Althouse: "McCain gave us... a former beauty queen as the person who could be asked to take over the White House in an emergency if anything happened to [him]."

August 31, 2008

"McCain gave us... a former beauty queen as the person who could be asked to take over the White House in an emergency if anything happened to [him]."

Writes Andrew Sullivan.

So we get to pick whatever "former" activity of a candidate seems least presidential and call them that? Do you really want to go there?

The Democratic Party gave us a former cocaine user/community activist to take over the White House without even a stint as Vice President.

109 comments:

Fen said...: Andrew Sullivan lost me when he accused General Petreus of being in a political conspiracy to spin the surge.

"For you the blind who once could see..."

Thats your song now, Andrew. Gods, what happened to you? You've been tarnishing your credibility for some time now.; 8/31/08, 4:37 PM
campy said...: But Ann, if you do it to BO, it's racist.; 8/31/08, 4:37 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: The Democrats almost gave us a second rate unethical attorney who did nothing more than ride the trouser cuffs of her husband to poltical power without even a stint as the vice president. What was her name again?; 8/31/08, 4:39 PM
Roger J. said...: not fair, Ann--Sully is the ultimate drama queen who is looking for attention. Any of his posts are like shooting fish in a barrel.; 8/31/08, 4:39 PM
Roger J. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/31/08, 4:39 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: The thread down there VVV about candidate's mouth foam and spittle caused me to search the internets to confirm that outrageous accusation. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. My Google fu failed me. This frustration caused me to use a magnifying glass until I found some.; 8/31/08, 4:40 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/31/08, 4:40 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Fen,

Sullivan is trying to be the Truman Capote of political pundits.; 8/31/08, 4:40 PM
Host with the Most said...: ... a former beauty queen

Jealous, Andrew?; 8/31/08, 4:43 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: Ann, I am disappointed. I want to see more "Troopergate" posts. I want to see as much attention given to the allegation that Sarah Palin tried to get a stepson-Tasering, drinking in the cop car, father-in-law threatening, PFA receiving, badge abusing cop fired.

It really deserves more attention.; 8/31/08, 4:46 PM
MagicalPat said...: I, for one, welcome that debate.

Let's see, when she was a beauty queen, he was doing drugs. When she was running for her first office, he was on a beach writing a memoir, something usually reserved for people who had accomplished something.
While she was mayor, he was writing his second memoir, since one was just not enough. Still, no accomplishments to speak of.
Finally, he is a community organizer who fails at nearly everything he set out to do. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin cleans up a small towns political system.

Please, open this can of worms.; 8/31/08, 4:47 PM
chickelit said...: Another reason I’d like to see McCain win is just to see Sullivan’s reaction. I’d like to see a little turd start coming out of his ear hole in his Terry Colon caricature on his webpage. I wanna see the picture change every time I hit refresh, just like that painting changed for Roddy MacDowell in that first ever episode of Rod Serling’s Night Gallery. .

Then when it finally plops out, he’ll be so relieved he’ll say “God I’ve been pushing it out backwards the whole time from the wrong place” and come to his senses and rejoin the rational world.

Either that or he’ll just pack it up and move back to Blighty which wouldn’t be a bad thing either.; 8/31/08, 4:48 PM
J. Cricket said...: Ann,

Just wondering: have you become a paid GOP spokesperson, or are you going to be doing this endless Sarah Palin defense work pro bono?; 8/31/08, 4:50 PM
Paco Wové said...: You know what I really wonder, AJD? Why all the half-assed sockpuppetry? Come on! Be proud of the asshole you are!!; 8/31/08, 4:56 PM
Chris Althouse Cohen said...: The Obama campaign did the exact same thing when McCain announced her as the VP: "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." It's ironic that she's being attacked on this basis when she's the only one on either ticket with any executive experience.; 8/31/08, 4:57 PM
Anonymous said...: The better question is: Who is paying Andrew Sullivan? Whoever it is ought to stop because they are getting shrill, laughable prose that jumped the shark last millennium.

I add that Althouse is apparently getting paid handsomely for the blog. Why, just recently she made $450 for a softcore porn ad featuring a three-armed Pamela Anderson.; 8/31/08, 4:59 PM
Simon said...: Chris,
Notice the wording of Obama's statement. McCain's choice of veep places Palin a heartbeat away from being in charge. I had thought that her being so was conditional on McCain being President - interesting that Senator Obama is already conceding the race, huh? ;)

On other topics, I await with baited breath the first ADS victim commenting to ask in this post what has happened to cruel neutrality. It's become predictable.; 8/31/08, 5:03 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Kind of like former "Bedtime with Bonzo" movie actor Ronald Reagan. What a lame candidate he turned out to be!; 8/31/08, 5:06 PM
Anonymous said...: The Left is going to self-destruct over this. I love it!

The Times Online has an article about her here. Well worth a read for those who don't understand why the rest of us are excited about her selection to be VP.; 8/31/08, 5:07 PM
Ann Althouse said...: To be fair, Seven, I think, after all the click-thru on the Pam Anderson ad, I'm getting more ads. Please, people, click through on these things to help me with my income stream. Don't just click through when it's Pam. Click through when it's Matt or Arnold. Support the Althouse blog.

And, have you heard? I have taken a vow of cruel neutrality.

I say to you in all honesty, and I stake all my credibility on this: I have not decided who I'm going to vote for in November.; 8/31/08, 5:07 PM
LoafingOaf said...: But Althouse, if you look at the totality of Sullivan's posts on Palin over the last few days, he IS starting to make a strong case that putting Palin in that high an office this quick is dangerously irresponsible. I'm still open to her and find her likable, but you also see on Sullivan's blog that McCain only met with her once, that Palin wasn't even thinking about Iraq policy when asked about the surge, and so on.

The right wingers love her because she passes all their family values and Christian conservative litmus tests. This does not mean she'd make a good Commander in Chief. WE've seen with Bush how disasterous it can be when you think a Good Christian President can just pray to God for guidance. Yeah. like he saw into Putin's soul when Putin knew he could easily con Bush by going on about God.....; 8/31/08, 5:13 PM
Unknown said...: AJD, er, McMurray, it's not so much a defense of Palin as it is evidence of Sullivan's asshattery, And on that score, Ann's greatest offense is simply that she's beating a long dead horse.; 8/31/08, 5:13 PM
Unknown said...: But Althouse, if you look at the totality of Sullivan's posts on Palin over the last few days, he IS starting to make a strong case that putting Palin in that high an office this quick is dangerously irresponsible.

Does that include the ones where he's factually incorrect?; 8/31/08, 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: I just clicked through all the ads. My only observation is that Matt Damon's goal of "eliminating" poverty is absurd. First, because here in America, our poor people have color televisions, refrigerators, and cars. We'll never, ever eliminate poverty, you celebrity dumb asses. The goal posts will just be moved for all eternity.

As for The Vow, so long as people from both sides are saying that you aren't actually honoring It, you are fine.; 8/31/08, 5:16 PM
Scrutineer said...: Christopher Althouse Cohen - It's ironic that she's being attacked [for her lack of experience] when she's the only one on either ticket with any executive experience.

Obama ran a successful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. How can you question his "executive skills"?; 8/31/08, 5:17 PM
LoafingOaf said...: The troubling reality is that Palin is spending her Labor Day weekend cramming up on major issues she's never given much thought to - such as Iraq policy - days before the convention. Obama didn't have to do that.; 8/31/08, 5:17 PM
Lem the artificially intelligent said...: And McCain gave us a 44-year-old former beauty queen as the person who could be asked to take over the White House.

In order to attack Palin they have to trow everything held dear to them under the bus.

It reminds me of Ann's Bloggingheads post about the mind of a self-cannibal.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/14036; 8/31/08, 5:18 PM
Joe Giles said...: Someone said Andrew Sullivan had a website, but I clicked over there, and all I found was a wish list.; 8/31/08, 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The right wingers love her because she passes all their family values and Christian conservative litmus tests.

Okay. I'll play: The left wingers love OBAMA because HE passes all their VARIOUS LEFTIST values and LEFTIST litmus tests.

See how easy this is?

Democrats: your candidate has no experience whatsoever. Please make a note of it. Thank you.; 8/31/08, 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, gosh, how could anyone ever possibly question Obama's executive skills?; 8/31/08, 5:21 PM
Asante Samuel said...: I'm pretty sure it's the 'queen' part that really chaps his butt.; 8/31/08, 5:22 PM
Anonymous said...: ...but you also see on Sullivan's blog that McCain only met with her once...

According to the Washington Post, Palin has been on the short list for months.

More here.; 8/31/08, 5:22 PM
Simon said...: Scrutineer said...
"Obama ran a successful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. How can you question his 'executive skills'?"

Running a campaign isn't "executive experience" and it's laughable - it smacks of desperation - to suggest otherwise.; 8/31/08, 5:23 PM
Simon said...: LoafingOaf said...
"you also see on Sullivan's blog that McCain only met with her once"

What is this supposed to prove, even if it's true?; 8/31/08, 5:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Andrew Sullivan is a shrill, sexually irresponsible male chauvinist who audaciously grasps at whatever rhetorical straws that he can.

It is shocking to me that anyone would take him seriously.; 8/31/08, 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...: ...that Palin wasn't even thinking about Iraq policy when asked about the surge...

She was asked about the surge in December 2006!

Let me clue you in on this little fact. Most governors spend precious little time focusing on issues of war strategy because they don't have any influence over it AND they have a state to run.

Next.; 8/31/08, 5:27 PM
Fen said...: The right wingers love her because she passes all their family values and Christian conservative litmus tests.

No. I'm an independent and not a christian. We're excited about Palin because its obvious she's from the Grey Tribe.; 8/31/08, 5:30 PM
john said...: Ann,

One would think that on a nice long weekend, you would slow down a little and give us people who have other lives equal opportunity to jump on excitable Andy's "former beauty queen" remark. Be fair.; 8/31/08, 5:31 PM
LoafingOaf said...: seven: Obama had to win the Democratic Party nomination by campaigning against and debating all the other Democratic Party candidates. A lot of factors put Obama to the top in his party, and amongst them was his substantive position on the major issue, the Iraq War (he had stated clearly before the Iraq War why he was opposed to it, in contrast with the other leading Democrats).

Remember when Althouse first posted about Palin? A lot of the right wing commenters just needed to know she was hot, she hunted, she wore fur, and she was a family values, pro-life Christian.

I don't agree with Obama on a lot of issues, but I know that when he talks about most of them he has given them a lot of thought over many years. Palin's cramming on the issues the night before the convention. This means she be bluffing on many of them! She'll say what she's told to say by McCain's people. Who the heck knows what she'd do as Commander in Chief? I have a pretty good feel for what McCain, Obama, and Biden would be like as Commanders in Chief.; 8/31/08, 5:32 PM
Palladian said...: "The troubling reality is that Palin is spending her Labor Day weekend cramming up on major issues she's never given much thought to - such as Iraq policy - days before the convention. Obama didn't have to do that."

You want troubling realities? How about the fact that Obama gave a major issue– Iraq policy and the "Surge"- a lot of thought and made the wrong decision. Had he been President and made that decision, it would have been a disaster for American interests and security.

It's amazing to me that Democrats want to go anywhere near the "inexperienced" issue regarding McCain's choice of Vice-President when embarrassing inexperience is one of the central problems with their candidate for President.; 8/31/08, 5:32 PM
Simon said...: People criticizing Palin for being a beauty queen would do well to watch this - the full versoin of the video clip that Althouse posted earlier.; 8/31/08, 5:34 PM
JohnSteele said...: That double standard has always bothered me. When a man gets elevated to CEO, or elected governor, etc., we don't call him, "former golf caddy John Smith . . . " or former lawn cutter or house painter or low level corporate gopher. I was a janitor, a bank teller, and an ice cream scooper before I became a lawyer. So what? Women definitely get slammed by that technique.

John Steele; 8/31/08, 5:34 PM
rhhardin said...: ``It was hell,'' says former child.; 8/31/08, 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Look. We know lefties are brilliant and conservatives are drooling morons. So, of course, like John Kerry and Al Gore, Obama thinks deeply and reflects while making groaning, gurgling sounds over all the issues. That's all a given. However, this idea that winning a bunch of caucuses and a few primaries is somehow indicative of executive skill and management acumen is beyond laughable.

Is that really the best you can do? Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds? It reeks of desperation, people.; 8/31/08, 5:38 PM
Fen said...: you also see on Sullivan's blog that McCain only met with her once

Andrew Sullivan is a liar. Via the Washington Post:

"Far from being a last-minute tactical move or a second choice when better known alternatives were eliminated, Palin was very much in McCain's thinking from the beginning of the selection process, according to McCain's advisers. The 44-year-old governor made every cut as the first list of candidates assembled last spring was slowly winnowed. The more McCain learned about her, the more attracted he was to her as someone who shared his maverick, anti-establishment instincts.

"He looked at her like a kindred spirit," said one close adviser, who declined to be identified in order to speak more freely. "Someone who wasn't afraid to take tough positions."; 8/31/08, 5:38 PM
Simon said...: LoafingOaf said...
"Who the heck knows what she'd do as Commander in Chief? I have a pretty good feel for what McCain, Obama, and Biden would be like as Commanders in Chief."

Me too, and the last two make me break out in a cold sweat. I would certainly be happier with Palin calling the shots than Obama, and I'd be happier with a mayor selected at random from the National Lague of Cities Directory calling the shots than I would with Biden. Did you watch the Roberts and Alito hearings? I don't want that guy in the Senate, let alone in a position of real power.; 8/31/08, 5:38 PM
Palladian said...: "I don't agree with Obama on a lot of issues, but I know that when he talks about most of them he has given them a lot of thought over many years."

Really? How do you "know" this? And, suppose you're right, then so what? You're willing to vote for someone with whom you disagree on a lot of issues because they've "given them a lot of thought over many years"? So they gave them a lot of thought and, according to your beliefs, came to the wrong conclusions, yet you still might vote for them because some left wingers, Democrats and Andrew Sullivan raised troubling doubts about the other party's Vice-Presidential candidate? Shaky reasoning.

You're in love with Obama. Admit it to yourself and you'll be a lot happier. At least until November 5th.; 8/31/08, 5:38 PM
vbspurs said...: Andrew Sullivan is an ugly queen.; 8/31/08, 5:39 PM
Palladian said...: "I'd be happier with a mayor selected at random from the National Lague of Cities Directory calling the shots than I would with Biden"

Be careful there Simon, lest you forget Ray Nagin.; 8/31/08, 5:40 PM
Palladian said...: "Andrew Sullivan is an ugly queen."

lol, it took me a second to get that one, Victoria. You're right on several levels.; 8/31/08, 5:42 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: "Obama ran a successful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. How can you question his "executive skills"?"

I do not question his ability to garner votes from the most liberal of our countrymen.

If that experience is indicative of success in the Presidency, I have no idea.; 8/31/08, 5:42 PM
Simon said...: Quite aside from the argument over experience in the abstract, I cannot for the life of me understand how those criticizing Palin for lacking foreign policy experience manage to walk around with cajones the size it would take to make that argument with a straight face. Palin is our nominee for veep. She may take over in a crisis. Obama is your party's nominee for President. He will take over on January 20th, if elected. Tell me, what is Barack Obama's foreign policy experience?

I'm almost afraid to ask this question, because if you're desperate enough to say that he has executive experience from running his campaign, maybe you'll say that giving a speech in Berlin is foreign policy experience.; 8/31/08, 5:42 PM
Fen said...: However, this idea that winning a bunch of caucuses and a few primaries is somehow indicative of executive skill and management acumen is beyond laughable.

Not when you remember that the Left is infected with the bigotry of low expectations: "He's clean, articulate, and his interview skills trump whatever job requirements we have. Hire him!"; 8/31/08, 5:42 PM
Simon said...: Palladian, let me be unambiguous: I would feel better with Ray Nagin as President in a crisis than I would with than Joe Biden. That man simply cannot be allowed near the levers of power, come hell or high water, both of which I believe Mr. Nagin has some experience with.; 8/31/08, 5:44 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: "I don't agree with Obama on a lot of issues, but I know that when he talks about most of them he has given them a lot of thought over many years."

Is this what he was doing?; 8/31/08, 5:44 PM
Asante Samuel said...: Loaf, you appear to be a thinking person. Consider the idea that Obama is the figurehead for a coalition of anti-Clinton forces who gathered behind him like an Indian Ocean tsunami. That he stayed afloat is commendable, but hardly describable as executive experience.

These people have been after the Clintons for some time now. Remember Howlin Howard and Ned Lamont? How'd things work out for them? Next year they'll be using someone else. It's what they do.
The only thing on Obama's CV under experience is voting 'present'.; 8/31/08, 5:51 PM
vbspurs said...: Palladian wrote:

lol, it took me a second to get that one, Victoria. You're right on several levels.

I knew you'd get the levels. ;); 8/31/08, 5:51 PM
Anonymous said...: "I await with baited breath the first ADS victim commenting to ask in this post what has happened to cruel neutrality."

Of course you do, Simon. It's the knightly thing to do, upon which you will gallop to the defense of the helpless, threatened damsel.

Simon, meet Pavlov. In a moment you will hear a bell ringing. You'll know what to do...

AA said: "I say to you in all honesty, and I stake all my credibility on this: I have not decided who I'm going to vote for in November."

No, you have taken a conditional but not definitive stance called 'I will vote for Obama unless..." that leaves you with plausible Althousian deniability. - ding -

Over to you, Simon. I'm having fun now. How about you? Here, let me help.

ADS!

Carry on.; 8/31/08, 5:57 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Ann:

You would have been one helluva wrestling promoter! You just set up the two pinadas and your fans go at it. [I am paying you a compliment btw]; 8/31/08, 6:00 PM
Asante Samuel said...: And consider this my new Loafy friend, I would rather have an intelligent, inexperienced president who knows what she doesn't know, whose first instinct is always fiscally conservative, than some smooth, elite fucker who just spent two years having Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi tell him how smart he fucking is.

" A leader God has blessed us with at this time."

Hahahahaha. Give me a fucking break.; 8/31/08, 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: No. I'm an independent and not a christian. We're excited about Palin because its obvious she's from the Grey Tribe.

Fen, thanks for the link. I have seen snippets of that essay in various places but have never read the whole thing. Good read and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Palin is definitely a fellow member of the Grey Tribe.; 8/31/08, 6:07 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Yeah Fen:

Thanks for that link to the Grey Tribe. I enjoyed very much.; 8/31/08, 6:12 PM
John said...: "I'm still open to her and find her likable, but you also see on Sullivan's blog that McCain only met with her once, that Palin wasn't even thinking about Iraq policy when asked about the surge, and so on. "

If you read today's Washington Post, you will see that McCain has had his eye on Palin for months and this was anything but a quick decision. Sullivan is lying when he says that.

The former beautify queen remark is sexist. But, Sullivan is a horrible sexist and a generally bitter and lousy human being. So it doesn't surprise me.; 8/31/08, 6:27 PM
somefeller said...: No. I'm an independent and not a christian. We're excited about Palin because its obvious she's from the Grey Tribe.

Come on, Fen. The comment you were responding to pointed out something very obvious, namely that Palin's choice is being very well-received among Christian Evangelical conservatives. You may not be that species of conservative, but there's no denying that's a big part of her target audience. Also, while you may be a registered independent now, I think it's safe to say you aren't likely to vote for many, if any, Democrats in the general election and aren't any type of liberal.

Also, I notice you say you are not a Christian. If I may ask, what, if any religion, do you subscribe to? Are you part of that tiny and happy few called Right-Wing Unitarians?; 8/31/08, 6:39 PM
Randy said...: If Obama spends so much time thinking before deciding, I'd sure appreciate a believable explanation as to how he could spend half this year campaigning AGAINST the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and then vote FOR it when it came to a vote in the United States Senate.; 8/31/08, 6:40 PM
Anonymous said...: It's possible to appreciate religion and believe in the Christian God without going to church or subscribing to religious orthodoxies.

Only an idiot wouldn't know this.; 8/31/08, 6:46 PM
somefeller said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/31/08, 6:55 PM
somefeller said...: It was a question linked in with a joke, Seven. Lighten up, Francis.

However, your example doesn't work here, as someone who describes himself as not a Christian is unlikely to "believe in the Christian God". Another type of God, perhaps (pantheism, deism, etc., to mention a couple of popular options, particularly among Unitarians), but not the Christian one. Only an idiot would fail to notice that.; 8/31/08, 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Where did I say not a Christian?

Read much?; 8/31/08, 7:01 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Look at this.

Palin was aske in 2006: "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."

Folks, before I'd even graduated from high school, I knew thaat the Pledge was written in the late 1800s and "under God" hadn't been added till the 1950s.

Here's a Governor who takes this strong stand in defense of the revised version of the Pledge that arguably is in violation of our First Amendment when schoolchildren have to recite it, and she's in complete ignorance about both when the Pledge was written and when it was revised. And, to go with her ignorance, she cares not one bit about the First Amendment concerns even though the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when it was pushed on kids in public schools.

That may not be the #1 issue of the day, but it shows that Palin will bluff her way through issues that she hasn't even taken five minutes to research.; 8/31/08, 7:01 PM
Beta Conservative said...: I jusy heard a (D) Congresswoman on CNN use the line "I know Hillary Clinton, and Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton."

She said that Palin's refrences to Hillary were insulting.

I assumed she meant that Palin didn't ride her hubby's soiled coattails to national prominence.; 8/31/08, 7:04 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: Loafing Oaf, are you suggesting the founding fathers did not refer to "divine providence"? They did. Or are you saying the specific phrasing is what is important and not the concept?

Silly argument, and the expected attempts to portray Palin as a bimbo continue as, er, expected.; 8/31/08, 7:06 PM
Johng said...: The pledge of allegance? Really? If this is the kind of attack Sarah Palin has to endure she must be the cleanest most uncontroversial candidate in the history of national politics.; 8/31/08, 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Oaf:

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men.

I leave it to you to figure out the provenance of the quote. Once you do, consider whether it is a true statement to say that "under God" was good enough for the Founders when they founded.; 8/31/08, 7:08 PM
LoafingOaf said...: She claims to love the Pledge of Allegiance so much, but thought it was written in the time of our founding fathers, and worse, was obviously completely unaware of the fact that "under God" wasn't added till the mid-20th Century. She loves the Pledge so much she knows nothing about it. Even worse, concerns about unconstitutional endorsements of religions in our public schools (which our courts take very seriously) do not worry her pretty head even when she is a Governor of a state.; 8/31/08, 7:10 PM
somefeller said...: Seven, it looked to me that you were responding to my response to Fen's comment, wherein he said he wasn't a Christian (text quoted in my comment) and I asked him what, if any, religion he subscribed to. Fen and I rib and question one another from time to time, so I felt comfortable asking the question. If he wants to tell me to F off, he can do so. If you weren't responding to that, my apologies for shooting back at you. If you were, you need the reading comprehension upgrade.

By the way, apparently Right-Wing Unitarians do exist. When I feel the religious urge, I go to one of the local Unitarian churches, and I've noticed a car there every time I'm there with a W'04 bumper sticker. Brave and rare soul in that crowd.; 8/31/08, 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Oaf, you are willfully interpreting the quote in a way that makes someone you don't like look foolish and stupid, and you apparently believe that you can convince people here that your interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation.

Your rhetorical abilities simply aren't strong enough to pull that off, especially since you are wrong. So just drop it or take it somewhere else.; 8/31/08, 7:13 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: OK, good sexist attack Oaf. Keep it up.; 8/31/08, 7:14 PM
LoafingOaf said...: seven, don't spin it. Palin obviously spoke in ignorance, no matter how you come down on the "under God" in the Pledge issue.

If I were a Governor, I would take the time to know what I'm talking about. This was a high profile issue when she was asked about it. It wouldn't have been that hard for her to just say the talking points of those in defense of "under God" in the Pledge. But instead she tried to say she loved the Pledge yet exposed herself as someone who doesn't know a thing about its history. She was faking it! But since she comes down on the side of the religious right on that issue despite doing so in ignorance, you'll back it!; 8/31/08, 7:15 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: But instead she tried to say she loved the Pledge yet exposed herself as someone who doesn't know a thing about its history.

Ahistorical or not, it is never bad politics to defend the pledge. No one gives a shit if her answers were historically correct anyway. Congratulations on your superior knowledge, but there is a reason she's a VP candidate and you're an anonymous blog commenter.; 8/31/08, 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: don't spin it.

Dude, seriously. Give it a rest. You aren't good. The spinner here is you, trying to drum up a scandal with a lame, sorry explanation about a quote.

If I were a Governor

Don't worry, dude. You'll never be a governor. You simply don't have the rhetorical skills.

since she comes down on the side of the religious right on that issue despite doing so in ignorance, you'll back it!

Anyone who knows anything about me knows that I do not identify with the religious right in any way whatsoever. Talk about someone faking it in stupidity and ignorance. What a silly cunt you are. I mean, really.; 8/31/08, 7:24 PM
EnigmatiCore said...: I think that what this campaign needs right now is a debate over the Pledge of Allegiance, and how the founding fathers would have reacted to the mention of God in it.

I certainly that this debate would benefit Barack Obama. Don't you?; 8/31/08, 7:26 PM
Unknown said...: Oh no, she didn't know that "Under God" was added in the 50's! I'd be embarrassed for her if I didn't know it either until I was well past my 30th birthday. I mean, I'd like to think I'm a smart feller, having earned a Ph.D., can locate the 50 states and most countries on a map, etc. etc. So when I l'arned that little fact it was one of those shake-your-head "well I'll be damned" moments.

I don't like trotting out my credentials here but I do so now only to point out that smart people can be stupid sometimes. I mean, hell, Obama proves that point frequently.

So you know, I think most reasonable people, even those that wouldn't vote for Palin for other reasons, don't give a rats ass about this little crusade you've been on the last few posts, LoafingOaf.; 8/31/08, 7:29 PM
Unknown said...: LoafingOaf, you're the one who trotted onto this thread to announce that McCain had only met Palin once. After all you read it on Sullivan's blog. Who's the real idiot?

I suppose you believed him when he said that she named her kids for characters in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, too.; 8/31/08, 7:31 PM
Anonymous said...: mcg -- You mean to tell me that the people in all 57 states didn't say "under God" until the 50s.

Next you'll tell me that the Pledge was written by a hardcore socialist.; 8/31/08, 7:32 PM
LoafingOaf said...: seven: Governor Palin was asked about whether she supports "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance" (a high profile issue at the time), and her answer was that if it was good enough for our founding fathers it's good enough for her.

She reveals:

1. She didn't know that the Pledge she claims to love so much wasn't written till the late 1800s.

2. She didn't know that the Pledge she claims to love so much didn't have "under God" added till the 1950s.

3. She doesn't care at all about the First Amendment issue in the context of public school children, even though the 9th Circuit thinks there is a First Amendment violation there.

We don't have much to go on with Sarah Palin. Very likable person, but is she ready for the Vice Presidency? I'll decide that during her debates with Biden. Those who think I dislike her are just wrong. I've already posted on this blog that I teared up when I wached her speech the other day.
But now it is days later and I wanna find out more about her. She's asking me to accept her as a potential Commander in Chief should anything happen to McCain. I was very troubled to learn she is a VP candidate yet hasn't given any thought to Iraq policy. The idea that someone who is cramming on the major foreign policy issues the weekend before the GOP convention should potentially be Leader of the Free World makes me pause. With that said, I suspect most of our politicians at the national level are just faking their way into seeming credible. The Dems 4 years ago put Edwards forth as their VP and he was a complete fraud. But then Bush was a fraud as well, who just happened to have the right last name. Maybe our presidential elections in general have turned into one big joke. I dunno.; 8/31/08, 7:33 PM
Randy said...: LoafingOaf, as you admit to being lazy, at this point one has to wonder who provided you with your list of talking points for the day.; 8/31/08, 7:38 PM
LoafingOaf said...: Oh no, she didn't know that "Under God" was added in the 50's! I'd be embarrassed for her if I didn't know it either until I was well past my 30th birthday. I mean, I'd like to think I'm a smart feller, having earned a Ph.D., can locate the 50 states and most countries on a map, etc. etc. So when I l'arned that little fact it was one of those shake-your-head "well I'll be damned" moments.

When she was asked this question it was one of the hot issues of the day. If she's gonna speak so forcefully about it, you'd think she'd do some research.

Hey, I just happened to know when "under God" was added. But if I were in government and had a duty to know what I'm talking about on the issues of the day, I wouldn't just talk out of my ass as she did. She's the one who went into politics and she's the one who wants to be VP and potentially the President. She has a duty to know what she's talking about on the issues of the day. If I go to work and don't know what I'm talking about on something my boss expects me to know something about, I'm gonna be in big doo-doo.; 8/31/08, 7:40 PM
Gahrie said...: I bet Gov. Palin knows how many states there are, and what the meaning of the word "is" is.; 8/31/08, 7:40 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: Of course. Excitable Andy is a left-wing ideologue.; 8/31/08, 7:47 PM
somefeller said...: Hmm, I see Seven Machos is quite garrulous in his responses to Loafing Oaf, but mysteriously dropped the conversation when I pointed out his insult to me may have been the result of a pretty major lack of reading comprehension on his part. Funny how that works.; 8/31/08, 7:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Somefeller -- Don't kid yourself. I didn't respond because you didn't say anything worth responding to. You still haven't.; 8/31/08, 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Oaf -- You aren't voting for McCain/Palin, so why should either person give a single solitary fraction of a shit what you think?; 8/31/08, 7:53 PM
Simon said...: Randy said...
"If Obama spends so much time thinking before deciding, I'd sure appreciate a believable explanation as to how he could spend half this year campaigning AGAINST the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and then vote FOR it when it came to a vote in the United States Senate."

Come on. That's easy. He was running in the primary for that half a year, but he was running in the general by the time it came to the vote.

Maguro said...
"Ahistorical or not, it is never bad politics to defend the pledge. No one gives a shit if her answers were historically correct anyway."

Well, lots of people do, but they're all liberal who are already locks for Obama.; 8/31/08, 7:54 PM
blake said...: Loaf,

A lot of factors put Obama to the top in his party, and amongst them was his substantive position on the major issue, the Iraq War

Which he got badly, badly wrong.

Scott Adams has a great piece on ignorance.

One thing you're mistaken about--and 1jpb has been using the same line (over and over again)--is that everyone jumped on the Palin wagon without knowing anything about her. It's just not true. I seem to recall her name first coming up about six months ago.

I've seen a lot more about Palin than in the past six months, say, Pawlenty, who was the "safe" choice. Is it partly because she's a red-state fantasy wife, both cute and capable? Sure. But, so what?; 8/31/08, 7:59 PM
somefeller said...: Somefeller -- Don't kid yourself. I didn't respond because you didn't say anything worth responding to. You still haven't.

That's the best you can come up with? You start firing off insults to me based on a major misreading of my comment to someone else, I point that out (and offer an apology if I misread you, which now it's obvious I didn't), and now you're claiming there's nothing to respond to? Pathetic.

Your schtick is obvious. Lose a debate, but declare victory and talk about how others don't have anything to say, lack rhetorical skills, etc. A one trick pony and moron, in other words.; 8/31/08, 8:02 PM
blake said...: Also, I don't get the significance of this:

3. She doesn't care at all about the First Amendment issue in the context of public school children, even though the 9th Circuit thinks there is a First Amendment violation there.

So, she's supposed to care about a First Amendment issue because the 9th Circuit thinks there is one?

LO, you do realize that she's a conservative, right? And that disagreeing or disregarding the 9th is pretty much required?; 8/31/08, 8:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Somefeller -- Just because you apologized to me does not mean I am going to apologize to you. Sorry. ;0; 8/31/08, 8:06 PM
somefeller said...: Somefeller -- Just because you apologized to me does not mean I am going to apologize to you. Sorry. ;0

Are you looking forward to middle school this fall, Seven? Or am I once again giving you too much credit?; 8/31/08, 8:11 PM
LoafingOaf said...: seven, I actually might vote for McCain.

I know this might be hard for some of you to believe, but some of us are torn. I see good things about Obama and good things about McCain. I will decide at some point, but either one can win my vote. I've been waiting for the debates to decide. But to tell you the truth, I think it's gonna be a tough call on election day. I think we should finish the job in Iraq, and I trust McCain to do that more than Obama. I think we have a moral obligation to finish it and leave something better there. But I also think the Iraq war was executed very incompetently and if I had known what I know now I wouldn't have supported invading. And I feel that Obama could make more of the world feel posititve about America (something I think is important). I also don't think Obama would be as left wing a Commander in Chief as some fear, but I'm not entirely sure about that. He used to talk tough about Iran, but then he went soft. I need to see the debates.

And I need to see how Palin fairs after she's been fully vetted by the press and goes head to head with Biden.; 8/31/08, 8:11 PM
blake said...: Hey, am I nuts here, or is Palin a WAY bigger lightning rod than even Obama, his own self?

I don't ever recall such an unending stream of 200+ threads.

Of course, maybe it's just all concentrated and it'll stop in a couple days.; 8/31/08, 8:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Somefeller, you need to chill out. You said that you were joking in the first place and took me to task because you thought I was all angry or something. Then, you heroically apologized for something, I'm not sure what, and since then you've posted with condescending anger.

But, yeah, I'm the bad guy. Okay.; 8/31/08, 8:18 PM
somefeller said...: Not anger on my part, Seven Machos, but definite condescension. Heaven knows you've earned it.; 8/31/08, 8:27 PM
Unknown said...: And I need to see how Palin fairs after she's been fully vetted by the press and goes head to head with Biden.

Now that is fair. Look, Paul Begala of all people made a good point. Obama may be inexperienced (hell, he is inexperienced), but 18 million people have apparently listened to his schtick for the past couple years and decided he's got what it takes. Palin hasn't had that level of vetting. Many of us have been watching her for awhile now, but 'taint nowhere near 18 million.

So her performance in the next 60-some-odd days is pretty darn important. She's gonna have to get out there and demonstrate some real competence on the important issues surrounding the election. She's gonna have to answer some of the bigger concerns people have already raised. She's gonna have to demonstrate the ability to handle the more ludicrous charges and other crap thrown her way. And she's gonna have to clean Biden's clock in the debate. That's the least of my worries, frankly.

I still think you're going down a pretty stupid road on this pledge thing. But I do agree that it is entirely fair for people who don't yet know much about her to want to know a lot more before they decide whether or not to pull the lever for her.; 8/31/08, 8:55 PM
JAL said...: What's with all this "fulling vetted" for Palin cr*p?

I am still waiting for the press to "fully vet" Barack Obama.

The blogs and the media (Alan Combs comes to mind) are prying into stuff which is not only not any of their business, but things that are totally irrelevant. (OOOooohhh!! Did she and hubby sleep together before they got married!??!!!!! Oooohhhh!!!) (But no one gave a rat's ass about whether Bill Clinton was doing any of those women in office.)

How about the legacy / mainstream media going through Barack's records with a fine tooth comb? The MSM wants to know stuff about a VP candidate they haven't got the guts or heart to do on Barack Obama.

Dissect the CAC records, ask why there are minimal records of his state position, get a real medical report, not a single piece of paper.... Well, I'll stop. No sense talking to rocks. They're not listening to the pulse of much of America anyway. They are too busy laughing in the newsrooms at us. (Thanks Eleanor, for that update.)

This I do know ... Sarah Palin can string coherent sentences together without a single "err, uuuhhh..., uummmm," or pause. Without a teleprompter she can answer questions. So much for the eloquent and great orator.

But you know what. Obama isn't running against Palin --- Oh. Wait ... maybe he is.

Why don't the folks in the media vet HIM.; 8/31/08, 9:26 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: A lot of the right wing commenters just needed to know she was hot, she hunted, she wore fur, and she was a family values, pro-life Christian.

We also learned that she, with her husband, raised a son who joined the military to serve in Iraq. That speaks volumes about the values she lives. That alone makes me trust her more than Obama for CIC.; 8/31/08, 9:43 PM
rcocean said...: I love it:

-Former Marijuana Smoker and draft dodger Bill Clinton

-Former actor and sportscaster Ronald Reagan

-Former failed hat salesman Harry Truman

-Former surveyor and land speculator George Washington

-Former Cowboy and bird collector Theodore Roosevelt.; 8/31/08, 11:00 PM
former law student said...: ``It was hell,'' says former child.

They're all a bunch of former bedwetters. In fact, I hear that they all enjoyed it when grown women changed their diapers and powdered their butts -- sickening.

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a t...

As many blog posters might be able to relate to, the Obamaguy was wound way too tight. ("I can't go to sleep yet. Somebody on the Internet is WRONG!") Obama himself was quite gracious.

I would rather have an intelligent, inexperienced president who knows what she doesn't know,

Nah, we've already had eight years of that -- we can do a lot better. Presidents like that give too much credit to the advice of the Cheneys and Rummys.

how he could spend half this year campaigning AGAINST the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and then vote FOR it when it came to a vote in the United States Senate.

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.; 8/31/08, 11:01 PM
Mark said...: LoafingOaf said...

The troubling reality is that Palin is spending her Labor Day weekend cramming up on major issues she's never given much thought to - such as Iraq policy - days before the convention. Obama didn't have to do that.

Well, another troubling reality is that Obama's campaign (you know, the one that supposedly shows how well he'd perform as President) was caught totally flat footed by the Palin selection, and managed to release maybe the worst possible reaction when it was announced. (Wouldn't having all the potential oppo VP candidates researched, with canned talking points ready for disbursement when a choice was made, been of some tactical value? Oh, that's right, Obama's campaign is about changey hopefulness, and call-in DOS attacks on radio shows, not the old politics-as-usual.)

McCain, on the other hand, has been brutally efficient at turning every Obama high point and low point into a McCain talking point.

I know which team I want looking into Putin's eye.; 8/31/08, 11:51 PM