Archive for September 9, 2008

“Saradise Lost”: Palin’s Extremist Religious Beliefs

Below the line, a full (authorized) reprint of an article from “Progressive Alaska,” on Sarah Palin’s creationist beliefs (the dino-riding Jesus kind) and firm conviction that the world will end in her lifetime. Do we really want her in charge of our nuclear weapons, if she believes that, by using them, she and all good Christians will be Saved? Politicians who spend more time watching God than watching their people are a serious problem, and cannot be expected to conscientiously legislate towards a better future, since they don’t think that future exists.

Proper journalistic warning: the story isn’t confirmed and may be pure invention. Credit at your own risk.

Continue reading »

Don’t Mock the Constitution

Sarah Palin’s Wednesday address mocked the stance of those civil libertarians who – like her boss – insist that the War on Terror be conducted legally: “Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and [Obama]‘s worried that someone won’t read them their rights,” she said. Reminding America that freedom isn’t always convenient, Obama’s simple rebuttal was, “Don’t mock the Constitution.” Just so: when did it become patriotic to abandon our Founders’ vision for America?

Obama Strikes Back: “No Maverick”

It’s about time. In a long-overdue confrontational campaign ad, Obama took McCain – and his new running mate – to task for running away from the maverick record that got them both this far in the first place. Whether McCain’s run right and embrace of deceitful tactics (which prominent politicos are just NOW calling him on) will lose him voters, and whether Obama’s accusations will resonate with voters, are open questions.

This attack, though, is far from perfect. For one, though it’s tough on McCain and Palin, it sticks too close to the “lobbyists” line, an issue that doesn’t gain much traction with voters, and a political failing of which Obama himself is still somewhat guilty. It also squanders an attempt to simultaneously use McCain’s tax lies to impugn his character and correct an issue of policy confusion. Comparatively, the “McCain is Bush” line is weaker, and might be losing its effectiveness after so long in the limelight.

Also, this ad stays fairly above the belt. Research shows that persuasion by invocation of negative consequences – “McCain will raise taxes on the middle class,” etc. – is more effective than the positive & defensive campaign Obama has been waging. Surely negative campaigns are risky, and if Obama were to go significantly negative, it would snag significant amounts of press…

…but that’s the point. It worked for McCain. If Obama’s not going to do it, somebody’s 527 should.

Nonetheless, dropping the Kerry bomb – “she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it” – against Palin is fantastic, and the Western theme over the front of the ad is vindictively satisfying. And taking on the pair on one of their strong fronts is clever to say the least.

Ad script below the line. Continue reading »

Extremism By Any Other Name…

According to Salon‘s writer Juan Cole, “what’s the difference between Sarah Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick.” I’m glad that someone is talking about America’s double standard for fundamentalism, but the obvious difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalism is… murder. Certainly any form of religious extremism is bad, but one is incalculably worse. In other news, if you’d like gossip, click here; I won’t boost these rumors myself, but I’ll show you the way.

The O’Bama Factor (?)

Last night Bill O’Reilly aired the second quarter of his 30-minute interview with Barack Obama. The Senator gave a performance that ought to quiet doubts about his debating prowess – though I confess my glee that Republicans & conservatives are going to so happily lowball him. Please… continue.

This second quarter focused on taxation & the economy, and it’s clear that Bill O’Reilly came with two talking points prepared: (1) the federal government under Bush took in 20% more tax revenue than it did under Clinton, ergo tax cuts work, and (2) progressive tax breaks are “class warfare.” Obama skillfully knocked down both.

Because O’Reilly – like Bush – will never admit defeat on a “talking point,” the only measure of victory against this enemy is seeing if, and how quickly, one manages to get O’Reilly to collapse from rational-but-wrong argument to irrational rant. On the “government took more tax revenue” point, it took Obama a while: he countered by arguing that tax revenue is bound to increase year by year since America’s economy is always growing, even if it grew slower under Bush, and followed up by pointing out that the flat tax scheme resulted in wage depression. Eventually O’Reilly had no choice but to fall back on blaming immigrants. Unless you’re pre-programmed to cheer at the mention of the right’s newest and favoritest scapegoat, that change of subject decidedly smacked of retreat. Point: Obama.

The retreat quickly became a rout. O’Reilly’s next talking point – that progressive taxation is “class warfare” – was a loser from the start: it didn’t even have a rational-but-wrong start. While this sort of inflammatory rhetoric may bypass cognition for some, it’s not the sort of thing you break out against experienced policymakers. Obama parried by reminding O’Reilly of the pedigree of progressive taxation, dating even to Teddy Roosevelt, and defending the redistributive policy of progressive taxation in simple and moral terms: “Look, I don’t like paying taxes,” he says, but it’s not socialist, it’s “neighborly.”

Although I was impressed with the first part of the O’Reilly interview last Friday, I had my doubts about Obama’s ability to hold his own in that, as the commenters pointed out, his defense of his surge policy was weak. His defense of his economic policies, though, was anything but.

Books Sarah Palin Wanted Banned

A veritable hit parade of the censors’ delight (from Mike Cane): Brave New World, Harry Potter, Huck Finn, The Living Bible, etc. Wanting to censor Huck Finn is just one of the crazier opinions I’ve ever heard legitimately expressed, but that’s fundamentalism for you. LIST PROVED FALSE by Snopes. Of course she did want to ban books… just not necessarily these.