Some thoughts on Sarah Palin

free stats

I have read many takes on Palin this weekend, but this one sums them up best.

In Cindi McCain’s interview with George Stephanopolous she now-famously mentions that Palin has foreign policy experience because Alaska is near Russia. Stepping to the side of this face-palming stupidity, I was more intrigued by her initial reaction to the question of Palin’s experience (you have to watch the short video clip to hear it), which was an emphatic "She is heavily experienced," followed by a pause, then, "in, in what she has done." And I thought, well, jeez, I’m "heavily experienced" in, in what I’ve done, how come I’m not on the GOP ticket?

This I think gives a longer view of the situation.

It honestly looks to me that Rove/McCain made up a list of all the qualities they needed in a VP pick, in order to pander to whatever demographics they thought would bite, including "creationist," "anti-science," "in the pocket of Big Oil," "young," "female," "rabidly pro-life," etc, and fed that list into a computer, and Sarah Palin’s name came out.  Just like with the Bush administration, qualification for the job was never considered.

I know I have a few conservative readers out there.  I’m curious, are any of you overjoyed at this choice?  Did any of you, when you heard the news, say "Awright!  We’ve got this thing all sewed up!  Get ready for Hurrican Palin!  Ya-hooo!"  Does this make any sense to you at all?  Step forward, I would honestly like to hear your thoughts.


76 Responses to “Some thoughts on Sarah Palin”
  1. richaje says:

    I am a huge fan of your blog and your writing (although we clearly do not see eye-to-eye on a variety of political issues), so am taking up your offer in good faith. As background, I used to work in the political world and served as legal counsel for elected officials of both political parties. I used to have to do a fair amount of Alaska related legal work at my old law firm, so Gov. Palin was already on my radar screen as a potential Dark Horse VP candidate and was not terribly surprised by the choice (a far better choice than Romney, Pawlenty or Hutchison – and Lieberman would likely have caused a riot at the convention).

    FWIW, I think Gov. Palin was an extremely shrewd choice by McCain. She is not going to be appealing to Obama’s core voters (ie. most of your readers) but she is very appealing to many core GOP voters (which McCain is not) and appears to be appealing to many undecided and independent voters. The current lines of attack against Gov. Palin from various progressive commentators are IMO likely to reinforce those trends.

    One thing I have noticed about the Obama campaign throughout the last few weeks is how much it is speaking increasingly to its base – IMO this is a very counterproductive strategy likely brought on by the requirements Democratic Convention. The support Gov. Palin has amonst conservative voters gives McCain the luxury of largely ignoring his base and focusing on undecided voters (Hurricane Gustav has reinforced this luxury and given McCain the opportunity to largely blow off the GOP convention).

    Just my two cents and a contrarian view.

    • Todd says:

      Fair enough, and well-spoken, thanks. A follow-up question: do you want to see Sarah Palin become president?

      • Anonymous says:

        At this point, not really. Then again, I have no interest in seeing Sen. Biden president either. The difference to me is that there is a remote chance that Gov. Palin will grow in the position of vice president (whereas I see it very unlikely that Sen. Biden will get any more competent with age). I wouldn’t be troubled with McCain or, for that matter, Obama either.

        But, look at things from the perspective of McCain – who do you pick as your running mate? Leiberman was likely his first choice, but would cause a revolt in the party (which would most likely cost him the election). Romney? Pawlenty? Hutchison? To me, Obama’s choice was much more surprising (I thought he’d go for Gov. Kaine myself).

        • richaje says:

          BTW, that was from me. I just didn’t log in when I made the comment.

        • Todd says:

          “I have no interest in seeing Sen. Biden president either.”

          But surely you have to agree that Palin has a better shot at the job at this point.

          “But, look at things from the perspective of McCain – who do you pick as your running mate?”

          I certainly see your point — McCain is a weak candidate, but my goodness, compared to the guys he was running against this spring he’s a powerhouse. The idea of a McCain/Romney ticket sounded too good to be true (to Democrats, that is), but the idea of a McCain/Palin ticket is just too much of an insult, to both the GOP base and the nation as a whole. It’s as though he’s saying “You want to know how stupid I think you are? This is how stupid I think you are.”

          • richaje says:

            In the event that (1) McCain wins, or (2) Palin distinguishes herself (at least with the conservative base), then she likely has a much better shot at the job than Biden (Biden has been running for the position since 1988 – maybe this is as close as he gets).

            I’m not sure how weak (or strong) McCain is (frex, I expected Guiliani and not McCain to be the eventual candidate). My track record on such prognastications are not exactly perfect: in 2000, I thought Bush was weaker than he proved to be and in 2004 I thought Sen. Kerry was far far weaker than he turned out to be. I always figured this was going to be a close race – Obama got damaged quite a bit during the Democratic primary (which was only to be expected in such a brutal drag-out primary contest) and neither candidate has been able to break 50% of likely voters for any length of time.

            But always keep in mind, you are not the audience that McCain is trying to woo with Palin – neither McCain nor Obama are going to spend any of their very limited resources trying to woo voters that are likely committed to the other candidate.

            Sorry for spending so much time looking at this strategically, but understanding this stuff used to be part of my bread and butter.

            • malsperanza says:

              Thanks for a rational and heat-free description. May I pose a follow-up question?

              Why does the GOP ticket *need* to appeal to the hard-right religious base, no matter how much they dislike McCain? They will still vote for him, surely? The Dems had an initial reaction thinking that Palin was chosen in a (rather insulting) attempt to attract the supposed legions disgruntled Hilary swing voters. (The media thought those were women, but maybe they were blue-color white men who like that photo of Palin in the “I may be broke but I’m not flat-busted” tee shirt are socially conservative.)

              It makes much more sense to me that she was chosen to appeal to the religious right*–I just don’t get the strategy.

              *And also possibly because she is shorter than McCain.

              • richaje says:

                My own personal belief is that McCain (rationally) believed that the hard-right religious base was perfectly willing to sit out this race. Keep in mind that evangelicals (a less perjorative term than hard-right religious folk – and probably more accurate) do not consider McCain to be one of their own and many were threatening to not participate in this election. They are a huge voting block, possibly the biggest single block in US politics.

                As for the so-called PUMAs, I personally think that is a media pundit-commentator invention. I have not heard a single political strategist I professional respect say that McCain has a claim on Hillary voters. However, I do think that there are a fair number of independent women voters up for grabs in this election and Palin may well appeal to them.

                However, my own anecdotal impression is that the evangelical leadership has swooned for Palin (and that swoon has if anything increased with the recent news about her daughter). And that was a much bigger score for McCain than the illusory PUMAs.

                Just my two cents….

                • malsperanza says:

                  Personally, I’d be surprised if the religious right stayed home on election day, any more than I expect Hillary’s supporters to stay home or to vote for McCain. The media has a massive investment in trying to make this campaign into a horse race, whether it is or not. If the evangelicals are swooning for Palin, it’s most likely that they intended to vote McCain all along but needed to be able to point to a “family values” reason to do so.

                  (FWIW I used the term “hard right religious” because not all of that bloc is evangelical Protestant; I didn’t intend it pejoratively.)

                  • richaje says:

                    One of the key assumptions for most GOP strategists is that evangelical turnout is crucial if their candidate is going to win. For example, evangelical enthusiasm for Bush in 2004 made the difference in several states (and substantially increasing Bush’s performance over 2000). The comparative lack of enthusiasm regarding McCain (which probably stems from the 2000 primary) had many GOP strategists very worried. They aren’t worried now – and the current lines of attack on Palin are likely increasing their enthusiasm.

                    Keep in mind that Obama’s core supporters are largely concentrated in reliably Democratic states (California, Washington, New York, Illinois, etc), whereas the turnout of evangelical voters can make the difference in the key battleground states (Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin and possibly Minnesota and Pennsylvania). Those are the states this election will likely turn on – and they are states where evangelicals (and hunters) are a significant part of the electorate.

                    • Todd says:

                      Since we know now that McCain didn’t want Palin, that she was forced on him by the GOP for exactly the reasons you cite, does that do anything to change your feelings for McCain, or is it all right with you?

                      The reason I ask is, after the 2000 disaster I remember seeing McCain on SNL or the Daily Show and thinking “hey, he seems like an okay guy, for a Republican, he wouldn’t be so bad as a President” but his behavior this time around, caving on everything he’s ever stood for in order to have a chance at winning, pandering to constituencies he doesn’t believe in, supporting torture, supporting endless, pointless wars, wanting to start more wars, etc, has really made me quite gloriously sick to my stomach.

                    • richaje says:

                      Not really – any more than I expect Obama’s choice of Biden changed your feelings for Obama. FWIW, I had a mirror image reaction to Obama, initially thinking that “hey, he seems like an okay guy, for a Democrat, he wouln’t be so bad as a President” and then becoming increasingly disenchanted with him. as he did what was necessary for him to win the primary.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I’m not one of your conservative readers, and I can’t think of one real benefit to the Republicans (let alone to the nation) in Sarah Palin’s nomination.

    But Cindy McCain is right that Alaska is awfully close to Russia. It used to belong to Russia. Still, saying that gives Palin perspective on foreign policy is like awarding points to Barack Obama for having grown up in Hawaii.


    • Todd says:

      From what I can gather, richaje’s comment (above) is emblematic of the Republican mindset — Palin is on the ticket to appeal to whatever stray voting blocs McCain hasn’t picked up yet, and to act as bait to liberal commentators. Palin is, obviously, blindingly, unqualified to do much of anything that I can see, much less be president, and the GOP is hoping that the attacks on her will be severe enough to energize the voters who think like her — like their guns, dislike the environment, are suspicious of science, etc.

    • spacecrime says:

      Though for what it’s worth, I DO give Obama points for growing up in Hawaii. Not for foreign policy, but for spending a chunk of his life in one of the multi-ethnic societies in America.

      I’d say being Alaskan is also a plus, if only because the state is as close to a frontier as you can get in America these days. Besides, you have to give some props to anyone who can shoot his or her own moose.

      • Todd says:

        Yes, but a vice-president capable of shooting a moose is bound to seem like a step down from a vice-president who is capable of shooting an old man in the face.

        • greyaenigma says:

          Not if it’s a liberal moose.

          I can almost guarantee that moose was not actively supporting the global war on terror, and was therefore an enemy of the state.

    • Todd says:

      Re: Ham Sandwich McCain’s Actual Choice for VP

      McCain, of course, would never nominate a ham sandwich for the vice-presidency. Because it would put him in trouble with Jews.

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: Ham Sandwich McCain’s Actual Choice for VP

      FINALLY! Why is it we’re not seeing more “Peggy Hill” comparisons? Congrats – a perfect avatar. I even forgot about Hank’s Dad – those two together IS unsettling in the “seperated at birth” sort of way.

  3. amanofhats says:

    To be fair, there really are lots of dogs in the Iditarod. Some years, there are enough to qualify as “whole bunches.”

  4. Actually, while I’m pretty much a lock voter (until the day the Libertarians get their shit together) and wasn’t worrying about who he picked (despite kind of thinking Romney would be nice as I’m a fellow Mich-to-Mass transplant, or that Lieberman would be interesting) I have a lot of friends who had been at best lukewarm and were considering sitting out as they do not like McCain who are THRILLED. One even said that for the first time, she not only is supporting McCain now but sent the campaign money.

    She has a lot of pluses–the DNC is trying to make an issue of her inexperience, but she’s the only one on EITHER ticket with any executive-level experience at all and is in the #2 spot, while the #1 over on the Dem side has no executive experience and really hasn’t done much on his own initiative legislatively, either. She’s got a big family (who now get to be targets–okay, hate on her all you want, but those out there spreading the rumor that the youngest son is actually her daughter’s and it’s a cover-up? DIAF. And before you do, explain how if that’s true she’s breastfeeding him.) She appeals to the party base. Except for the highly illogical she torpedoes the “GOP HATES WOMEN!” argument (because-okay, so the GOP hates women SO MUCH that to prove it, they’ll…put one on the Presidential ticket and make her President of the Senate and a heartbeat from the Presidency of a man in his 70s? Truly the actions of people who hate women.) She also gives the ticket a bit of an additional maverick boost as, to become governor, she had to take on the entrenched GOP establishment in Alaska (the indited senior senator, the current junior senator, and the junior senator’s father, the ex-governor.) This was a deeply-entrenched political dynasty big into pork-barrel spending and she sent them to the woodshed. And, like it or not, Alaska IS actually closer to Russia than to the continental US–you’ve got their Navy and their commercial boats along your borders all the time. It’s also part of the greater Pacific Rim, which includes pretty much all up and coming major powers. And then of course there’s oil and energy, something Alaska has been a big part of for centuries. She’s going to have a much deeper understanding of the drilling and pipeline situation (including the perspective of people I think have been screwed, the tribes up there who could stand to seriously benefit from drilling and associated infrastructure. The Northern peoples in the US and Canada have always gotten the short end of the stick and most are NOT vehemently opposed to having oil found on their lands.)

    Honestly the most inspiring thing to me has been the explosion of misogynistic vitriol from the Democrats. I’m not surprised by it, as the most hateful things I’ve ever heard in terms of personal attacks on politicians have always come from the left and have been targeted at women or minorities who escape the plantation. (There are a couple people on my friends list I have to ignore right now because “bitch” is the kindest term being used. A word beginning with “c” is much more popular as are comments about hypothetical sexual involvement with members of her own gender or the animal kingdom or members of her family. I knew they were going to say things like that because they’ve been saying that about Laura Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and now Cindy McCain all along. It’s pretty much their stock response for any female conservative–slag their looks and slur their sexual habits. Still, not my idea of good reading.) But I’m not sure if it stems from an actual hatred of her personally, or the fact that this (instead of the expected old or middle-aged white guy who would fit liberal stereotypes of the GOP) signals that McCain does not plan to roll over and play dead so the anointed one can waltz to an easy win.

      • Anonymous says:

        I don’t even remotely support McCain, but in fairness:

        1. The person who asks that incredibly rude question is a woman, interestingly. I hadn’t read that in any previous accounts I’d seen of this incident.
        2. McCain looks deeply embarrassed, and seems to be laughing more nervously than out of genuine amusement.

        There are a lot of entirely valid, sensible reasons to oppose McCain — like, oh, his apparent commitment to continuing the Bush/Cheney “as long as it looks or sounds good, who cares if it’s rotting, radioactive, and on fire under the surface” style of “running” the country — but I’m not sure this is one of them.

        — N.A.

    • Todd says:

      “Honestly the most inspiring thing to me has been the explosion of misogynistic vitriol from the Democrats.”

      Where have you heard these explosions? They have not come from here. I haven’t heard any “rumors” about her private life and I don’t care about them. I pay close attention to liberal news sources on a daily basis and I haven’t heard anyone attack Palin on the basis of gender or any smears against her personally. Can you cite me some specifics?

      “This was a deeply-entrenched political dynasty big into pork-barrel spending and she sent them to the woodshed.”

      Except, of course, when she thought it would benefit her politically.

      “Except for the highly illogical she torpedoes the “GOP HATES WOMEN!” argument (because-okay, so the GOP hates women SO MUCH that to prove it, they’ll…put one on the Presidential ticket and make her President of the Senate and a heartbeat from the Presidency of a man in his 70s? Truly the actions of people who hate women.)”

      It’s come to my attention that, for reasons I’m unable to understand, there are a large number of women who are Republicans. So be it. My problem with McCain choosing Sarah Palin as a lure to Clintonites is that it’s amazingly cynical and incredibly insulting to think that Clintonites would vote for any woman without examining her record. Because Palin could not possibly be further away from Hillary Clinton politically. And yet, that’s what McCain is thinking. And yes, that is, truly, the action of a man who hates women.

      “And, like it or not, Alaska IS actually closer to Russia than to the continental US–you’ve got their Navy and their commercial boats along your borders all the time.”

      California is close to Mexico, and in fact contains a good deal of actual Mexicans, but that doesn’t make me, or Schwarzeneggar for that matter, an expert in foreign policy.

      “McCain does not plan to roll over and play dead so the anointed one can waltz to an easy win.”

      McCain roll over? Not to the Democrats certainly. To the far-right wing, absolutely.

      I keep hearing these arguments about how Palin is a “shrewd” choice for McCain, how she appeals to the base, so forth, but I haven’t yet heard anyone say that they think she’ll make a good president.

      • richaje says:

        If that is the key question, my answer would be: “none of the candidates appear particularly likely to make a good candidate but then again, nobody more competent has been in the running from either party.”

        • Todd says:

          This, unfortunately, touches on a much larger issue, which is that national politics in general seems to attract exactly the kind of people I’d rather not have in charge of national politics. And I’ll include the Washington media under that umbrella as well.

    • yesdrizella says:

      Except for the highly illogical she torpedoes the “GOP HATES WOMEN!” argument

      Except that McCain’s chauvinism – yes, McCain, her OWN RUNNING MATE – has been well-documented. He’s called his wife “the c-word” in public, and when asked how he would’ve voted on the Fair Pay Act when it went through Congress this spring (he didn’t attend that session), he said he would’ve voted no because what women really need is “education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else.” This is most certainly the actions of a man who hates women, or at least doesn’t think much of them.

      • Todd says:

        And let’s not forget the whole “abandoning his crippled wife so he could marry an heiress” thing.

      • You disagree that women need education and training and are more frequently heads of the household than in previous years? And no, I would not have supported the Fair Pay Act, either. I can earn what I’m worth without help.

        I call other female drivers the c-word. I don’t use it in political discourse. Todd in the above–if you want to hear vitriol, browse LJ or go to YouTube and put in Palin’s name.

        And yes, there are women who are Republicans. I do not go around assuming the world is out to get me, I would like to be able to buy a gun if I want one, I do not consider it a constitutional right to have my mistake with birth control dismembered and vacuumed out of me, and I do not consider “Continental Europe approves!” as a valid endorsement of any political policy unless by Europe you are speaking of countries east of the Danube and Oder-Neisse. (Sorry, don’t know how to do essetts on this keyboard.) I don’t like being told I’m stupid or anti-woman for not being a Democrat. I do not want “universal health care” because I already know who’ll be paying for it–me and everyone else who makes just enough that we don’t qualify for tax breaks, because guess who’s paying for those MassHealth people? I’m tired of paying taxes to support the Departments of Education, HUD, Commerce, Labor, and I would even be happy to see big chunks of the DoD go, but as the military actually serves a function I will let that slide. I’m sick of being told that because I am single, childless and working I need to be taxed to support every victim of society out there, and this is what Democrats do-they do it here in Massachusetts, they want to do it nationally. I want my FICA money back. I do not want my capital gains taxes raised (and if they’re going to be, I’ll join other investors in crashing the market to get the money into other places before the taxes go back up.) I do not care if gays get married but I do not think they or anyone else deserves special protected status. I am fine with alternative energy if I’m not being taxed to subsidize it and if the people demanding it are really willing to set an example (Kerry and Kennedy, I am looking at you. Put that wind farm off the Cape and tell your rich Hyannis neighbors to stuff it.)

        Do I love everything the GOP does? No. NCLB can go anytime because it’s too damn expensive. The Evangelicals are useful when we need votes but can STFU the rest of the time. Do I agree with them FAR more often than I agree with the DNC? Yep. I resent the prevailing liberal attitude that because I have a uterus, I am either a liberal or a duped and presumably stupid victim of the patriarchy. That more than anything is off-putting. Plus, I live in a state that elected an Obama clone governor two years ago, with a friendly state house and everything he could want to get things done. Precisely nothing has come of any of it. Great speeches? Yep, to the point Obama’s borrowed a lot of them and made him an advisor. Change? Zip. Oddly, the same thing happened in my old state, except she and the state legislature ran the economy completely into the ground. I have yet to see a Democrat elected to an executive position who has ever made my life better in any significant–ie financial–way. In Alaska, Palin said she would cut spending and lower property taxes. She cut spending and lowered property taxes. I would weep for joy if Deval cut my taxes here, but it won’t happen. By Democrat standards, I’m “rich”. (I make ca. $30,000/year but don’t qualify for ANY of his state tax breaks because I’m single, employed, and not dumb enough to have gotten knocked up. Look at our state’s tax codes and see who Democrats, for all their mocking of McCain, think need to be paying .)

        In every state where I have lived, Democrats have done nothing to help the economy, and have punished the employed on behalf of “victims.” When I’ve lived under GOP governors and Senators, I’ve done much better. Under a GOP Congress, I did better. Under a Democrat Congress, I do worse. Why on EARTH would I vote for Democrats? Being female is not even relevant.

        • Todd says:

          “(Sorry, don’t know how to do essetts on this keyboard.)

          I sympathize. And don’t get me started on umlauts.

          I’m sorry that liberal LJers and Youtube users have been slagging Palin, but I don’t really tend to get my news, or opinions for that matter, from those places.

          If it helps you, I don’t think you’re “stupid” for being a conservative. Like I say, I don’t understand it, since conservatism has done nothing to advance the causes of women, quite the opposite, but you obviously have strong feelings about these things and state your positions clearly, and if that’s the way you feel you should vote that way.

        • yesdrizella says:

          You disagree that women need education and training and are more frequently heads of the household than in previous years?

          All I am saying is that I expect to earn the same amount as a man for having the same job and doing the same amount of work. Surely there’s nothing wrong with that?

          I do not want “universal health care” because I already know who’ll be paying for it–me and everyone else who makes just enough that we don’t qualify for tax breaks

          You may not want it, but there are other people who could certainly use it. There are many people with college degrees who cannot afford health care or get the jobs that will give them said benefits. The adjunct professors at my university are but a few of those “victims”.

          I don’t agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re stupid. I am a liberal, but I’m not so militant that I can’t make nice with conservatives (seeing as how my immediate family is made up of conservatives. I guess you could consider us the bizarro Latino version of Family Ties).

    • Anonymous says:

      I’ll freely admit that I prefer the ideas Obama espouses to those put forth by McCain, but I’ve also been eager to read about Obama’s faults and McCain’s virtues. In that same spirit, since you mentioned Obama’s lack of legislative experience, I wanted to offer you a link to some fairly interesting analysis of Obama’s Senate record.

      Yes, it’s poorly formatted and makes for eye-unfriendly reading. Yes, it’s reprinted from a post on DailyKos, which I’m sure is not one of your favorite web sites. (I often frown at the degree of its bias myself, especially when it strays from fact-based criticism into personal attacks.) But this particular post seems free of partisan spin and full of fact and substance, and it certainly improved my opinion of Obama and his accomplishments. If the record presented here is accurate, he passed a lot of unsexy, little-heralded, but useful and important legislation, much of it with Republican co-sponsors in the face of a decidedly hostile Republican-controlled Congress.

      For what it’s worth, I don’t care one whit about Palin’s gender. I just strongly disagree with her political views.

      — N.A.

  5. faeryhead says:

    I’m just upset to see the Pistons lost to the Bullets.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Everything in modern politics is a Rorschach test. If Candidate A had beaten a corrupt Republican machine, increased fees and taxes on the oil companies, and founded a department to inspect pipelines to protect the environment and if that Candidate had an ‘R’ after her name then that Candidate must be under-qualified. If that Candidate had a ‘D’ after her name, then I suspect she would be Mother Jones cover girl.

    Aside from doing the hard work of keeping Hillary Clinton off of the Democratic ticket, what else has Barack Obama done? In his two years in the Senate before he started running for office did he propose any major legislation? Or even vote for any?

    Bill Williams

    • Todd says:

      Sarah Palin is an environmentalist who stands up to the oil companies? Where did you read that, I’m actually curious. Last time I checked, she had a husband who worked for British Petroleum, hunted animals and was trying to get the polar bear off the endangered species list so that the oil companies could slaughter them with impunity.

      “What else has Barack Obama done?”

      Well, he doesn’t make me want to throw up every time I look at him. So there’s that.

      • Anonymous says:


        If you can contain your gag reflex long enough, here is a link.-

        It goes to a USA Today piece and midway down, there is this sentence referring to Palin.

        “She stood up to the powerful oil industry, and with bipartisan support in the statehouse she won a tax increase on oil companies’ profits.”

        Now, I know there are a million ways to dismiss this fact. Which one will you choose?

        Bill Williams

        ps. I enjoy the script analysis.

        • Todd says:

          “Now, I know there are a million ways to dismiss this fact. Which one will you choose?”

          I choose “not enough information to make a reasoned judgment.” It’s a puff-piece in USA Today and it doesn’t really tell me much of anything. The fact remains that I am deeply skeptical of the notion that the governor of Alaska, whose husband works for BP, is going to “stand up to the powerful oil industry” in any meaningful way.

          • Anonymous says:


            The Seattle Times is full of Communists. Maybe you can trust them.


            Or you can continue to discard facts that do not fit your worldview.


            • Todd says:

              Hey, let’s keep things polite here.

              Okay, the oil companies were making untold billions in her state and she got them to give some back to her citizens. Good for her. Still doesn’t mean she’s defied Big Oil in any meaningful way, and it still doesn’t qualify her to be president.

              Are you telling me that John “drill, drill, drill” McCain has nominated a politician who fights the oil companies?

              • Anonymous says:


                You’re right.

                Thanks for not proving my original point about the ink-blot test. I see one thing. You see another.

                I’ll be back when you write more about Spielberg.


              • Anonymous says:

                Are you telling me that John “drill, drill, drill” McCain has nominated a politician who fights the oil companies?

                ….and is a big union member and sympathizer? Oh wait, that’s true.

            • What the hell?

              Run along, now…

    • urbaniak says:

      Obama has spent years developing informed positions, strategies and yes, legislation (see, for a start, here, here, here, here, and here) on, by any standard, a wide range of national and international issues. So has his Vice President. Sarah Palin not only hasn’t taken a stand on issues outside of her state, by all accounts she’s barely thought about any. There are many prominent Republican women politicians with far-ranging agendas but McCain picked Palin in a panicky, eleventh-hour, high-risk gamble because she’s a female fundie and he thought she could help him get elected. It’s only NOW that his people are doing research on her and the dam is sprouting leaks left and right. I’ll bet a Venture Brothers Season Three DVD that she’ll be stepping down for “personal reasons” in the very near future.

  7. monica_black says:

    I am not a conservative (I’m more of a moderate), but it seems that they went with a strong conservative because those on the far-right weren’t too happy with McCain and a woman to potentially lure over Hilary supporters.

    Don’t “creationist” and “anti-science” go together?

    • Todd says:

      They do, but “Creationist” merely means that she wants to get science devalued in schools, “anti-science” means, to me anyway, that she doesn’t believe in global warming. Which is, of course, convenient for the governor of a state dependent on oil revenue.

  8. eronanke says:

    She’s too obvious a ploy to get the Hilary vote. So obvious it’s insulting.

    I would have been tempted by a McCain/Romney ticket, tbh. I’m a fan of Romney since he won’t be swayed by traditional Evangelicals given his Mormon background. That’s such an asset, imo, since he’s a pragmatic – it’s not going to be an issue for him or his policies.

    Plus, anyone who knows how save an economically-sinking ship is fine by me. I’d love to see the US economy guided by someone who knows what he is doing.

  9. I used to call myself a true Republican. Then I considered myself an independent conservative. Now, I don’t really know what I am. I’m probably floating towards Libertarian, but I honestly can’t trust Democrats or Republicans anymore. The first thing I thought of when Palin was revealed was, “Geez, this is a low blow to the Democrats, considering Hilary is out of the race now.” It just felt like they were simply using Palin as a tool. More than likely, that was probably the case. But honestly, I’ve lost interest about the politics in this nation, as I don’t really think it’s about who’s best for the country anymore, but who just wants the position on top. Once the president is chosen, it doesn’t take long for everyone to start hating him. It’s like in high school with students fighting over who gets picked for class president or student council. I would like to think that the people who want to run the country are more mature than that… But maybe that’s wishful thinking. As of now, I’m having a pretty pessimistic view on the whole situation.

  10. I completely agree with how you’re seeing this nomination. Upon first hearing about it, I rolled my eyes and looked at my husband. We’ve been watching a lot of John Stewart and Steven Colbert lately and thought this would be a great segment for the show. I’m assuming their game plan went something like this: “Angry Hillary supporters who don’t want Obama will froth at the mouth to get a female VP in the Office!”

    For God’s sake. I am a woman and I find this insulting. I am commpletely against everything this woman stands for and will happily chuck a fetus in her face. Of COURSE she’s going to say her 17-year-old daughter chose to keep her baby. And of COURSE the daughter is getting married to the unborn baby’s father. Please.

    This is far too much drama already. We don’t need this soap opera in the White House. It’s got its own show already.

  11. yesdrizella says:

    My friend and I were going over who would’ve been a better VP choice, if the GOP so desperately wanted a vagina on the ticket. She thinks Kay Bailey Hutchison would’ve been more of a real threat than Palin, and in terms of experience and accomplishments I agree, but her stance on abortion and her age (you can’t court the young voters with two senior citizens) would’ve nixed any chance she had.

    If nothing else, at least Gov. Palin has turned what was once a dull stalemate into a trainwreck spectacle. I’d like to think we’re giving future U.S. Americans some interesting chapters in their history books.

  12. xbt says:

    Speaking on the behalf of /b/, Palin is everything we could want in a candidate. Not only is she a MILF, she’s a GILF! And not only is she a GILF, she’s got an underage daughter. She’s got the pervert trifecta! Plus she loves guns and kills animals and doesn’t afraid of anything.

    • thunder24 says:

      I’m sorry. I loled. She is kind of hot tho.

      Still, back to the topic at hand, as a die hard fence sitter, this made me lean towards McCain much more so than that batshit crazy Romney would have.
      I really agree with the sentiment that none of the candidates are truly qualified and/or appealing to many of us fence sitters, however.

  13. sailortweek says:

    Being politically ignorant, the only reply I have to the video is this:
    “Dear god, her eyes! Those souless, huge eyes!”

    I’ve heard nothing but negative things about her. And I mean negative…not mud-slinging, but total fact that this lady is not playing with a full deck. You can take that as her being ignorant or pure bat-shit crazy. I see it as inexperience and ignorance.

    I’m not one that purposefully keeps thier head in the sand and whatnot, I’m just really ego-centric at the moment. My wedding is happening this weekend and if it wasn’t for the televisions at the gym, I wouldn’t have realized it was an election year. *LOL*

  14. pirateman says:

    I’m very probama, but I will say this: America re-elected George Bush. So I’m not saying anything is a slam dunk until Obama is sworn in and the election is over.

    Also, I see Palin as an easy target – but think about this; Republicans don’t always care about common sense. She may have zero experience, but that just makes her MORE dangerous in a debate with Biden – if she actually gets one over on him (or is perceived to get one over on him), it’s much worse for him than for her. She and McCain have, essentially, nothing to lose. All they are hoping for is to try and trip up the Dems; and if they do it at the right time, and the media plays it up – I could very easily see Obama/Biden losing. Sad but true.

  15. solarbird says:

    As a former – and extremely disgruntled – Republican, I’m not really surprised, at all; her base math is perfect, and that’s what this VP choice was about. Since clinching the nomination Senator McCain has been running to gain the support of the neoconservative wing of the party, but has been completely incapable of winning over the fundamentalist wing – until now. The fundamentalists love her. Love love love love love. She’s one of them, and they know it. The religiosity is just part of the package.

    Being of the old (and mostly extinct) northern libertarian-Republican school, the Bush administration and its lapdog Congresses alienated me beyond recovery from the modern GOP. I mean, I was a Forbes county delegate in ’96 and a McCain county delegate in 2000 – I’d actually go to these things and argue platform planks, I was that kind of wonk – and I will vote no Republican no more forever. Particularly not McCain, particularly after watching him invert so many of the things he claimed to stand for eight years ago. I’ll be voting Libertarian a lot henceforth, and hoping that Mr. Barr does well this year.

    But Governor Palin didn’t cause any of that. She does exemplify a lot of what’s wrong with the shiny new anti-rationalist authoritarian GOP (“creation science” my shiny metal ass) but she’s a product of that process, not a cause of it. That ship was underweigh by 2002 and long out to sea by 2004. I haven’t seen that land in a long time.

  16. ndgmtlcd says:

    John Milius and the conservative film

    I don’t vote in the US but I can’t help being entertained when I see any mention of a possible Soviet/Russian invasion through Alaska. Because that’s what the “proximity to Russia” is all about. It’s a very old theme in Science Fiction Short stories from way back. They dropped it in the 60s and 70s when they finally noticed that it was absurd given the geography.

    Then, John Milius took it up again in the 1980s, and I was overcome with joy at the idea that there would logically be even more absurdities in that film, entertaining me to no end. Red Dawn didn’t disappoint me at all on that aspect, and it had many other charms. But to get to the point, finally, I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned Red Dawn, after Palin’s nomination.

  17. rennameeks says:

    I don’t really have an appropriate place to link this, but I figure any political post will do.

    So much win.

  18. narzoth says:

    I don’t get a candidate anymore.

    I recently came to the conclusion that as an institutional conservative foremost and a classical conservative second…I don’t get a political party anymore. Ergo, I don’t get a candidate anymore. Both sides’ first reaction to anything is more government regulation of [issue du’jour]. This applies to both candidates in this race.

    I just want to see more governmental regulation of government…a state of affairs that is exceedingly hard to attain.

    I’m largely immune to eloquence and speechmaking. When I hear a canidate talk, I listen for what he’s really saying, not how he’s saying it.

    Obama is offering the usual Democrat magical faerie dust wishlist, with an exhortation that we should really have hope and faith in him because he’ll really pull it off, this time. I see McCain toting the party line to get his party’s support…but I don’t believe the ‘four more years of Bush’ soundbite anymore than I believe the ‘Obama’s a muslim!’ one. I’ve seen McCain buck the party line (as laid by the Bush administration) when it comes to something really, really imporatant too many times. I think under a McCain administration, the Republican party line will become a good bit more palatable.

    I’ve said a few times that all things being equal, it’d be nice to give Obama a shot at his lovely little list for some undefined political Santa Claus. I mean, even if he fails at it (like many Democrats have in the past) – if we never try, these things will never happen. On the other hand, McCain would probably make for a decent one-term president who could ease the car out of the right-hand ditch and back onto the road, without the possible perils of just snatching the wheel to the left.

    I’ve just this past week finally come to the conclusion that all things really ARE equal. Neither candidate really has anything over the other. They’re both pretty much running on either party support, support for the current state of things, hate for the current state of things, or blind hope inspired by skilled speechmaking – dependant on the supporter in question. As such, I’m good with whoever takes office. I don’t think either will do a large amount of damage. I think both have a chance of doing a lot of repair work. I think at worst, both would simply shift the status quo around a bit.

    Neither can possibly be worse than what we’ve got right now.

    I’m still not sure which is going to get my vote. But honestly, it’s comforting to know that even if the one I vote for doesn’t get the win, I’ll still be okay with it.