Has a vice presidential candidate's speech ever been more important?]]>
She was nineteen years old, a good ripe old age for a cat. Her kidney hadn't worked right for over a year.
Her owner, an Obama supporter, denies killing her to keep the conservative old cat from voting for McCain in the first election she's old enough to vote in.
]]>As I wrote here, I think Palin deserves more credit for eptness; she comes from a culture that likes to hide such things. Nor do I see a child care problem when there seems to be a perfectly good hubby at home (they don't say so much, but he seems to be a stay-at-home Dad).
No, *I* think the biggest reason to take a close look at her is that she's an extremist who IS on the ballot, unlike the excuses about Wright.
She is, of course, known to be anti-abortion even in rape, for abstinence education (never mind that it's been shown not to work), and a creationist. She makes no bones about being feeling strongly about her religion indeed. Her creationism suggests she has no great regard for those annoying facts thingies. She's mostly been upfront about these things, except during this campaign; McCain's rightly been afraid of losing moderates, so he's made her keep quiet.
Things she hasn't been upfront on include purges and library censorship. She purged all the city managers upon going into office in Wasilla. And she asked librarians in Wasilla about censoring the public library.
Oh, and that nice anti-earmark stance of hers? Mostly spin, as, According Anchorage aily News, as she supported the Bridge in '06, and kept the money for other uses, including for an access road to the Bridge to Nowhere.
If McCain is elected and she succeeds to office for an extended period - which, alas, isn't so unlikely as it ought to be, she might be the most extreme President elected. So, if you're troubled by the Bush Administration record, remember Bush is basically a CENTRIST.
A Palin Administration, I think, would be decidedly worse than the Bush Administration has turned out. She doesn't play well with others. Would people hit by hurricanes be told they deserved it for being sinful? Would she spend go into the same cycle with the Library of Congress or, say, NIH's research library with all those annoying texts about evolution, abortion, and embryo-related research? Stop government research into those areas? How many people would she fire for daring to care about facts or being Democrats or even moderate Republicans? Would she be inspired by the Bush DOJ ideas to hire only radical right bureaucrats? Would she put the President's Bioethics Council in charge of reviewing medical grants, slowing our contribution to the next hot area of research? Would Palin pick theocratic SCOTUS judges?
]]>Has a vice presidential candidate's speech ever been more important?]]>
These are all still big and important states. PA/OH are even swing states.
VA's fix Presidents were all Founders except Tyler, who entered office in 1841. PA's only President was directly antebellum. of OH's six Presidents, the last one was right after TR. NY's last native-born President was FDR (died over 60 years ago), and after that you had to be an immigrant like Ike and Nixon (even Nixon was 30 years ago). If Obama wins, he'll break a LONG dry spell, since Lincoln's brilliant general Grant.
Why?
]]>But somehow I'm a little doubtful about having generally-available social programs being in the same category as legal rights. On my more cynical days, I even think of it as being an excuse for politicians to raise an equal ruckus on a less structurally important issue.
What do you think?
]]>She is, I think, competent. She reminds me of a niece in Georgia, smart but not wanting to be seen that way in a the conservative culture she lives in. Only time on the trail will show if she's up to the top job if McCain dies. You do have to worry about the vetting job if the best he could do was somebody in Troopergate III.
More liberal people, and people living in more liberal cities have different expectations of womens' self-presentation. I can see on blogs she's mostly alienating the Democratic women I think McCain and many Republicans hope to attract.
I, personally, am as unpersuaded by the inexperience argument, as I'm unpersuaded by the arguments against Obama. But there are plenty who disagree with me, and the Obama campaign IS using it as a counterweight accusation to what NcCain started. It's clear that you need to be ready to finish what other people start if you want to be President. McCain with this pick IS leaving himself way open to this, no question.
Palin is a flip-flopper, including on her favorite reform issue of earmarks. She was apparently for the Bridge To Nowhere before she was against it. But, of course, Obama and Biden've had their flip-flop-esque moments on important issues as well. They all seem like amateurs to me compared to McCain, who's gotten so different from 2000 that I rather thought there was alot to a Dean remark that the McCain of 2000 wouldn't've voted for today's McCain.
Of course, this will also alienate plenty of centrists, because if McCain wins and dies during his term, we get a Boxer-like President (or, for my worry box, a, er, President Palin, creationism and all).
Whadja think the Biden-Boxer-not debate will be like?
Update: I'm glad to see Obama has canceled the Palin competence narrative.
]]>
So, here's my bleg - when I'm having a hard time of it. I like to hear what kinds of fun others're having. So, what's been going right for you guys?
]]>
(Photo: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty, via Sullivan).
]]>Exactly this kind of thing raged back then. Of course, the Olypic location was fixed at Mount Olympus, but there was real competition for some kind of Olympic sponsorship between alliances of free and authoritarian societies, just like today. And, just like today, the freedom-loving guys headed by Athens loved it when a free athlete won, and was disconsolate when a Spartan or other Peloponnesian League athlete won. And vice versa. Sound fmailiar? In free societies, rich men - especially politicians - would sponsor athletes.
I think it HAS to be like this, because the whole point is that that almost all of us root for our nations, whether they be big, small, free, or dictatorial or oligarchic. And we have our accompanying sympathies on what kind of other nations we root for as well.
]]>They have more good investigative coverage of the kind newspapers are SUPPOSED to have, like honest, brave Russian Georgia coverage that doesn't overstate or deny what's happening, and an excellent Gitmo series. And today there's an article on some e-vote system trouble, an issue important to me because my engineer's brain thinks we've given them too much trust.
And, mqybe because McClatchy DC's more what newspapers're supposed to be, they seem to feel less need to do the systematic exxageration of stories virtually every other paper does, or even outright miscasting of the world to make it a worrisome place where you need to buy a daily paper to keep up.
]]>The blogosphere isn't always better than the MSM, is it?
]]>First, Biden's the kinda well-known, workaholic scrapper the campaign needs. And, unlike another smart scrapper who wanted the job, a certain woman who spent months hurling dirt, they get along easily - vital on the campaign trail.
There was a puff piece I read yesterday on Biden, saying all kinds of great things about him. The same thing, though, came across to me as did to Obama to point up big. I already knew Biden was smart - what I didn't know was that he regularly commutes hours each way every day to be with his wife and kids. THAT's remembering your family. That, I think, takes special extra talent when you're a Senator.
...
I have some thoughts that I'll get done later, but I want to get this thread out the door quickly.
So, whady'all think?
]]>Unfortunately, my hopes about the Georgian/Russian ceasefire agreement seem to've been wrong. I haven't been missing the idea that half an hour could see my world ruined with nuclear war. Nor have I been missing the old enemies from my childhood, nor am I trying to sell fear in this post. We survived the last Cold War just fine, and there's less to fear this time, I think. The biggest diffeence is that this time we KNOW MAD's sustainable longterm against this kind of opponent, MAD as it seems.
In my post on Cold War and crabcakes, I noted that the key thing driving the Cold War was Soviet aggressive expansionism. The democracies that were the centers of our side have done plenty of evil and stupid things, but our side was letting go of empires while the Soviets were expanding theirs. It's ironic, given the Communist rhetoric of imperialist pigs; that, in turn, dates from when it was true. Back then, we WERE imperialist powers and Communists hadn't yet taken over anywhere.
At this point, it seems pretty clear to me that the Russians ARE being aggressive expansionists again. They came up with stupid, ultranationistic reasons to justify cyberwar against another small neighbor state, Estonia. Russia has historically felt Estonia should be part of their empire, Fortunately, they've joined NATO and enjoy the same kind of security guarantee that we gave Western Europe in Cold War I, so all they can do now is look wishfully and try and provoke them to do something as stupid as what Georgia's done. And now we have Georgia.
It's become clear that Russian claims about severe destruction of Tshkinvali and Georgian ethnic cleansing were propaganda. more like normal, sad levels of war deaths and destruction than like the severe destruction of of Tshkinvali and Russia's been claiming. And the local hospital in Tskhinvali only recorded 40 dead instead of the 2100 dead Russia claimed. Mostly to the point, they've already broken their agreement on withdrawing, their second unilaterally given deadline is here and the signs of movement appear to be patrols, not departure (read the article, not the contradictory headline), so their promises would seem to be stalling for time.
Another thing will be somewhat similar: that there's a global angle. The linked article details ongoing agreements between Venezuela and Russia, the last one the Russian fleet visit (the juxtaposition of the headline and the byline made me think the Russian Fleet was invited to East Central Texas). Of course, there we have fascist and socialist governments helping each other out, not quite the same as the old commie bloc. And, Russia's negotiated a naval base agreement in Syria - a big coup from the Russian POV because they've ALWAYS wanted warm-water ports, and this lets them project power in the heart of a more strategic and much warmer place with ocean access than they've got now. Only time will tell how the new global Russian bloc plays out.
Of course, now, alas, the Pentagon will regain its political coalition for stupid, expensive weapons. since it'll have somebody to point to as a competitor in that kind of weapon.
How is modern Russia stacking up as a competitor vs the old USSR? The biggest difference is that they have FAR less foreign turf that they're occupying. The biggest result is that that means a smaller %age of world population on their side - that means less labor and fewer strategic spots. Will it even be a BIpolar world when China and India are developing quickly and have substantial nuclear forces of their own? On the other hand, Russia'll run a much better economy this time, giving them more cash/capita to play with. They still have the same old technological disadvantage - we had that because of democracy and culture, not because they were Communist.
Oh, and popular Austin SF author Bruce Sterling agrees with me, alas.
]]>