Rogues get what they deserve!

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/527218.html

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election-2008/state-employees-to-testify-in-palin-probe-20081006-4v0i.html

Dontchaknow, 7 - count 'em - 7 of Palin's gosh-darn state employees will now testify in the abuse-of-power investigation against her. Palin insists that her mavericky firing of public safety commissioner Walter Monegan was based on insubordination, and not on his refusal to fire her state trooper ex-brother-in-law. McCain's camp has called Monegan a "rogue" for pursuing funding for a project Palin vetoed.

Now, hold the horse here a minute. We've got a saying where I come from. "A rose by any other name..." *wink* So Monegan was fired for being a "rogue" or having a "rogue mentality" but we're expected to entrust the next four years to a coupla "mavericks"? Now, doggonit, I ask ya - is that fair? Why does a rogue fail where a maverick succeeds? Here's a guy who went outside the box, wouldn't practice politics as usual and got kicked to the curb as they say on Main Street, some Main Streets, somewhere. *wink*

That's what I call gettin the short-end of the stick. Any Joe Six-Pack would agree. Monegan has, I'm sure, years of "roguish" experience behind him (you don't get to be a rogue overnight here, folks). But now that a coupla of mavericks might be 30 days from the White House, he can't benefit. It's clear to me he just wasn't an Alaskan insider. He just didn't know how those guys think. *wink*

Palin should say, "ya, yaknow, I fired him for not firing my worthless brother-in-law. That's a maverick thing to do." It'd be a lesson on how a maverick works and the unusual politics of the future. And besides, she might've been right to do it. I'm not tryin ta play the race card here, but a maverick can't tolerate a rogue. They just... They'll, well ya know. The newspapers'll fight this one out. You know how they are with their attention to words and such. One thing's clear. If Monegan had any chance of being brought to Washington, his "rogue mentality", his clear disregard for politics as usual as run by Governor Palin screwed it for him (as I like to say to appear likable to Joe Six-Pack). There's room for only one maverick in Washington. And that's John McCain. Or Sarah Palin. Well, they'll have to keep workin at each other. *wink*

A special shout-out to some kids somewhere!

Gotta hand it to her...

...Palin did pretty well. But I don't feel she gave us any more than she did at the RNC. I have no doubt if I ask any parent anywhere about the economy I would hear fear in the answer. Naturally I would. I wouldn't bet against that. I know it. We all know. Palin saying it only lets us know that she's up with what's going on, but it sounds like she's only just now figured it out. She did well in talking directly to the country. But I disliked her folksiness. It was smug and condescending, especially when she addressed Biden ("Say it ain't so, Joe. There you go again."), and it speaks again to an insular, parochial outlook. "We need a little bit of Main Street Wasilla in Washington." What is it exactly that Wasilla has that can fix the housing market, Wall Street, and two costly, protracted wars?

The debate succeeded in being positive because the anticipation was both candidates would fall all over themselves. The upshot might come solely from neither candidate doing what many were worried about: Biden in looking like a bully and talking too frankly off-the-cuff; and Palin in tripping over her words and not being able to think on her feet. They redeemed themselves, both of them. There was so much worry heaped on this debate, it could be nothing but toothless. The first comment from the post-debate analysis last night was that it wasn't a game-changer. And that's been echoed this morning.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/03/palin-rebounds-in-debate-–-but-is-it-too-late/

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

http://www.factcheck.org/just-the-facts/the_2008_vp_debate.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122300786229301597.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/10/palin_all_attitude_and_image_t.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5942414&page=1

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14236.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14235.html

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html

How many times can Palin say the word "maverick"? I used to do this as a kid, say a word so many times in a row it lost all meaning. It wouldn't even sound like a word after awhile. Has John McCain said "maverick" as many times as Sarah Palin?

I have to admit, I do find something of myself in Palin. She reminds me of my younger self, having just learned something in school and, feeling collegiate, running it into the ground - linking it to everything and saying it again and again and again.

She still talks in general terms, and assumes that's how we're all thinking. "John McCain's healthcare plan is detailed." I hope it is. I don't need the preamble to reassure me that a man with decades in the senate has a detailed plan for anything. I assume it. I assume that John McCain has thought things through. I assume general terms have been starting points. What I want is to hear about the middle and the end, the particulars and the results McCain and Palin hope to gain from them. A $5000 dollar tax credit for healthcare? That's a little open-ended.

The Next 4 Years... Blink and You'll Miss 'Em

If you watched Charlie Gibson's interview Thursday with Sarah Palin you know how quickly she took to the metaphor of "blinking". She didn't blink when asked to be McCain's running-mate, but she might have wanted to if only to bone up on the Bush Doctrine and national security issues other than Alaskan oil and natural gas. And she might be forced to blink when national security doesn't run up against her most vaunted credential - the increase of natural gas supply from Alaska - as strongly as she might think.

She says "energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important, it's that significant." Naturally it's significant, but is it a lynchpin for success in a world in which America has:

• stepped into a conflict between Russia and Georgia which has little if any impact on American energy interests?


• pushed the issue of nuclear disarmament in North Korea and Iran, using the idiom "Axis of Evil" as a starting point?


• engaged in a protracted war on two fronts?


• focused in that war mainly on Iraq while peace in Afghanistan is increasingly curtailed by a well-entrenched guerrilla force and a NATO force stretched to the limit?

The problem is that Sarah Palin isn't saying anything new. How often have the words "energy independence" and "war" been in the same sentence since the primaries? Her experience as Alaska's governor doesn't give her a unique enough perspective to parlay that experience into foreign policy decisions. When pressed about her comment on not having followed the War in Iraq, Palin replied that she follows it like all of us have. Most people I know follow it in the press. I can only assume from her response that Sarah Palin does as well, making her as informed as anyone with access to a computer, or at least a TV. I'd like a deeper insight from a rising star of the GOP, especially one pegged as the next VP.

When asked if she agrees with NATO forces expanding operations into Pakistan without Pakistani permission, she falls back on diplomatic niceties.

Her answer: "As for our right to invade? We're going work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, and new also. In order, Charlie, to get to a point in this world where war isn't going to be a first option."

You don't build a relationship with a country before invading. So is it a "yes" or a "no" on invading Pakistan? Having to read between the lines on her answer, I can only assume it's a "no".

The question before her was not whether war is a first option or an only option. It was specifically how to fight Taliban fighters once they seek refuge in Pakistan. That is a firm condition on which the future of the conflict rests. In Afghanistan, war is not an option - it is a concrete reality. And it is an emergent reality in Pakistan. Her refusal to speak directly to those realities speaks itself to a complete lack of understanding in international politics.

Her answer is better left in a college "intro to philosophy" course. Of course nobody likes war - nobody forced to fight it, anyway. If she's not in favor of invading Pakistan, then how does she propose to stop a terrorist stronghold from developing in the north? That's the issue before her - war as an actuality, not a potential sometime down the road. Thanks for the pep talk, but no thanks. I'd rather a firm answer, or at least an answer that points to some thoughtfulness.

It's fine if she doesn't agree with invading Pakistan. She just needs to say so. This is what I take issue with. We're asked to judge her on the issues, but when asked pointed questions outside of her limited resume we get a dance and become lost in "a blizzard of words", as Charlie Gibson rightfully says.

If a question falls within the confines of energy and Alaskan natural gas, she answers boldly. Most don't, so she tries to make them fit. When she can't, she answers just as boldly but with words that sound like the right response to anyone only half-listening. Answers anyone might give when confronted with something she knows nothing about. A blizzard of words blowing in from the wilderness, from the outskirts of global understanding.

Palin's politics are too remote to translate to the national scene, though she tries. She seems to think that being neighbors to Russia translates to an intimate relationship. And she seems to think that repeating "Alaska and Russia are neighbors" will somehow carry this over with the self-evident power of a truism.

I don't doubt her commitment. But commitment without wherewithal can lead to very misguided policies, and for some, an inability to admit a mistake. If Sarah Palin would've said she was wrong about the Bridge to Nowhere instead of ignoring her change of mind, I'd feel better about her level of readiness.

I do, though, doubt where her commitment lies. She's shown she knows next to nothing about issues she'll have direct influence over. The effects of that influence will be global. Her overbearing emphasis on Alaskan contributions to America's future shows only a parochial interest in American affairs. I worry that in foreign affairs and issues of the economy, Alaska will always be in the back of her mind as a guiding special interest. Her commitment is wired to what's helped her build a life and a family, and hasn't progressed to a national, more general interest.

The next four years. Blink and Sarah Palin will be our next vice-president. Blink and then watch American politics and foreign affairs become more divisive and strained. Blink and then we'll always wonder what opportunities we passed up. Blink and we might as well keep our eyes closed. John McCain and Sarah Palin sure will as they forge ahead with commitment, belief and hollow, shallow words. We can't blink.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1