Eagleton?
From Brad deLong:
'Two things seem salient (i) she fired the state's public safety head for being unwilling to help her in her family's vendetta against her ex-brother-in-law, and (ii) she introduced herself to America by saying that she was against the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere." '
Both these strike me as Eagleton-like: that is, examples of inadequate vetting and impulsive selection that are sufficiently serious as to imperil the viability of the nomination. It is not clear that the Republicans will keep Palin on the ticket; it may be likely but it is not certain.
Moreover, the mainstream media, instead of going grossly gaga over the fact that a former beauty contest winner is on the national ballot, should raise now, and urgently, the question of whether a pending corruption investigation and a blatant, obviously intentional lie in the first press conference are disqualifying. It's pretty clear, isn't it, that if Obama had made this choice he'd be pressured by the cable shows to recant?
Nor should the MSM automatically deem acceptable Palin's views that creationism should be taught in public schools and that global warming is not necessarily a product of human activity. These two views are, respectively, contrary to the Constitution and nuts. How can she be expected to uphold and defend the Constitution or the viability of our culture in the face of climate change? Of course she could recant, scurrying away into ambiguous non-denial denials, but at least she should be interrogated, instead of merely photographed by an admiring media interested not in what she thinks but how she looks.
My conspiracy theory is that they are shamelessly using the hurricane to retool. Palin will suddenly discover the need to nurture her 4 month old (my eyes tear up at the sacrifice) and McCain will come back with Jindal who, unlike the previous Democratic governor, will have a hotline and a blank check from the White House to stage his CIC mastery of hurricane Gustav.
Of course God might not cooperate.
August 31, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
McBush would love for us to talk about hurricanes, Palin, Bobby, etc.
ANYTHING but talk about him.
ANYTHING.
Speaks volumes.
CFMA!!
September 1, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed, do you have evidence of the two things that seem "salient" to you even though the investigation is not complete?
If the evidence supports your premise about the second point, haven't we seen argued around here that a truly intelligent person is capable of listening, quickstudy and a change of mind if it is warranted by the evidence..or lack for the previous position.
What's the alternative? Saying we can't leave a mercenary war because it would be admitting we were wrong?
How partisan angling destroys the mind.
August 31, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad deLong called them "salient" and yes there is evidence of both. I understand that the investigation is ongoing and there are transcribed quotes of her support of the bridge.
As to her changing her mind, I am open to seeing it; but what she said was that she didn't support the bridge whereas the truth was that as long as she thought the taxpayers principally from the rest of the country were going to pay for it she supported it.
August 31, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed, the more salient issue is the state trooper influence and firing incident. That investigation is ongoing, but do we have both sides of the story? That is, do we know whether the state trooper was doing some dangerous things?
You may recall the LAPD case in which an officer estranged from his wife beat her and threatened her with his sidearm only to have a very weak response from the department's IAD. He later shot her dead and someone else. A lawsuit by the same attorney as handled the RAMPART cases commenced, and LAPD settled. It was a danger-creation case under equal protection for the category of abused spouses of law officers. So we don't know whether the trooper in question in Alaska may have been dangerous to his ex, or reasonably perceived so by the governor. We don't know that the supervisor didn't cover up a history of tolerating such behavior and she canned him for it. Maybe all of this is not the case here, but until we know both sides it seems premature to launch political conclusions.
Had she failed to act and it was a matter of public safety, she would have been hit for that.
August 31, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, you have shown your bias. What does a homocidal LAPD cop have to do with this? Has anyone suggested that this state trooper was trying to abuse anyone? Palin denies that she ever tried to get him fired. The person she fired was the commissioner who wouldn't fire the trooper!
You have blown your cover. Don't even try to sound like you are the voice of reason. BTW, Did you hear about the blogger who posted comments that challenged assumptions and then ran amok and stabbed everyone in his family to death before he jumped off a bridge on top of a family of 4 , killing all of them and himself too? No? Well, you never know....I mean MAYBE THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE.............
August 31, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cville,
What are you talking about?
Palin may not have tried to get the trooper fired, however, she may have tried to get the commissioner to deal with a trend of conduct in a way that may have wound up in firing him or may not. Hence, she denies trying to get him fired. She probably tried something else.
We don't know because we haven't heard both sides. We haven't all the evidence. And until we do, I'm saying that your partisan cover is blown: you just hit the buttons without evidence and hope that you're right.
All I'm arguing here is that you ought to wait till you have the whole story before making a lot of assertions based on unfinished investigations. By now you should know the news cycles aren't accurate sources of information that comes out of public inquiries after some time. Much more comes out in time than there was room or political fairness to print.
Or, the evidence could totally support your take on this. But we can't tell yet if we don't have it all.
August 31, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike7 says:
Mike7, I think what CVilleDem is seeing is an attitude; when a Republican is the accused there is a hue and cry for "both sides of the story" or 'wait till all the evidence is in'. Yet when a Democrat is the accused these same people who cried for 'both sides' and 'the rest of the story' have the Democrat convicted and are already building the gallows. Two classic examples, Clinton and Kerry.
September 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The trooper in question violated more than a dozen laws, including tasering his nephew for fun. On any force in the country, he would have been fired.
September 2, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You owe me a new keyboard.
It was funny, though.
September 2, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem, Mike, is that Monaghan, who she appointed to head the State Police, is highly respected, and no liberal, and he has said that he told her --specifically her -- to stop interfering, because the issue had already been looked at and decided bu hte department (with due process), and was closed, and her continued interference could actually prevent the State Police from being able to fire the violent ex-brother-in-law if future misconduct gave them the proper reason to do so. It's already in the record.
September 1, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that info. I'm not sure which record you're referring to, i.e. a court record, or an investigation file record or the press?
In any case, prosecuting, not firing the man would be more protective.
September 2, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
He in fact said that she never spoke to him on it and never asked him to fire the trooper, but that he felt pressured from others. And the trooper violated numerous laws and policies over his career, including tasering his nephew for fun. Any force would have fired him. If he was threatening to his wife by the law (domestic violence act) he could not be allowed to carry a gun or be a cop.
September 2, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that the policy of using electric shock against civilians (tasering) amounts to the institutionalization of the practice of torture against citizens.
September 2, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction:
The danger creation doctrine in a civil police misconduct case would fall under a section 1983 enforcement of the due process right to personal security for someone where the State created or increased the danger to that a person, even a police officer, would hurt someone else.
September 2, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
My conspiracy theory, bluebell, is that JM picked someone weak b/c despite an election, cheney will still be running things! But frankly, I like your theory better!
August 31, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Palin-as-Eagleton meme began from yours truly.
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/08/palin-think-tom-eagleton-not-dan-quayle.html
Part 2 is now up:
">http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/08/palin-as-eagleton-part-2_31.html">
with a final wrap-up at my blog later.
August 31, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that Palin-as-Eagleton meme began right here from yours truly.
Part 2 here (including link to talk about her baby issue) with a final tie-up later.
August 31, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If not Eagleton, then Stockdale.
August 31, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
George H W Bush appoints Clarence Thomas.
George Bush appoints Condi Rice
John McCain appoints Sarah Palin
Three appointees, three incompetent for the position, all window dressing.
At least Alberto Gonzalez wasn't incompetent for his position, keeping the wolves from Bush's door.
August 31, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, are you saying that because they are black or women they can't possibly be qualified? Just doesn't make sense. Clarence Thomas has served well. Read his court reviews. Ms Rice is still traveling the man controlled world breaking down walls of prejudice every day. Governor Pulin, the leader of our largest state, Mayor, City Council Member, Business Owner, hunter, fisher and mother not qualified?
Pray tell, what have you EVER done except snip?
August 31, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarence Thomas is the most unqualified justice ever. He clearly lied under oath during his hearing: He said he never in his life discussed or even THOUGHT about Roe v Wade. You accuse John of making disparaging comments about him just because he's black? Hey! I'm making disparaging comments, and could make many more, and I want Barack Obama to be President! Clarence Thomas is a bitter lightweight, and has said he resents the fact that he doesn't make more money -- he could have said no to this life-time job, but he didn't.
Condi Rice has accomplished less than anyone I can think of who has lasted 8 years in an administration. She was National Security Advisor when the "Bin Ladin Determined to Attack the US" memo came through, which she ignored because Dubya was on vacation. When 911 happened and we were officially "under attack" (who knew if the towers & the Pentagon were all they were aiming at?) Bush sat like a zombie in an elementary school for 20 minutes -- no whisking away to a safe location... good job, Ms National Security Chief! Now as Sec of State, how many trips has she made to Asia, Russia (which is her area of expertise, although she has such bad relations with them they don't want her to dome), and to the Middle East? Gee. Oil wins every time. She is a loser and incompetent. Yeah, right. if she was only white I would admire her so much!
Palin -- Let's give it a week. One day has certainly been enlightening. At least you aren't accusing us of thinking she is an unqualified, poor choice because of her race! I'm sure you'll think of something that is just as ridiculous, though. I can hardly wait.
August 31, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point all these arguments have no relevance. People are going to vote for Governor Palin because they see themselves in the Governor. She is a working woman, a mother to 5 kids, a wife, a business owner, a hunter, fisherman, ex cheerleader or basketball player, she can shoot a gun and seems like a REAL person. In the American world (our world) there is no City Park, Broadway, Taxi Cab or uppity eating establishments. We have diners, high school football, the great outdoors and we call it America. We cheer for our teams to win and don't pull our stars off the field when we are winning. When we lose, we lose with grace. We come together for a prayers on Sunday and wave at our neighbors. You don't know us but you think you know everything. You can continue to be as smart as you think you are and we will vote like we always do. We don't like those that just talk it. That's why we also walk it. See you at the polls.
August 31, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she got off the plane with the Beer Baroness so apparently she's being treated more like a wife than a VP.
August 31, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I certainly don't identify with Palin. She reminds me of many ambitious women I've come across who "do it all" at the expense of their families. She certainly made risky choices with Trig - Geez, I hope she stops having kids; I just can't imagine what the next name will be --> Rin Tin Tin?
September 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Down syndrome brings with it the potential for many health risks. Cardiac and pulmonary problems are common, and low muscle tone makes tasks like feeding problematic. It's shocking to me that with the impending birth of a higher-risk baby at hand, the Palins chose to fly from Texas back home. I'm not suggesting anything nefarious here, just a kind of single-minded devotion to a plan that allows no deviation based on what actually unfolds in real life. Most parents would opt to have a child with special needs born in the most optimal medical envrionment. How blithely out of touch is this vice-presidential nominee? And her husband?
September 1, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Sarg, I misjudged you. THANKS for posting these: it gives us a reminder of who we are dealing with...
September 1, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God you're not incredibly self congratulatory Sarge.
When did the lynchings in the south happen? In between rousing football games?
Also thank God you look at real issues and how the GOP is going to dismantle America and sell it to the highest bidder.
Salt of the earth types like you don't fall for the facile impressions --- oh wait. you do.
September 2, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP don't WANT qualified women or minorities, they go out of their way to find incompetent eye-candy.
They don't think much of the hoi-polloi. I'm sure you can empathize.
August 31, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh brother.
You really are an ass, aren't you "OldSarg"?
JohnW served in WWII and helped liberate a NAZI Concentration Camp. That doesn't make him right about politics. It doesn't make him a saint. But it is a potent answer to foolish questions like yours.
Fine.
So what the hell have you ever done?
September 1, 2008 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like you answered that question down below, so I'll withdraw it.
September 1, 2008 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarge asks;
Sarge, that's a typical right wing response, I said they were incompetent, not black or women.
Clarence Thomas is nothing more than Scalia's sock puppet. His reticence during hearings is well documented.
Condi Rice, appointed by Bush as National Security Advisor was a Soviet Union expert and at the time of her appointment there was no Soviet Union, our problems were in the Middle east.
And, Rice didn't read the PDB titled: "bin Ladin determined to attack inside the US." delivered to the Bush gang a month BEFORE 9/11.
Highlights of the report include:
• An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
• An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
• An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
• Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.
• A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.
That's your justification for Rice's competence as Secretary of State? Wow, that's profound!
Sarge, who do you want informing you on Iran, N Korea, Russia, Afghanistan, Israel? Biden or Sarah Palin?
September 1, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like Obama is losing in Vegas as well!
www.sportsbook.com/betting/2008%20Presidential%20Election-betting-odds-754.html
August 31, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old Sarg,
you know the idea here is to spark debate. when I review your posts they all seem so negative. I'm not sure if your trying to project your wishes on this blog but you should know your pretty annoying and I'm really hoping your not as lost as you seem.
To ignore the actions by the current occupants of 1600 penn avenue and to actually wish for 4 more years of the same seem so strange and out of character for the majority of posts I see here. One thing I have and continue to enjoy with TPM is the higher level of debate. Trust me, when I review blogs connected to the major MSM's the language is pretty bad.
All I'm saying is your posts really suck and I'm not sure that's the opinion you want others to have of you. Of course if that is the opinion then your succeeding beyond your wildest dreams.
One thing I do know for sure is that the people I blog with here love this country and whether you agree with them or not think we need real change. To quote Barack... I'm not sure taking a 10 percent chance McCain wants change is not something I'm willing to chance...
McCain is a seriously flawed candidate...
August 31, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You struck a cord with me in your response. I think your right. My responses have been negative. I will try to be more positive in the future. I do feel that sometimes it seems like all anybody wants to do is tear down anyone who has ran for office or been elected to office and I feel like I have to defend them since they have no voice here. Please have patience with me while I try to explain myself. I served under Carter (when we were treated like trash, no choice, unemployment was over 16%), Reagan (when we started to get money to practice), George Bush (when we regained our pride from Iraq), Clinton (where we trusted Bill but were mistreated by his spouse) and George W Bush (where we feel we have a chance at doing good). I don't deploy anymore, I wish I could, but I do see the faces of the young who come back from the war and I see their desire to be thanked for the work they have done. See, I was there when the boys came home from Vietnam and were spit on. That is what most of them expect today from people who tear apart our Commander and Chief. You don't see it that way because you don't wear a uniform that turns heads in airports or the mall or Walmart or any place else people turn and stare. We expect it to happen. We hear about it in the news. We get left on airplanes on the ramp for hours on end. We know people look at us and wonder if they are safe around us. Our uniform can instill pride but it also causes people to get nervous and back away. The only people that approach us are other vets. Normal people don't. We are parias.
You don't have to like George Bush and neither do we but we do put our lives in his hands and pray to our God that he is making the right decisions. This is not about simple trust. Simple trust is falling back and your friends catch you. The trust we have involves laying on a stretcher with your chest open to the world hoping the explosive can be removed without killing your friends around you. We have that trust for Bush. We even have that trust for Biden and Palin. We don't have that trust for Obama. Obama hangs with people that tried to kill us. So please forgive me when I go negative. I know it's not right and I know it's not productive but I'm scared. Not for me but for my brothers and sisters who walk through my office when I check their bags before loading up and shipping out. I see you sons eyes. I see your daughters smile. They walk past me and I try to be brave, cheer them on and not cry when they walk up into that DC-10 flying to Anbar. I wish I could replace everyone of them. I wish I could sit in their seat, carry their pack, walk their beat, fire their weapon and lay on their grenade. I wish I could take away their pain as they lay scared on the ground with their life blood leaking in the dust.
I can't go anymore but I can fight back here and guess what? Fuck Obama. Sorry but that's how we feel and my brothers and sisters would expect no less. Maybe you should have me blocked.
September 1, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Old Sarg,
Your post was great until the very end. You co-opted your entire message which may be what your trying to do. The incredible irony is that the majority of the past presidents (current occupant included) have done less to "honor" our veterans than the man you just offended.
Remember one of the first acts after Obama became a senator was to fight for the treatment of veterans when they came back from iraq.
If you do a little research you will find that on the list of senators who have done the most for veterans and receive the highest marks from veterans groups are overwhelmingly democrats. this is what we are fighting...
I think they call it "low intelligence" voters but really it can be aptly named "picking out what you think you heard" voters because the repubs are good at rhetoric but are horrible (are maybe from their point of view- successful) and making you think they support you but in reality doing the exact opposite.
There are many of us who are Vets but we don't use it as a club to force our opinion on others. For every Vet who thinks they know the american heart there are those who served for any number of reasons and have been respected and thanked by our friends/family. I held a security clearance and spent time all over the world but this is the first time I have referenced this in any TMP post... and this to address your lunacy and veiled support for democratic principles.
September 1, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beger, do you really believe that increasing a monthly check or adding a TV room to the hospital or building another empty homeless shelter for vets is what we want? Do you think because someone puts forth a veterans benefit bill during an election season that we don't see through it? You confused benefits with patriotism. Our problem (and I am speaking for more vets than any polling organization would release) is like having a player who undermines the coach's authority when his back is turned. You can't cure it and you can't change the player. All you can do is cut the player. In this case it's Obama. He voices support for our troops but e hangs without remorse with admitted terrorist. He voices support for the troops but would FORCE us to turn our backs on the enemy. With guys like Obama we feel we a would be facing the enemy on 2 fronts. We can't afford that. I do hope I did not hurt your ego by not affording you the position of a front.
September 1, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink