Transterrestrial Musings




Defend Free Speech!


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay




Site designed by


Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« So What About Space Policy? | Main | Reading The Writing On The Wall? »

Buyers' Remorse

Boy, you really have to think that the Dems would like to have a do-over. They will be wondering for years how they managed to screw up this election so royally. The answer is their identity politics, and arrogance. But that's not the lesson they'll take. Which is fine with me.

[Update a couple minutes later]

A good point over at The Corner. This won't just help with women--it will help with men. Who would you rather look at for four years: Joe Biden, or Sarah Palin?

[Update a while later]

Not that they've been high, but watch Bob Barr's poll numbers drop. McCain just brought a lot of libertarian Republican home, judging from what I read at Free Republic. Hell, I might even vote for him now.

[Update a little later]

A prediction. Sarah Palin, not Hillary Clinton, will be the first woman president. And the first black president will be a Republican as well (of course, I've always thought that the first black and women presidents would be Republicans).

 
 

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Buyers' Remorse.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10181

60 Comments

Bill White wrote:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been a much better pick for McCain. Far more dangerous in November.

I now predict that ~95% of the PUMAs (an already dwindling group) will be outraged at John McCain for thinking they can be bought so easily. Especially since Sarah Palin opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and she favors teaching creation science in school.

She is a very good looking female version of Alan Keyes.

Ramesh at NRO Corner offers more cold water:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWY0YmM3N2JhMTVkYmI0ZjU0OTBiYTY3NmUyMjgxNTc=

Josh Reiter wrote:

Hell, I'd more than just look at Palin. I'd....well.... you know....like....make messy pants with her -- from sharing a big bag of popcorn. Cause you know all that butter on your hands and no napkin...you know....gotta wipe it on your pants -- terrible mess. In fact, she's got, what, 5 kids? That means she likes to do a little something something -- you know what I'm saying? Like.... wipe spittle off chins. I mean, I got plenty of that where thats coming from my friend. *nudge nudge*

Rand Simberg wrote:

I now predict that ~95% of the PUMAs (an already dwindling group) will be outraged at John McCain for thinking they can be bought so easily.

Dream on, Bill.

Bob wrote:

Rand, I really don't understand what prompted your original comment about buyer's remorse. Obama's speech last night was incredibly well-received.

(CNN claims 38 million Americans heard Obama's speech on TV last night - that's roughly 56 times the population of Alaska. I have to admit that Leland's comment on Palin's executive experience has left me fixated on ways to describe the small population of Alaska. For example: Alaska has roughly same population as Austin, TX. I wonder what would have happened if Obama had selected Austin Mayor Will Wynn as his VP choice?
Ok, I'll try to stop now.)

Rand Simberg wrote:

Rand, I really don't understand what prompted your original comment about buyer's remorse. Obama's speech last night was incredibly well-received.

Go ask Bob Beckel. He looked like he was at a wake this morning after the Palin announcement.

Andy wrote:

my God, a woman vice-president with absolutely no qualifications to be the Big Banana. I think McCain's Ship of State just hit the shoals.

Mike Puckett wrote:

"my God, a woman vice-president with absolutely no qualifications to be the Big Banana."

Except exectuive experience and more foerign policy experience than Obama. (Russia and Canada anybody?)

Larry J wrote:

my God, a woman vice-president with absolutely no qualifications to be the Big Banana. I think McCain's Ship of State just hit the shoals.

Since you opened the topic of qualifications, precisely what qualifications does Obama and Biden have to be president? Has either of them ANY executive experience (remember, another title for the president is "Chief Executive".) Has either of them ever held a real job in their lives? If all it takes to be a good president is speaking well when reading from a teleprompter, then Obama might be the best choice. However, when away from the teleprompter, he almost makes George W. Bush look articulate.

Palin's qualifications - as thin as they may seem - are more than Obama and Biden combined. Hell, I'm an ordinary 51 year old but I've accomplished far more in life than Omaba ever has. Even my 34 year old stepson has more real world accomplishments to his credit than Obama.

Scott wrote:

DISCLAIMER: I thought that McCain would never pick Palin because of her relatively youth, but I was WRONG...and I am delighted to be so.

This was a VERY solid pick politically. Palin is smart, a solid speaker and debater (she will wipe the floor with Biden, not to mention the Dalibama), has impeccable libertarian credentials, and is both a telegenic and talented politician. The right wing loves her, and the left will predictably despise her for reasons they will think of later. The center, on the other hand, will like her and that will help a lot

Not to dignify Bill's whistling past the graveyard with a reply, but even if she peels off 5% of the PUMAs, that will be more than enough in a close election to pick up some swing states. Remember that Obama's own pollster predicts 12 states will be decided by margins of 4% or less. How silly is it to write off ANY of the vote in races like that?

I have said before that I don't think that ANY VP choice will make a huge difference (people vote for the top of the ticket, after all), but I suspect that McCain has made a brilliant tactical move here. He has completely eclipsed any discussion of Obama's acceptance speech last night (by the way, I found his 'Job Well Done' ad from yesterday incredibly classy), and at the same time turned the focus onto the GOP and its choices. Secondly, and much more to the point, picking Palin lets him turn the focus onto issues of Drilling, Drilling, Drilling...issues that overwhelmingly favor the GOP. Palin is the perfect person to debate the noisy hairshirts in the ecolobby that has so much influence on the Dems...

Scott

Rand Simberg wrote:

The pick also allows people who were tempted to vote for Obama because it was "historic" an alternative, and more attractive "historic" vote.

Daveon wrote:

Yay! The McCain-Token 08 ticket.

Now I'm buying the popcorn and settling in, this is going to be a hoot.

Anonymous wrote:

McCain has just eliminated his own best argument against Obama. So either McCain was not serious about his argument about Obama's experience or he thinks Hillary women are utterly dumb and getting elected is mor important than "country first".

Any respect for McCain's judgement I might have had is gone. What an idiot.

His numbers might rise for a day or two, but the sop he is offering Hillary's women is bound to fail. A pro-life creationist who looks hot isn't going to cut it with them.

A pathetic choice.

Jon Lake wrote:

A week ago you were predicting that Hillary would fight to the end and that there would be a fractious convention fight in Denver. You were wrong about that. So what makes you right now?

Brock wrote:

Palin's an interesting choice, but someone with a little more experience would have allowed McCain to keep hammering Obama on that front. Now, not so much.

Perhaps he thought that with Biden on the ticket the "no experience" hammer wasn't going to work anyway; Obama can always point over his shoulder and say "When I'm President, I'll have a great resource in Joe Biden."

What's sort of odd is how similar the two tickets are in some respects (two inexperienced 40-somethings and two old-guy Senators), but with the positions switched. It's kind of weird that McCain picked someone that made his ticket _more_ like Obama's ticket.

Brock wrote:

Just thought of a funny come-back for McCain ...

Reporter: "Sen. McCain, if you're elected and something happens to you, Mrs. Palin will be President. Do you think she's ready to be Commander in Chief?"

McCain: "No one is ever really 'ready' to be Commander in Chief, but if she feels that she is too inexperienced to make informed judgments she can just make Joe Biden her VP."

Scott wrote:

If Palin is too inexperienced to be 'a heartbeat away' from the presidency, then how doe we rationalize Obama? I might point out that voters are likely to pick the top of the ticket as the focus for experience, and this is where Obama is weak. If neither Palin nor Obama has any foreign policy experience (a given), then at least Palin has some exectuive experiencem, and she has done much with it. Obama has simply been a tool of the corrupt Chicago machine...Palin has faced down her own party on outrages like the Bridge to Nowhere.

I saw a wonderful quote on NRO, "Obama voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, Palin killed it" That is the sort of exerience that matters...

Anonymous wrote:

Some of you guys are nuts.

How can you compare a brilliant, intellectual former professor of constitutional law, who has authored multiple books and opposed the Iraq war in a prescient foreign policy speech at its outset with a former sports vehicle saleswoman? An editor of the Harvard Law Review who graduated in the top 10% of his class, who has 20 years of legislative experience with someone who has next to none and is the 1+ year governor of a State the size of Austin Texas?

Get real. McCain is nuts. I can't believe Simberg thinks this is such a hot choice. The man is even goofier than I thought.

Wait for Hillary's speech trashing Palin. Heh.

ken anthony wrote:

Lizzie was right. Gov. Sarah Palin is an inspired choice. I predict the Obama media will overplay their hand and a female backlash gives McCain the oval office.

Anonymous wrote:

"Daveon wrote:
Yay! The McCain-Token 08 ticket.

Now I'm buying the popcorn and settling in, this is going to be a hoot."

Indeed, it should play well against the Token-Biden ticket.

Larry J wrote:

How can you compare a brilliant, intellectual former professor of constitutional law

That's an overstatement. Obama was more of an adjunct faculty member, not a professor. In academic circles, that's a huge distinction. Furthermore, his so-called brillance fails to dazzle.

, who has authored multiple books

As an author myself, this fails to impress. Were his books on constitutional law? No, one was a navel-gazing tome about the father who abandoned him instead of the "typical white woman" grandmother who actually raised him. The other was political platitudes. Zzzzzzz.

"and opposed the Iraq war in a prescient foreign policy speech at its outset

His opposition included opposing the "surge" which even the New York Times has finally admitted was successful. Obama said he would still oppose it for political reasons.

with a former sports vehicle saleswoman?

At least Palin has worked in the private sector, an experience that Obama apparently lacks. Palin is an active outdoorsman in one of the harshest and most beautiful wilderness regions on Earth. She knows far more about nature and the environment than a former "community organizer" (for ACORN) ever will.

An editor of the Harvard Law Review who graduated in the top 10% of his class,

How many editors of the Harvard Law Review produce each year? Are all of them qualified to be president? Likewise, Harvard Law graduates dozens of students in the top 10% of their class each year. Are all of them qualified to be president?

who has 20 years of legislative experience

He served in his state legislature for a number of years. What did he accomplish there? He was sworn into the Senate in 2005 but has only been on the job for less than 150 days. The rest of the time, he's been out campaigning for higher office. What has he accomplished in the Senate?

with someone who has next to none and is the 1+ year governor of a State the size of Austin Texas?

Which - combined with her service as a small town mayor - is more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. The president is also known as the "Chief Executive." Obama and Biden have very little if any executive experience.

Face it, Obama is almost certainly the emptiest suit ever to win a party nomination for president. What has the man ever DONE that amounts to anything?

crickets chirping......

Bob wrote:

All executive experiences are not equivalent. Take Mayor Daley, a big city mayor. (Chicago has roughly 5 times Alaska's population, and has more people than 20 states.) Daley has a lot of executive experience, but I doubt he has thought deeply about how to govern the United States.

On the other hand, every US senator has thought long and hard about what he or she would do as president.

If, God forbid, the VP had to take over as president on day 1, I'd much rather have a president who has thought hard about the issues at hand, rather than one with managerial skills. (After all, George Bush was lauded as our disciplined MBA president...)

Serendipity strikes! As I was about to hit "submit", I just overheard the newscaster say that Palin was quoted as saying that "she had not given much thought to the Iraq War." Sounds like something Bush would have said.

Brock wrote:

"a brilliant, intellectual former professor of constitutional law"
Many people who are brilliant I would never want as President. For instance, I many of the current leaders in the Chinese Communist Party are Harvard and Stanford educated. Half the House of Saud went to Yale.


"who has authored multiple books"
You mean like Diane Steel?


"opposed the Iraq war in a prescient foreign policy speech at its outset"
A war which we are now winning, no thanks to him.


"with a former sports vehicle saleswoman?"
You forgot to mention sports reporter and commercial fisherman. All hard jobs, in their way. Someone with some "real world" experience is a nice change from McCain, Obama and Biden. I don't think any of them have ever worked in the private sector, just institutional, government protected bureaucracies - the military, education or government.

An editor of the Harvard Law Review who graduated in the top 10% of his class
See above about brilliance. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, but Reagan was a better President.


who has 20 years of legislative experience
Don't overplay your hand. Obama is 47. He was did not become a State Senator at 27.


is the 1+ year governor
As opposed to a 1+ year Senator?

--------

Feel free to make your case for Obama, but don't make such a weak one. You're not doing your team any good.

Josh Reiter wrote:

"is the 1+ year governor of a State the size of Austin Texas?

Huh, Austin must be bigger than I remember. You'd think the traffic wouldn't be so bad with all that room.

Mike Puckett wrote:

How much negotating did the mayor of Austin do with his Russian and Canadian neighbors?

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

This is quite an inspired choice on McCain's part. It solidifies the libertarians who might have been queasy about voting for one of the authors of McCain-Feingold. It snatches some of the still-annoyed Hillary supporters. Since McCain is fairly old, anyone who wants to see a woman president (like, many of those Hillary supporters) will be tempted to vote for him, hoping he will die. And since the dems will likely retain control of congress, that the woman is not politically compatible may not be too difficult to swallow for the liberal feminists.

Bob wrote:

Jon Lake asked "A week ago you were predicting that Hillary would fight to the end and that there would be a fractious convention fight in Denver. You were wrong about that. So what makes you right now?"

Jon, Rand was wrong, but crazy predictions are fun, and I hope Rand continues to fearlessly throw them out there, along with the thought process that led to them.

This latest prediction - that Palin will be the first female president of the United States - is somewhat plausible, and certainly not crazy. I believe Obama will win, but it isn't implausible that McCain will win by a squeaker (Damn you Chillicothe, Ohio!!) If McCain wins, he'll probably only serve for one term, as nobody wants an 81 year old president. (I'm surprised anyone wants a 77 year old president, which is what we'll get if McCain wins this election.) Obviously, McCain's VP will have an advantage for the next race. Should McCain leave office early, Palin becomes president. Should McCain run for a second term and win, McCain has an even higher chance of leaving office early, and finally, in the unlikely event that McCain is a highly successful two term president, presiding over a new American Renaisance, Palin could run on his record.

Given all these possibilities, it is a shame McCain didn't choose more carefully. Apparently, it was a pretty impulsive choice -- McCain only met her once (or twice, depending on how you count) before offering her the job. This kind of impulsiveness raises the question yet again: does McCain have the temperment to be president?

Bob wrote:

Mike, I've searched but I have not found -- what negotiating did Palin do with the Russians? (I'm less interested in negotiating with the Canadians - I can't think of an easier international task, but if it was significant, please don't hesitate to let us (or at least me) know about that too.) In all sincerity: thanks.

Mike Puckett wrote:

Fishing Rights agreements at a mimimum.

Drooling Imbecile wrote:

What the heck is a mimimum ?

Is that Alaskan ?

Wow. Mimimums. Puckett is fishing hard, reaching, reaching...now don't fall out of the boat blind one.

Yeah Paul, quite an inspired choice. Inspired by lunacy.

Chris Gerrib wrote:

Why would the governor of Alaska be negotiating fishing rights for Federal waters? I don't know if she did or didn't, just asking.

Mike Puckett wrote:

"Wow. Mimimums. Puckett is fishing hard, reaching, reaching...now don't fall out of the boat blind one. "

Who ever knew chum could speak?

It is still more foreign policy experience than Ocarter.

PS Rand, I thought you were going to delete Elishitzes moronic posts?

Brock wrote:

I don't think governors are allowed to negotiate with foreign nations. The Constitution gives foreign affairs to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. She may have been consulted by State, but that's not the same thing.

Martin wrote:

"Anonymous wrote:

Some of you guys are nuts.

How can you compare a brilliant, intellectual former professor of constitutional law, who has authored multiple books and opposed the Iraq war in a prescient foreign policy speech at its outset with a former sports vehicle saleswoman? An editor of the Harvard Law Review who graduated in the top 10% of his class, who has 20 years of legislative experience with someone who has next to none and is the 1+ year governor of a State the size of Austin Texas?"

That Biden was a professor of constitutional law only shows that he really ought to know better than to eviscerate the constitution, which he has made a career out of doing. I have seen the man speak on TV, going back all the way to the 1988 race, and never saw any flash of brilliance. All I saw was a bloviating fool.

He may have had a stellar career as a law student, but as a lawyer he worked as a professional "community activist" (whatever in the hell that means - I think it means "parasite"). He also immersed himself in Chicago politics, working as Tony Rezko's errand boy in the Illinois legislature.

And yes, Obama has written two books - both of them about himself.

In short, Obama and Biden, are just about like every other ticket, certainly on the Democratic side - a pair of not-to-bright narcissists looking for an eight year long tax-payer sponsored ego-trip.

Bob wrote:

Just as an aside, and not to contradict what Brock is saying, but: Governors can negotiate with foreign governments if the President gives them an additional hat to wear -- eg President Bush asked Governor Bill Richardson to negotiate with the North Koreans and the Sudanese. An interesting example of bipartisanship.

Rand Simberg wrote:

It's not Elifritz. It's some other anonymous moron.

I'm glad that McCain made a veep pick that actually appeals to his own party.

I said this on my blog: "Palin is a hyperactive crusader against excessive spending. Unless we see a colossal flip-flop, McCain-Palin will not continue the spending policies of George W. Bush and the Democrats."

Palin has five children. That should prepare her for her duties as President of the Senate.

If prolific writing is qualification for office, maybe McCain shoula gone witl James Lileks. That coulda put Minnesota into play...

Jim Harris wrote:

Palin is a hyperactive crusader against excessive spending.

Yeah, in particular she was adamant that the state government was spending way too much on the salary of State Trooper Mike Wooten. She wrote a 3000-word email on the subject. You have to admire her attention to detail if she follows the doings of 240 individual state troopers.

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/07/23/10/palin-email.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

Fletcher Christian wrote:

Hmmm... The Presidential election is somewhat interesting, now.

However, though he's obviously not eligible, I still think the other well-known Palin might well do a better job than anyone who might get it in the next Presidential term. Who's that, you say? Michael, of course.

Cecil Trotter wrote:

As I'm sure you know Mr Harris, Palin had a bit more personal knowledge of Trooper Wooten than most other troopers, as he had been married to her sister. Whom he beat. And if only half of what was written about him in that email from Gov Palidin he is a POS that should have been fired.

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Yeah Paul, quite an inspired choice. Inspired by lunacy.

I detect panic from the drooling class.

Hey Jim, here is a clue for you! wrote:

'... NOT WITHOUT A BLEMISH'

As the investigation got under way in 2005, Wooten was in the midst of a bitter divorce from Palin's sister, Molly McCann. The couple was fighting over custody of their two young children. Accusations flew from both sides.

Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:

Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.

He illegally shot a moose.

He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

He told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

Beyond the investigation sparked by the family, trooper commanders saw cause to discipline or give written instructions to correct Wooten seven times since he joined the force, according to Grimes' letter to Wooten.

Jim Harris wrote:

As I'm sure you know Mr Harris, Palin had a bit more personal knowledge of Trooper Wooten than most other troopers, as he had been married to her sister.

Well, duh, Cecil. But in my line of work, a personal connection is grounds for recusal. It's not grounds for wielding influence to get people fired. Let's say for the sake of argument that that state trooper should have been fired. Is that really the governor's job, to hire and fire at the bottom level? Is that the way that she would handle the vice presidency?

From: Sarah Palin, Vice President, Washington DC
To: Postmaster John Smith, Toledo Ohio

Dear Postmaster Smith,

Mailman Jack Jones who works for you is a real snake. He beats his wife, we had to sue him for a car accident, and he killed our dog. We know him all too well. You should fire him. This is the third reminder.

Another clue for Jim wrote:

Dear Postmaster Smith,

Mailman Jones tazed my nephew, beat my sister, drank beer in his patrol car and threatened to kill my father.

Sounds a bit different now eh?

Jim Harris wrote:

Sounds a bit different now eh?

"Therefore, because I'm the Vice President and you're the Postmaster in Toledo, and because the boss of your boss of your boss reports to the White House where I work, you should listen to me and fire that bastard.

Scratch that. Pay no attention to the fact that I can ask to have you fired the same way that I'm asking you to fire the guy under you. I'm just writing to you as a concerned citizen. So was my chief of staff when he wrote to you a dozen times."

No, it doesn't sound different. No matter how well she pitches the case, it's still abuse of authority.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Yes, Jim. We'd much rather have a chief executive whose instinct is to have a donor who pays for a campaign ad that he doesn't like thrown in jail. Obama sure knows what a "Justice" Department is for.

Richard Sharpe wrote:

Am I correct in noting that that email was from 2005?

What executive position or other official position did Palin hold in 2005 that it could be thought she was abusing? Was she campaigning for office at the time? I dunno.

I am of the view that her email was at the time from a private citizen who was concerned for the evident abuse of power by a state trooper and for the safety of her sister. Perhaps I am wrong, and if so, I am sure someone here will disabuse me of my wrongheaded notions.

Richard Sharpe wrote:

Just to be sure I was on solid ground, I did a bit of googling and found this

In August 2005, nearly four months after the investigation began, Palin wrote a lengthy e-mail to Grimes about Wooten that included some new accusations and new witnesses. She wrote that she was writing not as his sister-in-law but to express concern over the lack of action about a trooper whom she said many described as a "ticking timebomb" and "loose cannon."

In October 2005, Palin announced she was running for governor. Sgt. Wall, who is now a lieutenant over patrol in Fairbanks, finished his investigation the same month. The following March, Grimes handed out the punishment.

Seems open and shut to me, unless someone wants to claim that her bid for the Governorship in AK was to put pressure on the Troopers to fire Wooten. Could be, I guess.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Here's a debunking of the "Troopergate" story.

Rick C wrote:

The "Palin wants creationism taught in school" schtick is dishonest, too. Charles Johnson of LGF has already addressed/debunked that.

Richard Sharpe wrote:

Of course, the next scandal to come out around Palin is:

Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby!

That blog post opines that she is the granddaughter, and Palin is protecting her daughter's reputation and hiding a very un-Christian set of behaviors that her daughter was engaged in.

Oh, will the slime never cease?

Let's see the NYT run with this. Oh, of course.

Jim Harris wrote:

These "debunkings" of the Palin ethics investigation invoke the Nixon defense: Yes, these aides yanked levers of power to gratify Governor Palin, but she's innocent because they did it without her knowledge. If that's true, did they decide not to tell her because she intervened herself before she was governor, or did they keep it from her in spite of that fact?

Besides, if she became vice president, what else might her aides do without her knowledge? Would they sell weapons to Iran?

Anonymous wrote:

I have to admit that Leland's comment on Palin's executive experience has left me fixated on ways to describe the small population of Alaska. For example: Alaska has roughly same population as Austin, TX. I wonder what would have happened if Obama had selected Austin Mayor Will Wynn as his VP choice?
Ok, I'll try to stop now.

I love this! Austin's population is about that of Delaware also. This is going to be so much fun this fall.

Bob wrote:

Anonymous,

You can't compare governors and senators without considering how the federal system works.

Any Senator, from any state in the union, no matter how small, has to think about issues of national importance. It doesn't matter what state they are from - that's the way the system works.

All governors are not created equal: A governor's responsibilities are contingent on a variety of factors, including the population of the state, the geographic vulnerability of the state to natural disasters, the state's constitution (governors from Texas have reduced responsibilities despite Texas' large population), and many other factors as well. Alaska is both small and blessed with income.

It is interesting to read what Palin's fellow Alaskan politicians are saying about McCain's choice in the Anchorage Daily News. On both the left and the right, few think McCain made a good choice:

http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/510249.html

Bob wrote:

Is there any evidence that Palin has thought about national and international issues?

All I've read so far is that on national issues, she lied about congressional earmarks (she was for congressional earmarks for the bridge to nowhere before she claimed, in Friday's speech, that she was against earmarks for it), and on international issues, she said she hadn't given much thought to our strategy in Iraq.

A governor *could* think about big issues, even if their jobs didn't require it, but has she?

Richard Sharpe wrote:

Seems Bob is prepared to believe the MSM, but this Dem seems to dread the possibility that they will misunderestimate Palin, the shark.

Andy Freeman wrote:

In what universe is "tried to fire her sister's loser ex-husband" going to cost Palin votes? Failing might cost her votes, but trying won't; the loser ex-husband and sympathizer demographic is much smaller than the other side of that argument.

There's a huge difference between requesting federal money and voting to make it happen.

But, even if you want to ignore that, Palin's $200M pales in comparison to Biden and Obama's take. Biden got more for MBNA with a single piece of legislation than Palin ever dreamed of. Obama's only legislative accomplishments are pork for the home folks.

And, note that McCain's campaign isn't trying to shut down media outlets that run critical stories.

Jim Harris wrote:

In what universe is "tried to fire her sister's loser ex-husband" going to cost Palin votes?

I don't know whether she will win votes from this, or lose votes, or neither. If Oliver North can get votes by selling weapons to Iran, then clearly all bets are off. Even if she gets a lot of votes from this --- she doesn't seem to think so since she's blaming her aides --- but even if she did, it would still be a breach of ethics. Just because you're elected governor, that does not make you dictator of the state civil service.

It's a counterintuitive point for some people, but even someone who is "obviously" a loser is entitled to due process. That is why Mike Wooten is still a state trooper. Maybe he is as dangerous as Sarah Palin says he is, I wouldn't know, but she failed to prove it.

Leland wrote:

This is just hilarious, our trolls are beside themselves. Jim is no longer campaigning against Bush, he's going after Oliver North.

Bob's the best, he tries to be more serious than Jim and still falls flat. Bob should get a map. He's acting like the Governor of a state that sits between Canada and Russia would have little experience in international matters. Worse, he then thinks the home state of ANWR would be little aware of national matters. Dude is hilarious.

It is interesting to read what Palin's fellow Alaskan politicians are saying about McCain's choice in the Anchorage Daily News.

What, a governor who came to power as a reformer doesn't have a lot of love from lifelong politicians? Isn't that the "hope and change" some other candidate talked about just before he selected a lifelong politician as a running mate?

Andy Freeman wrote:

I note that Harris assumes that the whole "fire the loser ex-husband" thing actually is Palin's fault.

As to the "ethics", does Harris really believe that folks are entitled to govt jobs?

Speaking of responsibility for staff actions, can we blame Obama for the actions of his campaign staff? (After all, said "campaign" is his sole "executive experience.)

I ask because Obama's staff has been arguing that it's wrong and criminal for media outlets to run critical stories.

Does Harris' concern about "ethics" cover that? Granted - a Repub trying to fire a loser ex-husband is different than a Dem going after media.

Is going after media ethical in general, or only when a Dem does it?

Jim Harris wrote:

she lied about congressional earmarks

Good point, Bob. Although I wouldn't call it lying, she was indeed for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.

http://newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/31/sarah-palin-supported-ketchikan-bridge-nowhere-dur/

I don't blame her. No one should think that Alaska's time as the subsidy state begins or ends with one bridge to nowhere. The only way to do a good job as governor of Alaska is to attract and spend subsidies. (And maybe to pay lip service to ending them.) More power to Sarah Palin if she's good at it; she should stick to that job.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
 

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on August 29, 2008 10:05 AM.

So What About Space Policy? was the previous entry in this blog.

Reading The Writing On The Wall? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1