Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Why I am a Palin fan
I love Palin. I really do. This Palin dialogue is, I think, a prescient metaphor for the condition of the McCain campaign. Is it dead, or just pining for the fjords? I can't be sure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
A person who believes that she needs be prayed over so she will not be inflenced by witches is a certifiable fundamentalist wacko and is in no way qualified or mentally fit to hold any office of leadership...anywhere.
Indeed, give us the reasonable candidate - you know, the one attending the church with the pastor who believed that 9/11 was a punishment to America for their failures in race relations. A paragon of rationality.
(Of course, then comes the claim that Obama's not really religious, he's just been pretending to be so to get elected. In which case, let's elect the man - clearly when he lies, he only does so when he feels his best interests are at heart!)
Touche...the sermons of that preacher are just as offensive and ludicrous, but would Sarah Palin leave the church affliation she has had when it is justly pointed out that her beliefs belong in the magical thinking of the dark ages and not in the 21st century of the real world?
The real world demands that our leaders use rationality and facts to make decisions based on the best available information not on subjective feelings based on silly myths and fables and capricious whims of a unveriiable deity.
Obama may rely on his faith, but I doubt he would approach his decisions based on apocalyptic ideas that surround the type of delusions that the Palin clan come from.
I cannot speak on Obama's sincerety of his religious beliefs, but I have not heard him say mindless things like Bush or Palin or other true believers about how a supernatural being tells them to start a war and implies regularly that God is on "our side" because we are a exceptional "Christian nation".
Obviously Palin isn't *irrational* since there are *other beliefs* that *if true* render her beliefs entirely *internally rational*.
And, presumably, you could make the same "magical thinking" charge against virtually *any* Christian, thus your argument has the dubious implicit premise that you would say that Alvin Plantinga shouldn't run for office since he's not "mentally fit".
The problem with Obam is that his association is spending over a decade with a man who is a *radical*...not to mention is association with Ayers, ACORN, and other radical and dangerous groups.
The Ayers thing is a bit troubling. He served on a board with him, he could have recused himself. On the other hand, from his perspective he wanted to work in Chicago on education reform, and if you want to do that it is hard to avoid Ayers. If this were the extent of it, then this would be a non-issue.
What is more troubling is that Ayers held a 'meet the candidate' event at his home for Obama.
I think Obama needs to discuss what he was thinking at the time. Did he consider Ayers a reformed criminal, who had done horrible things in his past but who was repentant? I am friends with people who have done bad things in their pasts, but are reformed. I treat them based on how they have acted since I've known them. Ayers has done a lot to improve education, both nationally and in Chicago. The problem is, it isn't clear he is repentant about what he did.
Also, we need to ask whether his means were justifiable. We were in a stupid war, with tens of thousands of kids being killed after being drafted. Is it wrong to damage the Pentagon, and other extreme measures? Note none of their bombs killed, or were meant to kill, people (except the one that killed members of the Underground as they constructed it).
Legally it is wrong, but is it morally wrong? And if morally wrong, how wrong is it? Is it really an act of terrorism? If terrorism is defined as taking noncombatant human life to further political aims, then he was not. If terrorism is the destruction of property in the persuit of such aims, then he was.
And even if we assume the acts were terrorism, should we use the present tense or past tense to describe Ayers? Is he now a terrorist? Is a reformed thief still a thief?
Of all the attempts to impugn Obama's judgment in his associations, this is probably the most effective. He needs to address it more thoughtfully than just saying he was 8 at the time.
Radio broadcast, I believe from today, where Obama discusses this in a little more detail is here.
He really shot himself in the foot when chose her. I'm sure it was a last minute act of desperation and is not paying off. The Republicans are mad that Mcain is behind. I say "bless their little hearts."
And your dude not only isn't an American in his heart ... hates America, in fact, and despises actual Americans ... he may not even be a legal citizen of the US.
lol ilion.
I heard Obama kidnapped Uncle Sam and waterboarded him in his basement.
I'm less bothered by the relationship between Obama and Ayers than I am by the relationship between McCain and G. Gordon Liddy or Henry Kissinger. In terms of evil perpetrated by these men, Liddy and Kissinger win hands down. In terms of intimacy of relationship, it's clear that McCain is closer to both Liddy and Kissinger than Obama is to Ayers.
But, I know, Liddy and Kissinger are patriotic or whatever so Liddy's encouraging people to fire at the heads of government agents and Kissinger's war crimes don't really count.
Palin is just the gift that keeps on giving, isn't she? She can't really make Rev. Wright into a liability for Obama when you have Palin's witchdoctor trying to protect her from bad mojo. Can't really make the case that she's a reformer when she's violating ethics guidelines and abusing her power.
Yes, "liberals" do always seem to find a way to be unbothered by the things which *ought* to bother any serious citizen. And they always do seem to find a way to misrepresent certain aspects of reality such that they are "unbothered" or "frightened," as the socio-political need of the moment dictates.
Now, and of course, I well understand that the "liberals" who own and/or frequesnt this blog will not be interested in this. Heavens! Mustn't let anything get in the way of being "unbothered" by what they *ought* to be "bothered" about, on the one hand, and being "frightened" at little or even nothing, on the other hand.
Nevertheless, concerning Clayton's silly snark-assertions:
Bill Dyer (on TownHall.com): Branchflower report on Tasergate: Just one guy's opinion that contradicts itself and ignores the relevant facts and law
"...
Please understand this, if you take nothing else away from reading this post: The Branchflower Report is a series of guesses and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it's just Steve Branchflower's opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin's most vocal opponents and one of Alaska's staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform.
...
Here are the two key "findings," however (from page 8 of the .pdf file; boldface mine):
... [quotations of "findings"] ...
Here's a note to Mr. Branchflower, who clearly is verbose, but obviously none too keen a scholar of logic: Gov. Palin's so-called "firing" of Monegan (it wasn't a firing, it was a re-assignment to other government duties that he resigned rather than accept) can't simultaneously be a violation of the Ethics Act and "a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority." This, gentle readers, is a 263-page piece of political circus that actually explicitly refutes itself on its single most key page!
..."
And your dude not only isn't an American in his heart ... hates America, in fact, and despises actual Americans ... he may not even be a legal citizen of the US.
'at a boy Ilion! Keep letting those chain emails do all your thinking for you.
"And they always do seem to find a way to misrepresent certain aspects of reality"
This from the anti-american "Ilion", who is so out of touch with reality and so unpatriotic that he's actually voting for a documented and proven terrorist sympathizer -- McCain.
Face it "Ilion". Your desire for a tyrannical, fascistic plutocracy in America is coming to an end. McCain has already lost. I wish I could see the tears on that chubby face of yours when you have to utter the words 'President Obama' come January.
As I understand it, the claim was that the firing was legal, but the pressure put on Monegan to fire Wooten constituted the abuse of power.
VR: "As I understand it, the claim was that the firing was legal, but the pressure put on Monegan to fire Wooten constituted the abuse of power."
As I keep telling you, you -- you personally -- really do need to get off the politics. You are destroying your soul with this willfully chosen intellectual dishonesty.
I don't think that someone whose mode of 'argument' consists of baseless personal attacks and the occasional quotation from Hugh Hewitt's website should be lecturing anyone about intellectual honesty.
If we're going to talk about intellectual virtues, let's talk about intellectual courage. If my comments were snark, the least you could do is have the courage to say that you think it's fine for a public official to mess with someone's career because of a personal vendetta against an entirely different party. You could say that it's better to associate with the likes of war criminals like Kissinger and convicted felons like Liddy than to associate with Ayers. But, you don't.
Clayton,
I really don't care about your red-herrings. You are intellectually dishonest: you know it, I know it. And really, so does every one else.
When you stop being a liar, maybe I'll give you the time of day. But until that time comes, I'll mock your behavior as I see fit.
Here's a note to Mr. Branchflower, who clearly is verbose, but obviously none too keen a scholar of logic: Gov. Palin's so-called "firing" of Monegan (it wasn't a firing, it was a re-assignment to other government duties that he resigned rather than accept) can't simultaneously be a violation of the Ethics Act and "a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority.
Here's a note to Hugh Hewitt. The violation of the ethics act had to do with the Palins' attempts to get Wooten fired, not Monegan. See pages 64-66 of the report.
Clayton, Victor and BDK: the problem with one *special* writer here is he's viciously bumped his head really hard --selah
And what would be the problem with one *unspecial* writer here?
NJ,
I'd agree, but I'm sure that at any moment now _someone_ will just admit that he didn't read the report and mindlessly cut and paste something from Hugh Hewitt's website that turned out to be a really embarrassing gaff. He'll say, 'You know what, I was wrong. Apologies, everyone'.
I really don't care about your red-herrings. You are intellectually dishonest: you know it, I know it. And really, so does every one else.
You are destroying your soul with this willfully chosen intellectual dishonesty.
Ilion, *everyone* in the *whole universe* knows with certitude that you're *intellectually dishonest*. You -- you personally -- are a *liar* and you -- YOU as a person -- are utterly *destroying* your soul every time you post. Let us know when you're ready to stop *lying* to defend your anti-american beliefs, you self-destructor of soul! Ahhh!
Post a Comment