« McCain's VP pick | Main | Heh »

My obligatory Sarah Palin post

I started to get a sense of what we're in for when one of the very first comments I heard from some news dweeb was how the Palin picked proves John McCain isn't a "maverick" after all. A real maverick, he said, would've appointed Joe Lieberman. Dude, that animal's called a lemming, not a maverick. And "maverick" also doesn't mean doing the precise opposite of what your party wants 100% of the time either.

But sadly, that idiotic remark pretty much set the tone for everything that was to come. Within hours after the announcement, I was already hearing the most extraordinary things about Sarah Palin from people who had never even heard of the woman as of lunchtime. She is "evil personified," a friend of mine averred. She's "horrible," a "nightmare," and a threat to the very foundation of the republic. By yesterday afternoon, my own wife and her girlfriend were already plotting their "Thelma and Louise" drive off a cliff should McCain prevail in November.

All of this, as near as I can tell, based on little more than the boilerplate e-mails that went out from NARAL and various enviro-groups within seconds after the news broke. Never, ever in my life have I seen such a reactionary and unfair rush to judgment about a political candidate. It would be as if the very first day I'd heard about Barack Obama, I received some spam from the NRA and the National Taxpayer's Union and instantly proclaimed Obama to be the Antichrist, shrieking about his terrorist buddies and his support of infanticide, and vowing to join a militia.

Well I didn't do that, of course. Neither did anyone I know. But alas for Ms Palin, huge chunks of the American electorate seem much less willing than I am to give their opposition a fair hearing. She's a homophobe, among other mortal sins, and in the pocket of Big Oil. But if you dare to point out certain facts from her track record that undermine these soundbites (fighting her own party to support gay rights, suing oil companies, and supporting a windfall profits tax, for example) these inconvenient truths are simply dismissed. They anti-Palin chorus doesn't quite stick their fingers in their ears and go "La la la I can't hear you!" but they might as well. Their minds were made up and shut down as soon as the first spam from a left-wing advocacy group popped up in their inbox. It's easier than thinking and doing your own research, I guess. Maybe I'll join the fun, and vote for whoever that guy who's always trying to sell me Canadian Viagra wants me to.

Sarah Palin is nothing more than a sop to the religious right, I'm told. And yes, most of those folks do seem pretty happy with the pick.

But listen.

I'm not a religious conservative. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights and anti-death penalty. And guess what? I like Sarah Palin. Really, I do. I don't agree with her on every issue of course, but so what? When you're a libertarian of any stripe these days, you accept it as a given that you'll disagree with every candidate on a whole host of issues. She's perfect by no means, but when I look at the other names that were supposedly on John McCain's VP short list, I can't find a one that I would prefer to Sarah Palin. That's subject to change, of course. We'll have to wait and see how she does during the convention and over the course of the following weeks before we determine whether this was a wise pick or not.

Meanwhile, if we're going on first impressions? (And why not, because God knows everyone else is.) She's the gun-toting Slayer of the Bridge to Nowhere, a Republican who battles her own party on matters of waste and corruption (and yes, gay rights.) Count me in. For now, at least.


I know you're predisposed to like any hot chick who can wield a gun, but even If even a smart guy like you is applauding this pick, it shows me that men really DO think with the little head, not with the cranium.

I was wondering what all the hysteria over the Palin nod was all about.

I mean, compared to the disastrous possibilities of either a Lieberman or Huckabee, this one seems pretty decent, if somewhat cynical, by comparison.

But the Zogby tracker that came out yesterday (SEE: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html) has McCain/Palin up 47% to 45% over Obama/Biden.

The Poll numbers at this point mean little to me, BUT you would've expected some sort of post-Convention bump (at least 7 to 10 points) by now, but it doesn't look that way.

"Overall, 52% said the selection of Palin as the GOP vice presidential nominee helps the Republican ticket, compared to 43% who said Biden would help the Obama ticket."

Zogby also notes that "The interactive survey shows that 22% of those voters who supported Democrat Hillary Clinton in their primary elections or caucus earlier this year are now supporting John McCain."

I guess that explains some of the hysteria.

>If even a smart guy like you is applauding this pick, it shows me that men really DO think with the little head, not with the cranium.

Well I never have understood why you think I'm so damn smart.

Your post is totally disappointing. As I wrote before, although I disagree with you on essentially everything, I have been respectful of your positions for 2 reasons: 1. Because I respect ideologue libertarians, no matter how wrong they are, and 2. Because I consider you intelligent.

But your post above is at the very least pathetic. You forgot an important fact. That you are a scientist. And as a scientist, I want you to explain to me how you could vote for Palin under ANY circumstances.

I am sure you are aware that Palin:
1. Advocates teaching creationism in the schools.
2. Is against ESCR and
3. She believes that global warming exists, but is not caused by humans.

You tell me how could you vote for a person like that to be VP/president of this country. Are you turning into a theocon? I dont believe it. I just think that you are obsessed with taxes and you chose to ignore how destructive to the basic idea of America is voting for someone like Palin. Would you be voting for McCain if he had picked Dobson as his VP? It is not difficult to see that Palin= a female Dobson.

You are a scientist. You can not and should not be voting for someone who instead of being in a presidential ticket should be advocating for the goals of the flat earth society.

I know you're predisposed to like any hot chick who can wield a gun, but even If even a smart guy like you is applauding this pick, it shows me that men really DO think with the little head, not with the cranium.

Not that I represent all men's opinions, but Palin is anything but hot. She is totally unattractive. How could anyone find attractive a woman who believes that you should only have sex in order to get pregnant? Please.

Barry, in the time I've known you in the online sense, you tend to say that you're pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but you tend to vote based on tax cuts and guns.

I am not alarmed that this woman was nominated. In fact, I'm glad that Republicans are and have been promoting women within their ranks. I don't agree with many of her social issue positions and, while you may agree with me on these issues, I don't think that they are as important to you in that they don't tend to affect your vote.

A lot of Hillary supporters initially cheered this selection. Then, finding out Palin's stand on many issues, they've gone the other way.

We think with both, Jill. It's a constant battle.


apparently, she initially supported the Bridge to Nowhere. Then, when Don Young got in trouble and the project seemed to be doomed, she turned against Young and the bridge.

This article details how Palin ran for governor in 2006 based on a build the bridge platform and how she supported other similar projects brought to the state by Young.


As a follow up to my post from yesterday, below there is a link of the flat earth society. It is funny, but they are based in Alaska.

The flat earth society

Just in case you want to join them.

Intelligent design or abiogenesis?

Hmmmmm, of the two, the latter (spontaneous generation) seems closer, at least in terms of its potential accuracy to that of old styled Creationism. That is, it’s as hard to believe that an ephemeral man in a white beard and flowing robes created the world in seven days, as it is that life “spontaneously generates from inanimate matter” – as when Aristotle noted, “that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain, maggots spontaneously appear in meat.” So according to Aristotle, a mouse is created by decaying grains, and that's what those who today support abiogenesis believe?

Much as I respect Aristotle, I'm not convinced.

At any rate, there is no indisputable scientific proof of either abiogenesis or intelligent design. Many scientists seem to believe as Einstein did, that there is so much order and perfect structure to the universe that it’s impossible to believe it was random, or as Einstein put it, “God does not play dice.”

In fact, Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers anthropomorphic global warming a crock.

Bryson contends that there is no question that the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.

"It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

So, why are some people opposed to both sides of these ongoing debates being taught in schools?

Here’s an irony for you, the flat earthers that Copernicus rebelled against, were people convinced, without indisputable scientific proof, that they already KNEW “the truth.” Today, those people would be called Liberals and the heretics are apparently scientists like Reid Bryson and Bjorn Lomborg.

Your post is totally disappointing.

Your cost of admission will be cheerfully refunded. ;-)

>Barry, in the time I've known you in the online sense, you tend to say that you're pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but you tend to vote based on tax cuts and guns.

Well, I'm neither gay nor pregnant, but I do pay taxes and own guns.

I'd love to vote for a true socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidate, but those are few and far between. Meanwhile, I think Palin's actual track record on gay rights puts her well to the left of many Democrats and virtually all Republicans.

Your cost of admission will be cheerfully refunded. ;-)

I will take the refund. But that did not answer the question. Too bad.

Meanwhile, I think Palin's actual track record on gay rights puts her well to the left of many Democrats and virtually all Republicans.

You must be drinking a real lot today. This sounds more than just being drunk. Totally intoxicated :-)

>But that did not answer the question.

I'd never vote to elect her "Head Scientist." Does that answer your question?

(Oh and yes, you're right. I am drinking a "real lot" today.)

"Well, I'm neither gay nor pregnant, but I do pay taxes and own guns." (BNJ)

Why would anyone NOT vote based primarily on the issues that impact themselves?

"...I think Palin's actual track record on gay rights puts her well to the left of many Democrats and virtually all Republicans." (BNJ)

Actually, her views on homosexual unions are consistent with most Conservatives.

Most Conservatives OPPOSE "gay Marriage" and SUPPORT civil unions.

Although I disagree on some issues (not many) with my cousin Mike (a Conservative Democrat in NY State's Assembly), one of the things I'm proudest of him over is his fighting to get the wording changed in the Democrat's "gay rights Bill" that is winding its way through the NYS legislature, that would bar ANYONE from suing any religious institution for refusing to Marry homosexuals.

Mike remains a Catholic.

I do not practice any religion.

I AM a logical and prescient individual and I can clearly see the logistics. With over 80% of the American people professed Christians, I DON'T want to see that group alienated at all.

I'm sure none of us want to see a Christian version of the jihad here in the U.S., the last one was in Spain, I think.

Believe me, I'm looking at how quickly Liberals capitulated to the Muslims radicals and, well, I don't hold out ANY hope that Liberals here would stand firm against the overwhelming odds right here at home. In fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't fold even faster!

So, why piss them off?

If the Catholic Church and Orthodox Synagogues refuse to Marry gays - well that's their right, under, ah....yeah, under the 1st Amendment! That much is undeniable and does not even need to be heard in any court.

So folks like Palin and my cousin Mike, who SUPPORT civil unions BUT NOT the unconstitutional (anti-1st Amendment) position that would allow gays to challenge religious institutions in court, are actually merely in favor of granting gays the most basic constitutional protections, while also according the various organized religions their "God-given rights," as enumerated in our own Constitution.

That's not only the safest pathway, but the one most in keeping with our Constitution.

Since I was fairly certain that I was not going to be exactly enthusiastic about anyone on the GOP ticket, I can't say I was disappointed.

"Believe me, I'm looking at how quickly Liberals capitulated to the Muslims radicals" ... and at this point I knew it was JMK.

I know it wasn't brought up here, although it originated on BW's favorite site, the Kos Kids and much of the rest of the faaaar-Left have been caught in yet another lie!

Recently a Kos (special needs) Kid posted a pictorial that cast Sarah Palin as the grandmother of her Down Syndrome child (Trig), implying that Bristol was the real mother.

Of course, with the recent stories that Bristol is FIVE months pregnant, that inadvertently proves that Trig (4 months) is not Bristol's child after all.

McCain is said to have known about the Palin's teen pregnancy issue since May and it wasn't seen as a big deal - it isn't.

BUT the Left-wing LIE certainly IS.

I've always said that the level of dumbness on the Daily Kos is so profound that it, to paraphrase that famous Billy Madison line, "makes everyone dumber for having seen it."

The Kos Kids and the Soros brigades are Obama's greatest liability at this point.

The Anne Kilkenny letter provides an interesting, first-hand perspective. It seems pretty honest and balanced. Read it and draw your own conclusions, I know I have.

Post a comment