Catching up on Election Screedifying

Apologies for the length of the ranting below … but I decided to avoid politics yesterday, and was busy most of today … and there’s soooooo much to talk about.

So let’s talk first about Sarah Palin. There’s still a lot of bubbling around her Alaska record. The most recent bit of excitement is about, of all things, rape kits — that Wasilla, AK, while Palin was mayor, was the only city in Alaska that charged rape victim for the cost of rape kits to take forensic samples necessary to nail the SOB that did it. Such kits cost $300 to $1200, but pretty much every city and town in Alaska picked up the cost — as did Wasilla before Palin fired one police chief and brought in a new one. Eventually the AK legislature had to pass a state law to force communities (Wasilla, pretty much) to do this, so that they could get funding under the federal Violence Against Women Act (written, ahem, by Joe Biden).

Since the story’s broken, the McCain campaign has quickly denied it, called it a (yawn) “smear,” and denied Palin was at all involved. And yet, there’s her signature on budget documents cutting funding for the police to cover such test kits. Was it intentional on her part — or simple neglegence? You decide.

Meanwhile, other Alaska investigations continue, crossing partisan boundaries in the search for the truth.

And, of course, there was the Gibson interview(s). I didn’t get a chance to watch it, which was probably good for my blood pressure. One big bright moment seems to have been Palin’s ignorance of the “Bush Doctrine” — which basically says, “Hey, if we think that country might be a risk in the near term … or maybe beyond … it’s perfectly okay for us to military slap them down.” It’s a debate between preemption and prevention, and while Palin eventually stumbles through (after having it explained to her) to come down to a more traditional view of prevention (if we are under imminent threat of attack, that’s a fine moment to do something about it), vs. the Bush policy of preemption. But most important about the question (and its answer) is that Palin doesn’t really grasp what the Bush Administration has been up to the past several, and doesn’t seem to realize that she vaguely disagrees with it — nor even that there was any debate on the subject. She simply doesn’t seem to be interested. 

Though she doesn’t seem to mind the prospect of war with Russia. However, we needn’t be worried about that because Palin has lots of national security experience through her ties to the energy industry. Um …

Palin is not only proving very popular with the social conservatives, she’s been appointed through acclaim as their new Messainic leader. How long that will last is anyone’s guess, but I suspect we’ll be hearing from Sarah Palin, one way or the other, for years to come, even if her feet of clay eventually tone down some of the enthusiasm, just as they did with George Bush.

Even if you don’t have any great enthusiasm about Biden, at least Obama chose someone who would provide his administration with additional depth — while McCain seems to have chosen someone who would net him votes. Which is the mark of a real leader?

John McCain, meanwhile, is so irked about being lambasted by accusations over how he’s changed since, say, 2000, that he’s done something silly, to wit, defying anyone to name an issue where he’s “flip-flopped.” Now, of course, it’s not necessarily a bad thing for someone to reconsider a position based on changing circumstances. In everyday life, we call that growth and experience and even wisdom. But McCain, for whatever reason, is unwilling to even entertain the possibility that he’s changed his positions on anything — or unwilling to admit it — neither of which is a recommendation to being president. Nor is getting ticked off when someone tries to get you to reconcile the conflicts in the positions you’ve stated.

Meanwhile, Obama casually laughs off the most recent pig/lipstick distraction. Boy, that sure didn’t seem to have many legs, did it?

Regardless, despite the current surge in McCain’s fortunes due to the celebrity of the Cult of Palin, the GOP is taking no chances. In Michigan, for example, the GOP plans to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters. Never mind that getting a foreclosure notice doesn’t actually mean you’re booted out of your house and no longer have residency in a district. Don’t let facts get in the way of voting challenges. It’s a chance to delay and/or invalidate the votes of folks who are in foreclosure — who, by a wild coincidence, tend to be working class, often black, and also often Democratic. Talk about adding insult to injury.

And, of couse, you still have the struggling-to-recover Christian Coalition arguing through bald assertion that (a) Obama is a closet Muslim, (b) Obama is a closet European, and/or (c) Obama is a closet Marxist. 

In the face of all these smears, lies, and goofiness and supposed Democratic anger at the last eight years of Bush White House (six of which had a GOP majority in Congress), is Obama a shoo-in? I wish I felt that certain.

Two other items that don’t fit into the narrative above:

1. What makes people vote Republican? A response to Haidt – Are Democrats always blowing it because they ignore some of cultural moral imperatives of loyalty, authority, and purity? Or do we lambaste the Republicans for ignoring the cultural moral imperatives of fairness and caring? 
2. The candidates’ favorite movies – Not sure what it means, but I’m sure someone will find this Ebert column interesting.