John McCain sees he's not getting enough traction attacking Senator Obama's character, so he's now doing what Democrats did to soften up Palin - campaigning against somebody he's not directly running against.
John McCain's message over the past 48 hours (and one that is likely to continue until election day) is that Americans should be terrified of what GOP's sees as the axis of evil - President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If you elect Obama and keep both of these congressional leaders, we'll apparently all be communists before March of '09.
This is an intriguing tactic...if you're objective is to minimize Republican congressional losses. This may be what GOP leaders are privately saying to McCain: "we think you're toast, but you can still help us." If this were a fruitful approach to actually winning the election, wouldn't McCain have brought it forth long before now?
Using the fear of one-party rule plays on most Americans' contradictory but consistent propensity to split votes on federal governmental control. However, I don't foresee this effort having much success. Democrats will still pick up seats.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
McCain See the Handwriting
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Huffington Post and Daily Kos Misdiagnose Palin’s “City On a Hill”
American history buffs and theocracy fearers rejoice! Andrew Bacevich is talking to you on The Huffington Post, and Daily Kos (ironically) must need some “liberal” arts education.
Bacevich dissects the only philosophically meaningful comment Governor Sarah Palin made during the VP debate:
“And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope, and that we are unapologetic here.”
As Bacevich notes, the “city on a hill” idea came from Massachusetts Bay Colony Founder, John Winthrop, in 1630. Bacevich lays out the entire text and context for Winthrop’s remark and convincingly argues that unless America is God’s chosen people, a presumption which strikes him (and me) as arrogant, the "city on the hill" comment is inapplicable to the American experiment.
Daily Kos goes a step further and implies that Palin’s "city on a hill" remark is “code” for a fundamentalist conspiracy to create a Christian-based theocracy. D.K. says they (the religious right) have been “slipping this one by us.”
Daily Kos notes:
“The phrase was referenced several times during the 2008 Republican National Convention by Rudy Guiliani and several others, during the nomination of the Republican John McCain.”Here’s the idea By referring to an “obscure” 1630 sermon that was given at the initiation of a Puritan colony, Republicans are secretly signaling their intentions to other Christians to enforce Christian values in government.
With all due respect, this idea that Republicans are "signaling" through Winthrop is crazy talk. Sarah Palin (and the supermajority of Christians in this country) couldn’t even tell you who John Winthrop is, let alone what he said and why. Without knowing the context of Winthrop's remark, how can anyone draw an association from it?
The stronger "signaling" argument is the one both Bacevich and Daily Kos completely miss. The original source of Winthrop’s oratory is the Gospel of Matthew, verses 14-16 (NIV):
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
In other words, Christians should act Christ-like while letting people know they are Christians as a way of gaining more believers. This is an uncontroversial notion that can be summarized as "serve as an example." Winthrop mutilated the original meaning to induce his followers to create a completely Puritan-based government.
"City on a hill" might be a signal, but it's no more a secret to a cultural literate American than "an eye for an eye," "turn the other cheek," or "God Bless America." The fact that Daily Kos, a leader for my party on a lot of issues, has authors who don't know such an obvious reference in the Bible is concerning because I suspect they know Greek and Roman mythology.
Like it or not, the Bible is the best-selling book in the world. Whether you're Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, transcendentalist, or accidental tourist, you have GOT to know the Bible as a matter of cultural literacy. Even if you cringe when you hear someone call America a "Christian nation," you cannot dispute that it's a pluralist nation with a supermajority of Christians. As a result, even if you read it as fiction, you HAVE to read it. It's sort of like the Da Vinci Code, except movie adaptions of the Bible are actually entertaining.
(Also, even the culturally illiterate might have driven by the staggering number of churches actually named "City on a Hill." They're in Atlanta, San Diego, Boston, Albuquerque, Torrance, and Knoxville, and that's just the first six Google pulled up among the thousands of links I got in response to my search).
Huffington Post and Daily Kos Misdiagnose Palin’s “City On a Hill”
Friday, October 3, 2008
Open Mic Tactic?
So the VP candidates come out last night, and the first thing I realize is that I can hear everything Sarah Palin is saying. But I can't hear Joe Biden, except when he's talking to Palin. As every mic made in the world now has a "turn off" switch, it is obvious that Palin has a "hot mic." Call me a cynic, but I think this was intentional.
Why am I a cynic? Because when she meets Senator Biden and shakes his hand, she asks him in her "golly gee" folksy way, "Can I call ya Joe?"
Admittedly, I may have missed a reference since I watched the debate again on 2x speed, but I didn't hear Palin EVER refer to Biden as "Joe." It was always "Senator Biden." Why ask for permission to use a name you then never actually use?
I think her handlers told her to keep the mic on and what to say to come across as gracious and likeable, and I say, "GREAT tactic." It worked on me. If it wasn't intentional, this should go in some political operative's play book.
Open Mic Tactic?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
A Running VP Debate Commentary
The next group of posts are a running, (mostly) real time commentary from the VP debate, which I watched on CNN. CNN kept a running "dial" tally of undecided Ohio voters and divided them by gender. When these voters heard something they liked, they turned the dials up, when they heard something they disliked, they turned them down. You'll probably want to go to the earliest entry and read up.
A Running VP Debate Commentary
Ohio Women REALLY Hate Cheney
Joe Biden just called Dick Cheney the most dangerous VP in history and launched a verbal assault that earned him a maxed out meter for nearly five full seconds. Wow. Ohio folk, particularly women, REALLY hate Cheney.
Actually, something just occurred to me that, when I write it, will probably get me eaten alive. Has anyone else noticed that in most instances, when the dial maxes out, it's the women at the top, and when the meter goes into the tank, the women are lowest?
Ohio women are kind of moody.
Uh oh. Joe Biden was just talking about being a single dad, and I think he got choked up. Boy, is some heartless Republican going to make him eat that for lunch tomorrow. Expect this to launch a cynical debate among the conservatorati about whether it was a REAL or STAGED cry, just like they did for Hillary Clinton.
As for the closing statements, Palin sounded too rah rah, while Biden seemed more substantive. Overall that's my read on the debate. Palin was VERY folksy, and I'd love to have a beer with her. But you judge a debate by the political effect and the substantive effect. Palin did what she needed to do to get the political benefit (show people she's NOT a loon, and emphasize her outsider status), but substantively, man Joe Biden comes off as knowledgeable. I admit my bias because I was for Biden before Obama. But that was because a restrained Joe Biden is as sharp a political figure as you will ever meet.
If only he could "maintain the restrain."
Ohio Women REALLY Hate Cheney
Sorry, Gordon Gecko...greed is apparently NOT good!
Palin is talking about ending Wall Street greed, helping main street and working class folks, and keeping taxes low, and she's roasting the scale.
Biden had his lowest moment of the debate on the dial when he said he spends time at Home Depot. (I guess people prefer Lowe's).
But when he started talking about how corporate America has "benefited plenty," he jumped up again.
How cute. Sarah Palin just gave a "shout out" to some third graders. They must be ecstatic.
And, holy cow, if I were John McCain, I'd rewrite Governor Palin's stump speech to say:
"Education, wah wa waaa waaaaaah, education, blah blah, GO EDUCATION!"
Governor Palin's lines about education, which were exhortatory cheerleading, garnered the strongest sustained approval of the night for her.
Sorry, Gordon Gecko...greed is apparently NOT good!
Here's What Biden Knows...
...foreign policy, and he's running on the high end of the meter consistently now. Palin, while certainly not embarrassing herself, is hugging the mid-line with periodic upticks.
Every time Biden mentions Dick Lugar, the dial machinery falls asleep.
(Just kidding. It actually spiked up slightly when Biden said Obama reached across the aisle to work with Lugar).
Notably, Americans in Ohio want to help people in Darfur. When Biden talked about enforcing a no-fly zone, the meter maxed out.
Here's What Biden Knows...
We all love Israel!
Israel is our democratic bud, no doubt, and both Governor Palin and Joe Biden are giving the Israelis mad props. Biden just said, "Israel has had no better friend in the U.S. Senate than Joe Biden." Palin retorts, "I'm encouraged to know we both love Israel!"
Awwwhhhh!
Let's all go to the Middle East and give Israel a big group hug.
"We LOVE you, Israel! You are NOT a stinking corpse! You are the biggest per capita @ss-kicker on the planet!"
We all love Israel!
Palin is ailing again....
When Joe Biden said Obama had a plan to get us out of Iraq, he went off the chart on CNN's dial-a-meter! Palin's response that "We're waiving the white flag" put her below the zero line deeply for the first time tonight. At least among undecided Ohio voters, the Iraqi war is an elephant around the neck of John McCain.
When Biden said we need to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, he maxed out the charts again.
Now Palin is running through a list of the "baddies" in the world. Did somebody tell her during prep that saying difficult foreign names would make her look more knowledgeable? She's said Ahmedijad five times now.
Palin is ailing again....
Palin is Ailing on Gay Marriage
Sarah Palin just told me she is tolerant. Phew! What a relief! I thought a second ago she had rather strongly implied that increasing the incidents of marriage was a slippery slope TO gay marriage. Also, I'm not sure where she really is. When Joe Biden suggested that they have no difference because they both support giving all incidents of marriage to gay couples, Palin didn't say, "That's right." She said, "Your question was whether Senator Biden supported gay marriage? My answer is no."
Palin is Ailing on Gay Marriage
RUH ROH! PALIN JUST GOT A QUESTION SHE DIDN'T EXPECT...
Governor Palin was just asked a very narrow question: "Would you have favored the bankruptcy reform act last year?" She gave an answer, but it wasn't to Ifill's question. Biden didn't do a great job, though, finessing the difference between his vote FOR the bankruptcy reform act while Obama voted no. But he was at least on the subject matter.
I knew Palin would be very well-prepared, but I also knew the more "unexpected" the question would be, the weaker Palin would be in response. Governor Palin had rebuttal time, and instead of talking about bankruptcy or the economy in general, she went back to what she knew - energy.
I can see the future of this debate:
Ifill: What's your favorite movie, Governor Palin?
Palin: If we don't plan for the future by creating energy independence, we won't be able to see movies in the future. I don't want to fight over whether man is to blame for making bad movies, I want to fight over how we make better movies.
RUH ROH! PALIN JUST GOT A QUESTION SHE DIDN'T EXPECT...
GOLLY GEE, SARAH PALIN IS SWELL!
Palin is off to a great start by any measure, not just on the "reduced expectations" measure. She's holding her own and engaging Biden directly, which is gutsy. But why does she talk like a woman who popped out of a time machine from the 1950s? Everything she says is with "darn it," "golly, "we sure will" cheerleader enthusiasm, like she thinks the American people are children. I think if we all went over to her house and told her we were sad about the economy, she'd offer us cookies and lemonade.
GOLLY GEE, SARAH PALIN IS SWELL!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Giving an Earful About Ifill
My favorite nemesis (and you know who I mean) is churning a story on his blog that Gwen Ifill is unfit to moderate the VP debate on Thursday night because she has an Obama "tribute" book coming out in January that he calls "The Age of Obama."
Here's the problem. The REAL title of the book is The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.
Since Obama is not even the sole focal point of the book, why not truncate the title and make it seem that way?!? The Amazon description offers the rebuttal:
In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African-American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.
Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.
If people want to say Ifill is not neutral, they can do so. I believe she bore an almost disgusted look after Sarah Palin's speech at the convention. People interpreted it as anti-Palin. I interpret it as her being offended about a belittling remark toward "community organizers." In truth, Ifill has been upfront about her view of Obama: "I still don't know if he'll be a good president."
If Ifill were shilling for Obama, she would have NEVER made this comment, and the notion she has a financial interest in the outcome is preposterous. People who are going to read a book about racial politics and Obama will do it independent of whether he wins. What idiot goes, "OH, I wasn't going to read about presidential nominee Obama, but now that he's "as seen at the White House" Obama, give me three copies!"
The McCain campaign agreed to Ifill, and nothing about the fact she's written a book partially about Obama should change their view of her now.
In short, we already see the excuse making for Sarah Palin coming from Republican-Land, and she hasn't even failed yet. This is a measure of how little faith even some stalwart Republicans have in her. It has never occurred to them that she could hold her own on Thursday night.
Giving an Earful About Ifill
Monday, September 29, 2008
Zakaria: "Ditch Palin"
Earlier this year, Advance Indiana churned the notion floating among conservatorati that Barack Obama would ditch Joe Biden after he exhibited too much "crazy Uncle Joe" at consecutive campaign stops while "Palin syndrome" infected America. Now it appears Palin is under assault.
("Palin Syndrome," which has a Republican strand called "Obama-mania," refers to the public's irrational, fevered pitch enthusiasm for a completely unknown political candidate because (s)he "looks and feels the part" for a demographically diverse ticket).
CNN's world affairs expert, Fareed Zakaria, captures my sentiments about Palin, and even my general admiration for Senator McCain, better than I ever could in the following interview with CNN:
CNN: What did you initially think when Sarah Palin was announced as the Republican vice presidential nominee?
Zakaria: I was a bit surprised -- as I think most people were. But I was willing to give her a chance. And I thought her speech at the convention was clever and funny. But once she began answering questions about economics and foreign policy, it became clear that she has simply never thought about these subjects before and is dangerously ignorant and unprepared for the job of vice president, let alone president.
CNN: You don't think she is qualified?
Zakaria: No. Gov. Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly --nonsense. Just listen to her response to Katie Couric's question about the bailout. It's gibberish -- an emptying out of catchphrases about economics that have nothing to do with the question or the topic. It's scary to think that this person could be running the country.
CNN: Does it make you concerned about Sen. McCain as a president?
Zakaria: Yes, and I say this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision. Whether it is appropriate or not, considering Sen. McCain's age most people expected to have a vice presidential candidate who would be ready to step in at a moment's notice. The actuarial odds of that happening are significant, something like a one-in-five chance.
Every time I hear Palin's answer to Katie Couric's bailout question, I'm reminded of the scene in Billy Madison where Adam Sandler gives an infantile answer to a question during an academic competition, and the moderator/principal replies:
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
But Palin will never get bounced, and my party is the reason. If McCain kicks Palin to the curb now, the Democrats will make him eat it for dinner. We'll put up ads about how he made a horrific call for political expediency.
So here's what I propose: bi-partisanship for the national interest, just like when Senator McCain championed campaign finance reform. Barack Obama agrees to SAY NOTHING about the change if John McCain will just do it. It would be like Obama giving McCain a political mulligan. Maybe if he did that, McCain would at least look at him in the next debate.
Zakaria: "Ditch Palin"
Conservatives Admit Palin is Shaky, but Fox Hides the Evidence
You often hear how Obama and his supporters mysteriously make negative news disappear from the internet. Apparently, they are not alone. Below is a story that used to be on Fox News. It's gone now, and I know why. Fox doesn't want you to know that it's not just George Will saying Sarah Palin has "negligible experience" now. In fact, if all the Republicans who haven't drank the Kool-Aid could speak without fear of damaging the ticket, they'd tell you what they now know: Sarah Palin is a twit.
John McCain isn't, and we're not voting for VP, right? So why care? First, Senator McCain belied everything appealing about himself when he picked Palin for political reasons. Good judgment? Out the window. "Country First?" Out the window. But more importantly, even holding the view I do that McCain is in fine physical and mental shape (it's not "advancing age" that makes him "unsmooth"; he's always been that way), I'm can't shake "what if..."
In my lifetime, I cannot think of anybody vying for the VP role, except for Sarah Palin and Admiral Stockdale, who actually terrified me. Any public figure can recreate or improve a public image, so Palin can still shock the world, but so far, she has been a vacuous soundbite spitter who believes the more emphatically you say something, the truer it is.
In fact, SHE would be more like the third Bush term than McCain could ever be. If she gets into the White House, it will be more "from the gut/ignore countervailing facts" governance. And, in accepting the VP role, Palin showed she has no ability to assess when she's in over her head. That's a terrifying prospect in an international crisis.
I predict that Americans will tune into the VP debate this Thursday in greater numbers than the first presidential debate. Many of those will be driven by schadenfreude ("enjoyment from the misfortune of others") because they anticipate Palin being "deer in headlights." That won't happen, but Palin and the McCain apparatus has gone into overdrive to downplay expectations just in case.
Palin seemed to take glee in emphasizing Biden's age (65), saying it will be "quite a task" going against a "great debater" who was first elected when she was in second grade who has been (in Washington) a "long, long, long" time. (I'm not making that up. It was like Palin was struggling to get to 500 words on a high school essay).
I understand downplaying expectations as a political tactic for election results, but I don't understand it here. It's as if Palin thinks the reason she might get beat is because she didn't take debate in college and hasn't had decades to absorb sound bites by osmosis, not because she'll be revealed as knowing nothing on most national issues.
Respectfully, if a candidate can't sell the American public on the idea she knows what she's doing, how will she sell world leaders?
Anyway, here's your phantom story:
Conservatives Begin Questioning Palin’s Heft by Associated Press Sunday, September 28, 2008 http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/28/conservatives-begin-questioni...
A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven - and sometimes downright awkward - performances in her limited media appearances.
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.”
Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.”
“I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s- t,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.”
There is no doubt that Palin retains a tremendous amount of support among rank-and-file Republicans. She draws huge crowds, continues to raise a lot of money for the McCain campaign, and state parties report she has sparked an uptick in the number of volunteers.
Asked about Palin’s performance in the CBS interview, a McCain official briefing reporters on condition of anonymity said: “She did fine. She’s a tremendous asset and a fantastic candidate.”
But there is also no doubt many Republican insiders are worried she could blow next week’s debate, based on her unexpectedly weak and unsteady media appearances, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does.
What follows is a viewer’s guide to some of Palin’s toughest moments on camera so far.
Speaking this week with CBS’s Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off- guard by a very predictable question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused by several news outlets of retaining ties - and profiting from - the companies despite his denials.
Where a more experienced politician might have been able to brush off Couric’s follow-up question, Palin seemed genuinely stumped, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to boilerplate language about the “undue influence of lobbyists.”
These missteps could be attributed to inadequate preparation and don’t necessarily reflect more deeply on Palin’s ability to perform as vice president. But when reporters have tried to probe Palin’s thinking on subjects such as foreign policy, she’s been similarly opaque.
In an interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Palin gave a muddled answer to a question about her opinion of the Bush Doctrine. And given the chance to describe her foreign policy credentials more fully, Palin recited familiar talking points, telling Gibson that her experience with energy policy was sufficient preparation for dealing with national security issues.
In the same interview, Palin let Gibson lead her into saying it might be necessary to wage war on Russia - a suggestion that most candidates would have avoided making explicitly and that signaled her discomfort in discussing global affairs.
Then, asked this week by Couric to discuss her knowledge of foreign relations - in particular, her assertion that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her international experience - Palin tripped herself up explaining her interactions with Alaska’s neighbor to the west. Watch CBS Videos Online
On the economy, too, Palin has avoided taking clear stances. In a largely friendly interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, Palin spoke in tangled generalities in response to a question about a possible Wall Street bailout - and even preempted her campaign by coming out against it.
On Thursday, Palin finally took questions from her traveling press - but shut things down quickly after Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel asked her whether she would support Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who has been indicted for corruption, and Rep. Don Young, who is under federal investigation, for reelection.
Unlike her other interviews, at least this time Palin had the option to walk away.
Conservatives Admit Palin is Shaky, but Fox Hides the Evidence
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Top Two Reasons Letterman Is Peeved at McCain
In my opinion, David Letterman is venting his ego here. Scheduled to attend Letterman's show, Senator John McCain canceled at the last minute, telling Letterman's people that he was suspending his campaign to "race to the airport" so that he could get to D.C.
After glowing praise of McCain's POW courage, Letterman lays into Senator McCain for not acting like the McCain he knows. It would never occur to Letterman that someone would completely strand him to attend to a “national crisis” instead.
BUT perhaps Letterman is justified in his anger. If John McCain is suspending his campaign, why did he do an interview with Katie Couric at the exact time he was scheduled to go on Letterman?
Also, why COULDN’T Sarah Palin continue to run the campaign? I’m sorry, but it’s pretty obvious that even John McCain’s people don’t trust her to go unscripted (a claim that could arguably be made about Obama, by the way). McCain's people have been hiding Palin from the media like nuns hiding the pregnant girl at a convent.
Top Two Reasons Letterman Is Peeved at McCain
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A Contest for You! Who Tops McCain's Roll in the Pig Muck?
First, McCain's campaign says Senator Obama made a sexist attack against Sarah Palin ("lipstick on a pig") when it's clear from the video that Obama was talking about McCain himself.
Now this...
Senator McCain accuses Barack Obama of voting to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners "before they're even taught to read." GASP! How deplorable. Here's the problem. The bill in question allowed school teachers to teach "age appropriate" sex education information so that children could learn enough to protect themselves from sexual predators.
I've been in and around politics for a long time, and I've seen some pretty disgusting stuff, but man, this is the worst distortion of a position I think I've seen. Ever. There are people like me who hated the obvious racial overtones of the Willie Horton ad, but nobody could say it wasn't factually accurate, even if the implications were off. Horton was furloughed, and he DID kill somebody.
But here...the ad is just not true in fact or in its implication. McCain's campaign just lost ALL of its credibility about misleading ads. (Or should I say they gained tremendous credibility to speak on the subjct because they clearly know how to make them!?!?)
Here's Newsweek's Joe Klein ripping on the McCain ad:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/apology_not_accepted.html
I'm interested in compiling your top twelve picks for the vilest campaign distortions of all time. Post or drop me an e-mail at cjworden17@hotmail.com, and I'll post the "Dirty Dozen" soon. I've said before that my all-time negative "ad" was actually a yard sign. All it had was the candidate's name, and underneath that name it read: "No Morals!"
A Contest for You! Who Tops McCain's Roll in the Pig Muck?
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Palin Laughs at the "B" Word?
Oh, yeah. She'll make women proud!
Sarah Palin was on an Alaskan Bob and Tom-type radio show last year (actually named "Bob and Mark"), and one of the hosts called one of her political opponents, Lyda Green, who actually survived cancer, "a cancer" and a "bitch."
In the moment, Palin laughs at least twice. Maybe she was just giggling because she's nervous, and she has never heard anybody say the "b" word in public. But instead of collecting herself and suggesting to the radio hosts that their remarks were inappropriate, she subsequently tells them she'd be honored to have them sit with her during her State of the State address.
Palin's critics called the appearance "conduct unbecoming a Governor." I'll just leave it at evidence that she either has a pandering streak or a vicious streak. If it's the latter, the McSame ticket is truly complete. Palin will give us four more years of Cheney.
Palin Laughs at the "B" Word?
Monday, September 1, 2008
Grandma Palin Has Some Explaining To Do
John McCain's VP pick, Governor Sarah Palin, has a pregnant, seventeen-year-old daughter.
Since this story broke, the conservatorati has attempted to blunt legitimate policy inquiries by calling this storyline "sordid," "lurid," and "unseemly." My witty retort: why?
If anything, the specifics of how this happened have major ramifications for every teen and pre-teen in America.
Let's start with abstinence-only education, which John McCain favors. In an Eagle Forum questionnaire, Governor Palin was asked the following question:
Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
Her reply? "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."
Is this the approach Governor Palin took with her own daughter? To say nothing "explicit?" If so, it's pretty clear that Governor Palin's personal AND state policy is ridiculously flawed, isn't it? (Seriously, is Governor Palin one of those mothers who handed her daughter a health book and religious pamphlet when her daughter asked her questions about sex? Did she tell her masturbation would make her blind? We don't know. And, yet, Republicans will take the leap of faith that she can tell the American people "the truth" should she become president?!?
And, of course, we can't ask her daughter questions that would probably reveal she knew about contraception from her friends and television but didn't get any from Planned Parenthood or at the drug store because she was afraid of how it would affect her right-wing Republican Governor mother should someone engage in a "unseemly smear campaign" about how little Palin doesn't practice what her own mother preaches to the citizenship of Alaska, not just her own family.
That would be very telling, indeed. But we can't ask these questions because politicians badger the media for badgering the families of politicians. Normally, I would say, "No doubt. Leave that subject alone."
But Governor Palin didn't. She could have issued a simple statement saying, "My daughter is pregnant. Respect her privacy. We will have no further comment." Instead, she kowtowed to conservatives by playing up that (a) her daughter is making a "life affirming" decision to not have an abortion; and (b) her daughter is doing the morally responsible (a/k/a "politically expedient") thing by getting married.
My point is that politicians who want us to "respect their families' privacy" don't get to open the door for their own purposes and then shut it at their leisure. And, unlike generally irrelevant questions about family members, such as, "Governor Bush, how many times have your kids been arrested," "President Bush, how many times have your girls been drunk in public," or "President Clinton, how many times have you cheated on your wife," questions around this incident have actual policy repercussions. We have a living, breathing case study on teenage pregnancy right in front of us, and, at a minimum, we should be entitled to ask Governor Palin how her daughter's pregnancy has influenced her thinking on abstinence-only education.
Since these crazy kids have no chance of making it (with the teenage shotgun wedding success rate being surprisingly low), we should probably also be able to ask Governor Palin her thoughts about reinstituting "fault-based" requirements for divorce, which is being pushed by many evangelical Republicans.
And how many times in the past few years have we heard evangelical Republicans advocate the use of shame in teenage pregnancy and divorce as a tool to decrease the incidence of both? (I will have some surprising comments on this in an upcoming post).
Yet, here we have Mom and teen, in a loving public embrace of support and warmth, almost bordering on excitement over teenage pregnancy. YIPPEEE!!!
The hypocrisy is staggering, folks, until you realize that many evangelical Republicans only want to condemn people who aren't them or who don't look like them.
At least Senator Obama told fathers in the African-American community to take their parental roles seriously.
Who will be the first evangelical to call out Sarah Palin for not shaking her finger publicly at her daughter and sending a message of condemnation over this immoral conduct? I'm waiting.
Grandma Palin Has Some Explaining To Do
