Contra Julian, I think it's fair to blame her handlers on the extent of her disaster on Katie Couric; she would have done better answering the questions off the cuff and admitting genuine ignorance. Instead they tried to cram her with answers to everything, and got . . . what usually happens in oral exams when a student tries to learn an entire semester's work five minutes before go time. She looked like an idiot studying to be a moron, and not studying very hard, either.
Nor do I think it's quite right to compare it to college debate. No one in a college debate tournament tapes your answers and airs them to several million hostile viewers looking for errors. It's a lot easier to bluff, because the odds are that mistakes won't be caught. The deer in the headlights look was someone who knew that almost anything she said might be wrong, and would show up on the television news on continuous loop the next day.
But the fundamental fact is that Sarah Palin needs to cram because she doesn't know anything. For all I know, she's a genuine expert on the main issues facing Alaska. But the main issues facing Alaska aren't all that similar to the main issues facing people in other states, and they're very much not like the main issues of foreign policy. She is just not ready for this role. Maybe she would have been in eight years, but I think that door is closed.
Andrew wants to know why I'm more freaked out by the bailout package than by Sarah Palin. There are several answers to this. The first is that I did freak out--just ask Peter Suderman, who obligingly listened to me rant about her for forty-five minutes after her convention speech. The second is that, for all this, with the McCain campaign flaming out so spectacularly, I don't find her that worrisome. The third is that even if she gets into office, there's a better than even chance she won't end up as president. And the fourth is that while the last thing I said about her was hardly complementary, I haven't had as much time as I might have liked to devote to Sarah Palin. Andrew may not have heard, but there have been a few interesting developments in the financial markets over the last few weeks. As an economics blogger, I was regretfully forced to forgo full time devotion to the vice presidential race and turn to more trivial matters.
« What am I so afraid of? | Main | This is your head, blogging » Yes, Andrew, Sarah Palin is a disaster30 Sep 2008 12:57 pm TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference Yes, Andrew, Sarah Palin is a disaster:
» Sarah Palin Is Still A Huge Mother Fucking Moron from Prose Before Hos Comments (389) |
Andrew has lost whatever marbles he once had.
His obsession, to the point of completely embarassing himself over Trig Palin, and don't kid yourself, he completely humiliated himself by demanding 'on the record' confirmations, with all of Sarah Palin's alleged faults is pathetic.
His blogging over the last several weeks is an embarrassment to The Atlantic Monthly.
If he had been able to confine himself to facts and had been able to keep the tone of hysteria out of his posts, he might have a case, but he didn't and he doesn't.
The typical Vice President, once in office, does little more than read the newspaper each day to find out whether or not the President is dead. Al Gore and Dick Cheney were fairly atypical as VPs go. Sarah Palin is interesting more because of what she tells us about John McCain than about herself.
While it's true that McCain has a better chance than some of dying or becoming incapacitated while in office, the odds are still over 80% that he'll survive just fine.
Hence, I also find the bailout package to be more interesting news.
Poor Palin's answers are quite simply, pageant answers.
Sloppy amorphous buzzword filled statements that try to encompass a larger target area.
I think that is all she's got sadly.
I disagree.
Poor Palin is a test of our Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
She is, quite obviously, what the Founders most feared. A demagogue, a candidate profoundly unfit for office with only personal popularity to reccommend them.
I suggest you read this if you can make the time, Megan.
Sarah Palin Endorses Hamas
If I were Andrew Sullivan, I would probably want to get other people from the Atlantic talking about Sarah Palin, too. Might just move the embarrassing hits a little further down on the Google search results queue.
So those of whose first response to Palin was "she's unqualified" are now acknowledged to have been right, rather than excoriated for our prejudices against rural Americans who didn't go to Ivy League schools?
Or were we right for all the wrong reasons, and therefore still not to be trusted? Sort of like everyone who was right about Iraq shouldn't be trusted, and everyone who thought Nouriel Roubini and Paul Krugman were right about looming severe recession shouldn't be trusted, and...?
"No one could have foreseen..."
I look at presidents and vice presidents like I look at the stock market. We can spend forever and a day trying to pick the winners and losers but a monkey throwing darts would probably be as likely to make a good choice.
That being said....you are stuck with her now
But the fundamental fact is that Sarah Palin needs to cram because she doesn't know anything.
See, I have the same reaction to Obama. Except that, rather than having three weeks to cram, he's had a year and a half (but only seems to have started seriously about 6 months ago, well after he became the frontrunner). I don't see why other people don't see this as terribly scary.
Andrew has gone from somewhat objective to straight-out shill for Obama. His hysterics over the last few weeks have rendered him simply unreadable. His Trig Palin parentage quasi-attack was shameful, and still hasn't evoked an apology. His justification is that no question is out-of-bounds for a journalist. Nice, can't wait for that expose on whether Obama's children are his own.
Inability to to admit mistakes. Sound like anyone that you know, Andrew?
Megan - You are an idiot. Even your attempts at sarcasm fail. The chances of Palin becoming president are less than 50%....and therefore no one needs worry?
Atlantic - There are better writers out there! Fire this one and get one of them.
Slightly off-topic, but it is actually harder to bluff in college debate than you might think. Why? Because you have to have your research with you when you cite something or you lose.
And since chances are that the opposing team has read the same things that you have, getting called on it probable if you step over the line.
As for having my debates taped and played nationwide, so long as they skip the one where I was hungover and vomited after 1AR, I'm cool with that. Pressure is pressure, and debate is verbal football for nerds. Take no prisoners, expect no mercy.
Some of us are scared of Obama, his action in this bailout fiasco has confirmed for me that he's a political opportunist who is perfectly happy to sit on the sidelines and watch the country implode if it will help him get elected, Obama has actually perfected the Karl Rove style of politics, which is to tell the people what they want to hear, no matter how false the promises are. Obama has said nothing of substance on the bailout plan, because he has nothing to say, and worse, when he does say something that is even remotely substantial, it comes out of Liberal Democratic Playbook 101.
I very much doubt that John McCain will die in office, so I don't care that much about Sarah Palin not being qualified to be president.
This is a moronic idea. Education IS experience, at least when it comes to building intellectual capacity. It is not 'elitist' to point out that Harvard Law provides a more rigorous education than the sports journalism program at Idaho; it's a fact.
Can there be any more pointless debate than bloggers pointing fingers at each other for their choices of emphasis (e.g. why haven't you spent as much outrage on Sarah Palin as you have on the bailout?)
I get this all the time. As a libertarian blogger, for example, I get mail saying "why don't you spend more time on the 2nd amendment." Well, because its just not that interesting to me. That does not mean I don't support second amendment rights, but I'm not running the NY Times here -- I blog in my limited time on what catches my interest (or ire). It's intensely personal. I am happy to defend my opinions, but it's utterly pointless to have to defend my focus. If you are interested in the 2nd amendment (or sarah palin) there are 6 zillion blogs happy to serve you content on those topics.
Griefer wrote:
"She is, quite obviously, what the Founders most feared. A demagogue, a candidate profoundly unfit for office with only personal popularity to reccommend them."
That (other than the feminin pronoun) describes Obama to a 'T'. Given his anit-First Amendment stances on criticism, shouldn't Obama scare us more than Palin's inexperience?
Sarah Palin Endorses Hamas.
I read the Goldberg piece. While Palin as president is a terrifying possibility, I don't interpret her wording on the Hamas question as an endorsement for these terrorists. Rather, I strongly suspect she had no idea (bet she does now!) who Hamas is.
See, I have the same reaction to Obama. Except that, rather than having three weeks to cram, he's had a year and a half .
You've got to be kidding me. One can find ample items on which to disagree with Obama, but it's a tad over the top to say he's similar to Palin in that he "doesn't know anything." I mean, he studied IR at an Ivy League institution, and later graduated with high honors from an institution crammed with the some of the brainiest people on the planet. He also edited the Law Review, and later taught at Chicago. There's simply no comparing the intellectual capacities of Palin and Obama. She's never read a newspaper. He's an erudite Harvard-educated lawyer and bestselling author. None of this means he'd make a good president, mind you. I've heard more than one wag opine that Jimmy Carter had the best brain to occupy the White House since Jefferson. But still...
Education IS experience, at least when it comes to building intellectual capacity. It is not 'elitist' to point out that Harvard Law provides a more rigorous education than the sports journalism program at Idaho; it's a fact.
What does that have to do with cramming, the attempt to quickly memorize facts and concepts? Obama's educational experiences might have made him better at it, but that doesn't change the fact that his ticket's presidential candidate has been cramming.
I don't personally think Obama knows much about translating esoteric policy concepts and ideaologies into policy because he has never managed anything beyond the Harvard Law Review ande he has precious little experience as a legislator and fewer accomplishments.
Sarah Palin actually has a track record of running the state of Alaska and the town of Wasilla.
I don't think she is as stupid as some of her interview answers might indicate, either she has been totally over-rehearsed and is now so afraid of making a mistake she can't answer a simple question or her views are so far from McCain's that she can't be allowed to answer for herself.
If you don't hate Sarah Palin as much as I do, you're unpatriotic.
Gee Megan, you allegedly have an MBA from Penn, yet you continue to say increasingly stupid things about the financial situation. You have had how many years to cram for this? Yet, the best you can say, after a reasonably good start, is "if you we don't spend $700 billion to bail out my friends on Wall Street we might have a depression or then again we might not".
You continue to believe in global warming despite mounting evidence to the contrary. You continue to think that you are entitled to despise anyone who doesn't live your lifestyle and maintain that anything but living exactly as you do is "unsustainable" whatever that means. Intellectually Megan you are a complete disaster. Yet, you somehow manage to get paid to write for reputable magazine. That says more about the sorry state of journalism than it does about you.
What evidence is there that the "McCain campaign is flaming out so spectacularly?" The polls are still pretty close. We aren't talking about a Bob Dole or Walter Mondale kind of campaign failure here. McCain may very well lose, but neither candidate or campaign has clearly lost the election yet.
It is obvious that damage control is evident in many of these posts...
People who are willing to sacrifice their own hides to protect their vicious egos.
Sullivan obviously has an obsessive hatred of all things Palin. Therefore, he disqualifies himself and has no credibility when it comes critiquing her. There is plenty to critique, but you should probably look to other sources to find more balanced information.
At any rate...the media hatred will drive millions of people to the debate on Thursday who would not normally watch. They have driven down expectations to where they are almost non-existent. People will be tuning in to see how stupid, incompetent and generally horrible this Palin person is...
...the risk is, they may see a person that differs greatly from the caricature the media has portrayed. The media did the same thing prior to her convention speech and it backfired.
The question is...will she confirm the media caricature to all the middle Americans watching or will the media effort to destroy her backfire again? Since the bar has been set so low...I expect the latter.
Unfortunately, when you make your bed you will probably lie in it...
It depends on what is the reason for her poor performances with Gibson and Couric. While I thought Gibson was unbelievably condescending and rude to her and that the frenzy about the Bush Doctrine was totally crazy, her answers were extremely rambling and not very coherent, especially for somenoe who has already been elected to a statewide office.
Her peformance with Couric was equally if not more rambling and semi-coherent. While the media coverage of her was overly critical and semi-hysterical, she didn't answer the questions very capably.
If she rambled because she was overtrained and became so afraid of deviating from the talking points, then she can rebound. If she either doesn't have any existing knowledge of these issues AT ALL or her own views are totally different from the talking points, then she will not do well in the debate.
Sure, Megan.
And the Haberdasher from Kansas City--HE was eminently qualified in contrast to Palin, right?
As for having my debates taped and played nationwide, so long as they skip the one where I was hungover and vomited after 1AR, I'm cool with that.
CEDA, or NDT?
It's unfair that "college debate" gets used as a tagline when someone means "incompetent argument." I doubt anyone who hasn't been in the room when someone's talking at Ingsoc-harangue speed has any idea how college debate really looks, or how little relation it has to, y'know, presidential debate.
I don't have much to say on the substance of your argument, I think you are right. However, as a former college debater I know that college debates are taped to check for cheating or to scout other teams. In addition, they are scrutinized. Take http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXwy2VuA2V4 for instance, which led to the removal of Dr. Shanahan from Fort Hays University after a college debate at a national tournament.
well...that is one of the things that has driven me out of the Republican party.
Megan, why can't you just acknowledge that McCain is just a carnival shill that will do absolutely anything to become president?
Andrew Sullivan is a disaster.
Now, back to the bailout. Er, rescue plan.
As a former fan who once donated to the Daily Dish back before Sullivan was being subsidized by the Atlantic, I find Sullivan's clearly unhinged blind hatred for Palin to be fairly dismaying.
Sullivan has always been a bit, well, emotional, but his crusade to destroy Palin has crossed the line from an emotional writing style to evidence of a psycholigical break that really needs treatment. Palin is certainly not as qualified as some other GOP VP possibilities, and perhaps she really is in over her head. But so what? Plenty of other politicians have fit that description. Why dedicate yourself to Palin's destruction when there are so many other issues to discuss these days?
The Atlantic really should reconsider giving Sullivan such a prominent platform. If they don't take action soon the magazine will seem complicit in Sullivan's coming mental breakdown. Given the tone of his writing recently it wouldn't shock me if he eventually gets arrested as a stalker - perhaps for breaking in to the Palin family home and searching through the Governor's underwear drawer (assuming he isn't shot in the process).
Because if you have an education, you don't have to cram.
Because Obama has been thinking about these issues for years and Palin hasn't.
Because like it or not, the woman just doesn't know what she is talking about unless she can demonize someone.
Maybe I've missed something over the years, but I was under the impression that Megan got her batchelor's degree (English) from Penn and her MBA from Chicago.
Maybe someone can enlighten me as to Andrew Sullivan pre-Palin.
I read he was supposed to be some kind of a conservative but he appears to me to be shilling for Obama in the most obvious way.
He also appears to have personalized almost everytyhing related to the presidential campaign, including his fixation on all things Palin.
I agree that The Atlantic should not tolerate his unprofessionalism.
Those snarking at Andrew Sullivan should contemplate the following post he made under the title of "40 Million Watched:"
He wrote this more than three weeks ago and his comments on Palin/McCain are as true now as they were then. The page-view figures Sullivan quotes are truly staggering and reflect an intense public interest in the appropriate vetting of the Vice Presidential candidate. A vetting the McCain campaign is intent on not performing.
As usual YouTube provides us with insightful analysis with musical accompaniment:
Sarah Palin: Victim of Circumstance
You know, the day before yesterday I met someone whose public persona resembles Palin's. She's the new Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy here. She was raised in Virginia and St. Louis, and has a Southern accent combined with that rapid-fire, self-deprecating St. Louis conversational folksiness.
She also speaks Mandarin and has a couple of decades worth of experience in foreign relations.
I just find this whole Palin argument to have been infuriating. There are great numbers of women with Palin's authentic American cultural aura and personal charm who also are extremely well educated and accomplished. McCain had a wide field to choose from. He picked someone who was manifestly unqualified and as it turns out doesn't appear to be very bright. Those of us who quickly pointed this out were accused of being prejudiced against Palin for her accent or her class or something. Those arguments were crap. The class prejudice argument was utterly wrong. Sandra Day O'Connor and Janet Reno were both impressive women from rural backgrounds, and nobody, regardless of partisan background, called them unqualified or dumb.
This is a variation on the theme of "I can't believe --- didn't win, I mean everyone I know voted for him". Palin will be fine. Not in NYC she won't be, but in rural areas she is just fine. The trap/attacks by Gibson and Couric were just that. Made her look bad? You bet. Hurt McCain? Yes, but only because he threw "Our Sarah" to the wolves in New York. Stupid bastard.
As for the financial meltdown; it will be worth the pain if fear and greed finally force voters to pay some God damned attention to what has been going on for the past three decades. The left hopes Obama will win because he appears to be strong on the economy. This is true only superficially. If voters get really scared, and do some real research and studying, they will end up on right wing boards where Obama is being butchered more than Palin.
I have been a regular reader of your blog in the recent months. I would like you to keep the blog about economics, leave politics and its crap to others. I would say this is one of the few decent blogs on economics which i enjoy without political nonsense. Andrew ego bubble is bursting like the US housing market.
well...i think you should also read this Megan. Serious
It appears that many gave McCain the benefit of the doubt during his debate with Obama. However, he proved to be a deliberately shrewd and churlish, synic bent on nothing less than defaming, denegrating and otherwise castigating his opponent.
It is no wonder he could not look his opponent in the eyes, nor could he look into the camera and face the American people.
It is no wonder he had a problem with shaking Mr. Obama's hand, even though the senator made his way across the stage to do so.
He is a rather frightening choice in my estimation. Hopefully, Sarah will think for herself and refuse to take on his mannerisms or characteristics.
Obama is living in a dream world.
He is no way going to be able to lower taxes on 95% of Americans and he seems to think "taxing the rich" is as easy as shooting moose. It isn't. I guarantee you Warren Buffet is going to keep on paying 17% in taxes because he can afford to spend millions on tax lawyers and tax accountants.
Obama is going to win this election for a variety of reasons including the over the top media bias and lies, McCain's missteps and the economy.
What happens after that, no one knows. I think he will try to socialize several sectors of the economy and put forth a New Deal II. Socialism under the guise of democracy.
"No one in a college debate tournament tapes your answers and airs them to several million hostile viewers looking for errors."
A better comparison would be to having a series of debates taped, so that only the very worst moments could be taken out of context and strung together to make the debater look as bad as possible. Couric was with Palin for two days. Her handlers reportedly felt very good about how Palin responded on many topics, but of course those answers didn't make the cut.
There's a selection bias. Couric picked what would make Palin look as bad as possible, perhaps for political purposes, perhaps because the bad parts fit Katie's prior expectations and therefore seemed more true to her, or perhaps just to make the interview a bigger story.
If someone followed Biden for two days, they could surely pick up some gaffes on, say, television in the 1920s, or saying that Bush sent an Assistant Secretary of State to Iran for direct talks when it was an undersecretary that went to Europe to simply sit in on talks between the Europeans and Iran. Biden mangles facts regularly.
How many of us could be scrutinized for two days and never have even one awkward moment? It's too early to form conclusions - let's see how she does in the debate, without the selective editing.
I think Palin benefited too much from being on the edge of people's awareness for so long. The good things about her filtered in and built up a reputation that may not have been warranted.
I think a similar thing happened with Obama. I don't really agree that, in general, he has 'been thinking about these issues for years'. I do think he was aware of the issues and did absorb ongoing events better than Palin. He's also gotten much better at putting together what he knows into coherent answers, and not trotting out total BS to an interviewer. I don't recall if he was ever given two oral examinations when he first hit the Senate to see how they compare though.
When it comes down to it, as annoyed as I am about McCain, I won't vote for Obama for a few reasons. Besides the totally different politics
1. I'm disgusted with the Obama campaigns attack on free speech - both for threatening government action against anyone who ran 'misleading' ads against him (like he hasn't run misleading ads?) and for encouraging his supporters to overload phone lines on radio shows interviewing people like Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso.
2. Related to the above - while I'm disgusted by a politician using the government to combat free speech, I'm terrified of a politician who will do that and not get called on it by the Press. No matter how good or bad a McCain presidency will be, it will be one hounded by the media. I'm afraid of what the 'MSM' will allow Obama to get away with, considering what they've already let him get away with.
3. I could never vote for someone who says this about the Supreme court:
"And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout.
. . . [S]ometimes we're only looking at academics or people who've been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.'
I have to agree with Supradeep above ... the comments were really, really out of control before the moderation thing a few weeks ago. But they're starting to get back into that neighborhood again.
For those of you who don't know the definition of "socialism," 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
This is what is happening in banking, wallstreet, and inevitably in a city near you. How is it that this is happening under this administration?
How is it that every fear, distortion, or otherwise drama-queen sentiment is evident right here and now, before anyone else is elected in November?
Alas, that which you fear the most is already upon you.
His Trig Palin parentage quasi-attack was shameful, and still hasn't evoked an apology. His justification is that no question is out-of-bounds for a journalist. Nice, can't wait for that expose on whether Obama's children are his own.
As a factual matter Sullivan raised questions that nobody has been able to address. There's no doubt that Michelle Obama is the mother of their children because there's ample record of her being pregnant, including a set of completely open medical records.
None of that seems to exist for Trig Palin. Gov. Palin seems to have suddenly had a child after giving no indication of having been pregnant. Michelle Obama hasn't demonstratively lied about the timeline surrounding any of her births; Sarah Palin has.
The only thing Palin's defenders seem to be able to muster against Sullivan's questions are that it's rude to even ask; but even Palin herself has said that a politician's life is an open book, and I somewhat agree. Nobody forced these people to become public figures, it's a vocation that carries with it considerable temporal power and reward; I think complete transparency isn't too unreasonable a price to pay.
I know who Sullivan embarassed and it wasn't himself. Quite a few of us thought the question was ludicrous, right up to the point where the entire Internet was completely unable to provide any evidence past her say-so that Trig Palin is her son.
He has that particular misogyny unique to gay men (who don't have to try to hide it to get laid), at least for every powerful woman besides Margaret Thatcher, but nobody can explain why his questions here are so unreasonable, except for the apparently-new unwritten rule that we never, under any circumstances, question public officials about their family.
It appears that many gave McCain the benefit of the doubt during his debate with Obama. However, he proved to be a deliberately shrewd and churlish, synic bent on nothing less than defaming, denegrating and otherwise castigating his opponent.
It is no wonder he could not look his opponent in the eyes, nor could he look into the camera and face the American people.
It is no wonder he had a problem with shaking Mr. Obama's hand, even though the senator made his way across the stage to do so.
He is a rather frightening choice in my estimation. Hopefully, Sarah will think for herself and refuse to take on his mannerisms or characteristics.
Posters, if you have an issue with Andrew Sullivan and his writing about Sarah Palin, why not take it up with him? Instead of boring Megan?
I personally love all blogs at the Atlantic, they are a joy to read and provide a exceptionally clear window on whats going on in the US right now. I tend to maybe identify with Andrew a bit more, maybe 'cause he is a foreigner.
As a foreign reader, I can't vote in the American elections. So here are my two cents, from across the Atlantic, literally.
The Palin-pick causes the same debate in the US that we have going on here in Europe. We are dealing with the same issues, and not too charmingly some of the time. Case in point: Austria last weekend.
It all depends on what you and we want. Do we want to cuddle up and go back to the quasi-safeties of the pre-Sixties; or do we move forward as participants in a global economy and a global quest for some kind of universal social justice, however ineptly we go about it?
We are in this together, and I believe Obama has a good grasp of this reality, while Sarah Palin, bless her heart, probably does not even know where Brussels is. Which is fine and puts in the splendid company of many other good and decent people, but it sort of sets back the clock.
In this country, until recently, nobody was asked to prove a negative and base less accusations were not repeated in the MSM media, thereby giving them credit.
Prove you aren't a child molester...How could anyone do it? It's impossible. Prove you aren't an alien? How would you do it?
There never was any evidence that Trig Palen was NOT Sarah Palin's child, especially since she and her physician were interviewed by Alaskan media and gave very detailed information on her trip from Texas to Alaska and her decisions surrounding it.
Everything that Andrew Sullivan summoned up as his [ahem] evidence was ridiculous and deeply embarassing for him and The Atlantic Monthly.
I have NEVER, NEVER heard of any woman being asked to make public her gynecological records.
he has never managed anything beyond the Harvard Law Review
Aside, of course, from three of Chicago's largest philanthropic organizations.
Seriously, people. These facts are on Wikipedia, for christ's sake. To listen to some of you you'd think that Obama simply emerged into the Senate from the forehead of Jesse Jackson, suit-clad and wielding the Harvard Law Review.
Sarah Palin actually has a track record of running the state of Alaska and the town of Wasilla
..into massive debt, you forgot to say. Palin's record of management isn't especially impressive. As a State senator, Obama never represented less than 800,000 people; in her entire career Palin has never managed that many.
The polls are still pretty close.
Not any more. Polling has Obama up by 10 (10!) in battleground states. Unprecedented.
I'm with Chet. Honestly, what is the deal with Trig Palin's birth certificate? Has anyone interviewed the doctors?
While the chances of McCain ever winning the election were slim at best, with history, demographics and what have you, if by miracle he were to Palin will do fine as VP.
It is very easy in our armchairs to dismiss her accomplishments. I think a lot of liberals secretly know and fear these. Whatever skills, talents and political acumen she possesses will be applied to her role as VP and later then as Presidential candidate. She will have four years or more to learn all things national and international just as she learned all things Alaskan.
Dismiss those skills if you like but they put her in the Governor's house in Alaska against a formidable machine. Oh, that's right I forgot they are just rubes in Alaska. Thank you for reminding me constantly.
Obama, for those of you who love him, has accomplished very little politically after school. He was hand picked by the Chicago machine to be where he is right now. Again list me all his legislative accomplishments--even on the state level if you like.
I will grant you this though, if McCain loses the election she may be mortally wounded politically. That's why this election is really Palin vs Obama and the MSM is desperately doing everything they can possibly do to prevent it.
Why dedicate yourself to Palin's destruction when there are so many other issues to discuss these days?
Sullivan is particularly vulnerable to People I Don't Like Derangement Syndrome. His vitriol against the Clintons has been legendary.
Now Sullivan is claiming that the Palins used their clout to intimidate the local hospital into covering for her fake pregnancy!
Lunatic fringe folks...it's a good thing nobody takes this guy seriously.
It's "complimentary", not "complementary". Otherwise a good post.
Posted by Patrick Neid
I will grant you this though, if McCain loses the election she may be mortally wounded politically. That's why this election is really Palin vs Obama and the MSM is desperately doing everything they can possibly do to prevent it.
________________________________________________
You are kidding, of course.
This election is about your conscious.
This election is about facing your fears.
This election is about what is really on the inside of us all...
You must admit it can be a frightening discovery.
In this country, until recently, nobody was asked to prove a negative
She's not being asked to. She's being asked to prove a positive - to prove that she did give birth to Trig Palin.
especially since she and her physician were interviewed by Alaskan media and gave very detailed information on her trip from Texas to Alaska and her decisions surrounding it.
Contradictory information, corroborated by no medical records.
All we have is her say-so, and her say-so has contradicted itself on many points. I'd say there's less than a 10% chance that she's not actually the mother, but I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask, and given that all she would have to do is release her medical records - which she should do anyway - why the apparent cover-up? Why take the "not dignifying that with a response" tact after that blew up in Kerry's face? In the age of Swiftboating, why would anyone play it that way unless they actually had something to hide?
Chet,
Alaska is not in debt, it has a surplus. Palin decreased federal earmarks and decreased the expenses of the governor's office.
I am only aware of Obama's participation in the Annenberg education initiative, which I believe cost $50 million and proved a total failure, not having any positive impact on education at all. Obama's answer: more money.
I'm sorry, comparing the responsibilities of a state senator to a govenor is just silly.
Alaska is not in debt, it has a surplus. Palin decreased federal earmarks and decreased the
I'm sorry, comparing the responsibilities of a state senator to a govenor is just silly.
Posted by libertarian | September 30, 2008 3:13 PM
___________________________________________
Liberterian seems to be another name for cover-up... Does a wolf-in-sheep's clothing ring a bell?
Well, if that is the case, then why shouldn't Michele Obama have to prove she is the mother of her children as well, why shouldn't all elected officials have to prove their children are their children? Afterall, we only have their word for it.
It's funny to hear liberals claiming 'if you have nothing to hide, why not let us invade your privacy for no good reason...'
Oh wait, I forgot, she's a conservative Republican so 'probable cause' and privacy rights don't apply to her. LOL!
What do you want Chet, to see video of the baby coming out of her vagina? Would that satisfy you and Andrew or would you wonder if the tape was faked? I'm sure you and Andrew could also find problems with any medical records that were released...reason to suspect forgery.
And that is why baseless accusations are not taken seriously....because the accuser isn't interested in the truth, only in making the accusation.
I'm beginning to think it might be a good thing to let Obama/Dems govern the recession over the next 4 years. All the supreme court openings will be replacing libs anyways. Also, they won't be able to push their tax increase/spending increase agenda during a deep recession.
Guaranteed 1-term disaster...
Palin is an embarassment to the GOP, plain and simple. You can spin her until you're blue (or red) in the face and the fact of the matter remains that Palin is GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED. She knows NOTHING about foreign policy, and very little about domestic policy beyond her scripted talking points. It's a sad state of affairs when Americans can lie to themselves and the public, knowing full well Palin has no business being one step away from the presidency. I know it, you know it and the majority of America knows it. The problem is that the GOP will never admit that SP is the egg on their faces!
Alaska is not in debt, it has a surplus.
I never said that it didn't. They get all that oil money, remember? Anybody can run a surplus in Alaska.
Palin decreased federal earmarks
Untrue, since governors don't control earmarks.
and decreased the expenses of the governor's office.
Oh, you mean the personal chef she didn't fire? Or the plane she didn't auction on eBay, and didn't get more than the state paid for it?
I am only aware of Obama's participation in the Annenberg education initiative
Doesn't that say a little more about your own ignorance than anything about Barack Obama's record?
I'm sorry, comparing the responsibilities of a state senator to a govenor is just silly.
Good thing Obama's a United States Senator in addition, then.
Well, if that is the case, then why shouldn't Michele Obama have to prove she is the mother of her children as well
Because she already has. Open medical records, remember?
What do you want Chet, to see video of the baby coming out of her vagina?
Access to the complete medical records of those seeking the nation's highest offices. You know, like Palin says.
It's not really all that much to ask for. It shouldn't be that much to ask a man who's had cancer four times already.
Guaranteed 1-term disaster...
I'll take that bet. Why don't you call up McCain and get him to concede? Save us all the trouble?
Libertarian is by far the most Republican shill I've ever seen on the Atlantic.
As for your question, yes, a simple release of the medical records would suffice. Sullivan has constantly asked for all candidates' medical records, including Biden's.
But of course you're not interested in an honest debate and getting all the facts. You're just trying to obfuscate and dodge the subject, like all the other defenders.
There is literally no way to defend Sarah Palin's selection at this point. There is literally no way to argue that her views or experience on the same level with Obama's, *at all*. Those who are attempting to do so here are being incredibly disingenuous in a superficial attempt to boost their preferred candidate.
I agree that we should see Biden's, as well.
And honestly it doesn't matter to me who the mother of Trig Palin is; it's just interesting that the only "evidence" is basically "Sarah Palin said so and that's good enough for me!" long after she's been revealed as a serial confabulist. I mean does a single statement out of her mouth have any credibility anymore?
I really dislike those who, when their positions are proven to be false, simply try and reframe the debate.
Alaskan earmark requests and totals decreased when Palin become governor. She asked for fewer federal earmarks than her predecessor and she publicly stated numerous times that it was her intention to reduce Alaska's requests for earmarks and she did. I'm sorry if that is an inconvenient fact for you, but its true.
Her tenure as mayor is much more mixed as she did leave the city in debt.
Again, the govenor's expenses were reduced by 80%. Period. You can't argue with the facts they are black and white. Whether the plane was sold on ebay or not is irrelevant to the bottom line that she spent significantly less as governor than her predecessor did.
You are the one who brought up how many people Obama represented as a state senator in contrast with Palin as govenor....but, certainly, he has been a US Senator for almost two whole years, of which almost all of that time hes' been on a book tour or running for president.
WHy don't you educate me on Obama's other management level jobs?
To libertarian:
Are you capable of going a day without personally attacking Barak or Michelle Obama? Don't you have anything else to live for?
People who are empty inside are always fill their voids with undermining others; but really they are ingesting in debaucles 7 times worse than what they are already filled with. It is no wonder the world is full of diseases and plagues... they spew out of the mouths of evil and corrupt men.
All we have is her say-so, and her say-so has contradicted itself on many points. I'd say there's less than a 10% chance that she's not actually the mother, but I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask, and given that all she would have to do is release her medical records - which she should do anyway - why the apparent cover-up?
Well, say Trig isn't hers. Say she faked the birth to give a loving home to someone the baby of someone who was pregnant but couldn't deal with a Downs baby. Who does it help, to put that out in the public?
Chet is really Andrew Sullivan.
Andrew (ah,er Chet)...quit faking a reader persona, go back to your own board and continue to spew Palin venom. As absurd as it is...it is still very entertaining to read.
Are you capable of going a day without personally attacking Barak or Michelle Obama? Don't you have anything else to live for?
-----------------------------------------
Um, I have never personally attacked Barack or Michelle Obama on this blog.
I think Obama is a closet socialist who is not being truthful when he says he he's going to reduce taxes for 95% of the population and make up the deficit by taxing the rich. I think he will be a terrible president along the lines of Jimmy Carter...nice guy who can't get anything done, worst case scenario he implements a New New Deal and tanks the economy for 10 years.
None of that is personal. I've said nothing at all about Michelle Obama other than if Sarah Palin should have to 'prove' she's the mother of her children, so should Michelle Obama.
Libertarian...in case you haven't noticed you are in a liberal echo chamber...TIME is one step removed from KOS. I like to stop by every once in a while just to see the spin from the fringe...
Palin is a complete embarrassment, but I really can't take anything Andrew says about the race seriously anymore. The whole Bristol-as-Trig's-mom obsession had nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with cheap, Jerome Corsi-style smearing. And of course, every time he posts about the financial crisis it's just cringe-worthy.
The effects of the economy tanking are orders of magnitude worse than the effects of Palin becoming VP.
Whoops...TIME/Atlantic...same thing. A stones throw from KOS.
To Liberterian:
If the things you are saying were said about you,
you would probably think otherwise.
Why you would compare Michelle to Sarah Palin is in itself questionable, as one is "potentially" running for the highest office in the land, and the other is a wife of a man running for that office.
Why don't you use your own mother or sister for the example in the birth certificate parady?
You also seem to know what is in Barak's closet. How about being upfront about whats in your own closet?
Brig,
LOL, I've subscribed to The Atlantic for years and always found it a magazine full of well researched, non dogmatic, non ideological articles that didn't easy fit into the liberal or conservative mold.
I would have expected the blog to be more reflective of this type of thoughtful, research based type of information.
Instead, to my surprise I found Andrew Sullivan, blogging about Trig Palin and Heart, with the slim content of his posts being so emotionally laden that they would embarrass a 16 year old.
Who woulda thunk it.
This is the first column by Ms McArdle that I've read. I, too, am more concerned by the bailout package than by Ms Palin because I've resigned myself to the idea that the majority of the American [voting] public is so blindly unquestioning, so stupid that a McCain-Palin win is a near certainty. (That's my gut conclusion based on the results of the last three presidential elections: a big Democratic win; a very narrow Democratic win [set aside by the Supreme Court]; then a Republican win despite an appalling 4-year record.) There are three months in which something intelligent MIGHT be done to help our economy before the insanity of the next Republican administration descends upon us.
I do wonder, though, about Ms McArdle's background in statistics, viz., "even if she gets into office, there's a better than even chance she won't end up as president." I'd say, and I majored in economics and statistics, the odds are in favor of Ms Palin's ending up as president, given McCain's age, apparent state of health (When are we getting access to his medical records?), and apparent deteriorating mental capacity.
Noting a post suggesting that "Megan got her batchelor's [sic] degree (English)," I'm disappointed that she doesn't know the difference between "complementary" and "complimentary."
If some whack job bloggers demanded my mother prove I was her child, I would tell them in no uncertain terms to fuck off.
There isn't any evidence that Trig Palin is NOT Sarah Palin's child, so, asking for evidence to prove something where no contrary evidence exists is ridiculous in more ways than I can count.
She is just not ready for this role. Maybe she would have been in eight years, but I think that door is closed.
Even so-- if I were voting solely on the VP, I'd vote Palin without a pause. Biden has been fairly effective in getting bills he wanted passed, and what he has pushed has been an absolute, f*&%king disaster of the highest order. In Biden's case, political effectiveness absolutely counts against him -- the worst combination is somebody with Biden's views who has the ability to get things done.
What I'm talking about mainly is the war on drugs. Biden lead the charge for the mandatory-minimum bills of the 80s and the RAVE Act of just a few years ago was his baby. As NORMAL says:
“Pick a drug law you don’t like from the last 25 years and thank Senator Biden.”
http://stash.norml.org/tag/joe-biden/
Palin (in her interview with Maria Bartiromo) sounded quite sensible and well-informed on issues that concerned Alaska. So I don't doubt that, given the opportunity, she'd become so with national issues. Yes, it would obviously be better to start with somebody who did not need to come up to speed -- but for the VP, as far as I'm concerned -- virtually anybody's better than Biden.
Fix your spelling!
saveoursouls - point taken about Michelle Obama (though she has certainly injected herself into the campaign at points). Clearly, we should be demanding that Barack prove he is the children's father, rather than Michelle is the mother.
And ajs - I often think that part of the reason Democrats do so poorly in elections is because the consider the people who vote against them 'stupid'. Not a way to convert those voters or a useful means of correcting any deficiencies (Heaven forbid!) in your own candidates.
Sullivan demanding Biden's medical records is just a cover to continue his Palin obsession. The guy is so transparent.
But Barack HASN'T and I have just as much proof that he isn't the father to those two girls. Without his medical records to prove that he isn't sterile and a DNA test to prove paternity, the press should be asking him who the real father is.
Unless you're a Democrat, in that case a 1 page letter saying you're fine is A-OK!
Clearly, we should be demanding that Barack prove he is the children's father, rather than Michelle is the mother
Posted by Mike S | September 30, 2008 3:55 PM
___________________________________________
Dear Mike:
You probably question if God is the heavenly father as well; so resign yourself to your own earthly reward. You get to breathe you own air... for just a little while longer.
PS: Perhaps you should question your own wife as well; or do you have one?
Andrew (ah,er Chet)...quit faking a reader persona, go back to your own board and continue to spew Palin venom. As absurd as it is...it is still very entertaining to read.
I've been accused of many things, but never of being a nationally-acclaimed (presumably) highly-paid misogynist homosexual. So, you know, that's a first.
Alaskan earmark requests and totals decreased when Palin become governor.
And global warming increased inversely proportional to incidents of piracy. That's not to say that a lack of pirates caused global warming, and it's not to say that the woman for whom "saying no to the 'Bridge to Nowhere'" actually means "saying yes to the money" had anything to do with reducing Federal earmarks over a time when they were basically being reduced for everybody.
WHy don't you educate me on Obama's other management level jobs?
Why don't you educate yourself? I already told you he managed three of Chicago's biggest philanthropic organizations. Your response was that you didn't know that.
How much of your homework am I supposed to do, here? You wanna send me your Stats assignments, while you're at it?
Say she faked the birth to give a loving home to someone the baby of someone who was pregnant but couldn't deal with a Downs baby. Who does it help, to put that out in the public?
Who is served by the lie? Trig, maybe, and Palin's family; but are the American people served? Are all 350 million of us supposed to take a backseat to one Down's syndrome baby?
If some whack job bloggers demanded my mother prove I was her child, I would tell them in no uncertain terms to fuck off.
And if nationally-recognized figures asked you to open up your medical records, which you were already on the record saying that candidates should be expected to do, then what would you say?
And when you told us to fuck off then, wouldn't we be right to wonder precisely what you had to hide?
Clearly, we should be demanding that Barack prove he is the children's father, rather than Michelle is the mother
Posted by Mike S | September 30, 2008 3:55 PM
___________________________________________
Dear Mike:
You probably question if God is the heavenly father as well; so resign yourself to your own earthly reward. You get to breathe your own air... for just a little while longer.
PS: Perhaps you should question your own wife as well; or do you have one?
ajs,
His records have been released and reviewed - regardless of what Barack Obama or their surrogates say.
Here is the report
And for a tidbit:
"The extraordinary release of what the campaign described as "every single piece of paper" in McCain's medical records for the last eight years"
They also allowed reporters access to his doctors.
Barack loses on this front, it's not a good one to go down...
But Barack HASN'T
An absurd lie.
http://blogs.bet.com/news/newsyoushouldknow/obama-releases-medical-records/
was the first thing to come up on Google.
Sure, Obama's records aren't very long, because he's a 47-year-old man with no history of serious illness. I'm almost 30 and I doubt my complete medical history would be much longer than a page, either.
It's McCain who hasn't released his records, remember? He's just let reporters pick over them for an hour. His records are so long because he's had cancer four times.
And when you told us to fuck off then, wouldn't we be right to wonder precisely what you had to hide?
--------------------------------
I don't know, I guess that depends on if you believe that the idea that 'if you have nothing to hide, why not turn it all over to the government is one that has merit'.
This is the exact argument the Bush Administration has used to eviscerate civil liberties.
Me, I'm a big believer in probable cause. And since I see no probable cause that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's biological child, I think the requests for her to prove it are nonsensical. Also, I'm not sure exactly what people think is in anyone's medical records that is going to 'prove' she really gave birth since the dates/times/doctor etc. that delivered Trig are already public knowledge.
His Trig Palin parentage quasi-attack was shameful, and still hasn't evoked an apology. His justification is that no question is out-of-bounds for a journalist. Nice, can't wait for that expose on whether Obama's children are his own.
Hey DDP, he was posting rumors that people in Palin's own office were circulating & the same day he posted the pictures that disproved the rumor. He was doing what bloggers do, uncovering rocks seeing if he could score something the MSM missed. He made a consistent call for ALL the candidates to release their medical records. If I recall, Megan's first response was that it was ok if she did fake a pregnancy and birth certificate to cover for her daughter. Sullivan wanted the facts and sought them out.
I think Palin supporters are the last people on earth to lecture anyone on lacking credibility here! Example A:
brig
Now Sullivan is claiming that the Palins used their clout to intimidate the local hospital into covering for her fake pregnancy!
Where? Link please or are you a liar? Sullivan not only acknowledged Palin was Trig's mother but had multiple posts about the reasons a pro-life woman would have aminio....which puts the unborn baby at risk and can do nothing to prevent birth defects or problems. I haven't seen any Sullivan posts trying to maintain the argument that Palin had faked a pregnancy.
brooksfoe
So those of whose first response to Palin was "she's unqualified" are now acknowledged to have been right, rather than excoriated for our prejudices against rural Americans who didn't go to Ivy League schools?
Indeed, I kind of remember Megan's first response to Palin was not negative but along the lines of gee whiz, look at this spunky rural lady who will stand up to all us elite urbanites.
libertarian
Alaska is not in debt, it has a surplus. Palin decreased federal earmarks and decreased the expenses of the governor's office.
1. Alaska did have a surplus because of the money it receives from oil royalities.
2. Amazingly, despite this, Palin was able to run up Alaska's debt by paying out the surplus on one hand and borrowing on the other.
I am only aware of Obama's participation in the Annenberg education initiative, which I believe cost $50 million and proved a total failure, not having any positive impact on education at all.
The Annenberg program was to give grants to worthwhile pilot ideas. As you pointed out it was $50m. Chicago's school system has a budget of billions of dollars per year. Even if every grant approved in the $50m worked miracles it would be almost impossible to see any movement in the systems metrics.
Instead, to my surprise I found Andrew Sullivan, blogging about Trig Palin and Heart, with the slim content of his posts being so emotionally laden that they would embarrass a 16 year old.
Let's see, Sullivan blogged about that weeks ago and immediately reported the evidence that disproved the story and then moved onto other things. Why am I NOT suprised you are still harping on it? Because clinging to the victimization card is just about all that's left in your intellectually bankrupt account?
Chet... wrong again.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/30/nation/na-obama30
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_releases_health_informat.html
He released a 276 word summary with no supporting documentation. Those aren't his medical records, that looks like a cover up. It's the weasel word version of releasing them.
Except he let them for multiple hours, they pulled a ton of detail and had access to actual doctors to discuss them with. This is a far better effort at transparency then a short summary and no doctor access.
Andrew Sullivan's blogging speaks for itself. If that is your idea of insightful, thoughtful, intellectually rigorous writing, have at it. It is my idea of hysterical, childish, irrelevant, virtually content free, mean spirited crap that does not belong anywhere near The Atlantic Monthly.
The jackass Mr. Sullivan seems to want a takeover of the Atlantic's editorial content to match that of the jackass Mr. Olberman at MSNBC.
Sullivan is another self-lauding, myopic commentator who uses the playground strategy of calling everyone -- and one woman in particular: formerly Hillary, now Sarah -- a liar that he disagrees with, while losing sight of his own fundamental dishonesty. I suppose misogyny is the last identifying feature of his avowed "gay conservatism."
Good luck with redefining the Atlantic's entire mission to raising Obama and sliming Palin. I'll no longer be a subscriber or online reader at that point, but what difference does it make? You couldn't pay me to read "The Daily Douche" as it stands now anyway.
Notice that Sullivan's stance is actually pretty fair? Everyone should release their records as part of the election process...no surprises.
Paling intimidate smear here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/just-a-regular.html
You can squirm around this all day, but he's clearly implying it. Unless theirs another hospital related rumor I've missed. Or maybe their just into hospital intimidation???
Sullivan is already claiming that the Palins coerced the hospital to fake Trig's medical records...so what does getting the medical records do for him? LOL! He is already set up his next argument...what a farce.
I don't know, I guess that depends on if you believe that the idea that 'if you have nothing to hide, why not turn it all over to the government is one that has merit'.
If you have nothing to hide, and you're running for the highest office in the land, why shouldn't you have to turn it over to the public?
It's your idea, the one where you believe public figures have a right to insulate themselves from public scrutiny, that I wonder has "merit." I'm pretty sure it's bullshit, in fact.
Fair point, although he has had at least a dozen posts all premised on Palin NOT faking Trig's pregnancy so I'm not exactly sure what he is implying with that post.
My personal theory about the pregnancy was that Palin was considering having an abortion. That is why she had the amino, didn't tell her family about the Downs Syndrom result and played the pregnancy so low key that people working in the capital started circulating the story afterwards that she had faked the pregnancy.
He released a 276 word summary with no supporting documentation.
You should have checked the dates, stupid. First he released the summary, then he released the records.
You're probably one of those idiots who thinks Kerry still hasn't released his military records.
The only significant difference that I see between Obama and Palin is that Obama is a better public speaker; he has that slick glibness that allows him to spout nonsense and platitudes without getting sharp questioning from the lazy-ass reporters.
But then, after Harvard Law, and teaching as a law professor, and being an Illinois senator for a few years ... that's about what we should expect.
None of which makes him a better choice for POTUS. (And that's just comparing him to Palin, the VP candidate.) I suspect most of what becomes necessary to become a good POTUS is learned OTJ.
So yes, the "bailout" is far more important.
Megan's visceral reaction to Palin is at a more primal genetic level ... East Coast elite college-educated urban single yuppie versus Alaska community college married multi-child parental unit. Thus, she has to rationalize her reaction based upon elitist "tokens" or social signals ... down at the pack level, Megan just knows Sarah isn't from hers.
Chet,
Why hasn't Obama released his medical records!!!! OMG what is he hiding!!!! Stop the presses!!!
All he released was a one pager with some basic information on his cholesteral, etc. He did NOT release or make available his full medical records.
John McCain released 1000 pages of medical records to the press. Actual records, not a one page summary.
So, by your logic, that means Obama must be hiding something!!!!! I mean, he's got a family history of cancer!!!! What is he hiding!!!!
Joe Biden also has not released his medical records, what is he hiding!!!!!
Chet,
Can you show me something more substantial than a blog post that hints at the records being released? I googled "Barack Obama Medical Records" http://www.google.com/search?q=Barack+Obama+Medical+Records&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a and that's what came up. I've seen no other stories of longer releases being made since June.
1. The vice presidency has become an active part of government since Al Gore and Dick Cheney. Dick Nixon even did some diplomatic stuff as vp under Eisenhower. So, it is not unreasonable to assume that Gov. Palin will participate actively in the activities of McCain's presidency.
2. Vice Presidents who become president have a mixed history, not necessarily dependent on their experience in Washington. All Harry S Truman had going for him was a stint on the Jackson County, MO government (called a County Court, then) and experience in the US Senate, which included a leading role in fighting war-time government waste. He turned out ok. On the other hand, there's John Tyler...
3. I am still reasonably sure that McCain/Palin will win the electoral vote. I read that 1/3 the white Democrats don't like the idea of a black president. Those are likely to be the Reagan Democrats living in some important states in terms of electoral vote count. The poll resultsa that favor Obam include a large number of people who said they were for Obama but, when they get to the voting booth, will not be able to bring themselves to vote for an African American for president. This is the "Bradley effect" or the "Wilder effect".
4. The economy won't make a difference to the presidential vote; it will to the vote for Congress. We will have divided government -- not such a bad thing considering the Presidential Veto, unless the Democrats get a veto-proof Congress, which I (hopefully) doubt.
Good Luck to us all!
Thanks for the link Skullberg.
But his request to provide a link was disingenuous...certainly, such an avid Sullivan apologist must have known exactly what I was talking about.
Now he will deny profusely that that is what Sullivan is insinuating.
John McCain released 1000 pages of medical records to the press. Actual records, not a one page summary.
Obama doesn't have 1000 pages of medical records because he's not a 90-year-old man injured in wartime, abused physically and mentally, who's suffered four bouts with an incredibly deadly cancer.
Obama's released all his records - and not just loaned them to a hand-picked group of media friends, like McCain did. It's just that his records aren't very long, because unlike his opponent he's a middle-aged man in perfect health.
Joe Biden also has not released his medical records, what is he hiding!!!!!
Biden should certainly release his records, and my fear is that he is hiding something.
I did an online search for Obama's medical records and as far as I can tell all that was released was the doctor's summary, not the actual medical records. Some reports called the one pager his 'medical records' but a closer read shows that records themselves were not released as far as I can tell.
Now, I don't have a problem with that, I don't think Obama is hiding anything, I am only using your logic, that if they haven't been released then that means something is being hidden.
Sullivan makes duplicitous posts occasionally so that he or his apologists can point to them as evidence to the contrary (as has been done above)...while he still pushes the lies forward (as he is now doing).
To keep on posting "I don't really think Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's biological child, but......." and then regurgitate the same fantastical conspiracy theories claiming they are 'evidence' is not very subtle or effective.
I wonder if Sullivan ever thinks that being a liar might undermine his credibility when calling other people liars?
I did an online search for Obama's medical records and as far as I can tell all that was released was the doctor's summary, not the actual medical records
Tell me, specifically, what records haven't been released. I mean we have his birth certificate, test results, immunizations, and even an affidavit of good health from his doctor.
What else would a 47-year-old man in perfect health have? McCain has reams and reams because he's survived crashes, torture, and skin cancer. What would Obama have that we haven't seen? "Jan 23, 1978 - didn't get sick today. jan 24, 1978 - didn't get sick today."
Obama's released his entire record. It's just not a very substantial record because he's in perfect health.
How much foreign policy experience did a certain former governor of Arkansas have before becoming president? More than Palin, probably yes (he did smoke some weed in the UK while pretending to be in college/draft dodging). But really - Arkansas? Palin should not try to pretend she is some sort of foreign policy guru - she knows oil and energy (kind of important right now) and she understands government reform - she should be playing to her strenghts. If McCain wins, she will be getting a first-hand foreign policy immersion experience at the side of a guy who has more foreign policy experience than the last two presidents + Obama combined.
Sullivan makes duplicitous posts occasionally so that he or his apologists can point to them as evidence to the contrary (as has been done above)...while he still pushes the lies forward (as he is now doing).
I've posted (possibly caught in the filter) 5 Sullivan posts in date order all asserting that Palin is Trig's mother. You've provided not a single source to support your claim.
You are assuming Sullivan was claiming Palin could intimidate a local hospital to help fake a birth but Sullivan did not say that and in the context of his other posts he could have just as easily been talking about Palin's lack of medical records or the numerous posts he has had with questions about why Palin handled her pregnancy the way she did.
As an example of a medical record whose absence is noteworthy: why is there no birth record for Trig Palin at the hospital Sarah Palin says he was born at, for the day or night he was born?
Holdfast,
True regarding Bubba. But Bill, during his runs, was obviously the intellectual superior of Palin today. I think it is difficult to deny that. Given what we have seen, she is simply out of her league running for this office at this time.
Chet,
A paragraph summary from your doctor is not the same as the record itself. The actual record would be paged and pages of infomration on each visit and the actual records for all his physicals. The content may be the same, but a summary is not a record.
You are holding Obama and Palin to a double standard. All of the details of her pregnancy have been released and her doctor spoke to the press and took questions, thus it is all 'on the record'. This is exactly what Obama did, his doctor released a short summary and I believe was available to answer media questions.
But one is acceptable to you and one is not. The one person 'must be' hiding something and the other person has been totally transparent.
Either you need to see Obama's medical records as well as Palin's or you accept what Palin's doctor has said the same way you accept what Obama's doctor has said.
Or, you admit you are a hypocrite who isn't interested in medical records or transparency but only in bashing the Republican presidential ticket.
Wow, interesting to see so many people in denial over how unprepared Palin is for this job.
Obviously, McCain wanted to pick a woman as his VP in hopes of picking up Hillary voters. My question is this: why did McCain pick the most unprepared Republican woman on the planet as his running mate?
Certainly, there must be some Republican women who are more knowledgeable/clever/articulate/accomplished than Palin. There MUST be. So why did he pick Palin, when she can't even handle a softball journalist? You would think the McCain camp had to know this about her ahead of time... right?
I'm an Obama backer, and obviously, I hope my candidate wins. But, unlike many Democrats, I'm not terribly afraid of McCain. He's not off-the-wall crazy like Bush. He seems like a decent guy, just with a different way of doing things. But the thought of Palin being his VP scares the hell out of me. Yes, there's the fear of McCain kicking the bucket, leaving her in charge. More than anything, though, she'd be taking up a place in the White House that could be held by someone who might actually be productive in the position. I mean, let's face it... she's in WAY over her head here. She's useless. And if there's any back-and-forth discussion allowed in this week's debate, Biden's going to totally expose her (even more than the journalist did).
Anyway, I just can't believe McCain picked her over all the other qualified women of the Republican party. She has absolutely nothing to offer but a young, pretty face. And if that's why McCain picked her, then he's not the man I thought he was.
See, I have the same reaction to Obama. Except that, rather than having three weeks to cram, he's had a year and a half (but only seems to have started seriously about 6 months ago, well after he became the frontrunner). I don't see why other people don't see this as terribly scary.
Me too. Obama is entirely unvetted and does Palins all the time when he is off the teleprompter. Palin is not ready for prime time. Maybe she will never be, but we are about to elect someone who remains rather vapid and shallow but certainly nuanced.
Since the Presidency as an administrative post is entirely unmanageable now, perhaps Obama will be a good enough leader to fill the suit that is now empty. But maybe Palin would too.
And if the selection of Palin says something about McCain, what does the selection of Biden say? This is a person who can't manage his family finances. Palin has a greater net worth.
One thing is likely certain. The next four to eight years will be event driven. There will be no sitting back on cruise control the way Clinton did.
I'm not in denial, I don't think Palin is qualified to be president, but she isn't running for president, and the odds are very strong that John McCain will live another 4 years, so I don't much care that she isn't qualified to be president, since most VP's spend their time doing photo opps for 4 years and cultivating their own political constituency for the future.
Dick "I am my own branch of the government" Cheney was an anomally.
My objection is the hysterical tone of criticism, the sexism embedded in the criticism, the hypocrisy of the criticism and the lies that have been told about her while calling her a liar with a straight face. My further objection is the media having given up even trying to be fair to Palin or McCain and turning into an Obama cheerleading section.
Chet,
Cite? I not seen the reports of this. I've googled, sent you the links I've found and asked for links to these reports.
I take it from your last post that, no, Obama has not released anything more than a 276 word summary of his health records, and sealed off his doctor from questions.
I can't say what records he's hiding - because there isn't anyway to know. He could have had cancer, caught it early, had it excised and been cancer free since. Nothing in the Doctor's statement precludes that.
He could be on anti-depressants.
He could be on a number of medications.
He could have pre-cancerous signs in his body.
He could have any number of things that aren't ruled out by anything in that affidavit.
Barack could be hiding something with his medical history and his refusal to allow them to be reviewed is far more troubling than anything Sullivan is asking about Palin.
My further objection is the media having given up even trying to be fair to Palin or McCain and turning into an Obama cheerleading section.
Posted by Libertarian | September 30, 2008 5:08 PM
_______________________________________________
Why is it ok for you to cheerlead for your cause, and not ok for others?
" ...Sandra Day O'Connor and Janet Reno were both impressive women from rural backgrounds, and nobody, regardless of partisan background, called them unqualified or dumb." -- brooksfoe
Janet Reno??? The butcher of Waco? And nobody ever called her dumb? Well, allow me to be the first then. (Unless you think that burning 23 children to death is a sign of high intellect.)
Obviously McCain has more experience than Obama. And I'm not going to begin arguing on political philosophy, since that would be like walking into the forests and trying to convince birds not to live in the trees.
However, I see no real comparison between Obama and Palin. Obama has obviously been preparing for this presidential run for some time. He's done his homework -- A LOT of homework -- and he has years of DC experience. He also has the respect of his entire party (and has had it for years, too). He may be a newbie compared to McCain, but he's shown himself to be an upstanding, quality guy with tremendous upside. He may not have 26 years of experience, but he's ready to be a successful president.
Palin, on the other hand, is not. She seems like a good person, and, given a lot more time, could possibly be a good candidate for the VP job. But is she, right here, right now? No.
So again, my question is: why did McCain pick someone for his running mate who is not ready to do the job right now?
Isn't there a more qualified Republican woman who could do a better job than Palin? And if so, why isn't she on the ticket?
Barack could be hiding something with his medical history and his refusal to allow them to be reviewed is far more troubling than anything Sullivan is asking about Palin.
Posted by Skullberg | September 30, 2008 5:10 PM
______________________________________________
Do you think, if we could see that promoting hate and fingerpointing were decimating our medical conditions, that we would or even could stop ourselves?
Nevermind what all of our medical records may already indicate.
Can we judge the character of a man by his medical records...in many instances we can.
What do yours say?
And one more thing...
How can people decry the media for being "biased" against Palin when the McCain camp won't even allow her to do interviews?
She's done, what, four real interviews? And one of them with McCain holding her hand?
McCain/Palin (or McPalin) hasn't even given the media a CHANCE to be biased.
Maybe if Palin were allowed to do more interviews -- and if she really is this great, dark-horse political figure -- then open-minded Democrats like me wouldn't be so alarmed by her?
Isn't there a more qualified Republican woman who could do a better job than Palin? And if so, why isn't she on the ticket?
-------------------------------------------
Sure, there are many more qualified Republican women than Sarah Palin. But, your question assumes that the VP is picked based on qualifications and not politics. Obama picked Biden to shore up his foreign affairs experience, not because Biden is the second most qualified guy to be president who is a Democrat not named Bill Clinton.
Sarah Palin was picked because she energized the Republican base, she has as record as a 'maverick', she was a huge surprise, which garnered McCain a stratospheric level of media coverage he would not have gotten with Kay Baily Hutchinson. She's also anti abortion, which is a prerequistive for any Republican VP. She was also probably partially picked on some kind of John McCain gut instinct without having thought through all of the potential pitfalls.
The actual record would be paged and pages of infomration on each visit and the actual records for all his physicals.
Pages and pages? Seriously? I've been to the doctor dozens of times, even been on antidepressants for a time, and my medical records aren't longer than a page.
Like I said, I think you're drastically overestimating how long the medical records of a 47-year-old man in perfect health are.
All of the details of her pregnancy have been released and her doctor spoke to the press and took questions, thus it is all 'on the record'.
Except for the part that is a part of the public record - the birth records. Trig's can't be found.
It isn't a matter of Palin not releasing them; they're public records, already. So where is it?
Either you need to see Obama's medical records as well
I've seen them because he's released them. I don't know how many times we have to cover that. You keep saying he hasn't but you can't tell me what's missing.
He could be on anti-depressants.
He could be on a number of medications.
He could have pre-cancerous signs in his body.
The lack of those things would not be documents in his record. They would simply be an absence of those things in the record, which is exactly what we see. That's how you know Obama doesn't have cancer and isn't on antidepressants - it's not in his record!
I don't know how else I'm supposed to respond to the absurdity of expecting someone's medical records to reflect conditions that they don't have. Is Obama supposed to release a copy of the DSM-IV with each entry marked "nope, don't have this, either"?
The case with Palin is that something we would expect to find (if she's not lying) is missing. The case with Obama is that he's released everything that exists, which turned out to be less than you think. But then, he's a 47-year-old in perfect health. Neither of you can explain, precisely, what is missing.
Unless you think that burning 23 children to death is a sign of high intellect.
I don't think it is, but David Koresh did that, not Janet Reno. They'd rigged the compound to blow.
Unless you're one of those idiots who think that Janet Reno sent in a flame-throwing tank that didn't exist at the time?
Skullberg,
Sorry. I did abbreviate my question. I should have added the words "as has been the rule -- for the record."
What he released on May 23, 2008 (the Friday before the Memorial Day weekend) and to whom and for how long was as follows:
A tightly controlled pool of about 20 reporters was shown into a conference room at the CopperWynd Resort near the Mayo Clinic Scottsdale. The reporters were permitted three hours to review and take notes on 1,173 pages of Mr. McCain’s medical documents, spanning 2000 to 2008, but they were not permitted to remove the documents from the room or photocopy them.
The contact with his doctors consisted of a 45-min conference call.
This is not the free access other presidential candidates have routinely permitted.
And Mike S,
I don't normally "consider the people who vote against them [Democrats] 'stupid'." This year, this Republican ticket, yes... blindly, willfully stupid. And I am a person who has respected and even admired many a Republican congressman.
Chet,
If you insist that a 200+ written paragraph summary statement is the same as medical records, then there is no point in discussing this with you. You are comparing apples to oranges but won't admit it.
Remember Miss Teen South Carolina in 2007. "I personally believe ..." she said, "that some people in our nation don't have maps" and that we need to "help South Africa" and other countries "such as."
Hilarious. Dumb always is. Stan Laurel, Lou Costello, Jerry Lewis ... Sarah Palin.
CNN's brilliant Jack Cafferty was right: "No excuse," pure and simple. If Palin is John McCain's first "executive" decision, then HE'S as butt-dumb as she is.
If you insist that a 200+ written paragraph summary statement is the same as medical records, then there is no point in discussing this with you.
There's no point in discussing this with you if you can't even tell me what's missing.
But, you know, keep pretending he's hiding something. I know what hiding something looks like - it looks like restricting access to 1200 pages of health documents to a hand-picked cadre of sympathetic reporters for a period of no more than two hours.
Hey Chet,
Can you explain why the New York Times in 2000 said John McCain had released the most detailed medical records of any presidential candidate in history?
Could you explain how the most detailed level of infomration ever has morphed into 'tightly controlled hand picked cadre of sympathetic reporters?
Chet,
You have? Why haven't you provided a link to them? Or a report of them being released - which I have repeatedly asked for. Did he release them just to you, Chet?
All I've seen, and seen reported on, is a few paragraphs of text saying he was in good health at the beginning of 2007. Nothing that says he doesn't have a history of ... well anything. The kind of questions that would be answered if his actual charts were released with doctors notes.
Also, still no evidence he's the father of the two girls we see with him.
You know, the kind of things we all admit John McCain has released.
Is still light years more transparency then Barack Obama. McCain's access was labeled extraordinary by the press - in the WaPo no less.
Chet,
I'll pull this out and make it simple.
I want to see the actual chart from his Jan 15, 2007 check up with nurses and doctors notes written on it.
That would be in a full document dump and would constitute as a medical record.
Until then, he's being willfully opaque and this does not reflect well on him.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5imvTVA-Hl4kb1-9NRkXv-LWU5h3AD93E2J3O0
Maybe this will help.
It is an AP story from TODAY that says Obama has NOT released his medical records.
So, perhaps we can put this "lie" to rest now.
I want to see the actual chart from his Jan 15, 2007 check up with nurses and doctors notes written on it.
Posted by Skullberg | September 30, 2008 5:38 PM
_____________________________________
You don't really think anyone will come looking for you to show you anything do you?
Why should they?
How much does what you think amount to anyway?
When you get a moment in the sun, use it wisely. Don't miss your chance to shine.
Oops, I think that Ap story is from 4 days ago, but here's something from NPR today....
Questions Remain About Obama's Health
Altman's got questions, too, about Sen. Barack Obama, whose health has been revealed only in a brief doctor's letter that is a single page with six paragraphs.
"There's no reason to believe that Mr. Obama has ill health, but the question is why the letter is undated, and why has the campaign not allowed the doctor to speak to reporters?" Altman said.
A spokesperson for the Obama campaign says that the senator's health is obvious. Reporters have noted that he works out all the time. But Obama has also been a smoker, although earlier this year he talked about quitting
So the economy is faltering, the war in Iraq goes on, half the country (including conservatives) are alarmed by the Republican VP candidate, an important debate is coming up, and...
... you guys are obsessed with seeing Obama's medical records?
For the record, McCain did not release his medical records. He only allowed his records to be viewed. He gave a group of reporters three hours tops to go through 1,300 pages of medical records. They couldn't make photocopies or remove the records from the room.
I'm a former journalist, and let me tell you... it's impossible to review that many pages of medical documents in so short of a period of time. Even with 20 people, and even if all of them were working together. It simply can't be done. That was a brilliant stunt on McCain's behalf, and apparently it worked.
I'd like to see Palin asked, "Why are you the first to cite command of the state National Guard as national security experience?"
Imagine if Romney, Huckabee or Richardson had touted their Guard leadership in a debate or during a commercial — they would've been laughed out of the campaign.
I don't care about anybody's medical records.
But I do care about LIES, like claiming that Obama has released his medical records which is patently false.
McCain made thousands of pages available to reporters in 2000 and in this campaign and gave reporters access to his doctors.
It is simply FALSE to say that he has been less forthcoming than Obama.
It is also extremely hypocritical to be demanding Sarah Palin's medical records to prove she's not 'hiding' anything when neither Obama or Biden have released their own medical records.
That's all. I don't think public officials should have to release their medical records or make their doctors available for interviews. But, let's tell the truth: McCain is the only one on the ticket who has done this.
On the other hand (Re: Palin)
A friend of mine told me that Melanomas come back, no matter how successful the previous excision.
My wife suggested that McCain's left cheek seemed bigger than it once was, during the debates.
Of course, I took both comments with a grain of ...
Isn't there a more qualified Republican woman who could do a better job than Palin? And if so, why isn't she on the ticket?
A better job at what? For right now, her 'job' is to energize the Republican base i.e. 'Goldwater-Republican' voters or 'sagebrush republicans' who were planning to either stay home on Nov. 4 or else vote for a 3rd party and now MIGHT hold our noses and vote for McNaught after all.
And after the election, her 'job' if they win, will be the Vice Presidency, which " ... isn't worth a pitcher of warm $%^&." The probability that the old geezer will kick the bucket in the next few years is fairly low (what, less than 10% surely?) so the chances are that we have 4 years to find out what she is really like -- and for her to get up to speed if indeed she is capable of it.
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/uselections2008.johnmccain
"Dr Daniel Vlock, a former cancer researcher who no longer practices medicine, said news reports indicated McCain's most recent cancer was a 2.2mm stage 2a melanoma.
Vlock said research by the American Joint Committee on Cancer shows the five-year survival rate of that type of the disease is 79%. At 10 years, the rate drops to 64%.
But Vlock said that other parts of the record suggest the cancer was in stage 3B, which has significantly lower five- and 10-year survival rates of 53% and 38%, respectively. McCain was last diagnosed with cancer eight years ago."
Has anyone stop to consider that Palin is as qualified as Obama and he is running for President
Scott Pez,
1) The 2000 release of documents was extensive as noted here - thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/mccain-on-his-health-everythings-fine/
and reported here query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DEFD7133EF935A35751C1A96F958260
2) the 2008 release was labeled 'extraordinary' this time - www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/23/ST2008052300934.html and included access to doctors.
3) He released a detailed summary by his doctors to t he public - media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_health_records_052308.pdf
That outlines medications, history and conditions
This is being played in an pro-Obama ad as 'not releasing his records' and people here are demanding their release.
Obama has denied access to his doctor and released
a 276 wrd summary that outlines nothing more than he was heather 2 years ago. No detail of his medical history, no actual documents.
That this is even remotely a discussion is amazing and only shows the depths to which partisans will defend their man.
This election is about your conscious.
This election is about facing your fears.
This election is about what is really on the inside of us all...
You must admit it can be a frightening discovery.
Posted by saveoursouls | September 30, 2008 3:12 PM
Get some counseling. It can help.
To all the Sullivan haters... there are obviously many people who agree with Sullivan that the Palin pick is cause for some "hysteria." Look at his blog numbers. They're off the charts. The Trig thing was a dead end and in poor taste... other than that his reporting has been dead on.
Personally, Palin reminds me of the Martin Sheen character in the movie THE DEAD ZONE.
Why shouldn't Andrew use his blog to draw attention to Sarah's glaring ineptitude? This is a country that elected Bush twice, mainly because he was the candidate people wanted to have a beer with. He, like Palin, was likeable in that respect. Now do the math: we've had a major attack on U.S. soil, massive corruption, we're spiraling into a depression, record unemployment, we're fighting two wars and we're a trillion in debt. And no one, not a single person, has had a beer with George Bush. We could very well elect the oldest president in history and he won't release his medical records (at least not in a meaningful way where they can be scrutinized/photocopied). Like the bumper sticker says, if you're not outraged then you haven't been paying attention.
That lump on McCain's cheek is supposedly some kind of swollen gland. Trust me, if that was a melanoma recurrence he'd already be dead.
The attacks on Andrew Sullivan for his harsh treatment of Palin are amusing mainly because every time she opens her mouth his intial reaction to her selection as something both absurd and frightening at the same time is proven to be more and more prescient. Maybe she'll dazzle at the debate and prove him mistaken. I'm not holding my breath.
"But the fundamental fact is that Sarah Palin needs to cram because she doesn't know anything. "
Why do you think she does know any less than you do?
She seems to be running Alaska ably.
She seems to be able, so she'll learn what she needs to, and will hire consultants, like Bush hired Dick Cheney.
She did a poor interview ?
I prefer that to the empty smooth talk of Obama.
Also, I agree with Skullberg that Obama should release more comprehensive medical records. That being said, Obama is 47 and playing full court basketball on a regular basis AND if he does drop dead I have complete confidence in Biden running our country.
Andrew would do better to focus on Sarah Palin's actual record, instead of hysterical rants about Trig Palin or making up lists of "documented lies" that are lies themselves. There is plenty of information about Sarah Palin that is legitimate for discussion without resorting to innuendo and baseless attacks on her personal life or truly silly tirades about her pregnancy.
I guess it is a testament to all that is wrong in America that John McCain could release almost 2000 pages of MEDICAL RECORDS in 2000 and in 2008, make his doctors available to answer reporters questions, unequivacally release more than Obama has released and he can still be accused of 'not releasing his medical records'
Skull,
Our difference lies in our varying definitions of the word "release."
In my opinion, McCain has not released his records. He has allowed them to be viewed by select people for a very short period of time. Thousands of pages, I might add.
Obama has not released his records either.
But, let's not kid ourselves... there are obviously more compelling reasons for people to know McCain's medical history. Check the blurb I posted just a few posts up. There's actually a good chance (like 20 percent or higher) that McCain's cancer could return. If that happens, even if he doesn't die, he could be left unable to do his job.
That said, it would be nice for Obama to fully release his records... as in GIVE full-disclosure copies to the media to take home.
Then, McCain would be politically forced to release his as well, and then we could stop talking about this and focus on the more important issues... like what the heck was McCain thinking by picking Palin as his potential successor...
She did a poor interview ?
I prefer that to the empty smooth talk of Obama.
Only because she's a Republican, you ridiculous stooge.
I love watching all of the fake Libertarians and GOP party hacks who post here defending the honor of the retarded lying wackaloon known as Sarah Palin. The more focus on her the better, as far as I'm concerned, because she has become (and will remain) a national joke. McCain couldn't have embarrassed himself more by picking his pill-popping homewrecking whore Cindy for the job. Hell, Cindy seems to be able to put two sentences together without stumbling, which is more than Bible Spice, oops, Palin can do.
Jimbo says "To all the Sullivan haters... there are obviously many people who agree with Sullivan that the Palin pick is cause for some "hysteria." Look at his blog numbers. They're off the charts. The Trig thing was a dead end and in poor taste... other than that his reporting has been dead on."
See, I've been reading Sullivan a lot more lately, but only to watching him become more and more unhinged every day. It has been qute a spectacle, especially the stuff about the McCain campaign's email to Howard Kurtz. It's as good as the Cain Mutiny.
But I've decided to stop looking because (a) it irritates me without informing me, and (b) it only increases Sullivan's hits, which make him and people like Jimbo think he is really striking a chord with the American public.
Is Troopergate fair to talk about? Although it involves family, so I understand that it may have the special exemption for Republicans. How about the fact that John McCain ran all over the country declaring that experience was the absolute most important criterion in the Presidency and then plucked one of the most inexperienced Governors out of obscurity to be his running mate? Is that discussable? Even by the dread MSM?
What are the rules here? Is her tendency toward secretiveness, vindictiveness, and cronyism allowed in the public debate? How about the ridiculous lying about the Bridge to Nowhere, and her role therein? Is that allowed?
Pill-popping homewrecking whore?
I thought this was The Atlantic Monthly not TMZ or some other gutter trawling blog laced with obscenities.
Please, Atlantic editors, I BEG YOU TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS NONSENSE.
Megan,
we haven't forgotten you, and you had a fantastic response to Sullivan's question. Now, can you tell us libertarians when we'll know if this is a dead cat bounce or if things are going to stabilize? :)
But I do care about LIES,
Do you? Even Republican lies? Or are you lying about caring about lies? Cause that would be doubly reprehensible and probably illegal, at least in Alaska.
Little Boots -- That's all fair as far as I'm concerned. Assuming bald accusations, speculation and innuendo aren't treated as fact, and ordinary campaign puffery isn't treated as "demonstrated lies."
And assuming that Obama's connections with Ayers, Johnson, Raines, Rezko etc., his bumbles without a teleprompter, his sexism, his failure to release his medical records, and so on are given equivalent consideration as well.
Why wouldn't I care about Republican lies? I've been listening to them for 8 years, and oddly, I've heard John McCain described as a liar more in the last 3 weeks than I have heard Bush/Cheney and Co. called liars in the last 8 years. I find that pretty strange and troubling.
I also find it strange and troubling that the "lies" of John McCain are not really lies, but much more typical selective/misleading use of facts...the same thing that Obama is doing, yet nobody is calling him a liar.
What it makes me think is that America is about to trade one radical idealogue [Bush] for another [Obama] and I find a striking similarity betweem the hysterical ranting of liberals when it comes to all things Obama and conservatives when it comes to the Iraq war or global warming. All the country is going to do is trade one inexperienced governor hiding a racial bent for another one.
GOP operative "Libertarian" writes: "Pill-popping homewrecking whore?
I thought this was The Atlantic Monthly not TMZ or some other gutter trawling blog laced with obscenities.
Please, Atlantic editors, I BEG YOU TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS NONSENSE."
There were no obscenities in that comment, in fact. And if you can claim Sullivan is insane when he quite clearly isn't, on what basis do you object to me calling Cindy McCain a pill-popping homewrecking whore? Isn't that just what she is, when judged by the standards of the GOP's "family values" folks?
And you wouldn't be so overwrought in your defense of Sarah Palin if Sullivan's recounting of her sociopathic lying weren't based in fact, which it is. The woman will apparently lie about anything at any time for no reason. It's amazing to watch.
MoeLarryAndJesus,
Calling Cindy McCain a pill-popping, homewrecking whore is vile, cowardly and incredibly nasty.
It says a lot more about your utter lack of any common decency than it does about Cindy McCain. It also says something about The Atlantic for not banning you.
I'd like to see specific examples of Obama's alleged sexism...
denise, you do get that Obama's "ties" to all those people are all about innuendo and speculation, right? You do know that just because some deep connection is rattling around inside Sean Hannity's vast empty cranium it ain't necessarily true, right?
As to sexism, I think it's about as true as the Clintons' racism, which is to say both sides in a very bitter primary probably flirted with evil ideas they didn't remotely agree with for short-term political gain. As does McCain. Honestly, this is a case where the specifics are hard to pin down, but probably present in some sense.
I find that pretty strange and troubling.
I find that pretty hard to believe. You've got to get out of this conservative ghetto, maybe.
On the other hand, reporters do seem more willing to call a lie a lie these days. I'm glad to see that.
I wish we were getting some kind of radical in Obama. I suspect we're getting another centrist who will clean up the ridiculous mess left behind by the worst president in history, occasionally help the average citizen, but mostly keep corporations in control. And I do think he will move us somewhat closer to universal health care, a move long, long overdue, but he will have to overcome a lot of shrieking and howling, and I'm not sure how much can be accomplished there.
"There's a better than even chance she won't end up as President"
That is one of the most staggering things I have ever read on this blog. She is the GOP candidate for vice-president of the United States. She has to be ready to serve on day one. Her selection disqualifies McCain, and I find it odd that you don't address that.
I don't think anything McCain has been accused of "lying" about is a lie, it is typical campaign posturing, misleading, perhaps, lacking context, sure, but it isn't lying any more than Obama is lying. That is why I find it strange and troubling, that non lies are now called lies by the media, but only on one side, and 8 years of actual, provable, incontrovertible lies, nobody said anything, let alone calling Bush/Cheney liars.
What I see is the media having turned a corner and going down a very dangerous road...which is abandoning any veneer of objectivity and throwing all their weight to one side. That is bad for the country in the long run, whether you want Obama to win or not.
I think he will create numerous new federal programs and bureaucracies, raise taxes on the middle class, yeah I know he says he won't, but I don't believe it, over regulate the economy to the point of gridlock and spend all of his time on pet projects for "the poor"....his supreme court appointments will make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like a conservative. He will also I assure you, be a one term president unless he declares martial law.
Libertarian says: "Calling Cindy McCain a pill-popping, homewrecking whore is vile, cowardly and incredibly nasty."
What's vile, cowardly and incredibly nasty is a rich and powerful woman stealing narcotics from a children's charity and then using her connections to avoid going to prison for it.
Oh, and having an affair with a married man twice your age is something her own party would be screaming about from every pulpit if it applied to a Dem candidate's wife.
It is simply a bloody awful fact that Palin is plain, stupid, trailor tash.
"Oh, she's one of us." Is really the most frightening thing people can say.
I, personnaly, am not that stupid. I actually went to school and learned something. If you are that stupid, then I don't what you running my country. Get back to your trailor and watch soap operas.
The Evangelical Party (the party of the anti-christ) does not select intelligent thinking people, people who can think for themselves. They haven't done that since Richard Nixon.
They don't pick leaders, but followers. The dumber the better. Hello, George W. and Ronnie Reagan. Great mouth pieces for the greeding, self-serving corporate contollers and that one percent out to ensure their view and control over the country are secured.
We need an 1917 style change here in the good ol USA or even better the French 1789 revolution.
Here's what Tod Zywicki said about comparative qualifications, after watching Obama in the debate:
"But the idea that Obama is qualified to be President and Palin unqualified to be Vice-President has never struck me as a particularly plausible position--and after last night, even less so."
It is telling, I think, that McArdle refuses to tell us why she thinks Obama is "well-informed", just as it is telling that it is almost impossible to get other Obama supporters to tell us what their man has accomplished. (Besides writing two autobiographies.) I have been trying to get an Obama supporter to do so at Sound Politics since last December, with no responses.
The simplest explanation for this refusal to present evidence in support of Obama is that his supporters know that there isn't much evidence. For instance, I have concluded that McArdle does not really believe that Obama is "well-informed", because she refuses to tell us why she holds that dubious position.
There is nothing in Obama's education to suggest that he is well-informed. He appears to taken courses mostly from radical professors as an undergraduate, though we can not be sure -- which would make him misinformed, at best. And his time at that famous trade school, Harvard Law, may have taught him some law, but almost certainly taught him little about economics, and nothing about military questions.
His time running the Annenberg Challenge shows he knew nothing about education, in fact, that he knew things that weren't true. The grants that his team made were almost certain to make the poor kids worse off, by politicizing the schools even more. I have seen no evidence that he has learned from that failure. Or his failure to improve housing in Chicago.
And his choices of associates from Tony Rezko to Reverend Wright do not suggest that he is "well-informed".
McArdle -- if she is willing to actually think about these issues might consider one of the easiest of all, at least for her: free trade. One of the best agreements on the table is with Columbia. Obama opposes that agreement. There are two explanations for his stance, that he was cynically catering to leftists in the Democratic base, or that he believed his arguments.
I am inclined -- though I will admit that we can not know for sure -- to think that both are true, that he opposed the agreement with Columbia because he wanted support from the left, and because he does not understand the basic principles of free trade.
(As for Andrew Sullivan: Some people seeing a horrific wreck stop and stare and stare and stare at the mutilated bodies. I prefer to see if I can help and, if not, leave the scene alone. For similar reasons, I pay no attention to Sullivan. If McArdle is basically a decent person -- and I have every reason to think that she is -- she should follow the same policy, to the extent possible.)
Okay, so chances of a President Sarah Palin are about less than even. Less than a 1 in 2. Would you say Mccain at 72, given his blood pressure and past, as well as not releasing records is a safe "less than even"? Or an optimistic less than even?
Are we rolling dice here?
Well, I don't care who lives in, grew up in, or wants to live in a trailer. Poverty is not the problem here. Even a lack of education, in and of itself, isn't the problem here.
This is a woman who brought a witch doctor to her church to protect her from witchcraft. This is a woman who thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I won't even get into evolution and global warming. This is bottom of the barrel, let's embrace ignorance Christianity that should have died out hundreds of years ago. This is a transplanted medieval loon incapable of understanding science even enough to agree or disagree. And she has all the boneheaded sureness of her own stupid opinions that has made Bush such a perfect example of how not to be president.
That is the problem, and the fact that McCain picked her without even bothering to look into any of this, or anything else, makes him a complete jackass who will richly deserve the landslide about to fall on his sorry ass.
Jeane Dixon writes: "I think he will create numerous new federal programs and bureaucracies, raise taxes on the middle class, yeah I know he says he won't, but I don't believe it, over regulate the economy to the point of gridlock and spend all of his time on pet projects for "the poor"....his supreme court appointments will make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like a conservative. He will also I assure you, be a one term president unless he declares martial law."
Thanks, Jeane. I'll put as much credence in that as I did in all of your other predictions over the years.
PS - Aren't you dead?
MIKE S -- it's a good thing that the supreme court have more diversity on it -- since our country is so diverse - and why on earth would it scare you so much? Would it make it too even of a playing for for those who are not male and white? (i'm white, but female)
"There is nothing in Obama's education to suggest that he is well-informed... McArdle -- if she is willing to actually think about these issues might consider one of the easiest of all, at least for her: free trade. One of the best agreements on the table is with Columbia. Obama opposes that agreement."
Obama opposes a free trade agreement with a private university in Morningside Heights, Manhattan? Because Obama is not as "well-informed" as the writer of the above blurb, presumably?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
"I think he will create numerous new federal programs and bureaucracies, raise taxes on the middle class, yeah I know he says he won't, but I don't believe it, over regulate the economy to the point of gridlock and spend all of his time on pet projects for "the poor"....his supreme court appointments will make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like a conservative."
Every night, before I go to bed, I pray to my Unitarian Universalist god that Barack Obama is exactly the radical you describe above.
And then every morning I wake up, and he's just plain-old Barack Obama.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Maybe Andrew Sullivan has become a little unhinged. Maybe he has crossed the line of "good taste." But the fact remains is that he was one of those few conservatives who was right about Palin almost from the start. He didn't have blinders on unlike many other conservatives -- conservatives who can no longer look away from the disaster that is staring them in the face.
So while the vehemence of Sullivan's attacks may cross a line, he is at least directing his attacks at someone who deserves them. My only real qualm is with his hectoring of McArdle; She has a point when she says she deals mostly with economic matters. Digging up stuff on and talking about Palin simply isn't her job.
I find commentary on this financial crisis very lacking. The principal cause of this crisis as the housing bubble. If there had been no bubbl there would be no crisis. Does any serious commentator deny this?
That there was a bubble in reast estate was shown by the parabolic rise in real estate prices:
From 1987-1997 the Case-Shiller Housing Index rose at 2.2% annual rate (baseline).
From 1997-2000 the index rose at a rate of 8.6%/yr
From 2000-2003 the index rose as a rate of 10.5%/yr
From 2003-2006 the index rose at a rate of 14%/yr
Why did house prices start rising above baseline in 1997, accelerate in 2003 and still further in 2003?
Interest rate trends can explain most of the 2000-2003 rise. From Jan 2000 to Jan 2003 FHLMCA rates fell from 8.21% to 5,92%. As a result a fixed monthly payment bought 26% more house, a rise of 7.9% annually compared to the 8.9% rate of price rise.
Interest rates actually rose slightly from 1997 to 2000 resulting in a 4% decline in the amount of house a fixed payment could buy. However, this was a period of rampant stock marker gains whose "wealth effect" stimulated the economy and probably spilled over into the housing market.
The robust bull market had been stimulated by the 1997 capital gains tax cut. Similar tax cuts had been made in the early 1920's and 1980's and both has led to very strong bull markets that developed into bubbles and eventually crashed in 1929 and 1987. I predicted the 1997 tax cut have the same effect and only exited stocks in late 1999. And it did have that effect. (see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595132421)
Since real estate is an asset that can, in principle, be bought and sold for capital gains, the 1997 tax cuts could well have directly stimulated the real estate market as well as the stock market.
Now the reason interest rates fell from 2000 to 2003 was the Fed cut rates to deal with the collapsing stock market bubble, which itself was a product of the 1997 capital gains tax cut.
This means the 2000-2003 real estate price rise (indirectly) reflected the roaring bull market in stocks induced by the 1997 capital gains tax cut.
We are now left with the 2003-2006 housing price rise, the fastest one of all. Interest rates did not fall during this time so we cannot explain this rise on them. On the other hand, capital gains taxes were cut again in 2003, providing another stimulatory jolt to asset markets. Stocks did not response strongly to this jolt because they had been damaged as an asset class by the stock bubble collapse. Real estate was still in a bull mode in 2003 and so it was the recipient of the full undiluted effects of the 2003 capital gains tax cut stimulation.
It seems inescapable that capital gains tax cuts in 1997 and 2003 did a good job of increasing asset prices (first stock & real state and then just real estate) which is what they are supposed to do. That is, capital gains tax cuts encourage investments that lead to capital gains (that is rising asset prices).
A lot of attention has bee focused on deregulation. This is getting it backwards. Yes, deregulating is the *tool* through which financiers got into trouble, but the necessary deregulation did not occur until *after* simultaneous bull markets in stocks, bond and real estate appeared in 1997. It was this environment which made outsized profits possible and which provided the *motivation* for effective lobbying to get rid of regulation that got in the way of making money.
IN the final analysis it was an economic policy that emphasized encouraging investment (i.e. so-called "supply-side economics") that has led to our current problems. Investment is necessary for economic growth and so is a good thing in moderation. Too much of a good thing is bad, and that goes for investment.
KevDog wrote:
"Because Obama has been thinking about these issues for years and Palin hasn't."
Which issues has Obama been thinking about? Constitutional law? - okay. Education? - probably (kinda-sorta).
But on what basis do you credit him for years worth of thinking about all the other myriad, national-level issues a President faces? Does his (admittedly impressive) law school education automatically suggest he's conversant in questions of national security - or U.S. fiscal policy - or global trade - or international relations - or energy policy - etc? Is there evidence that, as a state legislator, he was spending off-hours studying globalization - or that, in between community organizing events, he was attending lectures on economic history or pondering the democratic transition of former Eastern Bloc countries? Come on...
Obama is a smart, smart guy. He's well educated, charismatic, and very articulate. But about the only things we KNOW he's spent his adult life thinking about are the law and his own political aspirations. Automatically crediting him with more than that is Obamaphile wishful thinking.
brandon writes: "But on what basis do you credit him for years worth of thinking about all the other myriad, national-level issues a President faces?"
He's been running for president for a year and a half or so and he's answered questions in just about every forum available. How's that for a "basis," chuckles?
And since you voted for Dumbya twice, on what basis should anyone think you care about a candidate's thinking? Evidently you vote on other grounds.
This stuff about Obama releasing his medical records is nutty. What we need to know about Obama's health is: is he sick now or has he had a condition (like cancer) that could recur?
A summary from his doctor would reveal if he was sick now (e.g. had MS or prostate cancer or some other illness). It would also reveal whether or not he is hypertensive or has high cholesterol. You can tell by looking at him that he is not fat and we know that he smokes.
This is all you need to know about a 47 year old man. For example if he is hypertensive or has high cholesterol, all that is needed is a statement from the doctor that he is on a statin and his chlesterol is well controlled with a value of ___ at is last screening. Ditto for high blood pressure. You don't need to see ten years of blood reports and twenty pages showing his weight, BP, temperature and pulse from his last twenty office visits.
These data add nothing.
On the other hand, McCain has had cancer on several occasions. What stage, what grade? Did he have surgery? What was the outcome? Cancer can recur, in most cases a 5-10 year remission is necessary to assume a "cure" was achieved. Also, McCain is 72. At his age the probability of developing health problems is greater than it was at 47. It is almost certain that he is *not* healthy in the same way as a 47 year old can be. He might be healthy "for his age" but he is almost certainly not as healthy as Obama.
Consider, had Reagan been first elected at 72, he would have been in early-stage Alzheimer,s by the end of his second term. And Reagan was our second longest-lived president.
Megan,
Keep up the good work. And don't become obsessive like Andrew.
I have followed the discussion of Sarah and Trig Palin on Andrew Sullivan's blog and elsewhere with interest. I believe he raises legitimate questions.
My background is in perinatal medicine and bioethics. I am also the mother of a child with special needs.
The facts of Palin's pregnancy and delivery as reported by the Alaskan press -- with input from the Palins -- is troubling and hard to reconcile with Palin's stated pro-life views.
I'm not talking here about her alleged amniocentesis -- there are many good medical reasons why a pro-life mother might want the information such a test provides. Perhaps such testing would show that her fetus could benefit from intrauterine surgery. She may already have known her fetus was imperiled because of a triple screen done earlier in pregnancy. The amniocentesis would have better defined the problem.
Palin herself said she wanted the information an amnio could provide so that she would be prepared.
But if so, why did she travel to Texas at the end of her eighth month, knowing, as she must have known, that Down Syndrome babies run a high risk of preterm delivery and the need for expert resuscitation and neonatal care? Not only are these babies frequently born preterm, but in half of all such cases they have complex heart, intestine, or other organ anomalies requiring quick, often complicated, surgical repair in addition to special care for problems of prematurity.
Surely Palin knew this, and if she didn't, it suggests to me that she is incurious, didn't do the most elementary research on her situation and chose a doctor who failed to properly counsel her.
More importantly, Palin and/or her doctor felt it was perfectly fine, following the rupture of Palin's membranes, for her to board several planes for a long trip back to Alaska, bypassing excellent perinatal centers in Dallas, Seattle and Anchorage to be delivered in a remote, community hospital by a doctor who wasn't even an obstetrician. This is highly irresponsible!
It is the sort of maneuver medically savvy women sometimes take when they want to avoid the neonatal rescue of their imperiled fetus. But Sarah Palin tells us she is staunchly pro-life.
So which is it? Was she trying to avoid neonatal care for her baby to let nature take its course? Or was she recklessly endangering the life and health of her baby out of ignorance? Out of carelessness? Or is she lying again?
Any possible explanation rules Palin out for me as someone who should be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Special Needs Mother
If Andrew is sometimes reckless, maybe even careless, I think it's a consequence of being fearless and consistently interesting.
Fine - Andrew's thing about Trig was too much. Big deal.
The rest of his commentary on Palin has been very fair.
And crucial. And devastating.
And so richly deserved by Palin and McCain.
MIKE S -- it's a good thing that the supreme court have more diversity on it -- since our country is so diverse - and why on earth would it scare you so much? Would it make it too even of a playing for for those who are not male and white? (i'm white, but female)
It's Congress and the President's job to pass laws that look out for "the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout.." The Supreme Court is supposed to make sure what these laws are within the bounds of the Constitution and that that they are applied correctly in the courts.
Could you explain how the most detailed level of infomration ever has morphed into 'tightly controlled hand picked cadre of sympathetic reporters?
Because that's two separate events, one in 2000 and one in 2008? If you're asking why the McCain campaign suddenly changed its policy on medical records, you'd have to pose that question to them.
You have? Why haven't you provided a link to them?
I don't recall saying that they were avaliable on the internet. (McCain's certainly aren't.) If you'd like to see them, present your press credentials to the Obama campaign and I'm sure you'll be accommodated.
And as an addendum to what I just wrote - I'm sure that we can find Justice's of both genders and all colors that can do the proper job of the Supreme Court. Of course, if they aren't white or male, and don't hold the 'appropriate views' that the left demands of minorities, then they will be vilified just as Clarence Thomas was.
Megan McArdle is an economics blogger? Ho, ho, ho! Good one! And John McCain is John Maynard Keynes!
Brandon writes:
But on what basis do you credit him for years worth of thinking about all the other myriad, national-level issues a President faces?
I am a 49-year old chemical engineer by training and employment. As a hobby I write financial and economic history books and articles (see url). I have managed to learn quite a bit about these topics in my spare time since I started in 1997. I am also married and raised a family at the same time.
My point is an ordinary citizen of some intellectual ability (I have a PhD in chemical engineering from a top five school) can learn quite a lot through independent study in one's spare time. Obama's Harvard Law Degree implies that he has at least as much intellectual ability as I do and so he should be able to learn a great deal about any issue outside his field that interests him just like I have.
Obama has an undergraduate degree in International relations, implying an interest in this topic. Interest plus ability should yield knowledge--at least it would for me.
In 2004 Obama gave a very well received speech that catapulted him into the ranks of major Democratic players. He also became a US senator.
This gave Obama something I don't have: access to real experts in policy. He obviously considered the presidency already at that time and so has had 4 years to bone up on what he doesn't know (e.g. economics).
It is clear to me that Obama seeks to create new leading sectors while McCain does not. I concluded long before I ever heard about Obama that new leading sectors were needed to get worker incomes rising again as they have not since 1973 (when the last batch of leading sectors were exhausted). It also seemed to me that alternate energy made the most sense for the concept about which new leading sectors might be built. Obama plans to do this.
Thus he seems to be on the right track to do something about stagnant worker incomes and lost jobs. Since he advocates a policy that could actually work I find it easy to believe that he actually wants worker incomes to rise--which is consistent with what he says he wants to do.
McCain, on the other hand has no coherent strategy to do anything about stagnant worker incomes or loss jobs. By coherent, I mean what he advocates has no chance of producing what he says he wants to achieve. Now he would know this an be lying or he simply might not know any better. I prefer to believe the latter.
The Supreme Court is supposed to make sure what these laws are within the bounds of the Constitution and that that they are applied correctly in the courts.
And of course to find ways to justify torture, the repeal of the Fourth Amendment, and anything else that wanders into the head of a Republican apparatchik.
Meagan: one presumes you intended "complimentary." Apparently Palin is so dumb that even writing about her is contagious.
Also, I agree with Skullberg that Obama should release more comprehensive medical records.
Sure but Skullberg is being one sided. Is the rule that everyone should release? If so McCain's side fails because Palin remains under wrap. Is the rule that records should only be released if there's cause? In that case McCain had to release due to his known bout with cancer, his age and his physical injuries from Vietnam but there's no known reason to be concerned about Obama's health.
anonymous
Fine - Andrew's thing about Trig was too much. Big deal.
Let's not let this one go. Sullivan has posted at least a dozen times that he believes Palin was Trig's mother. He asked legit questions when the story surfaced not from him but from around Palin and from the Internet, that's what a journalist does. Everyone wants to sing the praises of the blogsphere when they uncover a scoop but most leads end up leading nowhere. Do you want to watch the cake being made or just eat it out of the box?
Liars like brig assert Sullivan has been claiming Palin faked her pregnancy but when called out on it they can't back their statement up.
I agree that some items on Sullivan's list of Palin lies seem a bit unfair.....such as her claim that she only flies Israel's flag in her office but the problem is if you think out of a list of 15 lies Palin deserves the benefit of the doubt on 3-5 items they are 3-5 trivial items and the big items seem pretty much undisputable.
Libertarian
Oops, I think that Ap story is from 4 days ago, but here's something from NPR today....
Questions Remain About Obama's Health
You left out that the NPR story said all the candidates were lax about releasing records. McCain did let reporters into a room with his records but they couldn't copy anything. Obama's 'release' is pretty thin but as we've seen there's no agreed upon 'rule' here.
Jimbo says "To all the Sullivan haters... there are obviously many people who agree with Sullivan that the Palin pick is cause for some "hysteria." Look at his blog numbers. They're off the charts. The Trig thing was a dead end and in poor taste... other than that his reporting has been dead on."
See, I've been reading Sullivan a lot more lately, but only to watching him become more and more unhinged every day. It has been qute a spectacle, especially the stuff about the McCain campaign's email to Howard Kurtz. It's as good as the Cain Mutiny.
But I've decided to stop looking because (a) it irritates me without informing me, and (b) it only increases Sullivan's hits, which make him and people like Jimbo think he is really striking a chord with the American public.
Denise...
It is clear that the chord being hit is much larger than Sullivan and being felt by millions upon millions of Americans every time they hear Palin open her mouth or learn of one more lie, misrepresentation (I sold the plane on ebay), or downright idiocy she utters. I for one was willing to give her a chance, but the more I learned the more dismayed I have become. Sullivan just happened to be one of the first conservatives to be intellectually honest about one of the most irresponsible VP picks in our nation's history.
they will be vilified just as Clarence Thomas was.
Yeah, cuz boy, Clarence Thomas is really an example of a top-flight judicial mind who's really stuck it to the liberals with the perspicacity he's brought to that august chamber.
Right? I mean, with all of the questions he's asked in the past two years? Oh, wait, that's right - he didn't ask a single one. Maybe the opposition to Clarence Thomas was that he was a third-rate legal mind completely unqualified for the job he was asked to take? (And I thought Republicans were opposed to unqualified AA hires.)
I'm sorry, the more I hear Sarah Palin when she is not reading a script, the more I have been persuaded to conclude that she is indeed NOT ready for the job. I'm seriously wondering how she became Governor.
I have to say, I believe now more than ever that McCain has gambled with America's future and has put his campaign and personal ambitions before his country.
I echo the call for her to gracefully bow out.
People who vote for McCain/Palin are stupid. People who think Obama's education and experience are anywhere similar to Sarah Palin's complete ignorance of the world at large--they're also stupid.
Sadly, there are a lot of stupid people in the world.
Palin and McCain; Pinky and the Brain?
For the past week, these two adorable elephants have been up to so many of their adorable antics.
http://winstoninwonderland.blogspot.com/2008/10/theyre-palin-and-mccain-yes-palin-and.html
Special needs mother
My wife expresed almost identical sentiments.
She went through two difficult pregnancies (along with two less troublesme ones). During the two difficult ones she was prescribed total bedrest since movement could cause premature delivery or miscarriage. So in each case she spent 3-4 months lyng on her side for more or less 24 hours a day except when she got up to go the bathroom.
When she read about Sarah Palin's airplane trips, her speech and return to Alaska even as she was leaking fluid, my wife's comment was "that's a woman who wanted to lose the baby." I thought it was harsh, but you know, Palin's actions just don't seem consistent with those of a woman whose first thought was the health and safe delivery of her baby. Maybe it was more down to political ambition - couldn't pass up the chane to make a speech at a big convention - but while that would explain the trip to Dallas, it would not account for the rapid return home. And the 8 or 11 hour car ride when no medical assistance would have been possible.
It's impossible to put yourself in someone else's shoes in a case like this, but the actions seem to run up against the expressed sentiments.
The only people I hear spewing hate and a lot of it are the Democrats. They do not bother to check facts and go by biased Media only. Do not tell me the news is not biased either, I don't want to hear it anymore. My question to you and anyone else posting is to give me a list of Obama's accomplishments in Office not his education because anyone can do that, but his actual accomplishment's while in Office. GOOD LUCK!
"Sullivan is particularly vulnerable to People I Don't Like Derangement Syndrome."
TR: This is true. Even before this election he could be highly motivated by personal feelings of dislike or betrayal. What made this more acceptable, at times, is he seemed more aware he was doing this and so could moderate the behavior. He supported Kerry because he felt "betrayed" by Bush, but I don't think he implied so much that America "must" vote for Kerry or was even as hostile to Bush as he's been toward Palin.
And the thing is, like him, I agree this isn't just about Palin. I think that's what his defenders here are getting all mixed up about. Whether Palin is an unqualified incurious beauty queen or not has little to do with why his behavior is problemattic. There are many responsible, reasoned, and fair ways to oppose Palin. He is mostly not doing those. He is fixated on her beyond the fixation any reasonable person would have on a running-mate and it's not just a fixation about her inexperience or ignorance. He's obsessed with her personal qualities and personal life in a way Obama himself has rejected. He compares her to characters in conspiracy movies and gets angry when others aren't as angry about her as him.
Many bloggers here are against her as a VP. Coates clearly doesn't agree with her and considers her kind-of dumb. He's also an Obama supporter who clearly likes Michelle Obama. However I don't thnk he's obsessed by Palin. He can even show some human sympathy to her at times. The same with other progressives here.
As for what Andrew was like before, well before he was very emotional but a bit more level-headed. He was basically a Thatcherist in America. I always had a fear that was going to come undone because nothing in American politics is, or ever will be, as much like Thatcherism as he wanted. He had an intense, bordering on paranoia, fear of the Religious Right. (I think this explains part of his Palin-madness) He considered himself conservative and as the word is somewhat vague I guess he can deem himself that if he wants. Basically though "Neoliberal" or "Thatcherist", as mentioned, I think was always more accurate. More "The Economist" than "The Wall Street Journal." He seems to have decided his opposition to Bush and the Religious Right now trumps all of this, so now I'd say he leans toward the Left-wing of the Democratic Party. (I don't think this will last as two years from now Obama will likely disappoint him and he'll turn on him)
It seems to be that their are 2 very distinct issues here:
1) Sarah Palin, the potential Vice President of the United States.
and
2) Andrew Sullivan's treatment of her.
Now why, in God's name again, am I supposed to be even slightly more concerned with some third-rate journalist's treatment of her than her ACTUAL ABILITY to do take the second-highest position in the nation.
Does no one here even read history? Yeah, actually presidents do die in office.
The idea that who might or might not be Vice President is unimportant is more than enough to disqualify 75% of the people in here from deserving attention.
Unimportant? Are you kidding me? Some of you frighten me, seriously.
Defend Palin if you want. But don't go around saying the Vice President of a 72-year old man who's been tortured with a history of cancer is unimportant.
We're talking about the most important position in the world here. Try to be at least a little intellectually honest.
It matters, but I think the odds are good he'll live the next five years in adequate shape.
Three of his four grandparents seemed to have lived to be over eighty and his mother is still alive. Medical treatment for wealthy politicians is usually good. Half of all Presidents who died in office were assassinated, which I believe means murder is the main risk factor for a President while in office. However there hasn't been an assassination in over 40 years and I think his being an old guy whose VP is scary to the opposing side makes him a lower-risk for assassination. The average age of living ex-Presidents is currently about 76.7 years. Every President from Nixon to present has lived to be at least 81.
In response to Gene. It was Palin's unusual choice of flying when she was about to give birth to a special needs infant coupled with the fact that her pregnancy was undetected until the seventh month that caused the speculation that led to the Palin-not-Trig's mom story.
It explained the unusual facts. It was also wrong as subsequent data demonstrated.
At the time, Todd Palin said that the reason his wife took the risk of flying while in the early stages of labor was that he wanted his fifth child be born in Alaska. This explanation was ignored because it sounded trivial or even silly.
It was not until we learned that Palin's husband had Alaskan separatist beliefs that the unusual behavior wrt to the flight made sense. As a strong (Alsakan) patriot, Mr Palin simply did not want his son born in a foreign land, which is how he saw the rest of the US.
I imagine a lot of American patriots would prefer their children be born in America.
Thomas R
He is fixated on her beyond the fixation any reasonable person would have on a running-mate and it's not just a fixation about her inexperience or ignorance. He's obsessed with her personal qualities and personal life in a way Obama himself has rejected. He compares her to characters in conspiracy movies and gets angry when others aren't as angry about her as him.
1. Don't you think this sword cuts both ways? Doesn't it seem that many Palin supporters are fixated on personal qualities that they like (mother to lots of kids, declining abortion, being attractive, 'spunky' or whatever etc.) that really don't have anything to do with office?
2. I understand what you're saying but Sullivan has not been this bad on Palin IMO. As I pointed out, he has been almost obsessive about posting all the evidence that Palin didn't fake a pregnancy. The only other element that I think is diving into her personal life is asking lots of questions about Palin's use of amniocentesis but from what I remember of those posts they were an honest question about amniocentesis and pro-life ideology...(and what's good for the goose....if Palinites want to make a big deal about her having Trig we do have the right to explore that). Now Sullivan has put a lot of work into compiling his list of Palin lies but it's good that he did. How many Palinites brush off the charge as just some type of strange media hype. Well Sullivan has them right there and you can examine them in as little or as much detail as you want. Some of them I think you can make the case that they really shouldn't count as lies but many of the important ones are real problems.....not just the media attacking Palin because they don't like her accent!
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that Palin is a really, really bad choice. And perhaps if you take everything McCain has said previously about 'country first' and the value of experience and the danger of having foreign policy amateurs running the show in dangerous times then maybe you can see that Sullivan is right to be really, really pissed at the choice of Palin. Sure that's kind of idealistic but idealism isn't a stranger to conservatism...both Reagan and Thatcher had some of it too. Not this Rove's GOP, though.
He's also an Obama supporter who clearly likes Michelle Obama. However I don't thnk he's obsessed by Palin. He can even show some human sympathy to her at times. The same with other progressives here.
You mean like:
Sept 10 http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/why-trig-matter.html
Come on, you can do better can't you?
More "The Economist" than "The Wall Street Journal." He seems to have decided his opposition to Bush and the Religious Right now trumps all of this, so now I'd say he leans toward the Left-wing of the Democratic Party. (I don't think this will last as two years from now Obama will likely disappoint him
I think Sullivan has been pretty consistent here. He has said Obama will almost certainly push policies he doesn't like. He has even said Obama is a type of Christianist (but not as problematic as the current GOP kind). It isn't so much that Sullivan has become less conservative it is that the GOP has drifted a long way from what normally used to be considered conservatives. It was interesting you used the word Thatcherist. I think we can agree Sullivan knows who Thatcher is and was. There are Palinists who think Palin is a new Thatcher. Some people still know the difference.
Thomas R
However there hasn't been an assassination in over 40 years and I think his being an old guy whose VP is scary to the opposing side makes him a lower-risk for assassination.
This is a really, really stupid statement (out of character for you I think). Do you think Oswald was working for Nixon or loved Texas so much that
Mike Alexander
It was not until we learned that Palin's husband had Alaskan separatist beliefs that the unusual behavior wrt to the flight made sense. As a strong (Alsakan) patriot, Mr Palin simply did not want his son born in a foreign land, which is how he saw the rest of the US.
Great, so the VP spot may go to a person married to an American hating loon! But nothing to get excited about, Thomas R assures us McCain probably won't die so all will be well!
I think the faked pregnancy story would have worked better than this one.
For what it's worth I agree with Gene's wife:
When she read about Sarah Palin's airplane trips, her speech and return to Alaska even as she was leaking fluid, my wife's comment was "that's a woman who wanted to lose the baby."
I suspect she did and if that happened she could consider it an act of nature so she decided not to abort the child but she wasn't going to go out of the way for it. I have mixed feelings about pressing the issue, though. On the one hand this would be something very personal and there's no way it could ever be proven unless she came out and admitted it. Even then, it's probably better for Trig that such an admission never become public (no kid should have to see their mom on tape saying she wanted them to die in the womb). On the other hand if you take pro-life positions seriously this is a problem. Character wise a woman who takes a neglectful stance during pregnancy can only be considered one step above a woman who has an abortion. If Palin is going to be sold as a pro-life role model then by definition the door must be opened.
This is what you get when you nominate someone in order to play identity politics and suck up to the victimization card rather than on quality.
Sullivan has been near-hysterical raving about Palin. Any time his subject is Palin (which is a lot of the time), he morphs into a third-rate Daily Kos propagandist. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of her, but he has been so vitriolic and over-the-top that he has forfeited his credibility.
As an example, why is he so fixated on acquiring denunciations of her from people like Megan?
Thomas R
One last point. Keep in mind Sullivan's stance is that Palin was not vetted by McCain or his campaign. Acting on that belief, he took it upon himself to find out as much as he could about her through the net. I think what you're seeing is a bit less about 'obsession' and simply the fact that this has been his project for the last few weeks and he is using the material he collects to generate posts.
From what we have seen of McCain over the last week, the 'improper vetting' charge hardly seems that crazy.
"if you think out of a list of 15 lies Palin deserves the benefit of the doubt on 3-5 items they are 3-5 trivial items and the big items seem pretty much undisputable."
I looked through Sullivan's 'list of lies', and maybe it's just that your buildup led me to expect more, but they seemed pathetically weak. It reminded me of Al Franken's book (Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) - they spoke glowingly on NPR about how he had teams of Harvard students doing research but never named any significant lies, in spite of all the research. Franken's list came down to things like Bill O'Reilly accidentally saying Peabody when he meant Polk, an error that he himself corrected the next day, or O'Reilly saying he was from a working class background but his mother said that their house was actually quite nice and that she didn't think it was a dump at all. In other words, Franken didn't seem to have anything that fit the normal definition of a lie.
Could you be more specific about which items on Sullivan's list you view as significant outright lies? What are the 'big items' and where is the additional backup (because I followed Sullivan's links, and what he offered certainly wasn't 'undisputable')?
From Sullivan's list.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-twelve-odd.html
- She has lied about the Bridge To Nowhere. She ran for office favoring it, wore a sweatshirt defending it, and only gave it up when the federal congress, Senator McCain in particular, went ballistic. She kept the money anyway and favors funding Don Young's Way, at twice the cost of the original bridge.
- She has lied about her firing of the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska.
- She has lied about pressure on Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law.
- She has lied about her previous statements on climate change.
- She has lied about Alaska's contribution to America's oil and gas production.
- She has lied about when she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president.
- She has lied about the actual progress in constructing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska.
- She has lied about Obama's position on habeas corpus.
- She has lied about her alleged tolerance of homosexuality.
- She has lied about the use or non-use of a TelePrompter at the St Paul convention.
- She has lied about her alleged pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla.
- She has lied about what Alaska's state scientists concluded about the health of the polar bear population in Alaska.
Not included on this list was the lie about flying only Israel's flag in her office....I think she was just mispeaking and meant to say Israel is the only foreign flag she has in her office.
You can tell me what lies you think are backed up with weak evidence and which are strong. Keep in mind also that Sullivan has been making the argument that Palin's a pathological liar. If that's the case lies about trivial things together can become powerful evidence so a lie that would normally be something that could be overlooked (asking permission to run for VP from her daughters) may actually be important.
A few others that I'm using my memory for (anyone got a link for a comprehensive list?)
- Lied about visiting Ireland when in reality she only sat on a plane while it refueled there.
- Lied about meeting 'trade missions' from Russia as Alaska's neighbor
Also a few lies are, IMO, very serious problems.
The Bridge to Nowhere Lie is important because after it was called out and a million emails with that picture of her holding the 'Nowhere' t-shirt had gone out she and McCain still kept pushing the line that she said no to the nowhere bridge. It's not even so much a lie as a total disregard for the truth...just keep pushing the story and don't even try to explain the fact that anyone who bothers to examine the issue for more than a minute sees a lot to indicate it was a lie.
The other is troopergate. Her various explanations alone, if counted as individual lies, would easily add at least a half dozen or more to the list. Her promises of being open about investigating the manner have been revealed to have been a lie as her flunkies use every trick in the book to squash the investigation in Alaska.
2/3 of Andrew's list of lies either are outright false or cannot be proven.
LOL, Boonton, you'll have to do a little better than quoting Andrew Sullivan's crazed ravings as the evidence of "lies". Andrew Sullivan has come unhinged over Sarah Palin. I seriously wonder if he is suffering from bipolar disorder. I have a relative with bipolar disorder, so that makes me an expert and I can diagnose Andrew Sullivan from a distance, just like he can read Sarah Palin's mind and motives from a distance.
There is much legitimate discussion to be had about Sarah Palin's life, experience and qualifications. Andrew Sullivan is not where you are going to find this legitimate discussion. I suggest you seek both sides of the story, which is always a good start on any controversial topic. I'll even give you a link to another site on Sarah Palin that may be helpful:
Palin Rumors
Note, if you are an Obama partisan, you can skip this message. It won't do you any good.
Ohhhh ok, thanks for the help Libertarian. You sure it's 2/3? Maybe not 3/4? 82.5%?
She did not LIE about killing the Bridge to Nowhere, she did kill it, it was widely reported by the media in Alaska and nationally that she did kill it, several politicians are on record at the time saying that she did kill it.
It may be misleading to take credit for killing it as a "maverick" since she did support it at one time and it can be fairly argued she only killed it because it became a national laughing stock, but to call her statmenet that she killed it a LIE is false.
She has lied about her firing of the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska.
FALSE: She asked for the resignations of a number of Wasilla officials including the librarian and then hired them back the next day, the librarian worked for Wasilla for 2 years after this...
* I don't know anything about the police chief.
- She has lied about pressure on Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law.
FALSE: This has not be proven, Andrew may believe she lied but to put this on a list of proven lies, is well, lying.
- She has lied about her previous statements on climate change.
FALSE: She has never said global warming was not ocuring, only that she didn't believe it was man made.
- She has lied about Alaska's contribution to America's oil and gas production.
**I suppose technically you could call being off a few percentage points a LIE, but its pretty silly, and I'm sure I could find numerous Obama statements similar to this.
- She has lied about when she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president.
This cannot be proven, since she could have accepted the VP slot contigent on her family agreeing..
- She has lied about the actual progress in constructing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska.
FALSE: She has never said specifically that the pipeline had be laid, only that she got the deal through which is true.
- She has lied about Obama's position on habeas corpus.
**This was from her convention speech...and I don't know that it is not true that Obama wants to allow enemy combatants to have the right to remain silent, so this is probably FALSE>
- She has lied about her alleged tolerance of homosexuality.
Where is the proof?
- She has lied about the use or non-use of a TelePrompter at the St Paul convention.
Where is the proof?
- She has lied about her alleged pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla.
**I don't know anything about this, but based on Andrew's record so far, he's probably wrong on this as well.
- She has lied about what Alaska's state scientists concluded about the health of the polar bear population in Alaska.
-TRUE.
So I stand corrected...it looks like about 7/8 of Andrew's list of lies are not lies at all.
Actually, out of curiousity, which 1/3 of that list do youthink are actual lies Libertarian?
Kevin P
LOL, Boonton, you'll have to do a little better than quoting Andrew Sullivan's crazed ravings as the evidence of "lies".
Each lie is linked to source material. A list was requested so I found one. I never said I agreed with all of them, in fact I disagree with the flag one, the teleprompter one could be argued both ways but I'm inclined to say it's a lie. You are free to disagree. I'm not seeing many facts from you.
The cite you provided is helpful but a little too much IMO. We are trying to address the issue of whether or not Palin has a problem with telling the truth. To mix policy and other questions in there makes the matter more confusing.
Also, and I'll admit this is just a fast glance, I didn't notice many things on your Palin site that Sullivan hasn't noted. For example, Sullivan has said in nearly a half dozen posts Bristol is not Trig's biological mother. I read on his site that it was Palin's husband who belongs to the Alaskan indpendence party. Somehow I suspect your site probably used some of the sources Sullivan published as its backup.
Boonton, I don't think you're actually trying to "address the issue" of Palin trying to tell lies. You've already made up your mind that she is a liar.
I'm just trying to tell you that when you rely upon Andrew Sullivan for any kind of evidence, you end up looking just as foolish as he is. The guy has lost his marbles.
"And the Haberdasher from Kansas City--HE was eminently qualified in contrast to Palin, right?"
Actually, Truman left office under a cloud, with Korea turning into a quagmire.
The one thing he had going for him was the frenzied scribbling of Dean Acheson's admirers.
Eisenhower was a far better president.
When she read about Sarah Palin's airplane trips, her speech and return to Alaska even as she was leaking fluid, my wife's comment was "that's a woman who wanted to lose the baby." I thought it was harsh, but you know, Palin's actions just don't seem consistent with those of a woman whose first thought was the health and safe delivery of her baby.
I thought exactly the same as your wife. If I had made the decisions she had, I would not be the mother of a healthy grade-schooler; I would be a woman who'd lost a baby on an airplane. It's the reason I have my own case of Palin Derangement Syndrome (and I'm pro-choice).
I'm a bit perplexed about what you want. You have the list, his original post has links to the original posts of his which have links to the source material behind the 'lie'. You are free to put as little or as much time as you wish in examining each item but there's no excuse to write something like:
"I don't know anything about this, but based on Andrew's record so far, he's probably wrong on this as well."
If you can judge that someone has lost his marbles then you DO know something about it and if you don't the person you are calling crazy has provided all the raw information to you.
Here's another example:
- She has lied about her previous statements on climate change.
FALSE: She has never said global warming was not ocuring, only that she didn't believe it was man made.
Well from her Gibson interview:
Where did I find that? By following Sullivan's link. Are you saying Sullivan is faking the primary sources? Libertarian doesn't even get the lie right. The lie isn't that Palin was denying global warming but was that she was changing her position from humans have no role in causing global warming to humans do have a role because that's John McCain's view.
Sullivan concludes that lie post with "your call". Indeed it is, and this is the problem with accusations of lies in a campaign...you can argue about the words endlessly.
Who here is really unhinged?
I followed Sullivan's link on climate change and I judge that it is FALSE to call her a liar...her quote on Al Gore is absolutely NOT her saying that there is 'absolute proof proof that nothing man has ever conducted...
I followed Andrew's links and the only thing I see that is supported as a LIE is that it appears she did lie about the police chief.
So, that is two actual lies that exist in his list, all the rest are either unproven, opinions or Andrew Sullivan outright lying himself.
I'd also say Andrew is LYING when he says she lied about her tolerance for homosexuality, since his links prove no such thing, not even close.
I'd further say he is LYING about her pay cut as mayor, she DID take a voluntary pay cut, so it cannot be a lie that she says she took a pay cut.
What I am sayins is that Sullivan's 'primary source material' does not come CLOSE to supporting these statements as LIES.
Andrew really is unhinged here. Compiling a list of Palin's 'lies'? WTF? She's a politician. Isn't it redundant to call her a liar? I guess I have two objections 1) Most of the things he links to are not lies; 2) A similar list could be put together for any politician.
Does he think Obama really believes we'll independent from oil in ten years? Or that he really will give 95% of Americans a tax cut in the face of crushing budget constraints? Or that health care reform and additional education spending will be feasible fater the bailout? Obama says all of these things; only someone far more uninformed than him would think they are true. Does this make BO a pathological liar? I don't think so, but perhaps Andrew has a lower threshold for 'pathological' than I do.
Patrick Meighan - Thank you for catching my spelling mistake. (Colombia, not Columbia. Less amusing than 57 states, or New Pennsylvania, but still amusing.)
And thank you even more for providing another example for my general argument: Supporters of Barack Obama are almost all unwilling to tell us what, if anything, he has accomplished. (A good place to start, if any Obama supporters actually want to try would be the Annenberg Challenge.)
Isn't Andrew Sullivan a punchline now?
To Mike Alexander who felt that the Palins wanted Trig born in Alaska, rather than in the country (America) from which they apparently wish to secede:
If Alaskan birth were of primary importance to the Palins (rather than the survival and health of their baby) they still had the option of delivering in Anchorage which has an excellent high risk obstetric and neonatal facility. The Palins' plane landed in Anchorage.
The Anchorage hospital was the obvious choice at that point.
Instead they chose the long trip to Wasilla to an underqualified hospital and physician. This was either reckless indifference, unbelievable ignorance, indefensibly poor judgment, or something more sinister.
- She has lied about pressure on Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law.
FALSE: This has not be proven, Andrew may believe she lied but to put this on a list of proven lies, is well, lying.
Yes it has.
First, Palin's statement:
Statement reported in the Washington Post. The original story can be found here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303210_pf.html) and it's pretty clear Palin lied. Now you can say it isn't proven if her actions were illegal, isn't proven that she was in the wrong, you can go on from there if you wish but she lied about not pressuring the public safety commissioner.
This is a can of worms, why did she fire him? Her statements just make more lies. To date she has said:
* Needed new direction
* didn't hire enough cops
* wasn't doing enough about alcohol in the bush
* was asking for budget increases (which Palin wanted originally)
* displayed "egregious rogue behavior"
As the Anchorage Daily News wrote:
We've gone around the circle too many times here. She lied, get over it and get used to it.
I'd further say he is LYING about her pay cut as mayor, she DID take a voluntary pay cut, so it cannot be a lie that she says she took a pay cut.
No she didn't. She voted against a pay raise when she was on the council which passed anyway raising pay from $64K to $68K. When she was mayor she did support an ordinance lowering the pay to $61,200. You could quibble that this is 'voluntary' only in the sense she could have opposed it but once it became law there was nothing voluntary about taking the pay cut.
But the kicker is that she didn't take the pay cut. The bill didn't go into effect until after the fiscal year ended so she still got paid $68K. You can say she cut the pay of the next guy to be mayor but it's a lie to say she took a paycut herself and make no mistake about it...she was claiming she herself saw less pay as mayor. See her direct quote: ""As mayor I took a voluntary pay cut, which didn't thrill my husband; and then as governor I cut the personal chef position from the budget, and that didn't thrill my hungry kids."
1. The cut was not voluntary but passed by law. (In contrast, a politician can take a true voluntary pay cut by simply refusing to accept the salary given to him or her).
2. She did not take the cut, but she was clearly claiming to have taken it (see the untrilled husband)
3. I'll grant you that I didn't see anything about the personal chef thing being a lie.
Sorry, Boonton, that is trying way too hard to turn something into a "LIE"...She voted to cut the pay, she gave herself a pay cut that was later overriden...it seems clear that HER BELIEF WAS THE MAYOR SHOULD TAKE A PAY CUT AND SHE BACKED UP THIS VIEW WITH ACTIONS...calling her liar over this is really silly and unprofessional.
When you are calling the vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party a LIAR, and doing so repeatedly you had better be able to showe in black and white that she is LYING, and not have it turn out to be your opinion, parsing of words, taking things out of context or putting your own interpretation on things, otherwise people will think you are a liar and that you have come unhinged.
I went back through all of Andrew's links and I found two lies: that she didn't fire the police chief and that Alaskan scientists agreed with her on polar bears not being endangered.
I found several of his "lies" to be completely false and preposterous, the rest are extremely open to interpretation...which generally, is not what we call a LIE. We call that an exaggeration, or a misleading statement.
He has lost all credibility and the fact that he continues to believe his list of "lies" is really factual shows how off the reservation he is.
rab
Andrew really is unhinged here. Compiling a list of Palin's 'lies'? WTF? She's a politician. Isn't it redundant to call her a liar?
What exactly is it that you think journalists should do? Trying to list and categorize a politician's lies seems pretty useful to me. I'll grant you since all of them lie to one degree or another it is a bit tougher to make an argument that Palin is a worse liar than others or that her lies hint at a more disturbing trend than normal but that's a valid argument to have and starting with a list of lies or alleged lies seems pretty sensible.
Does he think Obama really believes we'll independent from oil in ten years? Or that he really will give 95% of Americans a tax cut in the face of crushing budget constraints?
I think it's fine if you want to compile lists of Obama lies, McCain lies and Biden lies. You're not really off to a great start. How do you prove that someone doesn't believe we can be oil independent in 10 years? It could plausibly happen if lots of things go right but you're right that is taking the most optimistic projection of the future.....is it a lie to say one believes that or is it more like a football coach telling his team they can be undefeated this season? As for tax cuts all Obama has to do is make the bottom bracket of Bush's temporary tax cut permament.
But you notice your lies are a bit vague and unspecific. Kind of strikes me as what we can call your standard political lies. A non-standard lie is something that is blatently flase...usually something highly specific like, ohhh, "I took a voluntary pay cut".
Then again as you can see this sort of thing takes a lot of work so maybe you might want use your own blog. Then maybe after spending a few weeks tirelessly compiling Obama lies you can have commentors telling you your work is worthless because you're obsessed and unhinged.
Instead they chose the long trip to Wasilla to an underqualified hospital and physician. This was either reckless indifference, unbelievable ignorance, indefensibly poor judgment, or something more sinister.
Oh Christ! Trig Palin has Down's Syndrome. It caused by an extra chromosome. No hospital on earth can re-engineer the 21st chromosome from a trisomy to a standard pair at the time of birth. Fanning this rumor flame about the alleged neglect on the Palin's part just makes you appear stupid. Do you want to continue that?
Ohhh well, turns out the thing about the chef may be a lie too http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/lazy-days-as-commanderinchef-p.php
She didn't cut the chef, she transferred him from being her personal chef in the gov's mansion to preparing "elitist gourmet meals in Juneau for government employees".
Maybe you can try to use your postmodern "it's all intrepretation" argument to try to save her on this one...you can say she wanted to be a humble governor and not have a fancy personal chef at her beck and call...except for that fact that she said she cut the position from the budget....clearly trying to use this as an example of being frugal with taxpayer money when it wasn't anything of the sort.
ishu
Oh Christ! Trig Palin has Down's Syndrome. It caused by an extra chromosome. No hospital on earth can re-engineer the 21st chromosome from a trisomy to a standard pair at the time of birth. Fanning this rumor flame about the alleged neglect on the Palin's part just makes you appear stupid. Do you want to continue that?
This is no rumor but fact. The reason to have a Down's Syndrome baby in a good hospital is NOT because anyone is saying a skillfull delievery team can cure Down's. Down's babies are prone to serious complications at birth.
lol, Boonton. It's plain b.s. to say that we will be energy independent in ten years. It's a specific statement, and Obama and anybody in their right mind knows it's more than 'optimistic'. I don't see the point in compiling a huge list of 'lies' of one candidate, unless you are a partisan hack....which is basically what I was saying about Sullivan. You can like that he's a hack, but that doesn't mean it's a false charge.
I don't dislike Obama, or any of the other candidates; that's why I find Sullivan's fixation so disturbing. He's basically been viciously villifying somebody for a month straight. My complaint is basically contextual. It's fine to caricature, slander, etc. on the Daily Kos, but not really what is expected of somebody writing for the Atlantic. And the tone of his attacks are more offensive oftentimes even than the substance.
On Obama's experience: look, he doesn't have much experience as president. Nor, for that matter, does Palin, Biden, or McCain... nor, for that matter did Truman.
We can talk about 'accomplishments' and we can comb through each candidates resumes -- notably Biden and Palin seem to have exaggerated some portions of their resume at some point, either now or in the past. But even in that case, it's not clear that we get somewhere, in part because these accomplishments only give some small insights into the candidates' qualifications for the job. LBJ had a truly awesome list of accomplishments -- as a president he was a disaster.
Which leaves open the question; how do we make a responsible choice as voters?
Two things I've found most attractive about Obama:
First, the coupling of a sharp intellect with a degree of self-confidence. He seems least likely to be bulldozed by advisors or pundits into, for example, a dumb war -- vis. LBJ, Bush, or arguably Truman.
Second, he approaches foreign policy issues, particularly, with the right conceptual framework: he has said repeatedly that he is a "Realist. Both his biography and his specific positions on foreign policy suggest that this is an educated self-designation: he knows what being a realist means.
Reading Hobbes, Machiavelli, Morgenthau, or Niebuhr is, by no means, adequate preparation to deal with the foreign policy crises of the day -- for example, Civil War in south Ossetia, or bombings in Waziristan. But its a good start; it provides the basis on which to ask the crucial questions.
Specifically -- and here's the contrast with Palin and often, it seems, McCain -- Realism prompts the professional's question "what of our interests are at stake here?" rather than the amateur's "who is our friend, who is our enemy?"
I can't say I trust McCain to discipline his combat pilot's instincts: "tell me who to shoot." I certainly do not trust Palin's instincts, not least because a manichaean world-view is almost entirely untempered by lived experience.
"I followed Andrew's links and the only thing I see that is supported as a LIE is that it appears she did lie about the police chief."
Here's the quote that Sullivan uses to document the lie:
"Palin said she planned to meet with Stambaugh and Emmons this afternoon. She also disputed whether they had actually been fired. ''There's been no meeting, no actual terminations,'' she said."
Then they quote Stambaugh saying that he had already received a letter which said "Therefore I intend to terminate your employment. . ."
In other words, she essentially said 'I haven't actually fired him yet; we're meeting this afternoon', while he felt that a letter warning that she was planning to fire him should count as having already done so.
How is this a lie?
Boonton, you seem to be putting forth the notion that Obama really might believe that the U.S. can end dependence on oil within 10 years, and thus is not lying. Would you please explain why one would support Obama, if one believes it is possible that Obama is among the most stupid people within the United States, to say nothing of being the most stupid person to ever run for President? If you really think it is possible that Obama belives this, it then means you think that Palin's intellect dwarfs Obama's.
Hey, I'm not voting, so convinced am I that all these candidates will give us, if elected, a truly horrible performance. Unlike you, however, I don't think it is possible that Obama's intellect is similar to that of a three year old's. From where did your contempt of Obama come from?
I think there's been a slight misrepresentation of Andrew in the comments here. He's attempting to fill in the vacuum left by the McCain campaign's protection of Palin. One of his biggest concerns is that she'll have never had a press conference, and what we know of her we've had to dig up ourselves.
Much of what you know about Palin is actually a product of a blogosphere that did not take her nomination lying down--conservative or liberal, the driving agenda was behind vetting a VP that clearly we knew little about and that the media largely stayed away from for awhile.
To the point that he's going about this the wrong way, in an unhinged manner--I beg to differ. On issues like gay marriage, torture, and the AIDS ban he's been just as vocal, if not more so.
"the fact that he continues to believe his list of "lies" is really factual shows how off the reservation he is"
If you look at the very first "lie" on the Sullivan list and then follow his link, he himself at the end points out the obvious, plausible explanation for her statement, yet he still linked to it later as a 'lie'. It's on the question of how Palin could have asked her girls about the VP nomination before accepting, yet accepted when asked without hesitation. Here's how Sullivan finished his post:
"So it's possible, I guess, that Palin had asked her girls about the general possibility of being asked to be veep earlier in the process and they had agreed in principle. But then they were surprised. In fact, on reflection, that makes sense of both stories. Stay tuned."
Regardless of all the nonsense about Palin not having been vetted, there was a process during which she knew that she was under consideration. Her time to consider whether she would accept was before it was offered, not after. Is there any evidence that she didn't talk to her daughters about all of this early on, when deciding whether to withdraw her name from consideration?
Sullivan had already admitted that there was no evidence that this was a lie, but it's still on his list. Even he doesn't believe the list, but he still pushes it.
Palin needs to do more interviews, as many as possible. The more she does, the more the Katie Courics of the world will attack/condescend to her, the more fence-sitting voters get ticked off, the more votes McCain gets. Palin haters: keep up the good work!
I don't get why Megan hates her so much, though. Is it because Palin gets to have a husband and babies and Megan doesn't?
Will,
Boonton, you seem to be putting forth the notion that Obama really might believe that the U.S. can end dependence on oil within 10 years, and thus is not lying.
Well I went over to Obama.com and this is what I noticed:
Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
No doubt the ME and Venezuela were cherry picked but that's not quite a promise of ending oil dependence (meaning we don't need oil for energy) nor is it a promise of ending foreign oil dependence (since, correct me if I'm wrong, Mexico & Canada supply most of our foreign oil).
Ann
Sullivan had already admitted that there was no evidence that this was a lie, but it's still on his list. Even he doesn't believe the list, but he still pushes it.
Or it is on the list because Palin has, like with many other lies, refused to either retract it or clarrify what seems to be a contradiction.
As predicted this lie that you detect as not-a-lie seems to be of minor importance....and it's also interesting that the source for your defense of her is....well...the supposedly crazy unhinged Sullivan.
Regardless of all the nonsense about Palin not having been vetted, there was a process during which she knew that she was under consideration.
Was there? How long was it? What was the nature of the check?
Keep in mind McCain's antics over the last two weeks or so. Did his non-suspending campaign suspension get vetted? How about his calls for the SEC head's head in front of a pseudo-lynch mob? His two step on the first debate? How about his 'leadership' on the bailout package? The evidence is piling pretty high of a candidate who likes to make quick, impulsive, calls without thinking them through. Fine, perhaps, for the Senate where other people will make sure some of your more silly ideas will get bogged down in committee but not so fine for President where it's harder to have your silly ideas checked by people who are staff instead of equals.
While we are on the subject of defending the "break our oil dependency lie", here's what John McCain's site says:
Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector
The Nation Cannot Reduce Its Dependency On Oil Unless We Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector.
The second headline seems to provide the loophole (reducing oil dependency...not eliminating it) but the first one seems to be promising a break from foreign oil dependence. [Remember oil dependency means using oil for energy....to eliminate that means running cars on something other than oil....foreign oil dependency means being able to produce enough oil domestically to meet consumption.....both would be close to impossible barring something like Mr. Fusion from the Back to the Future movies]
As per Will Allen's standards, it must be McCain who is either a liar or "among the most stupid people within the United States".
To mishu who wrote:
Oh Christ! Trig Palin has Down's Syndrome. It caused by an extra chromosome. No hospital on earth can re-engineer the 21st chromosome from a trisomy to a standard pair at the time of birth. Fanning this rumor flame about the alleged neglect on the Palin's part just makes you appear stupid. Do you want to continue that?
***
Of course no hospital can re-engineer the 21st chromosome!
However, skilled neonatal care is often vital to saving the lives of Down Syndrome babies at birth.
Many Down Syndrome babies are born prematurely, as was Trig Palin, and need expert resusciatation, often involving care on a ventilator, to begin and continue breathing.
Roughly half of babies born with Down Syndrome also have lethal anomalies that need expeditious and complex surgical attention.
Prematurity compounds the many risks already associated with Down Syndrome.
By Palin's own account, however, she by-passed 3 excellent perinatal centers for a community hospital lacking facilities to properly care for high risk infants, thereby seriously risking the life of her unborn child. Why?
Her story (especially given her reported ideology)makes no sense to me.
Boonton, you now seem to saying that Obama does not grasp the concept of fungibility in regards to oil, a concept which means it does not make a whit of difference whether the product that enters our tanks comes from Canada or Saudi Arabia, unless Obama is proposing an invasion of our neighbors to the north. This is what Obama said in his Denver speech...
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
This statement is either dishonest, in that it either proposes a goal that Obama knows can't be reached, which Obama does not acknowledge, or this statement indicates that Obama is a moron of titanic stature. Would you please indicate which quality applies to this statement?
Also, Sullivan IS a lunatic. Look no further than his last post on Palin, in which he castigates Palin for making the dishonest statement of having heard of Biden's speeches since she was in 2nd grade. Sullivan helpfully explains that Palin was in third grade when Biden was first elected to the Senate, and that a freshmen Senator's speeches would not have been well covered for anyone, much less a third grader's. When it gets to the point that throwaway hyperbole, that 90% of the population engages in, is cause for invective, it's safe to say that the writer is nuts, plain and simple. And I say this as someone who does not have any warm regard for Palin
You know, last time I checked, this was still a country where you could have your own child in a hospital of your own choosing with your own doctor doing the delivery.
She didn't go into labor on the airplane, and her son was born healthy, so I don't see the point of second guessing her decision, let alone being oh-so-horrified at what she did. It looks like she and her doctor knew what they were doing, since the child was delivered with no problems and is healthy.
So, what's the problem here?
Boonton, apparently your mind is such that a headline written by a person on a candidate's website carries the same weight as a candidate's spoken words. Why have you reached such a conclusion?
By the way, I've made no claim that McCain is not a liar. You'll note that I stated above my poor regard for Senator McCain. I merely asked why you thought it useful to state that Obama was not a liar, bue merely the most stupid person to ever run for President.
To Libertarian:
The problem here is the implausabilty of the birth story as Palin, via the Alskan press, has recounted it.
And her alleged actions are in direct contradiction to her stated ideology.
And, in similar circumstances, other women are not often given the right to refuse, or by-pass, potentially life-saving neonatal care for their unborn children.
What is implausible about it? She was leaking fluid but having already had 4 children, she didn't think she was in danger of going into labor. She spoke with her own physician numerous times during her series of flights. She was proven correct because she did not go into labor nor were there any complications.
What 'potentially life saving neo natal care' are you talking about that she allegedly refused?
My personal opinion is that she wanted to have the baby in Alaska and figured if she lost the baby en route it was 'god's will'...But, so what, that's my opinion based on intuition, it certainly isn't enough for me to criticize her, since again, everything turned out FINE with the baby.
Will,
Boonton, you now seem to saying that Obama does not grasp the concept of fungibility in regards to oil, a concept which means it does not make a whit of difference whether the product that enters our tanks comes from Canada or Saudi Arabia, unless Obama is proposing an invasion of our neighbors to the north. This is what Obama said in his Denver speech...
Read the goal again, "Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined."
That's not saying we won't import oil from the Middle East and Ve, it is saying we will save an amount of oil equal to the amount we currently import from those two areas. Since the ME is pretty far and I would imagine has high transport costs and VE probably does not sell us as much oil as CA and Mex., this is probably not an unreasonable goal in ten years. In fact, far from being a lie the better criticism might be that this goal is too easy considering the natural move of consumers away from gas guzzlers and normal technological advancement may do much of this work without any particular policy effort.
I think if you take a step back from trying to compute lies (which is frustrating because lies are often set in crafty language which allows the nitpicker to argue it wasn't technically a lie)...on this topic drawn from random it seems Obama has more regard for the truth than McCain.
McCain promises something totally unrealistic (breaking foreign oil dependence which means not only no oil imports from the ME but also Mexico and Canada...what you previously thought marked a stupid person when you believed that's what Obama was saying). Obama promises something that seems more measured and realistic (reducing oil consumption by an amount equal to imports from two troublesome areas).
On the 3rd grade/2nd grade lie
This is what Sullivan said:
Two things: when Palin was in Second Grade, Biden hadn't been elected to the Senate. And when she was in third grade, do you really believe she was hearing about speeches by Joe Biden? Who in the national press corps at the time were hearing about Biden's speeches in 1972?
I think you're right on this one. Palin was just being sarcastic, using the 2nd grade line to make Biden look old. Sometimes you have to listen to statements rather than read them....I listened to her speech and it did seem like she was trying to be funny rather than serious. Unhinged lunatic? I don't think so, it's just a bad call?
Good lord, Sullivan is pointing out that instead of second grade she was in third grade and that she probably wasn't really learing his speeches.
Has he forgotten what a RHETORICAL POINT is? This is exactly why people feel he has lost credibility.
He treats everything as the same, her saying that Alaskan scientists didn't think the polar bear was endangered, which is totally false and a real lie is treated the same way as her saying she's been listening to Joe Biden's speeches since she was in second grade. It's OMG she's lying again.
Boonton, apparently your mind is such that a headline written by a person on a candidate's website carries the same weight as a candidate's spoken words. Why have you reached such a conclusion?
Well I was asked to defend the claim that Obama said we would not be dependent on foreign oil in 10 years. I figured before I invested too much energy I should take a few moments to verify exactly what his stance was on that subject so I went to Obama.com.....which I think is a pretty sensible approach.
Speeches, off the cuff remarks, and answers to ad hoc questions are useful but they have the problem that candidates have to give a lot of talks on the campaign trail, there isn't (at least as far as I've seen) a real easy way to navigate and search all of their statements in transcript form and quite frankly people misspeak in real life (for example, I can see how it would be easy to say 'ending oil dependence' in place of 'ending foreign oil dependence'....the first is an amazingly hard goal but the second is a bit like discovering faster than light space travel).
More to the point this isn't 1994, web sites are pretty much standard for public communications. All the candidates should be taking the stuff put on their web sites pretty seriously. If you're telling me that a candidate cannot exercise enough management skill to keep his web site staff in line with the policies he wants to run on then you're telling me the candidate is unqualified to run the White House.
Boonton, I'll ask again; why are you ignoring what a candidate said in his own words, and instead focusing on what someone else wrote on a candidate's website? I will quote again....
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
Are you so in the tank for Obama that you will ignore the words he speaks, to tens of millions of people on live television?
I would say that someone who cannot immediately recognize Palin's comment about what she heard in the 2nd grade as throwaway hyperbole is an unhinged lunatic. Or are you now proposing that Sullivan is as stupid as you apparently think Obama is?
Boonton, are you now claiming that Obama's acceptance speech in Denver was not as carefully considered as what is put up on his website? What color is the sky in your universe?
It's hard not to notice that all of Sullivan's 'bad calls' are in one direction. That's why I think he's a hack. If you want to try and make the case that McCain is 'more of a liar' than Obama, or that Palin is, go ahead, but it's a silly argument.
All politicians lie. Obama lies - his speech said we would be energy independent in 10 years; he lied about voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because it lacked a neutrality provision; his Spanish-language ad was a disgrace. Those are three simple examples. One could make a lengthier list, but it just shows an embarrassing tendency to demonize political opponents.
To the extent we vote, we should vote because of what we think the candidates will or won't accomplish. The type of apocalyptic, hysterical name-calling and rumor-mongering that Sullivan has engaged in is a disgrace for a person who works for a 'respectable' periodical. If he were a political operative it would be more understandable, but if he pretends to be a responsible journalist (a pretense, to be fair, he seems to have abandoned), then he shouldn't act like a hack.
This is exactly why people feel he has lost credibility.
The nice thing about Sullivan is that I'm not trusting his credibility here. He provides his position, he provides the source and usually a link to the primary source. I'm free to go along with his reading or not (in this case not as also in the case of Israel's flag) but he is bending over backwards to get me the facts fast and give me the tools to easily make up my own mind.
What I notice though is that it is his critics that are pretty much unhinged here. You will harp on the items you disagree with as though Sullivan, who easily writes several hundred posts a week, has devoted all his time to the 2nd grade thing rather than one or two small posts.
Look at the nonsense over Trig. Sullivan posted the story, the reasons it was circulating and then the evidence that it was false. The critics are still ballistic, even mentioning such a story is beyond the pale EVEN IF THE FACTS aren't in yet....just trust Palin and the campaign. People like brig were still carrying on the lie that Sullivan was maintaining the pregnancy was fake AFTER SULLIVAN HAD NEARLY A DOZEN POSTS saying the pregnancy was not fake.
That inability to be correct, though, will not slow down the critics nor will the fact that on the big stuff they get the story wrong....see Libertarian's misreading of both the climate change lie and troopergate.
Goodness, just look at the ridiculous arc of commentary Sullivan engaged in during the years of George W. Bush. He starts out as a ridiculous groupie for Bush, attributing towering statesmenlike qualities to him without a shred of evidence, and ends up descrbing Bush in almost Satanic terms, abandoning all intellectual honesty, especially with regard to the historical record. He is an extremely silly writer.
Boonton
I doubt you are really so naive that you couldn't and can't see what Sullivan was doing with all his Trig posts "I don't really think Trig isn't Sarah Palin's child, but there are so many strange things going on with it, adds in link to his so-called evidence, and you have to wonder why the campaign won't confirm it on the record"
This is an obvious, disingenious way to keep fanning the flames of the rumor while giving yourself plausible deniability. "Aw shucks, all I wanted was an official confirmation"..but even after that he's still fanning the flames by insinuating that maybe the hospital was bought off.
Boonton, I did no such thing. I merely noted that a person who wrote what Sullivan did with regard to Palin's 2nd grader remarks was a lunatic. When a person engages in lunacy, calling him a lunatic is perfectly accurate. Just like when a person, in carefully prepared remarks to tens of millions of people, says something that is either entirely dishonest or staggeringly stupid, it means the person is a liar or a staggering idiot. Now, will you please indicate which type of person you believe Obama to be?
Will
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
The goal may be easy to reach or impossible depending on how it is defined. In terms of imports, it's probably quite easy. We are technically independent of Iran's oil since we import no oil from Iran due to sanctions. On the other hand we are not independent because even though we import no oil from Iran if Iran and its oil disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow we'd have a huge diaster on our hands.
I don't think this statement alone is enough to evalute as either a lie, truth, or even as a plausible goal or not. Could we, in ten years, reach a point where we could ban oil imports from all Middle Eastern countries and use only oil from the Western Hemisphere and countries like Russia and such a move would not have signficant economic impact on the US? Probably. This is kind of why I think it's better to go back to the candidates' web site to get a clearer picture of exactly what they are promising.
To Libertarian who wrote:
She was leaking fluid but having already had 4 children, she didn't think she was in danger of going into labor. She spoke with her own physician numerous times during her series of flights. She was proven correct because she did not go into labor nor were there any complications.
****
It is precisely *because* Palin had 4 previous children that she was at exceptionally high risk for a precipitous delivery! She was having contractions and her membranes had ruptured!
I can't imagine a physician not telling her to seek immediate, expert medical care in Texas. I can't imagine that a physician would encourage Palin in her subsequent irresponsible series of actions.
Your assertion that Palin was "proven correct" hinges on accepting Palin's story. Without further evidence or explanation, I cannot.
And, again, there are many women who would prefer to let nature take its course during their imperiled pregnancies and deliveries. They are rarely allowed to get away with it -- thanks to anti-choice ideologues such as Palin, and the legislation they have spawned.
I doubt you are really so naive that you couldn't and can't see what Sullivan was doing with all his Trig posts "I don't really think Trig isn't Sarah Palin's child, but there are so many strange things going on with it, adds in link to his so-called evidence, and you have to wonder why the campaign won't confirm it on the record"
You mean like:
Sept 1 Reader letter pointing out that it would have been physical impossible for Bristol to have given birth to Trig and then become pregnant again so soon.
or
Here's a photo that looks like it confirms Palin's pregnancy, uploaded today, on what was the last day of the Alaska Legislature's Session, on April 13, 2008, five days before Trig Palin was born.
or
Sep 10
Say all you want about Sarah Palin's non-existent record on foreign policy, series of public lies, non-existent vetting and absurd, unprecedented shielding from the press. At least we know this for sure: she went through the psychological, emotional and spiritual test of eight months of pregnancy and a painful, difficult, endless labor for a cause she believes in. ..Trig represents in one simple, indelible image one mother's decision not to do the expedient thing.
Sep 13
These are all good points. With her very public pregnancy and labor and the birth of Trig Palin, however, we are in new territory. I don't believe that the way a newborn was displayed at the convention - and the obvious political and religious symbolism of deciding to go ahead with a Down Syndrome pregnancy as proof of your pro-life credentials - is the usual, formal presentation of a candidate's family.
Sep 24
I should reiterate two critical things: I have never claimed that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's biological son. In fact, I have gone to enormous lengths never to say that, going silent for two days to figure it out and decided to leave it alone. Why? Because I had no proof of anything, only questions. Since then, I have raised legitimate policy questions about what is undisputed in the public record, but I have not made any statements of fact I do not know to be true. That's my job.
Sep 26
I am delighted to publish this statement from the McCain campaign [that Trig is Palin's son]. I have always been delighted to publish factual statements by any campaign. I have been waiting to publish such a clear confirmation for almost a month. The only trouble with this statement from the McCain campaign is that it is untrue in one respect. (the 'one respect' was that there were a ton of pictures of a pregnant Palin, to date only two have been found)
See the difference is I actually read Sullivan, good and bad posts, so I have an idea of what he says. You shoot your mouth off but don't know what you're really talking about. Sorry I can't provide you with URL's but the filter seems to catch my comment when I do. You can easily google the above to see them in his blog.
So now what? Are you going to take brig's line that these are all diversion posts so the troops can distract his critics with them?
It's funny that you are totally willing to parse words, meanings and accept that numerous interpretations are plausible when we are talking about Obama promising to end ME oil dependence within 10 years, yet you aren't willing to do the same for Sarah Palin's statements on global warming.
I think Obama is a liar. He knows absolutely that it is going to be impossible to eliminate ME oil imports out in the real world, I mean are you saying its better for us to get oil from Russia, a country that has the power to threaten us, than from Saudi Arabia, a country that exitsts only because we protect it? Or that we'd be better off getting the oil from Hugo Chavez?
I also think he is lying and he knows it when he promises a tax cut for 95% of Americans along with $200 billion in new domestic spending a year AND a capital gains tax cut for 'small business'. He's going to raise taxes. You can take that to the bank.
But, I don't call him a "LIAR" because it has yet to be conclusively proven that he's lying, so I am content to say I think he's lying and he knows it.
No, Boonton, banning imports from the Middle East, even if it were possible, would not end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Unless, of course, Obama is proposing that the U.S. invade non-Middle Eastern oil producing states, to extract their oil, without having to pay their citizens for it. If Obama does not grasp this, he truly is a moron of towering proportions.
Obama's statement in his speech either intended to deceive, or he is a moron. Period.
On Palin firing the police chief, here's a further article from the next day from the Anchorage Daily News:
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510219.html
"The three met briefly at Wasilla City Hall Friday afternoon, and Palin called them twice at Stambaugh's home before making the decision."
In other words, Palin sent letters to both the librarian, Emmons, and the police chief, Stambaugh, warning them of her intentions, and then she met with them. After meeting with them and talking on the phone, she made her final decision to fire the police chief but not the librarian. This would seem to give credibility to her claim that the letter by itself didn't end the process, since the librarian got the same letter but kept her job.
Libertarian, would you mind posting details on the polar bear controversy, so I can see exactly what Palin said? The links Sullivan gives go to the wrong posts, and I haven't found anything specific on his website.
"As predicted this lie that you detect as not-a-lie seems to be of minor importance....and it's also interesting that the source for your defense of her is....well...the supposedly crazy unhinged Sullivan."
First, my defense of Palin is simple logic, and I quoted Sullivan to show that he was aware of this simple logic.
Second, I didn't originally ask you to repeat Sullivan's list. I had already found it, followed the sources he gave, and found them to be weak. You had earlier said that some of his claims were trivial or weakly justified but that others were important and unambiguous, so I asked you to tell me which ones you thought were strongest and most important. You instead just listed all of them.
Yes, the "talking to the girls first" point is minor, but I was commenting on Sullivan's credibility - his own words in the link pointed out that there was no evidence of a lie, yet he used it at the top of his list of lies. The point itself was minor, but his use of something he had already personally refuted, in the link he provided, just seemed strange.
Will, the problem is not parsing words it's that 'dependence' does not have a clear meaning. As I pointed out we import no oil from Iran. In a sense we are independent of them. In another sense we are not because of their importance to the oil market.
Obama made a limited independence promise (from ME oil). McCain made a sweeping one (from foreign oil). Obama has provided some specifics on his web site that clues us in on what he means by dependence. I haven't seen anything from McCain (but if so please let me know).
Now "I took a voluntary pay cut, my husband didn't like it too much" kind of has a pretty cut and dry meaning. If you made exactly the same amount the last year on that job as you did on your first year or more you didn't take a pay cut.
Your assertion that Palin was "proven correct" hinges on accepting Palin's story. Without further evidence or explanation, I cannot.
Hmmmm yea kind of like William Tell was proven correct that shooting arrows at apples on your kid's head is good parenting because everything worked out ok.
There is no excuse for Sullivan's posts about Trig Palin. There never was ANY EVIDENCE that the child was not her son. A reputable journalist would never publish, let alone continue to publish such a terrible and personal and crazy accuastion with no legitimate evidence to back it up. The Daily Kos and a couple of photos where she 'doens't look' pregnant is not evidence.
The fact that at this late date, after all of Sullivan's insane posts about Trig Palin that you are still trying to defend him by selective excepts is really said. It is why Obama's supporters terrify me. They are no more reality based that George Bush's supporters.
Andrew Sullivan has made a fool of himself and by implication The Atlantic Monthly, anyone who has half a brain and has not drank the Obama kool aid can clearly see this.
What "all of Sullivan's insance posts about Trig"?
I've posted a bunch of posts where he says Trig was her son. Never ANY EVIDENCE? ANY? Dude, there was evidence Sullivan followed it up and went with it. Your hysterical Palinites have asserted either that evidence doesn't matter...even to think of such a possibility is beyond the pale or in Megan's case if it was true it isn't any big deal.
You seem to think a blog is like a newspaper or magazine. It's not. It's a continual work in progress. Often the information is pulled forth by the posts (for example the reader letter that showed it was physically impossible for Bristol to have given birth to Trig and then get pregnant so quickly or the photos of a pregnant Palin that were taken right before Trig's birth.)
Come on stop with this cry baby victimization routine. How many months of therapy are you demanding for having to endure the trama of seeing a story on a blog about a rumor that was debunked by the very same blog at almost the very same moment it was posted! Talk about unhinged lunatics.
Boonton, you are simply arguing that Obama is a moron, in that you are saying that Obama did not mean, when discussing oil dependence, that "dependence" was an economic term. As the world's largest economy, we are in no meaningful sense independent of any oil extracted anywhere on earth, much less extracted from the region where the vast preponderance of oil reserves are located. Fine, you think Obama's intellect approximates that of a turnip's, and you can't wait to vote for him. How nice for you. I don't think Obama is that stupid, which leaves the alternative, which is that he is a dishonest politician who attempts to decieve people when he speaks. You condemn him more harshly than I do, in terms of being up for the job.
Finally, I'll note that a remark that promises to end the need for foreign oil in an unspecified time frame, by policies which are instituted today, is less sweeping than a remark which promises to end dependendence of Middle Eastern oil within ten years.
It's strange that Michelle Obama hasn't disclosed all of her gynecological records. If she did, she could put an end of this vicious rumor that she and Obama had an abortion.
This isn't Andrew Sullivan's web site.
This is The Atlantic Monthly's web site, thus, it is an extension of the The Atlantic Monthly magazine and brand and should be held to something similar to a reasonable journalistic standard.
Listen, I already told you that Sullivan's constant 'I don't really believe this, but....' posts were disingenious ways of keeping the rumor going while being able to deny it. Maybe you don't believe that, but I do, and the proof is in his own posts.
I'm going to need more than therapy now that the entire U.S. media has jumped the shark and abandoned any pretense of objectivity, rationality or even truth-telling.
Will,
Boonton, you are simply arguing that Obama is a moron, in that you are saying that Obama did not mean, when discussing oil dependence, that "dependence" was an economic term.
No dependence is a political term which is why you need to define it in order to have a sensible economic discussion about it. Which is also why many economic texts will begin by discussing oil independence by saying it's a stupid way to think about oil.
That being the case, Obama provided a definition and asserted a goal which actually isn't all that impractical. McCain provided no such guidance but even if you apply the same easy definition (reduce consumption by an amount equal to today's imports), his goal is a lot more difficult to accomplish.
You can say this is a stupid way to think about oil. You can say such a cut is only symbolic at best. Sure, sure...as far as lies go I stand by what I said...the onlything demonstrated here is Obama has more regard for the truth than McCain. If you want to insert the usual rant that all politicans are liars, well I'm not fighting you on that.
Libertarian
Listen, I already told you that Sullivan's constant 'I don't really believe this, but....' posts were disingenious ways of keeping the rumor going while being able to deny it. Maybe you don't believe that, but I do, and the proof is in his own posts.
Too bad you haven't provided any. Too bad I'm the only one here who provided posts and they demonstrate my point and undercut yours.. All you have is the hospital intimidation post which actually doesn't say anything about the Trig Birth Mother story and given that Sullivan has been demanding everyone's medical records AND has been raising questions about Palin's medical decisions during her pregnancy there's good reason NOT to make that assumption.
Can you point to any examples of "I don't really believe this, but..." posts about Trig? We are only on something like comment 300 or so and I've yet to see you even try to do any work on this.
All of his posts are on this site and they speak for themselves, excerpts used to prove your point may prove it to you, but not to me since I've already read his self serving sly posts about Palin and her children.
The fact that he called her a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR for saying she's been hearing Biden's speeches since she was in second grade is actually reason enough to conclude he's come unglued and is no longer credible.
Sullivan only started to demand Biden's records when he realized what a fantastic goof he made in demanding Palin's records to deny the Trig story. It was likely that someone emailed him questioning his diligence on that end. He doesn't believe his questions regarding the pregnancy are out of line. I seriously do.
Look, I've been reading Andrew for 6-7 years almost daily. I generally appreciate his objectivity and his ability to be intellectually honest. I understand that he's fairly excitable, and that's cool. But he's off the reservation on this one. It's embarassing.
"Palin needs to do more interviews, as many as possible. The more she does, the more the Katie Courics of the world will attack/condescend to her, the more fence-sitting voters get ticked off, the more votes McCain gets. Palin haters: keep up the good work!"
Well, I guess you can nurse these fantasies all the way to defeat in November.
Anyone actually paying attention without ideological blindness sees exactly the opposite: the more we see of Palin, the lower her approval/favorability ratings go.
And her hilarious interviews correspond with a significant drop in McCain's polling numbers.
It's almost enough to restore my faith.
Let's face it. The Right has always mocked Couric as a lightweight.
Oh, and Palin was a pit bull.
Funny how those interviews worked out.
No, Boonton, Obama made an entirely deceitful remark to tens of millions of people, no matter if "dependence" is considered as an economic or a political term, or Obama is an idiot, which you now seem to be conceding. Fine, go vote for the moron, but please then spare us any remarks about how you think Palin is the sole candidate who in unqualified to be President.
Any person who would say, in carefully prepared remarks,....
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
......without the intent to deceive, makes Sarah Palin sound like a combination of George C. Marshall and Milton Friedman.
I congratulate you on your stunning advocacy for the Obama candidacy.
Libertarian
All of his posts are on this site and they speak for themselves, excerpts used to prove your point may prove it to you, but not to me since I've already read his self serving sly posts about Palin and her children.
Produce the 'I don't really believe this, but....' posts you claim exist or stop wasting everyone's time
DDP
Sullivan only started to demand Biden's records when he realized what a fantastic goof he made in demanding Palin's records to deny the Trig story
No goof was made in the Trig story. Sept 1 he debunked the story. Sep 4 he demanded Biden's records.
On Aug 8
Obama's and McCain's health are issues, as they always should be. Why else release the medical records?
But backon MAy 23 he wrote in regard to McCain's records:
I wouldn't want this for almost anyone else - but he's running for president of the US. You give up your medical privacy under those conditions. And any attempt to conceal anything will only fuel worries, not allay them.
Not as clear cut as I would like but he clearly was consistent that all candidates should release and not just release 'for cause'.
Look, I've been reading Andrew for 6-7 years almost daily.
Then you should be aware that the 'release everyone's medical records' idea mirrors the earlier tiff he had over Hillary Clinton not releasing her financial records (which she eventually did). Back then he asserted the idea that all the candidates should open their records up.
Mar 6, for example:
It is one of the most basic tests of personal ethics and transparency: the release into the public domain of a candidate's tax returns. Yet the Clintons still have not done it in this campaign - despite loaning themselves $5 million, despite many legitimate questions about the involvement of mogul Ron Burkle in their financial affairs, despite a massive increase in their income in the last few years to make them multi-millionaires.
and Apr 6
There was something depressingly familiar about the late Friday news release, but credit where it's due: the Clintons have disclosed their multi-million dollar fortune since leaving the White House.
Sullivan is being consistent.
As for blog "rumors" about a Down Syndrome pregnancy, all this blog has done is ask for facts and context about a subject that the Palin campaign has put at the center of its message, facts about a baby held up at a convention as a political symbol for the pro-life movement, and cited in Palin's acceptance speech. You do that, you invite questions about it. I make absolutely no apologies for doing my job.
I find the account of her pregnancy and labor provided by Palin to be perplexing, to put it mildly, and I have every right to ask questions about it, especially since we have discovered that this woman lies more compulsively and less intelligently than the Clintons. If a story does not makes sense or raises serious questions about the sincerity of a candidate's embrace of a core political message, it is not rumor-mongering to ask about it. It is journalism. And in the absence of any information from the Palin campaign, I have aired every possible view trying to explain it. What else am I supposed to do? Pretend these questions don't exist? Pretend her story makes sense to me? I owe my readers my honest opinion. That's not rumor-mongering, it's fulfilling my core commitment to my readers.
Will,
No, Boonton, Obama made an entirely deceitful remark to tens of millions of people, no matter if "dependence" is considered as an economic or a political term, ...
You're kind of like a guy sitting in the middle of a nudist colony complaining that the video playing on Tv has dancers who are wearing outfits that are too skimpy.
There's really no way to cut it. If Obama's an idiot for promising independence from Middle Eastern oil then McCain has to be a bigger idiot for promising independence from foreign oil so I'm either voting for the lesser liar or lesser idiot. You're ability to spin that as a more honest statement because it lacks the 10 year time period is a lot more stunning than anything I've written here. Well, hey, in 4 billion years the sun's going to burn up the earth so I guess if McCain promised independence from breathing oxygen he'd be ont he mark there!
As a public figure, and perhaps a president of the US next January, she could always, you know, explain. The baby was a major prop at the convention and is constantly used to appeal to pro-life voters. The pregnancy has been in the New York Times, People, and the Anchorage Daily News. It's not like this is a secret, or that the pro-life debate isn't one Palin is eager to have. So why won't she tell us more."
Doesn't cut it Libertarian. You do realize there's two different arguments over Palin's pregnancy. The first is the discredited Bristol-Trig idea. The second is questions over why she conducted herself as she did (questions which went back and forth on this blog's comments too).
Show me the POSTS by Sullivan you claim are the "but" posts by which Sullivan is spreading the Bristol-Trig story.....amazingly at the same time producing at least a half dozen or more posts saying the exact opposite as part of some diabolical diversion strategy.
"As for blog "rumors" about a Down Syndrome pregnancy, all this blog has done is ask for facts and context about a subject that the Palin campaign has put at the center of its message, facts about a baby held up at a convention as a political symbol for the pro-life movement, and cited in Palin's acceptance speech. You do that, you invite questions about it. I make absolutely no apologies for doing my job."
"If a story does not makes sense or raises serious questions about the sincerity of a candidate's embrace of a core political message, it is not rumor-mongering to ask about it. It is journalism. And in the absence of any information from the Palin campaign, I have aired every possible view trying to explain it. What else am I supposed to do? Pretend these questions don't exist? Pretend her story makes sense to me? I owe my readers my honest opinion. That's not rumor-mongering, it's fulfilling my core commitment to my readers."
----------------------
I knew that posting the text of his comments was pointless, that you would deny they were disingenious and crafted to keep the rumor alive while pretending only want the truth and to be honestly puzzled, blah, blah, blah.
You wanted his posts, here they are. They're exactly what I said they were.
So let me get this straight, Sullivan cannot defend raising the question when attacked for doing so? Are you engaging in a stelth campaign to keep it alive too by attacking Sullivan for it while you fool everyone into thinking you oppose it!!!!!
I'll make it easier. Show me any post that is not defending himself against attacks for the Trig theory and besides the vague hospital post.
And if it's not too much trouble could you do the dates of the posts....they appear right on top when you google search his site...
I told you his posts spoke for themselves, you demanded I post them, I posted them, and now you demand more posts with a different spin.
These posts read to me exactly as I said they did, he gets extra 'crazy' points for getting himself in a tizzy and defending his role as "journalist" while in the same breath claiming his right to ask questions about unfounded, unsubstantiated rumors and then coyly asking for something on the record from Palin or McCain.
Maybe you really are too naive to see this for the manipulative crap that it is, but I think you simply won't admit it. The same way you won't admit that saying the US can be independent from ME oil in 10 years is complete hogwash, unrealistic and that it will never happen unless Obama institutes rolling brown outs and confiscates people's cars.
So, we will have to agree to disagree. You wanted the proof, I gave it to you, you don't agree with my interpretation, okay dokey.
Ohhh hey
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/pro-lifers-an-2.html
The "As a public figure, and perhaps a president of the US next January, she could always, you know, explain...." post you cited...well read the top paragraph. The entire post was about whether a pro-life woman should have amnio given that it increases the risks of a miscarriage.
In other words it was yet another Sullivan posts where he assumes Palian WAS the mother.
I demand what you said you had, posts where he was keeping the Trig rumor alive. Do you have them or not? Out of 3 posts 1 says the opposite, 1 says nothing about the rumor and can just as easily refer to the other Trig medical issue (which, BTW, requires the Palin critic to REJECT the fake birth idea) and 1 is defending asking the question.
Ohhh and speaking of the amino issue....Sullivan had a group of posts where mentions the story of Palin not telling her daughters the baby was going to be Down's.
You see the problem here is if your assertion is correct, that Sullivan wants people to keep believing and spreading the story that Bristol was the real mom while giving himself plausible deniability it's directly contradicted by the fact that he has at least over a dozen posts spread over time now that explicitly require the reader to reject the Bristol story if he wants his questions/criticisms of Palin to be taken seriously.
A Sept 16 post linked to the post you claim supposedly is pushing the 'Bristol is the mom' story:
Pro-Lifers And Amnio, Ctd.
I have no idea if the stress caused by expecting a child with DS is greater than the demonstrated risk of an amnio to an unborn child. But I do think it's worth asking Palin herself to elucidate her reasons, and how she balanced those reasons against her pro-life principles. Is that deferent enough?
Same story your tactic here (and you may not be aware of it since you say you stopped reading Sullivan) is to ignore a long series of posts debating whether amnio fits a pro-life stance and misread them as a subtle, unspoken attempt to revive the Bristol idea even though the Bristol idea was clearly and forcibly debunked by the very blog you accuse of pushing it.
AND it is a debate. See for example this pro-life call (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:BkupSYmVGPEJ:www.powerweb.net/dcwrl/Boycott.htm+pro+life+and+amniocentesis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=38&gl=us) to boycott the March of Dimes because they fund amniocentesis. Someone seeking a case against Palin could do well to ask about her having an amniocentesis...but that requires one to believe she was pregnant which pretty much eliminates the Bristol theory.
I think Obama is a liar.
...
But, I don't call him a "LIAR" because it has yet to be conclusively proven that he's lying, so I am content to say I think he's lying and he knows it.
Posted by libertarian | October 1, 2008 2:39 PM
Wow, that's some logic there. "I think he's a liar, but I'm not going to call him a liar because it hasn't been proven, so I'm content to just sort of THINK TO MYSELF OUT LOUD that he's a liar but see that's totally not the same as actually calling him a liar, which I'm not even though I really do think he is a liar and just told you as much."
ROFL.
Hey, you know, I think Sarah Palin's an insufferable, arrogant airhead; but I just THINK that, I'm not actually calling her that, so don't rake me over the coals for being mean and rude, because that would be completely unfair and putting words in my mouth.
Finally, I'll note that a remark that promises to end the need for foreign oil in an unspecified time frame, by policies which are instituted today, is less sweeping than a remark which promises to end dependendence of Middle Eastern oil within ten years.
Posted by Will Allen | October 1, 2008 3:03 PM
In 1961, Kennedy boldly proclaimed that we should commit ourselves to landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth in 9 years.
We barely had a space program, and our competitor had already successfully put a man in orbit.
I'm sure you would have argued against the Apollo program, as well, had you been there at the time. And it only promised some small science advances and one-upping the Russians, not securing our energy future.
I believe we import some 20% of our oil from the Middle East. Do you really think it's ludicrously fantastic to find a way to eliminate that dependence in 10 years? Obama's not talking about ending ALL oil consumption; just reducing it by 20%. If anything, I think he's being too conservative.
Boonton, excuse me if this seems rude, but you appear to be not reading what I wrote. I never once defended McCain (in fact, I wrote that he would be a horrible President), other than to say that a statement in a carefully prepared speech which advocates putting a 10 year time frame on ending dependence on Middle Eastern oil is more sweeping than a statement on a website which advocates instituting policies which eventually ends dependence on foreign oil. I wrote this for the simple reason of it being true. It is possible to begin polices which will, some day in the distant future, end U.S. dependence on foreign oil. It is manifestly impossible to institute polices which will end U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil within ten years. Does your tribalism prevent you from comprehending plain language?
You are the one who has insisted that Obama is a moron, in your pathetic attempt to deny that Obama was dishonest in his Denver speech. What is wrong with your brain?
liberalrob, excuse me, but read the thread, or otherwise educate yourself on on the concept of fungibility. It matters not a whit what percentage of oil which is consumed here orginates in the Middle East. What matters is how much oil we consume, and what percentage of the world's oil reserves are located in the Middle East. Even ignoring the highly questionable notion that reserves located in Russia serves U.S. interests better than reserves located in the Persian Gulf, the fact remains that the rate of extraction from the Persian Gulf will hugely impact the U.S. economy, as long as the U.S. economy consumes large amounts of oil for it's energy needs, because the rate of extraction from the Persian Gulf will have a huge impact on energy prices in the U.S. and everywhere else. In other words, as long as the U.S. uses large amounts of oil, the U.S. will be dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
Comparing weaning the U.S. economy off oil within ten years, to the 1960s engineering problems involved in sending men to the moon, is too silly for words.
As a factual matter Sullivan raised questions that nobody has been able to address. There's no doubt that Michelle Obama is the mother of their children because there's ample record of her being pregnant, including a set of completely open medical records.
Really? Fascinating. Do tell us where we can find this set of completely open medical records. I googled it and couldn't find any evidence that these have been released.
You should be careful spouting off like that. Someone might get the idea that you are full of crap.
Will,
otherwise educate yourself on on the concept of fungibility. It matters not a whit what percentage of oil which is consumed here orginates in the Middle East. What matters is how much oil we consume, and what percentage of the world's oil reserves are located in the Middle East.
By this standard then in order for McCain to keep his promise he would have to replace oil entirely in the US economy. According to http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn355energyfactsed 12% of our oil consumption is imported from the Middle East. 42% of US consumption comes from US production making us import 58% of our oil.
There's a lot of different ways to measure dependence but how much we import is probably a good way. If we reduced oil consumption 12% we could probably eliminate ME imports. That doesn't mean the ME wouldn't influence world oil prices which would, of course, hit our economy. It would mean that if some diaster struck and we couldn't import oil from the ME (say some type of conflict makes it impossible to ship oil by sea) we could consume an amount of oil energy equal to what we do today. That would be a world suffering serious problems...not simply one with high gas prices but from a strategic POV it would be a less dependent US
Anyway, this is neither here nor there. Obama provided a definition for what he means by dependent and it's as good as any other definition of oil dependency out there. His goal and definition are cherry picked to be as easy as possible to achieve so, as I said, it's not a very good candidate for a lie.
McCain did not provide a definition for dependency but using Obama's makes the challenge of meeting his goal as easy as possible & it's still a pretty implausible goal even with more than 10 years. He has to eliminate about 60% of our present consumption. If at the end of 10 years he has 12% gone he would be off to a very slot start on his goal but would have achieved 100% of Obama's. Even without putting forth a timeframe, it's kind of sensible to apply one that's reasonably within most of our lifespan, No?
I realize that this thread has gone off in many different directions and is extremely long, but I'm still looking for evidence of Palin's "lie" on the polar bears. Can anyone give me the exact quote?
The only sites I've been able to find with links keep linking to Palin's opinion piece in the New York Times, Jan. 2008, but these are the only quotes I can find that even mention state scientists:
“This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts....
The state takes very seriously its job of protecting polar bears and their habitat and is well aware of the problems caused by climate change. But we know our efforts will take more than protecting what we have — we must also learn what we don’t know. That’s why state biologists are studying the health of polar bear populations and their habitat.
As a result of these efforts, polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis.”
So, she said that she looked at a comprehensive review by state scientists, but that doesn't mean that the decision was made by those scientists, rather than by her.
As I understand it, the scientists found that the polar bears are doing well now but are likely to be hurt if global warming causes the ice cap to shrink in the future. The argument for putting the polar bear on the endangered species list now is based on computer models of global warming over the next 40 years. On this, Palin argued that -
"Listing the goose — then taking it off — was based on science. The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified.
What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven effects of climate change."
Does anyone question her assertion that this is all based on 'uncertain modeling of possible effects'? Where did she say that the state scientists supported her conclusions, as opposed to saying that she read their report before making her decision?
Ann,
Does http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/john-mccain-pic.html help?
She does seem to be wrong here, but it's not necessarily so starkly wrong.
"the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination."
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/#q2
More are declining than increasing and so it shows she's incorrect. Although not all are decreasing. Granted it's no "Blog from Wired", but it seems to be a pro-conservation group.
It occurs to me that if McCain were looking for a female VP nominee, Megan McArdle would be a dramatically better choice than Sarah Palin.
"Megan McArdle would be a dramatically better choice than Sarah Palin."
She endorsed Obama though. Admittedly she has been the most tepid Obama endorser I've seen online, even the National Review guy seemed more enthusiastic, but still it's out there.
Seriously though I kind of like tepid endorsements and wouldn't mind knowing of more of them. People who proudly say "ehh he or she's not great, but better than the others anyway." Those kind tend to be more evenhanded in coverage I think.
Also with regard to the stupid Truman/Palin comparison please note that Harry S. Truman had served as an artillery officer and seen extensive action on the Western Front in World War I. He had extensive contact with French units, was forced to understand world events on a larger scale and was one of those who understood the Treaty of Versailles was simply paving the way for another World War.
In addition to that he had been a United States Senator, chaired a very important committee on waste with regard to military contracts (sound like a prescient issue anyone) and had extensive conversations with George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff, regarding the conduct, strategy and direction of the war LONG before he ever assumed his duties even as Vice President.
Comparing him to Palin is stupid. Trying to portray him simply as a haberdasher from Missouri is even more intellectually dishonest.
Sarah Palin, the VP nominee, is in no way applicable, in terms of her exposure to NATIONAL events, to any other Vice Presidential nominee we've ever had. Period.
Ahhh but Truman only read a few magazines each month and one or two papers a day. He didn't read 'all of them' like Palin did.
Hmm let me think of possibilities for closeness.
Thomas R. Marshall was Governor of Indiana for just four years when he became VP.
John C. Breckinridge was a 36-year-old two-term member of the House from Kentucky.
The first was mostly just known for being witty and the second became a Confederate general, I think, so admittedly not a great record.
With McCain being 72 there is a 20% chance (going by actuarial tables - which is an underestimation given his cancer history) that he will die in office and this Caribou Barbie may actually take on the mantle of the most powerful person on earth.
Stop. Think about that. This ignorant, incurious, waffling windbag - beauty contestant, creationist, small town mayor and scandal ridden, lying short term governor - could actually be the President of the United States of America.
And McCain picked her. This deadly, disfunctional duo need to be sent back to the cynical pit of ignorance and confusion from which they were spawned - our futures depend on it.
Boonton (and Thomas R),
Thanks for the links. It seems to come down to this part of Palin's opinion piece:
"As a result of these efforts, polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis."
If there's a federal analysis that claimed this, then she was honest in what she said even if other studies indicate that the federal analysis might be wrong. I still don't know exactly what basis Sullivan had to say that she lied, here. We'd need both the study by state biologists and the federal analysis that she referred to, in order to conclude that she was lying.
If the Palin comments count as lies, surely we can use the same standard to conclude that Biden was lying when he said this: "After seven years, in which our senior diplomatic personnel were not allowed to make a single contact with Iranians, the Bush administration realized the absurdity of its own policy and sent our leading diplomat to Iran. The Assistant Secretary of State as he went to Tehran, sat down at the instruction of the President of the United States."
Biden is known for mangling facts, but he changed every key fact here in a biased way - turning an Under Secretary into an Assistant Secretary, changing the location from Europe to Iran and changing passive observation to sitting down directly - all to bolster his claim that the Bush administration was following Obama's suggestion of direct, high level talks with Iran.
Note that I'm not saying that Biden lied, although he was clearly wrong (and in a biased, not random, way). My point is that we should pick a definition of lying and then apply it consistently. By a consistent standard that doesn't count Biden's mistake as a lie, I've seen no evidence so far of any lies by Sarah Palin.
Ann,
Palin also claimed in the wired story that the # of Polar Bears has risen dramatically in the last 30 years in addition to the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope population being stable for 20 years.
She claimed in the NYT piece you quoted that "My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts"
So I think you need more than a single study to vindicate her. The claim is her officials did a comprehensive review of the available scientific information. Where is this review and does it make the claims that she did? I imagine there is not a huge number of polar bear experts in the world.
It sounds like you have a valid case with Biden (although I haven't done any research on that one). This is also why I said earlier I tend to go to the candidate's web sites to get their official stances....the spoken language gets mangled quite a bit...take your phrase "changing passive observation to sitting down directly"
Too bad we don't have George Carlin around anymore. I'm sure he could do a good 5 minutes on what it means to "sit down directly"
I googled it and couldn't find any evidence that these have been released.
Well, I googled it also, and found dozens of news reports about the release of their medical records, and I even posted a link to one such report.
If you have some evidence that Michelle Obama flew from Texas to Alaska the very night her water broke (!), and that the hospital where she says she gave birth has no birth certificate for anyone named "Obama" on that day, then by all means present it.
In regards to Palin all those things are verified fact. It raises questions.
Boonton - The Biden statement was him ad-libbing. The written speech was carefully correct, but he reworded it. Such errors in speech should be held to a different, lower standard than writing in an opinion piece (which apparently is what everyone is using on Palin and polar bears).
Still, I just think we should be careful about using the term 'liar'. I expected Sullivan to have come up with more - if Palin is really a pathological liar, then Sullivan must not be trying hard if that's all he could come up with. It seems more likely to me that she just makes mistakes (and yes, sometimes exaggerates) like everyone else.
Chet,
You've posted a link to Barack Obama's doctor writing an affidavit of health - not a relase of medical records and not a release of anything regarding Michelle Obama.
We still don't know that he is the father.
Actually being a father is not a medical condition. Bearing children is.
Michelle Obama isn't running for anything, even in a 'full disclosure' mindset I don't think she needs to release her records anymore than Cindy McCain or Todd Palin.
And to follow up on that point we don't really have anyway of knowing who the father is of Palin's kids now don't we other than by going what the family tells us.
I'm going to call you a liar now.
It is well established that Palin's water did not break. This isn't in dispute and is simply an attempt by you to distort the events of that day. She had amniotic leakage - which does not signal the start of labor. The doctor INDUCED labor in Wasilla.
Also, you keep mentioning this lack of birth certificate - where would it be if it existed? Should it be online? Have you found the other children's birth certificates? Where are teh BC's of the two alleged daughters of Barack Obama?
Skullberg,
How is any of that stuff been established? Do you have Palin's medical records? I wasn't aware that they were relesed.
Every state does their birth certificates a bit differently so it's hard to know where Trig's certificate is and how to get a hold of it. I have a friend who was born in California who has been waiting over 6 months for them to process a request for her certificate. I'd like to know if there is an authoritative site that confirms there's no record of Trig's birth and no certificate.
Boonton,
You're right - since we can't trust the candidates or their families - we simply have no evidence of who the father's are. I think we need to ask for all parties involved to release their birth certificates as well as paternity tests.
That, or we can stop using wild speculation as a pretense to dig into people's privacy.
Booton,
My post above applies to your last one as well. We know how it was described contemporaneously here - http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/apr/22/palins-flight-labor-falls-under-scrutiny/ - and that she consulted with her doctor before the speech and flight home. At this point there was not point in covering anything up, as she was a highly liked Governor.
But, now that Sullivan, Chet et. al have decided that we need medical records to disprove all wild speculation I guess this isn't good enough.
And we can add the Chet's birth certificate claim to his LIAR list.
Well if someone faked a birth or knowingly applied for a false birth certificate that's not exactly privacy anymore
But you have no evidence of that other than wild speculation - once again - how do we know that Barack is the father of Michelle's children. If he's on the birth certificate - maybe it's false. We need paternity tests now to settle this.
Or we can be rational and not go on wild, partison goose chases whose sole intent is 'raise questions' based on no evidence whatsoever.
Well there's two ways to handle medical records. One is to ask for them when there's a question like is McCain too old. The other way is to simply ask everyone running to disclose their medical records the way they have to do a financial disclosure.
Sullivan's advocated the 2nd way and he's right since the public has often been taken surprise by medical problems (who would have thought Kennedy, for example, was as sick as he was)
But you have no evidence of that other than wild speculation - once again - how do we know that Barack is the father of Michelle's children.
Well if Barack isn't the father of Michelle's children all that would tell us is his wife had an affair. If Trig is not Palin's son then you're talking about a fraud that's not quite trivial (assuming a birth certificate was faked or not recorded)
As for evidence, well just say for a moment that the Bristol story was true. What type of evidence would the public and journalists have available to them? It would be a lot of circumstantial stuff like it being hard to find any pics of her that look pregnant, no one seeing Bristol for the last few months, and so on.
It seems like you're setting a standard so high that lots of stuff would become very easy to cover up.
If Barack knowingly filed a false birth certificate stating he is the father - that's the same kind of fraud. So the same standard applies.
I think the standard is pretty reasonable - some evidence of what you suspect. You're attempting to set the bar so low as to not even be a bar - idle speculation is the cause for massive invasions of privacy.
We have contemporaneous accounts of the pregnancy and birth - another one here http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html - which includes her doctor's quotes about it in talking to a reporter.
To counter that you need something more than speculation to justify the massive privacy invasion you're talking about.
It matters not a whit what percentage of oil which is consumed here orginates in the Middle East.
Good, then you agree with me that the Republican mantra of "we must drill for offshore oil and in ANWR to relieve our high gas prices" is complete and utter hogwash.
Yes, I know oil is "fungible" which doesn't seem to be a widely understood concept. But if we reduced our consumption by 20%, we wouldn't be dependent on Middle Eastern sources supplying the world market to keep prices down. Osama could blow up all the oil fields on the Arabian Peninsula and we would still be able to meet our demand from the remaining sources (at higher prices, of course); whereas if we didn't reduce our demand and that happened, the price would be much much higher and the impact on our economy far more severe. That's the point, and I think it's self-evident unless you are just being willfully obtuse. Also, starting down the road of developing alternative sources on serious, Apollo-project scale would be a beginning towards complete replacement of oil as an energy source, which is going to be a necessity sooner or later.
Comparing weaning the U.S. economy off oil within ten years, to the 1960s engineering problems involved in sending men to the moon, is too silly for words.
Posted by Will Allen | October 1, 2008 5:55 PM
That's just because you want to dodge the issue. Some of us like to think down the road, even beyond our own lifetimes, but you apparently can't be bothered with anything that doesn't benefit you directly and immediately. How is getting off of oil not an "engineering problem?" Who do you think would be working on the project, astronomers? It is absolutely an engineering problem. It's also a philosophical problem, as in some people are apparently philosophically opposed to even trying to seriously pursue alternative energy.
You know, this is all well and good trying to come up with another example of Palin abusing her position; but I'm about tired of this particular issue of Trig's-Mom-Gate. The next thing we'll be doing is insisting on a Special Prosecutor to investigate, and opening Palin's OB-GYN records, and on and on and on and it turns into Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm and the MacDougals all over again. I like revenge and schadenfreude and just desserts and comeuppances and all that jazz; but when we start arguing about whether her water broke or it was just amniotic leakage or whatever I think we've crossed into Nixon's metaphorical "proctoscope" territory. You know, ewww.
There's plenty of evidence that Palin abused the privileges of her offices in sundry ways. Let's leave it at that and move on.
If Barack knowingly filed a false birth certificate stating he is the father - that's the same kind of fraud. So the same standard applies.
Ok, if Barack did it. I thought it's the doctor who files the birth certificate and he would be putting the name he is told on the father side. It's easy to see how the wrong man could end up there totally innocently....but the wrong mother?
I think the standard is pretty reasonable - some evidence of what you suspect. You're attempting to set the bar so low as to not even be a bar - idle speculation is the cause for massive invasions of privacy.
What exactly has been the massive invasion of privacy in the Bristol story? I think what's different is that the internet shows you what happens behind the scenes whereas inthe old days you wouldn't see that unless you worked in the newsroom. Look at the timeline here, Sullivan posts the story (ok it was posted elsewhere before but let's start with him)....a reader notices the biological problem (Bristol can't be preg. so soon again if she just gave birth) and another one finds the few pics of a pregnant Palin. The internet outsources this following up of a lead, that's all. 20 years ago a story like this would probably be explored too except a kid in a newsroom would be assigned the job of trolling through the picture archive.
liberalrob
Yes, I know oil is "fungible" which doesn't seem to be a widely understood concept. But if we reduced our consumption by 20%, we wouldn't be dependent on Middle Eastern sources supplying the world market to keep prices down.
Actually it's only 12%. Let's say we did and ME imports go down to zero because getting oil from the ME is probably the most expensive for the US due to location. If the ME blows up we are still in trouble because Europe is going to turn to Canada and Mexico....which is supplying us and the result is super high prices.
But here's the problem with Will's definition of dependence. The only way for that not to be a problem for us is if we didn't need any oil. But if that's the definition of not being dependent on ME oil...then what's the definition of not being dependent on foreign oil and for that matter dependent on oil in general? If it all means the same thing then you're using a crappy definition.
Unless you're talking about military strategy in some type of WWIII scenaro, dependence is generally not a very productive way to talk about oil. But given that reality the way Obama uses it is about as reasonable as you can make it.
Anway, I agree with Anna errors in speech should be held to a lower standard because its human nature to flub things when speaking out loud...I'd also hold goal setting for the future to a different standard as well. Unless someone is promising to do something very specific that they have the ability to do (sign a law, veto a law, appoint someone to something), I think voters understand goals shouldn't really be classified as 'lie or true' but more as 'plausible or implausible'...
Let me bleg one more time, does anyone have an authoritative site that really confirms there is no birth certificate for Trig? Or is it just that no one has made public a scan of Trig's birth certificate?
First - the privacy being violated with regards to Trig is Sarah's. You are asking her to produce evidence she is her child's mother. There is no evidence to the contrary, you just want a pretense to force her to legitimze your speculation by addressing it or legitimize it by not addressing it. You have no evidence.
Secondly, Bristol Palin is irrelevant to the campaign. She's not a reflection of her mother's ability to govern. She's not a reflection of her mother's positions. She's simply out of bounds.
skullberg wrote: I'm going to call you a liar now.
It is well established that Palin's water did not break. This isn't in dispute and is simply an attempt by you to distort the events of that day. She had amniotic leakage - which does not signal the start of labor. The doctor INDUCED labor in Wasilla.
***
When amniotic fluid starts to leak that is generally considered a rupture in the membranes.
Palin herself stated she was having contractions in Texas. Then the story apparently changed when she was criticized in the Alaskan press for boarding a plane in labor.
I have to wonder why a doctor would "induce" dangerous preterm labor in a woman whose membranes were not ruptured and who wasn't in labor. Again, the Palins' story makes no sense.
Actually I don't think the candidates have to produce their kids' birth certificates. I ask because I believe (at least in NJ) you can get a birth certificate for anyone born in the state (it's not the certified type you use to get a driver's license but one useful for people doing geneology research). If the story is correct that Trig has no birth certificate...that's something worth looking into.
Otherwise I'm fine with a simple policy of releasing medical records for all the candidates simply because they are seeking a high office & since there is only one President and VP we should be able to judge their medical risks fairly.
As for being out of bounds, not quite. Palin and her supporters have been playing up the mother angle big time as well as the pro-life one. It's perfectly reasonable to ask about her decision to have amniocentesis, a procedure some prolifers would like to see banned. Should an interviewer ask her point blank about it? Maybe, although she seems to be running from interviews for good reason and I think there are many more important issues to ask her about first. Is it wrong for a blogger to discuss it? Hell no!
special needs mother,
She knew her body, had been having false labor for months, consulted with her doctor and went with her blessing. This is all included in the report I linked to above:http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html
That story is from 4 days after Trig was born, and includes her doctor. Have you seen reports from that weekend that criticized her? If not, we'll just chalk this up to you being misinformed.
Where did this come from? That's a fine question. you can also ask about flying so late into pregnancy. But you don't get to ask if she's really her baby's mother and state that you still think she's lying.
Skullberg,
Who has done that? That's first.
Second, why not? Go back to when the story was new and pick out the point where the case for her not being the mother was as strong as it could be (before the photos etc.). Why couldn't a journalist ask that? Or a blogger? If you only had one question you could ask her, I'd say it would be a waste. If you only had two it would still be a waste but maybe not if you had two dozen questions.
As for saying she's lying about it, I don't see how anyone can say that when she hasn't uttered a word about this story as far as I know other than to done the role of the put upon 'victim'. Where was this mentality a decade ago when stories were floated on a regular basis that people were being offed by Bill or Hillary Clinton?
A writer from The Nation is live-blogging the debate tonight.
I'm trying to pass this around because, if action meets the talk, it looks like a number of conservatives are descending on his blog tonight.
If it helps, he's going to award Powell's gift cards for good comments.
http://www.governmentalityblog.com/
MoeLarryAndJesus wrote:
"He's been running for president for a year and a half or so and he's answered questions in just about every forum available. How's that for a 'basis,' chuckles?"
Yes, I'm vaguely aware of his candidacy. But considering the original comment I was responding to was one that credited Obama with thinking about these issues "for years," I'm not really sure how your observation relates, chuckles.
And regarding this:
"And since you voted for Dumbya twice, on what basis should anyone think you care about a candidate's thinking? Evidently you vote on other grounds."
Weak, even for you... not to mention inaccurate.
People say she's laying when she says Trig is her son and that the whole Texas story is a lie.
They were equally as reprehensible, but I didn't see the actual reporters or journalists saying they were just 'asking questions'. I saw fringe commentators and Lew Pockwell types - but if that is the standard The Atlantic wants, then go ahead.
Who? You're not talking about Sullivan there. Are you talking about the tin foil hat section of the Internet? Well there's not much you can do about that.
They were equally as reprehensible, but I didn't see the actual reporters or journalists saying they were just 'asking questions'. I saw fringe commentators and Lew Pockwell types - but if that is the standard The Atlantic wants, then go ahead.
I do suspect some more respectable outfits followed up some of those 'leads'. With old media you don't see them following the leads unless it ends up becomming a story. With new media like blogs you see the leads being followed before the story becomes clear. I kind of remember here and there a respectable outfit would run some stories debunking some of sensational claims so by definition they had to ask some questions.
Mike writes:
"I am a 49-year old chemical engineer by training and employment. As a hobby I write financial and economic history books and articles (see url). I have managed to learn quite a bit about these topics in my spare time since I started in 1997. I am also married and raised a family at the same time."
I have no doubt about a person's ability to become conversant - even highly so - in areas outside of their expertise. I'm not challenging that at all. The issue I'm pointing to isn't whether Obama *could have* done that very thing "for years," as the original commenter claimed. Rather the issue is whether we know he, in fact, did - and, likewise, whether we know Palin did not.
The point matters. Since Obama's and Palin's respective candidacies began, many (most?) Obama supporters have seemed quite willing to dismiss with certainty (if not real evidence) Palin's outisde intellectual pursuits *while at the same time* embracing the notion of Obama as decade-long Renaissance Man/policy expert - with equal certainty, and with equal absence of evidence.
We don't *know* how much time Obama spent learning about national issues prior to joining the Senate, and because there's no reliable evidence to support any particular conclusion - doing otherwise amounts only to speculation. The same thing is true of Sarah Palin. I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency that otherwise gets lost amidst the Democratic partisan sneering.
Brandon,
You're right we don't know how much time either Obama or Palin spent 'studying'. Palin, for example, when asked what papers or magazines she reads to keep up to date on things answered "all of them". Maybe she does, most likely she doesn't.
What's relevant, though, isn't so much how much time has been spent studying but how much has been learned. We have numerous interviews, debates, town halls, speeches and other media on Obama for over a year now. We have very few sources for Palin.
I suppose for both you can't really get a sense of how long they've been studying but Obama seems to have asorbed quite a bit and Palin just the opposite. Now maybe that is a wrong conclusion...maybe Palin just isn't good in front of mainstream media...maybe she freezes up but I think the burden is on her supporters to show she is qualified. Given that we don't have much time until the election it's fair to rule that if she cannot be proven to be qualified it is safe to assume she isn't. Each voter will have to decide for themselves what impact that will have in the booth (I would expect it to be a negative for McCain).
So it's up to the voters but that's not the same as saying all opinions here are equally valid. She hasn't done well since the convention speech and the interviews she has done have subtracted from her credibility. Anyone who says she did great or who tries to say it's all media bias is, IMO, just engaging in partisan damage control spin.
To skullberg who asked:
"That story is from 4 days after Trig was born, and includes her doctor. Have you seen reports from that weekend that criticized her? If not, we'll just chalk this up to you being misinformed."
***
Yes, I have seen reports in which the Alaskan papers consulted an out of state perinatal physcian who also found the Palins' story strange, and wondered why a physician would give the advice Palin's doc apparently did.
In reaction to these and other questions in the Alaskan press, the Palins later said that Sarah had not been "in labor" and that in fact labor had to be induced, etc.
My question is why Sarah's doctor (who is not even an obstetrician) would have induced premature labor in a woman whose membranes were not ruptured? This simply makes no sense to me. Since the doctor involved is no longer with the hospital where Palin reportedly delivered and seems to be generally unavailable for comment, we are unlikely ever to get this information.
The whole pregnancy story rings false to me. Having had several children myself and having been through the process with countless other women in high-risk pregnancies, the bit about Palin "knowing her body," and her doctor agreeing to the trip on that basis, seems nonsensical -- no woman can predict the course of such a high-risk pregnancy.
Having said that, I think this is a story that can never be resolved without DNA testing all around, and somehow I don't think that will happen.
Palin's mendacity on so many other important issues has been established. The pregnancy story, while interesting to those of us with professional knowledge, is distracting from her more obvious disqualifications as a potential vice-president -- see the Katy Couric interviews, for example
No, Boonton, and your rationalizations are silly. If a closing of the Strait of Hormuz results in huge dislocations within the U.S. economy, as will almost certainly be the case for at least the next thirty years, at a minimum, then the U.S. will continue to be dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Obama is either a liar or a complete and utter dunce. And your insistence that Obama cannot be held accountable for a statement he made in the speech he has prepared more for than any other in his life is beyond pathetic. There is no point in continuing further, given you have no desire for an intellectually honest exchange.
Liberalrob, very little of what you wrote had anything to do with what I wrote. For instance, I made no statement regarding the desiribility eventually ending oil as a primary energy source, thus ending our dependence on foreign oil, Middle Eastern or otherwise. For the record, I think it would be a good thing. That doesn't change the fact that proposing that U.S. dependence on Middle Easter oil be accomplished within 10 years makes one either deceitful or stupid.
Finally, when one makes the comment, in regards to dependence and fungibility, "except for the higher prices, of course", I must say that responding in a non-insulting tone becomes somewhat difficult. Have a nice evening.
Will Allen,
I'm not sure how I can not call you a mendacious cunt without it seeming insulting.
ah well
Skullberg,
If you're going try to win arguments like that, without any intellectual honesty or decency, then go fuck yourself, you inbred dipshit midget.
Can we at least ban IP addresses when names are fradulently used?
Will,
Like I said the problem with your definition of dependency is that it is essentially meaningless. Imagine the US cut back its oil use 60% so that only domestic oil need be used for domestic demand. If the ME blew up other developed nations would bit up the price of oil so even then...we would still be 'dependent' on ME oil in the sense that the price increase would hit us.
But then the only way not to depend on ME oil is to use 0 oil. But to not depend on foreign oil also means use 0 oil. And not to depend on oil at all means use 0 oil.
But this isn't how normal people use language. The three statements:
1. We should not depend on oil from the ME.
2. We should not depend on oil from other countries.
3. We should not depend on oil at all.
Mean three different things to people, not one thing. If you want to have your own private version of the English language then go ahead but both McCain and Obama are talking to the average American voter who understands those statements to mean different things. Hence to even begin to analyze the truthfulness of any such claim you need to have a normal definition.
special needs mother
Having said that, I think this is a story that can never be resolved without DNA testing all around, and somehow I don't think that will happen.
AS you know there is two problems with the Bristol story. The first is the letter Sullivan published which pointed out it would be very difficult if not impossible for Bristol to have had Trig and then have gotten pregnant again so soon. The second is that we do have photos of Palin pre-Trig looking pregnant.
I think the more likely answer to your questions is that she was unsure if she wanted this pregnancy...especially after finding out the baby had Downs. If she opted for abortion the pro-lifers would brand her a traitor so she kept quiet on the pregnancy. At the end she decided she couldn't do an abortion but would be indifferent to the pregnancy....in other words she wasn't going to terminate it but she wasn't going to go out of her way for it. Maybe she was even in a bit of denial. While politically she is praised endlessly by the right for being a mom, it must have been daunting for her to consider the challenge of yet another baby, esp. one with Downs when she was already heading towards middle age.
So she didn't fret over the pregnancy, didn't follow all the advice she was given (or she might have simply been given bum advice too). She went into labor while traveling and everything worked out ok. I know women who didn't do the prenatal stuff they should have, who smoked and did other things during pregnancy. Nobody's perfect.
Of course right now she can't say this. I can't blame her...after all no one wants her kid to be watching TV fifteen years from now and see a clip of his mom saying she wanted a miscarriage. So we probably won't ever get confirmation of any of these theories.
I would like to know about the birth certificate, though. Is Trig really missing one or is it just that Palin hasn't published a copy?
I agree: I would never spell this bad: fradulently
Nor would I be so stupid to use fraud, when fraud means that I am actually called Will Allen.
proposing that U.S. dependence on Middle Easter oil be accomplished within 10 years makes one either deceitful or stupid.
Eh.
The basic thing is that if you reduce the amount of oil used in the energy mix in your economy, then shifts in the price of oil affect your economy less. It may be misleading to imply that by reducing oil consumption we're going to be able to shift to all-American oil or something. But if we had a transportation system that was 50% electric-powered, with electric power generation that was 50% nuclear, hydro, wind and solar, then a $10 rise in the price of a barrel of oil would translate into a lower impact on prices and jobs in the US. We'd be less "dependent" on ME oil in that sense.
Also, because gasoline is refined regionally, lower gasoline demand in one country can in fact lower the price of gas at the pump there, even if the global price of crude stays high.
Will Allen,
That was obviously not me,
special needs mother,
I don't think special needs mom wants Palin to prove anything more than I think she wants her to explain. And let's be clear about evidence, there was evidence for the Bristol theory.
The evidence was circumstantial. The problem with circumstantial evidence is that it invites you to make an erronous conclusion. "The only thing that can explain X is Y" The problem is are you sure only Y can explain X? 9 times out of 10 reality is wittier than your imagination and the truth will end up being that X is explained by Z...something you never would have guessed. Nevertheless the evidence was there and it was valid to follow the lead...which IMO produced the evidence that I think debunks the theory pretty solidly.
What was the evidence that SarahPalin was not the mother of Trig?
This wasn't some surprise or 'witty' situation - this was Occam's Razor - the mother was in fact the mother.
What was the evidence that SarahPalin was not the mother of Trig?
That was posted here several times and is easily available.
This wasn't some surprise or 'witty' situation - this was Occam's Razor - the mother was in fact the mother.
Razor cuts both ways. For example, suppose instead of finding pictures where she looked pregnant right before Trig's birth they found pictures of her with a washboard stomach? As for the Z, well we really haven't had the evidence explained and we probably will never.
there was never any 'evidence'...not making your pregnancyu public is not evidence,neither is not kooking pregnant until late.
but you will be happy to see that andrew still wants 'proof' she really had the baby...
can i just say i told you so, he is a nut
To Boonton and Skullberg:
There are pictures of Sarah Palin, back when she was supposedly 7 months pregnant, in which she looks amazingly svelte.
Then she announces her pregnancy in March, suddenly becomes very pregnant -- at least in a few pictures -- and delivers under mysterious curcumstances in April.
I find it highly implausible that a 7-month-pregnant woman could hide her condition from her staff, friends, and immediate family.
But as Palin herself told the New York Times, she succesfully accomplished this deception, and was, consequently, only pregnant for "one month." Neat trick!
Both at the convention and currently, Sarah Palin has not looked like a postpartum and breastfeeding mother. I think most women reading this blog who have actually been through a pregnancy would agree.
By contrast, the pictures of Bristol from the same period(and currently)show her looking either pregnant or recently delivered. This doesn't mean Bristol is the mother of Trig (odds of her having a Down Syndrome child at her age are rather small). Perhaps Trig is an "Operation Rescue" adoption, nicely timed to position Palin as the anti-choice VP candidate -- or perhaps the baby is Palin's -- who knows?
But her story sounds fishy to me. And, no, I am not a medical doctor myself (though I teach physicians and publish in their journals). However, physicians with better credentials than Palin's doc have stated their own qualms about the Palin pregnancy scenario. I agree with their questions about this peculiar case.
Just to clarify, we've given up the pretense that Andrew Sullivan has accepted that Trig is Sarah's child, right?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/palins-tax-reco.html
special needs mother,
Wow, so we should force people to provide documented evidence of parentage based on it sounding 'fishy' to an admitted partisan?
You wouldn't believe a birth certificate, since you already don't believe the doctor. Your just using this as a pretense to smear someone you don't like. Just admit that and move on.
To skullberg:
Unlike anti-choice Sarah Palin, I do not wish to force anything on anyone.
Keep in mind, this woman is running to be a heartbeat away from a 72-year-old candidate for the presidency.
When she retails an improbable story concerning her child/campaign prop, I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask questions -- questions that could be easily resolved with DNA testing, but I'm not holding my breath.
Neither I nor Sullivan were the first to raise these issues -- they began with (non-partisan) skepticism among her staff and other co-workers, the public and the press in Alaska, and pre-dated her announced selection as VP.
Yes, lets require DNA testing based on nothing more than your partisan request. I'll follow that up with my request for the DNA tests of Barack Obama and his 'alleged' daughters. After all, I just don't trust him when he says they are
his.
That's a bold claim. Do you have any cites for the staff? for the co-workers? for the press in AK? Did any reporter or columnist in AK take this position?
To skullberg who asked:
"...anti-choice Sarah Palin... Where did that come from? Completely irrelevant here."
***
Not at all irrelevant. It comes from her own political history and widely expressed views.
She tried to ban books on religious grounds, fired a librarian who wouldn't go along with her, and would like to end abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Her anti-choice views, which she has already tried -- with some success -- to impose on others during her time in Alaskan government, are, or should be, of great concern.
If you believe her pregnancy story (and apparently you do), that means you must accept that she recklessly endangered the life and health of her unborn baby.
Other, less powerful, women who take similar risks during pregnancy (who drink or take the wrong drugs or refuse an "indicated" cesarean section or object to neonatal resuscitation and intensive care can find themselves imprisoned or forced to comply to unwanted medical procedures by doctors and prosecutors with Palin's ideology.
For the cites on Palin's colleagues and their skepticism about her pregnancy story, go to Andrew's blog posts (all listed above) and follow all the links.
And no, I don't believe in requiring DNA tests. Nor do I believe in lifestyle, media, or speech restrictions -- though Palin obviously does.
special needs
This doesn't mean Bristol is the mother of Trig (odds of her having a Down Syndrome child at her age are rather small). Perhaps Trig is an "Operation Rescue" adoption, nicely timed to position Palin as the anti-choice VP candidate -- or perhaps the baby is Palin's -- who knows?
But then why the coverup? McCain too has an adopted baby (and 8 years ago when he was running some on the right tried to do a nasty whisper campaign against him because the baby was not white). And as you know pro-lifers love adoption (and that's one thing a pro-choicer could never bash a pro-lifer for doing). If she adopted a Downs Syndrom baby I don't see why that wouldn't be anything but a positive for her politically.
Mike S
Just to clarify, we've given up the pretense that Andrew Sullivan has accepted that Trig is Sarah's child, right?
No, he's been calling for her to release her medical records which would inclulde records that she recently gave birth. It's been very clear he's been calling for this on the grounds of full disclosure and as I've exhaustively documented he's spent nearly a dozen posts asking questions about the way Palin conducted herself during Trig's pregnancy....which means you logically must believe Palin was pregnant with Trig unless you think that Sullivan believes Palin had aminocentesis done on a flat belly.
Skullberg
Yes, lets require DNA testing based on nothing more than your partisan request. I'll follow that up with my request for the DNA tests of Barack Obama and his 'alleged' daughters. After all, I just don't trust him when he says they are
his.
I wouldn't ask a DNA test. I would simply say medical records should be released by everyone running. I understand why Special Needs is skeptical but I'm just not convinced the evidence indicates anything other than Palin's last pregnancy didn't make a major impact on her body, and she was low key about it because of its problems. It isn't unheard of for some women to carry a pregnancy so lightly that they don't even appear to be pregnant and even fool husbands into thinking they aren't. I would still like to hear if anything can speak with authority on Trig's birth certificate. Certainly some journalist by now has tried to call Alaska's Bearue of Vitals and asked them about it.
Special needs raises point I think that is valid and that is Palin has explictly and clearly come out against privacy when it comes to pregnancy. She thinks the state can and should ban a mother from having an abortion at any stage in the pregnancy. Why, then, shouldn't the state have a free hand to regulate even more to ensure that women don't attempt to abort by not getting proper medical care. And, needless to say, I don't think for one second if it was learned that Michele Obama, one of her daughters or a member of Biden's immediate family had an abortion the right wouldn't get very excited by it.
Palin should answer questions about Trig's pregnancy and if those answers end up being inconsistent and downright odd the press should press the issue and reopen the possibility that there is something fishy about her claim to be Trig's mother. Given, though, with only a few exceptions, Palin has been hiding from the press I think there's a lot of other issues that are much more important to ask about if she give another rare opportunity to be questioned.
Ohhh well another Palin lie
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5948944&page=1
"When I and others in the legislature found out that we had some millions of dollars [of Permanent Fund investments] in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars,"
Seems like this is as complete a lie as it is possible to be. Not only is there no record of her ever calling for divestment, her administration opposed and helped kill a law that intended to do just that.
special needs mother,
It IS irrelevant to the question of her pregnancy.
I believe the contemporaneous accounts from her, her doctor and the reporter until I see evidence otherwise.
Did she do things I wouldn't? yes. Did she do so after consultation with her doctor? yes. Do I think I know her situation better than her doctor? no.
Okay, so I take it you don't know of any and can't point them out. You simply don't have evidence of this.
But that is the only way you'll drop this baseless accusation. You're requiring an gross violation of privacy based on pure speculation.
This rings extremely hollow. I think we all know where you stand on these things - whether you call them restrictions or not.
No, Boonton, when it is undeniably the case that an interruption of extraction of oil from the Persian Gulf, at any time within the next ten years, would cause huge dislocations in the U.S. economy, no matter what policies are adopted, then one is either deceitful or stupid to make Obama's statement. It is you who is using a private form of english.
It is true that Brooksfoe's use of the modifer "less" transforms the statement from dishonest to honest. Liars quite often omit a single word in their effort to deceive.
Boonton,
This also is a red herring. Her feelings on abortion aren't an issue. We've also seen no evidence that she cares to enshrine pro-life absolutist policies in government. She hasn't attempted to restrict any abortions in AK. And before it gets brought up, the rape kit issue has been debunked.
She has effectively answered the question: she's on record as having given birth. There is no evidence that that isn't the case. If there is evidence, then yes lets discuss it, but since there isn't, it is irresponsible and offensive to question her motherhood - especially to her face.
oh God,
are you all jobless motherfuckers? let it go.
Just wank over her picture Skullnuts.
And Will Allen - you are so up your own ass it's amazing. The fake one was a lot more fun than you.
To Skullberg:
About Palin's extreme anti-choice agenda, her picketing of the offices of doctors who counsel women on abortion, and more, see, for example:
http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/#women
For the incredulity that greeted Palin's announcement of her alleged 7-month pregnancy, read the New York Times front page story on September 8 about "fusing motherhood and politics in a new way."
Also read all the posts referenced earlier in this thread from Sullivan's blog, study the pictures, follow links to the Alaskan papers.
My point in entering this discussion has been to defend Andrew Sullivan and others who find Palin's pregnancy account difficult to believe. The story on the face of it raises many legitimate questions.
In re-reading the New York Times article, I found yet another improbable detail. Apparently the Palins never told their children that the new baby would have any disorder, but daughter Willow, according to the Palins, immediately noticed that the newborn appeared to have Down Syndrome.
Maybe Willow has special medical training or is unusually astute, but even medical staff may have trouble making the diagnosis of Down Syndrome in a newborn on general appearance only unless they know some of the tell-tale signs that are not apparent to the layman.
This is a minor detail, but, again, it doesn't ring true to me.
Palin's track record for candor has already been seriously tarnished by her many other deceptive statements, so I don't think she has earned the right to be taken at face value, as you seem inclined to do.
To Boonton who asked why Palin -- if she had adopted the child -- wouldn't be forthright about it, since it would also help her score points with the anti-choice, Fundie crowd.
The story that this is her own child, and that she personally wrestled with the option to abort and chose LIFE instead is far more compelling -- showing, as the New York Times put it, that she had really "walked the walk." It gives her more "moral authority."
You mention that women are (extremely rarely) able to hide their pregnancies.
I am highly skeptical that any woman as trim as Sarah Palin could hide a 7-month pregnancy from her immediate staff, friends, and family. The women in the tabloids who allegedly fool even their husbands about pregnancy are almost always quite obese to begin with. The slimmer the woman, the harder it is to hide a pregnancy.
I remain skeptical about the pregnancy account, but feel that Palin's many other, more easily proven, deceptions should be the primary focus of the electorate.
I realize now that I misunderstood your nom de plume.
You are clearly a mother who is actually special needs herself.
This clearly explains your posts so far.
special needs mother,
The above is a an impostor, most likely ML+J as I believe he has been banned.
Once again, irrelevant to the topic at hand...
The NYT article you mention contradicts you on a lot of fronts. To help you read it again here is the link www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/us/politics/08baby.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
I quote:
So she's on record at press conferences discussing the pregnancy in march. No reports of staff, co-workers or anyone questioning it. Reports of other people noting her changes in fashion.
Done and didn't see anything that supports what you said. Care to try again?
FTFY
Again, I will ask for ANY evidence of her non-maternity or any evidence that there is not birth certificate. This thread has gone nearly 400 comments and none has been put forward.
Will,
As I said before, your definition of dependency fails because it allows no difference in meaning to be independent of ME oil, foreign oil or oil entirely.
Skullberg
This also is a red herring. Her feelings on abortion aren't an issue. We've also seen no evidence that she cares to enshrine pro-life absolutist policies in government.
There's no evidence that she would enshrine pro-life policies in gov't?
Skullberg & special needs mother,
Ever hear of cannon? I suggest you look take a peek on wikipedia about it. Basically it involves very intricate fictional universes like Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and so on. The idea is that there is high level cannon (like material found in the books or movies that depict the universe), medium level cannon (such as stuff that isn't in the source material but can be assumed to have happened) and lower level cannon (fan fiction, speculation and so on).
Perhaps stories in the media should be rated accordingly. On the lowest level we can have stories that are almost entirely pure fiction (Obama's a Muslim, Bill Clinton killed people, the Iraq War was for Halliburton), then above that stories that are at the moment speculative but haven't been definitively proven true or false and then on top stuff that has a lot of merit to it and is proper for main stream 'elite' media.
I would place this story in the middle range. You got some oddities but not quite proof. Likewise she hasn't established that the story is false either. Given this perhaps its proper that 2nd tier media (blogs, more sensationalist entities like the National Enquirer) publically discuss the story but elite media should keep it off their pages until more evidence comes forward that pushes the story up a notch.
I haven't seen any. She didn't run on it in AK, she didn't do anything while in office. We know what her personal beliefs are but we haven't seen any translation of those into plans to implement policy.
Regardless, she's not running for President, and has 0 chance of putting an Anti-Roe judge on the court. Short of that, this is all sideline bluster.
And as for the cannon stuff, spare me the sophistry. This one is entirely fiction, hell there's more proof Obama is a Muslim (his Catholic school registration as a Muslim) than there is of Palin faking maternity.
And Obama hasn't proven he is the father of his alleged daughters. There is simply no there there. This is hack partisan time-wasting.
To Skullberg et al:
I've tried to send several posts to this blog with quotes from the Alaskan papers demonstrating the "shock and awe" and incredulity with which Palin's pregnancy announcement was received by -- well everybody in Alaska. But the posts keep bouncing.
At any rate, check for yourself The Alaska Daily News for March 5, 6 and 9th, and the Juneau Empire for March 6 of this year.
Interesting! *That* post made it through.
So let me try again to spoon-feed you the direct quotes, Skullberg. One at a time.
This isn't how I intended to spend my weekend, but as the mother of a severely disabled child, I've had years of experience with spoon-feeding.
Let's get started:
The Anchorage Daily News
March 5 2008
Gov. Palin reveals pregnancy
By Wesley Loy
Gov. Palin is expecting her fifth child.
"I will be delivering an addition to the f