About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Offering no evidence, NY Times' Brooks claimed Palin "pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues," "talks about global warming quite a lot"

August 30, 2008 5:49 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: New York Times columnist David Brooks asserted of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: "She's evangelical, but she's pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues. She's for drilling in ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge], but she talks about global warming quite a lot." But Palin has reportedly said of global warming, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made," a position at odds with findings by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; she has also reportedly opposed giving spousal benefits to same-sex partners of public employees.

111 Comments

During the August 29 edition of PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, New York Times columnist David Brooks asserted of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: "She's evangelical, but she's pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues. She's for drilling in ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge], but she talks about global warming quite a lot." But Brooks did not mention what Palin has actually said on the subject of global warming. In fact, Newsmax Magazine reported that in an interview, Palin said of global warming, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made," a position that puts her at odds with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has concluded that "[t]here is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming" and that "[m]ost of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gases) concentrations" (emphases in original). Nor did Brooks note that Palin reportedly opposed giving spousal benefits to same-sex partners of public employees.

In an interview for the September issue of Newsmax Magazine, Palin was asked: "What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?" She responded: "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."

Palin has reportedly made similar remarks about global warming in the past. For instance, on December 31, 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that "[d]uring last fall's [gubernatorial] political campaign, Gov. Sarah Palin said she remained unconvinced about how much human emissions contribute to current global warming trends. She endorsed the work being undertaken by a new Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission created by the Legislature last May, which she said would help provide Alaskans with answers. But the Legislature steered away from addressing broader causes of global warming and potential solutions when it created the panel." Similarly, in a November 4, 2006, article, the Daily News reported:

The candidates for governor all agree that global climate change is presenting serious problems for Alaska, but there is some disagreement over what the source of that problem is.

[...]

Palin isn't so sure it's not a natural warming cycle, according to her spokesman, Curtis Smith.

"She's not totally convinced one way or the other," Smith said. "Science will tell us, and she's proud that UAF [University of Alaska-Fairbanks] will have a role in that. She thinks the jury's still out."

"I will not pretend to have all the answers," Palin said about global warming at the recent Alaska Federation of Natives convention, where delegates passed a resolution calling for a mandatory reduction in pollution affecting the atmosphere.

Answering a question from the Daily News, Palin cautioned against "overreaction." She has called the Alaska Climate Change Impact Assessment Commission report due next March a good place to start. The commission was created by the Legislature last year. Its seven members were named Wednesday.

Additionally, Brooks gave no evidence that Palin is "pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues." Nor did he note that, as Media Matters for America has documented, while Palin vetoed a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits, her actions followed a 2005 Alaska Supreme Court ruling that the state's policy of denying spousal benefits to same-sex partners of public employees violated the Alaska Constitution and a 2006 state Supreme Court order requiring the state to issue regulations granting such benefits by January 1, 2007. In the veto message, Palin's office stated that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's actions: "The Governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court." Further, as a candidate for governor, Palin also reportedly supported efforts to prohibit state benefits for same-sex couples. The Anchorage Daily News reported on August 6, 2006, that Palin believes "[e]lected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples. 'I believe that honoring the family structure is that important,' Palin said. She said she doesn't know if people choose to be gay."

From the August 29 edition of PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:

LEHRER: Do you think that's -- do you think that has any possibility of actually working, that women would vote -- well, that's -- that's the question.

BROOKS: Yes, I do, and the fact that she is working class. She is, as she says, a hockey mom, which I guess is tougher than a soccer mom. She -- you know, her husband's a member of a union. She said she works with her hands. She's not a pretentious person. You know, they were not going to nominate Mitt Romney and have the two wealthy guys. So that's good. And I think the second thing -- and, again, this is all contingent on the fact she does well, which we really don't know.

LEHRER: Sure.

BROOKS: But I thought she did well today. But the second thing to be said is she is an under-45 Republican. That means she's unwedded to Reaganism. She's a -- she's evangelical, but she's pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues. She's for drilling in ANWR, but she talks about global warming quite a lot. She's got different categories in her head than, I think, the older conservatives who are pretty much down the line ideologically.

LEHRER: During the campaign, though, what does it do now for the experience issue? Because that was going to be a big one between McCain and Obama.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DAWUSS (August 30, 2008 5:57 pm ET)
         

      Where's the evidence? The evidence is self-evident - I mean to deny it is simply being ignorant!

       

      How was that at writing a GOP quip?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (August 30, 2008 7:20 pm ET)
           
        As always with these guys .... If someone doesn't say what you want, just put the words in her mouth.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by captfoster2 (August 31, 2008 3:14 am ET)
             

          "talks about global warming quite a lot"

          So does Rush Limbaugh....... does that make him an environmentalist as well??

          Who is this idiot anyways?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (August 30, 2008 6:01 pm ET)
         
      It does sound to me that Palin has the GOP line down pretty good. Gays = bad. Guns = good. Abortion = bad. Ethics violations (potentially) = IOKIYAR...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (August 30, 2008 6:23 pm ET)
           

        The fact is she is anti-science, anti-choice and anti-environment and is a McSame with a vagina.

        Which flip-flop do we declare canon and which do we declare non-canon?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (August 30, 2008 6:37 pm ET)
         
      well hey, rush and all the right wing chorus talk "about global warming quite a lot".   they just deny it's man made.  but it's comforting that palin wants yet more study.  meanwhile another burner of a hurricane season so far.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Graydogs (August 30, 2008 6:51 pm ET)
         

      Hey, she's the complete package

      [...]......Sarah Palin already has energized conservative religious leaders who had fretted that John McCain would pick an abortion rights supporter as his running mate. The Alaska governor was raised in a Pentecostal church and has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."

      To Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religion Liberties Commission, Palin is "straight out of veep central casting." Land said he had urged the McCain camp to consider the political unknown.

      Gary Bauer, one of McCain's most enthusiastic evangelical supporters, said the Arizona senator had hit a "grand slam home run" and that adding Palin to the GOP ticket is "guaranteed to energize values voters.".....

      [....] 

      ......."Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who initially said he could not vote for McCain but has since opened the door to an endorsement, called Palin "an outstanding choice that should be extremely reassuring to the conservative base" of the GOP. Dobson added that the ticket "gives us confidence he will keep his pledges to voters regarding the kinds of justices he would nominate to the Supreme Court."

      "It's an absolutely brilliant choice," said Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty University School of Law. "This will absolutely energize McCain's campaign and energize conservatives."

      Staver called Palin a "a woman of faith who has a strong position on life, a consistent opinion on judges. ... She's the complete package."..........[..]

      Startribume, Eric Gorski AP 8-30-08

      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (August 30, 2008 6:59 pm ET)
           
        You mean, Dobson meant a good choice for the bigoted and anti gay evangelical vote. Yes, they're starting to play the same old games now that McCain is almost sure to lose. Got to shore up their god, gays, and guns following. This is what McCain did with Palin. He's not trying to get Hillary votes I've decided, he gave that up. He's trying to court the hard core evangelicals who wanted to sit this one out, because McCain was not the candidate they wanted.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pointofview (August 30, 2008 7:09 pm ET)
             
          If that was the goal, then he pulled it off.  He needed a strong pro life person on the ticket.  Her stance on abortion will make many on the right feel safer, and more likely to vote. 
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (August 30, 2008 7:13 pm ET)
               
            he could have gotten that with a lot of other people though, besides someone who is spectacularly unequipped for the office of president.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pointofview (August 30, 2008 11:12 pm ET)
                 
              True, but the same is also true of Obama in general.  He is the least prepared of any major party candidate in the last 100 years. 
              Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (August 30, 2008 11:16 pm ET)
                   

                I agree. You'd have to go back to the election of 1860 to find someone with so little experience.

                And we all know how he worked out. 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (August 31, 2008 5:03 pm ET)
                     

                  What's "prepared"?

                  Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for only two years when he became President, and had not previously served in elective office.  Moreover, the letters and other records of the time indicate that Wilson's advisors and he were planning his presidential candidacy for years before he became Governor -- his election to that office in 1910 was obviously intended as a stepping stone.  However, Wilson had also been the head of a major university and was regarded as a serious intellectual -- the foremost political scientist and government professor of his generation.

                  On the other hand, you'd be hard pressed to find a candidate with more experience than James Buchanan -- a lifetime in politics and diplomacy, including serving as Congressman, Senator, Ambassador, and Secretary of State.  But when Buchanan got the top job, he was oneof the two or three worst Presidents ever.

                  Experience is one facet of leadrrship.  It's also important to be able to articulate a vision, set goals and objectives, and convince people to work together to achieve them.

                  Neither McCain nor Palin has convinced me that they have those aspects of leadership.  Obama has.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mghamma (September 02, 2008 1:16 am ET)
                     
                  Or the election of 1992. How did that turn out? Oh yeah. he had sex with a consenting adult. THE HORROR!!!
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (August 31, 2008 7:43 am ET)
                   
                it depends on the definition of "least prepared".  the experience thing is important but it also depends on the person.  bush was the governor of a major state for 6 years and was in no way prepared to be president.  [still isn't.]    bush basically frittered away his adult life until the age of 40, drinking and running three businesses into the ground.   eisenhower never held an elective office before president and he was prepared.   i can't think anyone thinks palin has the capacity to be president. 
                Report Abuse
                • Author by racerskistar7484 (August 31, 2008 5:33 pm ET)
                     
                  She isn't running for president. She's running for Vice-President.  What do Vice-Presidents do? Almost nothing. She doesn't have enough experience? Experience to do what?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (September 01, 2008 11:35 am ET)
                       

                    Take over should a 72-year old man who's had cancer four times not be able to continue on the job.

                    If you were in his position, would you have a life insurance policy?  Think about it. 

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by walshinsurance (August 31, 2008 10:17 pm ET)
                   

                And....Bush/Cheney...with all of their experience did what?  Oh, I rememberr...pretty much crap everything up worse than any President in history!  I will take the new guy...with a brain...any day of the week.  He has the experience of outlasting the Clintons...which probably buys him 10 years of experience.

                 And Palin?  Her voice is enough to crack that glass ceiling!  And, so what...she made the good choice to keep her DS baby.  I am pro choice and would have done exactly the same thing...I just call it responsibility.  Maybe these gun-totin', pro-life neo nuts should think about the death penalty a bit more...and the killing of 1,000's of innocent people in Iraq.  Pro-Life my rear end!

                Report Abuse
            • Author by captfoster2 (August 31, 2008 3:25 am ET)
                 

              You can say that again MEFIRST.....

              However..... I'm betting that the rightwing is betting on (if Grampy and Sarah are to win) that Gramps won't make it past the second year in office?? and that they will have another willing partner in Mrs Palin as they have with George to be the acting leader of the USA.....

              This lady has not the slightest clue about foreign or much domestic affairs.... so, like George, the lunatics will take over the assylum yet again......

              But I have the audacity to hope that a larger than 60% majority of this country has had it with the Republicans and we will be calling Barack Obama... Mr President!!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by wesley (August 31, 2008 10:42 am ET)
                   

                captain

                Heading towards the first turn of the presidential horse race, the latest Zogby poll finds evidence that the Palin pick is looking good.

                From all respondents...52% said it helps, 29% said it hurts. Independent voters found it the same way...52% - 26%. Women were nearly the same at 48% - 29%...and of course republicans were near unanimous at 87% - 3%.

                The overall...McCain/Palin - 47%...Obama/Biden - 45%.

                After adding the weight allowances to the jockey selections...going down the front stretch it looks like it's neck and neck.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (August 31, 2008 10:45 am ET)
                     

                  Gallop says 41 - 49 Obama/Biden.

                  And what's a interactive flash poll?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by wesley (August 31, 2008 10:53 am ET)
                       
                    It has a lot to do with where you're sitting in the grandstand...the old angle of view dissonance.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by lemoc (August 31, 2008 8:00 pm ET)
                       

                    Gotta go with Loonz's poll here, Wesley.

                    I'm like most of the people here;  we know there's not even any pavement in Alaska, there's only one Polar Bear and a cub left , and everybody up there lives in an igloo. 

                    Ain't no way the gov of a place like that knows what's goin' on in the world.

                    We need somebody like Elvis Obama who at least knows there's 57 states.

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (August 31, 2008 10:48 am ET)
                     
                  Gallop also says the opposite about Palin.  She reinforces the far right base but hurts McCain with everyone else.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by wesley (August 31, 2008 11:09 am ET)
                       

                    Rasmussen calls it 47 - 44 for Obama.

                    After all the time spent in the stables...currying and grooming the candidates. Endless hours of touts watching and timing the workouts...the candidates have now left the saddling paddock...made their parade in front of the grandstands...and have left the starting gate.

                    The race is on.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by loonz (August 31, 2008 11:33 am ET)
                         

                      The race was over a long time ago.  I predict a landslide for Obama/Biden.

                      All the states Kerry won are solidly behind Obama/Biden and I think they'll get New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia and possibly Nevada and Florida.

                      Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 10:52 am ET)
                     
                  Here's a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women -- including those who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination -- 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely.

                  From Rasmussen: Some 38% of men said they were more likely to vote for McCain now, but only 32% of women. By a narrow 41% to 35% margin, men said she was not ready to be president -- but women soundly rejected her, 48% to 25%.

                  Only 9% of Obama supporters said they might be more likely to vote for McCain.

                  Overall, voters expressed a favorable impression of her by a 53/26 margin, but there was a severe gender gap on this: Men embraced her at 58% to 23%, while for women it was 48/30.

                  And by a 29/44 margin, men and women together, they do not believe that she is ready to be President.

                  As for voters not affiliated with either major party, 37% are more likely to vote for McCain and 28% less likely to do so.

                  Gallup is now out with its own initial poll. It also shows women with a slightly less favorable view of Palin. An excerpt from USA Today:

                  There is wide uncertainty about whether she's qualified to be president. In the poll, taken Friday, 39% say she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33% say she isn't and 29% have no opinion.

                  That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988. In comparison, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was seen as qualified by 57%-18% after Democrat Barack Obama chose him as a running mate last week.....

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by sluggo (August 31, 2008 6:25 pm ET)
                       

                    Oh man...

                     Why did you have to go and bring up Reality?

                    Truth really does have a Liberal Bias

                    Report Abuse
        • Author by eb (August 30, 2008 7:13 pm ET)
             
          It almost looks like Mccain has  a low opinion of women: they'll vote for anyone without a penis.  He also has a low opinion of evangelicals: they'll vote for anyone with a bible and a fetus fixation.  Now  which of the two is more worthy of such disdain?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Graydogs (August 30, 2008 7:44 pm ET)
               

            "He also has a low opinion of evangelicals: they'll vote for anyone with a bible and a fetus fixation."

            Actually, we have manufactured signs in yards around our area that say:

            CHRISTIANS....think of the UNBORN when you vote for president.

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (August 31, 2008 10:57 am ET)
                 
              If they wanted to be accurate, they'd say:  "Christians:  think of the struggling families before you vote."  That's what Jesus would do.  I don't recall him mentioning the "unborn" in any of his sermons.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by lemoc (August 31, 2008 8:10 pm ET)
                   

                ...wasn't there, so don't know if He would have had a reason to mention the matter or not...

                The Bible DOES say quite a lot about being a good steward of your finances....as in like, don't create a Ponzi scheme like Social Security and then be so dumb as to eliminate 40 million people who could have done a lot to keep the thing going for another couple generations...before the inevitable crash, which is a lot closer now...

                Report Abuse
        • Author by DAWUSS (August 30, 2008 7:14 pm ET)
             
          Wasn't it the evangelicals who put 43 in the White House?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Graydogs (August 30, 2008 7:27 pm ET)
             

          There are already so many articles, blogs etc, on Christian web sites praising Palin as McCain's choice, that the MSM could say anything they want now to "soften" or mainstream her stance on creationism, pro-life, the death penalty, same sex marriage, guns, or global warming, and it will have no affect on what the evangelical base thinks of her positions.

          I'm sure chain emails praising her, spelling out her stand on everything are already being circulated by the millions.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by DougReese (August 30, 2008 8:06 pm ET)
               
            You betcha, Gray. There's three on a group I frequent. One mentions she has helped the town she was mayor of, Wasilla, grow to Alaska's 4th largest town/city.

            Here is a portion of another:

            "I have seen the pundits dump on her because she was only the mayor of Wasilla, a rapidlay growing town of nine thousand. They forget that ALL towns have crime, schools, police, fire, special interest groups, etc etc etc. I am positive if she and the ex mayor of ten million, Rudy Giuliani were to compare notes they would find the days and hours they spent as mayors would be the same....the problems would be almost the same....Sarah has to deal with moose and Rudy had to deal with rats and pigeons...lol the point is both jobs are identical in most cases because they involve the needs of PEOPLE, and I am sure you can know how tough that is. I would never vote for any female in the past but this woman is a true American hero and I would stand next to her proudly anywhere.....oh yeah, she is head of the national guard here...an important unit that faces Russia just fifty miles away. And she has two large very important army and two important air force bases here, a US test missile launch system and an amazing STAR WARS type system my best friend is one of the private sector project heads on....a science fiction wonder that is so amazing it is like out of James Bond."

            Doug Reese
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Graydogs (August 30, 2008 8:16 pm ET)
                 

              Doug....Interesting, and scary actually.

               

              This part caught my eye.....talk about dim witted, sexist, and gullible!

              "....I would never vote for any female in the past but this woman is a true American hero and I would stand next to her proudly anywhere.....oh yeah, she is head of the national guard here...an important unit that faces Russia just fifty miles away......"

              Report Abuse
            • Author by DAWUSS (August 30, 2008 8:24 pm ET)
                 

              .a science fiction wonder that is so amazing it is like out of James Bond."

               

              Outside of Moonraker (the film) and Die Another Day, James Bond isn't sci-fi.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Graydogs (August 30, 2008 8:39 pm ET)
                   

                I found the James Bond line funny as well, but then we are probably reading the comments of a 47 year old single guy still living in the basement of his mother, with CBN and his bible.

                 

                 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by magnolialover (August 30, 2008 10:45 pm ET)
                     
                  Of course she's the head of the National Guard. All governors of all states are. What a stupid argument or point to make, and she also has nothing to do with the military bases in Alaska, those are federal facilities. How is this woman an American hero? Holy crap the Rove machine is in high drive right now, while I'm sure in the back rooms, the RNC leaders are shaking their heads in disbelief.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DAWUSS (August 30, 2008 11:05 pm ET)
                       
                    It's about as obvious as Bush being the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by wookie (August 31, 2008 7:48 am ET)
                       

                    >>How is this woman an American hero?

                    Well, she once strangled a moose with her bare hands. 

                     

                    Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (August 30, 2008 11:58 pm ET)
             

          "He's not trying to get Hillary votes I've decided, he gave that up. He's trying to court the hard core evangelicals who wanted to sit this one out, because McCain was not the candidate they wanted."

          I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't pick Huckabee if that was the case.  It wouldn't undercut his argument about Obama's experience, it's someone with administration experience, and it would court evangelicals as well.  I'm sure it's a big part of why he picked Palin, but I'm also sure the primary consideration was her gender.  He's taking too many risks with this choice for it to be solely about roping in the Christian conservatives. 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by gg (August 30, 2008 8:34 pm ET)
         
      " She's for drilling in ANWR, but she talks about global warming quite a lot " What does that mean, I talk about the weather a lot but that doesn't make me a meteorologist.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Graydogs (August 30, 2008 9:02 pm ET)
           

        August 29, 2008 8:21 PM

        ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: Among the issues Sen. John McCain will have to smooth over with his new running mate: global warming.

        In an interview for the September issue of the conservative magazine Newsmax, Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, said she does not believe climate change is caused by human behavior.

        “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made,” Palin said in the interview, which was posted online Friday........[....]

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Graydogs (August 30, 2008 10:07 pm ET)
         

      YIKES....words of a Democrat today on Timesonline??? Ugh....after the DNC speeches this past week, how can she possibly be a Democrat and say this?

       

      [....].......“We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling,” said Camille Paglia, the cultural critic. “That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails.” .....

      [....]

      ....“Good Lord, we had barely 12 hours of Democrat optimism,” said Paglia. “It was a stunningly timed piece of PR by the Republicans.”  .......[....]

       

      Timesonline: From article Sinday Times Sarah Baxter 8-31-08

      Report Abuse
    • Author by interestingobserver (August 30, 2008 10:29 pm ET)
         
      Is MMFA so out of touch with America that they think Brooks calling Palin "progressive on gay and lesbian issues" would actually help her/McCain in the general election?  You go out there to 90% of Americans and tell them to vote for someone because they are "progressive on gay and lesbian issues" and see what happens to you.  It's sickening, though quite entertaining, to see how out of touch the people who write these pieces are. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (August 31, 2008 3:29 am ET)
           
        So why do you think David Brooks is trying to sabotage the McCain/Palin ticket?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (August 31, 2008 11:36 pm ET)
             
          Exactly.  It is obvious that Brooks doesn't think it hurts her or McCain to say that as Brooks is a McCain supporter. If IO thinks it is the opposite, he should have no objection to MMFA pointing out Brooks' lack of evidence to backup his statements.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by interestingobserver (August 30, 2008 10:30 pm ET)
         
      Media Matters could not have done Palin and McCain a bigger favor, for electability purposes, than prove that she is NOT progressive on gay and lesbian issues. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (August 30, 2008 10:49 pm ET)
           
        But your side keeps telling us about how this is going to take votes away from Obama, because Palin is going to draw Hillary supporters. When she's not progressive, she won't pull any votes. And MMFA is not trying to help Obama, or McCain, they're pointing out conservative misinformation in the media. Get it yet?

        Palin is probably a horrible bigot just like many in the republican party, and those that support said republican party. Grand! You guys got another bigot to run for VP.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DAWUSS (August 30, 2008 11:00 pm ET)
             

          And when people find that out and their numbers sink, the GOP is going to try to use sex to win the election (Hey, sex sells, right? Maybe sex can pander for votes too).

           

          And I've said this earlier, my prediction is Palin's skirt will be getting shorter and shorter as this campaign goes on.

           

          Anybody disagree? Agree?

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Graydogs (August 30, 2008 10:56 pm ET)
           

        Actually, Senator Clinton has a huge following of gay lesbian, bi-sexual, trans gender supporters, and the right wing has talked about this.

        For the same reason that McCain chose a woman....ridiculously hoping to snag women who wanted Hillary but who will now go for Palin because she's a woman.....they are marketing to this group pf voters as well.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 12:23 am ET)
             
          And you think McCain's political strategists believe that women who wanted Hillary will be in favor of an anti-abortion, anti gun control (I assume), arch conservative like Palin? 
          Report Abuse
          • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 12:25 am ET)
               
            Also, you think they believe they can get the GLBT vote through Palin as well?  The Republicans may be greedy, power hungry political opportunists, but I SINCERELY doubt they are that stupid. 
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 12:53 am ET)
               

            So since that strategy wouldn't be effective, then it's just not possible as far as you're concerned.  That leaves the idea that Palin was picked for some other reason besides her gender.

            What is it?  If he's going for evangelicals, there are several more experienced and well-known options.  There are surely other candidates near her age, if that's what it's all about.   There's no electoral motive, since Alaska's a red state with three electoral votes, and no neighboring states.  There must be other "reformers" out there as well.

            The risky nature of the pick makes it look like a cynical ploy to take advantage of Hillary supporters, while undercutting his message about Obama's inexperience and his reputation on national security at the same time.  It puts his judgment in serious question.  Is that a good trade-off, for whatever other reason there is to choose her?  Or can that scenario be just as easily dismissed, since his handlers would surely see such an obvious downside?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 4:54 am ET)
                 

              I would say the target in mind was conservative evangelical women--and conservative-leaning women in general--not the transgendered crowd that MMFA seems to think is a critical part of the GOP strategy. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 7:12 am ET)
                   
                And why on earth would evangelical and conservative women not vote for McCain/Huckabee, for instance?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by loonz (August 31, 2008 7:46 am ET)
                     
                  Because he doesn't have a vagina?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 11:41 am ET)
                     
                  They would vote for a McCain/Huckabette ticket...but it's about turning out the vote.  I think it's reasonable to believe McCain's strategest think this is a way to get at least some percentage of voters to the polls who otherwise wouldn't.  On the other hand, it can have also have a backfiring effect. 
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 11:55 am ET)
                       
                    It seems like an awfully risky play just for the sake of "turning out the vote" for a group that's pretty likely to vote for Huckabee anyway.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 7:38 am ET)
                   
                Also, I think you're confused about the GLBT thing.  The point isn't to get that community to support her, it's to help get Hillary voters since Hillary supports gay rights.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 11:44 am ET)
                     
                  So you think the McCain strategists believe those that support Hillary for her gay rights stance will also support Palin if she is labeled as "progressive on gay and lesbian issues?"  
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 11:51 am ET)
                       
                    It would seem to make her more palatable, sure.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 12:27 pm ET)
                         

                      I really think you are mistaken if you believe this decision was intended to win over some of the pro gay rights crowd.  Remember McCain has credibility issues with his own conservative base.  The last thing he needs is for his running mate to be labeled as "progressive on gay and lesbian issues."  Don't you agree? 

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 12:39 pm ET)
                           
                        The base seems pretty happy with the pick, so it seems like that community knows what she stands for already.  Moderates and independents are more likely to be swayed by this than hardcore conservatives and evangelicals.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by BottleBlonde (August 31, 2008 2:14 pm ET)
                           

                        It amazes me how often I need to repeat myself about the mission statement to debunk the false memes that righties try to throw out there.

                        Media Matters posts about instances of conservative misinformation from the media.

                        David Brooks pushed information that furthers the conservative agenda.

                        That agenda, in this case, is to get McCain elected by making Palin look more palatable to people who are not brain-dead when it comes to GBLT issues and man-made Global Warming issues.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 4:48 pm ET)
                             
                          You think those that are not brain dead with respect to GLBT issues and global warming would ever consider voting for McCain over Obama because David Brooks called Palin "progressive on gay and lesbian issues"?  Your assessment of the progressive community is very pessimistic indeed. 
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 9:50 pm ET)
                               
                            You act as if we're not talking about moderates and independents here.  It doesn't say anything about the "progressive community".
                            Report Abuse
              • Author by Graydogs (August 31, 2008 9:35 am ET)
                   

                MMFA doesn't think any one group is a target for the GOP, but apparently the GOP thinks they can win this if they flip flop all over the place on issues and facts, hoping to appease everyone. MMFA is pointing out their flip flops, hypocrisy, misinformation, etc. The comment threads are just here to discuss what we think of the articles. 

                It's like the politician who walks down the parade route telling the first person he likes that red jacket because red is his favortie color, and the next person he says I love your shirt because blue is my favorite color, and the next he tells a mom her daughter's hair bow is lovely because green is his favorite color.

                The right is desparate to make the McCain/Palin ticket all things to all people....to pick up the uninformed,  or undecided .

                Report Abuse
    • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (August 30, 2008 11:20 pm ET)
         

      For once you have it correct. Sarah Palin is OPPOSED to same-sex benefits for state employees- thank God. Sarah Plain does not believe in man made "global warning"

      This is why I am so enthusiastic about her.  I was always suspicious of McCain - I thought he was a RINO.  The Palin pick assuages many of my concerns.  Palin is a true right-winger.  For the first time I am enthusiastic about this race.  If I can plaguarize like Obama (Deval Patrick) and Biden (Neil Kinnock), I am fired up and ready to go.

      Global warming is a fraud and Palin has the guts to tell the truth.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by lemoc (August 31, 2008 8:20 pm ET)
           

        Ya got NO religion!!!

        Didja hear me????!!!!  NO religion.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (August 31, 2008 11:48 pm ET)
             
          Jim Jones did not have as much religion.  Kool-Aide anyone?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by lemoc (September 01, 2008 12:56 am ET)
               
            Talkin' 'bout AGW religion.  Get that old-time AGW religion, son!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (September 01, 2008 2:06 am ET)
                 

              I know. It seems opposition to AGW is moreso a religion of itself.  A religion that worships petroleum and the GOP and apparently has great disdain for science - just like most fundamentalists.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by lemoc (September 02, 2008 1:30 am ET)
                   

                The dogma of AGW is a faith that is oblivious to evidence that steadily erodes its shaky foundation.

                You want to believe in the anthropogenic component so bad you make yourselves look ridiculous.  

                The teachers', Teamster's, Public Employee, etc. retirement funds (and yours, too--all of you the owners of Big Oil)  aren't the bad people you think they are.

                The suicidal mind is interesting to behold.  It is common among those who own Big Oil while trying to destroy it.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (September 02, 2008 11:06 am ET)
                     

                  You seem to think AGW is not scientifically reasonable merely because the solution may do harm to a major industry economically.  Shouldn't the determination be made purely by scientific merrit and not worry about your sacred cow?  Thanks for proving my point better than I did.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by thebigkate3703 (August 31, 2008 1:35 am ET)
         

      I have to go on record as saying that David Brooks infuriates me!  He trashed Obama and Biden in his op-ed on the Democratic convention a couple of days ago, and now he is making nice with Sarah Barracuda!!!  It is beyond me how Jim Lehrer can let this go unchallenged.  I think Sarah Palin might better be called "Tabula Rosa," because she is a waiting work in progress for the Neo-Con Cabal--which, of course, includes David Brooks.  He tries to disguise himself as a sophisticated independent; however, he is anything but!  David Brooks is right wing Neo-Con the whole way.  And, P.S., he happens to know how to write really, really well!  But do not be conned!!!!!

      Kate Madison, Depoe Bay, Oregon

       

       

       

       

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by unitarianpatriot (August 31, 2008 2:00 am ET)
         
      Thanks to Sen. McCain for a VP choice that re-affirms his shoot-from-the-hip, I-go-with-my-gut style of "leadership." His wreckless, macho BS tendencies echo those of our current president (though McCain actually did a few things in his life to give him some cred). It is this particular brand of carelessness that the Democrats should point out, again and again. We don't need our sons and daughters in uniform having to answer to such a person ever again.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 4:56 am ET)
           
        And what, specifically, are your concerns with Sarah Palin?  Are you sure you're not the one "shooting from the hip?"
        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (August 31, 2008 7:26 am ET)
             
          I'm sure Palin is a nice women but she is not ready to lead this nation by a long shot.  This is another example of McCain's irrational and careless judgment.  This was the first important decision he had to make and he essentially chose a Michael Brown.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 4:51 pm ET)
               
            Would you have preferred a Huckabee or a Romney?  Wouldn't you then be complaining about "an extreme right winger" on the ticket?  Why don't you just admit that no matter who McCain picked you would have been furious. 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (August 31, 2008 5:38 pm ET)
                 
              I think a pick that didn't insult the intelligence of the American people was in order.  McCain is actually trying to pass her off as someone who is ready to lead this country when she is clearly not qualified.  Something has seriously gone wrong with McCain.  He use to be respectable but now he's just pitiful.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by lemoc (August 31, 2008 8:35 pm ET)
                   

                I enjoy coming to this forum once in awhile just for the sheer hilarity.

                You go on and on about Palin's readiness or lack of readiness to take the helm.

                You've had Nancy Pelosi chomping at the bit for how long now, arguably as close to having to take the helm as Palin would be.

                Pelosi is sure somebody to be proud of.  Along with her overall Bay Area Bohemian mindset, she doesn't even know that natural gas is a fossil fuel (recent interview). 

                You need a few more like her...wait, what am I saying--you do have a LOT more like her already.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (August 31, 2008 11:52 pm ET)
                     

                  It seems you only present your own personal bias as the "reasoning" behind not liking Pelosi.  Do you have a substantive complaint?  Where have all the reasonable Republicans gone hiding these days?

                  Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 7:56 am ET)
             

          I think the question is:shouldn't McCain have concerns about Palin?

          It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we’ve maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism. And I understand that because he has no experience or background in any of it,” McCain said. “(He) either hasn’t read or (doesn’t) understand…the history of this country in warfare, and the way that we secure alliances and secure the peace–and that’s through military government to government agreements that call for United States presence and mutual defense. Not only in that country itself, but also in the region. Our troops in Japan maintain a military presence in Asia. Our troops in Japan and South Korea maintain stability in Asia. The same thing was true after World War II about our troops in Germany.”..Asked if he is concerned whether Obama’s 100 years argument will win out, McCain said he trusts voters and took a second shot at the Democrat. “I think the American people are smart enough to figure that out….and they’ll understand over time if they don’t know that he has no experience or background on these issues,” McCain said. (bold mine)

          Is Palin supposed to understand the elements of national security and warfare?  How?  Aren't the American people smart enough to figure out that she has no experience or background on these issues, especially when she didn't even know what the VP does day to day a couple of months ago?  It's sort of hard to believe that she's well-versed in post-war strategy but not the basics of U.S. Government.

          And isn't this sort of thing supposed to be a big deal, winning the war on terror and all that? 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by interestingobserver (August 31, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
               
            Who would you have preferred: Romney, Huckabee, Coburn? 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by lemoc (August 31, 2008 8:42 pm ET)
                 

              Barbarino thinks somebody like Nancy Pelosi (easily a heartbeat away from the Presidency at any given time) is qualified.

              Yes, the one that thinks natural gas is not a fossil fuel.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 9:53 pm ET)
                   
                When did I say anything about Pelosi?  Are you mind-reading?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (August 31, 2008 9:57 pm ET)
                 
              Dodge the point much?  I'm talking about McCain's actions as contrasted to McCain's own words.  I think he should have picked someone more moderate than your choices, but that has nothing to do with my previous post.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (August 31, 2008 5:24 pm ET)
             

          And what, specifically, are your concerns with Sarah Palin?  Are you sure you're not the one "shooting from the hip?"

          Palin will continue the abuse of power the current administration is known for:

          It's called an abuse of power. There is ample evidence that Palin used her power as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired. When his boss refused to fire him, she fired his boss. She first denied Monegan's claims of pressure to fire Wooten and then had to amend her story when evidence proved otherwise. The available evidence now suggests that she 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons, something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though possibly understandable in human terms, 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by firing the relative, 3) lied to the public about what happened and 4) continues to lie about what happened.

          These are, to put it mildly, not the traits or temperament you want in someone who could hold the executive power of the federal government.

          http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/211769.php

           

          Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (August 31, 2008 2:34 am ET)
         
      If she doesn't believe that climate change is caused by humans, what DOES she actually believe? That climate change is caused by bears farting? So now we have two saints instead of one. First, John McCain's sainthood for being a POW. And here comes another one, St. Theresa of the Tundra. We can't dis John because he was a POW and we all know that makes him perfect to be President. We can't dis this lady because she is a mother, eats moose, and fires a rifle. Oh, and don't forget she is anti-gay (she reads her bible). She will protect the right of every child to be educated stupid, but with "values". AND, she's a FOX (as in Fox News).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by lemoc (August 31, 2008 8:54 pm ET)
           
        She doesn't embrace YOUR faith-based religion (AGW), you haven't shot any meece, you don't ride Arctic-Cats, you can't play hockey, you don't chew and ya don't go with girls that do, so ya just don't feel GOOD about her like ya do about a Renaissance woman like...say...Nancy Pelosi!  What a standard-bearer for Utopians your Nancy is.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (August 31, 2008 3:36 am ET)
         

      Well, yeah, I mean she DOES talk about global warming a lot. She says she does think it has anything to do with human consumption or energy use!

      Did Brooks also mention that she is a Creationist and does not support protecting polar bears?

      Man, she's got one heck of a progressive streak all right!

      Especially if David Brooks says so!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by General BetrayUs (August 31, 2008 4:29 pm ET)
           
        David Brooks probably gleaned all his info on Sarah Palin from his famed and numerous "man at the salad bar" reports from the Applebee's he frequents.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by lemoc (August 31, 2008 9:03 pm ET)
           

        The Polar Bears are NOT endangered, Gullible. 

        But there are a lot of people making a nice living out telling you stories like this one.

        The Gov is just possibly better informed on the topic than you.  She has to deal w/enviromaniacs on a daily basis.

        And stop driving your car.  NOW!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Texas Aggie (August 31, 2008 10:52 pm ET)
         
      "she's pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues. She's for drilling in ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge], but she talks about global warming quite a lot.""

      What he means by "pretty progressive on gay and lesbian issues" is that she is not calling for gays and lesbians to be stoned to death the way many other fundamentalist christianists are doing. Also, she does talk about global warming, but what she says essentially is that since it is in God's hands, there is nothing we can do about it. After all, it isn't our fault.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by me2936 (September 01, 2008 10:59 am ET)
         

      An example that this person is not a journalist, but an advertiser for a conservative ajenda.

      He either said this things based on bad info, or was outright lying.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.