by hilzoy
While I was out this afternoon, the McCain campaign released records showing that Sarah Palin was not registered as a member of the Alaska Independence Party, though TPM Muckraker found that her husband was. Now the main source for the story that Sarah Palin was a party member is backing off his earlier claims:
"Dexter Clark, husband of Lynette and a vice chairman of the Alaska Independence Party, said that when his wife told reporters that Palin had been an AIP member she was "acting on information from Mark Chryson," the party's regional chair for Wasilla, Palin's hometown. The 1994 convention was held in Wasilla, where Palin was a city councilmember at the time. Chryson "has repeatedly said to me personally and my wife, Lynette, and groups of party members at large, that at that 1994 convention, Sarah and Todd Palin attended and registered as members," Dexter Clark told Mother Jones.Asked how Palin could have been a member, when state records did not indicate Palin ever registered as an AIP member, Chyrson, in an interview with Mother Jones, backed off his account. "What could have been the confusion—her husband was a member of the party. He was at the convention. She could have been considered—it might have been thought she was a member then." Talking Points Memo has reported that Todd Palin was a member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, with the exception of a short period in 2000 when he was undeclared.
Chyrson said he did not remember seeing Sarah Palin at the 1994 convention: "I don't, no. I was working behind the scenes. Back then I was only vaguely familiar with her. I would not have recognized her. I had just met her. I probably would not have recognized her." He added that Sarah Palin did not play "an active role in the party" or to speak out for its causes.
Not being registered as an AIP member did not keep some Alaskans from being supporters of the party and its aims. Jack Coghill, the lieutenant governor of Alaska from 1990 to 1994 and a candidate for governor in 1994 on the AIP ticket, told Mother Jones that being friendly with the AIP and a registered Republican was "common" in the 1990s. Might Palin had had a similar relationship with the party? Given her husband's long-time membership in the group, Palin was likely aware of the group's tenets. And in 2008, as governor, she submitted a welcoming video to the AIP convention in Fairbanks. "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics," she said. "I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well… We have a great promise: to be a self-sufficient state." She closed by saying, "Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you.""
Since I wrote earlier that she was a member, I wanted to set the record straight.
Yeah, but you think that would mean there'd be no new Palin stories for the evening.
you'd be wrong.
Palin line item vetoed a program for teen mothers.
Posted by: br | September 02, 2008 at 08:16 PM
Hm.
And on top of that, didn't she veto funds for police and fire stations? And pushed for funds for sports complexes?
Posted by: gwangung | September 02, 2008 at 08:28 PM
I'd hate to be a well-known blogger at a time like this -- the Palin nomination is such a big story that bloggers are practically obligated to write about it right now, but the facts and rumors and charges and defenses are moving so fast that any conclusions they draw have a 50-50 chance of requiring a retraction later. Ideally we could all wait a week or two and let things settle down a bit.
Posted by: kenB | September 02, 2008 at 08:34 PM
I'd hate to be a well-known blogger at a time like this -- the Palin nomination is such a big story that bloggers are practically obligated to write about it right now, but the facts and rumors and charges and defenses are moving so fast that any conclusions they draw have a 50-50 chance of requiring a retraction later. Ideally we could all wait a week or two and let things settle down a bit.
For some reason, the name "Dan Rather" comes to mind. Watch yer' kerning folks.
Also, I strongly suggest everyone beware of emails sent out with Palin related subject lines. It won't take the virus/spamware writers long to figure out that this is the juicy gossip topic de jour.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | September 02, 2008 at 08:40 PM
hmmm.
didn't barack obama work for years with domestic terrorist bill ayers? didn't he lose $110 in grant money for the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago?
didn't joe biden get caught twice plagiarizing?
these obama/biden scandals show real moral turpitude.
these palin "scandals" - she's in the AIP, whoops! no she's not - are just examples of the mainstream media and hilzoy trotting out the Democratic talking points as soon as possible.
sarah palin began in elective office in 1992. barack obama began in elective office in 1997. she has five (5) more years of experience than obama. and neither Obama nor Biden have any executive experience. Sarah Palin does. but you'd never know any of this by watching the mainstream media or reading hilzoy.
Posted by: metro1 | September 02, 2008 at 08:40 PM
that should be: "didn't he [Obama] lose $110 million in grant money for the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago?"
Posted by: metro1 | September 02, 2008 at 08:41 PM
"I'd hate to be a well-known blogger at a time like this"
Well-known bloggers aren't obligated to broadcast every smear against the Republicans' presumptive VP candidate the moment it hits their in box. It's a bad time to be a well-known blogger who's part of the Democratic party smear machine, but plenty of well-known bloggers are getting by just fine, thank you.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 02, 2008 at 08:45 PM
"Ideally we could all wait a week or two and let things settle down a bit."
Ideally, John McCain would have picked a running mate who wasn't a blank slate.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | September 02, 2008 at 08:47 PM
didn't barack obama work for years with domestic terrorist bill ayers?
So, uh, what influence did being Ayers' best friend have on Obama? I could be wrong, but I don't recall Obama bombing things.
If you want to play that game, you need to be damn sure that everyone McCain associates with is a boy scout. Otherwise you end up looking like a hypocrite.
BTFB: I will say this for McCain. He knows how to get attention. Then again, so does my dog, but I get upset when he pees on the carpet.
Posted by: MeDrewNotYou | September 02, 2008 at 08:49 PM
Ah, mr. troll, don't insult our intelligence.
Didn't Bush lose umpteen billion on No Child Left Behind? Both went to the same place, mr. troll.
Posted by: gwangung | September 02, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Brett: Well-known bloggers aren't obligated to broadcast every smear against the Republicans' presumptive VP candidate the moment it hits their in box.
Ah, the Republoglican talking point: blogging about the information available about the Republican nominee for Vice President is "broadcasting smears".
No, Brett. Smears are what obscure vision...
Posted by: jesurgislac | September 02, 2008 at 08:53 PM
Brett and metro1: I may be mistaken but I think hilzoy just posted a correction/clarification and you're still associating her with the Democratic party smear machine. Shameful.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | September 02, 2008 at 08:54 PM
bonzo: Brett and metro1: I may be mistaken but I think hilzoy just posted a correction/clarification and you're still associating her with the Democratic party smear machine.
What else can they do? When so much damaging information is coming out in such a rush about the Republican nominee for Vice President, really the only possible defense is to get into a huff and go, well, decent people pay no attention to such things!
That this completely contradicts the Republican attitude to any possible smear of a Democratic candidate has likewise to be ignored...
Posted by: jesurgislac | September 02, 2008 at 08:59 PM
All the things that came out within the first day of her being named the VP candidate are still solid, fundamental arguments against supporting McCain.
It was an impulsive and reckless pick: She's not ready to be President if something should happen to him. She has no foreign policy experience. He has no real knowledge of her and no working relationship with her. The vetting was rushed and superficial because the pick was being made for short-term political purposes, catering to the most extreme wing of McCain's party.
In every way, the pick speaks badly about McCain's judgment, seriousness, and independence.
Palin's executive experience, brief and small-scale as it is, is studded with examples of abusing her office to go after political or personal opponents.
She's been less than truthful, both about her role in the attempted firing of a state trooper and about her support for earmarks and the "bridge to nowhere".
She was the director of corrupt pol Ted Stevens' 527.
Abusing executive power, failure to be accountable, fostering corruption... haven't we had enough of that in the executive branch?
Posted by: Nell | September 02, 2008 at 09:01 PM
these palin "scandals" - she's in the AIP, whoops!
Yes, and imagine what a relief it must be to be John McCain right now, finding out in real time along with the rest of us just which scandals are true and which are bogus.
Too bad he didn’t have any inside information so he could be ahead of the curve here. But that would have required that he properly vet his chosen VP candidate, which would have been the prudent thing to do, not to mention in keeping with the tradition of just about every other Presidential campaign since 1972. But I guess that just wasn’t mavericky enough for him, so now he is letting the press and blogs and the Democrats do the work for him.
I makes me wonder what other things he might do if in office, on a hunch and a prayer in the hope that it might work out OK, if nothing unexpected turns up.
God help me, but I really, really miss the GOP of my youth, when Republicans were boring and careful and prudent and spent their time droning on and on about responsibility, instead of running around acting like a bunch of DFH’s.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | September 02, 2008 at 09:02 PM
In case you were wondering
Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 02, 2008 at 09:02 PM
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."
Not to mention just how mavericky St POW of the Holy BBQ is! Pay no attention to that economy behind the curtain!
(Christine Todd Whitman must be wondering what party she's in -- she just told NPR the exact opposite!)
Posted by: Jeff | September 02, 2008 at 09:22 PM
"Brett and metro1: I may be mistaken but I think hilzoy just posted a correction/clarification and you're still associating her with the Democratic party smear machine. Shameful."
Yeah, it's great that hilzoy published the correction, that's more than many will do. But plenty of "well-known bloggers" didn't HAVE to issue corrections, because they weren't on a hair trigger to publish anything that came along making Palin look bad before finding out if there was any substance.
This isn't a problem for "well-known bloggers", it's a problem for "well-known bloggers who are in a hurry to publish anything bad about Palin they can."
"Yes, and imagine what a relief it must be to be John McCain right now, finding out in real time along with the rest of us just which scandals are true and which are bogus."
If he didn't know there was going to be a week or two of smears being sent out and shot down, he was a fool. Of course, since this story was wrong, he couldn't anticipate it, because the universe of false potential stories about Palin is infinitely larger than the universe of potential true stories. All the vetting in the world can't inform you as to what lies will be told about your VP choice.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 02, 2008 at 09:22 PM
Ok, so she's not a member, but her husband has been an AIP member. It's not exactly the same, but it's not what we expect of our VP's family. Or maybe it's ok, since Confederate flags are considered legit in some circles.
Posted by: MobiusKlein | September 02, 2008 at 09:25 PM
Well its a good thing Republicans never complained about a candidate's spouse hating America or else this still might make them look pretty foolish.
Posted by: bwaage | September 02, 2008 at 09:33 PM
Just to be clear - imagine if Michelle Obama had been a member of an organization that advocated for the breakup of the United States.
And imagine if the Obamas had an unwed pregnant teenage daughter.
It's things like that make me feel no guilt at all mentioning that John McCain is allegedly a closet Satanist, allegedly.
Posted by: Tropical Fats | September 02, 2008 at 09:43 PM
Seems to me somebody should get Bill Bennett on camera and ask him if McCain has a gambling problem.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | September 02, 2008 at 09:45 PM
Seems to me somebody should get Bill Bennett on camera and ask him if McCain has a gambling problem.
Congratulations! You win the thread!!!
Posted by: MeDrewNotYou | September 02, 2008 at 09:49 PM
anybody else think it's strange that folks are backing off their original statements immediately after mccain's team arrives in alaska (a team tied to rove-tied tucker eskew)? i think it's fishy, or VERY coincidental.
Posted by: CLH | September 02, 2008 at 09:51 PM
It's things like that make me feel no guilt at all mentioning that John McCain is allegedly a closet Satanist, allegedly.
I don't want to go mentioning this, since I'm not prone to spreading rumors, but... I hear that McCain kidnapped the Lindburg baby to sacrifice to Old Scratch. Amelia Earhart found out and McCain went and shot her plane down.
But you guys didn't hear that from me!
Posted by: MeDrewNotYou | September 02, 2008 at 09:52 PM
Is Brett serious? I had the idea of him as a reasonable intellectually honest person. How can anyone delude themsleves into thinking that Palin is the victim of Democratic smear machine?
1. The Deomcratic party leadership has stayed out of it. Biden and Obama have defended her on the pregnacy thing. The press has for once been doing its job at least a little and has been exposing her lies and debunking the spin.
2. There isn't a Democratic machine. Democrats aren't that organized. It's the R party that is full of authoritarian personality types who take orders promptly. The smears about her supposedly covering for her daughters pregnacy originated with rightwing blogs, for example.
3. It isn't a smear if it is true. She has lied about her involvement with the Bridge to Nowhere. She has "walked back" her statements about her communications with the Commissioner she fired. BTW she also fired the respected veteran chief of police in Wasilla because he had endorse her opponenet in teh mayoral race. She fired the head librairian for the same reason.She isn't a member of the seccessionsit group but she has been a supporter-an involved supporter--for years: attended one conference and taped a friendly supportive message for another. She used the successionist slogan when she ran for Governor.
4. It isn't a smear to debunk ridiculous spins.
BTW she's a relgious fanatic and her pastor thinks that 911 was part of God's plan to bring about the Rapture.
Face it--she's a spiteful (fires people for no good reason), dishonest(lied about the Bridge and the firings), extremist (involvment with successionsits and a wacky chruch)with almost nothing in the way of qualifications.
It's freaking obvious. So obvious that even the press can see it. maybe even obvious enough that our fellow voters will notice although I am not counting on that.
In any case it isn't necessary to lie about her.
Posted by: wonkie | September 02, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Clearly what Davis really meant is that the McCain camp wants the campaign to be about personalities rather than issues. That's the only way they have much hope of winning. This is clearly a sign that he (and presumably McCain) have joined the "wishful thinking" wing of the Republican party. The "reality based" wing that Whitman represents is sadly in retreat, having been pushed almost completely out of power during the GWB administration.
Posted by: Roger Moore | September 02, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Why does Sarah Palin hate America? For the PatriotTM party, the Republicans sure know how to pick up the America-hating vote, with all these secessionist, pork-barrel, tax-dollar-wasting, law-breaking hooligans.
Posted by: Loneoak | September 02, 2008 at 10:30 PM
"the Palin nomination is such a big story that bloggers are practically obligated to write about it right now"
I don't really understand that view; I have endless respect for any blogger who has the sense to shut their mouths/keyboards when they don't have something insightful and sound to say, and little respect for bloggers who feel "obligated" to post anything.
Yeah, there are a lot of bloggers I don't think much of.
"God help me, but I really, really miss the GOP of my youth, when Republicans were boring and careful and prudent"
I'm not sure how old you are (I'll be 50 in 2 months and 2 days and 2 hours), but I don't miss Richard Nixon, nor his ilk.
General comment: Do Not Feed The Trolls. Don't refute them; just don't respond; it's the only way to get them to go away; they feed on attention and argument.
General observation, watching Joe Lieberman "my friend" folks at the Republican convention: gosh, that crowd sure is blindingly monochrome.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 02, 2008 at 10:57 PM
I have endless respect for any blogger who has the sense to shut their mouths/keyboards when they don't have something insightful and sound to say
Well, it's a good thing that that's a minority opinion, or else the blogosphere would never have become anywhere near as popular as it has.
Posted by: kenB | September 02, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Gary: General comment: Do Not Feed The Trolls. Don't refute them; just don't respond; it's the only way to get them to go away; they feed on attention and argument.
Sigh. I know you're right. But the stupid! It burns us it does!
gosh, that crowd sure is blindingly monochrome.
I read (at Ta-Nehisi Coates, I think) that there are 37 black delegates at the RNC. I think the DNC had more black musicians than that.
Posted by: MeDrewNotYou | September 02, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Please don't take this as my patting myself on the back for being so smart (since I'm not), but one thing that always bothered me about this AIP story was that the ultimate source seemed to be the AIP itself, rather than a third party. Of course, I lacked the time, energy, inclination, whatever else you could think of to investigate such things when things bothered me to the degree that this story's apparent basis did. That's why I left it up to Hilzoy to ultimately inform me that there was something to my suspicions, as I can trust her to do because she's intellectually honest, at least to the point that the most intellectually honest humans are capable of being. (It's almost as though she knows something about ethics. It's weird.) At any rate, I'm not too surprised this turned out not to be (entirely) true.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | September 02, 2008 at 11:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
Posted by: Julie | September 02, 2008 at 11:12 PM
I don't miss Richard Nixon, nor his ilk.
Gary, I plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of rhetorical overkill, but honestly, don't you get the point? There used to be some adults in charge in the GOP. Some of them were ruthless bastards, some of them were deep in the pockets of big business and/or the military industrial complex, but at least some of them knew how to run a d*mn railroad and make the trains show up on time (which is more than Mussolini ever achieved, ironically enough for the slogan in question).
Sure, you had the Birchers and the Goldwater people, but they weren't the only part of the party that mattered, and if you really really needed to put together a balanced budget or pass important legislation (Eisenhower's interstate highways, the Civil Rights bills of the Johnson admin., the EPA under Nixon, the SALT treaties), you could find some Republicans who weren't living in an alternative universe to help get the job done. Heck, some of them could even be trusted with access to nuclear weapons, without blowing the world up.
Fast forward to today. Morality aside, the decline of the GOP in terms of just basic organizational competence is absolutely shocking. Can you imagine something like this VP nomination crapshoot happening under Nixon? Or Reagan? Or even GHB? Even Dan Quayle wasn't this bad.
Would you trust McCain and his advisors today to steer us thru the downfall and breakup of a major rival and nuclear armed multi-ethnic empire, like the way James Baker and GHB managed when the Soviet Union collapsed? I sure wouldn't. The prudence and realism gap (today vs. 20 years ago) is appalling.
Since 1972 the circle is now complete - we are witnessing a campaign on the Republican side which is being run as if a bunch of amateurish McGovernites are in charge, while the Democratic campaign is running under it's own remorseless momentum like a glacier sliding downhill on a warm day.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | September 02, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Some simple facts:
Sarah Palin has been in public office since 1992.
Barack Obama has been in public office since 1997.
So Sarah Palin has five (5) more years of experience in public office than Barack Obama.
And Sarah Palin has executive experience as a Governor.
Obama has no executive experience.
Most Presidents in our nation's history have been Governors - like, e.g., Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt.
I know that many lefty bloggers - and the mainstream media - are quite fond of the talking point that Sarah Palin is inexperienced.
The fact that she's more experienced than the Democratic Presidential candidate - Barack Obama - makes your position a little awkward.
Now - I know your instinct will probably be to go straight to ad hominem attacks - and not address the factual substance of what I've said at all.
But - consider - all of the facts I've noted above are true and easy to verify.
I think in fairness you have to agree with my point here: Sarah Palin is objectively more qualified to be President than Barack Obama.
Posted by: metro1 | September 03, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Some simple facts:
Sarah Palin has been in public office since 1992.
Barack Obama has been in public office since 1997.
So Sarah Palin has five (5) more years of experience in public office than Barack Obama.
And Sarah Palin has executive experience as a Governor.
Obama has no executive experience.
Most Presidents in our nation's history have been Governors - like, e.g., Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt.
I know that many lefty bloggers - and the mainstream media - are quite fond of the talking point that Sarah Palin is inexperienced.
The fact that she's more experienced than the Democratic Presidential candidate - Barack Obama - makes your position a little awkward.
Now - I know your instinct will probably be to go straight to ad hominem attacks - and not address the factual substance of what I've said at all.
But - consider - all of the facts I've noted above are true and easy to verify.
I think in fairness you have to agree with my point here: Sarah Palin is objectively more qualified to be President than Barack Obama.
Posted by: metro1 | September 03, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Agnew was not the most carefully chosen running mate in the world.
Posted by: John | September 03, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Clearly what Davis really meant is that the McCain camp wants the campaign to be about personalities rather than issues. That's the only way they have much hope of winning.
I'm really, really sorry to have to say this - but Davis is right. The American people do NOT vote for President based on issues, but on personality. It's been that way at least since TV became the most prominent part of politicking.
Proof?: Reagan, whose policies most Americans did not agree with, but whose personality was so winning (or so everyone insists; I never saw that, myself) that he won by landslides in 80 and 84.
More proof?: Bush v. Clinton - Clinton, the more vivacious candidate, won. Bush v. Gore - Bush came across as a 'regular guy' v. Gore's 'nerd/snob/dweeb', and won. Bush v., Kerrey - again, personality triumphed over issues.
The only election I can think of where the more ebullient personality didn't win is '68, which was an anomalous election in so many ways. And maybe '88, when we had two colorless personalities running against each other.
But 90% of the time, Americans ignore the issues altogether, and vote for the candidate they like the most.
It's been a disaster for the country, I wish it weren't so, but it is unfortunately very true.
Posted by: CaseyL | September 03, 2008 at 01:13 AM
Whatever, given that Republican goons are running all over Alaska right now with suitcases full of money and full authorization to make all sorts of promises, I'm not going to be particularly impressed by retractions coming out over the next few days. Damage control to save the White House for God and from teh darkie eeevil is in full effect.
Posted by: byrningman | September 03, 2008 at 03:11 AM
"Gary, I plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of rhetorical overkill, but honestly, don't you get the point?"
I do, but I'm also resistant to aspects of it, not so much because of anything you've said -- and I have tremendous respect for you, NLTIA, you're one of my very favorite commenters, one of the commenters I'm most in alignment with, most apt to agree with, and most apt to respect, though you'll have to fight it out with Russell, Hilzoy, and sometimes a few other contenders when they're on the top of their game, for the top prize -- but because I tend to hear/see similar views a lot, and I tend to think some of it is simply a natural tendency to gloss and deprecate the evils of the past.
I have a series of favorite quotes on the sidebar of my blog, and this is one of them:
It's definitely true that there were various bills, and policies and issues dealt with in the Congress of the Fifties and Sixties, and even Seventies, and maybe even sometimes in the Eighties, with less partisanship than in the 21st century, and there were perhaps more relationships between some members of each party that were more successful at confining partisanship to their day jobs, but I also tend to think, from my reading, that that tends to be exaggerated, as well, that the fact that Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan could get along to some degree outside the job doesn't really mean all that much, nor that a few other leaders could do the same.Unless one soaks in the details of the Congresses and administrations of the past, it's easy to gloss over, or miss, just how much vileness, and hatred, and despising, and frustration, between members of the two parties there was during these decades, as well.
Both parties were far more disciplined and top-down directed, in the Nixon and pre-Nixon days, and that's largely how deals were made and kept, far more than any bonhomie, or mutual cross-aisle general respect, or general level of civility or maturity or statesmanship, in my reading.
Eisenhower's interstate highways were sold as a national security defense measure, with the Communists as the necessary boogieman, as well as the necessary vast pork being distributed.
The Civil Rights bills of the Johnson administration never would have happened if not for LBJ's mastery of the Congress from his decades of accumulating power in the Senate, and his knowledge of how to blackmail, bully, arm-twist, in a Congress where the leadership held almost total control over the success or failure of most of the members, but most of all it couldn't have happened save for the small window of time held open by the assassination of JFK. Those fights were still as bitter and full of hatred and despicable statements and acts by individual racist Congressmen (almost entirely, then) as any in our time.
The EPA under Nixon happened because the need was so cryingly obvious, because the Democrats pushed for it, and because Nixon saw it as a way to throw the "ecology" people a harmless sop that allowed him to move all the Evil Leftist Agitators out of various agencies, and put them under his thumb in one agency where he could control them, without any actual increase in budget or attention. And he persuaded enough Republicans in Congress to go along on that basis, and that it would get them votes; not because of any love lost between Democrats and Republicans, or because of any spirit of statesmanship that existed then that doesn't know.
The SALT treaties were still fought like hell by the same people who are neo-conservatives today, and were delayed, and only put into effect because the U.S., as well as the USSR, would have ended up wasting endless trillions on pointlessly adding thousands of more warheads to no point whatever; there wasn't even much money to be made by anyone in manufacturing them, so it was in the interests of both sides to set a still insanely high limit; those who fought the SALT treaties simply were fewer in number than they are now; they still ended up making sure that Henry Kissinger didn't make a comeback in the Reagan administration, and marking a firm line in approach to defense/foreign affairs between the Ford and Reagan administrations.
It's so tempting to look back to earlier times and imagine how much better things were, and that grownups in charge, but a lot of selective memory tends to be involved.
It's extremely defensible that today's Republican party in Congress is distinctly more corrupt, and stupid, than that of the Nixon through Reagan era, but I'd prefer to find some metrics to measure that by, and talk about them, then generalize.
And if we want to talk anecdotes, I have no trouble dredging up endless examples of corruption and stupidity and hatefulness from those past Congresses, even if I grant the point that we may have hit new lows in recent years. That that may well be the case doesn't convince me that the Good Old Days were particularly at all good, or that the differences are truly major.
In the end, we're arguing over the difference between degrees of evil and degrees of stupidity and degrees and cases of petty opportunism, grand corruption, grand cynicism, and grand blindness, and the present will always loom larger than the past in such arguments, with its huge unfair advantage of being fresh in memory, while names and details of the past grow dim even to those of us who enjoy, or once read deeply, in history.
And in the end, well, I don't think the differences are all that large.
Not when we factor in so many past evils we no longer suffer: the open racism, the anti-communist insanity that ruined endless numbers of lives, the willful glee so many in Congress reveled in in both cases, the corrupt political machines of the day, the sexist deprecation and exploitation of women that seems almost unimaginable now, but still often invisible to many when the past is considered, the suppression of conformity and those who were "different," the depths of violence used in the Fifties and Sixties against the left, the likes of which we still only see ghosts of in today's revival of domestic spying and police powers, and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, I don't sit comfortably with fond look backs at The Better Days Of My Youth. I remember tanks on the streets of Washington. I remember the mass roundup and holding of ten thousand people in RFK Stadium. I remember COINTELPRO, and the killings of Black Panthers, and FBI harassment of all levels of the civil rights movement, and the fight against the anti-war movment, and I remember the evil hand of J. Edgar Hoover over the largest part of the entire 20th century, and I remember Jim Crow, and I remember HUAC, and I remember all that Congress did to enable all this, and so much more, and I don't think: those were the days of grownups and wiser men (and no women).
Enough other people do that. I'll just be the grump in the corner. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 03, 2008 at 04:23 AM
"Would you trust McCain and his advisors today to steer us thru the downfall and breakup of a major rival and nuclear armed multi-ethnic empire, like the way James Baker and GHB managed when the Soviet Union collapsed?"
About this: I think we were lucky that Baker and GHWB were in charge, and not Alexander Haig, Ollie North, Richard Perle and Bill Casey. I think that was luck, not the Greater Wisdom Of Most Republicans Then. I don't look back at Iran-Contra, and Watergate, and all the rest that went on at both times, and think nostalgically of how much more grownup and smarter and more trustworthy those guys were.
I do think G. H. W. Bush was a better president, and wiser, than his son, but that's a different question.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 03, 2008 at 04:29 AM
"The American people do NOT vote for President based on issues, but on personality. It's been that way at least since
TV became the most prominent part of politickingpublic personal image because dominant in the campaign of 1840 of William Henry Harrison."Fixed. Then:
Personalities have largely been, or at the very least, as important, as policies, ever since in American presidential politics. Radio and tv are just better tools than handbills and newspapers and songs and ads and gimmicks and surrogates.It's also a byproduct of the two party system.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 03, 2008 at 04:38 AM
"There isn't a Democratic machine. Democrats aren't that organized."
Bleah. Parties ARE 'machines'.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 03, 2008 at 07:08 AM
"Bleah. Parties ARE 'machines'."
No more or less than the NRA.
Parties are groups of motivated individual volunteers (and some underpaid and overworked staffers) who believe in what they're doing. What's "bleah" about that? Why would the NRA not equally be "bleah," exactly, Brett?
And you never did explain who the federal government "confiscated" Alaska from: I'm still real curious to know. Can you explain, please?
Thanks!
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 03, 2008 at 07:22 AM
I would sneer at anyone who claimed the NRA didn't have a "machine"; They do, and a rather effective one at that.
Gary, it's arguable that the federal government didn't confiscate any of Alaska when they retained most of it's territory when making it a state, even though that means it entered the union on a grossly different basis from most states.
But the federal government never stopped there, they've been going along converting the little bit of Alaska people are allowed to actually live in into "national monuments", one hunk at a time.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 03, 2008 at 07:33 AM
Gary, it's arguable that the federal government didn't confiscate any of Alaska when they retained most of it's territory when making it a state, even though that means it entered the union on a grossly different basis from most states.
As I understand it, the US government bought Alaska from the Russians in 1867 for $7.2M. What's the confiscation part?
And can you explain the part about the "grossly different basis"? You lost me there.
An aside:
I have no doubt that Alaska is chock full of "don't tread on me" types who dream of a life free from the oppressive yoke of federal money and the stoplights and triplicate forms they inevitably bring. Remote, rural places attract and foster folks like that.
Wanna hang with the AIP, fine with me. Live the dream, dude. Just don't point your gun my way, or we will have an issue.
A question:
How does holding executive office in Alaska, let alone for a year and a half, prepare one for being the proverbial heartbeat away from running the US?
To me, it seems like promoting the manager of the Bath and Body Works in Butte MT to be CEO of Limited Brands.
I don't mean any insult to folks who live in Alaska, or any other remote area, but most of the country isn't like that. We face very, very serious issues that aren't going to be solved by redistributing oil income and building some sporting arenas.
I'm sure Palin is a lovely person, but there are high schools with larger populations than the town she was mayor of. She may well be all the governor that the state of Alaska needs, but the world ain't like Alaska.
Knowing how to field dress a moose is kind of cool in its own funky, back to the land way, but it don't mean sh*t in the big world. It just really does not.
When has she ever had to deal effectively, face to face, with people who were hostile to her, and who could destroy a very large chunk of her population at the touch of a button?
When has she ever gotten 50 argumentative people to sit in a room and hammer out their differences until they reach an agreement?
What is her analysis of how to replace the manufacturing sector in the US economy?
What's her view on how to re-tool US public education to keep up with changes in technology and the global economy?
What is her plan for providing health care to a growing, and aging, population?
No offense, but mayor of Podunk and governor of a state with a big oily trust fund doesn't seem like enough.
We need serious people. We do not need Tracy Flick. Maybe there's more to her than meets the eye, but so far I'm not seeing it.
I don't see that she's ready for the big show.
Just my two cents.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | September 03, 2008 at 08:48 AM
If running Alaska gives Palin more executive experience than Obama, doesn't it also give her more experience than McCain?
Posted by: Fraser | September 03, 2008 at 09:58 AM
Thanks for correcting the mis-info. It's much appreciated.
Posted by: Josie | September 03, 2008 at 10:07 AM
I heard that she uses tampons! TAMPONS, people! I mean...what's next?
Posted by: Raging Lefty | September 03, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Intellectual honesty. You has it.
Posted by: Thief | September 03, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Let's see Sarah Palen's husband had a DUI at age 22, and that shows poor judgment as to who Sarah married? Yet at the same time as Hubby was kicking back a few, Obama admits snorting coke. You can pretty much tell from the respondents who your rabid Republicans are and who your rabid Democrats are. No one expects them to do other then pull the lever for whomever their party puts forward. Palen appears to appeal to that small group that will decide the election.
All it takes is to Google Alaska state budget and you see she was responsible for an 8.1 BILLION dollar budget. Then look at her record of dealing with corruption in her own party statewide. Her record of accomplishment is impressive if looked at objectively. Compare it to the record of accomplishment of either Obama or Biden, and the comparison becomes even more impressive.
Posted by: Mike Roth | September 03, 2008 at 10:37 AM
The democrats don't have a machine? Hey, Obama's from Chicago. I live here, it is all machine politics. How do you think he got where he is?
Posted by: gerryg | September 03, 2008 at 10:44 AM
I don't think anyone really cares about the DUI -- has it been mentioned here before? That was a standard garbage dump by the McCain campaign.
As for Sarah Palin's record -- that's an discussion the Dems are eager to have, because the details are terrible. She nearly got recalled as mayor. She is vindictive, firing political opponents and installing incompetent cronies.
Quoted from a detailed run-down of http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/3/9330/95523/364/584429>Dairygate, which is a prime exemplar of her executive incompetence.
Posted by: farmgirl | September 03, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Palen appears to appeal to that small group that will decide the election.
yes, i'm sure there are just a ton of creationist, anti-choice, abstinence-pushing, book-banning, secessionist-loving people who haven't made up their minds yet.
Posted by: cleek | September 03, 2008 at 10:50 AM
So if McCain was a good buddy of Timothy McVeigh, and had his first Senate campaign launched at McVeigh's house, that would be okay with you, as long as McCain didn't kill anybody.
Posted by: Korla Pundit | September 03, 2008 at 11:02 AM
when a husband is a moron (AIP) and drunk
the wife is not far behind.
Posted by: bush_is_moron | September 03, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Wow – 2 Insty links for Hilzoy in less than a week. ;)
SOMEBODY TELL CASS SUNSTEIN: Just as some right-leaning bloggers have been exploding bogus rumors about Obama, Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings is refuting stories that Sarah Palin belonged to the Alaska Independence Party.
Posted by: OCSteve | September 03, 2008 at 11:25 AM
"Otherwise you end up looking like a hypocrite"
The fact that one is a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.
"If running Alaska gives Palin more executive experience than Obama, doesn't it also give her more experience than McCain?"
Probably, though I think McCain had some command experience in the Navy.
"i'm sure there are just a ton of creationist, anti-choice, abstinence-pushing, book-banning, secessionist-loving people who haven't made up their minds yet"
You're painting with a pretty broad brush, but yes; they're commonly referred to as "Reagan Democrats". The Palin selection has really put the press's bitter comtempt for middle America on display, and Reagan Democrats tend to be offended by that sort of thing. That many people, even on the left, view the press as an arm of the Obama campaign means that could be a problem for O. We'll see.
Posted by: J | September 03, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Not when we factor in so many past evils we no longer suffer: the open racism, the anti-communist insanity that ruined endless numbers of lives, the willful glee so many in Congress reveled in in both cases, the corrupt political machines of the day, the sexist deprecation and exploitation of women that seems almost unimaginable now, but still often invisible to many when the past is considered, the suppression of conformity and those who were "different," the depths of violence used in the Fifties and Sixties against the left, the likes of which we still only see ghosts of in today's revival of domestic spying and police powers, and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, I don't sit comfortably with fond look backs at The Better Days Of My Youth. I remember tanks on the streets of Washington. I remember the mass roundup and holding of ten thousand people in RFK Stadium. I remember COINTELPRO, and the killings of Black Panthers, and FBI harassment of all levels of the civil rights movement, and the fight against the anti-war movment, and I remember the evil hand of J. Edgar Hoover over the largest part of the entire 20th century, and I remember Jim Crow, and I remember HUAC, and I remember all that Congress did to enable all this, and so much more, and I don't think: those were the days of grownups and wiser men (and no women).
Enough other people do that.
I'll just be the grump in the corner. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.
Gary, you make a good argument (as usual), based on the details (as usual). Nostalgia is indeed a siren song that we listen too at our peril.
The caveat that I’d apply to your arguments is that many of those problems in the not-so-golden past were shared between both parties. Civil Rights during the 1950’s and early 1960’s comes to mind – in the wake of the Southern Strategy we tend far too often to gloss over or forget how many people in the GOP were supportive of the Civil Rights movement, and how many of those votes which LBJ arm twisted came from liberal Republicans (today the term sounds like an oxymoron, but it was not in that era). Racism, sexism, militarism, anti-communist hysteria, all those ills were not the sole fault of the GOP.
The worst excesses of the Nixon administration certainly are a black stain on that period (the lesser excesses are, unfortunately, rather more typical of most of American political history), but then we don’t know how a President Humphrey elected by a razor thin margin in 1968 and running for re-election in 1972 might have acted towards the anti-war movement. I suspect that something like COINTELPRO, Kent State and much else from that era would have happened regardless. The McCarthy era was another shameful episode in American history, and specifically in the history of the GOP, but how do you balance that against the defense of the Jim Crow system led by mostly southern Democrats?
The difference between then and now, as I see it, is that the Cold War (and the existential threat which the Soviet Union posed to the US during that period) imposed a certain degree of sobriety on at least part of our politics and our policy makers which is missing today. It did not keep the nuts entirely out of power, nor did it prevent them from causing immense harm especially on domestic issues, but fundamentally the kooks were never allowed to get too close to wielding the full power and might of the US.
Today that sense of technocratic restraint seems to have evaporated. Blatant incompetence and cronyism run unchecked, people who would have been dismissed out of hand in that older period as lunatics today encounter no bar to upward advancement, there are no longer any barriers to how unserious we can be.
And it does seem to me that this lack of barriers, unstable behavior, and un-seriousness of purpose are conspicuously concentrated more in the GOP than with the Dems at the present time. One party has taken the end of the Cold War to mean that we have reached, if not the End of History, then the end of any sort of limits or restraints, that empirical reality is no longer a necessary guide to intentions and actions. That is what I miss about the old GOP, compared with present company. The empiricism. I remember how Dana Carvey used to lampoon George H. Bush with his tag line: “wouldn’t be prudent”. At the time it seemed funny, but I’m not laughing so much anymore, given what the alternatives are.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | September 03, 2008 at 12:22 PM
If he didn't know there was going to be a week or two of smears being sent out and shot down, he was a fool.
The game plan for today: if any of the alleged things turn out not to be true, then none of them are true. Nothing to see here, folks.
And, Brett, your fundamental point is wrong. McCain could have been aware of this matter- and debunked it- if they had vetted Palin. This wasn't a fiction created by the Democratic Party, but by the AIG itself. Presumably they would've said the same thing to the vetters, had there been any.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | September 03, 2008 at 12:23 PM
In countries with a two-party system, one party represents the interests of the debtor class and the other represents the interests of the creditor class. All other issues change.
In the United States, the party representing the interests of the debtor class has always been, from the time of Jefferson, the Democratic party. The opponents of the Democratic party have had various names, but they always represent the moneyed interests of the creditor class.
The Democratic party and TEN Democratic governors agreed to articles of secession once.
Some unpleasantness ensued.
Posted by: Cleanthes | September 03, 2008 at 12:28 PM
So if McCain was a good buddy of Timothy McVeigh, and had his first Senate campaign launched at McVeigh's house, that would be okay with you, as long as McCain didn't kill anybody.
mmm. smell the false equivalence.
McVeigh != Ayers
Posted by: cleek | September 03, 2008 at 12:50 PM
The Palin selection has really put the press's bitter comtempt for middle America on display
Pardon me, but screw that.
Palin can lay no more claim to middle America than I can.
There's nothing "middle American" about being creationist, anti-choice, abstinence-pushing, or book-banning. There's nothing "middle American" about organizations that call for a re-vote on statehood.
Palin is what she is, for good or ill, but "middle America" she is not.
If you like her and think she speaks for you, by all means give her your support, but don't flatter yourself with the idea that either you or she is more representative of this country than other folks.
Screw that. I've had my fill of that garbage, and I'm not taking any more of it.
Dig?
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | September 03, 2008 at 01:08 PM
>Palin line item vetoed a program for teen mothers.
She cut the amount of EXPANSION in the program. The program still expanded - by less than originally requested.
Learn to read figures, putz.
Posted by: Good Lt | September 03, 2008 at 01:28 PM
I'm not a big fan, hilzoy, but thanks for your posts on Gov. Palin (and her kids). Good work.
Posted by: Brian | September 03, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Hilzoy,
Isn't it still important to talk about the AIP if Todd Palin was a member for years, since Mr. Palin has been inappropriately privy to executive-level meetings in the Alaska statehouse? (via Cernig):
"The stories started last year when Representative Ralph Samuels told me [Andrew Halco] about going into a meeting, he thought would be private, with Governor Sarah Palin. Much to his surprise, Todd Palin was there and proceeded to sit through the entire meeting.
Other lawmakers have shared similar stories and were shocked at how inappropriate Todd's presence was at meetings with the governor. Yesterday on the Dan Fagan Show, Representative Jay Ramras mentioned that Todd was working lawmakers offices during the ACES debate."
How much of influence would Mr. Palin play in his wife's vice-presidency? Don't you think it would be a lot?
Posted by: sfHeath | September 03, 2008 at 02:06 PM
That's been the "logic" the Republican noise machine uses (mostly successfully) for defense for years -- though I'd change "not to be true" to "to be untrue or somehow offensive", since they've dismissed issues like torture by complaining about offensive statements by Dick Durbin or Amnesty International. Their reliance on the technique means it's very helpful when people manage to inject false information into the discussion.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 03, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Russsell: "I don't mean any insult to folks who live in Alaska, or any other remote area, but most of the country isn't like that. We face very, very serious issues that aren't going to be solved by redistributing oil income and building some sporting arenas."
I tried to make that point yesterday: I'm just not sure how the problems and challenges facing Alaska translates into experience and judgement for those facing the inner cities of Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, or rural areas in Iowa, Kansas and Pennsylvania -- or, say, the immigration debate (that seems to have been forgotten) in Texas, New Mexico, California.
Over time, I think Palin's executive experience would be respected more and her star would rise accordingly. But for McCain, there's no time like the present.
I share Russell's anger over the sudden charge that those who question the Palin pick are somehow showing contempt for middle America.
As he said, "There's nothing 'middle American' about being creationist, anti-choice, abstinence-pushing, or book-banning."
Once again, these are wedge issues that divide the country rather than unite it at a time when middle America must be as troubled by hard economic times as the rest of us.
Frankly, the audience at the Democratic National Convention looked a whole lot more like the 2008 America that live in than that of the RNC I saw last night. All of the flag-waving in the world can't ignore the fact that far too many folks are facing foreclosure on their American dream.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | September 03, 2008 at 02:23 PM
"Palin is what she is, for good or ill, but "middle America" she is not"
Plug your ears and scream "la-la-la" all you want. Just don't come crying to me when you lose the election.
"Dig?"
Never trust anyone over 90.
Posted by: J | September 03, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Never trust anyone over
9071.Fixt, to fit current circumstances.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | September 03, 2008 at 02:54 PM
I don't regard John Foster Dulles, or Clare Booth Luce, just to pull two representative and extremely powerful examples out, as non-kooks. Christian extremism, and roll-back anti-communism animated them, and innumerable others in both the legislative and executive branch, as well as in the citizenry, as much as the former and the equivalent in anti-Islamic terrorism does many today, and wound up causing vast numbers of ill-conceived foreign policy ventures, many of which we still suffer from today: Operation Ajax in Iran, the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs, and on and on and on.
Really, there was a sea of kookiness our government engaged in, foreign and domestic, despite, and because of, the Cold War. Oh, the fun of Duck And Cover. The joys of sending tapes of Martin Luther King having sex to his wife and to journalists. The conviction that "Red China" and Vietnam took all their orders from Moscow. These were not harmless non-kooky grownup acts.
And I could write a two-thousand page book on this sort of thing. I gather Rick Perlstein did.
Do you have any idea how many thousands of people we killed by blithely parachuting them into China, and Eastern Europe, and the Ukraine, and Russia, and elsewhere in communist territory, in the conviction they could become saboteurs?
And Richard Nixon was a prime leader in making sure no Democratic politician could dare suggest we talk to China, or attempt to explorde their differences with the Soviet Union. How bitterly hilarious it is that the man who is as responsible as any for ruining the careers of our China experts, and destroying the institutional knowledge of our State Department, and making our foreign policy of the Fifties quite insane, is now given credit by the mainstream and most people for his Great Foreign Policy Wisdom in eventually reversing himself a bit, thirty years later.
The entire Vietnam War, a bipartisan affair until its latter days, to be sure, was not a triumph of grownup non-kookiness.
Nor was the domestic response of the government against youth, intellectuals, and the left, during the Fifties and Sixties.
History does not lack irony, but innumerable people killed, or who had careers ruined, and their families, can't appreciate the joke of those "grownup" times.
And, yeah, I blame Republicans more than Democrats, but yes, Jim Crow was more a creature of Southern Democrats. But I can't get all fuzzy or chipper about how much better it was Back In The Day. Too much selective comparison is required.
"...but fundamentally the kooks were never allowed to get too close to wielding the full power and might of the US."
I can't agree.
Let's stick to specifics, where we can find agreement.
Bush 41 had a saner Republican administration than those before or after: that I'll agree with. Though the wide pardoning of the Iran-Contra figures was also not a spiffily grown-up admirable act.
"Learn to read figures, putz."
Learn to read the posting rules. That's not civil.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 03, 2008 at 03:00 PM
Just don't come crying to me when you lose the election.
No worries dude, believe me when I say I've lived through worse than Sarah Palin. At least she's entertaining, and she doesn't sweat all over herself like Nixon did.
And don't you come crying to me when your middle America is high and dry without a pot to piss in. Personally, I'm gonna be fine, but lots of other folks, maybe not so much.
Never trust anyone over 90.
Hey man, it's what all the cats are saying. I'm just trying to keep up.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | September 03, 2008 at 03:09 PM
The Republican ticket has a total of 12 children. The Democratic ticket has 5. Which looks more like the typical American? Not that I suggest using that as an issue, but it creeps me out a bit.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 03, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Never trust anyone over 90.
IQ?
Posted by: Carleton Wu | September 03, 2008 at 03:21 PM
The Republican ticket has a total of 12 children.
Does that include Bridget. Because I still haven't seen her, especially on the "family photo" for People Magazine.
Posted by: Jeff | September 03, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Has anyone really double-checked this registration story? The screenshot from the Alaska voters registration site that the McCain campaign has circulated doesn't seem to show registration history, just when the first registration occurred and what the current party affiliation is.
Posted by: AdrianLesher | September 03, 2008 at 04:55 PM
AdrianLesher: Ben Smith at Politico has a PDF that shows her original Alaska registration form, all her subsequent registration forms, and her absentee ballot oath and affidavit envelopes. Her party affiliation is consistently Republican.
Posted by: Hogan | September 03, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Nope retract or not Palin and McCains actions dont cover up all the why ????? questions that have not been anwsered,we still have the Wooten Affair and now the father of the baby appearing with McCain,Palin is into using what ever who ever and when ever for her own gain and that to me is using your children even after Obama ask everyone to back off , So for woman like myself Palin is asking for it so she will get whats coming to her.
Shes a user and abuser of her own children to get what she wants theres still a long road to hoe in this election and pple will soon be put off by Palin because while she may think shes got things under control there are millions of women looking on and a large number are not from the christian relm
And already I for one have been put off by the McCain/Palin antics how low are you pple going to steep.How could McCain/ Palin use these two young pple,If they looked at all the comments on the internet most pple consider Bristol a whore,
The real Question yet to be anwsered is what and demonstrate where and what has Palin done to prove that she can come up with decisons to protect the USA without any what so ever experience in Foriegn Affairs and if anyone anwsers she has all those advisors from the present Government, then are those the same pple that took us to war in the no so popular Iraq that was based on lies and the three other wars that the USA is involved in around the world and with the possibilty of another two with Russia and Iran Nope girlfriend this is out of your league Alaska is Alaska,
Show us PALIN wheres your experience McCains Aides cant anwser the questios so PALIN you anwser it And we as the pple of the USA know you have none So what story are you going concoct
Posted by: willing1212 | September 03, 2008 at 05:22 PM
If they looked at all the comments on the internet most pple consider Bristol a whore
Guess I’ll pass on asking you for recommended sites…
Posted by: OCSteve | September 03, 2008 at 06:10 PM
"mmm. smell the false equivalence.
McVeigh != Ayers"
Nah, they're not equivalent; McVeigh was a competent murderer. Not a virtue under the circumstances, more an example of my point that competence is only a virtue to the extent your aims are desirable.
"The game plan for today: if any of the alleged things turn out not to be true, then none of them are true. Nothing to see here, folks."
When the shitstorm recedes, get back to me about the ones that turned out to be true, and we'll discuss whether or not they're also serious. There may be something here to see, but it's mixed in with a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 03, 2008 at 07:27 PM
Brett: When the shitstorm recedes, get back to me about the ones that turned out to be true, and we'll discuss whether or not they're also serious.
Don't you think we'll have more to talk about than Palin's various dirty scandals after the November election*, brett?
Or are you, like me, counting on Palin being off the ticket after September 12th?
*Whether the one this year, or the one in 2012...
Posted by: jesurgislac | September 03, 2008 at 07:50 PM
When the shitstorm recedes, get back to me about the ones that turned out to be true, and we'll discuss whether or not they're also serious. There may be something here to see, but it's mixed in with a lot of smoke and mirrors.
That suggests that we can't talk about Troopergate or the Bridge To Nowhere bc there are unsubstantiated internet rumors floating around. Do we really have to wait until they're all debunked or proven before we can discuss any of them?
I mean, I can see where that's very *convenient*. Also, Im not the sort of person who's going to go through all of your past comments, but did you apply this standard to stories about Obama (ie wait until they're all hashed out before commenting on any of them- because I do believe that there are still unsubstantiated rumors wandering around the internets)?
Posted by: Carleton Wu | September 03, 2008 at 08:48 PM
Jes: counting on Palin being off the ticket after September 12th?
Put me down for the 27th. Just a hunch, if she drops out, which I'm not convinced will happen. I just want in on the action. ^.^
Posted by: MeDrewNotYou | September 03, 2008 at 09:11 PM
WHY WE NEED OBAMA IN WASHINGTON
Obama represents a whole new breed of politician that this country sorely needs–politicians who are of the people, by the people, and for the people, instead of “of the system, by the system, and for the system.” If elected, he will become the first “real person” to populate the executive branch in years. This is the true Obama Effect, and it is something that those who populate the fast lane will never grasp. When you think you run the world, you assume this includes everybody. Should one of them aspire to something higher, you react in horror, not because they are unfit to lead but because you are unwilling to bend the knee. It is that simple.
We talk a lot about change, yet when a chance for Real Change comes along, we proceed to show it the door. Change is not a matter of skin color, ethnicity, or even gender. Change means facing down the mobs that are trying to throw this country into chaos. AND HAVE A PROVEN RECORD OF DOING JUST THAT''' Forty years ago change meant taking to the streets with signs, slogans, scowls, and sandals. Today, change means showing up on time and putting in an honest day’s work. Today, change means being polite but firm. Today, change means having a job with actual responsibilities. We have not come full circle. The change agent of today believes that America is the world’s best hope, not its worst nightmare, and does not hesitate to say so.
America’s moral and political pendulum has swung so far right that if we truly want change, Obama and what he represents is the only way to restore sanity and balance. If, however, we are still thinking signs, slogans, scowls, and sandals, we will have missed the boat, and who knows when the next one will chug by?
These are perilous times that call for measured, responsible thinking. The knee-jerk hysteria of the right proves that consevatives have nothing better to do with their time than to waste ours. If Rome were burning, they would bemoan the carbon emissions rather than confront the moral crisis. Or just attack it! Palin and her racist husband is not change . They are more of the failure of the Bush years!
Posted by: Tyrone | October 18, 2008 at 09:55 AM
WHITE WOMEN HAVE OBAMA TO THANK FOR WHITE REPUBLICAN'S MEN RESPECT
Had it not been for the fact of Senator Obama running for President. There would have never been a white female Vice President. 43 white only male only Presidents and NEVER in the history of the country did a white Republican respect a white female for President or Vice President. Just think about it White America, all you had to do to get white presidents to respect a white female was to support a black American for President! Senator Obama is the only reason for Gov. Palin. Blacks are accuse of only voting for Senator Obama because he is black. This is so un-true and surly not base on black voting history. Black voted for Bill Clinton 89% and Jimmy Carter 87%. Blacks not whites fought and died to vote for white men. In 1920 the passing of the 19 Amendment gave white women the right to vote for white men. McCain's pick is affirmative action 101. A token female is a understatement.!!! But Obama is to thank for the first time in history a white women is finally respected by white male president candidate republican. Gov. Palin has no overseas experince.! She only been in elected office for 6 years. Four years as Mayor of about 9,000 and 2 years as Governor of Alaska population 700,000. She is a mother of five and under investigation for abuse of office! Another thing that the white pundits will not say. Never in the history of the country did a white male repubican candidate feel the need to respect a white woman for vice president! WHITE WOMEN....ALL TOGETHER..'''SAY''' THANK YOU OBAMA!
Posted by: Tyrone | October 18, 2008 at 09:56 AM
Home grown evil.....white terrorists
Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001), was a former decorated United States Army soldier and security guard who was convicted of eleven United States federal offenses, and ultimately executed for his role in the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The bombing, which claimed 168 lives, was the deadliest act of terrorism within United States borders until the September 11, 2001 attacks and remains the deadliest incident of domestic terrorism in the United States.The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist attack on April 19, 1995 aimed at the U.S. government in which the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed in an office complex in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The attack claimed 168 lives and left over 800 people injured. Until the September 11, 2001 attacks, it was the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil.
Shortly after the explosion, Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer Charlie Hanger stopped 26-year-old Timothy McVeigh for driving without a license plate and unlawfully carrying a weapon. Within days after the bombing, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both arrested for their roles in the bombing. Investigators determined that they were sympathizers of a militia movement and that their motive was to retaliate against the government's handling of the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents (the bombing occurred on the anniversary of the Waco incident). McVeigh was executed by lethal injection on June 11, 2001. Nichols was sentenced to life in prison. A third conspirator, Michael Fortier, who testified against McVeigh and Nichols, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for failing to warn the U.S. government. As with other large scale terrorist attacks, conspiracy theories dispute the official claims and point to additional perpetrators involved. .Timothy James McVeigh is white and a terrorists . Now given that fact that most white and some black want to hate all Muslim because of 9/11 and claim that all are terrorists. What about all white people??
Posted by: Tyrone | October 18, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Collin Powell
Collin Powell the former 4 Star General former Secretary of State endorse Obama for president. He thinks Obama is best for the country and all people! This say alot about John McCain because Powelll was a member of the same party as McCain. Powell knew McCain longer then Obama. He also has live the wrong judgement of President Bush the Republican Party and John McCain. I also believe that McCain was thinking that all he had to do is repeat over and over I WAS A P.O.W ! And the country would vote him in. McCain forgot to work out a plan for the country other then attacking and lying about Obama . Powell knows that the horrible judgement of the republican party Bush and John McCain has lead to the hatred of our country from other country. He also knows that the horrible judgement of Bush the republican party and John McCain . Has lead to the downfall of the country! Now many right wing republican will say the only reason Powell endorse Obama . IS BECAUSE HE IS BLACK''! WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! Powell very respectfully stated the reason for his endorsement! Bottom line Powell is a respectable American that has put America first!
Posted by: Tyrone | October 20, 2008 at 10:54 AM
KEEPING HATE ALIVE ….THE REPUBLICAN WAY
A white woman who told police she was assaulted by a black man angered about a John McCain bumper sticker on her car admitted she made up the report, the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, assistant police chief told the truth. This is the kind of behavoir McCain and Palin has helped to keep going! The 20-year-old from Texas told investigators a black man approached her at an ATM in Pittsburgh’s East End, put a blade to her neck and demanded money, She said she gave him $60 and stepped away from him.She further said the man “punched her in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground, and he continued to punch and kick her while threatening to teach her a lesson for being a McCain supporter,” ALLTHIS WAS A LIE!! The woman also told police her attacker “called her a lot of names and stated that ‘You are going to be a Barack supporter,’ at which time she states he sat on her chest, pinning both her hands down with his knees, and scratched into her face a backward letter ‘B’ on the right side of her face using what she believed to be a very dull knife.”ALLTHIS WAS A LIE!! The woman described her alleged attacker as an African-American man, 6 feet 4 inches tall with a medium build and short dark hair, wearing dark clothing and shiny shoes. ALLTHIS WAS A LIE TO KEEP HATE AND DIVIDE ALIVE!! Before the revelation that the report was false, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said that McCain and running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin “spoke to the victim and her family after learning about the incident.”
Posted by: Tyrone | October 24, 2008 at 04:50 PM
KEEPING HATE ALIVE ....THE REPUBLICAN WAY
A white woman who told police she was assaulted by a black man angered about a John McCain bumper sticker on her car admitted she made up the report, the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, assistant police chief told the truth. This is the kind of behavoir McCain and Palin has helped to keep going! The 20-year-old from Texas told investigators a black man approached her at an ATM in Pittsburgh's East End, put a blade to her neck and demanded money, She said she gave him $60 and stepped away from him.She further said the man "punched her in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground, and he continued to punch and kick her while threatening to teach her a lesson for being a McCain supporter," ALLTHIS WAS A LIE!! The woman also told police her attacker "called her a lot of names and stated that 'You are going to be a Barack supporter,' at which time she states he sat on her chest, pinning both her hands down with his knees, and scratched into her face a backward letter 'B' on the right side of her face using what she believed to be a very dull knife."ALLTHIS WAS A LIE!! The woman described her alleged attacker as an African-American man, 6 feet 4 inches tall with a medium build and short dark hair, wearing dark clothing and shiny shoes. ALLTHIS WAS A LIE TO KEEP HATE AND DIVIDE ALIVE!! Before the revelation that the report was false, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said that McCain and running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "spoke to the victim and her family after learning about the incident."
Posted by: Tyrone | October 24, 2008 at 05:15 PM
AS THE FIRST BLACK CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT
As the first black candidate Obama has done the best for the people's candidate!HIM... AMD AMERICA! All this talk about Obama closing the deal IS JUST STUPID TALK! 43 white only male only President! There is no closing the deal! THAT IS JUST STUPID! Black people have fought and died to vote for WHITE PEOPLE! That is a fact of history! It is time to turn the page and be fair! The adverage White American is changeing! They are no longer in the pocket of white hatred! White Americans see that it's not working for them nor the country! Hundred of years of hating and discriminating aganist non-whites! IS JUST NOT WORKING'''! Also all this talk about Obama association is just stupid and a littlte racist! Just because YOU as a white person will not assoiate with Obama friends and associate! THAT MAKE OBAMA A BAD PERSON? WRONG! David Duke is a republican ( MEMBER OF THE KKK) Senator Robert Burke ( FORMER MEMBER OF KKK) and a Obama supporter! Senator Jesse Helms openly racist republican til his death. Senator John McCain knew and associated with all of them. McCain voted with Senator Helm against Martin Luther King holiday!
Posted by: Tyrone | October 28, 2008 at 06:13 PM
OBAMA HAS NO EXPERIENCE .......IS THE MOST DISRESPECTFUL STATEMENT
First Obama graduate Harvard Law School (WHERE HE BECAME PRESIDENT OF HIS CLASS* THE FIRST BLACK EVER) then became a Attorney! He was a Professor at a college! Community Organizer a State Legislator. A husband & father! Now a Senator! All that amounts to McCain and the republican party as NOTHING NO EXPERIENCE! Rudy Giuliani made fun of the fact that Obama was a Community Organizer! Obama has ran the best campaign ever in the history of America run for President! McCain is hoping for hate and divide to get into the WHITE HOUSE! Obama beated out 8 other democrates one a power house HILLARY! McCain states over and over that Obama has done nothing ( HAS NO RECORD) Then the old man said OBAMA VOTED 94% ALONG PARTY LINES! How ? If he done nothing? McCain is old and so out of touch with the country and the world! Gov. Palin and her husband assoicate with hate groups and has never been truly vetted by McCain! Todd Palin was a card carrying member for 7 years and Gov. Palin was the key note speaker at one of the hate group rally! WHERE ARE THE PUNDITS?? Cindy McCain past drug crimes never talked about WHERE ARE THE PUNDITS?? Mr. Keating never made the country back 2 billion dollars! WHERE ARE THE PUNDITS?? Cindy McCain and her father receive $375,000 from Mr. Keating WHERE ARE THE PUNDITS??
Posted by: Tyrone | November 01, 2008 at 11:49 AM
BUSH AT WAR.......HERE COMES MCCAIN!
Until the twentieth century, American presidents managed foreign wars well -- including those presidents who prosecuted unpopular wars. James Madison had no support from Federalist New England at the outset of the War of 1812, and the discontent grew amid mounting military setbacks in 1813. But Federalist political overreaching, combined with a reversal of America's military fortunes and the negotiation of a peace with Britain, made Madison something of a hero again and ushered in a brief so-called Era of Good Feelings in which his Jeffersonian Republican Party coalition ruled virtually unopposed. The Mexican War under Polk was even more unpopular, but its quick and victorious conclusion redounded to Polk's favor -- much as the rapid American victory in the Spanish-American War helped William McKinley overcome anti-imperialist dissent. President Bush is just out of touch and so bad as President. The faster he is out of office will be the best for the country and the world! The country is in two wars . The Iraq War should have never been started nor continue! Bush started the Iraq War to defend his father who failed to stop Saddam Hussein. President Bush depicted himself as a wartime leader, and defended the case for the U.S. invasion of Iraq despite evidence that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. And McCain was right there with Bush!
Posted by: Tyrone | November 01, 2008 at 11:50 AM
HOW AND WHY WOULD WE PICK MCCAIN KNOWING ABOUT HIS JUDGEMENT!
George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history. I know I have never seen a President as stupid! Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." McCain was is that stupid voting 92% with BUSH! In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.
Posted by: Tyone | November 01, 2008 at 11:51 AM
BUSH AT WAR.......HERE COMES MCCAIN!
Until the twentieth century, American presidents managed foreign wars well -- including those presidents who prosecuted unpopular wars. James Madison had no support from Federalist New England at the outset of the War of 1812, and the discontent grew amid mounting military setbacks in 1813. But Federalist political overreaching, combined with a reversal of America's military fortunes and the negotiation of a peace with Britain, made Madison something of a hero again and ushered in a brief so-called Era of Good Feelings in which his Jeffersonian Republican Party coalition ruled virtually unopposed. The Mexican War under Polk was even more unpopular, but its quick and victorious conclusion redounded to Polk's favor -- much as the rapid American victory in the Spanish-American War helped William McKinley overcome anti-imperialist dissent. President Bush is just out of touch and so bad as President. The faster he is out of office will be the best for the country and the world! The country is in two wars . The Iraq War should have never been started nor continue! Bush started the Iraq War to defend his father who failed to stop Saddam Hussein. President Bush depicted himself as a wartime leader, and defended the case for the U.S. invasion of Iraq despite evidence that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. And McCain was right there with Bush!
Posted by: Tyrone | November 01, 2008 at 11:58 AM