He may have wanted Michael Palin but at the last minute remembered he is not a naturalized citizen and that would not work.
So barring that as the rationale behind what could be shaping up to be a gamble that might not pay off, here are some other thoughts around the blogosphere that makes points in addition to those I raised yesterday.
1) James McGrath points us to this article that gives a more in-depth view of Sarah Pailn's favor towards "teaching the controversy" as if teaching is all about "information" and not about what kind of information is taught in which course. Said Palin:
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."
To be sure, she nowhere advocates that it needs to be or even should be mandated. However, this view continues the notion that any alternative to evolution is acceptable in a science classroom. John Shuck has a thought or two as well.
2) Julie Bogart calls her out on how her own role as Vice President and on the campaign trail would actually support her own "pro-family" position – to which she aligns herself according to Gary Bauer.
To be governor in a state the size of AK (read small: the 47th largest in the country in population) is not the same thing as to be vice president of the entire country. I'm not even sure what I think about her being a mother of a special needs child and governor at the same time, but I know without hesitation that I can't bear the thought of her being the vice president and raising that baby, caring for it, nursing it while she is on the campaign trail, while that special needs child especially needs her.
The question is when ideological support of specific issues meets reality. How does a candidate live out their own ideological committments? What does a candidate's set of ideological committments actually look like if they were to become law?
3) Melissa Rogers has a post detailing Sarah Palin's statements concerning the role of religion and public life. It is quite revealing and worth your time.
[TIME:] Where do you see yourself going? Staying on in Alaska. Washington?
[Palin:] You know, I don't know. I knew early on that the smartest thing for me to do was to work hard, do the best that I can, make wise decisions based on good information in front of me. And then put my life, get myself on a path that could be dedicated to God and ask Him what I should next. That will be the position I will be in as long as I'm on earth — that is, seeking the right path that God would have laid out for me.
4) Revdarth shares Sarah Palin's view of global climate change. More and more this position sounds like the assertions that evolution is just ideology and not science.
What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?
A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.
In short the Dems have got to be licking their chops – and are. It seems like a miscalculation on McCain's side and even a loss of identity for him as well. He seems to be so after the same voting (meaning market) clusters as Obama and so beholden to a cluster of the conservative base, that he loses something of the identity that makes him who he is.
So how do you feel about McCain's choice if you are a Republican?
No related posts.
RE: if you are a Republican?
For better or worse, I am registered as a Republican. Whether or not I am representitive of Republicans is, of course, a very open question, so it would be interested to hear from some who are more than nominal.
This pick put McCain into the trash bin of history, as far as I am concerned. At one time I could accept McCain as an example of an older, wiser, and more responsible Republicanism (not as wise or as responsible as Lincoln, mind you!) that would be willing to stand up to, or at least undermine, the extreamists in the party. I liked the fact that he was willing to call Pat an "agent of intolerance", and not just in a smoke filled room, but to his face, in public.
No longer. McCain is in bed with them and in the hopper with me. Not only did this pick put him "on the dark side" but it is also dangerious for the nation in another respect: He is 71 years old, and it is not unreasonable to wonder if he is going to make it to 75. We may be voting for the next president in more than one sense. If he wins, I can just imagine the prayers the right-wing religious nuts are going to be saying before bed time for the next four to eight years.
I would have voted for the McCain of 7 years ago over Obama. The religious right hijacked it again which is a shame.
I would have voted for the McCain of 7 years ago over Obama. The religious right hijacked it again which is a shame.