Note: Because I can sometimes be a little vocal, I have added a disclaimer in the right sidebar. To be clear: opinions expressed on this blog are mine, and mine alone. But I’m usually right.
So, Sarah Palin. I know I’m late in the game here, since I was at DragonCon (more on that later, promise). And others have said pretty much what I’m thinking (like Gia and Scalzi, particularly Scalzi’s Point Number 4), but still, I have a few comments.
1) Creationist sympathizer (at the very least)? Check.
2) Against women’s rights? Check (yes, that link is ironic).
3) Inexperienced, thus negating one of McCain’s planks for election? Check.
4) Had no clue what the Vice President’s job even frackin’ was a few months ago? Check.
5) Used in a pandering attempt by the McCain campaign to woo the disenfranchised women who wanted Hillary, in a completely transparent insult to their intelligence because it assumes that a woman will vote on a candidate just because she has an XX chromosome and will ignore the blatant fact that Palin will set the women’s movement back, oh, say, three hundred years? Check.
Edited to add: 6) Iraq was ordained by God? Check.
So yeah, have fun with this.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
The words “This woman is perfect in every way” seem to be the phrase spewing forth from the repuglicans about Palin.
Well, judging from John McCain’s ogling during her introduction speech, she certainly does have a perfect butt!
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Alas, McCain was completely correct on point 5. I know plenty of women who were ready to vote for Obama who are flocking to Palin. They talk about breaking up the good old boy’s club and breaking the glass ceiling and develop a twitch when you start talking about her positions.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Hey, but she’s HOT!
I cannot fathom why anyone with the RNC would think that I’d vote for anyone JUST because our plumbing matches.
She’s my kinda gal when it comes to hunting, shooting, fishing, going toe-to-toe with the big dogs. I’d probably have a drink with her or go to the range with her. Unless I and *my* gay friends were out together. Because I don’t know how she can look her alleged gay friends in the eye after publicly stating they don’t deserve the same rights she enjoys. I’d not ask my friends to sit down and have a drink with her on a bet.
Vote for her? Not a chance. I prefer that my daughters grow up in a country that teaches science and stays out of their patient/doctor relationship, thankyouverymuch. And don’t even get me started on the fact she doesn’t know that the VP presides over the senate, or that she thinks the Founding Fathers put “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance (U.S. History for $200, Alex?)
Yeah. I’m gonna vote for her because my plumbing matches hers. NOT.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
“On Tuesday, Palin confirmed her baby, named Trig Paxson, has Down syndrome.
…
“We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives,” she said.”
Hmm… I realize most (hopefully all) parents look forward to having their child… but is it really, honestly, a blessing to have a child with an impairment? As in, if you could pick – Down or not Down – would you really *choose* for him to have it? I think not.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
It’s incredibly dishonest to say that someone who’s anti-abortion (or pro-life, whatever) is “Against women’s rights”. Saying that the link is ironic suggest that not only do you disagree with the opinion, but you’re not even capable of understanding the argument.
Not very good skeptical thinking.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
Number 4 isn’t too bad Phil. The Constitution says the only duties for the VP is to break ties in the Senate. I’m sure she could get the hang of the that by January.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
It’s like watching the Dead Zone on the Lifetime channel.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
Phil – You summed up my feeling for Mrs. Palin to a “T”.
I really appreciate the links to other bloggers… I’ve started following several that you have linked to recently – good stuff!
I wanted to check out the list of Interesting/Informative Bloggers you had on your old site at one time, but it disappeared when you made the switch to Discover…. might you put it back up here or there??
Also, I worry that now that you’re featured on Discover that you might be pressured to tone down your criticism or be more restrained – DON’T DO IT!! Fire all Weapons!! Down with Ignorance and Superstition!
Happy Freakin’ Wednesday!
Perry
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
I’m sure the forthcoming comments are going to be fun to read. When the BA talks about politics and religion the sparks tend to erupt.
I personally think it’s pretty cool that a woman is on a national ticket though. I hope she can at least stand up to the vicious personal attacks (Daily Kos stating that she wasn’t even pregnant with her last kid?! How slimy – and stupid- is that?). Obama scored some big points in my book when he called some of the attackers out.
In terms of experience it is pretty funny (actually, sad) that she has more Executive branch experience than the three law writers put together. But still, Wasilla Mayor….might not make the cut.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
MarkP: Perhaps you can explain how the wanting the government to have final say over what a woman may or may not do with her body is not being against women’s rights, because I’m not seeing it.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
Don’t forget 6) Pro-book-banning!
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Bunny, can you see how a woman running for one of the highest elected offices is for women’s rights?
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
‘Cause it just IS!
Personally, I would say that arguing that women shouldn’t have control over their own bodies does indeed make them “against women’s rights,” as that strikes me as being somewhat fundamental.
But I guess I’m just “dishonest.”
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
With Palin’s addition to the ticket, the similarity to Tigh and Roslin is just uncanny.
http://www.TighRoslin.com
Tigh/Roslin 2008!
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 am
I personally think it’s pretty cool that a woman is on a national ticket though.
Eh, I’m old enough to remember Geraldine Ferarro, so I guess having the Republicans pick a woman to run as VP a quarter century later doesn’t impress me.
I agree about the slimy attacks, though. There are plenty of legitimate to not want her that close to the presidency without rumormongering.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
While I may disagree with McCain’s platform virtually across the board, I don’t think he is an idiot. There is a reason for a such a seemingly boneheaded maneuver.
This woman is really nothing more than a means to shift the focus of the media from Obama’s campaign to McCain’s. McCain’s campaign is banking on the fact that people tend to vote for the top of the ticket and name recognition. If they can shift the national dialect away from Obama’s campaign and bring more attention to his, he stands a better chance in November.
I’m sure his campaign is more than willing to take a beating on their obvious hypocrisy in exchange for media attention this has brought them.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
MarkP:
I can agree that saying womens rightS (with the s) may not be supported by the link but it certainly indicates that she is opposed to at least one womans right, and a very very important one at that.
Phil:
Have you heard about her pentacostal preacher?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
If you don’t want to wade through it here’s the important bit of his sermon.
“We need to develop that instinct. We need to develop as believers the instinct that we are at war, and that war is contending for your faith. … Jesus called us to die. You’re worried about getting hurt? He’s called us to die. Listen, you know we can’t even follow him unless you are willing to give up your life. … I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say “war mode.”
And people thought Jeremiah Wright was bad.
I think my number one fear at the moment is what kind of supreme court nominations Mccain would make given that this was his VP choice.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
MarkP: I can see a woman chosen for one of the highest elected offices exclusively for campaign reasons, and can I see a woman that lacked the guts to turn down the offer because she does not want to admit that she is not not qualified.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Sigh. The issue is addressing the rights of the unborn child. Can you see how someone who believes an unborn child should be protected isn’t the same as saying women can’t drive or vote?
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
I’m a woman. I live in the buckle of the bible belt. I consider myself a bit of a feminist. I’m a former Marine. I’m a mother. I’m a wife. I’m a scientist. I would love to see a female president in my lifetime.
I was undecided. I am no longer so. I can in no way support McCain after his choice of running rate. I will vote for Obama.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
I am not a Sarah Palin fan, not in the least. However, I have to take issue with most of your “checks”.
1. “Teach the controversy” is the knee jerk reaction of most Americans, even those that believe in evolution. Keep in mind that creation vs. evolution is not the central plank of virtually any serious candidates agenda. Most probably give it no thought at all. The “teach the controversy” answer doesn’t prove anything. Still the wrong answer, though, for you and me, not most people.
2. Please, the right to choose is only one of many issues regarding women’s rights. Being Pro-life does not make you against women’s rights, it makes you Pro-life. Again, it might or might be a disqualifier if that is an issue you care about.
3. No argument here. But notice the interesting symmetry of the two tickets. One experienced pol that has already run for president before, one inexperienced, charismatic new-comer intended to bring in a particular voting bloc.
4. No fair. Other than breaking ties in the Senate and taking over when the President is incapacitated, the VP has no official duties. The job is whatever the Pres and the VP make it.
5. The VP slot is always picked in an effort to bring in votes rather than to find a good Presidential pick. Whatever block the VP is aimed at, you could call it pandering to them.
Not that I am planning on voting for McCain at this point, but I am troubled by Obama too. Time to break out my old “Vote Cthulhu: When you are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils!” poster.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
I’m not sure I’m going to have enough popcorn to get me through to November.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Obviously, I meant “running mate.” Please excuse my type-o.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Whether or not she is running for a high office or not has nothing to do with women’s rights. Her desire to remove the right of a woman to choose is where she is against women’s rights.
Even if McCain didn’t choose her as an attempt to get at the women voters, it comes off as a terribly transparent attempt at that and it is insulting even to me as a man that he would do that.
My religion and my scientific side have never been in conflict, but that being said, I don’t believe that a religious theory has any place in our schools. That is a theory that can be taught by parents in the home. Schools are for scientifically based learning so I am at odds with her on this one as well.
It really scares me that someone who is running for the VP job didn’t even know what it entailed. Joking or not, it really scares me.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
I was particularly cheesed at the Republican women on the news gushing about how only a woman could understand the issues women face. I can’t see that it’s true – my husband faces *exactly* the same issues with balancing work and family as I do, and when I’m not paid the same for equal work it affects him just as much as me. But if it were, it would be a strong argument for men never to vote for women — only men could understand the issues men face, so self-interest would say don’t vote for women.
I was SO hoping we as a society were beyond voting for or against someone based in any part on their race, gender, or other silly distinction. Sadly, we aren’t there yet. *sigh*
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Predictable.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Ah, that was quick
But you forgot one point. She apparently favours abstinence only sex-ed (or alternatively NO sex-ed at all). Yup, figures … that worked pretty well for her family …
And yeah, I’ll just say it again. I don’t even find her “hot”.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
MarkP: I can see that. I tend to see rights as a whole, though. Encouraging women to be aggressive about advancing their careers while wanting to prevent them from making other life decisions is a huge conflict to me. To me, it’s a lot like saying you’re in favor of free speech as long as you agree with the speaker.
There are other people, like Ferarro and Clinton, who showed equal or more ambition about running for office without that huge inconsistency.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
mark: isn’t her running on a platform that espouses pushing women’s rights back to the 17th century against women’s rights, but for woman’s rights? as in, one woman, her.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Is abortion the only right of a woman? Palin is against “women’s rights” because she is against one of them? Sure, its a very important right to women in that situation, but when it comes to women’s rights as a whole, I’d say being the VP of America is way up there on the list of ways to demonstrate women’s rights.
And inexperienced? HAHAHA. She’s got more executive experience than one of the Presidential candidates! And her inexperience in say, foriegn policy, doesn’t NEGATE McCain’s. That’s like saying the mass of two objects is equal to the average of their individual masses.
And sadly, yes, many women will vote for her, or more accurately, vote against the all-man team since it was the men who screwed up everything to begin with. Surely a woman’s point of view will fix everything.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Before the abortion argument gets any more heated, it should be note that Sarah Palin thinks abortion should be illegal in *all* cases… even rape, medical danger to the mother, and incest. The only exception in her book is if it would certainly *kill* the mother: http://bit.ly/3Tc3sm
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Not only do republicans hate women, they also seem to think that they are dumb enough to vote for a women simply because she is a women.
Another stupid republican stunt which will hopefully backfire in their faces.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
The issue is addressing the rights of the unborn child.
Then I guess those people shouldn’t get abortions.
How far do we go inventing rights for children that override what the parents want? Especially when the child in question is still literally a part of the mother’s body.
I think it’s unfortunate that many groups that are the most vocally anti-abortion are also the ones who promote policies that will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence-only wish thinking is not a good policy.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
“Teach the controversy” is not what she advocates shes a full blown young earther, worse than that shes a dominonist. The day a dominionist becomes poresident is the day to start building your nuclear bunker because those bombs will start flying soon after. Why anyone would vote for somneone who thinks armageddon is something to look forward to is beyond me.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Drat. I have to take off for a meeting. Be back later, maybe. :-\
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
John Adams: “My country has contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”
That covers #4.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Don’t forget that she and her husband are/were also members of the Alaska Independence Party which calls for the state of Alaska to secede from the United States….
“The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government…and I won’t be buried under their damn flag.” – Joe Vogler, Founder of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP)
Eric
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Wouldnt it be so much better if McCain chose a person with a history of dishonest ‘padding’ of resumes and plagiarizing…
Ohhhhh
that was the other guy.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Her unmarried 17 year old daughter is pregnant. So what it ain’t an issue, UNTIL you read that she thinks teaching “abstinence only” is sex education. It ain’t…ask your daughter! Also Pro Life = anti woman pure and simple (she is even against abortion in rape cases. As a rape victim myself I seriously question the logic there) (OK madge takes a few deep calming breaths and tries to put the idea of McCain/Palin running the US out of her mind) Please don’t let the nightmare become reality.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Phil, I’m a big fan and congratulations on your recent appointment with the JREF, but…
1) We have precedents on our side with the courts, so her opinion on this matter is completely moot with regard to making policy. Presidents and Vice Presidents don’t make the laws in this country anyway.
2) Ditto. (Although I still fail to see how deliberately ending a human life after it has begun, though legal, is not murder.)
3) She obviously has more experience than Mr. Obama, and more varied experience as well. This is the one where your politics really trump your skepticism.
4) This is irrelevant. She didn’t apply for the job – she was recruited.
5) While this may be true in part, my response to it would be: Of course! It’s freaking politics! Are you telling me that Mr. Obama is not being used in a pandering attempt by his party in an attempt to woo disenfranchised black voters in a completely transparent insult to their intelligence because it assumes that a black person will vote on a candidate just because of the color of their skin? Al Gore is still out there and presumably still qualified to be President. Likewise for John Kerry. But you’re telling me, no, Mr. Obama is more qualified than they are?
At any rate, rarely does the government actually control what you do in your social life or in private, so my advice is to base your vote on what they do all the time: take your hard-earned money and give it to someone else.
That’s why I’m voting Republican.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
By MarkP’s definition, Ann “women should not be allowed to vote” Coulter is the new Susan B. Anthony.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
My favorite part is how the Republicans are arguing that commanding the Alaska National Guard and being near Russia both count as foreign policy experience.
Oh, and saying that pointing out she was mayor of a small town and governor of a small state is a “smear”.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
“The McCain campaign will launch a television ad directly comparing Gov. Palin’s executive experience as a governor who oversees 24,000 state employees, 14 statewide cabinet agencies and a $ 10 billion budget to Barack Obama’s experience as a one-term junior senator from Illinois.” Looks like the McCain group is going to try to hit back a little bit.
Biggest speech of her life tonight. Can’t wait to see it. The blogosphere is exploding over her.
I think everybody should calm down a bit though. This is just the VP job. It’s not like she’s one heartbeat away from potentially being the most powerful person on the planet or anything…oh, wait a sec….
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Hmmm. I’m lesbian and pro-choice. It’s bad enough to be discriminated against with marriage rights–I get taxed on providing health insurance to my partner of 8 years, while my coworkers can pre-tax it, plus no filing jointly… etc. No way am I even going to THINK about putting someone in office that will also tell women that we can’t choose to not be an incubator.
I’d love to have a woman in the white house, but no freaking way will I go with McCain, especially now. Go Obama…
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“It’s incredibly dishonest to say that someone who’s anti-abortion (or pro-life, whatever) is “Against women’s rights”.”
Not really. Last I checked, abortion was a legal right. Opposing it necessarily involves rolling back the right of women to their own bodily autonomy. And given that Palin would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term even when raped…well, if you think that’s supporting women’s rights, you’re a looney.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Palin assumed office Dec 4, 2006 and for anyone counting, that’s just 21 months in office. Before that she was mayor of a town of 7000 people(ie, in which you can know everyone by name). Her governorship “fought entrenched interests”, which I suppose, includes all those pesky environmentalists fighting to preserve the natural beauty of Alaska. Oh yeah, and don’t forget the anti-gun lobby and the “entrenched” pro choice folk,,,
Sheesh, when will people learn, calling a horses ass a leg doesn’t mean it isn’t still an ass,,,(OK, SO, I messed with the metaphor,,,)
The Republican PArty has taken double talk and New Speak to it’s ultimate absurdity, saying a woman VP is qualified because she has the right Republican ideology but a black candidate for president isn’t, merely because he’s well spoken, chooses great advisors, listens to them, worked for the disadvantaged and is a constitutional lawyer and senator. Besides, he had the temerity to answer the 14 science questions asked by Science Debate 2008. How DARE he actually have some plans afoot to address science problems in this country? Next thing you know, he’ll be paying attention to those dad gum elitist advisors who may actually know something,,,
The Republican PArty has succeeded in moving me from an independent position way over to the Democrats(who, let it be known, really pissed me off by their pussy footing, mealy mouthed retrenchments. I hope this election helps them grow some new cahones,,,).
GAry 7
PS. I might note that one of the better presidents we’ve had was a haberdasher, farmer and senator,(read that as no executive experience). Yeah, I’m talking about Harry Truman.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
*reads above comments* Oh boy, an abortion debate.
Simple. We’re rational people. We have no evidence for the existence of a soul.
So we go with what we can can prove. At the minimum, no brain = no mind, and no mind = no life; it’s disingeneous to argue that a bunch of cells with human DNA, in the absence of mind, constitutes a “human life” any more than liposuctioned fatty tissue does.
Therefore there’s no moral objection to be made to abortion before the development of a brain capable of sustaining a human mind. When that point is, I don’t know — I’m not a neurobiologist. But sentience, sapience, self-awareness…these are all minimal criteria.
Of course, by this standard it would be perfectly acceptable to abort large numbers of college freshmen, but that thought only crosses my mind when I’m grading papers.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Someone beat me to it by a longshot, but
Tigh/Roslin ‘08!
Creeeepyyyyyy….
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
1) Doesn’t make her extremist, unfortunately. I only wish that wasn’t the position of the majority of Americans
2) I would agree that abortion isn’t the only women’s right, so saying this is a bit too broad. However, it’s a big blow against the idea of controlling your own body
3) I guess, but one could argue that picking Biden was Obama admitting he’s inexperienced
4) First off, this is being taken out of context. Secondly, a governor has more duties than the VP of the United States. There is no defined job for the VP
5) Yeah, well, welcome to politics for the last 60 years, heh. He picked someone to bring social conservatives and some women over to his side.
All that being said, I think her nomination signals that women can be dirtbag Republicans just as well as men can.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“Of course, by this standard it would be perfectly acceptable to abort large numbers of college freshmen, but that thought only crosses my mind when I’m grading papers.”
Giggle. Welcome back, oh Semester.
Isn’t it possible that the “start of life” won’t be easily classifiable as a single moment for any or all cases? Isn’t it, like most things, a continuum of states?
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Okay, see. The President is not the most powerful person on the planet. The President answers to the states represented by the House and Senate. Yes, the President serves as Commander-in-Chief, but can’t do anything meaningful (like declare war) without Congress. Of course, it’s an important position, but skeptics should be leading the charge that the President is NOT the end-all be-all of our government.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
RSS!
FEED!
BACK!
PLEASE!?
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
2) Ditto. (Although I still fail to see how deliberately ending a human life after it has begun, though legal, is not murder.)
Because it ISN’T a human life. Duh. A clump of cells or blastocyst smaller than a pea does not have any of the characteristics that distinguish “human life”. Given time and proper care, it might someday BECOME a human life, but combining sperm and egg does not immediately make a new human. Sorry if your religion tells you otherwise.
3) She obviously has more experience than Mr. Obama, and more varied experience as well.
I know a guy who’s managed a fast food franchise for 20 years – by your foolish non-logic, he has more “executive experience” than anyone on either ticket. But that doesn’t take into account the NATURE of that experience, and serving on a PTA board, governing a town with the population of a large cruise ship, and governing a state (for only one year, and abusing her office all the while) with only the population of my city (not counting the greater metro area) has not left her anything remotely like prepared for the VP (and possibly P) job.
I know you naturally want to cheerlead for your side, but please, get a grip. She’s the new Harriet Miers.
Are you telling me that Mr. Obama is not being used in a pandering attempt by his party in an attempt to woo disenfranchised black voters in a completely transparent insult to their intelligence
And the idiotic crypto-racist ranting begins. I’m surprised you didn’t just come out and call Obama’s nomination affirmative action, because there’s SURELY no way a black man could have EARNED his place at the top of the ticket.
For those who have forgotten, Obama has organized and managed a campaign involving thousands of people and an operating budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, and toppled a rival in the greatest upset in modern political history. He wasn’t handed the office; in fact, he was fought all the way, by the party leadership, which broke early for Clinton. So no, he is far from “being used” to pander to “disenfranchised black voters” (who were in no danger of being lost to the republicans and don’t make up that large a fraction of the voting populace anyway). In fact, his nomination was and is a great risk, since there are far more voters who would break for McCain on the basis of race (who might otherwise vote Dem) than there are “disenfranchised” black votes to be picked up.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Jeff: Most of the military operations the US — and indeed most countries — have undertaken since 1945 have been without declarations of war. The Commander in Chief has considerable authority to act without any kind of consultation or oversight. In principle, the President could nuke anywhere they felt like and only be answerable for it after the fact, and only through an impeachment proceding.
Nicole: Maybe it is a continuum — but there has to be some point where you look at Terri Schiavo and say it’s OK to turn off the machines.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
To the people braying about the “child’s” rights in the abortion question…
The problem is that there is no scientific way to demonstrate when consciousness and sentience begins. The argument that life begins at the instant that the sperm breaches the ovum’s wall is a religious argument, and has no place in creating our laws in a NON-theocratic country. Repeating the argument, or saying it louder doesn’t make it any more scientifically valid.
From a completely scientific standpoint, with no religious connotations, a multi-celled organism that does not yet have sentience or consciousness, simply does not rate the level of “rights” or protection as that of its host. Everything else is a judgment that is determined by our cultural and religious filters. Which have no place in determining the laws of our country.
Anti-choicers have effectively removed ONE medical procedure (and its variants) from the pervue of the patient/doctor relationship and made it a legal issue. And now they are trying to extend from that ONE medical procedure into regulating birth control itself. Not based on SCIENCE or PROVABLE FACT, but upon RELIGIOUS CONVICTION. Medical doctors and their patients need to be the ones, AND THE ONLY ONES, to determine what medications and what procedures are the right choice for their particular situation after weighing the risks and benefits. Removing this one small segment from that pervue and putting it in the legislative arena is, was, and always will be, an attack on women.
Yes, it *is* an issue of women’s rights.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
6) bleh…well, I stick with my dirtbag comment
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Serenity:
Well, you don’t think that they’ll say (publicly, at least) “what have we done to make G-d punish us like this?”
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Jeff says:
Okay, see. The President is not the most powerful person on the planet. The President answers to the states represented by the House and Senate. Yes, the President serves as Commander-in-Chief, but can’t do anything meaningful (like declare war) without Congress. Of course, it’s an important position, but skeptics should be leading the charge that the President is NOT the end-all be-all of our government.
You are making an obvious fallacy of assuming that the government abides by the words of the Constitution. On paper, you’re right; in reality (a nice place to visit, an even nicer place to live), not so much.
This is the same head-in-the-sand gobbledygook last seen from the Hillary dead-enders. In fact, it’s strikingly similar. Has the BA attracted a PUMA?
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Jeff – The President of the United States is absolutely the single most powerful person on the planet. Who else would even come close? And respectfully, as Commander-in-Chief he can launch wars without Congress declaring war. Congress has very rarely actually “declared” war (this is probably a very bad thing – take Iraq- but it is what it is).
You are absolutely right that the President is not the end-all and be-all of our government. But this election is also going to determine who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. There are two liberals who will almost certainly retire from the bench in the next 4 years. There could be 4 or 5 Justices in total that retire. Whatever your politics may be – the election of our next President is a major deal. Probably more so in this election cycle than in others.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Some comments about the “slimy attacks” on Palin.
1. The Daily Kos team didn’t start these “attacks”, an anonymous commenter created a thread in an open forum (anyone can post a story once you have registered a fake name). If you don’t understand the distinction, then you are about as perceptive as Bill O’Reilly.
2. McCain and Palin could have preempted the wild stories if they had been up front about her daughter’s pregnancy (something the could hardly hide in the end anyway). As it was, after sequestering her daughter for months (she was taken out of schoolwith no explanation), it took a phone call from the National Enquirer to prompt them into action. And one wonders why some people started throwing conspiracy theories about?
3. Republicans, give me a break. After enduring months — now years — of slime attack after slime attack about Obama, it takes you until *now* to decide that they are unfair?
4. Democrats, give me a break. The traditional press did not push these attacks (McCain’s objections today are ridiculous and a calculated move to stir up sympathy for Palin, nothing more). Some of the bloggers did, sure, but so what’s new. Republican bloggers were talking about “valid questions” about Obama’s birth certificate for months. So what? Again, if Palin had come clean immediately about her daughter, they could have avoided it all.
Finally, I do agree that “sliming” Palin won’t work, but this fuss about her daughter will be short-lived. The other attacks on Palin — her lies about being a reformer, her support for the biggest pork barrel spender in Congress, her support of one of the biggest pork barrel projects in history, her dalliances with the Alaska Independence Party and fringe fundamentalist Christian pastors, her virulent anti-choice messages, her wrongheadedness over environmental issues, global warming, and sex education, and worst of all, her use of her public office to punish someone who would not fire her hated brother-in-law (Troopergate) and now her decision to stonewall the inquiry after promising repeatedly that she would cooperate fully — all those, are what will fill the headlines in the coming weeks, and if that’s not enough to prove that McCain made a terrible mistake when he selected her as his running mate, then I weep for this country.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Rather appalling candidate background all around.
But the recurring “heart beat away” epithet (I don’t think it stands up as an argument) for one of the president candidates was getting old fast.
LOL! Massimo at his best.
@MarkP:
No it isn’t; a fetus isn’t a child anymore than it is an adult or a dead person; it can’t act (respectively not not act) as the later developmental stages, it isn’t conscious. That’s why it is medically and legally termed abortion as opposed to murder, and why doctors doesn’t come into conflict with their hippocratic tradition.
Unless you change all that, and the basis for that change seems to be non-existent, removing the option of abortion from a woman acts as the efforts of a group to meddle with the rights of the individual.
Btw, I find that ironic, as it is mostly the same groups that supports parties that allegedly wants to promote the rights of individuals over collective efforts.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“There’s no moral objection to be made to abortion before the development of a brain capable of sustaining a human mind.”
Even though you KNOW the egg has been fertilized and the cells ARE GOING to form a human brain? How is that process not stopping life?
My stance on abortion has nothing to do with religion; I abhor religion. My stance is this: before an egg is fertilized it will not become a human being. After it has been fertilized, it WILL become a human being (barring any difficult circumstances such as a miscarriage…or an abortion). That is not a religious argument. That is a stone-cold fact.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Palin is a good choice for McCain. Its energized a lot of people. Thats been my observation through newspapers and personal interactions.
I look forward to hearing from her instead of all of the people trying to define her ahead of time. Actually, I’m being too polite. I should say, scumbags who are out to smear her and destroy her family. Its not good that her husband was arrested 22 years ago for DUI but I don’t think its worthy of front page headlines. And while its interesting to a small degree that her daughter is pregnant, I don’t really think that its front page news worthy either. It is admirable though that she and the father are getting married and she’s keeping the baby. In the end, though, these things aren’t highly relevant.
The last week or so has really highlighted, for me, the easy ride Obama has gotten this year from the press. I guess that’s one of the few things the Clintons and I agree on.
Some paper reported that she was once sited for fishing without a license. I’m shocked that didn’t make its way onto this thread yet. Maybe it could be #6.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Lunchtime! Hey, wassup, BA and BA fans?
Oh. An abortion debate. Huh.
(backs away slowly and reaches for the bookmark to LOLCats)
CLICK!
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
And what if, the-deity-of-your-choice forbid, Al Qadia successfully launches an attack on the Inauguration Ceremony? What if McCain’s heart can’t take the strain of preparing to take office in January? What does the Constitution say about the duties of the VP given that eventuality?
Obama, in his first important decision as nominee made a reasoned, patient, sensible choice for running mate.
McCain… not so much.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I’ve said all I need to say about abortion. My original point was – it doesn’t matter what stance any presidential candidate has on abortion. Roe v. Waid will never be overturned. The issue is too contentious and as I said before, presidents don’t make laws.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
So now I’m a racist because I think the democrats pander to their base? Like I said before: Al Gore’s still out there? Is he not qualified anymore? John Kerry?
You’re telling me, honestly, that Mr. Obama is THE most qualified person in the country to be President? Remember, this is politics. And how do you know I’m not black?
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised that they are going to win the elections. The sitting establishment is not going to step aside.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
@ Serenity
I have met and taught/coached/known a number of down syndrome kids as well as kids with various other disabilities. I have found them to be wonderful people and I have also been hugely impressed by their toughness. Not tough in the sense that they are going to be an all-pro linebacker or heavywieght champ, but tough in the sense that they go through life doing what we take for granted despite the problems that they have. And I, for one, have always come away from these encounters a better person. Thats not to say that there aren’t difficulties or really severe issues and there may be times when you say, “God, why me?”. (Hey, even perfectly healthy kids can bring that on). But children have value and are worthy of being loved. Even disabled children.
So, yes, they are a blessing.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
@Jeff
The whole question of whether or not abortion is murder is a sliding scale dependent on what your philosophical approach is. It can range from the moment of birth all the way to the other extreme of “potentiation”. And to say that a fertilized egg will definitely develop a brain is far from a certainty. There are any number of things which could result in damage or incomplete development. If you say that a fertilized egg has the potential to become a human, then so, too, does every unfertilized egg and sperm. If they have potential, then to allow them to “expire” is murder, just as much as abortion, so male self-fulfillment as well as every female period are murder, from a potentiation viewpoint.
The question is where to draw the line without being arbitrary about it. Unfortunately for all involved in the debate, it can’t be done.
As to “sentience” or “consciousness” defining what is human, there again, the definition is flawed. What about those who are in comas, vegetative states, or otherwise cognitively flawed?
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
No one has remotely a clue when human life starts or when a fetus becomes conscious or even what consciousness is. So being as ignorant as we are in the matter, how can we say it’s right for 1 person to decide what is a person or not?
In the US we do not grant the power to determine life or death to any 1 person except in matters of self-defense. Anything else is murder. It takes a judge, jury, trial, lawyers, proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, etc to sentence someone to death.
Edmund Schluessel: “Nicole: Maybe it is a continuum — but there has to be some point where you look at Terri Schiavo and say it’s OK to turn off the machines.”
No, there isn’t. Only the person in question has the right to end his or her own life. Anything else is a dangerous slippery slope and a violation of the rule of law we cannot afford if we wish to remain free.
Phil Plait: “…will ignore the blatant fact that Palin will set the women’s movement back, oh, say, three hundred years?”
Sarah Palin embodies the goals of feminism. She has a family, a job, is more successful than her husband, runs a state, was a mayor, self-made, etc. How is that setting the women’s movement back? Your comment is offensive in the extreme and very belittling.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Jeff: A fertilized egg might become a human being, with the right environment and a bit of luck — plenty of fertilized eggs are ejected during menstruation, and plenty of pregnancies are miscarried silently.
On the other hand, any DNA-bearing cell from my body or yours has the potential to become a human being — it’s got all the instructions, genetically complete. Heck, we could even scramble some transposons and get a human that doesn’t look like the donor.
We can’t do this without human intervention — fair enough. But to fertilize an egg involves the active participation of at least two people (more if you go to certain kinds of parties). So now, we’re only arguing based on degree.
The key points is, potential humans don’t have human rights.
Murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought” (Webster’s). You’ve just admitted that a fertilized egg isn’t a human being. So where’s the murder?
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“so male self-fulfillment as well as every female period are murder, from a potentiation viewpoint”- dang I hope that isn’t true! ‘Cause if it is, oh man, I am SO screwed……
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
While I am solidly pro-choice, I would agree, it seems pointless arguing against that fact. But the anti-abortionists tend to conveniently ignore some other basic facts:
1) the majority of conceptions (up to 75% by some estimates) do not result in a live birth (and that’s not counting abortions). Many fertilizations fail because the resulting embryo is malformed. That makes natural abortion (or, I suppose, if you believe such things, the entity responsible for natural abortions) by far the most common reason a pregnancy doesn’t come to term.
2) A single women bearing a child out of wedlock in her teens greatly reduces her chances of having a stable marriage and home life where she can bring up a complete family. If she has an abortion at that age, she will almost certainly go on to have more children and has a greater chance of providing them with a better environment within with to grow and develop. So it’s ridiculous to claim that because of abortion there are 42 million fewer people here in the US. There are likely close to 30-40 million people living today precisely because their mother had an abortion before they were conceived. If the anti-abortionist had their way, none of them would be alive today.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Todd: In the case of extensive brain damage, that person is gone. Dead. Elvis has left the building. Just like in the case of a fetus — the person hasn’t gotten there yet.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
6) Iraq ordained by God? Not really check. “Pray…that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.” certainly does NOT assert that Iraq is God’s plan, no matter what the journalist who wrote the story thought.
I basically take her words as “pray that we’re doing the right thing”, which isn’t anything like what the journalist who wrote that article says.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Jeff:
1) Even if she could not have a real effect the very fact that she does not accept evolution indicates that she is both utterly scientifically illiterate and does not have advisors which could correct for that scientific illiteracy. Apparently you’re ok with having absolute morons in office as long as they don’t “take your money” (I assume you’re reffering to taxes here).
2) Murder is a legal term, so if it is legal it cannot be murder.
3) I don’t think Phil was making a comparison to Obama, I think he was pointing out the hipocrisy of laying into Obama for being inexperienced, then picking an inexperienced VP.
4) How is whether she sought the job or was sought for the job relevant? The question is whether she is qualified and the fact that she does not understand the job indicates that yes, she is.
5) I think the implication is easier to make with Palin because she is so pathetically unqualified.
Also, the government does not control your social life!?! Yeah except for the fact that until Roe v. Wade (which she disagrees with) women could not have legal abortions, you can’t drink until 21, no drugs (in particular no marijuana), no protesting the GOP (or the DNC), no gay marriage, no curse words on television (unless you bleep or cut away to something else, like say, a decapitation), no curse words on the radio, no nudity or excessive sexual references on TV or radio (or in public for that matter), no prostitution, heavy restrictions on any sexually explicit material etc. etc. etc.
Admittedly some of these issues are relatively minor but some of them are pretty significant and all of them matter to some degree. Regardless, saying that the government does not control what you do in private is absolutely ridiculous.
Vote republican if your hard earned money is that important to you, but realize that you’re voting directly against science, you’re voting against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, you’re voting against biotech, and you’re voting against safe and legal abortions.
Furthermore, while president and vice president do not have quite as much power over legislation as some think, the next president will be nominating up to three supreme court justices, and Mccain’s nominations would likely do all they can to tear down church state seperation.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Even though you KNOW the egg has been fertilized and the cells ARE GOING to form a human brain? How is that process not stopping life?”
Please, I ’stop’ more ‘life’ every time I masturbate. Think of the spermatozoa! Millions and millions of POTENTIAL BABIES OHHHHH NOOOOO THE HORROR.
Of course it’s stopping life. Whenever I wash my dirty dishes, I’m stopping SOME kind of life (usually mold). That’s not the question. (Btw, did you know that about a third of all pregnancies spontaneously abort? Is that murder too?) The question is what KIND of life, and eliminating a clump of cells entirely dependent on the woman’s body does NOT carry the moral implications of murder. It’s more like a cheek scraping.
Notice how anti-abortion advocates NEVER want to mention where this all is happening: inside an actual, breathing, rights-having woman. Even if that blastocyst has the same rights as a fully-functional human being (and again, it doesn’t, anymore than a severed finger or excised tumor has ‘rights’), those rights DO NOT include the right to feed off an unwilling host woman.
NO ONE has the ‘right’ to profit from your body without your consent. No one. Ever. And especially not overriding your opposition, which is what anti-abortion people are advocating. Any kind of reasoning which does not recognize and respect that fact has no basis calling itself moral.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
RL:
You have got to be kidding me. Rezko? Jeremiah Wright? Michelle Obama? Barak Hussein Obama? You really think that none of that got the coverage Palin is getting now? The Jeremiah Wright attacks alone were in the headlines for weeks, all from one sermon that there is no evidence that Obama was in attendance.
LOL. So, what about Troopergate, RL. Is that ’so unfair’ too? Does the fact that she is now suddenly lawyering up and stonewalling an investigation (instigated by an overwhelmingly Republican state congress) make her look an innocent victim too in your eyes? Care to answer that question?
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I could care less about the stupid abortion debate, but it’s fun to watch both sides misrepresent information because they are emotionally driven by their politics. I don’t have a dog in this race.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
By the way, Palin repeatedly promised to cooperate with the Republican investigation into Troopergate — until this week, that is.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
She redefines “unvotable” so far. All it takes is a thorough look at her convictions and beliefs and her track record in Wasilla. (Not like the attempted book-banning stunt was the only questionable thing.) McCain’s tactic in choosing her is so blatant it’s disappointing. With this woman in charge as VP, the US would continue its slide into the dark ages, possibly at an even increased rate. Frightening prospect actually.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Yeah … There are AFAIU biologists who claims that this point happens during the first year of life or so, so technically they are perhaps prepared to abort born individuals on such a basis. I assume many (potentially or already existing) unreasonably painful sicknesses are discovered first after birth, so there could be potential merit to that. I suspect we don’t want to know about some of the choices that has been made in such situations.
But at least where I live there isn’t (above gray area apart) a conflict between criteria for medical actions on individuals and criteria for sentience. Last voluntarily abortion week is a couple of weeks before the time when you can start save fetuses (albeit with heavy damages). Later abortions can only be made for medical reasons. [But still prioritizing the rights of the sentient over the fetuses of course.]
A side effect of such procedures for voluntary abortions are that they are totally painless for the fetus, it hasn’t connected up the nerves up to what will later become pain awareness parts of the brain. If the idea of inflicting pain to non-sentient creatures makes you nauseated, it is possible that you would have similar feelings towards non-sentient developmental stages. But in this way such feelings, if they persist, have no factual basis.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“And how do you know I’m not black?”
LoL
Black people generally know that being black is not a vaccine against racism. If you’re the one black guy in America that can’t suss out the racism in a comment when he hears (himself make) it, I guess I apologize.
And anyway, I’m not calling you a racist, but I AM saying that you are saying racist things. Saying that a black man who fought long and hard to get where he is was just handed his position is a racist thing to say, no matter who says it. Saying that blacks will reflexively vote for Obama just because he’s black is a racist thing to say, no matter who says it.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
What have they done? What have they run?
Obama:
Done: Wrote two books about himself. Recently elected Senator when his opponent for all practical purposes dropped out of the race. Rarely shows up for work. Held no hearings, passed no significant legislation except a large earmark for his wife’s employer. Bought mansion at a discount with help from a criminal. One of his oldest friends and early supporter is a proud anti-American terrorist. The other is an America hating racial bigot preacher. Gives a good speech.
Run: nothing
Palin:
Done: Small business owner. City Councilman, City Mayor. As Chairman, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission supervised the production of 20% of the energy output of the United States. Resigned due to corruption on the part of Republican members of the commission. After resigning, Palin filed formal complaints against the state Republican Party’s chairman, Randy Ruedrich, and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes. She accused Ruedrich, one of her fellow commissioners, of doing work for the party on public time and working closely with a company he was supposed to be regulating. Ruedrich and Renkes both resigned and Ruedrich paid a record $12,000 fine.
As Governor Palin conducted a major housecleaning by removing 35 appointees of the prior Republican governor. Responsible for a nearly $7 billion annual budget.
In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state’s North Slope. This negated a deal by the previous governor to grant the contract to a coalition including BP (her husband’s former employer).
Opposed the ‘Bridge to nowhere’, supported by Senator Bidden.
(some information from Wikipedia article on Palin)
Bidden:
Run: nothing
Done: nothing other than represent MBNA in the Senate. Sons employed as lobbyist.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Bush was a two term Texas governor with eight years of executive experience. How’s that working out for us?
Oh yeah, it isn’t.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Warren:
Sorry Warren, but I watched the whole speech (it’s available online, from the church’s web site, I think, but I don’t have the link handy) and I have no doubt at all that it’s exactly what she believes — i.e. “God’s plan is everything” including the US invasion of Iraq.
This is an entirely standard belief of evangelical fundamentalists like Palin, and I have no reason to doubt her on this.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I’ll just make a small break in the political commentary to note that Phil’s disclaimer comment that “opinions expressed in this blog are mine and mine alone. But I’m ususally right” come awfully close to Robert Park’s disclaimer for his long-running “What’s New” column. It was originally hosted by the American Physical Society, but is now at the University of Maryland. He disclaims “Opinions are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the University, but they should be.”
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“Sarah Palin embodies the goals of feminism. She has a family, a job, is more successful than her husband, runs a state, was a mayor, self-made, etc. How is that setting the women’s movement back?”
[Captaon Obvious]
Because she advocates for policies which would restrict the ability of other women to achieve the successes she enjoys.
[/Captain Obvious]
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Number 4 isn’t too bad Phil. The Constitution says the only duties for the VP is to break ties in the Senate. I’m sure she could get the hang of the that by January.
And protect the spacetime continuum. Read the Constitution! (Shameless cribbed from Al Gore on Futurama, but he’d know, right?)
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Jeff says “My stance is this: before an egg is fertilized it will not become a human being. After it has been fertilized, it WILL become a human being (barring any difficult circumstances such as a miscarriage…or an abortion). That is not a religious argument. That is a stone-cold fact.”
True. But, the issue is one of conflicting rights. The rights of the woman vs. the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus. The developmental stage of the offspring is critical in an argument of this type. The rights of the offspring increase with development. A multi-celled organism with human DNA does not deserve the same rights as a fetus that can survive outside its mother with some medical support. And, until the fetus can survive without any medical intervention (full term), quite frankly the needs and rights of the mother have to have greater weight or a woman is nothing but a baby incubator and we are going to slide into a society where a woman can be prosecuted for not eating right while pregnant or for taking the Pill because it prevented a potential life from becoming.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
This has been said already in previous threads, but I really want the previous RSS feed back. Please?
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Eighty three comments precede this one, and some of them undoubtedly castigate Phil for having the temerity to voice an opinion on what some seem to believe must be a 100 percent science blog. (Not that some of them would stop complaining if Phil had laid into Joe Biden… )
So, for those folks, here’s the deal: People like Sarah Palin hold beliefs that are fundamentally anti-science. Indeed, they hold beliefs that require rejecting the validity of the scientific method itself.
Palin, et al, have every right to hold those beliefs, as counter to reality as they may be. They have a right to attempt to persuade others to agree with them. They have no right to use the power of the state to force the rest of us to behave in ways that comport with their opinions. And they cannot seek refuge under a cloak of religioisity. The issue is not about what they believe. The issue is about the political actions motivated by their beliefs, and political actions are always fair game.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Oh, and one other thing that came up, just this morning on NPR: she tried, as mayor of her little town of “FrozenMooseNuts” Alaska, (pop. 9000, aproximately 1/4 the number of people attending the DNC on Friday night… Saaalllute!!!)…to ban books off the library shelves.
Charming.
She might be an ex beauty queen… but to me, she’s “coyote ugly” through and through.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“Eighty three comments precede this one, and some of them undoubtedly castigate Phil for having the temerity to voice an opinion on what some seem to believe must be a 100 percent science blog.”
Actually, no one has done this yet. I’m kind of surprised about it myself.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
This is a question that puzzled me long before cloning became a reality and I’m aware that no humans have been cloned yet but it’s only a matter of time…
Once human cloning becomes reality what argument do the pro-lifers have left? After all, killing *any* cell in their body then becomes murder by their reasoning surely? Apart from the my-deity-of-choice says it’s wrong argument. Because if that’s all you’ve got then yeah, try imposing you’re religion on everyone and see where that gets you.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Jim:
See, now, you really should do a bit of your own research before you go spouting off random slimy lies about Obama (and Republican’s are upset over comments about Palin??)
First, Obama did not buy anything at a discount. He paid full market price for the house, and he paid a full 1/6 of the price of the lot next door for 1/6 of the lot. Yes, it helped him get a bigger lot for the house, but please show me where he did anything even approaching illegal?
Second, Ayers was not one of the “oldest friends” of Obama — yes he knew him, and has done for some time, since they served on the boards of a couple of non-profits together to do with education and anti-poverty, and yes Ayers organized a fund raiser for him — and that makes them close friends, how? What evidence do you have that they had anything other than an acquaintance and businesses relationship. BTW Obama condemned Ayers’ unrepentant statements about his past.
And while we’re on the subject of close friends, what about McCain? McCain’s previous chair of his Arizona election campaign, and close colleague and friend is under multiple indictments for fraud and taking bribes. McCain has not had a bad word to say about his friend, refusing to condemn him. And what about Charlie Black, his right-hand man, and lobbiest extraordinaire for some of the worst dictators and most despicable tyrants in 20th century history? McCain doesn’t seem to have a problem that Black lobbied Congress to get them to do favors for mass murderers that make Ayers look like a rug-rat in comparison.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
@ Jeff
> Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. The issue is too contentious…
IMO, this is not a justifiable statement. Roe v. Wade is not a political issue itself; the contentiousness or lack thereof among the general populace isn’t really germane.
Roe v. Wade is a SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS decisions are decided by a simple majority, and as many political observers have pointed out, it is very likely that the next President will determine the makeup of the court for the next decade.
It is actually quite possible for Roe v. Wade to be overturned directly in the court system without anything like a constitutional amendment if a few social conservative judges are appointed to the Court. Yes, you could argue that no Democratic Congress would approve a nominee to the Supreme Court that is anti-abortion, but that’s a dodgy assumption.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“Don’t forget that she and her husband are/were also members of the Alaska Independence Party which calls for the state of Alaska to secede from the United States”
Another Democrat talking points lie.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
LOL. No. She lied about that one. She only opposed it when it became a national laughing stock. She seems to be quite proud of her support for the Bridge to Nowhere in this picture:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/oh-yes-and-she.html
She has a long record (as long as her total political record, in fact) of being in support of pork barrel spending, even when she was mayor of a village of 5,000 (at the time). Not exactly the reformed McCain claims her to be.
The funniest thing is that her own pork barrel requests were singled out by McCain’s own office as examples of pork of the kind that should be done away with.
You just have to laugh.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“it assumes that a woman will vote on a candidate just because she has an XX chromosome”
What, you think that’s not a safe assumption? American voters are ill-informed. This is EXACTLY what gets peopl elected. hat and physiognomy.
Man. Obama completely lost me with Biden and his opposition to nuclear power. And the Libertarian candidate is a goof (regardless of the fact that I’m embarrassed by the fact that media decides who gets into debates and refused time to third parties, thus deciding elections for us). I have no candidate and today am officially an undecided.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“My favorite part is how the Republicans are arguing that commanding the Alaska National Guard and being near Russia both count as foreign policy experience.”
Excuse, you’re mistaken. That was a Democrat talking point for Bill Clinton.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
LOL. No. She lied about that one. She only opposed it when it became a national laughing stock. She seems to be quite proud of her support for the Bridge to Nowhere in this picture:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2008/09/03/fh000020.jpg
She has a long record (as long as her total political record, in fact) of being in support of pork barrel spending, even when she was mayor of a village of 5,000 (at the time). Not exactly the reformed McCain claims her to be.
The funniest thing is that her own pork barrel requests were singled out by McCain’s own office as examples of pork of the kind that should be done away with.
You just have to laugh.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
LOL. No. She lied about that one. She only opposed it when it became a national laughing stock. That has been extensively documented by everyone.
She has a long record (as long as her total political record, in fact) of being in support of pork barrel spending, even when she was mayor of a village of 5,000 (at the time). Not exactly the reformed McCain claims her to be.
The funniest thing is that her own pork barrel requests were singled out by McCain’s own office as examples of pork of the kind that should be done away with.
You just have to laugh.
(Phil: Please delete the moderated comments with the links)
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Agreed. She will sneak through one of those 18-million crack made by Hillary Clinton and promptly begin sealing them back up again.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
tacitus:
I never really comment on anything and I don’t post on boards so I’m not up on the etiquette, maybe you can enlighten me. Is posting links in comments a bad thing?
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Well, no, but since about 99.99% of all comments with links in them received by a blog are spam (I know, because I have a blog of my own) then it’s not surprising when a comment with even one link gets held up in moderation so the blog owner can review the comment first.
I set my blog to hold up comments with three or more links, BABlog appears to be more draconian, but no doubt that’s because he gets thousands of spam comments a day, and too many would get through the spam filter otherwise.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Jim Howard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwWGS73v4_k and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zP8uFPWxaA are two instances of people stating that Alaska being near Russia counts as foreign policy experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDK-gC0Go7g meanwhile has the assertion regarding the Alaska National Guard. Indeed, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/palin.track.record/ quotes McCain himself as making that assertion.
The “head of the Arkansas national guard” argument, meanwhile, seems to have originated from the GHW Bush campaign — where it was used derisively. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4479302636&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4479302639&cisb=22_T4479302638&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8213&docNo=5 (if you can’t open that link, I’m looking at USA Today, August 25 1992, page 8A: “Bush and Clinton address vets today”)
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Palin made a CHOICE to carry her downs baby to term, yet she believes that ther women shouldn’t have the same ability to make decisions concerning their own pregnancies.
Typical republican hypocracy.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I like the pick alot. I thought it guaranteed McCain a win on Friday, now I’m not so sure depending on how the Bristol-pregnancy issue plays out.
I’m not so sold on the argument of her experience versus Obama’s – I think she has more and better, but it’s arguable. But in the list of accomplishments, she wins by a landslide, because he has none.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“Also, the government does not control your social life!?! Yeah except for the fact that until Roe v. Wade (which she disagrees with) women could not have legal abortions, you can’t drink until 21, no drugs (in particular no marijuana), no protesting the GOP (or the DNC), no gay marriage, no curse words on television (unless you bleep or cut away to something else, like say, a decapitation), no curse words on the radio, no nudity or excessive sexual references on TV or radio (or in public for that matter), no prostitution, heavy restrictions on any sexually explicit material etc. etc. etc.
Admittedly some of these issues are relatively minor but some of them are pretty significant and all of them matter to some degree. Regardless, saying that the government does not control what you do in private is absolutely ridiculous.”
First of all, I said the government does it “rarely,” which is true. Most of the items you mention are public issues (although I disagree with many of the laws involved).
I agree, those issues do matter. But for me, the hardships the Democrats put on businesses and hard-working Amercans in the form of taxes and needless regulations easily tip the scales Republican for me.
A Republican vote is a vote for capitalism and the power of the market – and that’s where science truly thrives, unencumbered by policy.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Politics are hilarious.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
1) And? At least she believes in something.
2) She’s pro-life. Hasn’t shown any desires to keep other women from having abortions.
3) Has more executive experience than Obama. Doh!
4) No one knows what the Vice President does. The VP has no duties laid out in the Constitution except to become the President if the sitting one dies and to be the President of the Senate to break ties.
5) Gee, much like many black people will vote for Obama because he’s black.
6) Prove it wasn’t.
Overall, I give you a C for trying to denigrate Palin. Too bad that points 3 and 5 apply equally well to your favorite Obama.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“I agree, those issues do matter. But for me, the hardships the Democrats put on businesses and hard-working Amercans in the form of taxes and needless regulations easily tip the scales Republican for me.”
Really. Can you name the president who raised taxes the most on the middle class in the last 30 years? (Hint: it wasn’t a Democrat.)
And can you explain to me how massive giveaways to global corporations is helping the economy?
You are basing your opinions on “facts” that may have been true 40 years ago, but have long since passed into Republican lies. Effective ones, I grant you. But with little bearing on the reality of present day politics.
Not that the Democrats are any better.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Jeff said: “I’ve said all I need to say about abortion. My original point was – it doesn’t matter what stance any presidential candidate has on abortion. Roe v. Waid will never be overturned. The issue is too contentious and as I said before, presidents don’t make laws.”
But presidents *do* appoint Supreme Court justices. Our system is so politicized that a president will naturally appoint a justice who goes along with the party line rather than the very best justice for the job. Who we elect this year can have profound implications for decades to come.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Oops, didn’t finish the #2 sentence quite the way I meant. Should say:
2) She’s pro-life. Hasn’t shown any desires to change the law in Alaska to keep other women from having abortions.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I’m British and I want McCain to win just because of how smug and snarky all the Obamaniacs come across.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Kathy A.: “Our system is so politicized that a president will naturally appoint a justice who goes along with the party line rather than the very best justice for the job.”
Is that actually any different from the past?
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Sometimes it is fun to watch from the sidelines.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
So… getting into Havard Law school and becoming editor of the Harvard Law School Review is not an accomplishment? Being a State Senator of a senate district with over 1/3rd the total population of Alaska is not an accomplishment? Winning 3million votes in a landslide election to the US Senate is not an accomplishment? Winning 18million votes in a national Democratic primary despite being subjected to some of the nastiest smears around against the prohibitive favorite and establishment candidate is not an accomplishment?
Really, it’s so pathetic, it’s just sad. Why do Palin supporters have to lie so transparently while defending her. It’s quite obvious that Palin has a record and it’s certainly fair to compare the records and accomplishments of all the candidates, but to somehow claim that Obama hasn’t accomplished anything in his career is a flat-out, brazen lie.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Robbie said “Kathy A.: “Our system is so politicized that a president will naturally appoint a justice who goes along with the party line rather than the very best justice for the job.”
Is that actually any different from the past?”
I wasn’t meaning to imply that it was or was not different in the past. Just commenting on the present.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Tacitus: “Winning 3million votes in a landslide election to the US Senate is not an accomplishment?”
Not when your opponent drops out and the RNC sends Alan Keyes to campaign against you a few weeks before the election.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The problem is, reality says different. If you go back and study the record of the economy over the past 50 years, you will find that America does best, on average, when there is a Democrat in the White House. Of course, if you believe that our priority should be to continue helping the top 1% to get richer, then by all means vote for John “I don’t know much about the economy” McCain. Republicans have certainlymastered the art of getting people to vote against their best interests.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Daffy,
Presidents do not raise taxes. The increase you reference was put forth by a congress with a Democrat majority.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
And Obama’s to blame for that how?
So, do you really believe, like JohnW, that Obama has no accomplishments?
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“Against women’s rights?” <— Perhaps this should be termed “for the rights of unborn human babies”? Sure this will start a firestorm, but who the hell are you to define this?
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Did I say that tacitus? Did I even mention anything else you mentioned as not being an accomplishment? Nope. I just mentioned 1 thing. If you’re going to be like that then there’s just no talking to you.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
The thing that most bothers me about Palin? The fact that she’s a recreational hunter. People who hunt for “sport” should be locked up, not put in a position of power. Of course, this places me against one of America’s great love affairs. Not the first time.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
“If you go back and study the record of the economy over the past 50 years, you will find that America does best, on average, when there is a Democrat in the White House.”
tacitus, you’re assuming the policies espoused by today’s Democrats have been consistent for the last 50 years. Not so. Today’s Democrats are much more liberal than their historical counterparts.
As for the 1% getting richer, that’s fine with me. Do you think those people are just putting their money in savings accounts? That money is a big part of what drives the market. Hell, I work for the top 1%; the more money they have, the more they’re able to pay me.
What, you want the government to get richer? Guess what, the only way they’ll do it is on our backs.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Ijon Tichy: “The fact that she’s a recreational hunter. People who hunt for “sport” should be locked up, not put in a position of power.”
She eats what she kills. Where’s the problem?
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Jeff,
Yes, Congress voted on it (hence my statement that the Democrats are no better), but it was Reagan’s proposal.
Yours is a perfect example of why I now consider this country doomed…everything is OK as long as it is done by one’s own party. Love of Party over country.
Oh, and by the way, during the course of his presidency, Reagan asked for 16 Billion (unadjusted) dollars MORE than Congress gave him. So much for fiscal restraint.
Oh…and would you like to provide evidence for the increase in liberal policies in the Democratic Party? Quoting Limbaugh is hardly evidence.
If a smaller group amasses an ever higher percentage of the overall wealth, that means LESS for everyone else. Trickle down economics is a sham and always has been; it is handing the very rich a club to beat our brains in with.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
To Neill Raper:
I really don’t think it’s best to talk about her preacher.
Wright’s religiopolitical views are racist. Rev. Wright’s relation to Obama is well known. Obama has said that the title of his book “Audacity of Hope” was inspired by one of Wright’s sermons. Also, consider that Obama has been listening to him for over 20 years, has given money to his church repeatedly, had his children baptized at his church, was married there by Wright, and appointed him to his African American Religious Leadership Committee – then dropped him last March.
Apparently Obama knows exactly how bad Rev Wright is for his image even if some bloggers don’t. He had to sever his ties with him because Wright is outdated, divisive, partisan, and racist – not exactly the Obama brand (updated, inclusive, non-partisan and beyond race politics).
I would hate to think that the reason that Palin’s preacher’s statements seem worse is because she’s a conservative – and we on the Left traditionally cringe at the thought of an evangelist within reach of “The Button” among other things.
I always thought it strange that the Left seemed not all that bothered by Wright’s crud (sounded like hate speech to me), but seemed incensed by the interpretive cross featured in Huckabee’s ad (admittedly a sneaky confession of faith, but not of hate).
This line of attack will only reveal a double-standard. It is not a good way to go after McCain. Unless you are looking for simple tit-for-tat and an unearthing of the Wright scandal with added depth.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Rubbish. 50 years gets us back to 1958. Socially yes, the Democratic party is more left-wing since the majority of the advocates for segregation left to join the Republican party. Economically, have you seen Obama calling for 90% tax brackets like we had back in the 60s and 70s? No.
I recently watched a couple of Democratic convention speeches from the 60s that were shown on CSPAN a couple of weeks ago. There is nothing Obama is calling for now that Democrats nearly 50 years ago weren’t calling for. I was quite surprised by that myself, actually. You should go take a look through the CSPAN archives — it might surprise you too.
Obama is a moderate by just about any standard that isn’t set by the Republicans themselves. He is not campaigning for higher taxes (except on the very rich — people McCain previously was happy to see pay higher taxes too), nor to take away your guns (just in case you hadn’t noticed) and is willing to find a way to make Bush’s own No Child Left Behind policy actually work as it was intended. Not exactly socialism now, is it?
They might as well be. Since the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the average middle class wage has dropped by $2,000 in real terms. In the 90s, under a higher taxation of the rich regime, real wages rose by nearly $8,000 on average. We;ve had eight years of trickle down economics with nothing to show for it except the gap between rich and poor growing to be larger than any time since the 1930s. Remember that halcyon age?
No, I want responsible, good government — of the kind Bush and the Republicans have so singularly failed to do in the past 8 years. McCain has fully endorsed the Bush economic plan and promises more of the same (it’s not just a slogan, it happens to be true). The Bush administration reduced oversight of the free market just a little and we ended up with ENRON, 30% credit card interest rates with $50 late payment fees, earth-shattering record oil company profits on the backs of people like you and I, and the housing crisis which forced the government to dole out untold billions in handouts to the banks.
And you want even less oversight? Yikes! (BTW: Phil Gramm, a close friend and advisor of McCain’s was the architect of the mortgage schemes that ultimately causes the current meltdown.
A good government establishes a level playing field for the free market and then acts as the referee to ensure that corporations behave and we, the consumers and the taxpayers don’t get bilked. Otherwise, they should keep out of the way.
I don’t agree with everything government does regarding the free market (left and right), and that goes doubly so when it comes to the lobbyists. McCain talks a good game when it comes to lobbyists, but almost all of his inner circle are lobbyists (including a couple who have lobbied for brutal dictators) and he has at least 160 of them working on his campaign (60 alone from the telecom lobby). And now he’s selected Ms Pork Barrel spending herself as his running mate.
To quote John McCain: “That’s not change we can believe in”.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Daffy,
You’re right, the only evidence I have is my lifetime and memory. Still, I stand by the statement – whether Limbaugh agrees with it or not. Your last statement is woefully inaccurate. You assume there’s a finite amount of wealth out there that’s up for grabs, and it doesn’t work that way. Wealth is created. It grows, and when it does, it grows for everyone.
As for trickle down economics, that’s what pays my salary! And yours, too I imagine. “The Rich” are not the bad guys. It’s the federal government in the stranglehold of career politicians.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
tacitus – I stand corrected, those are accomplishments. Pretty good personal ones, too, just not enough to make him presidential material.
So let me misdirect my argument – can you name me an accomplishment Obama made as a legislator? As a community organizer? A bipartisan accomplishment? McCain and Palin both have laundry lists of accomplishments as bipartisan reformers.
Yes, Palin looked for, and got, earmarks as a mayor. What I imagine happened next is that, as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, she saw the corrupting influence of earmarks on the political process. So much so that, in an act of integrity, she resigned when no action was taken on her concerns. Then she became governor and got the fee (or tax or royalty, whatever you want to call it) the oil and gas companies pay for extraction increased, which goes to Alaska’s budget and it’s citizens. And she got the natural gas pipeline through Canada funded and building. And passed ethics reforms. And cut 1/2 a billion from the state budget. And killed the Bridge to Nowhere. In less than two years.
But, yeah, Harvard Law Reveiw. Impressive.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
To hear Palin’s daughter is either keeping the baby, or giving it up for adoption is almost to be expected. The point everyone will miss though, is the failure of ‘abstinence only education’ if Palin is for it. Otherwise, she currently has the same choice as everyone else. — abort or bring to term.
— A choice she no doubt wants to take away from everyone else.
As to Creationist Sympathizer, have the republicans fallen to such a low to make that a requirement in their elected officials?
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
If a smaller group amasses an ever higher percentage of the overall wealth, that means LESS for everyone else.
ONLY if you assume the pie doesn’t ever grow. Which is not the case.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Too much tacitus goodness in here…
First, Obama did not buy anything at a discount. He paid full market price for the house, and he paid a full 1/6 of the price of the lot next door for 1/6 of the lot. Yes, it helped him get a bigger lot for the house, but please show me where he did anything even approaching illegal?
He did nothing illegal. He engineered millions of dollars in public money grants for Rezko’s partnership to build housing projects in exchange for campaign contributions. And then Rezko helped him buy his house and increase the size of his yard. Very typical political shennanigans. Not very “new politics,” though.
They might as well be. Since the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the average middle class wage has dropped by $2,000 in real terms. In the 90s, under a higher taxation of the rich regime, real wages rose by nearly $8,000 on average.
The Clinton administration was hardly a soak-the-rich regime. They increased the top rates some, and cut the capital gains tax. They did a good job with a growing economy, with much more conservative economic policies than previous (and current!) democrat candidates.
Obama is a moderate by just about any standard that isn’t set by the Republicans themselves.
Based on what record? Certainly not his voting record, which is very liberal and party line (moreso than McCain’s). Since the record and resume are paper thin, maybe we can get some insight from his political allies… Like the Marxist terrorist who got him started in politics!
McCain has fully endorsed the Bush economic plan and promises more of the same (it’s not just a slogan, it happens to be true).
Why, because he doesn’t want to roll back the Bush tax cuts (which moved 30 million low income people off the tax rolls) in the middle of a weak economy? The deuce, you say!
A good government establishes a level playing field for the free market and then acts as the referee to ensure that corporations behave and we, the consumers and the taxpayers don’t get bilked. Otherwise, they should keep out of the way.
Well, I’ve come to the opinion that politicians are inherently corrupt, and having them oversee any activity involving lots of money is probably a bad idea.
Your oversight and Enron comments are terribly simplistic, but this comment’s long enough for now.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Seems Ms. Palin (or is it Mrs?) is pretty much the polar oppisite of Hilary Clinton, unless there’s stuff about Mrs. Clinton I don’t know.
Palin seems to be very much removed from reality based thinking.
She, along with McCain, will certainly set this country back to the Dark Ages.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Then explain again how the tax cuts for the rich helped the middle class wages rise? You can’t because they didn’t. It’s a facile argument to say that the richer people are the more they put back into the economy — their pie has grown enormously over the past eight years while everyone else’s has shrunk.
As for “soaking the rich”, that’s another fallacy. In percentage terms even the super rich don’t pay any more taxes than the working and middle classes — about 20%. Increasing marginal income tax rates on the highest earners will not move that figure more than a couple of percentage points upwards.
I am sure there is plenty of blame to go around regarding ENRON — escpecially their BoD, but deregulation of the energy markets was certainly a huge factor in it’s success and ultimate failure. The “free market” created there caused wild speculation and swings in prices and ended up costing state taxpayers and shareholders billions.
You can call my balanced approach to a free market with responsible government oversight simplistic if you like, but your belief that an unregulated free market would some how solve all these problems (not to mention clean up the environment and look after the health and safety of consumers and workers responsibly) is terribly, and dangerously naive.
Shareholders and company directors are human too, and have just as long a history of selfishness and corruption as do politicians. Putting the market in the hands of just one out of the two (either way) is a dangerous business. Having the fox look after the hen house is a very bad idea.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
JohnW,
She didn’t “kill the Bridge to Nowhere.” When she was running for governor in 2006 she was all for it. From a 2006 interview:
5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window
is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
She merely abandoned the bridge once it became clear that Alaska wasn’t going to get enough money from the Feds to finish the project. But she kept the money the state had already been given for the bridge and used it elsewhere. She had every intention of building that bridge had Alaska’s representatives been able to secure the money for it. http://tiny.cc/SDXKf
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Could it be possible that there are policies from both parties that are extremists, and that to get that support both canidates are pandering to the extremists.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
3) Inexperienced, thus negating one of McCain’s planks for election? Check.
OK, now I get it. Two years as Alaska governor doesn’t quite match Obama’s ……….. (Well, he must have done something in the Illinois senate besides run for the national Senate, and he must have done something in the Senate besides run for President).
We just don’t know what he’s done yet. But don’t worry, he’ll let us all know when he thinks we’re ready.
And has LOADS of foreign policy experience. He’s even been to Berlin!!! If that doesn’t make him a world-class statesman, I sure don’t know what will.
And he’s all ready to talk to Ahmadinejad. Without doubt, the Mad Iranian will be singing Obama’s praises, blending in beautifully with the Obamatrons wandering around the country.
If you’re not trying to cement your relationship with the loony Left, you’re certainly doing a bang-up job of pretending to.
At least Jeff and Ray (among others) aren’t taken in by your feeble attempts to drum up Obama support. Please – leave the character assassination to the Democrats. They’re a heck of a lot better at it than you are.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
…Still waiting for an Obama accomplishment (non-personal, of course)…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
A vote for the republican ticket is a vote for ignorance and anti-science.
To bad that there are posters here who do not realize that…
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
That you can type this with a straight face after all that Obama’s been through these past two years speaks volumes. (Not to mention, Clinton, Gore and Kerry, and even McCain at the hands of your very own master slimer, Karl Rove.)
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Yes, The Bridge to Nowhere. Palin was for it before she was against it (once it became a national joke) and then took all the earmark money she was given anyway and spent it on other things.
Quite the reformer.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
It could of been worse McCain could of picked Ann Coultier.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Jeff:
See above. But note there are already many anti-Roe v. Wade judges, and thus an anti-choice president is an even greater danger to choice than a creationist VP is to science.
A fetus is part of the woman’s body. It is not a separate life.
The fetus does not become a child – and thus human life does not began – until it is out of the womb and the umbilical is snipped.
Preventing abortion therefor a gross violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy.
Palin was Governor of Alaska – with a smaller population than Salt Lake County, Utah – for 2 years, Mayor of Wasilla (half the population of Lehi, Utah) for 6 years, city council member of Wasilla for 4 years.
Obama was in the Illinois state senate for nearly 8 years, and he’s been a senator for nearly 3 years. Both are clearly relying heavily on their running mates for experience, but Illinois is a much more complicated beast to govern than Alaska, thus Obama wins on quality, even if he’s about 14 months short on quantity. (Biden has been in the senate for 35 years versus McCain’s 21.)
Why don’t you cut out the middlemen and arrange to have a fat chunk of your paycheck deposited directly in Haliburton’s accounts?
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Phil, your site’s lack of preview has ruined my comment. Trying again:
Jeff:
The president nominates judges, and writes executive orders. The former interpret laws, and the latter determine much of how laws are enforced. The Democratic majority in the Senate is slim and would not be able to kill every nomination by a McCain presidency. It would only take a few creationist judges to overtun those precedents. But most importantly, the press has traditionally been willing to give the VP a bully pulpit, and the last several presidents have delegated large swaths of presidential duties to the VP, and basically rubber-stamped the VP’s actions in those areas. Given the demands on the office, this probably unavoidable. A creationist VP would be a very real danger to every branch of science, and more importantly, science education.
See above. But note there are already many anti-Roe v. Wade judges, and thus an anti-choice president is an even greater danger to choice than a creationist VP is to science.
A fetus is part of the woman’s body. It is not a separate life.
The fetus does not become a child – and thus human life does not began – until it is out of the womb and the umbilical is snipped.
Preventing abortion therefor a gross violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy.
Palin was Governor of Alaska – with a smaller population than Salt Lake County, Utah – for 2 years, Mayor of Wasilla (half the population of Lehi, Utah) for 6 years, city council member of Wasilla for 4 years.
Obama was in the Illinois state senate for nearly 8 years, and he’s been a senator for nearly 3 years. Both are clearly relying heavily on their running mates for experience, but Illinois is a much more complicated beast to govern than Alaska, thus Obama wins on quality, even if he’s about 14 months short on quantity. (Biden has been in the senate for 35 years versus McCain’s 21.)
Why don’t you cut out the middlemen and arrange to have a fat chunk of your paycheck deposited directly in Haliburton’s accounts?
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I’m gonna call BA on a technicality.
Palin does not have an XX chromosome. She has two X chromosomes, or an XX genotype. If she has an XX chromosome she ain’t human.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Quick anecdote regarding the “we’re safe from Pres/VP legal decisions because of the courts”, a friend of mine mentioned to me how he typically votes Republican, but changed his mind recently when he discovered how many federal judges there were currently serving who were appointed by Republican presidents, as compared to Democratic appointees. I’ve been trying a cursory search to find a site to verify the disparity, but have come up empty so far. It would be interesting to know just how many active judges were appointed by each party.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
llewelly,
You likely wouldn’t use your last argument if you worked for Haliburton. That company is directly responsible for the livelihood of thousands of families, and probably takes much of the credit for your ability to drive a car to work every day (or take whatever public transportation you take).
As for your other arguments, I will willingly take my own life if Roe v. Wade is overturned or if Creationism is mandated in our schools (or if drugs are legalized for that matter). It’s just not going to happen, at least not in our lifetimes. So – as was my original point – using those issues as barometers for presidential candidates is unwise to say the least.
And you remember that a “conservative” judge gave us out last precedent concerning ID, right? You don’t have as much to fear from them as you imagine you do. Likewise for me and liberal judges, I’m sure.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
peaches:
She merely abandoned the bridge once it became clear that Alaska wasn’t going to get enough money from the Feds to finish the project.
So… she still killed it?
OK, you have a point, she is not perfectly consistent in all things. I guess sometimes, as chief executive of the largest state in the country, you have to compromise.
llewelly:
See above. But note there are already many anti-Roe v. Wade judges, and thus an anti-choice president is an even greater danger to choice than a creationist VP is to science.
Well, an anti-RvW judge is one who understands the judiciary’s place in our tripartite system of government.
And Palin is not a creationist:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0
The fetus does not become a child – and thus human life does not began – until it is out of the womb and the umbilical is snipped.
That is a really extreme view. I don’t believe life begins at conception, but come on! A 9 month old fetus, heck, even a 4 month old fetus isn’t a human being?
Illinois is a much more complicated beast to govern than Alaska
But he didn’t govern it. He mostly just voted “present.” And buddied around with Marxist terrorists. And went to a ridiculously radical church. And funneled money to his corrupt partial lot buyer felons. And accomplished nothing.
Please, Obama supporters, keep bringing up Palin’s “inexperience.”
Snark aside, is anybody talking about Biden? At all?
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Dom states that he is British and wants McSame to win. Well I am also British and agree wholeheartedly, because with McSame and Palin the U.S. will soon be back in the Eighteenth Century and then we can all be British once again.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
What I love, is that nearly all of the comparisons of Palin, a [b]Vice Presidential[/b] candidate for the GOP, have been to Obama the [b]Presidential[/b] candidate for the DNC.
Also [b]if[/b] Roe v wade is overturned, it goes to the states individually.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Regarding the number of judges named by each party, I found the Federal Judicial Center has a database (at [http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj]in which you can search by a number of criteria, and get a total of how many judges match.
Of all currently sitting, active judges, the following numbers were nominated by each party:
Republican: 477
Democrat: 342
If I expand it to all sitting judges (not just active ones), we get:
Republican: 788
Democrat: 495
Pretty big discrepancy. Also, for those who don’t think that the party of the nominating President doesn’t matter, from the U.S. Dept. of State’s web site outlining the U.S. legal system [http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/legalotln/judges.htm] is the following quote under “informal qualifications”:
This is not to say that their party affiliation will always influence their judgments, but it is reasonable to hold such a concern.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Okay, nevermind. They’re playing that godawful country music – OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
@ Tacticus
Yep. Obama has had a relatively easy ride. The few things he did get grief on like Rev Wright and others were well deserved. But overall that Saturday Night Live skit, while exaggerated, is on the mark (”Mr Obama, would you like a pillow?”)
And if there is something to Troopergate, that is fair game. That is something about Palin and/or what she did as an elected official. But I’m going to findout the facts first. Obvioulsy, you’ve made up your mind. All this other stuff about her daughter or husband or future son-in-law is crap and should be off limits. They are “civilians” and aren’t out campaigning or giving policy statements.
Michelle Obama should have the same status. Her problem is that she said something incredibly stupid at a campaign event. But the general rule should hold for her.
There is no way that this onslaught of mudslinging by the press is right.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
A note regarding voting records, since the “present” votes by Sen. Obama were brought up. Before going off on how bad it is to use “present” rather than “yes” or “no”, do a bit of research into how the IL legislature works and how the “present” vote is viewed within that context. From what I can understand, it is akin to abstaining or noting that there is some problem with the bill. I.e., while the main focus of the bill may be agreeable, some add-on could be objectionable.
That said, I thought I’d take a look at something kind of equivalent to the “present” vote in the U.S. Senate. According to the Washington Post, here are the number of “missed votes” by both McCain and Obama during the current Congress:
McCain: 407 votes (63.8%)
Obama: 290 votes (45.5%)
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Hey Phil, I love your headline. One of your best.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Much of the blame is on McCain for the onslaught. He put her in this position. If he had done the vetting (i.e. actually taken the time to talk to people in Alaska that know her) and organized a proper roll-out, half of this frenzy would not have happened. She could have announced that her daughter was pregnant but was getting married to the father (it was going to come out anyway, even if she was just still a governor) and nipped the tabloid rumors in the bud. As it was not even her own assigned campaign advisor knew until last Thursday.
And she could have had time to deal with Troopergate. For better or for worse it would have been dealt with (and now the emails are leaking — another problem for her). They would have been able to tailor her first speech so that she wasn’t caught out in a lie (or perhaps half-truth to be charitable) about the Bridge to Nowhere. And so on.
Yes, I have made up my mind about Palin. She is the most socially conservative candidate in decades to run for VP or P. Not even Bush (who I am still convinced is not really that socially conservative) nor Reagan come close. Even if she was the cleanest, most qualified and most experienced of the candidates out there, I would oppose her candidacy (just as you would Obama’s). Republicans love to make presidential elections about character, especially this year. Given the record of the last eight years, it’s all they have left to run on. It’s Palin’s policies that are unacceptable to me. That she’s a much about “old politics” as McCain simply makes things worse.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Do not believe the left wing MSM that says she was not vetted.
She was absolutely vetted starting way back in February. McCain and the republicans knew exactly what they were doing and boy is it working.
Like it or not, she has mobilized the base VERY strongly (e.g. follow the money), the pro-life and right wing evangelical crowd.
She is viewed as a reformer (see “change”), she is an outsider, she appeals to moms and women, she appeals to the western states like Montana and Colorado etc. etc
Most importantly, she looks good with McCain and complements him well. More than Romney or Huckabee ever could.
I dislike Palin but do not buy that stupid lie. She was absolutely vetted. They knew exactly what they were doing.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
(QD peeks in again. See more abortion and lots of hissing cats. Closes door again.)
Any of the sideliners up for pizza or something? Bar hopping?
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
@Davidlpf
Hey, we have an election too. Do you have five parties to pick from or only four. I’ll vote for whoever promises to de-chriminalize drugs.
And yes it is interesting sitting here on the side and reading the “left” and “right” arguments. They’re all right of us.
The ladies daughter being pregnent didn’t even raise a comment in my household until we read about her abstenance only preaching. All I can say is I agree, that didn’t work too well for her.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Sorry Kurt, but all the evidence shows that this was a last minute pick with the least of effort to vet her. This is obvious from the fact that no one can find anyone in Alaska that the McCain team talked to at all.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
@CanadianLeigh
Yeah I know there is an election coming up and there will be only three parties in the riding probably. I know who I want to vote and even if there are a conserative there are a lot more liberal than most of the ones in the states. The daughter out of wedlock hit me as funny given Palin stance on sex ed.But at least we do not have really worry about creationism in the schools or healthcare being an issue.
The only reason we should keep an eye on the yanks is because both countries are tied to each other in many different ways.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Well…let’s see how many will vote for her “just because she is a woman”, which is the only reason she is even on the ticket. Doesn’t say much for McCain’s opinion of women, does it? Nobody ever heard of her before now, and she probably never heard of any of us either. What scares me is we have enough women in the country who don’t care who gets in, as long as its female. Disgusting, especially when that ol’ fart kicks-off before his term is over and she is going to run us to the ground. Talk about Obama not having any experience–now we have kindergarten-political-roundup time!!
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Sorry Kurt, but all the evidence shows that this was a last minute pick with the least of effort to vet her.
Probably, but The McLaughlin Group (TV political show if you’ve not seen it) brought up Palin’s name *months* ago as a possibility. I don;t recall who was sitting in or who brought up the name. Either they have unbelievably mad political analysis skillz, or maybe her name was in the pipes longer than anyone has realized yet.
Unlikely, but her name *had* been floated about a while ago if you watch a lot of political shows like I was for a while back then.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
If there is an election in the States and here in Canada wouldn’t that lead to stupidity singularity.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Seriously this lady is linked heavily to the Pentecostal Dominionists and “joels army” and your arguing whether she would be bad for abortion rights? These people want to bring about the end of the world. These guys scare even other christian fanatics.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:50 am
American politics do have something Pythonesque, so adding a Palin fits…..
September 4th, 2008 at 5:16 am
It bugs me that there are quite a few Obama supporters here who seem quite happy to let the ‘Obama has no accomplishments’ meme slide.
Start here. I’m sure a little intelligence with Google will help, too.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Some were talking about the GILF. It took me a moment to catch on to that one.
Seriously, doesn’t that woman have enough on her plate with her family? Let’s see: There’s an international crisis, and her child’s child is being taken to the ER because the asthma has gotten pretty serious. Hmm.
Foreign relations: Her state shares a border with Canada, but it’s a bazillion miles to Ottawa, where the governmental seat located. And, most of the time, the US enjoys a friendly relationship with Canada. Not much experience there. And Russia, which is just a little west? Again, unpopulated, and not her concern.
Economics: Republicans have become the spend and spend party (as opposed to tax-and-spend) PLUS she’s been onboard with the Bridge-to-Nowhere and bellied up for the federal pork year after year.
Religion: I suspect she’s in favor of the Jihad on Islam we’ve begun under W.
Science: I don’t need to comment here. I’m already getting ill.
I don’t like Obama from a policy and economic standpoint. But I’m voting for him anyways, as I can’t stand the Republicans another moment.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Oh, seriously. You can’t make the issue of abortion go away by re-labelling it “a woman’s right to choose”. That’s just a semantic ploy. You skeptics should know better! I’m “pro-choice” myself (and live in Sweden, where abortion rights aren’t really an issue), but abortion is a very big and very difficult question where all points of view need to be treated respectfully. Neurobiological findings can NOT settle the question, because it’s primarily a moral one — not scientific.
To be honest, a lot of Obama supporters who post here come across as dogmatic and blindly irrational.
September 4th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Sorry Kurt, but all the evidence shows that this was a last minute pick with the least of effort to vet her. This is obvious from the fact that no one can find anyone in Alaska that the McCain team talked to at all.
Is this the same evidence that showed she was a member of the AIP? That she was a Buchanan supporter? The same article that asked all of her political opponents what they thought of her? In other words, wrong and shoddily reported? Of course they vetted her, and it’s pretty obvious after her speech that they made a terrific choice.
After all, the only thing that qualifies Obama is that he gave a nice speech a few years ago. She gave a nice speech, and has actual governing accomplishments to back it up.
September 4th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Hoooo-boy! Have I been obsessed with this woman or what?!
Other people have said it, but I will re-iterate Phil’s point Number 2: Palin IS against women’s rights. Not only because of her pro-Forced Childbirth stance (removing access to legal and safe medical abortions is, in no uncertain terms, *forcing* women to give birth against their will), she is also against sex-education which prevents young women from having access to the knowledge they need to avoid getting pregnant AND avoid getting STDs. She cut funding to a project which helped teenage mothers get back on their feet after the birth of their child. She cut funding for Special Needs children by 62% (remember she said that parents of Special Needs children would have a friend in Washington? She lied).
Here are couple stats about teenage pregnancy:
30% of American girls become pregnant before they are 20.
60% of American pregnant teenage girls stop their education.
60%. Stop. Their. Education.
Women should have the right to choose if and when they have sex. They should have the right to choose to prevent pregnancy or not. They should have the right to choose whether or not they have a child AT ALL. To do anything to take away those choices is 100% WRONG and entirely anti-women.
Forcing a woman to give birth against her will – which I consider to be as repulsive as forcing a woman to have sex against her will btw – has a detrimental effect on the woman’s whole entire life. It effects her educational possibilities and her earning potential- two things which have a massive knock on effect on her living conditions, her quality of life, her mental health, her physical health, the health and well-being of her children etc.
Being pro-Forced Childbirth is anti-Women. End of.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:01 am
@QD – Anytime for pizza!
September 4th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Gia says: “Have I been obsessed with this woman or what?!”
I’ve follwed your blog on this subject and all I can say is…
RIGHT ON!!
September 4th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I just read a Yahoo news article on Palin.
I’m more convinced than before that putting both McCain and Palin in office is a bad thing.
It seems to me that Palin’s views are little better than the Crusades.
Palin needs to get out of the 12th century.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:11 am
She’ll try to kill the space program. Mark my words.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Face it liberals, Palin is your worst nightmare. Now, I am not a right winger, I believe in evolution, and abortion rights, to a point. I don’t think pulling a baby half way out and shoving a pair of scissors into its brain stem is an abortion; that’s murder. But Barack Hussein Obama is not even remotely ready to lead! He is a vapid, empty suit with no plan and no history of EVER making a tough decision. His selection of Biden is exhibit A. I may not agree with everything the GOP stands for, but I agree with more things than not. The right to bear arms, no racial preferences (affirmative action), lower taxes, smaller government, strong military, pro business, and non-apologetic to the rest of the world for standing up and doing the right thing in defense of our way of life. Stop viewing the debate through the prism of Democrat or Republican, and start asking yourself what matters to YOU.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Gia: You are my #1 woman crush.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am
One sad note here.
Her religious persuasion puts her at odds with one of the hopes for treatments of Down’s Syndrome: Stem Cell research.
It’s very difficult to seem how someone can hold her views in such a position.
At least show knows how to use a computer.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:48 am
You are acting like this excuses her not knowing what the Vice President does. The Vice President has exactly 2 duties. How hard could it be to find out about and remember just these 2 duties? It is not like either of them are particularly complicated.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Jeukephops says: “…start asking yourself what matters to YOU.”
What “matters” to me is that the republican party, by it’s very nature, is anti-science.
You might not care about that BUT I DO!
September 4th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Im a BIG supporter of your site, I am also a member of the JREF forums. I love debunking various conspiracies. I don’t claim to know everything about Palin, but this was REALLY shallow stuff. Especially that link to Crooks and Liars. The job of VP isn’t as simple as “2 duties”. I’d rather spend by time debunking others than read your shallow political attacks.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Gary Ansorge,
Sorry, but Harry Truman had plenty of excutive experience. He was a battery commander during WWI and he eventually reached the rank of colonel. He was also the Vice President.
IMO, he was one of the most well rounded and experienced presidents we have had.
He was a page, judge, combat veteran, senator, vice president, a businessman, plus he held a number of bottom tier jobs.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:18 am
# Davidlpf Says:
“Could it be possible that there are policies from both parties that are extremists, and that to get that support both canidates are pandering to the extremists.”
Theoretically? I suppose it might happen. Is it happening? No.
Left-extremists do exist. They are not particularly welcome in the Democratic party, which is happy to accept their votes and/or money, but won’t give their policy positions the light of day. Left-extremists hold no sway whatsoever over the Democratic party.
Compare to the Republicans, who regularly court far right extremists, and whose candidates must pass extreme ideological litmus tests (usually religious).
I’m beginning to suspect that the whole “well both parties are bad” refrain is a psychological defense mechanism against admitting to oneself just how horribly anti-American and anti-freedom the rightwing is.
“Palin does not have an XX chromosome. She has two X chromosomes, or an XX genotype.”
Ahhh technically correct…the best kind of correct!
“(or if drugs are legalized for that matter)”
Note to clueless Jeff: many types of drugs are already perfectly legal, including many that are more dangerous than some illegal ones. Which in particular are so horrible that you would kill yourself before letting other people buy them?
And Palin is not a creationist:
From the link you provided:
When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: “Teach both.”
So she may not be a creationist (the article does not say either way), but she’s fine letting creationism be taught in schools as valid ‘science’. Not exactly comforting me, here.
QuietDesperation:
Unlikely, but her name *had* been floated about a while ago if you watch a lot of political shows like I was for a while back then.
Floating someone’s name as a possibility for candidacy is not what ‘vetting’ means. You should learn what words mean before using them. And then go tell McCain, because it’s clear he doesn’t know either.
Well…let’s see how many will vote for her “just because she is a woman”, which is the only reason she is even on the ticket.
Well, that’s not entirely true. Her pick IS a blatant attempt to grab some women’s vote, but it’s also a bone thrown to the religious nutjobs who comprise much of The Republican Base, and who were previously extremely unexcited to work for McCain. A twofer, you might say.
@Vagueofgodalming:
It bugs me that there are quite a few Obama supporters here who seem quite happy to let the ‘Obama has no accomplishments’ meme slide.
Sorry about that. :< Thanks for your help though. There’s no such thing as too much killing Republican lies.
@FL:
“but abortion is a very big and very difficult question where all points of view need to be treated respectfully. Neurobiological findings can NOT settle the question, because it’s primarily a moral one — not scientific.”
Abortion is a very complicated and touchy subject, true, but it’s also a very PERSONAL subject. Some people want to intrude on that very personal decision, and do so in intensely immoral and controlling anti-woman ways, and some of us are opposed to that intrusion. But if it makes you feel above it all to condemn that opposition as ‘dogmatic’, so be it.
Yes, I will proudly state that I am ‘dogmatic’ in my opposition to those who seek control of the uterus of every woman in America. I will reflexively, dogmatically oppose that, always and forever, amen.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:32 am
“Face it liberals, Palin is your worst nightmare. Now, I am not a right winger, I believe in evolution, and abortion rights, to a point. I don’t think pulling a baby half way out and shoving a pair of scissors into its brain stem is an abortion; that’s murder. But Barack Hussein Obama is not even remotely ready to lead! He is a vapid, empty suit with no plan and no history of EVER making a tough decision. His selection of Biden is exhibit A. I may not agree with everything the GOP stands for, but I agree with more things than not. The right to bear arms, no racial preferences (affirmative action), lower taxes, smaller government, strong military, pro business, and non-apologetic to the rest of the world for standing up and doing the right thing in defense of our way of life. Stop viewing the debate through the prism of Democrat or Republican, and start asking yourself what matters to YOU.”
I am neither a Liberal or a Conservative. I am instead The Smartest Person on Earth. As such, I can assure you that your comment is devoid of content. Mr. Obama’s life has been filled with hard choices, and he’s been an active senator, cosponsoring multiple bipartisan bills. Insulting that history, as Mrs. Palin did last night, insults the Republican sponsors of those same bills. Mr. McCain has a long track record in the senate, and while he did some admirable things there (and plenty of despicable things, even ignoring his ethics problems a couple decades ago), he’s demonstrated during this campaign that he’s no longer that same man. His changes of opinion haven’t been subtle, nuanced responses to changes in his data – he’s completely abandoned every position he had that didn’t line up with the Bush-side of the Republican Party. He’s even now vocally opposed to a bill that he himself wrote! The McCain that I could occasionally admire over the last ten years is gone. This new McCain has little experience, but he’s backed and controlled by the interests of those with plenty of experience…experience of the type that’s been leading America into a hole for the last 8 years. Obama is his own man, and it shows on every level. McCain is no longer a man at all.
And yes, everyone should be afraid of Sarah Palin and what she represents. Ignorance has been a central tenet of the Republican platform since the 1994 election, but Mrs. Palin takes this to new heights. Her platform is a celebration of anti-intellectualism, which you seem to dismiss as unimportant. However, as you say you care about taxes, I might point out one of many lies in Palin’s speech last night:
“PALIN: “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise
income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes,
raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden
on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the
Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama’s
plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by
about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain’s plan,
which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after
tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center
concluded.”
Quote from “Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention,” JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check;_ylt=AokVPIqvxFALeGs8I1m8hL8EtbAF
So remember, most people would end up with higher taxes under McCain, and everyone would ends up with a dangerous and internationally embarrassing celebration of ignorance in the White House.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
FYI Regarding Creationism
She said flat out that “she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.” Even some right wing sites wouldn’t like that stupid idea.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31135_Palin_Has_Not_Pushed_Creationism_as_Governor
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31088_Sarah_Palin_and_Creationism
September 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Left-extremists hold no sway whatsoever over the Democratic party.
I almost stopped reading right there. After I stopped laughing, I read on.
Floating someone’s name as a possibility for candidacy is not what ‘vetting’ means. You should learn what words mean before using them. And then go tell McCain, because it’s clear he doesn’t know either.
Considering how well she did last night, it’s pretty clear the McCain campaign vetted her carefully, because she’s a terrific choice.
@Vagueofgodalming:
It bugs me that there are quite a few Obama supporters here who seem quite happy to let the ‘Obama has no accomplishments’ meme slide.
Sorry about that. :< Thanks for your help though. There’s no such thing as too much killing Republican lies.
Can you list some of them?
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the
Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama’s
plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by
about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain’s plan,
which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after
tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center
concluded.”
How do they define middle-income? And why does this completely ignore “payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes,
raise the death tax, raise business taxes”? Those taxes don’t matter? Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax even though he admitted in a debate that Clinton lowering it lead to more revenue!
September 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Just noticed your disclaimer has some bad grammar in it. It should read,”… Discover Magazine *nor* the James Randi Educational Foundation, *for* which Dr. Plait serves as President.”
September 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Unfortunately, all the points mentioned are actually considered as positive points to the right wing that she represents!
And, to the whole country, I ask this: If McCain dies in office, is this the person whose finger you want “on the button?” (As he, if elected, would be the oldest president at inaugaraton, this should be a real concern.)
September 4th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
To Bill…
Yes, more so than Obama.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Gia, I can see why Phil is so infatuated with you
September 4th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I see the fools are it again –
Let me clue you in – the NEOCONS win no matter who wins – look at the issues carefully there is no difference – Foreign policy – identical.
Taxing – obama more taxes because of increased welfare, failed health plan proposals
. macain possibly slightly less but war spending stays
First Ammendment – identical.
Big Government – identical.
The only difference – an old white man and a young black man both do the bidding of their masters.
Enjoy .,.,
September 4th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
To Mikel,
You want someone that claims the Iraq war is “God’s will” to potentiall have her finger “on the button”?
Please tell me you’re joking.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I really hate when Phil gets politcal on his blog, because it ends up being an “air fist fight” in the comments section. I realize it is his blog and he can say what he wants, but getting the people who come to this site in verbal wars, doesn’t in any way move forward science or help make this country a better place. Neither side are going to be swayed by the other and some people may not return to what is usually a fun, informative site. Phil drops a opinion out there, but never seems to get involved as the comments grow and the heat rises. Phil, I hope your reading, please, get back to what you do best and what most of us come here to view.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:17 am
I agree with Bad Politics, it does get a little annoying when Phil starts talking politics.
As far as those points go:
1) And that would be the one issue I disagree with her on. Thankfully, she is on no Boards of Education
2) Which women’s rights does she oppose? Abortion? You know, some of us don’t believe that’s a right, because some of us actually paid attention during 7th grade health class. Gotta love the 14th Amendment. Some people forget about that
3) And Obama is a bastion of experience? At least Palin has executive experience and has spent her time as governor actually doing her job, not running for president.
4) That’s only how the some bloggers have been interpreting. Could it instead be because he needed to pick someone who would energize the Republican base and counter the Obama-Biden campaign rhetoric that they are for change? No, that can’t be it. McCain is evil and all Republicans are evil…
5) Given that she was speaking… at a church…
September 5th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Bring on the politics. Everything is politics. Some of us loyal mignons (same as minion except we’re wrapped in bacon) enjoy the virtual fisticuffs in the comments. After all, no-one is going to lose an eye (you know, it’s all fun and games until somebody loses an eye).
September 5th, 2008 at 6:06 am
@Bad Politics;
Perhaps you forgot a statement that Phil made once about this subject; this is HIS blog, and he can post whatever he wishes.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:54 am
@Grand Lunar;
“I realize it is his blog and he can say what he wants” see my post…
Nope, didn’t forget it. Just don’t like it.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Click on my name for the link to this article:
Theocrats to Pray for McCain’s Death.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:47 am
To be pro-life is NOT to be anti-women’s rights.
I am with Bill Clinton – I want abortion to be rare. I want America to be more like Europe in that girls don’t get pregnant in the first place. Given the track record of my mother’s generation, even communities with strong abstinence education and community support for abstinence and “scarlet-lettering” of those who failed still had a huge rate of teen pregnancies in the past. In other words, just about every one of my schoolmates in a very strict Catholic farming community in the 1960’s had parents who had a shotgun wedding. The old saying was – babies take 9 months, but the first one usually comes months early. To rely only on abstinence education inevitably results in MORE ABORTIONS, be they legal or backroom. Somebody has to teach teens how to prevent pregnancy and to strongly encourage use of effective birth control when they become sexually active.
We were on a downhill trend for teen pregnancy as effective longterm products were available – the shot and the implants. But our stupid, stupid liability lawsuit system seems intent on forcing such options out of the marketplace.
I take a libertarian pro-life stance. I don’t want to recriminalize abortion, but I want it to be rare because people have access to effective birth control and encouragement to use it. As someone who took Embryology 301, I also support widespread availability of the “morning after pill” as it simply isn’t abortion to prevent a possible implantation.
Having always used effective pregnancy-prevention tactics, I can only imagine the suffering of being pregnant and not wanting to continue the pregnancy. I want to prevent that in the first place. I am pro-life.
But I’ve also know 3 couples that included 1 doctor and 1 medically trained partner who got “accidentally pregnant.” (In one case, the doctor was the pregnant woman). Sheesh. Education isn’t the only solution. Our biology is geared to make babies.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:56 am
@WB:
If you’re in favor of keeping abortion legal (and available, which is a distinction that is often overlooked), then you’re pro-choice, by definition. Everything you just described is literally the pro-choice position:
abortion – legal
forced pregnancy – no
comprehensive contraceptive & sex education – yes
morning after pill – yes
unwanted pregnancies – no
Why do you not call yourself pro-choice, if you agree with all these points?
Try finding anti-choice people, who identify themselves as “pro-life”, and convincing them of any of these things. You’ll swiftly find out that “pro-life” is just the nice, happy name for “anti-sex,” specifically anti-female-sexuality. They OPPOSE contraceptive education. They OPPOSE the morning after pill (and justify it based on lies, as you seem to already be aware of). They even OPPOSE the HPV vaccine on the grounds that sex ought to be dangerous for girls so that they’re afraid to have sex (which is also one reason they oppose legal abortion). These are all ways of reducing women’s freedom, which is why people who hold those views are correctly called “anti-women’s rights.”
They are against the right of a woman to have sole control of her own body, which is one of the most fundamental rights that exists.
(They generally don’t oppose capital punishment*, but that’s because being in favor of life has never had anything to do with calling oneself “pro-life,” which is nothing more than a branding/marketing slogan to disguise the anti-abortion movement’s true aims.)
*Although there’s that one pastor who does, whose name escapes me. He gets a minor pass for at least being self-consistent.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:58 am
@Bad Politics:
I would really hate it if Phil ignored developments in the wider world which have or might have an impact on science, simply because there is a political angle to them. It would be irresponsible, in my view, NOT to call attention to them.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
MH your view is highly stereotypical stereotyping and is offensive.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
“… but Illinois is a much more complicated beast to govern than Alaska, …”
In that case, let’s nominate the governor of Illinois.
We’re still waiting for the list of significant legislation with Obama’s name on it (not the “Resolution to honor Arthur Smedley” kind if stuff).
From either Illinois or D.C.
About the abortion thing: If as Hillary says, “safe, legal, and rare” – if it’s such a big deal, why not make it “safe, legal, and commonplace”?
“… months — now years — of slime attack after slime attack about Obama, …”
I’m going to have to get one of those loose-leaf history books like you guys use.
To bring up the association with Ayers is not a “slime attack” (unless by “slime” you’re referring to Ayers). Ditto the association with Rezko. Ditto Frank Marshall Davis.
“They are against the right of a woman to have sole control of her own body, which is one of the most fundamental rights that exists.”
Exactly. And people have known for a rather long time what it is that causes pregnancy. Control starts up front. The choice is made up front. After that, the choice has been made, and now it’s a responsibility.
And it’s not a responsibility the man can get out of, either.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Is everyone here mad?
Who cares about abortion?
The most disturbing thing about her is this:
Sarah Palin displays an Israeli flag in her governor’s office in Juneau, even though she has never been to the country, and attends Protestant evangelical churches that consider the preservation of the state of Israel a biblical imperative.
Her faith makes her a favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservative elements in the Republican Party.
But other Republicans may be concerned that a John McCain-Sarah Palin administration will disregard the caution of former President George H.W. Bush and some of his top advisers and continue the tilt toward Israel.
Most Republicans and conservatives outside Alaska know little about Mrs. Palin’s foreign policy views – on Israel or anything else.
But Tucker Eskew, who holds the title of counselor to Mrs. Palin in the McCain-Palin campaign, left no doubt where she stands.
“She would describe herself as a strong supporter of Israel’s, with an understanding of Israel’s fear of an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons,” Mr. Eskew told The Washington Times.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
@ MH:
Thanks for thinking that people who are pro-life are some monolithic group. While many oppose abortion for religious reasons, I oppose it because I think it is unconstitutional due to the lack of due process (i.e. it violates the 14th Amendment). I don’t oppose contraception (even though my church does) as long as fertilization does take place. I wouldn’t necessarily oppose abortion if there was some sort of due process, but as it stands now…
September 5th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I rarely join in these discussions, but so much of what is being said is old garbage (usually repeated from ignorant sources) or new garbage (coming from ignorant posters). Unfortunately, this is a very touchy subject, so that’s what always happens.
Phil obviously makes these posts because he has strong feelings on these political matters. It’s his blog: get over it. I wish he would turn off comments on these subjects simply because of the stupidity that follows. Normally I think he’s a very level-headed guy that makes sense with almost every word — but this time I think he wrote before thinking, making his post a bit ignorant. Regardless, most of this is directed towards the other commenters:
Yes, Palin is a woman. Get over it. Yes, choosing her is meant to bring in women voters. Get over it. But bringing in “disenfranchised women who wanted Hilary?” You have got to be kidding me. Simply making that comment is an insult to MY intelligence! There will be some that vote for her because she’s a woman, just like there will be plenty that vote for Obama because he’s black — if anything, this simply provides a small offset to the simple-minded voters. She brings so much more to the ticket — but so many Democrats can’t get past her gender that its easy to see who the reals sexists are.
Ok, now to tackle the abortion issue. According to science, should abortions be allowed? … (crickets chirp in the distance) … Nobody? That’s right — a scientist can only say what the effect will be on the mother, child, and society, but not whether its “right” or “wrong.” Scientific knowledge only helps us make an informed decision. So why the heated debate? It’s become a fight between “Life” vs “Choice,” two moral ideals that cannot both be satisfied (at least, so it seems with abortion).
Hear this, hear this! Both “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” are right — and the moment you try to say that the other side is morally inferior you have only proven your own ignorance on life.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
@bad politics,
Well, if you don’t like it, then skip the political posts.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
What is about this forum/website? Science or Reps and Dems bashing each other? IT IS NOT A FRAKKING POLITICAL WEBSITE₧!!!!!!
September 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
SORRY
iT IS NOT A FRAKKING POLITICS WEBISITE!!!!!!!!!!
September 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
So let me try and wrap my brain around this insanity. Sarah Palin will set the woman’s movement back 300 years. So that takes us back to 1707. At that time, women were often traded and treated as property. In many places they could not own property. They were excluded from most business ventures could not attend most forms of education. And were not allowed a voice in government. Now Sarah Palin has fought her way to a position of much power and she has been nominated for the second most powerful governmental position in the most powerful country in the world. She epitomizes the success of the women’s movement. But because she is against future women being slaughtered in the wombs of their own mothers she sets the woman movement back 300 years. I am not insane or stupid enough to have that make sense
September 10th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Jeez, the illiteracy of some people…
THIS JUST IN: a ‘megachurch’ is not exactly equal to one thousand regular churches! AND a millipede does not actually have one thousand legs! And the Superdome is not actually located above another dome! Stop the presses, someone call the president, pope, and Morgan Freeman!
…welcome to the world of figurative language*. Have a nice stay.
*note: This post should not be construed as suggesting that there is literally a place called ‘Figurative Language.’
Don’t sell yourself short, champ!
September 17th, 2008 at 8:33 am
So Phil
you are a proponent of critical thinking, except when it comes to politics?
That’s disappointing.