All that Palin Jazz

[billroper]

Since I see from my friends list that you're still interested in talking about Sarah Palin, here's an article which tries to sort out what's true and false about the Governor. If you've got a factual rebuttal to any of the points that he makes, I'm sure he'd be delighted to hear from you, as he seems to be interested in getting the story straight.

(It looks like his personal blog, linked from the article, has gone under from the load. But you can comment on the article directly if you have useful information.)

Comments

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Yes, she did finally turn down the money for the bridge (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/01/palin-was-for-the-bridge-to-nowhere-before-she-was-against-it/).

The link doesn't say that she turned down the money -- it says that she diverted it elsewhere after the Bridge To Nowhere became politically radioactive.

[billroper]

The money was spent on other projects in Alaska after it was appropriated by Congress with the earmarking removed. That's what's normally known as a block grant rather than an earmark, if I recall the terminology correctly. Generally, it's viewed as better policy to send Federal money back to the states and allow them to determine how to spend it rather than directing it can only be spent on a specific project.

But, as I said, you can leave this information as a comment to the article that I linked to and have a reasonable chance of having it incorporated into the article.

The next questions, of course

[capplor.livejournal.com]

are "How much does it matter WHO the VP is?" "Does anybody think there will be any advice/information flow/ policy influence from Palin to McCain and therefore influence on national policy EXCEPT if he dies in office?"

The focus should resume on McCain. If they can keep Cheney alive this long, I'll bet Palin is a no-account anyway.

[madfilkentist]

David Friedman has pointed out that the frequently cited "task that is from God" quote from Palin about the Iraq war is a blatant case of context-dropping.

She's the new kid in town, so she's the target of all kinds of rumors and smears. Not that I think she's any better than the rest, but there's plenty of legitimate grounds to attack her on, and rumor-mongering and deceptive quoting just shows laziness.

[grey-lady.livejournal.com]

It was an interesting and fun article to read. I was surprised by a lot of the rumours and unsurprised as to the truth of the matter. Many of them fit the "and why would I care?" category (for example, that she was pregnant when she got married - as someone once said, "First babies can come any time, after that they take about 9 months.")

However, it doesn't do anything to allay my major misgivings about her. I wish it had. I was firmly in the 'undecided' camp and was hoping that the respective VP choices would make my decision easier.

[billroper]

Understood.

My impression, based on what I've seen so far, is that she's a bright woman. Although she's socially conservative, there's no evidence thus far that she's pushed such an agenda as governor, which suits me just fine. I'm more interested in her reform credentials, which look pretty good, in my opinion.

If you asked me "Is she prepared to be President of the U.S. right now?", I'd have to answer no. But I'd also have to answer no for Obama -- once again, in my opinion, before someone feels obligated to explain to me about Obama's credentials.

(I'm beginning to wonder, to be absolutely honest, whether anyone is qualified to be President of the U.S. To some extent, the totality of the job is absolutely impossible. But that is why you have advisors. On balance, I think I prefer the advisors that McCain is likely to select to those that Obama is likely to select.)

If Palin did become Vice-President, I think she would actually be ready to take over for McCain in a year or so. And in the sad event that she had to take over sooner, she'd have those same advisors that McCain had selected to help him.

I believe that Congress will be heavily Democratic in 2009-2010. An Obama presidency is, in my opinion (which you'd think I wouldn't have to say, because this is my blog, but hey!), likely to produce far more mischief than a McCain presidency would, especially if McCain follows through on the reform agenda that he's running on and pulls out the veto pen that Bush never did when it would have done some good.

[patoadam]

I'm beginning to wonder, to be absolutely honest, whether anyone is qualified to be President of the U.S. To some extent, the totality of the job is absolutely impossible. But that is why you have advisors.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I couldn't agree with you more.

I think the fundamental weakness of the GWB administration, that transcends any individual policy mistakes he may have made, is that his advisers were poor. IMO, they were poor because (a) they lacked expertise, (b) they made decisions based on ideology rather than fact, and (c) they acted in the corporate interest rather than in the public interest.

Here is a famous example of (a) and (b). Bush followed Karl Rove's advice to "stick to principle", which means he made the decision based on ideology rather than facts. Note that he took advice on economics from a college dropout. As far as we know, he didn't try to find out what Alan Greenspan or the Council of Economic Advisers thought of another tax cut.

An example of (c) is the way Cheney held secret meetings with oil company executives to formulate the Administration's energy policy.

So I agree totally that a key issue is what kind of advisers a McCain or Obama administration would have. Re (c), the many corporate lobbyists in McCain's campaign give me reason to doubt that his administration will act in the public interest. Obama has few or no lobbyists in his campaign, and doesn't accept campaign contributions from lobbyists or PACs.

Re (a) and (b), McCain's first pick (Palin) is ideological and lacks expertise. I've looked up who McCain and Obama's economic advisers are, and Obama's guys seem better than McCain's. McCain's economic advisers include Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, which speaks to issue (c).

Here, Harold Feld compares McCain's and Obama's tech policies, written largely or entirely by their advisers. The relevant point here is not that Obama is right and McCain is wrong, but that Obama's tech policy is based on fact and McCain's tech policy is based on ideology, an ideology that serves the short-term interests of corporations.

[madfilkentist]

The totality of the job is impossible because it's far more power than one person can reasonably hold. That's a reason why it should be limited. Advisors only help to consolidate power.

Simply enforcing the limitations which the Constitution places on the office -- for example, that Congress, not the president, has the war-making power -- would be a good start.

[patoadam]

I agree.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[grey-lady.livejournal.com]

I believe that Congress will be heavily Democratic in 2009-2010.
Which, believe me, is also a factor I'm weighing. I don't like it when the executive and legislative branches are both held by one party. Stupid things happen. (Ref. first six years of GWB's presidency.)

I seem to be a real exception to a lot of folks out there. I really am undecided, and I can give you a half-dozen reasons for each candidate as to why I don't want to vote for him.

I just wish I could feel I had a half-dozen reasons *for* one or the other, or both of them.

[qnofhrt.livejournal.com]

Another view of Palin, from somebody who has known her since back when she was mayor.

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/

[billroper]

Yep, I already read it.

Did you read this one?

[ms-dblk.livejournal.com]

There's a Snopes article on the Kilkenny letter - and they concur she did write it.

[billroper]

Yup. Wasn't disputing that.

Palin's only got an 80% approval rating in Alaska, so somebody must dislike her up there. :)

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

That was prior to the indictments that were handed down in July. It's not clear what her current approval rating is.

[billroper]

The only indictments that I see referenced in a Google search ("palin indictment") involve Alaska's senior Senator, Ted Stevens, who is hardly a political ally of Palin's. I suppose that an indictment of a possibly corrupt Republican might affect her approval ratings, but given that she ran against the corrupt Republican establishment, I would think that would only cause her approval ratings to go up.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Give me enough money to hand out $1200 checks to everybody, and I'll have an 80% approval rating too.

Alaska's position of being able to run on oil/gas royalties and federal subsidies makes it possible to have all the benefits of bread-and-circuses politics without the hangover. I'm not sure how that experience translates into being chief executive of a government that is far less fortunately situated. The latter is, to coin a phrase, rather more like rocket science than the former.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

Both articles very interesting. While a Democrat myself, I have been appalled at the mudslinging and rumormongering against Palin. Isn't it enough to decide to vote or not vote for her based on what her actual beliefs are? Like we do with most male candidates?

Thank you for the link.

[billroper]

Glad to be of service!

I'll note that there's certainly been mudslinging and rumormongering about Obama, but -- for the most part! -- the respectable conservative websites have been more interested in debunking such rumors than in trying to spread them. I think that's intelligent on their part, because putting out a lot of false information -- aside from being morally wrong! -- is a politically stupid thing to do. In the long run, people remember that this story and that story were false, so when you've got something substantive to say, people wonder if that's just another one of those false stories.

(I occasionally rant about such two-fers. It's politically stupid! And it's morally wrong! What possessed you to think it would be a good idea to do this stupid thing? But I digress... :) )

(Second digression: this many months into the campaign and Obama's name isn't in the LJ spellchecker? Sheesh!)

With the smears about Palin, we're getting a much better class of people spreading them around. When Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic's pet blogger, is obsessing about getting proof that Trig is Sarah Palin's son, well, something's not quite right here.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I *am* deciding not to vote for her based on her actual beliefs and policies as I understand them. And frankly, most of the rumors that page is "debunking" is stuff I'd never seen or heard of before.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

The National Enquirer has an allegation that Sarah Palin had an affair with her husband's former business partner as its cover story this week.

[billroper]

Yes, it does.

If you had read the article that I linked with any care, you'd have seen that particular rumor was discussed there.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Isn't the National Enquirer the one that had the title "200 Foot Space Monster Approaches Earth" with a nice 3-color picture of a Chambered Nautilus? Or was it the one that had the title "1984 Ford Found In Orbit: Engine Was Still Running." ? Or maybe it was "10 Year Psychic Duel Ends As Famed Psychic's Head Explodes."

It's hardly an example of mainstream thought.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

No, he's not. Careful reading of the article reveals some of the "rumours" are not contradicted, but buried under a mass of other contradictions and merely excused or handwaved away ("It's not the first time someone has been fired over a political dispute" doesn't make that acceptable conduct for someone seeking high office), and at least one of the rumours he quotes and contradicts (that she is an alien) was proposed satirically by someone on the same side as him and Palin (talking about "weirdness from the Left" and then making something up in the hope that it will be taken as genuine is particularly vile), which given that he does not say so (and it occurs far down the list, where it might well be accepted by someone weary of clicking through to check up on him) invalidates the entire article from my standpoint. I therefore call partisan BS slathered with injured faux-innocence, and that's fifteen minutes of my life I'll never get back.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Good point about people having been fired over political disputes before not making that acceptable behaviour for someone seeking high political office.

It's especially disturbing in light of the Bush Administration's mess in the Justice Department--firing Federal Prosecutors over their refusal to prosecute Democrats regardless of the lack of evidence of wrongdoing.

[billroper]

In the writer's defense, he does specifically say at the start of the article that a couple of the things in his list are jokes. That probably wasn't a wise decision on his part, but he was up front about it.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Then the list as a whole isn't really intended for "getting the story straight," as far as I can see. I'm all for political jokes in a general way, and America is certainly as well supplied with them as we are, but when a list of what is supposedly true and false includes deliberate and unflagged falsehoods, I do not trust the list maker.

And yes, I'm partisan, as I believe are you, but I wouldn't knowingly stand for this kind of thing on my side either.

[patoadam]

It appears that people attribute their beliefs to the candidate of the party they support, and opposite beliefs to the candidate of he opposite party.

By and large, people aren't agreeing on what Palin's policies are and disagreeing on whether they are right or wrong. With a few exceptions, such as abortion, both Democrats and Republicans tend to agree on what the right policies are. Republicans attribute the right policies to Palin, and Democrats attribute the wrong policies to her. Given time, I could supply two dozen examples. Here are two.

Democrat:
Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent.
Republican:
She's actually increasing special needs funding by 175 percent.

Democrat:
Sarah Palin thinks the Pledge of Allegiance was written by the Founding Fathers.
Republican:
The question was not specifically about the Pledge of Allegiance, it was about the phrase “Under God.” When she answered her question, this is what she was talking about. The founding fathers supported the idea that our nation was a country blessed by God.

So Republicans who read both sides tend the think the Republican explanations are accurate and the Democratic claims are smears. Democrats who read both sides tend to think the Democratic claims are accurate and the Republican defenses are lies.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The recent brouhaha about the phrase "under God" was specifically about its inclusion in the 1950s in the Oledge of Allegiance. In the absence of obvious context putting it somewhere else, the question is thus about the Pledge of Allegiance. (Maybe there was context putting it somewhere else, does anybody know?)

If what she meant was the founding fathers put "under God" somewhere else (I'm not coming up with where that might be?), and that meant she thought it belonged in the pledge also, she should have said so.

She would certainly not be unique or even unusual among evangelical fundamentalists if she were ignorant of fairly basic facts about American history.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

The recent brouhaha about the phrase "under God" was specifically about its inclusion in the 1950s in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Apparently, this was on the theory that the tongue of a Kohm would burn with fire if he dared attempt to say the holy words.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

My first reaction to this was to squeak "seriously?" through involuntary laughter.

My second is to say "seriously?" more calmly. I knew it was part of the Red Scare period, but hadn't realized (and still find it kind of hard to believe) that anyone involved in its inclusion was such a fervent believer in magic as to honestly think this.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

I'm making a facetious reference to the ST:TOS episode "The Omega Glory", though the underlying point about the reasons for the change (appeal to jingoistic emotions) is serious enough.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I see--thank you for the clarification.

[patoadam]

Here is the context.

11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Sarah Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

The web page with the 12-item questionnaire from which this question was taken existed from July 31, 2006 through September 1, 2008. It was removed on September 2. I retrieved it via the Wayback Machine and archived it here.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I've got to say that looks pretty darn clear to me. The question was specifically about the Pledge of Allegiance. Why is it unreasonable to interpret the answer as being about the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thanks for providing the context to clarify the issue. I think it's particularly ...suggestive...that the questionaire was removed right around the time people were looking hardest for information on Palin. If it wasn't a deliberate attempt to hide her knowledge of American history (or the lack thereof), it was rather ham-handed. I wonder who ordered the item removed.

[rook543.livejournal.com]

Now Newsweek is refuting the smears....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986/page/1

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Setting aside the celebrity-journalism tabloid-scandalmongering crap, the underlying problem with Palin is that the image being presented (maverick reformer) simply does not withstand scrutiny.

The "I was for the Bridge To Nowhere before I was against it" flip-flop has been pretty well covered, so I turn to a new report of per diem allowance abuse (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/09/08/20080908palinperdiem0908-ON.html):

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

If I did that, I'd be damned lucky if all I got was fired. Apparently, the rules are looser for the governor of Alaska... but taking advantage of such latititude doth not a "reformer" make.

[billroper]

And here's a discussion of that particular charge with some additional context.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I admit that I am not entirely receptive to the Republican spin on Palin's beliefs and policies--as far as I'm concerned it's a matter of public record that she asked about banning books, for instance, and I don't care if she said later that it was just rhetorical and she wouldn't have actually done anything.

It's a matter of public record that she opposes any sex ed that is not abstinence only, (she said so in a survey in 2006 during her gubernatorial campaign, as referenced in a link, but not acknowledged, in the very post you linked to) which does not work, and I don't care if it turns out her daughter may have actually gotten some scraps of decent sex ed. I don't think abstinence only is a bad policy based on the results with *one* pair of teenagers but on the basis of results with teenagers in general. And sure, later she backed and filled, claiming that discussing condoms is not explicit (has she ever thought about how you demonstrate how to put one on?) but, frankly, I've been lied to by Republicans before--I think the first point of view is the true one and the second is a typical attempt to get credit for having things both ways. Not to mention that contraception is about a whole lot of things in addition to condoms, most of which work better.

It's a matter of public record that she wants to ban abortion, no exceptions except if a doctor swears that the mother is going to *die* and that's a policy that will vastly increase the suffering of women. I don't care that the person pushing it has woman parts, it's still an anti-woman policy.

I listened as she ridiculed Obama's work as a community organizer, saying her job as mayor of a tiny town was "like being a community organizer except you have to make decisions." In fact, being a community organizer is a bit like being the mayor of a tiny town (and Jefferson City, where I sit as I type this, is about the same size, so I'm being realistic), except that a community organizer has to listen to people instead of silencing them, lead people instead of dictating to them, bring people together instead of driving them apart.

There's no law against any of this, of course, as the Republicans will be quick to point out, and the divider strategy is very popular among certain parties. But I'd really like a uniter this time, and I don't see Palin playing that role. And given that his first executive decision was picking Palin, I don't see McCain playing that role either.

None of that is based on rumor; none of that is based on anti-Republicanism (beyond the natural occurrence of the chickens coming home to roost)--it's based on what I know of her policies and past actions from mainstream media.

[billroper]

I know that Obama has disavowed or expanded on answers that he's given in response to questionaires. (I think he's on occasion said "My staff filled that out.") Does that mean that I'm justified in assuming he's lying to me? I've certainly been lied to by Democrats before -- heck, I've been lied to specifically by Obama when he was campaigning against NAFTA and other free-trade agreements during the primary season in Ohio and Pennsylvania, statements that he now refers to as overheated campaign rhetoric. (This makes his economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee, feel much better, as he was telling the Canadian government at the time Obama was campaigning that Obama really didn't mean it.)

I understand that you disagree with Palin's position on abortion -- I would expect nothing else. Since I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice by the popular definition of those terms, I never expect to find a candidate that I actually agree with. I also do not believe that abortion is in imminent danger of being outlawed in this country, nor do I believe that it is the only medical procedure in the country that should not be subject to any form of government regulation. (That's not an attempt to set up straw man statements about your views; that's a simple statement of a couple of things that I believe.)

As far as being a divider, I find Obama's statements about how some "they" are going to tell you that he has a "funny name" to be pretty divisive too.

There certainly aren't any perfect candidates. There never will be.

All I can try to do is to make my best guess on what they're likely to do in office and base my vote on that. And I'm sure that's what you do as well.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I also do not believe that abortion is in imminent danger of being outlawed in this country,

Bill, I live in rural Tennessee. I suspect this gives me a different, more urgent, perspective on the matter.

I agree, probably abortion won't be outlawed everywhere. But if McCain or Palin appoints even one more Supreme court judge, there are an awful lot of women who won't be rich enough, or old enough, to travel to the places where it is available. Their only alternatives will be illegal abortions or unwanted babies. This will cause a lot of suffering.

And, actually, even holding out the option of traveling for an abortion is presupposing that slave states don't make it a crime to travel to free states for medical care. I think that's a bit of an optimistic assumption.

I agree that there are no perfect candidates. But Barak's statements about "they" will tell you he has a funny name are, sadly, based on recorded fact. Not only have noted conservative pundits made a big deal over the fact that his middle name is Hussein, but I even heard some "man-on-the-street" interview on NPR from someone saying he'd never vote for someone whose name was Hussein. I totally agree with you (I assume we agree) that this is probably a minority view; it's obviously as silly as saying "I won't vote for McCain because his name is John which means toilet." But it's a minority view that is being publicly aired and that Obama has every right to address head-on.

So, no, I don't find his comments on that score divisive in the way I find Palin's anti-non-Christian mayoral campaign divisive.

And indeed, I found the end of Obama's speech, when he said (roughly) "we may disagree on abortion, but surely we can all agree that fewer unintended pregnancies is a good thing" and "we may disagree on gay marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital" to be the words of a uniter, reaching toward consensus on issues whose fringes are contentious, but whose main body we can come together to work on.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I know that Obama has disavowed or expanded on answers that he's given in response to questionaires

Hmm. Well, you do have a point. It occurs to me that it wouldn't be fair to go on without acknowledging it, so I acknowledge it here. It is true that this bothers me less about Obama than about Palin, which may be unfair. In part this is because I genuinely don't know where the right balance between free trade and protectionism *lies*--I see real problems with a race-to-the-bottom regarding wages, worker safety and environmental protection but I also see problems with restricting trade.

I do think that Obama will have better advisers on the economy than either McCain or Palin will have on sex ed. I also think that, while I don't *like* the prospect of possible economic harm brought on by choosing the wrong point on the free trade balance, I like the prospect of harm to women's basic rights even less, so I'm less worried about Obama than Palin.

And finally, I also think that Obama is part of the reality-based community and will be looking for the results of his actions and modifying the actions if necessary. Perhaps this is unwarranted optimisim on my part. I don't think the same about McCain. Perhaps this unwarranted pessimism on my part. And I *certainly* don't think the same about Palin. Perhaps it is prejudice on my part to assume that evangelical fundamentalists don't have much truck with the reality based community, but that has been my past personal experience.

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

The linked article says she's not anti-Semitic. That's good. However, from what I've been hearing and reading, she wants to teach Christianity in the schools, calling it "creationism" or "intelligent design." To me, that is a question she needs to answer for.

[billroper]

See this previous post of mine on the subject.

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

Thank you.