Rubin: Is this all the Times has on Palin?

just because it's in the Times doesn't mean it's a hit piece. Even Rubin acknowledges that the Times included favorable things in the piece. We've heard about Rev Wright and Bill Ayers. it won't hurt us all to learn about Our Sarah's friends and appointees.

There is a sort of irony to people complaining about discussing penny ante matters when only having penny ante experience has been lauded as being intrinsically valuable. For what it's worth, Palin increasingly strikes me as a person that seems to think as long as someone is a good person they can do anything. She is the type of a person who views any failure or disagreement as a defect of character. She is the type that uses machismo to make up for actual knowledge, much like the head of her ticket McCain.

What the Times had was plenty enough for me. Seen this M.O. for the past seven years and change. That's plenty enough for me.

I guess we'll get to see whether the U.S. is collectively insane, using the definition that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results this time.

Come to think of it, we may be judged bat-sh*t crazy no matter WHO wins in November.

Good grief, the lady ran on a platform of reforming a corrupt state government. Carrying out that sort of program requires hiring people you know you can trust. The results seem to have been popular with the people of Alaska.

Good grief, the lady ran on a platform of reforming a corrupt state government. Carrying out that sort of program requires hiring people you know you can trust. The results seem to have been popular with the people of Alaska.

She ran on a platform of reforming a corrupt government, but appears to have done as much enabling of corruption as fighting it. There's always a reformer agenda, yet she runs administrations that have their hands out for government money, uses the power of government to settle petty disputes, and uses a level of secrecy that should scare anyone concerned about open, accountable government. She appointed an attorney general who had never supervised a single person to run a legal department of 500 employees.

Yes, she's popular. So is Stevens (who was just renominated despite being indicted). So were Murkowski and Young, when it meant they were bringing millions of dollars to fund Alaska's veritable welfare state of dependence on government checks and paybacks. This isn't wilderness independence, it's a population so dependent on government and Big Oil checks that a Cadillac-driving welfare mom would blush.

Have we learned nothing from a vice president who uses executive privilege except when it involves openness? Have we learned nothing from an administration that uses private email addresses to circumvent oversight? Have we learned nothing from an administration that appoints unqualified cronies and "yes men and women"?

People are largely the same. Obama has as little experience as any one and much less than McCain,not that experience counts for much. Depending on your point of view, recent "leaders" haven't done a good job have they? whichever party in congress or in the courts or in the White House.

I see Rubin's point, and I certainly hope she is right. But as an evangelical, when I read the NYT piece on how Palin appointees tended to come from her church, I said "yep, it figures." In certain corners of the Pentecostal, fundamentalist and (to a lesser extent) evangelical communities, there is an obsession with dealing only with "our people." This was typified by the popularity of the so-called "Christian Yellow Pages" a few years ago. Seriously, a Yellow Pages in which all of the firms claimed to be (the "right kind" of) Christian and displayed the fish symbol. The implication was that "good Christians" patronized only those firms. Questions about competency, professionalism and integrity were largely set aside. These firms often had names that sent my family into paroxysms of laughter: Jesus Truck Repair, Maranatha Pest Control, Emmaus Road Electrolysis. It was ludicrous. From the many news articles I have read, it does appear that (at least while in city government) Palin may have been on that wavelength.

I think Commentary is a great magazine, but it doesn't exactly have its finger on the pulse of the Christian evangelical community, if you know what I mean?

When it comes to Palin and this site, the elephant in the room is Palin's undeniable willingness to mislead. Spin is one thing, but Palin outright lies, sometimes even when it's a mistake tactically. No one here wants to face that, but if she should be elected, the nation surely will.

Sullivan this morning has a nice example.

"Back when she was increasing the long-term debt of the town of Wasilla by 69 percent, Mayor Palin also fired the town's police chief and librarian, Irl Stambaugh and Mary Ellen Emmons. The accusation was that they were fired because they had supported her opponent in the previous election. Palin denied any political motivation. But whatever the merits of the firing, what is salient is that Palin's reflexive instinct was to lie in public about it. From the Anchorage Daily News:

Reached at her home ... Palin said she planned to meet with Stambaugh and Emmons this afternoon. She also disputed whether they had actually been fired. ''There's been no meeting, no actual terminations,'' she said.

This was another odd lie - easily disproven:

Stambaugh's response was to read part of the letter given to him. ''Although I appreciate your service as police chief, I've decided it's time for a change. I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment. . . . '' ''If that's not a letter of termination, I don't know what is,'' he said.

Your call."