Liam

Can anyone tell me why Todd Palin inserted himself into a state matter in the first place? I can understand wanting to be on your sister-in-law's side, but that doesn't give him the right to be a participant in official state business. Does this strike anyone else as a bit Imelda Marcos-like: the spouse getting involved in a state matter and "leaning" on certain government employees?

Your point is clear, but what you fail to understand is that there is an equally high degree of elitism on the right: the prevailing belief (especially so among the icons of the right, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, Graham, Buchanan, etc.) that those on the right are not only intellectually superior but also morally superior to everyone else. They march with God, afterall. How much more elitist and exclusionary could you get?? I have never heard anyone on the left say that someone who votes a certain way is a moral defective (in the theological sense). I have never heard anyone on the left call for Catholic priests to deny Rudy Giuliani communion at Catholic masses. The elitism of the right is of the Larry the Cable Guy variety. It puts on a down-home accent before it starts dishing out the put-downs. Just listen to talk radio for two minutes and tell me this isn't true. It's as condescending and insulting as anything the left can conjure up.

Don't get too far ahead of yourself -- the election is still seven weeks away and, if the past few days have been any indication about the state of the race and which team is better positioned to address the issues, McCain and Palin may find themselves with plenty of free time to field dressing moose starting November 5th. http://www.gallup.com/poll/110473/Gallup-D...-McCain-44.aspx

And anyone who runs on "Christian values" is similarly engaging in identity politics. The GOP's been doing it for decades.

I think your response identifies the point at which our opinions diverge. I do not disagree that Obama is perhaps the least "experienced" person the Dems have nominated, certainly in chronological terms, but I think any attempt to compare Palin's kind of experience and Obama's is a false comparison. I honestly don't think you can point to two individuals, even with identical terms of service, and say that they are equally experienced. I don't think you can even point to someone who has been in a job for 20 years and say he's more experienced than someone who's been there for 10. One could have been killing time while the other was absorbing detail, nuance, developing ideas, etc. I'm not saying Palin was killing time, but I think in the rough and tumble world of Chicago and Illinois politics and then a few years in the Senate and on Senate committees followed up with a masterful race against the biggest brand name in US politics, Obama has a much higher experience level. In addition, he has been exposed to politics and policy on a much broader spectrum and has shown not only a greater mastery of them but an infintely greater interest in them. She has not. (She only knew about the surge by hearing about it on the news and when asked her opinion, she offered an opinion directly opposite that of McCain's.) His experience level (and certainly the quality of his experience in those areas) is greater than hers by leaps and bounds. You can't even compare the two. (As an aside, let's face it, Alaska is a podunk state and she was governor for 18 months when selected. Her greatest accomplishment was "standing up to the old boys' network" and taking credit for a gas pipeline that was largely in the bag of voter support by the time she was sworn in. And, contrary to her campaign trail "claims" (euphemism for "lies") that her work on the pipeline is making America more energy independent, the pipeline has not even been submitted to the federal government for environmental approval yet. Yes, her biggest accomplishment hasn't even entered the application phase.) I would submit, and again this is purely my opinion, that Obama's experiences have shown that he has developed a greater depth of certain qualities needed in leaders and that he has honed greater skills that make him the better choice. Miles ahead of Palin. And nothing I've said about the relative experience levels of Obama and Palin diminishes my criticism of McCain's terrible and reckless lack of judgment.

Correct, Palin is not running for the presidency, at least not directly. The problem for the GOP is that McCain is. And according to McCain's judgment, Palin has what it takes to be the President. Sadly, as she has shown in the Gibson interviews, McCain's assessment of Palin is entirely without basis. *That* is the line of attack Dems ought to be taking with Palin. It's perfectly understandable that people can like Sarah Palin and I would never advocate a direct attack on her. She's ambitious, she's young, she's vibrant, she's pretty, she has a family and a devoted husband, she's charismatic. But she has not shown any qualities which put her in the realm of people who could be president. I don't say any of that to be critical of her -- she is who she is and she will undoubtedly be more qualified with more seasoning. But for McCain to insist that she is ready to not only steward the country, but that she is ready (right now) to be commander in chief material says to me that McCain utterly lacks judgment. I have no doubt that being president is a job that requires quite a bit of on-the-job training. But a president (or a wannabe) has to have at least a minimal interest in the subject matter of the job and the body of knowledge required of the position *prior* to taking it on as his or her next challenge. Palin just has never shown this depth. And she still does not show it. She could in a few years' time, but knowing she's only regurgitating taglines and talking points from her briefing sessions makes her neither capable nor informed. What is, though, possibly more troubling to me, is that Palin seems incapable of not knowing that it's okay to not know certain things. Her instinct seems to be to bluff, to fabricate, to substitute confidence for honesty or knowledge. (Hmm... what other national US leader does that sound like...??) If you were a philosophy hobbyist who never had much interest in gardening and you were suddenly asked to join a discussion on rose gardening, you'd be out of your league. That's who Sarah Palin is. She has never shown an interest in the subject she's now being asked to master and that we're being asked to believe she knows and can manage. I say this, again, not as a criticism of her, but of McCain's judgment that she's ready and fit to serve the highest office in the world. She is not. And it speaks volumes about his priorities (setting electoral interests above national interests). Conservatives are finally waking from their convention swoon. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8090202441.html They are finally starting to ask questions about Palin's readiness (and McCain's readiness, indirectly). The media is finally roousing itself from its torpor of the past two weeks (and ask *real* questions about McCain and Palin). I may end up wrong, but I expect things will start going a bit south for McCain and Palin in the coming weeks and the decision to have her as a running mate and the seriousness of the two candidates at the top of the ticket and the dignity of the two campaigns will end up being a very stark study in contrasts.

IOKIYR: It's OK If You're Republican -- the rules we apply to them are suspended when applied back to us

post deleted

That's an entirely valid point, I won't argue that at all. But we still need to know (not about this poor guy, but about her and/or Todd.

My rejoinder of "and if it turns out to be true?" was not a justification for posing a hypothetical -- which it wasn't -- rather it was questioning the other poster if it still qualified as character assassination if it was true. It is rather curious, though, that Todd Palin's business partner should *suddenly* have his attorney race to court to have his divorce decree sealed. Now, I'm not saying he and Sarah Palin had an affair, but obviously there's something in there he doesn't want made known and whatever it is only became a major issue after she became the VP nominee. Unrelated events? Maybe. But I'd rather find out what than accept the "nothing to see here, folks" cone of silence the campaign has put around Palin.

<<The Nixon Youth's lesson is that military power is best used with clear objectives, against identifiable enemies, and not in half-way measures when necessary.>> No, the Nixon Youth (Bush, Cheney, Perle) did NOT learn its Vietnam lesson any more than the Abby Hoffmans and Susan Sarandons.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...4511&page=1

And if it turns out to be true?

So, I just read that Todd Palin's former business partner raced off to court yesterday to get his divorce papers sealed. What's that about...?

You are right, but that's a lesson the hippies need to take away from Vietnam. The Nixon Youth's lesson is that military power is best used with clear objectives, against identifiable enemies, and not in half-way measures when necessary. The dialogue that persists between the likes of the Cindy Sheehans on one side and the Richard Perles on the other tells me that neither group has learned from Vietnam and that's why I think we need to move beyond that generation's obsessions.

Maybe the savings will come from curtailing Cindy's wardrobe choices? (snark) http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/...000-outfit.html

Not entirely true. Remember deficit clocks during the Reagan years? Deficit spending became necessary when Reagan cut taxes and was the way government fed itself. Bush I wasn't all that good at balancing budgets, either (and he had to go back on his no new taxes pledge). Bush II is simply hopeless. The only era of halfway decent deficit and budget management since the 70's was under Bill Clinton. I don't give him credit, I give credit to the fact that government was divided and there were balances in place.

I was probably still a bit groggy ths morning when I posted about McCain's speech. One thing I failed to mention is that I think it was designed to speak to people outside the arena and, in that regard, it may be viewed as more successful than I seemed to give it credit earlier. I don't think it will be considered the most memorable speech of the convention by a long shot, but it might help McCain a bit with moderates and independents. I suspect there may be a danger looming on the horizon for McCain, and the reaction of the crowd last night tipped me off to this. I didn't get the impression that people in the audience, the inner members of the GOP, were all that happy to be told they abused the public's trust. I think some of them, while feeling better about the GOP ticket's prospects in November, are probably back to being a little concerned that McCain might not be one of them and that, if elected, might actually try to compromise or seek middle ground on issues that are most dear to them. You could tell that some of the lines in the speech fell flat, and not only because of its delivery but because of content and implication. I don't think the right will trust McCain to deliver on the issues that are most important to them (abortion, gay marriage, creationism, etc.) and I know they think they've been shown the back of the bus before. Palin goes a long way in closing that trust gap, but the campaign is going to need to tone down Palin's out-of-the-middle views or at least de-emphasize them in order to appeal to the middle. I think there's a strong possibility that the right wingers will want Palin to be the voice of the campaign and will not sit back and stay quiet if she is muzzled.

One reason I wanted Hillary to fall short in the primaries was that she would have been an emblem of the Vietnam era, particularly if McCain was going to be the GOP nominee. And part of me wants to see McCain ride into the sunset for the same reason. Maybe it's that I'm a post-boomer, but I can't help but think how nasty, divisive and polarizing the boomer generation of politicians are (Bill Clinton, Hillary, Gingrich, DeLay, Giuliani, Gore, Kerry, Bush, Rove, Cheney, Pelosi) and I think much of the root of that problem is Vietnam. The boomer generation of politicians still hear the echoes of Vietnam in almost every issue relating to national defense and I think they're still fighting at the campus barricades a bit too much. They have to let it go, but if they won't (and I don't think they will), the only way of moving to a new era is to finally put the old soldiers of the Vietnam homefront battles out to pasture.

Thoughts on McCain's speech: - I was completely underwhelmed. he was never going to win on style points (not against Obama, Biden and Palin), but this speech sounded more like a career-end valedictory than someone who needs push the country forward into a new century. Whoever was managing the visuals behind McCain should never work in that town again. I know the large screen showed fields of grass, but on close-up, all we saw on TV was that damn green background behind McCain again. It made him look old and washed out. - Seeking bipartisanship is a noble objective and I wish there was more of it. That was good. His acknowledgment of Obama was decent of him. McCain showed that there might still be a decent man inside the Bush shill he became over the past 8 years. What I feel for McCain is akin to what I felt about Dole: a decent senior statesmen who is better and more reasonable than the young pups of his party but, sadly, a voice from the past who won't win "tomorrow" for voters. - McCain's wartime biography was about the only interesting thing in the speech. The rest was shockingly dull, poorly delivered, clumsy and awkward sounding. He talked through some applause lines and got no applause in some spots. - It's clear that McCain has an enormous job cut out for himself if he thinks he is going to refocus the GOP from being the quasi-religious entity it is to going back to Reaganite basics. The crowd simply did not get on board with some of his declarations (e.g., acknowledging that his own party played a role in the massive expansion of government under Bush -- you could almost hear the crickets). The loudest applause came for a shout out to Palin and for insistence that we drill oil wells everywhere. Perhaps the only way for the GOP to sit back and retool is to lose and lose big. I don't see how continued success will allow them to see how far they've gone from being a mostly secular party that believed in individual responsibility and little government intervention to being a party with religious orthodoxy requirements and a paternalistic view of government meddling into individuals' private lives. The crowd in the hall represented the latter. - Job training? I didn't know what the heck that meant when Clinton said it in 1992 and I sure don't understand why the GOP would have gone down that path. It sounds like either an expansion of government handouts or a continuation of some Bush-like compassionate conservative claptrap. he shouldn't have gone there. The crowd didn't like it. - Barely a mention of W. McCain only referred to him by title, not by name, and then intimated that he played a big part in leading the party astray. Very true, but Ouch.

Oh, gawd, would you all get off the Palin mommy-track discussion? It is so irrelevant.

The Detroit Free Press conducted a focus group of Michigan voters who watched the Palin speech. 3 Dems, 2 Repubs, 5 Independents. The only positive comments came from the R's, 1 D was neutral, 2 D's and all five I's were negative on Palin's speech. I think the speech was designed to only appeal to people who weren't going to vote for Obama anyhow, which is fine if that's the approach they want to take. If this particular focus group is representative of the wider political audience, it seems that a similar approach will only end up turning off those in the middle: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...NEWS15/80904002

You claim Obama said something he never said. Your own response acknowledges that you lied by making the claim.

When did Obama say this? Link? The only criticism of Palin that came from the Obama camp (and not from Obama himself) was when a staffer released a statement last Friday critical of McCain's choice saying that as the mayor of a town of 9000 she didn't have any foreign policy experience (which is a fact). The release was withdrawn right after it was issued. Obama, himself, has not said a thing about Palin that I'm aware of which should cast her job as a town mayor as insulting. To my knowledge, he neversaid anything about mayors not having responsibilities or gaining experience. If you have links to statements where he belittled the role of public servants like city mayors, I'd be interested to see them. Can you provide those links?

I think the main difference between the parties's conventions is that the GOP puts on its mask on the stage, whereas the Dems put on the mask out in the audience. Let's just dispell the notion that the GOP is widely diverse. It is mostly a white, Christian, middle aged, suburban/ex-urban/rural party. There may be the occasional Asian woman or Pakistani man seen in the crowd, but the audience at GOP conventions is a fairly accurate representation of who they are out in the real world. The podium, however, is where the GOP plays to the cameras by highlighting anyone and everyone who isn't a southern, white, Anglo Protestant male. The Democrats, on the other hand, have all these ridiculous quotas they fill when selecting delegates: 50% have to be women, x% have to be black, y% have to be Latinos, etc. As a result, the audience appears much more disparate minority groups than the actual voter registration rolls. The Dems' podium speaker are much more representative of the party's actual makeup.