I kept trying to imagine the perspective of an earnest Republican observer, who cares about the country, and who takes policy issues seriously.

Imagine, indeed.

You forgot to mention that she is embarrassing women. And we thought Hillary had made some advances on our behalf!

Read Douthat over at the Atlantic. He was someone who saw Palin as a future star of the GOP, worried a little when McCain thrust her into the limelight too soon, and now seems to have come to the conclusion that she's a disaster. He may be (on this issue at least) the last intellectually honest Republican, thought frankly that's fast becoming an oxymoron.

At the risk of sounding impolite, Sarah Palin is embarrassing herself, her party, her ticket, and her supporters.

But that's the problem with movement conservatism in general and the modern Republican Party in particular. She isn't embarrassing them. As Obama pointed out, they're proud of their ignorance. All the criticisms you leveled against her aren't flaws in their book, they're selling points -- after all, if you're appalled by her unreadiness for national office, it means she "annoys liberals," and that's good enough for them. (It was the same with George W. Bush, if you recall -- remember "Bush Derangement Syndrome"? The fact that liberals objected to Bush encouraged his supporters.)

I've commented before about how blatantly the power structure behind movement conservatism openly relies on appeals to emotion. Palin's popularity -- which simply can not be justified by reasonable argument -- in a perfect example.

It's as if the Republican campaign has turned itself into an episode of Entertainment Tonight with lots of melodrama, stunts and emotional fluff. It's scary that 40% of the voters think this is leadership.

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt must be spinning in their graves.

You know she did say she wanted to break 'that highest, hardest glass ceiling once and for all' when she was introduced. To me it sounded like she was talking about the presidency, not the vice-presidency.

Why are the polls still so damn close?

I kept waiting to hear her say something about electrolytes....

She embarasses me as an American. This is the best they can offer?

Pass my Slurpee, I like a coke\cherry mix.

Why are the polls still so damn close?

Feature, not bug.

It's all a matter of perspective. The GOP is not a governing coalition, it's an election-winning machine. Viewed in that light, Palin is a excellent pick.

The GOP world is a political version of Brigadoon, that comes to life only one day every four years.

McCain has made his slogan-of-the-week "Country First". Which is interesting because there are times when a people should put country ahead of party.

John Dean gives two examples: 1) When the Republicans agreed to impeach Nixon, thus forcing his resignation. 2) When the Democrats agreed to NOT pursue impeachment against Reagan, when the Republicans agreed to have Sen. Howard Baker take over Reagan's chief of staff position to clean up the Iran-Contra mess.

Now is another such time. Despite what the hysterics on the far right say, Obama is a centrist in terms of economic and foreign policy, and center-left in terms of social policy. He's a capable and extremely intelligent consensus builder. Joseph Biden is similar -- you may disagree with their politics but you can't argue that they aren't ready.

The idea of a Palin presidency on the other hand, should freak any reasonable person out. And as for McCain, well, he is clearly random, impulsive, highly emotional, defensive, and probably verging on the edge of a medical breakdown.

The country-first thing for a rational Republican to do is to cede this election and focus on 2010 and 2012.

paul....

it's what plants crave...

Has Sarah "The Tiara" Palin gotten back to Katie Couric yet about those examples of John McCain advocating for more regulations, as she promised she would? "I'll bet back to ya!"

We need to hold Sarah to this promise -- I'm certain it will prove to be one more lie.

Serious republicans, by standing on the sidelines, are putting neither the country nor their party first. But we didn't see many of these serious republicans at the GOP convention, did we? The GOP has been hijacked by buffoons and the serious republicans are hiding in shame and not taking a stand against the madness. And other serious republicans like Brooks can't get off the freaking fence. They have time to rescue their party but where in the hell are they?

"Sometimes the world is just too ridiculous to live in". Little Big Man

"Brawndo, it's got what plants crave."

We clearly are a nation of idiots, though the right has far more of them. That you would ask what is an earnest Republican thinking indicates that you think such a thing exist. They don't.

Not surprisingly, the usual suspects in Wingerville are dead silent. The Corner/Campaignspot, Contentions, Instapundit, Powerline, Hotair, Worldwide Standard ... nobody has a word to say. Hiding their heads in the sand, I guess.

Kathleen Parker, Ross Douthat and Rod Dreher are the only exceptions so far.

From a wingnut perspective, I guess McCain deserves some criticism for "promoting" a promising GOP candidate before she was ready for prime time. The way things are now there is a very real risk she will be forever remembered for the Couric interview in particular.

MARCU$

You forgot to mention that she is embarrassing women. - Betty

No offense, but it's men she seems to be fooling. Though I wouldn't necessarily say he's embarrassing former POW's.

The money people that own the GOP are happy with her if she brings the fundies out to vote.

They will continually string the fundies along with the carrot of "we need your vote to stop the Godless" from running the country, even though they are the most un-Christian people you will ever meet.

She is par for the course. You're making the mistake that the GOP isn't and always has been the party of power.

They don't WANT to govern, and in fact getting unqualified people in office makes cheating the tax man (and SEC oversight man) that much easier.

Very sobering article. I don't think you could be more objective and serious. I question the credibility of people who support her and the GOP for the very reasons that you outline in this article.

I can't take her seriously. I can't take McCain seriously. I can't take the GOP seriously. All for the reasons that you outline and other reasons, i.e., a candidate that changes almost all of the positions that he's held for years, a GOP VP and Pres. candidate that outright lie over and over even when it's proven with facts that they are lies, a GOP campaign that uses responses and justifications for their positions that are wrong, silly, unjustified, nonsensical--foreign policy experience that included proximity to a foreign country, etc.

I'm a registered Republican but I can't support incompetance, lies, politicization, etc. The last time I voted for a Republican was in 2000 before I really realized I had been snowed.

The GOP has been way off track for awhile and I wish people would stop enabling their incompetence by voting for this sideshow of a political organization.

If it is, though, we've already entered the world of Idiocracy and we might as well all just give up and enjoy our super-size Slurpees while we can.

Brilliant! It's the way out of the current financial crisis - take that $700 billion and buy shares of BRAWNDO - The Thirst Mutilator!

That way, when BRAWNDO takes over the government, the government will already own it!

Got this yesterday - not sure the origin....

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."
* If you grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you're a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack, you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* If you name your kids Bristol, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

* If you graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable.
* If you attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

* If your total resume is: beauty pageant winner, local TV sports girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system, while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, *much* clearer now.

"Why are the polls still so damn close?"

Political ideology in this country breaks down as follows (and has for close to forty years):

Liberal = 20% MAX
Moderate = 40%
Conseravative = 30-35%

The polls will always be close because there will ALWAYS be 45% of the country that will not support a Dem/Liberal or even Dem/Moderate candidate.

You're probably also confusing the idea of an Electoral College blowout with a popular-vote blowout. Popular-vote blowouts pretty much never happen.

The pragmatic middle of the voting spectrum -- 5-10% of all voters who vote -- will decide this election. If McCain and Obama are polling around 45% each, the missing 10% are the ones who decided the outcome.

Welcome to American politics.

Now somebody start talking about WaMu going belly up last night. (See also my comments in the previous thread. Because it's the biggest damn story nobody's talking about today.)

Well I think they are finally wakeing up. Kathleen Parker from WA PO , usually a successful regurgitator of Republican talking points, and slightly to the right of the right wing has come around and asked for her to step down.
http://townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2008/09/26/the_palin_problem
Next up for Johhny Mac the polls slip and he is forced to replace her for his next drama queen moment. He has nothing else

I think the earnest Republican doesn't consider governance all that complicated a task. Consider that Republicans have been nominating and electing village idiots to national office for thirty years. There's a very simple GOP rulebook where you stand up to tyranny, you cut taxes, and you promote free enterprise. The fact that interviewers expect Palin to spend an entire minute repeating the words "cut taxes" isn't Palin's fault for knowing the right answer--it's Katie Couric's fault for expecting things to be more complicated than they have to be.

What exactly are the qualifications for seeking the presidency? There are requirements like age and citizenship, but other than that it is pretty vague. The rest is really a matter of opinion.

Measuring purely by experience in government work Obama is the least qualified.

Measuring by knowledge of working with a budget Obama is still the least qualified.

Measuring based on time in Washington Palin is least qualified.

If you judge people by the way the "sound" in an interview or how quickly they respond to questions, McCain is the most qualified while Obama's answers are filled with "uh, um," and the annoying "let's be clear..." Biden keeps making gaffes.

These same charges of stupidity were made against Reagan - Carter was said to be the "change" agent.

Silly intellectuals. Don't you know that hockey moms know more about foreign policy than anyone else? Even experts with about 200 years of policy experience?

She just strikes me as an utter fucking dummy.

To paraphrase a line from James Michener.
"Where do they get such dumbasses?"

Look, you are (except for the occasional troll responding here) preaching to the choir. The fact is McAce's 45% polling numbers contain a load of democrats who are pro life and anti gay and most definitely racist. Palin is a clown way out of her league as a Governor, much less a VP candidate. Mayor of a small town? Perhaps. I came from a small town and most of the mayors were shop keepers or an occasional banker type but not that far removed from a Palin-like person.

Her base is wrought with fearful people who may very well win this one on the racist angle alone. There is no perceivable reason why anyone with 1/2 a brain would vote for that ticket. A vast majority of Americans are fearful, petty individuals who have shown a consistent disregard for intellectual curiosity hell bent on voting against their own best self interests. Once McAce wins, I will become part of the problem of the legion of voters who will decide it's just not worth it any more to try to turn the boat around. It's too full of idiots seeking what it is they will be getting and most definitely deserve.

"The notion that she could be the leader of the free world sometime fairly soon isn't just ridiculous, it's terrifying."

Terrified! How I felt two weeks ago. Now, I'm completely disgusted and angry with McCain. I really wanted to give him a fair hearing. His pick of Sarah Palin made me think he's just too reckless. Just Troopergate alone would make most sane candidates skip Palin. The last thing we need in our current state is a president who makes choices like an adolescent kid. Then there's Sarah herself. Let's not even get into that morass. My verdict is in: McCain's judgment is horrible.

I may be naive but I think serious Republicans must be feeling the same way but are too loyal to say anything about it. But, many are discussing it privately.

At the start of this campaign I knew that McCain was a heavy conservative who was a maverick in media fame only. However, what I have come to realize is that McCain is an absolute clown and buffoon who is quite literally operating with the mindset of a child. Palin is just one other example of his utter buffoonery. What is horrifying is that with all this, there only seems a 5 point spread in their average poll results. McCain may have lost his lead, but he is still polling around 42%. McCain is a pathetic clown who we should simply be laughing at as his campaign sinks into oblivion, but close to half the country still claims they want to vote for him. I find that very disturbing regardless of whether Obama wins or not.

Ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunder! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never presume the Republican mind is capable of rational or logical thought. They would vote for a box of rocks if you wrote Republican on the side of it.

I'm particularly irritated with Palin's simplification of the Arab-Israeli tension as a case of "good guys" and "bad guys." 2000 years of history, summed up in 4 words. It's a simple contention of who owns a plot of land that they've attached religious significance to. Since the Israelis' religious views are more in concert with hers, then they're the good guys. Sorry. It's not that simple.

Palestinians aren't irrational hate mongers. They were kicked off their land by Western powers at the end of WWII. The land was taken, and then the militaristic (at least in their view) government of the new Israeli state expanded their boarders. I'm certainly not arguing against Israel's right to existence. My point is that when different sides are labeled as "good guys" and "bad guys" people stop evaluating either in a rational context. This sort of thinking is vital in, for example, training soldiers or police. They have to make snap, life or death decisions, generally based on the intelligence that they've received before hand. However, in a policy maker, the one who has presumably reviewed and evaluated that intelligence, you want someone who is going to look at both sides, evaluate their actions both on a moral ground and on a utilitarian one, and then issue the orders that those police or soldiers are going to follow.

The problem with Republicans is that they always characterize Democrats as you have just characterized Palin. This is their MO. So it could be that the Republican voter, as distinct from the talking heads, just thinks that Democrats are learning how to use their tricks.

But that only works as long as Palin remains relatively silent. But now she has opened her mouth and removed all doubt. Maybe the three weeks of fermentation of Palin as uber-conservative pol has turned the Republican voters' minds to cheese and they won't notice.

At this stage, the goal isn't to find a gaffe, but to find a non-gaffe. Has she answered even one question with authority, even if memorized, and which has survived a soft-ball follow-up (where she didn't just repeat the same answer)?

What strikes me is that she can't even pull off the trick of changing the subject to a well designed story. Why is this? Does she feel the need to prove that she knows the answer? That is my impression. During the Gibson interview she had the distinct facial expression of someone waiting for validation that her answer was right. This happened again with Couric, and she combined this with an attempt to BS her way out of the situation when she asked Couric what was over the border from Russia ("Alaska").

Maybe the problem is that she bases her entire world view on being an Alaskan. I get this, since I'm from Texas, and constantly find myself explaining things from that world view. But it is always necessary to point out where this strange perspective comes from. Being from Alaska is like being from Texas, the folks don't usually associate with their geographic neighbors. In that respect, Palin's visits to the mainland are foreign adventures.

I have picked up antagonists that I can only call nuts. One of them took to the Sarah Palin kool-Aid before she even got to speak at the GOP. So yea, many of the right are so loyal that they choose to ignore what their own party is doing and has done.

-=t=-

McShames will nosedive today after the markets open and WaMu story gets legs. He is playing politics in a place that should be far removed from politics. The Repugs are melting and will implode - let them.

Gregory nailed it toward the top. If competence meant anything Reagan would never have been president and Dumbya would have been indicted before he became governor of Texas. This is politics and the right is very good at. They have been in the minority on virtually every issue in my lifetime, yet have held the presidency 36 out of those 56 years. The fundies never figure out that they are being manipulated, just as those middle of the road folks never realize that righties are more extreme than the liberals. I think Palin goes way too far, but I thought that about Reagan too. Snicker at your peril.

There's a very simple GOP rulebook where you stand up to tyranny, you cut taxes, and you promote free enterprise.

I'm sorry, can you point out for me where the moder GOP has stood up to Bush & Cheney's tyranny (torture, extraordinary rendition, illegal combatants, "signing statements" declaring the President will ignore laws as he pleases, refusing to honor congressional subpoenas, et cetera et flippin' cetera)?

"Eric Blair," thank you for proving my earlier point. Jackass.

Really, what is it the earnest Republican is thinking watching an interview like this?

It's interesting that you should phrase that in the singular. I'd guess were down to pretty much one earnest Republican at the moment -- or into single digits, at least.

The earnest Republicans are reregistering as indendents. The GOP is not a political party anymore. It's a pathology.

Mmmmm. Are those the Jonestown super-size Slurpees? Cuz if McPalin gets elected, we're gonna need 'em.

To jls: Inconceivable!

never presume the Republican mind is capable of rational or logical thought. They would vote for a box of rocks if you wrote Republican on the side of it.

True enough, but that won't do. Bush and Cheney ruined the Republican brand with the Republican Congresscritters cheering him on, to the point that Reptiles have to avoid party identification. If memory serves me right, in one case they even tried to remove the (R) from the ballot, but were stopped.

Harriet Miers. When Bush nominated her, I was stunned at the contempt it showed for the Supreme Court. She was totally unqualified in every respect. As a member of the bars of three different states, I loudly voiced my concern about the pick to Sen. Leahy and others, knowing full well that we could be inviting Bush to replace her with someone, well, like Alito. However, given the lack of seriousness of the pick, I believed that it would be prefferable to have a qualified conservative then a unqualified partisan. Notwithstanding Alito's predictable positions, I think his nomination to the Supreme Court will serve the institution in the long run. In picking Palin, McCain has also shown his utter contempt for governing, and for the political process in general. Something else he shares in common with Bush.

Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

I can only extrapolate from how I felt about Hillary Clinton this spring, or John Edwards in 2004. Neither are nearly this daft or bad at interviews, but frankly I loathed them both for being shameless liars, and they are kind of rough to listen to compared to Obama.

If Hillary had won, for example, I would have supported her and hoped for her victory, but I would have had a hard time being proud, or defending her against the inevitable (fair) attacks from the right.

Palin is an airhead. You'd have to be a quid-pro-quo dunce not to see it. And given the events and stunts of the last month, I've come to this dire conclusion about our electorate:

McCain could shoot someone dead in the street, and he will still get 35% of the vote.

She's morally moribund.
Does that give you pause? It has me.

Remember the old Far Side cartoon about what dogs hear? "Blah-blah-blah FOOD blah-blah-blah WALK blah-blah-blah BALL."

Same thing here.

"Blah-blah-blah TAX CUTS blah-blah-blah NO GAYS blah-blah-blah-blah PRO-LIFE blah-blah-blah..."

And that's what makes Sarah so brilliant.

Just wondering: to embarass yourself, don't you have to FEEL embarassed?

Sarah just soesn't seem to feel that, to me. What I see in her eyes is a look of certainty -- even a sort of condescending certainty -- about the obviousness of her statements. "Of course Alaska is between two foreign countries, Katie, how could you not know that?" "Of course Putin is rearing his head." "Reporters! All they do is mock."

She may not know "facts," but Sarah knows TRUTH. How dare anyone dispute her?

Eric Blair, I cannot think of a better rebuttal to your empty assertions re the candidates than what proudwoman45 posted a few spots above you--I encourage you to read it, but I'm guessing that thoughtful statments longer than two sentences probably don't interest you much.

Diogenes makes a good point upthread: I'm particularly irritated with Palin's simplification of the Arab-Israeli tension as a case of "good guys" and "bad guys."

Indeed -- note that Palin said we shouldn't second-guess Israel's actions, when the Israeli public itself regards the recent invasion of Lebanon as a grave mistake that did great damage to Israel's pride, reputation and security.

But: My point is that when different sides are labeled as "good guys" and "bad guys" people stop evaluating either in a rational context.

Your point presumes Republicans originally evaluated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a rational context. In the case of the modern (last ~20 years) Republican Party in general and Sarah Palin in particular, I see no evidence that this is the case.

I might add that by proclaiming that the US should support Israel's actions no matter what they are, Palin gives legitimacy to anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda and weakens the vital perception of the US as a good-faith actor. Nice going there, Caribou Barbie.

I am proud to note that my senator, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, has spoken out publicly and declared that Sarah Palin is unqualified. He is not running for reelection.

Of course WE would stand up and SCREAM if we had a SCARAH on our ticket...we're DEMOCRATS (many liberal) and that's why we're always screwed...too much "let's be fair"..."let's tell it how it is"...but I'd still rather be ME...

they think we are elitist and talking down to them as opposed to questioning the fact that their party counts on the fact that they are dumb and uninformed (and like it that way). . .

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
". . .conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world."

I've known a lot of people like her. It's not that they aren't bright - they are - but they've spent their lives building up their shallow surface appearances and neglecting to create any depth of learning, understanding, knowledge, character, etc. So it's all about appearing perky, cheerful, photogenic, mouthing talking points and saying, "Go team!"

If memory serves me right, in one case they even tried to remove the (R) from the ballot, but were stopped.

There is one candidate this year who wanted his party ID to say "GOP Party" instead of Republican--apparently not aware that GOP stands for "Grand Old Party", making "GOP Party" kind of redundant.
I'm guessing this particular repub is from the Palin wing of the Grand Old Party Party.
Russians to the left, Canadians to the right, witches everywhere, the end is near!

Note to Steve:

I am an earnest Republican who cares about his country and takes policy seriously. I've been voting Democratic for the past 10 years.

Ted

I'm sorry, can you point out for me where the moder GOP has stood up to Bush & Cheney's tyranny (torture, extraordinary rendition, illegal combatants, "signing statements" declaring the President will ignore laws as he pleases, refusing to honor congressional subpoenas, et cetera et flippin' cetera)?

Er, I was trying to read the Republican mind, as laid out in our assignment.

Eric Blair, I cannot think of a better rebuttal to your empty assertions re the candidates than what proudwoman45 posted a few spots above you--I encourage you to read it, but I'm guessing that thoughtful statments ------ probably don't interest you much.

Fixed it for you.

But there's a connection between proudwoman45's post and Terry noting that "middle of the road folks never realize that righties are more extreme than the liberals." The radical right that controls the modern Republican Party has invested enormous time and money in building a massive message machine that has proved all too effective. Consider how the notion of a "liberal media" is taken so much for granted that the media dare not label Palin an unqualified boob and the McCain campaign a clown show, no matter what ridiculous shennanigans they perform. Consider the widely-cited notion of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" -- which, again, sublty promoted liberals' well-founded objections to Bush as an assert to Bush while simultaneously attempted to render them verboten as deranged and irrational. Consider Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

Of course the Republican agenda is unpopular -- Adlai freakin' Stevenson knew it (Republicans tell lies about Democrats to counter Democrats telling the truth about Republicans.) Ronald Reagan had to pretend that massive tax cuts for the rich would benefit the American people writ large: "trickle down economics." Bush had to pretend that the invasion of Iraq he wanted was in the vital issue of the US. And even Bush couldn't kill Social Security, and McCain dare not repeat his opinion that the way Social Security has always worked is a "disgrace."

The fact that Republican propaganda is so accepted -- even by the so-called "liberal media" -- is frustrating, but the very fact that they have to hide their agenda, along with their incompetence and corruption, is ultimately nothing but good news for the Democrats.

I agree that movement conservatism is fueled largely by emotion. But the more critical point is to understand that it is a revolution, with all that entails. It's aim is to destroy. It has veneration for some long lost American Republic but it sees everything around us as the product of some corrupt, secular liberal culture that must be brought down. Conservatism is largely a protest movement and always has been, even when it controls all branches of government.

That is why conservatives do not care if incompetent hacks staff our government agencies, or unqualified novices like Palin are offered to fill the highest office in the land. They like the power of the federal government -- to bully the larger secular culture until it comports with rural southern folkways, but have no interestt in the federal government that actually exists, other than the Defense Department and America's war machine. They oppose taxes not because they are too high but because they do not believe in government. That is what they thought Reagan was all about and is why they venerate him, without knowing in the least his actual record.

Terrifying indeed! Palin, according to a good friend, sounds more like a contestant in the Miss America paageant than a serious candidate, with creds to be POTUS someday. The friend added that she expected Palin to end her interview with a wish for world peace.

I have very, very smart conservative friends who got top honors from Ivy league universities. They will watch this, and come away thinking Palin is a gift from God.

Just a note on McCain's war on the media. This is of course a standard movement conservative theme, which you will hear every day on Limgbaugh and O'Reilly. It really is important to understand what is behind this. When a right wing dictator or other revolutionary wants to stage a coup d etet the very first thing they do is capture the radio station. Control the means of communication -- that is the key to a successful revolution.

What conservatives have been doing for the past 30 years is trying to control the means of communication by discrediting the mainstream media with the American public or at least a large share of it that is receptive to conservaitve propaganda. I would guess that there are proabably now 30 to 40 million Americans who do not believe anything unless it is validated by FOX or Limbaugh -- what experts call a perfect "information enclave."

And the press wonders why McCain lies so routinely? Conservatives, remember, believe that America is now an empire that "creates its own reality." This is an election of reason over unreason. Those are the essential stakes.

Conservatism is largely a protest movement and always has been, even when it controls all branches of government.

Yeah, but the problem is they're protesting the end of the Gilded Age.

They like the power of the federal government -- to bully the larger secular culture until it comports with rural southern folkways, but have no interestt in the federal government that actually exists, other than the Defense Department and America's war machine.

And, I might add, redistribute tax dollars from blue states to red ones.

They oppose taxes not because they are too high but because they do not believe in government.

P.J. O'Rourke described the Republican Party -- back in Reagan's presidency, for pity's sake! -- as the party that claims government doesn't work, then gets elected and proves it.

Thanks for the commentary, Ted Frier.

My father-in-law and his sister are serious Republicans. They are both voting for Obama.

never presume the Republican mind is capable of rational or logical thought. They would vote for a box of rocks if you wrote Republican on the side of it.

Sadly enough, the past 8 years have demonstrated that at lease 45% of the voting public is dumber than a box of rocks. With a child proof cap. In shrinkwrap.

I hope to be proved wrong on 11/4.

-Z

There has been speculation that John McCain is suffering from the early stages of some form of dementia, e.g. Alzheimer's or vascular dementia.

However, Sarah Palin in her interview with Couric sounded more like someone with dementia than John McCain does. She was obviously struggling to combine words into coherent sentences or to maintain a coherent line of thought.

She didn't sound like a politician, trying to bamboozle her way through questions that she was unprepared to answer. She sounded like someone who needs medical care for some kind of organic brain dysfunction.

And the press wonders why McCain lies so routinely?

Actually, Ted, I'd say part of the problem is that the press isn't wondering why McCain lies so routinely. I agree, of course, with your points about the conservative message machine, and agree completely with this: This is an election of reason over unreason. Those are the essential stakes.

Word.

I think that's what's so annoying about this election: McCain is being presented to the American public as a reasonable choice, at least in part because the press dare not do otherwise. Perceptions of McCain's dishonor and incompetence are getting through, all right, but it's the presumption that McCain is a reasonable choice at all to anyone outside of movement conservatism that's disturbing. (On the other hand, note that fringe third parties are routinely ignored, even if they run in good faith.)

Frankly, I hope women punish McCain and the republicans at the polls for making them look bad with this choice. An inept white guy is balanced by the many good examples out there. There are precious few women at this level in politics, so this has to hurt.

I agree, the Palin debacle has ceased being funny in any sense. Suppose McCain is elected and dies during his first year in office and Palin becomes president. The country will still face enormous economic, foreign policy and environmental problems, and our president will be a woman who seems incapable of forming a coherent sentence when under pressure.

an earnest Republican observer, who cares about the country, and who takes policy issues seriously.

Name three.

The polls are still close because he's black. Honestly, can you think of any other reason?

At the risk of sounding impolite, Sarah Palin is embarrassing herself, her party, her ticket, and her supporters.

While I appreciate your innate courtesy, Steve (that sounds sarcastic but isn't), it's hard to imagine most men preceding criticism of a male candidate with the first clause above.

This is a campaign for the second highest office in the United States of America. Politeness doesn't enter into it. Sarah Palin is a gigantically inept candidate. Say it loud, say it proud.

"I kept trying to imagine the perspective of an earnest Republican observer..."

Thanks for the effort, and best wishes for a rapid convalescence from the ball-peen hammer blows to the head.

What I think is that there are a fair number of people who have a completely character-based notion of "good government". If a politician has the right sort of character, then he or she will do the right thing in office. So it's not necessary to obsess over the details of policy, or experience, or expertise or anything else. You listen to a politician's manner of talking, and disregard the substance of what they are saying; you just pay attention to how what they are saying reflects character. Are they sounding sufficiently tough on crime/terrorism/hostile governments? Are they sounding sufficiently sentimental about traditional American families, traditional religion, traditional gender roles? Do they sound like the sort of person who gets misty-eyed when hearing the Star Spangled Banner or America the Beautiful. Do they sound sufficiently scornful of intellectuals, environmentalists, socialists, feminists, homosexuals, Hollywood, New Yorkers?

It's all about character (or at least the superficial appearance of character).

I am at a point where I don't know what to think.

I can't even summarize what I heard her say. At least with Bush, salient points stuck, like "Is our Children Learning?" or "Don't Misunderestimate Me."

But I can't seem to lapse into Palinese very well. She's beyond comprehension as she incomprehensively evades answering questions that get reiterated in all manner of ways.

I feel outrage. Her inanity is beyond believeable.

Only a man with vascular dementia could choose this rabid female as his running mate!

Really, what is it the earnest Republican is thinking watching an interview like this? Does it give him or her pause? Does he or she cringe, but suppress the fear for the good of the party? Does he or she simply buckle in, get into a crash position, and hope the Republican ticket doesn't screw the nation too badly?

Most "honest Republicans" close their eyes, think of aborted fetuses, gay marriages, and tell themselves that Obama's every bit as bad as Palin--just better at hiding it.

Did you know Obama's so stupid, he can't even get out three words without a teleprompter?

Anyway, God will guide her in her times of need.

You can always vote for a chronic liar with a muslim, socialist agenda whose wife hates the United States. I think his name is Obama!

You can always vote for a chronic liar with a muslim, socialist agenda whose wife hates the United States. I think his name is Obama!

Jake, you're either a performance artist going for funny or you're a perfect example of eveyrthing I've said about the failure in critical thinking about movement conservatives. Not a one of the things you said about Obama is true, though it foyu want to cite your evidence, by all means please do amuse us.

Does he or she cringe, but suppress the fear for the good of the party?

I would/do cringe; if somebody like this incompetent and complete idiot was on the Democratic ticket, I'd be packing my shit and moving to Canada! Got to give it to McCain, he found the female George Bush!

Got to give it to McCain, he found the female George Bush!

Has anyone actually seen Shrub + Palin together? Maybe Sarah Palin actually is George W. Bush in a skirt. It would make for an interesting way to try and dance around the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution (the two term limit).

-Z

"The notion that she could be the leader of the free world sometime fairly soon isn't just ridiculous, it's terrifying."

I have a problem with this statement, although I fully agree that Sarah Palin should not be vice-president. If I were from France, Germany, Norway, etc., I'd be somewhat irritated at hearing the U.S. repeatedly described as being the "leader of the free world." The U.S. is certainly more powerful, in terms of military might, than any other country--"free" or "nonfree." But most other countries that can reasonably be called "free"--Canada, Iceland, Germany, France, and so on--are hardly puppets on American's string. They are independent nations in their own right, and have their own foreign policies and domestic programs. I can see how the term "leader of the free world" became popular during the Cold War, but I'd suggest retiring it now, particularly given the way we've acted like an aggressive tyrant under the Bush administration.

Has anyone actually seen Shrub + Palin together? Maybe Sarah Palin actually is George W. Bush in a skirt. It would make for an interesting way to try and dance around the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution (the two term limit).

-Z

Their cognitive functions are strikingly similar but that accent is hard to dupe.

Eating the seed corn.

I think Palin with few more years as governor under her belt would have been a very strong wingnut presidential contender. We can all thank McCain for the destruction of her political future.

"The notion that she could be the leader of the free world sometime fairly soon isn't just ridiculous, it's terrifying."
What's terrifying is that Sarah Palin might become President of the United States. She cannot however become "leader of the free world". That would require followers.

Steve, trying to enter the mind of your average Republican voter is a huge gamble. Enter at your own risk.... and if you don't make it back, we have a rescue plan ready:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o07qRVETglQ

Her answers are reminiscent of the Miss Teen USA 2007 answer to the question on geography.

Palin talks like a recovering Meth addict. She is incoherent. That is just what we need: another druggie in the seat of power. I don't see how any person with a conscience would vote for McCain.

Has anyone actually seen Shrub + Palin together? Maybe Sarah Palin actually is George W. Bush in a skirt.

Wow, all those three-hour midmorning workouts and 50-mile mountain bike rides are paying off in some strange ways.

If John wins his heart could expire. Dick has managed to hang in there so luck may be on his side too. So if John croaks Sarah will be the first female president of the USA. Wow! Great Fanfare. Big media event. Living close to Russia she'll be able to pop over to see Putin anytime. He can can return the favour & pop over to pop a few bears & wolves just for fun & knock back a few beers with the happy family in the backyard over the BBQ. What a wonderful world.

When Katie asked her something about what she thinks people look to in our country, Palin responds with a bunch of talking points and says, people look for tolerence. TOLERENCE! The same Palin that won't hire blacks, wants to convert all Jews, prays for people to not be gay, etc. She calls that TOLERENCE?
Johnny Boy better find a replacement real quick! This woman does not know how contradictory she is. I guess that comes from that super-woman,super-ego, 'I can do no wrong' portrait she has of herself. Along with all the other questions that she did not know how to answer, she's liable to start WWIII!

ATTENTION REPUBLICANS:
RE: SARAH PALIN

Obviously there has been a HUGE mistake.....

Palin's Dribble, Weasel Wording, Mush-Mush, Ass-Backwards speak Cleary demonstrates who caries the “Down Syndrome� trait in her family, because of this we (the democrats) will allow you to send her back to Wacky-silla without prejudice and select another candidate.

For this consideration the Republicans agree to sell Alaska to Russia (with Palin) and never mention the State of Alaska of her again.

The Democrats

Measuring by knowledge of working with a budget Obama is still the least qualified.

Yes, because cutting the $15,000 out of the budget that would have been spent on rape kits for crime victims so you can spend $50,000 on redecorating your office is the sign of someone who really has their priorities straight. Why should she care about rape victims when her office really needs a new couch?

Palin talks like a recovering Meth addict.

Very appropriate, seeing as how Wasilla is the meth capital of Alaska (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/wasillas-meth-problem-mad_n_123996.html)

-Z

SARAH PALIN= DOWN SYNDROME

SARAH PALIN= DOWN SYNDROME

SARAH PALIN= DOWN SYNDROME

SARAH PALIN= DOWN SYNDROME

Come on, now, don't start insulting people w/Down's Syndrome.

-Z

I think sane republicans have no problem with Palin because they understand that they are not electing leaders, they are electing figureheads. They see selecting candidates as hiring ad spokesmen. Otherwise, wouldn't they have been alarmed by Reagan? Bush? They're not worried because they know their candidates aren't calling the shots on economic issues (one subset being international power struggles) or anything else. They're the happy face for selling their agenda, that's it. They don't fear Palin because she won't get in the way of anything they want to do. She will read her lines. Which despite how she appears when she's only had a few weeks to rehearse, she is pretty good at. It is after all the only thing she studied. She was recruited by GOPAC for a reason. They hand her talking points, she talks. They'd elect a robotic monkey if it were popular. And they'd keep doing what they always do, concentrating wealth.

I must object to comments here that use Down Syndrome as a prop. While there are many aspects of a public figure's life, demeanor, appearance and record that are fair game for satire or earnest criticism, the disability of a child should be off-limits.

It is best to answer the lies with truth, and insult with grace. Of course, mercilessly exploit the obvious inadequacies of the other candidates with rapier wit. We have to live with ourselves after the smoke has cleared.

It's the cell phone generation that is not being polled that shows the election close. They are polling the same people over and over to see if they've changed their minds. The pollers claim it is the "undecideds" who determine the winniners but it really is the "non-polled" who determine the outcome of elections. Look around you...are you gonna' believe your lying eyes...Obama will win in a landslide. This republican disaster must end...our nation is in collapse...and the GOP hold up two incompetent continuations of this disaster as it's solution???...hahahahaha. All we will get from this 'poll it close enough to steal' is how wrong the polls had been. It's not even close...republicans are disenfranchising as many voters as possible and setting up to flip votes with their corporate controlled vote counting machines...and even that will not be enough to stop the Obama landslide.

btw...I never thought the troops would be redeployed...to America's North Command to control American citizens...and just before an election too. This with gas supplies being withheld to certain southern states...where only 10% of gas stations have gas. I'm not so worried about Obama losing the election as I am with those who have come to power under the Bush/Cheney administration relinquishing control. Remember, in an unbiased court of law these people would all be in prison so how far will they go to stay in power.

80% of the population claim they want a progressive course of action on all the major issues when polled...so who are our representatives really representing...what happened to Posse comitatus??? The GOP and the RNC have demonstrated that they will do anything, fair, unfair, illegal etc to win elections. I fear the extent they will go to in this election as this should be an end to republicans in government for at least 50yrs as we denazify our government. Hopefully the republican nightmare will end without another great depression as that always seems to be the result of their dominating the government. Still...the troops here??? Civil defense training completed for the national guard the last couple of years and now a combat brigade assigned here??? They'll need 'em if the government tries to declare McCain/Palin winners.

I'm surprised the comparison to Peter Seller's characer "Chance", the moron who is taken as profound due to TV sound-bite culture and ideological confirmation bias, in the movie "Being There" haven't come up yet.

The similarities are scary...

If anything cries out for a compare and contrast YouTube video, this is it...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/

My friend says ..."Palin is a perfect example of what happens when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer court".

Since I think a Palin presidency would provide all of us with endless comedy and humorous sound bites for YEARS, please vote McCain and hope he bites the large one.

If Palin gets voted in along with McCain, then the good ole USA deserves its quick slide into the cesspool it has created for itself.
I am sorry to inform the idiots out there that it does actually take an intelligent person with a view of the world outside of their own navel, in order to run the United States of America. though it may be the dream of every hockey mom, small town mayor, or mother of five to be the president of the United States, I bet that most will understand thatPalin's simplistic and small-time world view, experience with economics, foreign policy, government, health care, or any thing else, just isn't good enough to qualify for VP, next to McCain's old body.