WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
WORLD wishes all its Twitter followers a happy and safe Independence Day.
What does Sarah Palin read?
Gov. Sarah Palin has been criticized for not revealing in her interview with Katie Couric what specific magazines and newspapers she read prior to John McCain choosing her as his running mate. There’s one news magazine, however, we know she read. In the final year of her second term as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin subscribed to WORLD. According to our records the GOP VP candidate’s subscription had lapsed, so we renewed it for her.
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
back to top121 Comments to “What does Sarah Palin read?”
Good for Gov. Palin.
Katie Couric is a high paid partisan hack–nothing more. She has proven that over and over. But our standards for journalism in America are pathetically poor, so she will continue to hack away.
Report comment to moderator
It would be interesting to learn what Katie Couric reads.
Report comment to moderator
Strange that Sarah didn’t mention this then.
At root the issue is not that she doesn’t read, although this is itself an interesting dicussion, but that she does not appear to be cognisant of what she is reading. The response in the interview was what amounted to a blank stare, and this is not a tough question.
I find it amusing that people are blaming the interviewers for Palin’s difficulties here.
If Sarah becomes president do you seriously believe that Putin will have any thoughts for kindly considering her apparently fragile sensibilities?
Palin is in the big leagues now and she has to learn to play as if she were in the big leagues OR she will not end up staying in the big leagues.
Report comment to moderator
Just because she didn’t reveal which newspapers, etc., she reads, doesn’t mean she doesn’t read, Musing. My answer would probably be that “I read all sorts of things, what’s it to ya?” This wasn’t a probing question. It was a question designed to mock the woman. They would criticize anything she reads, including World.
Report comment to moderator
Simply amazing. Does the criticism never end? I couldn’t have imagined in a million years that someone would be criticized for not revealing what they read.
I think the left is officially unhinged. Including you, Musing. You simply assumed she didn’t reveal anything because she doesn’t.
That’s quite a gap in your logic.
Get off it. Start criticising Obama and Biden for a change. This is simply a nitpicky smear campaign by the left, and I for one, and very disgusted with y’all.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 4,
and look at my posting: I didn’t say she didn’t read. Realisitically we can’t tell.
But it would seem that she is not cognisant of what she is reading: it is not making much impact on her. That conclusion can be drawn from the interview.
And I find that an interesting commentary.
And no, Couric tried several times to draw out of Palin what she was reading and Palin muffed the question. I do find what people are reading a very insightful to discussion, just as I look at what books are on the bookcases of people I visit.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man post 5,
if Palin had said she would prefer not to discuss it fine.
Palin did discuss it but clearly the books she may be reading are having little impact on her. And I do believe that is valid data.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, my subscription renewal is due, too. …..
Report comment to moderator
Palin uses icons, if you call that “reading.”
My four-year-old granddaughter has started to read. However, she doesn’t meet the age restrictions to be a vice-presidential candidate.
Report comment to moderator
Does she really have a lot of time for leisure reading anymore?
Report comment to moderator
On the one hand, it wasn’t a difficult question, and she should work on ad-libbing a little bit, maybe take a class or something. On the other hand, it’s none of ya’ll’s business what she reads, so lay off!
Cool, a VP candidate likes the same magazine I do!
Report comment to moderator
Klasko post 10,
one may not have time for leisure reading, but does a national leader not need to read the varous materials to keep up with current events?
There is an obvious rejoinder here, but the obvious rejoinder itself I suggest opens serious questions.
Report comment to moderator
Opinionated teen post 11,
I disagree, it is indeed perfectly appropriate for the elctorate to understand the source of information which our national leaders are using to form their opinions. The choice of source says much about how a person is thinking about these topics (consider for example World Magazine and Rolling Stone magazine regaridng popular culture).
Report comment to moderator
Outkast #2: Katie Couric is not running for VP, with the possibility of becoming president.
NJLawyer #4: As Musing points out, if she’d gracefully said something like, “I’d prefer not to discuss what I read,” or something of that nature, then it wouldn’t be a big deal. The awkward silence really looks like it was her trying to think of something specific, failing to do so, then saying she can’t recall. That’s more problematic.
Honestly, it wouldn’t bother me at all if she were not reading any *books* at the moment. I do, however, think someone like her should be reading *something* to keep up on current events. She could even have said, “Well, I typically don’t read the newspapers because I get briefed by my staff every day.” But she didn’t.
Also interesting that “The Bible” wasn’t something that came readily to mind.
Report comment to moderator
“At root the issue is not that she doesn’t read, although this is itself an interesting dicussion, but that she does not appear to be cognisant of what she is reading. The response in the interview was what amounted to a blank stare, and this is not a tough question.”
Considering the MSM reaction to her so far, she was probably mulling over how they would spin her answer into a negative. “She reads the New Yorker, what a snob, she reads Readers Digest how shallow. Oh, she reads WORLD, she is clearly a far right whacko, oh she reads National Geographic, she probably likes to look at naked natives.”
Report comment to moderator
I think KBells (15) nailed it. Her instinct kicked in, she pulled back knowing they’d have a field day with whatever her answer would be.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 15,
interestingly enough, under your model, worrying about the problem became the problems.
This would seem pretty simple:
1) say you would prefer not to discuss it
2) comment on something you have actually read recently (lieing here can get very exciting)
If we assume she is reading various magazines and books etc. then then fact that none of them have made any impact on her is interesting.
If she is not reading anything, then just say so.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 16,
then she would seem to be very ill prepared when she is accross the table form someone who is indeed focused on catching her out, say someone like Putin.
Come on - these are simple questions. Giving her excuses for this round simply is not going to hep her grow into this job: she really needs to uinderstand the problems she is creating so she can effectively fix them.
Bad news is much better than false news.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, here’s your phrase, “At root the issue is not that she doesn’t read….”
Sure, the Bible would come to mind, and maybe that’s what she was thinking which would account for her hesitance. She was probably trying to think of an answer that wouldn’t be picked apart the way it is here. If she said the Bible, you guys would have laughed at her.
It is horrible what is being done to this woman, and if you want grace, I think you’ve seen it. You haven’t even seen that Hillary moment when she was so worn out and on the verge of tears. Palin’s strength — and grace — is very evident. I would have told off all these so-called journalists a long time ago. But then again, that’s what leftists and liberals do — they just mock people.
Report comment to moderator
Since inquiring minds want to know…I just finished reading a book called Agnes and the Hitman, by Jennifer Crusie. While some of the content might not be considered good quality Christian reading it did have the ability to make me laugh out loud in quite a few places and one even spew what I was drinking through my nose because I was laughing so hard. Next up? I have decided to re-read The Fountainhead. I also read a lot of JD Robb, Sandra Brown, and Jonathan and Faye Kellerman. (Faye writes about a Jewish police detective and his wife so I pick up quite a few tidbits on being Jewish from her)
Give it a rest! She probably was concerned that they would spin it wrong.
Report comment to moderator
It would be interesting to put this question to our Govinator in the great state of CA. Because the reading for his job is so huge–you know, all those bills and stuff–he has readers who bring him the important thing. “The Freson Bee ran this. . . an Op-Ed in the LA times is saying . . . The San Francisco Chronicle is upset about . . . ” He gets it all, but in proportioned serving sizes.
But I’m with OT, c’mon Sarah, shoot from the hip a little better tonight.
Report comment to moderator
Being a mother of 5 and a governor and a VP nominee, who’s got time to read? I assume most of her reading these days is speeches and political information.
My guess is that when she does read a book she is probably reading it to her kids. The media piranha would have had a heyday with Dr. Seuss.
Report comment to moderator
I thought World had a privacy policy that didn’t reveal subscribers. Perhaps Sarah didn’t want it known, but World went and blabbed it anyway, all for attention.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, but I saw the interview and she was asked several times what she reads. Her only answer was “whatever is put in front of me”. She was asked specifically what publications, and she repeated “whatever is put in front of me”. Bottom line is that she doesn’t have a clue.
And everyone knows the Emperor has no clothes.
Report comment to moderator
CCC, I wondered about the privacy angle as well.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 19,
certainly I said:
“Musing, here’s your phrase, “At root the issue is not that she doesn’t read….””
because this appeared to be the clear complaint when complaints were made, and I further noted that we could discuss this issue at leangth. I also said that from the interview we can not confirm whether she does or does or does not read.
I suggest you are taking my comment out of context and not reading the entire material. Further, my sense is that this approach to evaluating my material is based on ideological perspectives, not rational perspectives.
You also are apparenlty insisting that I am concernedwith a portion of the issue which I have explicitly pointed out is by my standards of little concern.
My concern is that if she does read, it appears to have little impact on her.
And if she doesn’t read, then she handled the question poorly.
I did not say anywhere that there was an issue if she does not read.
Please reread my materials again.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 22,
then just say so.
Report comment to moderator
#6, Musing wrote; “…look at my posting: I didn’t say she didn’t read.”
Musing, look at NJLawyer’s posting. She did not say that you said she didn’t read. NJL just made a correct statement: “Just because she didn’t reveal which newspapers, etc., she reads, doesn’t mean she doesn’t read.” NJL’s statement stands.
And looking at your posting, Musing, you did aver “…that she does not appear to be cognisant of what she is reading.”
That is a blatant misinterpretation on your part, Musing, and unfair-minded to boot.
Report comment to moderator
Gov. Palin should have listed some of the books she has read to her children over the years. There may be more widom in them than much of what gets published today.
Report comment to moderator
I skipped down and didnt read other postings.
Does Alaska have any major metro papers?
I spoze we are all able to read all the news you could want from the internet. But I wish she had said something like:
“Oh Katie, you know all the usual pubs: NRA magazine, National Review, HUMAN EVENTS, American Spectator, Today’s Christian Woman..”
I’ve been told that lotsa pols have a staffer whose job involves just skimming all the big headlines and responding if any statemts need to be challenged.
Report comment to moderator
Better we ask “What should Sarah Palin read?”
Did she thoroughly read all the bills she signed into law in AK?
Will she do the same as President of the US Senate?
Report comment to moderator
I can think of a few other possible explanations (besides those already suggested above) for her answer (“whatever is put in front of me”).
One - She is not selecting her own reading material, so she is not pondering titles and authors as she picks up what she reads (as I would be, so that I could look for similar titles or authors). She absorbs information but not where it came from. The negative of this approach would be, not having a good idea of the sources of the information, she would not have a good idea of their credibility or where to find the information again.
Two - If she does not enjoy the kind of reading she is doing (there may be other kinds of reading she does enjoy that she doesn’t have time for) she is less likely to remember it. I read loads of stuff when I was in college, but if you asked me what I had been reading, I might have had trouble naming books other than those I read for fun. That doesn’t mean I didn’t learn what was in the books, but the sheer volume of it sometimes made it all run together. And would I want to bring up some silly book I read just because I noticed it on the paperback shelf and read it for pure escapism?
Three - From what I have read about her interviews (I haven’t seen this one or any others), she likes to give an answer and stick to it, rather than modifying her answer upon further thought, which might make her appear indecisive. If she initially couldn’t think of anything specific and chose to say “whatever is put in front of me” she might choose to stick to that answer even if she did think of something else (especially if it was something that might not sound very “presidential”), not wanting to give the interviewer the satisfaction of having pried it out of her by repeated questioning. If that is the case, I don’t consider that a positive trait. There’s a time to be decisive, but an interview isn’t necessarily that time.
Report comment to moderator
I would have greatly enjoyed it had Sarah Palin, when asked that question by Couric, replied something like this:
“What do I read?”
“First let me tell you what I DON’T read - I don’t read the Communist Manifesto - I read it once, and it was a crock of manure. In other words, I probably don’t read what Barack Hussein Obama reads.”
“Which I suppose you think is a shame, since you and your fellow so-called ‘journalists’ (sneer, here) are so diligently prostituting yourself and your integrity to his election, asking nothing substantial of him and wetting yourself whenever he speaks, but engaging in smears and slander against his opponents.”
“So: What else do I NOT read?”
“I don’t read your left-wing commentaries in the trash tabloids such as the NYTimes, nor do I read the partisan slanderous anti-American bigoted racist and sexist rants that you like to call ‘news’. ”
“I don’t read transcripts of the so-called sermons of Obama’s minister and spiritual and political mentor, the so-called ‘Reverend’ Jeremiah Wright, as he curses American, preaches racial hatred, and incites violence.”
“I don’t read the manifestos of William Ayers or his ‘wife’ who helped launch Obama’s political career in the corrupt corriders of the Chicago political machine - after all, these are the same individuals who yet pride themselves on killing police officers and blowing up innocent people.”
“I don’t read the horribly convoluted and chilling legal justifications that Barack Obama gives for the act of delivering a full-term child and then murdering her by sticking a sharp instrument in her brain, then cutting up the pieces and dropping them in a waste bin. I don’t read his phrases like morally justifying that by saying ‘it is above my paygrade’.”
“So you want me to continue on this ‘reading’ angle?”
“Or maybe you want to move on to the next question?”
“Your call, Couric.”
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 28,
so are you in disagrement with my fundamental question that she does not seem to be cognisant of what she is reading?
By the way this statement would apparantly be true whether she is reading any material or not: she stalled during the question.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 33,
I agree that an answer of that sort you are suggesting would have indeed been information laden and would have allowed us to evaluate Palin better.
Note that she did not answer as you described.
Report comment to moderator
Has any VP candidate ever been subjected to such scrutiny? What does the Democratic nominee for President read?
Report comment to moderator
The thing is, Pauline, she was given three opportunities to mention even one book or periodical, and she didn’t or couldn’t. One can draw a reasonable conclusion from that, which would not be favorable to Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob post 36,
but as noted, she could have easily said she would prefer not to answer.
It is the disconnect between what appears to be her world and the question that was asked which appears to be interesting.
This isn’t a hard question. Apparently none of the materials she presumably does read have any impact on her.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob: According to Obama’s own memoirs, he has spent a good deal of time reading Marxist-Leninist works - purposely sought them out, actually, due to his feeling an affinity with the ideology itself (complex motivations in his history here due to his father who was a Marxist-Leninist-Socialist ‘intellectual’, such as that is).
Presumably, as an extremely close spiritual and political disciple of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, he has read and absorbed important elements of ‘Black Liberation Theology’, which, simply put, is raw anti-American racism and bigotry that the most extreme members of the KKK or the Aryan Nation could appreciate.
Evidence might point to the fact that he has read Machiavellia’s ‘The Prince’, as he has displayed an enormous capacity to lie and subvert and slander in order to gain power, although incompetently, but supported and covered up for by the controlled media that champions him.
I could go on, but you get the idea of the readings that have informed the man we know as Barack Hussein Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Couric’s question was a softball, and you all know it. I can understand why you all (who still defend her even while most conservative pundits are suggesting she step down) are embarrassed at her deer in headlights reaction to a such a basic and frankly conversational question, but it is not the left that is unhinged.
One really would expect some basic things to pop on on the regular reading list of a Republican governor. The Wall Street Journal, Economist, Christian Science Monitor, and the local Anchorage paper could have been rattled off “Sarah Palin list” style, but she choked up even on that. Considering that she had just met with Henry Kissinger “Diplomacy” would have also been a good thing for that list.
Kbells response in 15 is cynical, paranoid, and idiotic.
That question was WAY more revealing than Couric could have possibly intended it to be.
Report comment to moderator
What newspapers do you read or what magazines do you subscribe to?
Pretty simple questions. Everybody here can answer them.
Why can’t Sarah Palin?
In my unofficial job I go into a lot of homes, two or three a day.
There is a substantial number of homes here in WV where there are no newspapers and no books at all. I was in one last week where there was a Bible, some school books for the three kids, not a newspaper in sight and not a single other book anywhere. Well, maybe the “Care and Feeding your Cockatiel” booklet counts, but that was it. Oh yeah, there were three flat screens, and two elaborate video gaming set ups. And a couple of magazines.
They were very nice people, a senior claims adjuster and a Pentagon techie, and the kids were beautifully behaved. But I certainly wouldn’t want either of them to hold national office.
Report comment to moderator
We should ask legislators at any level what bills they’ve authored co-sponsored and whyso. Also which laws did they or would they vote to repeal. Is Sarah particularly proud or ashamed of putting her sig to any bills or city council resolutions? Whyso?
Again, unlike Barack and Biden she lacked the luxury of consulting 99 others prior to affixing that signature.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle: I did respond to your question about the homeowner in yesterday’s bailout thread. Short answer is that he lost his downpayment less the second mortage. He may still owe $150K on the first note.
Report comment to moderator
Now of course while what one reads or whether one reads may be of arguable import to the election, a working knowledge of key supreme court cases does seem to be a reasonable request for knowledge of a national leader.
And the apologia for Palin apparenlty not know any cases other than Roe v. Wade?
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 39,
so you do argue that knowing the rading habits of the candidates is important?
In which case Palin would arguably have blown it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: You display astounding illogic.
We do not know what Palin reads. She did not divulge that because she knew that the prostitutes in the Democrat-controlled media machine would twist and distort it, no matter WHAT she said she read.
We DO know what Obama reads - or has read (see my Post 39 for a fairly concise summary). Note, Obama has not been asked this question in a hostile environment, of course. In fact, it is arguable that Obama has been asked ANY question in a hostile environment, with possibly one or two exceptions - which he uniformly screwed up.
Finally, I am not sure about Joe Biden. We presume he reads fairly widely. That is probably true because he has displayed enormous versatility and diversity in what he plagiarizes. To be an accomplished plagiarist, such as Biden, you have to be fairly widely read.
It is the same sense that a master counterfeiter of art must, in many important ways, be extremely artistic himself. So I assume Biden is widely read, based on his impressive plagiarism record.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I didn’t say the conclusion would be favorable to Palin. I merely pointed out some more possible explanations for her answer. And two of them, as I pointed out, would reflect unfavorably on her.
I know some wonderful people who don’t read. I find it very strange to go into their house and see absolutely no reading matter (not even a TV Guide, since these days you can get the programming schedule on TV). I would trust the one guy with my life (especially as he’s an EMT). But, like Arcadia, I wouldn’t want to elect him to high office.
I’m still undecided - between McCain/Palin and voting for a third party. I don’t consider the question of what she reads a deciding factor - but together with other things (that each by themselves would not be either), it might be.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Arcadia.
Perhaps a better question is, what do the candidates’ advisors read–aren’t they the ones really calling the shots?
Report comment to moderator
Drill, I too would have enjoyed seeing Palin answer as in #33, but I would have enjoyed even more her ticket’s subsequent plummet through the polls.
As for the question, I know many of the liberal blogs are acting like Palin couldn’t name any magazine or newspaper that she read because she doesn’t read any and doesn’t even know what they are. I think that highly unlikely. Even someone who doesn’t read newspaper could rattle off a couple titles.
I think one of these two scenarios far more likely that didn’t want to “tip her hand” as to her ideology and give the media more points of attack. If she had answered, for example, “I read WORLD Magazine for news from a biblical worldview,” the media would be all over WORLD like flies on a cowpie, dredging up any errors (I seem to remember a 2004 story about secret documents “proving” that WMDs were in Iraq but the liberal media didn’t want to cover it), its most egregious examples of bias. WORLD would have seen snippets from their stories (edited for greatest dramatic effect) all over the news as ridiculous right-wing propaganda that Palin buys.
She probably could have gone with safe answers, like “The New York Times and the Washington Post,” but she knows something of McCain’s increasingly testy relationship with the media and didn’t want to appear to be endorsing any outfit that criticized him. And there are many.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 46,
why you are miming exactly my point:
“We do not know what Palin reads. ”
since she did not reveal any reading material in her interview.
Astounding that you and I are in agreement, as you would have seen if you had been reading from my post 6 where I said exactly this!
Report comment to moderator
Se lets look closelyo at the material:
1) we can not tell whether Sarah Palin reads any material: she didn’t tell us and we have no other information
2) if she does read, the materials she was reading apparently were not impactful enough on her for her to remember to mentio them
- there is the possiblity that she does nto want us to know: the response would then arguably be deceitful
3) and when questioned she stopped cold rather than making a germane statement such as “I would prefer not to discuss it”
So I suggest it is the stall which is of interest with points 2 and 3 being the operatvie issues.
Do I care whether Darah Palin reads? Quite frankly no.
Do I care whether Sarah Palin is able to answer simple questions quickly and clearly? Since she intends to be a national leader: yes.
Do I care whether she integrates what she reads? Since I would hope that the reading helps inform her thought processes: yes.
Report comment to moderator
And the silence reagrding Sarah Palin’s knowledge of supreme court cases in this discussion is itself perhaps telling!
Report comment to moderator
Oh, so now we’re being told (above) that the reason she didn’t answer the questions is because the media would ridicule or poke fun at her? Insanity!
If Sarah can’t handle the “heat” of that question, what’s she gonna do when the media starts asking her questions about her Administration’s policies (if God forbid, she should get elected!)?
Report comment to moderator
I am looking forward to tonight’s debate. I have heard that in the Alaska gubernatorial debates she was the pit-bull-with-lipstick” Sarah Palin, not the deer in the headlights variety. I hope she is the pit bull tonight as well. I cannot wait to see Sen Biden with the deer look.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L post 54,
that is what I have heard as well.
I will be watching closely.
Report comment to moderator
Question: has the McCain campaign already released the Palin wins the debate ad?
They were very efficient at this in the past presidential debate and I am assuming they will be equally efficient with the VP debate.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, come on, people! Have you ever heard of a “mommy moment”? Older folks might have “senior moments”. Everyone stumbles occasionally when speaking. There are many reasons for it. Obama stumbles. Biden gets things plain wrong.
This requirement to brilliantly think on your feet in every situation is bogus. No one can do that. So what if she needs a few minutes sometimes to think something through and give a solid answer.
You will probably accuse me of spin, but I’d much rather have someone in office who doesn’t speak carelessly, and who doesn’t just make something up, than have a smooth operator with an air of infallability–too slick.
BTW, the mocking of Obama’s “ummm”s was also bogus, IMHO. If we insist on Hollywood-type, scripted-sounding instant answers to every little thing, we’ll end up with an actor rather than a statesman.
I want someone with a solid moral compass, who takes the time needed to think issues through carefully much more than I care about how photogenic or oratory he or she is.
This whole critique sounds like a Miss America pageant commentary–how did she do on the question section?!
Wish I knew how to do the emoticon with the rolling eyes…
Report comment to moderator
One other thing about all this bothers me. Why, oh why is Katie Couric vested with all this power? Why are the media so ridiculously powerful, and so unscrutinized themselves?
I DO NOT trust the MSM. I feel wary of them. As far as I can see, the MSM claims to be a watchdog protecting the “little people” like me. So why do I feel so manipulated and condescended to?
Report comment to moderator
JJF #49: That is well-stated; essentially what I had indicated (and some other posters as well); to put it into perspective it should be noted that Palin and her family, including minor children, have been the target of what is almost assuredly the most sustained slander/lie/slime/gotcha organized campaign by so-called ‘mainstream journalists’ (actually paid prostitutes of the Democrat Party) and the willing stooges of the Left on blogs and other media in modern times (maybe throughout human history). So her reticience in answering leading questions from a hostile contemptous interviewer is absolutely understandable, and probably politically smart.
Whether you like her politics or believe she is ‘ready’ to govern (?) is immaterial to the question of extreme media bigotry regarding Sarah Palin - or any conservative woman. Anyone with ANY integrity, of any political stripe, should be incensed at the vicious and one-sided treatment afforded Sarah Palin in the past months.
Report comment to moderator
I went into a newly-constructed million dollar home a few weeks ago and was directed to the “library.” One wall had shelves (tacky shelves, I might add). It was a relatively short wall, and I would have books left over if my books went into that room. That this was called a library shocked me. I would have used the room as an office.
I would have a tendency to agree with Arcadia about a home without books, and I confess to slotting people that way, but I have several lawyer friends who don’t really read other than what they need to read to function as attorneys. I could argue that that should be enough, but it’s not really. Nevertheless, there is at least one lawyer in that group I would trust to handle my own legal problems. And I think she would make a great judge because she has common sense and a good heart as well as a toughness. She understands real life.
What bothers me is that no one asks McCain, Obama or Biden what they read. The real question they’re asking Palin is if she even knows how to read, and that’s just plain nasty. No one questioned Hillary on this either. There are those who accused GWB of not reading even when he had a book in his hand coming off the helicopter. The whole issue is designed to put the person down, not elicit any worthwhile information.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: It is always good to agree.
So, we would agree that it is completely reprehensible and malicious to attack Sarah Palin on ‘what she reads’ as we simply do not know what she reads, because she refused to answer a hostile politically bought interviewer.
Excellent.
And I take it, by extension, that you agree with my assessment of the reading proclivities of both Obama and Biden (see post 39 and 46).
Excellent.
Progress is always good. Not ‘change’, you know. Progress.
Report comment to moderator
If a softball question like this gives Sarah Palin a “senior moment”, what’s she gonna do in a real crisis? She was asked a simple question three times and she went into “robot” mode and started reciting “Whatever is put in front of me”.
As for the Katie Couric interview, this wasn’t some two-bit reporter ambushing her on the campaign trail, shouting “rapid fire” questions. This was an agreed upon, sit down interview. The questions were asked slowly and methodically.
The reason this exchange with Katie Couric is important is because it reveals a woman who is profoundly unprepared to lead this nation. Even some conservatives are saying she’s not ready for the office.
Report comment to moderator
In the final year of her second term as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin subscribed to WORLD.
What gives you the idea that she actually read it????
Report comment to moderator
The real question they’re asking Palin is if she even knows how to read, and that’s just plain nasty.
But it is a logical follow on to hearing her talk!
Report comment to moderator
She hasn’t been to law school, so odds are she wouldn’t know the law by case, and many lawyers don’t know every Supreme Court case. We wouldn’t be paying her to know them either as vice president or president. That’s why executives have counsel to advise them on these issues. Unless you work with case law every day, you won’t remember every case. The only people I have ever met who were walking Westlaws were people like the judge I worked for because they have to be able to draw on it on a daily basis. And even they don’t remember literally every case name. They remember issues.
Report comment to moderator
Have we really come to the point in this country where asking a candidate what they read is a hostile, partisan attack? Are we down to just asking Sarah what her favorite color is or what brand of soap she buys? Or is that too hostile and partisan?
Look, her campaign agreed to do the interview with Katie Couric. If Couric is so “politically bought”, why did Sarah agree to do it? What kind of judgment is that?
Report comment to moderator
momof5 post 48,
when you say:
“One other thing about all this bothers me. Why, oh why is Katie Couric vested with all this power? Why are the media so ridiculously powerful, and so unscrutinized themselves?”
perhaps it is because we the public listen and believe them?
Report comment to moderator
momof5 post 58,
and I am afraid momy momnets are not treated very gently in the rough and tumble of international politics.
Why should they be forgiven here?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
I certainly wouldn’t expect Palin to know every or even most Supreme Court cases. But what I read what that the only one she could name was Roe v Wade.
I would have trouble naming more myself, though I could refer to cases I remember reading about without remembering the parties that gave the case its name. The one about eminent domain a year or two ago (in Connecticut, I think?). The one that overturned the sodomy law in Texas, Lawrence v state of Texas or something like that.
And I would expect someone running for national office to have more knowledge of Supreme Court cases than I do.
Like the question of what she reads, I wouldn’t say that disqualifies her if everything else looks good. It’s a question of whether there are too many things like that. And as I said, I haven’t made up my mind yet.
Report comment to moderator
Look, her campaign agreed to do the interview with Katie Couric. If Couric is so “politically bought”, why did Sarah agree to do it? What kind of judgment is that?
I agree with Nina Totenburg - it’s LOUSY judgment. They keep her bottled up, then subject her to LONG interviews. Briefer spontaneous access to her would almost certainly portray her in a better light. McCain’s staff is clueless - actually, I think they’re just scared …
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 61,
you do have a tendency to out run the evidence.
go back a few steps to the agreement. We had the smae problem with the definiton of Marxism.
We have no idea whether Sarah Palin reads or not.
No one has attacked her on what she reads because we don’t know.
I disagree with your characterization of their reading proclivities (see Drills flexibility with the use of Marxist discussion), but I do suggest that what they read is worth considering.
And if you find that this was true for Obama and Biden, then it would be fair of us to insist that Sarah be equally forthcoming.
Of course she has not, but you seem to be giving her a pass on her opacity here.
But of course my concern was not the reading issue, as I have noted many times, but the pause and blank look.
This is a simple question which can be handled many ways: I would have thought that a national leader would have handled it.
I also note that you have not commented on her similar response regarding supreme court cases.
Hmm, I sense a patttern here reagridng Palin’s answers and possibly a pattern here regarding your apparent apologias for Palin.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 65,
echoing Pauline, the only case she knows apparently is Roe v. Wade.
How about Brown v. Board of Education? Simple and critical still today.
Dredd Scott?
These are issues of national importance and she purports to be ready right now to be a national leader.
Her responses on supreme court cases does not seem to support this assertion on the part of the McCain campaign.
Report comment to moderator
Opinionated Teen: On the other hand, it’s none of ya’ll’s business what she reads, so lay off!
Wrong as can be. This woman wants to hold the second highest office in the country and have a direct line to the top spot should there be a need for the line of succession to be used.
It’s very much my business what she considers her best and favored sources of information.
Report comment to moderator
#34, Musing asked; “so are you in disagrement with my fundamental question that she does not seem to be cognisant of what she is reading?”
Musing, I do not begin to share your prejudicial presumption in the first place. I don’t think you have the slightest idea of what Sarah Palin is cognisant of, and it is proudly presumptive of you to think you do.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline brings a lot of common sense to this issue. It’s not simply that Palin couldn’t (or wouldn’t) name her sources of information. If that had been one gaffe in an otherwise coherent run, it would be a non-issue. But Palin commits gaffe after gaffe that all imply a profound ignorance on national issues.
And even though I believe she surely could have named a paper or two but had political motivations not to, if she did read more broadly, she surely could have named a moderate to conservative paper (maybe the National Review or the American Spectator). I think those titles did not occur to her because she is not widely read. But I do not think, as the liberal blogs seem to be saying, that she is so stupid she can’t name even a single US magazine or paper.
Finally, the media coverage of her has been pretty rough. But deservedly so. It is not fairness or evenhandedness to pretend that stupid people are smart just because many in America would like to believe that. She has hidden from the media, and every time she makes an appearance she just looks dumber. She fumbles even easy passes. She’s not qualified to lead.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 74,
so you refuse to answer a simple question?
Yes or o would be fine.
You are right, all I have is her blank stare when asked what books she is reading.
It is therefore a reasonable induction that:
1) she hasn’t read any
2) she is not cognisant of what she has read
If you take away possibility 2 then I will adopt possibility 1 because such a stop in the middle of the interview is indeed worthy of consideration. but I will let it be your call here.
When I add this to the supreme court cases question, of course, the concern and puzzlement gets even stronger. She should have been able to name more than one supremem court case.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: It would be interesting for all of the candidates (especially the presidential candidates) to be put for several weeks or months into a perpetually hostile smear and slander environment in which both they and their families are slandered (actually sometimes most vilely and obscenely) by the media, then, within a hostile interview, to be each asked identical questions - and see what their responses might be. Then you would have a comparison worth something.
I suspect they would all range approximately in the same general vicinity of what Palin did - pause and consider exactly what the interviewer - and the smear machine behind the interviewer - is angling to get.
Only Palin (not even McCain) has been subjected to the most incredible campaign of distortion and slander in recent history - her hestitation at even the most bland question coming from such as Couric is not only understandable, but probably wise.
The Democrat candidates, as I have said, have been completely insulated from ANY questions of any significance at all - especially in a hostile environment.
On balance, I think Palin has done pretty well, considering. The fact that the polls are indicating movement away from McCain-Palin is hardly surprising - given the intensity of the drumbeat of hatred and misinformation/negativity directed at them (and especially Palin) by the media in general. It is sadly not surprising that you have a fraction of the populace that is too unintelligent or independent minded to counter how it is told to think by the media.
What is probably most surprising is the fact that even with the almost monolithic media working overtime to defeat McCain and Palin and see Obama elected, the race is as competitive as it is.
Apparently there are still quite a few Americans who don’t particularly want to be told exactly how they are to think - and vote.
While they persist, the Republic still has a chance.
Report comment to moderator
JJF post 75,
I agree it is not that she couldn’t or wouldn’t per se, it is that she stopped cold and then basically fluffed.
Had she said it was none of our business it wuold have been mostly a non-issue.
I don’t think she is dumb, in fact it is pretty clear she is very street smart.
But she seems out of her league when answering even simple questions on the national stage: the gaffe comment you made.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 77,
actually Obama has been in hostile smear conditions for about 18 months during the primary season and about four months so far during the election season.
McCain has been at this fopur at least eight years if not more, and the smears in 2000 in South Carolina were very rough.
Sarah Palin has been in the game for barely one month.
It has been a rough month, but in many ways she has set herself up for it.
But it has been only one month.
Is she this fragile?
Report comment to moderator
#76, Musing wrote; “so you refuse to answer a simple question?”
Huh? Musing, you are insufferably closed-minded or cognitively disabled. I answered your question and in case you missed it, the answer is, yes, I am in fundamental disagreement with your question, your presumption and most anything you write.
Report comment to moderator
#77 What a load of nonsense… as if Palin has been super-scrutinized (or somehow maligned) compared to the rest. She *has* been scrutinized more speedily, since access to her on the national scene has been for SUCH A SHORT TIME! But the cumulative overview is still spare. Joe Biden has been on Meet the Press, what, over 70 times? Palin has been on …. oh never mind.
Report comment to moderator
Senior Moment? Not remembering that Hoover was president in 1929 and that there was no tv at the time — now that’s a senior moment!
I know a man who has been a law school dean, worked for a Supreme Court Chief Justice, at the FBI, teaches generals about terrorism, and the list could go on. He is well-read and would pass all your tests, but he doesn’t relate to normal, everday people. And normal, everday people relate to Sarah Palin, and they have a right to vote for her if they so desire. Some things I would trust him with more, but he has never known a time in his 50 plus years where he had to choose what bill to pay. He has no idea what it is like to be a normal person, so he has no problem saying $5 or $10 in taxes per week is no hardship. For many that $520 dollars a year is the difference between eating and not eating. We all say we want “change.” Maybe it’s time to have someone who understands what it is to run a household.
The real problem here is that Palin is a Republican, so she has to be defeated. You guys seem to think that Biden knows everthing. He doesn’t, and what he doesn’t know, he makes up or steals.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama were in hostile smears, everyone would know about his relationship with Ayers and how closely they worked together. They don’t.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 83,
and what documented relationships with Ayers are you aware of?
He and Obama were on a board together at one time and Ayers did donate $200 to an early Obama campaign.
Any other issues? and your evidence?
I thought not.
This truly is a dead horse which has been thrashed many times.
Report comment to moderator
The real problem is that the CCR’s think nobody should be allowed to question or challenge Sarah Palin. (Well, except for Sean Hannity, who worship and adores her).
Dang right, Sarah Palin is being heavily scrutinized! She was sprung on the American people 2 months before the election. We have the right and the responsibility to “vet” a person who’s asking for the second highest office in our nation.
If Sarah can’t handle one month of scrutiny, how is she ever going to handle 4 years of it?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 82,
I suggest that McCain is defeating himself quite nicely. He needs little additional assistance.
Palin however has been noted by an increasing number of conservatives as being not up to the job.
She has been stonewalling the Alaskan ethics investigation.
And of course the McCain campaign has indicated it will not release her medical records.
Yup - this is a person who is a transparent open book which the public can scrutinize and about whom the public can make reasoned conclusions.
You find Sarah approachable and want to vote for her (note the comment about voting for Palin).
I find her unqualified and do not intend to vote for the McCain ticket. But not because of Palin, but because McCain is out of touch with the key issues presently challenging America.
Increasingly it appears that the public agrees.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
You go on, and on, and on, and on about the same small things. Yet, as Drill points out, you have no answer (in fact, you ignore) the very serious, very consistent, and very large gaffes of Obama and Biden. (Just like the MSM.)
Honestly, you couldn’t be more partisan. Yet, you accuse us of it and you think you’re so very logical.
It’s a shame really. Nothing worse than someone who is SURE he’s more intelligent than everyone else.
Report comment to moderator
Increasingly it appears that the public agrees.
******It surprises me greatly that an elitist would care what the masses think. After all, they are just sheep.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 87,
or the gaffes that McCain makes which get buried by the press?
The issue here of course is that Sarah Palin is seen so little that what few sightings we get get overblown.
Of course she seems to be making a high percentage of gaffes as well.
At some point, however, the complaint that the McCain camp is not letting Sarah be herself may in fact be triggering her problem here.
I believe it was Random name who suggested that more shorter press contacts would probably be a better format for Sarah.
In any event this is how the McCain campaign is playing it (sequestering Sarah except for occaissioanl sightings) and the game is playing out that way.
Report comment to moderator
As I understand it, Ayers was on the Board of Directors of Obama’s “lost years” (those not included in his book) community organization. They’ve worked together on that board, Ayers helped put a very young person in a “high” position in that group, which is very different from what Obama wants people to think — that he was 8 years old when Ayers was bombing things. Sure, he was, but Ayers didn’t die, and continued his radical work and brought Obama into it, and that should be brought out and “scrutinized” just as Palin’s beauty pageant days are. Ghere’s more to it than being on the same board and $200 bucks. The board does nothing? I find that hard to believe. No board I’ve ever known about did nothing.
So, let’s say when Obama shares those lost years, maybe then Palin’s medical records should be scrutinized. I fail to see the interest in her gynecological history, however.
Nor do we hear a discussion of the mandatory volunteer service that will be imposed on children! Obama wants to tie federal money to “volunteer” service. It’s not voluntary if it’s mandatory, and no one wants to talk about it, certainly not in the MSM.
Scrutiny is one thing. I’m all for openness, but then it should be done across the board. And that’s not being done. We have someone here who “presumes” that Biden reads. Why presume that? And why not presume that Palin reads? The objection being made is that the scrutiny is not across the board.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 87,
I have never pretended not to be partisan.
I have tried to keep my facts straight and when I make an error (as I did on the voting totals from Monday) I try to apologize.
I also try to keep my logic rigorous, but that is less easy to evaluate independently. What is interesting is that people seldom attack my logical structure, they typically attack my presentation and style.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 90,
it is well documented and agreed to that Obama and Ayers were on a board together.
And your point?
Do you have other informaton on this relationship?
The right loves to raise this issue but when I ask for substance to the issue they provide none.
NOw by contrast there are phone recordings of Palin’s staff exerting undue influence to try to get Whooten fired. There are copius records supporting that a number of her staff apparenlty including her husband Todd made such contacts.
the Alaskan legislature before Palin was nominated for VP initiated an investigation and Palin agreed to coperate with hit.
She and all her aides now refuse to testify.
Now we have evidence of an apparent abuse of power and clear evidence of obstructuion of an investigation.
You have an inference regarding “the lost years” for whihc you con provide no evidence.
Which of these should receive higher credance?
It is my understaidng that a possible outcome of the Alasakan investigation is impeachment.
The possible outcome of proving your insinuatons is at best bad publicity.
Now why do you think that the Ayers issue deserves credance when you appear to be white washing the Alaskan investigation?
I am indeed detecting a very strong double standard here.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: It is curious (and entertaining in the usual dismal way) to imagine how the assorted goons and slaves of the Left would react if McCain had been say associated with (politically and socially) with Timothy McVeigh - which is completely analogous to Obama’s association with William Ayers, the cop-killing terrorist.
In such a scenario, McCain would not even be considered fit for a dog-catcher, much less Senator, much less President of the United States.
The rank hypocrisy of the Left (and the willing tools of the Left here) on this issue and so many others involving Obama’s incredibly radical and anti-American past would be funny, if this was not a game being played with the stakes the future of this country.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 90,
nor do we hear when McCain suggests we need a draft.
I find this comment peculiar:
“Nor do we hear a discussion of the mandatory volunteer service that will be imposed on children! ”
the only service program I am aware of from th eObama camp is an opportunity to receive tuition credit for performing volunteer work. I am not aware of a mandatory component.
And yes, medical records are quite traditional for all candidates in a presidential election. Eagleton’s records were in fact his undoing.
Biden has agreed to provide his, although he has not done so yet.
Obama as I understand it provided his.
McCain allowed his to be reviewed under very controlled circumstances.
Palin’s will not be released.
The difference here is very clear.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 93,
so many errors so little time.
but do consider: McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City blast and executed. As I understand it Ayers has been convicted of nothing.
And people in this country are innocent until proven guilty.
So yes there is a difference.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: It is also curious (and dismally entertaining) how Musing equates a minor firing of an utterly incompetent and insubordinate state official by Sarah Palin (a state official who incidentally also refused also to fire a state trooper who admitted to assaulting a minor child with a taser and who threatened the Palin family) with the known fact that Barack Obama was a close political associate and friend of William Ayers, including visiting him in his home, receiving campaign contributions from him, and working closely together on kindred political/community activities. This, coupled with Obama’s 20 year stint under the tutelage of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, apparently causes Musing and others NO problem at all.
Wow.
Report comment to moderator
Look, Sarah Palin has been given the mantle of the “Fourth Member of the Holy Trinity” by the conservative Christian Republicans. Thus, it’s blasphemy to question her or challenge her. God cannot be questioned or challenged, and neither can Sarah Palin. She is to be worshiped and adored - that’s all.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Ah. So you deny that William Ayers was a known (and admitted) member of the radical Underground Weatherman terrorist group which killed and planted bombs and that William Ayers stated that this was the ‘Red Army in America’?
And do you also deny that William Ayers has been on record as stating he is glad for what that group did and wish that they could have done more?
And do you also deny that William Ayer’s wife Bernadine Dohrn “famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered ‘fork’ gesture its official salute.”
Not really like Timothy McVeigh - much much worse - because you and other leftists have protected this low-life scum for years from the justice he (and she) deserve and the crimes they openly brags about.
And Barack Obama is closely associated (politically and socially) with Ayers - their thinking and motivations are complementary, if not the same.
And yet you try to equate this with the ridiculous ‘investigation’ by rabid Democrats of Palin for rightly firing a dud administrator under her for insubordination and incompetence (all documented) and you (in the balance) come down on the side of child abuse as well.
The lows just keep getting lower, Musing. Just how deep will you and your comrades go?
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 96,
hmm let me see, we are going to allow our potential president to show that they will misuse their power for vindicitve personal ends, a process which would appear to be illegal and for which there is osolid evidence, and compare it to a misama of suppositions around a person who has not been convicted of any crime.
You are indeed amusing Drill. We perilously close to the rubber definitions discussion again.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 98,
when you say:
“So you deny that William Ayers was a known (and admitted) member of the radical Underground Weatherman”
and I of course agree.
But Ayers was not convicted of illegal activity with the weathermen, and so under the law is presumed innocent, or perhaps you have forgotten this aspect of the american legal system.
So we appear to be doing a compound guilt by association problem, and I bleive the first stpe in your syllogism has failed.
This seems as bad as your effort to show that Obama is in favor of killing children after bith. that was a fallacious logical effort and this one appears to be also.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 98,
and I am still waitng for proof thatthere is any association with Ayers other than:
1) both Obama and Ayers were on a board together
2) Ayers donated $200 to an early Obama campaign
Do you have any additional evidence?
I thought not.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 98,
you do seem to confuse your own suppositioons for evidence or fact.
Get some evidence to tie your links together and then come back to me on this point.
I look forward to your new evidence beyond that already stipulated.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 98,
and there are documents and tapes of phone calls documenting this abuse of power.
And yes, I do find it inappropriate for president to use their office for their own personal vendettas: I was alive during the Nixon’s enemies list and it was not pretty.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: The only thing that is rubber is the integrity of those who would try to obscure and justify Obama’s past and beliefs.
And methinks the integrity of such an individual has been stretched beyond the breaking point far too many times.
I don’t think it (the integrity of such a person) can even muster a whimper anymore, but just huddles up in whatever dark dank dungeon of the leftist soul it is kept in, dreading the sound of the approaching footsteps of its jailers. . . knowing that yet another stretching and yanking session on the rack is coming. Perhaps frantically wondering just what incredibly hideous historical fact it will be required to conform to, and agree with, and justify this time . . .
Talking about torture. I wonder. Can the left be indicted on charges of torturing their integrities?
Report comment to moderator
Okay Musing,
Since you can’t follow a trail of logic, let’s just stick to plain facts.
How is it that Obama gets a pass from you on his 20 year membership in a church that preaches Black Liberation Theology and hatred?
And, if you’re going to tell me that he can sit in such a church for 20 years and not be effected by such hate, then I have some swamp land in Florida that I’d like to sell you.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Musing. I was ready to rely on your synopsis of the housing bubble on another thread, but you’re eroding your credibility here.
Drill & NJL are making HUGE, important points, but you’re being dismissive.
Comparing “scandal” to scandal, it blows my mind that anyone could consider Palin more corrupt than Obama.
Comparing resumes, it is utterly amazing to me that anyone could consider Palin less experienced than Obama.
Perhaps it’s just that her name recognition is less, since she’s just recently emerged on the national scene.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Obama is on record as being in favor of killing infants born alive. He is on record as supporting the practice known as partial birth abortion. If you wish to deny matters of record, that is your business.
You might do so for three reasons: 1) you are stupid (you are not), 2) you are ignorant of it (you are not) or 3) you are willing to suspend your dignity as a human being and integrity as a citizen to support and justify (or deny) child murder because you simply favor a candidate who practices the enabling of it.
That, again, is your business as a free citizen.
But pray do not waste my time, your time, or the time of the good people who might be reading these threads with endlessly repeated nauseating justifications of the unjustifiable.
Children are dying while you pontificate, Musing. And yet you pontificate, on and on and on.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Perhaps you should try some other angle. You cannot win against known and uncontested facts from Obama’s past. (At least in a forum not controlled and manipulated by those you so willingly parrot and serve):
From politico.com news” “In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.
Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.”
Wow. And you want to (somehow) compare that with Palin’s justified firing of an incompetent and insubordinate admiinistrator (all well documented and properly done) who among other things refused to fire an employee who had abused a child (admitted to it, actually).
You know, I am not really sure that you even have the capability or discernment anymore to genuinely differentiate this anymore - so perhaps I should not be so harsh in my assessment of your position here, such as it is.
It seems that there might be a point of no return in terms of embracing partisan bias and bigotry - even to the point of intentionally justifying or excusing the murder of children.
Too bad, if you are past that point, Musing. I hope not. I hope my instincts are wrong on this.
Report comment to moderator
“Look, Sarah Palin has been given the mantle of the “Fourth Member of the Holy Trinity” by the conservative Christian Republicans.”
That’s a little over the top and a tad blasphemous, but I think that’s mixed even on this board. I have no problem with her becoming VP, other Christians, who may be far better versed in Scripture, disagree and are entitled to their opinion. There’s nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about having someone who agrees with my views on abortion and family. The leftys here are enthusiastic about their candidate, too; indeed, to the point where they have their children singing songs about him.
Report comment to moderator
“Look, Sarah Palin has been given the mantle of the “Fourth Member of the Holy Trinity” by the conservative Christian Republicans.”
I agree with NJL here. This was over-the-top, probably blasphemous, and certainly doesn’t even begin to reflect reality.
We see her faults. Some of us don’t like her at all. Some of us like her better than the alternative. Some of us genuinely like her. Few (if any) think she can do no wrong.
And, for someone whose candidate has been hailed like a Messiah figure, I think it is a pretty hypocritical remark.
Report comment to moderator
#10 NJL,
I saw the YouTube kids singing a Barack hymn. It seemed like something out of Havana or Pyongyang (or even Berlin in 1936).
Report comment to moderator
There is NO reason someone like Ayers would recruit someone who wasn’t a radical like himself. I can only agree with Drill’s WOW! There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I would refer Musing to the Volokh Conspiracy regarding the mandatory “volunteer” program Obama has in mind. I could have sworn I mentioned this days ago. They have quite a few threads on it. Obama wants to impose this on middle school children in exchange for federal funds. Schools won’t be turning money away, so when the make 50 hours a year a requirement for kids to move onto the next grade and/or graduate, that’s mandatory, and that’s not tuition assistance either.
All I want is for Palin to have a chance, a real fair chance. She will either pass or fail, but she deserves a chance to be heard and make her case, so to speak, without all these presumptions that she’s an idiot. If the MSM had done the same hatchet job on Nancy Pelosi — who is clearly … well, let me not state the obvious — I would be the first to say what’s been going on with respect to Palin has been fair. But Dem women don’t get mocked this way.
The chips fall tonight. Some of us will be praying for Palin. She’s worked hard and helped her community. She deserves a fair shot as a person, if for no other reason. Liberals/leftists say they believe in equality, but evidently, not for her because she is a Republican. That makes me sad. What has she done that as an American she can’t get a fair shake from other Americans?
Report comment to moderator
Liberals/leftists say they believe in equality, but evidently, not for her because she is a Republican.
Hogwash. She’s getting her chance. She’s being weighed on the merits of her views, knowledge and positions, not her sex. That’s all equality means. We’re not bound to support her because she’s a woman.
Your paranoid fears that Obama wants to forcibly re-educate children are just weird.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, if liberals/leftys do believe in equality, Palin would be treated fairly. That’s not happening. Even Geraldine Ferraro says it isn’t happening. Never have I seen such fear and loathing of a pretty face — and that’s what it comes down to. I do not hear ANY positive statements about Palin from the MSM. Nothing. You liberals should be ashamed of yourselves.
Go read the information at the Volokh. Mandatory is NOT voluntary. I don’t expect you to — it’s easier to call me paranoid than face facts. Even Michelle has told children that it’s coming. The government has NO business mandating “voluntary” work in exchange for money. That it does not bother you that you accept such a mandate without even knowing what’s in it indicates to me that you will let the government do anything and everything to you. It’s sad when people define mandated as voluntary.
The men and women who fought the Revolution would be shocked. I know I am that you won’t even investigate. I’ll bet section 105(d) didn’t bother you either.
Report comment to moderator
What I consider “blasphemous” is the Palinite worship we’re treated to every day on here by the CCR’s. They simply cannot abide any criticism of her what-so-ever. I remember not that far back when the CCR’s were raising cain on here about the “Obama worship”. Well, they doubled down on that, when they fell gobsmack in love with Sarah Palin.
Report comment to moderator
Before I answer the post, perhaps this video may contribute to the religious discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7-qzz8_7RE
As for the post, if she didn’t want to reveal the exact nature of reading — she could have easily said the truth; her campaign staff go through a variety of newspaper and give her the relevant articles. Prior to the campaign her staff in Alaska probably did the same. She couldn’t answer a softball question which appears from the video to be a mere warm-up — what will she do when she really does meet Putin?
In an other situation she lists the British ambassador as a person she had met. However, the British ambassador failed to attend the governors meeting in Washington because he was sick. Hence she could not have met him. Her staff may have noticied that he was still on the invite list from that meeting and suggested it was possible for her to fudge it.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3g5jyd
Report comment to moderator
Anlir: To my knowledge the crowds surrounding Palin have not been sufficiently aroused by her Messiahship to throw their underwear at her, and swoon by the dozens. You make fun of Pentecostal church services? - Try an Obama rally - it is even funnier. Nor to my knowledge have us horrible CCR’s (?) brainwashed our children into singing paeons and hymns to her. Obama’s supporters do; strangely similar to what happened in Nazi Germany in 1936 ((Sawgunner is chillingly correct there).
Finally, it is so terribly true that the horrible CCR’s on this web site are simply pointing out hard facts in Obama’s past and in his record which are matters of record (and not even contested by him). And yet the broader media totally ignores these things and focuses on the trivial, i.e. Sarah Palin firing an incompetent and insubordinate administrator, who was beside his other well-documented failures protecting a child abuser - which is now the subject of a Democrat ‘investigation’ (read ye usual old smear job). And when this asymmetry is brought into the light, you start hollering about ‘Palin-worship’.
Really.
If you must deal in fiction, at least think up something remotely interesting and at least plausible.
The huge asymmetry in the moral conscience (such as it is) of the modern leftist is truly astonishing.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Go read the information at the Volokh. Mandatory is NOT voluntary. I don’t expect you to — it’s easier to call me paranoid than face facts. Even Michelle has told children that it’s coming. The government has NO business mandating “voluntary” work in exchange for money. That it does not bother you that you accept such a mandate without even knowing what’s in it indicates to me that you will let the government do anything and everything to you. It’s sad when people define mandated as voluntary.
I DO know what’s in it. And according to Obama, it is voluntary. I never did put much stock in Eugene Volokh and still don’t.
The idea that youth should be encouraged to spend some time in a service position to their country is not a new one. A lot of people over many decades have suggested that there should be some sort of youth service — and many have suggested it should be mandatory — for the purpose of instilling a sense of charity, patriotism and community.
But because it’s that scary guy with the dodgy middle name actually making it a policy position, the conspiracy theories explode. He’s going to brainwash our children! Going to make them into atheistic socialists! Run!!
Puh-leeze.
One more thing …
That it does not bother you that you accept such a mandate without even knowing what’s in it indicates to me that you will let the government do anything and everything to you.
I am REALLY tired of this shoddy thinking from some people that leads them to conclude things like this. “If you don’t agree with me about this program, you must be willing to let the government do anything to you.” Or, “If you don’t agree with me that X is morally wrong, you must have no moral standards at all.”
It’s arrogant.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
your continued unsupported posts lieing about Obama is now pretty well established.
We went through you attempt to “prove” that Obama approves of killing babies after birth for example, and your “proof” fell apart on your partisan assumptions which could not be supported factually.
We have seen a similar behavior surrounding the meaning of marxist.
There is a pattern here, and it I suggest that it sriously impedes the credibility of your posts.
If you could provide some facts and use rigorous logic we can actually establish some of what you are arguing. You push too far with what would appear to be partisan bias and you falsify and discredit your whole argument.
As an example, I actually was working with you on Jeremiah Wright to establish a viable and supportable position: you chose again to out run your facts and logic and your argument became hash.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: You seem to like putting yourself into the position of a charlatan salesman frantically and unceasingly trying to sell the plans of a perpetual motion machine to a bunch of overly polite thermodynamicists - I am not sure exactly what you think you are proving by trying to pretend that matters of public record (as in Obama’s voting record) are not well established and well known, here and elsewhere.
But that is your business. It is sort of dismally funny, but sort of pathetic as well, especially as children are dying as we write - thanks to the policies of your candidate - and you.
Speaking of patterns.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: By the way, Musing - the use of accusations of lying regards fellow bloggers is outside the rules of engagement. I did it once, was told, and try to avoid it.
I will, however, concur that somebody is lying, Musing. That is for certain.
Report comment to moderator