Suggesting she could mash his peas is not only insulting to McCain, but to her as well.  If you can't see that, you are pretty dense.  Saying that her greatest accolade is that per Wonkette she's a GILF is equally insulting.  Why don't you say that her only worth is her beauty pageant win and she should go back and work in the kitchen?

If you all keep this up, you will play right into McCain's hands.  And this won't turn out to be just a good pick, but a great pick.

But what does that have to do with the reality of a campaign?  Do you think for a second that the rethugs are going to play fair and stick to the issues or the facts?  Obama's a Muslim.  Obama will raise taxes.  Barack Osama, ooops, I mean Obama.  

It's going to get ugly and we'd better be ready to give as good as we get.

They rarely help, but that they can hurt.

The Kudlow interview will be turned into a commercial in about 30 seconds from now.

The creationism stuff tags her as something of a know-nothing, anti-science nut (and I say that as a religious person).

Which explains the choice of the Nutter Center!

http://online.wsj.com/article/...

Summary: She's being investigated for an abuse of power scandal, in which she fired numerous police commissioners, for refusing to fire her sister's ex-husband.

This isn't Quayle. This is Eagleton.

Next Obama ad: Clinton talking into a camera about how Sarah Palin and John McCain are rabidly pro-life.

Next one after that: Ted Stevens, Sarah Palin, Ted Stevens, Sarah Palin, Ted Stevens, Sarah Palin. Corrupt Corrupt Corrupt, More of the Same, Corrupt.

Nothing has been proven in this firing.  We have her word and the word of a fired, disgruntled employee.  And even if it was the case that she was trying to exact revenge on her sister's, by all accounts, despicable former husband, that is nowhere near the level of what Murkowski was doing.  And to equate them is to minimize the kind of criminal and horrendous public servant that Frank Murkowski was.  This seems very much on the level of Travelgate.

And I doubt Obama is going to throw up an ad about abortion.  It is still a divisive issue and something more likely to energize the Republican base.

An investigation has not found her to have done anything wrong.  My point is that regardless of what the investigation finds, I bet that folks are going to react to someone sticking up for their family in a very different way than if she had taken a bribe.

Voting is so frequently a matter of perception and emotion and just gut feeling...and I suggest that even if the investigation says she did something wrong, many are not going to hold it against her.

The heart of the ethics investigation is over the firing of her brother-in-law's boss -- the former Chief of Police in Anchorage.

Some background on this one . . .

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/...  

At this point the investigation into the firing is still on-going so we really can't say one way or another what the finding will be.

But after the past 8 years, I think there probably will be some voters who care about abuse of power issues -- even ones that don't involve financial impropriety.

I agree with you regarding perception and emotion.  I think Palin will come across as likeable and personable -- and for some voters this will be all that it takes.  

But I have to ask -- is she simply too good-looking, to the point of being a distraction?  Will anyone even notice the "wrinkly white-haired guy" with such a stunning beauty next to him?  

But I'm sure she's ready to lead!

"With the pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate, John McCain's race towards the Bush administration's failed energy policy is now complete."

"John McCain was once willing to stand up to his own party, but now that he is running for President, he supports the same Bush policies and powerful special interests that put us in the grip of the oil companies. One of the last remaining independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding Big Oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts."

"Palin herself told Roll Call earlier this week, 'When I look every day, the big oil company's building is right out there next to me, and it's quite a reminder that we should have mutually beneficial relationships with the oil industry.'"  (Roll Call, 8/25/08)

"No one is closer to the the oil industry than Governor Palin.  Along with her support for drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts, she also opposes a windfall profit tax on the richest oil companies. Under her leadership, Alaska has sued the federal government for considering listing the Polar Bear as a threatened species even though global warming threatens its very existence. She has been dismissive of alternative energy, saying "alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop" (The Post and Courier Charleston, SC, 8/16/08), when in reality it is the oil she would like to drill that would take a decade to bring to market."

"Senator McCain has lost any chance of having a balanced or moderate ticket with this choice and has instead opted for the same, business-as-usual reliance on the outdated oil companies that has been the hallmark of the Bush-Cheney administration. On the third anniversary of the hurricane that knocked loose oil rigs and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf Coast that is bracing for another hit, McCain is sending a terribly indifferent message by selecting a candidate who only repeats Big Oil's talking points."

"Senators Obama and Biden share the common goals of putting America back to work by building a balanced clean energy economy, taking on Big Oil and meeting the challenge of global warming. Under their leadership, our economy can become stronger, and our world cleaner and safer."

One decisive response to the scandal came last month, when the legislature rewrote the 2006 tax bill that critics say was hopelessly tainted. Gov. Sarah Palin, a reform-minded Republican who has clashed famously with her party's establishment, called for the special session to "restore public trust in our oil and gas value system."

The oil-tax bill that resulted - passed Nov. 16 - raised overall rates, tightened allowances for deductions and investment credits, and closed loopholes. Gone, for example, are credits for investments made several years ago and the ability of companies to write off public-relations and lobbying expenses. The measure includes an explicit ban on credits or deductions for costs of repairing or replacing improperly maintained equipment.

"We didn't blink," says Senate Judiciary Chairman Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat. "You just don't see the sort of reflex subservience that you saw in the '70s, '80s, and even '90s."

Meanwhile, stunned oil companies say the new tax bill, estimated to bring in an extra $1.5 billion in annual state revenues, is a money grab.

"You can't tell me that [this is] anything more than a feeding frenzy," Jim Bowles, president of ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., said at an industry conference last month in Anchorage.

"It feels like the oil and gas industry is the enemy," Doug Suttles, president of BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., said at the conference.

Palin is hardly in the pocket of Big Oil.  In Alaska she is their enemy.

Sarah Palin is no friend to environmentalists and she may have abused her power as a governor to help her sister but we can criticize her fairly and accurately.  We don't have to distort her record or turn her into a monster.  She's just unqualified to be VP and it reflects badly on McCain's judgment.

We don't have to distort her record or turn her into a monster.

That is my point, entirely.  When we reach too far in our criticisms and stretch or misrepresent the facts, they we leave ourselves open to rebuttal and ridicule by the neo-cons.  There is plenty about Palin to criticize without misrepresenting her record or (worse) stooping to mysogynistic smears.

That is my beef with the Sierra Club--they often fail to get their facts straight and either support the wrong candidate for the wrong reasons, or accidentally support the right candidates but put statements out there that are easily refutable.

I am an environmentalist, but I have never belonged to the Sierra Club for the same reason that I am a gun owner but have never belonged to the NRA (or, God forbid, the GOA).  Some groups go over the top trying to support a worthy cause and do more damage than good in the process.  

Looks like a good born again Christian to me!

Discuss.

Union members think it's important where you stand on the issues, not what your mother and father did.  Likewise, women who are concerned about women's rights, equal pay for equal work, the right to contraception and to decide whether to have an abortion, etc., care more about whether you support them on the issues than what your gender is.

Indy4all, I suspect your wife wasn't going to vote for Barack Obama or, for that matter, for Hillary Clinton regardless.

I notice that the usual posters here who are women are strangely silent today.    

1. Initial reaction from almost everyone: WTF?  And with that comes the Democrats anticipating a steamroll.

2. Palin surprises everyone with a good showing.  Probably speaks well, has some "good" ideas (the ones she's allowed to say), and even being attractive will help.  Nice spike upwards for McCain.

3. Over time her good standing is chipped away through legitimate and illegitimate attacks from left and right, and through the details about the things she's not supposed to emphasize (almost total lack of experience, no on women's rights, big oil lover, creationism, etc) that make her look like Dubya.

Bottomline - I'm predicting (well, hoping at least) that she'll be more impressive than most have initially given her credit for but then slowly she'll be torn down to the point where she doesn't help, and perhaps even hurts, the ticket.  

It just smacks of sexism is all.  It's like a male boss to a female hire: "Stand up and turn around for me."  It's like the media talking about the neck line of Hillary's dresses.  

Someone, male or female, who is attractive will generally get more positive attention than someone who is not.  Whether we're talking politics, Hollywood, or high school, being attractive is usually an advantage.  Sure, that's not true in absolutely every situation, but in general it is true.  And that's all I meant.

So, there is a 1% chance this works.

Look, part of politics is natural ability. Part of it is a learned skill. Palin is probably not ready for a national campaign.

No way she cuts Biden at the knees.

Here's a quote I liked from a Yahoo article

She has more experience catching fish than dealing with foreign policy or national affairs.

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.  Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same," said Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman.

Maybe this is a good time to bring up the Equal Rights Amendment :)

TalkingPointsMemo has put together a lot of material in a short time.  My favorites are that she sets McSame up for an ANWR flip-flop and his campaign has to abandon the "experience" issue.  

If "TrooperGate" becomes too painful will he throw her under the bus or will he comply with the time honored NeoCon principle of sticking to a decision no matter how blindingly obvious proof to the contrary may be.

In the same category I just heard one of our local state GOPers -- Jeff Frederick -- state on Kojo Nnamdi's show on NPR that Palin was the first female VP selection in U.S. history!!!  

1984 wasn't that long ago.  

Once the federal funding was pulled, however, she decided that she didn't want to use state money to get the job done.

In other words, she was for it before she was against it.  

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs...

I mean, 4 hours in, and there's already a gotcha.

This is an amateurish mistake.

Palin is a fascinating pick in many ways, and helps him in some respects.  But the #1 question for a VP candidate is whether she is ready and suited to be president.  I have a feeling that the McCain campaign is going to have to abandon the whole "3 am phone call" line of attack with Ms. Palin on the ticket.

And that's not to mention the thousand or so bloggers looking through her dirty laundry.

Like I say, a hail mary.

Interesting that the McCain team thought they needed a hail mary. We're only just starting the second quarter of the game.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

And NPR's reporting was almost exactly following those points. They were all surprised and doubtful, and that's exactly part of what McCain was trying to do.

In addition to upstaging Obama's excellent speech, McCain has undercut one of its attacks while reestablishing what made him a strong candidate: the perception of him as a maverick. Obama's very good points about why McCain is not a maverick will likely be overshadowed by the perception created by this pick.

It doesn't matter that it's actually a much "safer" pick for appealing to the base than Lieberman or Ridge would've been. It seems to be risky, and unconventional. That's what McCain was selling, and that seems to be what the media and most people who weren't already strongly committed are buying (based, admittedly, on my anecdotal evidence of the news I've seen on it, and the people I've talked to in person today about it).

Honestly, the McCain campaign has suddenly stepped up its game with regards to steering public perception and the media.

Also, don't buy into the inexperience frame -- you're playing McCain's game, it lets McCain/Palin be the victim. Don't try to minimize her achievements -- it seems condescending to dismiss public service in Alaska due to the lower population; that plays into the GOP's hands w/r/t the elitist frame. Talk about the hypocrisy of McCain's attacks on Obama's experience, use it to emphasizes how he flip flops for political gain. Talk about her ethics issue w/ regard to her sister's ex-husband. Things like that.

PS. Seriously, I believe that it's not intentional, but guys, think more carefully about some of the jokes and comments, they really do sound sexist.

Since 2004, when George Bush used this strategy, the Republican base has shrunk, while the Democratic base has grown.

As for being a maverick, that is, first of all, spin. In truth, McCain was never a maverick.

But that aside, this pick is not an example of maverick behavior, but an example of poor judgment. Indeed, you note that this is the "safe" pick, but then stte that doesn't matter with respect to its magical maverick qualities. This just makes no sense. The anecdotal evidence you are seeing more than likely reflects the surprise at the pick, nothing else.

As for the inexperience frame, the argument does not play into GOP hands and allow Palin to be the victim. Rather, the Palin pick takes away what has so far been McCain's single argument against Obama - his alleged inexperience. Can he possibly argue that Obama is not fit to be president while simultaneously arguing that Palin is absolutely qualified to be a 73 year-old heart beat away?

Finally, going from Alaska to the crucible of a national election is going to be very difficult. Perhaps she is up to it, but I wouldn't bet on it. Decades of experience in modern presidential campaigns suggests that she will be chewed up and spit out before this is all over. Every national candidate has to explain gaffes and unflattering events from their past. This takes time. Palin will have only two months.

Don't be fooled by the carefully stage-managed (yet still bizzare) show you saw today. Wait until the Obama campaign starts to define her. Wait until the blogs start slamming her. Wait until some TV reporter decides to make his or her bones by catching her in a gotcha moment for which she is totally unprepared.

Barring some major error by the Obama/Biden ticket, this thing is beginning to look like Obama will win pretty handily, with well over 330 electoral votes.

People in the base (of either major party) seem to pay a reasonable amount of attention to politics, or just trust the party. So, those in the GOP base who look will think she's great. Those who are independents will hear how unusual a choice it is, probably while hearing her referred to as a party and Washington outsider, and it'll go towards the image of McCain as a maverick. A lot of people either don't care enough or don't have enough time to dig deeper.

I agree that Palin does take away the experience argument -- just not if it's played the same way McCain played it, but with Palin. I think that McCain's hypocrisy needs to be emphasized, more that Palin's inexperience. Emphasizing her inexperience lets the GOP way of how people think of the issue be the standing one, which reminds them subtly of the GOP's original point, and reinforces it.

I do agree that the lack of political experience on the national stage may lead to problems for the McCain/Palin campaign, and I must admit that I'm looking forward to the VP debate, since Biden is just so awesome at that stuff.

But I don't agree that this was some kind of gift to Obama/Biden. I think that this election will be a close one, and I think that a choice like this is one really does manage to help with support among both the base and independents. I know it seems contradictory, but I really think it only seems that way if one assumes everyone is paying as much attention to politics as people who follow this blog.

I'm curious though -- in your view -- what exactly qualifies a person to be Commander-in-Chief?

It matters, but when you figure that Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all had executive experience as Governors -- I think that the experience doesn't necessarily mean that the president has exposure to foreign policy questions, or considered views on foreign policy.  Some of that seems to come later.

Judgment and temperament also weigh in the balance.

As far as Obama goes, one of the interesting parts of his background is the foreign travel as a young man -- including what I understand was a trip to Pakistan when his mother was doing some work in the country.  It'll give him a perspective on issues at the ground level that no president has had before on international issues.  The years spent with Lugar and Biden on the Foreign Relations committee and trips to places like Russia, Europe, Kenya, Iraq, and Afghanistan all should help.

In the case of McCain, I'm reminded a bit of some words of caution from a neighbor growing up.  My neighbor had served in the Army during the Battle of the Bulge.  He talked about the importance of having leaders -- especially military leaders -- who understood the current reality of war (e.g. changes in technology).  He talked about how old generals often entered conflicts with a mindset focused on past conflicts -- that the wisdom gained from trench war-fare, for example -- didn't have much application to the conflicts on most fronts during WWII.  What often happened was that those leaders ended up making mistakes early, and then being supplanted by new leaders along the way.

I think McCain's ignorance regarding technology in particular presents some huge hurdles in terms of his ability to get his head around some of the de-centralized threats that we face in the current era.  Obama has a solid grasp of these issues -- and I think someone like Biden will be an excellent complement.  In the case of McCain, he's relying on Bush's Neoconservative advisers for his foreign policy positions, and he now has a VP whose first experience with foreign travel was in 2007.  Even in reference to Iraq she had no opinion on the Surge strategy.  It worries me that someone that close to the presidency could be in a position to make life and death decisions on matters which she hasn't even begun to consider.  

I agree with those on this thread who think she is a brilliant pick for McCain.  She supported domestic partner benefits and though she is pro-drilling, she has been roundly criticized by Big Oil.  

I predict that this woman will prove to be a tough competitor and I for one think that MI, OH, PA, VA and WV just got more complicated for ObamaBiden.  Her life story is no less an American story than the examples Obama cited last night and Biden has cited all week.  The class warfare card has been played and trumped.

To me, this puts the election squarely back into the issues debate which is where it ought to be.  How can you beat up the old cancer survivor as being too old and out of touch and then spit on him for picking a woman in her 40s?  There is a lot of latent sexism and ageism going on here.

Apparently some of you did not listen closely enough to the speeches this week.

In light of that, his VP matters a lot.

As for venom, you don't get around the web much, do you. If you want to see venom, go check out Free Republic or virtually any right wing site. This site has not been at all venomous, although I'm sure you could cherry pick a few exceptions.

What you are seeing here is ridicule. Is it nice? No, it's politics. But ridicule is a very acceptable and often effective tactic. McCain is sure using it.

I must have been mistaken to believe that this brand of Democrats would have higher standards than Free Republic.

Seriously, folks, there are a lot of centrists and conservatives in the Democratic Party or who want to be -- ask Jim Webb.  If you are content to be the party of 35% then just keep this sh*t up.

I personally try to refrain from that sort of stuff on RK, but I admit to enjoying it and laughing at it. As John McCain says, get a sense of humor.  Perhaps it's just my closed mind.

As for centrists and conservatives, they are welcome in the Democratic Party, but to tell you the truth, if you think Palin's positions are okay, then you probably won't want to be a Democrat, as a general matter, given the national party platform.

She wants to outlaw ALL abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

She favors teaching creationism in public school science classes.

She is unsure if humans cause global warming.

She is not a Conservative. She is an extremist.

I favor teaching creationism in public schools but am open to which discipline . . . alongside Darwinism and other theories.  

Just 20 years ago popular scientists told us that a global cooling period about to commence.  I am frankly not enough of a scientist to believe that climate change is a fact or that its causes are completely or susbtantially anthropengic, but I am concerned enough about the risks to assume so, within reason.

Forgive me, but this person who votes with your party often has a right to say that.  If you don't want my vote, I can take it.  And I can go somewhere else.  Sulk if you like.

I really could care less about your OPINION as to what is a conservative or extremist.  Your inability to even consider the alternatives makes you, in my OPINION, an extremist.  So there.  We have different opinions.

Creationism is fundamentalist Christianity, nothing more, nothing less. If folks wish to believe it, fine, but it does not belong in a public school alongside Evolution or any other science.

As for climate change, well, I'm not a scientist either. But when virtually every single scientist (except for those on the payroll of oil companies and other financial interests that profit from the burning of fossil fuels) has reached the same conclusion, well, I think that's pretty strong evidence. At a minimum, I don't want a public official who thinks there is a legitimate scientific dispute over the issue, because there is not.

As for whether she is an extremist, I realize it is my opinion. Whether you care or not about it is certainly your right.

But none of this changes the fact that you mischaracterized earlier comments here as venomous. They were nothing of the sort.

I mean there is no debate on global warming. The whole global cooling thing was found to be false. There is an interesting debate on pollution's effects but not because we don't know them but whats to do about it.

Creationism is not science and does not belong in science classes. Teaching it in anything other than a religion course, or tangentially in philosophy or history, also teeters on violating first amendment rights.

There is plenty of information out there on these things. All major issues, like all politics and religion, have competing sides who sometimes go to extremes. I promise that there is an answer to most issues coupled with resistance to it.

As far as the sexism goes, I think it's sexist to select someone like Palin over Sens. Hutchinson, Snowe, etc.  If we're simply looking at this one on the basis of experience and background, Palin has less heft than those choices -- yet McCain selects her over more qualified women within the GOP?

Palin even comes with a ready-made and ongoing ethics scandal, which she drags along with her into the national spotlight.  A candidate like McCain must be pretty desperate if he's willing to tolerate that kind of distraction in a VP choice.

Shocking Choice by John McCain

WASHINGTON-- Senator John McCain just announced his choice for running mate:  Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.  To follow is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

"Senator McCain's choice for a running mate is beyond belief. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain has clearly made a decision to continue the Bush legacy of destructive environmental policies.

"Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska's coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.

"This is Senator McCain's first significant choice in building his executive team and it's a bad one. It has to raise serious doubts in the minds of voters about John McCain's commitment to conservation, to addressing the impacts of global warming and to ensuring our country ends its dependency on oil."

And, yeah, anyone who thinks humans aren't causing global warming should be disqualified, and that along with the very real possibility she will be President should make everyone concerned.

Global warming, creationism, outlaw all abortions.

Sounds pretty extreme to me.

He was Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review
She has a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Idaho

And every other woman on the national political scene has STERLING academic and substantive  career backgrounds before they entered politics.  Not this gal.....Can they really think she can be a surrogate for Hillary in the minds of  those who supported Sen. Clinton?  She isn't qualified enough to shine Hillary's shoes.   Or to take her pants suits to the dry cleaners.

McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate

Selection of anti-choice Palin shows just how extreme McCain presidency will be

Washington, D.C. - Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that Sen. John McCain's selection today of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate is further evidence that a McCain presidency will be just another four years of the same old Bush-style anti-choice policies. Just like McCain, Palin opposes a woman's right to choose. Palin has also stated her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

"John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate proves just how rigid and extreme his administration would be when it comes to a woman's right to choose," Keenan said. "For 25 years, McCain has opposed a woman's right to choose, and we know that he will continue to push anti-choice policies in the White House. McCain's pick of anti-choice Sarah Palin is further evidence that his White House will be just another four years of Bush-style policies. Any remaining doubts about McCain's extreme anti-choice position should be put to rest when voters learn about the combined anti-choice records of Sarah Palin and John McCain."

Palin, a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life, said during her campaign for governor that she is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. [Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor's Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.]

"Americans are tired of the kind of divisive anti-choice policies that Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have pledged to continue to support. The contrast between pro-choice Sen. Obama and anti-choice Sen. McCain is clear. Voters are looking for a leader who respects women's freedom and privacy.  Barack Obama is that leader."

Sen. McCain's selection of Palin as his vice-presidential running mate is especially troublesome for the unique audience of women voters NARAL Pro-Choice America is targeting: Independent and Republican pro-choice women in suburban and exurban swing districts. These women play a pivotal role in the presidential election. Recent polling confirms how, once these voters know McCain's extreme opposition to a woman's right to choose and family planning, they will switch parties to support Sen. Barack Obama.

NARAL Pro-Choice America, which tracks all choice-related votes in Congress and ranks all 50 states on the status of women's reproductive rights, classifies Sarah Palin as anti-choice.

State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to tell her the news.

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

[...]

House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from Valdez, was also astonished at the news. He didn't want to get into the issue of her qualifications.

"She's old enough," Harris said. "She's a U.S. citizen."

Ouch!

The Palin selection completely undercuts the argument about Obama's inexperience and readiness to lead -- on the theory that because Palin is a maverick and a corruption fighter, she bolsters McCain's claim to be the reformer in this campaign...

The McCain campaign is reveling in the fact that Palin is a game changer. But why a game changer when you've been gaining? To gratuitously undercut the remarkably successful "Is he ready to lead" line of attack seems near suicidal.

...Sarah Palin supported Pat Buchanan in 1999. Neither of them really dwells on the significance of this, so I wanted to back up for those who don't remember the circumstances of the time. This isn't like supporting Buchanan in the GOP primary. When Palin was supporting him, Buchanan was running as a third (actually, fourth) party insurgent, appealing to conservatives who thought George W. Bush was too moderate. This suggests that she's not just a run-of-the-mill movement conservative but a hard-core right-winger.

As to my political philosophy, since for some odd reason you've taken the "ad homimen" route here, I am a Teddy Roosevelt progressive, certainly not a "hard-core left winger," but what possible purpose there is in discussing this I have no idea. You are off on a complete tangent in order to distract everyone from the question of the day: the future of our country, the choice between 4 more years of Bush disaster or at least the CHANCE for a positive change with Barack Obama and Joe Biden. This choice - guaranteed disaster versus hope for the future - is not a difficult choice to make.

As to Palin, she is about as far-right-wing on social issues as you can get. She is also anti-environment, for aerial gunning of wolves, for drilling in ANWR, doesn't believe humans are responsible for global climate change, advocates teaching creationism (!!!) in schools, etc.  In short, she's a big time right winger with absolutely no qualifications to be commander in chief.  If you like that, paired with a guy who's completely sold his soul to the same people he used to (correctly) call "agents of intolerance," then go for it. For me, the choice is as clear as can be.

In fact, as Palin's cultural views become better known -- she oppose abortion in all cases and opposes the use of birth control pills and condoms even among married couples -- she will undoubtedly scare the hell out of the soccer moms and 98% of Hillary voters. In fact, many of these women may feel insulted by this choice in that McCain and the GOP think they are stupid and would bypass their own interest (reproductive and economic) to vote for the ticket due to gender and anger that Hillary was not the nominee.

In my estimation as a pollster and analyst, while historic for the GOP in selecting their first woman on a national ticket, this choice may be the worst selection by a major party nominee for President in modern times.

If you look at the official Alaska site, the bounty was proposed by the Alaska Dept of Fish & Game (not Gov. Palin) to be used within a certain remote area where the wolves were decimating the caribou and moose herds as a means to protect help protect the herds.   The wolves in this area are overpopulated and each spring during calving season they are killing off most of the newborn calves, homing in on them by the scent of blood.   The wolves not only endanger the prey species in the area, but are invested with lice due to overpopulation.   Wolves are difficult and expensive to control in this part of Alaska, so the bounty was proposed to help offset some of the expense. The proposal was never implemented.  Bounties were historically paid to entice people to help control Wolves but they were ended in the 1970's.  It is also notable that they do not issue "hunting licenses" for wolves only "control permits" because the sportsmen have no interest in them and they are not used for food.    There are also some areas in Alaska where wolves cannot be killed at all because there is no threat to other wildlife.

While I am an avid animal lover and wildlife conservationist, I also realize there will always be hunting.  Some areas of the country depend on hunting for a good portion of their food.  Alaska has a long history of shooting wolves from low flying aircraft in the most remote areas (not everywhere).   I am not advocating nor condemning this method because I understand the argument from both sides.   Shooting from low flying aircraft is not something people do for "fun".  They must remove the door from the plane and fly in sub-zero temperatures during winter months when the wolves can be tracked.  The wildlife management reports I read, indicated that "wound & injure rates were very low" and they reported wound & injure rates associated with other hunting methods as well.   The report also states one of the main reasons for collecting the forelegs is to ensure that animals are actually killed not just wounded.   I think law makers have a responsibility to make and enforce laws that require humane hunting practices.   As I read the 144 pages of the report I was impressed at the amount of thoughtful study and detailed information that it contained and that they actually are concerned with "wound & injure" rates, lice etc. - and that they outlawed shooting of wolves in areas where they are not a threat.    I'm not saying they are perfect or can't be improved upon, but I don't believe this is as big an issue as some are trying to "spin" it to be.

I'm not sure what Mr. Obama's position on killing wolves (or any other wildlife) is.   However I do know he is personally responsible for blocking a bill that would have allowed doctors to give medical treatment to babies born alive after botched abortions.   He listened to personal testimony from nurses who were only allowed to hold these babies for their short lives and watch them inhumanly suffer and fade away which often takes hours.  Obama personally blocked the state bill even after wording was changed be the same as the Federal Bill which passed the US Senate unopposed (Both Hillary & Kerry voted in favor of the bill).   I cannot vote for someone who has that little regard for human life.   I also cannot imagine that someone who is not concerned with the humane treatment of newborn babies would somehow be concerned with humane treatment of animals.

Here are links to the full congressional testimony of some of these nurses- no spin added.  
http://nobamanews.blogspot.com...
http://nobamanews.blogspot.com...
the federal law - no spin added
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA...

Jill Stanek is the nurse who took this issue to her state legislature.  This is the link to her full report in Citizen Link (non-partisan)
(Yes, she does have an agenda too - she is pro-life, however her objective in this case was only to fight for babies born alive - not to fight all abortion.)
http://www.citizenlink.org/con...