I talk a lot about the Supreme Court and its cases. While watching Palin late last night, I struggled for several seconds to come up with a Supreme Court case other than Roe I disagreed with. And if I were truly on the spot, maybe I wouldn't have come up with one at all. So why should I, a layman Supreme Court geek, hold it against Palin that she couldn't name one off the cuff?
I think my understanding of the Court -- which is much greater than most Americans -- is sufficient for anyone running for President or Vice President. So who cares?
I eventually came up with the recent "no executions for child rapists" case, only because I'd seen an article about it earlier in the day (the Court had just refused to hear a new case on the same subject). But why is it that I couldn't come up with the Kelo case, which I've read in its entirety, and have strongly disagreed with, and have written about, and have discussed many times?
It's how my brain works. Ask me my opinion on a specific case I disliked, and I can rattle it off, including the reasons why, and maybe even making specific references to the decisions, including who wrote which ones, who voted which way, and so on. But ask me to come up with some arbitrary decision I disagree with, and I'll struggle, because that is not how my brain catalogues things. I don't store them in "agree" and "disagree" folders in my mind. I imagine most people don't, including Palin.
The dumbest thing, though, is that people are attacking her for favoring a right to privacy, but being against Roe v. Wade (which is the same position I have, though I disagree with Palin, and many others, that abortion should be handled in the states). There are many reasons to be against Roe, and "privacy" is only one of them: most opponents of Roe would say that whether or not there is a right to privacy is irrelevant, since the question of the rights of the life in the womb isn't a question of privacy.
Joe Klein on CNN, incredibly and idiotically, said that she would be "drummed out of the Federalist Society" (were she in it) just for saying that. Now, this only shows that I know more than Joe Klein, because I distinctly remember that our current Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito both said during their recent hearings that they believe in a right to privacy, and they were both members of the Federalist Society.
I know this, and yet I couldn't easily, without thinking significantly about it, name a decision I disagreed with.
Biden was able to do so, because it was a case he actively worked on as part of his senatorial duties. Plus, he's a big nerd. But none of this reflects poorly on Palin in any way, it just shows she that she is not actively thinking about what cases she disagrees with.
Joe Klein and most other people complaining about this are being really stupid, and not merely because they don't understand the modern opposition to Roe, but because they do not understand that it means nothing of significance that she couldn't name a case she disagrees with off the top of her head.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at October 02, 2008 09:05 AM | Email ThisIt seems like her standard strategy for a question she doesn't want to or can't answer is to either babble semi-incoherently or totally change the subject. I expect we will see a lot of the latter tonight. If she does much of the former, its game over.
Posted by: wayne on October 2, 2008 09:32 AMNo worse than Obama's.
Duffman: OK, I was just confused.
Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2008 09:39 AMIt absolutely reflects poorly on Palin. I can certainly give her some credit for being on the spot, but I'm a little concerned that Republicans are starting to make excuses that even they don't quite believe in at this point. She's on the national stage, and she pretty much demonstrated a lack of engagement with national affairs with her answers. Only the most wishful of thinking could turn her into even a marginal vice-presidential candidate.
Now, you may chalk this up to bias, but I can certainly appreciate a good campaigner, speaker and leader, regardless of party. Palin is none of these. I mean, seriously... at this point it is obvious to most people that she is evangelical bait. If McCain wanted a young reformer, he should have picked Bobby Jindal, who would have neatly knocked Biden down a few pegs, and is far better of a policy wonk and debater than Palin could ever hope to be.
Posted by: demo kid on October 2, 2008 09:48 AMIf you are anti-federalist, you believe that states should have decision-making authority.
Palin is anti-federalist. Nothing wrong with that ... except that she doesn't know the definition of the word and doesn't know what she is. (fyi, she's also anti-federalist on other issues, including drilling at ANWR. Again, she believes Alaska should make the decision, not Washington, D.C.).
Posted by: waynew on October 2, 2008 09:53 AMIt absolutely reflects poorly on Palin.
No, in fact, it logically cannot.
And I note that you have not described how it possibly COULD reflect poorly on her, probably because I already decimated the arguments used against her.
She's not alone, many states want to make their own decisions not DC.
Just look at Calif and the EPA.
Your own statement show your lack of info on this.
Posted by: Army medic/Vet on October 2, 2008 09:59 AMwaynew: if by "decide issues" you mean "decide a very limited, defined, and narrow set of issues," then you're right. If you mean "decide any issues it wants," then you are wrong.
It's true that in the 1780s we have Federalists and Anti-Federalists, with the latter wanting a weak central government, and the former wanting a strong federal government. But the "strong federal government" of the 1780s was a very limited and defined one, with very narrow powers.
It is a myth that "Federalist" means, in modern terms, a strong central government. Put another way: today's Democrats make Federalists look like Anti-Federalists.
Read more about The Federalist Society. You're the one apparently confused about meanings here. Palin is a Federalist, as am I, as are most conservative Republicans.
Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2008 10:03 AMI will say the sky is purple because reich-wingers say it's blue.
A better answer would be "dozens- but that's another story."
I've thought about it for 40 minutes and I can't pull a third out of my ear.
Posted by: Andy on October 2, 2008 10:10 AMAlso, it's hard to feel sympathetic toward Palin. Every candidate -- yes, even Obama -- needs to defend their weak spots. She just has so damn many of them.
Posted by: Bruce on October 2, 2008 10:15 AMI think the issue was that she is not yet used ot having a hostile press with a camera in her face. (When you are in the PR business, you quickly realize that even the smartest CEO's, inventors, etc you work with turn into different people when there is a camera in their face, and hte results are almost never pretty.)
I beliver Palin's gaffes are at least based on her wanting to get away from the question when the answers aren't coming to mind. Compare that with Joe Biden who invents answers that are just plain wrong and often downright silly.
If we had a fair press, his recent comments about such issues as FDR and the great depression and the role of coal mines in US energy would be front page news getting the ridicule they deserve.
But since he's a democrat, the press will lightly mention the subject and then roll into the next big attack on how some hurricane or terrorist attack or bridge collapse is is actually all George Bush's fault.
Posted by: Johnny on October 2, 2008 10:33 AMOn the other hand, when Republicans campaign largely on their dissatisfaction with "activist judges", shouldn't they be able to cite a single thing that would be different if their judicial choices were in charge?
Well, she did talk about one, Roe. And yes, if you are here to talk about activist judges you should be prepared with examples, but that doesn't mean you can name those examples off the top of your head.
Also, such examples are not necessarily in cases you disagree with: the dissent in the recent sex discrimination lawsuit -- which was won by conservatives -- was a great example of judicial activism.
Also, it's hard to feel sympathetic toward Palin.
I don't care about feelings. I am talking about facts and opinions here, not feelings.
BTW, as to Raich and the habeas corpus decisions, I have mixed views on Raich. I think Scalia was right that according to precedent on drug cases, the case was correctly decided. This was not the case to throw out the justification for our federal drug laws, even though I agreed with Thomas' dissent about why those drug laws are wrong.
As to habeas corpus, I think the case correctly overturned the MCA/DTA, but I don't think the existing provisions were as far off as the majority did. I think slight changes -- such as ensuring a speedy status determination, and stronger guarantees of the right of appeal -- would have been sufficient, rather than throwing out the whole thing.
The other case she could have been honest about was her likely opposition to Lawrence v. Texas, the case that found a privacy right for gay couples, overturning state anti-sodomy laws. She didn't need to remember the name of the case, just the issue. But, of course, she was not trying to be frank, she was trying to hide her true views.
Posted by: BillL on October 2, 2008 10:38 AMHer larger point is right in line with White and Rehnquist. Are they morons, too? Unqualified to be VP.
No, this does not reflect badly on Palin. It reflects badly on Cunty Couric, with her obvious utter jealousy and disdain for Palin. She seems actually proud of her high school journalist "gotcha" questions. Yet when she interviews Barry and Biden, its everything she can do to not give them a Lewinsky.
The left is outraged because she didn't come up with Gore v Bush, 2000.
Posted by: Dave on October 2, 2008 10:45 AMhttp://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122273224998788261-lMyQjAxMDI4MjMyMDczMzAyWj.html
Here is an interview Taylor Stockdale did on Fox:
http://blip.tv/file/1313773
The book that Stockdale wrote with his wife Sybil, "In Love and War" is a great read and tells the story of the time from his view as a POW and her view as a POW wife working for her husband's release.
Our real heroes are the ones with integrity, principles and live the motto, Duty, Honor, Country.
Thank you Admiral Stockdale for your sacrifice and Taylor Stockdale for reminding us of good men.
Posted by: James D. Kellett on October 2, 2008 10:47 AMSorry but I am starting to think it is time for her to go, this campaign is a sinking ship, McCain needs to throw another Hail Mary.....maybe bring in Romney?
Posted by: Charlie on October 2, 2008 11:01 AMVery poor and reckless pick by McCain, on so many levels. Instead of owning the economic issue and being a source of adult stability, he's having to defend a neophyte in pumps who looks for all the world like a pure pander identity politics pick and a deer in the headlights.
Shame on McCain for this choice, and on her unbridled ambition for accepting it.
.
Posted by: Jorge on October 2, 2008 11:02 AMShe's not running for Supreme Court moron.
Our government has three branches, Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The Executive doesn't make Judicial decisions.
Did you get out of 3rd grade?
Posted by: Cliff on October 2, 2008 11:03 AMFirst off the left sent an armada of journalists and lawyers to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin.
When they didn't find anything they immediately started the "why doesn't she speak to the media, huh? huh? huh?" mantra.
So of course she does talk to the media and they unload rapid fire gotcha questions on her. When she stumbles they attack.
These rotten creeps are beating us like a drum and we don't fight back. My god, McCain last night voted for a pork laden bailout bill. He should have stood up and publicly listed every bit of pork on the bill and then named the Democrat crooks who got us into this mess. Instead he caved, as I knew he would. Could we possibly have come up with a worse candidate?
The RNC called me this morning asking for a donation. I was polite but I told the poor guy how angry I was and that they aren't getting another nickel from me until they grow a spine and show some leadership.
Psss. Yah right.
They tried that with Reagan too.
Good luck with that.
Talk about predicting victory prematurely.
It took you years to smear Thomas, and Thomas never really fought back because he didn't care.
You won't destroy her so easily.
Posted by: Cliff on October 2, 2008 11:17 AMWhat was done to Thomas is the closest thing I can recall to what the left is doing to Palin, whom they hate for the exact same reason.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 11:25 AMhttp://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjdkZGY0ZDhjYjg3Mjg1YjY3MzY2MTNlMGM2NjRiYmM=
I illustrates Biden's incorrect understanding of the Constitution, as well as Palin's correct(non-lawyer) understanding that are both being misrepresented by the MSM. Next, read the relevant parts of the Constitution.
Posted by: Paddy on October 2, 2008 11:26 AMIt seems popular to call Palin "vapid" and say that she "babbles incoherently" when she doesn't know the answer to a question. I think it's pretty clear that she is not vapid (in fact, that accusation seems rather sexist to me) so I will not waste words on that point.
As for babbling, she was not trained at Harvard Law School on how to sound polished while saying nothing. She has not been in positions where you talk a lot while doing little (like, say, a Senator). She has been in executive roles where you make decisions and take action. That requires listening skills over slick speaking skills.
Obama is a gifted orator and did receive this training, and so he pretty much says nothing all of the time and it still sounds slick. Personally, I prefer to not have to listen so closely to determine whether someone is speaking in a gifted manner while saying nothing. I'd prefer it be obvious up front. When it's not immediately obvious, I know I am not dealing with a straight shooter. In any case, Palin will learn how to do that a little better than she currently does. Still, though, I'm not sure why people believe that is an important skill to possess.
I've always found it surprising that so many people seem to prefer slickness (Bill Clinton, Obama) over substance. That's not to say that Clinton and Obama are not highly intelligent - they are. But that intelligence gets put to use by speaking about nothing as if it were something and making people feel good, though they have no clue what they are feeling good about.
Posted by: BananaLand on October 2, 2008 11:40 AMI can't believe this is so difficult to understand.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 11:42 AMThis obscure crap is designed to make her look like a fool and you people are giving it credence. You are letting them define the dabate and in doing so THEY WIN.
Let's think about the howling if Joe Biden is asked about the minutia Alaskan Wildlife Management or pipeline building. Hells bells, Joe Biden doesn't even know actual people he's supposedly campaigning with ("Stand up Chuck.")!
She is unfamiliar with "Washington speak" - double talk in spades that allows a politician to get out of tight corners with the media. But like her knowledge of foreign policy - which is a mile wide and an inch deep - Pailin will learn the ropes once she makes it to Washington.
In a Couric interview, Biden showed a towering ignorance of the significance of Roe v Wade:
Ramesh Ponnuru of NRO:
Those excerpts from Couric's interviews give me more concerns about Biden than Palin. He seems to be under the impression that there's a "liberty clause" in the Fourteenth Amendment (he has talked about it in Supreme Court confirmation hearings too). He misdescribes what Roe held. He seems to believe that Roe has been good for social peace and that this alleged fact justifies it as constitutional law.Palin, meanwhile, is asked a somewhat oddly phrased question by Couric, and says, reasonably enough, that the Constitution protects a right to privacy. Now it is certainly and obviously true that the Constitution protects privacy: What else do the Third and Fourth Amendments protect, for example? There is nothing incompatible with either a pro-life point of view or originalism with saying that the Constitution protects privacy.
Shouldn't a 30 YEAR SENATOR know something abot Roe, one of the single most divisive subjects in recent history???
No one asked whether Harry Truman, the gutsy guy from the Prendergast gang, knew beans about foreign policy. Yet he ended World War II by bombing Hiroshima, set up the United Nations, formulated the Marshall Plan, and executed the Truman Doctrine that stopped Communist expansion in Europe dead in its tracks.
Nor were Alben Barkley, Lyndon Johnson, Spiro Agnew, Gerald Ford, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle or Al Gore chosen to fill the foreign policy gap. The only exception was Dick Cheney. The critics said he knew too much about foreign policy.
Ask yourselves WHY no one has bothered to ask about HER experience and accomplishments.
There is no more common figure in American history than the "unprepared" backwoods politician who steps forward in the midst of crisis. From Lincoln through Truman, there is no end of them, at all levels of the political sphere.
On a lighter note, I see some Ifill debate questions have been leaked:
Mayor Palin, Barack Obama is a handsome, charismatic demigod. How many boxes of Kleenex will you need after your crushing loss?
Senator Biden, what is your favorite color? And if you have time for a follow-up question: Why?
Mayor, you talk funny and you own a tanning bed. Why haven't you released Trig's birth certificate?
Senator, have you seen those pictures of Obama in his swim trunks? If not, I have them right here.
Mayor, what are the names, ages, and blood types of all 71 members of the Belgian Senate? And why are you unwilling to admit that your inability to instantly produce any and every fact I demand makes you unfit to stand in the way of history?
Senator, you've spoken at length. Could you please continue?
Mayor, which is your preferred method of stifling dissent, banning books or burning them? Since it's both, please explain how you can deny the accusation that you're a fascist, which I am making now.
Senator, could you please sign my book?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 2, 2008 11:49 AMWhy do people prefer slickness over substance? I don't know the answer but when the average person on the street probably can't tell you when World War 2 was it might provide a bit of a clue.
I remember back in the '60's when JFK was elected because of his "charisma",(the first time I ever heard the term). People joked back than that Lincoln would never have stood a chance in modern times.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 11:52 AMExactly, and as we see Republicans are simply folding here.
If our leaders are this gutless maybe we simply deserve to lose and just give in to socialism.
Excuse me while I go throw up.
And just to be fair, I'm going to limit myself to just things he's said in the current campaign season.The only problem is, I don't know where to begin.
When Biden is challenged, he has a three-step response that he unloads to silence his critics: he Bullies, he Blusters, and he Bullshits. And it tends to work -- people are put back by his bullying and blustering, and don't have the presence or the facts to expose his bullshit.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 2, 2008 12:04 PM
And for the record, at this moment, I give myself a pat on the back for not becoming an archetypical liberal and devolving into fury driven name calling
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 2, 2008 12:23 PMThat is a talking point you people have used and you still use it despite the Gibson and Couric interviews which were the set-ups you wanted.
You and your entire party are nothing but a bunch of lying socialist phonys.
I doubt that you'll be this smug when you end up living out of your car because your idiot leaders pushed home loans to people who couldn't afford then and ultimately plunged us into a depression.
Senator Biden, it has been widely reported that Senator Obama chose you for your vast foreign policy experience. Given that fact, why then does he still need 300 foreign policies advisors?
I dare you to ask that Gwen, Katie, Charlie, Barbara....
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 2, 2008 12:46 PMQUESTIONS and ANSWERS
Question: What is America's first line of missile interceptor defense that protects the entire United States?
Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.
Question: What is the ONLY National Guard unit on Permanent Active Duty?
Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard
Question: Who is the Commander in Chief of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska
Question: What U.S. Governor is routinely briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska
Question: What U.S. Governor has a higher classified security rating either candidate of the Democrat Party?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska
According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.
Yes, among the staff at the Newshour, nothing stirs the pot quite like conflicts of interest . . . at least as long as it's not a Newshour star creating a blatant appearance of impropriety.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 2, 2008 12:54 PM
Well since Palin is such a Federalist, she could have been honest and said that she's against Brown v. Board of Education. You know, states rights and all.
Um. States Rights and Federalism are two different things. States Rights tends to be Anti-Federalist, meaning the federal government should not necessarily even have the powers the Constitution granted to it; Federalism, of course, means the federal government should be limited to its enumerated powers. Brown is not opposed by Federalists, because it is believed that it was ruled correctly according to the Constiution.
But, I suspect she's not even familiar with Brown v. Board of Education.
Since you think Federalists oppose Brown, I'd say YOU are not very familiar with it, BillL.
The other case she could have been honest about was her likely opposition to Lawrence v. Texas, the case that found a privacy right for gay couples, overturning state anti-sodomy laws. She didn't need to remember the name of the case, just the issue. But, of course, she was not trying to be frank, she was trying to hide her true views.
BillL, get real. There is almost no one who, when asked out of the blue what decisions they opposed, would think of Lawrence first and foremost. The truth is, you don't give a damn about the truth, and you're just looking for reasons -- based on truth or not -- to attack Palin.
Here's a Supreme Court case that should have been right on the tip of Palin's tongue ...
Why are you pretending I didn't already completely decimate that argument, that ANY case should have been on the tip of her tongue, with or without a name? It's illogical nonsense you're spouting.
Why could she not even remember this case when questioned by Couric?
Why, BillL, can you not read and understand my explanation of why?
PC:
Come up with the case name of the recent DC gun ban being overturned.
That one's easy for me (Heller). So is the medical marijuana case, the Texas sodomy case, and many others. Kelo, OTOH, I forgot the name of. Names are not very important. Big Eh.
Dave:
So she mispoke about being a Federalist.
But she didn't misspeak at all on that.
Jim Kellett: thanks for reminding us that even if she DID say something wrong -- even though she didn't -- that it wouldn't in any way seriously reflect her capability to serve.
Palouse:
pudge, my disagreement on Raich result from the majority's improper (in my opinion and Thomas') interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
I think the interpretation was in line with precedent. I think the precedent is flawed, but that this was not the case to overturn that longstanding precedent.
Charlie:
I cannot think of a worse interview performance by a potential VP in recent history.
I know he's not a VP nominee, but how about every interview ever given by Obama?
she couldn't name a single newspaper or magazine that she reads (if you really don't read any at least make something up NEWSWEEK, TIME or your local newspapers)
I don't read any, not regularly. And so you would prefer she lie?! And maybe she just didn't want to give press to one of them.
On the supreme court, I do understand maybe not remembering the names of the cases but at least go to Plessy vs Ferguson or just say "separate but equal" or the one that affirmed slavery (Dred Scott). Not that hard people.
Charlie, I already shot down this argument in my post.
Jorge:
Instead of owning the economic issue and being a source of adult stability, he's having to defend a neophyte in pumps who looks for all the world like a pure pander identity politics pick and a deer in the headlights.
Oh come on now, Jorge, don't be so hard on Obama. And why do you say Obama wears pumps?
Drunk driver, dead wife?
Coal?
Patriotic taxes?
TV Roosevelt and the Great Depression?
Hillary's qualifications?
Obama's qualifications????
Missile defense?
His IQ?
His deftness with quotes?
Maybe we can make it a drinking game much in the model of 'Gregoire/Burner blame Bush, have a chug'.
"I'm just asking!"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 2, 2008 01:11 PMI absolutely think it was. This case upheld the federal government's power to regulate anything, which is very anti-liberty.
Thomas' words (which are very Scalia-like) in dissent said it best:
If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite.
Posted by: Palouse on October 2, 2008 01:42 PMDuring his interview with Katie Couric on CBS News, Joe Biden spewed:
When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, look, here's what happened.
First of all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932 ? the market crashed in 1929. Second of all, the first working television wasn't created until 1928. Again, the market crashed in 1929. FDR got on a device nobody had at a time when he wasn?t president?
Biden is either a chronic Drunk or any unabashed liar....I'd say he's a little of both. Have another drink Joe, you clueless sot!
Posted by: Rick D. on October 2, 2008 01:46 PMI understand, its hard for you guys. She was picked to lose and it hurts.
hint: whining won't help.
Posted by: Citizen on October 2, 2008 01:50 PMPoor ol Sen. Flip Flop, he should have gone with someone Mitt "Magic Underpants" Romney. Five weeks left, no turning back now.
Citizen: wow, so you didn't read what I wrote. I made two points you completely ignored.
First, I said my understanding of the Court -- which is much greater than most Americans -- is sufficient for anyone running for President or Vice President.
Second, I clearly demonstrated that not being able to come up with something you disagree with on a moment's notice is not meaningful. If you expect someone to have a list of Supreme Court decisions they disagree with available at a moment's notice, then you are an extremely irrational person.
Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2008 01:56 PMI'm not whining. I'm angry. In fact I've never been so angry in all my years of following politics.
Heaven help the next skinny vegetarian Democrat activist who comes to my door with his wispy beard sniveling about how Obama will save us from global warming. He'd better hope I've calmed down by then.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 01:59 PMObama won't save you from global warming. He will save you from EVERYTHING.
Biden has more experience than Palin, according to John McCain experience is the key to the election.
Do you agree that experience is the key to the election, then? Please, tell us.
Have you heard that awful recording of the children singing about how Obama will save the world? It's scary, and also incredibly annoying.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 02:08 PMI'm not the one trotting out the experience argument, it was Sen. McCain. That was his whole early attack on Sen. Obama. With Sen. McCain's pick of Gov. Palin he's now thrown the whole experience argument out the window. Field is wide open. Sen. McCain is not doing himself any favors by bringing up Reagan and Clinton's experience in her defense. If that was the case he should have picked someone with real gubernatorial experience like Gov. Huckabee.
Lacking an understanding of basic issues at the national level wouldn't reflect poorly on her? I'm a little stunned. And you haven't "decimated" those arguments against her in the slightest... you merely said that you wouldn't have been able to do it either. Quite frankly, I'd much rather have a "nerd" in that position than someone with blatant ignorance of federal politics.
@32: Palin has no history with America, and so she gets defined before our eyes, just as Stockdale (unfairly) was. And, at this point in the race, the MSM is defining her.
Well, but part of that is what she's been feeding the media. If you had Romney or Jindal in that position, they wouldn't be stymied by softballs from the "liberal MSM".
@33: She's not running for Supreme Court moron. Our government has three branches, Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The Executive doesn't make Judicial decisions. Did you get out of 3rd grade?
Bravo for learning that in third grade. Good luck in fourth grade, Cliff! You'll find it's a little harder.
To think that executive powers aren't influenced by judicial decisions, or that the executive branch isn't involved with Supreme Court cases is absurd. Someone without an understanding of the workings of federal government would be eaten alive in that system.
@39: They unleashed their smear machine the minute he was nominated for the Supreme Court because there is nothing the left hates more than people who oppose killing unborn, innocent children.
Bull. He was a conservative judge. Do you actually think that liberals shouldn't care that he'd be writing conservative decisions?
And I enjoy that you completely ignore the fact that smear machines operate on both sides of the aisle...
@42: As for babbling, she was not trained at Harvard Law School on how to sound polished while saying nothing.
Instead, she sounds like a complete idiot while saying nothing.
@43: Einstein wouldn't have been able to hold up under the barrage of questions she has had to endure from the media, and neither could Obama.
Cheese with that whine? As I recall, Obama went on O'Reilly... and that wasn't a cakewalk. To think that Palin should be able to answer easy questions from the likes of Katie Couric is not an absurd notion.
@44: Let's think about the howling if Joe Biden is asked about the minutia Alaskan Wildlife Management or pipeline building.
Well, if Joe Biden were running for the governor of Alaska, that might be relevant. Unfortunately, Republicans were just looking for someone with a pulse to be the VP candidate...
@69: I'm not whining. I'm angry. In fact I've never been so angry in all my years of following politics.
You ARE whining. Sorry.
But are you mad because your candidates are absurd? I'd be mad, too. Just as mad as I was in 2004.
Don't worry, though... I'll be happy for the both of us! :)
Posted by: demo kid on October 2, 2008 02:20 PMFor me it's the positions that the candidates hold.
That clearly isn't true.
Sen. McCain's decision to pick an unqualified VP ...
She is as qualified as Obama is, so you are rejecting your earlier claim that this is about positions.
who doesn't believe in basic science
Now you are lying.
There is nothing I dislike more than a politician who stands by the idea of throwing Creation myths into a science class.
She never said anything about Creationism in science classes. You're lying.
I'm not the one trotting out the experience argument
You just did. You're lying.
Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2008 02:28 PMLacking an understanding of basic issues at the national level wouldn't reflect poorly on her?
She does not lack understanding of basic issues. Where did you ever come up with that nonsense?
And you haven't "decimated" those arguments against her in the slightest...
Of course I did. I showed that it is illogical to assume someone can come up with, in a few seconds, off the top of their head, a decision they "disagree" with. It makes no sense.
you merely said that you wouldn't have been able to do it either.
You're lying. I said a lot more than that, including an explanation of why someone wouldn't be able to do that, that does not in any way denote any level of ignorance.
Quite frankly, I'd much rather have a "nerd" in that position than someone with blatant ignorance of federal politics.
Except, of course, that you haven't the slightest bit of evidence that she is in any way ignorant of federal politics. You're stupid, demo kid. Not being able to come up with a decision you disagree with, off the top of your head, cannot logically be evidence that you are ignorant.
Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2008 02:32 PMI'm so angry today at McCain and the Republicans I can hardly see straight. I already gave the RNC a piece of my mind as I noted above.
Then I see this kind of utter childish crap from leftists.
I say it a lot but I'll say it again just because it makes me feel a little better. The left is nothing but a massive socialist sewer that collects the worst amongst us.
The very people that sit around cheering while the economy collapses because of their stupid policies that mandated banks extend home loans to those whom they knew darned well could not afford it. Yet another idiotic liberal solution that has failed, this time with massive consequences. And how's that "War on Poverty" going? I guess for liberals it's going real well, you nuts destroyed the black family and created more dependence on your dumb programs. Then there is the education system you morons run that steals more and more money every year and produces a drop out rate unheard of when I was in school. You wonderful people also run the country's colleges and universities with tuition rates that have gone into the stratosphere. And then you crooks whine that its Bush's fault.
Yeah, I'm pretty darned angry.
It's a perfect storm for them. A collapsing economy that is their fault and a Presidential candidate without the guts to point it out, a brainwashed generation that has been educated by liberals, and a media that is clearly in the tank for the Dems.
Poop.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 02:48 PM"Senator Biden, what is you favorite color?"
"Governor Palin, what was the name of the Japanese Prime Minister that Bush 41 threw up on?"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 03:06 PMI see, now your an expert on what my criteria for picking a President is? You've really gone off the deep end these days Pudge.
She is as qualified as Obama is, so you are rejecting your earlier claim that this is about positions.
LOL!! You're kidding me right? I fail to see how this negates anything.
She never said anything about Creationism in science classes. You're lying.
She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question.
The Govt. should never give preference to Christian's version over any other religion groups origin myth. Since you can learn about your own particular faiths creations myth at home it should not be taught with science.
You just did. You're lying.
I said that Biden had more experience than Palin, I did not say that an individuals experience influences my decision of whom I am selecting for President. I personally choose to vote for elected official based on how their views sync up with mine. I want my elected officials to represent me and therefore agree with my personal views.
Cato, what in the world does that mean, Mitt "Magic Underpants" Romney?
You really need to study up on Mitt Romney's undergarments of choice.
Whatever your background, you have a pretty good grasp of the law. And, obviously, you know your own limitations better than anyone else does, but c'mon -- if you were running for VP, you don't think you would have had a few "Hall of Shame" decisions in your head for quick reference?
I always figure that a Dred Scott or Korematsu are good, but perhaps too obvious. Plessy v. Ferguson is another one, but maybe that's too obvious. But Dredd Scott has the advantage of being universally loathed, but loathed for a reason a conservative can get behind -- the high court overruling state policies.
The pop quiz thing is a dumb tradition in interviewing...but given that its a tradition, it should be prepared for. Or, at least, one should have well-rehearsed bullshit to duck the question. Whatever Palin's recall is about specific cases (which I fully concede is not important to her potential duties as VP or even Prez), I think it's pretty important for a GOP nominee to be able to articulate stock lines about the courts and the role of judges. She could have rattled off something like "Y'know, Katie, its not important whether I like or dislike a decades old S.Ct. case...what's important is that the judiciary of this country pays more attention to the will of the people and their elected officials, and less attention to legislating from the bench." or something like that. It's been a while since I've thought about GOP talking points.
Posted by: Zeeb on October 2, 2008 03:22 PMSeriously though, I appreciate your optimism. In the world of politics a month is a very long time.
I think there is a very likely chance that despite what people tell pollsters, once they get in the voting booth they are not going to pull the lever for Obama.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 03:23 PMWhat map are you looking at? The Real Clear Politics map linked on the main page seems to have Obama ahead of McCain with a lot of toss up states still too close to call.
And prey tell Cato why a liberal would be in the least bit concerned about someone's supposed undergarments? Are you not the party of tolerence?
Heck no you aren't. You are the party filled to the brim with mean, nasty, intolerant jerks like yourself.
If you had an honest bone in your body you might awaken in the middle of the night and finally realize what disgusting hypocrites you and your liberal friends are.
Like that will ever happen.
I see, now your an expert on what my criteria for picking a President is?
No, YOU are, and you have many times said Palin is unqualified due to her lack of experience. I believe you when you say that, so when you say experience is NOT important, I know you're not telling the truth.
She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question.
She was talking explicitly about intelligent design, which is not creationism, no matter what you've been told. Creationism is about the Creation story in Genesism, and I.D. doesn't care about that particular story at all. Many ID proponents also believe in the Creation story, but that's irrelevant.
Well considering a lot of stages did away with levers after the 2000 election, I think that's very true. I don't think people will be pulling levers for either candidate. Personally, I will be filling in a little bubble with a pen on a scantron ballot indicating my choice for President. This ballot will then will be placed in a secure envelope, which in turn will be placed in another envelope and sent by US Mail to the State Elections Office for counting. No levers here.
After the "Country First" BS Campaign stunt that McCain pulled last week things are looking grimmer for the McCain campaign in FL and MI.
if you were running for VP, you don't think you would have had a few "Hall of Shame" decisions in your head for quick reference?
I don't know. I've never been involved in the process of preparing for such a thing. Obviously, it's not something Palin did.
The pop quiz thing is a dumb tradition in interviewing...but given that its a tradition, it should be prepared for.
As a maverick myself :-), I prefer to kick such traditions in the teeth. She didn't do that, and I do admit she stumbled halfway between wanting to answer and not wanting to answer it. But I've seen Obama do the same thing a hundred times. I just can't get worked up about how someone chooses to dodge or not answer a question, especially when it was a dumb question to begin with.
I think it's pretty important for a GOP nominee to be able to articulate stock lines about the courts and the role of judges
Well, she did do that, talking about states' rights and Federalism. I agree she could have done better, but again, I can't get worked up about how well someone recites talking points. Obama's gotten much better at reciting talking points, and it as not raised his stature as a candidate in my mind.
McCain will win Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, and Florida. That's 269. The polls now are virtually meaningless.
It's a big fat lie and they know it, but that never stops these disgusting people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 03:44 PMLying socialist phonies? With the de-facto head of the Republican party walking down the center of the chambers to beg for 700 billion taxpayer dollars to bailout the failures of years of neglect? Don't make me laugh.
Do you have any idea what the top tier tax rate was during the Korean War years? Vietnam? Either World War? If you are prepared to call every American administration prior to this era of Neocon Treasury Raiders a socialist, you knock yourself right out.
Posted by: Acid Brain on October 2, 2008 03:44 PMWhy don't you tell us exactly what the top tier rates were if you want to argue about it. You never provide any meaningful backup for anything you say. Oh but I forgot for a moment, you're a Democrat.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 03:53 PMBill, as you know, communist despots have been using that tactic for decades, so of course obama is going to pull from their playbook since they share the same political ideology. If you indoctrinate them while they're young, dumb and ideolisitic, they're less likely to think for themselves later on. Which might explain some of the Obammunists we have on the thread here.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 2, 2008 03:58 PMBut I have noticed one thing about most Palin threads. Just writing her name catapults a blog entry to 100 posts. It's like writing Pete Rose on a baseball blog.
Posted by: Palouse on October 2, 2008 04:04 PMI often disagree with you, but you seem to be rational. On occasion, I've actually read something I've really found interesting and useful from you. (Unlike Demo Kid and some of the other real idiots here.)
I guess I have to ask since you're "leaning" Obama. Here's my question:
1) Obama has no real legislative record.
2) He has no real record of achievement period.
2) Obama is a chicago politician.
I'll concede that Obama speaks well and says some good things, but he's never DONE anything and frankly he's from the crookest single political scene in America outside of DC.
What did he really accomplish as a community organizer? His district in Chicago still doesn't have jobs and is still as poor as it ever was. It's still a crime ridden mess. (Chicago has a higher murder rate than Baghdad at this point.) No achievement there.
What did he accomplish in state congress? He didn't really lead on anything controversial or hard to accomplish?
What did he do in the U.S. Congress? Nothing big or controversial pushed through there either?
What are you seeing that I'm not seeing?
You seem to have the wisdom to be cynical. Aren't you just the slightest bit wary of a southside Chicago politician with absolutely no credentials other than a good vocabulary?
I agree with you for the most part but I think Colorado is in still in play for Obama. Obama also has a possibility of taking Florida (due to Jewish voters not being keen on Palin's "faith based" decisions), but Colorado seems more likely (especially given that a Dem. Governor won pretty handily in 2006).
Link:http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/obama-projects-269-electoral-votes-even.html
Real Clear Politics, current chart has Obama at 260 w/o the current toss-up states.
Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
Well, considering the issue in Roe was privacy and not abortion, it is important to the conversation. If she or anyone else doesn't know that about Roe, then you've missed the boat.
Just saw where McCain is taking most of his campaign staff and money out of Michigan. Hmmm, just giving up. Also, FYI, Virginia's going to go for Obama.
There are sure a lot of things one could say about the Katie Couric interview but Katie is not your "gotcha" journalist. In fact, Lady Palin talked over her several times on follow-ups and Katie just let it go.
But it is so sad/funny/hilarious that Palin couldn't even reference one single, solitary thing that she reads. Everything and anything? Name something; a newspaper, journal, book, on-line news source? C'mon Sarah help us out. But no, she just didn't one to reference one thing she reads. She probably like Bush and prefers those simple one-page briefing papers with titles like " Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” Hopefully, she WILL read something like that if it gets placed in front of her face. Unlike the current resident of the White House (do you guys remember him? Everyone is so strangely silent on him. And, by the way, where the hell is Cheney?)
Posted by: westello on October 2, 2008 04:26 PMLOL, thanks I guess. =)
What are you seeing that I'm not seeing?
Depends on where you stand on the issues. While he does not seem to have the experience that other candidates posses he attracted my attention early as being someone willing to be honest about the issues we face (a quality sorely lacking in America today). He doesn't stake out the populist party position on his issues. I felt Hillary Clinton was extremely corrupt (and still do), how many times would we have seen her name linked with yet another scandal ridden fundraiser. The maxed out donations from mystery Chinese contributors in low income spots in NYC was a major turnoff for me.
Sen. Obama's background, education and experience seem fairly unique for a Presidential candidate, he sets a good example of the American Dream of study/work hard as a way of getting what you want in life.
Another item that impressed me was that when the Rezko controversy was in full bloom he sat down with the local paper, sat in a room full of reporters who were working on the story, let them ask anything they wanted. He answered all the questions until they were out of questions. To me this was a sign that Obama was not a dodge and weave standard politician.
I will give you more later as I have a debate to watch in an hour and I want to get a good seat at the place I will be watching from.
I don't exactly expect a coherent answer from someone who talks about "far right wing corporatist media bias", whatever the heck that is.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 04:48 PMClearly you don't know how to use the internet.
I typed "obama reading" into Google and got a lot of hits. Not to mention some photos of him reading books. Could not find anything on Biden. McCain seems to have a lot of photos of him reading cards.
You mean because she's incompetent and will hurt our country?
Posted by: Bruce on October 2, 2008 05:21 PMYou'd call him a senile old nutcase if he wasn't a Democrat.
You are full of crap.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 2, 2008 05:25 PMI agree with you for the most part but I think Colorado is in still in play for Obama. Obama also has a possibility of taking Florida (due to Jewish voters not being keen on Palin's "faith based" decisions), but Colorado seems more likely (especially given that a Dem. Governor won pretty handily in 2006).
Yes, they are all in play, but it's most likely IMO that McCain will win those. If he wins those and no others (other than what are already solid for him, pretty much), Obama wins only because the House will decide the winner, because it will be a tie. McCain just needs one more in addition to those -- such as Nevada or just one vote from New Hampshire -- to become President.
So yeah, it's a very close race, no matter what the polls say.
pollwatcher: FiveThirtyEight.com was the best at predictions in the primaries
First, predicting primaries is completely different from picking general elections. They are a very different animal in many obvious ways: different participants, different styles of campaign, different get-out-the-vote methods, and so on.
Second, what you are looking at are not, in fact, projections at all. Projections would take current poll data, guess at how far off the polls are, guess at what changes will happen between now and election day, guess at how effective the election day ground games will be, and so on.
Well, considering the issue in Roe was privacy and not abortion ...
For some people, yes. Not for many others, no.
If she or anyone else doesn't know that about Roe ...
There is, of course, no evidence she doesn't know that.
Just saw where McCain is taking most of his campaign staff and money out of Michigan. Hmmm, just giving up.
Incorrect.
Also, FYI, Virginia's going to go for Obama.
Incorrect.
But it is so sad/funny/hilarious that Palin couldn't even reference one single, solitary thing that she reads.
Incorrect.
But no, she just didn't one to reference one thing she reads.
Good for her.
She probably like Bush and prefers those simple one-page briefing papers with titles like " Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” Hopefully, she WILL read something like that if it gets placed in front of her face. Unlike the current resident of the White House (do you guys remember him?
Which is it, westello, are you ignorant or a liar? In fact, that memo was known about and was in the process of being acted upon. So our only choices are that you are ignorant or a liar.
I'm cracking up that last Friday McCain said we "will know their names." Who has he been kidding?
Um. OK, so you don't understand what he was talking about. Gotcha.
The tax rate on the top tier was between 70 and 90 percent for much of the last century, especially true during times of conflict.
Yes, to our country's shame.
Once was a conservative before the great hijacking spread through the whole of conservatism and turned it upside down.
You're a liar. You were never a conservative.
What's your source?
In 2007 Baghdad the murder rate in Baghdad was 164 deaths/100,000 people, with a steady downward trend over the course of the year to where if the trend continues (and I don't know if it has) the rate this year could be in the 40/100,000 range.
My sources for Chicago are multiple, for Baghdad iraqbodycount.org - I don't know their veracity but since you're numbers are so different I'd expect your source to be an interesting contrast.
Unless you're just making your information up.
Chicago had a rate of 16 deaths/100,000 in 2007.
If Chicago's rate is now higher than Baghdad as you say, is Chicago experiencing a near tripling of their murder rate this year? Or is Baghdad dropping to a rate they've perhaps never seen?
Posted by: BA on October 2, 2008 05:31 PMI felt Hillary Clinton was extremely corrupt (and still do), how many times would we have seen her name linked with yet another scandal ridden fundraiser. The maxed out donations from mystery Chinese contributors in low income spots in NYC was a major turnoff for me.
OK, so you are against Obama then?
Clearly you don't know how to use the internet.
I typed "obama reading" into Google and got a lot of hits.
Try "obama bundling".
Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2008 05:32 PMFrom what I've seen on this site, pudge, I think your understanding of most issues (even the 95% on which I think you're wrong) is much greater than that of most Americans. Unfortunately, that includes Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Bruce on October 2, 2008 05:34 PMhaha....Westello's doing the old transference of his Bush Derangement syndrome over to the McCain/Palin ticket already...never too early to begin the irrational hate filled rant is it?
Oh, and didn't you hear Westy? Cheney is running the secret puppet government in an underground bunker at WalMart...you really need to keep up with your Moonbat news, son.
..as for reading, Obama is likely a voracious reader of Sci-fi since he talks of going to all four corners of the U.S. and has visited 57 states, with one left to go and his staff won't let him visit HI or AK....and then there's this new place called "New Pennsylvania" which sounds pretty futuristic to me. For his pasttime, Biden doesn't read books, but he has been known to sing a few bars .after visiting a few...well, bars. You really want this sot with the nuclear codes? yeah, me neither.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 2, 2008 05:35 PMFrom what I've seen on this site, pudge, I think your understanding of most issues (even the 95% on which I think you're wrong) is much greater than that of most Americans. Unfortunately, that includes Sarah Palin.
If so, then it also includes Barack Obama.
Um....uh...the military?
Posted by: Tracy on October 2, 2008 10:19 PMsorry bud, it's true. I was until it stopped making sense about 20 years ago. Doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, it's a fact.
No, it's not. If you were a conservative it would be because you believed in the principles of conservatism. But you said you are no longer a conservative because conservatism was "turned upside down." That would not make you reject the principles of conservatism, but, rather, certain people.
So obviously, you're lying.
Posted by: pudge on October 3, 2008 11:35 AMYou can choose to apply narrow and linear fallacious logic to justify yourself all you want to.
Or I can do what you did: critically evaluate what you said, which in fact made no sense, as I explained clearly.
You too may one day realize that you've been duped and screwed by the folks who asked for your support and offered some basic guarantees they can't follow through with.
Except, of course, that could not possibly make me reject my principles. My principles -- conservative principles -- do not rest on other people being good. Indeed, my principles assume other people will try to dupe and screw me.
Conservative principles have nothing to do with the good will or actions of others, so it is not possible for people who go against those principles to cause someone to reject those principles, unless they never really held them in the first place.
You may prefer to dogmatically parse the process in swing state superficiality and personality politics.
I never would do that.
