Month: September 2008

Nick Carr, as is his wont, contemplates the theological underpinnings of Google:

Google differs from Microsoft in at least one very important way. The ends that Microsoft has pursued are commercial ends. It’s been in it for the money. Google, by contrast, has a strong messianic bent. The Omnigoogle is not just out to make oodles of money; it’s on a crusade – to liberate information for the masses – and is convinced of its righteousness in pursuing its cause. Depending on your point of view as you look forward to the next ten years, you’ll find that either comforting or discomforting.

Do you think Palin knows what habeas corpus even is? I missed this speech by Obama from a few days ago. It’s worth reading:

Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," he said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’"

The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don’t always have the right person."

"We don’t always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it’s Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it’s Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."

Obama turned back to Palin’s comment, although he said he was not sure whether Palin or Rudy Giuliani said it.

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It’s because that’s who we are. That’s what we’re protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years."

He finished with a dismissive comment about his opponents.

"These people."

Watching him do this is going to be one of the highlights of this election season. Here’s what Palin said in that absurd interview last night in her speech yesterday:

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

Really? The people who "planned" the 9/11 attack? They’re in Pakistan, governor, where your beloved president allowed them refuge. The people who "carried out" the attacks of 9/11? Most of them are now dead, but the few remaining are in Pakistan, not Iraq. Kristol defends thus:

Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. It makes no sense for Kornblut to claim that Palin is arguing here that Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out 9/11—obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime. Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.

No, but she is saying that the people who planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11 are in Iraq. They’re not. No sane person believes they are. More to the point, Kristol knows that on 9/11 al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t exist in any meaningful form. His president helped create them by invading so incompetently a security vacuum sucked them in. AQI is simply a franchise spawned by 9/11 and the Iraq invasion. To say that entity – created entirely after 9/11, was somehow responsible for 9/11 is piffle.

Memo to Kristol: you may think Palin is sophisticated enough to grasp the high-level fantasies and abstractions that you have devised in your own head to defend the indefensible. But she isn’t, buddy. She has a degree in sports journalism from the University of Idaho, and went to several colleges in several years. She thinks Leo Strauss is a brand of jeans. She doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about. Remember: she doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is and heard about the surge "on the news."

This is your lipsticked pitbull, buddy. Own it. And all the immense incuriosity, minimal education, and fact-resistant ambition that comes with it.

McCain drops his press availability. It’s been a month since his last press conference and there is no word on whether Palin will ever hold one, until she can bamboozle the press past the election. This really is more like Putin’s Potemkin democracy than the tradition of American to-and-fro and open debate. Watching the man who once prided himself on talking to the press and giving straight talk turn into a Bush-Rove controlled propaganda merchant is yet another sign of the creepiness of the current GOP.

Some as-yet-undisclosed details on McCain’s mysterious declaration of numerous interviews with numerous interviews with Palin next week.

I think we should simply demand a press conference. She’s the governor of a state and cannot hold a press conference? What kind of sexism implies that a woman cannot handle the national press corps? But, then, they’ve treated her as they would never, ever treated a male candidate. The GOP’s condescending, protective sexism toward Palin is quite striking at this point.

(Hat tip: Ben Smith)

Pretty much sums up the Palin nomination:

"To see the ridiculous is comic; to be ridiculous is tragic."

Larison tackles Reihan.

Er, what, er:

Gibson:  Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin:  In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson:  What do you interpret it to be?

Palin:  His worldview.

Gibson:  No, No, the Bush Doctrine.  He enunciated it in September 2002, before the Iraq War.

.

Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is to rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership–and that’s the beauty of American elections and democracy–with new leadership comes the opportunity to do things better.

Gibson: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory defense. We have the right to preemptively strike any other country that we believe is going to attack us.

Palin: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.  

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.  

     

Actually, the first priority is to defend the constitution of the United States. Palin doesn’t even know the oath she is supposed to swear. And any serious person who has followed the debates about US foreign policy knows what the Bush doctrine is. But we do not have a serious pick for the vice-presidency in the GOP, do we? We have an absurdity. And a joke.

We have gotten used to Bush’s decision-making style. Minimal input, instant decision, refusal to ever think again, and disdain for any process of thinking things through or ever having second thoughts. Just gut – and instant leaps. This description of how she made the absurd decision to run for vice-president is particularly chilling:

GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

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.

Never blink, never think, just go with your gut. Pure ambition. Minimal thought.

If you loved the last eight years, you’ll love President Palin. I wonder: did they ever ask her the last, routine, basic vetting question:

 

Is there anything more you need to tell us that might potentially damage or embarrass the campaign?

Did they even ask her? If they did, did she say no? I have a feeling this question will be critical in the coming weeks as this hologram of neocon fantasy comes into sharper relief.

"If it doesn’t makes sense, it isn’t true," – Judge Judy Sheindlin.

I’d really like Judge Judy to interview Palin, wouldn’t you?