This ad seems like a good start, although it says something about the way pundits see abortion that cutting an ad supporting a Supreme Court decision supported by 2-to-1 majorities can be seen as a “counterintuitive” move. The next step: include in an ad the fact that both John McCain and the Republican platform support a constitutional amendment that would make abortion illegal (and indeed, if one takes the platform seriously, first-degree murder) in all 50 states. Drawing attention to your opponent’s exceptionally unpopular opinions really should be Politics 101, but when it comes to abortion for some reason only Republicans seem to believe that you should try to fight on favorable terrain.
It’s tough trying to keep up with LGM’s new All Palin, All the Time format…
- Shorter VD Hanson: Speaking for all Americans, I can happily assert that resentiment is a joyful thing.
- I leave it to a better blogger than I to do something with this verbatim VD Hanson: “If she can beat off the frothing Newsweek/MSNBC/New York Times inbred rabid wolves, and do it with the grace she has shown so far, she will fill a deep yearning among Americans for someone like her.”
- Shorter Stephen Hayes: Putting Sarah Palin on a magazine cover and mentioning that she’s a liar establishes a “new low” in media coverage. Manufacturing evidence in order to start a war remains cool.
My Sarah Palin theory is here. I don’t like to harp on the “imagine if Obama or Hillary” meme, but this situation really cries out for comparisons.
Imagine if Hillary had done what Palin did when Palin had her most recent child. This would needless to say have been taken as incontrivertable proof that she was a career-obsessed feminist bitch, who was legally unfit to be a mother and should have her child taken away from her before she actually killed the poor kid out of sheer callous indifference if not actual malice.
Imagine if Obama’s 17-year-old daughter were pregnant. What do you think that would “prove?”
September 2nd, 2008. The 2008 Election ended this morning as a vast cadre of liberals, progressives, Democrats and like minded journalists lifted the white flag and surrendered.
We surrendered something a whole lot more valuable than our vote. We surrendered our principles. We surrendered our core values.
We surrendered all hope. We surrendered our shared dreams that our daughters would inherit a better world, a world of promise, equality, justice, fairness and honor.
We had dreamed of a world where our 17 years old daughters wouldn’t be striped [sic] naked and raped on the front page of the New York Times, above the fold.
We later read that Palin’s daughter has been “gang raped” by the liberal blogosphere and that even Sheriff Obama — no, really — couldn’t prevent “the lynching” of a young girl.
[Pausing several seconds here to ponder the incongruous blend of psycho-sexual hyperbole. Moving on now, without further comment.]
Dude. Drink some orange juice or something. Or at least — if you want to use the pronoun “we” to include liberals, progressives, straw men, gnomes, masturbating pandas, and so on — don’t manage a blog that has a history of whining about anyone who criticizes George Bush; that calls for a “Holy War” in defense of
Dutch Danish cartoonists; that brews a mighty froth over potty-mouthed bloggers; and that, like John McCain, never wants to leave Iraq.
Bob Somerby correctly notes that Palin’s extravagant claim that she “told Congress thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere” is simply an “outright lie.” And this is true not only in the sense that she was for it before she was against it, but also because by the time she become governor Congress had given up the earmark. Her self-praise was simply nonsense. And this lie might seem rather consequential, given that her fictitious opposition to federal pork is central to justifying McCain’s selection (cf. David Brooks.) And this isn’t even getting into the fact that she’s still using federal pork to build a road to nowhere. And yet, Palin’s lie has been soft-pedaled into a mere “slight exaggeration.” The contrast with how the Times treats Democratic candidates is obvious:
But so it has gone in the past sixteen years, as lying became a Democratic disease in the press corps’ reliable scripts. In the journalism of the past sixteen years, Republicans have been allowed to misstate as much as they pleased. By way of contrast, the press corps has often invented lies, then pretended that Major Democrats said them. Covering Palin, hapless news orgs like the New York Times are enacting this drama again.
Compare the treatment of Palin’s straightforward lie with the treatment of Gore’s (accurate) statements about his role in the development of the internet (let alone the stuff that was entirely made up), and I think it tells you what you need to know.
I do have one quibble, though. Somerby says that “Liberals, of course, are busy examining photos of Palin’s waist-line. Did she really bear that child? Liberals demand to know this!” Certainly, the thigh-rubbing conspiracy theories about Palin’s fifth child are absolutely idiotic. But nor do I think that there has been any significant interest in this non-story from liberal bloggers of any influence (and, no, Andrew Sullivan hardly counts as a liberal.) The idea that “liberals” or “the left” as opposed to “some random, non-front page Daily Kos diarist” or “some blog commenter somewhere” were drooling about Palin’s recent pregnancy is itself a GOP script that shouldn’t be repeated without naming names. I do agree, however, that the lies underlying Palin’s reputation as a pork-buster are a far more important and far more politically fruitful line of attack than her daughter’s pregnancy.
I wrote the piece Sunday night and sent it out yesterday morning. It already feels hideously antique.
If this is true, my governor is a full-blown lunatic.
Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.
And while McCain’s motto — as seen in a new TV ad — is “Country First,” the AIP’s motto is the exact opposite — “Alaska First — Alaska Always.”
Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.
“We are a state’s rights party,” says Clark, a self-employed goldminer. The AIP has “a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law.”
The AIP are essentially hard core libertarians whose animating principle is the belief that our statehood vote in 1958 was illegitimate because — contrary to Article 73 of the UN Charter — the “non-self-governing territory” of Alaska was not properly offered the option of independence. (You can read the ponderous legal argument here.) The most hardcore AIPs genuinely want Alaska to be a separate nation; others would prefer to become a commonwealth; still others would seek to meld our fortunes with these folks, who are equally disgruntled with their semi-colonial status. Mostly, though, they just want to dismantle the government and shoot anything that sets foot on their property.
I’ve secured footage from a recent AIP meeting to give everyone a glmpse of the intellectual atmosphere that Sarah Palin breathed during the early years of her political ascent:
Guess that no one tells him anything. Tim Cavanaugh:
In an unguarded moment last night, McCain Report blogger Michael Goldfarb replied to my question of whether there’s any truth to the rumor that Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome child is actually her daughter’s with the following less-than-confidence-inspiring comment: “Well, I don’t…think so.” He added that the whole thing, like Hurricane Gustav, will have played out, one way or another, within the next 24 hours.
That wasn’t enough for the pretty pro-McCain crowd he was talking to, and when one interlocutor (not me) accused McCain of not having properly vetted his nominee, Goldfarb dropped the M bomb. “He’s a maverick,” he said. “That’s the way mavericks do things!”
This is just hilarious. We now know that the rumor can’t possibly be true, but it turns out that McCain’s own people gave it enough credence to try to obfuscate the issue. The McCain campaign sure is one hell of a well oiled machine…
Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance
A-hem. Is there… uh, is there a defensible interpretation? This is something I’d expect from a garden variety internet wingnut, which I suppose is part of the point of the Palin selection, but still; we’re talking about someone who might be President in a year.
I mean, John McCain and Sarah Palin don’t believe women have a right to choose. It’s absolutely absurd for the campaign to emphasize the fact that Bristol “made this decision,” and then push for policies that take away that choice
Right. She made the decision on her own. Sarah Palin and John McCain would prefer that the state coerce young women into having children.