First read on the speech: Competent delivery of material written by Matt Scully and Company. It was good, if the election were for student body president, but it lacked the gravitas of a VP (likely presidential) candidate. She could be a really good candidate some day.
I may have more analysis of Palin's speech later on, but here's my take on Wednesday night at the RNC: Disrespect. In particular, Giuliani and Palin totally mocked Obama and the sacrifices he made to work with the poor in Chicago. If smugness and mockery is all they have to offer, things are going to be tough for the GOP. This is exactly the kind of thing that drove me out of the Republican party. There were some hard hits on John McCain's record at the DNC, but NO ONE disrespected his character or his service to our country. I guess when you are desperate and losing you do what you have to in order to win. I just hope the old divide and polarize politics does not continue to pay off like it has in the past.
We should all demand more of ourselves, and our leaders.
17 comments:
Well, it was an inspiring speech. Inspired me to make my first campaign contribution ever, but to her opponent. And evidently I'm not alone -- the Obama campaign reported a record $10 million day after her speech, while the RNC reported one-tenth of that.
I hope she keeps talking.
I didn't think you could bear to sit this one out and I'm glad to see you back. I, of course, disagree with you completely, but I'm glad to see you back.
And now, some balance from the other side of the aisle:
I and most of the people I hang out w/are very pleased with this selection for VP. I, for one, value common sense over experience and from what I can tell at this early stage Sarah Palin has loads of it. Whether it's Sarah Palin or Barack Obama, lack of experience will be overcome by advisors and experts. Besides, the election is between (war hero) John McCain and Barack, not between the junior senator from IL and the governor from Alaska.
Speaking of poor decisions and "little thought for the well-being of his country", Joe Biden? I remember him being discredited 20 years ago for lying so it was surprising to me that JB was Barack's choice. There were no other old, entrenched white guys who would've been a better choice? You're right, this is about judgement, and I find Barack's lacking.
Two final thoughts:
1) I could not be less impressed with Barack's season as a community organizer. I believe his motivation for that time in his life was strictly w/an eye to the future and the goodwill he could incur from the Democratic Party powers and their money.
2) Sarah Palin is exactly the kind of person I'd like to see in the White House. Common sense, moral values, NOT A CAREER POLITICIAN. The fact that she's not an attorney strikes me as another plus.
I don't believe for a second that you and the "people you hang out with" are making this decision because of some folksy attraction to common sense. You are attracted to her because she appears to come down on your side of the issues. A fair reason for a choice, but let's be honest about it. The EXCITEMENT level is because of her novelty. How is she a better choice than Huckabee, for instance? She's not, but she's more exciting. McCain's campaign manager and Karl Rove have admitted that her selection wasn't about governing, it was about politics. Give the people some pop to stir the pot.
By the way, how have you judged her common sense? Since we have no idea what her plans are for addressing the needs of the middle class, or healthcare, or the war, or..., how can you say she has common sense? Is it because she sought and received millions in earmarks (which she now opposes) as mayor? Is it because she was for the bridge to nowhere (and $27 in fed. $$) before she was against it? Is it because she favors abstinence sex ed, even in the face of overwhelming evidence (some of it close to home) that it doesn't work very well? Is it because she has been out of the country once... just last year? Is it because she gave a speech written almost entirely by Matt Sculley, W's redmeat speech writer, that relied almost entirely on her biography and mocking Senator Obama? Is it because no one knows her positions on major policy issues and she refuses to go before the media and answer questions until she gets several days of briefing from McCain's advisers, who will tell her what sense she is to have on the issue?
Seriously, I want to know what she has done, and plans to do, that qualify (uniquely) as common sense?
Sure, lack of experience can be overcome by advisers. Look how well that's worked these last 8 years. I prefer someone whose judgment on the issues has already been certified by a multitude of external voices (multiple world leaders, dozens of retired generals, Nobel-winning economists, members of past administrations--GOP and Dem, oh, and tens of millions of American citizens).
You are correct that the election is between John McCain (is it true he was a POW?) and Obama. McCain is the one who has made it about Palin. I for one think it should be more about her than usual because of her being poorly vetted and because she stands a much higher than average chance of being the president early in the term. But, I'm okay with making it about McCain and Obama. McCain will be in great shape if he convinces all of us to ignore his record for the last 2-4 years. His reputation as a maverick pretty much began to end between 2000-2004. He really has supported Bush 90% of the time. He said it himself. He represents the administration that has steered the ship. He can only win if he wins the "change agent" argument. That will only come through sleight of hand and outright deceit.
I'm glad that you are able to determine Senator Obama's motives for all the work he's done. I'm sure there are lots of people willing to live just above the poverty line and work with the poor so they can become rich and powerful. I suppose when he came down the aisle and gave his heart to Christ that was to position himself better with evangelicals? I don't know why he did it. He did it. By the way, Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor.
As for Biden, he had a plagiarism problem. Actually, the speech he was busted on was the one time out of something like four times giving the speech that he had not attributed the source. Did he forget? Attempt to deceive? I don't know. There were some other minor cases of lack of attribution. It's a problem. Should McCain be charged with plagiarism for stealing all of Obama's lines about change, now that he sees it's the only way to win? What about the list of 45-50 lies/convenient changes of position McCain has had? He's a liar too. In fact, so is Palin. Obama is too, but I think I can actually prove with public records that he's lied less than the other three.
There are a lot of ways to judge this campaign. I hope that people end up looking at the issues and not at the Subject-Verb-POW/Community Organizer rhetoric. Here's one thing that matters a great deal to me. Both sides have, at one time or another, made the race about emotions and feelings. When I hear Obama speak I am often overcome with feelings of hope and a positive sense that we can and will be better as a country. It seems like when McCain/Palen speak their supporters get mad and scornful and polarizing. The GOP knows how to attack and demean better than anyone. I vote for a campaign that seeks to make us better, not just get in power by making their opponents look worse.
Glad to have you back too, Joe.
If I say I like her common sense, unless I believe myself to be a fool with none if it, of course I like her position on the issues that matter to me. I suspect you are attracted to Barack for much the same reason. So, no, I was not trying to be disingenuous.
Do I know Barack's agenda for working as a community organizer? No. Can I stand by my suspicions in lieu of any evidence to the contrary? Yes. Who pays a "community organizer" to organize the community? Piggly Wiggly?
Were you in the room when Palin's speech was written? No. Do you know then, how much input Palin had into the speech? No. Can you stand by your suspicions? Yes. Can you make accusations that she was simply a parrot reading Sculley's handiwork? Sure, it's your blog.
With regard to lack of experience and advisors, it worked pretty well for our country 20 years ago as the Berlin Wall came down and we saw the end of communism. And I'm pretty sure we can agree to disagree as to the results of the war on terror.
The fact that some people in other countries seem to think Barack Obama would be a good leader of this country is something that I don't especially find comforting.
Why are you so upset that McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate? Is it because you think she's uniquely unqualified to serve, or because the race has suddenly tightened considerably? I'd say the latter. There I go again, speculating.
Finally, I realize that you see everything through liberal lenses, but as a McCain/Palen supporter, I don't feel myself getting "mad and scornful and polarizing" when they speak. I find myself "overcome with feelings of hope and a positive sense that we can and will be better as a country." We are not so different, you and I. So don't label me as mad/scornful/polarizing.
The GOP is not uniquely qualified in slinging mud. Both parties do it and NEITHER can claim the moral high ground, your comments notwithstanding.
I disagree with you politically, I fear the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States would be an unmitigated disaster for our country, and I can't understand how you see things the way you do. But, this is America, we can agree to disagree. I read your writings and just shake my head. I'm sure you do the same with me.
i swear to God if someone calls john mccain a war hero one more time, i am going to scream. we get it: he's a war hero. he is also "an old, entrenched white guy"....
Sarah Palin is a novelty... Wow. Which portion is the novel part? That she is a woman? That she is a mother and has a career? That she is well-spoken and composed under pressure? That she is a conservative woman?
Can you honestly say that there is nothing appealing about voting for the first African American president? There is no novelty in that?
The novelty part was that no one knew her. There were women on the shortlist who were far more qualified. There were a good number of conservative and well-spoken possibilities. Of course, we don't really know if she's well-spoken and good under pressure yet, since she refuses to submit to off-script media scrutiny. She was picked because it would be a surprise. Obama is new, no doubt; but he's been a well-known presidential contender since '04. Not to mention the fact that he has had two years (the same amount of time Palin has been gov.) to be vetted by the country and run the largest grassroots presidential campaign in history.
I think the real issue here is between a choice that is fresh and new, representing a real change; and a choice that is impetuous, cynical, and designed by members of the campaign (by theirs and their surrogates' own admission, I must stress again) to shake things up with the surprise factor.
If Palin was really the best choice to take the seat for McCain, why are his advisers saying it will be 2-3 weeks before she will appear unscripted before the media? Because they have to teach her what to say. These are the risks in a quick, undervetted decision.
Joe, I wasn't in the room when her speech was written. I didn't need to be, because the campaign pretty plainly said the speech was written by Matt Sculley, Of course, we could ask her if she wrote it, if she would actually appear before the press, the Fourth Estate, that makes this an open, free society.
You are wrong on your claim that both parties are equally talented at slinging mud. The GOP is far better at it. Democrats lose because they choose not to respond in kind. Probably stupid on their part. There's a reason the old saying goes, "Democrats are naive and Republicans are mean." Nobody does anger and fear appeals like the GOP. Since Rove, they've even taken it to another level. You really need look no further than Giuliani's and Palin's speeches (as well as most of the others) to see the outright character attacks and mockery. Find a Dem speech at the DNC that regularly made McCain's character the issue. They hit hard on policy and inconsistency in positions, but no one mocked him as a person. If the GOP wins this election, it appears it will be due to the fear and anger they create about Barack, not hope in their positions. What are their positions? No one knows.
Check this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE&eurl=
I apologize for suggesting that you were mad/scornful/polarizing. I realize that's a generally difficult claim to make for anyone, so let me simply say, I wonder. I wonder what the differences are in effect. I am working on the Obama campaign, and they have a rule that if you say anything negative you have to put money in "the bucket." When the bucket is full they will send it to the McCain campaign. There is a culture of positivity. I wonder. I wonder if the Republicans are driven by hope or anger. That's all. I wonder.
I'm sorry you feel that an Obama win would be a disaster. I'm not sure how much worse it can get. I am driven primarily by a worldview that believes we can be better, more collaborative, less cynical, more peaceful, more caring for the least of these, and more just. I see the alternative as a worldview that is about power, getting and keeping as much as possible, and making sure those who have it don't lose it to the masses. I see an option that is dismissive of its detractors and sees communication as only useful in getting the Truth from the source to the receiver. There's more, but that's today's take.
Perhaps this is naive, but I truly believe that in the end, when it comes time to cast your vote, that what matters is more the philosophies of the party and not the candidate. Which party, at its core best reflects your views on government's responsibilities to its citizens. You vote for that party and then at a grass roots level do your best to hold that candidate responsible.
Your example of the Negativity Bucket proves that point
(we have the same thing at our house, but it is for unsavory words - it fills quickly during football season!). It is obvious that the entire campaign is not being run that way, or Gutman's comments would have never been aired on Ingram's show. Or the negative reactions to Palin's nomination from Obama campaign members wouldn't have had to have been retracted later.
I understand the need for cooperation and a new world view, helping your fellow man, and all the other warm fuzzies. The problem is, shouldn't that be a moral mandate and not a legal one? Should that be a function of the government or the personal responsibility of Christ followers?
I agree that the philosophies of the party should matter. I'm hoping that voters recognize that and ask McCain to own up to the dismal performance of his party these last eight years.
I love it when evangelical Republicans cast the agenda of the gospels as "warm fuzzies." I'm not suggesting you are a fountainhead of Christianity, Ayn, but it is a common reaction. And, I'm not suggesting that the Democratic platform is all godly. The list I gave was pretty Jesusy, though.
As for whether the warm fuzzies (aka, teachings of Christ) should be moral or legal, I agree with your analysis; unfortunately you pose a false dilemma. If the majority of people in a democracy vote for the policies they could arguably be seen as the moral decision of a republic. Legal could be moral. Besides, I've heard this argument my entire adult life. How's it working out for us? The moral agents aren't getting the job done. The poor get poorer, by mandating more relief for the rich. We continue to adopt a more aggressive posture in the world (presumably as a legal response to "terror" not moral...no one asked my permission to engage in an unjust war). We seek to mandate, legally, science that fits our worldview, marriage laws that fit our narrow interpretations of scripture, tax laws that favor corporations over families, mandates that favor oil companies over ecologically-friendly alternatives...the list goes on.
There is no moral-legal divide here. Each party thinks they are moral and seeks to advance their agenda legally. The only people who have the privilege of making choices morally are the privileged. Let's be honest about what's happening.
By the way, Ayn, that Atlas Shrugged was a long dang ol' book. Even when we look at it objectively.
El Reach-
I am unsure of your sources, but I recall hearing that Palin co-wrote her speech and bore a large responsibility for the content. But then, I can't recall where I think I heard that either. Do I always have to provide attribution in this class?
With regard to who slings mud more effectively, I absolutely cannot agree with you. I think perhaps our relative perspectives are clouded by our biases.
Some of the negativity that I see directed at Republicans comes from the national media, which is decidely liberal and does much of the dirty work the Democrats might otherwise choose to do themselves. If I were a candidate running for national office, would I expect better treatment from the press if I were Red or Blue? No brainer. Yesterday I heard a woman on NPR (who, I can't recall, only that she's in the mainstream media on a national basis. I think. Slept since then.) slamming Sarah Palin for accepting the nomination when she has five children, a pregnant teenager and a special needs child. She all but called her a terrible mother. And I thought, "How unbelievably sexist." If the VP candidate were a man w/the exact same family issues, I greatly doubt it would even be mentioned. If Palin were the Democratic VP candidate, I truly doubt the woman would be so outraged. Media bias. It's very real and because the bias is typically against the candidates I favor, I have a strong feeling I notice it when you do not.
You really seem to be enraptured by Barack's ability to be at the forefront of a campaign, calling him a CEO, etc. To which I would say, actual governing seems much more impressive. Oh, and while he was campaigning, wasn't he supposed to be legislating for the people of his state?
I didn't mean that to sound smart. But really, being the frontman for a campaign does not make him the CEO; more like the PR guy.
Finally, I must say that Barack does a wonderful job of giving a speech. It really is impressive. When he is asked unscripted questions, however, he is decidedly unimpressive. I think of this every time you slam Palin for being unavailable to speak with reporters.
I'll have to forgive you the attribution requirements, since I don't care enough to spend an hour or so tracking down my sources. I guess the test for me is, if she has her own thoughts, why isn't she making herself available to the press? That's unconscionable to me.
About mudslinging, the GOP have actually changed our culture with their influence in this area. We refer to vicious covert rhetorical attacks as "Rovian". Mistake? I don't think so. Oh, what about "swiftboating"? They've been so good at it they've changed our lexicon. Sure, some figure out how to fight fire with fire, but there's no contest when it comes to who's best at it and most responsible for it.
The media bias story is interesting. I keep hearing these stories about the sexist crap lobbed at Palin. I haven't heard it, but I agree that it's completely out of line and has no place in the discussion. There are so many good reasons to oppose her selection, that one is just silly...and offensive. I agree that it appears some times that there is a tilt to the left on some networks. However, there's a difference between perception and reality on this issue. I admit my data is a little behind on this, but the last content analysis studies done on media bias found that "conservative populism" was the most supported ideology in mainstream media. Here's one option: A great speech or idea is presented, and people recognize it as great. Is that biased? Obama will likely be judged as the greatest political orator since Bobby Kennedy, maybe more. Is it biased for reporters to acknowledge it for what it is? When an infectious spirit grabs communities and turns out unprecedented numbers of voters, is recognizing that a bias? It's a common reaction to interpret the news as biased when it isn't going your way. But, I think the jury's out on that. I certainly think the RNC did a good job of building the illusion of media bias last week. Brilliant attack strategy. Again, no one does it better. Lastly, on the media issue: Fox News and talk radio. Combined those outlets affect as many or more than the "liberal" mainstream media, and don't EVEN try to defend them as unbiased, or I'll have to hold my breath until you take it back.
I don't imagine either of us is qualified to settle the governor/campaign CEO argument, I can only imagine. If I were someone wanting a less stressful job with less accountability and fewer people paying attention to what I was doing, I would choose being the governor of a state with the population of Memphis over being scrutinized and held accountable by tens of millions of people every day, not just in this country but in the world. Personally, I can't imagine they are in the same ballpark; but, what do I know? Nothing, that's what.
I also agree that Obama is very impressive on script and less so off. But, part of that is the gotcha soundbite rhetoric we've grown accustomed to. If you listen to Obama's answers, MOST of the time they are thoughtful and reveal a great deal of knowledge on the topics. He is often hesitant because he knows few things are as easy as "kill 'em," "fire 'em," or "just say no." I looked back at the Saddleback event and found McCain's answers to be far more persuasive in the spotlight format, but less meaningful upon reflection. Pay attention, for instance to the response about evil. McCain gave an abrupt answer about destroying it, and turned the question into a query on terrorism. Obama gave a very insightful answer about the nature of evil and how it can infect us all and all the cautions and complexities and responsibilities we have in response to it. It's no Bring. It. On. But, it seems more like the kind of leadership we need.
I don't understand your last comment. Because Obama isn't as smooth answering questions, this somehow exempts Palin from answering questions at all. At least Obama's answering them. And, several million people seem to like his answers. It's unfortunate to me that we'll never really hear hers before she's fully programmed and deemed ready for primetime.
I didn't mean that she's exempt from answering questions from the swarming liberal media assassins. I just meant that when you mention she must not be ready yet, it reminds me of Barack's noticeable lack of smootherifficness when he's asked questions by the cream puff, starry eyed media. That's all.
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/
A very wise man once told me the best way to win a debate is to question the source of the evidence.
While I don't doubt that Sarah has more than one skeleton in her closet, and has probably uttered things in the company of her intimates that she would never want repeated in public (who hasn't?), is this truly the only source we have on this? A weekly e-zine sent out by two LA residents with an obvious axe to grind? An aricle written by a Canadian citizen who has no other journalistic credentials?
Liberal media, FoxNews laughable claim of fair and balanced, tiresome claims about sexism/racism/ageism and every other "ism" we can think of... Could we look at the real issues of the parties? I suddenly feel like this election will be won or lost on the front pages of the National Enquirer.
I apologize for that. I had in mind a sort of experiment about unsourced claims and I was going to tie it to how conservatives don't sufficiently denounce reports of Obama being a Muslim, because they like the effect of the rumors. But, I couldn't figure out how to make the argument stick without becoming as reprehensible as the conservatives I sought to critique. So, my bad. You're right. Hoist with my own petard.
I dream about a nation of voters that can do what you describe. I'm afraid that ship sailed long, long ago. Comparing positions on issues is boring. It's hard to polarize and yell about things that way.
What are the real issues of the parties? Is it even possible to articulate those positions without claims of misrepresentation? I'm not sure rational political conversations are even possible anymore. I guess Brooks and Shields (not Brooks and Dunn) are pretty good at it. Never heard of them? Most people haven't. It's because they don't yell. Olbermann and O'Reilly we know.
In the interest of attribution, the comment below from Sally Quinn is the one I heard last weekend regarding Palin/motherhood/VP...
"There's also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Down Syndrome. The baby is just slightly more than 4 months old now. Children with Down Syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of, how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?” –CNN’s John Roberts, 8/29/08.
"And I do think, too, that you have to weigh the situation. It's one thing to have one or two or three children, especially if they are healthy children. And everyone knows that women and men are different and that moms and dads are different and that women -- the burden of child care almost always falls on the woman. But I think, when you have five children, one a 4-month-old Down syndrome baby, and a daughter who is 17, who is also a child and who is going to need her mother very much in the next few months and years with her own baby coming, that I don't see how you cannot make your family your first priority. And I think if you are going to be president of the United States, which she may well be, I think that's going to be a real stretch for her."- The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn on CNN’s “Newsroom” 9/2/08.
"SOME WORKING MOTHERS WORRY THAT PALIN IS TAKING ON TOO MUCH" And "SOME VOTERS CONCERNED IF PALIN, A MOTHER OF FIVE HAS TIME TO BE VP." –Tickers on MSNBC
"Kristan, we've talked this morning about whether a mother of five can handle being the vice president. who looks after the kids when she's working? do you know?" - CBS' Maggie Rodriguez on the "Early Show.”
By the way, Reach/Teach/Preach, if you are ever interested in non-hysterical commentary on conservative issues please check out: www.iwf.org
I think the women at this site are discussing issues in a manner that would please you, even though you will not agree w/them.
Post a Comment