In today's pages: Sarah Palin, feminism, immigration and Los Angeles
Looks like "pick-a-fight-with-Republicans day" lasts more than 24 hours at the Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division. Today's OpEd page offers two, umm, less than flattering takes on John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, despite her star turn at the podium last night. (Can I just pause to remark, as someone who enjoys the theater of big political events, that Palin deserves the same accolades that Hillary Clinton received for doing exactly what her party needed her to do at that moment? If you missed it, read the transcript aloud in a strong, assured voice while keeping a determined look on your face. For the sake of verisimilitude, make sure to pause frequently for applause. Of course, it might be easier to peruse this take by the Times' veteran DC bureau chief, Doyle McManus, or this one by Top of the Ticket blogger Andy Malcolm. But I digress.)
Feminist author Gloria Steinem, who calls the speech "down-home, divisive and deceptive," shreds Sarah Palin's record as governor and all but declares her unfit to serve as vice president. Yet Steinem doesn't fault Palin as much as she does the man who picked her:
The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom.
Columnist Rosa Brooks takes a different tack in her critique of Palin (and, by extension, McCain), delving into reports of Palin's entanglement with a secessionist political party in Alaska. Rounding out the distaff trio of scribes, columnist Patt Morrison looks not at Palin (make that "looks not again") but at California's GOP delegation, which convention organizers held in low esteem despite the outsized number of votes the state casts in the Electoral College:
Our delegates have just about the worst possible seats at the convention, at the back and so far left that they can only see the speaker in profile. The only way they could be any more distant is if they were working the concession stands.
Over on the editorial page, the Times' board wades into less controversial fare, like, oh, union membership for illegal immigrants. In particular, it bemoans the effort by Agriprocessors not to recognize the organization created by its meatpacking employees on the grounds that the illegal immigrants on its payroll didn't have the right to unionize. Can't wait to see the comments on that one. The board also wishes the city of Los Angeles a happy 227th birthday, and urges Congress to bar federal investigators from pressuring corporate and white-collar targets to reveal what they discussed with their lawyers.
The photo of Sarah Palin speaking to the Republican National Convention last night is from Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images.
Palin is an amzing woman and will be a great leader. People can insult her all they want but its all bull....This is the better ticket for our country,,plain and simple. Yes, game is on! And screw the media , btw!
Posted by: bunny | September 04, 2008 at 05:15 AM
Palin, like every other Republican speaker, avoided the many problems the next administration will inherit from the Bush's eight years in office. What will the nation do about an insane budget deficit? Nada. Lessons of sub-prime meltodown? Nada. Seemingly endless war on two fronts? More seemingly endless war. Lots of patriotic excess and character assasination. And we are suppose to call this "GOOD STUFF!"
Posted by: John Leemie | September 04, 2008 at 05:16 AM
So the very people who broke the America workers' unions now want to unionize themselves. Go ahead, it won't matter. Corporations will just be more cheap labor from another source, the Times will shill for them with editorials and 'news' articles about 'worker shortages' and so on.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | September 04, 2008 at 05:33 AM
Sarah Palin put on the speech of her life last night, but I still don't want her on the McCain ticket. If she doesn't want scrutiny on her family, then she and her husband should take responsibility and keep them out of the press. It's hard enough with young kids to explain why teen-pregnancy isn't a good thing when t.v. stars are doing it, now it's being passed off as "just one of those things" by a national campaign?!?
Posted by: Catherine | September 04, 2008 at 05:34 AM
Gee, where are all the comments? the liberal hate mongers have been silenced....
Posted by: Sarah-nating Sarah | September 04, 2008 at 05:36 AM
ya know i thought about investing some time into arguing my point, but it occurred to me that this liberal rag will only censor my argument or not print my comment at all. i hope a wildfire, mudslide, or earthquake takes out all of your homes . . . it just so happens i own some property just east of th SA fault, so a tsunami washing kalifornia off the map wouldnt be bad either!
Posted by: gettyleigh | September 04, 2008 at 05:38 AM
The huge difference in the two tickets is that McCain/Palin can run on their records. Obama/Biden have avoided this. Obama promises change but his record shows none. He is running on promises.
Only the foolish still trust promises from politicians. Their records are all we have.
Posted by: Jake Miller | September 04, 2008 at 05:54 AM
Is it not true that both kids had to be aleast the age of 18 or could he go to jail for under age sex with an under age girl?
Posted by: kenneth childers | September 04, 2008 at 05:56 AM
Incessant whining from the left; it is sooooooo predictable - 2000, 2004 and now in 2008 - makes me think the little hockey mom fit the moose antler right square in your *sses.
Got to absolutely love the analogy between "community organizer" and mayor. It does make you ponder - Exactly how big a budget does a "community organizer" manage? How many people are on the payroll of a "community organizer"? Do you have to punch a time clock or just hang out on the street comer when you're a "community organizer"? Is that what those guys are doing in the low income neighborhoods who hang out at the intersections? Hell, I thought they were all selling crack.
Posted by: Robt | September 04, 2008 at 06:06 AM
Sounds like a whole lot of sour grapes on your part, but then old has-beens like Ms. Steinem haven't had a new idea in decades. Too bad for you, but Sarah Palin truly resonates with American men and women. I like her!
Posted by: Lois Schmidt | September 04, 2008 at 06:07 AM
So the LA Times keeps up the journalistic integrity by allowing 3 liberal whack-jobs to run a complete smear campaign against the Republicans and the first woman GOP candidate in history. Wow, what a wonderful publication you have. LA Times must stand for Liberal A$$.
Posted by: Unreal | September 04, 2008 at 06:14 AM
Let's be honest for one second... Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. That's right, Hillary's "not" a VP nominee.
Sarah Palin - WOW! You GO Baby!
Sarah Palin opened up a six pack of Whip-A** on Barack Obama and said, "let's rumble"!
Hey Barack, is she "likeable enough"?
:-D
Posted by: Randy | September 04, 2008 at 06:14 AM
The usual comments from the usual suspects...
I do not like or support McCain, but if the only worthwhile thing he ever does is to bring in a fresh face (on the national level) he will have accomplished something.
Obama's convention reminded me of the 1930's - in Germany. His is not the "fresh face" I was thinking of.
I think Ron Paul is still the way to go, but in the meantime shouldn't we listen to each candidate with open minds?
Posted by: Terry | September 04, 2008 at 06:17 AM
Nice speech, good speaker but Alas, classless and tasteless.
Posted by: J.jay | September 04, 2008 at 06:22 AM
The Democrats just can take the fact that Sarah is a great speaker and makes more sense that LiarObama. She's at least a honest, born and lived in America all her life WOMAN. The Democratic women should really be concerned and a bit niffed at their party for doing what they did to Hillary.
WAY TO GO, SARAH, BURN THOSE RADICAL NUTS UP
The liberal media has cross the lines in America as far as I am concerned. All the newspapers can burn, baby, burn.
Posted by: John Peabody | September 04, 2008 at 06:27 AM
Help this woman SMASH THE GLASS CEILING LIKE SHE SMASHED HER OPPONENTS LAST NIGHT!
Comedy, Class, Electrifying Delivery, and a WOMAN!!
Go Palin 2008!!
Palin vs. Hillary 2012
It's ON!!
Posted by: Harry | September 04, 2008 at 06:35 AM
Unreal -- Just to be clear, as the post says, the two (not three) pieces on Palin were commentaries, not news stories. They ran in the same place that Jonah Goldberg's pro-Palin piece ran on Tuesday: the op-ed page. That's not to suggest there's an equal time rule on the page, or any such thing. It's just to urge folks not to judge the integrity of the news pages from what runs in the opinion section.
Of course, columnists with opinions run in the news pages.. So do analytical articles, such as Doyle McManus' piece praising Palin's speech. That miscegenation blurs the line between news and opinion, I admit. But there should be no confusion at all about what's on the pages discussed in this post. It's all opinionated stuff, either by contributors such as Steinem, regular columnists such as Goldberg or the Times employees who make up the editorial board, of which I am one.
Posted by: Jon Healey | September 04, 2008 at 06:36 AM
Did anyone notice after Palin's speech how old McCain looked?
Posted by: hst | September 04, 2008 at 06:39 AM
PALIN HIT A HOME RUN FOR EVERYBODY WHO IS SICK OF THE ORWELLIAN NEWS MEDIA JAMMING DEMOCRAT PARTY PROPAGANDA DOWN OUR THROATS . BUT DON'T FORGET WHAT RUDY SAID! BARACK OBAMA VOTED "PRESENT" 130 TIMES BECAUSE HE WAS NOT MAN ENOUGH TO VOTE YES OR NO ON CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATION. OBAMA IS A SELF-SERVING, SPINELESS COWARD WHO IS NOT ONLY GOING TO BE AMERICA'S FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT (IF ELECTED) HE WILL ALSO BE OUR FIRST YELLOW PRESIDENT.
Posted by: MARC CHRISTOPHE | September 04, 2008 at 06:40 AM
Palin was appalling. ..using her ‘special needs baby’ as a prop. The special needs her baby required was the infant to be at home. Not will be fulfilling the needs of her mother and party.
Dangling the infant around like a McCain/Palin sign was disgusting and painful to see. Some “Mom” she is. I know less qualified Moms that would make a better VP. Just because someone is a good truck driver would you want them to be your attorney. Ugh to gettyleigh.
Posted by: Walker | September 04, 2008 at 06:49 AM
Palin Amazing ? you must have a very weak definition of AMAZING. Palin appeals to the average intelligence, and those ignorant of recent history. If you find yourself relating to her, you are the below average boring person that makes this country the laughing stock of the educated world. Read a book, and you might understand why you, and creationism are ridiculous. Then please shut up and let the smart people shape the world. Animals know how to make babies too, should they be VP ?
Posted by: Richard | September 04, 2008 at 06:52 AM
Bunny,
Your comment, "And screw the media , btw!" shows the great advance work the GOP opinion makers have done.
Rule #1:
If you have a weak case, preemptively attack anyone who will pick away at you.
Sarah Palin is a weak case.
She delivered her ghost-written speech very well, but her thin resume and closet-skeletons from governing bodies of 8000 and 670,000 will prove difficult...
Unless you just keep attacking the media...even the objective news reporters...yeah, that's the real ticket.
Posted by: Wayno | September 04, 2008 at 06:55 AM
If you want to know more about Sarah Palin click here: http://newsdroppings.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-is-sarah-palin.html
Posted by: News Monkey | September 04, 2008 at 07:00 AM
You people (MARC CRISTOPHE, Harry, John, others) are insane. You put your faith in liars that are exactly the same as the people that have been ruining your country for the past 8 years.
Posted by: Titus, Netherlands | September 04, 2008 at 07:00 AM
Thanks but no thanks! No more of it.
We saw the maverick with his fresh new hunting dog; quite fierce and dominating. I am sure he would take it for all his 'normal walks' and his future hunting expeditions.
Sarah was interesting but exhibited absolute low standards in her attacks on experienced senior politicians. She brought the game to such low repute and set the future standards of the battle much below pa,r by her vituperative attacks on her seasoned opponents. She was ably supported by the flaunting mayor of New York city who I thought was ridiculously arrogant. According to him, she had the most experience compared to both the democratic candidates put together. If it is the 20-month executive experience that he means, I must say she towers even over her mentor and should be projected as the Presidential candidate instead of the VP. While her accomplishments in Alaska are to be credited, the controversies she has tagged along with them are remarkable too, judging by the short span she has been as the governor. That speaks volumes for a potential VP.
So now we have two "trigger-happy" candidates working together in tandem to take America and the world to a peaceful co-existence with the rest of the economically growing powers in the world. Is this is a good omen for America or for the anti-American-rest-of-the-world? Only time will tell.
Americans please wake up. Do you want peace or war?
Posted by: Sam | September 04, 2008 at 07:01 AM