Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Palin +1
Sarah Palin is one of only three governors to sign a proclamation for "Jury Rights Day," an event sponsored by the pro-nullification Fully Informed Jury Association.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Good.
I wonder what McCain's views on jury nullification are. I imagine
they wouldn't be the same as hers.
|9.4.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Well, that's impressive. What's also impressive is the fact that the last 8 posts in row were about Palin, and if you stretch it a little (meaning she's mentioned), it's the last 11.
Naga Sadow|9.4.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Fools! Do you want to set all the potheads free? They will eat all our junkfood with their insatiable "munchies". A mass die off will be inevitable! I want my grandchildren to enjoy Doritos and twinkies too!
|9.4.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Wow. I like that. The funny thing is, everything I like about her, her core supporters wouldn't like and vice versa.
.|9.4.08 @ 10:12AM|#
As long as we only appoint strict constructionist jurors who won't legislate from the jury box...
|9.4.08 @ 10:12AM|#
Yeah, she's in favor of jury nullification (as were the
Founders), but her daughter got pregnant! And she asked about
banning books, but didn't actually try to ban any! And said she
might fire some people, but didn't! Except when she fired the good
old boy who wouldn't get rid of a bad cop!
Or something.
texas_libertarian|9.4.08 @ 10:14AM|#
Palin is the only Republican Governor to sign the proclamation for Jury Rights Day. It least she's willing to take steps to reform the criminal justice system, however modestly, unlike most other Republicans who just want to fuck it up more.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 10:23AM|#
RCD --
Yes, she has done one thing I like. She's also a moral scold who
put her family in the line of fire for personal ambition.
I can like her for the first and think she's scum for the second.
These are not contradictory impulses.
Eric Dondero|9.4.08 @ 10:27AM|#
That's hardcore. Most people are not aware that the FIJA
movement was founded by longtime Libertarian Party leader Larry
Dodge of Montana and Constitution Party leader Red Beckman (now
deceased.)
Bet we'll see the Daily Kossers pick up on this in a day or two,
and use it as further proof that Palin is a "Radical extremist gun
totin' Libertarian with ties to Constitutionalists and
Seccessionists."
Mark this down. If you see this meme surface on the Left, don't
forget I predicted it first right here at Reason Blog.
stuartl|9.4.08 @ 10:31AM|#
...who put her family in the line of fire for personal
ambition.
And how is this different from any other politician?
Naga Sadow channeling Smokey|9.4.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Remember it ,Write it down, take a picture, I don't give a fuck.
|9.4.08 @ 10:36AM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOO!!!!
I'm sure they'll do that because they'll want to paint Christine
Gregoire and John Lynch (not the safety*) as loonies as well.
* Speaking of which, is it just me or did the Republicans drop the
ball on their convention schedule? I mean, everyone knows all Real
Americans (TM), will be watching the kickoff to the NFL season
today. Why did they pick the only Thursday before Nov with a
football game for his big convention speech?
|9.4.08 @ 10:38AM|#
Don't worry, Dondero, we'll make sure that you get all of the credit you deserve. Because that's what this is all about, right? You?
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 10:39AM|#
stuartl --
Well, first, *she* (or more accurately, "the campaign") fucking
bragged about the teenage pregnant daughter, which makes it into
crass using, rather than "unfortunate fact to be dug up by media".
If it were the latter, then at least she could take some moral high
ground.
And considering that (she said) she wasn't interested at all in
VPOTUS until, suddenly she was the candidate, that doesn't leave
much time for the all-important "let's sit down as a family and
decide if this is or isn't the stupidest idea ever" conversation.
Due to the speed at which this happened, I question the extent to
which she really thought through what this would do to her
family.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Why did they pick the only Thursday before Nov with a
football game for his big convention speech?
Because they are better off if no voters hear it...?
|9.4.08 @ 10:40AM|#
...who put her family in the line of fire for personal
ambition.
For a little while, but don't you think those five kids are going
to get into whatever school they want and have amazing references
when looking for a job in the future?
Plus if her ticket wins she gets four years to hang out with them
as much as she wants, way more familiy time that she probably has
as Gov. of Alaska.
shecky|9.4.08 @ 10:40AM|#
A symbolic act in favor of jury nullification... something Americans can all get behind.
Raphael|9.4.08 @ 10:42AM|#
That speech must have been awesome, because the democrats are scrambling their pants like crazy this morning with all kinds of attempts to spin it negative. The repubs sure didn't react that strongly to whoever the democrat VP candidate is...you know...what's his name. I can't recall.
|9.4.08 @ 10:42AM|#
I question the extent to which she really thought through
what this would do to her family
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you actually fucking serious? These
are politicians. Do you think Obama wonders what his career will do
to his daughters? I wasn't going to call you out on this, dude, but
I can't let this go. If you actually hold Palin to this standard
and let all the other assholes pass, you have a negative hard-on
for Palin that just won't quit.
stuartl|9.4.08 @ 10:50AM|#
That speech must have been awesome, because the democrats
are scrambling their pants like crazy this morning with all kinds
of attempts to spin it negative.
The funniest one was the complaint that it was written by a bunch
of expert speech writers. I'm sure all of the other candidates
write their own speeches. Especially Biden. :-)
|9.4.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Because Republicans aren't Giants' fans?
Lots of Virginians are Redskins fans. Do Republicans only watch MNF
when their team is on? Down that path madness lies.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Actually Epi, I thought James Fallows summed up the difference
well:
"Barack Obama has used his family as a prop from time to time --
most recently, bringing the charming girls onto the stage at the
end of his convention speech. That's life in politics; everybody
does it to some degree. Very few politicians do it as all-out as
Sarah Palin just did, from citing the disabilities of her youngest
child as part of her resume to including the shotgun groom of her
elder daughter. I can't recall any spectacle comparable to Baby
Trig being passed from Cindy McCain, to Trig's 7-year-old sister,
to Palin herself when she ended the speech. Her husband looks
charming, I have to say. From this point on it will be hard for her
to declare anything about her personal or family life
out-of-bounds."
There's a huge difference between an occasional photo-op and the
way Palin is using her family to sell her pro-life bona fides. As
Fallows said, everyone does it to *some* degree. To me,
what degree is the salient question.
|9.4.08 @ 10:53AM|#
The NFL did agree to move kickoff time up to make sure the game
is over by McCain's speech.
But as an avid Redskins fan, I will be watching the team spank the
Super Bowl Champions.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 10:54AM|#
The funniest one was the complaint that it was written by a
bunch of expert speech writers. I'm sure all of the other
candidates write their own speeches.
Actually, Obama *does* write most of his own speeches. So, yeah.
There is a difference. Palin is not "Obama in a pantsuit (or
miniskirt)".
shecky|9.4.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Are you actually fucking serious? These are politicians. Do
you think Obama wonders what his career will do to his
daughters?
This is exactly why all this rending of clothing about the liberals
beating up on poor Palin is silly. She and McCain are primarily
responsible for the shit flinging by entering politics and
pretending that these things should somehow be off limits. And not
knowing or not caring what the reaction would be.
I don't think the Republicans are that dumb. I think they knew
exactly what would happen when you type "Gov Palin" into google,
hoped it would cause a shitstorm, and then act victimized when the
stories came out.
You have lost your mind|9.4.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Obama writes his speeches???
Oh good god. Even Weigel hasn't tried to shove that one down our
throats.
|9.4.08 @ 10:58AM|#
To me, what degree is the salient question
Give me a break. You've convinced me that you have a particular
issue with Palin for some reason; now I just have to figure out
why.
|9.4.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Hitler never used his family as political props.
Ergo: Palin is worse than Hitler.
Also: the Redskins suck.
shecky|9.4.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Epi,
That would seem a pretty salient issue to many folks here: To what
extent does a politician exploit one's family before it puts voters
off.
Leave Bristol alone!|9.4.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Elemenope:
You're way off base. This thread is about three things:
1) Jury nullification
2) Scoring points off Dondero by putting the maximum number of
"o's" after his name
3) Football.
robc|9.4.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Why did they pick the only Thursday before Nov with a
football game for his big convention speech?
There is a football game every thursday from last week thru early
december.
I might watch the NFL game tonight, if there arent any decent
college games on (Actually, I will be at AAA baseball playoffs
tonight).
|9.4.08 @ 11:11AM|#
If McCain keels over before the election, does Palin automatically before the ticket topper, or would the GOP just pick another Prez candidate?
|9.4.08 @ 11:13AM|#
That would seem a pretty salient issue to many folks here:
To what extent does a politician exploit one's family before it
puts voters off.
I call bullshit. Obama could do an Aristocrats sketch with
his family for political gain (what that would be, I have no idea)
and people would say "that's his business".
It pains me no end to even remotely seem to take a side here, but,
to quote NutraSweet, you know how stupid this has to get for me to
do that? This stupid. Especially when people I respect do it.
Mojotron|9.4.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Obama writes his speeches???
Oh good god. Even Weigel hasn't tried to shove that one down our
throats.
*ahem*
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837368,00.html
|9.4.08 @ 11:17AM|#
There's not a Thursday NFL game until Nov 6. If you include
college, I guess you're right. Though I don't think worrying about
conflicting with the UNC-Rutgers tilt (next week) or
K-State-Louisville (the following) is as big a goof as conflicting
with the opening night of the NFL.
The college game today is USC (Gamecocks version) vs. Vandy.
Meh.
shecky|9.4.08 @ 11:20AM|#
You can call bullshit all you want. But if Obama has the stomach
for it, and can make it fly, why should he not?
Look, sometimes things work or not depending on the delivery and
who's delivering. If I make a racist joke, folks will likely jump
on my case. If Chris Rock makes the same joke, I suspect he'll
somehow make it work.
Similarly, some thing will work for Obama. Some will work for
Palin. You can whine all you want that they can't equally make the
same things work for themselves. But that is the very thing that
distinguishes political candidates. Just reality.
Bill\'s Dog|9.4.08 @ 11:20AM|#
"Well, first, *she* (or more accurately, "the campaign") fucking
bragged about the teenage pregnant daughter, which makes it into
crass using, rather than "unfortunate fact to be dug up by media".
"
No, it was broght up to cover the "faked pregnancy BS.
Woof
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Epi --
You don't have to wonder. I was pretty
explicit.
You can add to that that it has become clear that she lies like a
rug and is a psycho when it comes to sex education and
contraception.
Mad Max|9.4.08 @ 11:22AM|#
(If I can return briefly to the topic of the thread)
The jury proclamation celebrated September 5 as the day William
Penn and William Meade got acquitted by a jury.
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/penntrial.html
They were charged of the common-law crime of, basically, riotous
assembly. The evidence showed that they held an outdoor Quaker
worship service. There was no violence except on the part of the
goons who arrested them.
Penn protested that their actions weren't criminal. He seems to
have been right, and the jury agreed, finding him and Meade not
guilty. The problem was that the judges thought holding an outdoor
Quaker prayer-meeting *was* criminal. Although there was a law
against *indoor* Quaker meetings, there was no law against peaceful
*outdoor* meetings.
The judges had the jurors fined and imprisoned for their Not Guilty
verdict, which a higher court later pointed out was illegal.
In other words, it was the *judges* who nullified the law, not the
jury. The jury was actually applying the law faithfully.
The modern dogma is that whenever the jury interprets the law
differently than the judge, it's the *jury* which is doing the
nullifying, even if the judge is wrong and the jury is right. It's
not nullification of the law alone that upsets the supporters of
the system, it's nullification of the arbitrary whim of the judge.
Judges hold to a view like that of Richard Nixon in the David Frost
interview, that "if the [judge] does it, that means it's not
illegal."
As the case of Penn and Meade illustrates, it's perfectly possible
to have a situation where the jury has the right legal
interpretation and the judge has the wrong one.
Of course, there is such a thing as *real* jury nullification, when
the jurors believe that the evidence warrants a guilty verdict, but
where they also believe that a guilty verdict will produce an
unjust result. In other words, the law has forced the jurors to
decide between perjury and oppression. The fault lies with the law
in forcing jurors to that kind of harsh choice.
Lost Minds of the Depserate Po|9.4.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Time magazine???
Uh, hello? Biased much?
If Obama truly wrote his speeches, then the democrats would be all
over the republican criticism that he doesn't. And they're not.
Because they know it's just too untrue. He might outline, but he
doesn't write that shit. None of them do.
Mad Max|9.4.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Clarifying my own post:
"The judges had the jurors fined and imprisoned for their Not
Guilty verdict, which a higher court later pointed out was
illegal."
It was the fining and imprisonment of the jurors which was illegal,
of course.
See also a reference by 18th century jurist William Blackstone to
jury nullification as "pious perjury" to spare admittedly guilty
thieves the death penalty for crimes which should not have been
capital:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch17.htm
|9.4.08 @ 11:27AM|#
You can add to that that it has become clear that she lies
like a rug
Again: WTF? How is this different than any other politician? OK, I
understand that she hits a few hot spots for you on issues. But
your problem on this thread is that she exploits her family "more"
than other politicians. And I say that you're making an issue of
that because you particularly dislike her, and not because
you actually give a shit when politicians exploit their
families.
|9.4.08 @ 11:29AM|#
You can call bullshit all you want. But if Obama has the
stomach for it, and can make it fly, why should he not?
Because your own argument is not about "making it fly", it's that
she's more exploitative. So you only care when the
exploitation is done badly? How utterly douchebaggy of you.
|9.4.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Palin is not "Obama in a pantsuit (or
miniskirt)".
No sexism in team blue. Nope, none at all. Obama in swim trunks?
The silence is deafening, Palin is a miniskirt (definition please)
defionitely worth a snide comment.
LMNOP, because I know you're better than that, I'll give you a
mulligan this once.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 11:35AM|#
And I say that you're making an issue of that because you
particularly dislike her...
Wrong. I'm making an issue out of it because REPUBLICANS ARE
SUPPOSEDLY THE PARTY OF FAMILY VALUES.
Is this really so hard to get? Sure, my hatred of hypocrisy in this
case is muddied a bit by the bittersweet taste of schadenfreude. So
what. The point remains that only one party claims to give a shit
about what people do with their family matters.
If she weren't a social conservative rally-round-the-family type, I
honestly would care about this far less. But her roll-out as a
candidate was practically bookended by the Republicans noting how
fucking awesome she must be to have a Down's baby, and how neat it
is that her teenage daughter is having a kid of her own. Because,
if it were anyone else's daughter (god forbid a Black guy's
daughter; just imagine for a second what it would be like if Obama
had a pregnant teenage daughter) they'd be saying FAR MORE
DESPICABLE THINGS.
Epi, you normally aren't this dense. Come on. Is it really beyond
you that I hate this crap precisely because it is drenched in so
much hypocrisy that it could smother a baby in its crib?
TUC|9.4.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Obama writes his own speeches? He must have been a speech writer for Deval Patrick in 2006 then.
|9.4.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Epi, you normally aren't this dense. Come on. Is it really
beyond you that I hate this crap precisely because it is drenched
in so much hypocrisy that it could smother a baby in its
crib?
And you normally aren't this sensitive. Maybe I'm looking at this
too much from my own perspective, but do you actually fucking
think for one second that these people are going to
not be hypocrites? Any of them? For the life of
me I cannot fathom why you are even the tiniest bit surprised or
bothered. This is S.O.P. for politicians.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 11:42AM|#
J sub D --
You apparently have lost your reading comprehension skillz.
Someone posts that Palin should not be marked down for not writing
her own speeches. Normally, I wouldn't disagree. But the the person
goes on to claim that no one on the other side writes their on
speeches either. Which is untrue. And trying to make an equivalence
between Obama and Palin is dumb. And so I pointed that out by
saying that Palin is not the female version of Obama (i.e. she is
not Obama in a pantsuit or miniskirt. Incidentally, she has worn
both so far on the campaign trail; the mention of miniskirt was not
meant to be sexist, just a notation regarding her gender.)
It is also true that Obama is not Palin in swimtrunks. So score one
for the P.C. brigade.
Imajerk.com|9.4.08 @ 11:42AM|#
"drenched in so much hypocrisy that it could smother a baby
in its crib?"
That was hugely a cruel thought and a very unforgivable analogy.
Are you trying to be a dick? I bet you're also sometimes called
Team America.
TUC|9.4.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Not that I give a fuck, but whoever thinks Obama writes his own
speeches is delusional.
Deval Patrick, 2006:
"I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I'm asking you to
take a chance on your own aspirations."
Barack Obama, 2008:
"I'm not just asking you to take a chance on me. I'm also asking
you to take a chance on your own aspirations."
The Hypocrisy|9.4.08 @ 11:46AM|#
just imagine for a second what it would be like if Obama had
a pregnant teenage daughter) they'd be saying FAR MORE DESPICABLE
THINGS.
He doesn't. They aren't. You don't know that "they" would.Lamest
rationalization for rude media and Dem behavior in this
election.
NotThatDavid|9.4.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Because...uh, Obama is too ethical to lift lines from someone else, and only a scumbag professional speechwriter could do such a thing?
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Epi --
I'm usually upbraiding libertymike for this, but you are usually
more subtle. There are gradations of evil...hypocrisy being one of
those naughty things which comes in grades. There are hypocrites
and then there are HYPOCRITES.
What's different in this case is that the hypocrisy is STUNNING.
Like knock-you-on-your-ass bad. The GOP makes the argument that if
they were just put in charge and were allowed to instill are these
shiny moral values in our kids, then all of the evils they identify
in society would go away. Palin is a living, breathing example that
the GOP is full of it on this, and yet both she and they go on with
their abstinence-only education and their desire to block and/or
slash programs that might help people in this very situation.
That's breathtaking hypocrisy.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 11:54AM|#
You don't know that "they" would.
Are you saying I can't extrapolate from consistent past behavior?
They tore into *Chelsea* with wild abandon, and she wasn't even
pregnant. Listen to any of a dozen megachurch pastors and
talk-radio personalities talk about teen pregnancy, and you'll know
what I mean.
No, I can't say with certainty. But it takes faith on the order of
moving fucking mountains to believe otherwise.
|9.4.08 @ 11:56AM|#
but you are usually more subtle
I'll let this and the "dense" crack pass.
That's breathtaking hypocrisy.
I expect it. So it has zero effect on me. I guess I
assumed the same for you. My bad.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 11:56AM|#
TUC, NTD --
Have you ever written anything? You borrow from people ALL THE
TIME. BTW, he worked with Deval Patrick on his campaign, and
Patrick himself has said he gave Obama the green-light to use those
lines, so it was straight-up borrowing, not plagiarism.
So, yes, it is entirely ethical. Now if you wanna beat up BIDEN for
plagiarism, you'd probably have a better case.
shecky|9.4.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Because your own argument is not about "making it fly", it's that
she's more exploitative. So you only care when the exploitation is
done badly? How utterly douchebaggy of you.
Is it bad if she's more exploitative? Because I never said such a
thing. I do think that the Republicans are not dumb enough to have
done all this without expectations. And to their credit, I think
it's working as they planned.
Look, it seems Palin was picked in part because harsh attacks on
her would reflect more poorly on the attacker than would harsh
attacks on Biden. Is that unfair? I suppose in some way. Do I mourn
for Biden? No.
Politics is ALWAYS the same. Fling shit and see what sticks.
But this makes me a douchebag? Then fuck you.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Epi --
Fair enough. I just have a little less cynicism than you. Wait
until I am as old and as wise as you, and I'm sure I'll be as
bitter. :)
shecky|9.4.08 @ 11:59AM|#
He doesn't. They aren't. You don't know that "they" would.Lamest
rationalization for rude media and Dem behavior in this
election.,/i>
I have a pretty good feeling "they" would. In their candid moments,
even the folks at NRO admit this.
Sure, it's kinda shitty. But what kind of fool goes into politics
not expecting such things?
|9.4.08 @ 12:02PM|#
But this makes me a douchebag? Then fuck you.
No, FUCK YOU. Lighten up, I was just busting your balls. If I
really wanted to insult you, I would have called you a douchebag,
and not said that your position was douchebaggy.
My question is, why do the GOP's slimy political machinations seem
to bother you more than the Dems'? For LMNOP's reasons?
The Hypocrisy|9.4.08 @ 12:05PM|#
They tore into *Chelsea* with wild abandon, and she wasn't
even pregnant.
citation please
*everybody know* doesn't count
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 12:06PM|#
But this makes me a douchebag? Then fuck you.
No, FUCK YOU. Lighten up, I was just busting your balls.
"Hey, Larry. Listen up. I've got prime, grade-A human fetuses here
and...come on, Larry. You're breakin' my balls, Larry. I'll give
'em to you for $90 apiece. Stop breakin' my balls."
shecky|9.4.08 @ 12:10PM|#
why do the GOP's slimy political machinations seem to bother
you more than the Dems'? For LMNOP's reasons?
They don't.
I'm just at a loss to see so many folks here, Jesse and Moynihan
included, to express shock, SHOCK, that political campaigns, then
those of the Dems/libs/Sullivan, can get nasty, evil, and just not
fair.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 12:10PM|#
The Hypocrisy --
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father".
-John McCain, 1998
"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House
cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" [Puts up a
picture of Chelsea Clinton]. - Rush Limbaugh, 1994
That's to get you started. Do some googling, and dozens more pop
out.
|9.4.08 @ 12:14PM|#
LMNOP,
I got ya. A comment about Palin not being "Obama in a pantsuit
(miniskirt?)" is neither snide nor sexist.
OOOOO Kaaaay.
You may resume your team blue politicking.
|9.4.08 @ 12:20PM|#
"Hey, Larry. Listen up. I've got prime, grade-A human
fetuses here and...come on, Larry. You're breakin' my balls, Larry.
I'll give 'em to you for $90 apiece. Stop breakin' my
balls."
I need my own Shakey's Pizza!
|9.4.08 @ 12:21PM|#
"For, since her own father, who, when he seemed about to recover, suddenly felt the icy hand of death upon him...."
robc|9.4.08 @ 12:27PM|#
lmnop,
The GOP makes the argument that if they were just put in charge
and were allowed to instill are these shiny moral values in our
kids, then all of the evils they identify in society would go
away.
Bullshit. Specific example to prove my point, one of the 1996
primary debates when a not yet completely insane Keyes was railing
against abortion and other value issues type things. The moderator
asked him what he would do as president to fix these things. He
said nothing, government cant solve the problem.
So his solution was that if elected, he would make lots of speeches
and hope the values stuck. Now, you can argue that Keyes doesnt
represent the GOP on these type of value issues, but I dont think
anyone is going to buy it.
Listen to any of a dozen megachurch pastors and talk-radio
personalities talk about teen pregnancy, and you'll know what I
mean.
I attend a megachurch. I have heard the pastor talk about teen
pregnancy. I have no clue what you mean. Then again, considering
the rate of teen pregnancy within my church, he probably has to
guard his words somewhat. I have some issues with some political
type statements my pastor has made at times, but not wrt that
issue.
libertarian concern moby|9.4.08 @ 12:29PM|#
she's exploiting her family. she shouldn't have run if she didn't want scrutiny.
|9.4.08 @ 12:31PM|#
The Hypocrisy --
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father".
-John McCain, 1998
"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House
cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" [Puts up a
picture of Chelsea Clinton]. - Rush Limbaugh, 1994
That's to get you started. Do some googling, and dozens more pop
out.
Agreed. The GOP took cheap shots at Chelsea. The Dems complained in
was unseemly, even disgusting and I agree.
The Dems take cheap shots at Palin's kids and the GOP complains it
is unseemly, even disgusting. Again I agree.
Hypocrisy on the issue seems to taint both team red and team blue*.
But I'm not exactly enamored with either major party so what the
hell do I know?
In this corner, from Chicago Illinois, we have pot. And in this
corner, from the great state of Arizona, we have kettle. Ding!\
* Ditto for the she's (It's always a she) putting her career ahead
of her children.
stuartl|9.4.08 @ 12:39PM|#
But the the person goes on to claim that no one on the other
side writes their on speeches either.
In my defense, I was really just taking a cheap shot at Biden for
fun. For some odd reason, all of the comparisons lately seem to be
between the Red VP candidate and the Blue P candidate. I'm sure
someone here can explain why.
Most presidential candidates use speechwriters. Attacking Palin for
using good ones seems silly to me. But, if Obama writes his own
speeches, good for him. Of course, many would feel uplifted if he
read the phone book.
|9.4.08 @ 12:43PM|#
stuartl,
My theory is that an inexperienced candidate was intentionally
selected to incite Democratic attacks on experience. It's a
telegraphed sucker punch, but neither side is actually run by
brilliant people, and both parties often fall into those kinds of
traps.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 12:43PM|#
robc --
Keyes is definitely not representative of the GOP base's view of
the matter. You seriously can't tell me that a big portion of that
base believes they are engaged in a holy war for the *Soul of
America*, and that if they win everything will be peachy cause
they'll have the power to make it so.
re:megachurches
I apologize by using slightly too big a brush. Certainly *some*
evangelical pastors practice Christian love and humility before
issues of complexity, such as sexuality and early pregnancy.
However, you must admit that *many* do not.
Especially, I would say, those with whom the GOP is keenest to
snuggle closely.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 12:45PM|#
For some odd reason, all of the comparisons lately seem to
be between the Red VP candidate and the Blue P candidate. I'm sure
someone here can explain why.
I think it was intentional strategy on the part of the McCain
campaign. Some (like R C Dean) see it as a feature. I see it as a
bug. Either way, it is not how any campaign I can think of has ever
played out before.
|9.4.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Either way, it is not how any campaign I can think of has
ever played out before.
Sign #127 of why this is the stupidest. Campaign. Ever.
|9.4.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Elemenope,
It's got to have been intentional. When we posted the joke about
Palin being selected by McCain on Urkobold in May (who knew?), I
almost through in something about her being picked to provoke
crazed attacks on her lack of experience. Naturally, instead, the
Urkobold made me focus on her other assets. He's a cruel
taskmaster.
In any event, if I expected that type of reaction, so much more
would the experienced politicos with the GOP expect it. Regardless
of whether this actually works or not, it really was a bold chess
move, drawing out the Democrats' king.
Episiarch,
Frackin' A. By the way, thanks for coming to my defense in that
other thread--I'm all aflutter ☺ I don't mind joe going off on me a
bit--it's his M.O. during campaign season, which I think even he
would acknowledge. He's got a lot of passion for his cause, I'm
more Vulcan about mine. Losing all the time helps develop a
stronger stoic world view. At least it does vis-à-vis politics.
Dagny T.|9.4.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Elemenope,
That Fallows quote got at exactly what I was thinking watching her
speech. It always icks me out when (it seems to be mostly female)
pols use "being a parent" as some kind of credential.
I think Palin's references to her family seem more pronouced than,
say, Hillary's because she has so little else to talk about.
On a somewhat related tangent, it bothers me that people swallow
the idea that procreation is a credential for women (because what
else are we really good for?) but not for men (because, presumably,
they should have real accomplishments to talk about). Lowering the
bar for women doesn't help anyone.
robc|9.4.08 @ 12:54PM|#
lmnop,
Im sure it exists somewhere, but I dont know any churches that
would, for example, kick out someone for getting pregnant our of
wedlock. I havent heard of it. The stockades are out of style
too.
Trust me, my pastor has snuggled with the GOP on occassion too. I
have a problem with it too.
You seriously can't tell me that a big portion of that base
believes they are engaged in a holy war for the *Soul of America*,
and that if they win everything will be peachy cause they'll have
the power to make it so.
A big portion of the base does not believe they are engaged in a
holy war for the *Soul of America*, and that if they win everything
will be peachy cause they'll have the power to make it so.
Huh, I can tell you that seriously. Wow, you are wrong again.
|9.4.08 @ 12:54PM|#
As your reward, please enter and win a Cylon Raider. Sure to break the ice at parties.
|9.4.08 @ 12:58PM|#
On a somewhat related tangent, it bothers me that people
swallow the idea that procreation is a credential for women
(because what else are we really good for?)
Fucking? That's all I have right now. I'll put some more thought
into it after I accomplish something.
|9.4.08 @ 1:01PM|#
By the way, thanks for coming to my defense in that other
thread
Don't mention it. You're too nice, and I'm not.
As your reward, please enter and win a Cylon Raider.
Neat! But I don't collect things. Makes it harder to move at a
moment's notice.
|9.4.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Well, for all I know, ThinkGeek is offering a dream date with all of the Cylon women along with the spaceship. Oh, well, I tried.
stuartl|9.4.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Exactly. At some point (tonight?), the McCain camp is going to
point out that they have experience at the top of the ticket and
team blue has it the wrong way around. They will also point out
that the candidate of change picked a safe, traditional inside the
beltway VP, and that McCain took a risk and brought in someone from
the outside.
I don't know if this is a good strategy, but you have to give the
McCain camp points for cleverness.
Dagny T.|9.4.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Fucking? That's all I have right now. I'll put some more
thought into it after I accomplish something.
Well, that whole accomplishment thing does sound a little
exerting. You could always try the poppin' out babies route. Don't
worry your pretty little head about the biological impossibilities
involved.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 1:05PM|#
ProL --
I'm iffy on the line between "bold" and "psychotic". Above all, I
think Sullivan is right when he says that this thing has damaged
McCain's "steady, experienced dude" message. This was a Hail Mary
from nowhere. Imagine a Hail Mary from nowhere on a nuclear
showdown with Russia. Or as a response to a major terror
attack.
Ick.
Dagny --
Yep. I think raising a family, either as a man or a woman, is
really par for the course. To be a leader, you have to do something
more, or at least stand for something more, than pretty much all of
us do at some point in our lives.
robc --
My experiences with Christian Evangelism (which are more diverse
than you might expect from a Yankee Atheist) lead me to believe
that either you go to an *atypically* enlightened congregation, or
are willfully blinded to the very publicly stated intention of some
of your co-religionists. They are not exactly shy, either with
their public rhetoric or with their fund-raising direct mailings.
;)
Barack Obama, 2008:|9.4.08 @ 1:06PM|#
"I'm not just asking you to take a chance on me. I'm also asking
you to take a chance on your own aspirations.""
Which is why I brought the campaign to Europe.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Well, that whole accomplishment thing does sound a little
exerting.
And fucking *isn't*?!
Fucking: U r doin' it rong!
|9.4.08 @ 1:09PM|#
You could always try the poppin' out babies route. Don't
worry your pretty little head about the biological impossibilities
involved.
Hey, it's been
done.
Well, that whole accomplishment thing does sound a little
exerting.
And fucking *isn't*?!
Uh oh, Dagny just outed herself as the type of girl who just lies
there. Shame.
NotThatDavid|9.4.08 @ 1:11PM|#
Im sure it exists somewhere, but I dont know any churches
that would, for example, kick out someone for getting pregnant our
of wedlock. I havent heard of it.
Look harder. A high school senior in my town married her boyfriend
before graduation this year because their church would have kicked
them out for "living in sin" otherwise.
|9.4.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Elemenope,
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, but I think this
was, in the short term, a good (and intentional) move. Whether she
can campaign remains the open question. On the plus side, she's all
mavericky, is an outsider, comes across more like a normal person
(albeit a socially conservative one), shores up the base where he's
the weakest, has some executive experience, draws out the left on
their candidate's very weakest area, etc. The negatives will become
more apparent as we get to know her better, and I'm sure there will
be plenty.
I'm on record saying that McCain is a loon, but I do think he isn't
quite as crazed as we tend to portray him hereabouts. Reagan talked
loudly and left his stick at home, too, so that may be what McCain
is aiming for. Except for Vietnam, which he will be invading next
March.
Bill\'s Dog|9.4.08 @ 1:16PM|#
"For some odd reason, all of the comparisons lately seem to be
between the Red VP candidate and the Blue P candidate. I'm sure
someone here can explain why."
Why not just ask obama? That neophyte was among the very first to
get suckered in to explaining why he's more qualified than she
is.
Woof
Dagny T.|9.4.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Uh oh, Dagny just outed herself as the type of girl who just
lies there. Shame.
Ouch!
"Give me an old pro like a Robert Redford. Oh, I'd jump into bed
with him in a second. And I wouldn't just lie there, Michael Bluth,
if that's what you're thinking."
And also:
Fucking? That's all I have right now. Fixed
that for ya. ;)
robc|9.4.08 @ 1:40PM|#
lmnop,
My experiences with Christian Evangelism (which are more
diverse than you might expect from a Yankee Atheist) lead me to
believe that either you go to an *atypically* enlightened
congregation, or are willfully blinded to the very publicly stated
intention of some of your co-religionists. They are not exactly
shy, either with their public rhetoric or with their fund-raising
direct mailings.
Well, considering the size of my church, the pastor and leadership
make up a tiny percent of my co-religionists. Personally I think
the SBC is enlightened, but I probably having a different meaning
of that word that you do. :) Actually, on a more serious note, as a
disbeliever in gnosticism, I dont believe we have any special
enlightenment that isnt available to anyone else.
Anyway, my point is, there is often a big difference in the
political thoughts of the majority of the members and the
leadership of the churches. For one thing, I dont think the
majority has any political consensus, at least not within my
church.
lunchstealer|9.4.08 @ 1:46PM|#
Just gotta reiterate how awesome it is to have the ad for
McCain: The Myth of a Maverick right above the ad for the
McCain-Palin "Compliance Fund".
WTF is a compliance fund, btw?
|9.4.08 @ 1:48PM|#
"Give me an old pro like a Robert Redford. Oh, I'd jump into
bed with him in a second. And I wouldn't just lie there, Michael
Bluth, if that's what you're thinking."
You know, if you like Arrested Development this much, you
should really check out
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Fucking? That's all I have right now. Fixed that
for ya. ;)
Now that's just cold.
Dagny T.|9.4.08 @ 2:03PM|#
...you should really check out It's Always Sunny in
Philadelphia.
Will do. I reserve skepticism, however, that anything can be as
funny as Martin Short saying: "That's just something that happens
to the body when you shake it."
Now that's just cold.
No worse than the (untrue! libelous!) bad in bed crack.
|9.4.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Either women are equal or they are not. No one to my knowledge
has ever said one word about the effect of male politician's
careers on their family. Not one. If women really are equal, then
they ought to be able to do the same things as men. Last I looked
men can have important jobs and run for office and have a family
and not have a bunch of people run them down for being bad parents,
women ought to have the same right. To do otherwise is to say that
women must chose between career or family where men don't have to.
I don't see how you can say that without buying into a bunch of
sexist horseshit about women belonging in the home and being
uniquely suited to raise children.
By the way, it is that attitude that gets men screwed in divorce
court. Why the hell can't her husband take care of the kids? If the
Palin's were getting a divorce and some judge or divorce lawyer
said that he was, simply by virtue of being a man, less fit to
raise the kids, you guys would be up in arms and rightfully
so.
Furthermore, it is extremely unseemly and very un-libertarian to be
prying into someone's home life like this. How she raises her kids
is her business. I really don't care and neither should anyone
else. Yes, she has used her family like all politicians, but only
to introduce who she is and to say she didn't have an abortion
where most people would. I don't find either of those points that
relevant but some people do. Moreover, I don't think raising those
points gives me or anyone else the right to tell her how to be a
good mother.
Lastly, if Palin were a liberal pro choice feminist, does anyone
here think that leftist nitwits like Dalia Lithwick would be
questioning her ability to be a mother or her exploiting her
family? Hell no. They have never made that charge against any other
woman. Did they ever make it against Hillary? If Palin were a
liberal they would be defending her like a pack of wild dogs if
anyone even thought of mentioning her being a bad mother. They
don't even believe that crap themselves. When some liberal says
"how can she take care of her family?" they are really saying, "I
don't like her and have nothing else to say."
John McCain|9.4.08 @ 2:11PM|#
"WTF is a compliance fund, btw?"
Do everything I tell youto do and you need never find out.
|9.4.08 @ 2:16PM|#
One other thing. I know it is just signing a petition, but has any major party ticket member in the last 20 years done anything as remotely libertarian and subversive as signing this petition? It really surprises me she signed it.
|9.4.08 @ 2:30PM|#
I have a question uniquely appropriate for this audience. If Todd Palin turns out to be Michael Palin's cousin, would it affect your vote?
|9.4.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Pro,
I like Michael Palin. I think he is a smart and funny guy. I can't
see how it would hurt.
PG&E Boy|9.4.08 @ 2:36PM|#
"WTF is a compliance fund, btw?"
As someone who works for a regulated industry, perhaps it's a fund
to pay lawyers and what not to make certain what the campaign does
is in compliance with election laws.
|9.4.08 @ 2:47PM|#
She's also a moral scold
How so? What has she done that counts as scolding? The little bit
she's said so far in this campaign has been almost completely
devoid of culture war stuff.
who put her family in the line of fire for personal
ambition.
Ah, yes. Here we see the double standard that "progressives" are
perfectly willing to apply to women, but not men. There's been a
lot of that with Sarah Palin, and it will only help her in the long
run.
Really, I have no idea how good a VP she might be. But I like her
so far, because just by existing she pisses off all the right
people, and makes them look like fools.
|9.4.08 @ 2:54PM|#
John,
I agree. And I'm a big fan of his travel shows. I'd vote for him,
surely. If he were eligible and all that. He's probably a
socialist, but he's at least funny.
dhex|9.4.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Lastly, if Palin were a liberal pro choice feminist, does
anyone here think that leftist nitwits like Dalia Lithwick would be
questioning her ability to be a mother or her exploiting her
family?
absolutely not; it would just be reversed.
partisans, while temporarily entertaining, are predictable in the
long-run.
|9.4.08 @ 3:34PM|#
"absolutely not; it would just be reversed."
Totally. It would be completely reversed. The question is which
position is right not who holds it.
Seward|9.4.08 @ 3:43PM|#
R.C. Dean,
The little bit she's said so far in this campaign has been
almost completely devoid of culture war stuff.
Even if that is the case why would one limit it to the "campaign so
far?" Particularly since her role in it was only announced seven
days ago and she has to my knowledge made exactly two speeches in
that time.
I guess if all the "right" people only includes liberals,
progressives, etc. that would make sense, however, they aren't all
the "right" people. A far more interesting and important issue - at
least for me - is who is gladdened by her presence on the
ticket.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 3:54PM|#
RCD --
Though from a different thread, you questioned (rightly) whether
mere membership in one or another church qualified Palin as a
fundie nut.
I suggest you get thyself posthaste to DailyDish. He just put
up two videos of a sermon she participated in.
Kinda sorta scary, in a fundie nut sort of way.
BDB|9.4.08 @ 4:22PM|#
I don't think its particularly scary. Evangelicals are weird, but familiar. Rev. Wright was weird and (to most white Americans) unfamiliar so that story had legs, despite the fact stuff like that is said in black evangelical churches with frequency among the older preachers.
|9.4.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Elenope,
Did she go to the church for 20 years? Did she write a book and use
the title based on one of the guy's sermons? Did she say that she
can no more abadon him than she can his grandfather? If not, who
cares?
The problem is that liberals are a day late and a dollar short on
this one. I don't think anyone is really interested in having a
fight about candidates churches. But, if you really insist, how
about this idea, she is disqualified from being VP and Obama is
disqualified from being President? Something tells me the
Republicans can get a new VP quicker than Dems can get a new chosen
one.
|9.4.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Mo- 10:36 am
If the Giants game goes to OT-I am not going to click back and
forth to McCain's speech-I'll wait for the game to end.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 4:58PM|#
John --
You speak as if the things being said are equivalent.
To wit: Rev. Wright criticized the US government for being
inattentive to the moral catastrophe that proceeded from it's
domestic and foreign policy. That critique has its strengths and
weaknesses, I'll readily grant. But it was *not* based on America
being insufficiently *Christian*.
Most religious criticisms on the Right are based on
precisely that point, that somehow government is not
married closely enough to church. That's the difference.
Seward|9.4.08 @ 5:10PM|#
John,
Harkening back to Locke and his views on religious toleration, I
don't really care what she believes (or Obama believes for that
matter), it is how that plays out with reference to those who are
effected by her or his belief which is the issue.
|9.4.08 @ 6:12PM|#
I admit it. I like Governor Palin. I'm not voting for McCain who
I despise, but I like the tough lady from Alaska. The BS attacks
against her regarding her family and experience from the left are
not only hypocritical but incredibly dumb politics.
I've posted here before that I hope the Obama campaign folks,
official and fellow travelers alike, don't fuck up what should be
an easy race to win.
But being Democrats ...
|9.4.08 @ 6:15PM|#
And who really gives a crap about what politicians profess to believe about religion. Is there anything easier or safer for a politician to lie about than their personal religious beliefs?
Seward|9.4.08 @ 6:21PM|#
J sub D,
The biggest thing I've observed about Palin's candidacy is the
hyperventilating that has occurred amongst many of her supporters
and detractors.
Seward|9.4.08 @ 6:24PM|#
J sub D,
The little bit she's said so far in this campaign has been
almost completely devoid of culture war stuff.
Again, that depends on how those beliefs work with regard to the
ability of others to live freely, etc.
Seward|9.4.08 @ 6:32PM|#
J sub D,
Er, um, I meant to quote this statement of yours:
And who really gives a crap about what politicians profess to
believe about religion.
MJ|9.4.08 @ 9:13PM|#
A high school senior in my town married her boyfriend before
graduation this year because their church would have kicked them
out for "living in sin" otherwise."
The church was not kicking them out for having a child out of
wedlock, but for living together without marrying, a bit of a
different proposition.
Generally, religious people are not intolerant of lapses in moral
judgement. Christians do believe that we live in a sinful world and
no ordinary human is morally perfect. They are intolerant of
deliberately and continuously ignoring sound moral judgement. Some
secularists fail to understand the distinction.
Elemenope|9.4.08 @ 9:28PM|#
MJ --
Because it is a distinction without a difference. To be morally
pure according to the actual standards of Christianity, one should
kill oneself and save the world the trouble. Except that killing
yourself is a sin, too.
Bummer.
I'm somehow reminded of the film, Teeth. Talk about
malignant self-righteousness. Yech.
MJ|9.4.08 @ 9:51PM|#
"To be morally pure according to the actual standards of
Christianity,..."
Again, Christians do not expect anyone to be morally pure. They do
want a good faith effort to be made, however.
You really should not comment on subjects you do not understand,
and apparently have no interest in understanding.
Famous Mortimer|9.4.08 @ 11:41PM|#
I'll have to agree with MJ, at least somewhat.
The various Christian doctrines are so absurdly arbitrary on many
moral issues that they leave escape clauses like "repenting," and
being born again as a means to excuse the inevitable "weaknesses"
of their church leaders, and money lenders--I mean members.
They only expect moral purity from their avowed enemies, much like
your average politician does.
Fluffy|9.4.08 @ 11:59PM|#
Fuck you, MJ.
How's this for understanding? I am an atheist who cheers for
Hollywood values. Funny how no one in my house is a knocked-up
little skank, and funny how no one here looks like a trashy
fucked-out realtor like Palin.
Christians do believe that we live in a sinful world and no
ordinary human is morally perfect. They are intolerant of
deliberately and continuously ignoring sound moral
judgement.
Translated into honest language, this means that as long as you bow
fervently to the flying spaghetti monster and SAY you adhere to its
arbitrary code of moral values, you can do whatever you want.
Fucking with bowing = OK; fucking without bowing = Not OK. It's
simple, really.
Famous Mortimer|9.5.08 @ 4:01AM|#
That's true. She does look like a Realtor.
She's the perfect white-bread, former cheerleader-esque, barbie
doll-like, dominatrixee,
carries-a-pistol-to-the-supermarket-on-Sunday specimen that
Republicans will sell their souls for.
Despite her canned snarkiness, and robo-cop style delivery, it's
the kind of factory produced shit that keeps the cash flowing into
the coffers of the right.
Boys, we've got ourselves a good ol' fashion prize fight on our
hands.
Famous Mortimer|9.5.08 @ 4:04AM|#
"What did the mean Christians do to make you so angry?"
Well, I can't speak for fluffy, but I can say that they made me
feel a little guilty about touching myself, which, in my book is
unforgivable.
MJ|9.5.08 @ 7:33AM|#
"I am an atheist who cheers for Hollywood values."
If so, why would you use a perjorative, judgemental term like
"skank" to describe a woman in Bristol Palin's circumstances,
Fluffy? It seems to me your problem is that believing Christians in
real life don't live down to your prejudices about them.
Elemenope|9.5.08 @ 10:06AM|#
MJ --
Anyone who claims to be a "true" Christian aloud is, by definition,
too prideful to be one.
iloilo|9.5.08 @ 10:13AM|#
If Red Beckman is deceased, it will come as a shock to both him
and me, since I talked with him three days ago, his wife calling
him to the phone from gathering strawberries.
Larry Dodge is still living well in Panama with wife Honey. I visit
with them frequently. Other FIJA founder Don Doig is still in
Montana, and I will be having dinner with him Sunday.
Over the years, many governors, mayors and others have issued Jury
Rights Day Proclamations. Sarah did a good bit of research prior to
agreeing to issue the Proclamation last year. There are jury rights
educational projects across Alaska today, as well as many other
states, today and throughout the year.
|9.5.08 @ 2:58PM|#
I wonder if her being picked for VP has changed her attitude
towards jury nullification?
I would like to see someone ask her if that's ok for a federal
trial.
Neu Mejican|9.5.08 @ 7:50PM|#
BTW,
One of 3 governors in a list that includes Christine Gregoire...do
people have thoughts on how libertarian signing the petition makes
one?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245