TL;DR

Palin’s original quote, uttered in a public debate, was: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

Yeah, that’s a pretty clear-cut endorsement of teaching creationism alongside evolution. She didn’t even try to temper that rhetoric until a newspaper reporter called her on it several days later, and when she did, all she could manage was ‘debate it if it comes up’ or ‘it doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.’

Sorry, Gov. Palin, a public school science classroom is not the place to discuss the merits of a religious belief (other than to say that it falls outside the scope of a discipline founded on research and verifiability). Not only does it not “have to be party of the curriculum,” it emphatically SHOULDN’T be taught in public schools (unless, as I said, it is presented as part of the pantheon of creeds in a world religions class, where it can be taught as a cultural artifact rather than as an evidence-based counterweight to evolution). These are not competing or interwoven scientific theories worthy of equal attention: one is a Judeo-Christian article of faith, the other is a rigorously documented biological phenomenon. Refusal to acknowledge this distinction—in a country where religious freedom is enshrined in the constitution, no less—seems kinda troubling in an aspiring vice president.

Then there’s her own personal stance: “She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact. ‘I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be,’ she said.” Fine, it’s her right to ignore a century of biological research if she wants to, but it’s also my right to find that a pretty fucking strong indictment of her judgment on science-heavy issues like, say, global warming.

Lastly, the platform of the Alaska GOP, the party whose gubernatorial nomination she sought and won, reads: “We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.” (All science is theory, of course, but the Alaska GOP wants a unique and insurmountable degree of skepticism applied only to this particular area of biology. I’m glad she’s such a maverick.)

The one thing I give her credit for is not explicitly pressuring the board of education to include creationism in the school curriculum, but I think her unwillingness to call creationism what it is — an article of faith — is truly negligent for someone who ultimately oversees a U.S. public school system.

Feel free to rebut me ad nauseam, but this debate is starting to go in circles, so I’ll make this my last post in the thread:

-Invading Iraq was a stupid and grossly mismanaged undertaking, start to finish (regardless of where public support stood then, now, or at anytime between). It was built on a litany of faulty and deceptive premises, it resulted in tens of thousands of Iraqi and American deaths, it provoked regional chaos, it sparked sectarian warfare, it set back anti-terrorism efforts rather than advancing them, and it’s a gaping sinkhole for the U.S. budget. I don’t need a poll to tell me what to think of this little adventure. (As it happens, Palin seemed pretty sour on the idea just a few weeks ago: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/09/08/080908ta_talk_gourevitch?printable=true .)

-Creationism doesn’t belong in public science classrooms, period. Even if Palin and a slim majority of Americans think it does, it doesn’t. It is unverifiable religious dogma whose presence in a public science curriculum is both laughable and at odds with the constitution. (Though even if a constitutional amendment were passed requiring creationism to be taught in every biology class in the country — which of course it won’t be — it would remain a bad idea.)

-Drilling in ANWR advances a lousy, environmentally shaky precedent for almost zero economic benefit. That’s why it’s a bad idea, and that’s why, for the umpteenth fucking time, the presumptive Republican nominee opposes it. My argument on this subject has remained consistent from the start of this discussion — I defy you to show otherwise.

-Breaking protocol, firing a whistle-blower, and lying about having done both smacks of corruption to all but the most witless conservatives, independent of whether the guy she was trying to can was a lawbreaking douchebag. This isn’t something a pack of liberal bloggers just pulled out of thin air: it’s the subject of an ongoing state investigation. And the fact that she’s managed to be less corrupt than her Alaskan cohorts is vaguely encouraging, I guess, but it’s not much of a selling point if her file has dirt in it. (See: http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html )

-Finding a sprinkling of ex-lobbyists hired by the Obama camp and saying it completely derails his efforts to reduce the influence of special interests in DC is shit logic. That’s a tiny fraction of his hundreds (thousands?) of campaign members, none of whom rank among his inner circle of advisors. John McCain has padded his campaign HQ with their ilk (Randy Scheunemann is only the most notable and recent example) and taken money from them directly in such volume as to make this back channel/Biden patter laughable, so it’s difficult to believe that McCain would advance this cause with any alacrity whatsoever. Obama, at least, has taken a few concrete steps to curb their impact from the get-go. (Since you’re so fond of polls, go sample some DC lobbyists and tell me who they’d rather have in the White House. The answer will not be surprising.)

-Refusing to sign an unconstitutional piece of legislation solely because it would contradict your oath of office doesn’t show courage to break with orthodoxy or support for the LGBTQ community so much as a baseline regard for judicial review and the letter of the law (which, unlike some in her party, I give her credit for). Saying she deserves credit for that is like saying Nixon really deserved some credit for turning over his oval office tapes.

Besides, her signing statement made it pretty goddamn clear where she stood on the issue, and she happens to oppose hate crimes statutes (which by the ZOMG-let’s-cling-only-to-the-polls standard puts her way out of the mainstream). Yes, I do find it disappointing that Obama opposes gay marriage, but his stances in the area of gay rights are a helluva lot more encouraging than the trash that comes out of the GOP.

-She opposes all forms of abortion in all cases, something you’ve tried to gloss over this whole time. That’s just batshit.

-She insisted that global warming wasn’t manmade as recently as 2006 (which, in addition to being out of sync with her running mate, puts her out of the mainstream by that same ZOMG-let’s-cling-to-the-polls standard). I guess it’s not surprising that her efforts at curbing it have been scant.

-Re #38 & #4: I don’t consider being from a small town a liability at all, and I don’t consider relative inexperience in government a weakness unto itself (though if you can think back to like 48 hours ago, the GOP has been arguing non-stop that it is). Both of those arguments were advanced by other people in this thread, but not by me. I do, however, consider shitty judgment and staking out foolish policy positions to be weaknesses, and Palin and McCain both excel in these areas.

-Obama and Biden are no more left-wing nutbags than Palin and McCain are right-wing nutbags, but both of these labels are completely meaningless in a serious policy debate. I’ve never said she’s got no shot at becoming vice president — in fact, it disturbs me that she DOES. What I said is that I find her hard to take seriously for the exactly reasons I’ve enumerated.

-Obama is surely a cutthroat jackass at times — just like anyone who rises to that level of politics — but like #40, I prefer the cutthroat jackass with good policies and judgment to the one without.

Lastly, I don’t adopt opinions on public policy because think they poll well; I adopt them because they hold up to scrutiny. The strength of a policy idea shouldn’t be (and never has been) measured exclusively by how it fares in the court of public opinion. In fact, guarding against the fickleness of public sentiment is one of the many reasons we live under a representative democracy rather than a direct one.

Yes, polls are useful snapshots of public preferences, and yes, elections gauge the public’s hunger to see those preferences enacted, but you’re either—how do I put this?—”brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated” if you think public opinion and elections always get it right. How else were policies like slavery, segregation, and denial of suffrage allowed to endure? How else do ineffective and impulsive leaders end up in office?

Also, when did it become the mark of an “uppity arrogant jerk” to advocate a position at odds with public opinion or to cite reliable sources in so doing? What the fuck kind of brainless argument is that? Do you wake up every morning and choose a set of ideals for the day based on a phone poll? Do you think scholarship and research (from this government’s own Department of Energy, for example) are universally garbage if they don’t support a narrow conservative world view? There are dozens of good reasons to oppose drilling in ANWR; I cited the DoE study in particular because it cuts right through the economic argument used to support the plan. This is not a fringe environmentalist cause, it’s sound policy.

At the end of the day, Sarah Palin has shown consistently poor judgment and routinely embraced bad policies. That doesn’t mean America won’t elect her — we’ve elected misguided, calamitous ideologues plenty of times before — but it means she’s bad news, and it means I’ll continue to press the argument against her and her pal.

i don’t really understand how “maybe a woman who’s primary experience in government involves running a very remote and very small town” magically transmogrifies into “those podunk hicks shouldn’t even have their voices heard!”

oh wait. i know how! the magic of fallacy in argument! the question is, did even realize that your argument was a logical fallacy? just because it sounds good, doesn’t mean it makes sense. i got served! ooooooh.

furthermore… being someone who grew up in a town with a population less than 10k, where the last mayor taught our american government class in high school. i feel confident when i say i think that most small town folks would be utterly frightened at the idea of of small town politicians ending up in the whitehouse.

in any event, after knocking me with that straw man, you’ve kinda pissed me off. i’m going to crucify your dearest governor palin once and for all.

lets suppose, that sarah palin were not sarah palin, but rather, harry palin. same experience, same record. 10 years on city council of wasilla, ak, followed by assuming the governorship of alaska not long after most campaigns this season were just getting started. only difference? ixnay on the oobs-bay and agina-vay and throw on a weenis.

would mccain have picked harry palin? hell no! who the hell would pick someone with that little experience! especially someone who’s primary campaign messaging is “vote for us, we have experience!”

therefore, ms. palin, was chosen purely because of her gender in a cynical grab for disgruntled hillary voters and an attempt to meet and see the historic nature of the obama campaign.

i’m sorry dude, but i really don’t want to see someone who’s prior experience in government = 10 years on the the city council of wasilla, ak followed by 18 months as governor of ak sitting in the oval office in two years after nature takes it’s course with dear senator mccain.

say what you will about obama being green, but this woman makes him look as experienced as mccain + biden combined.

Congratulations

@37..amazing..you still haven’t read the article…obama refuses to hire lobbyists? His NH CAMPAIGN CHAIR right at the beginning of the PRIMARY was a lobbyist! Those are only a small swath of articles on their hypocrisy…there are literally thousands upon thousands of articles on their connections to lobbyists ranging from obama’s time in chicago to biden’s ball licking of credit companies. Let go of your holier than thou bs (also you clearly haven’t read the articles–all the things you claimed have been disproven)!

As for creationism..again she suggested that it can (voluntary) be discussed..not exactly ralph reed or dobson esque conservatism like your claiming…in fact your own comments on her decision to actually follow the law and allow equal rights for the lbgt minority suggests she’s a government hands off type politican (heck even Big O doesn’t support gay marriage)

and i love how you’re trying to retract your initial argument—your statement was simply angry that she was trying to drill in a wildlife preserve..now you’re trying to put forward a cost benefit analysis which even you admit has a legitimate other side to it…as for people who’ve studied it intensely..i can guarantee you she has studied it just as much—the three interviews about her all have her discussing anwr and how balance environmental conerns with fiscal ones

as for the second to last paragraph..this is going to be fun to pick apart the hypocrisy.

First..if you’re dismissing polls..then how can the hell can you knock Iraq just because people are against the war now? Now that the surge has worked, americans and iraqi’s death rates have plummeted and teh government has started functioning so well that we’re even negotiating a withrawal date prompted by them? By your own plan, we would have had a second vietnam if we would have taken your poll based idea. On top of that who decides if a bad idea is a bad idea? you? the minority ideologues who have enough power to filibuster a bill in congress (you well know that it only take a dedicated minority nowadays to kill an idea that even supports something on a congressional level). You can’t try to paint her as a conservative wacko nutball when many of the same ideas she’s a proponent of clearly fit in the mainstream of america….that’s what polls are useful! They’re the thing that protects us from uppity arrogant jerks like you who think because you referred to one study you know better than everyone else.

As for her anti corruption image being grossly exaggerated…what a joke..alaskan republicans hate her because she exposed them…she beat an incumbent gov in the primary because alaskans loved her anti corruption streak and then beat a popular dem ex governor. She’s testified against her own party numerously. And the only thing who you and josh marshall are tyring to smear her on relies on a guy who admitted to doing the following:
http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html

• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.

• He illegally shot a moose.

• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

• He told others his father-in-law would “eat a f’ing lead bullet” if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

Go ahead..attack her experience…you’ll remind us of Obama. Attack the fact she’s from a small town…you’ll piss of the heartland. Attack the idea she’s a far right wing nutbag…we’ll bring up the fact that Biden and Obama are far left wing nutbags and point out many of her views are shared by Americans. And finally attack her intelligence or for her potential gaffes…we’ll point out the dozens obama and biden have already made (biden just made two in yesterday’s speech) and we’ll celebrate when she holds her own against a guy who’s made racist comments as well as brainless and arrogant ones in debate.

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/

No one, but no one, is arguing that lobbyists ought to be done away with completely. They serve their purpose, and they’ll continue talk to and attempt to influence every elected official in DC. The goal, according to both major party candidates, is to reduce the scope of that influence. And the fundamental difference between Obama’s campaign and McCain’s is that one has made meaningful strides towards reducing their involvement in the political process (by sponsoring ethics reform, by not accepting donations from DC lobbyists, returning donations from them before his run, refusing to hire them — all mentioned in the articles you list), while the other hasn’t (or has been playing catch-up all summer).

But really, any attempt on your part to argue McCain-Palin will be less beholden to corporate interests than Obama-Biden is rendered asinine by this http://www.wmsa.net/People/john_mccain/ariz-republic_chap_V_1999.htm , this http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/top-ceos-give-10-times-more-to-mccain-than-to-obama-2008-08-15.html , and about 10,000 other analogous stories (which I’m happy to track down if you’re unconvinced). Talk about destroying your credibility.

Would Palin try to force the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in America’s classrooms? No. You’ll notice I didn’t say that. I said I was troubled by the fact that she thinks it’s a good idea. If a politician said he thought Americans should be barred from working on the sabbath but that he wouldn’t do anything to enforce it, I’d consider that troubling, too. It speaks to judgment and disposition.

Not a fundie, huh? Evangelical protestant? Beloved by the far right? Unwavering opposition to abortion in all cases? Extolling the virtues of teaching creationism in public schools? Color me unimpressed.

I don’t think Palin is as awful as Brownie — I’ll give her that. My point was that expertise can still be colored by incompetent ideology (Rumsfeld’s handling of the U.S. military, for example), and that we shouldn’t just accept what she says at face value merely because she’s been around pipelines all her life. People who have studied the subject intensely (including a lot of fellow Alaskans) disagree on the wisdom of drilling ANWR; I happen to side with the ones that say we shouldn’t make a habit of drilling more wildlife reserves to save a few cents on gas 19 years from now. So, by the way, does JOHN FUCKING MCCAIN.

(I brought up the cost-benefit analysis because it demonstrates that even if you ignore the environmental impact, its impact on the price of oil barely registers. And I no point did I say anything to the effect of “oh noes!!!! she driling in a wild life preserve.” That was all you.)

So now democrats are the oligarchs? That’s rich. Are you really so indifferent to (or ignorant of) representative democracy that you think all decisions should be based on opinion polls? Taxes don’t seem very popular — maybe we should do away with them completely? On the other hand, invading Iraq was pretty popular at the time, and we all know how splendidly that turned out. If the people cared so fucking much about drilling ANWR, they’d vote in a congress and president who supported the idea, but neither of those things is going to happen this year, no matter who wins. A bad idea is a bad idea, even if it polls well.

Palin may have an interesting bio, she may be a great mom, and she may have moments of sound governance (most politicians do on occasion). But she’s on the wrong side of a lot of pressing issues, her anti-corruption image is grossly exaggerated, and she fails the very test of presidential readiness that the almighty GOP has trumpeted for months now. The fail, as you put it, is huge with her.

But even if I did subscribe to MoveOn, what bearing would that have on criticisms that are backed up by independent reporting and quotes from the horse’s mouth? You didn’t actually bother rebut anything I said, you just pointed out that a liberal PAC raised the same concerns in their newsletter. Good for them — they’re doing a better job of fact-checking than you.

By the way, I still don’t care if she hasn’t been in government all that long, and it doesn’t matter to me how John McCain chose to vet her. I care about her policy positions and her judgment, and she strikes out in both cases.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/lobbyistobama_n.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html

as for creationism..this is what you claimed “[she] supports teaching creationism in school”..you then tried to mislead again by not including the other quotes she made on this topic in teh article:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

“It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.”

Add that to the fact that she never even requires it to be taught in a science class room and she’s a far cry from the fundie you’re trying to paint her out to be.

And I love your ANWR comments..you refer to the fact its democratically favored by saying..’well people don’t know what’s good for them sometimes’…why thank you mr. all knowing anti democratic oligarch..why don’t you and your idealogues all just tell us what we need to do because we’re all too stupid too read both sides of the argument and decide

and haha @trying to compare brownie to Palin…the enormous difference there was that brownie was woefully underqualified and put there becuase of the graft and incompetence of the bush administration..Palin has lived all her life around the alaskan wilderness and heard debates about drilling all her life…she has first hand knowledge of the drilling vs environment argument

and its funny how you try to refer to a cost/benefits argument..your original argument you charlatan was ‘oh noes!!!! she driling in a wild life preserve’…well guess what genius..prudhoe bay has been a succesfull drilling operation in a preserve for a while now and is about to go off line..in fact here native american/eskimo husband works there and knows more about it than you could ever glean from the sierra club…as for the 10 yr argument..that’s the same argument we heard 10 years ago! and if supply like you and everyone suggests..continues to tighten and prices go up..the price relief will also trend higher…anwr also make us more resistant to international shocks which would devestate our oil supply and economy

man..the fail is huge with you..i’ll address the rest of that junk later…but seriously..the lobbyists thing is the biggest indictment of your stupidity

“First joe biden is as tied up with lobbyists as anyone in the country.”

Not even close—hell, take the GOP nominee who spent the whole summer purging his campaign of lobbyists and people with lobbying connections. (By the way, he’s not done yet.) The Obama-Biden campaign, by contrast, doesn’t hire or take money from them.”

Even the most passive follower of politics knows beau got his job because MBNA owns Biden and that his other son is a lobbyist..obama’s has been workign with lobbyists ever since we all found out his NH campaign chair in the primaries was a lobbyist. Yeah..biden sure is an earnest guy who’s denied himself trappings–he’s just tried to peddle it all to his sons! The fact that you just spewed this paragraph destryos any credibility you haev. Here’s proof:

Just a small sampling of Biden’s links:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080825_3949.php
http://www.propublica.org/article/bidens-cozy-relations-with-bank-industry-825/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/24/biden-rakes-in-lobbyist-c_n_120935.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080824/pl_bloomberg/a6qrvqdtzkv4
http://sirenschronicles.com/2008/08/24/hunter-biden-lobbyist-for-big-pharma/

Obama’s links:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lobbyists-on-obamas-08-payroll-2007-12-20.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603894.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/25/obamas-lobbyists-connecti_n_103474.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/obamas-lobbyist-fib_b_95399.html
http://blog1.thejtandbearshow.com/2008/08/27/obama-rewarded-bidens-lobbyist-son-with-34-million-in-earmarks.aspx
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm

Who is Sarah Palin? Here’s some basic background:

* She was elected Alaska’s governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1
* Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2
* She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3
* Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
* She’s doesn’t think humans are the cause of climate change.5
* She’s solidly in line with John McCain’s “Big Oil first” energy policy. She’s pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won’t be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
* How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7