Palin pick an insult to our intelligence

[Ivan Seeking]

You can trust The News Hour on PBS.

 

[Evo]

It's the same reason why when I read a news article, I google for all of the major news sources as each tends to differ in what they choose to edit out.

Some of the non-mainstream sources I've found tend to edit in personal opinion and make it confusing as to what the main news story really was. Not to mention the often misleading sensationalist title.

 

[LowlyPion]

I went about looking for transcripts. I could not find it on ABC, but was forced to go to the madder ones. In so doing, I took the chance that my post would be deleted on the legitimate fear that the transcripts posted there might undergo editing as well. After all, they were highlighted. Perhaps I just didn't look hard enough on the ABC site.

The Transcript of the Palin interview looks decidedly more complete than the alleged sections edited out.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

This is the ABC link to the transcript, and sections I saw reported earlier as edited out are clearly there.

 

[turbo]

There is a new (to me, anyway) investigative journalism start-up operating as a not-for-profit entity, and their staff is about as mainstream as they come.

ProPublica is led by Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Stephen Engelberg, a former managing editor of The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon and former investigative editor of The New York Times, is ProPublica’s managing editor.

Lead funding for this effort is being provided by the Sandler Foundation, with Herbert Sandler serving as Chairman of ProPublica; other leading philanthropies also providing important support. A Board of Directors and a Journalism Advisory Board have also been formed.

According to them, the "Bridge to Nowhere" project was not killed by Palin, and it is still actively under consideration by the Alaska DOT.
http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-administration-still-pursuing-nowhere-project-913/

"What the media isn't reporting is that the project isn't dead," Roger Wetherell, spokesman for Alaska’s Department of Transportation, said. In a process begun this past winter, the state’s DOT is currently considering (PDF) a number of alternative solutions (five other possible bridges or three different ferry routes) to link Ketchikan and Gravina Island.

The DOT has not yet developed cost estimates for those proposals, Wetherell said, but $73 million of the approximately $223 million Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK) earmarked for the bridge in 2005 has been set aside for the Gravina Access Project.

Here is a PDF image showing the bridges and alternate ferries under consideration. Note that the date of the map is May 16, 2008. The Gravina Access project is alive and well.
http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/projectinfo/ser/Gravina/images/alternative_11x17_v4.pdf

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The Transcript of the Palin interview looks decidedly more complete than the alleged sections edited out.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

This is the ABC link to the transcript, and sections I saw reported earlier as edited out are clearly there.

I saw this article but passed it by because of this paragraph at the top:

The following excerpts are from the ABC News exclusive interview with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in Fairbanks, Alaska, conducted by "World News" anchor Charlie Gibson on September 11, 2008

Excerpts is the issue.

 

[LowlyPion]

I saw this article but passed it by because of this paragraph at the top:

Excerpts is the issue.

Except of course that most if not all of the dialog quoted in the piece you referenced as being edited out and improperly nuanced, as I recall are contained in the ABC version of the transcript.

 

[Evo]

I saw this article so decided to get more information on it.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Governor Palin's Reading List

Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that "some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow…

http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:huffington_post:517c268c04dec5a511d587ac4b0b3c51;_ylt=Ar.1nqnO2sJeNNL_KmGq6c3Zn414

This explains things in much more detail.

This was made clear in the most chilling passage of Palin’s acceptance speech. Aligning herself with “a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri” who “followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency,” she read a quote from an unidentified writer who, she claimed, had praised Truman: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.” Then Palin added a snide observation of her own: Such small-town Americans, she said, “run our factories” and “fight our wars” and are “always proud” of their country. As opposed to those lazy, shiftless, unproud Americans — she didn’t have to name names — who are none of the above.

There were several creepy subtexts at work here. The first was the choice of Truman. Most 20th-century vice presidents and presidents in both parties hailed from small towns, but she just happened to alight on a Democrat who ascended to the presidency when an ailing president died in office. Just as striking was the unnamed writer she quoted. He was identified by Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal as the now largely forgotten but once powerful right-wing Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler.

Palin, who lies with ease about her own record, misrepresented Pegler’s too. He decreed America was “done for” after Truman won a full term in 1948. For his part, Truman regarded the columnist as a “guttersnipe,” and with good reason. Pegler was a rabid Joe McCarthyite who loathed F.D.R. and Ike and tirelessly advanced the theory that American Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe (“geese,” he called them) were all likely Communists.

Surely Palin knows no more about Pegler than she does about the Bush doctrine. But the people around her do, and they will be shaping a Palin presidency. That they would inject not just Pegler’s words but spirit into their candidate’s speech shows where they’re coming from. Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, said that the Palin-sparked convention created “a whole new Republican Party,” but what it actually did was exhume an old one from its crypt.

The specifics have changed in our new century, but the vitriolic animus of right-wing populism preached by Pegler and McCarthy and revived by the 1990s culture wars remains the same. The game is always to pit the good, patriotic real Americans against those subversive, probably gay “cosmopolitan” urbanites (as the sometime cross-dresser Rudy Giuliani has it) who threaten to take away everything that small-town folk hold dear.

Continued...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?hp

 

[Oberst Villa]

(from Evo's post above:)
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Governor Palin's Reading List
Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that "some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow…"


Westbrook Pegler surely was one funny guy, here is something he said about Truman:

After the assassination attempt on Truman in 1950, Pegler berated "hypocrites" for getting excited. "I hope this will be a lesson to Truman," he wrote in a column that was killed by Hearst. "I wasn't shocked, I wasn't horrified, and I believe that most of those who said they were were liars."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896539-1,00.html

It seems he just liked the idea of killing US presidents - makes you wonder: If he were still alive, what would he say about the punks that wanted to kill Obama ?

 

[Evo]

(from Evo's post above:)
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Governor Palin's Reading List
Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that "some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow…"


Westbrook Pegler surely was one funny guy, here is something he said about Truman:

After the assassination attempt on Truman in 1950, Pegler berated "hypocrites" for getting excited. "I hope this will be a lesson to Truman," he wrote in a column that was killed by Hearst. "I wasn't shocked, I wasn't horrified, and I believe that most of those who said they were were liars."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896539-1,00.html

It seems he just liked the idea of killing US presidents - makes you wonder: If he were still alive, what would he say about the punks that wanted to kill Obama ?

What a perfect choice to be quoted by the Vice-Presidential pick! I wonder if the speechwriter harbors some resentment, he is supposed to be President Bush's speech writer.

I read that this speech had been prepared weeks in advance of Palin being picked, but that he "customized" it for her after she was selected, apparently with the Pegler quotes to fit her 'small town America" image.

Palin had no problem taking credit for this speech when it made her "popular". I wonder if she's as willing to take credit for it now?

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin had no problem taking credit for this speech when it made her "popular". I wonder if she's as willing to take credit for it now?

Sadly I think there is little worry by the McCain camp in this regard, because those able to appreciate the irony of the remarks won't be voting for him anyway.

 

[turbo]

Palin loves pork. Still supporting a $600,000,000 bridge project to connect Anchorage to Wasilla (pop 7000). That about $86,000 per man, woman, and child to shorten (or maybe not) some commutes.

The Knik Arm was one of two bridge proposals in Alaska awarded more than $450 million from lawmakers who requested money for special projects in 2005, when Young chaired the House Transportation Committee. Young, Alaska's 18-term congressman, has said Alaska still lacks basic roads, railroads and bridges that were developed long ago in older and less spacious states.

At the time, Palin's running mate for the Republican ticket, Arizona Sen. John McCain, derided both projects as wasteful. He called Young's highway bill a "monstrosity" that was "terrifying in its fiscal consequences."

"I want no part of this," McCain said in a July 2005 statement. "This legislation is not — I emphasize not — my way of legislating."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/palin_bridge_to_wasilla;_ylt=Auqd6rKk8RXYVIL1tjOcwB6s0NUE

 

[Astronuc]

I'll bet that Palin will support a pipeline from the Treasury in Washington to Wasilla.

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin loves pork. Still supporting a $600,000,000 bridge project to connect Anchorage to Wasilla (pop 7000). That about $86,000 per man, woman, and child to shorten (or maybe not) some commutes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/palin_bridge_to_wasilla;_ylt=Auqd6rKk8RXYVIL1tjOcwB6s0NUE

Here is the map of that proposed bridge, and while yes it does shorten the Wasilla to Anchorage commute somewhat, I think seen within the context of shortening the Anchorage to Fairbanks trip, it makes some sense.

http://www.knikarmbridge.com/documents/RegionalConnection.PDF

Is that worth $600M? Not to me. Not for a state of 600K people.

Now on this bridge to Nowhere that flip-flop Palin said "thanks, but no thanks" to, she also said that if the state of Alaska wanted it built they would build it themselves. Sounds like a capital plan for this one as well. Exactly what the US should say "thanks, but no thanks".

If Alaskans want it built - build it themselves. McCain used to be right on this. But with his current desperate sell-out to the far moral right, I'd guess he doesn't quite see the Knik Knack Bridge as quite the abomination of PorkBarrel that he once did.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'll bet that Palin will support a pipeline from the Treasury in Washington to Wasilla.

They say that all politics is local. Well I guess all pork barrel is local too.

Pork barrel is like arm pits. Everyone has them and everyone else's stinks.

 

[LowlyPion]

The real insult to intelligence is the idea that picking an incompetent nominee like Palin, purely to capture the right wing Looney Tunes, could also be used as a distraction from the consequences of McCain's disastrous relationships with the banking industry and his career long positions against banking regulation.

The idea is that we forget his involvement with the Keating schemes of the late 80's, or his tight association with Phil Graham, the no regulation paid lobbyist for banking interests, who would be his Chief Economic Advisor still if he hadn't made the politically damaging statement that the American Public was a nation of whiners.

Just look at where the markets are today reeling under the wages of the current administration's overly lax regulation - a situation that McCain has spent a lifetime promoting.

 

[turbo]

A Palin spokeswoman says that the inquiry into her firing of the state's public safety director is "partisan" and that Palin would not cooperate. Hmmm...a review board made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats, voted unanimously to hire Steve Branchflower, a former DA and victim's rights advocate (who was appointed by Alaska's Republican Legislature) to investigate Monegan's firing, and the Democrats are playing "partisan" politics?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080916/pl_bloomberg/ahcjz0g1k_nu;_ylt=Ar5ckO6MtxnnY64g6Uczvdas0NUE

 

[LowlyPion]

A Palin spokeswoman says that the inquiry into her firing of the state's public safety director is "partisan" and that Palin would not cooperate. Hmmm...a review board made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats, voted unanimously to hire Steve Branchflower, a former DA and victim's rights advocate (who was appointed by Alaska's Republican Legislature) to investigate Monegan's firing, and the Democrats are playing "partisan" politics?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080916/pl_bloomberg/ahcjz0g1k_nu;_ylt=Ar5ckO6MtxnnY64g6Uczvdas0NUE

Palin Won't Cooperate in Probe of Trooper Firing, Campaign Says

And this after saying she would fully cooperate?

For the Bridge to Nowhere?

Against the Bridge to Nowhere?

Is this a confirmation of a FLIP-FLOP trend?

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin has made repeated public statements that she'll cooperate, and that hasn't changed at this point, Van Flein says.

http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/515508.html

The STONEWALLING begins?

Palin Won't Cooperate in Probe of Trooper Firing, Campaign Says

Not pretty.

 

[mheslep]

...This explains things in much more detail.

Surely this a misuse of the verb 'explains', as there is no explanation. The author does smear, defame, slur, and besmirch with the most opprobrious remarks, the last thing Frank Rich does is explain.

 

[Astronuc]

Surely this a misuse of the verb 'explains', as there is no explanation. The author does smear, defame, slur, and besmirch with the most opprobrious remarks, the last thing Frank Rich does is explain.

Umm - Evo's use of explain has nothing to do with Rich's Op-Ed in the times. She is referring to the other article.

Rich does not smear, defame, slur or besmirch. He offers his opinion and a reasonably accurate assesment of Palin and whatshisname.

 

[Astronuc]

Jon Friedman on - Why the Palin phenomenon is doomed

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The Sarah Palin Phenomenon is doomed.

But it's not because of her lack of foreign policy experience or her deer-in-the-headlights look during part of her interview last week with ABC's Charles Gibson.

The primary reason why the Palin bubble will burst is that the media will decide that they are bored with her. They'll need to move to shine a light on a fresh issue or individual.
This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down. . . . .

It isn't a case of quixotic behavior by reporters and editors. Internet sites, blogs and cable news operations all thrive on presenting fresh headlines and updated story angles as often as possible so readers think we're on top of things. The news world moves at warp speed.
. . . .
Gibson, as dignified a newsperson as America has now, treated Palin fairly and didn't resort to hectoring her with "gotcha" questions, either.

Palin's supporters may be chagrined that their candidate didn't sound more self-assured or expert when she discussed Alaska's relationship to Russia. But Gibson didn't try to trip her up. He pretty much asked the kinds of questions I would have put to Palin as well.

Gibson treated her with the respect befitting a vice presidential candidate. ABC, while discussing the interview Friday on "Good Morning America" unleashed political correspondent Jake Tapper to assess the "truthiness" of Palin's remarks on the ABC show.

The television networks appear to be treating Palin carefully, trying hard not to seem sexist or liberal or come across as intellectual, big-city bullies.

When ABC noted that Tapper had found a few holes in Palin's comments (though nothing Earth shattering), the network took pains to add that it, too, would be dissecting the statements of Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee.

I'm not overwhelmed by Obama, but at least he is not making exaggerated (make that egregious) claims like McCain and Palin are.

 

[turbo]

Asked on the McGraw Milhaven Show (radio) whether Sarah Palin had enough experience to run a large company, Carly Fiorina (who ran HP and is a McCain advisor) said that Palin doesn't have the experience, "but that's not what she's running for." What gets into these people's heads? You wouldn't trust Palin to run a company, but you'd put her one heart-beat away from running the whole country? What kind of Lewis Carroll-inspired world are these people living in?

http://beltwayblips.com/video/carly_fiorina_on_sarah_palin_s_experience/

 

[mheslep]

Gibson, as dignified a newsperson as America has now, treated Palin fairly and didn't resort to hectoring her with "gotcha" questions, either

As dignified a newsperson? Well that's one line, but I seriously doubt the author read the entire uncut transcript. On the other hand the NYT said:

Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

About which, BTW, Gibson should have kept his mouth shut, as he was wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,"

Summarizing, the Bush doctrine over time has meant:
-Prior to 9/11 the Bush approach to the ABM treaty
-Pre-emptive attacks, though given Korea/Vietnam, etc this can only weakly be credited to Bush
-Terror: those who harbor terrorists shall be considered terrorists
-Best way to achieve peace and security: expand democracy. "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." -2nd inaugural

 

[mheslep]

Umm - Evo's use of explain has nothing to do with Rich's Op-Ed in the times. She is referring to the other article.

Thats not clear -

Rich does not smear, defame, slur or besmirch. He offers his opinion and a reasonably accurate assesment of Palin and whatshisname.

How about McCarthyite? Gay baiting? Race baiting. Yellow journalism? Fear mongering?
"The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation, whether they’re wearing lipstick or not."
"As opposed to those lazy, shiftless, unproud Americans — she didn’t have to name names — who are none of the above."
"chilling passage"
"snide observation of her own"
"There were several creepy subtexts at work here. "
"...probably gay “cosmopolitan” urbanites (as the sometime cross-dresser Rudy Giuliani has it) "
"The racial component to this brand of politics was undisguised in St. Paul."

All of that crap is invention by Rich, his own 'reading between the lines'. If he does not defame or smear etc nobody does.

 

[quadraphonics]

-Pre-emptive attacks, though given Korea/Vietnam, etc this can only weakly be credited to Bush

No, no, it's not pre-emptive attacks, but preventative attacks. A pre-emptive attack is when your enemy is in the process of attacking you, and so instead of standing around waiting for his attacks to impact you before countering, you immediately counter in the hopes of weakening or defeating their (imminent) attack. This is uncontroversial, widely-accepted, millenia-old military doctrine, so vanilla that it would be ridiculous to give it a named "doctrine."

A preventative attack, on the other hand, is a very different beast. In this case, there is no enemy attacking you, or even able to attack you. The attack is taken to prevent an enemy from even developing the ability to attack you in the first place. This is vastly more controversial, as it implies a stronger force acting against a (much) weaker one, and that without any pretext of attacks by the smaller side. This is what the Bush Doctrine (or that version of it anyway) proposed: the United States can use overwhelming military force against states that are in no position to threaten the USA, in order to prevent them from ever gaining the ability to threaten the USA. Basically, anyone not already strong enough to deter the United States (which is a short list indeed) can be crushed and overthrown at any time, at the discretion of the United States. Needless to say, this was not a popular doctrine, what with its blatantly imperialistic implications.

 

[mheslep]

I stand corrected. Preventative is the policy, though the ability of a dozen guys to fly airplanes into buildings must blur the premise somewhat of whether or not a country is able to attack you. Test: Western attack on Taliban/AQ in 2000: pre-emptive or preventative?

 

[quadraphonics]

I stand corrected. Preventative is the policy, though the ability of a dozen guys to fly airplanes into buildings must blur the premise somewhat of whether or not a country is able to attack you.

Well, when I say "able to attack you," I'm using it as shorthand for "able to sustain a state of hostilities against you in the face of your likely retaliation." Anybody can launch an isolated attack, even a big one, but it's not really relevant if they are certain to lose the ensuing war (which is why countries don't attack the United States in this way; only terrorists do that, which is a different matter).

Test: Western attack on Taliban/AQ in 2000: pre-emptive or preventative?

First of all, almost all pre-emptive attacks are somewhere in the grey area. And given that the point was not so much to prevent Afghanistan from attacking (they couldn't do that in the first place) but to go after a substate group based there, the distinctions don't really apply cleanly in the first place (nor do they exclude other types of war). This was, after all, prior to the "preventative war" version of the Bush Doctrine. But it seems clear that the operations were pursued under the assumption that Al Qaeda retained the capability to attack the United States, and so was a just act of self defense. Whether it's technically a "pre-emption," since we didn't actually know of any real attacks that were incoming, is kind of beside the point, as this distinction was not invoked in the context of this war.

The prevention doctrine was, obviously, concocted in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, in order to provide an reason why the existing containment regime was insufficient to protect US national security. The argument was that if he developed WMDs, he'd no longer be deterred by the containment regime, and so could develop sufficient conventional forces to again threaten his neighbors. Furthermore, we would not then be able to pre-empt his attacks at an acceptable cost, as he could attack us with WMD. Which exposes the reason that prevention is so much more controversial than pre-emption: in a preventative war, you have to know not just what your enemy is doing, but what he will eventually become capable of doing and what he will plan to do at that time.

This is a much harder problem. If your enemy moves a bunch of forces to your border and starts spewing fiery rhetoric and propaganda to mobilize his citizens, you have a good case for taking pre-emptive action. Even if he was only bluffing, nobody can really fault you for calling him on it. But extraordinary evidence is required to justify attacking him on the basis of speculation that he will, before too long, develop the means to attack you and use it. It's really only things like weapons of mass destruction, which are extremely powerful and can be developed serruptitiously, that would justify such an action (as far as I can dream up, anyway). So prevention makes a thin rationale, and one easily undermined if the facts on the ground after the invasion don't match up to your doomsday speculations that justified the preventative measures.

 

[mheslep]

...But extraordinary evidence is required to justify attacking him on the basis of speculation that he will, before too long, develop the means to attack you and use it.

Agreed. Many would disagree, that given the modern consequences (WMD, planes & buildings) a state can not wait for extraordinary evidence. Regardless of the consequences I'm not of that opinion. Take extraordinary steps to get that evidence.

It's really only things like weapons of mass destruction, which are extremely powerful and can be developed serruptitiously, that would justify such an action (as far as I can dream up, anyway). So prevention makes a thin rationale, and one easily undermined if the facts on the ground after the invasion don't match up to your doomsday speculations that justified the preventative measures.

I see a problem here that complicates your approval to pre-empt a belligerent enemy on the border argument: it hangs on geography. Treaties and mutual defense packs afoul of that by extending border tripwires indefinitely. Ex: N. Korea did not attack the West, had no ability to attack the West, but certainly it attacked its neighbour in the South and thus triggered our UN agreements. The US at least faces that problem again with Israel, most recently w/ Iran & the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah" in Lebanon.

 

[quadraphonics]

Agreed. Many would disagree, that given the modern consequences (WMD, planes & buildings) a state can not wait for extraordinary evidence.

Yeah, but at that point the prevention "doctrine" breaks down to the "because I say so" doctrine, which wouldn't go anywhere. Recall that the Bush Administration claimed to be certain that Saddam had industrial-scale, active WMD programs, and even functional WMD's in its arsenal.

I see a problem here that complicates your approval to pre-empt a belligerent enemy on the border argument: it hangs on geography. Treaties and mutual defense packs afoul of that by extending border tripwires indefinitely. Ex: N. Korea did not attack the West, had no ability to attack the West, but certainly it attacked its neighbour in the South and thus triggered our UN agreements.

I don't see why this is an issue; if two countries have a mutual defense pact, then they can be treated as, effectively, a single unit as far as issues of pre-empting attacks are concerned.

 

[mheslep]

...I don't see why this is an issue; if two countries have a mutual defense pact, then they can be treated as, effectively, a single unit as far as issues of pre-empting attacks are concerned.

Yes, then there is no notion of limiting action to belligerents on your own border. Given the UN charter and other treaties, every bad guy might as well be on our border.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yes, then there is no notion of limiting action to belligerents on your own border.

Well, that was just an example of a scenario where preemptive action would be uncontroversial. It's certainly not the *definition* of preemption. I still don't see how alliances have any bearing on the issue. Preempting an attack on an ally is just that. If you consider that to be less legitimate than pre-empting an attack on your own territory, that's your prerogative, but it seems to me that any difference lies in the legitimacy of military alliance, not the preemption as such.

Given the UN charter and other treaties, every bad guy might as well be on our border.

Yes, that's why we keep getting into wars despite having long since eliminated all military threats to the actual US homeland.

 

[LowlyPion]

Now comes the Tanning Bed.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2008/09/sarah-palins-pr.html

Not a big deal really, ... but really look at her statements as Governor against the use of them because of increased cancer risks that come from their use, at the very time she installed one for her personal use at home.

Now I have seen some comments about it being a possible treatment for Seasonal Affective Disorder, from not getting enough bright light. I would discount that because it seems that it is not a recommended treatment for SAD.

It is important to note that no evidence indicates that tanning beds, where the eyes are generally covered and the subject's skin is exposed to light, are useful in the treatment of SAD. Furthermore, the light sources in tanning beds are relatively high in UV rays, which can be harmful to both the eyes and the skin.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/980315ap/saeed.html

But I think the more likely reason has to do with her beauty contest mentality.

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin Unfavorable ratings have been climbing recently, but maybe McCain should have known at the time he made the pick?

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters Each Night From July 25-27, 2008

Candidate   Fav Unfav Net
Huckabee   47%  39%   +8
Lieberman  46%  39%   +7
Pawlenty   22%  21%   +1
Jindal     22%  21%   +1
Romney     42%  48%   -6
Crist      23%  29%   -6
Palin      11%  19%   -8

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/huckabee_lieberman_have_highest_favorables_among_possible_mccain_veep_choices

 

[ramsey2879]

Here are more complete excerpts of the transcript:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1



She completely didn't address the question. She wants to talk about energy independence in a state that she claims produces %20 of the energy consumed by the US, but has just about .2% of the population? This she offers up as experience suitable to run the country? Such answers not related to the questions asked?

I think her response is a bit bizarre, and demonstrates that she still doesn't know what the job is about.

What does the size of the population of Alaska have to do with the amount of energy that is produced in Alaska and consumed in all of the states? Did she mean 20% of the energy produced in the USA rather than of the energy consumed? Still the 20% figure is not logical to me given that Alaska has no large hydroelectric or coal production plants. Since I am well aware of the beer commercials where statements are taken out of context, I am waiting to see how all the candidates do in head to head debates. Right now I am leaning toward Obama, but have some fear that he is more of a man of form rather than substance when he speaks. God do I need to make some time to get more into the issues and what are the real solutions to them as put forth by the candidates. Hope the debates don't get into mere attacks on how we got into this mess rather than how is the best way to get out.

 

[ramsey2879]

There is nothing to look up. The story was widely reported in Alaska. I posted a link to the situation from the NY News fact checking. She interviewed the Town Librarian and asked if she would remove certain books, and the Librarian's response was that those books were on a recommended list appropriate for the size of the Wasilla Library and size of community it serviced. Palin subsequently fired her, and under heavy local pressure apparently figured the direction the wind was blowing on her fascist attempt to restrict access to information, based on her own personal beliefs, relented and rehired her.

If you want to hunt up some trumped up dates of publications and titles feel free. But the real moral of the story for me is that that the Town Librarian apparently understood more about the US Constitution than the Town Mayor. You know the one that unblinkingly presumes that she is on a mission of reform and ready to serve as President Day 1. Now that's real humor right there.

I read the Times article, all it said was
"But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book 'Daddy’s Roommate' on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

'Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,' Ms. Chase said. 'It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.'

'I’m still proud of Sarah,' she added, 'but she scares the bejeebers out of me.'

The "Fact Check" story that you cited states

"Not a Book Burner


One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.

It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.

Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation, along with those of Wasilla’s other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing, but said she didn’t feel she had Emmons’ support. The decision caused “a stir” in the small town, according to a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, “city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.”

As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian’s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.

So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”

Update, Sept. 9: We have revised this section dealing with accusations that Palin wanted to ban books from Wasilla's library to include more detail about what transpired at the time."
"

So the fact remains that the librarian still is very supportive of Palin and feels that Palin never asked her to censor a book. The only contary statement comes from the following "According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, “city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.” I would rather trust the librarian herself than the so called "widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny".

PS I don't think either of these sources can be trusted.