Palin, vetted at last

Mark Steyn links to this story:

When federal judges in San Francisco ruled in 2002 that reciting the
Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional because it included the phrase "under God," Sarah Palin was not amused. Palin, who at the time was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, quickly drafted a terse letter to the editor of a San Francisco newspaper. “Dear Editor,” Palin wrote in 2002. “San Francisco judges forbidding our Pledge of Allegiance? They will take the phrase ‘under God’ away from me when my cold, dead lips can no longer utter those words,” Palin wrote. “God Bless America,” she concluded.

Hundreds of notes and lettersPalin’s letter to the editor is one of hundreds of personal notes and letters written by the former Mayor, and obtained this week to NBC News and others. The documents shed light on the management style--and personality--of the small town mayor turned vice presidential candidate.

There are few headline grabbers in the lot. Even Palin’s Pledge-of-Allegiance rant was a commonly held view at the time. (The U.S. Supreme Court later overturned the ruling on technical grounds. But not before Palin pushed through a city resolution stating that the Wasilla City Council “shall continue to recite America’s Pledge of Allegiance, in its entirety, including and especially the words, ‘…one nation, under God…”)While hardly earth shattering, Palin’s personal missives can be revealing.Consider the letter to Mike Doogan, then a columnist for the Anchorage Daily News.Doogan had written in the paper on March 5, 2002, that lawmakers were considering moving the state legislature to Wasilla. “Now, I disrespect Wasilla as much as the next guy, but this seems a little extreme,” Doogan quipped. “Isn't being a blight on the landscape enough shame for Wasillians?”Palin couldn’t resist. Two days later, she wrote a personal letter that simply said:“Dear Mr. Doogan: Why do you do what you do to Wasilla?”She signed it, “Respectfully, Sarah.”

after what's described here, advice for palin here

via commentary this poll:

Differences between Orthodox and non-Orthodox are pronounced in the support given the presidential candidates.
Thus, Obama has the support of 13 percent of Orthodox Jews, as against 59 percent of Conservative Jews, 62 percent of Reform Jews, and 61 percent of the “Just Jewish.”

Conversely, McCain draws 78 percent of Orthodox Jews, as against 26 percent of Conservative Jews, 27 percent of Reform Jews, and 26 percent of the “Just Jewish.”

Jewish women (60 percent) are more likely than Jewish men (54 percent) to support Obama. Conversely, Jewish men (35 percent) are more likely than Jewish women (25 percent) to support McCain.

also:

On the question of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, 42 percent of American Jews support the U.S. taking military action against Iran, while 47 percent are opposed.
Regarding the Arab-Israeli peace process, 56 percent of American Jews do not think “there will come a time when Israel and its Arab neighbors will be able to settle their differences and live in peace;” 38 percent think such a time will come.

Jay Nordlinger posts a reader's letter:

This next letter is from a very thoughtful Detroiter who has long been a liberal Democrat — and who has been turning, turning (like some other people we know):

Well, although I do have qualms about her present fitness to be president, Jay, I like her. And her nomination and the reaction to it is significant for me personally — it marks my final break with liberalism, even of the more center-left variety.

It’s one thing to criticize her political qualifications, and there are legitimate questions about that. The Left’s and the media’s reaction to her has been disgraceful and disgusting. Equally vile are those people who are perfectly capable of opposing her politically while speaking up for her right to be treated fairly — but who fail to do so.

If nothing else, this should put paid to the notion that the Democratic party supports and cares about average Americans. If I hadn’t already decided to vote for McCain on national-security grounds, I would do so simply because people like this should not have the power to deal with the lives of ordinary people.

I thought Jonah Goldberg somewhat overstated the case in his book about the fascist roots of much liberal thought and conduct; I’m no longer so sure.

Jennifer Rubin remarks on Obama's humorlessness:

Peter Robinson is right about the power of humor – and come to think of it, doesn’t the funnier candidate always win? (Kennedy funnier than Nixon, Reagan funnier than Carter, Clinton funnier than George H.W. Bush).

I would take her thesis one step further: wooden stick funnier than Al Gore...

Elitism & Eliteness III

Yuval Levin:

I think Jonah gets it right on that Brooks column. I would be an elitist if we had an elite that was able to govern. We don’t. Not even close. And what our cultural and political elites tend to lack most of all is prudence. Edmund Burke, the original conservative elitist, argued (in his Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs) that the lives led by the elites of his day taught them good judgment and prudence, and that was why they should rule. But the process by which people qualify for and retain elite standing in our own society tends to rob people of prudence; not in every case but in the great majority. Certainly being a senator for a long time is not good training in prudence—a fact that reflects on John McCain as well as on Joe Biden. That doesn’t make me a populist—I don’t think that lacking elite educational or cultural credentials or Washington experience is a positive qualification for governing. But I also don’t think having such credentials (given what they are and what they stand for in our time and place) is in itself much of a positive qualification for governing. I think we have to examine a person in finer detail, to get a sense of individual judgment and instinct. Sarah Palin comes off pretty well in such an examination—she has been a successful governor, for instance, and has run a city and a business too, and seems to have the right instincts on some key issues and the right attitude. All of that is important. It doesn’t make her the perfect vice presidential candidate (though it’s hard to see who among McCain’s plausible options would have been better and why) but I do think it makes her a good one, and a better choice for VP than Joe Biden.

Ms. Dowd Goes To Wasilla

nytimes:

I talked to a Wal-Mart mom, Betty Necas, 39, wearing sweatpants and tattoos on her wrists. She said she’s never voted, and was a teenage mom “like Bristol.”

She likes Sarah because she’s “down home” but said Obama “gives me the creeps. Nothing to do with the fact that he’s black. He just seems snotty, and he looks weaselly.”

Ten Obama supporters in Wasilla braved taunts and drizzle to stand on a corner between McDonald’s and Pizza Hut. They complained that Sarah runs government like a vengeful fiefdom and held up signs. A guy with a bullhorn yelled out of a passing red car: “Go back to the city, you liberal Communists!”

Elitist not elite II

musings notes this particularly egregious conflation of elitism with eliteness.

Like most members in good standing of the Washington media elite, I have naturally and inevitably grown to hate Sarah Palin. But that's okay, because the feeling is evidently mutual. At last week's convention, Palin went on about how "experts in Washington" were counting out McCain with their "usual certitude" and the "Washington elite" weren't taking her seriously because she isn't part of the club. Palin, you see, is a typical American -- a hockey mom who has "had the privilege of living most of [her] life in a small town," as part of a family that has "the same ups and downs as any other." "I also drive myself to work," she added, just in case we didn't get the point.

The aw-shucks act serves two purposes. First, claiming to be The Average is a useful mallet for beating down criticism as hopelessly snobbish -- as when Bill Kristol writes in this week's Weekly Standard that "the liberal elites" will appeal to their "anti-small town" prejudices when they try, presumably with their usual certitude, to keep Palin 3400 miles away from Washington. (I have no idea what "anti-small town" prejudices look like, but I guess I better get some.)

Second, and more importantly, Palin's everyday qualities are supposed to be an actual electoral and governmental asset -- as when Kristol writes (this time in the Times) that by picking a real-live "Wal-Mart Mom," John McCain might have a decisive number of voters saying, "It's about time." Reverse snobbery is the new snobbery: the way to win an election and govern a country is by seeming as ordinary as the limits of credulity allow.

Let me take the bait and make a plea for good old-fashioned elitism: It's not "about time" for an average American to occupy the White House (or the Naval Observatory), and the notion that some ossified and preening elite lords over Washington is silly.

Everyone is an elitist. We want elite doctors to treat our cuts and cancers. We want elite lawyers and accountants to smooth over our divorces and taxes. And we (some of us, anyway) want our elite soldiers to invade foreign countries. And we don't apologize for these preferences. In most contexts, "elite" is just another word for "merit."

So why don't many of us want elite politicians? The reverse snobs usually argue that Everywoman politicians are better at understanding everyone's problems. But even if this claim is true (and I'm pretty sure it isn't) it remains suspiciously unextended to all other aspects of social life. We don't think the lawyers who have been dragged through a messy divorce are more capable of handling a client's. Why?

And anyway, anti-elitism strikes me a strange pose for a through-and-through conservative. The helpful oversimplification is that conservatives are supposed to favor equality of opportunity ("everyone competes on equal footing, outcomes be damned") and liberals supposed to favor equality of outcome ("everyone deserves something, competition be damned"). Equality of opportunity is supposed to dictate that race, gender, geography, and nepotism count for nothing - they're all features that have nothing to do with merit. This principle is why the same Bill Kristol could write (about a different unqualified applicant, Harriet Miers) that there was "a gaping disproportion between the stakes associated with this vacancy and the stature of the person nominated to fill it." That she was a Bush loyalist and a woman said nothing about her merits. Palin's interest in hockey and commuting says equally little.

"Merit" might be tough to define and harder to locate -- as a member of the liberal elite, I certainly have some problems with it -- but as a theory, it hangs together coherently. Conservatives used to like it. But I guess all that flew out the window somewhere between Wasilla and Anchorage, maybe while Sarah Palin was driving herself to work.

— CONOR CLARKE

In fact, the puny-headed punditry propogated in these paragraphs itself proves the difference between Palin-like elites and the poor, pea-brained Washington elitists.

Update: I think this sentence summarizes the sentiment of this post:

Her perspective is different from that of other national politicians. For Barack Obama, Wal-Mart is a symbol of worker exploitation. For Hillary Clinton, it’s a former source of corporate-director fees. For Sarah Palin, it’s a place where you buy stuff.

When is the last time someone insisted that their doctor not shop at Wal-Mart, and instead look down on people who do? This has nothing to do with eliteness, it is cultural elitism, which is not helpful in governing, perhaps much the opposite.

Obama's Rabbi Relative

September 14, 2008 11:57 AM

So nu?

How has this escaped mention by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in his swings through Southern Florida?

The Jewish Daily Forward reports that one of Michelle Obama's cousins is the most prominent African-American rabbi in the U.S., Rabbi Capers Funnye, chief rabbi of Chicago's Beth Shalom B’nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation.

A shul with soul -- check it out.

Michelle Obama’s paternal grandfather, Frasier Robinson Jr., was the brother of Funnye's mother, Verdelle Robinson Funnye (born Verdelle Robinson).

"Although Funnye’s congregation describes itself as Ethiopian Hebrew," the Forward reports, "it is not connected to the Ethiopian Jews, commonly called Beta Israel, who have immigrated to Israel en masse in recent decades. It is also separate from the Black Hebrews in Dimona, Israel, and the Hebrew Israelite black supremacist group whose incendiary street harangues have become familiar spectacles in a number of American cities. Funnye converted to Judaism and was ordained as a rabbi under the supervision of black Israelite rabbis, then went through another conversion supervised by Orthodox and Conservative rabbis. He serves on the Chicago Board of Rabbis."

In other Obama-and-the-Jews Democratic fardeiget, a group of Jewish liberals are working on devising a plan to help Obama win older Jews in Florida.

It's called The Great Schlep, and I have no idea how much of this will actually come to fruition, but the plan is to hit these older Jews where they live by having their grandchildren head down to Florida over Columbus Day Weekend to convince their grandparents to vote for Obama.

"If there is anyone a Jewish grandparent will listen to it's their (brilliant, gorgeous) grandchild," writes the organizer. "TheGreatSchlep.com website will target, engage and activate Jews 18-24 years old - the Facebook generation. A viral internet campaign will allow the Jewish young people, a.k.a. Schleppers, to communicate with and meet other Schleppers. Then, on Columbus Day weekend (October 10-13), Jewish kids from all over the United States will schlep to Florida to spend the weekend with their grandparents, a.k.a. Bubbie and Zadie. Organized dinners at Chinese restaurants, pool parties, rec room discussion groups, etc. will faciliate (sic) intergenerational pro-Obama discussions. The kids will arrive in Florida with the facts about Obama-- facts that will counteract the false rumors many of their grandparents have heard."

Perhaps Rabbi Funnye can be brought on board.

-- jpt

September 14, 2008 in 2008: Democrats, Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (205) | TrackBack (0)

In case there's any doubt about Barack Obama's (lack of) sense of humor

he lays it to rest in this interview with Letterman:

Obama on Letterman: If That's What I'd Meant, Palin Would Be the Lipstick, ‘McCain's Failed Policies’ the Pig

September 10, 2008 5:56 PM

In an interview on the "Late Show with David Letterman" to air later tonight, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., answers some questions on the lipstick controversy.

Letterman asks Obama if he still thinks the Republicans are overreacting to his comments last night.

"Look this is ... sort of silly season in politics –- not that there’s a non-silly season in politics," Obama says. "But it gets sillier, and it’s a common expression, at least in Illinois, I don’t know about New York City, I don’t know where you guys put lipstick on here."

To audience laughter, Obama says, "In Illinois, the expression connotes the idea that if you have a bad idea -- in this case, I was talking about John McCain’s economic plans -- that just calling them change, calling it something different doesn’t make it better. Hence, lipstick on a pig is still a pig."

"What I like about this scenario is because they -– the Republicans -- demanded an apology," Letterman says, "so that means there had been a meeting at some point somewhere along the line (of) they got together and said, 'You know what? He called our vice presidential candidate a pig.' Well, that seems pretty unlikely, doesn’t it?"

"It does," agrees Obama. "Keep in mind that, technically had I meant it this way –- she would be the lipstick!"

The audience laughs, but Letterman is confused.

"You are way ahead of me," says the late night host.

"The failed policies of John McCain would be the pig," Obama says. "I mean, just following the logic of this illogical situation."

At another point, Letterman asks Obama, "Have you ever actually put lipstick on a pig?"

"The answer would be no," Obama responds. "But I think it might be fun to try."

Liberals to read today

TNR recognizes the problem liberals have with the constitution.
another liberal recognizes the problem liberals have with the working class.
feminists for Palin.
update: and this.
this is extra credit.

read noonan. again.

In Short

We might as well not bother to talk about policy issues in this campaign; we're now in all out culture war, with the coasts and the heartland fighting for control of Ohio.

--Megan McArdle

Meanwhile, in a universe eerily reminiscent of this one

called the NY Times:

The address by Ms. Palin, 44, who stunned the political world last week as Mr. McCain’s pick for a running mate, took place before a convention transformed from an orderly coronation into a messy, days-long drama since the McCain campaign’s disclosure on Monday that Ms. Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant. Since then there have been a host of other distractions, including Hurricane Gustav, questions about how thoroughly Mr. McCain vetted what people close to his campaign have called the last-minute pick of Ms. Palin, and charges from Mr. McCain’s top aides that the news media have launched a sexist smear campaign against his running mate.

Best Peggy Noonan column today since this one.

Why Experience Matters

but only for candidates for vp, not candidates for president

Why Experience Matters, Cont'd

Republicans are still making the argument that Sarah Palin has the necessary experience to serve as vice president she has spent less than two years as governor of Alaska--er, sorry, I mean Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard. After careful consideration, I've decided not to rebut this argument, lest I lend it even a shred of credibilty.

Instead, I'd like to dwell on why experience matters in a vice presidential candidate, perhaps even more than it matters in a presidential candidate. Nate Silver made one important argument here. When a president cannot serve out his or her term, whether because of incapacity, scandal, or death, it is, almost by definition, a crisis. As Nate notes, frequently "a president takes the Oath of Office under relatively calm waters, allowing them something of a learning curve." A crisis can stil present itself quickly--and, lord knows, presidents of both parties have made rookie mistakes for which the country paid dearly. But the margin for error would seem even slimmer when a vice president assumes power.

The other reason is the timing of modern campagins. Today, voters usually have more than a year to scrutinize the presidential candidates--to figure out what they believe and how they operate--before pulling the lever in November. But they don't get the same chance to see the vice persidential candidate in action. So it's particularly important vice presidents be known quantities--somebody whose record on the issues is clear and whose ability to lead is well-established.

Joe Biden fits this definition perfectly. He's got six terms in the Senate, including service as chairman of two high-profile committees, plus two runs at the presidency by which to judge him.

So vote for Obama, because if he dies, we'll have a president with experience.

Bristol is named after Bristol Bay. That's where I grew up, that's where we commercial fish.

Imagine if Todd Palin had grown up in Juneau.