Harry's Place

Brilliant!

I remember how stupid they used to say Reagan was. Now, Reagan was not exactly Mensa material, but he didn’t have to be to prove them wrong and make them look like fools.

Spot on. Nick Cohen nailed IMHO. It’s the overreach that gets ‘em every time.

“liberal journalists”

THEY ARE NOT LIBERAL, for crying out loud. They are airhead lefty crypto-fascists.

Sarah Palin has stolen Barack Obama’s glamour. She’s stolen his excitement, robbed his electricity, burgled his charisma, purloined his star power, and taken his Hope and Change mantra, woven it into a cold-weather fashion accessory, and wrapped it around her neck.

Bill Whittle NRO

Ironic, really, because Adam LeBor has put up a post on HP which comes from the same stable that Nick Cohen takes apart. His main theme– never mind her family; and yes, she does sound like a breath of fresh air, but how could you possibly believe that this woman could take a 3am phone call about an act of war against the USA? Because, you see, she lacks experience, unlike, ummmm, Barack Obama.

What a hellish job being a Guardian CiF comment moderator.

Admittedly, I only got to the end of the first page of comments but there were as many, possibly more in support of Cohen’s position, than there were against. And most posters on both sides seemed to be attempting to make points, rather than hurl abuse. I’ve certainly seen worse on this site.

More generally, I guess Cohen tends to enrage Guardian readers because he is clearly and quite rapidly making the traditional left-wing commentator’s rightward journey. Worse to be a beretic than an infidel and all that.

At a time when Labour is clearly on the way out, this could look to some like opportunism, which I’m sure rubs salt in the wound.

To be fair, Judy, Adam is merely questioning Palin’s experience, which is perfectly proper and legitimate. And when he gets back from lunch, he will tell us how Obama’s experience compares favorably to Palin’s.

Adam takes very long lunches. But then it is Sunday so he’s probably having a big old roast. Mmmm.

I too can’t wait to see what he says about Palin’s experience vs Obama’s.

This hatred was touched upon both at the Corner and at the Coffee House:

The replies from the women on the panel – Dame Liz Fogan and Bea Campbell – were similarly dismissive of Palin. One, I think Campbell, admitted she has no rational explanation. She just despises Palin for a raft of reasons, including presentational ones.

Once again, the license fee at work. “Subsidise leftist cuntery or you’ll go to jail.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

Another stupid Palin smear refuted. This time sex education.

In other news, how much is Obama going to embarrass himself on national television before Axelrod finally locks him in a cupboard till he calms down? “Waa, waa the mean ol’d Republicans were meeeeeeaaaannnnn to me, wah” + his ever more detalied comparisons of his CV to Palin’s repeatedly confirming that they are basically similar.

Cohen’s article is a mixture of straw men, argument by assertion and non-sequiteurs. Note that there is not a single direct quote to back up his claim about what “liberals” are saying, no names named, not to mention the insinuation that liberals are somehow responsible for the general media coverage Palin has received.

Still, if it upsets the right people who cares eh?

Oh, and here you can see the Republican’s double standards on this, with names, with quotes.

I find that the main contributors to HP seem to be against McCain and Palin but most of the posters are pro.

Great piece as usual by Nick Cohen.

Amusing too, given that a number of HP bloggers were part of the Palin derangement mob that Cohen correctly arraigns. I hope Gene is reading.

Completely agree with Cohen. I would not vote for Palin due to my fundamental differences with her on issues such as abortion, the teaching of creationism in schools and censorship, but neither would I attack her with these pathetic smear campaigns.

Dead heat. 46/46, 48/48 with leaners, virtually no slack. Every point comes from converting one from the other side.

In the first national polling results based entirely on interviews conducted after Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech, Barack Obama gets 46% of the vote and so does John McCain. When “leaners” are included, it’s all even at 48%.

Next up.

Tracking Poll results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, tomorrow (Monday) will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after McCain’s speech.

Thats drop kicking Obama thru the goalposts for 8 points. He had peaked at 50/42. Now can McCain make the conversion? Stay tuned, sports fans.

Note that there is not a single direct quote to back up his claim about what “liberals” are saying…

Try:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2008/09/yahoos-browns-1.html

“his ever more detalied comparisons of his CV to Palin’s repeatedly confirming that they are basically similar”

Not even remotely. She has vastly more experience than Bambi.

Andrew, don’t you read any newspapers? Ever?

“Cohen’s article is a mixture of straw men, argument by assertion and non-sequiteurs. Note that there is not a single direct quote to back up his claim about what “liberals” are saying, no names named, not to mention the insinuation that liberals are somehow responsible for the general media coverage Palin has received.”

Wheter or not that is the case, on his main point he’s right though, isn’t he ? Everywhere you go online there are outpourings of visceral loathing. I hang out on a travel site that has (for some reason) a political forum; since the Palin nomination, close to half of al posts have been based on some half-truth, rumor or outright lie about here.

It’s no secret that aclose to 90% of US MSM journos are Dems, and it really shows in this case. Just as so many of them uncritically lapped up Obama’s demagogery, so they give top billing to every spiteful rumor about Palin – after having refused to pick up the Edwards story, having known about it formonths.

I have no great fondness for the McCain ticket, and may well have supported Hillary against him, but the irrational, visceral hatred from the left in American politics over the last few days is both illuminating, and indicative of a deep hypocracy. The paleo-cons are rightly condemned for putting faith over reason on issues such as evolution – and yet the left show the same lack of reason in their own responses to both Obama, and McCain/Palin.

Berserkers?

First, HP’s Gene wonder just how anti-semitic Palin really is.

Then, Andrew Sullivan:

“I know she’s being safely indoctrinated by Joe Lieberman[]and AIPAC as we speak, but the fact that Kristol,…”

As an American of Scandinavian extraction, I demand an apology.

Irrational, visceral hatred from the left? Following a GOP convention during which “cosmopolitanism” and community organizing were mocked and dismissed? We have an unqualified, fundamentalist vice presidential candidate who paints a false picture of her public record, and it’s Obama supporters who are the problem? And the ardent secularists of the Euston left are jumping to the right-wing religious zealot’s defense? Pathetic.

Mocking community organizing? Damn straight. It’s a good thing to have on your resume in a Democratic caucus, but for normal Americans the term has less romantic connotations. What is Al Sharpton, anyway?

Want some serious mocking?

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/09/when-americas-c.html

“Dead heat. 46/46, 48/48 with leaners, virtually no slack. Every point comes from converting one from the other side.”

Not statistically significant at this point. Aside from Obama convention bounce, they hae been in a statistical dead heat. This is a good site on polling data – http://www.pollster.com – though they can get a few days behind on entering the latest data.

Intrade has McCain up to ~42.5, which is his best ever, and interestingly, Intrade also has Ohio as a dead heat. There’s somewhat of a contradiction, as it will be hard for Obama to win without Ohio.

Andrew Sullivan? Oh, he’s lost it long ago. He has wet dreams about Obama.

Adler, don’t be so bloody ridiculous. Obama has been lying and twisting and turning for months to falsify his public AND private record. His 20 years at the feet of an antisemitic demagogue have suddennly disappeared (he wishes). His birth certificate was not disclosed when asked for: pray, why? And so on.

Can’t quite believe I’m saying this but I agree with David Adler. I personally find Palin utterly nauseating. She appears to me to be verging on mentally disturbed.

The best thing written about her, and McCain, has been by AA Gill, of all people, in the Sunday Times today. Some priceless quotes, though I don’t have it to hand. Strange days.

“Irrational, visceral hatred from the left? Following a GOP convention during which “cosmopolitanism” and community organizing were mocked and dismissed?”

There’s a huge difference between the atmosphere at a convention, which is inevitably tribal, and what goes on outside (in the real world).

Given the tendency by “comopolitians” to refer to the heartland of this nation as “flyover country”, the partisans on each side seem no better than each other.

While acepting that what you read on the web cannot be reliably treated as representative, there is a widespread tendency by many of the left to regard much of the electorate as “morons”. That seems a rather odd position from adherents of a party called “The Democrtas”.

Sad to read that from Cohen, whom I usually respect.

Fact is, Palin was not vetted by her party. You won’t find her leaving Wisaila $20M in the red, her support for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, her taking $27M in federal porkbarrel earmarks, her selling a state owned jet to a campaign contributor at a loss – none of that, in her official biography.

Palin is attractive and a good speaker. Leaving the vetting process to the press was a reckless move by her party. Press speculation is the result.

Django:

The best thing written about her, and McCain, has been by AA Gill, of all people, in the Sunday Times today. Some priceless quotes

Priceless quotes like this?:

The elephant is the Republicans’ totem animal and the great pachyderm in this ice-hockey stadium is blackness. Nobody mentions it. It isn’t in speeches or off-the-record background briefings, but it’s just the constant humming theme, like a distant generator. The Republicans’ bottom-line strategy, their last hope, is that, when all alone in a voting booth, enough Americans in enough states won’t make a black man president.

Those Republicans are all hoping that racism will win out because, er, they don’t talk about race.

At this point it is clearly the GOP painting blue staters and Obama supporters as “other,” clearly the GOP engaging in crybaby politics.

I’ve got lots of respect for Nick Cohen and HP going after the Galloways and Chomskys of the world these last few years (although I’ve never agreed on the Iraq war). But at this point it seems Cohen and this site (certainly its readers) are merely becoming part of the right-wing echo chamber. It’s appalling and sad. Go ahead, though, support an evangelical right-wing ticket and oppose the genuine social democrat in the race, and keep calling yourselves progressives. You’re not kidding anyone.

“She appears to me to be verging on mentally disturbed”

What a sick person you are.
But then, you read the vile Gill. Figures.

“The Republicans’ bottom-line strategy, their last hope, is that, when all alone in a voting booth, enough Americans in enough states won’t make a black man president”

What one would expect from the sick racist Gill.

“Irrational, visceral hatred from the left? Following a GOP convention during which “cosmopolitanism” and community organizing were mocked and dismissed?”

Cosmopolitanism wasn’t mocked, Rudy Guiliani ridiculed those who were attacking Palin for lacking it, but that is different. As a rule formers mayors of New York anren’t against cosmopolitanism.

Community organising deserves to be mocked, it appears to be a combination of lobbying and grievance mongering.

Go ahead, though, support an evangelical right-wing ticket and oppose the genuine social democrat in the race

Has Nick Cohen said he opposes Obama and supports McCain? Or is this all in your head?

DaveW,

Not statistically insignificant. The same rolling poll over time gives the trend. Too close to call the election, sure, but you can’t deny (well you could, of course) there has been significant movement. And any fair observer would point to Sarah Palin.

Still more today, McCain adds another 3 (my guess).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx

Barack Obama, while an intriguing individual, with undeniable potential, is a very weak candidate. Things point to this are:
a. Under performs the general Dem
b. The Gallup tracking showed 6 of the 8 point Dem bounce came right after Hillary and Bill, but before Obama’s speech (which was a good speech – to the base)
c. The media/entertainment industry is heavily behind him (many are in the tank in fact), should be a 10 point boost, but where is it?

I have not made my mind up about Sarah Palin, but she is sharp witted (and tongued), and has a compelling persona is making more impact on women voters than Hillary traditionally has.

The impact of the haters/beserkers IMO is they drove up RNC ratings by about 40% and gave her a spotlight she would not have had otherwise. She used it to skewer them. Booyah.

“I’ve got lots of respect for Nick Cohen and HP going after the Galloways and Chomskys of the world these last few years (although I’ve never agreed on the Iraq war). But at this point it seems Cohen and this site (certainly its readers) are merely becoming part of the right-wing echo chamber. It’s appalling and sad. Go ahead, though, support an evangelical right-wing ticket and oppose the genuine social democrat in the race, and keep calling yourselves progressives. You’re not kidding anyone.”

Yet again David Adler is absolutely spot on.

Nearly Oxfordian, you’re just so fucking tiresome. Palin’s views on abortion, the teaching of creationism and hunting would disturb any sentient being, but you appear to lap them right up.

There’s plenty of political sites out there to cater for the likes of you and John P. Why do you come to this one I wonder?

jdwill – agree with all those points. Looks like McCain will come out of the convertion season about even in the polls, which under normal circumstances would be enough. However, with such a badly discredited GOP administration, combined with such an insubstantial opponent, there really isn’t much history to guide us here.

My money is on McCain (few grand) – simply because the odds being offered don’t reflect the toss-up status of the race.

Ross writes: “Cosmopolitanism wasn’t mocked, Rudy Guiliani ridiculed those who were attacking Palin for lacking it, but that is different.”

Wrong: Rudy specifically mocked Obama in the “cosmopolitan” remark, even though Obama had never said a word about Palin’s hometown. Watch the speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx5hIfVDu2g

And by the way, if you think this is not a veiled dig against Obama’s mixed heritage and partially foreign upbringing, you’re deluding yourself. And yet people on this list are decrying supposed “racism” from the pro-Obama camp.

I agree, Django. Obama should run against hunting and lock up the Sentient Vote.

Go ahead, though, support an evangelical right-wing ticket and oppose the genuine social democrat in the race, and keep calling yourselves progressives.

Nothing in Sarah Palin’s background is even close to the far-right nonsense spouted by Obama’s pastor, a pastor Obamna couldn’t disown any more than he could disown his own mother.

I had no idea Black supremacism was now ‘progressive’.

Nor had I any idea Louis Farakhan, once featured on the cover of the magazine published by Obama’s church, was considered progressive.

Palin’s evangelicanism is by far the lesser of two evils.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/128461.html

David Adler, your clip demonstrates exactly what I said it did, that Guiliani didn’t mock cosmopolitanism, but those who sneer at small town inhabitants.

“And by the way, if you think this is not a veiled dig against Obama’s mixed heritage and partially foreign upbringing, you’re deluding yourself.”

No I’m listening to what is said rather than what I like to pretend was said. Now seeing as Obama supporters have already decided that calling him skinny is racist it is difficult to imagine what wouldn’t be considered racist in the eyes of obseesives who see racism everywhere.

The Republicans have been so concerned about being falsely accused of racism that they didn’t even have the balls to attack Obama over his links to Jeremiah Wright.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Republican vice presidential running mate Sarah Palin is offering her first televised interview to ABC News in the coming week in Alaska.

Or to put it another way:
“When offered a choice between measured, ideologically consistent arguments, and bizarre, shrieking smears that violate their own value system, the collective intellectual Colossus that is the Left will choose option B most of the time.

Because they’re so effin’ smart”
http://ace.mu.nu/

It’s interesting how very often a story went up on the left wing blogosphere, was refuted in the right-wing blogosphere and was then subsequently splurged all over CNN and the NYT etc. If the journos in the MSM are so repulsed by right-wing opinion that they can’t even do the basic research necessary not to come out looking like utter tits, they are sunk.

“Nothing in Sarah Palin’s background is even close to the far-right nonsense spouted by Obama’s pastor” argues John Palubiski.

Well how about Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080906/ap_on_el_pr/palin_gays

Gallup tracking: McCain 48, Obama 45. Based on interviews done Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

“The Republicans have been so concerned about being falsely accused of racism that they didn’t even have the balls to attack Obama over his links to Jeremiah Wright.”

Yeah, I am sure that it won’t be mentioned once in the next couple of months.

Go fuck yourself, Django. You are so fucking arrogant. You don’t speak for all sentient beings and your views are not shared by everyone, however much difficulty your 2 brain cells have with grasping that concept.

Yeah, I am sure that it won’t be mentioned once in the next couple of months.

No way. The Democrats are the Smart Party, and would never be so stupid as to open themselves to that by attacking Palin for her Church. Right?

“And yet people on this list are decrying supposed “racism” from the pro-Obama camp”

Supposed, eh? Wright and Farrakhan are not racist enough for you? Oops, sorry, this is the airhead left we are talking about. Blacks cannot be racist, ever …

i hope they do attack her church and they attack his. fuck them both.

This is stupid, search and destroy politically your opponent. “Refreshing” does not win you real power. Of course do it smartly.

Spoken from someone with no real power, who just observes what works.

Nearly Oxfordian, don’t get so upset.

It’s nearly night time and the dreams will come. You and Sarah in the wilds together, blasting a few moose. Then heading off to a log cabin, to make hot Republican love on a polar bear skin rug.

Everyone should have a look at this site, which is listing and debunking the various slanders, lies and malicious rumors the American “left” is slinging at Palin. They are up to 69 and counting and it’s been what – 5 days?

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/

Many of these lies are so half-assed as to be laughable. Like the rumor that Palin tried to ban books from the Wasilla library in 1996. The list of books she is being accused of banning include the entire Harry Potter series – the first of which was published in 1997!

With friends like these, the Dali Bama has no need of enemies.

More devastating revelations about Sarah Palin are emerging.

(This isn’t a satirical site)

Ah yes, that insidious left-wing smear machine. Lucky one half of the contest won’t resort to such low tactics.

Anyway it is a good talking point to avoid the fact the republicans have been in power for the last 8 years.

You’re right, Ross. She’ll never recover.

Am I at Harry’s Place or Rush Limbaugh’s?

This is unbelievable – tarring Obama with the Farrakhan brush, when Obama has repeatedly denounced Farrakhan. And Palin’s got a clean bill of health? Even though her pastor declared a “hatred of the American government” and is allied with a Jews for Jesus founder who thinks terrorist attacks against Israelis are God’s punishment? Please point me to evidence that Palin has forthrightly denounced these remarks, the way that Obama has denounced Wright’s and Farrakhan’s.

Good luck, because Palin’s not talking to the press (except for People magazine). Her handlers are busy teaching her to find Pakistan on a map.

Ross

The site you linked Neither Republican, Democratic, nor Libertarian.

Proletarian?

jdwill, I know, but I wanted an excuse to link to it anyway.

Good luck, because Palin’s not talking to the press (except for People magazine).

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Republican vice presidential running mate Sarah Palin is offering her first televised interview to ABC News in the coming week in Alaska.

Ross writes: “David Adler, your clip demonstrates exactly what I said it did, that Guiliani didn’t mock cosmopolitanism, but those who sneer at small town inhabitants.”

Rudy has a peculiar way of not mocking cosmopolitanism, Ross, but nice try with the GOP spin. And you were flatly wrong that Rudy wasn’t talking specifically about Obama, when he was. And Obama has never said a disparaging word – not one word – about Sarah Palin’s hometown. Rudy invented this charge out of thin air.

“And Obama has never said a disparaging word – not one word – about Sarah Palin’s hometown.”

Politico:

The Obama campaign wasn’t as charitable a few hours earlier, when a spokesman issued a statement blasting McCain for putting a “former mayor of a town with 9,000, with zero foreign policy experience, a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

Quit whinging, David.

Err… Obama denounced him when it was expedient for him to do so in order to advance his personal ambition. Just as he did with Wright, after being part of his faithful flock for 20 years. This chancer gives a bad name to turncoats.

“Anyway it is a good talking point to avoid the fact the republicans have been in power for the last 8 years”

And this is the least bit relevant because …?

I am not upset, Django. I am amused by your hugely swollen head and your delusions of grandeur.

And if you think that’s a witty, don’t give up the day job.

Sugar in her coffee … wow, that’s even worse than stabbing your pastor in the back. What a monster.

you are somewhat dim aren’t you, Dr NO?

“Am I at Harry’s Place or Rush Limbaugh’s?”

I’m not sure either David. Maybe the ‘Sunday night crowd’ is always like this. Grim stuff.

Nearly O, the only swollen ‘head’ around here is in your shooting pants as you rerun Sarah’s delightful speech yet again.

David Adler is right. The sooner Nick Cohen pisses off to the Tory party (he can join Matthew Taylor worshipping at Dave’s feet) the better. Cohen hated New Labour precisely because it was (under Blair) a successful and progressive project of the left, so I’m not too surprised by his increasingly deluded rantings.

Sarah Palin: think of Nadine Dorries armed with nuclear weapons.

But why post this at all? It just demonstrates that Nick Cohen is now a fan of the US right. Perhaps it was this:

“they had confined themselves to charging Tony Blair with failing to find the weapons of mass destruction he promised were in Iraq, and sending British troops into a quagmire, they might have forced him out. They were so consumed by loathing, however, they insisted that he had lied, which he clearly had not”

‘when clearly he had not’. Just who does Nick Cohen think he’s kidding? Either about Blair being a liar (more and more revelations in the media about this with every passing month) or on the other hand the strange idea that Blair got away with it because of vast public indignation about calling Blair a liar.

How ridiculous.

“Nadine Dorries armed with nuclear weapons.”

Or as Palins speechwriters had to write it for her, “new-clear weapons”

One thing’s for certain. If Nick Cohen’s next column consisted of a photo of Barack Obama on which he’d wiped his ass, within 24 hours this blog would be awash with people clamouring to praise his splendid, Guardianista-baiting insight.

If I “hate” McCain-Palin it’s because they turned this election into a reality-tv game show where the best shallow mocker will win. The republicans are cynical bastards. And they are disgusting, but not for any of the reasons Nick Cohen mentions.

If I “hate” McCain-Palin it’s because they turned this election into a reality-tv game show where the best shallow mocker will win. The republicans are cynical bastards. And they are disgusting, but not for any of the reasons Nick Cohen mentions.

I really don’t want to see a Palin in the White house, but that doesn’t mean I want to see artless attacks on her that are doomed to backfire.

All of the emotion she stirs up among liberals because teenage pregnancy reminds them that right wingers raise their children wrong (in their view) is entirely self destructive. Because everyone can SEE that this is their motivation.

Think about this, how many voters are going feel comfortable if the democrats unleash tirades by feminist whose motivation is a feeling that conservative parents shouldn’t be allowed to talk to their own daughters, just in case they try to talk them out of an abortion?

And what’s the problem with Palin’s own baby? Is the policy stance that babies with Down’s syndrome should all be killed? Yeah that will get the Democrats lots of votes.

For years one of the swipes at anti-abortion reformists was that they don’t want to take care of disabled children, they just want other people too… Well here’s Palin taking care of a retarded baby.. Now that will bring this up in many people’s minds, but pro abortionists can only make themselves look like monsters if they show that they resent the fact that woman had her own baby and is taking care of it! Yes, it’s because the woman is a high official, but that won’t register emotionally, the fact that they’re resentful of life, will. In this situtation pro-abortionist will do better than any of their opponents could at painting themselves as evil.

Any talk about Palin’s family by ANY Democrat will backfire and to drive the Obama campaign over a cliff. Just watch McCain’s rebound.

At what point do liberals realize they don’t HAVE an angle that isn’t a dreadful loser in this situation and move to something they can win on?

“At what point do liberals realize they don’t HAVE an angle that isn’t a dreadful loser in this situation and move to something they can win on?”

Joshua, They are not going to. Take Tim’s comment:

“Or as Palins speechwriters had to write it for her, “new-clear weapons””

That is clearly a class based sneer. I am pretty sure that a woman who pulled herself from a lower middle class background to a gubernatorial position is capable of reading nuclear just fine, regardless of how she pronounces it ( it is standard enough American English to lose a syllable in some pronunciations, so what?)

Now lets pretend that this was a race based sneer. That Black Americans alone pronounced nuclear new-clear and Tim had opined

“Or as Obama’s speechwriters had to write it for him, “new-clear weapons””

Classism is not any worse than racism. If blue collar ( Reagan-democrat) America – not the Republican heartland but the middle income swing voters – get to read, or get read, this kind of class tribalist horsehit then McCain has the election.

JS wrote: At what point do liberals realize they don’t HAVE an angle that isn’t a dreadful loser in this situation and move to something they can win on?

True; but then this is all but moot because baring revelations that Mc Cain is a child abuser, or some such, November’s presidential election has already been pissed down the drain by the Democratic party and those keen to support it. Many Democratic party supporters, at least at some level, know this.

If Obama couldn’t pronounce nuclear after four days of trying to in a hotel room, then that would be a subject for ridicule.
And not related to class or race.

Classism is not any worse than racism
Just so; there’s nothing worse than condescending to, or about, the lower orders!

And by the way,Fionn, the reason they were so bothered about the pronunciation is that George w Bush, the most upper class president for a while,can’t pronounce it either.

Palin is a sideshow. The vetting that should have been done by her party has been done by the media. Several items will stick. None have to do with her family other than the past political affiliations of her husband.

Has Harry’s Place been hijacked ? Hadn’t been by here in a while. Once upon a time, I’d come by here for solid decent left debate. Sometimes for the sustenance provided by being in the cyber-company of like minded people. Occasionally jumping in under various nicks. Wingnuttery was rare. Now it’s prevalent.

Comments like those I’m reading here are common at certain blogs on this side of the pond. None defend Enlightenment values as they were once defended here. None defend a laborer’s right to organize.

Has Harry’s Place lost (or sold) it’s soul ?

“Has Harry’s Place lost (or sold) it’s soul ?”

Sold. We all work for the CIA.

pronunciation is that George w Bush, the most upper class president for a while,can’t pronounce it either.
And his missus – Laura – rather famously publically took the piss out of him for it.

I never quit got this; surely it’s harder work to mispronounce it like Bush’s ‘nu-cu-lar’ rather than correctly ‘nu-clear’.

I’d come by here for solid decent left debate. Sometimes for the sustenance provided by being in the cyber-company of like minded people
I don’t think I’d ever accuse HP of being just an echo chamber.

Johng,

But why post this at all? It just demonstrates that Nick Cohen is now a fan of the US right.

Only if you think about it in terms of left/right and not ‘good behaviour’, ‘bad behaviour’.

I won’t call you a fan of the Conservative party for calling Blair a liar, you see?

Now, on those charges. The worst case against Blair is that he slightly sexed up a weapons dossier six months before the war, not that he lied us into the conflict. People like yourself did lose a lot of credibility by over stating your case against him – which I suppose is ironic.

mesquito – You are quite the idiot.

Nick S.A. – Never an echo chamber but never loaded with wingnut gasbags either.

What a hellish job being a Guardian CiF comment moderator.

Indeed. I can’t believe the A.L.F. hasn’t released the poor critters in the wild yet.

“The republicans are cynical bastards. And they are disgusting”

ROFLMAOWMP.
As against the snow-white princess obambi, who ditched his pastor of 20 years’ standing – never mind his granny – when it seemed to be a good move to further his ambitions?

Johng logic alert -

Cohen criticizing the nature of the attacks on Palin

just demonstrates that Nick Cohen is now a fan of the US right.

Err… Aren’t you supposed to be an academic?

Django, you really need to stop sniffing glue. I never said that I fancy Palin. This is all in your own wet dreams.
Or maybe you simply can’t read.

“Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. At present, American liberals are not fighting for an Obama presidency. I suspect that most have only the haziest idea of what it would mean for their country. The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies: Bush, the neo-cons, the religious right.”

This thread appears to be pretty good proof of Cohen’s thesis.

Mark, I don’t know what the ridiculous JG is supposed to be, but his lack of reading comprehension and general inability to understand simple logic are displayed in all their horrible glory on the Green party and Israel thread.

Nah, Mesquito. We are all Mossad stooges.

Go back to playing with your dolls, asdf, and leave the grown-ups alone.

For the last 8 years the Republicans have been the beneficiaries of the self-mutilating, inarticulate rage of American liberals. It’s been their savior, i9t’s won them election after election, and somehow, as a surprise to everyone, by choosing Palin they’ve triggered it again.

I’m beginning to wonder if they understand liberals’ weak spots better than we understand it ourselves. Could they have known, had predicted, had planned to create, the retarded rage of morons that they’re riding on now?

“Nah, Mesquito. We are all Mossad stooges.”

Including the CIA.

Nearly Oxfordian, you may occasionally see a mad commenter called “resistor” who I first ran into on Aziz Poonawalla’s blog when he called me a “sayanim” (a secret Mossad agent) for suggesting that the Palestinians are their own worst enemies.

I thought McCain was running against the Republican Party, Josh.

Tim if you’re being ironic, you’re too subtle for me. I can’t make head or tail of your comment.

Josh, I vaguely remember someone called resistor on HP a few weeks ago. Can’t quite place him, but will keep my eyes peeled. Thanks.
Sayanim? Is that a corruption of Zionists?

Hey Josh – great haiku, and new to me.

“I’m beginning to wonder if they understand liberals’ weak spots better than we understand it ourselves. Could they have known, had predicted, had planned to create, the retarded rage of morons that they’re riding on now?”

“Now witness the firepower of this fully operational narrative!” cackles Darth Rove.

The most extreme examples of human hatred, spite, violence, oppression, always seem to emanate from groups of people who consider themselves intellectually, morally and ethically superior, and furthermore think it’s a self-evident fact that they are. (Look at how many monsters were spawned by the churches, and the medical schools.) They believe this. They think there is something nasty about you if you don’t concur.

If you are steeped in that kind of overwhelming hubris, any disagreement with your views feels like a personal attack. Not just on you, but on all the poor ignorant chavs you are so nobly trying to redeem from themselves. For their own good of course.

The history books are full of atrocities inflicted by men and women who considered themselves morally and intellectually unassailable. Think of it as the arrogance of the angels.

All people are vulnerable to this mindset, but the left wing of western politics is currently absolutely infested with folk who think this way. And it should not surprise us, because we have raised several successive generations to equate socialism with humanity, “peace”, and personal integrity. ( In a bygone age, in much the same way, we ushered in the worst excesses of christian piety. We all know what that led to. )

We are told that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I’m not sure about that. But I am convinced that the folk who pave it are suffused with the afterglow of their well intentioned meddling.

There’s a lot to be said for the old fashioned maxim “Vote for the crook. “

Nearly Oxfordian,

The continual insults that you use on this blog are really quite pathetic. Moreover, your use of foul language is vulgar. One wonders why you continually use this tactic. It is not necessary and certainly not polite. Perhaps you should consider toning down your aggressive stance. Somehow, I doubt you will. I am more inclined to think that you will respond to this post with at least one insult. I will not be impressed.

Moreover, your use of foul language is vulgar.

Oh my sainted aunt! What a cad!

All the nasty rumours were indeed horrible, while mostly confined to websites. But I think the backlash of righteous indignation has well and truly played out now, and could itself backfire.

And why did we ever cast money, or the love of money, or the having of enough money, as the root of all evil?

What is so awful, about having money? Maybe what is really meant here, is the ownership of money that some self opinionated prodnose thinks you shouldn’t have. Why? Could it be because she thinks you don’t deserve it?

Yet when we look at the standard bearers of the left, we can not help noticing that they are far from destitute, and rather street smart in the matters of personal taxation. Chomsky is a perfect example. Skint, he isn’t. neither is Al Gore.

Consider one of the most instructive episodes of our modern history: Live-Aid.
Rather a lot of extremely well-off people, dispensed with their personal rivalries to stage an extravaganza of emotional blackmail to get ordinary people in the west to send their hard earned money to Africa.

Result: Stevie Wonder- still wealthy.
Michael Jackson- still wealthy
Madonna- still wealthy
McCartney- still wealthy
Jagger- still wealthy
Bowie- still wealthy
And you can bet they feel so good about themselves, and their overwhelming compassion for the starving, that induced them to join in this historic raid on other peoples’ savings, that they are justified in considering themselves standard bearers of socialism.

Africa- still hungry, just a lot more than in 1985.
The western working stiff- still credulous, and still regretting giving away money he didn’t have in 1985.

McCain leads 50/46 in this one – http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548

Zogby seems to systematically generate results more favorable to McCain than others though.

In his big RNC speech, McCain used a picture of Walter Reed Middle School as the backdrop. It appears they made a mistake, thinking it was Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But maybe not. Walter Reed Middle School was the location used for a scene in ‘The West Wing’ in which the character Matthew Santos announced his campaign for President. The writers of ‘The West Wing’ based Santos’ speech on the speech Obama gave to launch his campaign for the Senate. The election in ‘The West Wing’ pitched Santos, a “young”, “inexperienced”, “ethnic” liberal Democrat against Arnold Vinick, an “elder statesman” who is a moderate Republican. Santos chose an experienced Washington insider as his running mate, and Vinick chose a little-known Conservative Christian governor. Life imitates art imitates life.

Monty:
“And you can bet they feel so good about themselves, and their overwhelming compassion for the starving, that induced them to join in this historic raid on other peoples’ savings, that they are justified in considering themselves standard bearers of socialism.”

Wow, banging on about Live Aid all these years later. It’s like the letters page of the NME all over again. Are you drunk or something?

Anyway, you clod, please point to instances where Jagger, McCartney, Bowie, Wonder and the rest ever declared themselves as ’socialists’. Really, I’d love to see them. Mick Jagger a socialist! Priceless.

This is unbelievable – tarring Obama with the Farrakhan brush, when Obama has repeatedly denounced Farrakhan. And Palin’s got a clean bill of health? Even though her pastor declared a “hatred of the American government” and is allied with a Jews for Jesus founder who thinks terrorist attacks against Israelis are God’s punishment?

Obama attended Wright’s church for 20 years and lapped it up like a kitten in a creamery!

Why did he take so much time distancing himself from ‘afro-centric’ *pastors* spouting lines about AIDS being a gov’t plot?

Believing AND preaching that AIDS is some gov’t plot is a dead giveaway that should have any sane persons questioning Obama’s associations

You cannot frequent nutcases for 20 years and that dismiss such relations as a ‘misunderstanding’.

Also, why can’t Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate?

Why does he refuse to release a transcript of his undergraduate marks?

Is it true he ‘entered’ Harvard with a only a “C” average?

Is there anyone with a solid reputation who can actually vouch for this guy?

And from what I can glean about the Jews for Jesus, they’re evangelical and therefore very pro-israel and thus highly unlikely to gloat, in any way, about terror attacks.

Palin’s batshit theocon hick Pastor couldn’t help but embarass himself and his most famous congregant today.

Kroon began services asking any reporters who might be in the crowd to respect church members’ opportunity to worship.

“This isn’t the place to be fishing for interviews,” he said.

Obviously, he hates the First Amendment.

He then asked the 300 congregants at the first of two morning services to pray for all of the candidates for president and vice president, and to be thankful that all four are willing to provide the nation with their public service.

He urged churchgoers to “pray for the press.” Kroon said the media are to be “cherished and respected,” citing 19th century philosopher Alexander de Tocqueville’s works describing a free press and freedom of religion as essential pillars of democracy.

Typical. Hiding behind the words of an ancient theologian.

Kroon said he’s done a series of national media interviews during the hectic past week since his church was thrust into the national spotlight — a significant event for a relatively low-key congregation who sit in folding chairs in the large and new church, down a dirt road at the edge of town.

He urged congregants to do their own thorough research and investigations when deciding who to vote for. He added that it was wrong for anyone to have judged Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., without first reading what Wright actually said.

What a slimeball. He has to find a way to bring that up didn’t he?

(AP)

Oops, my blockquotes got all screwed up. Sorry all.

Article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080907/ap_on_el_pr/palin_s_church

“Moreover, your use of foul language is vulgar”

I most certainly agree. Pistols at sunrise? I demand satisfaction.

If Nick Cohen’s next column consisted of a photo of Barack Obama on which he’d wiped his ass, within 24 hours this blog would be awash with people clamouring to praise his splendid, Guardianista-baiting insight.

In fact, I’m pro-Obama.

I’m not sure why this means I have to buy in to all the crap that is likely to undermine him.

Is this the same “batshit theocon hick Pastor” that said anyone who criticised Bush was going to hell?

“You cannot frequent nutcases for 20 years and that dismiss such relations as a ‘misunderstanding’.”

I agree. But he’s done a bit more than that.

“Also, why can’t Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate?”

Debunked bullshit.

“Why does he refuse to release a transcript of his undergraduate marks?”

For the same reason that Palin, who attended 5 substandard universities in 6 years to earn a B.A. will not. It’s considered private.

“Is it true he ‘entered’ Harvard with a only a “C” average?”

Where does a rumor like this start if the smear you use above is true?

“Is there anyone with a solid reputation who can actually vouch for this guy?”

The editors of the Harvard Law Review? The faculty of the University of Chicago?

“Is this the same “batshit theocon hick Pastor” that said anyone who criticised Bush was going to hell?”

Who knows, Hector? You certainly don’t.

“And from what I can glean about the Jews for Jesus, they’re evangelical and therefore very pro-israel and thus highly unlikely to gloat, in any way, about terror attacks.”

There are in fact many ultra-zionist Jews who gloat over terror attacks in Israel. These are the same kinds of Jews that suggest the holocaust was God’s punishment against the Jews for not observing halacha.

Not exactly a random sermon. Wisailla teeming with press.

He could have got de Toqueville’s name right.

“He urged churchgoers to “pray for the press.” Kroon said the media are to be “cherished and respected,” citing 19th century philosopher Alexander de Tocqueville’s works describing a free press and freedom of religion as essential pillars of democracy.”

“Anyway, you clod, please point to instances where Jagger, McCartney, Bowie, Wonder and the rest ever declared themselves as ’socialists’. Really, I’d love to see them. Mick Jagger a socialist! Priceless.”

Well in one respect, you are right. They are all RICH free market capitalists. At least you have had the good grace to declare them as such.

None of them should ever be allowed to partake in another fundraiser, ever, again.

But I never saw any of them stand up and say so in public. Especially when they were prancing around on stages urging people of modest means, to give their money away, and the political left were all over them like white on rice….

Yes, MB, we hicks have never heard of de Tocqueville. The sermon was a Rovian ploy.

You may have heard of him. I’d wager Kroon never read him.

Incidentally we should not be diverted by any epic tales of deviation concerning Barak Obama’s birth certificate. It must be legit. If it wasn’t, the clinton machine would have wiped him out. They didn’t.

After all, you don’t keep a dog, and bark yourself.

“You may have heard of him. I’d wager Kroon never read him.”

Har! And the Left wonders why charges of condescension and elitism have such traction against them?

The Obama birth certificate shite was dispelled here:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

The wingnuts just can’t get over that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Hey mesquito – were you home-schooled ? It shows.

QWhich wingnuts. I’m a wingnut. I always thought that that since his momma is a citizen, he could have been born in Red Square and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference to his citizenship or eligibility to be President.

mesquito – if you’re that clueless on the constitutional birth requirements for U.S. president, its time you shut your pie hole on the subject until you’re up to speed.

Or is your cluelessness the result of my elitism and condescension ?

Mesquito is correct –

Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President

Gotta hand it to Huffpo, they are homing on the perfect characterization of Sarah Palin. Like a drunken beagle. After having tried out and exhausted Pageant runner-up, stewardess, small town mayor, trailer trash, Dan Quayle, Tom Eagleton (withdrew in 72), and Harriet Miers, (phew!) they have a master stroke:
Sarah Palin is George Bush with Lipstick!

Not sure if this confers pit bull status to W, maybe when he is not being a moron or evil genius, he mauls small children. I think the Huffpo team is confused (a little more usual) though, the picture they posted with this triumph of analysis is one of Sarah without lipstick.

It is a clever idea at root, they can play up the 4 more years angle. This was getting thin, what with McCain and Palin putting the maverick reformer line at the RNC. That actually worked well enough to put the Dems on defense today – not a pretty sight.

“were you home-schooled ? ”

Mostly. But I have an Associates Degree in Consumer Mathematics from Caprock Community College. You are very discerning, MB.

Dave W

“citizen at birth” is not the same as “natural born citizen”

MB – source ?

There is controversy over the Constitutional expression “natural born citizen”. Title 8, U.S.C. which you cite is the Immigration Title, IIRC and designates who can claim U.S. citizenship by birth.

Suffice to say, if it had been determined that Obama was born in Kenya as some continue to claim, he would be disqualified from taking the oath of office. No one here challenges a disqualification if Obama had been born in Kenya.

There is some movement to have Congress define “natural born citizen” in an age where so many Americans are or are born to overseas military and civilian support.

What Mikey said. Nearly Oxfordian is managing to make Benji look lucid.

“Suffice to say” – it’s not sufficient, unless you provide evidence to support it. I Googled for 5 minutes, and got the same answer everywhere I looked – Title 8 was the applicable law.

The problem with Nick’s piece is that he exaggerates. Its nothing to do with a hate campaign. Palin supports creationism; is against abortion and contraception; is a climate change skeptic says she’s anti-pork, but hires lobbyists to get more pork for Alaska; and she’s blocking an ethics investigation into her that is supported by the Alaskan legislature.

Cohen should wake up: this is an election campaign. People who feel strongly about all those issues are obviously not going want a VP who takes those stances and will campaign against such a VP. Obviously Nick Cohen is not particularly concerned about those issues, and so his article is simply deliberate provocation – a good moan about evil ‘hating’ liberals (about Fox News level of debate) rather than discussing the issues themselves.

54/44 Could it be the start of a tectonic shift? It looks like DaveW may clean up.

And herein , hangs a tale. This source article in USA Today is a perfect illustration of how many journos are so deep in the tank they are evolving gills.

Susan Page gives us a headline – “Poll: Convention lifts McCain over Obama”

No numbers? Then in a lead para (#2):

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican’s biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

A little wistful sniff for the previous lag, no biggie. So the result is 50/46, no?

No. Six paras down, we find:

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

Lets play hide the bad news. Nothing to see here.

It isn’t that studies show 90% of MSM journos contribute Dem. I’m OK if they have a viewpoint and expound it in the opinion section. What is disgusting and sad is they can’t be professional. This is just juvenile, crap reporting.

HP seems approving of the article because it winds up the CiF crowd, but I should imagine HP would agree with many of the criticisms of Palin on the issues; hence its presumably purely the ‘provocative’ nature of the article that is appealing, however flawed its content.

I find it odd that HP has such a dislike of CiF. If you actually look at the site, yes, its liberal biased (which of course raises the suspicions of HP), and one always can get irate about comments (anywhere) if one wishes, but the CiF content is pretty middle of the road, and a range of opinions exist; moreover, when the Decents launched their now defunct Euston Manifesto venture, CiF gave them space, as did the New Statesman!

Its unlikely that CiF is going to change that much; the Guardian has an established brand and market. If folk don’t like it, there are numerous other products on the market to choose from. Its like campaigning against the sale of Marmite because you don’t like it; well, clearly some folk do. Just look elsewhere.

In Benjamin’s defence I don’t recall him ever making vicious ad hominem attacks on other posters.

I disagree with all four candidates on various issues and various aspects of their past conduct; I do not, however, believe any of them are inherently evil.

The intemperate smear merchants on both sides remind me of Islamic Rage Boy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakeel_Bhat

Shit. I just read what I wrote again and realised it makes me look like an incredible hypocrite.

I apologise. Please ignore me.

DaveW

I guess you are not in USA. It was well publicized this year.

Try Wikipedia. I bill for legal research and I’m watching Family Guy at my local. First things first.

Nick Cohen raves about the “liberal media”. However, the real story about the mainstream media is how close they all are to the establishment – the governmental authorities and the hierarchies of either party – rather than any particular bias. There may be some partisan bias; you pays your money and takes your pick. It’s not difficult to find the partisan bias of your choosing in the market, if that you want.

CNN, ABC, Fox, CNBC etc offer political coverage as infotainment, and the problem is not bias but simply the amount of nonsense that gets through quality control – quite clearly standard party spin from pundits strongly associated with each party. (Donna Brazile and Paul Begala, for example, who pop up all the time at CNN, are umbilically linked to the Democratic hierarchy going back years, and dutifully repeat the party line – the same is true with Rep pundits.)

However, if the media was actually so strongly, dogmatically, “liberal”, McCain would not have been able to cultivate such great relations with the media over the years; he’s oddly managed to develop an image as a ‘maverick’. The mainstream media, including AP, regularly and dutifully state he is ‘maverick’ or a ‘rebel’, when in actual fact he gets ratings as a senator of about 85% from conservative bodies; he rebels less than numerous other Republicans. He’s a pretty standard conservative leaning Republican. The fact that he isn’t a frothing conservative shouldn’t really be story – it certainly doesn’t make him a ‘maverick’ or ‘rebel’.

Noam Chomsky and John Pilger are my heroes.

“However, if the media was actually so strongly, dogmatically, “liberal”, McCain would not have been able to cultivate such great relations with the media over the years; he’s oddly managed to develop an image as a ‘maverick’.”

On the contrary, it can reasonably be argued that it is the liberal instincts of much of the MSM that has (at least in part) enabled him to forge that image. They have liked to publicize those occasions when he has stood apart from much of the rest of the GOP, because they find it so deifficult to relate to the rest of the GOP.

I don’t think that there’s all that much conscious bias in the MSM; the problem is that the ~90% of MSM journos who are instinctively Democrats simply can’t relate to the GOP perspective on the world – and this at times renders them incapable of giving reasonably objective coverage, no matter how hard they try.

McCain is different – his opennes to journalists is legendary, and it is evident that he enjoys nothing so much as shooting the shit with a bunch of political hacks – so they all get on great. However, that does not mean that they understand his politics any more than they understood Romney’s or Huckabee’s.

I find it odd that HP has such a dislike of CiF

Its just that its a disgrace that a national newspaper (a loose term here) should host an Antisemitic messageboard that would actually make MPAC UK seem like CBBC.

Don’t talk such utter rot, Mikey. It was Django who launched the foul language without any provocation whatsoever by calling me ‘fucking boring’. And it was that 4-letter twerp who has contributed nothing, who called me dim for some stupid reason.
Now go and do your reading exercises.

“There are in fact many ultra-zionist Jews who gloat over terror attacks in Israel. These are the same kinds of Jews that suggest the holocaust was God’s punishment against the Jews for not observing halacha”

Err … these are not ‘ultra-zionists’. They are ultra-orthodox anti-zionist lunatics, who take and take and give back eff-all.

Just guessing. Could “tim” (with his five or six posts about how
to pronounce “nuclear”) and MB (Source? Try Wikipedia, i´m
watching Family Guy) be sock puppets for someone, who wants
the Democrats to look bad?

“Noam Chomsky and John Pilger are my heroes”

Whatever you say, dear boy. Personally, I have a soft spot for Goebbels.

Naomi Klein has a better grasp of why Obama is struggling in this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/06/obama.mccain.gustav

Naomi Klein has a better analysis of why Obama is struggling.

I don’t think that there’s all that much conscious bias in the MSM; the problem is that the ~90% of MSM journos who are instinctively Democrats simply can’t relate to the GOP perspective on the world – and this at times renders them incapable of giving reasonably objective coverage, no matter how hard they try.

Well, that’s endemic in the left. Too many liberals think that their political opinions are facts.

If I were eligable to vote, I don’t think I could vote for McCain/Palin due to the latter’s position on abortion. But it doesn’t stop me want to see them metaphorically kick the head in of the Junior Senator and Community Organiser from Illinois.

And just for the record, unless she would have went utterly mental and picked Cynthia McKinny for VP, I wouldn’t really have had any problems with Hilary Clinton. Were I eligible to vote, that is.

‘Don’t talk such utter rot, Mikey. It was Django who launched the foul language without any provocation whatsoever by calling me ‘fucking boring’’

I called you ‘fucking tiresome’ actually, but we won’t quibble over it.

When all is said and done, Palin is not a member of the Highly educated Ivy League elite. She is ordinary and she holds fairly ordinary views. It does not seem surprising to me that Americans would from time to time choose an ordinary person to run for VP.

That’s what democracy is all about.

What is odd is that Britain does not. Our leaders tend to come from the same Oxbridge backgrounds. Since the slow death of Old Labour we haven’t had many cloth cap Trade Unionists either. British politics is all Obama and no McCain much less Palin.

Her views on creationism don’t seem extreme to me – given what she said and not what was reported. But the point is that some 50% of British people probably believe much the same and yet they are utterly excluded from the political process. A lot of British people support the Death Penalty but again they are pretty much locked out of the political process.

Or to put it another way, while my politics have been moving to the Right for a few decades, I grew up among people who still live in council houses. I have spent my adult life studying and working among those who went to Oxbridge or its equivalents. Frankly I really resent those members of the latter groups who insist that only people like them are entitled to take part in politics and that people in the former group are barely human. And that is what I see when people attack Sarah Palin.

I’d vote for her in a second. I don’t care what her views on abortion and creationism are. She has no power to change policy on either in a way that would affect me. What I do know is that when it comes down to it, she is likely to understand my concerns and my needs in a way that the Old Etonian Dave Cameron or any of the slick real estate agents who make up New Labour are not. My pain and suffering is likely to be beyond their comprehension but not her’s.

Obama cannot win. It is not race. It is his Leftist politics. But Palin just makes it inevitable.

SMFS: you acknowledge Palin’s views on abortion and Creationism, yet then suggest that those who attack Palin do so for class reasons.

Is it not just possible that some of us may distrust and dislike her because of the former, rather than the latter?

Nick Cohen did not say or hint that he liked Palin, or would vote for her if he were American, or that he approved of her views — so I don’t know where this ‘moving right’ nonsense comes from. What he was objecting to was the silliness of some of the attacks on her, which would alienate voters. His view was that there are plenty of legitimate, policy-based reasons for attacking her, rather than this unprincipled nonsense about her daughter’s pregnancy.

I agree with him. It’s the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. And no, I’m not happy about it.

I am not sure I acknowledge her views on creationism. She said that there was nothing wrong with it being raised, by students, in class discussions but it didn’t have to be on the curriculum. I don’t know if she has another agenda, but that seems fair enough to me.

As for abortion, she cannot do much about it, but either way she has paid the price for her beliefs and I, for one, respect that. She can hardly be accused of hypocrisy.

But having said that, I agree some might dislike her for those or other political positions. It is just that is not how the criticism comes out. They are attacking her for being Poor White Trash. They are attacking her for being ordinary – and not Oxbridge material. They are doing so on explicitly class grounds. What they are saying is that if you drive a Mondeo you have no right to take part in politics – and the means they use is this media lynching campaign to drive people they don’t like out of the race. I don’t mind a health policy debate but I don’t see anyone having one of those when it comes to Sarah Palin.

Obama cannot win. It is not race. It is his Leftist politics. But Palin just makes it inevitable.

Depends what you mean by ‘leftist’ politics. If you look at his programme, well, that’s of course very mild – but of course that won’t be discussed, because that’s really boring and prosaic, and lies and fear are the stocks in trade.

Obama favours a slight increase in taxation for the rich, and a tax cut for other people, very gentle stuff; however, in the wacky world of campaign politics Obama’s tax policies are dubbed purely as ‘tax increases’ by Republicans. His policies on health care – again mildly reformist – are called nationalised or socialised health care by the Reps. This was what happened to Kerry, of course; in the presidential election debates he extolled a plan which was very pragmatic and mild – which the president, somewhat bizarrely, dubbed the government taking over health care.

One of curious things that Obama has said is that if he loses it won’t be because of racism. He has to say that of course, although he knows that statement is not entirely true. What he means is he will not have galvanised enough voters to offset the racist vote; its plain wrong to say that there exists no folk in the USA who refuse to vote for a black candidate come what may. There are, and it was the clear basis of the Republicans southern strategy at the end of the 20th century. These folk haven’t just disappeared. In the slice and dice world of retail politics, they are just another demographic exploit – those exploiting just need to be bit cagey about how they go about it.

If Obama loses there may be polite talk in some media about America “not being ready” for a black President, which is code for saying that racists did affect the result.

its plain wrong to say that there exists no folk in the USA who refuse to vote for a black candidate come what may.

There are probably more people who won’t vote for a white candidate come what may.

There are, and it was the clear basis of the Republicans southern strategy at the end of the 20th century.

Given how it is the Democratic Party which was, and still is, up to its eyeballs in segregationist politics, and the Republicans are the party of Abraham Lincoln, that’s a bit rich.

Palin is being criticised for not being VP material based on her experience; that’s fair enough, just as it is fair enough for Obama to be critcised on his record.

What’s hilarious is looking at the utter hypocrisy of those defending her by playing the feminist card, and the class and identity politics cards, when these are the very same people who condemned Hilary Clinton and her supporters when if they strayed into that territory.

Dick Morris is particularly blatantly ridiculous in this regard: he talked about the “deep sexism” of US politics when defending Palin, but previously accused Clinton of “hiding behind the apron strings” and complaining about the “boys ganging up on her”. Jon Stewart and the Daily Show made a great tape on this, also featuring Karl Rove being utterly inconsistent.

So can any Palin supporters list exactly issues her opponents can criticise her on, without being labellers “haters”, etc? Just so I know, like.

P.

Morgoth

I am fully aware of the the Democrats role in racist America, but also the shift LBJ helped apply; the Dems ended up losing much of the south to the Republicans southern strategy. Ken Mehlman, Bush’s campaign manager, admitted the history of the strategy and apologised for it.

Racism exists on both sides of the aisle. I am just saying it will be factor in the campaign, whether or not folk want to admit it.

I don’t see the hypocrisy in the Republicans attacking the Democrats over Palin. Well to some extent. But it is not hypocrisy to point out the inconsistencies in someone else. If the Democrats demand more women in politics, support women’s rights and loudly denounce sexist attacks on women candidates, then I don’t have to share any of those positions to find their volte face hypocritical.

It is the flip side of Palin’s choice to have her son. I don’t need to think abortion is evil to recognise that she has lived out her values and respect her for that. Had she aborted it, or advised her daughter to, I still wouldn’t need to support her views on abortion to recognise the inconsistency.

I’m with Benji here (yikes). Sorry, but the idea that liberals have a monopoly on hate in the American political divide is just ludicrous. If there’s one thing that the liberal Air America radio station, it’s that liberals are rather pathetic when it comes to the kind of venomous lies that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage excel at.

P.

There are probably more people who won’t vote for a white candidate come what may.

Presumably you mean black people who won’t vote for a white candidate come what may then? The implication of such an extraordinary statement is that this is such a common black voting pattern that it actually offsets the fact that black people are in a minority in the US – i.e. despite the fact that the US is a majority white country, white candidates suffer from racist voting patterns more than black candidates.

I won’t expect you to come up with any solid evidence for such obvious baloney, because you won’t find any.

Paul Moloney – “So can any Palin supporters list exactly issues her opponents can criticise her on, without being labellers “haters”, etc? Just so I know, like.”

You can criticise her on any issue you like. It is not the criticism that is invalid, it is the nature and type of the criticism. To say she is woefully informed on the issues is one thing, but to say she is because she went to a Hick University and she’s a redneck and we know what they are like don’t we? After all she has yet to show that she is stupid but everyone assumes it because of who she is. That’s just prejudice.

To draw a parallel some people here might understand, to criticise Chomsky because he does not fully understand the role of workers’ councils in the future socialist state is one thing. To say that he is a Yid and so worthless is another. See the difference?

but to say she is because she went to a Hick University and she’s a redneck and we know what they are like don’t we?

Who has been saying that?

Sorry, but the idea that liberals have a monopoly on hate in the American political divide is just ludicrous.

It’s actually deeply bizarre and such absurdities have kept the Daily Show in business for so many years. Jon Stewart has got such a cushy gig taking the piss out of the American right.

Nick Cohen and the US right wing must be living in an alternative universe if they think liberal ‘hate’ is an issue; the US has one of the most shouty and ideological right wings in the democratic world, and quite capable of filling tankers full of hate if it so wishes.

“After all she has yet to show that she is stupid but everyone assumes it because of who she is.”

Nobody has made an assumption. People have concluded she is stupid from the various things she has said, like on creationism, on not knowing what the Vice President does, on believing the Iraq war was a war for oil and could have been avoided if we were drilling in Alaska, etc.

I won’t expect you to come up with any solid evidence for such obvious baloney, because you won’t find any.

So Benji is actually saying that black people can’t be racist?

“So can any Palin supporters list exactly issues her opponents can criticise her on, without being labellers “haters”, etc?”

Absolutely anything you like , my friend. But if your first line of attack was unsourced and easily debunked internet bilge, don’t complain when your more legitimate criticisms don’t carry over so well.

So Benji is actually saying that black people can’t be racist?

Nope, he’s saying Morgoth is wrong when he argues that “there are probably more people who won’t vote for a white candidate” than there are won’t vote for a black candidate. And Benji is right.

It should be noted that Cohen does not give any examples of ‘liberals’ of (anyone else) saying the sort of things he says they do. His interpretations seem heavily spun to me, rather in the way that occurs on Hannity and Combs on the Fox News Channel: some unfortunate liberal will to have their words dutifully misinterpreted way out of shape by Hannity (who permanently has steam coming out his ears), and then gets accused of something absurd.

The Reps cynically chose Palin as bait and switch in the cultural war; of course she will be legitimately criticised, but the Reps want to cast the whole thing as a class/feminist issue – plucky hockey mom against the liberal elitists. It’s bullshit, but that’s their game. I thought Cohen had the nouse not be part of such silliness.

So Benji is actually saying that black people can’t be racist?

Not at all, but you contention was, in America, “there are probably more people who won’t vote for a white candidate come what may”. This is not credible.

Hector

“Nobody has made an assumption. People have concluded she is stupid from the various things she has said, like on creationism, on not knowing what the Vice President does, on believing the Iraq war was a war for oil and could have been avoided if we were drilling in Alaska, etc.”

Actually they have. What has she said on Creationism? That if it is brought up in the classroom the teacher ought to discuss it? That is hardly a stupid position. Who knows what the VP does and where has she shown she does not know what the role involves? Pretty much every European who can read and write thinks the Iraq War was about oil. That is a mainstream Leftist position. Are they all stupid too?

We know very little about this woman but people are already stating for a fact any number of bullsh!t claims about her with little evidence. That is almost by definition prejudice.

“The Reps cynically chose Palin as bait and switch in the cultural war; of course she will be legitimately criticised, but the Reps want to cast the whole thing as a class/feminist issue – plucky hockey mom against the liberal elitists.”

It certainly helps when the liberal elitists play their role so exquisitely.

What has she said on Creationism? That if it is brought up in the classroom the teacher ought to discuss it?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools.

When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

Oh wait, sorry for introducing contrary facts. I must be one of those HATErs. I’m not if it’s because I’m a misogynist, or perhaps an Alaskanphobe.

P.

“Morgoth is wrong when he argues that “there are probably more people who won’t vote for a white candidate” than there are won’t vote for a black candidate.”

And you know that Morgoth is ‘wrong’ how, exactly?

“What Mikey said. Nearly Oxfordian is managing to make Benji look lucid.”

Well, I sure am sorry you have such difficulty keeping up with what I am saying. Maybe you should retire to your Wendy house and read Ladybird books until you can follow grown-up conversation.

Paul Moloney

“As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools.”

Umm, no she didn’t actually. She clarified her comments, made off the cuff:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0

“Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum,” she said.

“”It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion.”"

“Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.”

It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum. What is interesting about Palin is that I can’t find a single statement by her saying she rejects evolution. When asked she has said she believes in a Creator – whatever that means – and that she does not know how the Universe was created. Which suggests to me she is not a Creationist. Notice that in two years in the Governor’s office she did precisely nothing to introduce Creationism to the school system.

“Oh wait, sorry for introducing contrary facts. I must be one of those HATErs. I’m not if it’s because I’m a misogynist, or perhaps an Alaskanphobe.”

What contrary facts? Again this is the problem. You have such a fixed, and prejudiced, idea of what a redneck buffoon she is, you have not even bothered to find out what her views are. Now she maybe a Creationist but I have yet to see evidence of it. Nor, I suspect, have you. But you believe what fits your prejudices anyway. How do you explain that?

“I find it odd that HP has such a dislike of CiF. If you actually look at the site, yes, its liberal biased”

No, it is not. We are in the UK, if you can grasp that, so we try not to misuse that term. It is profoundly anti-liberal.

“You have such a fixed, and prejudiced, idea of what a redneck buffoon she is, you have not even bothered to find out what her views are.”

Bizarre.

She has stated clearly “Teach both”.

When she backtracked on this, it’s supposely a “clarification”.

And when I quote her direct words, I’m told it’s only because I have a prejudiced notion about rednecks that I believe what those words say. That, you know, when someone from Palin’s background says “teach both”, that I’m a bigot for taking from those words the far-fetched meaning that she thinks you should teach both evolution and creationism in school.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion. Obviously, any time I read something by Palin, I should spin it for its most positive, least offensive meaning, or I am a HATEr(tm).

P.

Well Brownie and Benji, look at the differential voting figures for Obama and Hillary in the Campaign for the nomination. As I recall, they showed massive support for Obama amongst Blacks, and only a small proportion of HIlary voters saying that race influenced them in a negative way towards Obama.

The fact that both of you jump out of the blocks so quickly and so categorically makes me think that you find the idea of anyone other than a White Western Male can be racist ludicrous, which doesn’t reflect well upon you both.

The fact that both of you jump out of the blocks so quickly and so categorically makes me think that you find the idea of anyone other than a White Western Male can be racist ludicrous, which doesn’t reflect well upon you both.

Nope, once again, what I find ludicrous is the claim that the effect of anti-white racism on voting intentions is greater than that of anti-black racism.

Paul Moloney

“She has stated clearly “Teach both”. ”

But there is a problem there with what “teach both” means. She clearly did not mean that Creationism should be part of the science curriculum. She said so clearly. Yet you insist that “teach both” means what you want it to mean and not what she meant it means. Why?

“And when I quote her direct words, I’m told it’s only because I have a prejudiced notion about rednecks that I believe what those words say.”

You quote one tiny part of what she said, you ignore her record, and you come to a conclusion that you have no evidence for at all (after all she might be a non-Creationist who supports teaching both even if your worse case scenario is true). It is hard to find any other conclusion although I would be happy to hear why you think selective quoting out of context in an attempt to misled constitutes evidence.

“That, you know, when someone from Palin’s background says “teach both”, that I’m a bigot for taking from those words the far-fetched meaning that she thinks you should teach both evolution and creationism in school.”

When you ignore everything else she has said and done, yes, that is bigotry. What else can it be? Yet again I will point out there is no evidence Sarah Palin is a Creationist I know of.

It really is remarkable the way the Republican party and their endlessly whinging supporters manage to successfully engineer a victim mentality despite having launched the most vicious smear attacks on their opponents for the past decade. It’s hateful, dishonest and intellectually shallow, but it’s impressive nonetheless.

No surprise either that somebody as tired and emotional as Cohen should fall for it.

But there is a problem there with what “teach both” means.

Is there? It necessarily implies that it ought to be part of the curriculum, I’m afriad. That she might have subsequently said:

“It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum…”

is acknowledged, but it doesn’t actually mean she wouldn’t want it on the curriculum, only that she wouldn’t force it to be.

“Teach both” could be interpreted as a mere personal preference for it to be on the curriculum or a call to legislators that it should be. If the latter, then this is contradicted by her susbsequent statement that it needn’t be on the curriculum.

So she’s either advocating inclusion on the curriculum on a purely personal level or self-contradicting as regards what the law should dictate about the teaching of creationism. You decide, but I don’t think you can reasonably blame Dems for pointing this out.

despite having launched the most vicious smear attacks on their opponents for the past decade.

What smear attacks are these then?

“When she backtracked on this, it’s supposely a “clarification”.”

Paul M, Why should Palin not be allowed on second thoughts
to rephrase her position about teaching creationism?

“Nope, once again, what I find ludicrous is the claim that the effect of anti-white racism on voting intentions is greater than that of anti-black racism.”

Race has had a massive influence on this campaign. Specifically a hard-left inexperienced senator with a background in the Daley crime family was selected for the Democratic ticket because of the colour of his skin. Subsequently whenever said senator has been in trouble he has successfully used the implication that everyone who opposes him is a racist to get a boost in the polls.

“She clearly did not mean that Creationism should be part of the science curriculum.”

yeah, she did.

JC

“It really is remarkable the way the Republican party and their endlessly whinging supporters manage to successfully engineer a victim mentality despite having launched the most vicious smear attacks on their opponents for the past decade. It’s hateful, dishonest and intellectually shallow, but it’s impressive nonetheless.”

Last I checked the Republicans were the target of the most vicious smear attacks launched against anyone in modern times. I have heard George W Bush accused of taking cocaine, of dancing naked on bars, of evading his National Guard duty – as part of which the MSM bought into a fraudulent document scam wholesale – of being a draft dodger, of cheating on his wife, of being a drunk, a chimpanzee, a warmonger in fact pretty much anything has been thrown at him. I don’t recall you complaining either.

Compared to that what has Obama had to put up with? No evidence the Republicans have been involved in anything as yet. Not even pointing out his close friendships with terrorists like Bill Ayers.

Brownie

“Is there? It necessarily implies that it ought to be part of the curriculum, I’m afriad.”

Does it? I don’t see it. It is likely that it was just a quick off the cuff remark made in haste and repented at leisure. But what she did say is that if the students brought it up it ought to be discussed. That, I think, comes under “teach both” and I don’t see much wrong with it to be honest.

“but it doesn’t actually mean she wouldn’t want it on the curriculum, only that she wouldn’t force it to be.”

Well her private opinions do not bother me at all. I don’t much care if Blair thinks Jesus rose from the dead and his priest can turn wine into blood. I am more concerned about real policies. If Palin is a Creationist who has the decency to close her bedroom doors when she does it, I don’t much mind. The point is forcing it. And she didn’t. Two years in office and not one single Creationist appointed nor a single Creationist textbook put on the school curricula.

“So she’s either advocating inclusion on the curriculum on a purely personal level or self-contradicting as regards what the law should dictate about the teaching of creationism. You decide, but I don’t think you can reasonably blame Dems for pointing this out.”

I don’t see what the alternative here is – if a student brings it up they are to be expelled? The most likely explanation is that under pressure she misspoke – which has its own problems. But if it was an expression of what she thinks, her more thought out clarification is most likely to be true. I don’t blame Dems for pointing out what she has said – I blame them for highly selectively and misleadingly quoting her. And for drawing conclusions they have no evidence for. Where is the evidence she is a Creationist?

“It should be noted that Cohen does not give any examples of ‘liberals’ of (anyone else) saying the sort of things he says they do. His interpretations seem heavily spun to me, rather in the way that occurs on Hannity and Combs on the Fox News Channel: some unfortunate liberal will to have their words dutifully misinterpreted way out of shape by Hannity (who permanently has steam coming out his ears), and then gets accused of something absurd.”

Go look at, for example, Andrew Sullivan’s world-famous blog over the past week and try to find any epithet for it except “hysterical”.

The point isn’t about whether Dems hate more than Repubs. The point is that Dems are dumb. If you can’t see how catastrophically, election-losingly dumb they have been over the past week you might just be… a Dem.

The most likely explanation is that under pressure she misspoke – which has its own problems.

Hey, if that’s all it was, then I’m fine with that. I owuldn’t think less of her for misspeaking. But my point is that “it doesn’t have to be on the curriculum” is not necessarily a clarification of “teach both” at all, assuming the latter is an expression of a personal view.

Well her private opinions do not bother me at all.

Up to a point. If she were an inveterate racist but baulked at introducing segregationist policies because she knew it was political suicide, would you be okay with that?

“It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

That’s a bullshit statement. It legally can’t be part of the curriculum and when this was pointed out to Palin she went with the “if it comes up in the classroom” thing, which is the creationists’ current hope so that creationist kids can try to sidetrack teachers. But she called it “creation science” and said, directly, “I am a proponent of teaching both”. She also dismissed the theory of evolution by saying “my dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution.”

On what the VP does, she said: “As for the Vice President talk, I can’t answer that question until someone answers for me, what is it that the VP does?”

Where is the evidence she is a Creationist?

That she once said “teach both” in response to a question about whether it should be taught. Like I say, a comment that isn’t necessarily clarified by anything she has said subsequently, all of which appears to retrict itself to what the law should dictate about inclusion on the curriculum rather than anything do with what she, personally, believes.

Believing – in purely personal capacity – that creationaism should be taught in shools tends to be indicative of a a belief in creationism. How many Darwinians do you know who advocate such a thing?

I should say that I’m not calling her a creationist, but I think there is evidence she might have creationist tendencies, something she could easily refute by saying something like:

“I am not a creationist”

rather than

“creationism doesn’t have to be taught in schools”.

“Last I checked the Republicans were the target of the most vicious smear attacks launched against anyone in modern times.”

Perhaps you might like to look at the Republican campaign against Obama. No Republican candidate has ever faced anything comparable, and compared to the anti-Obama campaign even the worst criticisms of Palin look like a barrage of Valentines cards.

Brownie

“Hey, if that’s all it was, then I’m fine with that. I owuldn’t think less of her for misspeaking. But my point is that “it doesn’t have to be on the curriculum” is not necessarily a clarification of “teach both” at all, assuming the latter is an expression of a personal view.”

Well “it doesn’t have to be” does sort of imply it might be. But I think given the context she did not want to push Creationism on Alaskans – who are more Western than Southern Republicans.

“Up to a point. If she were an inveterate racist but baulked at introducing segregationist policies because she knew it was political suicide, would you be okay with that?”

Well as you say, up to a point. A lot of great men in the past have been inveterate racists. I think that few politicians actually believe much but even those that do are so focused on opinion polls they are unlikely to do much that offends the voters. So would it bother me much if a politician was a racist but did not dare do much about it? Probably not too much.

Hector

“It legally can’t be part of the curriculum and when this was pointed out to Palin she went with the “if it comes up in the classroom” thing, which is the creationists’ current hope so that creationist kids can try to sidetrack teachers.”

The Dover decision was not until 2005 – the same year as her campaign for Governor. Are you sure it was banned in 2005?

I am sure that is precisely what the Creationists hope to do. However the alternatives are still bizarre. Ban a student for mentioning it?

“She also dismissed the theory of evolution by saying “my dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution.””

That does not seem a dismissal to me. That seems a flat statement. You are saying that Evolution is not a theory? Her Father was a teacher. Did he teach science? I would assume that she grew up in a household that supported Evolution but now belongs to a Church that does not. What she herself believes is interesting but not definite.

“On what the VP does, she said: “As for the Vice President talk, I can’t answer that question until someone answers for me, what is it that the VP does?””

Again a partial quote:

“As for that V.P. talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me, what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard and in administration. We want to make sure that that V.P. slot would be a fruitful type of position.”

That looks to me like bargaining with McCain for not merely the VP slot but also some power with it. For instance perhaps she was thinking of Hilary’s Health Care reforms when Bill won.

“It really is remarkable the way the Republican party and their endlessly whinging supporters manage to successfully engineer a victim mentality despite having launched the most vicious smear attacks on their opponents for the past decade. It’s hateful, dishonest and intellectually shallow, but it’s impressive nonetheless”

99% of the whinging that I can see is from the lunatic airhead left camp, who are whinging that the victims of their smears are hitting back at the lies flung at them: lies that are not just hateful and dishonest but intellectually shallow.

Your argument is that of the mugger who complains about the victim’s ‘victim mentality’.

“the most vicious smear attacks on their opponents for the past decade”

Really? You mean, exposing Obama’s nonstop lies?

Brownie

“That she once said “teach both” in response to a question about whether it should be taught.”

But that says little about what she believes herself. I rarely believe politicians. Why do you?

“Believing – in purely personal capacity – that creationaism should be taught in shools tends to be indicative of a a belief in creationism. How many Darwinians do you know who advocate such a thing?”

I would assume there are quite a lot in American politics. Creation is the Third Rail of Republican politics and it takes a brave person – like McCain – who supports evolution and even then McCain had to qualify it in stupid terms. I would assume there are at least half a dozen Republicans in Congress who don’t even believe in God. I know of none that says so.

Palin is interesting for her non-answers to questions. They lead people to see what they want to which works well with her base I expect but does not clarify. She was asked if she supported abstinence-only sex education. She did not say yes. She said she opposed explicit sex-ed programmes. Now what does explicit mean? That is not the same as saying she supports abstinence only education either way. She has been asked if she is a Creationist and she flatly has not said she is. I smell a politicians answer and I wouldn’t be surprised if she accepts evolution.

Brownie

“I should say that I’m not calling her a creationist, but I think there is evidence she might have creationist tendencies, something she could easily refute by saying something like: “I am not a creationist””

Sure. But what would be in it for her? She is, after all, a very good politician. She might have creationist tendencies. But notice that what people on the Left are saying (well, shouting and leaving foam speckles on their monitors) is that she is a Creationist. Well they don’t know either way. None of us do. It is prejudice or at best pre-judgement.

Hector

“Perhaps you might like to look at the Republican campaign against Obama. No Republican candidate has ever faced anything comparable, and compared to the anti-Obama campaign even the worst criticisms of Palin look like a barrage of Valentines cards”

You can keep denying the reality but in fact the Republicans have not once attacked Obama I know of outside Palin speech which was child’s play. Hardly an attact at all. And nothing compared to the lies and venom directed at George W Bush. Still on going by the way. Or even George H W Bush come to that.

“what I find ludicrous is the claim that the effect of anti-white racism on voting intentions is greater than that of anti-black racism”

And that is a rational claim, nay a piece of scientific research, right?

“Last I checked the Republicans were the target of the most vicious smear attacks launched against anyone in modern times.”

Which Dem ads are comparable to the McCain’s comparing Obama to Jesus, Moses and Paris Hilton? The Republicans have become like the bad guys in a Philip K. Dick novel. And I bet they win. The future is stupid and its Republican.

“I should say that I’m not calling her a creationist, but I think there is evidence she might have creationist tendencies, something she could easily refute by saying something like: “I am not a creationist”

Notice ‘creationist tendencies’, like ‘racist tendencies’ etc. Yes, I can see the foam specks on your monitor from here.
Why should she? She is not beholden to answer every deranged smear from lunatic airheads.

“Race has had a massive influence on this campaign. Specifically a hard-left inexperienced senator with a background in the Daley crime family was selected for the Democratic ticket because of the colour of his skin.”

He was selected for the Democratic ticket because he put forward policies and a vision that the majority of Democratic voters support and want to see implemented. To claim that he was selected because of the color of his skin is pure unadulterated racism. And he has no links to the “Daley crime family”, unless you think everyone from Chicago is somehow linked to the Daleys. The current Mayor Daley is no Obama fan, not when he doesn’t think there are votes in it for him. In fact he’s had a grudge against Obama for years because Obama was on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge when it started funding local school councils, which Daley had been trying to get rid of. You know nothing about Chicago politics.

“Which Dem ads are comparable to the McCain’s comparing Obama to Jesus, Moses and Paris Hilton?”

That was the most vicious smear in the last 10 years? Oh, dear … someone needs to get out more. It’s called political satire.
Obama’s rhethoric is that of Jesus and Moses. His huge arrogance and pomposity are a fair target for ridicule. Sorry if you think that his fragile ego should be spared such satire.

RosS Douthat summed it up nicely afew days ago before the McCain bounce when the MSM still thought their anti-Palin offensive was working

“Judging by my email, a number of readers seem to be under the impression that what we’ve been witnessing in the media and online over the past couple days is a very serious, nuanced and thoughtful exploration of Sarah Palin’s record in Alaska politics, a comparison of that record to the record of her Democratic opponents, and a sober discussion of whether she has sufficient experience to step in and run the country should John McCain, God forbid, die in office. If that’s what you seriously, seriously think has been going on lately, then you should probably look elsewhere for analysis of the media’s Palin coverage, because you and I are living on very different planets.”

For the record even LGF admits that Palin is a creationist. What distinguishes her from many other fundamentalist Christian politicians is that she *may* have no interest in having creationist mythology talk along with evolution in science classes.

“She did not say yes. She said she opposed explicit sex-ed programmes. Now what does explicit mean?”

When I was at school we were given pictures of various sexual acts and asked to rank them for STI risk. Included was a man urinating on a woman, Rimming, and two men manually stimulating each other.

This was a CofE school.

So maybe she meant that.

“He was selected for the Democratic ticket because he put forward policies and a vision”

Forgive me while I roll about laughing. He put forward virtually no concrete policies. Everything is subsumed under cliches like ‘vision’ and ‘hope’ and a chorus of angels, and even that flip-flops every 24 hours.

“To claim that he was selected because of the color of his skin is pure unadulterated racism”

Drivel. It is a legit position to take, especially given the number of groupies who claim that if he is not elected, that would be an indictment of American racism. His groupies keep playing the race card, they cannot have it both ways and whinge when it is brought up.

Shmuel

“Which Dem ads are comparable to the McCain’s comparing Obama to Jesus, Moses and Paris Hilton?”

How about the Daisy Girl ad aimed at Barry Goldwater? The “In your hearts you know he might” one? Nothing has been that low for some time.

But has Obama had to put up with the media reporting faked memos? No he has not. The Republican Party even complains when other people run ads featuring Wright or Ayers.

Which Dem ads are comparable to the McCain’s comparing Obama to Jesus, Moses and Paris Hilton?

Well, if the Obamessiah would stop making speeches filled with grandiose claims that if he was elected he’d stop the seas rising or claiming in an interview that “to know me is to love me.” then you might have a point

“The Dover decision was not until 2005 – the same year as her campaign for Governor. Are you sure it was banned in 2005?”

Her campaign for Governor and the quotes we have mentioned were in 2006.

“That looks to me like bargaining with McCain for not merely the VP slot but also some power with it. For instance perhaps she was thinking of Hilary’s Health Care reforms when Bill won.”

Hilary wasn’t even VP. But what do you think Palin was saying, that Dick Cheney has just been sitting on his hands for eight years?

“the Republicans have not once attacked Obama I know of outside Palin speech which was child’s play.”

So you haven’t watched the news, read a paper, or looked at a blog in the 12 months preceding Palin’s speech at the RNC. What have you been doing?

“I smell a politicians answer and I wouldn’t be surprised if she accepts evolution.”

So your defence of Palin is that she’s dishonest and a panderer? Well we knew that already, over the “Bridge to Nowhere” that she claims to have opposed. In fact she fully supported it, and lobbied the federal government hard for funding for it. Then she cancelled the project and kept the money.

“How about the Daisy Girl ad aimed at Barry Goldwater? The “In your hearts you know he might” one? Nothing has been that low for some time.”

Oh really? You might want to ask Harold Ford Jnr. about that.

“How about the Daisy Girl ad aimed at Barry Goldwater?”

McCain’s ads might be as bad as that in terms of their cynical manipulative intent. But they are even more trivial and stupid. But what’s your point? That the Republicans are that bad right now?

“To know me is to love me” was intended for people with a sense of humor.

“To claim that he was selected because of the color of his skin is pure unadulterated racism”
To be fair there were 5 reasons
(i) Some people with no brains actually like that “Yes we Can stuff”
(ii) his race
(iii) Hillary Derangement Syndrome
(iv) Media bias
(v) Caucus rigging

The number of people -white and black – in the U.S. for whom blackness is a vote winner far exceeds those for whom it is a vote loser. When you factor in the effect of a pre-emptive allegation of racism, it is easy to see how this, at the very least, pushed Obama over the top in the primaries. If you don’t realise this you have obviously not come across the sort of American Liberals who will not a allow a Joseph Conrad book in their house, or you actually are one yourself.

“To be fair there were 5 reasons”

You are right G.

1) A failing economy.
2) Spiralling poverty.
3) The healthcare gap.
4) The education gap.
5) The threat to social security.

Obama had the best solutions for dealing with America’s problems, the best policies for America’s recovery. Just because the MSM allowed conservative smears to crowd out coverage of his policies throughout the primaries doesn’t mean he didn’t have any. Those of us who bothered to look into it saw that he did and voted accordingly.

“To know me is to love me” was intended for people with a sense of humor.

“To know me is to love me,” said Obama when asked by the AP’s Nedra Pickler about how he will overcome Sen. Hillary Clinton’s, D-N.Y., advantage in national public-opinion polls.

“By the end of this campaign everybody before they vote will have a pretty good sense of where the various candidates stand on the issues and who they are, and what kind of people they are,” said Obama after picking up the endorsement of Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty. “And we feel confident that once people know my background as a community organizer, as a civil rights attorney, as somebody who taught constitutional law, as a state legislator, as well as a US Senator we will do well.”

No humour involved actually. He really truely thinks that, Shmuel..

P.S. since you’re a well-known hater of mixed-race people (sic), Shmuel, I’m surprised you’re supporting The One.

“No humour involved actually. He really truely thinks that, Shmuel…”

Hmm. I think its both actually. He thinks it, and that phrasing is intended as a bit cheeky. And I don’t think thats so bad really. That’s what a campaign is for. To make people like you. What I’m pretty sure of, and I had my reservations about Obama after the Wright story broke, is that Obama is not a pathological egomaniac. If anything, based on (behavioral) anecdote, rather than these nit-picky phrase-parsings, McCain is the greater egotist.

P.S. since you’re a well-known hater of mixed-race people (sic), Shmuel, I’m surprised you’re supporting The One.

And since its well known that you support mandatory sterilization for Christians and retards, I’m surprised you’re supporting Palin. ;)

The wingnuts just can’t get over that Obama was born in Hawaii.

To be fair, it is the nearest island east of Muslimania. If you discount all those little ones.

P.

Argh, please bring a Preview or Edit button in, guys.

I thought this was informative:

http://www.snopes.com/info/top25uls.asp

Supposedly, liberals are the haters, but urban legends about Obama are at no. 1 in email frequency while those about McCain are only at no. 11. Hmm.

P.

And since its well known that you support mandatory sterilization for Christians and retards, I’m surprised you’re supporting Palin. ;)

I’m not. You’ll have noticed I’ve not commented on her at all. I wouldn’t vote for her based upon her position on abortion alone (and I have doubts about her creationism as well, though I hope she clears it up). I simply do not want Obama/Biden to win, primarily on foreign policy grounds.

I think my dream ticket would have been a combination of Guiliani, McCain and Clinton.

The wingnuts just can’t get over that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Which wingnuts? LGF for example, has been at the forefront of debunking the whole birth certificate nonsense.

“Which wingnuts?”

Atlas Shrugged, Free Republica, the National Review, etc.

“LGF for example, has been at the forefront of debunking the whole birth certificate nonsense.”

Hardly at the forefront. They just realised pretty early on that it was genuine and didn’t jump on the bandwagon.

Hector

“Hilary wasn’t even VP. But what do you think Palin was saying, that Dick Cheney has just been sitting on his hands for eight years?”

If only. But the role is obviously not just what the Constitution says. You can have active ones and ignored ones. If Palin wanted to be sure she would have influence I don’t blame her. I don’t see that quote shows her as ignorant so much as what Michelle Malkin calls Palin Derrangement Syndrome.

“So you haven’t watched the news, read a paper, or looked at a blog in the 12 months preceding Palin’s speech at the RNC. What have you been doing?”

I have done all those things. And apart from the grassroots – more vicious on the Dems side – it has been a very polite campaign.

“So your defence of Palin is that she’s dishonest and a panderer?”

She is, you may have noticed, a politician. Look that up in a big person’s dictionary.

“Well we knew that already, over the “Bridge to Nowhere” that she claims to have opposed. In fact she fully supported it, and lobbied the federal government hard for funding for it. Then she cancelled the project and kept the money.”

She changed her mind. So she did not lie and she was not dishonest. She may have supported it but when the evidence came in, she changed her mind and then opposed it. Cancelled it even. As she said. Again this is just what Cohen means. PDS.

There’s no doubt that Democrats and a large part of the mainstream media in the US come off looking like hypocrites by their sexist reaction to Palin – questioning whether a woman can be vice president and have children, and treating her like a retard. Cohen is right to point that out. It’s backfired.

It’s hardly surprising though. There’s no real ideological consitency in American politics. For years the Democrats have been playing the isolationist card on Iraq for instance, and no one points out the hypocrisy there.

“I simply do not want Obama/Biden to win, primarily on foreign policy grounds.
I think my dream ticket would have been a combination of Guiliani, McCain and Clinton”

If you actually lived in this country (at least I don’t think you do live here) you would not want the Republicans anywhere near the highest offices of government. As bad as all these antisemitic Left-wings freaks are that HP dutifully reports on, they are freaks and outsiders. There is nothing more scary in the real world of American government than angry Republican Theocrats in the White House.

That the Republicans do hypocritical stuff as well isn’t the point. Cohen is refering to this case. Liberals are supposed to hold their themselves to a higher standard, are they not?

Spreading rumours that she’s got someone else’s kid is not what good liberals should be doing, surely? Perhaps the likes of Benji disagree with that.

Well Brownie and Benji, look at the differential voting figures for Obama and Hillary in the Campaign for the nomination. As I recall, they showed massive support for Obama amongst Blacks, and only a small proportion of HIlary voters saying that race influenced them in a negative way towards Obama.

I would agree with Morgoth. If black people have a black candidate in the race, they are equally, if not more, willing to vote on racial grounds. The collapse in the vote for Hillary amongst the black community was the most dramatic in history. Now, there maybe plenty of wider reasons for this, but it’s nevertheless true.

Atlas Shrugged, Free Republica, the National Review, etc.

NRO has also debunked the Birth Certificate story.

Shmuel, McCain and Guilliani aren’t theocrats.

DaveW

There is a brief, footnoted article on “natural born citizen” at Wikipedia. Happy trails.

“Shmuel, McCain and Guilliani aren’t theocrats.”

Nope and thats why tMcCain picked one for his V.P. He’s 109 years old and he picks and unqualified Jesus freak as his successor. Its scary shit. Not to mention an automatic disqualification for MCain’s own ability to lead as President.

Sure. But what would be in it for her? She is, after all, a very good politician. She might have creationist tendencies. But notice that what people on the Left are saying (well, shouting and leaving foam speckles on their monitors) is that she is a Creationist. Well they don’t know either way. None of us do. It is prejudice or at best pre-judgement.

Oh come one. I’ts one thing to fling mud, but given you accept her answers are equivocal, laden with politic-speak, open to interpretation, etc., you can’t then complain when people interpret them in a way that you don’t like. None of us is responsible for the fact that Repubs have to – as you concede – walk a tight-rope when it comes to creationism. That’s their baggage and it’s perfectly valid for Dems to make political capital out of it. This isn’t the same as just making up shit about your political adversaries.

Nope and thats why tMcCain picked one for his V.P. He’s 109 years old and he picks and unqualified Jesus freak as his successor. Its scary shit. Not to mention an automatic disqualification for MCain’s own ability to lead as President.

Did you miss the bit when I said that I couldn’t vote for her, for this very reason?

I would agree with Morgoth. If black people have a black candidate in the race, they are equally, if not more, willing to vote on racial grounds.

I don’t know if you have any evidence for that, but even if you do, the issue wasn’t whether blacks or whites are more disposed to anti-white/anti-black racism when it comes to voting. The claim was:

“There are probably more people who won’t vote for a white candidate come what may.”

Have you any idea how widespread anti-white racism amongst black voters would have to be before there were more of them then there are anti-black white voters?

Sorry, Morgoth was wrong and so are you.

The collapse in the vote for Hillary amongst the black community was the most dramatic in history. Now, there maybe plenty of wider reasons for this, but it’s nevertheless true.

Yes, and I’d say some of those “plenty of reasons” have more to do with her main challenger being black than her being white. As in, black voters may have concluded that Obama better understands the needs of American blacks than Hillary. It might be a mistaken belief, but that doesn’t make it anti-white racism.

“Did you miss the bit when I said that I couldn’t vote for her, for this very reason?”

So you would vote for Obama. Sorry that wasn’t clear.

Brownie, the issue isn’t anti-white racism. It’s whether there are more white people who will vote for someone just because he’s black than people for whom the obverse is true.

I would estimate at about 20% and 15% respectively. I don’t really think it’s an issue in the election so much, but it unambiguously was in the primaries. You’d have to be blind to think otherwise.

There’s also the separate issue of Obama pre-emptively accusing his opponents of racism (where to be fair he can draw on the slime wing of the Repubs for *evidence*) to electoral advantage.

So you would vote for Obama

Definitely not. I’d rather vote for David Moyes than vote for the Obamacle.

where to be fair he can draw on the slime wing of the Repubs for *evidence*

Cite?

Brownie, the issue isn’t anti-white racism. It’s whether there are more white people who will vote for someone just because he’s black than people for whom the obverse is true.

I was responding to the actual claim made rather than the one that wasn’t introduced to the thread until 8 hours later. But on your point specifcally:

I would estimate at about 20% and 15% respectively.

Just so I don’t misunderstand you, are you actually claiming that 20% of white people will vote for someone just because he’s black, and 15% of black people will vote for someone just because they are white? If so, I’d say you have your decimal points in the wrong place.

There’s also the separate issue of Obama pre-emptively accusing his opponents of racism

I’m not following this as closely as some, but is he really doing that? I mean, pre-emptively? So, before anyone says anything, he’s calling people “racist”.

On what the VP does, she said: “As for the Vice President talk, I can’t answer that question until someone answers for me, what is it that the VP does?”

She does not know how the Universe was created and question what the role of the VP would be in an administration she maybe is on the shortlist for. It dose shine true she is not an Oxbridge or an Ivy League, these enlightened mates would never admit such hillbilly ignorance.

But in the real world it’s of course a very adequate question what he role of the VP would be in an administration. It can be an active role in governing or a passive role. It can be like Cheney or Gore active participants in the Presidents government or like Truman that didn’t even had a clue there was a new clear bomb until he was sworn in as president.

If passive and only the official duties required it’s hardly even a job, the informal roles and functions of the Vice President depend on what the president want it to be.

The most important official thing is to break a tie vote in the Senate as presiding officer of the U.S. Senate another duty to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College. The presiding of the Senate is in practice delegated to some freshman in the Senate and don’t know if the presiding of the Electoral College is delegated in the same way. Then there is a couple of chairman and board member positions as NASA and Smithsonian Institution.

the Vice Presidency wasn’t “worth a pitcher of warm piss,”
John Nance Garner FDR VP:

“Once there were two brothers. One went away to sea; the other was elected vice president. And nothing was heard of either of them again.”
Thomas R. Marshall, the 28th Vice President

the job of the vice president is to “go to weddings and funerals.”
Truman

“the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”
John Adams first vice president

To me it seems that Mrs. Palin was soundly aware that being VP can very well be the faith of being ditched in obscurity for the next four years.

I’m not following this as closely as some, but is he really doing that? I mean, pre-emptively? So, before anyone says anything, he’s calling people “racist”.

No, he’s not.

Rather, Obama or Obama supporters will condemn actual racist smears and then the rightwing whine brigade will pop up and wail about “ZOMG!! He’s calling us all racists!!! I’M SO OFFENDED!!!!”.

“Definitely not. I’d rather vote for David Moyes than vote for the Obamacle.”

I see. That’s where we’re different I suppose. I choose to meaningfully participate in the democratic process by choosing the (much) lesser of 2 evils. It may have something to do with living here.

Groupie journos – not the messiah himself, as far as I know – have been using the preemptive strike quite a lot: ‘Not voting for him will expose the racism of America’. So yes, his camp has been doing that.

Too subtle for Brownie, I guess, especially as he has not been following things very closely (no shit).

Nope, he’s saying Morgoth is wrong when he argues that “there are probably more people who won’t vote for a white candidate” than there are won’t vote for a black candidate. And Benji is right.

Actually, the fact that no white candidates have ever been elected to represent majority black districts in the entire history of America indicates that he’s right. If black people vote for white people then how come 90% of the US congress is black and 17 of the last 17 presidents have been black?

Oh wait, nevermind. Black people have been voting for white candidates since long before Morgoth’s mother visited the discount spermbank.

99% of the whinging that I can see is from the lunatic airhead left camp, who are whinging that the victims of their smears are hitting back at the lies flung at them: lies that are not just hateful and dishonest but intellectually shallow.

Whining about “liberal whining” is also whining – and now a staple of identity-conservatism.

Libarbarian -

You had me going for a moment.
Nonetheless, it’s a good time to note, for those on the east side of the pond, that there was a significant Democratic primary contest for Congress in Memphis, Tennessee this year. Overwhelmingly Black district, Jewish incumbant, anti-Semite Black insurgent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cohen

Scroll down to 2008 Democratic Primary. Obama denounced the insurgent’s ads. Cohen won in a landslide.

“Just so I don’t misunderstand you, are you actually claiming that 20% of white people will vote for someone just because he’s black, and 15% of black people will vote for someone just because they are white? If so, I’d say you have your decimal points in the wrong place.”

No, 15% of white people won’t vote for a black person just because he’s black. Then there are people for whom it is not an absolute vote-winner/loser, but still persuasive. I’d say the number positively inclined to vote Obama because of his race far exceeds those for whom it it dissaudes. The racists won’t vote for him, full stop. But the guilty-whites will overlook, say, his inexperience.

“I’m not following this as closely as some, but is he really doing that? I mean, pre-emptively? So, before anyone says anything, he’s calling people “racist”.”
Stuff like “they’re saying I don’t like the presidents on the dollar bills”
Who’s saying that Barry?
Mainly, though it has been the unofficial part of his campaign in the MSM doing it. I’ve read many articles suggesting the only possible reason Americans won’t vote for him is that they’re are racist. In fact, you’re trying to pull the same little stunt yourself. (I think Lenny Henry used to have a long running sketch on this theme, something like, “so I can’t be a ballerina eh? you woudln’t say that if I was white).

Brownie

“Oh come one. I’ts one thing to fling mud, but given you accept her answers are equivocal, laden with politic-speak, open to interpretation, etc., you can’t then complain when people interpret them in a way that you don’t like.”

Actually I can. First of all the complaint is that they are lying about her. As they clearly are. If her statements are ambiguous, then their interpretation might be as good as mine, but what they cannot do is state for a fact what they mean. The MSM can only talk in probabilities. Second, it is reasonable to assume that she is looking to her base so that whatever she says is to appease them. Which means if she was a Creationist she would say so. If she wasn’t she might well do something very similar to what she has done. Third when language becomes a matter of bullsh!t to appease the base, you have to look at what people do and not what they say. The Republicans, for all their talk, have not done one damn thing about abortion for instance which tells you all you need to know about the difference between people like McCain and Bush Senior who run the Party and their base. She has not lifted a finger to advance the Creationist cause. Not one little thing. You might think that she was not one.

“None of us is responsible for the fact that Repubs have to – as you concede – walk a tight-rope when it comes to creationism. That’s their baggage and it’s perfectly valid for Dems to make political capital out of it. This isn’t the same as just making up shit about your political adversaries.”

I agree with the first bit and I don’t mind the Dems making capital out of it. But to claim that she is a Creationist is another thing. Let’s hear people try to draw her out, try to make her state clearly for the record and annoy half her potential voters. But to state as if it were a fact she thinks the world was created in 4004 BC is absurd. It is just dishonest. Although it might be right.

Obama thinks Christ died and was resurrected. How unscientific.

Does it? I don’t see it. It is likely that it was just a quick off the cuff remark made in haste and repented at leisure. But what she did say is that if the students brought it up it ought to be discussed. That, I think, comes under “teach both” and I don’t see much wrong with it to be honest.

Subtlety, every post of yours sounds as if you’re having one off the cuff. Discussing creationism is not the same as teaching it, which implies advocacy. There’s more evidence that she’s a creationist than there is that creationism is any kind of theory sound enough to discredit 150 years of scientific vindication since the publication of ‘Origin of the Species’. And then(to paraphrase): ‘perhaps she doesn’t actually believe in creationism, but thinks it should be taught alongside as an alternate theory’. Priceless!

First of all the complaint is that they are lying about her. As they clearly are. If her statements are ambiguous, then their interpretation might be as good as mine, but what they cannot do is state for a fact what they mean.

Once again for the record, in case there is any confusion, I agree that saying Pailin is unequivocally a creationist is, as yet, unsupportable.

Second, it is reasonable to assume that she is looking to her base so that whatever she says is to appease them. Which means if she was a Creationist she would say so.

Nope, for reasons you’ve given previously.

If she wasn’t she might well do something very similar to what she has done.

She’s sending contradictory messages. Whether she’s a creationst who won’t admit as much because she fears the electoral consequences, or whether she’s a Darwinian who won’t admit as much because she fears the electoral consequences, we can’t be certain. And she’s created that confusion, so she’s repsonsible for the speculation.

Third when language becomes a matter of bullsh!t to appease the base, you have to look at what people do and not what they say. The Republicans, for all their talk, have not done one damn thing about abortion for instance which tells you all you need to know about the difference between people like McCain and Bush Senior who run the Party and their base. She has not lifted a finger to advance the Creationist cause. Not one little thing. You might think that she was not one.

Again, she might simply realise she’s not got a snowball in hell’s chance of seeing her dream of creationism taught in schools realised. So why commit political hari kari?

Look, I know the way politics works, too. I’m not suggesting she should be flogged for her equivocations, but equivocations they are. Apart from the odd Dem who might have said she is beyond doubt a dyed-in-the-wool creationist, I don’t know what she and you have to complain about.

Brownie, has it ccurred to you that whether or not the President is a “creationist” does not matter under our system of government and public education? The questions are hashed out, without much trouble, by the thousand and thousand of elected school boards across the nation. It’s called local self-government, one of our legacies from England. Once in a blue moon (almost literally) one school board will generate a court case, and the parammeters of what is allowable under the First Amendment are reviewed.

Brownie, has it ccurred to you that whether or not the President is a “creationist” does not matter under our system of government and public education?

Whether it occurs to me kinda misses the point. I’m not saying it should matter one way or the other. I’m saying the fact that Palin wants to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds on this one brings its own problems. She’s doing a good impression of someone who thinks it does matter, if not to her personally, then to a segment of GOP opinion.

wilczek

“Discussing creationism is not the same as teaching it, which implies advocacy.”

And yet she backed down from that remark and did nothing to introduce the teaching of creationism at all. I see no advocacy.

“There’s more evidence that she’s a creationist than there is that creationism is any kind of theory sound enough to discredit 150 years of scientific vindication since the publication of ‘Origin of the Species’.”

Well obviously.

“And then(to paraphrase): ‘perhaps she doesn’t actually believe in creationism, but thinks it should be taught alongside as an alternate theory’. Priceless!”

There is an argument in America – best put by William Jennings Bryant of the Scopes Trial fame – that the State is not best placed to decide what children ought to be taught and it has no place in forcing their children to be taught things that fundamentally offend their values. That would cover people who do not think that Creationism is true but think parents ought to have more control over what their children are taught. Even if she was not just doing it for cynical political purposes.

More of the wit and financial wisdom of Palin:

Asked about the housing collapse and emergency government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Sarah Palin said they had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” Both are private corporations — or were until they were bailed out over the weekend by the Bush Administration and, uh, the taxpayers.

If she gets elected, I hope that the Rapture does happen, because only Jeebus H. Ker-rist could sort out that mess.

P.

Well I have been favouring McCain until now but jeez have you read Sarah Palins CV on wikipedia. If it is halfway true be afraid be very afraid. She has been mayor of a “city” in Alaska which is actually a village of 7000 inhabitants of whom about 1000 voted. She has sat on an energy tribunal for a year and been Governor of a statge with 750,000 inhabitants. In that time she has sacked every single person who disagreed with her, including the Police Chief who sued her only for his lawyer to find that the legislation says there are no rules or safeguards preventing the Governor from sacking and appointing anyone those chose. And now she is vice president to a fit but let’s face it elderly man. Be afraid be very afraid. lsatioligeroaasksagru

Haters and beserkers?
Is that Harrys Place new name?