I have a few recent quotes in the news about or from Veep nominee Palin. Could we have a Veep nominee to actually step down before the election? Time will tell.
I've been reading around some sites seeing the Religious Right just gleefully rejoicing in this Palin selection and saying things like, "The Democrats are running in fear now! Bwa ha ha!"
I'm sorry, but I think those who think that are just living in a dreamworld. Mostly, I think the Dems are laughing at this choice. As if McCain wasn't already losing, he's saddled himself with a probably unelectable Veep choice. She has been a huge hit with the 25-30% Religious Right and she has energized them, but I just don't think they see what a poor choice she is. It's like they listened to the speeches given at the Republican Convention and took them seriously!
As I've already said: I just don't think McCain really wants to win this election...
A quote from Palin at a commencement ceremony at her home church in Wasilla:
But our most important natural resource of course is our people, and I’m thinking what I need to do is strike a deal with you guys as you go throughout Alaska. I can do my part in doing things like working really really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30 billion project that’s going to create a lot of jobs for Alaskans, and we’ll have a lot of energy flowing through here. And pray about that also. I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that...
...My son Track, he’s a soldier in the United States Army now. He’s an infantryman, and, um, so Track also sends his love to his former nanny Christy. And Track — pray for our military. He’s going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan...
source
======
On the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP):
Todd Palin was a member of the party from 1995 to 2002. Sarah attended the group's convention in 1994 and 2000 and sent a videotaped greeting for the AIP in 2008.
Here's how the group's founder, Joe Vogler, described his political beliefs:
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government," Vogler said in a 1991 interview. "And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."
The AIP participated in a conference of secessionist movements held in Vermont in 2006. "The First North American Secessionist Convention," was the official title. Attendees included the neo-confederate League of the South, messianic Christian Exodus and the libertarian New State Project.
In her 2008 address, Palin said the AIP "plays an important role in our state's politics."
[what role is that, I wonder? -dan]
The Nation
=======
Republican apologist Peggy Noonan and friends accidentally talking about the Palin nomination while the mic was on...
ON AIR:
Chuck Todd: Mike Murphy, lots of free advice, we'll see if Steve Schmidt and the boys were watching. We'll find out on your blackberry. Tonight voters will get their chance to hear from Sarah Palin and she will get the chance to show voters she's the right woman for the job Up next, one man who's already convinced and he'll us why Gov. Jon Huntsman.
[CUT AWAY - SUPPOSEDLY...]
Peggy Noonan: Yeah.
Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --
Noonan: It's over!
Murphy: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.
Todd: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.
Noonan: Saw Kay this morning.
Todd: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --
Murphy: They're all bummed out.
Todd: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?
Noonan: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --
Todd: Yeah they went to a narrative.
Murphy: I totally agree.
Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.
Murphy: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.
Todd: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.
=======
D'oh! ...was that on??
Noonan said it best: "It's over!"
This last snippet I found over to Geoffrey's fine establishment, What's Left in the Church.
17 comments:
Sarah Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982, and was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party.
And? She clearly supports them, as she attended their convention twice, and videotaped a greeting just this year. Clearly it's not like she's distancing herself from that movement.
Why is it important?
Because she was not a member of the AIP. To repeat otherwise is false. Facts matter.
She greeted the AIP this year in a video sent to their annual convention. Did she say anything offensive in this video, or agree with any offensive position held by the AIP (platform here)?
Where is your evidence that she attended an AIP convention?
Hold on, John. I never said that she WAS a member of AIP. I quoted an article that said her husband was until recently a member. That she attended their convention twice and that she said, of AIP, that it "plays an important role in our state's politics."
Given the tone of the founder's comments and what has been reported about it, these are entirely reasonable questions to ask and to expect to have answered, don't you think?
Well, John, it seems unlikely that she'd attend events of groups she didn't support. No one said she was a member, but her husband was.
I think it's reasonable to ask which of their positions she supports. If her answer is none of them, then it's reasonable to ask why she was there. If she can give a reasonable answer to that, then fine.
But asking the question isn't wrong, John. I think it's important to learn about these candidates and their positions, particularly those who have basically come out of nowhere and will be one fibrillation away from the big chair. Now if you're happy to remain ignorant about her views on the AIP, that's your right. But some of us think that it shouldn't be a big deal to answer some simple questions.
John raises something that is hardly the main point of Dan's post. In other words (to quote Garfield, the cat not the 19th century American Presidents), "Big, fat, hairy deal."
Sarah Palin is about as extreme a candidate the Republicans could have picked. That she was so picked by the current Mullahs of the Religious Right over McCain's first choice, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, demonstrates the veto power they demanded, in a move reminiscent of the old smoke-filled room days. That he went along with it shows he is a spineless panderer. Her single qualification is that the Religious Right is so a-twitter it is practically sexually aroused by her (if such a thing with such persons is possible). Her performance in her "speech" (what exactly do you call a bunch of words penned before McCain had actually picked a running mate?) proved that her sole reason for being on the ticket is to mollify the fringe. Period. She is doing that, but her negatives (and I must stress I do not give a fig for her family nonsense and will not address it) are so clear, it should be a no-brainer. McCain sank his ticket when he picked her.
One measure of this? On the day after her speech the Obama/Biden campaign raised ten million dollars. McCain? One.
BTW, thank you for the very kind word, Dan.
Mudflats
Tiptoeing Through the Muck of Alaskan Politics
If you held the Democrats to the same standard you hold Republicans, Biden would a old white guy who is trying to hold on to power and has way too much money. BHO would be coke head who lets his family live in sheds, hangs out with terrorists, doesn't understand what it "really" means to be Christian.
Why is Sara's past "associations" with the Alaskan independent party so telling and BHOs associations with recently convicted felons and admitted terrorist are just mudslinging and distractions?
Why can BHO attend meetings for 20 years listening to "Black liberation theology" and that says absolutely nothing about his character or his opinion of our country?
-------
whats the difference between
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government"
and
"god damn america"
*yawn*
Because Obama has answered those questions, about a thousand times. Palin hasn't answered a single one yet. It's easy for her to put this behind her if she just wants to answer some very simple questions.
See, Eddie? It isn't that difficult.
I wonder why you don't want her to explain herself? Afraid of the answer, perhaps?
cover your mouth when you *yawn* Alan. Its very impolite, makes appear ignorant.
"Sarah attended the group's convention in 1994 and 2000 and sent a videotaped greeting for the AIP in 2008."
a politician is meeting with and sending messages to independent voters. Ohh the scandal.
I guess all were waiting for is Sara's book were she lists Joe Vogler as a mentor.
"a politician is meeting with and sending messages to independent voters. Ohh the scandal. "
Wow you're slow. No problem there, except this particular group of independent voters are secessionists.
I suggest you read something on the matter so you can at least appear to be informed on what we're talking about.
Alan wrote:
I think it's reasonable to ask which of their positions she supports. If her answer is none of them, then it's reasonable to ask why she was there. If she can give a reasonable answer to that, then fine.
I can go along with that. Just like it was legitimate to ask Obama which of Jeremiah Wright's positions he supported. It's an additional degree of separation, as Todd Palin is not running for President, and Vogler has been dead or missing for 15 years, but ask the questions.
By the way -- what's your source for the Vogler quote?
Alan also wrote:
Wow you're slow.
Do you normally find ad hominem attacks effective in debates?
"I can go along with that. Just like it was legitimate to ask Obama which of Jeremiah Wright's positions he supported. "
I actually had no problem with that. The question was asked, and answered. Some people refused to believe the answer, just as some people will refuse to believe any answer Palin gives about her family's ties to the AIP.
According to a simple Google search, Vogler's quote is from comments from an interview made in 1991, in an interview that's now housed at the Oral History Program in the Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska.
"Do you normally find ad hominem attacks effective in debates?"
Debates? No, of course not. But if you've not visited here before then you might not realize that "Edwin Drood" isn't interested in debate either.
Ad hominem attacks are saying something like, "The Nazi's believed that...and you believe it, thus you're just like the Nazis." If you re-read my comment, that wasn't what I said at all. Nor did I suggest that Edwin was slow simply because he disagrees.
See, we've been talking in this entire thread about the AIP and it's secessionist rhetoric. Edwin clearly failed to get that...which does indeed seem kinda slow to me.
So, I'm not in the habit of making ad hominem attacks, but I'm also not in the habit of suffering fools easily.
I tried to find an unbiased source on whether or not Sarah Palin was a good pick, so I went to some libertarian sources. The Cato Institute (to be fair, is closer to the right than the left due to focus on economic issues), has some scholars who think it is ingenius, since she is youthful, less of the establishment, a "maverick." Others of Cato say that experience in an executive position is preferable to that in the Senate based on the nature of the job. The official LP says, however, that she suffers from the same faults that McCain accuses Obama of having, lack of experience, youth, etc..., and that being a member of the Senate is preferable, since the VP presides over the Senate.
I think, in a sense, they are both right, because Palin shares some of Obama's strengths and weaknesses, youth/inexperience, being a rising star, etc...
And this is just on whether or not she was a good pick in terms of the Campaign. There is much more concerning whether or not the libertarians would be happy with her as a VP.
It was a risky move by McCain, but I think it is the kind of risk he has to take based on the come from behind position he is in.
Dan,
I mean this with all due respect.
I agree that it is delusional to think that the VP nomination has single-handedly destroyed the Democrats and that they are shaking in their boots.
However, I think it is equally delusional to say that the Palin pick has single-handedly destroyed the Republicans change of winning the election and that it's going to be such a disaster that we won't see her through the nomination.
Yes, it may tip the tide one way or the other, since this is a close election. But I think the less biased and more neutral tend to avoid the doom and gloom scenarios for either party.
Post a Comment