Month: September 2008

In the context of this discussion, Beldar’s post from a few weeks ago cites Kaylene Johnson’s biography on Palin. He discusses her habit of asking for unanimous family approval when making big political decisions:

Lisa Murkowski had to run for re-election to her U.S. Senate seat in her own right during the next general election. Writes Johnson (at pages 88-89; emphasis mine):

In 2004, friends and supporters urged Sarah to challenge Lisa Murkowski. [By then,] Sarah had made a name for herself as a reformer, and supporters thought she had a good chance of winning. So, Sarah approached her family to discuss the possibility. Like all of her decisions, the decision had to be unanimous.

"People don’t believe me, but it’s true. It had to be a family decision," she said. Todd was up for a move to Washington, D.C. and the girls were on board as well. But son Track, in his early teens, was becoming aware of the contentiousness of a political battle. He valued his privacy, and felt uncomfortable in the limelight. "Track did not want me to run, and he was adamant about it. He had to bless me," Sarah said. "If he had said at the time ‘This is great,’ I would have done it."

Beldar continues later, talking about Bristol’s pregnancy:

I obviously don’t know for sure what conversations Gov. Palin had with her family, and in particular with her daughter Bristol, before giving Sen. McCain her decision. But given this history from 2004 — when a veto from Track stopped her from running for a U.S. Senate seat she might very well have won, in which case she would have become Barack Obama’s Senate classmate — I would wager a very, very large sum of money that Bristol Palin was given a veto right again. I would wager that she was warned, in detail, about the certainty that her privacy would be invaded in a sickening, vicious manner.

And I would wager that Bristol Palin must have said: "Go ahead, mom. Tell Senator McCain ‘Yes.’ I know what’s coming, but my baby and I will be okay."

Obama’s ad on the financial crisis:

McCain’s "Change is coming" ad after the jump:

Here’s Palin’s discussion of how she accepted the surreal offer to be the vice-presidential candidate to John McCain (who’d met her once before):

PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no. GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?

PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

Here’s what she just told Hannity, whose deference was so supine he may have back problems later in life:

 

"It was a time of asking the girls to vote on it, anyway.  And they voted unanimously, yes.  Didn’t bother asking my son because, you know, he’s going to be off doing his thing anyway, so he wouldn’t be so impacted by, at least, the campaign period here.  So ask the girls what they thought and they’re like, absolutely.  Let’s do this, mom."  

 

 

David Skeel considers Palin’s faith. I think Biblical literalists do make the issue harder. If a candidate publicly says that the earth was made 6,000 years ago, for example, and asserts that that is literally true, I do think it makes that candidate’s public statements about science and research subject to discussion.

I assume that Palin is a literalist. But I don’t know for sure, and since we are not allowed to ask her any questions about her faith or her record, it’s very hard to know what to say. I’d like to know, for example, if she favors the Federal Marriage Amendment. I know McCain doesn’t. But I have no idea what Palin’s position is. More to the point: I am not allowed to find out. None of us is allowed to find out. We are required to show "deference". But how can deference tell us what we need to know to make an informed decision?

(Hat tip: Bainbridge)

Josh Marshall is amazed by the extent of Palin’s and McCain’s lies about Troopergate. Obama has ‘tainted’ the investigation? How exactly? Do you trust either Palin or McCain at this point? What would they not lie about?

From the Anchorage Daily News, a conservative columnist ends the deference on Troopergate:

The governor has given so many different reasons for firing Monegan I’ve lost count. From the "we need new direction" and "new energy" to "he wasn’t hiring enough cops," to "he wasn’t doing enough about alcohol in the bush" to "he lobbied for budget increases" to the latest version, which is a doozy; Monegan displayed "egregious rogue behavior."

The governor also originally said that neither she, Todd nor anyone from her administration pressured Monegan regarding Trooper Wooten. Palin then was forced to admit there was serial contact once the Frank Bailey tape surfaced. But she insisted she was just learning of it. But e-mails have surfaced detailing Palin complaining to Monegan about Wooten.

The governor also originally said an investigation was needed and promised to cooperate. Then she instructed her employees not to talk to the investigator and has herself refused to be interviewed.

Palin can’t constantly change her story and expect us to believe her each time she does.

Watch her do it. And watch the national press roll over.

Brian Beutler returns! Here he is tackling Ross’s article on pornography as adultery.

Since McCain didn’t bother, Wikileaks is on the case.

Here’s Palin’s first actual answer to an uncontrolled actual press question:

“Disappointed that taxpayers are called upon to bailout another one. Certainly AIG though with the construction bonds that they’re holding and with the insurance that they are holding very, very impactful to Americans so you know the shot that has been called by the Feds it’s understandable but very, very disappointing that taxpayers are called upon for another one.”

Got that? A reader notes:

You might as well point out that she got her first answer wrong. Construction bonds have nothing to do with it; AIG got in a mess selling Credit Default Swaps. They both start with C, so I guess that’s what threw her.

Another counters:

She was not saying construction bonds are what got AIG in trouble, but that those bonds, and their normal insurance lines, are what make AIG’s demise “impactful” enough to justify a bailout.  Don’t think she’s right substantively, but it’s an unfair shot to say she was confusing cause and impact.

I cannot make out what she was trying to say. But deference, please. And no laughing in the back!

"Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president that he’ll take on, and I quote, ‘the old boys network in Washington.’ Now I’m not making this up. This is somebody who’s been in Congress for twenty-six years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna’ to take on the old boys network. The old boys network? In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting. Come, on!" – Barack Obama, on the stump today.