Letters by Boz

The Literary Palin

The Tina Fey Effect

Andrew Sullivan highlights an interesting aspect of the Sarah Palin phenomenon. While she has managed to excite the Far Right, often to a disturbing degree (see Rich Lowry's tent-pitching ode), she has managed to give some independents the creeps:

The Oct. 1-2 Rasmussen poll found that 43 percent of independents say Mrs. Palin is "hurting" Mr. McCain's chances to win the presidency, compared with 35 percent who see her as "helping" and another 22 percent who saw no impact or were not sure. Overall, the poll respondents split about evenly - 40 percent to 41 percent - on whether Mrs. Palin was an asset to the ticket.

I was still giving McCain the benefit of the doubt up until the point he chose snowbilly Palin as his running-mate. Now I hope the GOP presidential campaign crashes and burns.

Palin... the GOP's "Fatal Cancer"

The Huffington Post has a short piece quoting a recent interview with David Brooks:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

Wow, that really nails it. The GOP celebration of all that is ignorant, provincial, anti-intellectual, philistine, and yes, hickish is truly dispiriting. Give me a Rockefeller Republican any day over a Redneck Republican.

The Debates

I don't bother watching political debates. Why should I? Really, I think only three types of people waste their time with them:

1. Politicos who are paid to comment on debates, or who are so in to the elections they actually find the whole circus entertaining;

2. The bland masses who believe that watching the candidates drone on at each other is part of their civic duty;

3. The clueless 15 percent or so of voters who are still undecided and are hoping for some sort of debate-inspired epiphany.

None of the above applies to me. That being said, I did catch a bit of the Biden-Palin debate on NPR. Goshdarnit golly-gee... she really does answer questions as if she's in another beauty pageant. She's also either rather dumb or rather deceitful (probably both) as illustrated by this exchange:

 BIDEN: Two Mondays ago John McCain said at 9 o'clock in the morning that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Two weeks before that, he said George -- we've made great economic progress under George Bush's policies.... Nine o'clock, the economy was strong. Eleven o'clock that same day, two Mondays ago, John McCain said that we have an economic crisis....

PALIN: John McCain, in referring to the fundamentals of our economy being strong, he was talking to and he was talking about the American workforce. And the American workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce.... That's a positive. That's encouragement. And that's what John McCain meant.

So McCain and Palin just happen to have a totally different definition of economic fundamentals than the one used by analysts, investors, and, yes, economists. Darntootin', they're mavericks even in their use of the English language!

Angry Atheist Harris Vs. Very Theist Palin

Sam Harris can go a bit overboard in his anti-religious crusade, but a recent piece for Newsweek about Sarah Palin hits the bullseye. My fave paragraph:

Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

Read the rest here.

Animal Lovers for Obama

The Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), a non-partisan organization dedicated to animal welfare, has for the first time in its history endorsed a presidential ticket: Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They explain the endorsement here.

In a nutshell, John McCain's selection of animal-slaughtering snowbilly Sarah Palin as his VP pick is what pushed the HSLF to endorse Obama-Biden:

While McCain’s positions on animal protection have been lukewarm, his choice of running mate cemented our decision to oppose his ticket. Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-Alaska) retrograde policies on animal welfare and conservation have led to an all-out war on Alaska’s wolves and other creatures. Her record is so extreme that she has perhaps done more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United States.

Palin engineered a campaign of shooting predators from airplanes and helicopters, in order to artificially boost the populations of moose and caribou for trophy hunters. She offered a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf as an economic incentive for pilots and aerial gunners to kill more of the animals, even though Alaska voters had twice approved a ban on the practice. This year, the issue was up again for a vote of the people, and Palin led the fight against it—in fact, she helped to spend $400,000 of public funds to defeat the initiative.

What’s more, when the Bush Administration announced its decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, Palin filed a lawsuit to reverse that decision. She said it’s the “wrong move” to protect polar bears, even though their habitat is shrinking and ice floes are vanishing due to global warming.

The choice for animals is especially clear now that Palin is in the mix. If Palin is put in a position to succeed McCain, it could mean rolling back decades of progress on animal issues.

I wholeheartedly concur. I supported Dole in '96, and Bush in '00 and '04. Largely because of McCain's pandering choice of hick-magnet Palin as his running-mate, I will not be supporting the GOP this time around.