Archive for September 2008

Don’t Misunderestimate Sarah Palin

As “The Caucus Blog” noted today, by way of Mitt Romney, if debates are about keeping expectations low, Sarah Palin could hardly have done a better job in the run-up to the Great Massacre of Aught-Eight. She’s so successfully and thoroughly blown every major interview she’s fielded that even conservatives are calling for her head. And who can blame them? I’m sorry, but this mishmash of tenuously related talking points -

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

- is not an answer to the question, “do you support the bailout.” It’s clear that Palin should have “blinked“… for the sake of her family, her country, and her party.

That said, it would be a mistake to “misunderestimate” Sarah Palin to the point that – as it stands now – if she manages not to drool during her debate with Joe Biden, it’ll be termed a victory. She may be pretty poor with tough questions, but she’s performed well enough in previous state-office debates. She’s an expert panderer, and is quite familiar with local & culture war issues… if not national, and international issues. Luckily, that’s where Biden excels, and where Palin crashes and burns.

Her mixed rhetorical record makes counting her out a dangerous proposition, compounded by the fact that, should Biden come across poorly in terms of his image, the public could largely excuse Palin’s shortcomings as endearing naivete next to Biden, the “arrogant” “elitist” “liberal” “Washington insider.” While Palin will be judged by her knowledge, or lack thereof, Biden will be judged by his image: he can’t win just by winning.

A modest recommendation for Joe Biden, then: stand back and just watch the GOP’s bright new star collapse into a black hole of her own accord. Orators abhor silence and feel the need to fill it with words: but, as we’ve seen, words are not exactly Palin’s strong suit.

If Biden keeps a low profile, he can still live up to his reputation as a statesman and a learned scholar of policy by simply injecting a few words of wisdom. Better for Palin to dig her own grave, than to have Biden help and be viewed as an elitist anti-feminist.

Taking Palin, for Better or Worse

Like those old sitcom episodes where two characters, typically comic foils, accidentally end up handcuffed to each other, no matter how badly Palin does, McCain can’t lose her (Nate Silver’s two posts on the subject: 1, 2). The only time a presidential candidate has ditched his running mate was McGovern in 1972… with Senator Eagleton… and we know how that went. Even if she manages to look competent on Thursday, there’s no guarantee that Sarah Palin will be able to arrest her decline & fall outside of the debate forum. But McCain went all in, and he’s stuck with his hand (high card, 9 of clubs).

John McCain on Experience: “I’ve Seen Underestimation Before”

Responding to concerns about Sarah Palin’s shocking lack of experience & preparation for federal office, John McCain yesterday had this to say:

This is not the first time that I’ve seen a governor being questioned by some quote, ‘expert.’ I remember that Ronald Reagan was a cowboy. President Clinton was a governor of a very small state that had ‘no experience’ either… I still recall — whoops, that one. But the point is I’ve seen underestimation before.

Really, Senator? Comparing Sarah Palin favorably to Bill Clinton? Interestingly, another major player in this election has already been compared favorably to Bill Clinton. By Bill Clinton. Let’s go to the tape.

Ahem. Senator McCain… as a, quote, “expert” who’s campaigned against Obama only by questioning his experience… do you have something to say to your opponent? The answer I’m looking for is, “I’m sorry for lying to myself and the American people about what I really think about the importance of experience.” That said, I will also accept “oops.”

OMG RUN ON THE BANKS

Just kidding. Don’t. Seriously. Unfortunately the Republicans torpedoed the bailout package, no thanks to John McCain, and Wall Street panicked. Obama took the chance to look presidential and project calm; McCain, shockingly, stooped to insults.  Stand by.

TexasDarlin & PUMAs: Still Alive & Lyin’

Back when the Democratic National Convention began, “TexasDarlin” of the newly restyled (and now ghastlier) “tdblog” promised that the site would change drastically depending on the outcome of the DNC. The implicit assertion was that, if Obama was still the nominee after a while, she’d continue lying for Hillary, despite Bill & Hillary’s explicit request that she and all those like her STOP. If, however, she grew satisfied with Obama or saw Hillary take the ticket, she’d lay down her arms.

Well, good news everyone! TD elected for a happy middle. She continued rolling out ridiculous screeds against Obama, but her traffic dropped noticeably. We appreciate her embrace of mediocrity & descent into the same. However, she is still taking crazy rants from make-believe lawyer Judah Benjamin, who continues to insist that Barack Obama is incapable of becoming president on account of his alleged dual citizenship. When this ridiculous argument was first made, I took the time to rebut it; accordingly, for old time’s sake, I feel compelled to do it again.

Two initial points. First, Benjamin has truly gone off the deep end this time, going so far as to engage in a little nostalgia for antebellum racism.  I quote: “By the way, under US Law of another time the Senator would not have been a US Citizen at all, and he knows that.”

That’s right. Dred Scott & slavery. He went there. Yearning for a return to bondage: those PUMAs are a classy bunch.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, even assuming that Obama was constitutionally ineligible for the office of President, it’s not clear who would be able to sue to kick him off the ballot. One thing’s for sure: it sure as hell isn’t a private citizen (you listening, Berg?). Benjamin, here’s a case for you to read, buddy. Call me if you need help with the… you know… law. See, e.g., Hollander v. McCain, 2008 WL 2853250, at *7 (D. N.H. 2008) (holding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge to Sen. John S. McCain’s eligibility to run for President). The FEC could take up the challenge, but I’ll bet you my cat that they won’t.

Now on to the meat. The only new information Benjamin provides us with is this: at birth, Obama admits that he was a dual citizen, ergo he has a “split allegiance at birth,” rendering him, in Benjamin’s mind, constitutionally ineligible. Of course, this information is only disqualifying if Obama’s split allegiance at birth means that he wasn’t a “natural born Citizen.” But – as I have pointed out – Benjamin can cite neither case law nor persuasive secondary authority for that crucial proposition. So all he can do is dredge up new, irrelevant facts to support an incorrect assertion of law.

Wow. That was easier than I thought.

With apologies to XKCD.

McCain’s War on the Media, and the New York Times Picks a Side

Fox News was the first (now-)mainstream media outlet to adopt a partisan viewpoint as a business model: from the perspective of hard numbers, by pandering to that portion of America that prefers to digest its news pre-spun, Fox succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. “Find a need and fill” at its finest, perhaps – even to the point of influencing elections (Fox was the first network on November 7, 2000 to call Florida for Bush) – but also a far cry from Edward R. Murrow’s exemplar of the media’s role in a democracy. If Fox traded integrity for influence, though, none can doubt its effectiveness -

- nor can they doubt its secondary effects, particularly its “me too-s.” Conservative pundits have whined since the early 1990s about the “liberal media” and bias in reporting – often somewhat hypocritically, especially as Fox picked up the call – but finally, in 2008, those accusations are starting to sound fair. In the wake of Fox News’ financial success and Bush-era influence, The New York Times has started to be a little more vocal in its opposition to John McCain. Perhaps the conservative pundits were (eventually) right. But, in a very real way, the “liberal media” is now doubly a creation of the right-wing: first as a boogeyman, than as the inadvertent spawn of Fox’s race-to-the-bottom. Either way, fine with me. The media is finally doing its job:  taking a hard look at the ex-maverick media darling.

For proof of the Times’ new perspective, one need only look as far as the Times’ weekend in-depth analysis of McCain’s ties to the gambling industry. But the giveaway isn’t in the Times’ primary assertion. Rather, it’s in how they carry it out. On the first page of the article, the Times prints the McCain campaign’s pithy reply to a request for an interview on the topic:

Your paper has repeatedly attempted to insinuate impropriety on the part of Senator McCain where none exists — and it reveals that your publication is desperately willing to gamble away what little credibility it still has

This is the first time the Times has acknowledged the adversarial relationship McCain has created between his campaign and the rest of the media. The acknowledgement of hostility (and the accentuation of the McCain campaign’s childish insults), set in the context of the article’s content, reads almost like an acceptance of McCain’s declaration of war – the consummation of the fetial rite. McCain’s war on the media is no longer one-sided. I’m glad the Times has accepted its role.

Of course, pursuant to the Fox example, the Times’ decision to highlight its conflict with McCain is probably as much ideological as it is financial. But if the right financial decision has a nexus with the right political decision, so much the better.

Vote in PBS’ Poll

Tell them that Sarah Palin is not ready to be vice president. It’s currently tied which, to me, suggests Republican vote-bombing. Let’s vote-bomb back! Hint hint: if you can muster up a second IP address, you can vote twice, thrice, etc…

Sweet Dino-Riding Jesus…

While stressing that, despite her personal beliefs and willingness to campaign on the issue, Palin never actually pushed intelligent design or creationism through the school system, it’s worth noting that she is, in fact, definitely a young-earth creationist. For me – and for anyone slightly concerned about our country – this ought to be a dealbreaker. Belieif in creationism requires a shocking mix of self-delusion and willful ignorance. This isn’t just about science education: it’s about judgment.

Distinguishing Between Religion and Fundamentalism

In a new piece released today, The American Thinker indulged itself in a little racism & holier-than-thou myopic historical revisionism. It’s entertaining in its own way: have a look. The thrust of the argument is that Islam, because it “contains the ideological seeds of violence and intolerance against non-believers,” can never claim to be a “religion of peace.” To prove his point – that Islam modern has not lost its radical roots – the author (D.L. Perry) notes that some mosques are “hotbeds of misogynist, antisemite and homophobic hate-preaching.”

You can probably see where this is going: frankly, it’s surprising that Perry didn’t. If his arguments are correct, he’s proved too much by half: all religions “contain[] the ideological seeds of violence and intolerance against non-believers.” If Islam has its initial jihad of conquest (by which Mohammed & his immediate successors rolled Byzantium back to Constantinople), Christianity has its Crusades and its witch hunts. Without regard to whether the commandment is written in the foundational text, any immoderate religion has a way of creating intolerance and begetting violence. Just so, a significant number of American churches are “hotbeds of misogynistic, antisemite and homophobic hate-preaching,” and quite a few are damn proud of it (pot, meet kettle). Any religion can be violent, and for those that make it so, the fault is not in their religion, but in themselves.

Modern religion is what you make of it. The responsible take-away lesson from Perry, then, is the opposite of his thesis: that whether or not Islam (or any religion) is a “religion of peace,” depends upon what its believers make of it. On that note, modern Islam has made remarkable progress, especially in the United States, towards discrediting and stigmatizing radicalism while building strong communities of faith. Modern Muslims have worked hard to distinguish Islam from terrorism, and ought to be praised for the same. It’s no easy task to do good, especially when people like Perry don’t think you capable of it.

We all have Osama bin Ladens & Timothy McVeighs in our present, just as we all have Saladin & Crusaders in our past. The lesson of Islamic fundamentalism isn’t that Islam is bad; it’s that fundamentalism is bad.

What We Talk About, When We Talk About Winning

NPR’s “Political Junkie” gave, on Wednesday, a thorough and provocative view of the power and importance of presidential debates, and reminds us what we’re really watching for: the public reaction. No matter how well or poorly one candidate does, all that matters is perception. From my own perspective, the juxtaposition between what I think happened and what the public saw is fairly dramatic… but, since the public thinks Obama did better than I do, I won’t object.