In today's pages: Questioning Sarah Palin, seceding from the Union, and recalling Gov. Schwarzenegger
Columnist Tim Rutten keeps the Op-Ed page focused on Sarah Palin, blasting John McCain's campaign for shielding his running mate from reporters. Just as the media questioned Barack Obama's support for former pastor Jeremiah Wright, Rutten writes, they're entitled to question Palin about her religious affiliations:
Less than a month ago, Palin sat in the pews at the Wasilla Bible Church, to which she and her family belong, and listened to a sermon by David Brickner, who heads Jews for Jesus, a group cited by the Anti-Defamation League for its "aggressive and deceptive" proselytizing of Jews. Brickner said that Arab terrorism against the state of Israel was an expression of God's judgment on the Jewish people for their rejection of Christ. After Brickner concluded his remarks, a special collection was taken up to support the sect's activities.
Strong stuff! On another Palin-related topic, writer Christopher Ketcham explores the surprising support among Americans for a state's right to secede. It's not just disaffected Alaskans: it's one out of every five Americans surveyed in a recent Zogby poll. D'ohhhh! I have two words for those people: Abraham Lincoln. OK, two more: South Ossetia. Wrapping up the Op-Ed page, Dennis Hathaway, president of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, laments the L.A. Councilwoman Janice Hahn's proposal to turn the Convention Center's shell into a series of giant electronic signs:
Hahn calls the selling of advertising rights on a public building a "clever" way to raise revenue for the city. So what's next in this exercise of fiscal cleverness? A super-graphic wrap of City Hall?
On the other side of the crease, the Times editorial board rises to the Gubernator's defense against a plan by the state prison guards' union to mount a recall drive. It might be poetic justice to recall Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who gained office in the recall of Gov. Gray Davis, but it would be wrong to blame him for the state's current fiscal mess:
The present crisis merely demonstrates the shallowness of the anti-politician bromides that accompanied the last recall. Political inbreeding and tax-happy Democrats do not bear all of the blame for Sacramento's mess. The problems are structural and the solutions complex.
The board also sees a glint of hope amid darkening economic times in the 99 Cents Only Stores' decision to keep prices below $1. And it urges the Supreme Court not to change its mind and permit states to impose the death penalty for raping a child.
Photo by Don Fisher/TMC
I am from North Dakota, which of course has a much smaller budget than California, but our state is enjoying a $1 billion dollar surplus at the moment. Our state budget isn't even a billion. One large reason for this surplus is taxes collected from oil revenues and royalties. Perhaps if California softened its stance on offshore oil production it may help to ease the budget problems.
Posted by: Mark Lindgren | September 10, 2008 at 09:04 AM
Hey, North Dakota!
Looks like you identified several reasons offshore drilling is a short-term boondoggle with long-term consequences!
The Oil Revenue Windfall reaped by all argument REALLY WORKS: 1) so long as you live in a place with a population less than that of large mammals, Kuwait, and a barrel of oil is over $150. 2) you can keep your annual budget in a mattress as you noted, and 3) North Dakota has, at last count, zero offshore oil rigs because- and I checked my map in addition to my math- it is LANDLOCKED. I'm sure tourists from Manitoba would visit, say, South Dakota if you had an oil spill on your pristine beaches. But if Californians really get fed up with the "tourism" thing: Drill, baby drill! But seriously, domestic drilling is a great short term solution, but "drill here, drill now" equals "day late, dollar short" at a time when we really need to explore and underwrite a wide array of energy alternatives to meet our long-term economic and environmental security. Safe drilling should definitely be a part of our Arsenal of Democracy, but the environmental cost for this windfall will be paid by future generations if is nothing but a cheap campaign slogan that will result in knocking pennies off the cost of a gallon of gas 10 years from now.
Posted by: Steve Kelley | September 10, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Here on the East Coast, our beaches are ruined and swimming is off limits most of the time due to pollution..the Chesapeake Bay is a dead zone, and the Great Dismal Swamp is on fire from global warming; in Florida, as in California, short-sighted solutions include desalinization plants which provide drinking water but which further introduce brine into the ocean and acidify the water, creating even more inhospitable conditions.
The Gulf of Mexico with the most oil drilling currently, has red tide of algae along its' entire perimeter now, making swimming now a risky endeavor.
The last time I checked, Alaska was permitted to drill in its' entirety, which explains the GOP selection.
Also, I do not recall that there are any coastlines in North Dakota to permit drilling.
So the previous bloggers' facetious attempt at comparison is both conciliatory and illusory. Facts do not matter to McCain or Palin, so presumably they do not matter to the few delusional supporters.
Perhaps this blogger should take a geography course or explain how North Dakota drilling rigs are in any way similar to offshore driling rigs which would take a decade to come online and provide no new relief to any American for a decade.
Next, you will say to increase driving age to 18, reduce highway speeds to 55, and get rid of gas taxes, without thinking of the implications from any of these actions, another trademark GOP tactic to pander to voters.
Make sure you fail to mention climate change, peak oil, even as ANOTHER hurricane is sent to remind voters of GOP incompetence...According to Palin's preachers, God is wreaking vengeance upon sinners; apparently that would be the GOP, as the French Quarter was largely spared each time while oil refiners just deserted N.O. and moved to Houston.
Screw the next generation for short-term profit....McCain/Palin
Posted by: Diversified Energy Solutions | September 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM
The sad part is people like North Dakota are allowed to vote, while the GOP is now sending "enforcers" to polling stations to crack down on voter fraud, i.e. disenfranchise any poor voters who cannot obtain fifty different form of ID, give blood sample and did not have time to register in the biometric scanner database......git r dun
Posted by: Change NOW | September 10, 2008 at 10:20 AM
What was this, Rutten's third or fifth anti-Palin op-ed since her selection was announced? It must be nice to have a soap box.
The LAT has printed at least one anti-Palin op-ed almost every day since her selection was announced. On some days you guys have run TWO anti-Palin op-eds on the same day. The closest the LAT has come to a sympathetic portrayal of Palin was a column by Meghan Daum in which she recounts a visit to a cartoonish fundie couple and describes their positive opinion of Palin in the same tone which a sociologist might use to describe some aboriginal tribe’s cannibalism rituals.
For a paper that claims to represent the diversity of opinion in Southern California it is shameful that the LAT has given its readers nothing but a barrage of one-note anti-Palin news and opinion ever since her selection was announced. Couldn't you find ANYONE in So Cal who likes Palin? Are you like Pauline Kael, who never met anyone who voted for Nixon?
Meanwhile, what have your Ace vetters turned up on Obama and Biden? The LAT has yet to discover the CAC or ACORN issues. And, despite his 35 years as a public figure, the only news the Times has unearthed on Biden so far is that "Regular Joe" likes to putter in his garden.
Keep Rockin' Guys!
Posted by: Aldo | September 10, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Aldo, Tim's taken only three cracks at Sarah Palin, not counting the fleeting mention of the "McCain-Palin ticket" in one other piece. Give him time, he's just getting warmed up.
The main Palin support has come from Jonah Goldberg, who (as noted in today's In today's pages) has come forth with two consecutive pro-Palin treatises. I'll pass your comment about diversity of opinion to the op-ed editors, though, in case they want to weigh in on this thread.
As for the CAC and ACORN, I know that the Times' Top of the Ticket blog has written several times about Barack Obama's ties to the former as part of its coverage of the William Ayers subplot. Not sure what the TotT guys have done on ACORN, tho. I would be shocked if we didn't do something more substantive on Biden soon, but then, I'm just one of the opinion writers. I don't tell the news guys what to cover, and they don't counsel me on what to opine.
Posted by: Jon Healey | September 10, 2008 at 02:29 PM
Jon,
I apologize: now that you mention it I do remember that Goldberg has written twice in favor of Palin. Still, if you include the various anti-Palin "News Analysis" screeds (such as Peter Wallsten's), James Rainey's various commentaries in the main news section, and snarky headlines like "Sarah Palin Is Being Prepped For Prime Time," the anti-Palin vibe is overwhelming.
(When Kerry picked John Edwards to be his running-mate in 2004 Edwards' total political experience consisted of a partial Senate term, which he had mostly missed while campaigning for higher office. Nonetheless, the LAT has always treated Edwards as if he is ready for prime time, at least until you guys began embargoing Edwards news.)
[/End Rant]
I would be shocked if we didn't do something more substantive on Biden soon
Excellent Captain Renault impression!
Posted by: Aldo | September 10, 2008 at 03:38 PM
Aldo, for us black-and-white-media types, Casablanca is the ne plus ultra. But the reference was unintentional. I'm not that clever. :-)
I shared your impression about the anti-Palin vibe, so I went to the Times archives. I found 146 stories that mentioned Palin -- too many for a lazy opinion writer such as myself to read, so I just focused on the 11 that appeared the same day as Gloria Steinem's and Rosa Brooks' op-eds (Sept. 4). Looking solely at the amount of praise uttered or quoted in each piece vs the amount of criticism, I counted five pro Palin, three con, one neutral, and two where her name was mentioned in an incidental way. One of the positive piece, by the way, was a very extensive take on Palin's role in battling the oil industry in her state. It could be that our impressions of media tone are based on the loudest elements, not the overall sound. Or maybe I'm just missing the trees for the forest.
The neutral one, by the way, was Rainey's piece about the Palin coverage in the checkout-counter news magazines. Read it again, I think you'll find he aims his scorn at Us Magazine, not Palin -- although he clearly doesn't care for the GOP's criticisms of our Elite Media Club.
As for John Edwards, let's just say the embargo has lifted.
Posted by: Jon Healey | September 10, 2008 at 05:05 PM
I'm too lazy to do my own research, so I'll concede the point. I guess peanut gallery critics are even lazier than opinion writers.
Thanks for taking the time to look into the matter and respond to my comments. I was actually caught off guard to discover that somebody from the Times reads these comments. Now, if I could just convince Rainey to allow feedback for HIS columns...
Posted by: Aldo | September 10, 2008 at 06:44 PM
I'm still not clear on why we may not criticize or question Sarah Palin's record, religion or political stances. We fully expect all our other candidates to explain them. I am a woman running for county prosecutor, and I get peppered all the time with criticism and questions. Why should Sarah Palin not be questioned or criticized. What makes her so special?
Posted by: Ann | September 11, 2008 at 06:02 AM
Ann,
Nobody that I know has declared that Sarah Palin may not be questioned politically. Here are my issues:
1. As I noted to Jon, Senator Biden is also a candidate for VP. He has a 35 year record in the Senate, and he is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. So far, the "vetting" that the LAT has giving him has been limited to a story headlined "Regular Joe" which described his gardening habits. Barack Obama is actuially running for President, and there are serious issues in his political background which the LAT has never even broached, or mentioned only in the most cursory, incidental way. Why are they not subject to the same level of scrutiny as Sarah Palin?
2. The LAT has "flooded the zone" with negative op-ed opinions of Palin, negative "news anaysis" pieces, negative columist essays, negative editorials, and negative news articles with snarky headlines. My point was that if the LAT wanted to honor its claim to represent the diversity of opinion in So Cal it might want to allow the occasional dissenting opinion. The huge volume of negative Palin output by everyone on the LAT payroll with the lone exception of Jonah Goldberg creates the perception of a hive mind.
3. A very important part of this story that has never even been alluded to in the LAT is the absolutely savage and lunatic attacks from the Left-wing blogosphere that followed the announcement of her selection as McCain's running-mate. This tidal wave of hatred has created a circle-the-wagons attitude on the right, but if it is never reported you would not understand that. I would like to suggest this essay to you on that subject.
Posted by: Aldo | September 11, 2008 at 09:20 AM
We the people of the U. S. should sell Governor Sarah Palin to Russia! That way she doesn't have to worry about being part America anymore. How does $500 Billion sound? That's a steal!
Posted by: Publius187 | October 08, 2008 at 07:11 PM