Palin

From what little of Palin I know thus far, she seems to be about as good a pick from a major party as libertarians could hope for. But how McCain picked her is a bit disconcerting:

Sarah Palin pumps her fist as she is introduced to supporters at a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio, Friday.

John McCain on Friday announced a running mate whom he met only six months ago and with whom he spoke just once on the phone about the position before offering it in person earlier this week.

McCain’s first encounter with Sarah Palin came at a Washington meeting of the National Governors Association in February, according to a campaign-provided reconstruction of how the little-known Alaska governor was thrust into the national spotlight. The two discussed the position by phone on Sunday before McCain invited Palin and her husband to Arizona to formally make the offer. McCain, joined by his wife, Cindy, did just that Thursday morning at their home near Sedona, Ariz.

By picking somebody he and most Americans barely know — an out-of-the-blue decision that sent shock waves of disbelief through the political world and still has jaws agape — McCain has taken a considerable gamble.

I don’t buy the "no experience" critique. Frankly, I’d rather have someone in the White House who hasn’t been corrupted by too much time in politics. I do wonder though, why McCain has so much confidence in Palin after spending so little time with her. It certainly can’t be her record–there’s not much to go on there, either.

They cynical (and probably correct) answer would be that pretty, female, and social conservative were all he needed. That is, his main concern was how she could help him win, not so much how well she’d do in the no-so-unlikely event that she were to become president.

Comments

Daniel | August 30, 2008, 1:11pm | #

Didn't she give a $100 handout from oil companies in Alaska? That's hardly libertarian. She is also for passing laws that govern a woman's person, which isn't particularly libertarian. She's also under investigation for abuse of her office, which isn't particularly reform minded. All in all, I think she's a disaster. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the idea of her being the president if McCain croaks.

Alaskans are bewildered. I'm just a little frightened.

jc | August 30, 2008, 1:14pm | #

I think it was 1200.

shecky | August 30, 2008, 1:14pm | #

I do agree, the "no experience" critique is a weak one. However, it may have been McCain's strongest line of attack against Obama. Not anymore.

McCain's choice does seem more short term cynical strategy than anything else.

Joe Strummer | August 30, 2008, 1:17pm | #

I don’t buy the "no experience" critique. Frankly, I’d rather have someone in the White House who hasn’t been corrupted by too much time in politics. I do wonder though, why McCain has so much confidence in Palin after spending so little time with her. It certainly can’t be her record–there’s not much to go on there, either.

Are you kidding me? Look, you miss the fundamental critique of politicians: a person who has the ambition enough to become mayor of a town (even if it's a town of 5,000 people in Alaska) and then Governor of a state as corrupt as Alaska is - PER SE - corrupt.

In any case, this is a woman who has been corrupted enough to use her political positions as Mayor (see Wikipedia entries) and as Governor to give breaks to favored groups and use her office to fire people who are enemies of her or her friends.

What we've got is an unqualified and corrupt choice in Palin, and I'm really fucking sick of Reason writers trying to excuse what is an awful choice as some sort of "libertarian" victory.

It's nothing of the sort: she's not libertarian cause she smoked pot, she's not libertarian because she wants to drill, she's not libertarian because she cut taxes, she's not libertarian because she's some sort of literal babe in the woods.

She is a politician in a heavily socialized state that gives each of its citizens a welfare check for oil revenue, knows next to nothing about foreign affairs one way or the other, and is further unprepared to actively fight an overweening federal government.

Franklin Harris | August 30, 2008, 1:44pm | #

I can, off the top of my head, list more things that Palin has done in two years as governor than Obama has done in four years as a U.S. senator. She killed the "bridge to nowhere" when Congress couldn't, fought at least three corrupt officials in her own party and won, and, whether you like it or not, engineered that gas-tax rebate for Alaskans. As for Obama, well, he voted "present" on an abortion bill in the Illinois state legislature.

Franklin Harris | August 30, 2008, 1:48pm | #

By picking somebody he and most Americans barely know — an out-of-the-blue decision that sent shock waves of disbelief through the political world and still has jaws agape — McCain has taken a considerable gamble.

See, I don't buy this part of the narrative. Palin's name has been floating around for months.

Christian Prophet | August 30, 2008, 1:49pm | #

What a season! Have you noticed Democrats have given up all interest in truth. It has become necessary to smear Sarah Palin no matter what. Reason: she is far more qualified than Barack Obama. See:
http://christianprophecy.blogspot.com/

Franklin Harris | August 30, 2008, 1:52pm | #

What a season! Have you noticed Democrats have given up all interest in truth. It has become necessary to smear Sarah Palin no matter what. Reason: she is far more qualified than Barack Obama. See:
http://christianprophecy.blogspot.com/

OK. I take it back. Obama is more experienced than Palin.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 2:02pm | #

She is also for passing laws that govern a woman's person, which isn't particularly libertarian.

Three things:
1. You're wrong
2. Cram it
3. I don't think this argument needs rehashed again...show some nuance.

Andrew G. | August 30, 2008, 2:15pm | #

The reason there's no libertarian position on abortion is that there's no consensus on what defines a person.

If you think a person "begins" at conception, then the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of that person against a mother who wants to kill it.

If you think a person begins at some other point in time -- 3 months, 6 months, whatever -- then before that point the state has no right in interfering with a woman's body and her choices regarding it.

And that's why your views on abortion don't determine if you're libertarian or not.

kohlrabi | August 30, 2008, 2:18pm | #

Andrew G,

Well said! I was about to type the same thing in a much less efficient way.

Robbie | August 30, 2008, 2:22pm | #

She has done things that fall into the libertarian category, like drilling etc, but she is a fundie through and through. This proves to me that her decisions are not based on rational thought, and those decisions that she has made that have been "libertarian" are probably so because of coincidence rather than ideology. If you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, you can't be trusted to do the right thing again in the future.

Naga Sadow | August 30, 2008, 2:24pm | #

"She opposed the listing of polar bears as a 'threatened' species. She supports the brutal aerial hunting of wolves. And she has been a friend of Big Oil, opposing a windfall profits tax on the oil industry that could fund affordable clean energy for more Americans." - Friends of the Earth Action Vice President Brent Blackwelder.

Naga Sadow | August 30, 2008, 2:25pm | #

Sorry but Palin rocks . . . at least as much as a politician can rock . . . which isn't much.

Adam | August 30, 2008, 2:37pm | #

"I don’t buy the "no experience" critique. Frankly, I’d rather have someone in the White House who hasn’t been corrupted by too much time in politics."

That's ridiculous. The charge isn't that she has no experience in politics, the charge is that she has no experience in ANYTHING! She's been the governor of a relatively small state (by population) for less than two years, she's been the mayor of a pinprick little town before that, and I read that she was on town council before then.

Has she ever run her own business? Been a corporate executive? Run an NGO? Done ANYthing that would suggest she would have a clue as to what she's doing in a position of enormous power and responsibility?

No, she hasn't. I'd be perfectly comfortable with, say, Bill Gates (or Carly Fiorina, if you prefer) being Vice-President. They have no political experience (that I know of), but plenty of real-world experience. But this person? Give me a break. Being a working mother of five children must be an enormous challenge, but if that's one of the major items on your resume, you're not qualified.

Federal Dog | August 30, 2008, 2:45pm | #

"a person who has the ambition enough to become mayor of a town (even if it's a town of 5,000 people in Alaska) and then Governor of a state as corrupt as Alaska is - PER SE - corrupt."


Hee hee.

Yes, unlike those sprung from the purity of the Chicago political machine.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 2:48pm | #

Adam - go on, razz Palin on experience. You're playing right into the hands of the GOP. Watch:

Has she ever run her own business? Been a corporate executive? Run an NGO? Done ANYthing that would suggest she would have a clue as to what she's doing in a position of enormous power and responsibility?

Has Obama done any of this? Nope...and he's at the top of the ticket.

Granted, it's a tu quoque, but one the GOP is ready to use to beat the Dems over the head with.

Federal Dog | August 30, 2008, 2:48pm | #

"In any case, this is a woman who has been corrupted enough to use her political positions as Mayor (see Wikipedia entries)"


BWAHAHAHA! Complete with citation to Wikipedia authority! Nice touch.

perilisk | August 30, 2008, 2:55pm | #

"Has she ever run her own business?"

She apparently worked with her husband commercial fishing, according to Wikipedia, though to what extent each was responsible for the business I have no idea.

Anyway, she gives a "generic Sandra Bullock character crossed with Marge Gunderson" vibe, which isn't bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Infidel Yankee | August 30, 2008, 2:56pm | #

"Has she ever run her own business? Been a corporate executive? Run an NGO? Done ANYthing that would suggest she would have a clue as to what she's doing in a position of enormous power and responsibility?"

Per the Almanac of American Politics:

Co-owner, commercial fishing operation, 1988-2007;

Owner, snow machine, watercraft, and all-terrain vehicle business, 1994-97;

Chairwoman, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2003-2004.

Patricia | August 30, 2008, 2:59pm | #

Could we all wake up here and consider one basic and startling fact: Sarah Palin gave birth to a premature, high needs disabled infant four months ago, this April!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't care what religion you espouse - in what moral framework would you accept and campaign for the position of vice-president of the United States with an infant like this who needs you as a mother???

This proves once again that "pro-life" means nothing more than blasting the babe out of your womb and then saying to hell with it. I am surprised this is not being made more an issue!!!

Palin's other children (like Obama’s) are at an age and healthy enough that it is feasible to believe they could receive adequate care and attention without the close bond of mothering.

But any child care professional, let along ages of cultural wisdom will confirm that a mother’s care, holding, touch etc. is vital for the health of a new born infant, especially one born premature, disabled and only four months old. Its already outrageous enough that this child has to compete for attention and care in between Palin’s governor-ship duties. Why would Palin consciously accept more, now???

Obviously, she’s not even nursing him, holding or truly bonding with him. Obviously she's will not be building a loving quiet and calm family matrix for him that a true mother would. That will be impossible jetting around the country.

Palin touts being pro-life but what kind of life care is this??? This is extreme parental negligence. Its not like she is a single Mom who has to go out and work. Palin is making these choices.

This has nothing to do with the family values the Republicans hypocritically espouse. The has nothing to do with the Biblical role of mother that Republican Christian conservatives supposedly champion.

Two questions: If Sarah Palin is such a great mother why would she accept a position that would literally tear her away from what is needed for her infant son. If McCain and cohorts believe family values are important why did they choose her?

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 3:05pm | #

yeah, Patricia, I bet you're really concerned about the child.

sexism comes in all forms, ladies and gents. Apparently Patricia feels qualified to talk about Palin's parenting skills.

This is just a preview of the emotional crap that's going to flow from the mouths of idiot lefties the next couple of months.

Patricia - where can said child receive better care, Alaska or Bethesda Naval?

Federal Dog | August 30, 2008, 3:11pm | #

Patricia --

How exactly do you claim to know how Palin and her family are so egregiously neglecting the child that you are confident attacking her on those grounds?

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 3:14pm | #

And that's why your views on abortion don't determine if you're libertarian or not.

Well, that's not quite true. The position *itself* does not indicate whether or not one is a libertarian. However, *why* you take one or the other position can indicate whether you are a libertarian or not.

If you support abortion rights because you believe that a women's bodily integrity should be inviolable by the state, it is likely you are a libertarian. If, on the other hand, you support abortion rights because you are in favor of zero population growth, it is likely you are not.

If you oppose abortion rights because you believe a fetus is a human being with the right to not have force used against it, then you might be a libertarian. If you oppose abortion rights because you believe that Jesus told you abortion is an abomination against the LORD, then you probably aren't.

Naga Sadow | August 30, 2008, 3:16pm | #

Angry Optimist,

Patricia is from Feminsting. I've been worried this could happen since SugarFree started linking Feminsting articles here at Reason. We've been infiltrated. Hannibal ad portem.

Naga Sadow | August 30, 2008, 3:17pm | #

Scratch out Hannibal and insert Steinem.

handsofaten | August 30, 2008, 3:33pm | #

The fact is, if you listen to Palin talk, she has no idea what's going on in national or international politics. She quite simply hasn't been vetted in any sense, and once the interviews and debates start in earnest people will realize what a blunder this was.

All the lame arguments about experience ignore the fact that Obama and Biden and McCain have held their own on the national stage, facing down America's most vaunted politicians and reporters. Sarah Palin hasn't. And there's no reason to think she'll be able to. Maybe McCain will get lucky and she'll prove to be a prodigy -- but this is the kind of gamble I don't like to see a president take.

Oh, and by the way, Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere. Here's your libertarian.

Anchorage Daily News: Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Sarah Palin: 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.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 3:36pm | #

The most bothersome element of Patricia's post, by far, is her abuse of punctuation.

Nobody who neglects the rules of English grammar can speak authoritatively about neglect in another context.

J sub D | August 30, 2008, 3:37pm | #

joe would say Democratic party candidates should never take advice from someone who rarely votes Dem and never has for a Dem prez nominee.

I'm going to give some good advice to Senator Biden anyway.

You should be extremely prepared with facts and positions and very conscious of your demeanor for the VP debate. Sarah Palin is not Dan Quayle and just might rip you a new one. Add to that the fact that if you appear to be a jerk, either condescending or bullying, that will bite you in the ass.

You have nothing to win in the VP debate and there are multiple ways for you to screw it up.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 3:39pm | #

Under all the crap, however, Patricia has an inkling of a point. Palin's eldest son is being deployed to Iraq in a few weeks and yet she "hasn't thought about Iraq very much". She *did* just have a kid with more intense needs than even the normal neediness of a child and yet she's out running for national office.

It's one thing to immediately make judgment calls on one or more of these things. It's quite another to use them as indications of a person's personality to help make future judgments about their actions and place them in context.

So far, it is worrying, on that front.

Anonymous Wanker | August 30, 2008, 3:43pm | #

Patricia, LMNOP, has it ever occurred to you that this fine lady might be married to a man who loves and cares about her kids just as much as she does?

Adam | August 30, 2008, 3:44pm | #

"Adam - go on, razz Palin on experience. You're playing right into the hands of the GOP."

Sure, there's the "Obama's inexperienced as well" angle. Which he may be - he and Palin may both be unqualified, they're not mutually exclusive. But I think Andrew Sullivan has a point when he notes that Obama has enough of a track record for us to get a sense of what he thinks. I haven't seen anything that suggests that Palin's ever given a second thought to foreign policy, national security, the Middle East, North Korea, al Qaeda, etc. Any why should she have? There's nothing wrong with being indifferent to these things, but it becomes a problem when you're running for the #2 position in the executive branch.

Infidel Yankee, that's interesting, I didn't know that. The question becomes, how big were those businesses and how deeply involved was she in running the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (on a day-to-day basis)? Those are honest questions, I have no idea what the answers are.

J sub D | August 30, 2008, 3:45pm | #

All the lame arguments about experience ignore the fact that Obama and Biden and McCain have held their own on the national stage,

Give me a break. Both Obama and McCain have been fellated by the press so often and for so long, their wives are complaining about "marital relations".

Yep, she's from a small state (*ahem* Arkansas) so she must be stupid (*ahem* Bill Clinton). I predict that she will hold her own at least as well as Joe, pro Iraq invasion, Biden does.

Adam | August 30, 2008, 3:48pm | #

Oh, and Patricia, I fully agree. You can say life is sacred and refuse to consider aborting a seriously ill child but then after (s)he's born, you've kind of got to give up any ambitions that will keep you away from him or her for extended periods. Federal Dog, the time demands of a national campaign mean that unless she's found an extra 24 hours in each day, she couldn't possibly be taking care of that baby full-time. Not to mention she'd have to be carrying the child along with her everywhere she goes (which she might, but unless her campaign schedule is going to be one event a day she's not going to have any time for her family).

And that goes for the kid's dad as well, no less than the mother.

Adam | August 30, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Anonymous Wanker, I suspect that no matter how devoted the father is, taking care of a family that size (never mind the youngest's condition) while working full-time (I understand he does, maybe I'm wrong) seems almost impossible for two people, never mind one.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 3:54pm | #

Patricia, LMNOP, has it ever occurred to you that this fine lady might be married to a man who loves and cares about her kids just as much as she does?

It had occurred to me. Which is why I wrote that this fact alone is not enough to justify condemning her.

But it is one worrying data-point in a constellation of similar ones. If they all start painting a picture of reckless disregard, then wouldn't you say it is reasonable to criticize her?

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 3:56pm | #

I predict that she will hold her own at least as well as Joe, pro Iraq invasion, Biden does.

Why is it appropriate to give Bob Barr the benefit of the doubt when he changes his mind, but not Joe Biden?

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 3:56pm | #

she couldn't possibly be taking care of that baby full-time.

She's unqualified, because she isn't barefoot and in the kitchen, takin' care of the lil' ones.

Daniel, Milwaukee | August 30, 2008, 3:56pm | #

When a presidential candidate is over 70 years old, you can't help but take the VP candidate choice into account when choosing a Pres -because I DO NOT WANT A SELF-PROCLAIMED "HOCKEY MOM" RUNNING THE COUNTRY if Mccain keels over!!!
Republicans have lost their minds!!!! We are being overrun by stupidity in this country!!! IT'S PERVASIVE, PROLIFIC!!! Being a creationsist IS NOT AN ALTERNATE VIEWPOINT!! IT'S IRRATIONALITY!! It means things like truth and reality do not exist - it's post-modern thinking - These people argue things like there are little devils inside my watch turning the hands around - and then argue they want you to prove them wrong! They're NUTS! Palin is nuts! She will twist logic to argue that we are somehow misogynist or anti-feminist if we call her out on her lack of foreign relations experience! WATCH - I guarantee it! And I am not being judgmental or prejudice in any way - it's simply a true statement! Watch! I hope she looks stupid in the VP debates - Biden's going to chew her up.


Suck on that drive-by Rush!

J sub D | August 30, 2008, 4:00pm | #

I reject the idea that a parent of a Down's child needs to, or even should, curtail career ambitions for the child's sake due the child's condition.

Leah | August 30, 2008, 4:01pm | #

Patricia is a moron. 2 seconds of googling could have come up with the info that Palin is a devoted mother who babywears and breastfeeds and is a huge supporter of close, involved parenting. http://bp3.blogger.com/_eeBrCFDUUOc/SEnh6tjqHRI/AAAAAAAAAoY/rCVlMkh3yPY/s1600-h/SPOminbusCrimeBillSigning.jpg

I stay at home with my daughter, but am horrified at the insinuation that women are the only parent able to provide infant care.

Trevor | August 30, 2008, 4:02pm | #

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. He was also Arkansas' governor for a much longer period. He was also running for and earned his party's nomination. Palin's not even close.

Adam | August 30, 2008, 4:02pm | #

"She's unqualified, because she isn't barefoot and in the kitchen, takin' care of the lil' ones."

Angry Optimist, if you were to actually read until the end of my post you might notice that I said that same goes for dad, too. You opt not to abort a fetus with Down's Syndrome, that's your decision. But you can't have it both ways and pretend that's not going to have a serious impact on your career.

Knock off the you're-a-misogynist crap. I was raised by a single working mother. I'd never presume to say that a woman's place is in the home. But a parent's place (a parent of either sex) is taking care of his or her children. In the case of a kid with Down's Syndrome, I suspect that a great deal more care than usual is required.

Anonymous Wanker | August 30, 2008, 4:02pm | #

Adam, they might have a nanny/grandparent around, they might have the older kids take care of the younger ones, you name it...

Anyway, as a matter of fact, this question would never have been raised if God had endowed her with a penis. Annoying, isn't it?

Anonymoose. | August 30, 2008, 4:03pm | #

These people argue things like there are little devils inside my watch turning the hands around - and then argue they want you to prove them wrong!

Um... No, they don't. And if they did, it would be easy to prove them wrong.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 4:03pm | #

Daniel --

You are well on your way to ensuring that the exclamation point will no longer have any meaning whatsoever in English.

Thanks.

John-David | August 30, 2008, 4:04pm | #

I love the lefties showing up spewing the Democratic talking points. joe is right when he condemns the righties who hang around here when they do it. Make an argument based on your own opinions, not based on the latest press releases from the Obama campaign.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 4:06pm | #

Anyway, as a matter of fact, this question would never have been raised if God had endowed her with a penis. Annoying, isn't it?

If a guy had had a kid a short time ago who had Down's Syndrome then up and decided to run for national office, I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't have given him a pass.

Child rearing is hard work, requires a great deal of time and devotion. It takes *more* when the kid has developmental issues. How a person treats that which is supposed to be most precious to them can indicate how they will treat things which are important and precious to others.

Adam | August 30, 2008, 4:07pm | #

"I reject the idea that a parent of a Down's child needs to, or even should, curtail career ambitions for the child's sake due the child's condition."

J sub D, are you saying that family responsibilities never limit a person's career choices? If a child, spouse or parent is seriously ill and needs you to take care of him or her, are you really still just as free to say, screw that, I think I'll take a few months to travel the world and then become an artist in Paris?

Obviously I don't mean "free" in the legal sense - you're free to do what you want. But if, say, my mother developed Alzheimer's (God forbid), I certainly wouldn't feel like it's her problem and I'll just mail her a cheque once in a while from wherever I am.

Look, this is just my personal view. I presume Sara Palin is at ease with her choices and they're ultimately no one's business but her family's. But I'm entitled to form an opinion based on the information available to me.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 4:07pm | #

But a parent's place (a parent of either sex) is taking care of his or her children. In the case of a kid with Down's Syndrome, I suspect that a great deal more care than usual is required.

As has been pointed out to time and again, there are two parents here.

Another relevant point is that if this were a man we were talking about, you'd never have made this point. So knock off the feigned outrage because you ARE acting like a sexist.

Finally, the sheer hubris and condescension it takes to criticize her parenting skills a priori is fucking staggering.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 4:08pm | #

Um... No, they don't. And if they did, it would be easy to prove them wrong.

When you opened the face place of your watch, the invisible demons escaped!

J sub D | August 30, 2008, 4:08pm | #

I predict that she will hold her own at least as well as Joe, pro Iraq invasion, Biden does.

Why is it appropriate to give Bob Barr the benefit of the doubt when he changes his mind, but not Joe Biden?

As much as is possible with a pol, I believe Barr. Honest question, has Biden ever come out and said "I screwed the pooch on that. I was fucking wrong and it was my fault"?

Adam | August 30, 2008, 4:09pm | #

"Adam, they might have a nanny/grandparent around, they might have the older kids take care of the younger ones, you name it... "

Anonymous Walker, you're absolutely right. They may indeed, I don't know. I'm just going on what I've got.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 4:10pm | #

the sheer hubris and condescension it takes to criticize her parenting skills a priori is fucking staggering.

Knowing that this question would come up (knowing how unfair and mean the world outside tends to be), and not having gotten out in front of this thing right away, shows sheer stupidity and arrogance on her part.

Either she should out and say "fuck off, America, it's none of your business" or she should say "my husband and some nannies are providing excellent care of my child while I am running on a national platform".

So far, she has done neither. That shows a lack of *political* acumen, if nothing else.

Adam | August 30, 2008, 4:12pm | #

"Another relevant point is that if this were a man we were talking about, you'd never have made this point."

While you're at it, have you got tomorrow's lottery numbers?

"So knock off the feigned outrage because you ARE acting like a sexist."

Yes, if you contrast my behaviour in this time-space continuum with that of my alternate in a world where a man with a disabled child was named McCain's running mate.

If you are capable of making this comparison, I can only assume you're some kind of alien or a being from another dimension.

"Finally, the sheer hubris and condescension it takes to criticize her parenting skills a priori is fucking staggering."

Really? I didn't think I needed to fly up to Alaska and interview each family member before forming an opinion that I fully acknowledge is based on incomplete information.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 4:13pm | #

El - jesus man, it's been ONE DAY. And it's a holiday weekend.

you have some impossible standards.

Adam - you don't get to make statements and then try to back off of them by saying "That's all I've got to go on!"

If you think you've got enough to go on, stand by your judgment. If you don't, you shouldn't have put yourself out there in the first place. you cannot have it both ways.

Seward | August 30, 2008, 4:14pm | #

I'm not inclined to think that a McCain administration will mean a dimunition in the size of government overall. As such, whether he picked Palin or someone else isn't important.

J sub D | August 30, 2008, 4:15pm | #

J sub D, are you saying that family responsibilities never limit a person's career choices? If a child, spouse or parent is seriously ill and needs you to take care of him or her, are you really still just as free to say, screw that, I think I'll take a few months to travel the world and then become an artist in Paris?

It is not for me to decide how any parent divides their time between multiple resposibilities and desires.

You may know more about the internal dynamics of the Palin family though, so opine away about what those decisions should be.

John-David | August 30, 2008, 4:16pm | #

Seward,

that post was completely devoid of folly. I expect better in the future.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 4:17pm | #

I didn't think I needed to fly up to Alaska and interview each family member before forming an opinion that I fully acknowledge is based on incomplete information.

Again, either the information is enough for you to form an opinion or it is not. If it is, stop simpering that "It's all you've got to go on".

you want to hold the opinion that she's a bad parent for doing this? That's your right, but I think it's a branch without much support at the moment.

Adam | August 30, 2008, 4:18pm | #

Angry Optimist, I AM standing by my judgement. I think choosing to have a disabled child means that you have to rule some career options out.

For God's sake, I'm not saying that 99.9% of career paths are closed to her, I'm saying that maybe a national campaign followed by four years of a 24/7 job, followed by another four years of that, followed by a campaign for the presidency (not that this is guaranteed, but that's presumably the point of being McCain's running mate) isn't appropriate in that kind of position. I also think people who neglect elderly parents (unless there's some reason, like the parents neglected the kids earlier in life) are in the wrong.

I'm not backing off anything. I am simply acknowledging that I don't have perfect information, which means that I can't say anything with certainty. I would have thought that that's the opposite of hubris.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 4:20pm | #

I am simply acknowledging that I don't have perfect information, which means that I can't say anything with certainty. I would have thought that that's the opposite of hubris.

No, it's trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You want me to give you a pass 'cause your information isn't "perfect" while respecting your opinion.

Last time: either you have enough information to make that judgment or you do not. Which is it?

Seward | August 30, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Don't you people know college football is on? ;)

Adam | August 30, 2008, 4:24pm | #

J sub D, Angry Optimist:

We're having two different conversations. I'm explaining my general opinion of people who have ill relatives but choose demanding careers. I'm further stating that based on what's been reported, Sara Palin seems to have done just that.

You seem to think that until you know all the facts, you're not entitled to have even a preliminary opinion. That's a pretty high standard. If that's the case, I probably shouldn't think John Edwards is a jackass for cheating on his terminally ill wife.

Anyway, even if Palin's entire family blinked out of existence tomorrow it wouldn't affect the larger question of whether she's even qualified for the office for which she's a candidate.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 4:27pm | #

Adam - I'm not saying you have to know everything. I'm saying that you're playing at Kreskin because you have zero idea what the child-raising situation is like in that household but you're commenting. on. it. anyway.

That IS breathtakingly amazing.

Joe Strummer | August 30, 2008, 4:29pm | #

Holy fucking shit. Who said that by saying that Palin is the mayor of a town SMALLER than my homeowner's association, is corrupt, is governor of one of the most corrupt and socialized states in the country, I was saying anything positive about Obama.

I don't care for Obama either. But I'm tired of people trying to paint a person who until recently was notable for her position as a PTA president and who is under investigation for using her political power to oust an enemy of her family as some sort of libertarian.

She is not. She is a joke.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 4:31pm | #

...who is under investigation for using her political power to oust an enemy of her family...

To be fair, people have noted that she ousted an enemy of her family because that enemy was a physically abusive bastard who was an actual threat to her family's well-being.

So long as that turns out to be the case, I'm gonna give her a pass on that. However, I'm not crazy about the fact that she hasn't been forthcoming about her role in that firing.

J sub D | August 30, 2008, 4:37pm | #

Adam - I'm not saying you have to know everything. I'm saying that you're playing at Kreskin because you have zero idea what the child-raising situation is like in that household but you're commenting. on. it. anyway.

That IS breathtakingly amazing.

Seconded. Thanks for saving me a post TAO.

Seward | August 30, 2008, 4:38pm | #

Elemenope,

Was the individual actually fired?

Also, as I recall, some of the more serious claims made against the fellow didn't pan out.

Adam | August 30, 2008, 4:41pm | #

Angry Optimist, J sub D, you have an interesting definition of "zero." I think you may want to consult with some Arab mathematicians who could explain the concept to you more clearly.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 4:48pm | #

Alright, Adam. Prove you know anything about how the Palin children are raised, and I'll issue mea culpas 'til the Clintons leave politics.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 4:49pm | #

John-David | August 30, 2008, 4:16pm | #
Seward,

that post was completely devoid of folly. I expect better in the future.

Now THAT'S a thread-winner.

Elemenope,

Was the individual actually fired?

Also, as I recall, some of the more serious claims made against the fellow didn't pan out.

I have no idea. What I said was *if* the story panned out as it has so far, I'd give her a pass. If it doesn't (i.e. he wasn't abusing member of her family, or she tried to hide her role in his dismissal, or if he wasn't dismissed) then my opinion is likely to change.

One thing's for sure: she is about to be under a great deal more scrutiny for this and everything else than she likely has experienced in the past, by far.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 4:52pm | #

TAO:

Does Palin have access to a time machine? Probably not.

Is Palin participating in a national political campaign? We can be as certain about this as pretty much anything.

Hence, it is likely that *she* is not spending as much time raising her children as she otherwise might if she were not running for VPOTUS.

Now, might the children be getting care elsewhere? Perhaps, and in fact probably.

But where's the raging hard-on that most people around here sport when talking about personal responsibility as the concomitant price of liberty? Did she make all you go flaccid?

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 4:54pm | #

But where's the raging hard-on that most people around here sport when talking about personal responsibility as the concomitant price of liberty? Did she make all you go flaccid?

What a total non-sequitur. If the children are being provided more-than-adequate care, that's an actualization of parental responsibility, not proof of negligence.

Jeezum.

Seward | August 30, 2008, 5:00pm | #

Elemenope,

In way cooler news those Chinese grandmothers apparently aren't going to a labor camp.

John-David | August 30, 2008, 5:01pm | #

Michael,

Thank you for your insightful link. I know know to avoid anything from www.grizzlybar.org in the future, thanks to you.

Eileen | August 30, 2008, 5:03pm | #

All you Obama lovers have real nerve crying Palin has no experience. You will be crying in Nov. when you loose. Palin is great. McCain-Palin 08.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 5:04pm | #

TAO:

That's only if you believe that all responsibilities can be delegated.

Do you truly believe that about parenting?

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 5:07pm | #

Do you truly believe that about parenting?

To a certain extent, I do. After all, I'm a product of the public school system, which is just an exercise in mass-daycare, and I turned out alright.

I guess the larger point though, El, is that if Palin cannot delegate her responsibilities as a parent, then neither can Obama. Neither could the Clintons when Chelsea was younger. Neither could Jimmy Carter.

I don't know, 'cause I wasn't around, but was there a suggestion that Jimmy Carter wasn't "qualified" because of how young Amy was?

This whole critique springs from sexism.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 5:15pm | #

TAO:

I, too, was partially a product of public school, and while I had some valuable experiences there, I can't help but think that I would have come out *better* had I not had to go to public school/day care.

Out society places many pressures on parents, as they have to work long hours in order to provide for necessities.

VPOTUS is a more demanding and rigorous job than the average 40-hr a week deal. And it isn't being taken, I would imagine, to put "food on Palin's table".

You know, Palin may surprise me and come out to say some interesting and helpful things about child rearing in the context of demanding work. She certainly has the requisite *experiences* to talk a little about it.

I'm just not holding my breath, is all.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 5:16pm | #

This whole critique springs from sexism.

Uh huh. You know, it's funny, but I heard this critique first *from* women.

Traitors to their own cause, I guess.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 5:18pm | #

El, ask yourself honestly now...would we be having this discussion if McCain's choice were a man in the same situation?

I really don't believe we would.

Stephen the goldberger | August 30, 2008, 5:27pm | #

Uh huh. You know, it's funny, but I heard this critique first *from* women.

Traitors to their own cause, I guess.

"A Misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate one another." - H.L. Mencken (paraphrased)

Daniel | August 30, 2008, 5:28pm | #

The GOP is holding on to the hope that maybe, just maybe, if we stick it out in Iraq long enough - the Republicans will start turning their image around = once we start getting kick back from Iraqi oil revenues, we will start changing our thinking about the GOP.
Well, guess what? - China just sealed a deal with the Iraqis for 3 billion dollars worth of oil. We are still losing American soldiers in Iraq to ensure these pipelines get built for them. IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL REPAYING OUR DEBT TO THE CHINESE - WITH AMERICAN LIVES!!?? Good job Dubyah.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 5:34pm | #

So, uh, Daniel, was this supposed to be a war for oil or what?

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 5:37pm | #

TAO --

Honestly, I would. I do not believe that traditional social roles dictate responsibility.

I agree with you that the wider conversation would probably not occur, because our society tends to place more emphasis on womens' child-rearing responsibilities than mens'.

Please don't impute the social default to me. I hate institutional sexism.

John-David | August 30, 2008, 5:40pm | #

Daniel,

I suggest you investigate the word fungible. The more oil China get from Iraq, the more oil we, and the rest of the world, will be getting from other sources. Never mind the fact that most of our oil comes from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuela, you dimwitted twit.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 5:46pm | #

how Solomon-esque of you, El! :-D I agree that the wider conversation should be taking place, regardless of the gender. However, it only IS because Palin is a woman.

B | August 30, 2008, 5:55pm | #

"She opposed the listing of polar bears as a 'threatened' species. She supports the brutal aerial hunting of wolves. And she has been a friend of Big Oil, opposing a windfall profits tax on the oil industry that could fund affordable clean energy for more Americans." - Friends of the Earth Action Vice President Brent Blackwelder."

Is this supposed to be a list of negatives?

B | August 30, 2008, 5:58pm | #

"Has she ever run her own business? Been a corporate executive? Run an NGO? Done ANYthing that would suggest she would have a clue as to what she's doing in a position of enormous power and responsibility?"

Replace the she with he and you can ask the same exact thing about Barack Obama. Amazing how his supporters claim tons of experience is necessary for a VP candidate, but is somehow irrelevant for the actual president.

B | August 30, 2008, 6:01pm | #

"However, it may have been McCain's strongest line of attack against Obama. Not anymore."

Bullshit. The experience argument is still there and is still potent. The fact that Palin may not have a lot of experience does not change the fact that Obama has none. And she is a VP choice. You will probably find that next to no one chooses their presidential candidate based upon who the VP candidate is.

B | August 30, 2008, 6:04pm | #

"Hence, it is likely that *she* is not spending as much time raising her children as she otherwise might if she were not running for VPOTUS.

Now, might the children be getting care elsewhere? Perhaps, and in fact probably"


Give me a fucking break. Like you, or any other dipshit bringing up this "argument" actually cares about who is caring for her kids.

B | August 30, 2008, 6:07pm | #

"All the lame arguments about experience ignore the fact that Obama and Biden and McCain have held their own on the national stage, facing down America's most vaunted politicians and reporters."



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Facing down America's most vaunted reporters? You gotta be fucking joking me, right. You mean the same reporters who were applauding and chanting Obama during his acceptance speech? Man, you are really grasping for straws.

FatDrunkAndStupid | August 30, 2008, 6:08pm | #

Elemenope,

The VPOTS is not even remotely on par with a typical 40 hour job in terms of demands. It isn't even close to being demanding as Governor of Alaska. Indeed, Palin could easily stay on as Governor of Alaska and fulfill every one of her Constitutional duties as VP. Those duties, just in case you need a civics refresher, are to wait for the President to die and break any tie votes in the US Senate. Since the Dems are likely to have a strong majority in the Senate, it is unlikely there will be even a single tie vote on an issue of an importance during McCain's entire four years. Which means the entirety of her Vice Presidential duties will consist of waiting for McCain to die. If you are so worried about the proper rearing of dear little Trig, you should be jumping with joy over McCain's selection, because not only will Palin have a lot more free time on her hands, but she'll also be living in an area which offers programs and treatment for the disabled that remote, underdeveloped Alaska could only dream of.

B | August 30, 2008, 6:12pm | #

"The fact is, if you listen to Palin talk, she has no idea what's going on in national or international politics."

And how many speeches have you heard Palin give about national and international affairs? I would probably guess none or next to none.
As for international affairs, Obama's stated views on "tiny" Iran, the effectiveness of the surge, the efficiency of China, the invasion of Pakistan, etc. prove beyond the shadow of a doubt he has no fucking clue when it comes to international affairs.

smacky | August 30, 2008, 6:19pm | #

It's one thing to immediately make judgment calls on one or more of these things. It's quite another to use them as indications of a person's personality to help make future judgments about their actions and place them in context.

So far, it is worrying, on that front.


Whatever, Elemenope. You are so full of shit. You haven't had a single nice thing to say about Palin since she's been nominated. Just admit you don't like her and that you won't be voting for McCain, but spare us all your bullshit tenuous extrapolations about her character.


Knowing that this question would come up (knowing how unfair and mean the world outside tends to be), and not having gotten out in front of this thing right away, shows sheer stupidity and arrogance on her part.

Either she should out and say "fuck off, America, it's none of your business" or she should say "my husband and some nannies are providing excellent care of my child while I am running on a national platform".

So far, she has done neither. That shows a lack of *political* acumen, if nothing else.


Or maybe she just didn't anticipate that people like you would have the impropriety to criticize how she and her husband choose to raise their family. Yet you expect her to not only assume that there are assholes like you who are going to accuse her of being a bad parent for having a job like most other present-day women, but also to apologize for...for what? For allegations that you are pulling out of thin air? And then on top of that you have the gall to call her stupid and arrogant! Over what? -- your imagination run wild.

VPOTUS is a more demanding and rigorous job than the average 40-hr a week deal. And it isn't being taken, I would imagine, to put "food on Palin's table".


Uh, when was the last time that women were expected to work only if necessary to "put food on the table"? How old are you, Elemenope? 80? Or are you, like, from one of those female-unfriendly gender-oppressive foreign countries or something?


I agree with you that the wider conversation would probably not occur, because our society tends to place more emphasis on womens' child-rearing responsibilities than mens'.

Please don't impute the social default to me. I hate institutional sexism.


Oh, right. Now try to blame your wimpy, flaccid arguments here on society and institutional sexism. Sure, you don't want to be implicated in anything that is "society"'s fault...but you'll borrow that argument from this faceless, collective notion of society and use it when it is politically convenient for you. Whatever...you are so full of it.

The Angry Optimist | August 30, 2008, 6:28pm | #

ladies and gentlemen, write this down: smacky and I (in general) agree on something.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 6:48pm | #

how Solomon-esque of you, El! :-D

Hey, at least I ain't advocating chopping the poor kid in half! ;)

Brandybuck | August 30, 2008, 6:53pm | #

Sarah Palin is not a libertarian. Except for Dondero, we all knew that. Did any of you actually believe that McCain would pick a libertarian? Hah! Oh, and she's also a human being. Meaning that she is not perfect. Those of you expecting a perfect candidate should go join those expecting a libertarian VP.

The rest of us realize that it could have been far far worse. It could have been Lieberman. It could have been Huckabee. If you want a real nightmare, look at the guy Obama picked!

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 7:07pm | #

Smacky --

First, your arguments would be more persuasive if they were stated more calmly.

You haven't had a single nice thing to say about Palin since she's been nominated. Just admit you don't like her and that you won't be voting for McCain, but spare us all your bullshit tenuous extrapolations about her character.

Ah, I see. Since I'm not predisposed to vote for McCain, my observations on his running mate are automatically bullshit.


Or maybe she just didn't anticipate that people like you would have the impropriety to criticize how she and her husband choose to raise their family. Yet you expect her to not only assume that there are assholes like you who are going to accuse her of being a bad parent for having a job like most other present-day women, but also to apologize for...for what? For allegations that you are pulling out of thin air? And then on top of that you have the gall to call her stupid and arrogant! Over what? -- your imagination run wild.

So, essentially, we should make no character assessments at all. Yes, there are people waaaaay more asinine in the general public than me, and all of them have as much of a vote as me. To not address likely questions--heck, to not prepare to address likely questions--is dumb. Regardless of how unfair those questions will be. You know this, unless you are a complete naif.

Uh, when was the last time that women were expected to work only if necessary to "put food on the table"? How old are you, Elemenope? 80? Or are you, like, from one of those female-unfriendly gender-oppressive foreign countries or something?

I'm 27, from the USA, and you're intentionally twisting what I wrote. What I'm saying is that running for VPOTUS is a time-consuming (and difficult) job. I couldn't care less whether it is a man or a woman: I tend to look askance of anyone who would pursue such a grueling schedule *immediately* after they had a newborn baby. And I'm not the only one. Having a child incurs responsibilities, and I happen to disagree with Mr. TAO that those responsibilities are for the most part transferable to others.

Oh, right. Now try to blame your wimpy, flaccid arguments here on society and institutional sexism. Sure, you don't want to be implicated in anything that is "society"'s fault...but you'll borrow that argument from this faceless, collective notion of society and use it when it is politically convenient for you. Whatever...you are so full of it.

She's running for the VP of the USA, not of Utopia. Our society is what it is; along with that comes many expectations, fair or otherwise, about personal behaviors. I'm saying that Palin should have prepared better to get out in front of these issues before people took the framing opportunity away from her and formed their own notions of what it means to run for VPOTUS while raising a newborn with Down's Syndrome.

smacky | August 30, 2008, 7:22pm | #

I'm saying that Palin should have prepared better to get out in front of these issues before people took the framing opportunity away from her and formed their own notions of what it means to run for VPOTUS while raising a newborn with Down's Syndrome.


Or maybe she should just ignore vicious and ungrounded criticisms of her personal and family life.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 7:26pm | #

Smacky --

Good luck living in the world that you do. Us, here, we're out here in the dirty, vicious, *Real world*.

smacky | August 30, 2008, 7:34pm | #

El,

If living in the *real world* means making baseless gender-biased attacks on people, then I'll gladly stay in my own idealized world.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 7:38pm | #

smacky --

You are, again, missing the point.

You can lament *all day* about how horrible and unfair it is to have to answer questions about your kid/spouse/family members and their care as you are running for higher office, but nonetheless:

The questions will be asked, and...

...you will have to have answers that will satisfy the electorate.

That Palin has not yet is disappointing. It's early yet, and she may do it soon. The longer it goes unaddressed, the more damaging it will be. That's the *political reality*. That it is not fair is irrelevant.

You may have the option to live in your world, but a person who is running for political office needs to deal with the really real world. That's, unfortunately, part of the deal.

smacky | August 30, 2008, 7:50pm | #

That Palin has not yet is disappointing.


Er, she was announced as McCain's running mate yesterday.

It's early yet, and she may do it soon.


Er...she was announced as nominee for VP...yesterday.

The longer it goes unaddressed, the more damaging it will be.


Um, yeah. Yesterday. She was announced yesterday. The fact that you're so insistent that this is going to be damaging to her is just evidence that you yourself dislike her and want to see her discredited. Why otherwise would you keep dwelling on the fact that she hasn't answered a question about how her family life works. B is right. You don't really give a crap what happens to the Downs syndrome child, you are just trying to play all this up to find fault with Palin and use it as a criticism against her. If anything, my initial reaction to a woman with four kids and a disabled infant who is running for VP is utterly impressed.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 8:01pm | #

smacky --

That I dislike her for VPOTUS (for many other reasons) doesn't in any way detract from the simple argument.

I don't like her because she ran the town she was mayor of fiscally into the ground, she was as governor more than happy to feed from the federal trough, she's against a woman's right to choose to have control over her body, she seems willfully ignorant of anthropogenic global warming and the costs and benefits of addressing it, she supports teaching a religious notion in science classes, she's against liberalizing drug laws, and she has yet to say anything *coherent*, much less substantive, on the subject of foreign affairs.

To me, that she also had a newborn is like *at the bottom of the list* for things I choose to care about.

However, other people have already, here and elsewhere, pointed out their concern on that particular issue. You'd much rather it be a taboo issue that we can't talk about. And *you* don't have to. But the rest of us would like to have the conversation.

Elemenope | August 30, 2008, 8:04pm | #

...and, P.S., until you invent a mind-reading device, please don't project your own opinions about what's going on in my head on me.

I do, vaguely, care about the kid's well-being. It's hard to *really* care (in the sense you seem to mean) without having a personal connection with the kid, which I obviously don't have.

I care *much more* about that which will impact me directly: the qualifications, positions, and temperament of the next Vice-president of the United States.

smacky | August 30, 2008, 8:44pm | #

ladies and gentlemen, write this down: smacky and I (in general) agree on something.


You can scrapbook it, AR. :)

Mike Laursen | August 30, 2008, 9:07pm | #

Didn't she give a $100 handout from oil companies in Alaska?

Are you talking about the oil lease payments that are paid out to all Alaskans each year. That was established a long time before Palin.

smacky | August 30, 2008, 9:14pm | #

Oops. I mean TAO. Hope I didn't blow your cover.

Fluffy | August 30, 2008, 11:44pm | #

I know very little about Palin, but I was seriously unimpressed with her performance in Dayton. Want to talk "institutional sexism"? If an unknown man had given that speech in Dayton, he would have been dismissed as a lightweight with zero presence and immediately tagged as a Quayle. Palin got to use some "I'm just a girl so don't expect me to give a decent performance in my first appearance on the national stage" points. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

With regard to the "abandoning her newborn child" discussion, I think her time as VP is less of an issue than the next two and a half months on the campaign trail is. If when my son was less than a year old, I said to my wife "Seeya, I'm going to go travel around the country for two and a half months giving speeches and shit. You can take care of the baby, right?" I would have been a lousy parent and a complete dick besides. So I don't think it's sexist criticism - it's just a reminder that the mere act of becoming a politician usually means that you have profound personality flaws that express themselves in odd ways.

prolefeed | August 31, 2008, 12:30am | #

From what little of Palin I know thus far, she seems to be about as good a pick from a major party as libertarians could hope for. But how McCain picked her is a bit disconcerting

If McCain's folks had the epiphany "OMG! She's a bit like that nutcase Ron Paul!" Palin likely wouldn't have gotten picked, yeah? The only way libertarianish people can get close enough to political power to start dismantling it is by stealth.

prolefeed | August 31, 2008, 12:34am | #

With regard to the "abandoning her newborn child" discussion, I think her time as VP is less of an issue than the next two and a half months on the campaign trail is. If when my son was less than a year old, I said to my wife "Seeya, I'm going to go travel around the country for two and a half months giving speeches and shit. You can take care of the baby, right?" I would have been a lousy parent and a complete dick besides.

Really? If she put the child in an orphanage, then maybe so. But are you really saying that MEN can't be competent parents? Because that is plain sexism. Lots of kids get raised primarily by one parent while the other one works, and turn out fine. Whether it is a father or a mother seems beside the point.

Wheezie | August 31, 2008, 1:27am | #

Is there any way to get to the bottom of the rumor that the new baby is not even hers? Sure a fat teenager can hide a pregnancy, but how does a 44 year old woman do it for 8 months. I need a doctor who was in the room to tell me there were multiple witnesses of the baby coming out of Palin. Rumor has it, it is her daughters... Sad but true... I need to know!

The Angry Optimist | August 31, 2008, 1:51am | #

Oops. I mean TAO. Hope I didn't blow your cover.

Bwa ha ha...I didn't notice until you said anything :-D

The Angry Optimist | August 31, 2008, 1:56am | #

I'm with prole. 70 days without "mommy" or "daddy" isn't even that long, especially with a newborn.

I'm amazed that people just kinda bat their eyes at year-long deployments of Soldiers who are fathers...but two months for a newborn for a mom? NO WAYZ!!!

smartass sob | August 31, 2008, 2:46am | #

Oops. I mean TAO. Hope I didn't blow your cover.

Hah! Too late now, Smacky - it's long gone. ;-)


Bwa ha ha...I didn't notice until you said anything

I did. ;-)

Bingo | August 31, 2008, 3:28am | #

The "its her daughters baby!" rumor is the dumbest shit I've heard in a long time.

Anita Dickens-Hyde | August 31, 2008, 3:46am | #

Dan Quayle with a twat!

Eric Dondero | August 31, 2008, 7:13am | #

Someone should ask the residents of the "small town" of Wasilla, Alaska, all 9000 of them, whether or not they feel they're "insignificant," as some of the Palin bashers here, seem to think they are.

Geez, can't have a small town Mayor as Vice-President of the United States. No Siree. Don't want someone in touch with small town values in such a high office.

Eric Dondero | August 31, 2008, 7:15am | #

Umm, let's keep something in mind here.

In 2000, the Libertarian Party ran someone for Vice-President who had served for two years as Mayor of Bellflower, California, pop. 10,000.

Anyone remember Art Olivier? He's still quite active in California Libertarian politics.

I wonder how Art feels about all these on-line "libertarians" bashing small town Mayors.

Elemenope | August 31, 2008, 7:30am | #

I'm amazed that people just kinda bat their eyes at year-long deployments of Soldiers who are fathers...but two months for a newborn for a mom? NO WAYZ!!!

Me too. Thankfully I'm not one of those people.

I wonder how Art feels about all these on-line "libertarians" bashing small town Mayors.

Donderooooooooooo! It's not so much that she was a small-town mayor, it's that she was *bad* at it. She came into the town and it had a balanced budget; when she left it was way in debt.

Eric Dondero | August 31, 2008, 9:04am | #

Elemnope, are you an Alaska resident? Do you live in Wasilla?

If Wasilla-ites thought she was such a failure, than how is it that she was elected Governor of Alaska? Don't you think the liberal-biased Anchorage Daily News would have slammed her on all that?

Elemenope | August 31, 2008, 9:08am | #

Donderoooooooooo --

As a supposed libertarian, you ought to know that debts usually don't hurt as they are incurred. Their pain is distributed *later*, long after the asshole that created them has moved on.

And as a human being you ought to know that personal, and sometimes even professional, affection often has little to do with competence or achievement.

Mosby | August 31, 2008, 9:15am | #

You know you're a *vagina* when every post you make includes one of *these*.

Elemenope | August 31, 2008, 9:22am | #

*Sorry*, Mosby, but I find that one of the *worst* problems with Internet text communications is a difficulty with easily indicating *emphasis*. You can spend five minutes on each post dicking around with hypertext markup tags, or you can use an *easier* method.

P Brooks | August 31, 2008, 9:47am | #

I need a doctor who was in the room to tell me there were multiple witnesses of the baby coming out of Palin. Rumor has it, it is her daughters.

As soon as we get that squared away, we can start verifying the alien abduction rumors. And we absolutely need to carbon date her birth certificate.

Good fucking grief.

joe | August 31, 2008, 10:11am | #

If Wasilla-ites thought she was such a failure, than how is it that she was elected Governor of Alaska?

Her primary opponent got caught in a scandal, IIRC.

TWC-Shilling for NoStar (still) | August 31, 2008, 10:56am | #

On Sarah and experience.....

Click my name

sensiblegal | August 31, 2008, 11:36am | #

John McCain must be outside of his mind picking Sarah Palin, and she is outside of her mind for accepting the offer. Just say no! John McCain why did you pick Sarah Palin, did you ask Condolezza Rice, or any other women with actual real experience. A former Mayor of a town with 9000 people, ridiculous... She is the one and half year Governor Of Alaska, under 700,000 people, and a mother of five..She is not qualified for this offer, maybe a cabinet member... she is the equivalent of being a city manager at best. You are not in the best of health, you are old,you should have chosen a better pick. If you are victorious, you have just made the worst decision in your entire life.. How do you suppose, you becoming ill or yet die that Sarah Palin could ever run this country.. Sarah, as a mother I am very disappointed in you for accepting this offer, and particularly being a mother of five children, your children should be the most important aspect of your life, your children will have such messed up lives, and the change from small town Alaska, will be devasting.. You need to carry your ... back to Alaska and sit down.. You are not helping the ticket..

J sub D | August 31, 2008, 2:44pm | #

From the Wikipedia* Joe Biden entry -

His wife and infant daughter died in a car accident shortly after he was first elected to the Senate in 1972. His two sons, Beau and Hunter, were seriously injured in the accident, but both eventually made full recoveries. Biden was sworn into office from their bedside. Persuaded not to resign in order to care for them, Biden began the practice of commuting an hour and a half each day on the train from his home in the Wilmington suburbs to Washington, D.C., which he continues to do.

So Joe Biden, widower, continued his time consuming job as a US senator while his two children under the age of 10 had just tragically lost their mother.

If Sarah Palin with a husband to help out rearing the kids is irresponsible, what are we to make of Senator Biden?

Blue teamers are cordially invited to explain why Biden's decisions are more responsible than Palin's.

* For this kind of stuff Wikipedia is quite reliable. And handy.

Elemenope | August 31, 2008, 3:05pm | #

Blue teamers are cordially invited to explain why Biden's decisions are more responsible than Palin's.

Biden was not campaigning all over the country to win a national office. He was literally a short train ride away. And, if I'm not mistaken, he came home every night.

And, FWIW, for a few years after the accident, he was a very low-key senator.

But otherwise, *sure*, his situation is exactly the same as Palin's.

Also, need I mention I dislike Biden too?

Fluffy | August 31, 2008, 3:11pm | #

I'm amazed that people just kinda bat their eyes at year-long deployments of Soldiers who are fathers...but two months for a newborn for a mom? NO WAYZ!!!

Actually, I think having a child when you're at risk of imminent deployment overseas is also pretty irresponsible.

Having to work is fine, as long as you're going to be at home part of every day or night. If that's not the case, they're called condoms. Buy them.

So Joe Biden, widower, continued his time consuming job as a US senator while his two children under the age of 10 had just tragically lost their mother.

If Sarah Palin with a husband to help out rearing the kids is irresponsible, what are we to make of Senator Biden?

Yeah, I don't agree with that either.

I think with a newborn it's worse, and they say Biden was going home every night, but I think Biden's behavior put his personal ambition ahead of his responsibilities too.

J sub D | August 31, 2008, 3:23pm | #

LMNOP,

Not a fan of either myself. Still I'm pretty damned sure that being a senator is more than a full time job. If you haven't noticed, politicians start campaigning for re-election immediately after being sworn in.

Nice try though. ;-)

Johnny Nowhere | August 31, 2008, 3:23pm | #

He was literally a short train ride away.

2 hours is short?

capelza | August 31, 2008, 3:38pm | #

Palin's little baby is a Down's baby, not just a newborn. I hope that the little tyke is only mildly Down's (there are great differences in Down's children..not all are fortunate to be the cute kids you see on TV) and I wish them all the best.

BUT, a Down's baby, from their birth on, require more care, in many cases surgeries and intense interaction with it's parents and caregivers to foster the development that allows them to interact in society on a functioning level.

J sub D | August 31, 2008, 4:11pm | #

capelza,
She has a husband. Biden's tykes lacked a mother. Neither of us has any business judging either of them over their child rearing decisions. We don't know shit about the families personal lives.

capelza | August 31, 2008, 4:36pm | #

I agree we have no say about individual parenting choices, but that doesn't mean that I can't judge her (and him, as well) and how it reflects on the decisions she might make reagarding less private issues.

I don't give a fuck about their personal lives. I just know issues regarding Down's babies, we'll leave it at that. From that perspective she and her husband have been pretty frackin' cavalier about it.

My heart goes out to them, they have a long road ahead of them. And joy, too...but it is hard frackin' work. And we do know from their own mouths..she thought it was just dandy to fly with an premature delivery evident...for a baby she knew was going to have issues already..and she was damn lucky.

GG | August 31, 2008, 4:42pm | #

Suddenly, everyone's an expert on what Down's babies need, the feminists are outraged that Sarah is a working mom, and Obama supporters are suddenly all about "experience." (God forbid Biden croak, eh?)

It's a crazy, mixed-up world!

there are great differences in Down's children..not all are fortunate to be the cute kids you see on TV ... I just know issues regarding Down's babies, we'll leave it at that.

How many Down's children do you even know?

All the hang-wringing over poor poor Trig is just too fucking much. I'm sure the Palins are well aware of Trig's special needs, and have the love, bonding and childcare situations well in hand. Even so, I'm sure they appreciate the outpouring of (feigned) concern over his well-being.

BTW, Trig is a real cutie! By all accounts, they appear to be a very happy, close-knit family. Something that cannot be said about most American families.

I'm curious as to what these same people say about autistic kids (who may not be diagnosed for years) being sent off to daycare for 9 hours a day at 6 weeks of age. Because I'll give you a clue, those kids are far worse off than Trig Palin is.

(I'm still voting for Barr.)

J sub D | August 31, 2008, 4:50pm | #

but that doesn't mean that I can't judge her (and him, as well) and how it reflects on the decisions she might make reagarding less private issues.

[real asshole]
All of Governor Palin' children are still alive. Not so with all VP candidates.
[/real asshole]

Pretty fucked up shit, huh?

capelza | August 31, 2008, 4:51pm | #

GG..the one I gave birth to?

Fluffy | August 31, 2008, 5:30pm | #

Look, I wouldn't vote for McCain if Palin was Ayn Fucking Rand herself, and the only reason I am involved in the Trigg discussion was because it was, like Mt. Everest, "there".

I actually have no concern for his well-being, so I'm not feigning anything. But someone said that leaving an infant for 2-3 months to indulge a personal ambition was the same as having a 9-5 job, and I just didn't think that was the case. It's not only rotten to the infant, but also your spouse [even an understanding spouse].

J sub D | August 31, 2008, 6:10pm | #

But someone said that leaving an infant for 2-3 months to indulge a personal ambition was the same as having a 9-5 job, and I just didn't think that was the case. It's not only rotten to the infant, but also your spouse [even an understanding spouse].

Military people do it all the time. This week some ship is deploying for 6-12 months with one or more crewmembers leaving an infant behind with a hopefully understanding spouse. Soldiers and Marines are packing up for Iraq and Afgahanistan under the same family circumstances. These servicemen and their dependents do not have near the financial resources that a governor has.

How rotten is that? Is ir irresponsible or selfish for an E-5 to put their career ambitions over their family?

capelza | August 31, 2008, 6:40pm | #

Yes, J sub D, military men and women are willingly deployed right after the birth of a special needs child, they are standing in line right after the birth of a Downs kid!. I mean they should just take some time off, I'm sure the military would support them fully..don't you? Do they even have that choice?

Palin, who does, chooses not to. She isn't enlisted in the military, she can resign at anytime. Though maybe I haven't heard..are they stop lossing VP's now?

The military analogy doesn't work. Members of the military do not have the option of "choice". Unless they sign up right after the birth of the special needs kid and volunteer for deployment.

Elemenope | August 31, 2008, 6:56pm | #

Though maybe I haven't heard..are they stop lossing VP's now?

It has occurred to me that the only reason Palin said yes was that perhaps McCain begged her because nobody else would take it.

libarbarian | August 31, 2008, 7:22pm | #

You mean .... Sarah "Fire the Guy who Dumped my Sister" Palin?

Sarah "Fire Everyone of Questionable Loyalty" Palin?

There is NO FREAKING WAY I want a VP who has a long track record of using their offices to carry out personal vendettas or values loyalty over competence.

If Sarah Palin gets to be VP I sure wouldn't want to be the guy who broke her heart in highschool or the girl who beat her out for head cheerleader.

libarbarian | August 31, 2008, 7:24pm | #

"Vengeance IS Mine" sayeth the Veep!!!!!

The Angry Optimist | August 31, 2008, 7:44pm | #

Look, I wouldn't vote for McCain if Palin was Ayn Fucking Rand herself

The Angry Optimist | August 31, 2008, 7:45pm | #

Look, I wouldn't vote for McCain if Palin was Ayn Fucking Rand herself

Are you kidding me? As old as McCain is? "The Gulch States of America"...where cigarettes are cheap and plentiful and the stars in the union are replaced by a dollar sign!

GG | August 31, 2008, 7:50pm | #

GG..the one I gave birth to?

Well, you sure pwnd me! I guess withholding your Down's bona fides paid off, huh?

Having a Down's child does not give you license to judge the Palins' situation, especially when no one is privy to their particulars. And once again, he does have a father.

Fluffy, I've read you enough to know you wouldn't feign anything, even to be polite. I was speaking more about the whole god damned interwebz left and their unbelievable hypocrisy and breathtaking double standards anyway.

capelza | August 31, 2008, 7:56pm | #

Oh GG, I shouldn't HAVE to "withhold" my bona fides. You are the one who made the jack ass assumption, running off half cocked that I or anyone else opining on this board certainly wouldnj't know what they were talking about. Because sometimes we do.

I don't need a "license" to judge the Palins...I'm doing it anyway..so buck up, fella... :)

By the way, the Palins talked about this to the public when the baby was born...it isn't stuff "dug up"..it's in the newspapers.

GG | August 31, 2008, 8:37pm | #

I'm sorry, capelza, but your bona fides, your smilies, your name-calling, your excessive ellipses, your directives, and even your scare quotes have all failed to convince me that you give a shit about Trig Palin or know even the first thing about the care he's receiving by his family.

Is that really the fucking assertion here? That Trig Palin is being neglected? SRSLY? As you may or may not be aware, there are a hell of a lot of abused and neglected kids out there to worry about, and Trig Palin ain't one of them.

So "in the name of our children" get a fucking grip already!

(I am shitting you negative, that quote "In the name of our children" is on page 29 of the 2008 Democratic Party Platform.)

capelza | August 31, 2008, 9:06pm | #

Do you know anything? I like ellipses..and I use them a lot, and today I felt like using smilies..what are you? A big baby that has to resort to grammar police tactics? You sure schooled me! But hey, have it.

Look, this isn't a "in the name of the children". I could give a flyer about my "bona fides"..I didn't come in here announcing my self as a a parent of a Down's child. I shouldn't have to. You assume anyone that disagrees with you is just wanking. It pissed me off, because you were wrong and assumed I was talking out of the side of my mouth.

And yet, there you go mind reading again assuming what I think or don't think about a small Down's child. You are already wrong with your initial statement, so...well, I don't need to convince "you".

I am not impressed by her casual approach to giving premature birth to a child she already knew was Downs. It says more about her and her choices, reckless ones. And I gave my reasons why. Again, I say reckless..and lucky.

Dont like it...continue to get huffy and read my mind. But you are still being a self-righteous ass yourself. Just one that got caught in your own whatever...

The Angry Optimist | August 31, 2008, 9:17pm | #

capelza - maybe you can clearly delineate what exactly was cavalier and/or reckless behavior in this situation.

capelza | August 31, 2008, 10:30pm | #

TAO...thank you for asking calmly.

A woman, knowing she is carrying a baby with Down's who may at birth have complications that require immediate removal to a neo-natal intensive care unit, prematurely starts leaking her fluid and experiencing contractions. So, fine, she goes ahead with her speech. THEN gets on a plane for hours, again, in early labour for a Down's baby. What would the plane do if she and or the baby experience a crisis? Because she did not inform the airline either. And not to be crude, but by the 5th baby, well, it could have come very quickly.

It is a textbook case for what NOT to do.

There are hospitals in Texas, damn fine ones. She and her baby were lucky.

As for caring for a newborn with Down's, an infant with Down's, etc...to be fair, if their approach is to treat the baby like a regular baby, there might be some merit with except for health issues but to keep the baby developing anywhere near normal levels does require more attention and care.

That said, and this is only my opinion, she was very casual, determined to have her baby at home, while taking a tremendous risk doing so and rather than focus on her job (90 days a year) and family at home, just as the baby will be begin to need more and attention to keep up, she decides that going for the job of VP is a super idea.

It's just crappy judgement and risk taking..and it does not impress me. And I certainly wouldn't want her taking that attitude to Washington, DC.

Dave2 | September 1, 2008, 1:21am | #

capelza, it's not a question of grammar (or, more accurately, a question of correct punctuation). Using ellipses all the time is fucking irritating. It's like using all caps or all lowercase. Cut that shit out.

Dave2 | September 1, 2008, 1:30am | #

Oh, and about the abortion thing earlier in the thread.

There's more at stake than just "when does the pre-natal lifeform become a full-fledged person with a right to life?" Remember the Judith Thomson argument (more-or-less endorsed by Rothbard) that even if the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, that doesn't give it the right to use someone else's body to stay alive.

Bingo | September 1, 2008, 2:13am | #

even if the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, that doesn't give it the right to use someone else's body to stay alive.

Awesome, let's extrapolate that argument to children in general and we can really get libertarianism to jump the shark!

foobie | September 1, 2008, 3:07am | #

You know, as someone who has no real horse in this fight (can't stand either party offering), I'm thoroughly amused by the animosity for Palin, especially on the left.

The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that they're truly and honestly frightened by her.

I'm sure there were quite a few party points that would have been applied to Romney or Jindal, et.al., if they were chosen, but the 'Oh my God' level of commentary (and the belaboring of any *possible* negative) is telling me that many of the Obama-ites are scared to death of Palin (or of the combination of McCain and Palin).

I can't even say that I'd be entirely satisfied it Barr (negligable chance that he may have) were to take the election, but if McCain/Palin were to win, I could live with that, just to watch a bunch of heads explode (probably on both sides, but especially on the left).

The Angry Optimist | September 1, 2008, 3:14am | #

yeah, great Bingo! Children have no positive rights....EVAR!

Mr. Nice Guy | September 1, 2008, 8:20am | #

"Children have no positive rights....EVAR!"

Actually I hear libertarians talk quite a bit about children's rights.

Their right to contract.

Child labor, a winning plank in 08. You know you want to.

Elemenope | September 1, 2008, 9:16am | #

MNG --

For what it's worth, the vast majority of kids I have known (including, when I was a kid, *myself*) had jobs; many as early as fourteen. Even earlier if they lived on a farm.

It's not child labor, per se, that's the problem. It's exploitation and abusive employment practices.

Dave2 | September 1, 2008, 11:39am | #

Bingo wrote:
Awesome, let's extrapolate that argument to children in general and we can really get libertarianism to jump the shark!

Great, why don't you start us off by assimilating (i) having a right to be taken care of by someone while you're young, to (ii) having a right to grow inside someone's body, give her months of bleary-eyed sickness, and finally rip open her private parts on the way out?

miche | September 1, 2008, 12:48pm | #

And in other Palin news, her 17 y/o daughter is knocked up. FWIW, I think Palin's response is a good one.

/Still wouldn't vote McCain and still pissy about Dondero's glee.

Jennifer | September 1, 2008, 2:14pm | #

Having a Bible-thumpin' 44-year-old grandma on the ticket should help McCain appeal to the all-important "backwoods hick" demographic.

Jennifer | September 1, 2008, 2:27pm | #

Apparently Palin supports abstinence-only sex ed, too. This just keeps getting sadder.

libarbarian | September 1, 2008, 3:20pm | #

You know, as someone who has no real horse in this fight (can't stand either party offering), I'm thoroughly amused by the animosity for Palin, especially on the left.

I do have a horse in it and I'm still unnerved by the fact that I'm hearing more about Trig Palin than legitimate things like her attempts to have her ex-brother-in-law fired.

I'll take "abuse of power" over "she might not be the best mommy" as a reason to oppose someone, any day of the week.

Ad in the "abstinence only" sex ed and support for creationism-called-ID and there is no need to rag on her as a mother.

miche | September 1, 2008, 3:30pm | #

Jennifer,
While I normally love your comments I must point out that there's nothing in the article I linked that suggests Palin to be abstinence-only with regard to sex ed. And as a young grandmother myself (not the Bible-thumpin' kind), I think Palin's family situation will appeal to families who've figured out that your kiddos don't always do things as you'd like them too.

Seamus | September 1, 2008, 3:48pm | #

even if the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, that doesn't give it the right to use someone else's body to stay alive.

So if I'm a conjoined twin, I have no right to use my sibling's body to stay alive? And by the same token, I guess he has no right to use mine to stay alive. So whichever of us pulls out a scalpel and cut the other one off is the winner here. Or do we flip a coin to decide which of us lives and which dies?

Seamus | September 1, 2008, 3:58pm | #

VPOTUS is a more demanding and rigorous job than the average 40-hr a week deal. And it isn't being taken, I would imagine, to put "food on Palin's table".

The office of vice president is only as demanding and rigorous as the president wants to make it, and even then only if the vice president agrees to take on the responsibilities assigned by the president. Harry Truman and Veeps before him were notoriously kept in the dark about anything happening in the Executive Branch, and were expected to keep quiet and preside over the Senate. (And Veeps don't even have to to that, since the Senate has a president pro tem who can handle that demanding job if the Veep doesn't want to.)

Jennifer | September 1, 2008, 4:20pm | #

While I normally love your comments I must point out that there's nothing in the article I linked that suggests Palin to be abstinence-only with regard to sex ed.

I wasn't referring to that article. In 2006 the Eagle Forum had a questionnaire; one of the questions was "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

And Palin's answer was "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

Also: Palin claims to be such a good mother, oh-so-concerned with what's best for her family, yet she willingly chose to enter the national spotlight as McCain's VP candidate even though she knew full well that meant the spotlight would also shine on her unmarried teenage knocked-up daughter. Oooh, yeah, them's some goooooood

Jennifer | September 1, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Comment got cut off. I tried to say "good family values there, Sarah."

John | September 1, 2008, 4:28pm | #

Jennifer,

So Palin should have anticipated that people like you would call her daughter a whore? How many guys nailed you before you were 18? Oh but you used birth control so it was okay. Birth control never fails. Oh and if you would have gotten pregnant, you would have aborted it and the fact that Palin's daughter didn't is clearly yours or anyone else's business. You have every right to rip on her for it or somehow look down upon that choice.

If Palin were a Democrat and her daughter got pregnant you would be appalled at anyone taking exception to it. But since she is a Republican, I guess it is okay to talk about what a bad mother she is and to totally invade her daughter's privacy. Yeah right.

Jennifer | September 1, 2008, 4:43pm | #

But since she is a Republican, I guess it is okay to talk about what a bad mother she is and to totally invade her daughter's privacy. Yeah right.

"Invade her privacy?" John, the reason I know this is because her mother issued a press release.

So Palin should have anticipated that people like you would call her daughter a whore?

Please highlight where I called the girl a whore. Difficulty: I never did. But I DO think that being known worldwide as a girl who got pregnant before finishing high school will make her life MUCH harder than it has to be.

miche | September 1, 2008, 4:50pm | #

Fair enough, Jennifer, on the source abstinence source. My own little grandbabies are here (evacuated from NOLA and Gustav) and I hadn't gone searching for Palin's positions past the article I linked.

Jennifer | September 1, 2008, 5:11pm | #

The truly sad thing is, people who promote abstinence-only and wait-until-marriage generally have the attitude that sex outside the confines of the marriage bed is somehow immoral or shameful. Which means that poor Bristol was likely raised to view sex as something shameful and nasty, and right now probably feels deeply ashamed of her alleged "sin." Bad enough to feel ashamed in private; much worse to have your mother issue a press release announcing your "shame" to the world.

TJIT | September 1, 2008, 9:20pm | #

Jennifer,

Nice spin but the reason there was a press release was because some maggots including posters on daily kos and Andrew Sullivan were flogging the rumor that Sarah Palin was not actually pregnant and that her child was actually her daughters.

That is why there was a press release.

The buckets of misogynist, woman hating slime the obama supporters have thrown at the palin family is utterly revolting.

Scratch a liberal find a fascist now has a corollary.

Scratch a liberal find a woman hating, keep em barefoot and in the kitchen thug.

TJIT | September 1, 2008, 9:38pm | #

This link has a good list of some of the volumes of hypocritical slime obama supporters have been throwing at palin.

Calling these slime slingers scum insults scum

BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY! [NOW UPDATED WITH EVEN MORE DASTARDLY HYPOCRISYNESS!]

1) Alan Colmes: Poor prenatal care (waiting too long after her water broke to get to a hospital) on Palin’s part created a Downs baby. Reached for comment, Science suggested Colmes shut his ignorant yap — and for Chrissakes, get a tan.

2) Andrew Sullivan, et al: A child needs a stay-at-home-mother! — if that child happens to be the child of a Republican breeder! Or haven’t you people been paying attention to the nuances of establishment feminist theory?*

Lots more of that at the link.

CLH | September 2, 2008, 2:51am | #

"Frankly, I’d rather have someone in the White House who hasn’t been corrupted by too much time in politics."

Not a lot of logic there. Being corrupt, or corruptible, isn't dependent on exposure to professional politics. Pick any field. Set a timer. Imagine endless variables -- many of which you can't control for -- both personal and cultural. Palin may very well have arrived corrupt, saw an opportunity to win her seat(s) based on her opponent's obvious weakness (corruption), and built and maintained a less obviously corrupt government. I'm so sick of men giving women these kinds of passes -- that's part of this nomination strategy, natch. And I'm a woman, in case that matters.

M. Simon | September 2, 2008, 7:17am | #

Most of you are missing the critical issue.

Palin is an energy expert and energy (and the non-funding of despots) is a top issue in this election year.

T Boone is running Republican ads that are supposedly a business proposition. Heh.

Elemenope | September 2, 2008, 10:50am | #

Palin is an energy expert...

Say, wha...?

Also, on the topic of hypocrisy, it is notable that those who are usually the first to condemn unwed and/or teenage mothers as evil hussies are giving Palin's kid a pass for no apparent reason. It is way too much to ask for consistency in this world, I suppose.

Kant feel Pietzsche, my Balzac is Ietzsche | September 2, 2008, 11:24am | #

"You know, as someone who has no real horse in this fight..."

"I do have a horse in it and I'm still unnerved by the fact..."

HORSE FIGHT! HORSE FIGHT!

BTW, I just loooove ellipses ;p

Hogan | September 2, 2008, 3:27pm | #

Also, on the topic of hypocrisy, it is notable that those who are usually the first to condemn unwed and/or teenage mothers as evil hussies are giving Palin's kid a pass for no apparent reason.

Maybe because she's bearing the child and marrying the father? Just a guess.

Peter K. | September 2, 2008, 4:05pm | #

"Frankly, I’d rather have someone in the White House who hasn’t been corrupted by too much time in politics."

Yeah, but it's not always the case. In O Brother Where Art Thou?, I'd take the corrupt Pappy O'Daniel over the "reform" candidate, KKK member Homer Stokes, friend of the little man. Not much of choice, though.

Palin seems like a sop to the social conservative Shiite Baptist hordes who have rallied to her cause against the vindictive liberal media elites. As someone pointed out, she is pro-life, not very libertarian in that way, but at least she's better than Huckabee.

Makes me laugh at the corporate libertarians' predicament.

Russ 2000 | September 2, 2008, 5:00pm | #

Va-va-va-Vice President.