Monday, September 15, 2008

Fact-check on some of the anti-Palin material

I should point out here that these attacks on Palin haven't actually come from the Obama campaign. Someone posted a Vallicella post on Palin which directed me to factcheck.org.

The rumors about Palin are an understandable reaction to the possibility of having someone close to the Presidency who is unknown to the general public and is seen as extreme in some ways. Who she is is important. Is her campaign persona genuine? Or is she trying to appear to be something she is not. America wants to know, and should want to know.

It's my view that the Palin pick is a highly dubious pick for the reasons I gave earlier, which do not in any way rely on the truth of any of these speculations.

Palin can do herself a world of good by putting an end to the boasting about her stand on the Bridge to Nowhere and admitting quite honestly that she is a relatively new convert to the McCain anti-earmark gospel. In doing so, she needs to admit that her little one-liner about the bridge is highly misleading.

The e-mail mentioned by Factcheck from Anne Kilkenny raises some other issues concerning her leadership style which, while perhaps less sensational, are nonetheless important to the process of the vetting of Sarah Palin by our country.

5 comments:

philip m said...

I have my own qualms with the possibility of the equivalent of a college undergrad majoring in political science who is only a few weeks into her first class in the subject directing America's foreing policy. But her comment about the bridge is not a lie, nor is it misleading.

I can understand why journalists with their axes to grind can thoughtlessly pass over the definition of 'lie' in eager haste to publish their calumnious thoughts against Palin, but philosophers have no such excuse. Again, you *might* be able to argue that the comment is misleading because it doesn't fully express the evolution of Palin's opinion about the bridge's construction, but even that is a lacking argument. It's a speech where she is trying to underline the bottom line of a situation; why should she have to give a lengthy explanation about
how she arrived at her decision about the bridge's cancellation? In fact, if giving such an explanation of events would create doubt in the listener's mind about how intent she is on minimizing such wasteful spending, when she is in fact sincere in her intent on cutting back on such absurd government projects, then *that* would be misleading. As long as her intention is emphasize that she is intent on avoiding wasteful government spending, she isn't misleading anyone.

Attack her for not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. I'm 19 and sitting across from Charlie Gibson I could have given him a thorough answer on the topic. (Or an answer at all.."In what respect, Charlie?" does not even qualify as an answer demonstrating minimal understanding/comprehension).

havoc said...

Reading Dangerous Idea has started to feel like I'm reading Daily Kos (but a soft version). It is a nice change from the Daily Calvinist Bash, though.

If you do have time, I would like to ready why you are supporting Obama.... if you are supporting Obama. Come to think of it, I don't know if you're supporting Obama or not, I just know that you hate Sarah Palin -- She must be a Calvinist!

Victor Reppert said...

I am trying to sort out the legitimate claims from the non-legitimate ones, so that the objections which I think are serious are the ones actually made.

The problem I've got is that when she killed the project there was no actual earmark in place. The money was no longer earmarked when she decided not to use it for the bridge. So she really didn't say thanks but no thanks to Congress.

Why doesn't she just portray herself as a new convert to the McCain gospel?

Anonymous said...

"In fact, if giving such an explanation of events would create doubt in the listener's mind about how intent she is on minimizing such wasteful spending, when she is in fact sincere in her intent on cutting back on such absurd government projects, then *that* would be misleading. As long as her intention is emphasize that she is intent on avoiding wasteful government spending, she isn't misleading anyone."


Of course she is misleading people. If she wants to express her intent to cut wasteful government spending she can simply say that is what she intends to do.

Instead she makes up a fictional account about how she stood up to Congress and told it that she wouldn't spend the money on a bridge to nowhere. Congress had already decided the money wasn't going to be earmarked for that project.

She lied. All people lie at one time or another. What is quite telling about her character is that she is continuing to lie even after the facts have gotten out.

Victor Reppert said...

You are right. As I have insisted, over and over, she could very easily avoid presenting a padded resume by portraying herself as a new convert to the anti-earmark gospel, repenting of her pursuit of earmarks in the past. It bothers me that she doesn't do this.