South Dakota Politics

The Blob Turns 50

Right about the time I was born, a group of film makers were putting together one of the most novel and effective monster movies ever made.  Most movie monsters are, at best, modified versions of earlier nightmares.  Boris Karloff's Mummy, the first in a long line of bandaged, lurching creatures, was so faithful a copy of Lugosi's Dracula that the movie had the same theme music: Swan Lake.  The very influential Alien was a supped up version of another 1958 film, It! The Creature from Beyond Space.

The Blob was a monster without pedigree.  There was nothing quite like it, so far as I know, in the history of spooky tales.  It hatches from a meteor, and so puts itself squarely in the genre of science fiction.  It looks like a gob of red jam, but has two terrible powers.  It can roll where it wants to go (implying I suppose some powers of perception), it can squeeze under any door, and it can consume and digest human flesh, becoming bigger with each victim. 

The Blob comes along at the same time as a lot of classic post-war, Cold War science fiction movies, and it has the same kind of paranoia.  But it has nothing to do with politics.  It reflected the new awareness of the larger universe that science exposes to popular culture.  The blog was a more or less plausible of what biologists were learning about simple life forms: they consume everything they can get their molecular teeth in, and grow until something limits their growth.  Every living organism, including us, is always vulnerable to some new organism that figures out how to get under the doorjamb. 

The story line is set into the standard teenage rebel motif.  Steve McQueen plays the starring role.  Not, perhaps, his best work, but probably the one he will be longest remembered for.  He and his girlfriend encounter the monster first because, well, they are out at night while all the adults are home in bed.  None of the adults believe them, of course, until it is almost too late.  It is altogether well done. 

There is a scene in a movie theater where it pours out of the projector openings and the audience runs screaming out the doors.  Every July at the theater where it was filmed, there is a reenactment of the scene.  That is a movie that has made an impression.  Happy fiftieth birthday, blob!

Palin Governed from the Center

So long as Governor Palin remains the center of attention, and just right now there is no end in sight, it is going to be hard for the Obama campaign to regain traction.  I have been arguing that many of the attacks on Palin invite comparison with Barack Obama, whom the Left fell in love with before ever they knew much about him.  Palin as well won the hearts of many a Republican-minded voter before they had any good idea what she believed or what she had done. 

Charles Krauthammer has a theory about this, which supports my own.  So he must be right. 

Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

Krauthammer argues, plausibly, that both Obama and Palin are "celebrity candidates," whose appeal is largely image more than substance.  The problem for the Democrats is that Obama is well into the second season of his show.  As in the case of Lost or the X-Files, viewers keep waiting to find out what the mystery is, and after enough time has passed, they begin to wonder if there is anything there to be revealed.  Krauthammer thinks that Obama has already jumped the shark. 

Palin has the advantage that she has just now started her run.  Even if she is a sphinx without a secret, she should be able to keep up the show past November. 

There is something to that analysis, but in fact Palin has more substance to her show than Obama has.  Unlike Obama or Biden, or McCain for that matter, she has served as a chief executive.  USA Today has a remarkably fair-minded article on her governorship, and it looks pretty sound. 

Weeks after taking office as Alaska's governor in December 2006, Sarah Palin vetoed a bill that sought to ban benefits for the same-sex partners of state workers. It was unconstitutional, she said.

This year, she rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted her to add two abortion restriction measures to a special legislative session on oil and gas policy, even though she supported the bills. Former aide Larry Persily said she didn't want to risk offending Democrats, whose votes she needed on energy legislation.

Since Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Palin as his running mate, much attention has been focused on her deeply conservative social views — including her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest and her attendance at a church that promotes the "transformation" of homosexuals through prayer.

But in her 21 months as governor, Palin has taken few steps to advance culturally conservative causes. Instead, after she knocked off an incumbent amid an influence-peddling scandal linked to the oil industry, Palin pursued a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules and raised taxes on oil and gas companies.

This is hardly the record of a religious extremist.  It is the record of someone who knows that she must build coalitions to get things past.  It is the record of someone who knows that the constitutional foundations of her power are not subject to her personal or religious whims. 

Governor Palin has really taken on the oil companies and corruption in her own party, according to USA Today.  If Barack Obama has ever stood up to his own party on any issue, it has been kept a secret.  This is someone with substance.  No wonder she scares the left out of its clogs. 

Barack Obama: Disabled War Vets Are Aren't Cool Enough To Be President

I guess this is the new politics.  Here is Barack Obama's new ad:

And why doesn't John McCain use computers or email? From the Boston Globe, March 4, 2000 (HT, Jonah Goldberg).

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

Why doesn't John McCain use computers?  Because he physically can't due to war injuries.  Way to go, Obama camp.  As Jonah puts it:

In a similar vein I guess it's an outrage that the blind governor of New York David Patterson doesn't know how to drive car. After all, transportation issues are pretty important. How dare he serve as governor while being ignorant of what it's like to drive a car.

Update: Forbes magazine, via Jonah:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.

September 11, 2001

Never forget. 

By This Standard, Obama is Qualified Too

From the Politico:

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

Lipstick and Pig Skins

There are Viking's fans across the upper Midwest?

Unintentional Offense

Like Barack Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment, Prof. Blanchard unintentionally gives offense to Vikings fans across the upper Midwest by posting a picture of the original "Hail Mary" pass, which really is an example of Drew Pearson of the Cowboys committing pass interference against Nate Wright of the Vikings.  Vikings fans seethe with anger to this day.  The only thing more insulting than posting this picture of the Vikings is the current incarnation of the Vikings. 

The Left’s Contempt for the Old Time Religious

I wrote in support of Darwinian Evolution in a recent post.  My frequent interlocutor, BB, responded as follows:

I think this argument speaks volumes about the state of American society and its leaders. Considering that a majority of Americans reject evolution in favor of some form of creationism is it really so surprising that politicians pander to this group? Bush is on record as stating that the "jury is out" on evolution and Palin outright believes in it (perhaps she should reconsider the nomination; after all what would happen in the event of the rapture?). The Scopes trial is over. Scopes lost but evolution won in the court of national opinion (reference Mencken for the typical person on the jury in Tennessee). What does this say about our leaders? I guess we should blame God for the war in Iraq since Bush "prayed" about it and apparently got the go ahead from the big guy. And Evolution? How can anyone raised in modern society not believe in it? The great debates in the mid nineteenth reconciled the debate between science and religion (God would not leave so much evidence supporting evolution since He is the creator and the devil is incapable of creating anything: in this case dinosaur bones millions of years old). Which creation myth does the religious right subscribe to? There are two in Genesis. Perhaps they need to find a Jew to let them in on the true exegesis since it is after all their book! I find it hard to believe how ignorant and gullible these well intentioned (but horribly misguided) people are...

See the post for further exchanges.  What I noted about BB's comment is that it is dripping with contempt for a group that consists of a lot of Americans.  I teach a course on Darwinism and politics, and I have a lot of students whose perspective is formed by traditional Protestant Christianity.  I have always tried to tried to respect their beliefs while showing them that it is possible to think a little bit outside of the box without offending their faith.  It is because I respect them that I am able to make some progress on this front.

When Barack Obama made his infamous comment about folks clinging to religion and guns, he thought he was speaking to a safely leftist audience in San Francisco.  Maybe it was not indicative of what he really thinks about rural Ohio, but it was surely indicative about what San Francisco thinks about rural Ohio!

Governor Palin has brought the Left's contempt for the pious right up to the surface.  Here is Juan Cole's opening paragraph in his Salon piece on Palin:

John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick. [my italics]

Palin has driven Cole right off the edge.  Yes, many American churches may profess things that Cole, or BB, or I don't believe.  But American Liberal Democracy was always based on the premise that theology was private, and that anyone of any faith could participate in politics so long as they accept the distinction between Church and State.  Is there any evidence, beyond a comment in a debate, that Governor Palin has tried to use political power to advance the agenda of her church?  Did Governor Palin try to push the teaching of creationism (assuming she agrees with that teaching) once she was in office? 

Juan Cole's statement is as offensive as it is absurd.  Does Palin support the murder of heretics?  Does she push for religious law to be enacted by the state legislature?  Cole's comparison is ridiculous.  It is evidence of mind unbalanced by contempt. 

Here is Clive Crook on precisely this matter:

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes - or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it…

Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin's nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about - yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.

Some more sober Democrats have shrewdly urged their colleagues to ignore Palin and get on with attacking McCain.  My friend and esteemed Keloland colleague Todd Epp for example.  But the Juan Cole's of the Left (and there are a lot of them on the blogosphere) just can't let this go.  Their contempt boils over, it cannot be contained.  It's not the issues that matter most, not even Iraq.  It's these people. 

Cook urges Liberal Democrats to learn some respect.  Don't hold your breath. 

The Palin Effect

Like my friend Cory Heidelberger, I am little bit embarrassed by the number of posts I have devoted to John McCain's running mate.  After all, the conventional wisdom in political science is that running mates don't really matter.  People vote for the top of the ticket. 

But I think that neither of us should be embarrassed.  Who knows what the race will be about two weeks from now, but we live in the now and now is all about Governor Palin.  Palin may yet turn out to be a liability for McCain, as Professor Schaff and I suggested in our first posts on the choice (though he much more strongly than I).  But there is no doubt that it shook the race up and reshuffled it into a deck much more favorable to the Republican.  Why is that?

I note five major reasons, though one could think of more.  First, Palin dramatically brought the conservative base back on board.  This was always a problem for McCain.  Prior to the Palin choice, he was in danger from two fronts: conservatives who didn't think he was one of them, and Obama, who was trying to tie him to Bush.  Palin brings back the right with no ties to Bush at all.  Of course, social conservatives, and especially the religious right, were never going to vote for Obama.  But they might have stayed home, and they were holding on to their wallets.  All that has changed.  The Republican base is head over heals in love with her, and the money is flowing again. 

Second, Palin is clearly attracting women to the ticket.  This is especially true of Republican women, who can easily imagine being Sarah Palin.  But it looks like it is true of independent women as well, and especially of White women.  That's a big chunk of voters. 

Third, Palin neutralizes McCain's biggest vulnerability: his age.  What if he dies or becomes incapacitated?  Well, voters who are not ideologically committed to the Democratic Party are comfortable, if not delighted with Palin.  Smart or not, they seem to think that the White House will be in good hands if she has to take over.

Fourth, her addition restores McCain's "outsider" appeal.  Maybe that's nonsense (and it is), but no more so than Obama's claim to be a "bridge builder."  McCain is surely an insider, but he is also surely an independent minded Republican.  That's why he had so much trouble with a lot of Republicans.  Palin put wind back into those sails. 

Finally, I have to admit that I was wrong and one of our readers was right about "the experience thing."  Anne wrote this, in response to my first post on Gov. Palin:

I disagree with you and Prof Blanchard about the nomination of Sarah Palin neutralizing the experience issue.  I think it emphasizes it.  It has the Democrats furiously insisting that Sen Obama is so too more experienced than Governor Palin.  Well, that has them comparing the top of their ticket to the bottom of the Republicans'.  Eventually people will recall that Sen McCain exceeds them all in both experience and judgment.

Anne hit that nail right on the head.  Every time Obama or someone else questions Palin's qualifications for office, it immediately invites comparisons with Obama himself.  A state legislator who began to run for president as soon as he was elected to the Senate has no qualifications that trump Palin's.  Rather, she comes out slightly ahead, having had at least two jobs as an executive officer. 

More important, it pulls Obama down when he is compared to Palin, who is, after all, only the running mate.  That leaves McCain above the fray!  And it pushes Biden down below consideration. 

McCain's choice of Governor Palin has been frequently called a "Hail Mary Pass."  When someone throws a Hail Mary, and it is received in the end zone, one can never know whether it was genius, or dumb luck, or maybe the Mother of Jesus was intervening.  But the quarterback doesn't really have to care. 

Rain On Parade

I'll be the party pooper.  I'll believe John McCain has an 11 point advantage among likely voters when I see it replicated in other polls.  Weekend polls are notoriously inaccurate and I find it hard to believe that McCain had something like a 15-20 point bounce from the convention. 

Also, in addition to Prof. Blanchard's list of issues that didn't get mentioned.  Entitlements.  The most important domestic issue, in my opinion.  Not a word from either party. We know why, of course.  Anything approaching fiscal responsibility costs you the election.  See below.  I want to point out that John McCain voted against the prescription drug benefit for Medicare, called by David Walker "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.":

McCain Bounce Now Confirmed

From USAToday:

The Republican National Convention has given John McCain and his party a significant boost, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend shows, as running mate Sarah Palin helps close an "enthusiasm gap" that has dogged the GOP all year.

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

The convention bounce has helped not only McCain but also attitudes toward Republican congressional candidates and the GOP in general.

Now that looks like an 11 point bounce.  But it is not quite the most significant news.

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

"Likely voters" is obviously a more important category than "registered voters."  I wouldn't put much weight on this poll, unless it is confirmed by others.  But if it's real, 10 points is a dramatic shift in McCain's favor.  And there has clearly been movement toward the Republican side.  The Gallop tracking poll has McCain up three, and Rasmussen has it tied.  The RCP average now gives McCain a slight advantage for the first time. 

The Return of Wright

New York Times:  From Newark Pulpit, Rev. Wright Praises Obama

Issues Ignored by the Conventions

I am not a big convention basher.  Yes, they are spectacles with no real institutional function anymore, but it's not so bad to have the two parties show their faces and funny hats to the voters at least once before an election.

But it's worth noting that most of the real issues that are facing and will face the next government are either ignored entirely, or treated in the most superficial way.  Here are a few that come to mind:

Energy Policy.  Yeah, I know, there was lots of wind about wind power, spin about drilling, but both of the parties talked as if energy independence was either possible or would be beneficial.  It isn't, and it won't be.  There is no conceivable way that the U.S., or any other major power (with the possible exception of Russia, if you think it's a major power) can be self-sufficient on energy.  The world will be powered by oil for the foreseeable future, and the U.S. and Europe (along with India and China) will have to import lots of it, no matter what happens.  It would be nice if someone in either convention could just say that, but such honesty would be viciously exploited by the other side.  A sound energy policy would consist of research into new energy sources, more energy efficient technologies across the board, and yes, drilling.  But none of that is going to make us independent.  And independence is not something we should want.  The world civilization is interconnected, and cheap energy in one place should flow to wherever it can be efficiently used.

Free Trade.  Trade has been the single most powerful engine of economic growth since human beings first began to live in cities.  Barriers to trade always hurt the nations that put them up, and just right now progress in removing these barriers has stalled.  Protectionism always rests on two motives: protecting some industry and interested population at the expense of the national interest, and dislike of foreigners.  The Democrats are openly hostile to free trade just now, and the Republicans lack the courage to make the case.

Immigration.  Americans care a lot about this, but the campaigning classes are determined not to do anything about it; rather, they have engaged in mutual paralysis.  The U.S. probably cannot, and definitely should not, close its borders.  We need a steady supply of workers for many industries, and we need skilled and industrious people at all levels of our industrial plant.  But we also need to manage immigration.  Right now we are importing poverty and large unassimilated blocks of peoples, most from the south, faster than we can deal with them.  I don't believe that we can't manage immigration, but both parties seem to be determined to make sure that we don't 

That's just three issues that the conventions are realistically facing.  You can probably think of more. 

A Brief Exchange on Evolution

In a recent exchange with Cory Heidelberger I made these comments:

I am opposed to creationism in the public curriculum, and likewise I oppose intelligent design theory.  On the other hand, I know from experience that students who favor the Biblical creation story over Darwinian evolution get much more interested in the discussion of evolution when the two stories are brought together in the classroom.  Governor Palin suggested in a debate that there was no reason the two "theories" could not be taught together.  I think that was a risky suggestion.  It needs to be made clear that evolution is what is being taught in science classes, because evolution is science and the Biblical story is not.

This, I suspect, was what drew a reader to send me this e-mail:

Evolution is not science.  Period.  (DB).

To which I replied:

Yes it is.  Colon.  It has a theory, and the theory generates a vast number of research programs which you can read about in lots of places.  It is the foundation of all the modern life sciences.  There are surely tens of thousands of biologists teaching, and doing research across the globe.  You might find a few hundred who have some significant doubts some aspects of the theory, just as you will find a few physicists who think that the theory of relativity is flawed.  None of them will argue that evolution is not science.  Even the Intelligent Design folks will readily admit that evolution is a genuine science, and that most of it is in fact sound and correct.  They challenge only the proposition of macroevolution due to random mutation.  I have to say that this is good enough for me. 

Not only is Darwinian evolution a science, but it is one of the most successful sciences over the last century.  That is about all I can say in reply without knowing more about the grounds of your claim. 

Thanks for the note.

Ken

Palin ain’t Failin’

Let me begin with a big caveat: the McCain campaign still faces big structural obstacles.  The Republican base is shrunken like a week old tomato on a sunlit window sill.  Obama still has a bit of a lead in most recent polls, and despite the fact that his lead has always been narrow, and despite the fact that, on paper, his lead ought to be a lot larger, it is still better to hold a lead than to lose it.  Nor did McCain's choice of a much younger running mate make him any younger, and his age remains his most serious burden.  Finally, the recent rise in unemployment stats clearly hurts the Republican ticket.  So if someone gave me a cool hundred and said: "bet it, using Vegas odds," I'd have to put the C note on Obama. 

All that said, there is no doubt that the McCain organization has played much better ball over the last month than Obama Inc.  McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin was a brilliant decision.  Or maybe it was just dumb luck.  There is a saying in baseball that a manager is as smart as his closing pitcher is good.  Palin turned out to be good, and that makes McCain smart. 

How smart?  The timing took almost all the wind of out Obama's acceptance speech, severely limiting any bounce "the one" might otherwise have enjoyed.  Moreover, the announcement drove the drove the left into a frenzy, ratcheting up Palin and McCain's visibility.  All the early attacks on her failed to make a dent, leaving her stronger than she would have been if the Democrats had had the sense to ignore her. 

Palin's speech was an astounding success.  I did not think that, as piece of rhetoric, it was exceptional.  It was just good.  But it was clear after a few minutes into the thing that, suddenly, there was something in the 2008 presidential race at least as interesting as Obama.  The early ratings put her audience at around 37.2 million, just short of Obama's 38.4.  But it turns out that that didn't include PBS, which added about 4 million more views to each total.  Now I would like someone to tell us how that compares to previous conventions.  I am guessing that a VP nominee getting as large an audience as the first place candidate for the opposing party is unprecedented.  Biden's audience was more than ten million short, at 24 million viewers. 

And the good news for Republicans didn't end there.  McCain drew 38.9 million voters, a cool 500 thousand more than Obama.  Suddenly, it seemed, a lot of Americans wanted a good look at John McCain.  We are just now learning whether they liked what they saw.  The RCP average of polls has Obama's lead down to 2.6 points, statistically insignificant.  CNN polls Obama to a one point advantage, and a CBS poll has the race tied. 

Here is the problem for the Democratic ticket just now.  Joe Biden is pretty good on the trail, but beyond that he has brought nothing to the campaign.  He has shrunk to invisibility in the news.  It is now Palin and Obama that get compared with one another.  However you cut the experience thing, it's about fifty/fifty.  And after a year of Obama, Palin has the advantage of freshness.  Arianna Huffington is right: the Democrats should start ignoring Palin immediately.  That leaves McCain pretty much on his own.  And there is no doubt that he cuts a much more impressive figure than anyone else in the race.  For better or worse, we are looking at a man writ large here.  The Democrats have to focus on bringing McCain down, and they have to hope that palinomania fades real quickly.  But that will mean resisting the urge to take swipes at her.  Don't expect it. 

Winston Churchill once said that you can't guarantee victory, you can only deserve it.  Right now John McCain deserves it more than Barack Obama. 

A Wider Shade of Palin

While the McCain speech percolates through the neocortex of the punditocracy, I will respond to Cory's recent notes.  In an earlier post, Cory took Governor Palin to task for the following ( I am quoting myself here):

During a interview, Governor Palin giggled as the interviewer called Lyda Green (Republican State President) a "cancer" and a bitch.

Far from disagreeing with Cory, I emphatically supported his point.

Governor Palin should have taken them to task in the sternest way possible.  Her failure to do so was a lapse in political and moral judgment.

But I drew a comparison with this episode, and Barack Obama's association with the good Revered Wright.

It's kinda like listening to someone say that the U.S. invented the AIDS virus in order to kill Blacks and keeping quiet instead of raising an objection.

In response, Cory produces Governor Palin's greeting to the Alaskan Independence Party. 

The difference, my dear Dr. Blanchard, between Governor Palin's wacky friends and Senator Obama's erstwhile pastor Jeremiah Wright is that we have Senator Obama on record disavowing Rev. Wright's "damning" of America (although, as you'll recall from April, I'm not convinced Wright said anything that needed disavowing). Governor Palin, meanwhile, explicitly welcomes a party that disavows America and slaps America's institutions with the d-word.

The weakness of this reply suggests that Governor Palin has nothing to worry about on this front.  I don't know why the Governor of Alaska thought it necessary to welcome the Alaskan Independence Party, but I note that, contrary to the New York Times, she was never a member of that party, nor did she attend the convention.  And in the clip Cory links to, she is very careful not to endorse any of that party's bizarre ideas.  She points out the few things that she and the AIP agree on.  That is "reaching across the aisle."  And I note again: this is one brief address.

Barack Obama sat before Jeremiah Wright for twenty years.  Does Cory really believe or imagine that in all that time, the good Reverend said nothing that needed disavowing?  That the U.S. government created the AIDs virus?  That the U.S., not Japan, was responsible for the war in the Pacific?  Yes, Obama finally did get around to disavowing Reverend Wright (why, if there was no need?).  But he did so only when Wright had become a political liability.  For twenty years, Obama went along to get along.  Palin's sins pale in comparison.

But Cory makes a second, watery charge:

Pretty soon all McCain-Palin will have left to run on is moose burgers and creationism. And at this point, nothing could be more ironic than a McCain campaign touting "intelligent design."

The claim here is that Governor Palin is an advocate of teaching creationism in public schools.  Now this is a matter of some importance to me.  I am opposed to creationism in the public curriculum, and likewise I oppose intelligent design theory.  On the other hand, I know from experience that students who favor the Biblical creation story over Darwinian evolution get much more interested in the discussion of evolution when the two stories are brought together in the classroom.  Governor Palin suggested in a debate that there was no reason the two "theories" could not be taught together.  I think that was a risky suggestion.  It needs to be made clear that evolution is what is being taught in science classes, because evolution is science and the Biblical story is not. 

However, Governor Palin pledged not to push for teaching creationism in public schools.  Is there any evidence that she did push for that?  Did she encourage legislation to put intelligent design on the curriculum?  Has Governor Palin said anything at all about "intelligent design theory"?  I have seen no evidence of anything like this.  If you have to put words in your opponents mouth, that's a pretty good indication that you haven't got the goods. 

My friend and favorite nemesis, BB, says this:

Palin may have "aroused" something "primal" but I fear it is not fear! … What an excellent pick. No value added and extensive liabilities. She even believes that creationism should be taught in schools! That should "energize" the base! In a democracy you get the kind of government you deserve..

I think the spectacle of Sally Quinn arguing that Palin is unfit to be president because has a pregnant daughter and a Downs Syndrome child is evidence enough that Palin is driving some Democrats off the rails.  But if they aren't afraid of Palin, then they are stupid.  Maybe there is a genuine skeleton in her closet, as opposed to the cardboard ones they have been cutting out.  But if not, she is someone to be reckoned with. 

Living Blogging on McCain’s Speech

The Economist, I believe, had this headline on its last cover: "Bring back the real McCain."  As I write this, I am listening to McCain's speech, and it is clear that is his endgame.  He is presenting himself as what he has always been: a Republican who challenges own his party. It this, more than anything else I suspect, that led him to choose Governor Palin as his running mate. Palin is, I understand, the most popular governor in the nation; but she is not so popular with Alaska Republicans just as McCain began the race with a lot of resistance from the national party. It's not a bad pitch.

Obama responded to Governor Palin's speech today by saying "she talked a lot about me, but she didn't talk about you." Good jab. McCain is making sure to cover that point. He is also talking a lot about specific policies, economic and otherwise. He hit the Democrats on oil and nuclear power.

Just now he is talking above foreign policy. He has the problem that Republicans always face: how to look tougher than the Democrats (easy), but not look trigger happy (hard). It's hard not to err on one side or the other. My impression as I listen is that he is pushing the toughness point hard, while shoring up against the latter problem by emphasizing that peace is the goal.

He is also emphasizing the "I will reach across the aisle" idea.

Now he is bringing up his war story. I had thought it was better to let others do that, but it is obviously part of the strategy to contrast his experience with Obama's. I still think so, but he hit the right note. The experience, he tells us, made him a better person by showing him how dependent he was on the support of others. The argument here is that he once was a hothead, but this hard experience made him sober. Again, not a bad pitch.

Now he contrasts his sales' pitch with Obama's: I am not running because I have been anointed to save the world. That's a paraphrase.

Okay, it's over now. I would say that, for better or worse, this is what McCain has got. We'll soon see whether it was enough.

Who Has Experience

My latest in the American News considers the importance of experience in a presidential and vice-presidential candidate.

Palin's Speech was very good

She has the most important asset for candidate: when she gets going behind the podium, she obviously likes it.  Best non-partisan zinger: "what's the difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull?  Lipstick."  Best partisan zinger: "when the stadium lights go out, and they haul the Greek columns back to the studio..." 

GOP: Night One

Blog quotes of the night:

Ramesh Ponnuru: "Thompson on McCain's Time as a POW: He makes it sound almost as impressive as turning down a Wall Street job."

Jim Lindgren: "To say that the press is doing the Democrats’ work for them would be an understatement."

Glenn Reynolds: "HOW THEY COULD HAVE KEPT THE PALIN PREGNANCY STORY OUT OF THE PRESS:  Leaked it that John Edwards was the father . . . .."

One piece of evidence in Jim Lindgren's favor is that apparently a couple of the cable networks didn't even bother showing the Fred Thompson speech, instead choosing to discuss Sarah Palin's daughter.  So, here is Fred Thompson:

And here is Joe Lieberman:

Dissent

Anne from Ohio thinks Prof. Blanchard and I are wrong that Sarah Palin neutralizes the experience argument for Team McCain:

I disagree with you and Prof Blanchard about the nomination of Sarah Palin neutralizing the experience issue.  I think it emphasizes it.  It has the Democrats furiously insisting that Sen Obama is so too more experienced than Governor Palin.  Well, that has them comparing the top of their ticket to the bottom of the Republicans'.  Eventually people will recall that Sen McCain exceeds them all in both experience and judgment.

I only hope that Anne is right and we are wrong.  Given our track record, that is a highly likely occurrance. 

Sally Quinn Says to Palin: “Stay in the Nursery”

Allow me to turn to a national voice on these matters, Sally Quinn, at the Newsweek/Washington Post site, "On Faith."

From what little we know about her, [Palin] seems to be a bright, attractive, impressive person. She certainly has been successful in her 44 years. But is she ready to be president?

And now we learn the 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. She and the father of the child plan to marry. This may be a hard one for the Republican conservative family-values crowd to swallow. Of course, this can happen in any family. But it must certainly raise the question among the evangelical base about whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother.

But in fact, that awful "evangelical base" is not the least bit offended. Why should they be? Bristol Palin is having her baby, and a marriage with the biological father is in the works. That's a success story. It is only Ms. Quinn who sees something wrong. And there is more that Ms. Quinn is worried about:

McCain claims he knew about the pregnancy, and was not at all concerned. Why not? Not only do we have a woman with five children, including an infant with special needs, but a woman whose 17-year-old child will need her even more in the coming months. Not to mention the grandchild. This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil. Not only in terms of her job, but from a media standpoint as well.

So let me get this straight: a woman with a pregnant daughter is not fit to be Vice President because she will have to be attending to her family. A woman with a pregnant daughter and a child "with special needs" (Down's syndrome) is doubly unfit. This is the view of someone who believes in the rights of women? Sally Quinn is so afraid of a McCain presidency that she is willing to make a stay in the home argument against women in politics. If this were one of those evangelicals talking, feminists would be screaming bloody murder!

There is no doubt that the Palin choice has aroused primal fear in the Left. I am warming to Governor Palin quite a lot.

Palin Comparison

I don't know whether Sarah Palin was a smart pick for Veep or not, but it's pretty clear that she scares the clogs off of some of my dear friends on the left hand of the local blogosphere.  At least they are dumping on her with a watery discharge that makes our treatment of Joe Biden look like a hagiography.  See Professor Schaff on Biden ("good pick"); and mine (where I defend Biden against an old charge). 

Cory Heidelberger brings a charge against Palin that is worth taking seriously.  During a interview, Governor Palin giggled as the interviewer called Lyda Green (Republican State President) a "cancer" and a bitch.  Governor Palin should have taken them to task in the sternest way possible.  Her failure to do so was a lapse in political and moral judgment.  It's kinda like listening to someone say that the U.S. invented the AIDS virus in order to kill Blacks and keeping quiet instead of raising an objection.  Cory produces a couple pieces of evidence occurring over a span of, at most two years.  Barack Obama listened to Jeremiah Wright for twenty years; and if he ever took issue with the Reverend's noxious venom, there is no record of it.  Obama went along to get along, for a long time.  Palin did the same.  It was correct for Cory to point this out.  But he obviously doesn't take this sort of thing seriously, except when Republicans do it. 

My bud Todd Epp weighs in with that same item, and a few more.  He says that "Palin said she was for the bridge to nowhere but then said she wasn't."  Well, I went to the link that Todd provides, but all I found there was a bunch of people who would have benefited from the bridge claiming that the Governor had been for it when she ran for office.  Did she in fact come out in support of the bridge?  I don't know yet, and neither does Todd.  But if true, does Todd really think that this is a good reason to drop a candidate?  Todd's man crush Barack Obama claimed that he supported some limitations on late term abortions, but in fact he had never done so as a state legislature.  When a pro-life group called him on it, he accused them of lying.  His campaign later had to admit that they got it right.  I am guessing that this doesn't take the bloom off of Todd's rose. 

Oh, but Palin's perfidy goes deeper than that.  "She apparently failed to tell Sen. John McCain that her unmarried 17 year old daughter was pregnant."  Todd links to his own Kansas blog, which in turn links to a Huffington post piece.  On the latter, I found this:

The McCain team asserted that he knew about the pregnancy when he selected Palin. She has five children and now a grandchild coming as she hits the campaign trail.

Oops.  McCain did know.  And besides, should this really have figured into McCain's decision?  I know that political considerations are sometimes ugly, but what should we have thought of McCain if he rejected Palin because her daughter was pregnant out of wedlock? 

I don't blame my Keloland colleagues for not noticing that the instant oatmeal they whipped up to throw at Governor Palin sticks just as easily to their own favored candidate.  But when one of them starts talking like the church lady, that's a sign that the Palin choice is deeply disturbing to their world view.  And it's not only the local blogosphere.  Sally Quinn at the Washington Post goes full tilt into left-wing Archie Bunkerism.  But that's for the next post. McCain's choice is starting to look like genius. 

SDP Jazz Note: Jazz Noire

Blanchard's theory of genres begins with the axiom that there a platonic idea at the bottom of every genre. With horror, it's the idea of evil made physically manifest. With science fiction, it's the idea that the physical laws that govern the ordinary world can or soon will make the fantastic possible. Some genres depend largely on a coherent image or set of images. Give me hats, horses, and handguns, I'll give you a Western. Musical genres are harder to pin down, largely because the "language" of music isn't really language and doesn't translate into language.

It is very helpful, then, when a musical genre is somehow tied to a story-telling genre. Jazz is rather closely tied to the Noire genre, the school of film making that arose out of the collision between German cinematography and the "hard-boiled" American crime novel. And I would argue that the idea underlying the film noire is very simple: it is the idea of human loneliness and fear in a world without piety. Film noire characters are distinguished by the fact that they live without believing in anything. The police and politicians (higher levels of social organization are rarely mentioned) are corrupt. Goodness is possible; indeed, it frequently shines like a torch in a hero like Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe. But the hero is almost inevitably jaded, and with good reason. In the long run, his heroism is entirely hopeless. The most he can achieve are small acts of justice and mercy. Like everyone else, he lives without piety; but he has to go on living, and what makes it possible is observing. He finds his satisfaction in seeing things just the way they are.

Jazz is born and grows in pretty much the same time period as the noire genre, and I think it springs from much the same existential stance. Classical music is unthinkable without God or (what is much the same thing), an orderly universe. It's landscapes are those of the day, even if the sky is full of dark clouds. And while it may be played in Paris, it frequently finds itself recreating the countryside. Jazz begins and perhaps ends with lonely human beings, walking down a city street at night under no illumination other than that of a neon sign. I am of course exagerating my case. To be sure, a lot of jazz is happy and a lot of classical music stirs up existentially ambigous currents. But I think I get the two genres right in general.

One of the best examples of the marriage between jazz and film noire is the French film Ascenseur pour l'echafaud, or Elevator to the Gallows. A young man commits a murder but gets stuck in an elevator while trying to leave the scene. His gorgeous accomplice and lover walks the streets of Paris, increasingly convinced that ... Watch it! Miles Davis created the soundtrack, playing while he watched the film projected on a wall. If you get the DVD, you can see a short clip of Miles in this process. Behind Miles was a group consisting of Barney Wilen ts, Rene Urtreger p, Pierre Michelot b, and Kenny Clarke d.

A more recent example of jazz noire is Terrence Blanchard's marvelous disc, Jazz in Film. All of the numbers are soundtracks, most of them from straight noire films. Having listened to it a dozen times recently, I now find myself looking for the DVDs. Here is a clip from the disc: a Duke Ellington composition for the film of the same name.

Terrence Blanchard t, Donald Harrison as, Steve Turre tb, Kenny Kirkland p, Reginald Veal b, and Carl Allen d. Both discs are excellent, so if you like the clips, buy the whole thing.

You Just Gotta See The Headline

From my favorite Dubuque, Iowa, newspaper, the Telegraph Herald: 

SDP Poll: Will Palin Help the Campaign?

UPDATE & BUMP:  In case you missed it over the weekend.

To borrow a page from Glenn Reynolds:

Will Sarah Palin Help the McCain Campaign?
	Yes, a brilliant choice.
	Yes, somewhat.
	A short-term victory.
	No impact.
	No, it will damage the campaign somewhat.
	No, it was ill-advised.
pollcode.com free polls

Real Classy

Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler has apologized for his comments.  I doubt we'll see the same from Michael Moore.  Another interesting note: blogs led this story and forced a public apology before the mainstream media picked up on it.