Browsing PBH By Articles

The Top 5 Sarah Palin Moments of the 2008 Campaign

With the end of the 2008 Presidential election, a thorough retrospection of the most astonishing Sarah Palin moments is a necessity. Providing blogs with the kind of fodder we could only have dreamed of, it’s time to recap some of the highlights of Sarah Palin’s efforts in the 2008 campaign:

5. IF YOU CALL JOE BIDEN OLD, I’LL CALL JOHN MCCAIN THE UNDEAD

Now, call me crazy, but did Sarah Palin just try to make a wise crack about how old Joe Biden is? While this didn’t garner much attention from the media, it was quite the ironic jab, as Sarah Palin’s would-be Presidential-Overlord, John McCain, can often times be mistaken for an undead ghoul. For the record, at the tender age of 72, John McCain would be the oldest first-term President in the history of the United States.

4. THE ANSWER SO STUPID THAT TINA FEY REREAD IT WORD FOR WORD ON SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE

Under the section of “dumbest answer to a question anyone should have seen coming” is Sarah Palins response to a simple and completely foreseeable question on why the federal bailout should be supported by those not directly benefiting from it (aka the lower and middle class). In the end, Sarah Palin would deliver one of the most moronic replies, basically meandering from one incomprehensible assortment of words to the next:

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.

This answer was so hilariously idiotic that Tina Fey recited it verbatim on Saturday Night Live.

3. I SPENT $150,000 ON CLOTHES BUT I COULDN’T FIND A SCARF WITH THE RIGHT ANIMAL ON IT

$150,000 Won't Buy You An Elephant Scarf

We’ve all heard ad nauseum about Sarah Palin’s mavericky middle-class hockey-mom Christian-oriented moose-hunting six-pack Joe just-like-every-Middle-American background. But it turns out that the Republican party spent 3 times the median American income just to dress her for the 2 months of campaigning. That’s right, $150,000 on clothes during one of the worst economic crises in modern history. And what could be worse than appearing as completely out of touch with your own image? How about showing up to events, decked out in your $150k clothing, only to get the animal of the Democrats on your scarf? Sounds about right, but knowing Ms. Palin, she probably thought the donkeys were miniature elephants.

2. I WILL BE THE DARK LORD OF THE SENATE

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”

PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … They’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

Sadly enough, Palin had appeared on CNBC in June amid speculation of being selected to be John McCain’s running mate, but deferred the appeal of the position, as she had to ask out loud, “What does a Vice President do?”. So between June and October, all Sarah Palin learned about the Vice President is that it ‘gets in there’ with the Senate. Sounds like someone’s been copying Dick Cheney’s homework.

1. PUTIN ONCE INVADED MY AIRSPACE AND I SAW HIM WITH MY CREATIONIST TELESCOPE, ERGO I HAVE FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our– our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They’re in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia–

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We– we do– it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is– from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to– to our state.

The answer that makes Dan Quayle seem like John Kennedy. Where to begin? First off, her statements are racked with lies. There never were any trade missions from Alaska to Russia and Russia doesn’t ‘come over the airspace’ of Alaska. But most egregiously, how the fuck does living in a state that is in proximity to other countries give you foreign policy experience? One would typically define foreign policy experience as having been a part of diplomatic or trade related activities with other nations. Conversely, one would not define foreign policy experience as having lived near Canada and having to occasionally drive through the 51st state to attend a gun show or rodeo.

Runners Up In Idiocy:

Sarah Palin Doesn’t Understand Fruit Flies And/Or Science — And you thought Sarah Palin hated science before. It turns out that Palin hates all that ‘unnecessary government pork’ going to wasteful science projects, like, you know, curing the myriad diseases and conditions that plague this country:

“Where does a lot of that earmark money end up, anyway? […] You’ve heard about, um, these — some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense, and sometimes these dollars they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!”

The FRENCH!! Are stealing! Our money! God knows those Frogs are probably just eating the flies instead of dissecting them or whatever else scienticians are supposed to do.

Sarah Palin Makes Speech At Solar Power Start-Up — “Drill Baby Drill” — In her second major policy speech, Palin made a speech on energy policy at an Ohio solar power company. How many times did she mention clean and renewable energy? Zero. But she did say ‘Drill Baby Drill’ a lot.

Independent Investigators Find Sarah Palin Guilty Of Gross Misuse of Power As Alaskan Governor — As we’ve all (painfully) learned, Sarah Palin is such a maverick because she shuns government funds, is a clean and honest Christian, and has been an awesome governor. Well it turns out she also loves abusing power to get ex-relatives unjustly fired. Oh, and she also loves redistributing government funds, as long as it ends up in her family’s pockets.

Sarah Palin Is A Strong Advocate For Abstinence-Only Sex Education; Has 17 Year Old Pregnant Daughter — While I wouldn’t necessarily fault Sarah Palin for her 17 year old daughter being pregnant, it is the height of hypocrisy to say your family is off-limits, only to carry your pregnant teenager around like a purse. Even odder is that Palin still clings to abstinence-only sex education policy, her own daughter becoming pregnant at a woefully young age.

After ‘Flirtatious’ Meeting With Sarah Palin, Pakistani President Has Fatwah Issued Against Him — This has less to do with Sarah Palin, but who else could cause a Fatwah across the globe against a head of state?

The Economist Endorses Barack Obama For President

The Article: It’s Time by the Economist.

The Text: It is impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

Thinking about 2009 and 2017

The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

If only the real John McCain had been running

That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

He has earned it

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

See Also: Why was the financial crisis a turning point in the election?, John McCain: Dishonest and Dishonorable, It’s the economy, stupid, Economist Endorses Obama, The Economist…, Barack Obama Should Be The Next President of the United States, and The Economist Endorses Obama.

[tags]barack obama, the economist, endorsement, presidential endorsement, economist magazine, article, president of the united states of america[/tags]

That’s What She Said

I was a step ahead (though I had actually written the post about 2 weeks ago) in writing that the United States, NATO, and Afghani government should pursue diplomatic talks with the Taliban. And lo and behold, in today’s New York Times, Afghanistan Tests Waters for Overture to Taliban:

The Afghan government and its allies in the region have begun approaching the Taliban and other insurgent groups with new intensity to test the possibilities for eventual peace talks, Western diplomats and Afghan officials here say.

The diplomatic approaches have been stepped up over the last several months by the Afghan government, as well as by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the officials said. They are part of a broad political effort to stem the downward spiral of violence in Afghanistan and the steep decline of public support for the government during a year that has proved to be the bloodiest of the past seven.

Security has deteriorated to the point that a growing chorus of Western diplomats, NATO commanders and Afghans has begun to argue that the insurgency cannot be defeated solely by military means. Some officials in Kabul contend that the war against the insurgents cannot be won and are calling for negotiations.

It should be noted, however, that negotiations will not solve Afghanistan’s problems on the whole — I see the continued allegiance to the Taliban as symptomatic, rather than the cause of, the failed Afghani state and the lack of serious development and infrastructural progress. And I personally think that the long-term solution towards eradicating groups like the Taliban is in the form of short-term stability, long-term development.

See Also: Journalist embeds with the Taliban, Bing West can’t handle the truth, Some Background on the Karzai-Taliban Talks, Will More US Troops Really Help in Afghanistan?, IRAN: No Afghan peace without Tehran, Return of the Talib (& Why Neither McCain, nor Obama, “Get it”), Defense Transformation in the Post-Rumsfeld Era, and Afghanistan: Security Continues to Decline in Kabul.

[tags]taliban, afghanistan, saudi arabia, afghani government, afghan government, peace talks, diplomacy, diplomatic efforts, talks with the taliban, pakistan[/tags]

Liveblogging The Barack-o-Mercial

7:53: Welcome one and all, we’re live blogging this mother fucker up!

7:57: Fuck! Technical problems… must be able to watch this.

7:58: Order restored. Except we are hearing nothing but loud buzzing. This is nothing compared to Hussein’s angelic voice.

8:00: It begins! Barack Obama loves America… and white people…. and the occasional black person.

8:01: Look at all that rich mahogany. What a man.

8:02: What’s that pin on his shoulder? Is that an Israeli flag?

8:02: Fuck is this hokey. Fuck is this cheesy. Where are the graphs???? I demand Ross Perot graphs!!!!!

8:03: Operations, blah blah blah. Here is a surgery you should consider: a vasectomy. Stop pumping out kids!

8:04: WordPress is not optimal for live blogging.

8:04: Mmmmmmm free market optimism! Tastes like economic inequality.

8:06: Yes! 9/11 has already been mentioned! Terrorists – 1, America – 0.

8:07: You earned your pension old man! Now do the rest of us a favor and throw yourself a building. Your life is getting expensive for America.

8:07: Get those corporations! And no more jobs for Mexicans and foreigners!

8:08: Here comes anecdote number 2. More working class people with working class problems. And this one is black and plays the guitar. It just feels so… FOLKSY!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

8:09 12 different medications a day. You in a competition with my girlfriend? How many of those are natural breast enhancers?

8:10: Is this about Barack Obama or how much life is starting to suck in America? “But Daddy, I wanted to live in America where I could get a job with little to no skills and happily live a life where my arteries were clogged with Middle Eastern oil!”

8:11: Oh shit! It’s the Planeteer version of energy policy. And it can’t be outsourced, because they don’t have the sun in India.

8:13: Oh shit, Iraq has a surplus. And they better pay up, cuz this war of sweet liberation is not free, you Arab terrorist Al-Qaedas!!!

8:14: Rocket fuel for small-businesses, which is rocket fuel for the economy. And once this is all over, we’ll use our rocket fuel to propel us into the future, or at least onto the moon.

8:15: God damnit. Another peak into everyday Americana. When are they going to kick in the Death Cab for Cutie with forlorn looks out the window?

8:16: Barack Obama’s father — Darkness everybody! Darkness has entered the building.

8:17: An army of new teachers. I hope they’re the ones we send to Iran.

8:17: Oh shit! Our live feed went down! 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11!!! AHHHHH!!!

8:18: Buffering. Buffering. Buffering. Buffering. Buffering. Buffering. Siiiighhh.

8:19: We’re back, Barack Obamas Mom. This is actually pretty good. The first time tonight this has not felt like a stage prop.

8:20: And it’s over. Bible quotes and laughing with the family. You think he spanks em? I’d like to see that. Barack Obama spanking some children. Real hard.

8:21: Oh Joe Biden. You’re so dreamy. It must be those hair plugs. And that Horatio Alger storyline.

8:23: Kentucky! American Dream. Pies. Houses. Now he works once every two weeks and can’t stop eating grits.

8:24: This is our moment. And our moment is not fucking pretty.

8:25: PBH Editorial Board member and designer Kit is masturbating to Obama. Not kidding.

8:26: It’s all about the children. And freedom. And Free Masons in coal mines.

8:27: Yikkity yak. Story of America.

8:27: Bizarro Bearded Bill Richardson. Bizarro bizarro bizarro.

8:28: I’m sold, Barack Obama’s got my vote. Once again, terrorists — 2, America — 0.

8:28: Ut oh, I think I just heard something deflate. And that something is John McCain’s campaign.

8:29: Is this live? People sure do go ape-shit about tuition.

8:30: Text message for the next President of the United States! It’s either him or Clay Aiken.

8:30: It’s over! I think this was the most offensive 30 minutes of my life. Initial recap: is that it?

Sheppard Smith Takes On Joe the Plumber

Sheppard: Why specifically is a vote for Obama a vote for the death of Israel?

Joe: Well specifically, look at his record. Obama’s agreed to meet with Israel’s enemies with no uncertain terms.. In fact he’s letting them dictate terms to him and then look at his past associations, people he talks to…

Sheppard: Like who?

Joe: Quite honestly, you know, the gentleman that approached me with that question I agreed to with what I know…

Sheppard: What I can’t figure our is why, let’s listen to this clip from earlier.

Q: A vote for Obama is a vote for the death to Israel. I’ss guarantee you that.

Joe: Well, you know what? I’ll actually agree with you on that one. I agree with you. I really think that would be a problem.

Sheppard: Joe, do you know Barack Obama’s positions on Israel?

Joe: Ahhh, listen, I know you want to really get some answers on this one, I’m just not going to help you out here Sheppard. Let people go out and find it issues….

Hey, a baseless claim supported by absolutely no facts! Sounds like the 2008 Republican campaign in a nutshell to me.

See Also: Sheppard Smith blasts Joe the Plumber for saying a vote for Obama means death to Israel, CNN: Religious extremists use fear tactics against Obama, Joe The Plumber: Foreign Relations Expert, Political tidbits: Joe the Plumber takes on the Middle East and Shepard Smith is appalled, Joe The Plumber: A Vote For Obama Is A Vote For The Death Of Israel, Joe The Fraud says Obama means end of on Israel, admits not knowing Obama policy on Israel, It Takes Chutzpa to Question Obama’s Commitment to Israel, Fox interviews Joe the Plumber on Israel, Why Are They Still Allowed On TV?, and This Pro-choice Jewish Democrat is for McCain.

[tags]joe the plumber, israel, death to israel, isreal, hamas, hezbollah, terrorists, barack obama, muslims, arabs, sheppard smith, fox news, interview[tags]