'm not sure how to respond. Touting ghe Gvoernor as honest and forthright seems to me so far from what I see that we seem to be living in parallel universes. As far as I can see, almost nothing she has said has been true, and the Bridge business and her claim to be against earmarks (just two examples out of many) don't seem to me to be patently false and deliberately misleading. I don't see how this can be called a smear, but in any event the world we each see is totally different and if you think Palin and McCain aren't serial liars then there's likely nothing I can say to convince you to the contrary.

Revere;

No attempts at persuasion in either direction. And let's give quarter and say JC and SP conveniently look at outcomes and not beginnings (much more to it than that but we need to move on). What I am searching for are Obama specifics. If he is elected, I would feel better knowing that the next President does not have ties to anti-American radicals and does not have at the top of his to do list, material redistribution of wealth. I would like specifics on his academic and professional life so I can judge his qualifications for myself. But don't fret if you can't provide them. I have searched far and wide without success.

Dan: Have you checked his website? Regarding anti-American radicals, if you are referring to the casual relationship with Ayres, it's not as close as Todd Palin's with the Alaska Independence Party (not to mention Gov. Palin's own relationship via attendance and marriage). I don't take that seriously and I don't know why you take Ayres seriously. That's minor league stuff. As for redistribution of wealth, McCain is doing it with my money now, sending it to military adventures, corporate welfare and who know's what. I'd rather my money went to people who needed it. But again, this is a disjunction in world views. We are mirror images. What I blame McCain/Palin for most is ripping the scab off a just healing division in this country and reigniting a culture war neither side can win. If we spend our time fighting it we will both lose.

Casual relationship?

They partied together and they were on the board of directors of the same foundation. How does that work in the word casual? I call that a working relationship at the very least.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_c…

I love your sense of proportion. Weatherman Ayers vs. Todd Palin? I think we have reached an impasse where diplomacy has failed and we are forced to use the last option.

material redistribution of wealth.

We already have material redistribution of wealth under GWB. And chances are, you'll be seeing a lot more of it over the next week.

No one who has tolerated the economic policies of the Bush administration has any right to use the traditional fiscal conservative tropes, in my opinion. Richard Viguerie may be a crackpot on a lot of issues, but at least he understands that the Bush administration is the most fiscally irresponsible administration in our history.

I would feel better knowing that the next President does not have ties to anti-American radicals

How do you feel about the current president having such ties? (The Saudi royals, just for starters?)

More to the point, you can't simply use the term "American" as though it means the same thing to you and to someone else. As I said above, I believe that denying equal rights to American citizens on the basis of sexual preference is unconstitutional, and therefore represents the absolute zero of anti-Americanism.

I also think it's anti-American to sell national infrastructure to foreign companies, and to squander and destroy our natural resources...these are policies that thrived under Bush, and will continue to thrive under McCain/Palin. A lot of people agree with me on these points, and not all of them are leftists by any means.

I expect Obama to disappoint me repeatedly if he's elected. But from my standpoint, nothing he'll do or argue for will be anywhere near as radical as what's been done and argued for during the last eight years of GOP rule.

You don't agree, of course. Which is fine. All I can do is trust that I'll live long enough to cancel out your vote.

SP and I will pray for you so you'll live at least until November 4th. However, you might want to protect your vote with an absentee ballot.

PS I'm afraid other readers would leave in droves if I attempted to re-educate you. I predict it would take a very long time.

I predict it would take a very long time.

Posted by: dgood@mac.com | September 14, 2008 10:35 PMM

As well as facts you don't have.

Dan, if you were trying to be objective in any way, your last comment to Phila was certainly patronizing. You also claim that you're not going to change minds, but by your long posts and cut & pastes, it sure seems like you're attempting to do something.

To the Alexander article, there's no doubt that Palin is ambitious and presentable. She communicates well, though with the exception of her oil/energy spiel, she speaks in generalities. If I heard more specifics, references to nuts & bolts issues, I'd say otherwise. The Gibson interview did nothing to help me with that. But raw ambition and self-confidence without ethics and restraint is not what I'd want to teach my daughter. Carly Fiorina, ex-Hewlitt Packard CEO, who has been running around lying for McCain about his abortion stance, is ballsy. So what? Hillary is ballsy? So what? Palin comes out lying, exaggerating and spinning from day one in a most generalized RNC speech, and that's admirable?

The Annie Oakley frontier woman idea is silly too. Palin said she grew up in a genderless environment. So did I. She did the same things that boys did. So did I. She's been no card-carrying feminist, and to her credit, appears to not be concerned with sexism or being treated differently than men. (Not that it doesn't keep people from decrying sexism.) When she said in the first outdoor speech that she took on the good old boy's network, there was noticeably less cheering as if they weren't too sure to cheer that. But that is a phrase that a male newcomer would use too in referring to an entrenched network of cronies. Let's throw out the woman stuff and quoting old-school feminists; it failed with many women regarding Hillary, and Hillary is a lot more knowledgeable than Palin and endured unrelenting assault over the years. My concern is how much of a foundation she has in various political matters, and as was done with Bush, how much she'd be molded by her handlers. As VP, it wouldn't matter, as President, it would.

You can go on abut the liberal media or Gibson four years ago, but intellectually honest Republicans have admitted that the liberal media is mostly myth now. What was his 2004 interview with Cheney like? We've seen ridiculous questions during debates to both parties, asking Hillary who the President of Russia is, Anderson Cooper asking Obama if he can sing God Bless America, and numerous passes on McCain's off-the-cuff remarks while they covered HRC/Obama. Not to mention the unscrupulous pounding of the right-wing pundits all over the airwaves. Gibson's interview was negotiated, his questions were not difficult and he could have challenged her much more directly, such as with the Roe vs. Wade issue, separation of church and state, science, etc. I am clear about Obama's and Biden's positions in no uncertain terms. Palin's? Nope.

As we saw with Reagan towards the end of his term in regards to Iran/Contra it is reasonable to consider McCain's age. If she's so good, why don't they let her loose to do lots of interviews? Are they that worried about gaffs? No "ballsy" there. We've seen plenty of the other candidates. Do you think Sean Hannity is going to ask her why she said man can certainly contribute to global warming when she's previously been quoted as saying quite the opposite while mocking Al Gore? Do you think he'll ask her why as mayor she royally screwed up regarding the multi-use sports facility that many people didn't even want, raised sales-taxes, and then left the town in red? (Another reminder of Bush and his Arlington stadium, which too also ended up using eminent domain.)

Yes, Alaskans I saw interviewed seem to be pleased with her performance as Governor, especially getting $1,200 checks. Some are not so pleased by Ted Steven's strong endorsement for her. Nor are her environmental stances in Alaska overwhelmingly approved of, especially regarding her capitulation to hunters' groups in wildlife management, e.g. wolf culling and bear hunting in protected areas, and polar bears. She wanted Exxon to pay for their spill, but she ignores non-state employed scientists when inconvenient.

Lobbyist connected to that ethical reformist, Jack Abramamoff? Perhaps Thomas Frank is dead on with the Wrecking Crew. Reform? Not on your life. Get real with McCain's efforts on this and what could he do with Congress that is apt to be polarized as ever? We just don't know since he's been changing his views with the weather, so what do you know that I don't? His voting record?

I'm not sure why you want to know more about Obama's academic record. What? To read his papers? We know where he went to school, where McCain did, where Biden did, and Palin's five schools. Do you think you're going to find something different than Bush's C-student record at Yale? Months ago investigations were done on the Rezco deal, Ayers, his State Senate election - where have you been? There was nothing illegal.

Ayers was on the same board for 3 years, works at Univ. of Chicago where Obama has many ties, and lives in the same neighborhood. Is there anything in Obama's life and record that would lead you to believe that knowing Ayers would affect his judgment in the White House? Is this any different than Bush's friends and cronies from Texas, like the Enron folks, or McCain's? People who left their marks on ordinary people's lives? Has Ayers done anything over the years that reveals anti-American actions? Is Bill Clinton, the not-so-liberal ex-president, worrisome because he commuted sentences for two ex-Weatherground members? Are you really that concerned? I doubt it because you'd have already discovered there's nothing there to harp on about.

Sorry to be so wordy, but Dan, given your wealth distribution comment, you're simply arguing from ideology and acting like the NY Times you condemn. Then you ask people to spend time looking at Obama's record for 11 days (as if they haven't done so). Everybody investigates everybody and that's what they're doing with Palin. Some errors will come up and be corrected, others are valid criticisms (not to be confused as "smears"). Either way, she won't get months and months of pounding from the media.

But this is about Obama vs. McCain and whether the country can afford four more years of the Republican brand. I don't think it can, you think otherwise, and all your posts amount simply to that.

Dan Good: There is only one poll in which I have confidence and it will be taken on November 4th.

There is abundant reason to consider that the 11/4/08 poll will be no more honest or accurate than those of four and eight years before.

A question for Palin's detractors - on every question you ask of Sarah Palin - on her experience, religion, friends or public record - have you asked the same of Barack Obama? Have you held his answer to the same exacting standards?

I ask as someone who certainly likes the idea of a Sarah Palin (as we are asked to believe by the right), but have yet to see her address certain questions on her experience head on. Of course, see my last para. - neither has Obama. When Tony Rezko was indicted, Obama gave a press conference and only answered 8 questions. By contrast, McCain was asked about allegations he had an affair in 2000 in a press conference and answered every one. http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/830209,CST-EDT-hunt07.article

Palin's answers to questions of foreign policy experience need work, redirection is acceptable for only so long. Besides growing up in varied places around the globe and making a taking an absurd European tour to shore up his foreign policy street cred., what is Obama's answer to the same question?

Pierce Butler,

You mean like this and this and this and this and this and these?