I am very thankful to have to intelligent, active, and attentive (liberal) contributors (in comments) on this blog. Various particulars relating to snippits as they come out concerning “Who is Gov. Palin” have been up for discussion. While we can go back and forth quibbling over details, still at this point seen quite dimly, it occurs to me there is an over-arching issue up hiding in the wings.

Most of what has been coming in fits and starts from the media sources (and for that matter the campaign) have been negative (and positive) pieces largely unconnected from context. This is alas, counter from the enterprise in which we are all engaged regarding the good governor.

In the context of the election with regards to all four candidates what the rest of us are trying to do is to build a holistic picture of the candidates as a person, to figure out their political and moral philosophies. Who are they? How do they think? How do they appreciate and consider the issues facing the nation?

This problem is made more complicated by the fact that the candidates and the press are aware of this exercise on our part and are intentionally trying to frame that image in a way that is perceived by us as favorable (in the case of the candidates) or unfavorable (in the case of partisan factions). The mechanisms that the press and press releases operate however is antithetical to the process at which the rest of are engaged. The modern press operates on sound bites, catch phrases and other short bites (bytes?).

What we seek however is a holostic ensemble view of the candidate. The challenge for the voter is to fight through this morass of annoying scattered flotsam and to assemble that image. My suggestion (which I’m about to follow more consciously) is to disregard in the main those details provided sans context.

I read this post on the TalkLeft blog by “Big Tent Democrat” last Sunday.  It’s regarding the issues surrounding Sarah Palin’s reassigning of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, allegedly because he wouldn’t fire Palen’s sister’s estranged husband.  BTD takes fellow liberal blogger Josh Marshall to task for his coverage of the issue, specifically over the fact that Marshall seems to take all the accusations against Palin at face value (guilty until proven innocent) and Marshall’s contention that this kerfuffle may hurt Palin politically.

For starters, the Left seems to see this entirely in a political lens.  BTD notes:

Let’s face it, Marshall’s interest, and everybody’s for that matter, is almost entirely based on the political implications of this story. And here is what Marshall is missing – the story is likely to have little political implications for Sarah Palin. And if there are any, they are likely to be positive.

Quite an honest admission from BTD, who reiterates this point at the end of the post.  Not mentioned in this post or Marshall’s is that, while there has been an investigation opened into this, Palin hasn’t been subpoenaed — because she’s been so forthcoming!  This is another example of what I’ve noted before; Palin seems to be the kind of politician everybody says they’d like and wish there were more of.  And indeed this corruption-fighting, cooperative governor enjoys 80%+ approval from her constituents.

But Big Tent Democrat goes over the accusations and the facts of the case and find no “there” there, which to me is the larger point.  So many on the left smell blood in the water, because it’s all political.  In the meantime, there’s no credit given for the unusual openness shown by Palin simply because she’s of the wrong party.

Hey liberals.  You’re watching the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and booing Jimmy Stewart (in a brilliant disguise).

UPDATE: John Hinderaker at PowerLine notes that the NY Times called itself “squeamish” about covering the John Edwards “love child” story, and had to (in their words) devote more time to the “big issues facing the country”.  But today, they had 3(!) front page stories on Bristol Palin.

Times’ Public Editor Clark Hoyt said of the Edwards coverage, “I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it.”  I’m sure he said it with a straight face, too.

It seems that some liberals are having a difficult time understanding what constitutes hypocrisy.

Consider the saga of Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter, and this blog post at ABC News,

To begin with, I’m not aware of any prominent Republicans stating that “everybody else doesn’t have any values.” To be sure, persons with alternative political affiliations hold values of some sort.

Yet I wonder exactly what type of accountability Mr. Wray would hold Sarah Palin to? It seems to me that, in her public statement on the issue, she made it clear that her daughter was choosing life for her unborn baby, that her daughter was going to get married to the child’s father, that her daughter would have the full support of her and her husband, and that their full support was needed now that her daughter would learn about the reality of having made choices that fell outside the realm of “family values”. It further seems to me that, rather than displaying hypocrisy, Palin is being fully consistent with the family values she claims to have. Honesty, love, commitment, and responsibility.

If Sarah Palin wished to be a hypocrite, she would have counseled her daughter to have a secret abortion, in order to preserve the family image, thereby allowing her to attend college (if she so desired) without the punishment of having to take care of a child at the same time.

It has been argued by many that the amazing inexperience of Mr Obama is now off the table, due to a similar lack of experience of Ms Palin (who it might be noted is not running for President). However, that inexperience factor is not “off the table”, it is turning out to be something of a political Trojan horse. The left is no longer as worried about talking about the experience factor. Where before they were actively sidestepping this topic, now instead they are talking about it.

Part of the problem is, the experience of Ms Palin and Mr Obama are roughly on a par. Both are about the same age. Both attended school. While Mr Obama supporters like to point to a distinguished Academic career of their candidate, it really isn’t so. He ostensibly took an Academic career after law school but … failed to publish (and if you talk to Academics you’ll find that for an Academic career publishing is not just a small matter). As well, he went into “community activism”, and his record at community organizing apparently was only distinguished by his ability to use this as a stepping stone to the next level, i.e., state office. Ms Palin by contrast did not seek public office (a far more commendable outlook from this onlookers point of view), but circumstances thrust it at her. From PTA to Mayor to Regulatory board to Governor she was thrust up not by dint of self promotion but instead by the fight against corruption.

The time Ms Palin and Mr Obama spent in actual public office is comparable, one might actually argue that the time that Mr Obama spent at the highest level (Senator in his case vs Governor for Ms Palin) is far less while because, alas within 6 months to a year of attaining his Senate seat he was campaigning full time for the Presidency … and thus missing out on actual Legislative experience. For what it’s worth, Mr Obama had 50% approval ratings as a State senator during that stint and Ms Palin prior to Mr McCain asking her to be on his ticket enjoyed 80+% approval ratings.

The point is, that far from taking “experience” off the table, it has gotten the left to bring it up. And, when they do, it is not a winning issue for them. So I’d argue that experience as a topic far from being “off the table” is even hotter because the left has been fooled into thinking it is now a safe topic.

Just what is John McCain up to?

In the movie Jaws, when the fictional Captain Quint makes first contact with the great white, and the shark behaves unexpectedly, he tells Police Chief Brody, “I don’t know Chief, he’s very smart or very dumb.”

On McCain unexpectedly picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, Kirsten Powers wonders,

I can’t help wondering if this is a trap. The McCain camp watched and learned as Obama supporters offended Hillary supporters by their treatment of her. The McCainiacs had to know that this group is incapable of behaving, that Palin would bring out their worst instincts.

Ed Morrissey states,

This trap has two doors, as Powers notes, and the Obama campaign and its supporters fell through both of them. First, it didn’t take long to speak dismissively of Palin as a “beauty queen” and a “small-town” hick, even though she governs the state of Alaska and has a favorability rating in the 80s…

The bigger trap, though, was the knee-jerk attack on Palin’s experience. Calling her a “small-town mayor” only underscored Obama’s own woeful lack of experience…

and then wonders,

Did McCain set Obama up to fall into this trap? If so, then perhaps that more than anything demonstrates how poor a candidate Obama is and how much more masterful McCain can be. Would you rather have the man who set the trap dealing with our enemies abroad, or the man who fell into it?

At the Belmont Club, Richard Fernandez states,

…McCain will take risks, but only after figuring the odds.

…

He has the ability to wait patiently until his opponent commits himself to a move then ruthlessly strikes to exploit it. He gives nothing away to clue his opponent on which way he is going to turn. Then suddenly he snaps the stick. A collection of links by Glenn Reynolds reveals a sudden appreciation by McCain’s opponents of his unpredictability. Some are hesitating to criticize Palin’s relative youth and inexperience, lest they fall into the Trap. What trap? A classic AP head says it all: Analysis: Palin’s age, inexperience rival Obama’s.

He’s a 72 year-old Maverick who, it would appear, knows his way around.

Also see:

Mark Steyn’s The Hostess with the Moosest

HotAir’s Desperation from Democrats

In my recent travels abroad, of which I will indeed blog more (with photos) presently, one of the observations I had was that the urban/rural cultural divide is more important and pronounced than a lot of our other cultural splits.

With that in mind, one of the (unspoken objection) that a lot of (urban) liberal bloggers have to Gov Palin’s inclusion on the ticket is that by her resume and rhetoric she is not one of “them.” She doesn’t hang out with, is part of, or identifies with any group with which they associate. And that is problematic because they misread or fail to read her cultural cues.

There are a lot of non-urban voters out there with more rustic values and virtues and they see them in McCain’s running mate. Their failure to note that seems akin to color blindness. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t poll well in the Democratic party today either, and that’s the point.

The urban liberal Hillary voter may be put of by Gov. Palin … but the suburban/rural female (and male) voters, I think might poll differently.

It has been also remarked that by putting Sarah Palin on the ticket, Mr McCain loses his line of attack on Mr Obama regarding “experience.” While I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case, it also might be noted that Mr Obama loses the “Change” line of attack as well. Mr Biden, Mr McCain are all old hand beltway denizen, and Mr Obama is a Haaaarvard educated lawyer and Senator. That is without even noting that Mr Obama’s actual voting record and policies are basic liberal/progressive boilerplate.

Real change is an outsider like Gov. Palin, who is not a lawyer, DC regular or “one of the club” in any way shape or form.

A commenter recently noted that there was a tape of Sarah Palen supporting Ted Steven’s pork project nicknames “The Bridge to Nowhere”.  A writer on a local group blog, “Peach Pundit” says she was for it before she was against it.  As one of their commenters notes, she was for state funding if the state wanted, and her speech in Dayton confirmed that. 

A conservative Republican woman for vice president: To note that SCO called for this more than a year ago.

Yesterday, before McCain’s VP announcement, the Democracy Project blog put put their top 10 reasons why she should be VP.  Definitely worth a look.  My favorites ones are 9, 7, 5 and 2, but read the whole list.

Not Romney, Pawlenty, and not Lieberman.  John McCain has made either party choice in November a historic one by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.  This is so big, the Drudge Report website is overwhelmed with readers (I can’t get a link in edgewise).

Aside from the obvious appeal to history, and the disenchanted Clinton voters, Palin brings experience.  “Experience?”, you may say, “She’s not even been governor a full 2 years.”  Indeed, but that’s 2 years more executive branch experience that the other 3 candidates — Obama, Biden and McCain — combined.  Prior to that (via Wikipedia):

• Became mayor of Wasilla, AK on a platform of cutting spending and taxes.  She did both, with cutting her salary being the first thing.
• Appointed by then-governor Murkowski to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission as the Ethics Commissioner.  She quit over ethics issues in her own party, so she’s not afraid to call it like she sees it.

The Wikipedia article has much more about her that I find absolutely excellent.  Great job, Senator McCain. 

John McCain, after congratulating Barack Obama for his historic nomination, appears to have chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his pick for VP. (see CNN, FoxNews)

Palin, the Barracuda.

CHANGE… we can believe in.

In an essentially 50/50 race, this is an awesome, gutsy, risky, and potentially brilliant move. Can we say… Maverick?

Kind of makes you wonder what Hillary is thinking now, doesn’t it?

(image: McNamee/Getty)

We have a new poll up regarding your viewing habits of the Democratic and Republican national conventions.  With their foregone conclusions and political theater, do you bother tuning them in?  Are you a political junkie who loves the speeches?  Are you a casual observer, using the conventions to gather information before you cast a ballot in November?  Did you know that the conventions were this week and next?  Let us know.

The Catholic church has had to correct the thinking of some Democrats in the past in reference to the church’s position on abortion.  (Well, they’ve spoken out in the past; there’s no evidence yet that the actual thinking was corrected.)  Most recently, the Speaker of the House herself has come under fire for misrepresenting Church teaching in order to buttress her own views.

Politics can be treacherous. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walked on even riskier ground in a recent TV interview when she attempted a theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

Roman Catholic bishops consider her arguments on St. Augustine and free will so far out of line with church teaching that they have issued a steady stream of statements to correct her.

The latest came Wednesday from Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, who said Pelosi, D-Calif., “stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion.”

It has been a harsh week of rebuke for the Democratic congresswoman, a Catholic school graduate who repeatedly has expressed pride in and love for her religious heritage.

Enough “pride” and “love” for her to, y’know, accept her Church’s teaching?  Apparently not.  The “steady stream” of corrections don’t seem to do much.  More below the fold…

Read the rest of this entry

In pictures taken or made by both adoring fans and by the press, Barack Obama keeps getting the heavenly, messianic treatment.  Check out this blog that highlights all sorts of examples.  And see here for a few others.  Covering enthusiasm is one thing; framing the shot it another.

But it looks like the guy’s starting to cater to this feeling by giving his acceptance speech in a mock-up of a Greek temple. 

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama‘s big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.

The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts, has been set up at the 50-yard-line, the midpoint of Invesco Field, the stadium where the Denver Broncos’ National Football League team plays.

Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington’s Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party’s nomination for president.

He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor.

The show should provide a striking image for the millions of Americans watching on television as Obama delivers a speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination.

(Click here for a picture.)

The keyword here is “image”.  Granted, both parties manage the image of their candidates; perception is too often reality for many folks and the parties play to this.  But this is simply way over the top, and McCain’s ad about Obama’s celebrity starts to ring truer and truer.  The whole Adonis imagery he’s playing to is indicative of a guy who is drunk on his own Kool-Aid.

After this, you can’t say that messianic imagery is simply foist upon Mr. Obama by his fans.  He’s participating in it and encouraging it.  And now we know why he chose Invesco Field; the convention center was too small for his head.