Monday, September 1, 2008

please, could someone explain this to me?



I ... honestly, it's just completely beyond me. I know that I'm fanatically left wing and not open minded at all, and basically I have an immediate and serious reservations about anyone if I know they're Republicans. I say this not to justify it but to illustrate that I know I'm biased and inflexible.

But Sarah Palin? Are you f%^&ing kidding me??
At least Condaleeza Rice is intelligent.
And not unbelievably tacky looking and sounding.

Like I'm honestly, seriously, trying to understand it, so I go to Fox News, and this is what the Republican spokesperson has to say:

"I think John McCain has his story … he has enthusiasm on a different level,” said Davis. “I think Sarah Palin brought her own level of enthusiasm, her own type of enthusiasm.”

What does that even mean? Enthusiasm? Is that the best that they can do?
Some other guy says:

“I don’t think they were looking for perfection in a candidate,” said Scott Glover, a Florida delegate.

and

"Earlier in the day, delegates at the breakfast used words like “awesome” ... to describe Palin."

and finally:

"Nevertheless, Republicans say they have found a whole new reason to fight in November, and thank McCain for the gift of Sarah Palin."

... which gets me to the next question: how the f^& does this pass for journalism? what is going on here?
Then the Atlantic opines,

"Many Republicans were already nervous about McCain. On Friday, the Palin pick soothed one set of Republicans -- the grass roots activists."

The Republicans have grass-roots activists? Really? Do they have pot lucks and hand out fliers together and wear hemp clothing? And they are a large voting block??

The bizarre thing is that everyone is claiming she has foreign policy experience because she's governor of Alaska and Alaska is close to Russia (?!) Do they really believe this makes sense? Is this all a joke? Is this possible?

Anyway, since I assume that at least some of my readers are both Republican and of above average intelligence, could someone please explain what McCain was thinking?
Thanks!

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

The real bummer is her anti-planet-Earth stance (she is married, quite literally, to Big Oil). Once the Alaskan national wildlife refuge is destroyed it can't be replaced by the next administration. Sadly, for many administrations now that refuge was an unquestioned sanctuary. McCain and her together against the planet, it's a total downer, man.

Anonymous said...

And it has been reported that her 17 yr old daughter is pregnant - not that has anything to do with anything.

The amazing thing is that I thought Barack was pushing it with his lack of experience - but Palin takes the cake.

Anonymous said...

It's a smart move by McCain .. the kind of maverick move that he is known for. He senses that Obama has all the momentum, even though the current polls say that the race is close. So he selects a young, dynamic, rising superstar politician .. who passionately supports conservative public policy, and who is a woman. His idea is to give disaffected Clinton supporters a reason to vote for him. And the Palin choice is designed to energize the social conservatives in the Republican party, who think that McCain is really a centrist Democrat in Republican clothing.

I have to believe it's a long shot ... but stranger things have happened in the crazy world of presidential politics!

Anonymous said...

Lizzy,

you should do a poll on whether Palin is actually the grandmother of baby Trig.

Jesse Kraai

Anonymous said...

You pretty much answered your own question when you said “I ... honestly, it's just completely beyond me. I know that I'm fanatically left wing and not open minded at all”. As long as you are closed minded you will never understand. I consider myself a moderate and try to look at both sides of an issue. If you are willing to take your left wing blinders off for a minute, here is a link that you should try to read with an open mind. I know it might be a little long, but bear with it, and who knows …
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-08-10-1.html

Greg Shahade said...

Given that the article you linked on is pretty much the most closed-minded one sided right wing article humanely imaginable and the fact that you seem to be endorsing it, lead me to doubt your claims of being "moderate".

Pretty much the same article could be written from exactly the opposite point of view, and it would appeal to all left wingers, and of course they could not consider themselves "moderate" and open minded if they found that such an article was an article worth taking the time to read.

Rich in Phoenix said...

Ahhh, the explanation goes like this:

The McCain Camp, after last week's Spectacular Show and Anointment of Barak Obama, capped by a flawless performance (speech), fell into the abyss of despair.

What to do? What to do? How to win?

The staffers surfed the Internet endlessly for the answer until finally they fell upon the website of a 20 yr. Colorado guy that long ago declared he had found the answer - the Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin!

But John, incredulous about this selection,wanted some other confirmation. So back to the Internet with the staffers.

Finally, they came across the Quatrains of Nostradamus and in Quatrain 235 found the prediction that a beautiful, vivacious,kick-ass, middle age foxy lady will escort an aged, fading war hero to the throne of world power when the stars are correctly in alignment, similar to that of an elephant with a long tusk.

In quicker than a "New York Minute" John rushed out to the top of Camelback Mountain and in the Phoenix Sky he saw his Elephant. Find me this foxy lady he cried, I don't need any long conversations with her, just one meeting will do.

And next day the old guy hopped onto a silver bird and flew off into the blue yonder, happy as a lark with his newly found Escort.

Anonymous said...

Bravo!!! My hat is off to the previous poster, very funny and imaginative. BTW, goog thing republicans believe in strong families :)

Tom Panelas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Panelas said...

Elizabeth,

I endorsed you as a VP candidate for the Democrats, not in complete seriousness, of course, but had I realized the GOP was looking for someone without conventional qualifications (or any, as it turns out) I might have been wiser to urge McCain to nominate you instead.

I doubt you would have accepted the Republican nomination, but you would have been a better choice than Palin. We'd be better off with Michael Palin in the Oval Office.

Anonymous said...

Let me get your candidate straight -- pushed from the Chicago political machine. Campaigned all year on he will change Washington and brings in a "OLD" Senator.

I give it to McCain -- he has been about reform and now he brings an actual reformer on his ticket. Palin has taken on corrupt Republicans in Alaska and WON!!!! Democrats are charging she is a hick --- because if you can't fight her politics just name call!!! You should have you facts straight - her husband RESIGNED from his job at BP to keep their family above reproach. Unlike Michelle Obama who has received 160% pay raises from her business ---that have political ties. Yes, she supports American exploration. SO does 80% of America.

As a former Hillary supporter - she has pulled me to McCain's ticket. Barack is Washington as usual. McCain is about a strong military and Palin will shake up Washington.

Anonymous said...

Did you check out Obama's response to his experience.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/02/obamas-answer-on-experience-but-im-such-a-great-campaigner/

Glenn Wilson said...

It is the "McCain Gambit."

"McCain's political calculation in choosing Palin is obvious. Social conservatives, who had been unexcited by his candidacy, are ecstatic that he has picked a running mate who staunchly opposes abortion, favors the teaching of "intelligent design" in the public schools and generally embraces the agenda of the religious right."
link

Elizabeth Vicary said...

No, but seriously, I understand you have to defend the choice now, but wouldn't you secretly rather he had picked someone else? I mean, aside from the intelligence/ experience/ *annoying* voice stuff, the ethics probe and the pork barrel allocations and the pregnant daughter (doesn't bother me of course, but doesn't it bother you?).... ?

Doug said...

I'm constantly amazed how otherwise intelligent people can be so close minded when it comes to politics. I assmume your intelligence from your writings and your expert level rating but how can someone as obviously bright as you are write, "I mean, aside from the intelligence/ experience/ *annoying* voice stuff".

First of all what at this point what basis do you have to question her intelligence? Seriously. Are you simply assuming she is dumb because she is a Republican? Becasue she's rural? Because her voice annoys you?

As for experience, no, she doesn't have much, but then neither does the candidate that you are supporting. It can certainly be argued that Senator Obama has more foreign policy experience in the sense that 'very little' is more than 'none', but it is inarguable that Governor Palin has more executive experience, which is very important, too.

Moreover Sen. Obama is not completely free of corruption scandals either when you consider his association with convicted Chicago thug Tony Rezko.

Maybe, if your serious about wanting to understand 'the other side' better you should treat the election as a chess game. You would never, I assume, develop a plan taking into consideration ONLY what your possible moves are. You must also consider the position from your opponents perspective. Although, in this case, of course, your 'opponents' are simply your fellow citizens who have beliefs that differ from yours. Honestly, and with all respect, if you can't understand this you should get out more and maybe occasionally talk to smart people who disagree with you.

Elizabeth Vicary said...

How do I know she's stupid?

because anyone who wears four inch heels and that much makeup has internalized the patriarchy.

Anonymous said...

The choices of VP can be viewed in different ways. The two major factors to remember is that the choice can be made in order to shore or assuage a faction within one's own party or the choice can be made in order to strengthen a weakness or to provide another aspect to the upcoming full campaign. So let's look first at Obama's choice. The big knock against him was that he lacked experience particularly in foreign affairs and defense to be president. He also had to contend with the simmering unhappiness of Hillary fans; there was no way she'd be on the ticket. She and Bill would never play 2nd fiddle. So he ends up looking for someone who is senior enough within the party to be able to stand up to internal pressure and also have the needed foreign policy and defense experience: Biden, but of course this choice weakens one of his campaign themes - a "new change", because Biden is an old fixture in DC. "Gotta give squares to get squares." On the GOP side, McCain is faced with many problems - he is both a long time serving senator (so it is harder for him to run against DC unless he casts himself as a long time maverick or iconoclast) and the current president is also Republican with a poor record. There is also a problem in that most of the possible VP candidates have negatives with some faction of the GOP. Some would like a strong social conservative, but the economic conservatives wouldn't support anyone who believes the earth has been circling the sun for 5000 revolutions. Other candidates such as Mitt Romney are completely reviled by others because he is seen too much as an opportunist and not sufficiently an ideologue. Finally he has his age and health - being older than previous candidates and there is still speculation as to why he needed what looks like a radical neck dissection despite claims of a superficial melanoma. His choice of Palin probably seemed as a good way. By not picking a nationally known leader of one faction of the GOP, he gets someone without a lot of built-in enemies. By picking a social conservative but a woman he is hoping to pick up the older women who had supported Hillary and whom the polls suggest are not getting on the Obama bandwagon. Finally he may be hoping to show that he is balancing out the ticket with a younger (than him) woman. Of course he gives up a huge campaign argument - that experience matters a lot - now he's placed someone with just 2 years experience of governing one of the least populated, least urban and in many ways least like the rest of the USA states one heartbeat away from being president. There are literally scores of mayors and county execs who govern more people and have done so for many more years - people no one would consider presidential material. Right now some of his staffers must also be furious with Palin. No doubt at some point in their interview, they must have said to her "Ok, Governor, let's put our cards on the table. The Senator is seriously considering you as a running mate. Is there anything you'd need to tell us that we should know - family, financial, etc, so we don't have any surprises?" As a personal aside, I thought Clinton showed incredibly poor judgment in his affair with Lewinsky because he was a powerful man, her boss, starting up with basically a college age girl - i.e. a real creep - he should have left public life. I therefore don't like politicians who campaign on a platform of 'family values' who do all the talking and little of the walking. So I believe that senators and congress people caught in bathrooms soliciting or with hookers while publicly calling for higher morals and behavior ought to resign out of shame and common decency. Hope this helps!

soissons said...

The answer is fairly simple. The attach on Obama as inexperienced was not working, and was really having the opposite effect of showing Obama off as fresh and new. In this limelight/roselight he could afford the contradiction to his agenda of picking a long time washington insider. McCain was seriously starting to suffer from the familiar democratic charge that its leaders were out of touch with normal americans. Have you any idea how hard it is to find a repuclican that appears to be in touch with normal americans? At best you can find a young good looking male (who is bound to have had several marital affairs). Sarah Pallin was inspired by the need for McCain to appear suddenly in touch with normal americans. And like it or not, being a rabid patriot, xenophobic, let's take care of ourselves and to hell with the rest of the world (and future generations) is more in touch with normal Americans.

Anonymous said...

I also do not see how this is possible. There are plenty of intelligent, experienced, credible women that he could have picked as a running-mate. I think that this is a slap in the face to all of them (and women in general)- on both sides of the political spectrum.
To me, it showcases the type of impulsive and immature decision-making thought process that he would use as president. And I have personally admired this man (if not the candidate).

Ava from Idaho

anjiaoshi said...

First, as a Chicagoan, let me inform you that anyone who characterizes Obama as "pushed from the Chicago machine" doesn't know what he's talking about. Obama has always been an insurgent in Cook County politics. His first congressional campaign (which he lost) was against South Side fixture Bobby Rush; in his successful run for U.S. Senate, he won a primary over both Dan Hynes, the handpicked machine candidate, and Blair Hull, a self-funded multimillionaire. He holds his seat despite the machine, not because of it. Daley and Co. would much rather have someone like Dan Lipinski, Rahm Emanuel or Luis Gutierrez in his place (and if Obama is elected and gives up his Senate seat, that's probably who you'll see step in).

Second, never mind her 4-inch heels; Sarah Palin is a creationist. No one who doesn't believe in evolution through natural selection deserves an ounce of credit for intelligence. Also, she apparently thought as recently as 2006 that the Pledge of Allegiance had been written by the nation's founders and that the words "under God" had been in it from the beginning.

Doug said...

E.V. - "How do I know she's stupid? because anyone who wears four inch heels and that much makeup has internalized the patriarchy."

Well, that's a relief! For a moment there I was worried you didn't have a good reason.

Obviously you've made up your mind on Governor Palin and nothing I can say will cause you to think differently but I would urge anyone reading this, all 12 of you, to reflect on the irony inherent in the notion that a woman of Sarah Palin's considerable and numerous accomplishments is little more than a stooge of "The Patriarchy".

Doug said...

Oh, sorry, one more comment and then I'm done. From all of the photos I've seen of Sarah Palin, including the ones you posted on your blog, and all of the T.V. clips I've seen it has not been my observation that she wears an excessive amount of makeup, and it certainly has not been obvious from anything I've seen how high her heels are. Perhaps your information is more extensive than mine...or perhaps you are just allowing your preconceptions and prejudices to get the better of you.

es_trick said...

Doug wrote:
" you should treat the election as a chess game. You would never, I assume, develop a plan taking into consideration ONLY what your possible moves are. You must also consider the position from your opponents perspective."


At this point, it's looking more and more like McCain's "chess move" was a blunder.

She loves pork barrel earmarks. Or should I say she was for them before she was against them. Yep, used to be getting all kinds of pork via Ted Steven's conduit before she became his critic. And I love the way she used lobbying firm with all of their cozy connections, including Ted Steven's son, to bring home the bacon. Yeah, I can see she has real deep reformer roots in her. This definitely shores up one of McCain’s greatest weaknesses.

And let's hear some more about the efficacy of 'abstinence only' sex education.

Oh, and what's that about being a member of the Alaskan party that advocates secession? That's a really cute little skeleton.

And let’s not forget that abuse of power scandal she has going on right now.

I also agree with the other posters who note that anyone who adheres to the idea that the earth was created as is only a few thousand years ago can't be very intelligent.

Yep, good ol Johnny sure did a great job of vetting his running mate. Makes a great case for the soundness of his judgment. Despite the brave face that the McCain Campaign is putting on, and all of the positive spin they're trying to put on all of these revelations,

e.g.

“Her daughter’s pregnancy just shows that she has problems in her family like everyone else”
“Her family problems demonstrate how in touch she is with the lives of ordinary Americans”
“No candidate is perfect”

–can you sense the 'buyers remorse' that's swirling around this strategic chess move?

LMAO

killa cam said...

"because anyone who wears four inch heels and that much makeup has internalized the patriarchy."

one hopes that this is a joke... some women prefer dressing like that. some women want nothing more than to stay home and raise children. some women are pro-life. sentiments opposed to yours aren't always the result of "internalised patriarchy".

and it's logical to assume that being located in alaska would provide one with experience in foreign relations. up north there are sovereignty issues between russia, america and canada. discussions with foreign diplomats take place. this is a valuable experience that a representative of, say, missouri, or kansas, would not have.

open your mind

Anonymous said...

Liz, I like you, you're cool and you're a good chess player, but some of the things you say drive me crazy. How about just trying to be a little bit open-minded?

Elizabeth Vicary said...

wait, you like me, but I sometimes drive you crazy...?

I apologize. I guess I just wasn't thinking enough about you and how you feel, Mr. Anonymous. I was only thinking about myself, and how I ... have opinions (?!)

In the future, I will try to be nicer, more agreeable, and much, much vaguer.

Elizabeth

Anonymous said...

I wish I coulda been a fly on the wall for the conversation between Palin's daughter and her boyfriend when Mom came banging through the front door saying, 'Well, you'll never believe what job I landed today.'

Greg Shahade said...

Sometimes its okay to be relatively closed minded. For instance if I felt either of the following and was running for office, I would expect that certain people would correctly find a bit of contempt for me:

1. I believe in Santa Claus
2. I believe that men are superior to women and should have greater rights


Now while I understand there are a lot of people who believe that belief in God and belief in Santa Claus are totally different ideas, I also believe that its completely reasonable to believe that they are both basically fairy tales, with one being a bit more complex than the other, and there is no way one would want to give someone any chance of running our nation if they believe in fairy tales.

Both ideas require pretty much only faith with no accredited scientific data to support the theories, and the main difference between them is that a lot of people have faith in one while almost no one over the age of 10 has faith in the other.

There are a lot of benefits to being closed minded on other subjects, such as racism, the idea that it should be fine to indiscriminately kill people on the street etc etc. It's a guarantee and a virtue that everyone is closed minded to some degree, and you simply have to draw a line as to where your closed-mindedness stops.

Basically there are some issues where one should respect someone else's right to be closed minded, and not scoff at it as though it's some horrible sin. Once one finds out that a person believes in what they may consider to be a "fairy tale", it may naturally progress for this person to discount the majority of this person's ideas, some of which are guided, directly or loosely by their belief in fairy tales.

Note that I'm not directly calling belief in God and religion a fairy tale, however I respect other people's belief to do so on any topic in which there is no scientific data to back it up, and to be terrified of such people having tremendous power.

Elizabeth Vicary said...

well said

Rich in Phoenix said...

Leno, Letterman and Conan are going to have a "field day" making jokes about these VP selections! (in both parties)

They have fertile material from now until election day.

So, relax everyone and enjoy the show. No need to go attacking Liz.

Doug said...

Greg writes, "Basically there are some issues where one should respect someone else's right to be closed minded, and not scoff at it as though it's some horrible sin."

Agreed and well stated. But please recall that this discussion thread was generated by Elizabeth's stated exasperation and incomprehension that anyone could possibly believe that the selection of Sarah Palin was anything other than a bone-headed move by Senator McCain (and her follow-up assertion that Palin must be stupid because she, I guess, presents herself other than your average trendy urban woman).

So I ask you, who is the scoffer and who the scoffee?

Greg Shahade said...

Well I also never said Elizabeth was beyond reproach? I was just responding to the seemingly endless requests for her to "open her mind".

My take on Palin's nomination is as follows:

The people who decided on her are some of the most powerful people in the nation. It doesn't mean that they can't make mistakes, however I find it prudent to believe that they have some idea what they are doing. I might be wrong and for all I know she will turn out to be a terrible nomination, but given that this is their job that they spend hours and hours and ridiculous sums of money focusing on every single day, and I simply follow these things by listening to NPR, reading CNN and etc, I shouldn't value my opinion as much as theirs in this case.

It's kind of like making a few chess moves at the chess club and then hearing a conversation from some sub 1000 players who were watching the game about why my move was so terrible. Sure they can have their opinion, but in some sense I feel they should understand that their opinion shouldn't carry too much weight.

killa cam said...

one is inclined to wonder why vicary responds only to the brief and/or stupid posts in these threads, and never to detailed rational opposing points.

greg shahade, your post was a complete red herring. so what if mccain/palin are religious? so is obama... so how is this relevant? what are you going to do this relection, write-in ellen johnson?

Anonymous said...

"McCain is about a strong military" some poster wrote.

He's a sickening warmonger who thought we were "winning" in Vietnam! If it were up to him, we'd still be in that quagmire! One has to think his POW experiences have really distorted him.

Why does conservative equate to warmonger in the USA? Why does it equate to environment-destroyer?

These fundamental wrongs will, if the religious right (weirdly part of their fanbase) is correct, make them burn in an unholy place.

Greg Shahade said...

killa cam:

You make a good point. However I think there are a few reasons why one could believe that her religious beliefs are more specific than Obama.

For instance here is a quote from Obama:

"It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."

I don't claim to know his exact beliefs but it always felt like he believed in science more so than religion, despite being religious himself. I believe this is possible, but I'm not wording it well.


The impression I get from Elizabeth is that she feels Palin believes strongly in creationism and so forth. I don't personally know if these are truly her beliefs, my point is that although they both claim to have some religious background, I can see why one could get the idea that Palin's is much more deeply rooted and "anti-science".

I personally couldn't find anything stating Palin's views as such. She said she believes in creationism, which although I disagree, I don't find the idea that fantastic.

Based on what I read I wouldn't use religion against her, but I could understand how someone else could read into it a different way.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that for a professional politician, personal belief may (and perhaps should) be distinguished from positions on public policy issues.

Remember when Mario Cuomo was a candidate? He wasn't the only politician who had to address the "personally oppose abortion but it's not the government's business to force people to have children" dilemma...I just associate it most with him I guess because he was both the liberals' saint (for a brief while) and Italian-American so perhaps more tied to Catholic voters than most other Democratic liberals.

Yeah plenty of others (including his immediate precedessor Hugh Carey, plus innumerable Massachusetts politicians where it was the norm to be both liberal and Catholic) faced the same conundrum and pretty much answered it the same way. What they believe as an individual and a church member (i.e. "personally oppose abortion" - and, presumably, birth control too, if a real observant Catholic; maybe even divorce???) is one thing; but as a public servant, they stated their a fiduciary duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws, be president of all Americans (not just Catholics), etc. So their religion didn't dictate their views on public policy issues.

Apply this to creationism, and here's what I come up with: Someone like Palin saying they believe in intelligent design is bad, but perhaps worthy of tolerance the way Greg suggests.

But it's applying that belief to a vital public policy issue - i.e., supporting the TEACHING OF CREATIONISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS - that makes it unforgivable.

Greg Shahade said...

From what I've read, her stance on creationism in the schools isn't unreasonable at all. If you could link me to something she said that you think does sound unreasonable please do.

I don't think it's wrong for teachers to at least explain a concept that so many people believe in, as long as they do so from a scientific/rational standpoint.

Anonymous said...

Greg wrote: "I don't think it's wrong for teachers to at least explain a concept that so many people believe in, as long as they do so from a scientific/rational standpoint."

I'm not on top of Palin's views about creationism/"intelligent design" and whether it should be taught in public schools.

However, using taxpayer-funded public schools to "explain a concept that so many people believe in" - if the fact that many people believe in it is viewed as in any way justifying the teaching in public schools - is indefensible. It is, quite simply, taxation without representation.

"as long as they do so from a scientific/rational standpoint" is a contradiction in terms, in this context. There is no scientific evidence or support for "intelligent design." That term was simply fabricated as a less-religious-sounding label for what its advocates had initially referred to with greater candor (i.e., before they got wise to the need to lie about their agenda) as creationism.

Yes, the teach-creationism crowd can point to a few people with Ph.D. degrees in hard sciences as their spokespeople. But none of those creationist "scientists" is currently associated with a respectable institutional of higher learning, and none of their work espousing creationism has ever been published in a respcetable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. In short: It's religion - not science.

That's why I said advocating the teaching of it in public schools is "unforgivable." It would be, in fact, un-American, since it would have the effect of hobbling our teaching of scientific thinking and scientific methods and respect for science.

Greg Shahade said...

I think you misconstrue my idea of the word "teach". A theory exists, many people believe in it, to me it doesn't make sense to act as though this theory simply doesn't exist.

You can simply say "many people in this nation believe in x and y" explain what they believe in, why they believe in it, and then make it clear that according to scientific evidence there is no basis to believe in said theory, however there is something called "faith", explain briefly what that is, etc etc.

I mean I just don't see why it's wiser to completely hide the fact that certain things and ideas exist on a massive level, than to present them in a even handed light. This isn't advocating these ideas, it's simply acknowledging their presence. Also I imagine for religious children it's extremely confusing when things they are taught at home aren't even addressed in any semblance whatsoever.

Something that such a large % of people in our nation believe in is important to understand at least a tiny bit about, whether it's to understand why people believe in it or whatever.

Doug said...

To Mr. or Miss Anonymous 12:32 pm. Pardon me, and I don't mean to be condescending, but I don't think you fully understand what the phrase "taxation without representation" means. If you are a U.S. citizen then, unless you live in the District of Columbia, you DO have representation via your, er, representative in the House of Representatives and your 2 senators. And if you aren't a citizen then, a.) you probably don't have (U.S.) taxation and b.) you don't really have standing to gripe about who the U.S. citizens elect as their president and vice president.

I think that what you're going for here is more along the lines of a violation of the separation of church and state, though there too you are arguably on shaky ground as the phrase "seapration of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the U.S. constitution despite the fact that it is widely believed to (I believe this expression originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson long after the constitution was written--the constitution speaks only of freedom of religion, i.e., no official state religion will be allowed). see here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Anonymous said...

I'm not above average intelligence.

Blue Devil Knight

Anonymous said...

Why did McCain choose Sarah Palin, you ask? Why?

....because he wants to fuck her.

Anonymous said...

btw I think its already clear that Republicans gaining a lot of ground because of Palin as the VP.

- Greg

Tom Panelas said...

Apropos the thread about Obama being "pushed from the Chicago machine," we now have this.

Maybe McCain's strategists read this blog for smear ideas.

Von_Igelfeld said...

At first, I was quite perplexed by McCain's choice as well. But it's been quite affective in getting people to compare Obama and Palin (presidential candidate versus vice presidential candidate). I wonder how many people in the end will in their subconscious choose McCain over Obama because they believe that it's better to have an inexperienced Vice President than to have an inexperienced President. This wouldn't have happened if McCain had chosen a better qualified candidate. Strange twist.

Also, even evolution isn't a slam dunk. At the biochemical level, evolution is very difficult to fully support (reference: Darwin's Black Box). If someone has found a critical analysis of this book (I've looked and couldn't find any decent scientific refutation), I'd be interested.