Thursday, September 18, 2008

Just To Clear Things Up...

There have been, since news of Palin's daughter's pregnancy, comments regarding such an event happening at all, given the political and religious leanings of the hot governor. Alan Colmes mentioned it to Dick Morris just the other night. The crux of the biscuit is that because one speaks on social issues from a particular perspective, that one must never fall short of the ideals of that perspective and should that one falter, the faltering proves the worthlessness of that perspective. The problem is, of course, that one never spoke of one's own ability to inhabit perfection, but only that the perspective presented represents a higher ideal from which we would all benefit should everyone adhere. Indeed, another risk of faltering is to then be labelled a hypocrite for engaging in behavior said to be taboo.

Neither of these is accurate of course. We on the right are every bit as subject to temptation as anyone else. It's just that we don't pretend our shortcomings give us justification to redefine right and wrong as they have been traditionally understood. We don't pretend there is anything so drastically different about the human condition in this day and age that does so either.

And we don't claim perfection. At best, we only hope to emulate perfection as closely as humanly possible, knowing full well that perfection is unattainable and that as human beings we fall woefully short.

None of which has anything to do with proclaiming messages regarding family values and the like. Those messages are sound and the consequences of adherence or ignorance are obvious for all honest people to see. That won't change no matter how many people there are who believe that they can "change the rules".

And what of hypocrisy? That's the easy part. If one preaches "do good" without any intention of doing so himself, that's hypocrisy. If one preaches "do good" and intends himself to live the message but at some point succumbs to temptation, that is human failing. Far more than the former is the latter likely to feel shame as a result for the latter still believes in the message and knows of its truth, a truth rejected by the former.

Palin has been victimized in this typical manner. It's a minor thing when taking into account her entire experience since accepting McCain's invitation. It is a ploy and a very weak one, but one that annoys me with its transparency whenever it's played.

87 comments:

blamin said...

Hypocrisy is an interesting charge. Your commonsense approach makes, um commonsense.

Methinks that many don’t understand the true nature of hypocrisy, I’m glad you took the time to spell out that which should be obvious.

I know a guy who experimented with many things during his youth, he got a slow start on his career because of his excesses, but he eventually became what many would consider successful. He has a 17 year-old daughter who accused him of being hypocritical for “lecturing” her on the danger of drugs, casual sex, etc.

His response – What kind of father would I be, what kind of man would I be, if I didn’t learn from my mistakes.

Too many in our culture would deny mistakes were ever made. Real America understands the nuances. That’s why these ridiculous charges against Palin can only backfire.

Marshall Art said...

Indeed. I understand the primary emotion is to feel hypocritical for preaching against that which one has also done, but again, intention is important. If your friend was preaching to his kid while blowing a joint or snortin' a line, that'd be different. But who better to preach against a behavior than one who engaged in it and suffered the consequences?

I think the worst part is the notion that those who fail to live up to the ideals that they espouse should be mocked for their failure, that they are hypocritical or that the ideal is a worthless goal to achieve. We don't claim perfection just because we point out "sinful" behavior, but only acknowledge that the behavior is indeed wrong even if we ourselves are attracted to it. It's as much reminding ourselves as others.

Dan Trabue said...

She's been "victimized" how exactly? By asking questions about her life, experiences, work and connections?

I certainly agree that some "reports" have been nutty and over the top - especially the ones that have focused too much on her children. But that has not been the mainstream media for the most part.

But some of them were too much, just like repeated rumors of Obama being a "muslim" were too much.

But investigation comes with the job application. That is to be expected. And when you're a relatively unknown person who gets the veep nod just two months before the election, it is reasonable to expect that there'd be a frenzy of investigation, simply as a matter of time.

I don't really see anything that's been done with Palin as "victimization." I'm wondering what exactly you think fits that description?

Democracy Lover said...

Uh, Marshall have you noticed that the economy is in the toilet, that we are in the 6th year of a war we didn't need to fight and have no idea how to end? Who cares about Palin's family life? Is she qualified to become President if McCain dies in office? What are her policy positions? What is her worldview? What could we expect from a Palin Vice-Presidency or a Palin Presidency?

Marshall Art said...

DL,

I don't believe the economy has reached the toilet just yet, but it helps the Dem platform to pretend it has. There are problems to be sure, but not toilet stage as yet.

I don't know of which war it is you speak, but you'll be happy to know that the necessary war we waged in the Middle East showing good signs on the Iraqi front, as Iraqi forces are queing up to take full control of security operations for their own country. This is a sign of how close we are to accomplishing the goals of that front. Maybe you missed the billion times that goal has been highlighted. I'm glad I got to clear that up for ya.

Who cares about Palin's family life? A lot of people on the left. Why not go to one of their blogs and ask them about it?

As for Palin's readiness, she has shown a far greater ability to get things done than has Obama. Given the fact that every president has advisors, I'm not that much concerned about "experience" for the job. Based on what has been said thus far, she is far and away the better choice for public service. She's shown she understands what the term means. Obama's shown nothing but a flair for rhetoric. Good for him. He can go join a high school debate team.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Palin's been "victimized" by the stupid questions about her personal life. The thing is, she can take it just fine. At least she's shown she can thus far. Obama has attacked questioners as devisive, racist (in not so many words), and distracting. In other words, he's shown that he can't take it and that he's just a whiner. Perfect for leading the left.

Dan Trabue said...

Palin's been "victimized" by the stupid questions about her personal life.

...such as...?

Mark said...

Dan says, "She's been "victimized" how exactly? By asking questions about her life, experiences, work and connections?

I certainly agree that some "reports" have been nutty and over the top - especially the ones that have focused too much on her children."

Once again, Dan has made a stupid comment. It would appear, if one believes Dan really believes what he says, that Dan doesn't read or watch or listen to the news.

At all.

But what's really funny is the fact that Dan asked his question in the first paragraph and answered his question in his second paragraph.

He already answered his own question. Need we sat more?

Democracy Lover said...

Marshall, I truly admire your ability to live in a fantasy world. It must be very reassuring to you.

This election is not and should not be about Palin's family life or Obama's family life, nor should we make a decision based on some arbitrary assessment of whether one kind of irrelevant experience is better than another. There simply are no jobs that can prepare one for the Presidency.

What we should talk about are the issues, the integrity and honesty of the candidates, the world view that guides their decisionmaking process, and their knowledge of and positions on the key policy issues that face the nation. The McCain/Palin campaign has made a point of avoiding any discussion of these factors, preferring to discuss irrelevancies. Yes, some on the left have joined them in a tit-for-tat manner, and that's wrong too.

I have to assume that the reason the McCain campaign doesn't want to discuss the issues is because their positions on the issues have been long ago discredited. I have to assume that they don't want to discuss honesty because that would reveal the extent of their lies. I have to assume that they don't want to discuss the world views of McCain or Palin because they would be appalling to most Americans.

Mark said...

Now, DL joins Dan in making stupid statements.

McCain and Palins world view and position on the issues are well known to anybody who bothers to do even the most cursory research.

On the other hand, despite hours of research, Obama's positions are still unknown or, at the least, unclear. He has changed his positions so often no one knows anything about him, other than his allegiance to Marxist Saul Alinsky, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres, America hating Jeremiah Wright, and anti-Semite Screwy Louie Farrakhan.

DL, I suggest you and Dan go make comments on a site where the readers really are as dumb as you think they are.

Vinny said...

MA,

I love the way that you Christians can always find the Bible passages that teach compassion when it is one of your own that stumbles.

You don’t seem to have any problem with Sandy Rios proclaiming that parents like me don’t care about our children because we think it reasonable that the high school curriculum include a handful of books that deal frankly with issues of sexuality.

On the other hand, you are outraged if I suggest that there might be some connection between the “abstinence only” curriculum that Sarah Palin supports and the fact that her daughter got knocked up at the age of seventeen.

Mark said...

Vinny is yet another moron. Abstinence always works to prevent pregnancy.

It is when a woman stops abstaining when she becomes pregnant.

Abstinence education works as long as the woman keeps practicing abstinence. Vinny, and Dan, and DL are idiots.

Vinny said...

Abstinence education works as long as the woman keeps practicing abstinence.

In other words, abstinence education works if it leads to abstinence.

Let's see if Mark can follow the logic here:

Bristol Palin got abstinence education.

Bristol Palin did not practice abstinence.

Ergo, abstinence education does not work.

Mark said...

Let's see if Vinny can follow this logic:

Bristol Palin got abstinence education.

Bristol Palin stopped practicing abstinence.

Ergo, abstinence education works as long as abstinence is practiced.

Now follow this logic:

Vinny thinks women can get oregnant without having sex.

Vinny thinks condoms always prevent pregnancy or Vinny thinks women should get pregnant as often as possible so abortionists businesses will thrive.

Vinny thinks killing babies is better than being responsible.

ergo, Vinny is an idiot.

Vinny said...

Mark doesn’t know whether Bristol Palin ever practiced abstinence. For all Mark knows, Bristol got pregnant on her very first date with her very first boyfriend.

Mark doesn’t know what I think about pregnancy, condoms, or abortion.

Mark makes things up to justify his preconceptions.

blamin said...

Vinny,

”Mark makes things up to justify his preconceptions.”

Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, aren’t you? Ooops I mean a nondescript colored kitchen utensil, with no potential relevance amongst the left, being compared with a non-threatening, totally natural kitchen utensil with a different, but equally nondescript color.

Damn, good thing Mark Twain isn’t living in the 21’st century.

Vinny said...

Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, aren’t you?

It could be if you can actually identify something that I made up. Otherwise, no.

Mark said...

Ha Ha Ha. Blamin, I was an art major in College. the word you are looking for is neutral, as in "a neutral kitchen utensil".

See, black and white are not colors. They are neutrals. Black is simply all colors of pigment combined, while white is all colors of light combined.

These statements are examples of absolute truth. Here is another example of absolute truth:

Vinny is an idiot.

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

I must insist that you refrain from the name-calling. Debate the message. Leave the messenger intact. This goes for all.

Just to clear things up....

If I call someone arrogant, that is, an adjective, I have to have a reason and I must present that reason so that the dialogue can proceed without tangentially raggin' about the meaning.

If I call someone an asshole, even with an explanation it is still ad hominem particularly since the person may have an asshole, but cannot be one at the same time. That is, not literally, but only rhetorically. Most of the time.

But more importantly, I'd prefer it not take place, unless we're talking sports, in which case I believe it's mandatory.

So unless you're me, who has carte blanche for any behavior in which I choose to engage, or someone talking to me, cut the crap.

Jim said...

Beware, Vinny. Here logic=you're an idiot.

And so "On the other hand, despite hours of research, Obama's positions are still unknown or, at the least, unclear." Apparently this is not true because Mark can cite to you what he does "know":

He has changed his positions so often no one knows anything about him, other than his allegiance to Marxist Saul Alinsky, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres, America hating Jeremiah Wright, and anti-Semite Screwy Louie Farrakhan.

Of course, if he either read Obama's web site where he gives specific information about his positions and his policies or listened to what he says about his positions and policies instead of continuously denying that such positions exist and are readily available to those who are honest and curious, he might stop spewing the same old false meme of "we don't know anything about him."

Mark said...

"Of course, if he either read Obama's web site where he gives specific information about his positions and his policies or listened to what he says about his positions and policies"

Specific information at the moment. Next time you read it, it will be 180 degrees different. And how do you know they are Obama's positions and policies, anyway? How do you know he isn't just saying what you and the other Libtards want to hear?

One advantage McCain has over Obama is that he has a voting record that is years long. There is no doubt as to McCain's positions and policies.

Obama hasn't been in the Senate long enough to establish a voting record that tells us much of what we need to know about his positions and policies. Yes, we know what he says, but that isn't necessarily what he believes. Except that he believes the Marxist doctrine of Saul Alinsky, the Terrorist doctrine of Bill Ayres, the anti-American racist doctrine of Jeremiah Wright, and the Anti-Semitic doctrine of Louis Farrakhan.

Why do you white Libs support Obama, anyway? Don't you know he will do his best to make white people second class citizens in revenge for the way he perceives we treated his black ancestors?

He'll fail in that endeavor, of course, but that doesn't mean he won't try.

Mark said...

Oh, and I apologize for calling your readers idiots and morons, Art.

I don't need to do that. Their comments speak for themselves.

Vinny said...

Except that he believes the Marxist doctrine of Saul Alinsky, the Terrorist doctrine of Bill Ayres, the anti-American racist doctrine of Jeremiah Wright, and the Anti-Semitic doctrine of Louis Farrakhan.

Sure he does Mark. And you know that he believes these things in the exact same way you know what I believe: you make it up.

Marshall Art said...

DL,

"Marshall, I truly admire your ability to live in a fantasy world."

What are you talking about?

"This election is not and should not be about Palin's family life or Obama's family life..."

Tell that to all your lib friends. We on the right have not concerned ourselves with Obama's.

"There simply are no jobs that can prepare one for the Presidency."

Then on this point we are in agreement, unless you missed where I said this: "I'm not that much concerned about "experience" for the job."

"What we should talk about are the issues..."

Done during debates, one-on-one interviews (somewhat), and at each candidate's website. And I'm pretty sure I've seen an issue or two debated on blogs.

"...the world view that guides their decisionmaking process..."

And you haven't seen anything regarding Obama's learning Black Theology under J. Wright or Marxism under S. Alinsky?

"...and their knowledge of and positions on the key policy issues that face the nation."

Aw, hell, this is done all the time.

Which of McCain's positions have been discredited? You mean, like, a windfall profits tax? No wait. Obama wants to do that. It was discredited after Carter tried it. How about, socialized health care? No, that's Obama, too, no matter what he wants to call it. Discredited by the numbers of people from countries using a single payer, universal-type socialistic health care plan who come to our country to get things for which they've waited too freaking long to get in their own. Tell you what: get Barry to agree to a townhall debate and he'll get questions about all these things. Mickey's willin'!

I also think you'd find far more people who agree with the worldview of the right than the left than you'd feel comfortable to know.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

Which verses are those to which you refer? I don't recall using any recently.

You just made a rather sweeping accusation of Rios' position regarding the books to which you refer. The books in question didn't simply "deal frankly with issues of sexuality.", they were blatantly pornographic and would be to any honest individual, thus making them woefully inappropriate for any high school reading list. Such is nothing akin to "reasonable".

As to "abstinence only" programs, what connection could there possibly be? Do you honestly think the average teen is unaware of birth control methods of all sorts regardless of what methods are taught them in school? Where's "reasonable" now? Do you honestly want to submit the angle that Bristol and her beau were in any way taught through abstinence programs that they could have sex and remain abstinent, or that some chapter or verse was offered that suggested their odds against pregnancy in any way improved as a result of their abstinence training? Do you seriously mean to say that with a more liberal sex-ed background that teens are guaranteed to use the info they were given to prevent pregnancy? Feel free to flesh out this connection you feel exists? I'm anxious to hear it.

I've said it before and I stand by it:

So-called "unwanted" pregnancies did not occur with the frequency now present in even the days of my youth. For the generation before, even less. The reason is because of the societal attitudes toward marriage, fornication, and sex in general. The attitudes regarding right and wrong were more cemented in the consciousness of most people. Virgins weren't so freakin' rare. Abstinence was not just practiced, but considered virtuous and highly prized for most girls, considered "good" girls.

Now, kids have too much in our culture telling them that having sex is just fine whenever. People who believe certain pornographic books are acceptable for teens play a large role in maintaining the problem. By not holding kids to higher standards, especially when we have the evidence of the folly of promiscuity to back us, we show we don't love our kids quite enough.

blamin said...

Well Vinny, I don’t know. If you could convince me otherwise, I’d feel much better.

I’m seriously asking you here. It seems that Obama has associated with some fairly radical elements throughout his career. Was it purely to gain political power in his early days? Or does he truly believe and wish to follow? Or, as some would have us believe, did he just not have a clue about the people he was associating with?

Jim said...

"Why do you white Libs support Obama, anyway? Don't you know he will do his best to make white people second class citizens in revenge for the way he perceives we treated his black ancestors?"

And this is what it is all about?

Andrew Clarke said...

I completely agree! To give another example, if I say that it is wrong to hold a grudge, and find
that I'm harbouring anger against someone else, then I should strive to overcome that anger; and what I say is still right, even if I'm not a perfect exemplar of it myself. The thing is I'm not saying
"Be like me" , I'm saying "we" (myself included) should try to avoid being vindictive. And the thing is still true, even if I have to try hard to live up to it myself. Your post seems to me to hit the nail right on the head. And thanks for your good wishes on my blog. That was why I returned the call, and ran into a good thought for the day. Something else too: Bristol Palin let the pregnancy continue, in keeping with the conservative view that life begins at conception. She did not conveniently end it. In that regard, she is being true to the ideals her mother advocates, it seems to me.

Vinny said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Trabue said...

Back to an earlier question I asked that was lost in the calvacade of some odd comments...

Palin's been "victimized" by the stupid questions about her personal life.

...such as...?

I'm still curious about this, if you have any answers.

Vinny said...

You just made a rather sweeping accusation of Rios' position regarding the books to which you refer. The books in question didn't simply "deal frankly with issues of sexuality.", they were blatantly pornographic and would be to any honest individual, thus making them woefully inappropriate for any high school reading list. Such is nothing akin to "reasonable".

I did not make a sweeping accusation of Rios’ position regarding the books. I quoted a statement I heard her make about parents who opposed Leslie Pinney. I guess I should be grateful that she did not accuse me of “raping” children like those terrible people up Deerfield who allowed high school seniors to read Angels in America.

As far as those books being blatantly pornographic, let’s ask Mark because he lists Slaughterhouse Five as well as several other books by Kurt Vonnegut among his favorites on his profile. Does that make Mark a porno freak or does it simply show that you can’t judge the quality of a book by cherry picking the most controversial passages?


I’m seriously asking you here. It seems that Obama has associated with some fairly radical elements throughout his career. Was it purely to gain political power in his early days? Or does he truly believe and wish to follow? Or, as some would have us believe, did he just not have a clue about the people he was associating with?

That’s a fair question.

In World War II, the United States allied itself with Stalin because he shared our goal of defeating Nazi Germany. In the Middle East, we have maintained good relationships with a variety of nasty little despots for no other reason than nasty little despots are the only ones who are in any position to help us achieve our goals. As a country, we don’t demand purity of every nation we associate with.

I think that someone whose goal is to improve the lot of the have-nots in our society is likely to run across quite a few people who are pissed off at America about one thing or another. You don’t have to share all Jeremiah Wright’s opinions to see him as a force for positive change within his community. You don’t have to approve of everything that William Ayers has done in his life to see him as a positive influence on education reform in Chicago over the last decade. I think that Obama’s associations have been motivated by a desire to help people who have gotten the short end of the stick and I think he has worked with people who shared his goals even if he did not share all their views and values.

blamin said...

Vinny,

I guess we’ll never know his true intent.

I have to hand it to you though, never have I heard the excuse - he associated with these people, because of his deep desire to help the less fortunate.

It must have been awful for him, having to associate with such characters. What sacrafice! What selflessness! I can understand his appeal to certain people.

Vinny said...

Blamin',

If his goal had been to help the rich get richer, I have no doubt that he would have run with a much better class of people like Jack Abramoff, Ken Lay, and Charles Keating.

blamin said...

Vinny,

You don't honestly believe that tired cliche'...do you?

Vinny said...

You don't honestly believe that tired cliche'...do you?

Am I supposed to believe that you are asking a serious question? Fool me once . . .

blamin said...

Vinny, I was being serious with both my questions. I truly don’t want to believe the worst from the man that could be the world’s most powerful leader. Nor do I want to believe that you see conservatives as this caricature.

But wants and realities don’t always agree.

blamin said...

Vinny,

How ‘bout we just get “real”?

Regarding his associations, I think at best you can say he was simply using these people in his quest for power. At worst he actually shares their world views.

If he was simply using these people, that’s not unusual in politics. Hell it’d probably be pretty damn tough to find anyone on the national stage that hasn’t done the same.

But it plays hell with the contention that he just wants to help the downtrodden.

Vinny said...

Blamin,

Why does it play hell with the contention that he wants to help the downtrodden? Would it have helped the downtrodden more to refuse to deal with people of influence in the community just because he did not share their views on every issue?

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

Considering his record of not having really accomplished anything of note due to his questionable associations shows that he would have done just as poorly without them.

Personally, I'm not one who is so cynical to assume that every politician is willing to do anything to get things accomplished if "anything" means dealing with scum like Ayers. AS for Wright, keep in mind that Capone ran soup kitchens. Would you see any problem with your pick having associated with the likes of him?

No sir. If he had the compassion of which you want to believe he possesses, he would have spent a little time in the Senate doing something other than campaigning. He's an opportunist, plain and simple, and it seems to me that based on all that's been said about his history prior to winning the US Senate seat, it's been all about him and how high he can get in politics, rather than truly serving the people. That's what is shown by his associations.

Regarding the books issue, Mark is a fully growed adult and can read whatever he likes. That's the point. Whether I consider a book pornographic is based on what is depicted in the book and how graphically described. I would say community standards follows a similar criteria. I never read "Slaughterhouse Five", (though I've seen the movie and enjoyed it), but I'm bettin' it doesn't compare to the filth of "Angels In America" and some of the other books on the list, exerpts of which were presented on Rios' sight and elsewhere to show just how bad they are. NO SIR!! These books are entirely inappropriate for high school kids who are going through a stage of life that is so difficult hormonally. It's is the height of irresponsibility and a definite form of sexual abuse to willingly offer such books to kids in one's care. It's shameful to the extreme and such "adults" have no business being in any business involving kids.

One more about Barry: there is NO similarity between our alliance with Stalin and some other scumbags internationally and Barry's alliance with scumbags locally. The goals are not the same. The US was not looking to be elected to anything, but to protect its people and its allies. Barry wants a cushy job where he can pretend he's somebody.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

To your question, re-read the first sentence of this post. That's the one "victimization" upon which I was focussing. There have been a few others, things that deal with her personal life, mostly past tense, but definitely unnecessary unless you are a scared candidate of the opposition.

Cameron said...

How about Palin's son not being her son but her grandson. Or that she had an affair with a business associate who hurriedly tried to seal his divorce papers. Or that she's racist. Or that she's a dumb small town hick that is "a good performer of that speech that she reads". Or that she's a moose shooter. Or that she's a "backwards step for women". Or "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

Vinny said...

William Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois Chicago and politically active in the state senate district that Obama served. I don't think he has ever been convicted of any crimes and he has not been in any trouble with the law for years. I share your opinion of Ayers former activities, but that is not the world that Obama or his constituents live in today. How would it help the people in Obama’s district for him to spit in Ayer's eye every time he sees him?

Comparing Rev. Wright to Capone is the height of absurdity. Wright is not a gangster or a murderer. He is a black man who harbors resentments towards white people. Is that so shocking that he should be shunned by all right thinking people?

You are quite right that Slaughterhouse Five does not compare with Angels in America. Neither do Freakonomics or The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World, but they were on Pinney’s list anyway. The Bible contains a lot more sex than either of them. That suggests to me that she worried about a lot more than whether students were getting their hormones stirred.

The most significant thing going on in most teenagers lives is the development of their sexuality. I am having a very hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that letting them read about something they are thinking about all the time is child abuse. Forbidding them from reading about the topic just makes educators look like idiots who have their heads stuck in the sand. If a high school senior can’t be trusted to read a book that contains sexual content, we are in a lot of trouble.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

No. Barry doesn't have to spit in his eye. In fact, gentlemen are cordial to everyone in social situations. That's a far cry from doing business with a guy who is proud of his past antics and wishes he did more. And though he was never convicted, he was released on a technicality, he proudly admitted doing the deed for which he was accused after the judge let him go. He's scum. Barry associates with scum to advance his personal agenda. And BTW, if you think his beliefs have changed and doesn't influence his teaching and/or other activism in which he might partake, (Ayers, that is) you need to put down the Kool Aid.

I wasn't comparing Wright to Capone. I was saying that doing good deeds does not mean jack if you continue to do bad deeds. Capone did good deeds for show. Wright does them with good intent, but he still engages in the rancid demagoguery.

I am not familiar with the other books you mention, but a book needn't have a multitude of sexual episodes in order to be inappropriate. Perhaps it's rife with obscene language. Perhaps it preaches an unhealthy perspective on sex. I am aquainted with Pinney personally, and though we aren't tight, she's never impressed me as a stereotypical Bible-thumper, devoid of rational and reasoned thought. Her motives are sound. What's really troubling is the adults who oppose her and their insistence that they are doing good by exposing kids to crap. Get your head out of your ass, Vinny. It doesn't matter whether any number of teens are adult-like in their abilities (Whatever the hell "adult-like" can possibly mean in this day and age---true adults are so hard to find). What matters is the mindset of the assholes on the school board who propose these stupid and poorly thought-out ideas. They don't allow the kids to say "Fuck you!" or "Suck my dick!" or "Hey baby, let's fuck!", do they? But they'll let them read that and worse??? Why not just put Hustler and fetish mags in the school library? How about a few XXX-rated DVDs for homeroom? It takes a village to raise a slut. This is the freakin' mindset of the 60's generation and the result is 50 million aborted PEOPLE!!!, kids as young as middle school age with STDs, teen mothers, suicides, etc etc etc. "Kids are thinking about it all the time!" That's tough. Let's just abdicate responsibility and give in to their lusts as we've given in to our own. Yeah. That's how to raise 'em good! Shame on you for even driving by that attitude. You call it forbidding kids to read crap. I call it guiding kids to being better adults. You think it makes educators look stupid. I know it makes them responsible and caring.

Vinny said...

It takes a village to raise a slut.

That is an interesting comment given your original post.

Marshall Art said...

As is your response to it.

Bristol and her beau acted in a manner that is promoted by our culture, not depicted as inappropriate. She is a child of the village, too, ya know. Parents who care struggle to overcome the teachings and influence of the village. Sometimes they lose, but the child loses most. Kids like Bristol have to choose between killing the child or slowing their plans for life by having it (slowed even briefly when the child is put up for adoption). God bless her for having the child and marrying the father. Let's hope that doesn't prove to be another misstep.

Vinny said...

Bristol and her beau acted in a manner that is promoted by our culture, not depicted as inappropriate.

Ah yes! It's always the liberals' fault. You conservatives are never responsible for anything that goes wrong.

Marshall Art said...

Certainly as parents, we bear responsibility when our kids "go bad", but the closer to adulthood, the harder it becomes as they assert themselves and seek to find their way. However, I'm not referring to responsibility as being responsible for being bad parents, but simply that they are our kids and it reflects badly, as in, it sucks things didn't turn out as we'd hoped. That's not the same as accepting blame since we committed no crime.

Frankly, however, if you're speaking as a liberal, you're in no position to be concerning yourself with whether or not conservatives do or should take responsibility. You see, in MY truth...it's all relative, remember? What's wrong for you isn't necessarily wrong for me. Isn't that how it goes?

Of course we take responsibility. What a silly thing to suggest. It isn't a conservative trait to shirk. We don't pretend we have our own truth. We don't pretend that wrong is now OK. Our perverts recuse themselves from service. Yours get standing O's.

But really, you don't want to accept that the state of the culture has been twisted by liberal notions of sexual freedom and that it has proven to be detrimental. In fact, you insist that there has been no affect of any kind and what the hell kids are doin' it anyway so let's give them trash to read and pretend it is a serious discussion on sexuality when it's just porn. Let's lower standards and remove all restrictions upon media, let's champion immodest fashion as "expression" when the plunging necklines, exposed waistelines and very short skirts and shorts provoke perpetual erections in the pants of teenage boys. Yeah, we conservatives should take the blame here because we did nothing as idiot liberals ran rampant with this crap in the name of sophistication and modernity when it's all really simply masturbatory. Absolutely. We dropped the ball. Libs aren't adult enough to carry it.

Mark said...

Cameron says, Or that she's a moose shooter.

What's wrong with being a moose shooter? My first wife was born and raised in the Matanuska Valley of Alaska, and her dad used to hunt moose and bear for food.

She says Moose meat is very tasty!

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

What an interesting discussion. Seriously. I have not, nor will I, discuss Palin's personal life at all. I have not, nor will I consider her current family situation in light of her stated position on any issue whatsoever. I do not believe one can judge one's public, professional life by how one lives privately. That is just some weird, relatively recent American invention that belies all sorts of history. It is also true that it is an echo of sorts of the feminist claim that "the personal is political", but since I don't believe that, either, then we're back at square one.

As far as Sarah Palin being "victimized", if one means everything from her accent to her place of origin to her personal history is fodder for jokes - including the whole nickname thing, "Caribou Barbie" - I fail to see any difference between that and Marshall's annoying reference to Sen. Obama as "Barry", or the total irrelevance of any relationship between Sen. Obama and William Ayers and/or Bernadine Dorn. Sarah Palin has spoken openly of her support for an Alaskan secessionist party of which her husband was a member, including filming a video for their "convention". I don't see why that isn't made more of, especially since Barack Obama was a child when Ayers and Dorn were far more active in doing naughty things.

Anyway, I couldn't care less about Bristol Palin, or her pregnancy, or little Trig (although I have to ask why she named her child after a branch of mathematics), or anything else. She has clearly demonstrated, through the repetition of lies in her stump speech and her awful, painful interview with Katie Couric, that she is so unqualified to hold any office other than, perhaps, runner-up beauty queen in the Miss Alaska competition. I really have to wonder how it is McCain accepted her as his running mate.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

As I have stated in the post, it is indeed her personal life being brought up, particularly her daughter's pregnancy, that demonstrates how she has been "victimized". I also stated that I think she's more than strong enough to deal with it. She doesn't seem like a whiner.

You seem to have a mental problem regarding my use of the appellation, "Barry", a nickname he's used himself. Boo-freakin'-hoo. As if it freakin' means anything. Try finding something worthy of which to whine. I mean really. It's not like I've called him "Bushhitler" or any such thing. I take that back. I call him "Obamanable" and "an Obamanation" all the time, but that's really a comment on his policies and his judgement.

Speaking of which, it is quite a statement of your own abilities of discernment and perception to see no problem with your candidate associating with someone who has admitted his own guilt in committing crimes against his own country and people, including attempted murder, expressed his shame at not having done more in the vein, and wears his reputation for such deeds as a badge of honor. As such, Barry shows he lacks honor, and quite frankly, you risk your own in holding to your position on the issue.

As to Palin's qualifications to hold public office, I would be interested in a rundown of the alleged lies. Please don't use Olberman's take, because he's a horse's ass and his disenchantment with the lovely Sarah is evidence that she is a fantastic pick. As you may recall, I am not worried that you have a good grasp of what constitutes a lie, having shredded your lengthy list of Bush lies in the past. Perhaps you can do better with Palin. I won't hold my breath, but wait nonetheless. I didn't see the Couric interview, but have heard snippets of what have been described by the left as proof of a "meltdown" by Palin, yet see it as a real stretch of the imagination. The left has such a wild imagination.

Vinny said...

Please don't use Olberman's take, because he's a horse's ass and his disenchantment with the lovely Sarah is evidence that she is a fantastic pick.

How about Kathleen Parker's take? How about George Will's take?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Her oft-repeated line about saying "Thanks but no thanks" - I think the count over at Think Progress is over 20. 'Nuff said.

As for her personal life, like I said, I couldn't care less. Her life and that of her family is irrelevant, and is no more or less a mess than most of ours. I actually think she has born up pretty well under the circumstances, but I disagree that she has been "victimized". Sure, she's the butt of jokes; that's what happens to people in the public eye, it's a way of keeping our elites in line in a democratic society.

I will not comment on you obsession with Obama's relationship with Ayers and Dorn, nor your constant invocation of "Barry". The former doesn't matter. At all. The latter is just a variation on the theme mentioned above. That's all.

As far as her lack of qualifications go - sorry to have to bring up the embarrassingly painful Katie Couric interview, but the woman (Palin) was just horrid. She couldn't even speak in sentences, let alone present a coherent thought. I realize part of the problem is the McCain campaign has been stuffing her head full of their own positions on a whole host of issues, but this only highlights how awful she is. Had she a firing neuron in her brain, she might have been able to arrange that information in such a way as to present it to the public in some usable form. She didn't.

She is so grossly unqualified that even right-wingers like Kathleen Parker and George Will are saying it is time for her to go. With McCain's campaign sinking faster with each passing day - his "suspension" stunt didn't quite work out the way he thought it would, I guess - I think that wouldn't be wise. Plus, it would only tick off people such as yourself who see nothing wrong with having a VP who can't even speak English, or who is a lying, brutal thug in office (her record on that is pretty clear, from checking out the possibility of censorship at the local library to firing people for "disloyalty"). The only nice thing about McCain naming her his running mate is, with his campaign about to make an epic fail, the Republicans have sunk any possibility of her holding office in the future.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

KO is so incredibly stupid that a safe bet is to wager on anything opposed to his pick. You must be one of his three viewers.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

I don't get the point of your first paragraph of your last comment. It's not uncommon to repeat phrases at various campaign stops. I doubt there's a candidate who doesn't. So what?

I know you don't care about her personal life. You've said that already. It matters not at all to the point I was making. Then again, libs need to ignore such things as character and how a candidate conducts him/herself in their personal lives in order for their candidates to be given the time of day. Yet, the left will look at such things and try to make hay out of isolated incidents where their own picks are chronic offenders. It is why you wish to ignore BARRY'S poor judgement in picking friends, as if it means nothing, as if they no longer are what they once were, as if they aren't what they have been plainly shown to be.

To put it another way, we on the right have expressed valid concerns about the associations of a guy who has shown no evidence that he's worthy of this attention and proximity to the White House.

In the meantime, you on the left have pretended that a woman, basically a housewife, who has risen through a variety of public positions, including being elected mayor of her town and governor of her state is somehow unqualified for the same position, and point to a personal issue regarding her daughter as some kind of sign that she should be avoided.

Now, it might stir your loins to think that because she stumbled over a few words talking to the Cronkite of our times, Katie Couric, that it somehow lends credence to your position, but then by that standard, your personal lord and savior Barry Obama has shown a far worse ability to speak extemporaneously and is far less deserving. Let's see...how many states are in the union? And that's the least of his inarticulate, stumble-bum speaking episodes. And since you've chosen to overlook her far better interview with the worthless Charlie Gibson, you can remove that argument altogether from your lame attempts to discredit her.

As for Will and Parker, were you pleased with their writing styles? Is that why you've given their opinions such attention? They are free to have them.

I see you've swallowed the lefty spin on her actions as Alaskan politician. Typical, but I'm afraid that there's nothing to those stories.

An epic fall? I thought Barry had it sewn up? It should be an expected fall. Your desperation is showing. I don't see why you should be so desperate, however. There's a lot of stupid people backing the second coming. The only real question is if they're willing to get off their asses and vote.

Mark said...

Nobama is a floccinaucinihilipilification, as are Geoffrey's ludicrous comments.

Vinny said...

Vinny,

KO is so incredibly stupid that a safe bet is to wager on anything opposed to his pick. You must be one of his three viewers.


I did not say anything about Keith Olberman. I pointed to the opinion of two respected conservatives: George Will and Kathleen Parker. As Parker noted, "If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

And as I point out, Will and Parker are free to have their opinions. Do you always agree with them, or only when they mirror your own perceptions?

Vinny said...

MA,

The way that you have effectively insulated yourself from ever considering any evidence that might undermine your preconceptions is very impressive.

If I cite a liberal source, you reject it because it’s liberal.

If I cite a conservative source, you reject it because I don’t usually agree with conservatives.

Marshall Art said...

But Vinny. You didn't present any evidence. All you did was cite two conservative pundits as being opposed to Palin's nomination. Give us a link the columns that spell out their problems with her, and I'll be happy to read them. (I can probably find Parker's at Townhall.com, but as I'm extremely busy, I'd appreciate you present a complete argument. Once things settle down, then we go back to wasting time giving only partial arguments and engaging in needless back-and-forths. Can ya do that for a brotha?) But if all you have is opinions of these two, so what? My differs and yours agrees. Meaningless. I've stated, presented, and concurred with obvious problems with the Obama nomination (hell, with him being in politics at all and pretending to serve the people). So at least on that score, it's a bit more than a superficial opinion. If there's any insulating going on, it's by those who support Obama with his shady associations and blank list of accomplishments. (I don't count his current status as Dem nominee as an accomplishment since it is built on nothing.)

Vinny said...

If you aren’t sufficiently interested in the arguments made by well respected conservatives to look them up for yourself, what would be the point of me trying to make the case?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Do I admire George Will's writing style? No. I admire his courage to admit that Sarah Palin is a sorry excuse for a VP candidate.

Kathleen Parker is now and always has been a hack of the first order. Yet, her realization that Sarah Palin is truly awful puts her one step above you, my friend, because she is more than willing to say, "Wow, this is truly awful."

I do so love it when facts are presented as "lefty spin". The facts are quite clear. Her repetition of the "Thanks but no thanks" line could be described as disingenuous the first time it was used. When it was clearly spelled out, however, that the facts didn't fit her description - the earmark for the Bridge was removed from any spending bills before her election; she continued to lobby for it until it became clear it was a national joke; she took what money did come in for the highway from Juneau, unlike her claims to have returned it, to spend on other projects - disingenuousness becomes a deliberate lie. The repetition of the line "Thanks but no thanks", long since proven - not via "lefty spin" but via actual facts (I am quite tired of having to spell out the difference) is a lie. It's really that simple. When confronted with the issue during one of her three interviews (if she's so wonderful for the Republicans, why are they hiding her away?), she tried to change the subject.

As for her actions as governor, she put cronies with no experience and no qualifications in positions of power throughout the state. She fired the head of the State Police, in all likelihood, because he refused to carry out a personal vendetta against her brother-in-law. She claims to be against pork, but lobbies for and receives far more in federal monies than the state pays in taxes. While the last doesn't necessarily distinguish her from most politicians - it's a pretty garden-variety lie - it does undermine her supposed commitment to some kind of ethical standard in public life, doesn't it?

The facts, which are really stupid things, as well as the attitude even of Republicans (other than yourself and a few in the base) is pretty clear - after some initial excitement, Sarah Palin has proven herself extremely unqualified for the office of Vice President. She is now, and will continue to be, the butt of jokes, not because her family situation is so odd, which it isn't. She will be the butt of jokes because she was presented as the best qualified person to be No. 2 in the country, and is most clearly not qualified to be number one in one of the smallest (by population) states. There is general agreement on this out there; Republicans are mad as hell at McCain for picking such an anchor on his campaign. They are mad as hell because they understand that every time she opens her mouth, it reminds the American people that she just doesn't have what it takes to hold high office.

As Vinny says, you insulate yourself from the way things really are quite nicely. On November 5, what will you do when Barack Obama and Joe Biden have been elected President and VP? Will you claim that a majority of Americans have been bamboozled? That the election was stolen? Will you claim, as Democrats gain even larger majorities in both houses of Congress, that somehow the results of the election don't matter, or that it's the fault of the press?

Some combination thereof is my bet.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. McCain is toast. This Thursday will be fun, as Joe Biden and Sarah Palin face off. I'm wondering how many complete sentences she will utter during the debate. I'm wondering how many times she'll call McCain a maverick.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

BTW, Mark, I see your Word-a-Day calendar investment is paying off.

Vinny said...

The repetition of the line "Thanks but no thanks", long since proven - not via "lefty spin" but via actual facts (I am quite tired of having to spell out the difference) is a lie.

That is putting it mildly. I think Palin admitted outright that it was a lie in her interview with Gibson: "And now obviously, Charlie, with the federal government saying, no, the rest of the nation does not want to fund that project. You have a choice. You either read the writing on the wall and understand okay, yes, that, that project’s going nowhere. And the state isn’t willing to fund that project. So what good does it do to continue to support something that circumstances have so drastically changed? You call an audible, and you deal in reality, and you move on. And, Charlie, we killed the bridge to nowhere and that’s the bottom line." She knows she did not kill it. She kicked it after it was dead.

Marshall Art said...

Vinny,

"If you aren’t sufficiently interested in the arguments made by well respected conservatives to look them up for yourself, what would be the point of me trying to make the case?"

As I mentioned, I'm very busy at present, for one, and for two, it's simple courtesy to actually explain what the hell you mean. I've barely the time to check the blog as it is without having to scour the periodicals in hopes of finding what you think you read.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

I hope to find a little more time to respond in depth to your comments, but I find it fairly ludicrous that you'd rail on about supposed lies of Palin and at the same time support ol' Barry. What irony!

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, there is nothing on Obama's record that even approaches the depth and breadth of the lies of the McCain/Palin campaign since the Republican convention. It's so well-documented even Republicans are aghast. Does Obama lie? Sure he does. All human beings do, politicians no more than most. When caught out, however, some actually either change their story, or (rarely enough) admit they were lying. Whether it's John Edwards manning up and saying, "Yeah, I cheated on my wife, " or whatever - usually the discovery of a lie makes people change their tune.

When John McCain was on The View and challenged on his lies, he sat there and sat, flatly, "They're not lies." Whether that's chutzpah or just plain stupidity, I don't know. For whatever reason, the Republicans, particularly the McCain/Palin campaign are betting not only the American people are really, really stupid, but that they won't pay attention. Sadly, it seems, we voters aren't quite as dumb as they thought, and now the Republican Presidential ticket is in a bit of a bind.

I'm not happy with Obama on all things. I didn't like the fact that he supported any kind of Wall Street bailout. I'm not sure I think his notions of foreign policy - like extending NATO membership to Georgia (which is not, exactly, on the North Atlantic) - are very sound. Considering the alternatives, and considering the past eight years, however, all I can say is, "Woo-hoo!"

Vinny said...

As I mentioned, I'm very busy at present, for one, and for two, it's simple courtesy to actually explain what the hell you mean. I've barely the time to check the blog as it is without having to scour the periodicals in hopes of finding what you think you read.

Don't scour, just google.

Marshall Art said...

Don't scour, just google.

Don't pass the buck, just support your comments. Better yet, just do what you want and I'll respond when you do it right.

Marshall Art said...

But on that note, having already asked and yet still waiting, I did go and look for these supposed "lies" of Sarah Palin. So far, all I've found is a list of twelve alleged lies reported by Andrew Sullivan. I've looked at four of them and found that his ideas of lies is really close to Geoffrey's ideas of lies. In other words, not really lies at all. Barely could be considered misleading.

Let me educate you on what a lie is:

"I, Marshall Art, am telling you all that Vinny and Geoffrey are black women."

This is a lie. Everyone can see the pictures they post of themselves and if we assume that those are the only proofs available, and that they are reliable proofs, then to say they are black women is a lie because I know what I say isn't true.

Like Geoffrey's lengthy, but wasted list of Bush lies, the four lies of Sullivan's list are not lies at all. In fact, of those four that I read, the lie is in saying they are lies. (To make matters worse, Sullivan's links attached to each lie are links to other Sullivan posts. His exerpts of his sources, however, are his evidence and they don't show "lies".)

Marshall Art said...

Just read the Parker column. Weak argument against Palin. Seems that being thrust into the national spotlight is something that happens to everyone. Seems being chosen to be #2 in the nation (provided the ticket wins in November) is just a walk in the park. No need to be nervous. Why, Barry speaks perfectly well when no teleprompter is running.

You guys gotta be kidding me. For all the reasons you want to rag on Palin, Obama is just as worthy of it. The difference is, she's running for #2 and he for #1. So on the articulate meter, you'll crucify Palin for her low score but totally ignore Barry's equally, and perhaps lower, ability to speak in full sentences. Talk about partisanship. Talk about insulating one's self from reality. Vinny, Geoffrey, you guys are special.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, once again, I refuse to try to "prove" something that is so easily shown to be factually accurate - the multiple lies of the McCain/Palin campaign - that I will simply let it lie. I gave you a source, Think Progress which has a thing called "Palin Watch" with a counter on the number of times she says "Thanks but no thanks", and if you choose not to check it out, I can't force you. As Vinny says, there's this search engine thingy, and all you gotta do is use it.

I am not laughing at Sarah Palin solely because she is inarticulate. While being able to speak in complete sentences is something one would think a politician should be able to do, that is not the source of my derision. The reason I found the interview by Katie Couric so awful is the fact there was no "there" there. When asked to back up her claim that she has "foreign policy experience" because Alaska is close to Russia, her answer rambled on like something out of a James Joyce novel, but basically ended up saying, "We're close to Russia and Canada." That's not an answer. It's nonsense. I've been to Canada twice (two more times than Sarah Palin), so does that make me an expert on Canada?

The reason I find her silly and ignorant is because she has proven, quite clearly, to be silly and ignorant. There's nothing wrong with either quality. Except when running for high office. I want my President and VP to be not very silly (although a sense of humor, which both McCain and Palin seem to lack, except in hurtful ugly ways in McCain's case) and knowledgeable enough about things, and articulate enough to express their knowledge, that I can make heads and/or tails of what that person is saying, and more important, planning on doing.

One more detail on the Couric/Palin interview. Another snippet I heard concerned Palin's understanding of details of McCain's plan to deal with the meltdown of the investment banking industry. Katie Couric showed that she did actual research and pointed out his consistent deregulatory stance on banking and financial markets, in contrast to his recent pitchforks and torches rhetoric, and asked what, exactly, a McCain/Palin Administration would do to deal with the issue. Rather than give any specifics, which Obama and Biden are doing (and, to give him credit, McCain as well, although I don't really believe him), she used the said something about how he's been a maverick, at which point I turned the sound down because it was quite clear she had no substantive answer to the question. I could see on both her face and Couric's that the entire episode was painful. Couric gamed on, however, and demanded specifics, to which Palin replied, "I'll look in to it and get back to you."

This doesn't inspire confidence.

One final note in a comment that is already too long. I should make it clear that I am not interested in candidates for high office being geniuses, or being as well-versed in the details of policy as, say, Bill Clinton was (the man could drone on and on about any number of detailed policy proposals; snore . . .). I do expect, however, persons who hold high office to know (a) something about important matters in a substantive way to be able to explain their interpretation of them, as well as how they will address them, if at all; and (b) be able to articulate that understanding as clearly as possible. Inarticulacy in politicians is a bit like frigidity in prostitutes - it doesn't go with the territory, as it were.

Mark said...

" I want my President and VP to be not very silly (although a sense of humor, which both McCain and Palin seem to lack, except in hurtful ugly ways in McCain's case) and knowledgeable enough about things, and articulate enough to express their knowledge, that I can make heads and/or tails of what that person is saying, and more important, planning on doing.

This statement from someone who supports uh, uh, uh, uh, Obama? Please, don't make me laugh.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Mark once again proves himself the master of the meaningless non-sequitur. Because he stammers, which all human beings do, he is the equivalent of Sarah Palin, who insists that proximity to a foreign country equates with foreign policy experience, and who makes this claim using the sentence structure of some dead foreign tongue.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall wanted an example of a McCain/Palin lie, so all I can say is:

click

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

For an example of what I mean when I say that I am embarrassed by Sarah Palin's inability to speak clearly (or to answer a simple question, even with a convincing lie), all I can say is:

click

While it might be said in her favor that she didn't lie, her fumble at the end is just gibberish.

Marshall Art said...

Actually, I was asking for a Palin lie, since it was you who directly accused her, not McCain/Palin, but I'll bite.

"Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process." is NOT the same as blaming them for the meltdown of the bailout. So he answered the question honestly if the above quote is what they were using as evidence regarding blame. Is this parsing? Is this splitting hairs? Perhaps to some extent, but this is typical politics. Now if you want lies, one need look no further than Barny Frank, who said there was no problem with Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac. That's an outright lie.

For my part, I'd prefer Johnny was much more upfront about where the blame rightly belongs and that is at the feet of the Democrats. Yeah, others could have acted more forcfully from the good side of the aisle, but the Dems were totally responsible for the changes in lending practices that resulted in the mess in which the nation finds itself. They were the driving force. And they were the ones who blocked what was put forth to try to put a leash on the situation.

But anyway, back to Palin and your silly objections. Silly for accusing her of the same faults of your lord and savior.

Let me ask you this: has Palin's count of "Thanks but no thanks" risen higher than Barry's "Yes we can!"? I can't believe that you're gonna hang your hat on such an insignificant thing as a politician saying the same thing at each stop of a campaign. There's that desperation of which I spoke earlier. You look at Palin's stammering as a sign of her inability to handle the office. I look at it a symptom of her humility at being selected. It's a lack of arrogance and a humaness lacking in your candidate who believes he's entitled, ready, qualified, but still can't speak without prepared statements. Let's see him in action in a townhall meeting. Palin hasn't had nearly the time to prepare for every possible question as has your candidate who's been preparing for this since he lied and said he wasn't seeking the presidency. Yeah, right. 140 days as a US Senator and the campaign begins. As a citizen of Illinois, I've been cheated by this opportunist who insisted on jumping on Jack Ryan's personal life in order to win the election. He couldn't won without Ryan stepping down?

You rag on her foreign policy experience as if Barry has any because HE has travelled abroad. His defense of his experience is no better than her "being close to Russian and Canada". I believe there's some level of trade between Alaska and those countries, if I'm not mistaken, just as there likely is between Canadian provinces and any US state that they border. What's Barry got that is so much more than that? Nothing.

The more I compare, the less I see as one having more than the other, except that Palin has been a mayor and a governor and she isn't a screaming socialist liberal. As to the rest, I'm guessing the reason that McCain is "hiding" her is to give her time to get up to speed on the details of his positions. She hasn't been in the senate with the other three guys in the race and being busy with her own responsibilities, it makes sense that she could use the time. We'll see Thursday how she does.

I haven't heard anyone on the right and proper side of the aisle defend her Couric performance. I understand she had an interview either yesterday or the day before and faired much better, but I haven't seen or heard it myself. You judge her on superficial things for which your pick for starting quarterback is equally guilty. The backup CAN learn on the job and she's already had snaps. Barry's had nothing. Barry HAS nothing. He's unqualified, but far worse, he's the absolute wrong guy for the job.

Oh, and one more thing about lies. Barry says he's gonna bring change. What he's gonna bring is that which has been tried and failed.

Here's a little more dishonesty:

"Today's economic problems are a stark reminder of the failures of...an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary."

"Any regulation at all"??? The conservative/Republican economic philosophy does not seek NO regulation. That would be libertarians. Plus, there's been regs all over the place and none of that changed under Bush. He sought more to corral the problems of the industry and was blocked by the Dems. So is that a lie, or does he lack the knowledge of the subject? You rip Palin for less.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing. As to the search engine thingy,

Make an accusation, back it up. Man up, back up. I'm not gonna chase down your misperceptions. YOU provide the source for your junk and I'll provide for mine.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Oh dear God, Marshall, you keep changing the rules, you keep ignoring the evidence, you refuse to check out examples I provide.

I really can't do anything else. The public record since the Republican convention is clear. Whether it's misrepresenting an IL law Obama supported concerning providing age-appropriate information to kindergarten students on good and bad touching, simply lying about Obama's position on taxes as well as his own, or claiming that Gov. Palin was qualified for the VP, including having foreign policy experience (because Alaska is only 90 miles from Russia at one point), the McCain campaign has become a joke.

As for Sarah Palin, her ignorance and untruthfulness are boundless. CBS keeps releasing snippets of the Couric interview that are just painful. I refuse to equate the kind of gibberish she spouts with the occasional stammer by Sen. Obama; there is no comparison, simply put, and everyone except you and a few other die-hards seems to understand that.

As soon as you provide me with a consistent criteria for "evidence", I will provide it. As soon as you admit that facts, regardless of their source, are non-ideological, I will continue this discussion. For right now, I really can't do this anymore, because, like the horse of legend, you can be led to water, but I cannot make you drink.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

Geoffrey, Morologus es! Vescere bracis meis.

Tace atque abi.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Apparently, failing English, Mark switches to a dead language.

I'm still trying to figure out what you are trying to prove, dude. Do you honestly believe I care how erudite you are?

Mark said...

No Geoffrey, I'm just having fun with you. You know how to look things up on the internet. So do I, and ocassionally, I like to have a little fun. Don't you have a sense of humor?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I do. I think being an idiot in a dead language is hysterical.

Mark said...

You know, Geoff, Art has chastized me for calling other commenters "idiots" and "morons".

That's why I called you a moron in Latin. Don't you think it sounds more elitist that way? I would think that you, very much an elitist, (but not in a good way) would appreciate it.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

I've checked the links you've presented here. I can't believe you're not embarrassed to have done so. I've never heard Couric ask such questions of Barry or Joe, have you? Why does Sarah get all that goofy-assed questions, and then the rest of us are supposed to act as if the world survives on the answers? Her answer plainly suggests that she reads plenty, and the fact that she won't name one shows, what? That she's lying and never reads periodicals? Get real. Seems more a matter of not dignifying such a lame question with a response.

Let's assume she's never even known newspapers and magazines exist. How does that disqualify her from the backup position? Has she not been doing that which Barry feels he's entitled to do? That is, run something? Which newspapers and magazines has HE read? Jeez louise, Geoffrey! Be a man, have some honor and admit that Couric and Gibson haven't even conducted interviews with Palin but have been playing "Gotcha" with her. Neither of these poor excuses for journalists would ask your lord and savior questions like those and they haven't yet. You're gonna have to do a whole lot better if you want think you're gonna discredit her. And you dare condescend to me! You are really bending over and spreading 'em for Barry, aren't you?

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey and Mark,

Cut the crap. Take it to your blogs if you please. I insist that you both direct such attacks in my direction only and not toward my guests. That's MY job.

Cameron said...

Geoffrey,

I have not, nor will I, discuss Palin's personal life at all.

Good job. Too bad millions of others didn't follow your lead.

As far as Sarah Palin being "victimized", if one means everything from her accent to her place of origin to her personal history is fodder for jokes...

No, that is not what one means. What one means are the insinuations that she's a racist, or not a "real" woman, or that she's too dumb, or that she had an affair with her husband's business associate. It goes far beyond the "normal" name calling prevalent in elections. While Caribou Barbie and Barry may be juvenile, they are a far sight from what was thrown at Governor Palin.

Sarah Palin has spoken openly of her support for an Alaskan secessionist party of which her husband was a member, including filming a video for their "convention". I don't see why that isn't made more of, especially since Barack Obama was a child when Ayers and Dorn were far more active in doing naughty things.

First, let me know when the “secessionist party” starts bombing government buildings.

Second, she sent a video to the convention. Big deal. It’s an independent, libertarian minded political party that once held the governor’s office in Alaska. It’s not like they’re handing out awards to Louis Farrakhan. Her association with it (as limited as it is) is no more a stain than is Obama’s 20 year membership in Rev. Wright’s church.

Now, as far as the list of “lies” goes, you correctly stated that lies and politicians go hand in hand. She lobbied for the bridge, just as my own mayor is lobbying for transportation funding in my small community. When the earmark was removed, and the bridge projected to be way over budget, Gov. Palin scrapped the plan and used the money elsewhere. What’s ironic in all of this is that both Obama and Biden voted for the bridge to nowhere (twice), and are some of the biggest earmark requesters in Congress. Well, in Obama’s case, he was until he decided to run for president and realized the political ramifications of his record.

Furthermore, if lying is so abhorrent to you, I wonder how you continue your support of Joe Biden. How many times is he going to repeat his “helicopter forced down” lie? Or his “I was against clean coal before I was for it”? Have we forgotten so soon his “creepy” plagiarism in 1988? He stole not just a stump speech, but the life of a British politician. And that’s not all. As David Greenberg writes,

“Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect.”

We’re talking lie after lie after lie. Which is weird, cause Think Progress doesn’t seem to be keeping track of those. Things like flunking a class in college because of plagiarism, saying he went to law school on a full scholarship, graduated in the top half of his class, and had earned three undergrad degrees. All lies.

I think Greenberg has a great point,

It's worth knowing whether the odds-on favorite to be our next vice president has truly reformed himself of behavior that can often be the mark of a deeply troubled soul.