Randy, I fear it’s all they’ve got left. You’re arguing with the emptiest of empty suits.

Oh please. In 2000 McCain referred to the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson self proclaimed “Christian” right agents of intolerance. Now he’s their shill. He opposed the Bush tax cuts and voted against them. Now he wants to extend them.

You were against him until he picked Palin. Now you’re all gushy and weak in the knees. Spare me the hypocrisy.

Oh please. When Kerry did it it was flip-flopping. In other words in Roper World It’s Okay If You’re a Republican.

Boo frigging hoo.

In the midst of this, I see that you, who claimed that Palin had taken on Stevens, ignored the fact that Palin was on the boiard of Stevens 527 and have also ignored her lie about the Bridge to Nowhere.

Typical.

I can tell you one thing which may or may not help you. Don’t EVER use the word “socialist” in a comment. Every time I ever have – which actually happened in this thread – the comment goes into moderation – usually never to come out. I believe a series of multiple URL’s also sets the nanny off. Look at your comments, see if you can use your deductive powers to figure out what set the nanny off, scrub them and re-post. Because they’re not likely to come out of moderation before the thread is so old that nobody’s reading it anymore.

Above I see claims that Palin believes the Pledge of Allegiance was contemporary with the Founding Fathers. The quote the claim is based on checks out, but the claim itself is wrong. Why do I think so? Because it fails to recognize that what we have on our hands is a politician’s statement for public consumption. You don’t know what Palin thinks on this. You know only what she’s said.

Not being a zealot, I’m equally at peace with two hypotheses about how Palin answered that vetting-questionaire question about how she stands on the use of “under God” in the Pledge:

(1) It’s true, she does (or did) believe that the Founding Fathers found theological references acceptable in a recitation that actually wasn’t drafted in their lifetimes. I can imagine her at 3am, nursing Trig, and muttering to herself, “Wew, at least there are some easy questions!”

(2) She passed the questionaire to competent staffers and campaign consultants, who duly informed her which answers worked best, regardless of their factual accuracy.

I can well imagine a consultant telling her “Actually, the Pledge came long after the Founding Fathers, but let’s face it: people who would hold that against you aren’t going to vote McCain anyway, and our research indicates that the GOP base absolutely loves this answer. And that’s what McCain would tap you for, if he did tap you, right? Your base-stoking appeal.”

The problem with dismissing that latter possibility is that you’re doing one of the worst things you can do in any conflict: systematically underestimating your opponent. I have to hand it to the Obama campaign on this point: they don’t seem to be guilty of that, so far. There’s plenty they could be saying about Palin, right now, but from the relatively placid surface, I’d say they’re recalibrating carefully.

It’s in the nature of zealotry in anything, isn’t it? It makes everything simpler. That GOP base, mostly a buncha crazies, right? Those Kossacks, mostly a buncha crazies, right?

What bothers me more: if you stop and think about the plausibility of positions, and go do careful research rather than just echoing what’s on your favorite blog, then write it all up and present it here, where does it get you? It seems you can end up where I am right now on this thread: with a couple of rather long, well-sourced contributions awaiting moderation. In the meantime, Reg can call people “fucking idiots”, and Woody can provoke him further by posting one easily-debunked gobbet of propaganda after another, but that’s somehow OK.

Well, it’s Marc’s blog, he can manage it how he wants, I guess. He’s not exactly the highly analytical wonk himself on his own blog, and has unapologetically admitted as much at times, IIRC. Maybe I’m just trying to contribute in the wrong place? Maybe all my complaint deserves is a hearty “GYOFB“?

Quick! Switch your support to Nader!! Obama said something logical.

http://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-bristols-baby-matters.html

http://witnessla.com/environment/2008/admin/thinking-of-you-new-orleans/#comment-38689

This had been raised by someone else, earlier in the thread and that was my comment. Here’s what “peckerwood” wrote in response:

http://witnessla.com/environment/2008/admin/thinking-of-you-new-orleans/#comment-38761

Which is why being compared to that pile of clown crap amounts to fighting words with me by this point. I’ve been right about him since the first time I called him out in harsh terms as an embarrassment even to his own “cause”.

Ive always enjoyed a good conspiracy theory- the one Im hearing now is that Bristol is not preggers at all. That this is just a smokescreen to get rid of the persistent rumors that Bristol was Trig’s mother (ie she can’t be Trig’s mom if she’s at 5 months- note that this is exactly how long she’d have to be pregnant to rule this out).

And the evidence in favor of the original conspiracy, while circumstantial, is not weak or easily dismissed (eg an AP pic of Sarah in tight clothing at 7 months but not showing, her bizarre trip from Texas to Anchorage and then a 45 minute drive *away* from the best neonatal unit in the state to have the baby delivered by her family doc).

If this theory is true, Bristol will have a ‘miscarriage’ soon and everything will go away.

Now, Im not saying that this is true. And I basically agree with hil that this- while fascinating in a car-wreck sort of war- ought not be grounds for political manuvering anyway. That is, no one should be bothering Bristol with any questions, trying to locate the father, etc.

Posted by: Carleton Wu | September 01, 2008 at 08:19 PM