Sarah Palin

Daily Must-Reads

By on 10.6.08 | 10:23AM

Kristol's hockey mom interview (NY Times)

Scapegoating deregulation could cost Pres. Obama bigtime. (Washington Post)

Ayers is a bad dude, but people care more about Franklin Raines right now (NRO The Campaign Spot)

Obama can't make extremism a thing of the/his past with one speech (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

Americans can't afford to fail on Iran policy much longer (Jerusalem Post)

Conservative dating rules (Touchstone Mere Comments)

Reader Mail

Picking Up the Pieces


A special Reader Mail section on Sarah Palin, the pressies, and J. Peter Freire's "The Barracuda Bites Back."

The AP Cries Wolf — BLACK Wolf

By on 10.5.08 | 2:16PM

This might be the single most irresponsible piece the Associated Press has EVER run. Not only does it badly misstate (i.e. excuses, plays down, hides) the level of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, but it goes to phenomenally bizarre lengths to claim that Sarah Palin's repeated references to Ayers -- who is white -- somehow "carry a racially tinged subtext." HUH????!!???? This is sick. Literally sick. Have things really reached the point where ANY criticism of Obama is racist? Next thing you know, criticism of Obama for having the most liberal voting record in the Senate will be called racist. Criticism of Obama for being against the surge will be called racist. Hell, next thing you know, criticism of Joe Biden will be called racist, because Biden is the running mate for a black man and, well, any criticism of him is code for racist opposition to Obama.

Read the linked AP "analysis" for yourself. It's just flat-out irresponsible. It is more than that; it is outrageously slanderous. How that piece ever made it past any editor with any decency or common sense is beyond me.

More on Pro-Palin/Anti-Palin

By on 10.4.08 | 10:27PM

Daniel Larison of The American Conservative takes issue with my taking issue with the conservative Palin critics. He feels pretty strongly she's an empty suit (empty skirt?).

He thought her convention speech was substance-free and her debate performance was mediocre. I view things a bit differently. That convention speech was one of the finest political performances I've ever seen. The line about not seeking the good opinion of the media/political elite alone was worth the price of admission. And not just in entertainment value. That was substance. It was about embracing a different scale of values than those some think are so dominant as to brook no dissent.

But leave that aside. Sarah Palin has a political record. Let's forget the ups and downs of her public speaking career and consider that. Are there conservatives who are going to argue her record is less than admirable? I don't think it can be done. (No, this is not a challenge to see whether conservative contrarians can provide great e-alert material to the Obama camp.)

On Intramural Palin Battles Among Conservatives

By on 10.3.08 | 10:02PM

We've got our Conor Friedersdorfs and Kathleen Parkers shooting at Sarah Palin and Erick Ericksons defending her. The defenders wonder what team the critics are on. The critics appeal to intellectual honesty.

I appeal to the concept of edificiation. Do the words we write or say actually contribute anything to the election and to the civic discussion? Are they adequately considered after time to look at all the evidence? If I look at it in those terms, I have to side with the defenders.

The only possible way the critics could be in the right is if the writer really believes Palin is unfit to serve. I have a hard time believing that a bad interview demonstrates that. The situation is simple. A person with a career in state and local government, so greatly cherished by conservatives who love federalism, needs a little time to adjust to the national frame. I think it is really that easy. Patience is a virtue, friends.

David Brooks: Wrong Again?

By on 10.3.08 | 4:46PM

Given his recent track record, there must be some fundamental flaw in his argument:

By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night.
Brooks sneered at Palin as unqualified, now he says she won the debate. My Official Decoder Ring translates that as: Palin is qualified, but she lost the debate.

Pretty Reasonable

By on 10.3.08 | 4:10PM

The cuddly Daniel Larison objects to my objection of expecting Palin to know much about foreign policy:

Let's try to remember that this hacktastic spin came from McCain's campaign and their supporters, and Palin willingly went along in making this farcical claim on more than one occasion. It is now supposed to be evidence of journalistic misconduct to make the mistake of taking the campaign's own idiotic statements as though they were serious. Duly noted. Whenever the McCain campaign claims anything about either candidate, we should assume that it is equally nonsensical and give it no credence.

Re: Mass Conservative Delusion

By on 10.3.08 | 1:26PM

Wlady, thanks for standing up against "accentism," of which I am a victim. Jeff Foxworthy says the minute a Southerner opens his mouth, people deduct 15 points from his IQ score, and since coming to Washington 11 years ago, I've learned the truth of that. I grew up in a four-bedroom brick ranch house in a suburb of Atlanta, but my Piedmont twang seems to evoke images of moonshine, banjos and outhouses in the mind of the typical Yankee.

As to the debate itself, I think the important thing is that Joe Biden did not lose. He may have told 14 lies, but he told them convincingly, and he played the class-warfare card with such Edwardsian relish that I am beginning to suspect Biden might have a "love child" out there somewhere.