Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 2, 2008

THAT EAGLE FORUM QUESTIONNAIRE.... If you haven't already seen it, be sure to take a look at the questionnaire Sarah Palin filled out during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign for the Alaska chapter of the far-right Eagle Forum, a religious right group formed by Phyllis Schlafly.

Before getting into the details, it's worth keeping in mind that Palin answered the group's questions at all. There were 11 gubernatorial candidates at the time, including five Republicans, and nine of the 11 had the good sense to steer clear of having anything to do with this far-right outfit. But not Palin, who not only answered the questionnaire, but told the group what it wanted to hear.

Among the highlights: Palin is a staunch opponent of abortion rights; she supports allowing parents to opt their children out of public school classroom content they "consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience"; she supports abstinence-until-marriage education; she supports public funding of private schools; she opposes spousal benefits for state employees in same-sex couples, and wants to "preserve the definition of 'marriage' as defined in our constitution."

And then there's my personal favorite. Palin was asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance?" She responded:

"Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Note to Palin: the founding fathers didn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It was written in 1892, and didn't include the phrase "Under God" until 1954.

Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (79)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

With this hasty, impulsive pick, McCain has in one stroke destroyed his own myth as the Serious, experienced, seasoned leader. This should destroy his candidacy, and probably will. If it does, he has absolutely NO ONE BUT HIMSELF to blame.

Posted by: Doofus on September 2, 2008 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

What about the last question-- asked about her priorities for helping families, she cited the need to uphold Second Amendment rights!?

Posted by: Doh on September 2, 2008 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

"she supports abstinence-until-marriage education"

yeah, that worked out really well for her family, didn't it?

Posted by: just bill on September 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Beverly Hillbillies

Posted by: Himself on September 2, 2008 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

who says a Veep needs to know anything about American history. how elitist of you! we want common folk to lead us in times of unbelievable complexity. so common we can just pick 'em off the street corner as they walk by. how else can one explain Sarah?

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 2, 2008 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

I pledge allegiance to the flag while I wipe my ass with the Constitution.

Posted by: lobbygow on September 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Found these saved images from Bristol's alledged boyfriend's sister's now delected MySpace.

"Mommy Inlaw, Trig and Myself”…from the Myspace page of a girl who happens to be the sister of the father of Bristol Palin’s baby. Are Bristol and Levi already married. or is “Mommy Inlaw” just a term of endearment?"

Posted by: MsMuddler on September 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Sad to say, a huge swath of Americans believe the same misinformation to be true. Therefore, I don't think this latest revelation will hurt Palin with the general public.

Luckily, based on the myriad scandals that were revealed yesterday, there are plenty of aspects of Palin's past that WILL make the public uneasy. As I've said before, I'm just hoping "Palin" is the Alaskan slang word for "Eagleton!"

Posted by: The Caped Composer on September 2, 2008 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Jonah Lucianne has a glowing piece about Palin in the LA Times today.

That's good enough for me to be convinced to vote for her.

Posted by: gregor on September 2, 2008 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

What you pointed-headed Libruls clearly don't understand is that true Mavericks(tm) aren't constrained by trivialities like chronology, cause and effect, and spelling. My Friends.

Posted by: Jeff S. on September 2, 2008 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Wait a minute. Hold the presses! She is McAce's Soul mate. Dumb (to a fault), anxious to drag the US back to the Stone Age, knows nothing about National Security that would benefit our country, knows how to fire an AK-47, loves having nukes pointed at Russia,
wants to drill us into oil independence, and except for belonging to an organization that "Hates America', they make a darling couple don't they. Soul mates indeed. I think McAce should dump that millionaire wife of his and marry this one on Rush's next radio show. Better yet, have him marry them in rain coats standing at the water's edge in New Orleans. What fun.

Posted by: Stevio on September 2, 2008 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

I can't find where marriage is defined in the Constitution, but my copy doesn't have a glossary.

Posted by: doubtful on September 2, 2008 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with Doofus...this should destroy McCain's candidacy. But I don't agree that it probably will. Never underestimate the lack of reason, logic and common sense of most American voters.

Posted by: bigapplegeorgiapeach on September 2, 2008 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

The link to "the questionnaire" leads elsewhere now. The McCain campaign just killed it.

Did anyone get a screen-shot of what was there?

Posted by: cettel on September 2, 2008 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK
It was written in 1892, and didn't include the phrase "Under God" until 1954.
Not only that, it was written by a socialist. Posted by: idlemind on September 2, 2008 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

On the marriage/constitution bit, there's the slim chance she's referring to the Alaska constitution which might well have an amendment defining marriage: There was an anti-gay amendment passed in 1998 which at least outlawed gay marriage and may include language defining marriage.

Posted by: Don on September 2, 2008 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I've gone through the two initial stages of Palinitis--laugh and cry. Now, it's important not to pile on lest she is "forced" to tearfully withdraw for the good of her family and generate sympathy as well as a more plausible running mate.

Posted by: Frak on September 2, 2008 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Ideally, this will shatter McCain's image as the bipartisan, moderate Maverick of the GOP. The fact that Palin doesn't know this history of the country alone should be indicative of the kinds of educational policies that she's adopt. However, this question:

Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?

and her answer:
Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.

Are disturbing to me. She's basically saying that parents should be allowed to remove their children from science classes that teach evolution (and one would assume all the related topics like geology, astronomy, biology and bits of physics). That's crap. Our educational systems are a joke, in large part because of the continual meddling of political morons who are looking to score cheap points with their willfully ignorant base.

Posted by: Diogenes on September 2, 2008 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Levi Johnston, father of Bristol's baby.

Posted by: on September 2, 2008 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Will Palin Meet the Press? Not Really
Matthew Delong, Washington Independent

I've been on the road with McCain the entire time since he announced Palin as his running mate, and I have yet to be within a couple hundred feet of her. The only time I've seen her face has been on television or on the Jumbo-trons at the rally in Dayton, Ohio, where McCain made the announcement. Palin also has yet to take a question from any reporter since her selection, local or national. Perhaps with good reason.
Posted by: beep52 on September 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Someday it will be illegal to say that the words "under God" were inserted in 1954, and that the founding fathers were Deists (almost the exact opposite of fundamentalist Christians).

It's already political suicide to tell those truths, give Palin and her friends a bit of time and it'll be the law, despite the founders of our nation who explicitly rejected religious tests and who signed papers stating that the USA is NOT a "Christian nation".

Palin and her ignorant ilk routinely piss all over the philosophy of the founding fathers, and today's corporate media help them do it.

Posted by: Racer X on September 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

This is one thing that seems to be lost so far in the Palin disaster. Sarah Palin is a far right, extremist radical, miles beyond the center-right. She is NOT a moderate, she is NOT a "maverick" as my newspaper claimed. The Media needs to make this known to the voting public. They would have no trouble attaching labels had Obama chosen someone from the far-left.

Posted by: ckelly on September 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

She appeals to George Bush's base at a time when being linked to George Bush is toxic. The louder and more energized the Bush dead enders get over Palin the worse it is for McCain. John McCain needed to separate himself from not attach himself to Bush.

This only strengthens Obama's McCain=Bush message.

Posted by: Saint Zak on September 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

The link is still good-- although they could have some intermmittent server issues since so many are looking at it.

It's the Eagle Forum, a group that she no doubt has respect for-- they are completely in line with her politics. I wouldn't be surprised if Phyllis Schlafly is someone that Palin admires and respects. While that might be a huge turn-off for us, for the right it's a big plus. But the real question is-- just how big is the right anymore? Palin is a test of their influence and its power. McCain clearly chose Palin to please them, now he'll see if they can deliver the presidency. I'm not so sure that they can.

Posted by: zoe from pittsburgh on September 2, 2008 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

I see nothing shocking in the questionaire and her responses. It will serve only to fire up conservatives.

Posted by: Quinn on September 2, 2008 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Doh: I shouldn't say this. I mustn't. It's wrong. I should take the high road, I should . . . oh, sorry, I just have to. Second amendment rights are pretty darn useful when you need to go after your daughter's no-good, irresponsible boyfriend with your shotgun.

Posted by: T-Rex on September 2, 2008 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Even if McCain did this to ensure he gets Joe Liebertwat as VP prick, he will sink. If the story is true, that he was pressured against it, forcing him to choose the most incompetent of all the possibilities, wouldn't you think that the hard right who pushed him into it will not be exactly ecstatic when he reverts back to Joe?

And, if he picked Palin as political payback to those who didn't like Joe, doesn't that mean he's making purely emotional decisions based on petty vendettas?

How could anyone trust this man? Call me perplexed.

Posted by: MsMuddler on September 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Dear Sarah,

Please shut up and go away. You're making us look even dumber than our reputation makes us out to be and we don't need your help in that department.

Posted by: Republicans Everywhere on September 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Dear Sarah,

Please shut up and go away. You're making us look even dumber than our reputation makes us out to be and we don't need your help in that department.

Posted by: Former Beauty Pageant Contestants Everywhere on September 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

she supports abstinence-until-marriage education

How's that been working out for her?

Posted by: Stefan on September 2, 2008 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

But you unfortunately don't understand the reasons why Palin and her message RESONATE so with the conservative base... -che che

I spent the weekend with some of the 'conservative base,' in Indiana (I call them 'family'). The only thing that was resonating was their disgust with McCain and Mitch Daniels and the Republicans in general. They were all firmly in the 'giving Obama a try' camp or the 'too pissed to even vote' camp. Either way, I'm perfectly happy.

Didn't see a single McCain sign in Indiana either. Saw a few Obama signs.

Saw a ton of for sale signs.

It's the economy stupid.

Posted by: doubtful on September 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Why is it that Presidents' take the oath of office with their right hand on the, er, Bible? Why is it when ANYONE testifies in a US court of law they are sworn in with their right hand on the, er, Bible?

Uh, they're not. If you don't want to be sworn in on a Bible, you can request to be sworn in on the Koran or any number of religious texts, and in fact, you don't have to offer an oath at all, but can instead offer merely a secular affirmation. All are equally valid under law.

Posted by: Stefan on September 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Do Liberals understand the danger Palin represents to them in this election?

Meaning, "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers"? I can't disagree with that.

Posted by: DH Walker on September 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

I'd really like to hear a reporter ask Palin what she thinks of abstinence-only sex ed now.

On that Eagle Forum questionaire, only 2 of the 11 candidates (5R 6D) bothered to fill it out-Palin's long answers seem to show she really got into it.

I suppose Bristol Palin has one thing to be thankful for- her parents could have named her Liverpool instead.

Posted by: Tim H on September 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, this is almost sad, like shooting fish in a barrel (hey, I bet the Palins have done that!) Still, it must be done. Ok, "che che", here goes.

The phrase 'Under God' was commonplace in speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington.

Examples would make you more credible, and you are ignore that Palin specifically referenced the Pledge (i.e. she was wrong. admit it.) But even if you were right (as opposed to merely right-wing), "God" meant something quite different to a bunch of Deists/Agnostics than it does to you creationist freaks.


Why is it when ANYONE testifies in a US court of law they are sworn in with their right hand on the, er, Bible?

This one is really easy: they don't.
You watch too much TeeVee. It makes you dumb.
I worked for a federal judge for several years - there were no Bibles in the courtrooms. And witnesses have the option to swear or affirm - that is, to agree to be truthful with no reference to a deity whatsoever.

Do Liberals understand the danger Palin represents to the country?

There. Fixed it for ya.


But you unfortunately don't understand the reasons why Palin and her message RESONATE so with the conservative base

Of course we understand: conservatives are fundamentally opposed to competence and merit. See, e.g., Bush, Dubya. Palin is perhaps the higest example of the anti-meritocracy, the promotion of ignorance as a virtue to cover the fact that on merit, Republicans simply cannot compete.

As demostrated by your post, I might add.

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Do Liberals understand the danger Palin represents to them in this election?

Do conservatives understand the danger Palin represents to the entire country in an office that she's not qualified to hold?

Somehow I'm not surprised that you're only thinking about the election and not stopping to think what happens 6 or 8 or 18 months into the McCain/Palin administration if McCain drops dead or is incapacitated and a woman whose largest constituency was 670,000 is suddenly in charge of running the domestic and foreign policy of a nation of 300,000,000.

The reason we're scared is that we're thinking about what happens if Palin is left with the keys to the country and has her finger on the button to use nuclear weapons. Did you even stop, for half a second, to think about what kind of Vice President Palin would be once she's in office, or have you not thought past Election Day?

You realize this isn't a joke, right? If elected, Palin will be Vice President of the United States for at least four years. She will represent the country on the international stage. She will preside over the US Senate. If we continue the Dick Cheney way of running things, she will have her own office that's allowed to interfere in foreign policy.

You're damn right I'm scared at the thought of someone unvetted and inexperienced being the second most powerful person in the entire country. But, as usual, your only concern is winning the election. Actually governing the country after you win? Oh, who cares about that -- the country can run itself, right?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on September 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

If he has to ditch her, he's through. I don't know how many of the commenters here are old enough to remember Eagleton, but I am. If you have to very publicly admit (even if not in so many words) that you royally fucked up your one chance as a candidate to display your executive decision-making capability, it's all over.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on September 2, 2008 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

The phrase 'Under God' was commonplace in speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington.

Cite, please?

Posted by: Gregory on September 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

But don't let logic get in your way.

Don't you have to actually present some logic before saying something like this? You know, logic, not innuendo and non-sequiturs?

Posted by: DH Walker on September 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Whether the Palin selection will sink John McCain's presidential ship remains to be seen. Sarah Palin appeals to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party and the ill-informed segment of the American electorate who vote their emotions rather than their intellect. Obviously, there are lots of those. How else could "W" have been elected for two terms?

Posted by: Fred Herman Anderson on September 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

"Orwell" has outdone himself this time, claiming the Declaration of Independence mentions God when the passage he cited doesn't mention God

You can "believe" all you want that the Founders meant God when they referred to the Creator, but they could just have easily said "endowed by God," and they didn't.

I can only hope we're treated to the resurrection of former troll "Charlie"'s claim that the DoI "acknowledges the Lord" by the use of the convention "year of our Lord 1776."

Posted by: Gregory on September 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Whether the Palin selection will sink John McCain's presidential ship remains to be seen. Sarah Palin appeals to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party and the ill-informed segment of the American electorate who vote their emotions rather than their intellect. Obviously, there are lots of those. How else could "W" have been elected for two terms?

Posted by: Fred Herman Anderson on September 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Oh orwellian one, do you really want to go there when you support "Iraq/Pakistan border", the king of foreign policy gaffes himself?

It is a little hard to say a verbal typo is a sign of ignorance in someone who was a top student at Harvard Law. McCain, on the other hand, increasingly appears senile and Palin with her intellectually overpowering background as an undistinguished BA from U of Idaho and runner up (not even the winner!) in a small-state beauty pageant isn't merely misspeaking. They really are that clueless.

orwellian indeed.

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 2, 2008 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

All of them were working for the people of Alaska... -Borewell

All of them were working, that is, save for those she fired illegally.

Haha, I can feel the palpable fear oozing out of your comments. Your party is screwed.

Posted by: doubtful on September 2, 2008 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Those who forget history are doomed never to repeat it. If we could tap the energy of Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves we could run a small city.

That's Just What I Said

Posted by: Dale on September 2, 2008 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Orwell, when pissing in the wind, one must be sure not to piss in to it.

Posted by: 63days on September 2, 2008 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Obama said there are 57 states. Where is the shock over such a statement?

You're kidding, right? Do you honestly want to compare a one-time slip of the tongue to McCain's persistent record of simply not knowing what he's talking about?

The Iraq war is such a success that downtown Baghdad is as perfectly safe as any midwestern small town. And to prove it, he'll take a leisurely stroll through the marketplace. In a bullet-proof vest. Surrounded by an armored division, rooftop snipers and close-air helicopter support. After a week of the army clearing out the neighborhood he was "strolling" through.

Yeah, that's the same as someone accidentally saying "57" when they meant to say "50".

Is your judgment really this abysmal? More to the point, are you really suggesting that abysmal judgment is a requirement for supporting McCain? How are you not making this argument?

Posted by: DH Walker on September 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Obama said there are 57 states. Where is the shock over such a statement?

Wasn't Obama talking about nominating contests and the fact that some states had both a primary and a caucus? It was months ago and I let it slide because it just didn't strike me as a big deal, especially with the gaffe machines on the republican stage at the time.

Posted by: Blue Girl on September 2, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

By the way, the number of Dem primaries and caucuses held by states and other entities (PR, Guam, DC, etc.) totaled- wait for it- 57.
The only "gaffe", if it can even be called that, was using the word "states" as a shorthand. (He corrected this himself soon afterward.)

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on September 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

The question wasn't about the pledge

Here's the question again:

"Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance?"

How silly of us to think this question was actually about the Pledge of Allegiance. I mean, it barely even mentions the Pledge in it! Can't you tell it's actually about the Declaration of Independence? It's so obvious.

Posted by: Bob Loblaw on September 2, 2008 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is nothing in the Constitution about the sanctity of marriage. These idiot Republicans think their superstitons are all engraved in the Constitution and embraced by the Founding Fathers.

Posted by: candideinnc on September 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

If mentioning God in the Declaration is good enough for the founding fathers.....

The reference, rather pointedly, is to the "Creator." Do a Google search on "Deism" to better understand the significance of this-it is emphaticially not a reference to the Christian God.

Posted by: rea on September 2, 2008 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist by the name of Francis Bellamy who wanted to create a planned, egalitarian society that today's conservatives would have been appalled by. When the words "under God" were added in 1954 after an intense lobbying campaign by the Knights of Columbus, Bellamy's granddaughter wrote that he would have been ashamed of the addition.

Of course, modern conservatives don't know jack shit about history, as Bimbo Palin so aptly demonstrates.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 2, 2008 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is nothing in the Constitution about the sanctity of marriage. These idiot Republicans think their superstitons are all engraved in the Constitution and embraced by the Founding Fathers.

What gets me, and has for years, is the implicit delusions of omnipotence involved with what a lot of right-wingers believe. They really think that reality itself will conform to the way they wish things were, so long as they believe strongly enough. They admire people with strong beliefs, people who 'stick to their principles', and who 'have faith' - as though those things are more important than actual facts.

This comes out in all kinds of ways. Creationism is based on this, as is the efficacy of everything from abstinence-only "sex-education" to the progress of the war in Iraq. And it comes out in the ridiculously stupid historical revisionism of morons like "Orwell" who insist that the founding fathers were modern-style fundamentalist protestant whackos like them. Inventing rationalizations to "support" these beliefs is trivially, childishly simple - but it's the "power" of the belief which they really think will go back in time and re-mold the fabric of reality to conform with their wishes. It's delusional, plain and simple.

Posted by: DH Walker on September 2, 2008 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

I did'nt know marriage was defined in the constitution. Which article is that?

Posted by: Wink@hotmail.comandanod on September 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

The phrase 'Under God' was commonplace in speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington. -che che

my, but you're a lazy bunch. -che che

You call us a "a lazy bunch," in the same comment you fail to support your own absurd assertion.

If the use of that phrase was commonplace by the founders, why can you not provide a single instance of its usage?

I daresay you have proven yourself to be the intellectually lazy one here.

Posted by: doubtful on September 2, 2008 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

I believe that Palin's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party is a much more troubling story.

"...the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence..."

http://www.akip.org/index.html

No TRAITORS for VP!

Posted by: Sid on September 2, 2008 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

I daresay you have proven yourself to be the intellectually lazy one here.

Exactly. As though uncritically cutting-and-pasting from standard right-wing boilerplate is anything BUT lazy. "Che che" has it in a file on his computer, so it must be true.

Posted by: DH Walker on September 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

'President George Washington, September 17th, 1796 "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

Ah, the usual manufacturing of fake religious quotes attributed to great men who never said them continues apace, I see. The above quote is false, Washington never said it, and it would be extremely surprising if he did since it runs counter to most of his other on the record statements about the subject.

See, e.g. Wikipedia:

"Washington is known to have made some official statements of public piety, but this is not one of them. Though this assertion is very widely reported to have been said in Washington's Farewell Address (17 September 1796) this is not actually the case, as any search of the documents would reveal."

Posted by: Stefan on September 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Palin is clearly expressing accord with the sentiment of the Founding Fathers, and saying that sentiment should rightly be expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance.

You're rationalizing more shamelessly than my eleven-year-old. Why is it so hard for you people to just be honest and admit you're wrong? Is your ego really that fragile?

Posted by: DH Walker on September 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, the usual manufacturing of fake religious quotes attributed to great men who never said them continues apace, I see.

Sure, but blatantly lying is ok as long as you do it for Jesus. A lot of these quotes are right up their with the invented Darwin "deathbed conversion" which also never happened. But hey, if God's on your side, anything's acceptable behavior, right?

Posted by: DH Walker on September 2, 2008 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

I can't find where marriage is defined in the Constitution, but my copy doesn't have pictures.

Posted by: Pete on September 2, 2008 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

And Peter and Paul spoke in the King's English and wrote the KJV.

In the same questionnaire, she says she opposes more gambling. Did she tell her “partner and soulmate,” who sounds like he’s looking for Wife No. 3?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on September 2, 2008 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

I can't find where marriage is defined in the Constitution, but my copy doesn't have pictures.

Well, she did say "our constitution", which, given her secessionist politics, could easily be the Alaskan constitution, which does.

Posted by: DH Walker on September 2, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

The fact that the Founding Fathers (Note: Proper Noun Capitalization apply here, Sarah - show respect) did not actually

A) write the Pledge of Allegiance
B) even the original author of the Pledge did not have "under God" in the original text.

Wrong on both counts here Sarah. This is the best McCain could come up with? She's going to vehemently defend ideals based on a false premise? How many Fallacies does she plan to defend as VP? One, two, all of them?? This is a sad state of affairs when elected officials do not know their American History. I guess it makes it easy to create policy that fits your reality if you ignore "facts".

Posted by: on September 2, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Che Che, that's NOT what she said and you know it. Here's the exact question and comment:

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Oh, also on that form from the Eagle Forum?

Sarah Palin is Little Ms. Anal. She's the only candidate who even answered most the questions.

Now, go away; shoo, trollfly, shoo.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on September 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

che che, et al, the Declaration has absolutely no bearing on the formation of the country. It was, essentially, a stall and a rhetorical ploy by the pro-independence branch of the Continental Congress. It is, in fact, a list of grievances against the autocratic regime of King George. It has no more legal standing than, well, the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Paine or any other piece of correspondence written at the time.

George Washington was an excellent general, but a fairly poor political theorist and philosopher. He had a hand in neither the Declaration nor the Constitution. His best idea was that he hoped that political parties wouldn't form, since they obstructed progress, so I doubt that he'd be pleased to be used in defense of a partisan squabble.

However, founders who were deists (i.e., prepared to believe in some higher power, but not one that intervenes in the normal operation thereof) include the following: Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and Adams. This is, by no means, an exhaustive list, but these were the men who really defined and created the political system that we enjoy today. Beyond that, most of the political philosophers that laid the foundations upon which the country would be raised were deists. (John Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes are examples).

Incidentally, the question of Washington's personal religious beliefs is one that is hotly questioned today by various historians. Cherry picking quotes from him is counterproductive, unless you think the question can be answered by cherry picking both sides, and tallying them. A technique that might serve well in schoolyards, but doesn't really fare as well in rigorous and critical thinking.

A day in which you learn something is never wasted.

Posted by: Diogenes on September 2, 2008 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

my, but you're a lazy bunch.

...says the guy who didn't include a link to any of his sources. [eyeroll]

But hold on! You claimed that "The phrase 'Under God' was commonplace in speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington."

You have to qualify your so-called proof by saying it doesn't contain the exact words -- ha! -- but "the flavor of it."

The quotes you provide, though, are attributed only to Washington, not the Founding Fathers write large, yet you claim it "applies not just to Washington's beliefs, but the vast majority of his peers as well."

You have not provided evidence that this is the case. Do amuse us by trying.

Posted by: Gregory on September 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

When you consider that these right wing nut jobs are apparently procreating, then I would advocate, for them, abstinence until death.

Posted by: e henry thripshaw on September 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Diogenes:


Che Che has lots of wasted days.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on September 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

she supports allowing parents to opt their children out of public school classroom content they "consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience"

Does this mean that, if there's some creationist pagan occult superstitions being taught in my kid's public school classroom content that I consider privacy invading or offensive to my religion or conscience, I can opt my children out of it? With no penalty to their grades? And a guarantee that the school authorities can't hold it against the student?

How many in the studio audience believe that (i) this would be acceptable; and (ii) that this would actually happen if the student wanted to opt out of the creationist conditioning?

Posted by: (: Tom :) on September 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

I tried the link to the questionnaire. It took me to the McCain/Palin website. Interesting.

Posted by: diane on September 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

I support the opt out procedure, actually.
It's the right of every parent to mess their kid up.

It is our right to cringe and cajole, but ultimately if the likes of Palin wants to keep their kids from hearing about contraception... that's the chance they must be allowed to take. Of course, getting into college when your education is incomplete might be a struggle.

When you're 18, you're no longer a child and no college is required to honor your religious sensibilities. even if it does someday, no employer needs to honor it. The longer you stay in your bubble world denying science and other inconvenient reality, the more screwed you'll end up.

Darwin foresaw zealots.


Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on September 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Laughable...the extent some will go to to impose their "beliefs" as fact is truly amazing.

Just jumped right on that "57 states" talking point totally misconstrued by the media as explained in the comments above.
To compare Obama who has a Doctors degree in Law with Palin who doesn't have any secondary extended degrees is completely misplaced. As much as che che tries to justify her statement it is clear what she meant by her answer and clearly shows her ignorant of the issue. Anything that mentions 'God' is of course alright with her and trumps reason everytime. These creationist only contribute to the dumbing down of America and the dumber citizens are kept the easier it is to manipulate their vote.

Put together with the video of "what exactly does the VP do all day" and her denial of global warming with "she's good on Foreign policy 'cause she is in a state next to Russia", or has executive "commander-in-chief experience because she is in charge of the National guard of her state shows the desperation of the McCain campaign to make such a poor judgment call...and...that Palin really is pretty ignorant.

Why the right just can't admit this is a blunder demonstrating McCain's 'win at all cost no matter the good of the country' tactics proves they also are not concerned with the good of the nation but with their own selfish interests.

Sorry but there is too much at stake for McCain's petty ambitious campaign ploy to get in the way of changing the disaster we find ourselves in. Watching McCain it should be obvious that judgment TRUMPS experience when experience shows you've been wrong for 39 yrs and continue to make rash decisions. The republicans for once need to be more concerned with the good of our nation rather than the good of their party. No matter what...McCain is unfit to be president of the US.

Posted by: bjobotts on September 2, 2008 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

I thought this was interesting:

Eagle Forum Alaska

Saturday, December 30, 2006
Palin wrong on gay benefits

By Rep. Mike Kelly

I was deeply disappointed when Gov. Sarah Palin ordered marriage benefits to be provided for homosexuals who pair up with public employees, teachers, legislators, judges, commissioners, administrators and local officials.

In 1998 the Legislature and Alaskans acted wisely and clearly to prevent same-sex marriage. During that public process they also showed little interest in providing marriage-equivalent benefits for homosexual pairs at public expense.

To the delight of the American Civil Liberties Union and other promoters of the activist homosexual agenda and socialized medicine, the five-member Alaska Supreme Court is ignoring the will of the majority of Alaskans and their elected legislators, to whom we delegate the powers of law-making and appropriation of public funds. The Supremes are clever and experienced at twisting our constitution to advance their agenda against Alaska's families. Perhaps we should elect, not appoint them.

When Representative Coghill and I discussed the same-sex benefits issue with Gov. Palin by phone in November, she voiced serious concern about providing these benefits at public expense. After this conversation, I was floored when she caved in without a fight and announced plans to implement marriage-equivalent benefits for homosexual partners effective Jan. 1, 2007.

Make no mistake, provision of benefits to homosexual pairs will be just the beginning. Bets are on that the next lawsuits will come from shacked-up heterosexuals and common-law marriage folks who will claim the Supremes have treated them shabbily when compared to homosexual pairs.

Gov. Palin's decision to support the Legislature's action to provide for an April '07 vote of the public was commendable, but falls way short. Now is not the time to "go along to get along."

Her decision to create and fund a benefits-rich new public employee tier should rattle all Alaskans who are concerned about: 1) maintaining the separate executive, legislative and judicial powers of government; 2) the court taking another "detour into Oz" by equating unnatural homosexual pairings to the time-honored status of legitimate marriage between a man and a woman, entrusted by God and society with forming families as the essential building blocks of our communities, and with birthing, loving, feeding, clothing, housing, nurturing, educating, protecting and counseling our young; and 3) addressing the $10 billion public retirement system unfunded liability.

Governor, here is what I and many Alaskans had hoped the Palin/Parnell team would say in this regard:

"People of Alaska, the record is clear that in 1998 you stood strong against homosexual marriage and indicated no desire to provide marriage benefits to homosexual pairings at public expense. Nonetheless, our Supreme Court seems bent on forcing our legislative and executive branches to implement and fund these benefits with your money. I believe their decision is based on a tortured reading of our constitution, with complete disdain for families and the constitutional separation of government powers.

"Gov. Murkowski tried to stop the court, but erred by providing a set of proposed regulations implementing the benefits and then suspending the regulations pending action by the Legislature and new governor.

"The Legislature, which received the court's decision after close of the last regular session, tried in special session to prevent implementation by providing for a vote of Alaskans next April. They also ordered the commissioner of administration not to implement same-sex benefits that have not been approved or funded by the Legislature.

"Most Alaskans and their elected representatives don't want the state providing homosexual marriage benefits. The courts took seven years to make their decision. I've only had a few days. Therefore, pending investigation my administration will not, in defiance of the people of Alaska and the Legislature, provide these benefits or write a check to pay for them until the people have an opportunity to weigh in and unless the Legislature approves and funds these benefits. If this action causes a constitutional crisis, so be it. Threats of incarceration will not deter me or the lieutenant governor or my commissioner. Should my position change, you will be among the first to know."

We need action that flows from the same moral outrage and constitutional indignation that Alaskans displayed when they voted for the constitutional amendment in 1998. It's not too late, governor. Pull up! Pull up!

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, was elected to the District 7 House seat in 2004.

Posted by: InnerGeek on September 2, 2008 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

The questionnaire seems to have been deleted from the eagle forum blog,but you can still read Palin's responses in Google's cached version of the blog.

Type this in the Google search box:

cache:http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html

Posted by: on September 2, 2008 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

I smell money changing hands at the Johnston household....another poor screwed up kid with dreams of going to college squashed by early parenting:

"I hope this doesn't leak..." If this is for real the kid is friggin dense.

http://levijohnston.com/Blog/

Posted by: RememberNovember on September 2, 2008 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

http://web.archive.org/web/20070501192322/http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html

Posted by: Archived questionaire on September 2, 2008 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

It seems her future son in law also favors drilling in Alaska.

Posted by: JIMPSU on September 5, 2008 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly