Um...

Technorati Tags: Gov Palin,Interview,Charles Gibson,Republicans,McCain Campaign,Bush Administration

Much has been made, Dear Gentle Reader(s), about Governor Palin and Charles Gibson's interview.  The exchange has some "legs," so it will be around for discussion for a while.  It might be amusing to ponder a couple of points which seem to be getting a lot of attention.

First, there is the inevitable criticism of Mr. Gibson.  Poor Charlie.  One might think that this interview would be a sensational "get."  Well, maybe.  On the other hand, he had undergone some criticism for previously asking "soft" questions and mishandling a debate in April ("The crowd is turning on me.")  So Mr. Gibson found himself "needing" the Palin interview to re-establish his professional bona fides as much as Gov Palin needed to establish herself as credible in the national psyche.

Several have expounded on Gibson's professorial glasses at the end of his nose and a resulting haughtiness.  Some even have made much of the angle of the camera.  If the glasses played a part and if they are necessary for Gibson to see his notes, he could easily adjust that by a slight smile crinkling the eyes as well as an interior adjustment into an "I'm an adult and you're an adult" mind set.  The angle of the shot is not in his control, but there might be a mitigating factor about that, too.  What might also have been noted, and of which not much has been said, DGR(s), would be the governor's posture.  If, at times, Gibson's attitude might have seemed haughty, Palin's slight slouch certainly contributed to that.  "Sit up straight, Ma'am" is a mantra for Palin's handlers for the immediate future.  They should use it often; she should practice the posture often. 

Most comment has been about the "Bush Doctrine" question and response, or lack of response.  Earlier in the week very few people would have remembered, immediately remembered, that is, the Bush Doctrine.  It isn't a phrase in daily conversation.  However, what is in conversation is the pre-emptive aspect of the doctrine.  The governor had been prepped by the McCain campaign handlers for several days, and they missed a beat, at least the beat of the more formal name of the policy. (Recent news reports indicate the existence of more than one "Bush Doctrine."  While that might mitigate the governor's immediate response, that makes the handlers even more culpable, doesn't it?)  The exchange did not go well for Palin.

One wonders, DGR(s), what it is about the governor which, after a few seconds of painful pause, prevented her from saying "I'm not familiar with that phrase" or "I don't know that phrase."  The words Bush Doctrine were the problem.  Some form of "I don't know what that means" would've been the solution. 

It's OK not to know something.  "I don't know, but I'll find out" is a tried and true average American response.  The governor should try it out in rehearsal.  With the correct inflection, it'll win hearts.

n.b.  Much is made of the fact that President Bush II doesn't say it much either.  Is it, perhaps, a Republican pathology?

Trust, but verify.

 

Sphere: Related Content

That final cherry on the sundae

Technorati Tags: McCain Campaign,Gov Palin,Republicans,Democratic Administrations

Experience, Dear Gentle Reader(s), is the least of concerns regarding elevating Governor Palin to the Presidency.  As others have pointed out, Senator Harry Truman was woefully ignored by President Roosevelt during the final months of Roosevelt's life.  Yet President Truman became a formidable office holder in his tenure, hailed in recent election cycles as a Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief to be emulated.  (True, Mr. Truman had had considerable Washington experience as a senator, and years more earlier as a legislator in Missouri.)

Of course, it will come as no surprise for an admission that Senator McCain's ticket will not be receiving this particular vote on November 4, but that is because the ticket will represent a continuation of Republican party control of the White House and the Supreme Court, both untenable considerations.

Future discussions about reasons to vote for the Obama-Biden ticket will include, with the very real economic benefits which historically accrue to the middle and lower class under a Democratic Party White House, the questionable family decision of Governor and Mr Palin regarding the birth of their son, Trig.

As reported in People Magazine, according to The New York Times, here is the scene in the Governor Palin's hospital room soon after the birth:

Inside Ms. Palin’s room, her daughter Willow, 14, immediately noticed her new brother’s condition, according to People magazine. “He looks like he has Down syndrome,” Willow said. “Why didn’t you tell us?”

Ms. Palin had wanted to let the news of the pregnancy sink in first, said Ms. Cole, her friend. She had intended to tell her family more after she returned from Texas. Then the baby arrived.

So, Dear Gentle Reader(s), the governor had known about Trig's condition for months prior to his birth, yet, if the above scene is accurate, she hadn't told his sister about it.  Imagine the anticipation then shock? amazement? concern? which race through Willow's mind as she hurries to get her first glimpse of her new brother, and she sees--What?  But?  Mom?

In all those months the governor nor her husband had the time to discuss this with their daughter?  No breakfasts?  No lunches?  No trips to and from church?

DGR(s), it is simply not credible this hockey mom didn't make time to prepare Trig's siblings for the drastic way the family dynamic was about to change.  What might she not find time for regarding information the American population ought to have?

Governor Palin is, by many accounts, a wonderfully warm person.  But there's a sensitivity gap.  Perhaps that gap is wide enough to give serious pause before considering whether or not to put her finger on "the button." 

That's a serious risk for us to take.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Perplex, Perplexed, Perplexity--One Has to Fit

Technorati Tags: Gov Palin,Senator McCain,Evangelicals,Israel,Political Jews

Why, Dear Gentle Reader(s), do certain elements of the Jewish community embrace the American Christian evangelical?  Now there's a to be or not to be question.

In today's Los Angeles Times (on line link not yet available), Patrick Goldstein writes about David Zucker's support for Sarah Palin, including this:

"I know that liberal Jews regard evangelical Christians as persecutors, but they're actually the best friends Jews have.  They are loyal supporters of Israel, along with wanting lower taxes, smaller government and a strong defense.  To me, they are my best allies."

One wonders if Zucker has ever read any of the literature (?) available on line which discusses the evangelical concept of End of Days.  For a particularly mind-boggling view, you, DGR(s), are invited, and warned, to visit Israel in Prophecy available at the End Times Project.   A lot of Jews, along with a lot of other people are going to die prior to the "return" of the Messiah.  And the evangelicals, as a group, subscribe to the time line of the "return" which includes the destruction of Israel. 

What's perplexing about this is that Zucker is not the only Jew to call evangelicals "best allies."  How on earth can that be?

A close secular Jewish political fellow offers an interpretation something like this:

Those Jews who think the evangelicals are friends to Israel know all about the End of Days.  They consider it to be so preposterous, so inconceivable, that they give absolutely no credence to its possibility.  They are, also, such staunch supporters of Israeli politics and positions, that they willingly and happily accept any and all support.  After all, whatever these loonies think is their business, and if their business compels them to support Israel, all to the better.

OK, that seems reasonable.  They're nuts, but they have some political power, and Israel can use all the support it can get. 

Still, there is this:  Should John McCain become President of the United States and then become incapacitated, the world, and Israel, and Jewish-American supporters of Israel, would be faced with Madam President Palin, an evangelical with her finger on the button.  Would she think, "God's will," and then push it?

What are these supporters of Senator McCain's choice of running mate thinking???

Very perplexing.

Trust, but for heaven's sake, verify.

Sphere: Related Content

About that "connection"...

Not, Dear Gentle Reader(s), that it matters, but before one takes the Republican National Committee's claim about how much or how well its candidates relate to "Americans," let's look at some specifics as reported on NPR's "All Things Considered." The recording is entitled, "Diversity at GOP, Democratic Conventions Examined."

At the Democratic convention:

44% minorities

24% Black

12% Hispanic

Slightly more women than men

At the Republican convention:

36 total Black delegates; 1.5%, lowest in 40 years,
highest ever 7% in 2004

5% Hispanic

68% Men

32% women

At both conventions the average age was 57.

Now, which party's convention better reflected the demographics of the population at large?

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Irrelevant Squared?

Dear Gentle Reader(s), here's a tid bit (note how I chose the more formal tid rather than the more common tit--no applause necessary) from The Washington Post:

There was a flutter of attention when McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told a group of Post reporters and editors yesterday that his team was having to rework the vice presidential acceptance speech because the original draft, prepared before Gov. Sarah Palin was chosen, was too "masculine."

So the speeches are written by persons in smoke filled rooms prior to naming the person who will deliver them.  Who says the Party's not important?  The Party controls the message before the messenger is known.

Doubtless the Democratic Party does this, too.

Don't think of John McCain on November 4; think of the neo-cons and the theocons and the God, Guns, and Gays groups.  Then vote accordingly.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Is Irrelevant Possible?

Technorati Tags: Senator McCain,Gov Palin,Republicans

Somewhere, Dear Gentle Reader(s), in the plethora of virtual ink spilled over the possibility of Governor Palin becoming President Palin, is a comment somewhat like, "Don't worry, in the unlikely event of John's death, his people will be there to guide her decisions."  Now, of course, that isn't a direct quote.  So sue me.  (Not really!)

Should one read "between the lines" of that virtual quote, one might find a startling possibility:  The person in the Oval Office is somewhat irrelevant. 

The President, like most CEO's (and there is some historical suggestion that the Founding Fathers intended the Presidency to be the 18th century equivalent of a 21st century CEO--witness the President's Office in the Capitol Building), sets policy; subordinates implement policy.  Subordinate subordinates set rules; subordinates to subordinate subordinates enforce the rules.  That's the way the world works.  Even the world of government of the most powerful nation on earth at this moment.

If that possibility of irrelevance is even slightly possible, it then follows that the electorate should consider the Party even more than it should consider the candidate(s).

Do we wish to return to power for another 4 years the Party which brought us the disasters of the past 7 1/2 years? 

That, DGR(s), is the question.

Senator McCain and Governor Palin--maybe, maybe not.

The Republican Party?  Nope.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Palin's Abortion Stance

Technorati Tags: Gov Palin,Sex Education,Reproductive Rights

Dear Gentle Reader(s), there might be a problem for Gov. Palin vis-a-vis her stance on sex education and, by extension, reproductive rights for women.

We have this from Politico's Ben Smith's Blog:

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

What, in real terms does that question and answer mean? It means that the Governor supports abstinence-until-marriage to the exclusion of sex-ed programs (what does explicit really mean--sounds like a vague, red-meat-for-the-evangelical crowd--no surprise, the question was posed by Eagle Forum Alaska; EF's most famous proponent is Phyllis Schlafley--'nuff said).

If that's the governor's position, there's nothing wrong with it, although it does seem a tad unrealistic. Anyone who has been a teen who was a teen prior to marriage (anyone you know, DGR(s)?) might think it's a bit unreasonable. Certainly school teachers who work with post-pubescent teens might look askance.

What would be the governor's response to those who might question the efficacy of such a program? Actually, in the light of the current brouhaha with a close relative of the governor, we might safely assume that someone will question that efficacy. Look for a reproductive rights champion to raise it; look for a scandalized anti-choice sycophant to to cry shame and "families are off-limits," although no one will mention the family until the Republicans do so.

Abstinence-until-marriage might be a good theory, and it certainly makes money and garners votes for its proponents, but it is hardly realistic, given that the people most intimately affected by it are human beings given to physical and psychological bursts of energy unlike anything previously experienced by them.

Teens need all the help they can get. They need information. They need support in whatever choice they might be forced to make.

They don't need empty platitudes.

Just ask the governor, if you should happen to catch her in a moment of candor.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content