tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post3451854055218378847..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: The Race Just Got InterestingDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-45963057430994913022008-09-07T19:35:00.000-04:002008-09-07T19:35:00.000-04:00The odd thing is that Will is in many ways a conse...The odd thing is that Will is in many ways a conservative in the same vein as McCain - namely a temperamental, not ideological conservative. And yet he really hates McCain. Funny, that.<BR/><BR/>BTW, speaking of Krauthammer, I just saw him after I had dinner with my wife here in Bethesda. I very nearly told him that he was wrong about Palin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-29956220496819082562008-09-07T18:16:00.000-04:002008-09-07T18:16:00.000-04:00"Maybe it's just me, but I've had the impression t..."Maybe it's just me, but I've had the impression that Will wandered off the conservative reservation and into his own quirky territory some years ago."<BR/><BR/>Its not just you Darwin. Will hasn't been a conservative since Reagan left office. He isn't a liberal either, but rather just cranky. He's had an ongoing feud with the Bush clan since the Reagan administration and that helped separate him from the Republican party. He is a strong supporter of Israel and that often makes him a hawk on foreign policy although not always. He has a son who has Down's Syndrome and he wrote the moving column linked below last year.<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16720750/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-10957812879552531982008-09-07T18:01:00.000-04:002008-09-07T18:01:00.000-04:00Fair enough, C.I haven't read his column on Palin ...Fair enough, C.<BR/><BR/>I haven't read his column on Palin -- though I've read the columns critical of her by some conservative voices that I tend to respect more like Frum and Krauthammer.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it's just me, but I've had the impression that Will wandered off the conservative reservation and into his own quirky territory some years ago. I suppose mileage will vary, though.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-49072737927176291932008-09-07T17:03:00.000-04:002008-09-07T17:03:00.000-04:00Y'know, Darwin, I just had a look at that George W...Y'know, Darwin, I just had a look at that George Will column. He's cautious (not necessarily a bad thing) but I didn't read it as especially negative. And he doesn't hesitate to point out that Obama is easily the least experienced presidential candidate we've had in recent history.CMinorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07305306030099439903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-83044296252361184672008-09-07T12:43:00.000-04:002008-09-07T12:43:00.000-04:00Anon,Come to that, Obama is 47 years old. He has ...Anon,<BR/><BR/>Come to that, Obama is 47 years old. He has decades left in which he could run for president, and currently sports almost no accomplishments. Why is anyone happy about his nomination?<BR/><BR/>Personally, it seems more logical to run the new talent as the VP and the experienced leader as the presidential candidate. <BR/><BR/>You have other ideas?Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-81814203224350705852008-09-07T10:28:00.000-04:002008-09-07T10:28:00.000-04:00Palin is only 44 years old. She has decades in whi...Palin is only 44 years old. She has decades in which to run for President, but she is so rapaciously ambitious that she agreed to run, despite the fact that she has a four-month old baby with Down's Syndrome, and a pregnant 17-year old (whose baby would be far better off being put up for adoption, as I was, thank Heaven). Leaving aside her distinctly unimpressive record in Alaska -- a record about which she has stretched and embellished the truth -- why exactly are we supposed to be happy about this nomination?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-73984568532231909022008-09-07T09:06:00.000-04:002008-09-07T09:06:00.000-04:00The Democrats are more predictable here, yes.The Democrats are more predictable here, yes.Kyle Cupphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14607703830461449390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-58021198520779050942008-09-07T00:35:00.000-04:002008-09-07T00:35:00.000-04:00Kyle,I'm certainly one to be cynical -- but it see...Kyle,<BR/><BR/>I'm certainly one to be cynical -- but it seems to me that with the last 30 years of history we basically have the option of the Democrats who have _never_ been upholders of limited government/subsidiarity and fiscal responsibility, versus the Republicans who have _occasionally_ been the upholders of those virtues. <BR/><BR/>Also, I think that we're much more likely to have not-very-much-new happen (which as a conservative I think should be the default option) with a Republican in the White House and a Democratic congress, than we would have if we had the Democrats owning both the executive and legislative branches. <BR/><BR/>So while I still don't trust McCain very far, all he has to do is be a decent gate keeper -- while Obama would be likely to get a lot of his own way for the first two years, and that scares me more than a little.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-10734302146713630212008-09-06T20:37:00.000-04:002008-09-06T20:37:00.000-04:00One of my biggest problems with the GOP of late ha...<EM> One of my biggest problems with the GOP of late has been its descent into petty corruption, fiscal irresponsibility, and no more than lip service to principled conservative ideals. The Palin pick suggests to me strongly that McCain is prepared to take on the first two of these, and perhaps some of the third.</EM><BR/><BR/>Could be, and I really hope that’s the case; but that history in the GOP of corruption, fiscal irresponsibility, and lip service doesn’t incline me to trust the GOP presidential candidate. Call me a cynic, but I worry that the Palin pick is little more than a sensational form of lip service to conservative principles, a ruse to make us trust a man who may be untrustworthy as a conservative.Kyle Cupphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14607703830461449390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-29654491281023508692008-09-06T19:51:00.000-04:002008-09-06T19:51:00.000-04:00Not really an answer to literacy's query, but have...Not really an answer to literacy's query, but have you noticed <A HREF="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1161" REL="nofollow">Suann Therese Maier's essay <I>A Vote For Palin</I> </A> at <I>First Things</I>, Darwins?CMinorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07305306030099439903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-41454630695464299312008-09-06T18:21:00.000-04:002008-09-06T18:21:00.000-04:00Darwin,Without meaning to change the subject, and ...Darwin,<BR/><BR/>Without meaning to change the subject, and at the risk of asking you to repeat things you've said elsewhere, could I request a special topics post? I would just love to see someone intelligent take on the "I vote Democrat because of the social programs/universal healthcare" line. What do you think we stand to gain or lose by massive social programs? After all, there is something to be said for wanting to help people... (trying not to imply any particular approach I want you to take...)<BR/><BR/>Thanks!<BR/><BR/>~Literacy-chicLiteracy-chichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08925734773412633965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-54908704340593632662008-09-06T10:09:00.000-04:002008-09-06T10:09:00.000-04:00There was an interview with Wooten, the ex-brother...There was an interview with Wooten, the ex-brother-in-law trooper on the CNN website last evening. It basically amounted to: yeah, I did a bunch of bad things and I think I've got my act together now, so I wish that all the stuff I was disciplined for by the troopers was not in the news.<BR/><BR/>No exciting accusations there.<BR/><BR/>If, as I personally think is very likely, it turns out that none of these "scandals" amount to anything, the media and left wing will owe Palin an apology. Though I kind of doubt it will be forthcoming.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-68459271486565941632008-09-06T09:48:00.000-04:002008-09-06T09:48:00.000-04:00Thanks, Donald.Wow, didn't take long to knock that...Thanks, Donald.<BR/><BR/>Wow, didn't take long to knock that one down. And here I expected we'd be seeing a bunch more "news" on it this week.<BR/><BR/>You know, folks on the left used to talk about the irrational Bill Clinton hate on the right, but liberals have come up with as many wild rumors about Palin in one week as it took the right to come up with over about four years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-83730137603758817842008-09-06T09:20:00.000-04:002008-09-06T09:20:00.000-04:00Well the affair smear of the National Enquirer and...Well the affair smear of the National Enquirer and the deranged left, seems to be sinking into the cesspool, probably the deranged trooper ex-brother-in-law of Palin, from whence it came.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/05/another-palin-smear-<BR/>bites-the-dust/<BR/><BR/><BR/>For handy reference, as noted at Hot Air, Explorations has a list of exploded Palin Rumors\Smears.<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/05/palin-rumors/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-28408048505540488072008-09-05T18:43:00.000-04:002008-09-05T18:43:00.000-04:00So let me get this straight: You're sure that you ...So let me get this straight: You're sure that you know exactly how much background checking is "usually" done on a VP candidate, and you're sure that it didn't take place in this instance?<BR/><BR/>Look, I try to be a critical reader, and if you have any good detailed articles on how the selection process worked in the Obama campaign or in other recent campaigns -- in reputable publications the the New Yorker, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., not some Atlantic blogger like, Andrew Sullivan has pretty much shredded their credibility -- I'd love to read it. But frankly, so far as I can tell, we've got the people who would be in a position to know, those in the campaign, saying the process was thorough, and a bunch of angry people on the outside, saying it wasn't.<BR/><BR/>That sounds like opinion rather than fact to me.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-37711399967723551682008-09-05T18:32:00.000-04:002008-09-05T18:32:00.000-04:00darwin wrote: "I suspect that they did about as m...darwin wrote: "I suspect that they did about as much homework as is normally done."<BR/><BR/>BUT THEY DIDN'T. That's the entire point. There was no FBI background check, nor any background vetting of any kind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-46574334134453589722008-09-05T18:21:00.000-04:002008-09-05T18:21:00.000-04:00Certainly, there's not secrecy about who's being c...Certainly, there's not secrecy about who's being considered. Just a desire not to tip one's hand too early as to who is picked. <BR/><BR/>There was little surprise over Obama's pick because he made a very, very unimaginative pick. Given that many are already hesitant enough about someone with his lack of track record, that's probably the right way to go. <BR/><BR/>On McCain's list it was pretty clear who the options were:<BR/><BR/>Ridge, Pawlenty, Lieberman, Romney, Jindal, Palin, and maybe Carly Fiorina as an outside chance. I don't recall much of any buzz about anyone else, but maybe I'm missing someone.<BR/><BR/>A week before the selection, Palin and Romney were the stand-out favorites on National Review's online poll.<BR/><BR/>So it's not like this is someone totally out of the blue. (She is a governor, there are only a limited number of Republican governors with any national buzz.) It's just that no one outside of serious conservative circles seemed to take the idea seriously. <BR/><BR/>I suppose the McCain campaign could have said, "We're taking these three people very seriously," but to be honest, that's not any precedent for that either. I suspect that they did about as much homework as is normally done. Whether they missed something glaring remains to be seen. I hope not. She seems like an interesting woman and a natural orator. With luck, she'll be on the national scene for quite some time.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-52598699151279821392008-09-05T17:54:00.000-04:002008-09-05T17:54:00.000-04:00I must admit, I'm deeply puzzled by this brand new...I must admit, I'm deeply puzzled by this brand new yet widespread notion on the right that it's perfectly normal for VP selections to be kept secret until the last second. Since when? Obama let it be known months ago that he was considering Biden, Bush made no secret that Cheney was on his list, and Clinton made clear early on that Gore was high on his shortlist. In fact, the only case I can think of where a VP was pulled out of nowhere like a rabbit out of a hat was Bush Sr's selection of Dan Quayle.<BR/><BR/>So why, precisely, does it not "surprise me that they wanted to keep their selection process under wraps."? Letting it be known that Palin was under consideration would have at least allowed them to do a meaningful vetting process, and thus avoid the trainwreck that the party now seems doomed to experience. And it would have moved her and her family into the spotlight more gradually, rather than the sudden baptism-by-media-fire that they have now experienced.<BR/><BR/>JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-77463780535411241612008-09-05T16:58:00.000-04:002008-09-05T16:58:00.000-04:00I had taken the WaPo article at face value (and fr...I had taken the WaPo article at face value (and frankly, the way the Atlantic's blog coverage is right now, I'm not sure that I trust a post there -- but let's take it as read) on the FBI check.<BR/><BR/>As for why the McCain people weren't all up in Alaska austentatiously poking around, it doesn't surprise me that they wanted to keep their selection process under wraps. I think that's pretty normal.<BR/><BR/>I didn't mean to suggest that the National Enquirer had any political slant -- they care about nothing other than selling newspapers at checkout stands. However, they're clearly feeding off a certain hunger for blood that the Left is feeling right now.<BR/><BR/>As for self destructive behavior -- politicians certainly do a lot of stupid things while in office under the assumption that they can get away with it. However, it would seem very odd to me if McCain didn't do what he considered a basically solid level of dilligence, and also if Palin agreed to sign up for massive coverage while knowing that she had skeletons that could so easily be brought out of the closet. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely to me.<BR/><BR/>(And recall, while the media think this came out of nowhere, conservative venues like National Review have been pushing for a Palin VP slot for a year.)<BR/><BR/>And there is clearly a lot of political motivation in the interest in these. I don't see the same people so fascinated with these questions spending lots of time on the guy recently convicted of corruption who helped Obama buy his house -- after Obama gave his company multi-million dollar slum-building contracts, which he did a terrible job on. So while not everyone involved is political, the interest clearly is.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-10639339606090487152008-09-05T16:15:00.000-04:002008-09-05T16:15:00.000-04:00So true anonymous. I have tried a bit of research ...So true anonymous. I have tried a bit of research into FBI background checks on prospective candidates and didn't come up with anything right off the bat - I remembered (memory not being the best source) reading that the FBI did not do any checks on Palin. Guess they didn't. I don't think we would want them to anyhow. I know I wouldn't. Hire private investigators and get the candidate to allow the investigators free rein.<BR/><BR/>How may times have I thought, "Surely they wouldn't do that? Not now."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-39116133129335951912008-09-05T16:00:00.000-04:002008-09-05T16:00:00.000-04:00No FBI background check on Palin.http://marcambind...No FBI background check on Palin.<BR/><BR/>http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/palin_and_the_fbi_background_c.php<BR/><BR/>This was obvious to anyone who noticed that none of Palin's associates had been questioned about her. An FBI background check would have included that.<BR/><BR/>Also, the National Enquirer is not liberal. They exposed John Edwards.<BR/><BR/>And finally, politicians as a class are hardly noted for avoiding self-destructive behavior. Craig, Pataki, Vitter, Kilpatrick, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-83858967481006011872008-09-05T14:51:00.000-04:002008-09-05T14:51:00.000-04:00Darwin, you cannot, repeat, cannot vet someone wit...<I>Darwin, you cannot, repeat, cannot vet someone without interviewing both current and past associates. Do you know what it takes to get a security clearance with the federal government? </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but the FBI did the complete background check on Palin and on all the other top contendors, not the McCain campaign. Which would be why the McCain campaign operatives weren't up in Alaska dealing with that. And credit reports, tax returns and financial records were pulled on all of them as well, both by the McCain folks and I would assume by the FBI as well.<BR/><BR/><I>I note, in this context, that the National Enquirer (the people who told us about John Edwards' affair) are apparently planning to run a story on Sarah Palin's affair with one of her husband's business associates. Coincidentally, this same business associate filed an emergency motion yesterday in Alaska to have his divorce papers sealed. There appears to be a HUGE scandal coming soon, which the Enquirer dug up by doing only a few days' worth of actual human interviews. Too bad McCain couldn't be bothered to do the same. Palin might have been a good candidate.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, we shall have to see, shan't we. <BR/><BR/>It's possible -- or it could be like the New York Times article claiming McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, which turned out to be totally false and unsubstantiated.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, though, it strikes me as unlikely that either one of them would do something so obviously self-destructive. We may simply be seeing a case of some very wishful thinking on the part of the liberal reporters and bloggers.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-52413984715254235292008-09-05T13:20:00.000-04:002008-09-05T13:20:00.000-04:00Darwin, you cannot, repeat, cannot vet someone wit...Darwin, you cannot, repeat, cannot vet someone without interviewing both current and past associates. Do you know what it takes to get a security clearance with the federal government? You fill out a form (natch) which includes questions about everywhere you've lived for the past 10 years or more, and names of people who can verify that you lived at those addresses. The investigators will contact the people you named on the form, not to ask what you were like, but to ask for the names of more people who know you. Then they will contact *those* people and ask lots of invasively personal questions about you. Any signs of criminal involvement (drug use or whatnot)? Any clues of extramarital affairs? Did you ever seem to be living beyond your means?<BR/><BR/>That is what the federal government routinely does before granting a peon like me a security clearance. They want to be damned sure that I don't have, for example, moral issues in by background that would make me vulnerable to blackmail, or any track record of financial problems that would make me inclined to take bribes. And interviews with associates are the foundation of this process, because they know damned well that 99% of the time you miss this stuff if all you're doing is paperwork.<BR/><BR/>I note, in this context, that the National Enquirer (the people who told us about John Edwards' affair) are apparently planning to run a story on Sarah Palin's affair with one of her husband's business associates. Coincidentally, this same business associate filed an emergency motion yesterday in Alaska to have his divorce papers sealed. There appears to be a HUGE scandal coming soon, which the Enquirer dug up by doing only a few days' worth of actual human interviews. Too bad McCain couldn't be bothered to do the same. Palin might have been a good candidate.<BR/><BR/>JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-78241149553994786232008-09-05T12:31:00.000-04:002008-09-05T12:31:00.000-04:00Joel,No, they didn't go to Alaska and interview pe...Joel,<BR/><BR/>No, they didn't go to Alaska and interview people, but then they didn't go and interview people in the home state party structures and administrations of the other candidates either. They did go through a lot of paperwork, including the online archives of all stories mentioning Palin in the Anchorage papers for the last ten years. (They skipped the Wassilla paper because it was only available on microfilm and didn't want to tip people off.)<BR/><BR/>I suppose they could have held a press conference announcing the pregnancy before the announcment of her selection, but then: Why should a governor hold a press conference to announce that her daughter is pregnant? Especially when everyone in her home town is already aware of that fact?<BR/><BR/>The only reason why it is "news" is because many member of the press have a visceral hatred for Palin and what she stands for. And I don't think any different approach would have lessened that effect.<BR/><BR/>Jim,<BR/><BR/>George Will can be called a lot of things, but an solid conservative is not one of them these days.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-26432513779597432512008-09-05T11:58:00.000-04:002008-09-05T11:58:00.000-04:00Deuce, biology is, well, biology. It is not a shou...Deuce, biology is, well, biology. It is not a should or shouldn't type of thing. Understanding the undeniable and nonmallealbe nature of human biological reproduction is absolutely essential to responsible sex.<BR/><BR/>Darwin, check out George Will's recent column on Sara Palin. That old and wise conservative is none to happy with the choice.<BR/><BR/>Best, JimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com