Small Blawg

From MSNBC: Palin was asked if she thought the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan was helping to mitigate terrorism. "I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security for our nation. We can never again let them onto our soil," she said.

Iraq and Afghanistan never were on our soil. Osama bin Ladin's team was made up of Saudi Arabians.* You know, Saudi Arabia, our great and good ally, whose king Dubya embraces and literally holds hands with when they stroll around his ranch together.

That would be bad enough, but it's her interview with Katie Couric which is making the television shows tonight. Palin's sentences make no sense. Transcript borrowed from the Huffington Post (and I'm guessing the word she stalled on was "caricature," but who knows):

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

There's more going on here than the difference between transcribed remarks which always have some "ums" and "ers" versus the neat script of a pre-written speech. Go to the link, watch the video. She's babbling. I'm not suggesting she's on drugs. I'm saying that she is apparently incapable of structuring simple sentences under even the mildest pressure. And this is the person who would be running the country when John McCain dies?

Ashamed of the Name

Rachel Maddow had a great piece on her show tonight. In Washington state, 25 Republicans have arranged to have the word "Republican" stricken from their names on the ballot and are running as members of the "GOP Party," i.e., the Grand Old Party Party. Well, it's their party and they'll hide if they want to. It's up to the press and the Democrats to out them.

*"Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon," says Wikipedia and every other article about the attacks, apparently none of which Palin has read. Not one came from Iraq. Not one came from Afghanistan.

Yes, someone, somewhere, screwed up royally. As unpleasant as the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library may be, so far as I know, it's not a secret venue for Republican administrations to render captives for torture.

But Verizon's online cable guide displayed the following program information for a full hour between 11 pm and midnight Wednesday, misidentifying Hardball With Chris Matthews as the 2004 film Sex Bunker, a segment of their "MSNBC Reports" series which had played five nights earlier in the 11 pm slot on Saturday night, January 26.

No, Matthews' show last night was covering the Republican debate at the RRPL, not the crimes of John Jamelske. Click for a larger view:

The Cruelty of the Loons

I had to stop watching the Republican YouTube debate last night. The portions I saw were a complete freak show, and I'm not sure I have the stomach for wading through the transcript.

Ron Paul, allegedly Libertarian, strives to portray himself as anti-choice. What's wrong with that sentence? But never fear, when Paul says he wants to return the issue of abortion criminalization to the states, so a woman's civil rights would be based on where she lives, and she'd lose her federal civil right to bodily integrity and privacy. Of course, he didn't phrase it quite that way. Nor did he come out and explicate what everyone in the room knows this means: "return the issue to the states" means banning abortions for poor women only. Any middle-income or upper-income woman can go to New York for an abortion, just as they did back in the early 1970's, before Roe.

More squirming on abortion: a young woman finally gets to ask exactly how, and whom, candidates would punish if abortion is criminalized. They desperately don't want to answer, but someone blathers out something about punishing "the abortionists." If someone admitted he'd force unwilling women to bear children in prison while handcuffed and leg-ironed to a delivery bed, I was out of the room and missed it.

The Bible query: some nutball muttering, "Do you believe in this book? Every word of this book? This book?"* while rotating a black-bound book with "Holy Bible" in gold on the cover in front of the camera. He sounded so goofy, I thought it was a trick question; perhaps that book had been hollowed out and filled with... who knows? Rudy Giuliani's expense reports? No one on the platform, and no one in the audience, and not the moderator, had the sense to say that the question was totally inappropriate. Had anyone in the room ever read the Constitution? Specifically, Article VI?

The gun nuts: there was a string of questions from people demanding more, more, more evidence of whether the candidates own guns, use guns, like guns, including one vid in which the speaker catches a thrown gun... which gave one of the candidates a chance to gripe about that, instead of addressing gun policy. Why so many questions on a single topic? Why the most craven and fevered versions, too, instead of a sensible, civil question about Second Amendment rights? Was CNN trying to make gun owners look like drooling loons, or were these particular questions really the best they'd received on this issue?

And who was it who got booed when he said "regulation," before he was allowed to finish his sentence and say he meant restrictions on those with criminal records or histories of mental illness? I can't remember right now, but the booing spoke volumes about the nature of the audience and the extent to which extremists in the Republican party expect candidates to be willing to go to snare primary votes.

Tax issues were addressed by questions and answers that sounded like they were background noise from some Posse Comitatus meeting, mostly about eliminating the IRS.

As I said, I couldn't stomach much of this nonsense and it dismays me that anyone would consider voting for any of these moronic whores; and that the raw ugliness of Republican doctrine was so plainly on display. I should be glad about the latter, I suppose, but as an American, it shamed me. I'm ashamed that positions so vicious and stupid (not to mention racist, misogynist, religiously tyrannical, fatally shortsighted, foolishly belligerent, etc.) have any credence at all in a supposedly civilized nation in 2007. It wasn't a debate; it was an exercise in playing to the worst of the worst by the worst.

Oh, dear. Whether she had anything to do with it or not, Hillary Clinton will be taking a hit for this:

A retired brigadier general Keith Kerr, who is gay, asked candidates if they thought U.S. military personnel were professional enough to work with gay and lesbian troops. CNN later learned that Kerr served on Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee. David Bohrman, CNN senior vice president and executive producer of the debate, said, "We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the general's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate."

Tacky, tacky, tacky. But still, some of it's CNN's own fault. They couldn't call him up and ask him? Was there any due diligence as they waded through the 5,000 YouTube questions they've had weeks to review, even to the point of merely asking the winners if they were campaign workers?

*From CNN's coverage and video: The debate turned personal when a viewer, holding the Bible, asked "Do you believe every word of this book? And I mean specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand."

Huckabee, a Baptist minister, said,"Sure I believe the Bible is exactly what it is."

Giuliani said he believes the Bible, but not "literally true in every respect."

After that, Romney stammered a bit when moderator Anderson Cooper asked him if he believed every word.

"Yeah, the Bible is the word of God. ... I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God," Romney said.

Exactly what office are these guys running for?

Slate has this piece by humorist Tom Peyer, transcribing WWJSay at a GOP fundraiser. Among other retractions and amendments:

"In My youth, I made certain ill-advised statements that I now regret. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I want to clarify that it is easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven." (CHEERS, WILD APPLAUSE)