ID:48753
 
Keywords: politics
Since I am currently intending to vote for McCain, and have spent time trashing Obama for both his positions and approach to this campaign (not without getting a lick in at McCain here and there), I wanted to step back and discuss the biggest things that bother me about McCain policy- and campaign-wise.

On the policy side: While McCain has free trade and market-based instincts, nothing has set my teeth more on edge than him going on about oil speculators:

"There's a certain speculator effect here; how big that is is impossible for me to judge,'' McCain said in an interview on Bloomberg television today. "There should be a thorough investigation.''


This is a very basic misunderstanding of economics (or if he actually understands it, a very disappointing pander to the public's misunderstanding). "Speculators" are just investors...if they believe the price of something will go up, they buy now so they can sell later. That's all.

Speculators can indeed cause the price today to rise...but, in a way, that's their job, because if prices are indeed going to go up in the future, then by investing based on that, they cause prices to go up some now, spreading out the distribution of prices over time and, most importantly, encouraging us to change our behavior now, before we actually have expensive oil or a shortage.

Speculators may make money, even big money...but also, all the time, they lose their shirts when they are wrong. Those same oil speculators are probably in a world of hurt now, given that oil prices have been dropping for months. Notice that government is not going to step in and keep them from losing money when they are wrong, so government shouldn't step in and keep them from making money when they are right.

Similarly, and conveniently covered in the same article, there is this obsession with "independence from foreign oil":

"There's a finite supply of oil in the world that's controlled by cartels,'' McCain said. "The lesson here is not so much to beat up on them, the lesson is to lower our dependence on foreign oil.''


Let's just be clear on this...there is no such thing as oil independence. Doesn't exist, will never exist. Oil is fungible. This means that oil producers dump oil onto the market, and the market delivers the oil to people willing to pay for it. There is no real connection between the producer and the consumer...and if Consumer A says, "I'm not buying oil from you anymore!" then the oil automatically goes to the next highest bidder, Consumer B, who may now buy more because it's cheaper since Consumer A isn't driving up the price.

If Consumer A gets oil by digging it out of his backyard (probably at a much higher cost to himself), then by doing so he reduces the overall price of oil a bit, for a short time, but he doesn't keep the oil from being sold by foreign nations or profits from going to the foreign producer.

In almost all cases, anyway, actual consumers are going to buy pretty much the cheapest oil available to them. If the US digs up some oil but charges more for it (which they would almost have to, if they are selling it to the limited audience of the US), then consumers will buy someone else's oil because it's cheaper. So the net effect on foreign countries of us drilling our own oil (which I'm totally in support of, by the way) is basically nil -- at most, very small and temporary.

Probably the simplest way to conceptualize it is this: There's a big pool of oil out there that we all draw from. Various people pour oil into the pool, and the size of the pool goes up and down based on who is pouring how much into it. But when you go to suck some oil out of the pool, it's just a big pool -- you don't know where this particular jot of oil came from, you are just going to suck it out in the most convenient, cheapest way you can.

Here's how Dilbert puts it:



And, just to try and keep things mixed up, here is one opposing view and several opposing views here.

All that said, I totally support the US drilling for all the oil we can, since it will reduce overall prices some and since it's a bit hypocritical to tell other countries they aren't allowed to limit the supply of their own oil to us when we won't drill our own.

Those are the two things that stand out most for me on the policy side right now, in part because if we continue down the road of restricting short selling and other measures to "stop speculators", and if in an attempt to have "oil independence" we pass wacky laws to keep out "foreign oil", we may well run our economy even further into the ground.

On the campaign side, they have completely mis-managed their greatest asset, Sarah Palin. First, by introducing her with an emphasis on the wrong items and in ways that neutralized what the items they did trot out.

First, on what they did: The "Bridge to Nowhere" was totally in their favor, if they'd marketed it differently. Palin should have said up front that she'd once supported the bridge, but when she got the power to change things and she realized the problems, she changed the policy, unlike Obama and Biden, who insisted on the bridge to the end. By not adding an extra sentence or two to flesh this out, they lost the issue (though perhaps, given how lightly Obama claims are vetted by the press, they just didn't expect what would happen).

Similarly, on the whole earmarks thing...Palin cut earmarks by some 35% from the previous Alaska administration, but because they painted her as totally anti-earmark, they again lost the issue even though it's in their favor. Palin made substantial cuts to earmarks with plans to continue reducing them. But the campaign made it black and white, allowing the press to simply paint her as a hypocrite because she was still involved in earmarks.

What I'm really annoyed about, though, is what hasn't been presented at all, the most impressive thing about Palin:

When faced with a corrupt party machine run by her own party, Palin exposed and fought that corruption, against huge odds. No one disagrees with this, because it's black and white, but no one in the country knows about it because, for some reason, the campaign didn't introduce her with this as a main item.

Contrast this with Obama: When faced with a corrupt party machine run by his own party, he...joined the machine. He never fought any corruption or corrupt politicians in Chicago, and actively supported corrupt Chicago politicians after he became a US Senator. While he didn't engage in some of the worst tactics (though he did engage in some pretty nasty politics to get his opponents thrown off the ballot), he nurtured the support of the corrupt establishment to further his career.

This difference should have been a cornerstone of the introduction to Palin, yet it wasn't. It's infuriating.

Next is how they responded to stupid sexist attacks on Palin. She should have laughed off the "lipstick on a pig" stuff and just made fun of Obama for saying it, without taking offense. They should not have done commercials demanding apologies -- they should have laughed, poked back at him, and moved on. This is a party and particular politicians who don't believe in all the victimhood crap, and they shouldn't have stooped to it. Responding light-heartedly for various items would have made Palin much more bullet-proof, and would fit in with her real personality.

Finally, they shouldn't have put her on major network interviews where she would be singled out in a way no other politician has been in this race and where she would be easily tripped up. They should have put her on radio shows with sympathetic hosts to let her get her grounding and to get her message out to the base (which is what mattered), then worked up to major interviews.

In those major interviews, they shouldn't have crammed her full of half-remembered facts that she would inevitable stumble on. She should have been honest about what she didn't know, have a couple of fallback lines for how she would address her areas of ignorance, then steered the interview to things she does know -- when asked about various policies, she should have talked about how she addressed them in Alaska, not tried to provide a national or international perspective on them.

Palin's lack of national and international knowledge and experience is a weakness and they just have to accept that; her very successful history in Alaska fighting corruption and (at the state level at least) reducing earmarks and spending and governing as the most popular governor in the country are her strengths, and it's the campaign's job to let her strengths shine.

Handling Palin correctly may end up being the difference between winning and losing. They can still fix it to some degree, and I hope we see a real Palin at the debate this week.

A final nail in the "biased media" coffin...remember when Charles Gibson interviewed an inexperienced VP pick with no international experience and little knowledge of national issues, someone whom the country should want to know and come to trust as being strong on the issues? Here are the questions he asked John Edwards that day in 2004:

1. Senator Edwards, they went at you hammer and tong last night from the podium here at this Republican Convention, saying the fundamental security of this country was at stake in this election, questioning John Kerry's ability to be commander in chief. I wonder how you felt as you listened.

2. Did it make you in any way second-guess the decision at the Democratic Convention not to mention George Bush from the podium so often, not to engage as directly?

3. You have used this line about two Americas and they have turned that from the podium night after night after night, saying, A, that there aren't two Americas, and, B, that what's really there are two of, two John Kerrys. And they get into this theme about John Kerry's conflicting votes on various issues. How are you going to answer that?

4. This crowd was chanting "flip-flop" last night. It is this elemental issue that they're trying to make that there are two John Kerrys, citing his conflicting votes on a number of issues.

5. You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn't they make you mad last night?

6. Did you get mad, though?

John Edwards, good to talk to you. Thanks very much.


And here are the questions he asked Palin four years later:

1. Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you. And it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say, I have the experience, and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?

2. When McCain asked you to take the spot on the ticket, for a moment, did you think no?

3. And you didn't say to yourself, am I experienced enough? Am I ready?

4. Doesn't that take some hubris?

5. But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage, in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact you have command of the Alaskan National Guard and Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

6. National security is a whole lot more than energy.

7. Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

8. Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

9. Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

10. Let's start, because we are near Russia. Let's start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said, we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

11. You favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?

12. Under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

13. Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

14. So, what should we do about a nuclear Iran?

15. What if Israel decided it felt threatened and need to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

16. So if we didn't second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree with that?

17. So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

18. We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

19. Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

20. The Bush -- well, what do you interpret it to be?

21. No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

22. The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?

23. Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

24. But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

25. And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes, that you think we have the right to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? To go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

[He then gets into misquoting her on religion, but I'll keep this to the policy stuff.]


Interesting difference, eh? Now I should say, I think the questions Gibson asked Palin are very good questions, and except when he misquoted her and for how they edited out her more moderate responses, this is the way interviews of candidates should be done. It's too bad he didn't feel the need to get into depth with John Edwards, who was if anything less experienced than Palin.

But perhaps he treated the top of the ticket differently? I don't want to make this post even longer, but check out the full interview with Obama here, or get a summary here.
Pitbull with lipstick = Not sexist
Pig with lipstick = sexist

Got it Deadron!

Also, saying that Palin is being unfairly picked on is ludicrous. If anything happens to John, she will be leader of the free world. Since she lacks the knowledge that everyone (Even that "super-inexperienced" Obama) else knows, why is it not a negative that she doesn't know much about anything?


For F---s sake, she can only name one supreme court case, and she may very well be appointing judges... It is sad that I, being just your average Freshman in college, knows more about how federal government works than she does.
Venom Development wrote:
Pitbull with lipstick = Not sexist
Pig with lipstick = sexist

Got it Deadron!


Well, yes, culturally that's correct. In our culture, a pitbull has the positive connotation as an animal that grabs onto something and won't let go. A pig has very negative connotations when applied to a person, especially a woman. If you can find anything that proves that interpretation wrong in our culture, feel free to point to it. (I recommend calling a girlfriend/boyfriend each name and seeing which one gets you punched.)

In either case, as I said, they should have laughed it off. It wasn't important.


Also, saying that Palin is being unfairly picked on is ludicrous. If anything happens to John, she will be leader of the free world. Since she lacks the knowledge that everyone (Even that "super-inexperienced" Obama) else knows, why is it not a negative that she doesn't know much about anything?

I said her lack of knowledge is a negative:

Palin's lack of national and international knowledge and experience is a weakness and they just have to accept that

And that it's fair to ask her those questions:

I think the questions Gibson asked Palin are very good questions

What was your point again? That the other candidates shouldn't be asked those questions?

(I don't mind debating these things, but do try to read and understand what I actually wrote, not what you would like me to have written so you can tear it down.)
Very good points about McCain's strategy (or lack thereof). Two points. 1) The Republicans paint EVERYTHING in black and white post-Rove. It is a key part of their strategy. Those who oppose them are terrorist supporters, hate religion, unpatriotic, etc. Trying to take a more nuanced stance confuses the base who wants to know that they are supporting a white knight war hero chosen by God. 2) Pointing out that Palin stood up to a corrupt Republican machine would acknowledge Republican corruption, which can't exist (see #1). Also, it might reinforce the view that voters have of Republicans from the corrupt Bush Republican administration, the corrupt House Republicans under DeLay, etc. And people might ask why she was part of a corrupt Alaskan congressman's instrumentalities (director of Steven's PAC).

McCain did try to link Obama to corrupt Chicago politics. The problem is, there wasn't much corruption he could actually be linked to other than innuendo. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ guilt_and_associations.html
I'm really not getting this political debate over who to vote for. It's obvious: vote obama, because if there's another conservative american president, every human being on the entire planet is screwed. Voting right-wing is basically specicide.

One last chance: it's that simple.
I love it when White males define what is racist/sexist... When Hillary ran, we got all of the Conservatives accusing her of playing the gender card, but now that Precious little Sarah is in the race, gee golly, you have to go super easy on her or you are a dirty dirty sexist.


T-minus 2 days before we get a "Biden was sexist" post about the debates.
Venom Development wrote:
now that Precious little Sarah is in the race, gee golly, you have to go super easy on her or you are a dirty dirty sexist.

Who said that? Certainly not me.

Or are you objecting to the part where I said it's fair to ask her tough questions? Or that the sexism stuff wasn't important and should be mostly ignored?

I really can't figure out what you are talking about -- do you frequently argue with what people didn't actually say?
Deadron wrote:
do you frequently argue with what people didn't actually say?

I find it's easier to win that way ;-P
Jmurph wrote:
I find it's easier to win that way ;-P

I have to admit I'm flummoxed...I make a post where I criticize the McCain campaign for engaging with the sexism crap instead of ignoring it --

They should not have done commercials demanding apologies -- they should have laughed, poked back at him, and moved on. This is a party and particular politicians who don't believe in all the victimhood crap, and they shouldn't have stooped to it.

And I'm accused of engaging in victimhood?

Honesty, I don't get it.

I'll try not to take it too seriously -- I have to assume it's a case of the person in question not really reading the posts, and just responding to what the image they have of me would have said, instead of what I actually said.

It does seem odd to trash people for having the same point of view you do on a subject, though.
Deadron wrote:

Finally, they shouldn't have put her on major network interviews where she would be singled out in a way no other politician has been in this race and where she would be easily tripped up.

Thats not engaging in victimhood? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Politics, silly.

Double standards, even sillier.
Venom Development wrote:
Finally, they shouldn't have put her on major network interviews where she would be singled out in a way no other politician has been in this race and where she would be easily tripped up.

Thats not engaging in victimhood? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

As I documented, and have documented repeatedly, Palin has been treated differently and I think that's unfortunate.

As I indicate in this post, not because the treatment of her (outside of the conspiracy theories and focus on things having nothing to do with her candidacy) is unfair, but because the Democratic candidates are not treated to the same probing questions, as shown by those Charlie Gibson interviews.

Do you disagree with me that the Democrats should be treated just as tough as Sarah Palin?

And, again as I said in this post, Palin's response should not be to play the victim, but to ignore the silly stuff and adjust her strategy to accommodate reality.

Now that I've made this clear, you agree that I am not calling for Palin to be treated with kid gloves, right?

If not, a free membership or membership extension to you or anyone who can point to any time I've said Sarah should be treated with kid gloves.

(Hint: Probably won't work to use a post where I call the questioning of Palin "very good" and say "this is the way interviews of candidates should be done" and encourage her not to engage in "victimhood"...)
Yep, she is getting nailed with such hard interviews such as:

HH: Governor Sarah Palin, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show. Great to have you.

SP: Hey, thank you so much. Nice to hear your voice.

HH: Governor, your candidacy has ignited extreme hostility, even some hatred on the left and in some parts of the media. Are you surprised? And what do you attribute this reaction to?

SP: Oh, I think theyíre just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? Itís time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that thatís kind of taken some people off guard, and theyíre out of sorts, and theyíre ticked off about it, but itís motivation for John McCain and I to work that much harder to make sure that our ticket is victorious, and we put government back on the side of the people of Joe six-pack like me, and we start doing those things that are expected of our government, and we get rid of corruption, and we commit to the reform that is not only desired, but is deserved by Americans.

HH: Now Governor, the Gibson and the Couric interview struck many as sort of pop quizzes designed to embarrass you as opposed to interviews. Do you share that opinion?

SP: Well, I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago. But Iím not going to pick a fight with those who buy ink by the barrelful. Iím going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say thatís okay, those are good testing grounds. And they can continue on in that mode. Thatís good. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really I donít fight it. I invite it.

HH: Have you followed the attacks on you, say, via Drudge or the blogs? Some of them are just made up and out of left field, others are just mocking. Do you follow those?

SP: No, I sure donít, and thank God I donít have time to follow those. You know, I think that those shots, too, though, no matter what weíre taking and receiving, itís nothing compared to what real shots are against Americans in this world. Americans today who are worried about losing their home and figuring out how in the world theyíre going to pay their fuel bill next month, and send their kid to college, and may be worried about losing a loved one that theyíre sending off to a war zone to protect our rights. Those are the shots that Americans are taking, so all this political nonsense and the lies, the rhetoric that is spun out there about someone just trying to offer themselves up in the name of service to this great country, Iíll take it.

HH: Governor, you mentioned the people who are struggling right now. Have you and your husband, Todd, ever faced tough economic times where you had to sit around a kitchen table and make tough choices?

SP: Oh my goodness, yes, Hugh. I know what Americans are going through. Todd and I, heck, weíre going through that right now even as we speak, which may put me again kind of on the outs of those Washington elite who donít like the idea of just an everyday working class American running for such an office. But yeah, thereís been a lot of times that Todd and I have had to figure out how we were going to pay for health insurance. Weíve gone through periods of our life here with paying out of pocket for health coverage until Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs. Early on in our marriage, we didnít have health insurance, and we had to either make the choice of paying out of pocket for catastrophic coverage or just crossing our fingers, hoping that nobody would get hurt, nobody would get sick. So I know what Americans are going through there. And you know, even today, Todd and I are looking at whatís going on in the stock market, the relatively low number of investments that we have, looking at the hit that weíre taking, probably $20,000 dollars last week in his 401K plan that was hit. Iím thinking geez, the rest of America, theyíre facing the exact same thing that we are. We understand what the problems are. Itís why I have all the faith in the world that John McCain is the right top of any ticket at this point to get us through these challenges. Itís a good balanced ticket where heís got the experience, and heís got the bipartisan approach that itís going to take to get us through these challenges. And I have the acknowledgement and the experience of going through what America is going through.

HH: Governor, when you say things are tight right now, is that simply because of Todd being off not working? Or is it because of extraordinary demands on the fiscal resources of the Palin family? Whatís the situation there?

SP: No, itís just the great financial crisis that America is in as our savings accounts also, and a 401K, theyíre being hit.

HH: Sure.

SP: Our stocks, you know, they took a hit yesterday. And then of course, just the same thing that other Americans are asking themselves today. Weíve got three teenagers. How are we going to pay for their college education? How are we going to make sure that weíre investing wisely today. Weíre putting a lot of faith in other people who are using our money as investments. We have to count on the federal government to be overseeing these agencies and entities, making sure that weíre not going to get screwed on this deal, and that our savings are safe. So there again, John McCainís got some great ideas on granting authority, for instance, to the FDIC, making sure that our deposits are insured. He wants to increase that deposit insurance cap of all of our money, our savings, from $100,000 dollars up to $250,000 dollars, so that families like mine, so that we donít have to worry about our money being safe or not under FDIC.

HH: Governor, letís turn to a couple of issues that the MSMís not going to pick up. Youíre pro-life, and how much of the virulent opposition to you on the left do you attribute to your pro-life position, and maybe even to the birth of, your decision, your and Toddís decision to have Trig?

SP: Yeah, you know, I think that thatís been probably the most hurtful and nonsensical slap that weíve been taking is our position that we have taken, pro-life, me personally, and saying that you know, even though I knew that 13 weeks along that Trig would be born with Down Syndrome, and I said you know, heís still going to be a most precious ingredient in this sometimes messed-up world that we live in. I know that my son is going to provide a lot of hope and a lot of promise in this world, and Iím so thankful of course that Iíve had the opportunity to give him life and to bring him into this world. But I think yeah truly, that thatís been a hurtful slap that we have taken, because people just donít understand. Ironic too, Hugh, that some would consider my position on life and trying to usher in a culture of life, respecting the sanctity of life in America, that that is seen as an extreme position when to me, an extreme position is one that Barack Obama took when he was in the Illinois State Senate, not even supporting a measure that would ban partial birth abortion, not even supporting a measure that would during, after a botched abortion and that babyís born alive, allowing medical care to cease and allowing that baby to die. That to me is extreme. Thatís so far, far left itís certainly out of the mainstream of America. To me, that is the extreme position, not my position of just wanting that culture of life to be respected, and not wanting government to sanction the idea of ending life.

HH: Do you think the mainstream media and the left understands your religious faith, Governor Palin?

SP: I think that thereís a lot of mocking of my personal faith, and my personal faith is very, very simple. I donít belong to any church. I do have a strong belief in God, and I believe that Iím a heck of a lot better off putting my life in Godís hands, and saying hey, you know, guide me. What else do we have but guidance that we would seek from a Creator? Thatís about as simple as it gets with my faith, and I think that there is a lot of mocking of that. And you know, so bet it, though I do have respect for those who have differing views than I do on faith, on religion. Iím not going to mock them, and I would hope that they would kind of I guess give me the same courtesy through this of not mocking a personís faith, but maybe perhaps even trying to understand a little bit of it.

HH: Governor, letís close with some foreign affairs. It is reported that you had an Israeli flag in your governorís office. You wore an Israeli flag pin occasionally. One, is that true? And two, why your support for Israel?

SP: Well, it is true, and I ran into Shimon Peres recently at a meeting, and he even pointed that out. He said I saw a picture of you on the internet, and you had an Israeli flag in your state government office, and I said I sure do. You know, my heart is with you. And all of those trials and tribulations throughout history that Israel has gone through, not only does that allow me to want to support that country, but Israel is our strongest and most important ally in the Middle East. And they are a democratic country who I believe deserves our support, and I know that John McCain believes as I do that Israel is our friend, and we need to be there to support them. They are there for us, and I do love that country.

HH: Last question, Governor. Have you and Todd heard from your son? And how is it on your nerves having your son deployed?

SP: That little stinker, I guess heís called his girlfriend a couple of times, but can you believe he hasnít called his momma yet? Heís over there. They were just leaving Kuwait heading into Iraq, and I am just so extremely proud of Track, my son, and all of the men and women, of course, serving in the military. Iím proud that my son made this independent and very wise decision as such a young man at 18, deciding you know, he realized thereís something he can do to help, to contribute, to help protect our nation, and I couldnít be more proud of him and all those who choose to serve in our military. Theyíre serving for the right reasons. God bless them, God love them.

HH: Governor Sarah Palin, look forward to talking to you again, good luck on Thursday night.

SP: Thank you so much. Talk to you soon.

End of interview.
Venom Development wrote:
Yep, she is getting nailed with such hard interviews such as:

Ah good -- finally they are taking control of the situation more and mixing the hardball and softball interviews she does, so she has some chance of balanced treatment.

I'd assumed that the pig was McCain's presidential bid and Palin was the lipstick. At the least, that's how I interpreted it.
Jp wrote:
I'd assumed that the pig was McCain's presidential bid and Palin was the lipstick. At the least, that's how I interpreted it.

That is, I believe, what the campaign ended up saying was the intent. Watching the crowd, it's a good guess that's not how they were taking it when laughing.

But...as said, this stuff was silly. The more serious sexism were the claims from the left that Palin was "not a woman", "not human", "only qualified due to not having an abortion", "should be home taking care of her kids", etc.

Deadron wrote:
Jp wrote:
I'd assumed that the pig was McCain's presidential bid and Palin was the lipstick. At the least, that's how I interpreted it.

That is, I believe, what the campaign ended up saying was the intent. Watching the crowd, it's a good guess that's not how they were taking it when laughing.

But...as said, this stuff was silly. The more serious sexism were the claims from the left that Palin was "not a woman", "not human", "only qualified due to not having an abortion", "should be home taking care of her kids", etc.

Nobody said that. Link to a reputable source that have had Democratic officials saying that.
Venom Development wrote:
Nobody said that. Link to a reputable source that have had Democratic officials saying that.

I said "the left", not Democratic officials...but if you insist:

ABC News: ABC News' Teddy Davis, Bret Hovell, and Arnab Datta report: A Democratic Party leader said Wednesday that Sarah Palin's "primary qualification" for the vice presidency is that she has not had an abortion...[Democratic Party chairwoman Carol] Fowler did not dispute the accuracy of the Politico report."

ABC News: Howard Gutman, of Obama's "National Finance Committee": (audio clip with much more here) Your responsibility is to put your family first.

Washington Post column: Sally Quinn: Evangelical women also will have to decide if they will vote against their conscience by voting to put the mother of young children in a job outside the home that will demand so much of her time and energy...She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children.


Washington Post column: Wendy Doniger, Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago's Divinity School: Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage.

YouTube: Fox News: CBC's Heather Mallick: (actual column has been removed, so transcript from this blog, one of many that saw the original): Palin was not a sure choice, not even for the stolidly Republican ladies branch of Citizens for a Tackier America. No, she isn't even female really. She's a type, and she comes in male form too.

I can't find the "not human" quote at the moment, in large part because my search is obscured by Palin hits about abortion and human-caused global warming.

However, I think a very embarrassing quote by a Democratic Party chairwoman, one from an Obama finance guy, a couple of high-profile columnists and a high-profile leftist, will suffice to put this to rest:

Nobody said that.
You got pissy in another post for mentioning the right's slander of Barack, and said it was fine since it wasn't coming from the McCain campaign itself...

Besides, If you don't think that Palin as VP would be detrimental to her family life (especially for the one with downs),then I would hate to see how you grew up.


PS: McCain is going to lose
Venom Development wrote:
You got pissy in another post for mentioning the right's slander of Barack, and said it was fine since it wasn't coming from the McCain campaign itself...

Please link to and quote where I said it was fine. I hate having this non-existent version of myself running around saying things for me, and I'd like to catch him in the act.

Besides, If you don't think that Palin as VP would be detrimental to her family life (especially for the one with downs),then I would hate to see how you grew up.

I like how you change the subject -- I was right, the left (and Democratic leaders) had said those things, so instead you shift to defending what you first claimed "nobody said". And you try to make it something ugly about me. I'm curious, do you think these tactics are useful for convincing anyone your political beliefs are the right way to go?

But I think you are right -- Biden should never have entered Congress while his two kids depended on him as a single parent after the death of their mother and sister in a car accident. Unlike Sarah, he had no spouse to take care of the family while he was working.


PS: McCain is going to lose

There's a good chance of that. In terms of this debate, though, by refusing to honorably accept when you are wrong, by repeatedly attempting to twist things I never said onto me, and by making petulant "waaah!" statements like this, it's clear who has lost here.

Page: 1 2