Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Has He Been Vetted?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10192
21 Comments
Desperate Leftist Wishful Thinker wrote:
Sarah Palin will not be President someday, contrary to Simby's previous spur of the moment (McCain-like? ) predictions.
In fact, Sarah Palin will shortly drop out of the race. Or if she doesn't, she will be the running joke of the 2008 campaign, epitomizing the fact that Republicans who are lousy at governing used to be good at campaigning until they imPaled themselves on Sarah Palin.
The smarter choice would be for her to drop out before her nomination. But Republicans aren't very smart, so we shall wait and see, and perhaps laugh even louder.
The Sarah Palin vetting reminds me of Mission Accomplished .
Yes, maybe if the RNC spends $645 Billion on this bus, she can be pulled out of the ditch too. Too bad they can't hit the national coffers for another spin in the dark.
Bob wrote:
Every time Wright gets brought up, it is just going to be hard for commentators to resist quotes like this:
"the fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American Government" and "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
from the founder of the Alaska Independence Party that Palin joined and to which she still gives encouragement.
The quote about infiltrating the other two parties is kind of funny too.
I don't think Palin will drop out. I do think Palin's connections to the Alaska Independence Party should be a much bigger story. I hope Palin is interviewed about her ideological beliefs soon.
Paul Breed wrote:
What a lot of people just don't see is that there has been a libertarian streak in the Republican party.
Having someone view the federal government as oppressive and overreaching enough to consider independence is
a HUGE plus! Its a feature not a bug!
Over and Over about 5 to 10% of the electorate identify their views as libertarian. In the past these votes have largely gone to the republicans in voting for the "lesser evil" The overreaching executive and things like the patriot act have really poisoned this.
Before Palin I doubt any of the libertarian leaning would vote for McCain, now there are some significant libertarian streaks in Palin and that might just be enough to change some minds.
For now I live in the people republic of California,
this state is so blue my vote does not matter. I'll vote for the libertarian ticket. If I still lived in NH where my vote actually could effect the outcome I'd vote for McCain. You can see this rationalization in the voting results, the libertarian candidate does a lot better in states that are not really contested.
In states where the contest is close the libertarians have usually held their nose and sided with the republicans.
Rand Simberg wrote:
Bob, do you have any evidence that Sarah Palin has ever been a member of that party?
I hope Palin is interviewed about her ideological beliefs soon.
So do I. I look forward to it. I think you'll be quite disappointed, though.
Rand Simberg wrote:
...contrary to Simby's previous spur of the moment...
Drooling moron, if you're not capable of the simple courtesy of spelling the host's name correctly, you will be banned.
Mike Puckett wrote:
"Desperate Leftist Wishful Thinker wrote: "
The village called and said it's missing it's idiot. Please return there.
Bob wrote:
Hi Rand,
When I posted the above comment just a little while ago, I hadn't realized that Palin's membership in the Alaska Independence Party was in question. I then read Jack Tapper (of whom I think you have written approvingly). Tapper characterizes the issue as a "she said/she said". Here's the link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/another-aip-off.html
We'll see what develops! If she was supportive of their goals, that's worrisome too.
I think you'll be quite disappointed, though.
Well, if she shows herself to be a poor potential president, I'll be worried that McCain will win anyway, and we'll be stuck with her one way or another down the road (re: your prediction about her).
If she somehow shows herself to be a great potential president, I'd generally be pleased - I want both parties to run strongly competent candidates. I want the election to be decided on ideology, not experience or personality, and I want the American public win to feel reassured that things won't completely go to hell if their candidate doesn't win.
Maybe that sounds unlikely, but I did feel that way under George H. W. Bush - he never made me want to gnash my teeth, and I had high hopes for McCain. So far, the Palin choice undermines my confidence in him, as it reinforces his image as someone who takes foolish risks.
Rand Simberg wrote:
There is no "he said, she said." The McCain campaign has records going back over a quarter of a century of her being registered Republican, non stop.
If she was supportive of their goals, that's worrisome too.
Just which of their goals are "worrisome"? And which do you think that ordinary voters (not you) will find worrisome.
The hilarious thing about the media bias is that they think that everyone views life through the same warped lens as they do. Bill Ayers? No big deal. Belief in true federalism and free markets? Horrors!
Raoul Ortega wrote:
The One!™ has supported Akaka's Hawaiian native sovereignty bill. And how is the AIP any different from MEChA or La Raza and their talk of Aztlan? At least I haven't heard anything about the AIP being into racial separatism and racial supremacy.
Brock wrote:
The only thing that bothers me about the AKIP's platform is that the final success of all their goals would leave the USA with one less source of potential libertarian Republican pols. Short of leaving the union though, looks cool to me. I think most Goldwater & Reagan fans (whether Republican or Democrat) would find much to like about them.
I don't see how association (even without membership) is a problem here.
Brock wrote:
And how is the AIP any different from MEChA or La Raza and their talk of Aztlan?
Easy question. The AKIP believes in strong Federalism and constitutional independence of a territory. The parties you mention are fascist race-supremacist groups; Latino Nazis, essentially.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmmmm.
@ Bob
1. Palin addressed the AIP by **videotape**
2. Palin welcomed AIP to Alaska's political scene by using the words "your party"
3. As described by Rand Simberg, Palin has been a registered Republican for decades
4. Don't be dumbass. Do some basic research before you start reciting whatever you find on DKos.
Bob wrote:
As Gov. Palin is quick to point out, Alaska is a vital American resource. The people of the United States have poured resources into Alaska and anticipate getting a lot in return, to the general profit of Alaskans and their fellow Americans. And of course, I'm not just referring to material resources.
Losing Alaska would weaken America. It isn't going to happen, but taking it seriously for a moment: if the people of Alaska wanted to leave, I wouldn't fight a civil war to make them stay, but I would want the American government to drive a very hard bargain on behalf of the remaining 49. If the president of the United States was on the separatist's side, I wouldn't feel assured that my fellow citizens and I would get a good deal. (I can't even imagine how such a deal could be done - calculating Alaska's value to the American people would be a much more sophisticated undertaking than in Seward's day.) I was impressed by the breakup of Czechoslovakia, but I can only see the USA breaking apart in the context of a NAFTA that has become as strongly binding as the EU, at the very least. (I'm assuming the prospect of relatively quick EU membership kept the dissolution of Czechoslovakia palatable to them.)
As for the American public: Hey man, e pluribus unum!
The public rightly believes that the president and vice president should be American patriots. People who love their (whole) country aren't going to put up with ""I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." And yes, in my ideal world, Obama would discuss Ayers at length.
PS Memomachine: You are mischaracterizing what I said and guessing incorrectly about what I knew. I'm not going to get into it with you, but this story has been evolving all day.
Well, Bob, we'll see which the electorate finds more offensive--a presidential candidate who was for two decades a member of a church whose pastor said "God Damn America" or a vice presidential candidate whose spouse was for a few years a member of a party whose founder hated America.
From the looks of the current platform, though, the party seems to have evolved. Can the same be said of Trinity Church? I can't see anything particularly objectionable about it, which seems to be federalism on steroids. I can understand why big-government types might be concerned, though.
Rand Simberg wrote:
I'll also add that when Todd Palin goes around giving campaign speeches on behalf of his wife that I (and the rest of the country) will be interested in their content, and whether or not he is "now proud of America." Not before then, though.
Interesting double standard that you and Senator Obama want to run. though. He wants to have it both ways--a wife who is part of the campaign, but we're not allowed to critique what she says.
Bob wrote:
I think it is fine to critique what Michelle Obama said. I think she misspoke, she explained, and then she covered her view of America in her personal yet patriotic convention speech. You're quite entitled to view all that with cynicism, but I don't know where the argument goes from there. Neither does anyone else, so it is out of the news currently.
As Senator, Obama is 1 out of a 100 so he can't do too much damage and in his case hasn't done much of anything at all. In most places, he couldn't be elected mayor, because that is a job with some direct responsibilities.
How surreal that BHO is candidate for POTUS??? I can't even imagine that, yet it's true. That the MSM isn't totally discredited for not vetting this candidate; that a vocal majority indicated by polls want this guy running the country; it's too much to believe. Please, somebody, reboot the matrix.
Sarah, kick ass!
Bob wrote:
Ken said "in his case hasn't done much of anything at all."
And it is relevant to a recent post of Rand's: the article in the above link discusses Obama's involvement in the regulation of genetic testing.
Edward Wright wrote:
The public rightly believes that the president and vice president should be American patriots. People who love their (whole) country aren't going to put up with ""I'm an Alaskan, not an American.
Okay, Bob. In your "ideal world," the President of the United States would not "put up with" people saying things you don't like.
What would the punishment for dissent be in Bob's America?
More significantly, does Obama share your intolerance toward free speech?
(I'm still waiting for you to comment on Presidents like Washington, Adams, and Jefferson who were traitors by your standards.)
Edward Wright wrote:
From the looks of the current platform, though, the party seems to have evolved.
Much as the Democrat Party has evolved.
But Bob believes in holding a party accountable forever -- perhaps he will will soon be ranting about Obama's membership in a "pro-slavery party"???
No, I won't hold my breath. :-)
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on September 2, 2008 10:40 AM.
Sarah Palin will not be President someday, contrary to Simby's previous spur of the moment (McCain-like? ) predictions.
In fact, Sarah Palin will shortly drop out of the race. Or if she doesn't, she will be the running joke of the 2008 campaign, epitomizing the fact that Republicans who are lousy at governing used to be good at campaigning until they imPaled themselves on Sarah Palin.
The smarter choice would be for her to drop out before her nomination. But Republicans aren't very smart, so we shall wait and see, and perhaps laugh even louder.
The Sarah Palin vetting reminds me of Mission Accomplished .
Yes, maybe if the RNC spends $645 Billion on this bus, she can be pulled out of the ditch too. Too bad they can't hit the national coffers for another spin in the dark.
Every time Wright gets brought up, it is just going to be hard for commentators to resist quotes like this:
"the fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American Government" and "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
from the founder of the Alaska Independence Party that Palin joined and to which she still gives encouragement.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/politics/animal/main4407224.shtml
The quote about infiltrating the other two parties is kind of funny too.
I don't think Palin will drop out. I do think Palin's connections to the Alaska Independence Party should be a much bigger story. I hope Palin is interviewed about her ideological beliefs soon.
What a lot of people just don't see is that there has been a libertarian streak in the Republican party.
Having someone view the federal government as oppressive and overreaching enough to consider independence is
a HUGE plus! Its a feature not a bug!
Over and Over about 5 to 10% of the electorate identify their views as libertarian. In the past these votes have largely gone to the republicans in voting for the "lesser evil" The overreaching executive and things like the patriot act have really poisoned this.
Before Palin I doubt any of the libertarian leaning would vote for McCain, now there are some significant libertarian streaks in Palin and that might just be enough to change some minds.
For now I live in the people republic of California,
this state is so blue my vote does not matter. I'll vote for the libertarian ticket. If I still lived in NH where my vote actually could effect the outcome I'd vote for McCain. You can see this rationalization in the voting results, the libertarian candidate does a lot better in states that are not really contested.
In states where the contest is close the libertarians have usually held their nose and sided with the republicans.
Bob, do you have any evidence that Sarah Palin has ever been a member of that party?
I hope Palin is interviewed about her ideological beliefs soon.
So do I. I look forward to it. I think you'll be quite disappointed, though.
...contrary to Simby's previous spur of the moment...
Drooling moron, if you're not capable of the simple courtesy of spelling the host's name correctly, you will be banned.
"Desperate Leftist Wishful Thinker wrote: "
The village called and said it's missing it's idiot. Please return there.
Hi Rand,
When I posted the above comment just a little while ago, I hadn't realized that Palin's membership in the Alaska Independence Party was in question. I then read Jack Tapper (of whom I think you have written approvingly). Tapper characterizes the issue as a "she said/she said". Here's the link:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/another-aip-off.html
We'll see what develops! If she was supportive of their goals, that's worrisome too.
I think you'll be quite disappointed, though.
Well, if she shows herself to be a poor potential president, I'll be worried that McCain will win anyway, and we'll be stuck with her one way or another down the road (re: your prediction about her).
If she somehow shows herself to be a great potential president, I'd generally be pleased - I want both parties to run strongly competent candidates. I want the election to be decided on ideology, not experience or personality, and I want the American public win to feel reassured that things won't completely go to hell if their candidate doesn't win.
Maybe that sounds unlikely, but I did feel that way under George H. W. Bush - he never made me want to gnash my teeth, and I had high hopes for McCain. So far, the Palin choice undermines my confidence in him, as it reinforces his image as someone who takes foolish risks.
There is no "he said, she said." The McCain campaign has records going back over a quarter of a century of her being registered Republican, non stop.
If she was supportive of their goals, that's worrisome too.
Just which of their goals are "worrisome"? And which do you think that ordinary voters (not you) will find worrisome.
The hilarious thing about the media bias is that they think that everyone views life through the same warped lens as they do. Bill Ayers? No big deal. Belief in true federalism and free markets? Horrors!
The One!™ has supported Akaka's Hawaiian native sovereignty bill. And how is the AIP any different from MEChA or La Raza and their talk of Aztlan? At least I haven't heard anything about the AIP being into racial separatism and racial supremacy.
The only thing that bothers me about the AKIP's platform is that the final success of all their goals would leave the USA with one less source of potential libertarian Republican pols. Short of leaving the union though, looks cool to me. I think most Goldwater & Reagan fans (whether Republican or Democrat) would find much to like about them.
I don't see how association (even without membership) is a problem here.
And how is the AIP any different from MEChA or La Raza and their talk of Aztlan?
Easy question. The AKIP believes in strong Federalism and constitutional independence of a territory. The parties you mention are fascist race-supremacist groups; Latino Nazis, essentially.
Hmmmmm.
@ Bob
1. Palin addressed the AIP by **videotape**
2. Palin welcomed AIP to Alaska's political scene by using the words "your party"
3. As described by Rand Simberg, Palin has been a registered Republican for decades
4. Don't be dumbass. Do some basic research before you start reciting whatever you find on DKos.
As Gov. Palin is quick to point out, Alaska is a vital American resource. The people of the United States have poured resources into Alaska and anticipate getting a lot in return, to the general profit of Alaskans and their fellow Americans. And of course, I'm not just referring to material resources.
Losing Alaska would weaken America. It isn't going to happen, but taking it seriously for a moment: if the people of Alaska wanted to leave, I wouldn't fight a civil war to make them stay, but I would want the American government to drive a very hard bargain on behalf of the remaining 49. If the president of the United States was on the separatist's side, I wouldn't feel assured that my fellow citizens and I would get a good deal. (I can't even imagine how such a deal could be done - calculating Alaska's value to the American people would be a much more sophisticated undertaking than in Seward's day.) I was impressed by the breakup of Czechoslovakia, but I can only see the USA breaking apart in the context of a NAFTA that has become as strongly binding as the EU, at the very least. (I'm assuming the prospect of relatively quick EU membership kept the dissolution of Czechoslovakia palatable to them.)
As for the American public: Hey man, e pluribus unum!
The public rightly believes that the president and vice president should be American patriots. People who love their (whole) country aren't going to put up with ""I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." And yes, in my ideal world, Obama would discuss Ayers at length.
PS Memomachine: You are mischaracterizing what I said and guessing incorrectly about what I knew. I'm not going to get into it with you, but this story has been evolving all day.
Re: the story has been evolving all day
Her husband was an AIP member from 1995 until 2002
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/todd_palin_was_registered_memb.php
But, of course, the patriotism of the spouses of those oat the top of the ticket should never be questioned....and I'm sure now he has never been prouder of his country. :-)
Well, Bob, we'll see which the electorate finds more offensive--a presidential candidate who was for two decades a member of a church whose pastor said "God Damn America" or a vice presidential candidate whose spouse was for a few years a member of a party whose founder hated America.
From the looks of the current platform, though, the party seems to have evolved. Can the same be said of Trinity Church? I can't see anything particularly objectionable about it, which seems to be federalism on steroids. I can understand why big-government types might be concerned, though.
I'll also add that when Todd Palin goes around giving campaign speeches on behalf of his wife that I (and the rest of the country) will be interested in their content, and whether or not he is "now proud of America." Not before then, though.
Interesting double standard that you and Senator Obama want to run. though. He wants to have it both ways--a wife who is part of the campaign, but we're not allowed to critique what she says.
I think it is fine to critique what Michelle Obama said. I think she misspoke, she explained, and then she covered her view of America in her personal yet patriotic convention speech. You're quite entitled to view all that with cynicism, but I don't know where the argument goes from there. Neither does anyone else, so it is out of the news currently.
As Senator, Obama is 1 out of a 100 so he can't do too much damage and in his case hasn't done much of anything at all. In most places, he couldn't be elected mayor, because that is a job with some direct responsibilities.
How surreal that BHO is candidate for POTUS??? I can't even imagine that, yet it's true. That the MSM isn't totally discredited for not vetting this candidate; that a vocal majority indicated by polls want this guy running the country; it's too much to believe. Please, somebody, reboot the matrix.
Sarah, kick ass!
Ken said "in his case hasn't done much of anything at all."
Ken, I've posted this before, but just in case you didn't see it, here's a discussion some of the things Obama had done in the Senate from 2004 to 2006.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html
And it is relevant to a recent post of Rand's: the article in the above link discusses Obama's involvement in the regulation of genetic testing.
The public rightly believes that the president and vice president should be American patriots. People who love their (whole) country aren't going to put up with ""I'm an Alaskan, not an American.
Okay, Bob. In your "ideal world," the President of the United States would not "put up with" people saying things you don't like.
What would the punishment for dissent be in Bob's America?
More significantly, does Obama share your intolerance toward free speech?
(I'm still waiting for you to comment on Presidents like Washington, Adams, and Jefferson who were traitors by your standards.)
From the looks of the current platform, though, the party seems to have evolved.
Much as the Democrat Party has evolved.
But Bob believes in holding a party accountable forever -- perhaps he will will soon be ranting about Obama's membership in a "pro-slavery party"???
No, I won't hold my breath. :-)