« There’s, Of Course In The Great History Of America There Have Been Rulings ... | Main | Bailout Passes Senate »

October 01, 2008

Comments

I'm not even sure there's enough thought underlying the babble to make #2.

In any event, the contrast with Biden could not be more striking.

Don't put it past Biden to fnck this whole thing up by turning the "debate" into one big mock-fest, thus enraging the right Even, measured, answers, Joe. Even, measured, answers.

I vote for #1, except that this:

In other words, the right to privacy should be narrowly construed to protect state rights.

should read:

In other words, the right to privacy should be narrowly construed to exclude a right to abortion.

Thanks -

I think you're wrong to connect Palin's two statements. I think she combines a truly sweeping ignorance with some programmed responses. Thus, she replies to the question about a right to privacy with a complete lack of awareness as to what that means (i.e. Roe), and assumes it's something she should like: small government, leave us alone, etcetera. Then comes the second question, about Roe, and it's a follow-up, but that doesn't prove that her responses logically connect or are meant to do so. I'd guess that at this point if you asked her about salmon roe you'd probably trigger a reflex that it should be left to the states. I think there's at least a good chance that her two responses were essentially independent, though the juxtaposition certainly is revealing.

Silly logical people. A guy who's debated Palin in the past says:

Palin's knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.
She doesn't have to make sense, all she has to do is sound good. Or, well, adequate. Awake.

Also see Michael Berube on thinking you're so smart.

Andrew Sullivan's taken to musing about whether or not Sarah Palin could pass a citizenship test. (h/t koreyel in W.M. comments)

I think she is a pretty good bullshitter and schmoozer, which may be enough to succeed in Alaskan politics, but she's not in Alaska anymore. Her lack of knowledge about US history and significant national and international issues is (based on the interviews we've seen so far) rather stunning. I think McCain has done this woman a great disservice by tapping her for a position she is so clearly unqualified for.

"I'd guess that at this point if you asked her about salmon roe you'd probably trigger a reflex that it should be left to the states."

Salmon roe has to help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany salmon roe.

Salmon roe is very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where does salmon roe go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send salmon roe out. We do.

What Dr.Science said. My prediction: thetalking heads will say that Biden won on points but that Palin exceeded expectations and presented herself ans both forceful and appealing, etc etc.

Nobody on the MSM is going to discuss the content of her remarks and the five or six percent of voters who have not make up their minds are not going to be listening to her words either.

Debates are personality competitions. To tell who won or lost, wath with the sound off. It's all about body language. If she doesn't seem rattled, avoids any moose in the head light moments, improves her posture, she'l be fine.

Unfortunately.

From the Berube piece Dr Science links to upthread:

I’ve been reading the GOP campaign as being not merely an assault on liberal elites—like I say, that’s old news—but a frontal attack on the very idea of standards of plausibility in argument.

Sounds about right to me.

Palin's lack of depth and relevant experience is her strong suit. Her ignorance is her strength.

My guess is that she worth, conservatively, somewhere between 10 and 20 points to McCain in the markets she's meant to appeal to.

Thanks -

"Nobody on the MSM is going to discuss the content of her remarks"

Why would they act so unlike they did after the Obama/McCain debate?

This seems unlikely to the point of impossibility. That, or I have no idea how you are defining "MSM."

Biden had better not say "heterogeneous" in the debate.

Biden had better not say "heterogeneous" in the debate.

No, heterogeneous is OK.

Homogeneous is bad.

Thanks -

"To tell who won or lost, wath with the sound off."

Also, there's a large radio audience.

"Homogeneous" would be even worse, but "heterogeneous" still has too many syllables.

Russell- My guess is that she worth, conservatively, somewhere between 10 and 20 points to McCain in the markets she's meant to appeal to.

You just killed a little bit of my soul.

"You just killed a little bit of my soul."

I'm not clear what Russell means by "markets," since they're not selling things by media markets. What matters are states, and I doubt she's worth more than 2-3 percentage points at most, and I suspect she's losing far more votes, overall, than gaining them. Whether she'd actually make a positive difference in any key state will remain to be seen by close analysis after the election, but I wouldn't count on it.

Mostly she'll likely just bring out more votes in conservative precincts and states that McCain would have won anyway. Will she make a difference in battleground states like Ohio, Michigan, Florida, etc.? Maybe, but I wouldn't despair yet.

I'm honestly not worried about the outcome of the election. Barring Obama doing a Black Power salute and screaming, "Kill whitey!" I think things will turn out all right.

My concern is that she's worth any bump at all. While its probably pretty difficult to figure out exactly, that McCain would get 10-20% (or 2-3%) more votes because of her, that she could be an overall plus is troublesome. I'm not sure whether or not she'll win more votes than she loses, tomorrow night ought to help decide that. Your point that she'd be boosting votes in places McCain probably already had locked up is comforting, though.

Best to just chalk this up to a generic, "How does Bush have 28%?" type complaint from me.

Shorter Palin: I believe in rights but not the court rulings that uphold them.

Slightly shorter Palin: What does the Supreme Court do, anyway?

Oh jees, MeDrew, now there will be e-mails going out that the bloggers heard Obama shouting Kill Whitey.

Department of That Silly McCain: turns out Rick Davis and Davis, Manafort have also taken a lot of money from Russian interests that follow the Kremlin line.

At this point, it seems a safe bet that whatever McCain likes he claim he's against, Rick Davis has taken money to be for.

"My guess is that she worth, conservatively, somewhere between 10 and 20 points to McCain in the markets she's meant to appeal to."

Absolutely. Not only did she secure the base, but she got them to volunteer. But she lost probably 30 points worth of moderate republicans and independents, which I don't think McCain anticipated, expecting he could hold them in line.

But I don't see how Translation 1 could possibly be true. I agree with Warren, she has no idea how the privacy clause relates to Roe, so she sees no contradiction in those statements.

I think my fair Gov. is getting a slightly bad on this one. The Alaska State Constitution contains an explicit guarantee of a privacy right (Art. I Sec. 22 for those inclined to view), and unlike the few other states with similar provisions in their state Constitutions (Hawaii, Montana and Florida, if memory serves), the Alaskan judiciary has consistently interpreted this provision fairly broadly to protect things from abortion rights (Sisters of Providence v. Sweet), to gun rights, religious freedoms, and of course that old standby marijuana possession (Ravin v. State). This is a fairly well settled part of what might be termed the Alaskan legal culture, so her understanding of such a right as "Constitutional" is understandable.

s/b "getting a slightly bad rap"

Pooh, surely you're not claiming Palin thought "the Constitution" meant the Alaska constitution?

"But she lost probably 30 points worth of moderate republicans and independents"

What "points" are you measuring, exactly?

About that foreign policy experience of Palin's:

[...] Ms. Palin does not appear to have made any trade missions since taking office, and former state officials said the state’s trade staff had been reduced under her watch.

Alaska has also sharply reduced its role in the Northern Forum, an association of state and regional governments from countries including Canada, Russia, Japan and China that works on common issues in northern regions like economic development, flooding and global warming.

Under Mr. Murkowski, Ms. Palin’s predecessor, the state sent senior administration officials to the forum’s meetings and contributed $60,000 to $100,000 to the forum each year, according to the forum’s executive director, Priscilla Wohl.

Under Ms. Palin, the state has reduced its spending to the base-level membership dues, $15,000, and the administration has not attended any forum meetings, including one last fall in Russia.

“Had she participated, in the last 18 months she would have met ambassadors, governors, heads of the European Union’s programs, of United Nations programs,” Ms. Wohl said.

Oh, well.

Couric seems to have done this with the 'bush doctrine" phrase too. To me that means the doctrine bush has (which is a complex thing) - I suppose im not exposed enough to the liberal media in the USA and neither is she - but that would be the literal interpretation.
Similarly here She asks a question about the right to privacy which to me reflects 1st amendment protection of 'privacy' of religion, 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches and 5th amendment privacy against self incrimination. I don't know the context or the American cultural background to it but that seems again to be the standard interpretation.

I'm honestly not worried about the outcome of the election. Barring Obama doing a Black Power salute and screaming, "Kill whitey!" I think things will turn out all right.

Stephen Spoonamore does not share your opinion. It's not what the voters want. It's what the people who control the voting machines want.

XKCD

OR option #3:
She believes in a right to privacy because privacy is a good thing and she's for it.

Then go to the States' Rights canned answer, which seemed to also apply to, theoretically, every SCT decision "historically", that she disagrees with. She can't name any, but if there are any she disagrees with it would be because of States' Rights.

States' Rights, Culture of Life, Blibbedy Blabbedy Bloo!

I agree that the important reaction to Palin is how the public reacts on a gut level. But it's a mistake to assume that she has the average-person sympathy vote sewn up.

Based on recollections from high school, the average kid suffered less personal grief from the smarty-pants know-it-all geeks than from the popular "mean girls". As Palin gets better known, more people (especially women, who vote in larger proportion than men) are likely to see her as the snotty airhead cheerleader rather than one of the regular kids who ranked way below cheerleaders in the adolescent pecking order.

Jes- The links are a bit worrisome, but I'm still of the opinion that Obama is going to get such a huge blowout victory, it'll be impossible to steal. I will admit, though, that with Rush Limbaugh harping on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect>Bradley Effect hints at what the fix would look like. Usually Rush is nothing but a liar, but here there's just enough plausability to give one pause.

Incidently, that's my favorite XKCD, but I prefer http://www.qwantz.com/>Dinosaur Comics. Their whole gang is great, though, and highly addictive to boot!

We're watching sausage being made. First, Couric asks a question right out of Broadcast News in a direct effort to trip up the Governor, a question Couric didn't know the answer to fifteen minutes before, and has since forgotten. Governor Palin responds in sweeping generalities based on her experience and vantage point as a state governor. Couric's cult following takes the cue and turns the episode into direct collateral damage and spins it exactly as it was intended - direct campaigning by the media. I suppose this is our punishment from "The Making of the President". Ironic that the media, iconic of our open society could in fact lead to our downfall, that is if one considers our ultimate end of socialism or Islamic religious fanaticalism as undesirable ends.

GNZ and blogbudsman, "the right to privacy" is a phrase whose meaning, in the context of the federal government and presidential politics, has been neither obscure nor vague for thirty-some years. It refers to Roe v. Wade, unambiguously. Even if we were to give Palin a pass on clearly not knowing that - and I submit to you that no high school civics class would give her a pass on that - once Couric jogged Palin's memory about the connection, the resulting answer was a standard Republican States' Rights talking point that made no sense combined with the previous answer, managing to suggests that states decide which Constitutionally protected rights to permit. Like many of her answers, this pair revealed that Palin has spent her life fundamentally uninterested in the federal government and its foreign or domestic policy decisions. No matter how much potential she might have, even if she were to fundamentally change and assiduously study all this stuff from genuine interest rather than crammng, no crash course can overcome that and get her ready for the Presidency in a few short months.

blogbudsman, your post is parody, surely?

"I'm not even sure there's enough thought underlying the babble to make #2."

I think this is true in more ways than one.

Couric's cult

Who are the members of this cult? In my experience, Couric has been viewed as a lightweight who was an inappropriate choice for her position. If anything it seems that should appeal to Palin fans.

I think the people sending around the Couric-Palin videos, far from being a Couric cult, are quite surprised to see that Couric was able to expose Palin's ineptitude so effectively, much as we'd be surprised if a Larry King interview revealed something useful.

I'm not clear what Russell means by "markets," since they're not selling things by media markets. What matters are states

Yes, sorry, that wasn't a very clear choice of words.

For "markets" please substitute "demographic".

My unoriginal thought is that Palin was picked to bring the social conservatives back into McCain's camp. My scientific wild-ass guess is that her nomination will make something like a 10-20% difference in bringing those folks to the polls on election day.

Not a 10-20% difference in the total population, or the electoral vote. Just in the social conservative audience that she appeals to.

That might be a little high, but then again I think a lot of social cons were pretty unhappy with McCain, and were thinking of sitting this one out. So maybe it's not so far off.

She will lose McCain some other folks as well, but my guess is that her nomination will, net/net, put more voters in the booth for McCain than it will take away.

The point I took away from Berube's piece was that Palin's ignorance -- her basic lack of information, and her apparent lack of concern about that -- will not only be a non-issue for the folks she appeals to, it will probably play as a strength.

Who needs all that book learning when you have good, solid, common sense?

That might even be an tenable argument if her common sense was gleaned from experience that was relevant to the position of VP. I don't see that in her resume.

Thanks -

Warren Terra: "..."the right to privacy" is a phrase whose meaning, in the context of the federal government and presidential politics, has been neither obscure nor vague for thirty-some years. It refers to Roe v. Wade, unambiguously."

Really. In your small world. I prefer my right to be left alone. And that's better left to the states, where my quality of life can be better protected.

It's the people in politics and the media that steers the news these day that I fear the most. The Constitution is about what government can do and with the usual Amendendments being bantied about, I prefer X.

Governor Palin gave the answer I was looking for. Couric asked a narrow minded question on a subject that demands volumes of responses. Governor Palin responded with an appropriate stream of consciousness answer that would have exceeded the expectations of most, except for the snakes in the grass.

Warren, sit back and think a bit. You may be wrong.

Amendendments! You can never use enough syllables.

Wow, bbm must have looked into Palin's eyes and was able to get a sense of her soul...

blogbudsman- Any reference to the right to privacy over the past 30 years implicitly refers to Roe. Yes, privacy does cover other things, but in general when the right is discussed we're talking about abortion. Correct or no, that's what it has come to mean.

The right to be left alone certainly includes privacy, and can be tied to some of the arguments that were made in Roe, but usually search and seizure protections are invoked as safeguards.

The whole point here is that Palin didn't know what she was talking about. If she can intelligently discuss Roe v Wade, then she should certainly be able to recognize the role of the right to privacy in the decision. Its painfully obvious that she heard 'privacy' and naturally said she likes it (who doesn't?). Her failure was when she then heard Roe and automatically freaked out. Palin understood the common meaning of privacy, she didn't understand the common judicial usage.

Warren Terra: "..."the right to privacy" is a phrase whose meaning, in the context of the federal government and presidential politics, has been neither obscure nor vague for thirty-some years. It refers to Roe v. Wade, unambiguously."

Really. In your small world. I prefer my right to be left alone. And that's better left to the states, where my quality of life can be better protected.

Palin isn't running to be vice-president of your small world, she's running to be vice-president of the U.S. And in the context of the federal government, "the right to privacy" is an extraordinarily famous concept having to do with the Roe and Griswold decisions. In the context of the Presidential aspirations of a rudimentarily informed person, it's not, as Palin and you seem to think, some vague concept of Leave Us Alone.

Even if Palin were striking some semantic blow for the broader concept of privacy unlinked to its Constitutional meaning, once Couric asked the follow-up and reminded her that the Right To Privacy was the basis of the Roe decision, it was incumbent on Palin to explain how her belief in this right could be reconciled with her viewpoint on Roe. All she had to do was say that she did not believe the Right To Privacy was absolute, or that it covered abortion, or that she'd been talking more generally. Instead, she dug herself deeper in: by using a standard conservative talking point on Roe that was doesn't make sense if you've conceded the basis of Roe, she managed to give states veto power over Constitutional rights. Her performance would get a D in high-school civics, and it revealed a person until very recently uninterested in the government she wants to control.

Alternatively, what Warren said, but much better than me. ^.^;

KC,

I don't think she is really cognizant of the distinction between the two Constitutions. I'm just saying you hear about the "constitutional right to privacy" fairly often up here.

I think translation #2 is a bit of a stretch. Yes, that could be true, but I don't think you can really make the case from what is in the interview. As someone else suggested, she may not have meant to connect her responses in that way.

Of course, it's hard to analyze anything she says because it usually barely makes any sense.

I also find it hard to believe that "Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy." Does she really have a "gift of glittering generality"? She keeps it general, yes, but a "gift"? I guess she seems like a nice, pleasant person, but I haven't heard anything from her that would explain to me how this "gift" allowed her to circumvent knowledge of public policy.

I guess my point is that Palin utterly confuses me.

I don't think she is really cognizant of the distinction between the two Constitutions.

Or she assumed that because the right is enshrined in the Alaska Constitution, it is likewise explicit in the US Constitution. Which is ignorant, but understandable--if you're not someone running for the second-highest office of the land.

Until recently, I think most people would assume that the federal Constitution has more protections for individuals than state constitutions do, because of the cultural emphasis on the Bill of Rights and its frequent invocation in popular media. It's only become evident on a broad scale recently that some states are more protective of personal freedoms than the federal government -- although usually those protections are interpreted in favor of things conservatives don't like, such as gay marriage.

This is just another instance of Palin being pretty good at her job in Alaska, and not good at all in a nationwide context.

"GNZ and blogbudsman, 'the right to privacy' is a phrase whose meaning, in the context of the federal government and presidential politics, has been neither obscure nor vague for thirty-some years. It refers to Roe v. Wade, unambiguously."

Griswold before Roe, though.

"Really. In your small world."

Yes, in that small world of people who have ever paid attention to public policy and the law. (Me, I only have 3 months of college, so don't try to tell me only the "elite" know or care about such things.) Including people who, say, care about what the Supreme Court has said about the rights to contraception and abortion.

"Couric asked a narrow minded question on a subject that demands volumes of responses."

"Do you believe there's a right to privacy in the Constitution" is pretty much a yes or no question, actually. It can be expanded upon, of course, but need not be.

Contra what many folks say, I don't think saying "yes" mandates agreeing with Roe, but not acknowledging the seeming contradiction, on the other hand, strongly suggests one is unaware of it.

What's impossible, however, to get around, is that if there is an individual right guaranteed in the United States Constitution, than it can't be up to either the States or the people to determine what that right is. That's definitionally the job of the federal courts, and out of the hands of the States and the people.

If you want States to make up their own mind on an issue, that's fine: but it can't be on a guaranteed Constitutional right.

Do you seriously disagree with this, blogsbudman?

Warren Terra: "...Palin isn't running to be vice-president of your small world"

So much for all politics is local. She will however, along with the actual candidate for president, receive my small vote.

I'm glad she sidestepped Couric's 'gotcha' moment and not surprised it has cost you carpel tunnel exposure. I'd give her a 'B', cause you know we wouldn't want to dampen her self esteem. Debate on.

And McDrewNotYou, was that a "Ditto!"?

And the dropoff from the 2nd highest office in the land to 3rd and 4th is even more precipitous.

Hello Gary, you’re taking me a little above my pay grade, but in due respect, let me try.

"Do you believe there's a right to privacy in the Constitution" is pretty much a yes or no question, actually. It can be expanded upon, of course, but need not be.

Well, the answer is 'no', kinda. But that can be expanded upon, of course, and in most all cases is.

And an individual right? Isn't it more a spectrum of rights, then all hell breaks loose? I'll return to my belief that the Constitution spells out what the government can and cannot do. States rights takes over from there - for the people ya know.

I still feel one side of this argument is tactics, that allows the other side of this argument to drown in minutia for their own purposes.

Gamesmanship my friends, gamesmanship.

And I truly believe we're on a 2nd or 3rd generation hilzoy. Maybe Jes' partner or some tie in there.

And for the record, I'm pro choice. Uncomfortable with McCain and believe that Obama is Chicago street politics as usual. He would know how to count change, let alone produce it.

NOT know, Freudian slip - hardly. Just me being me.

"I'll return to my belief that the Constitution spells out what the government can and cannot do."

Are you familiar with the Ninth Amendment?

"And I truly believe we're on a 2nd or 3rd generation hilzoy."

I've met Hilzoy, we've corresponded regularly for years, and she teaches at a highly well-known and highly respected university, where a substitution would be noticed.

So I can tell you to a certainty that your true belief is erroneous.

If you detect any changes in her, they're the changes brought on by being worn down by the endless criminality and foolishness of the Bush Administration, and the foolishness of its erstwhile base.

(If you look at my blog posts from 2002-2003, you'll see that my style and approach to U.S. politics has changed somewhat since then, as well; I'm still the same me, but events have a way of altering one's approach over time, whether to small or large effect; for far larger changes, compare, say, John Cole, or Andrew Sullivan. They're still the same people, though.)

(Moreover, as a matter of judgment, if Hilzoy's approach has changed in the past couple of years, it seems fairly minimally so to me, at best. But that's subjective opinion.)

"...and believe that Obama is Chicago street politics as usual."

As I have to others, I highly recomend reading Dreams From My Father.

"If you detect any changes in her, they're the changes brought on by being worn down by the endless criminality and foolishness of the Bush Administration, and the foolishness of its erstwhile base."

Then her wounds are self inflicted. That's like changing my vote because of Polosi's nonsense. And stop calling me erstwhile. :)

palin does not believe in a constitutional "right to privacy." Her problem is that she is not bright enough to know that she does not believe in it. "Privacy " sounds good, downright glibertarian, "I must be for it."

Also, I would like to know whether she supports the right of homogeneous people to marry. Why should us heterogeneous people be the only ones to suffer.

Also, I don't for a minute believe that she has ever read Roe v. Wade.

But one of Palin's best friends is a thespian, and it's rumored that her children sometimes masticate.

And in high school she had connections with pedagogues.

Or she assumed that because the right is enshrined in the Alaska Constitution, it is likewise explicit in the US Constitution. Which is ignorant, but understandable--if you're not someone running for the second-highest office of the land.

Right, that was sorta my point, though I take issue with the statement "Palin being pretty good at her job in Alaska", the Governor doesn't really have that much to do up here, especially when oil is ~$100/barrel or more. Honestly, Ted Stevens probably had more to do with Alaska functioning than did any recent governor.

Alaska is our most socialist state. The proletariat own the means of oil production. It is also #1 in government earmarks. . .

. and rape. Lets not not forget rape. They are #1 in rape.

It's true, we're a vast Marxist-Leninist collective up here. I mean, WE CAN SEE RUSSIA! LOOK!

Is it true what Tina Fey says, that it is your job to say shu, get off my lawn, if any Alaskan sees any Ruski without proper papers in the mornin'?

Governor Palin gave the answer I was looking for.

The truly sad thing is that blodbudsman does not seem to realize this statement says far more about him than it does on Palin.

And as others have noted, "right to privacy" could indeed be construed by the man-on-the-street as referring in general terms to the notion of liberty. But this question was asked in the context of discussing Supreme Court decisions, and specifically in the context of discussing Roe. And in that context, "right to privacy" absolutely, unarguably and unambiguously refers to the judicial concepts upon which Roe and Griswold rest.

That was the context of the discussion. That was the context of the question. It's not even up for dispute by any thinking person who knows what they're talking about.

Which Palin unmistakably does not.

Damn them men-on-the-street types. They just have no reason to live. What if my thoughts were more along the lines of "as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours."?

Contra what many folks say, I don't think saying "yes" mandates agreeing with Roe, but not acknowledging the seeming contradiction, on the other hand, strongly suggests one is unaware of it.

Put another way: what she should have said is something along the lines of:

"I do believe in a right to privacy [assuming she does], but I do not see abortion as covered under the right to privacy, due to my belief that it involved destroying another human life."

What's impossible, however, to get around, is that if there is an individual right guaranteed in the United States Constitution, than it can't be up to either the States or the people to determine what that right is. That's definitionally the job of the federal courts, and out of the hands of the States and the people.

Yes and no. Based on the wording of the first amendment, a large number of peopel believe that the Bill of Rights was designed to limit the Federal government's power to abrogate rights, and did not give the Federal government the authority to prevent states from abrogating the enumerated (i.e. amendments 1-8) and implied (e.g. amendment 9) rights in the Constitution.

The idea that the Federal government imposes the Bill of Rights onto the state governments is largley based on an interpretation of the 14th amendment.

"The idea that the Federal government imposes the Bill of Rights onto the state governments is largley based on an interpretation of the 14th amendment."

Yes.

The point then being, Gary, that depending on whether or not one agrees with that interpretation, the idea that the Federal government guarantees the protection of the right to privacy from the Federal Government but not from the states can be viable. Whether or not you agree with it, it is not philosophically incoherent, as you seem to imply.

In other words, the statement:

What's impossible, however, to get around, is that if there is an individual right guaranteed in the United States Constitution, than it can't be up to either the States or the people to determine what that right is.

Is incorrect.

Not that one cannot believe, as you say, that "it can't be up to either the States or the people to determine what that right is." But it is hardly "impossible to get around." All one needs is a particular philosophy of the relationship between the federal and state governments in order to "get around" it.

Having said that, I have no reason to believe that Sarah Palin has any sophisticated analysis to back up her "state's rights" talking points. Indeed, as with most politicians, I would suspect that her philosophy of the U.S. Constitution is "I would like to see these policies enacted and these policies strike me as abhorrent. I will interpret the Constitution in whatever way allows the things I like and automatically disallows the things I find egregious." This and a good deal of memorizing the talking points and cliches of her side on any issue.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad