Because the ability to treat Down's Syndrome kids can be expected to advance as well. And as I pointed out before, the degree to which the genetic defect is felt varies.
These facts must also be weighed when considering the choice to abort the genetically damaged.

But here is my problem: How can conclusions about Mr & Mrs Palin & their reasons be drawn from anything other than assumptions?

And if assumption is your methodology here, why have people discarded non-religious reasons for keeping the child in favor of religious zealotry which would, if true, be the action of a monster?

Notice that religion isn't on trial here. Palin - the individual - is. We already know enough to consign religion to the gallows. But where is it proven that the Palins kept the child for one reason: adherence to religious prohibition against abortion? Yes, the woman sites god's and gifts from heaven. But she also talks about adoring everyone of her children and the hope that every one of her large brood might grow to enjoy a life of some kind.

While religious dogma is a part of the decision making process. Why are we discounting equally reasonable things like maternal emotional attachment or the fact that the parents are financially secure and successful at raising children presumably because they enjoy the experience?

And that last one is important. Because Down's Syndrome children are not brain-dead and racked with pain. They may still partake of a life of at least equal or better value than say the family dog or cat. Which is important because (I think) anyone who questions Palin's morality were she to forego euthanizing a badly wounded pet (preferring instead to commit to caring for it until it died of natural causes) would be dismissed as politically biased.

In other words, why is this woman condemned as amoral as opposed to merely soft-hearted? Others may lord her decision as a triumph for 'Pro-life,' but she cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. Whence has she used Trig in this way?

Where is the evidence that she made a conscious decision - wholly motivated by religious dogma - in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary?

EBrown, you confuse politics with morality.

It's their right to make whatever ridiculous choice they wish, just as it's our right to examine the morality that lies behind that choice.

If you notice, that's what Nick Provenzo was examining.

With medical technology as it is now,having a Downes baby is no longer a sad surprise, but a choice based on a person's values.

If the choice to keep a Downes baby is required because your morality tells you the kid is a "gift from God," that abortion is evil, and therefore the sacrifice of your future happiness is required, then your morality is the very opposite of pro-human-life.

And if, as Provenzo wonders, having a Downes baby in the family is to be considered a new sign of religous virtue -- "yes, we knew, but God told us not to abort; aren't we great" -- then it makes the phrase 'designer baby' rather ironic, don't you think? A phrase designating a new kind of religious shroud-waving.

"Obama bin Biden's 'patriotic' envy tax is evidence of their 'firmer grasp on reality.'"

Not to mention taking 126,000 dollars of FM/FM money to block oversight of their activities, while hiring James A. Johnson to advise his campaign and help find his VP candidate. (and what a bang-up choice that was!)

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

Obama bin Biden's "patriotic" envy tax is evidence of their "firmer grasp on reality." As is Obama's friendship with William Ayers and his willingness to negotiate with offshore terrorists without preconditions.

The Right is confused, no question. The Left, however, is evil.

Provenzo's crack-brained utilitarian argument aside, if the Palins want to support the child and arraign for his upbringing and keep outside of the government's provender, it literally is no one else's business.

That's what "choice" means.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

 Heres an opportunity for anyone feeling a bit cranky to get stuck into this Christian blog who is calling for the condemnation of Provenzo"s remarks on this issue....

 
Libertarian Group Condemns Sarah Palin for Not Killing Disabled Baby in Abortion (original source)

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --

ACTION: Contact the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism with your condemnation of his remarks at http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Feedback or info@capitalismcenter.org

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

aperture card scanning

Chris,

"...we have to see which of the two has a firmer common-sense grasp on reality"

Having the ex-CEO in charge of the fiasco as one of your top campaign advisers would argue otherwise.

I bow to no one in my disdain for John "First Amendment, what *$#*$&#$& First Amendment?" McCain, but he has been on record about this being a potential disaster for years. Of course, his "solution" (and he should be dipped in it) was more regulation.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

that Obama vs. McCain isn't even a contest any longer on the substantive grounds of merit. One of these two men will be the next President, so faced with that alternative, we have to see which of the two has a firmer common-sense grasp on reality.

At this point, it isn't even a question of "firmer." Obama has some grasp; McCain, since selecting Palin and locking up the nomination, hasn't had any at all. The unreality just spewing forth from the McCain camp is staggering.

On the other hand, looking at it in the light in which I'm now suggesting we try to look at it in, this McCain campaign is fucking brilliant.

"Charlie bit my finger" is an internet sensation with over 50 million views. The McCain camp had Palin say "Charlie" quite a lot to the point of it being a distraction. Surely some people would pick up on "Charlie" and think of that video. (And there are now a couple YouTube videos up making the comedic connection between her interview and "Charlie bit my finger.") Now some of us are picking up on that video and drawing comparisons to the McCain campaign. In the light I'm talking about, this campaign is genius.

They've even got Karl Rove saying they've stepped out of bounds.

Would you know a hoax when you saw it?

Someone who knows nothing useful about economics and says it, or someone who knows nothing useful about economics and says otherwise.

This crisis wasn't the creation of people who admit they know nothing about economics. This crisis was the creation of people who think they can make money out of nothing...

An honest objectivist should repudiate and shun both houses and propose a proper Laissez-faire solution. But they refuse to make that argument in the political sphere.

Debating whether Obama is better than McCain (or vice versa) on economics is a futile waste of time. Getting into politics and proposing economic policies based on objectivist principles is a solution.

That point could be too hard for you to get.

Charrrrrleeeeee!!

Would the electorate know a shtick when they see it?

McCain himself has said he is not qualified to talk economics. And yet he's being all rosy and doddering and saying stuff about economics he clearly doesn't have a grasp on.

That point should not be too hard for you to get.

Robert,

"The irony here is that the Peikoff doctrine (ha!) suggests voting Democrat across the board to stave off a Christian Hegemony..."

This is where Peikoff is engaging in utter folly on the basis of his ostensible premises. It has been aptly pointed out that socialism is a Christian "heresy," i.e. that it hijacks the millennial promises and authority of the Christian Church and puts them in the service of secular government.

Unlike the majority of "Xtianists" in the U.S., who can at least understand the principle of reciprocity when it is explained to them (i.e. if you give government the power to intervene in religious matters, the club can be used against you), socialists NEED and PROUDLY PROCLAIM their intention to forcibly politically intervene in your choices. To vote "the worse, the better" in that situation is to give up all claims of moral insight or superiority.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

I've looked at the clips below that Sherk has provided. As maybe the best explanation for things right now -- John McCain just having flipped his lid all of a sudden not being quite as good -- is that McCain is doing amiable-doddering-old-fool shtick, right in front of our eyes, to throw this election.

John McCain is in a shtickoma.

Just watch those clips with that notion in mind, and see how well it fits.

That gesture at 4:20 in the Charrrleee Gibson clip was the tip-off to me that this is what could be going on.

John McCain is 72 years old. His health probably couldn't take 4 years of the White House. He has very good reasons for being pissed at what his party has done to this country and how it ambushed him in '00. He has said that he wants to do the honorable thing by doing what's best for his country, which he might well believe to be Obama becoming President. He might be deliberately playing the electorate for fools to demonstrate how out-of-whack it's truly gotten in this country and with his party's base in particular.

Look at those clips with that open mind and ask yourself if he isn't just doing old-fool shtick.

is like pointing to a consensus of Soothsayers or Astrologists.

Why, if these experts are so prescient did they not see this thing coming when the whole government inspired sub-prime mortgage market was set up?

Why, if these experts are so prescient did they not see this coming when government started propping up institutions that gambled their solvency away like some drunken Las Vegas slot-machine addict?

In other words, if the 'experts' & Obama are idiots possessed of poisoned concepts about capitalism and the morality of government's meddling, why do you single out McCain?

You seem surprised to find that in a contest of evil vs. evil, the lesser of the two is still going to be evil. It beggars belief that objectivists still absolve themselves of the need to actually get into politics.

I don't know how you look at McCain's responses in that YouTube clip and not conclude that he's totally flipped his lid, or that he's just trying to throw this election.

Have we ever had such batshit insanity coming from the mouth of a candidate for President of the United States?

With a consensus of economists saying we appear to be headed into meltdown, these are the kinds of answers that are supposed to inspire confidence in voters?

Unfuckingreal.

And now we are back to my closing point in my first post to this thread.

In the absence of anything remotely resembling an objectivist in the election, my rule of thumb is to figure out who will abide by the maxim "he who governs least, governs best."

And frankly, I'm not sure who'd win that one.

The decisive thing for me is that the only skeletal remains in McCain/Palin's closet are of the the religious relic variety - a known, if somewhat kooky proposition. Obama on the other hand...

As for national defense. Well, as I see it there are two imminent threats on the horizon: Pakistan and Iran. McCain and Obama both appear to be blind to one and alert to the other. Obama's weakness is this negotiate first idea. McCain is ahead by repudiating this aspect but very little else.

I suppose if we find that Obama secretly steals into his former church, or secretly calls up Wright for advice on Jeebus, your salt intake will be justified, Robert, but you will appreciate that Obama at least went through the motions of speaking out against Wright's noxious racism. Palin cannot repudiate anything about her religious practices and beliefs, because they comprise her appeal to the Republican electorate.

In American elections the dumbing down of debate is nothing new, and the Christian majority needn't find anything particularly odd or creepy about the Assemblies of God and its doctrines and practices.

If we need to take Obama's words with a grain of salt, I suppose we ought do the same with McCain and his running mate.

Is she: a young earth creationist who thinks she will be alive for the Rapture, who is implacably against sex education, contraception, gay rights, who may have used her office to pursue a personal grudge, who appoints dumbass high-school classmates to executive positions, a serial fibber about "Bridge to Nowhere" and her record on earmarks, who rates personal loyalty higher than competence . . . ?

Sure enough I am cynical about Obama as well. He is a pol. McCain is a pol**. Palin is a pol. Biden is a pol. They say what the playbook suggests will win the election, and we can only guess how close that playbook aligns with actual governance down the road.

On the religiosity issue, I am staggered, but this is a unique feature of the US. We Canadians are dumbfounded at the god talk, generally (and up to 80 percent of Canuckistanis prefer Obama over McCain, natch).

I am actually surprised at the number of folks of the Objectivist stripe who will pull the lever for Obama. Reading Noodlefood and ObjectivismOnline, I see that there is a grinding debate over the utility of voting for a Democratic President.

I had thought there would be only a small group of orthodoxish Objectivists who simply cannot stomach the religiosity of the Republicans, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Perhaps in the waning days of the campaign, after the debates, Objectivish people will reduce the choice to affiliation: do Objectivist principles align more closely with the left or with the right? Is it okay to overlook the crazed fundagelical arm of the Republicans to better vanquish the Socialist Hordes?

And perhaps in the end it will come down to how voters identify with the candidates' mythos: a straight-talking maverick reformer partnered with a righteous outsider, or a shining example of American intelligence and virtue (or, a long-in-the-tooth hack with a fundagelical nutcase versus a communist terrorist-supporting appeaser and his hack insider blowhard . . . ?)

In the event of an Obama win, I do believe that America will have a honeymoon with the rest of the world, allies as well as presumed enemies. If America wishes to use its power for its own interests -- as any nation would -- there will likely be a rejigging of attitudes towards the kind of power Obama will assume.

He of course assumes command of America's military might, but can also assume the symbolic lustre of American ideals. An Obama victory will likely sicken most SOLOists, but if they do support the ideals of America, the mythos of America as shining city on the hill, they will also understand that Obama can increase America's power in the world in a way that McCain cannot. America can use Obama's immaterial gifts to get what it wants from the world.

WSS

** here is McCain the Ur-pol at his best, doing his dangedest to reassure television viewers that he understands the crisis in financial markets. For some this is a rambling, incoherent dolt who cannot admit error. For others, this is a straight-talking war-hero who has a command of the language and the subject:

That 'public repudiation' came under the pressure of the bone gnawing pressure from Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the talk show/pundit circus troop.

And the 'repudiation' was forestalled initially with the 'how can I forsake a brother' diatribe in which Obama related the tale of his redneck Grandma.

In other words, he was dragged kicking and screaming towards that revelation only after the petulant Preacher uttered his Anti-US epithets unfiltered to Obama's media cheer leading squad.

Forgive me then if I take his recantation with a large grain of salt.

As for a 'comparison' of religious beliefs. I'm an atheist. Religions are all equally unbelievable to me.

It is a waste of effort then to attempt to compare belief in religion. How can somebody who believes that Jonah lived inside a whale is given more credibility than someone who believes the claptrap that Hubbard cooked up in the 50s or that Joseph Smith cooked up in the late 1800s.

The only question an atheist should care about is whether the person seeks to impose their religion upon others or whether they believe it is something private to them. The latter are those I respect the most.

Obama may not be a rapture ready blockhead. But he was in a church whose priests dispensed racist, socialist, and revisionist bromides. He says he never heard or believed that. But he still hangs out with Weathermen terrorists and other odious entities within Chicago politics. Not exactly clear cut what he believes.

In my book a sincere nitwit trumps a deceptive narcissist with a messiah complex every time.

Robert makes an interesting point about the churches of three of the executive candidates. Although Palin did speak at her former Assemblies of God convocation (part one previously posted, part two below), she is no longer a member of that congregation -- she now belongs to a non-denominational Bible church, though she also attends services at the capital's Juneau Christian Center (link). Barack Obama is no longer a member in the congregation of Reverend Wright, whom he repudiated publicly.

Another of the Four Horsemen (Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) has commented on Sarah Palin's qualifications. His LA Times article is featured at RichardDawkins.net, with an addendum comparing Palin and Obama's religiosity.

Harris:
"[Re:] My alleged Obamamania: Many McCain supporters have written to say that (1) Obama is also unqualified (or even less qualified than Palin) and (2) I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by not objecting to Obama's religiosity. Briefly: My criticism of Palin should not be construed as uncritical acceptance of Obama. Needless to say, I find Obama's religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead. Palin, by all appearances, seems to be one. This is a difference worth noting. Whatever you may think of his politics, Obama is very intelligent and reasonably well educated. Palin thinks the universe is 6000 years old. Unfortunately, I wrote my article before some of the most disturbing signs of her religious extremism came to light.

So, let me simply declare that I would be overjoyed to have a qualified woman in the White House. I would, likewise, be overjoyed to have a qualified African American in the White House. In fact, I would be overjoyed to have a qualified WASP man in the White House. I will be guardedly optimistic to have a very smart (and somewhat qualified) Barack Obama in the White House. And I would be frankly terrified to have a religious bumpkin like Sarah Palin in the White House. I think you should share this last conviction. Hence my latest opinion piece."

Palin and her kooky former pastor:

WSS

This from Gerard Baker in the Times:

"This election is a struggle between the followers of American exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism. Democrats are more eager than ever to align the US with the rest of the Western world, especially Europe. This is true not just in terms of a commitment to multilateral diplomacy that would restore the United Nations to its rightful place as arbiter of international justice. It is also reflected in the type of place they'd like America to be - a country with higher taxes, more business regulation, a much larger welfare safety net and universal health insurance. The Republicans, who still believe America should follow the beat of its own drum, are pretty much against all of that....

Here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man's stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.

It's been remarked that the biggest difference between Americans and Europeans is religion: ignorant Americans cling to faith; enlightened Europeans long ago embraced the liberating power of reason. Yet here's an odd thing about this election. Europeans are asking Americans to take a leap of faith, to break the chains of empiricism and embrace the possibility of the imagination.

The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article...

I can recommend this Hitchens article to you.

"Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less."

Emphasis mine.

It seems to have escaped everybody's notice, but so are Obama and Biden:

Christopher Hitchens:

"Interviewed by Rick Warren at the grotesque Saddleback megachurch a short while ago, Sen. Barack Obama announced that Jesus had died on the cross to redeem him personally. How he knew this he did not say. But it will make it exceedingly difficult for him, or his outriders and apologists, to ridicule Palin for her own ludicrous biblical literalist beliefs. She has inarticulately said that her gubernatorial work would be hampered "if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with god." Her local shout-and-holler tabernacle apparently believes that Jews can be converted to Jesus and homosexuals can be "cured." I cannot wait to see Obama and Biden explain how this isn't the case or how it's much worse than, and quite different from, Obama's own raving and ranting pastor in Chicago or Biden's lifelong allegiance to the most anti-"choice" church on the planet. The difference, if there is one, is that Palin is probably sincere whereas the Democratic team is almost certainly hypocritical."

Emphasis mine.

The irony here is that the Peikoff doctrine (ha!) suggests voting Democrat across the board to stave off a Christian Hegemony...

Oh, but Hitchen's points out that Obama et al. are hypocrites and therefore are not Bible thumpers. But given that hallmarks of a hypocrite are deception and flip-flopping, what makes you think that you can rationally predict what they will do?

Mindy asks of Matty that he fork up a cite.

Here's Senator McCain interviewed during his nominating convention. The phrase comes at 2:37.

Here's McCain's wife with the proximity argument.

WSS

2008 nominee for husband of the year...

Can you direct me to where this claim has been made by the McCain camp?

= Mindy

...require so much depth and insight? You're voting for President aren't you? Even if the President dies in office, the Government can pretty much run itself, and it isn't as if Palin wouldn't have advisors.

I'm sure the media were picking through the qualifications of Kerry's running mate last election. No? Actually, can anyone remember who it was?

Another one who wants the Prez to be an expert on everything. Great, that means we can only elect certified geniuses who, according to the MSM, do know everything: Slick Willy, Al Gore, John 'Global Test' Kerry, and Barrack Obama.

Bill's insights on Osama and Saddam were breath-taking weren't they. He was so effective in dealing with them wasn't he? And he was a economic genius who started the craze of empowering the poor to buy houses with sub-prime mortgages. What a winner.

Al Gore, you will remember, invented the internet and is the high priest of Global Warming.

Obama's plan was to cut and run from Iraq right up until the Surge started working. Now all of a sudden it's being reported that he wants the Iraq government to stall negotiations for a US pullout.... Yeah, like that's really helpful to US taxpayers and the long suffering US soldiers.

"We want those troops home" was the catch-cry before the success of the Surge. "Bush lied and people died." Why in the fuck would an honest man who believes that Iraq is the WRONG war not want those negotiations to begin immediately? Unless, that is, he is an ambitious solipsistic narcissist who'd bad mouth his own grandmother (a 'typical white person' and latent racist according to Obama) in order to gain power. This from the man who doesn't want the press to snipe at his family.

God save me from self-serving Ivy League educated politicians. I'm sick and fucking tired of political snake-oil salesmen who've spent their entire adult life climbing greasy political polls.

Palin might not understand economics as well as the University educated geniuses at Lehmann and AIG. But even if she only has a housewife's understanding of how to balance the checkbook, how in the fuck could we do any worse?

Oh? But she doesn't understand Russia. Well Bush's Secretary of State is a Russia expert and her boss has looked into Putin's angelic soul. And yet, Georgia is half the size it used to be.

But she's one heart-beat away from possessing the 'football.' Yeah and Cathcart et al. think that vaporized half the planet is the solution to Al Quaeda. Them's real smarts right there. Unfortunately for rationalists, nuclear weapons need a longitude and latitude before they can be fired. Directing them at the corner of Islam St. and Fascism Ave. won't work. The fact that Al Quaeda has yet to permanently coalesce into discrete locations seems to escaped these men of real geopolitical genius.

But, I forgot - Palin is the dumb arse here. Well if the measure of dumb arse is based on what MSM anointed commentators think of you then I point your attention to the Foxnews front page. Whence you will find out that Eva Mendes has had sex in every State.

And tomorrow that bombshell will be replaced with another sensationalized, facile, irrelevant story about another celebritard. As Jib Jab put's it: "They call this crap the news". As yet, I've yet to see a single journalist undertake a sober, in depth analysis of the various policies (or lack thereof) up for grabs.

Given all of this I don't care if her answers were half-baked - they can't be any worse than the 'fully-baked' solutions that Palin's detractors are spreading around. If all that can be said for her is that she isn't as smart as businessmen who rely on Eminent domain and other chicanery to turn a profit - I'd count that in her favor.

The point being that even the 'experts' are fucked in the head.

Cathcart your analysis is pathetically superficial! The real problem is here isn't Palin's religiosity or trailer-park sophistication is it? The problem is that the choice is between national SOCIALISM and NATIONAL socialism. There are only sub-optimal choices in this election. Short of a proper objectivist in the White House (and we know the answer to that one), I want someone who'll remember the maxim: the government that governs least, governs best.

Look at Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin in that light and tell me who wins that battle based on their track record. That's the debate to have. And when you finally realize how dire the choice really is, maybe US Objectivists will finally roll up their sleeves and get stuck in -- in the interests of self-preservation if nothing else.

______

As for the interview blow back:

What more do you need to know about Russia than: they have nukes, they are run by a scum-bag who dreams of returning Russia to it's former 'Super-power' status by whatever means necessary. Anything else is hubris.

"But she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is." Well neither does anyone else. As Krauthammer points out the Bush Doctrine is a media cliche not a holy writ (like say the Monroe Doctrine which was clearly announced by the man himself in a single speech) and he ought to know - he coined the phrase.

Ugh! Putin doesn't need TASS anymore, he US MSM is doing a better job than Sergei Eisenstein ever did.

Charlie Gibson did not come up with the concept that Alaskas proximity to Russia gave Palin foreign policy experience. His question was reacting to the assertion that it does, an assertion made by McCains campaign and its surrogates. Palin reinforced this idiotic idea by emphasizing that you can actually SEE Russia from Alaska!
If you think the assertion is ridiculous, ridicule the McCain Camp. Not Gibson's question.

What insight into Russian actions does your state's physical proximity to Russia give? Is there an intelligent answer to that? I mean a socially acceptable, on-air answer?

= Mindy

It pisses me off enough to hear people pronounce Orchard (like the trees) as Orchid (the flower) and to spell it incorrectly in the same manner but when it's right in front of you??? Arrrrgh!!!!!

Mrs. Palin Went to five colleges in six years (or six colleges in five, i forget) to get a degree in journalism.

She was a member of the PTA and somehow parlayed that in to becoming mayor of the 9,000 person town of Wasilla, no doubt a skilled politician she then went on to become governor of Alaska for 20 months before being picked as McCain's VP.

Her career thus far has consisted of alleged attempts to ban books from libraries, firing of state employees at the drop of a hat, hiring of dramatically unqualified high school class mates, support for dead end projects like The Bridge to Nowhere, lobbying for millions upon millions of dollars in earmarks and pathological lying.

She's awesome.

"...she's quick and bright, demonstrably."

"Please point me to something that backs you up on this."

Mr Orchid

Get a hold on your fear, find that fact-orientation within yourself and go check out her CV - then answer that question for yourself. I'm sure Mr Perigo has a cat to feed, or fingernails to trim.

I think McCain picking her has scared the shit out of Obama as well, so you have company.

"Said on the basis of the empirical evidence: she's quick and bright, demonstrably."

Please point me to something that backs you up on this. I've been obsessed with this election for the past month and I've seen none of it.

I'm leaning towards Obama/Biden right now. She scares the shit out of me and so does McCain for picking her. I, unlike most of Obama's supporters, take the war on terror seriously. Obama doesn't worry me there.

Perhaps Mr Cathcart could enlighten us dolts on some of the smart things Obama/Biden have proposed that we dullards have missed.

Sitting down with the Iranian leadership without preconditions for starters. That's really, really smart.

Perhaps Mr Cathcart could enlighten us dolts on some of the smart things Obama/Biden have proposed that we dullards have missed. Foreign policy is a special interest here.

Linz is an emotionalist.

If you're going to parrot Diana, including voting for the scummiest Dem-scum on the block, be complete: Linz is a dishonest emotionalist.

"foreign affairs, which she is more than capable of doing adequately."
Said on the basis of exactly nothing.

Said on the basis of the empirical evidence: she's quick and bright, demonstrably.

McCain has jumped the shark. There are some dolts here who fail to recognize it. Smart people see the Obama/Biden ticket as clearly the better of the two choices right now.

Well, fuck me running, as someone once said.

I put it down to too much Sibelius.

Mr Cathcart

Gov. Palin was asked alot of questions on alot of matters in that interview. Her general approach on questions of experience was that being VP is like being Gov., only there's a few more folk involved. That's common sense. I don't know how one can come by the experience of being VP, without being VP. Perhaps you might set up the course?

On Russia & Georgia she said she was keen to see Georgia in NATO, & asked if that might then mean war with Russia she said that the NATO alliance is about supporting its member states if they are attacked. Good, sensible, straight forward foreign policy point there.

It's great that there's smart people like you out there to make the smart choice while we dolts just don't get it.

"foreign affairs, which she is more than capable of doing adequately."

Said on the basis of exactly nothing.

McCain said "she understands Russia." Likewise said on the basis of exactly nothing in fact. Purportedly it was on the basis of her state's proximity to it.

McCain has jumped the shark. There are some dolts here who fail to recognize it. Smart people see the Obama/Biden ticket as clearly the better of the two choices right now.

He can't really present a clear, coherent and forceful case that Palin is actually qualified. He's speaking on the basis of his emotions.

Maybe she did understand the term "insight," but what is very, very, very, very, very telling is how she responded to the question the way she did. She was doing this interview in order to come across as someone credible. Someone doing that doesn't answer that question in that way.

I'm just amazed how, on an Objectivst website of all places, her radically religious, anti-reason, anti-reality, apocalyptic worldview, and how this nomination was a cave-in to the party base which was demanding such irrespective of qualifications, is just under the radar. It's a continuation, if not worse, of the anti-reason, anti-reality, anti-intellectual approach to policy we've seen for the last 8 years. And the dolts are caught up in a cult of personality.

... is not that she has to play catch-up on foreign affairs, which she is more than capable of doing adequately. It's that she's reversed the polls. Obama bin Biden (who are far scarier than Palin) are now behind. Wotta shame.

Whether or not Gibson is pompous has nothing to do with it. They chose him because he's one of McCains favourate interviewers and they were counting on him to softball it. In a way he did! He only asked basic questions and followed up when it was obvious she was completely out of her depth. It's worth watching in full.

It's obvious that she's been cramming for 2 weeks and has no past interest in foreign policy. She's learned to say 'We can't second guess Israel' but she has no real comprehension of the issues. It's scary.

They chose Gibson because they hoped he would go easy while still making her look semi legitimate. She didn't so they have given up on that. Her next Interview is with Sean Hannity. I'm sure he'll give her hell.

I don't think Cathcart expects us to believe Palin doesn't understand "insight" -- nor does any red-blooded American need to know much more about Russia than she does: bad, undemocratic, threatening US allies.

If enough voters can identify with a beautiful kick-ass lady they will be happy with a McCain presidency. It doesn't matter that some folk find her a mixed bag of qualities, that she isn't exactly a first-class intellect, that she doesn't have any foreign policy depth, that she has a few possible defects in her record. She looks good, she talks good, she hits her marks in the political pageant. She plays the role.

It matters that the mythos of Sarah Palin is appealing. It matters that she can connect with the electorate.

WSS

I have not seen the thing in anything like its entirety, just clips. The interviewer's snotty condescension, peering over the top of his glasses, was palpable, even in the short clips. I doubt that Palin doesn't know the meaning of "insight" or that this is remotely important. Someone who can piss off the MSM, who are now nothing more than an adjunct to the Obama campaign, must have something going for her. But I see the Platonist view of voting — if she ain't Dagny don't vote at all — is alive and well.

Has Palin even been to this part of Alaska where you can see Russia? That's what I want to know. Seems relevant, no?

In all seriousness though I was as petrified as you viewing that interview, she's falling short of my low expectations.

I imagine the general response you're going to get here is that not being a democrat is enough of a qualification for any president.

I can't say I'm as enthusiastic.