MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland


After almost 200 comments on my hastily written Sarah Palin entry yesterday – I was on a plane, saw her speech on DirecTV just before take-off and posted – I thought I would start fresh with a new entry.
The most fascinating thing about the story, to me, was that the whole thing turned in less than 12 hours.. maybe less. Those on the right want to attribute this to the left-wing media, but the real culprit is John McCain. The only thing left to know about Governor Palin by Wednesday will be anything that the Alaska media was too afraid to report. There is nothing good about this person that is going to be lingering beneath the very light bushel of her public career.
In the comments on the earlier post were the expected accusations of fear driving the smart ass response to Palin. Sorry. Any fears I harbored were relieved by her “Meet Your Surprise Choice” speech. She seemed very bright, attractive… and way out of her depth. Think Ben Lyons.
The talking points for a clearly surprised GOP base were “maverick, pro-green, executive office, female.”
Sadly for the Republicans, the “maverick” tag went out the window before the details even started piling up… the far right part of the party was “overjoyed” by the choice. In other words, she takes McCain farther to the right, not to the center, where he once was, and has given up completely during the election cycle to shore up the GOP “base.” And he really did shore that up. And in the process cut his odds to win from the 57/43 area he was working and improving slowly on (at least before the DNC Convention) to something more like 60/40, reflecting the choice to go with one of the few women who could motivate disgruntled Hillary voters not just to vote Obama, but to campaign for him.
Not only is Palin anti-choice/anti-Roe v Wade, but she is a gun-loving, animal-killing, pro-refuge-drilling, newly minted careerist.
Some brought up my mention of her Down Syndrome newborn as a form of sexism. Uh, bull. I would have brought up the same issue had any male candidate from a small place more than 4000 miles from Washington DC decided that it was more important to be VP than to deal with the very real challenges of supporting the family with a newborn, who also happens to be a special needs kid. There is a reason we have not seen many toddlers, much less infants, in the White House ever.
When Jackie Kennedy had her young children in the White House, things were very different. Men were not expected to participate in the hands-on day-to-day of the family and women were not expected to participate as much more than goodwill ambassadors now and then.
God bless Governor Palin and her likely unexpected pregnancy six months into her new job and her choice, based on her faith, to keep the child. I have no opinion that matters in any way about that. But what does it say about a person that they so arrogantly think that jumping at the chance to be second-in-commander-in-chief of this nation makes sense for their family when having a baby in the house is overwhelming to working parents who carry nowhere near that level of responsibility? Male or female, the issue is the baby that they chose to have, not which parent is giving up most of their responsibility in parenting it.
The other sexism issue that’s been thrown out there is the “beauty queen” stuff, which I had not mentioned. The problem is that with a paper-thin resume of a politician who was an out-of-nowhere winner in the only major job she’s had, in Alaska, “beauty queen” will stand out as much as Mayor of Town Smaller Than Most Major State Universities and… is there anything else?
First person who mentions the PTA gets smacked.
What was most interesting to me about the comments on the last entry were that the detailing was so intense that people – especially those trying to sell the idea that she was a good choice – seemed to be missing the forest for the trees.
The comparisons to Dan Qualye don’t fly, since Bush 1 was the incumbent VP when Potatoe-Man was chosen. Unless you want to parse percentages of poll inaccuracies, Obama is still ahead in most polling, especially state-by-state. McCain is not the front-runner. So the wildcard choice is much more problematic.
My more complex take on the choice, however, is that if Palin turns out to be interesting, it is way too late to be bringing her on board right now. Had McCain decided to go Govs Gone Wild back in May, say, there would have been time to deal with all the public vetting of Palin and for her to start to build a real image. However you want to game her experience vs Obama’s, Obama was not an unknown national figure going into this election. And many people are still working to get comfortable with him after a year of electioneering. We saw that in the late primaries in which Clinton used her familiarity to smack Obama in states that were whiter, older, and poorer than other states which had gone for Obama. Palin has 2 months to take her beating and to build a real constituency. She would have to be one of the all-time greats pols to turn that trick. A real savant. And there is no indication that she is. She might have been an interesting choice, but we will never really get to know her. There just isn’t enough time.
We don’t even have to get into her suggesting that Hillary Clinton was “whining” about how she was treated in the media… or the rumors in Alaska… or what she has actually done in 20 months in Alaska… or whether her first big claim of stopping the “bridge to nowhere” was an outright lie (“Asked if she was in favor of continuing state funding for the project. ‘Yes,’ she responded, noting specifically her desire to renew Congressional support. ‘Yes. I would like to see Alaska

Be Sociable, Share!

146 Responses to “Im-Palin”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    What I find most interesting are the reports that McCain made his decision at the last minute, on Thursday, after he realized that he couldn’t get away with choosing his first choice, Lieberman, or Tom Ridge, for fear of The Base; and apparently his revulsion of Romney was great enough to justify the Hail Mary.
    It may or may not be a ‘brilliant’ Hail Mary, that we won’t know until November, although I’m already starting to see less ‘Quayle’ online and more ‘Eagleton’.

  2. pdxfilmfan says:

    I completely agree that this decision speaks volumes about Senator McCain and his judgment and leadership style.
    I respect Governor Palin, her record of service and her commitment to her family. However the list of issues/concerns with her candidacy is HUGE:
    1. “Troopergate” (she will be deposed in October – how did the McCain camp miss that?!)
    2. Leading Alaskan Republicans question her fitness for the role of VP (“She’s old enough. She’s a U.S. Citizen.”)
    3. She has NO foreign policy experience (during an election cycle when the U.S. is at war)
    4. She’s supposed to appeal to disaffected Clinton voters, but shares none of the social values the majority of that population holds. Several women I’ve spoken with are offended by the selection.
    The list goes on. My concern is that the MSM does not yet seem to want to press Governor Palin and Senator McCain for information on her fitness for the role. There are legitimate concerns and questions about Governor Palin. Yet the media doesn’t seem to be pressing for clarification on key issues (most major news outlets seem to focus solely on the positive spin of this selection).
    Senator McCain clearly didn’t vet his selection (as referenced in several news reports). The MSM should be helping American voters vet Governor Palin to determine her fitness for the office (as they should push Senator Biden on difficult issues). This is a serious role (even though Governor Palin doesn’t seem to know what the role entails – “What does a VP do?”). It is neither unfair nor sexist for the press to ask these difficult questions.

  3. CloudsWithoutWater says:

    Well, let’s take bets right now, then.
    Who will make more foolish mistakes between now and the election, Biden or Palin?

  4. mysteryperfecta says:

    The linchpin of the election is still experience. For the GOP to take advantage, you need to go no further than the top of the Dem ticket. For the Dems to bring it up, you have to make allusions to McCain being old and dying. Legitimate, but sticky territory.
    Mobilizing the base is incredibly important. It has helped Obama immensely. Perhaps McCain noticed. Money is raised and the political machine is run by your grassroots.
    What the nearly 200-comment “Crazy Old” blog entry proves is that David Poland’s credibility is waning. There was a lot of pushback from people on both sides of the political aisle that continue to balk at DP’s arrogant proclamations. There was reasoned discourse from libs and cons in that blog entry; DP’s contribution doesn’t qualify.

  5. sky_capitan says:

    Remember in the Super Bowl earlier this year when those undefeated New England Patriots were playing the [laughs] New York Giants? Tom Brady VS. Eli Manning?? Bill Belichick VS Tom Coughlin???
    McCain choosing Palin may be the equivalent of Eli Manning’s pass to David Tyree in the final 2 minutes of the Superbowl. It shouldn’t of worked, but it did.
    You don’t know who will win until the game is played.
    Having a “special needs” child is only going to make Palin more sympathetic, by the way. I can’t see many liberals saying “she can’t handle having a child with down’s syndrome AND be vice-president at the same time!!”

  6. Alan Cerny says:

    DP, that was probably the best argument against Palin that I’ve read in the past couple of days. Kudos.
    Seriously, to the right – you have failed completely in explaining why John McCain should be the President, and talking a positive argument in your favor. And now, people are trying to justify this choice with some of the strangest arguments I’ve ever read. The PTA qualifies you for the presidency? Really?
    Never mind about Troopergate. That actually doesn’t bother me too much (although I’m not deflating its importance). What bothers me is her real lack of experience. People are trotting out that she has more executive experience than all the candidates. Please, be serious. I’ll hold the legislative experience of Obama over the 2 years she had running a state with a population smaller than the very streets of Chicago that Obama worked in his younger days. She’s in Big Oil’s pocket as well.
    I’m actually a little angry that McCain wants to throw away this selection like this. If he had picked Kay Bailey Hutchinson, he may have gotten a little rough treatment from the base but no one would argue that she wouldn’t be qualified. I don’t much like her, but being from Texas I think she’s represented the state rather well, all personal feelings aside. And where’s the base going to go, anyway? Bob Barr? Please. McCain is terrified those people are going to abandon him, but, like the Hillary contingent, there really isn’t any place for them to go.
    And if the attacks against Palin get the GOP to claim sexism, well, that’s easily solved. Once Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the Democratic women in Congress start going after her – and they will, it’s going to get personal reeeal quick if the GOP tries the sexism angle – she simply won’t have the experience of handling this on this much larger stage than Alaska.
    Say what you will about Biden, but you know from the pick that this was a choice that Obama didn’t make from the hip. The choice of Palin smacks of desperation. If the GOP candidate were younger, and without a record of health problems that McCain had, Palin would actually feel like a bold choice, a signal that the Republican Party really is moving into a new generation. But instead, it feels dangerous to me. Not in a good way.

  7. mysteryperfecta says:

    “What I find most interesting are the reports that McCain made his decision at the last minute, on Thursday, after he realized that he couldn’t get away with choosing his first choice, Lieberman, or Tom Ridge, for fear of The Base; and apparently his revulsion of Romney was great enough to justify the Hail Mary.”
    What reports? What source? The Washington Post has an article (reprinted in my local paper today) entitled “Aides: It was Palin all along” that says McCain met privately twice in one day last February, and that she made a big impression on him. And in direct opposition to your assertion, it says, “Far from being a last-minute tactical move or a second choice when better known alternatives were eliminated, Palin was very much in McCain’s thinking from the beginning of the selection process”

  8. mutinyco says:

    Of course they’re going to say that. It sounds better.
    I would think, based on pretty obvious observation, that had she been a serious contender all along, the choice wouldn’t have been such a surprise.

  9. Joe Leydon says:

    In all fairness, Mutiny: As far back as last May, some folks already were talking her up as a serious VP possibility.

  10. mutinyco says:

    Right next to Colin Powell…

  11. christian says:

    The biggest pimp for Palin over the past year?
    Rush Limbaugh.
    So to shore up GOP support, McCain lets a thrice-divorced sex-tourist junkie help pick the VP.

  12. Joe Leydon says:

    OK, Doug R, I can’t top that. I merely wanted to point out that some conservatives are doubting Palin’s qualifications:

  13. Citizen R says:

    Social conservatism kills the GOP national ticket in states like California and New York, but it’s a net plus in western and mid-western swing states. The Democrats have learned this – its why they step so gingerly on abortion, guns, and gay marriage, throwing up a cloak of moderation even when the reality of their positions is more liberal (such as in Obama’s case). Palin will be effective in going into states like Michigan and going after Obama on social issues.

    Palin is indeed a candidate who greatly boosts enthusiasm for the ticket from the conservative base. That’s a good thing. That’s something McCain needed. Saying the conservative base had nowhere else to go misses the point that intensity of support and maximizing base turnout is very important.

    McCain picking her for the ticket signals that he’s going to run on an appeal as a maverick reform ticket. Obviously the Democrats will push their counter-narrative of “more of the same” – we’ll see which narrative wins out.

    As for Palin’s experience and record of accomplishment – she ran for governor against an incumbent in the primary and then against a popular former governor in the general and beat them both. She did this as an outsider running against her own party’s establishment. Once in office she took on that establishment to clean up the rampant corruption that had snaked its way into the Alaska GOP.

    I realize Obamaniacs will scoff, but her record of actual accomplishment in office is better than Obama’s. Obama had served less than 150 days in session in the Senate before launching his presidential run, and he’s been consumed pretty much full-time with that bid since. His legislative record is exceedingly thin, with his supposed great bi-partisanship consisting of a couple of bills that were so uncontroversial that they passed the Senate unanimously. He has never shown any bravery in breaking with his party, and he certainly never stood up to the corrupt Democratic political machine in Chicago – to the contrary, he’s a product of it.

    Anyway, a debate on who’s less qualified – the GOP veep pick or the Dem presidential nominee – is hardly helpful to Obama. And every time the experience issue comes up in regard to Palin it bounces back to Obama.

    Quayle as Potatoe-Man? I guess that makes Obama 57-state Man.

  14. christian says:

    So Citizen R, you’re saying McCain was against “experience” before he was for it? Does that really help sell Palin? She appeals to the GOP base. Period.

  15. Martin S says:

    Dave – I agree with the time-table problem. If the newscycle spin out of control, she’s in trouble. Very true. As for…
    Hailmary – She was a contender until the Ted Stevens indictment, I’m sorry you were never aware of that. She was a top ten from the beginning. Then Stevens, coupled with the firing issue, came up and the media wrote her off including the conservative voices who initially backed her. The surprise is that he went back to her after being fully aware of the firing, since that made the Republican media rounds quite heavily.
    You define McCain’s “maverick” streak as meaning “going left”. Has it dawned on you that he’s a contrarian at heart and those instincts have served him well. Why would a maverick move to the middle when that’s the conventional wisdom? Everything changed for him when he realized the MSM, the group he declared his base in 2000, abandoned him for The Obama. He never thought it would happen, just as the MSM never thought he would play with the hard right.
    As for the choices put out by the MSM, McCain’s camp has head-faked the press on so many different accounts, no one knows who was really on top. Do I think she was, no, but Ridge and Hutchinson were bluffs. As for Lieberman, that was DOA when Graham F’d up the energy argument by agreeing to that bi-partisan bill. Pawlenty seems to have been the only consistent name.
    Quayle – I haven’t read or heard that as a pro-Palin reference, only as a derogatory. It’s a straw man.
    Right v Center – No one expected McCain to hold in the national polls as well as he had, because trends say Dem and McCain didn’t have deep support in the right. I would say he’s shored that up. Obama attempted a similar thing with Biden, – shore up older white Dems – yet you’re never going to admit that. Hell, you can’t admit Saddleback made Obama look terrible. You blamed people’s perceptions for not appreciating nuance.
    The question becomes – does she turn off more than she brings in? Years ago you could count on the MSM to do that for you, but not now. Clinton played the sexism card on the media, McCain publicly called NBC out, so CNN and the networks are going to be careful as to how they handle her. You count on OBAMSNBC to throttle her, but that’s a circle jerk. So she’s going to have to do herself in. Is that possible? Yeah. But she has to do it. Just like Biden will have to do himself in.
    And if you can’t see how Biden can do that, then grab the pom-poms. Biden’s strength is all foreign policy, an attempt to say he’s “McCain for the Dems”. That’s debate fodder. But as I said earlier, if Biden goes after McCain, you’ve got perception problems abound. How many times will we hear “Biden seems to be acting like he’s the top-of-the-ticket”, before Obama has to show his “strength” on foreign policy. Plus, if Palin doesn’t come across like you hope, want and need, what’s Biden’s argument? 35 years in the Senate? A decade more than McCain? Doesn’t that damage the “change from the outside” mantra as much as Palin hits the “experience” charge?

  16. Citizen R says:

    Yes, Christian, there is inconsistency in McCain making hay over experience and then picking Palin – just as there’s inconsistency in Obama running on change, railing against lobbyists, portraying Hillary Clinton’s vote for the war as evidence of poor judgment, and then picking Biden. That’s politics for you.

  17. mutinyco says:

    Everything else aside…
    I think McCain’s problem with Palin is that he was trying to do too much at once. He was trying to win over Hillary’s women voters and also energize the GOP base. Ultimately, he’ll only get the latter.
    And that’s a problem. Because McCain’s strong point was always with those in the middle, and his weak was the conservatives — whereas Obama had a strong base and was trying to convince the middle.
    I think McCain just forfeited a slice of the middle to strengthen his base, while Obama is gaining in the middle.

  18. I’m gonna go on record and say Palin would probably start using birt control if she got into the White House. I’m pretty sure she knows taat having a kid on the job would not be good.

  19. mutinyco says:

    Great question to ask her in the debate.

  20. Citizen R says:

    Actually, there are few questions that would be dumber to ask her in the debate.

  21. martin says:

    There’s not a single good thing I can say about the Republican ticket, and a very small number of nice things to say about the Dems. It’s a product of our dull culture that people are taking this election seriously. If it was a parody movie, I’d find it hard to believe. The fact of the matter is that they’re shoving the worst shit in our faces and telling us we have to eat it, and even worse, like it.

  22. mutinyco says:

    Not in the least. It’s sort of her equivalent to Dukakis being asked whether he’d seek the death penalty if Kitty was raped and murdered. It’s a jugular question.

  23. Citizen R says:

    It would be a question she could easily smack out of the stadium – as the question to Dukakis was. He just screwed up with an idiotic answer.

  24. mutinyco says:

    No, Dukakis answered what he believed. He was anti-death penalty. The question was a setup intended to receive a specific answer. Just as Lehrer asking Gore during a 2000 debate, after a week of the GOP accusing Gore of appearing pompous during the previous debate, to explain himself. The question was irrelevant, but it put him on the defensive and made him look bad.
    I wouldn’t expect her to hit it out of the ball park. I’d expect her to answer honestly. Her answer would resonate amongst her base — yet make her look unfit to everybody else.

  25. Tofu says:

    Hey, someone’s got to bring it up:

    OK, yeah, not her baby. Does she think we’re all blind or something? The airplane thing cemented it.

  26. Citizen R says:

    Dukakis’s answer was idiotic because he answered a question framed in such an emotive way in such a cold manner. He could have scored in his answer by saying something like, “I would of course be devastated if something like that happened, but the death penalty is morally wrong no matter how much it appeals to us emotionally.” Opposition to the death penalty was a political loser for him, but he could have done damage control on the extent to which it was a loser. His cold answer to the question exacerbated the damage rather than contained it. Moreover, he could have done himself a lot of good if he’d bitch-slapped Bernie Shaw for phrasing the question like that.

    The question you think would be a good one to pose to Sarah Palin carries with it the suggestion that women of child-bearing age are somehow unfit to hold high office. I’d expect her to smack that out of the stadium. Really, there are a lot of obnoxious and sexist remarks being aimed at her by liberals and they seem unaware of how badly that’s going to play. Even in his more thoughtful post here Poland is still throwing out obnoxious, sexist remarks (Govs Gone Wild).

  27. christian says:

    The question that should be asked to Palin during the debate is “How can you tell a woman who’s been raped that she must have the baby?” Game over.

  28. Citizen R says:

    She already supports an exception for the life of the mother. I expect she’ll move to embracing exceptions for rape and incest, too, now that she’s on a national ticket. That’s the stance most national pro-life politicians in the GOP have.

  29. mutinyco says:

    That too. There are any number of ways to phrase the question.
    R, the question isn’t sexist. The question would be specifically directed to her. Because SHE’S the one who’s made it an issue. It’s her narrative — she’s extremely anti-abortion and to prove it, as governor, she just gave birth to a special-needs child. SHE made this an issue, and it’s absolutely fair game. The issue isn’t about women of a certain age being in public office. The question is about her beliefs.

  30. Citizen R says:

    To ask a woman if she’s planning to have any more children in a national debate is sexist, or at least a lot of people would see it that way. Anyway, I expect she may well mention in an interview that five is enough and she’s not planning on having more children – which would lay to rest any concerns some might have on that front.

  31. mutinyco says:

    The question isn’t whether she intends to have more children. It’s whether she, as an anti-abortion proponent, believes in birth control.

  32. Citizen R says:

    She’s strongly pro-life, but she’s not Catholic. There are forms of birth control that a Protestant pro-lifer can use in good conscience. And asking her in a national debate whether she’s going to use birth control would be incredibly obnoxious and would backfire on the questioner and rally support to her.

  33. mutinyco says:

    No it wouldn’t. Especially if a woman was moderating the debate.
    Like I said, it’s a question that would rally her base, but could make her look unfit to everybody else. That’s the point of the question.
    But then again, the question probably won’t get asked in the debate so it’s moot.

  34. brack says:

    The liberal pundits at MSNBC will admit Obama’s perceived weaknesses. Other networks, specifically Fox News and CNN, have these people on that just spew the exact same talking points that we’re used to, even calling her the “perfect” choice. Perfect, really?
    My favorite slip this week was David Gregory on Meet the Press this morning, who thinks people will find it “cool” that Palin flew on a plane after her water broke. That’s not cool, that’s irresponsible.

  35. Citizen R says:

    MSNBC’s liberals only bring up Obama’s perceived weaknesses to argue that the perception isn’t true. Their love for Obama exceeds even Poland’s. “A symphony” indeed.

  36. brack says:

    “MSNBC’s liberals only bring up Obama’s perceived weaknesses to argue that the perception isn’t true. Their love for Obama exceeds even Poland’s. “A symphony” indeed.”
    No, they actually talk about the polls, and come to conclusions based on those. They will attack false claims made by the right, why shouldn’t they?

  37. Citizen R says:

    Talk about the polls? Bring a shovel.

  38. brack says:

    ^^^ what is that supposed to mean? Look, it’s clear you really don’t watch MSNBC.

  39. brack says:

    Nevermind, Olbermann does say that. But thanks for not disputing anything about Faux news and the like.

  40. David Poland says:

    you use “love for Obama” like others have used his popularity and passionate support… like it’s something dark and unpleasant.
    This is, indeed, the first election cycle in which I have actually been enthusiastic about a presidential possibility (at least since John Anderson). People are excited. And that’s a good thing, not a bad one. You may disagree politically, but trying to piss on the Corn Flakes is a little pathetic.
    More over, Palin, suddenly being sold as always being an expected choice (talking point), seeks to be EXACTLY what whining Republicans cry about Obama being… young, popular, likable, winning.
    Agan… Palin’s

  41. Citizen R says:

    Bring a shovel: And if you think Palin’s possible problems – like her inexperience and whether that could undercut McCain’s attacks on Obama on experience – haven’t been brought up on Fox then you don’t watch a lot of Fox. And, yes, Fox does have an editorial leaning to the right. Just as MSNBC has an editorial leaning to the left, as many supposedly neutral news organs do. I’d prefer it if they were all upfront about their editorial positions.

  42. mutinyco says:

    This just in. As per that VP debate. Gwen Ifill is the moderator.

  43. brack says:

    “if you think Palin’s possible problems – like her inexperience and whether that could undercut McCain’s attacks on Obama on experience – haven’t been brought up on Fox then you don’t watch a lot of Fox.”
    Oh I make it a point to check out Fox to see how they’ll spin their arguments, it’s always fun to watch, but only for a few minutes, as it’s pretty much a network ran by the devil. Yeah Palin’s inexperience has been brought up, buy only by the very, very few democratic strategists on Fox, and usually they get shut down or belittled by the Fox news people. MSNBC has some of the most right-winged people you will ever see, and they’re ironically black. Joe Watkins is a great example of this. All he does is hit the talking points that are fed to Fox news and the like. I don’t have much respect for Fox news, which encouraged the nonsense that Obama is a Muslim, “terrorist fist bump?”, etc.

  44. brack says:

    “And, yes, Fox does have an editorial leaning to the right. Just as MSNBC has an editorial leaning to the left, as many supposedly neutral news organs do. I’d prefer it if they were all upfront about their editorial positions.”
    See, I can’t get behind this neutral-news-is-really-liberal nonsense. MSNBC isn’t the network that says they’re “fair and balanced.” But I’d say it’s way, way more fair and balanced than Fox news ever is.

  45. Citizen R says:

    Much of the support for Obama strikes me as a cult of personality that doesn’t match the reality of the man. So I’ll the leave the Corn Flakes swimming in piss on that score.

    Serving as a state senator and as a community organizer don’t mean much in terms of experience for national office – same goes for being a small town mayor, city council member, and PTA member. All of those positions give some understanding of issues of governance on a local level and/or the concerns of regular people, but other than that none of them are particularly relevant as experience.

    Anyway, my qualms about Obama actually aren’t so much rooted in how many years he’s served as they are in his judgment and record during those years and in this campaign. I have qualms about McCain, too, on some scores, and Palin has to prove herself as being up for the job.

    And, no, Palin wasn’t an expected choice at all since all of the buzz about the short list didn’t include her. But if you were plugged into conservative circles you would know that there was a lot of support for her to be on the ticket and that there was disappointment that she wasn’t on the short list. That’s not a talking point, it’s the truth of the situation. For example, National Review had an online poll on their website asking their readers who the veep pick should be and Palin came in second behind Romney and way ahead of any of the others. There’s not uniform support for her being on the ticket. There are dissenters – such as Charles Krauthammer – but she’s very popular amongst conservatives.

  46. Citizen R says:

    No, Fox anchors have brought up Palin’s inexperience as well – not just Democratic strategists. In my view Fox gives liberals the opportunity to put their views across more fairly than MSNBC does to conservatives. But we’re obviously not going to agree on that – eye of the beholder.

  47. brack says:

    From what I’ve seen and read, Palin was in the top 4 within the last week or two. I remember seeing the list, and thinking that if McCain doesn’t pick Romney (and I had my doubts, considering those two really don’t like each other), then he will probably pick her, as a way to stick it to Obama for passing over Hillary.
    I don’t give much credit to anything Krauthammer says, but every once in a while he’ll say something that makes some sense.

  48. David Poland says:

    Yes, CitizenR… and Hillary was the top pick for the most Dems, but was never even vetted. (This is the thing in which Palin is most like her.)
    You have decided that Obama is mythology. But the effort to tell everything who thinks otherwise that they don’t get to feel otherwise is when you cross over into BullshitLand.
    But you must know that if you can attack the man for his policy ideas that claiming he has none at the same time is simply false. I know that people who want to be against Obama like the lie more than the fact – or why not just fight the facts? – but it is as delusional as being against Palin simply because she once paraded herself in front of judges to win a beauty contest.
    Obama’s substance is not hard to find. If you don’t know his policy positions, you aren’t trying to find out about them.
    Palin’s? Where are they?
    And McCain’s? What day is it?

  49. christian says:

    Doesn’t that beauty queen thing make Palin something of a celebrity?

  50. brack says:

    “No, Fox anchors have brought up Palin’s inexperience as well – not just Democratic strategists. In my view Fox gives liberals the opportunity to put their views across more fairly than MSNBC does to conservatives. But we’re obviously not going to agree on that – eye of the beholder.”
    The difference is, the personalities on Fox, like Sean Hannity just gush over Palin and stick to the exact same talking points all the conservatives try to stick to. They have their formula for misleading down pat, and many fall for it. They actually think governing Alaska, a really small, isolated welfare state is equivocal to running a whole country. That’s just insanity.
    I know Fox news gives the very small number of Democrats chances to speak, but all you have to do is look at how they covered the DNC. Everyone from Fox looked and talked like they were being tortured for being there. I don’t think you’re going to find that sort of attitude from MSNBC, and that I think is the real difference between those two networks.

  51. Citizen R says:

    I didn’t say that Obama doesn’t have policy positions. He does. I said my problem with him is his judgment and record – and that he has an exceedingly thin record of actual accomplishments in the Senate, his claims to being a great bipartisan being particularly thin. That’s where the reality doesn’t match the mythology.

    “You have decided that Obama is mythology. But the effort to tell everything who thinks otherwise that they don’t get to feel otherwise is when you cross over into BullshitLand.”

    You’re being a hypocrite here. You’ve made your judgment about Palin and are obviously writing off those who support her as spinning or being delusional, so you can’t complain about others having that view of Obama and his supporters.

  52. brack says:

    “In my view Fox gives liberals the opportunity to put their views across more fairly than MSNBC does to conservatives.”
    This I found very interesting, and you’re right, I disagree. Look at guys like Joe Watkins or Brad Blakeman, who are on MSNBC almost daily, and are as conservative as it gets. They get to say what they want no matter how ridiculous, and no one cuts them off. MSNBC may question what they say, but it’s done so in a pretty level-headed way. It’s always the cons who cut other people off anyway. Now you take Fox, where BillO or Hannity and the like cut people off all the time, and get in this attack mode about whatever the “left” is talking about.

  53. Citizen R says:

    Olbermann is in full-time attack mode, and NBC/MSNBC use him as a co-anchor. At least O’Reilly and Hannity are clearly labeled as opinion pundits and aren’t used to anchor or co-anchor hard news. But discussions like this aren’t going to lead anywhere – the perspectives are just too different.

  54. Bart Smith says:

    My favorite part about this whole thing is how all these Republican mouthpieces who probably couldn’t have told you a single thing about Palin a week ago were all spewing out the same talking points by the end of Friday.
    – most popular governor in the United States
    – more executive experience at the bottom of the McCain ticket than at the top of Obama’s
    – stood up to corruption even going against her own party
    – successful juggled family and career
    You can pretty much guarantee that the McCain camp faxed everybody a Sarah Palin fact sheet.

  55. David Poland says:

    Citizen… Obama’s record and every one of his positions have been out there to see for over a year. That’s the fact.
    Palin’s positions, aside from Alaskan politics and conservative dogma did not exist a year ago and may or may not today… if they do, no one is pointing to them. That’s the fact.
    No hypocrisy needed.
    You keep talking about this as though there is an even playing field between yesterday’s big surprise and Obama running for over a year, being in the Senate for almost four years, and being in a major State Senate for eight years. There is not. Where was Sarah Palin 12 years ago? On the Wasila City Council.
    There may be great things to say about Palin… but her political/professional history is not in any way the same as Obama’s. I’m sure the University of Idaho is great… but is it equal to Harvard? And does pointing that fact out make me an elitist? I mean, really, man.

  56. IOIOIOI says:

    Look everyone: the daft conservatives have come back with witty retorts, that Heat smashed with the main post of this column. Seriously boys… grow up… and realize that your part of America is the part of America that gets us goofed on. Are you really proud of that fact?

  57. Citizen R says:

    There have been presidents who went to Harvard who screwed up in office and presidents who went to small state universities who rose to greatness – so I don’t put much stock in that point.

    Sarah Palin has been getting plaudits for her (admittedly short) time as governor in conservative circles ever since her election. If you don’t put stock in that, that’s fine, that’s your right. Just as it’s my right to look at Obama’s record of actual accomplishment (beyond speeches and position papers) as thin and something of a mirage, especially on bipartisanship.

  58. Citizen R says:

    Anyway, no one’s going to change their minds here. Sadly I have some weekend work to do, so be seeing you.

  59. jeffmcm says:

    This is the report I was referring to re: McCain picking Palin impulsively, at the last minute.
    No matter what you think of Obama’s experience, I think that by any reasonable standard you have to conclude that Palin has less experience. And, she’s something of a stealth candidate, in that we really don’t know her positions on a huge number of positions. If McCain gets elected and then dies, we’ll basically have an unknown in the Presidency.

  60. IOIOIOI says:

    Citizen R: it’s like this sir. You are not really supporting a quality candidate. He’s not a good man. The good man he was has been lost to year and year thanks to Keating Five, Enron Loopholes, and embracing the policies of the Bush administration. He’s a horrible candidate. He’s not even a man of honour anymore.
    So you are going to tell me that this guy is the guy for you? The guy who wants four more years the same as the last eight years? Really?
    If that’s how you feel. You feel the way that you do, but it’s you who has to change your mind. It’s you who needs to belive in CHANGE and a BETTER TOMORROW. If you believe that a better tomorrow can come from Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, then you must be in Martin’s tax bracket. That can be the only reason to support such chicanery.

  61. jeffmcm says:

    Didn’t you just say the other day that it was pointless to try and change peoples’ minds, IOI, and that wasn’t why you were here?

  62. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: ssshhh. The adults are talking :D. The whole point is this: they are trying to convince us that McBush is a good candidate. They are trying to CHANGE US. When it is them who need to embrace change. Do you dig, Jeff?

  63. jeffmcm says:

    Don’t insult me, IOI. I’m tired of your bipolar schtick.

  64. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: I am not insulting you. You simply NEVER EVER NEVER EVER EVER get the fucking joke. It’s funny and sad at how SERIOUS you take everything. Why so serious, Jeff?
    I was also responding to Citi’s own comments. It’s no that hard to follow man. Keep up.

  65. mysteryperfecta says:

    “No matter what you think of Obama’s experience, I think that by any reasonable standard you have to conclude that Palin has less experience.”
    I can think of one reasonable standard– a significant and relevant standard– executive experience. By this standard, the GOP veep has more experience than the top of the Dem’s ticket, for the Leader of the Executive Branch of the US Govt.
    Tell me, off the top of your head, what has Obama accomplished in the US Senate?

  66. mutinyco says:

    Executive experience = Corinthian leather

  67. Bart Smith says:

    “I can think of one reasonable standard– a significant and relevant standard– executive experience. By this standard, the GOP veep has more experience than the top of the Dem’s ticket, for the Leader of the Executive Branch of the US Govt.”

    Then by that standard, she’s more qualified than John McCain as well. Maybe she should be President, and he can be the Vice President.

  68. brack says:

    “Tell me, off the top of your head, what has Obama accomplished in the US Senate?”
    mysteryperfecta, are you really Sean Hannity? As if someone’s quick recall ability proves anything about someone. But if you must know….
    Of the 15 bills Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005-7 that became law:
    Two addressed foreign policy:
    Promote relief, security and democracy in the Congo (2125)
    Develop democratic institutions in areas under Palestinian control (2370).
    Three addressed public health:
    Improve mine safety (2803)
    Increased breast cancer funding (597)
    Reduce preterm delivery and complications, reduce infant mortality (707).
    Two addressed openness and accountability in government:
    Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (2488)
    Full disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds (2590)
    Two addressed national security
    Extend Terrorist Risk Insurance (467)
    Amend the Patriot Act (2167)
    One addressed the needs of the Armed Forces
    Wave passport fees to visit graves, attend memorials/funerals of veterans abroad (1184).

  69. mysteryperfecta says:

    “Then by that standard, she’s more qualified than John McCain as well.”
    She is. Is it coincidence that there hasn’t been a U.S. president without executive experience (former governor or vice president) since JFK?
    “mysteryperfecta, are you really Sean Hannity? As if someone’s quick recall ability proves anything about someone. But if you must know….”
    It proves how familiar a staunch supporter is with his candidate’s accomplishments. I could name a number of McCain’s accomplishments, and I am far from his biggest fan.
    That list you offered is incredibly weak, but thanks anyway.

  70. mysteryperfecta says:

    Let me revise: we were talking about level of experience, not overall qualifications. Palin has more executive experience than either of the other three candidates. That doesn’t make her more qualified, but simply more experienced in a relevant way.

  71. brack says:

    “It proves how familiar a staunch supporter is with his candidate’s accomplishments. I could name a number of McCain’s accomplishments, and I am far from his biggest fan.”
    No, it proves that the questioner is playing a game of Discounting the Candidate. This is only effective if done live. And you didn’t list any of McCain’s accomplishments, even though you say you could–weak.
    “That list you offered is incredibly weak, but thanks anyway.”
    That’s just what passes as LAW.
    Of the 570 bills Senator Obama introduced into the Senate during the 109th and 110th Congress (Senate Bill numbers are in parentheses), they can be summarized as follows:
    25 addressed Energy Efficiency and Climate Change
    Suspend royalty relief for oil and gas (115)
    Reduce dependence on oil; use of alternative energy sources (133)
    Increase fuel economy standards for cars (767, 768)
    Auto industry incentives for fuel efficient vehicles (1151)
    Reduce green house gas emissions (1324)
    Establish at NSF a climate change education program (1389)
    Increase renewable content of gasoline (2202)
    Energy emergency relief for small businesses and farms (269)
    Strategic gasoline and fuel reserves (1794)
    Alternative diesel standards (3554)
    Coal to liquid fuel promotion (3623)
    Renewable diesel standards (1920)
    Reducing global warming pollution from vehicles (2555)
    Fuel security and consumer choice (1994, 2025)
    Alternative energy refueling system (2614)
    Climate change education (1389)
    Low income energy assistance (2405)
    Oil savings targets (339)
    Fuel economy reform (3694)
    Plug-in electric drive vehicles (1617)
    Nuclear release notice (2348)
    Passenger rail investment (294)
    Energy relief for low income families (2405)
    21 addressed Health Care
    Drug re-importation (334)
    Health information technology (1262, 1418)
    Discount drug prices (2347)
    Health care associated infections (2278)
    Hospital quality report cards (692, 1824)
    Medical error disclosure and compensation (1784)
    Emergency medical care and response (1873)
    Stem cell research (5)
    Medical Malpractice insurance (1525)
    Health centers renewal (901, 3771)

  72. jeffmcm says:

    By that logic, every President with executive experience (e.g. Ford, Carter, Bush) has been better than every president without it (Kennedy, Eisenhower (military but non-executive), Lincoln, etc.
    I see the point, but it’s not sufficient. For the record, I felt Bush was unqualified to be President in 2000 not because he had only been Governor for a term and a half, but because he obviously had a shallow grasp of the issues.

  73. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, you and I profoundly misunderstand each other. For example, it seems like you often post something that you intend to be serious, then later pretend like you were ‘just kidding!’
    Write more clearly and you won’t have this problem.

  74. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: this is why you are the most despised poster on this blog. It’s also why people from Point Barrow, Alaska all the way to Rose Atoll, American Samoa. Why? You want the why? This is why: YOU FUCKING BELIEVE YOU KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE REALLY STATING! You fucking have the audacity to think you know how I work as a human being, that you have never met, and understand the intent behind every post that I make. Bullshit jeff, and fuck you for that attitude.
    Oh yeah: if one little misspelled word or typo makes it that much harder for you to understand my posts. You clearly lack the mettle to read them. Step off, son. Step the fuck off.

  75. IOIOIOI says:

    from Samoa dislike you. KEEP READING!

  76. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, I just asked you to be more clear, because I DON’T EVER KNOW WHAT YOU”RE REALLY STATING!
    This is a two-way street and I can’t make you make sense through sheer force of my will.

  77. Martin S says:

    Instead of Let’s All Go To The Lobby…
    Let’s All Meet Joe Biden…,0,2934547.story
    DOVER, Del. (AP) _ Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden received five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War, the same number of deferments received by Vice President Dick Cheney, and later was disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager.
    Congrats, The Dems now have their own veep foreign-policy expert chicken hawk.
    Let’s All Meet Joe Biden…
    I was wondering how long Mr. “my wife is gorgeous” would take before he let it fly.
    Ah ! well a-day ! what evil looks
    Had I from old and young !
    Instead of the cross, the Albatross
    About my neck was hung.

  78. brack says:

    you two are better than Abbott and Costello.

  79. brack says:

    Martin S, your Biden links are weak. You don’t think kids with asthma can be active?

  80. mutinyco says:

    Martin, Palin is in the middle of an official investigation into abuse of power. She used her office to try and get her ex-brother-in-law fired.

  81. brack says:

    And how dare Biden say that Palin is good-looking, when it’s clear she’s the ugliest woman alive.

  82. jeffmcm says:

    Jeez, Martin…usually you’re more reasonable and less smirky than this.

  83. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: the fact that you think I do not make sense. Shows a lot about your character. Again… the MOST HATED POSTER ON THE HOT BLOG… JEFF “BALLS OF WOOL” McMAHON!

  84. IOIOIOI says:

    Martin is a richie that has a problem with Obama rightfully wanting JACK THE FUCK UP his tax bracket. Time for you to pay a lot more, boy. TIME FOR YOU TO PAY!
    He also does not get that Biden apparently was repeatedly drafted. When he had fucking ASTHMA! That’s what the US needed during the Vietnam war… A LOT OF ASTHMATICS!

  85. Martin S says:

    Brack, that wasn’t my point at all. Asthma’s a bitch to deal with.
    How much shit have we heard over the years about W and Cheney being “chicken-hawks”. Now, Obama’s tough guy on foreign policy, the guy who’s supposed to be McCain but better, has the exact same albatross tied to him that Cheney’s taken crap over for years.
    In other words, how is this guy going to keep credibility? His war voting record is a landmine to deal with already. Now, he’s got to challenge a POW about who knows what’s better for the troops.
    One guy dodged to become a lawyer then lifelong Senator. The other guy served, became a POW, then continued to serve, then became a Senator. Biden is no longer a personal equal so it takes the argument back to voting records, where Joe voted against the Gulf War and a decade later, for Iraq. This is without getting into his Balkans involvement.
    On another note, someone please keep the “who’s baby is it” story going. Nothing wins voters over more than disparaging a teenage girl, her mother, and a disabled child. Man, that jibes with Obama’s Acceptance Speech, don’t it? The independent women will be flocking to vote Dem!

  86. Martin S says:

    Jeff – nothing meant towards you or Brack or even Mutiny. Poland’s responses are horseshit and they pissed me off for being so flippant.

  87. jeffmcm says:

    Martin, I’m incredibly tired of the flippancy as well. There’s a lot of posturing and falseness all over this ‘debate’.
    Re: Cheney, what it means is that his multiple deferments weren’t really such a big deal after all. My dad did the same thing – except that Cheney haphazardly launched a war for no good reason and without proper planning, which my Dad (as far as I know) never did.
    And in the case of McCain, unfortunately, lengthy military service and captivity still don’t equate to good judgment.

  88. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, you drain my energy and give me nothing in exchange.

  89. Martin S says:

    Mutiny – Please read the article before going off like this is a High Crime. Calling it Troopergate is for the reflexive. Her brother-in-law is not some wrongly accused angel.

  90. mutinyco says:

    Martin, I called it “Wootengate” not Troopergate.
    Obviously, I read the article before I posted it. Wooten is no angel. That’s understood. But by all accounts so far, Palin, her husband and other officials repeatedly used the governor’s office and position to try and get him fired. Their problems with him had nothing to do with his job as a cop, and everything to do with domestic issues. Their complaints led to his prior disciplining and the case was closed — yet even afterward, she continued to pursue the issue to the point where she fired the person she kept harassing to fire Wooten.

  91. brack says:

    mutinyco – that’s what I got out of it too.
    Biden isn’t going up against Cheney in a debate as far as I know.
    As far as the “who’s baby is it?” stuff, I’d rather her have done that than to know she decided to fly on a plane after her water broke.

  92. Martin S says:

    Jeff – I would agree, but you know full well that the “chicken hawk” argument against W and Cheney was not about decisions, but over moral right regarding war. Jim Webb’s very political existence, and Kerry’s presidential run, were built upon this predicate. But now, relativism kicks in and it’s “so what if McCain was a POW”. If serving, or not serving, mattered four years ago, then it matters now.

  93. Martin S says:

    Mutiny – It can be read that way. Or we can consider that during this entire timeframe, which spans a few months, her family and Wooten were in some form of contact on a weekly if not daily basis. A big, ugly divorce with so many kids involved, plus palimony, with this guy’s track record, means there is better than a 50/50 chance that not everything has come out yet. The only thing I would bet on is that he stopped the open threats. It’s hard to believe this guy just changed his behavior overnight.
    It’s like that Alaskan Republican Poland cited that said she wasn’t fit for the job. As long as Dave leaves out it was the guy who ran as an Independent Republican against her, and lost, then he sounds like an objective source.

  94. mutinyco says:

    Well, this isn’t a question of interpretation. That’s what the article said.
    It’s more than likely there’s more that hasn’t come out yet. But those are the facts as they’re currently reported.

  95. mutinyco says:

    Oh, and it was also considered odd that even after the legislature established an independent non-partisan investigation, she ordered the state’s attorney general to investigate it separately, solely for her benefit.

  96. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: you need to relax. Why so serious?
    The Hight Tax Bracket: go read about McCain’s voting record when it comes to the most recent GI BILL as well as any other bill dealing with soldiers over the past few years. It’s fucking astrocious.
    All Obama and Biden have to do is bring this up. All they have to do is bring up that the BIG WAR HERO, who wants 100 years of war, and wants to take down another country with a stretched thin military. This guy does not give a shit about fucking soldiers. He does not give a shit about their well-being.
    If he did. He would have supported the new GI BILL and never stated it was “TOO GOOD FOR THE TROOPS”. He would have supported or voted on other measures that would aid our troops.
    See? That’s all you have to do. I also find it funny that an AGENT mocks a LAWYER who has spent his life in government service. Seriously; the guy is not a wealthy man, and has lived to serve. That’s so horrible.

  97. IOIOIOI says:

    One more thing. If that Kos story has a shread of truth to it. Oh lordy.

  98. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, you remind me of my little brother, when he was ages 2-13.

  99. Martin S says:

    Mutiny – the article is an interpretation, not a stats sheet, and your position is a skew off of that. Palin’s side is representated by one off-the-record McCain spokesman, while it talked directly to the guy who was fired. I’m not implying that the WaPo purposely did that, but even they know the lack of information from Palin’s side skews the story to favor the accusers. Conversly, why not a quote from the brother-in-law?
    As for the meat…
    Monegan went public, alleging that his firing was connected to his failure to remove Wooten. The state legislature launched its investigation, and the governor asked the attorney general’s office to conduct an internal investigation.
    Barnhill said the review, made public two weeks ago, found that half a dozen officials had made about two dozen phone calls regarding Wooten. But only one call was determined to be improper, a tape-recorded conversation between Palin’s chief of boards and commissions, Frank Bailey, to a police lieutenant.
    In the call, Bailey said, “Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads, ‘Why on earth hasn’t this, why is this guy still representing the department?’ “
    Palin suspended Bailey with pay, saying she knew nothing about the call.
    Palin still faces the review by the legislature.
    State Sen. Hollis French (D) said that both Republicans and Democrats authorized the hiring of a former prosecutor to determine whether Palin “used her public office to settle a private score.” French described the prosecutor, Steve Branchflower, as a “straight shooter,”
    French said the investigation of the popular 44-year-old governor had been criticized throughout the state until about two weeks ago, when the governor’s office released the audiotape of Bailey.
    Such evidence points to a violation of Wooten’s privacy, French said.
    “We’re seeing clues or signs that matters from his personal confidential file were being shared to generate talking points against the trooper as drums being pounded to get him dismissed,” French said yesterday.
    So let’s be clear – a Dem party official is the voice reaching the conclusion about a Repub Governor, and you’re taking that as sacrosanct.
    We get direct comments from two people involved – the Dem State Senator and the guy fired and these are the impartial sources. So far, one phone call has been found improper, from a staffer to a Lt. Did they try and get Wooten fired? Without a doubt. Was it illegal? Not if this guy was continually behaving in the manner depicted in the article. Look at how little was done to Wooten in March; Five day suspension. For death threats and tasering his son. A cop. No counseling, no undetermined paid leave. Five days. Cops have gotten longer suspensions for much lesser things.
    So, we go from…
    On March 1, 2006, Grimes sustained the allegations…
    That fall, in a surprise, Palin defeated Gov. Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary and went on to win the general election. She took office in December 2006 and appointed Monegan…
    Nine months. So the story literally reads as if Palin ran for Governor just to fire Wooten. Then…
    …appointed Monegan, who’d just retired as Anchorage police chief after five years, to be public safety commissioner, a cabinet position.
    …she fired a guy that she hired for her cabinet because he wasn’t following up on what she wanted. But the media interpretation has been that Monegan is some state employee, long established in the position before Palin came along. So naturally, she’s going to have the AG look into it separately; she’s pissed off both state parties for years.
    So what we’re getting is another attempt by the left to gin up the next Richard Clarke or Wilson/Plame. Hence, Kerry’s “Cheneyesque” statement.
    This is what puts the lie to all the righteous indignation over Obama’s “treatment”. But by all means, let the left talk Wooten, illegitimate children, senility, “hundred year wars” and whatnot. But when Joebama gets tagged with Rev. Wright, Ayers, infanticide, lobbyists money, chicken hawk, plagarism, “minor threats”…realize why this is not about the issues. Both candidates have said they wanted a new tone. Both candidates have allowed that to slip away. Last Thursday, Obama came down from the mountain and said “Enough”, but who’s listening?

  100. mutinyco says:

    Martin, this was going on long before Palin was picked for VP last Friday. McCain did a crappy job vetting her.
    Of course, they only got quotes from the aggrieved and those pursuing charges. Do you think that anybody associated with Palin, who’s under investigation while running for VP, is going to want to go on the record?
    Furthermore, her attorney general — who works for her — is the person who decided that only one phone call had been improper. Why was he even doing an investigation? The legislature had already established an independent non-partisan investigation into what happened. The AG’s interpretation is purely partisan. And Palin’s firing of Monagan brings up memories of Nixon firing Richardson for refusing to fire Cox.
    Yes, Wooten may be a scumbag. But all of the complaints Palin’s family lodged against him were of a domestic nature and they were brought up long after they occurred — only once divorce proceeding got underway. If he was such a dangerous threat, why did Palin drive over to her sister’s, witness a heated argument through the window, then drive away without filing a complaint or calling the cops?
    Now, let me pose this: Would you be so supportive of her if she wasn’t running as McCain’s VP?

  101. mutinyco says:

    Oh, about your last point. Yeah, I think the intended tone of both candidates is to remain as cordial and above the belt as possible. That’s their “official” positions. But, of course, that doesn’t stop their supporters from doing the dirty work…
    That’s how the election will play out.

  102. mutinyco says:

    Yes, she was pregnant:
    So we can kill that silly rumor.

  103. mutinyco says:

    The 17-year-old daughter is knocked up!
    Lynn Spears for VP!

  104. The Big Perm says:

    Ha ha…DP says Obama went to Harvard which makes him more qualified. I Know another President who went to Harvard!
    Speaking of that idiot (Bush, that is), Why does Palin get flack for having a retarded kid when Bush gets flack for killing them? There’s just no winning for Republicans.

  105. christian says:

    “There’s just no winning for Republicans.”
    I certainly hope so in 2008.

  106. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: you are no different than any other cunt on the internet. So do not think you are that special you miserable fuck. Go cut me a jingle, bitch :D!

  107. The Big Perm says:

    I don’t want another Republican in office either…which is why Democrast better get their shit together for once and stop thinking the election is in the bag or “game over,” which they thought the last several times. That worked out great, right? And better rethink asking women if they intend on taking birth control, because contrary to what you may think, it seems like some weird kind of harassment that if came from Republicans, would be degrading to women or keeping them down or whatever. And stop saying shit like “Fox News…the devil! Evil!” I mean, it’s just fucking stupid. Mindlessless is annoying when it comes from Rush Limbaugh, AND from Dems. But at least the Republicans tend to sound less whiny.

  108. Earl Hofert says:

    The 17-year-old daughter is knocked up!
    Insert “Juneau” reference here

  109. christian says:

    “But at least the Republicans tend to sound less whiny.”
    You’re kidding, right?

  110. The Big Perm says:

    Uh oh, someone who has nothing to do with the election is pregnant! That means TROUBLE in some vague way! Let’s pile on a young girl now, because that will win this election!
    Obama has the good grace to say shut up about that story because it has nothing to do with anything. And it doesn’t. Good for him, another reason why he seems like a good guy.
    And Christian…no, I’m not kidding. Republicans sound more arrogant and mean. Dems seem whiny. “Oh, Fox News is eeeeevil! I’m leaving the coooountry” That’s as retarded as the retards Bush killed.

  111. christian says:

    That means TROUBLE in some vague way! Let’s pile on a young girl now, because that will win this election!
    It’s about judgement. McCain should have saw this as a potential hot button issue and Palin should have already announced it months ago.
    Plus, it’s not at all below the belt to wonder how an ABSTINENCE FIRST family gets to skirt an issue THEY demand we deal with.
    Palin is a disaster. She’ll be off the ticket within a month or she’ll help bring down McCain.

  112. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, you’re right. You have nothing in common with Nicol, who has never used ‘fuck’ or ‘cunt’ in any of his postings on this blog.
    Mentioning that you remind me of my brother wasn’t intended as an insult, it was just an honest description of how I feel when I try and fail to converse with you.

  113. jeffmcm says:

    Christian, I agree with you: it appears that they’re just now starting to do a proper vetting of Palin.
    The pregnant daughter should be left alone, but it does indicate that McCain made a rash, impulsive decision without all the information, which is a definite trend with him at this point.

  114. The Big Perm says:

    Name a candidate who is not going to have problems. A 17 year old having sex is not, say, embezzling.
    And here’s how the problem is solved…abstinence is best, they’ll say, and she made a mistake, as millions of other girls do across the country all the time. But now they’re going to be responsible and have the baby, get married and have a great family. Done and done.
    I mean, how’s the mother supposed to keep her daughter from fucking? If anything this will endear her to all the soccer moms who can’t control their own kids.
    Keep being cocky, Dems. It gave us Bush twice in a row!

  115. mutinyco says:

    It’s an accumulation…
    1) Knocked-up teen daughter.
    2) Under investigation for abuse of power.
    3) Close with indicted Ted Stevens.
    It’s about defining the candidate…

  116. jeffmcm says:

    And, every news story about this stuff is one less news story in which the Republicans can push their message.

  117. mutinyco says:

    Check out the cover of Huffington…

  118. The Big Perm says:

    Any candidate will have some kind of crap that will come out. Did not Obama have to get through the racist crazy preacher scandal? Has Obama been close to unsavory people? Mutiny, you listed:
    1)Supposed scandal that has nothing to do with the office AT ALL.
    2)Under investigation, not proven.
    3)Of course she’d be close to Ted Stevens, he’s from Alaska. Did she lie too?

  119. brack says:

    “Ha ha…DP says Obama went to Harvard which makes him more qualified. I Know another President who went to Harvard!”
    Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Bush graduated with a MBA no honors.

  120. jeffmcm says:

    Campaigns generally would prefer a scandal in April to a scandal in September.

  121. mutinyco says:

    1) Supposed “scandal” has everything to do with her values and judgment.
    2) Currently under investigation by the state legislature. Not WAS. IS. Right now.
    3) She ran a Ted Stevens’ 527, and appeared publicly to support him last month after his indictment.
    It’s about public perception. Defining the candidate. That’s all. And McCain chose a running mate who lacked public vetting. So it’s all going on right now.

  122. christian says:

    It’s all awful politics as usual, left and right. But the smears against Obama, perpetuated by Fox etc, about his Muslim-ness, his first and midddle name, and the subtle bigotry came first. You’re right, Big Perm, Obama should take the high road, which will only help him. But the citizens will be developing perceptions about McCain/Palin next to Obama/Biden now. I don’t think Palin will bring in much if at all Clinton supporters. Fine with me.

  123. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: you love to play the victiem. It’s always about you. You also do not get when you INSULT people. If you think I am acting like a 13 year-old you self-absorbed ass. You seriously need to go back into the booth, sit in the dark, and wait for anyone to call you. I imagine that will be a pretty long wait.
    Now she admits her daughter is pregnant, and it’s a good thing. What bullshit the republicans can get away with as a party. It’s good for Obama to want to play above board, but this makes Palin look like a woman who lacks the ability to control her own household. It not only happened once, but now it’s happened twice. VP material my ass.

  124. IOIOIOI says:

    Yeah yeah victim, but the Republicans love to skate by with this shit. Only someone as vain and pompus as John McCain could make such a pick.

  125. The Big Perm says:

    Unless Palin has somehow perfected mind control, I don’t see how her daugther’s mistake is a slight on Palin’s values. As long as she handles it well, it’ll be a non-issue. Who has kids who do what they want? If teens fucking is the parent’s fault, then all parents are terrible.
    Will Palin get Clinton voters? Maybe not. But I bet she could land a lot of them who may have swung either way. A lot of voters vote emotionally. That’s how shithead got into office twice. And I think Palin plays really well into that.

  126. IOIOIOI says:

    No; Deuce Bush got into office twice via CHEATING. That’s what happened. Too bad Kerry did not stand up for those OHIO results. Freakin lamer.
    The thing with Palin is… SHE WAS NOT PROPERLY VETTED! If McCain vetted this woman. None of these truths would be coming out.
    Once again: thanks McCain for making the future brighter.

  127. The Big Perm says:

    Easy way out…Bush cheated. But assuming that he did cheat, how could he unless the results were so close?

  128. Martin S says:

    Perm – shhhh.
    Jeff – it’s not changing the message. As Poland correctly pointed out, Gustav did that.
    As for the pregnancy – please keep attacking a teenage girl. Don’t listen to The Obama…
    “I have said before and I will repeat again: People’s families are off limits,” Obama said. “And people’s children are especially off-limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn

  129. jeffmcm says:

    Martin – re: Gustav, so what? The result is the same – less GOP convention = less convention bounce.
    And why is Sarah Palin, who is opposed to birth control, a member of a group that isn’t?
    You’re seriously losing credibility with me on this stuff, Martin.
    IOI, you’re an idiot. You’re almost certainly the stupidest person on this blog. Leave me alone.

  130. jeffmcm says:

    Sorry about that. IO, I don’t think you’re a bad person, but you are a very poor communicator and I’ve tried over and over again to understand you and to try and get some kind of consistent, rational sense out of you and you stubbornly refuse. It’s tiring and I’ve had enough of it.

  131. Martin S says:

    Jeff – It was in reference to your comment about news stories. Gustav owned this cycle, which is why Palin blurted out the pregnancy. It was the same tactic Obama used to admitting to his Rezko ties. Drop it during a bigger story so it gets lost.
    A primer on Alaska as to when Palin took over…
    Worst child death rate. Worst teen death rate. So while the rest of the country improved, Alaska was rock bottom. A person, especially a mother, is going to do whatever it takes to stop that. If that means contraception, so be it. In a pervasive climate like that, abortion will be seen as even more disdainful.
    It’s all about life. And my guess is that internally, she would be for something like gay adoption if that meant a curtailing on abortion. If she gets asked about gay marriage, we all know what the answer is going to be, but the rumble within some Repub circles is that McCain would enact some kind of federal civil union license if he won.
    The message with Palin is that while he’ll not use the bully pulpit to enforce social issues, he will elect center-right judges. And the 10 Million haul in 2.5 days shows they believe him. He technically matched Ron Paul’s one-day take.
    IMO, there is a lot of common ground between the two, but we are at this point because Obama would not do the Kennedy/Goldwater townhall forums that he initially agreed to, with variations. He backed out because he let people get into his head that he stinks at debate. In truth, he does better in free-flow forums than rigid Q&A’s, but he bought the line that townhall’s are McCain’s strength. He declined to make Saddleback a townhall, and look how that turned out. Instead, he decided to debate via news bytes, allowing editors to step up the point/counterpoint through A/B roll. So he brings Biden on to have someone “McCain-like” to debate with all the time, which can take him farther and farther away from his natural strength of playing the crowd. Both are not sound-byte guys, but now they are going to try and be, in an attempt to win. What we win from this, I have no idea.

  132. jeffmcm says:

    Martin, I think you should spread that “Federal civil union license” rumbling – I’d encourage you do to it on every political blog you can find, especially the right-leaning ones.
    I’ve always believed McCain was essentially a pragmatist and not an ideologue, but in this situation, that doesn’t matter – One Alito is enough.

  133. mutinyco says:

    The RNC has now sent a rapid response team up to Alaska to both vet Palin and try to head off the expected investigative reporters.
    It seems McCain didn’t even do the most basic vetting procedures.

  134. IOIOIOI says:

    The most hated poster on this blog stated; “IOI, you’re an idiot. You’re almost certainly the stupidest person on this blog. Leave me alone.”
    Oh look at him get mean.
    “Sorry about that. IO, I don’t think you’re a bad person, but you are a very poor communicator…”
    Bullshit. The only problem we have is you being the whitest white man in America. This all started because your white-out coloured ass had a hard time figuring out what the word “DAP” means. You simply lack the ability to have a discussion with anyone who doesnt share your propensity for posting like the whitest of white people on the net.
    “and I’ve tried over and over again to understand you”
    Again; you had a hard time figuring out the word “DAP”. You have a hard time figuring out anything or possibly anyone that does not fit into your prescribed worldview. Your problem not mine.
    “and to try and get some kind of consistent, rational sense out of you and you stubbornly refuse.”
    Bullshit. You just try to insult me, then claim you did not mean to insult me. You do this all the time. This makes you either the slyest mofo on this board or a daft ass.
    “It’s tiring and I’ve had enough of it.”
    Yeah yeah. Leave it alone. If not, then it’s on. It’s a simple as that Jeffy.

  135. jeffmcm says:

    Okay, but what does that mean…?
    Please send all further correspondence on this subject to my private email so David Poland’s nice blog won’t be clogged with nonsense.

  136. Joe Leydon says:

    IO: Wait a minute — I thought I was the whitest white man in America. In fact, I thought that if I were any whiter, I would be freakin’ transluscent.

  137. mutinyco says:

    It’s okay, Joe — you’re whiter than David Duke… 🙂

  138. Joe Leydon says:

    Trust me, Mutiny: No one is whiter than David Duke. One of my proudest moments as a Louisiana boy was the time I heard Gov. Edward Edwards (aka The Silver Zipper) giving his victiory speech after beating Duke in a gubernatorial election.

  139. mutinyco says:

    Anybody wanna bet that that RNC rapid response team contains briefcases full of money to shut up people like Wooten?…

  140. jeffmcm says:

    I think it’s more likely they’re carrying briefcases of pepto-bismol because they still don’t know what unknown horrors they could dig up.

  141. scooterzz says:

    i have nothing but respect for gov. palin…. having io as the hot blog special needs child has made me aware of the time and, most especially, patience that is required in dealing with those not as fortunate…
    they say that ‘it takes a village’ and, imho, i think we’ve all pulled together to hoist our little io to a better place…..
    and if we simple bloggers can do that and still maintain our jobs/relationships/daytime tv schedules…..then so can a former (almost) miss alaska….
    io has led the way……..

  142. scooterzz says:

    i can’t tell you how sorry i am i hit the ‘post’ button…i think i went a bit over…

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon