What she was doing was legal, she should have been able to keep her legal name private, and it shouldn't impact the relationship with her kid.

1. The effect may be, to some extent, part of the continued decline of GOP identification. Over the last 6 months or so, the ranks of GOP voters are way down, leaving only the most hard core. Of course, this would work to Palin's advantage in a primary, since those are the people likely to vote, whereas in the general it hurst.

2. The question, as posed, isn't all that useful since it doesn't ask her relative ranking to other republicans.

Rasmussen has a trial heat poll up that goes 25% Romney, 24% Palin. 22% Huckabee, 14% Gingrich among Republicans (this is from 7/6). Not clear if they had asked this previously or how it compared, but given the zero profile that Romney has had lately, and relatively low Huck profile, this probably isn't great news for Palin. Of course, this is also 2 years out, so a few things could change between now and then.

@Juliebird

Yup, Franken grew up in St. Louis park which is a first ring suburb of minneapolis

Maybe it's time to vote out all of New York's incumbents. It would appear they are all jackasses.

But it bears repeating:

Clarence Thomas got a split qualified/unqualified rating from the ABA when he was nominated, which is the worst rating in recent memory, if not ever. FWIW Souter and Alito were Unanimous Well Qualifieds.

That the ABA rates nominees on a scale well qualified, qualified, not qualified, and issues split ratings when the committee is not unanimous. Interestingly, Sotomayor got a split qualified/well qualified in her initial appointment, whereas Thomas got a split qualified/unqualified (Both are majority first, then minority). FWIW Souter was a unanimous WQ

The more I read from about 4 trolls here, the more I wish someone would come out and oppress white guys. Maybe outlaw Nascar and Pontoon boats or something

Booth was subscribing to a tenet of contemporary right wing thought, and your initial statement was simply stupid.

You don't get to walk out on Booth when Texas is talking about seceding.

The right wing trolls that come out for the Paglia columns are even more unhinged than usual tonight.

I'm guessing most, but where the Republicans have been an utter failure is on the last point- don't just come across as obstructionist. Of course, probably they will just try to sound constructive without being it.

I'm not sure that sending a 9 year old on the NYC subway is a great idea, but it does seem like many people are sheltering to the point of really endagering a kid's independence down the road.

Would it be gauche to drop a Harriet Beecher Stowe reference on him?

If you can come up with enough legitimizing myths to support your bigotry.

Point taken. I suppose we had the agreed caveat that the interpreter not be a right wing whack job.

It's worth noting, also, that there are real concerns here that the decision may not be safe. What has saved it for now is that the Democratic leadership kept the amendment from coming to a vote. I get the impression that it would have passed, even with a democratic majority in both houses, as a fair number of reps/senators are from pretty conservative western districts.

Article 1, section 6

Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

As I understand it, this is the original 1857 text, which is notable because it predates the 14th amendment by a decade, and because it is worded to be tremendously inclusive. Essentially, the Iowa supreme court could not have ruled any other way. I was discussing the case with one of my colleagues the other day and we both agreed there was no need for a 65 page decision. It could have read in it's entirety "you cannot ban gay marriage, see Article 1, section 6."

Monday, I thought Michelle Bachmann was going to have the dumbest thing said all week.

Tuesday, Paglia claimed that conservatives are more fact based than liberals.

Now this.

This just might be the dumbest week ever.

If I were gay, I'd spend my tourist dollars in Iowa instead</>

As a resident of Iowa, I'm not sure that Vermont might not be more fun. We do have good pork products here though

If every scholar were subject to the same scrutiny Churchill was, there would be very few clean hands.

Some of what Churchill did probably goes on all the time. Distorting sources to agree with you and such. But the wholesale fabrication and the lengths he went to to make it happen are just over the top. Ghostwriting sources? Are you freaking kidding me?!?

At the end of the day, Churchill needs to go. Academia is great. You can explore intellectually as you see fit. There are very few rules. Of those, however, fabrication and plagiarism are pretty much capital offenses and deserve punishment (probably termination). I am concerned, however, that Churchill only received scrutiny after being inflammatory. The whole episode smacks of retribution. Ultimately, nobody is right when everybody is wrong. Churchill should have been sacked years ago, but I don't really think his academic dishonesty is what is driving this.

An observation about some of the comments here... Some of the posters here really seem to have a distorted sense of advocacy on college campuses (and frankly, it is not something I'm really a fan of). I've attended 2 universities, taught at 3, and encountered very little that resembled Churchill. Granted, I didn't take much in ethnic studies or women's studies, but I am a social scientist, where this sort of thing is supposed to be endemic. I can think of one sociology instructor who really seemed to be advocating anything, and frankly, she was pretty upfront about it.