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
you don't speak for me, or most of the folks I've seen come back from Iraq to wait for their next deployment.
September 1, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you continue to fail to address the points of what McSame has done for veterans other than talk and vote against true supportive legislation then your just talking rhetoric and dont' worry about my feelings...
it's your insanity and continually making the case for why this country has gone so off track that is remarkably clear...
you keep on trying the same thing while expecting something different to happen. As you have not addressed my issues and continue to character attack I'll be ignoring your posts from this point forward...
September 1, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you continue to fail to address the points of what McSame has done for veterans other than talk and vote against true supportive legislation then your just talking rhetoric and dont' worry about my feelings...
it's your insanity and continually making the case for why this country has gone so off track that is remarkably clear...
you keep on trying the same thing while expecting something different to happen. As you have not addressed my issues and continue to character attack I'll be ignoring your posts from this point forward...
September 1, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old Sarg,
that's a load of jingoistic BS. All that's missing is The Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background. I personally know at least 10 modern day veterans and not a one speaks like you do for public consumption.
You should try to stop speaking for Veterans, you do them a disservice.
September 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corruption??
She's a beauty queen!!!
She don't need no experience!!
SHe's got legs and knows how to use them!!
August 31, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today I listened as a CNN reporter apologized for even thinking about such a subject, then asked if McCain had any comment about the rampant speculation about Palin's total lack of experience. McCain's answer was that she had much more experience than Obama! Now, if that doesn't prove he needs to have a court appointed conservator in charge of his affairs I don't know what it would take.
Sarah is an afterthought, of no significance at all, other than as a demonstration of McCain's utter lack of fitness for the office he seeks. Not even a die hard Republican would rest easy knowing that if a President dies in office someone like Sarah would be president, with the full power to launch a suicidal attack on Russia. I seriously doubt that she will be the VP even if the disaster that it would be if McCain were elected ever happens.
September 1, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has more international experience than Clinton did when he was elected. She has managed a larger state with more employees and greater environmental concerns than Clinton. So what do you want? What does qualify someone to walk around DC and act important? How many dinner parties must one have attended to be qualified in your simple opinion? get a life.
September 1, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
More INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE? She just got her first passport in 2007! I have had a ton more international experience than she has!
Are you talking about being "next door to Russia?"
I live next door to a lawyer, but I wouldn't represent myself in court. What are you talking about? Don't you feel embarassed for yourself?
September 1, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg said:
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, meaning he studied in Great Britain. Your gang also attacked him for traveling to Russia. Her international experience is looking across the Bering Sea at Russia.
US CENSUS:
Alaska Population; 670,053
Arkansas Population 2,810,872
OldSarg, if you stop posting bad info, I won't "snip".
I have the feeling you see the world as you want to see it, not as it really is.
September 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
hoppy,
I think that if McCain does win the election, this woman getting all the praise from republicans will get less press than stories on the White House China.
I predict she will disappear into the woodwork at the Naval Observatory.
September 1, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore: If you watched and listened to McCain today you saw him trying to take over the office of the presidency in advance. He kept choking over his own effrontery, but he was actually treating the hurricane threat to the Gulf Coast as if he were the one in charge and making the decisions. He is clearly an utterly deluded, senile old fart.
September 1, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your a young bunny hopping down the road? Get a clue, nobody is buying it anymore. You are a waste of breath. I hate even using the electrons to form these letters on someone with as simple minded as you. You need to put a plastic bag over your head and go to bed.
September 1, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to stop being negative, Old Sarg. How about one substantive post. Forget the "we love to walk in the meadows and go to football games.." as though progressives aren't right there in the stands next to you. You are no more patriotic than anyone else here.
How about some substance? Some facts. List some accomplishments, rather than resume items. Oh, neve mind. Don't bother.
September 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Old Sarg,
you said "I (you) don't deploy anymore"; are you in the military? And what is the significance of your screen name?
September 1, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm 50 and that may not seem old but when you are surrounded with young people.....
September 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg said:
OldSarg, you're a youngster to me, but I didn't ask about your age, I asked about your military record and screen name.
September 1, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should all embrace Palin as the candidate. It is a mistake to attack her for just being a regular, good old fashioshed American girl. Rather we should just make sure that her positions are known to a few groups of American voters. To wit:
Middle and upper middle class professional republicans should be reminded that Palin is a creation scientist. Over the years I have asked some of these people why they support a party that advocates such nonsense. Their usual response is that they don't, it is just part of the voting base that they need to win elections. They think of these people, at best, in condescending terms. They should not be allowed to ignore the fact that the Party's number two is one of these cretins.
Men who have experienced nasty custody battles and have been pilloried in court. Let them know that the trooper in troopergate was victimized by a vindictive sister-in-law who just happened to be the governor but also used the power of her office to try to get him fired. This society does not have much respect for exhusbands in these situations, but we should realize that they likely number in the multiple of tens of millions and they usually come out of these experiences very angry. At the very least, Palin abused her power to attack a trooper in one of Alaska's most highly respected professions.
Fiscal conservatives. Palin as mayor of Wasilla left the town's finances in shambles by pushing a sport's stadium that left the city with a $6 million dollar debt for a town with only 7000 people. This is story that most people other than accountants may have trouble following. But perhaps a muni bond analyst might look into the details and work with a good writer to tell this sordid tale. There is a second aspect of this story that should also be told to the sagebrush rebellion troops -- Palin's administration tried to claim the land through an Eminent Domain seizure against the legal owners (she lost in court but not before running up the costs of the project by another million dollars).
This is what we should be doing. It is not our role to simply announce that she is not qualified.
September 1, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
syvanen,
excellent post.
Here's how I see it;
The Wingnuts who attacked Clinton for 8 years of his Presidency are too brain dead to acknowledge how much better off they were under Clinton than under the Bush/Cheney gang and the Republican Congress.
The Log Cabin Republicans should cross party lines and join the DLC, they have more in common with the DLC corporate freindly people than they do with the modern Republican party, they would be welcomed, not attacked or shunned.
September 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be more confident that bringing up her views on Evolution, Separation of Church and State and Global Warming are damning if not half of the country (or more) would believe the same.
September 1, 2008 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we ought to focus overly much on Palin. Rather, look what this shows about McCain. First, it shows that Senator McCain has no core principles. None. Here’s a man who’s been running for President the last two years solely because of alleged superior credentials in foreign policy and national security. He used this argument not just against Senator Obama, but also against his rivals for the Republican nomination, Governors Huckabee and Romney and Mayor Giuliani, men with vastly more executive experience than he has. Over and over, he claimed that he’d make a better president because of years of service on congressional defense and foreign policy committees. A service, however, which never included actually formulating, deciding or executing policy. So who gets his first major appointment? A young governor with no experience in this area—or any of national issue—at all. By comparison, Senator Obama who has a degree in international relations from Columbia University, who has worked on important issues such as nuclear non-proliferation in the Senate, and has assembled a formidable team of foreign policy advisors, looks quite ready to start managing foreign policy from Day 1. And his Vice-President would have the experience, knowledge and character to tell him when he’s wrong. Would Vice-President Palin have that ability? Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet the house on that.
Second, what does this tell us about Senator McCain’s management style? He met Governor Palin once, for fifteen minutes at National Governors Association meeting, talked to her for five minutes on the phone, and then picks her for the second most important job in country. I’ve spent way more time selecting a junior member of my staff. Would you hire a guy as a CEO who makes decisions like that? And by the way the argument that she has more executive experience than Obama is pretty nonsensical; he's just managed one of the best organized and effective presidential campaigns in history, a multi-million dollar. operation employing hundreds of people. And needless to say, Obama is a far better manager than McCain.
September 1, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop this nonsense, this unseemly and breathless hope that some vast scandal, some Eagleton-like catastrophe is going to do Palin in and take McCain down with her. To dwell on this demeans Obama as it seems to suggest he cannot win without this sort of stuff.
Of course, a devastating scandal cannot be ruled out, but the stuff that's been dredged up thus far is small potatoes, easily capable of being spun in the other direction and unlikely to produce the results so breathlessly hoped for.
The race is still on and still needs to be fought. The target is McCain. As for Palin, I think the attacks that should be made on her should be made on a principled basis: her extremism on abortion, her belief in creationism, and her lack of experience. The scandalous stuff should be deemphasized unless something subtantial is found.
September 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The target is still McCain. What's at issue with ALL this stuff is the very obvious fact that he didn't do a thorough and prudent vetting of his choice, he just went with his gut. The issue IS McCain, and his impulsive, reckless decision making. He's reputed to be an inveterate craps shooter, and this was a roll of the dice. If you think rolling the dice is a good way to run the country--hey, sometimes you win--then fine. If not, then not. But all of the stuff about Palin goes to that issue.
September 1, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hundt,
The vast difference betweekn the Eagleton and Palin nominations could not be greater.
Eagleton was perfectly qualified to be President of the United States. His "defect" was that he had been treated for depression which we now all recognize is as common as a cold. Granted he method of treatment was barbaric, but it had no bearing on the man's qualifications. His treatment was only an issue because of the same idiotic hypocrisy that continues to exist today when it comes to things the media and the public like to gossip about.
Palin, on the other hand, it totally and completely unqualified for the office of President on a list of measures too long to list and this simple point is apparent to everyone. The problem for the Republicans is now that they have nominated her, it will be virtually impossible to dump her without losing a huge chunk of the wingnut vote. Personally, I'm going to enjoy every moment of the Republican agony sure to unfold throughout the week. Whether they dump her or not, the Republicans are done for this year, at least on the Presidential level, either way this question of who is on their ticket goes.
September 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not Eagleton.
The better analogy to Palin is Nixon's first Vice President, the late Spiro "Ted" Agnew.
Similarities:
(1) Little-known governor with little
experience prior to being announced as
the Republic Party VP candidate.
(2) Prior to being governor, some
experience running a municipality - in
Agnew's case, he was County Executive
of Baltimore County, Md.
(3) Cynical choice to help the man at the
top of the ticket, with no consideration
given as to ability to assume the Presidency
of the United States.
(4) Skeletons in the closet? Agnew had
a few, and apparently Pain does as well.
September 1, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her qualifications are not hard to decipher. When you include "past PTA member" on your resume, it's obvious that you realize you're underqualified.
September 1, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could Palin's "candidacy" for Veep be a red herring? When she succumbs to the glare and runs back to Alaska, Joe Lieberman replaces her on the ticket?
September 3, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink