Gov. Palin speech -- a great political debut

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="skek" date=1220676260]<blockquote>I?m trying real hard here to channel Tim Russert.</blockquote>


I'm going to call BS on that one, vas. You called a Vice-Presidential candidate a floozy.</blockquote>


Thanks for taking my quote out of context and leaving out the second part. Last time I checked, I'm not running Meet the Press, and Rove isn't being considered to host it. I miss Tim dearly.





<blockquote>You aren't trying to channel an honest broker like Russert, you are imitating bomb-throwers like Olberman or Coulter. Maybe you throw your bombs at both parties, but it is still over the top and, in my opinion, unhelpful. I think you are a smart guy, no_vas, and I know you are better than that.</blockquote>


Welcome to Poisioned Well Politics, courtesy of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.



[quote author="Nude" date=1220679052]

Yes, that's over the top. You attacked Obama on his experience, you attacked Palin on her parenting skills. You called her names, but not Obama. You insinuated she was trailer trash, while he was merely unqualified. Over the top... and sexist, too.</blockquote>


How about Biden's parenting skills when his wife unexpectedly died?



I don't have an issue with Obama's parenting skills. I do with Palin. If Obama or Biden had a four month old with Down's syndorome and an underage pregnant daughter I would most certainly take issue with thier parenting skills. Because she's a woman I can't say she's doing a a lousy job, is a failed parent, and is/has set a horrible example? I'd say the same thing if she were a man, and I think you know it. But because the Dems ran two sqeeky clean candidates I don't get the oppourtunity.



This discussion about her parenting skills is a distraction and a trap. It has nothing to do with her qualifications to serve as VP, but does go to temperment and personality. And it did serve well to refire the Culture Wars. Unexpectedly, I never figured I'd be the most conservative person in the room on the subject.
 
She is not a failed parent. Her kid probably mimicked her and she turned out alright in my book. I'm amazed she can do all the the things she does and still look pretty darn good. Babies, gun, Jesus. Hot damn!
 
[quote author="skek" date=1220585511]Perhaps we should stick to discussing the housing market and leave politics out of it. </blockquote>


On that note, we get Palin's second act. Lots of populous rhetorc, light on facts, out of touch on reality. And about Fannie and Freddie no less.



<blockquote>?John McCain has been calling for years to reform things and cut bureaucracy, even at the lending agencies that our government supports,? Palin said during a rally Saturday afternoon. ?The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.?</blockquote>


<a href="http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mcpalin-talk-fannie-freddie/">http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mcpalin-talk-fannie-freddie/</a>



I can't wait to see her actually answer questions like "how is downsizing the previously bloated F&F going to fix thier capitalization problem" just to watch her spin it.
 
No Vas-Please be careful clumping together a Down's Syndrome child with a pregnant teenager as examples of bad parenting. While one may have something to do with parenting, the other certainly does not.
 
"But because the Dems ran two sqeeky clean candidates I don't get the oppourtunity. "





This is a sarcastic comment right!!?????!! Ha! Good one... Love it! Hysterical!
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1220778005]No Vas-Please be careful clumping together a Down's Syndrome child with a pregnant teenager as examples of bad parenting. While one may have something to do with parenting, the other certainly does not.</blockquote>


We have another thread for the Culture Wars debate.



It's nobody's fault she had a Down's syndrome child. I never said such. Please do not put words in my mouth I didn't write.
 
I'm not getting involved in this.....



BUT, I do want to point out that during a stump speech of hers tonight, she did say NEW-CU-LAR. Nnnnnewcular. Newcular.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
I think that she gave a great speech.



In regards to her parenting skills, I think that there are plenty of women who have precial needs babies who also have demanding jobs - think of emergency room workers who put in 12 or 24 hour shifts. These are certainly as stressfull, if not more so, than Vice President. In regards to bristol, she is 17 and clearly wants to be older. It is awfully hard to prevent that.



In regards to preparedness, it is hard to say what is relevent to success. Look at the three Vice Presidents who elevated in the last 100 or so years due to the death of a sitting President: Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson.



Teddy Roosevelt had been Governor for 1/2 of one term, and is widely hailed as one of our great presidents. Truman was considered an undistinguished Senator (the Senator from the Pendergast political machine), when he became FDR's running mate, and he became one of the great Presidents. LBJ, on the otherhand, is arguably the most qualified man to be elected Vice President in tha last 100 years. He was majority leader in the Senate, served on the Foriegn Policy commitee with Kennedy, Fulbright, Dirksen (I believe). All in all, a mediocre President, known more for his legislative prowess than leadership.



In regards to the comment about Obama and thinking: I think that Obama is an exceptionally bright guy. In fact, he is probably the smartest guy in the room in most instances. Historically, this has been problematic - the last three Presidents to be the "smartest guy" in the room have been Clinton, Nixon, and Hoover. People who are this smart usually have problems in three areas: They think that the rules do not apply to them, as they can argue a way around them (Clinton and Nixon); they prove that raw intelligence and common sense are not the same thing (Clinton): and they tend to be intellectually lazy (Hoover).



Let me explain the last of the three. people who are really smart and perceptive typically can grasp the finer points of both sides of an issue, and argue and explain them. However the intellectually rigorous will take the process to the next level and formulate a course of action. Obama has a habit at ending with the explanation.



Finally, this is a battle for the blue collar voter. Obama is not blue collar (despite what people say about his upbringing). but he can equate with them via a rhetorical journey heavy on semantics ("I went down state, and realized those people were like my grandparents, who were from Kansas.."). He can make this journey very eloquently, but when he arrives at his final destination - Sarah Palin is already there. That what this race in about - small town and common sense vs. big city and semantics
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1220774848][quote author="skek" date=1220585511]Perhaps we should stick to discussing the housing market and leave politics out of it. </blockquote>


On that note, we get Palin's second act. Lots of populous rhetorc, light on facts, out of touch on reality. And about Fannie and Freddie no less.



<blockquote>?John McCain has been calling for years to reform things and cut bureaucracy, even at the lending agencies that our government supports,? Palin said during a rally Saturday afternoon. ?The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.?</blockquote>


<a href="http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mcpalin-talk-fannie-freddie/">http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mcpalin-talk-fannie-freddie/</a>



I can't wait to see her actually answer questions like "how is downsizing the previously bloated F&F going to fix thier capitalization problem" just to watch her spin it.</blockquote>


I saw that quote in the WSJ just now. How has phony and fraudy cost the tax payers money? They have saved tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years with the "implicit" guarantee, that never cost tax payers anything, not a dime, and it saved them money. It will cost the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars to bail them out though.



I'm sorry, but here is another politician like Barney Frank and Schumer (too lazy to check spelling), who do not get it and really never got it in the first place.



Edit: I don't want to seem biased either, and I don't think the Obama campaign gets it either, but she is even more out of touch to what phony and fraudy are than they are.
 
After Biden finished his Meet The Press interview, Tom Browkaw stated that they had extended an invitiation to MTP to both McCain and Palin. Other users here (myself included) have questioned "when will she answer questions?"



Answer - maybe never.



<blockquote>Three of the four now-official candidates on the major-party presidential tickets are scheduled to sit down for questions on the Sunday interview shows: Democrat Barack Obama on ABC's "This Week;" his running mate, Joe Biden, on NBC's "Meet the Press;" and Republican John McCain on CBS' "Face the Nation."



Absent from this list is Sarah Palin, the no-longer-obscure governor of Alaska who is McCain's running mate.



McCain aide Rick Davis indicated that the campaign wasn't in any hurry to slot Palin for a Sunday show appearance -- but would do so only if he and other strategists were to determine that it would serve the ticket's purposes.



On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show Saturday, he said: "I'd never commit to anything in the future. . . . Our strategy is in our hands, not the media's. We're going to do what's in our best interests to try to win the election. If we think going on TV news shows are [sic] in our best interests, we'll do it. If we don't, we won't."</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ticket7-2008sep07,0,4461106.story?track=rss">http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ticket7-2008sep07,0,4461106.story?track=rss</a>



I've never seen a campaign where part of the ticket refused to take direct media questions. Without firing up the Culture Wars on yet another thread, what other reasonable conclusion can one make about a candiate who refuses to take questons other than the candidate can't answer them, and thus isn't qualifed for the office?
 
I also find it interesting that Obama was brave enough to go on O'Reilly. I doubt McCain or Palin would be interviewed on a show that was as blatantly biased and opposed to them as anything found on the Fox Network.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1220829268] Without firing up the Culture Wars on yet another thread, what other reasonable conclusion can one make about a candiate who refuses to take questons other than the candidate can't answer them, and thus isn't qualifed for the office?</blockquote>


OK, I'll bite. I, too, will be very disappointed if there is no opportunity for questioning from the press. But I'll give the campaign a couple of weeks to get there.



McCain and Palin agree on basic philosophy and approach. That's one of the reasons she was selected. Definitely NOT the only one, but an imporant consideration. There are ALWAYS going to be differences in many details. They need some time to get a common message, and for Palin to be able to do what a Vice-anything needs to do in public -- that is to defend the position of his/her boss. The place for differences between VP and President are private conversations.



A second reason. Right now, it would be a BIG temptation to find and ask a "gotcha" question. QUICK: You're on national TV... What was the cause of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict, and which countries are involved?
 
No VP nominee - ever - has needed to hide from the press while he/she "coordinated messages" with the nominee. Sarah Palin's not even ready to be interviewed by Bob Schaeffer - and people are trying to claim she's ready to negotiate with Putin, Hu, or Abdullah? And if she doesn't have at least a passing familiarity with the Rwanda genocide she should NEVER be in line for the White House EVER.
 
I think Palin gave a very politically savvy and spot-on speech, as did both Obama, and Biden. (McCain's text was great, but his delivery wasn't so good. I read it and thought it was brilliant, then watched him, and thought... well, he tried.) Overall I wasn't really impressed with either of the conventions. Long on rhetoric and misinformation. But that's pretty typical. Kind of, what did we all expect?



I'm registered as undeclared, and hang out in those type of circles. My jewish non-partisan friends have been leaning McCain (they know Obama isn't Muslim, but I don't think deep-down they really believe it). The Republican non-partisany members of the family have been leaning McCain. Democrat non-partisany have been leaning Obama.



The Palin pick has deflated my non-partisany Republican family. I think they just aren't going to vote. They're the fiscal responsibility Republican types. The social regulation tack makes them very uncomfortable. Uniformly, they feel that Palin is a gimmick. The final nail for them was when it came out that she lobbied for earmarks, and supported the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it. And she kept the Bridge to Nowhere money as well. Alaska gets more money from the federal government per capita than any other state. Not exactly the bastion of fiscal discipline and self-reliance that they are into. They're really doubting McCain's ability not to cave into bad-decision making for the sake of politics now (as this was evidence of a very bad decision for them).



The Democrat non-partisany are now solidly Obama. They were waffling because he didn't have as much experience, and with Palin a heartbeat away they don't see any reason not to support him now. Plus, the against abortion even in cases of rape or incest was a nail in the coffin for them.



All the Palin tabloid stuff is a non-issue for all of them. (Well, the older male non-partsany Republican types have said "Man, she is a mess!" They don't like the drama.)



For me, my concerns are, in order:

1) Fiscal Discipline and the Economy

2) Healthcare

3) The ability to coordinate with international groups to protect our interests abroad

4) Less partisanship





1)

I'm a small business owner, but I don't believe in trickle down economics, which is why I get pulled between the two parties on their message. I've spent quite a bit of time looking through the backgrounds of McCain and Obama's economic advisors. I think McCain has picked some really poor individuals, and some he has clearly picked as political ploys (and dont' have the chops in my opinion, to give good advice), but I really like a few others. The problem is, all of McCain's statements are catch-all, please-everyone statements. I can't tell what he believes in terms of economics. His advisors, who are absolute opposites of each other, have each said that he "completely" believes in their platform. Well he can't completely agree with all of them. I don't think he has any opinions. And the people he likes best (like Phill Gramm), smack of the blinders-on, drink-the-kool-aid types.



Obama has also made some political ploy choices, but those political ploys have been on the level of the Biden pick. Sure, the picks are politically savvy, but these guys are also very competent and more than capable of doing their jobs. (Like that guy the union hates, but makes Obama seem more Republican) I like that he has the "two Bobs" from the Clinton era, and I like what he says about concentrating on areas of agreement and implimenting those as quickly as possible. I also like his long-time economic advisors. They all seem smart and thoughtful, and Obama usually expresses complicated economic policy. He never dumbs it down. I feel much more confident in the ideas he has laid out, and who he says he's agreed with and disagreed with.



I also think Obama's tax plan is clearly superior to McCains. I'll admit that I think that raising taxes on people who make more than 250k might put more of a dent in the high end prices of homes, and I really want those prices to come down so I can live in one of them. I would classify myself as wealthy-able-to-afford-a-middle-class-house. I really want to be able to buy a house I don't have to spend 5 years upgrading. (I know, I know, no one has any sympathy. I'm just saying. It's deflating to have money and be competing against the insanely wealthy. )



2)

I like Obama's healthcare plan better. I think it's more likely to work.



3)

I worry that McCain is hotheaded. I worry that he's more likely to alienate people and get them motivated not to work with him, than to help him (like Bush). I worry that he's a bully. Even so, I was heavily leaning McCain on this issue, primarily b/c I believe (with no evidence) that because of his experience with Vietnam, he has a stronger understanding of what a bad move wars like this can be, but he also understands what terrible things will happen when you just up and abruptly leave. And the fact that he is very strong on the Geneva conventions, very anti-torture, and I would think he would have a better understanding that (as everyone in the Army knows) that the Army is very bad at nation building and doesn't like to do it. You need eggheads for nation building. And international help.



Then again, I haven't seen clear signals that McCain DOES understand this. Obama's platform is on the record of agreeing with all the points above. Plus, the international community seems enamored of him, and I feel like he can smooth talk them into actually working with us. And life would be a lot easier if they were working with us because they really wanted to, instead of doing so begrudgingly.



4)

The conventions made me feel like neither party was really focusing on being less partisan. Kind of made me sad. The hate machines are ratcheting up full force on the internet. I thought McCain's text was best, but it didn't really play when he said it. Anyway, I was leaning McCain on less partisanship, just because he has a longer history of it, but picking Palin I felt was a very partisan move. I dislike Rush Limbaugh the same way I dislike Robert Wexler, and I felt Palin was a cave to Limbaugh. And the liberal friends I know find her completely alienating.



My super-liberal friends keep telling me how non-partisan Obama is. I don't know. I do think it was a good test getting the Hillary supporters on his side. In terms of uniting a group that was divided, I think they did an amazing job. And the fact that his campaign is so low-drama is a good sign. If you can keep your staff from each other's throats, then it's usually a sign that you're a good people manager. And really, the majority of the presidential job is being a good people manager. Keeping everyone focused on the issues and not each other's personal issues.



Anyway, so I'm 70% Obama now, and I was 50/50 before the Palin pick.



Julia
 
[quote author="FairEconomist" date=1220834172]No VP nominee - ever - has needed to hide from the press while he/she "coordinated messages" with the nominee. Sarah Palin's not even ready to be interviewed by Bob Schaeffer - and people are trying to claim she's ready to negotiate with Putin, Hu, or Abdullah? And if she doesn't have at least a passing familiarity with the Rwanda genocide she should NEVER be in line for the White House EVER.</blockquote>


I don't think you can support your first statement with facts.



According to the Meet the Press web site, today's interview with Biden is described as follows: "Exclusive! In his first Sunday morning interview since accepting the Democratic Party's nomination for Vice President, Sen. Joe Biden goes one-on-one with Tom Brokaw live from Wilmington, Delaware."



So Biden waited until the second weekend after he was nominated. If Palen interviews NEXT weekend, she will match that. If she waits another week, still plenty of time to hear her out and make a judgement, if that's what you need to do so. It sounds, however, like you've already made up your mind.
 
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siyN1gNry4w">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siyN1gNry4w</a> Barbara Boxer calls Palin an extremist:



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
NWW, see the <a href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/2018/">Nude Tech Support 2.0</a> thread for help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top