Just to keep things focused.
I find it interesting that whereas Obama picked a running mate who complemented the shortcomings in his slate–someone with a good deal of experience in foreign relations, for instance–McCain chose someone who will appeal to disenfranchised voting bases from both sides: to women who will see an opportunity to put a female a heartbeat from the presidency (and with a president of McCain’s years, that takes on a serious reality) after Hillary’s campaign ended in flames, and to the conservative base who will embrace a bottom half of the ticket who is apparently somewhere to the right of John Wayne.
The easy answer, of course, is that women won’t support her because she’s anti-abortion. Except there happen to be plenty of women who are likewise anti-abortion–yes, even Democrats–and therefore won’t find that a turnoff.
Frankly, I think Palin was a nervy choice that could reap serious benefits. And the timing of the announcement knocked all the post-convention attention away from Obama and onto McCain, which will now build as they roll into the GOP convention.
Personally, I find the notion of an anti-abortion, pro-drilling, pro-creationism, anti-animal protection vice president to be nothing short of terrifying. Then again, anyone that the extreme right embraces is by definition terrifying.
PAD
• 
“It also deflects attention (inadvertently or not) from questions that are more pertinent, such as her part in the Ted Stevens organization, her leaving her town in extreme debt, her book banning tendencies, her creationist leanings, what appears to be her less than professional treatment of political opponents and so forth.”
Well, at least I would agree that those questions are more pertinent. (Although I find the implication that I am deliberately trying to deflect from these issues to be pretty seedy.)
“Stop that. That’s incorrect and you were corrected on that. You’re being as sloppy as the media you’re criticizing.”
From the article –
“Moulitsas says he doesn’t know who the anonymous ArcXIX is — his contributors decide whether to identify themselves — but that his site also disclosed that Palin was once a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which has pushed for a vote on seceding from the United States. That was confirmed Monday by ABC News.”
The site the article refers to is Daily Kos. So, I am just saying what was in the article.
No. You said the NY Times retracted. You were corrected on the use of that term.
If you want others not to smear, you should be precise in your own language, lest you accidentally besmirch others.
Link to the story where the NY Times admits that their story was wrong –
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/
I should have said you were “excusing those attacks.” There is a difference.
Well, I’ve seen enough, Mouthpiece.
“No. You said the NY Times retracted. You were corrected on the use of that term.”
BTW-I was not corrected on the use of the word, “retracted.” I was corrected on the use of the word, “fabricated.”
Just trying to be precise…..
Brian: “No I think he’s manipulative.”
I have no intention of getting into a conversation w/Brian again but I have to stand up for my friend, Bill Mulligan. Bill is the one of the most honest, decent, and forgiving (he HAS to be forgiving to be friends with me!) people I’ve ever met.
He is NOT manipulative. He’s just far and away smarter than Brian.
But “retract” implies something taken back in response to pressure. The NYT discovered that they’d been given incorrect information and issued a correction.
“Correction” and “retraction” are very different things — and as Roger said, the precision of your language matters when you’re accusing others of smear tactics.
And frankly, the next time I hear “but I was just…” from you I’m going to reach through the screen and put you in time-out. I don’t accept that excuse from my 4-year-old, so there’s no way I’m going to accept that from someone who’s allegedly old enough to know better.
“But “retract” implies something taken back in response to pressure. The NYT discovered that they’d been given incorrect information and issued a correction.”
So, the argument here is that the NY Times is saying, “Our story was incorrect, but we stand by our story.”
Please. Let’s not get into the definition of “retraction,” ok?
Use it precisely and we won’t.
Use it sloppily and we will.
This just in –
The LA Times is reporting that Joe Biden’s daughter got into an altercation with a police officer and was arrested outside a bar back in 2002.
Personally, I think this is sick. Are we going to go through the personal histories of everyone related to the candidate and smear them all?
Of course, we should have seen this coming. All of these people have histories, and if you’re going to smear one, it’s only a matter of time until the tables are turned. Get ready…..
Found this statement in the article interesting –
“Sen. Biden’s spokeswoman, Margaret Aitken, declined to comment, calling it a private, family matter.”
What planet is this woman from? For the past 5 days, Palin’s private life has been attacked every way possible from people who plan on voting for her boss. The flood gates are open.
I hope Obama didn’t wet the bed as a child. It could be a major scandal.
“Use it precisely and we won’t.
“Use it sloppily and we will.”
Good. Then we’re all set.
No, that’s not the argument. Printing something that YOU KNOW to be incorrect is factually different than printing something because one of your major sources and the spokesman for the organization in question gave you wrong information.
From the article you yourself posted the link to:
The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party’s chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.
As soon as the NYT found out that information was incorrect, they fixed it. How this is evidence of some sort of monstrous anti-Palin conspiracy in your mind is best left to those with advanced degrees in pathology.
Put words in my mouth one more time and we’re done.
What planet is this woman from?
What, has Biden attacked Palin? Do you have proof of such an attack that would require Biden to respond to request for comments?
So, at this point, Mouthpiece, I think it would be more appropriate for you to look in the mirror and ask yourself the above question.
Btw, you missed the boat on another ‘scandal’: Biden’s son has also been tied to some lobbyists, etc etc. I’m sure you can find that one too if you looked a bit.
Timothy Butler, is there a way to refer to a teen pregnancy without you interpreting it as being hateful to the mother?
You never disagree with me, and that never stopped you from being a dìçk to me.
“What, has Biden attacked Palin?”
In a sort of demeaning, sexist way. “Well, she’s gorgeous.” But I wouldn’t classify that as the type of smear we’re talking about. That just makes Biden a creep.
But that, of course, is not what I meant. But since I never implied that Biden had attacked Palin, your point seems ridiculous. (I stated that the ones doing the attacking are some folks that plan on voting for her boss.)
“Do you have proof of such an attack that would require Biden to respond to request for comments?”
No, but since I never said that, why would I?
I guess this is what I get for expressing outrage that Biden’s daughter is now being subjected to inappropriate, outrageous attacks to smear her father.
Seriously, I think this really sucks.
“No, that’s not the argument. Printing something that YOU KNOW to be incorrect is factually different than printing something because one of your major sources and the spokesman for the organization in question gave you wrong information.”
Sounds to me like you are stating that a newspaper can only retract a story if they knowingly printed something that they knew was false.
I don’t agree with that.
Ok, in the interests of not getting caught up in a stupid argument on the differences between a retraction and a correction, I’ll concede that the NY Times corrected their story that, according to the Washington Post, was originally reported by the Daily Kos.
In a sort of demeaning, sexist way. “Well, she’s gorgeous.”
Well, for starters, is he referring to Palin or her daughter?
But I wouldn’t classify that as the type of smear we’re talking about.
But you bring it up anyways.
You bring up Biden’s son, and expect Biden’s camp to issue a statement. Then you respond to that with this, with the assumption that Biden is sexist.
You’re all over the map here, and you have no basis for your arguments.
That just makes Biden a creep.
Right, because recognizing beauty and admitting it aloud is obviously a crime. (Note: not a fan of the “PC” crowd.)
I’ll assume Biden’s comment was for Palin. As such, you do realize she finished 2nd place in a beauty contest years ago? Good for her! And, let’s face it, Palin has aged very well; already I’ve seen both sides referring to her as not only a MILF, but a soon-to-be GILF.
Put words in my mouth one more time and we’re done.
Sounds to me like you are stating…
Aaaaaaaand we’re through here. Maybe you and Brian can have fun together.
Christ, if this is what early September is like around here, October’s going to be insane.
TWL
“Aaaaaaaand we’re through here. Maybe you and Brian can have fun together.”
Wow. Touchy. That wasn’t putting words in your mouth. That was restating your position so I could communicate what I heard for clarification. Then, you could correct me if I was wrong.
But believe me, it is fine with me if we are done.
Back to substance?
Palin has book banning tendencies, has creationist tendencies, is not as reformist as first thought, and seems to be vindictive towards enemies. Proper areas for discussions, right?
“Palin has book banning tendencies, has creationist tendencies, is not as reformist as first thought, and seems to be vindictive towards enemies. Proper areas for discussions, right?”
Sure. Now if only the discussion at large would stick to the candidate and her positions.
Tell me more about the book burning tendencies, I haven’t heard about that. Links appreciated.
NPR said she was reported to have fired a librarian for questioning her book-banning agenda.
Original TIME Article Here –
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html?imw=Y
The quote relating to the alleged book burning “tendencies”:
“Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. ‘She asked the library how she could go about banning books,’ he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. ‘The librarian was aghast.’ That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving “full support” to the mayor.”
The guy quoted, John Stein, is the mayor that Palin ousted. Note that the librarian he is talking about couldn’t be reached for comment.
So, the source for this is Palin’s political rival whom she unseated. And the story itself is heresay. Palin didn’t say it to Stein.
Without further evidence, I think it’s fair to let this one go. Are there other sources for this story? Additional information? I didn’t see any. (Besides Daily Kos.)
NY TImes commented on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html
Librarian fired, but was rehired under public pressure, then left a few years later.
Oh hëll no, Timothy, I’m not letting this go. The firing, public outcry, and rehiring of the librarian was public record, not hearsay.
She also forced out a bunch of staff members when she took office, something that didn’t happen before her in that town.
But here’s my favorite bit:
Ms. Palin also upended the town’s traditional ways with a surprise edict: No employee was to talk to the news media without her permission.
I’ve already been thinking of her as Ðìçk Cheney Jr. Now I’m thinking there’s also a little Karl Rove in her DNA.
Well, she also cut taxes at first, then raised them tremendously later, to use on a sports complex where the ownership of the land it sat on was in dispute. And that left the town in debt to the tune of millions. That’d never happened before.
Well, Jason, I no more want to quibble over the definition of “heresay” than I do about the defintion of “retract.” So, I’ll leave you to your lib-gasms. The Left have willing sheeple in their corner if you are will show up at Palin’s door with torches and pitchforks on the word of the former mayor that got his butt kicked by the future Vice-President Palin.
There’re are no facts in the public record that I know of that justify your attitude. So, it must be coming from somewhere other than facts.
Facts there are, but they don’t comfortably conform to your view of Palin.
I didn’t think you were that stupid, Tim, but I’m reframing my thoughts. If Bill wants to stomp up and down childishly proclaiming he won’t talk to me… why should I complain. He never addressed what I was saying but kept going off on Obama, who I never mentioned.
Actually I think it was I who mentioned Obama and it was Bill Myers who, wisely, decided not to talk to you. Bill Gates is the guy behind Microsoft and Bill Clinton is the former president of the United States, Bill Bailly got thrown out on a rainy evening, and Bill, just Bill, shot his baby down. FWIW.
Bill is the one of the most honest, decent, and forgiving (he HAS to be forgiving to be friends with me!) people I’ve ever met.
You have GOT to get out more!
But I thank you.
No, that’s not the argument. Printing something that YOU KNOW to be incorrect is factually different than printing something because one of your major sources and the spokesman for the organization in question gave you wrong information.
I think Timothy is splitting hairs too much here but I may have to side a bit with him on this. I don’t think retractions are limited to deliberate lies. I don’t think for a minute the NYTimes deliberately lied about Palin–for one thing, it was about something far to easy to disprove.
My impression has always been that a retraction was simply to correct a falsehood or mistake, regardless of whether it was an honest mistake or not. I know wikipedia is not the be all and end all but what they have is pretty much what I had assumed to be true:
A retraction is a public statement, either in print, or by verbal statement that is made to correct a previously made statement that was incorrect, invalid, or in error. The intent of a public retraction is to correct any incorrect information.
The term retraction carries stronger connotation than the term correction. An alteration that changes the main point of the original statement is generally referred to as a retraction while an alteration that leaves the main point of a statement intact is usually referred to simply as a correction.
Since the main point of the statement was Palin’s membership in an organization and we now know this was not the case, the main point of the statement has been proven incorrect and ‘retraction” seems appropriate. In no way does this mean that the Times was out to get Palin and their speed in setting the record straight suggests that this was not the case. (Whether they should have maybe researched the matter further, maybe even asking the candidate herself or looking for more than the word of one person is another matter.)
Christ, if this is what early September is like around here, October’s going to be insane.
yeah, it’s too bad. maybe it’s always been this way and we are longing for a time that never existed but I think that the internet has magnified the overall level of douchebagginess.
And it’s counterproductive. You and I have disagreed on many occasions but your intelligence and willingness to take a strong position without merely attacking the opposite side has made me consider your position a lot more than I would the ranters, who are easy to dismiss. It’s the difference between actually wanting people to see your point of view and maybe even adopt it…and just yapping because the sound of their voice lets them think they matter.
BTW, for someone decrying the use of smears, Tim, you’re rather free in your use of “lib-gasm” and “sheeple.”
“So, I’ll leave you to your lib-gasms”
Ha! lib-gasms. Nice one. Of course, this is the first year that I won’t be registering Republican, so it’s not exactly as insulting as you might think.
Firing someone = public record. There are pay stubs and everything.
Public outcry = plenty of people can testify directly to that.
Rehiring someone = public record. Again, there’s plenty of paperwork when someone takes a job.
Don’t try to make it out like I’m boiling things down to semantics. This stuff is nowhere near hearsay.
There’s no way I’m ignoring her record. I didn’t do my research in 2000 and I made a vote I’ve since regretted. I’m not letting that happen again. Her unfair firings of employees is definitely fair evidence of her judgement.
And don’t think I don’t look at Obama the same way. I know that he’s often taken credit for things he was barely associated with. I know about his drug use in high school and I know about how things fell apart when he tried to work on legislation with John McCain.
I’ve done the research on Obama, don’t tell me I shouldn’t hold the others to the same standard.
BTW, for someone decrying the use of smears, Tim, you’re rather free in your use of “lib-gasm” and “sheeple.”
Yeah, that’s zone out material. It makes it very easy to ignore what’s said, especially when they aren’t even original. You can toss, “McSame” “Repugnatcans” “DemocRATS” and all the other yock getters from the dregs of the net. Lame.
In a rational world, it shouldn’t matter whether the President is a good parent or a good spouse. It only should matter that he is competent at his/her job.
But hey, conservatives wanted to impeach a guy because he cheated on his wife (yeah, yeah, I know, many of them will say it was because he lied in court, but we all know that it was really because Clinton offended their sense of decency).
And Clinton is regarded by the huge majority of human beings as 10 times more competent than George W. Bush. So, clearly, it isn’t a matter of competence.
It sounds a bit hypocritical for conservatives to show too much outrage when attacks based on personal issues become standard. After all, the “moral decay in the presidency” was a big factor in the conservative turn that the country took in the early 2000s.
For good or for ill, it’s better if conservative candidates now have perfect families. Like Caesar’s wife, it would be even better if their families also LOOKED perfect. If you got into power preaching something, you better exemplify those ideas.
“heresay” [sic]
“lib-gasms”
“sheeple”
“the Left”
Yep, you’re a freakin’ MODEL of rational discourse, you are. I’m vaguely ashamed to share a first name with you.
Now I’m really done. If things get back to normal around here I’ll be back … but for now I’ve got classes to prep.
TWL
“BTW, for someone decrying the use of smears, Tim, you’re rather free in your use of ‘lib-gasm’ and ‘sheeple.'”
Early today, that might have concerned me. But if one thing that I’m convinced of its that not too many people here are worried about my feelings. I guess in my frustration, the feeling is mutual.
No wait. You’re right. I’m not sinking to that level. Jason, even though you totally glossed over my point about Stein’s charges against Palin being heresay, that in no way justified my statements to you. I am sorry for the rude nature of my response to you. You’re better than that, and I should be better than that. I am sorry.
And for the record, I won’t be waiting for any righteous indignation for the post before yours that accused me by implication of being a douchebag who is “just yapping because the sound of their voice lets them think they matter.”
“Note that the librarian he is talking about couldn’t be reached for comment.”
Which does not mean that it didn’t happen, it just means THEY COULDN’T GET A HOLD OF HER FOR A COMMENT. Don’t know about you, but I myself am often quite difficult to get a hold of. I can only imagine this also could apply to other people.
Tim, what’s more important, man? Your students or the witty discourse around here? Priorities, man!!
Ok, guys. I’ll just say that I appreciate the comments that you send my way today. But I’ll let you get back to your comments now without me raining on your parade.
Appreciate the discussion, but I should have known before starting what the end result would be.
Take care, and thanks again.
Appreciate the discussion, but I should have known before starting what the end result would be.
That you would be challenged on your claims and asked to back them up?
Apparently not.
Timothy: “Appreciate the discussion, but I should have known before starting what the end result would be.”
Yeah, those grapes were probably sour anyway.
Timothy Butler: Multiple threads at DailyKos are pushing the total lie that Palin’s youngest child is not her’s but her daughter’s. Not exactly an obscure liberal web site.
Luigi Novi: Someone fill me in: Is thread creation at DailyKos the sole province of the webmasters, as it is with Peter and Glenn here, or can anonymous users start threads there? Which of these describes the threads you mention, Timothy?
Timothy Butler: Talking heads on “Good Morning America” and CNN [said] that [Palin] can’t possibly campaign and care for her special needs baby at the same time. No one thinks to ask Obama if he can be a father and president. So much for liberals being pro-woman.
Luigi Novi: Obama’s daughters are seven and ten years old, and do not have the special needs that children with Downs Syndrome have. So the analogy isn’t very parallel.
Tim Lynch: Are you a parent? I am. There’s a huge difference between an infant and a 9-year-old, even without adding in Down’s syndrome.
Timothy Butler: Yes, I have six kids. One of them is special needs. I repeat – No one is questioning whether Obama can be a father and president at the same time.
Luigi Novi: So Tim emphasizes the age difference, and even explicitly de-emphasizes the special needs aspect, and your reaction is to respond to the latter and ignore the former? Why is this?
Once more: Obama’s kids are seven and ten. Not four months old.
Timothy Butler: “Early today, that might have concerned me. But if one thing that I’m convinced of its that not too many people here are worried about my feelings.”
Respect is a two-way street. You gave none, so why would you expect it in return?
“Respect is a two-way street. You gave none, so why would you expect it in return?”
Actually, I gave plenty, as you can see if you search back through the comments. The first sign that I can see that things started to go downhill was when someone referred to me as a member of the “screaming from the rooftops ‘How dare you!’ crowd.
My mistake, which I truly regret, is that when the discourse started going downhill, I went right with it. I should have taken a deep breath and quit while I wasn’t behind.
“Um. Well living down to their expectations, as you say, is probably not a winning strategy.”
No question about it. I agree.
For my part, I am sorry.
The first sign that I can see that things started to go downhill was when someone referred to me as a member of the “screaming from the rooftops ‘How dare you!’ crowd.
Yep, that was me. And here was the exchange:
Tim:
On the other hand, the left continues to degenerate to new levels of scum-sucking, immoral attacks on Palin and her family.
Me:
Ahh, another of the screaming from the rooftops “How dare you!” crowd.
Maybe I’m a bit biased here, but I certainly feel I know where things started going downhill, and it wasn’t with my comment.
“Maybe I’m a bit biased here, but I certainly feel I know where things started going downhill, and it wasn’t with my comment.”
Ok – Here’s the line before the ones you quote:
Craig:
Isn’t there anything in the right-wing playbook that hasn’t been worn out already?
Tim:
On the other hand, the left continues to degenerate to new levels of scum-sucking, immoral attacks on Palin and her family.
Me:
Ahh, another of the screaming from the rooftops “How dare you!” crowd.
So, it did start to go downhill sooner. I would say with your first comment.
Maybe we disagree. If, in fact, you felt that way, perhaps name calling wasn’t the best response. Likewise, I shouldn’t have continued the downward spiral.
And I’ve already apologized.
Yeah, it’s funny how the hateful “sheeple” and the accurately-descriptive “McSame” are equally intolerable. Isn’t it funny how monstrously disrespectful it is to observe how John McCain will protect the records of George Bush violating the constitution?
Timothy Butler: “For my part, I am sorry.”
Well, for my part, it seems I misjudged you. It takes a big person to admit a mistake. I hope you’ll consider sticking around. This blog is actually an interesting little community, and quite rewarding.