Quick impressions of Palin’s speech
Bookworm on Sep 04 2008 at 8:08 am | Filed under: Sarah Palin
I missed the last 15 minutes of Sarah’s speech because TiVo had stopped recording it (and I was at a meeting when she was live), but I came away with some strong impressions nevertheless. (I’ll watch the whole speech sometime today, because I know I missed the substantive stuff.)
1. Sarah glows.
2. Her family is ridiculously good-looking.
3. The absolute cutest moment was when Piper, holding Trig, licked the palm of her hand and used it to smooth down Trig’s hair. That is precisely what a little girl would do if she’s all dressed up and holds a living doll in her arms.
4. When Barack came on the stage to his tremendous acclaim, he kept saying “thank you, thank you.” Although it should have come off warm, it instead sounded weirdly remote and robotic. Sarah just stood there beaming. Her thanks were in her smile.
5. Sarah’s delivery was perfect. I’ve complained before that I find Obama soporific. He has a rhythmically up-and-down cadence that makes me lose track of the words and just hear the rise and fall of his voice. Sarah’s speech is less even, although not so uneven as to sound unnatural. What it sounds is conversational. It feels, not as if she is talking to you (or, worse, down to you), but as if she is having a conversation with you. Big difference.
6. I thought the introductions to John McCain and her family were good. A little bit of human interest, without big, long gushing.
7. I loved the way she broke from the speech to tell the hockey mom joke. I know she’s told the joke before, but it was a lovely natural response to all those hockey mom signs being waved about.
8. I was completely unsurprised that Sarah did not break her speech halfway through and spit a huge chaw of tobacco on the stage. Given the responses from the MSM — they were all agog at the quality of her speech — I think that they, unlike me, were expecting that she would do something embarrassingly declasse.
9. I thought it was interesting how Sarah attacked Obama, making snarky comments about his community organizer work, his horrible remarks in San Francisco, etc. She said these things with a smile, like a high school joke. I might have said that was a bit too “low” for what should have been an elevated speech, but for three things: (1) this is a competitive race; (2) Obama gave one of the nastiest speeches I’ve ever heard when it comes to attacking his opponent; and (3) as the VP candidate and not the Presidential candidate, she has a bit more leeway than McCain will if he wants to keep high moral ground.
10. I thought her brief summary about the effect of Obama’s tax plans was good, although I would have preferred a line about people making money, not government.
11. Aside from an overall excellent speech, Sarah also had a few brilliant lines, aided by the fact that she delivered them well. For example, this whole anti-Obama riff worked well:
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.
But this was my favorite pair of lines, akin in rhythm and content to Kennedy’s famous “As not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”:
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
12. My husband, an ardent liberal, turned off Obama’s speech, since he was bored by the platitudes and thought it sounded false. He listened to every recorded minute we had of Palin’s speech. Of course, maybe he was just waiting to see if she’d spit that tobacco on the stage….
If you missed the speech, here’s a great video.
Email This Post To A Friend
93 Responses to “Quick impressions of Palin’s speech”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bookworm, I agree that Palin looked great (don’t women glow when they are pregnant?) and gave a great speech. She is going to get beaten up by the non-evangelical/conservative segments of the population, however. Not sure you caught the latest headline, but now she is saying that we went into Iraq on a a “task that is from God.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war) Why do conservatives need religious wackos to feel good about their candidates?
Who says she’s pregnant? Do you have trouble distinguishing mother and daughter? I’m sure she’d be flattered.
>>now she is saying that we went into Iraq on a a “task that is from God.”>>
I’ll wait till I see the transcript. However, many religious people see _all_ of life…all of their responsibilities … as a task that is from God. It doesn’t mean that they believe that “God sent me to do this think for the world”, it just means that there’s work to be done, and it’s my duty to _get_ it done. Every deed they do is doing God’s work.
Not being religious, I can see where you might not understand that frame of mind.
Wackos, eh.
I have a problem with atheist wackos who want to enforce their nonbelief on everyone.
I was a great speech, given very well! I listened to the whole thing. It was enjoyable to wacth.
Can’t say the same thing about Obama’s or Biden’s speeches.
I think Sarah Palin is the ‘real deal’….she is authentic. I believe she truly wants to serve her country and this is how she can do it.
I agree with you, suek; great explanation on ‘task that is from God.’
Oh, and yes, she will be misquoted and vilified and denounced, etc…it has already begun. May God keep and protect her and John also!
In my opinion, John’s choice of her for the ticket was inspired, and perhaps he’s getting much more than he knew or expected. If that’s the case, may he have the grace to modify and accept.
McCain-Palin ‘08
When I saw that jaw clench into that pit-bull expression, I recognize a woman who has no trouble facing down bears, moose and beltway politicians. Biden is in trouble. Her secret weapon, though, just has to be little Piper Palin…how does one top that?
I would fly on her wing anywhere, anytime.
I feel a lot better about the future of the GOP, and if McCain-Palin win this election–the country.
Suek, so if it doesn’t mean the work was sent from God but it does mean that doing it is God’s work… Hmmm. Is going to the bathroom God’s work? Is fighting jihad God’s work? Please enlightened the weaker minds…
the one thing palin proved last light is that she hasn’t lost her skills at reading a teleprompter.
there’s one thing most seem to be forgetting. gov. palin didn’t write one word of that speech, whereas barack obama writes virtually all of his speeches.
the speech gov. palin gave was prepared for her, with minor tweaks prior to her even getting the official nod.
peace
Why do conservatives need religious wackos …
I have a problem with atheist wackos who want to enforce their nonbelief on everyone.
As I see it, the basic problem is that while many secularists assume that mention of a Supreme Being indicates chutzpah on the part of the declarant, it more often indicates humility.
For years I was an atheist, but now am an agnostic. I have never been a churchgoer, to the chagrin of my departed and greatly-missed fundamentalist Christian grandmother. Wacko some may have considered her for her religious beliefs, but she was the best judge of human character I have known. Those who consider fundamentalist Christians to be intolerant, consider the following: my grandmother maintained cordial relations with all her children and grandchildren, none of whom belonged to her church. Yes, she wanted us to convert, but that didn’t preclude a relationship with us. At the same time, she believed she would be punished for not having converted us, but accepted being told to “shutta you mouth” on that score.
I have no problem with people who in the course of their daily lives make mention of a Supreme Being. When we meditate on something, we arise at a decision. Some state that they made the decision entirely on their own. Some state they made the decision with the assistance of a Supreme Being.
Note that during the Civil War, both sides made mention of the Supreme Being. Both sides HOPED they were following the will of the Supreme Being. Also note that correlates with what Governor Palin said in the article dg cited.
They hope there is a plan, and that the plan is aligned with the Supreme Being. IOW, I hope we are doing the right thing.
My agnostic self sees a fair amount of humility in those pronouncements. Recall the spiritual : “Great God Almighty’s Gonna Shut you Down.” (Odetta did a great job singing it. ) That includes the Christian fundamentalist who can be shut down. The secular/atheist complaint against the fundamentalists etc, is that they are full of Chutzpah: on a mission from God, etc. It is rather that the fundamentalists etc. HOPE they are, and realize that if they are not, that they know they will be stomped on. That is humility.
Contrary to what many assert, the Constitutional prohibition of an established church does not preclude the mention of religion and religious beliefs. Also note that in Europe, where there were established churches, the Christian religion appears to be dying, whereas in the US, without an established church, it appears to be thriving.
Dagon, don’t say that. People hated Clinton because he was too “clever.” He was a mile wide and a mile deep on every issue and he was distrusted. Obama is smart enough to go to Harvard and excel, and he is an elitist. That she didn’t write the speech is not a problem. In fact, if she couldn’t write at all, it’d probably be viewed as a plus… Such is the anti-intellectual sentiment of the Republican party.
Gringo, I’ve no problems with mentioning religion. My Muslim friend says “god willing” after every third sentence. But I have a problem with people casting a war in the Middle East in religious terms, because it is not smart. Also, people should have rational reasons for what government does, especially when waging war, and a public official bolstering Iraq War justifications with an appeal to a higher power no one has seen is pretty weak. This is analogous to a medical doctor attributing a patient’s recovery to a divine miracle–the sort of thing that gets you fired (and justifiably so).
May I suggest, my friends, that when dg and dagon make silly statements that are manifestly intended to get a rise out of you, such as dg’s last, that you ignore them?
As for your point, gringo, I think you’re right. I too am, at best, agnostic. My humility is that I wouldn’t presume to say there is no God. I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t care the filter through which people run their analysis process, as long as I agree with their goals, methods and outcome. If Sarah, who is sending her son into harm’s way, would like to believe that God is at her back, fine.
What I’d have a problem with, and no one in the Republican party, Sarah included, seems to be trying to do, is if the leadership imposes its religious practices on me: I’m not being forced to church, I’m not being forced to swear allegiance to their God, I’m not being punished for being Jewish. Keep in mind that this was the situation with which the Founder’s dealt when the conceived of religious freedom. It wasn’t to abolish religion. It was not to ensure that people couldn’t make religion part of their calculus in their approach to government. It was to make sure that the government itself would not take over religion and impose direct religious directives and punishments on a spiritually dissenting population. And all liberal screeching to the contrary, that has not happened under Republican administrations.
If I arrive at the same policy principles they do, fine. Their analysis started from a different point, but arrived at the same conclusion. We all know from math that there is often more than one way to get to the right answer.
book,
name one silly or easily dismissed statement that i have made. if you can’t address the logic of my posts, then that is for you to come to terms with. but by simply being dismissive, as you were, you’re sort of proving my point about you not being very serious in your views.
i’ll allow dg to make his/her own case but i haven’t seen anything “silly” or inflammatory there either.
peace
…and there shall arise a great wailing and gnashing of teeth!
I watched the speech on the web this morning, because I, too, was busy last night, Bookworm. After listening I penned my remarks and posted them at http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/what-i-heard-and-what-i-thought/
I’m not sure what is silly about the factual observation that my Muslim friend has a proclivity for saying “God willing.” It really is about every three sentences.
And I definitely do not think it silly that some people believe that God has their back when they go into war; the jihadists that committed suicide believed this, sadly, which made it easier to coax them into terrorist acts. I agree that government should not force religion upon us. I also believe that public officials should not believe that God has their soldiers backs, or at least let that view influence their contingency planning. I certainly hope that Palin is not that dumb, but comments about the Iraq War being part of God’s plan certainly do not inspire confidence.
Dagon, I second the sentiments of your last post entirely.
Good advice Book. I will try to abide by it. I just hope that the irrelevancies do not overwhelm what has always been an enjoyable and refreshing forum. I suspect that it the the motivation, however.
Please enlightened the weaker minds…
We’re not fake liberals. It is not our duty to enlighten those who want to destroy things for the sheer thrill of it. That’s their responsibility to correct their own behaviors and foolish ideologies.
May I suggest, my friends, that when dg and dagon make silly statements that are manifestly intended to get a rise out of you, such as dg’s last, that you ignore them?
Most of them are useful to read anyways, so that’s not a particular problem for me. It’s only a hurdle for those who want to have conversations with them.
if you can’t address the logic of my posts,
You wouldn’t know how to use logic if it hit you upside the head, dagon.
I’m not sure what is silly about the factual observation that my Muslim friend has a proclivity for saying “God willing.” It really is about every three sentences.
It is not God willing or inshallah. IT is Obama willing. Get it right.
Book, you caught that thing about the conversational tone as well? Great minds think alike!
I read the speech first, and the conclusion was pretty emotional. The ending was rather lost because in the actual speech, there was a long applause period for a fellow POW.
That’s the weird things about these speeches that are motivational rather than purely informative or persuasive. The applause keeps happening between the paragraphs and thus the overall “pacing” gets lost, unless you read the speech rather than listen to it.
However, the advantages are that it reves up the crowd and interjects emotional highs and lows in an otherwise clean slate experience.
DG - in response to your previous post regarding Europe, there is just so much to discuss on the topic that I might have to put it into a book. Let’s just take one point: Europe’s antipathy to war.
Your historical perspective on Europe is correct - as one of my elderly relatives put it, “My grandparents lived through three wars, my parents lived through two, I lived through one and, I hope, my children will never know war”. For him, the EU is a blessing. In the U.S., the only similar experience we had to what European countries went through was the Civil War.
However, antipathy to war should not be appeasement, which only enables more war. What I have found is that (Western) Europeans live in an idealized world of words and ideas bereft of deeds and accountability. That’s how they can preach to us about Kyoto (while paying only lip service themselves) or prattle on and on about the virtues of “soft power” (oh, please!). Without the U.S. to defend them with our tax dollars, they would quickly find themselves on the receiving end of “hard” power. World War II was the product of rank appeasement of Germany by France, Britain, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I would have thought they would have learned something, but apparently not, to gauge from their rapid retreat from the war against Islamic terrorism.
I suspect they truly believe that lions will lay down with lambs, provided that we are truly nice to each other.
To refer to the point of this thread, EUropeans just cannot understand the appeal of a strong, self-empowering doer like Sarah Palin to Americans. To read the commentaries accompanying the many British news articles on Palin’s speech last night, I think they find her kind-of scary. I suspect it is the same with the Germans and the French. They don’t understand that peace does come through strength, not just of arms but also of conviction. Instead, they seem to prefer weak, vacillating leaders who strike attractive poses, who specialize at saying nothing while speaking with style (who does that remind you of?), and conclude that handshakes and paper agreements constitute jobs well done. Looking at Western Europe’s current political class, I am reminded of 18th Century French aristocrats flouncing about in tutus, wigs and tights while dreaming-up new ways to entertain their vapid indulgences in the face of approach revolution.
Once in the 1980s, when the U.S. was in recession, I asked a W. European financial adviser (a first cousin) whether he was advocating to his clients not to invest in the U.S. market. “No,” he shrugged, “because I know that when times are difficult in the U.S., Americans simply role up their shirtsleeves and go do something about it.” It was a wonderful compliment.
Last night, a large number of people, not just conservatives and Republicans, heard a terrific, tough, well-centered and accomplished woman tell us in so many ways that she was going to do something about “it” and bring us all along for a heck-of a ride.
Only in America!
For a good book on French anti-Americanism, I recommend Jean-Francois Revel’s book on subject, written just before he passed away. http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Americanism-Jean-Francois-Revel/dp/1893554856
Danny, as always, I enjoy your thoughtful posts. I’ll be sure to pick up the book you recommend. I do understand that at some point passivism becomes appeasement, just not sure where you draw the line given the European historical background. I’m also not sure how comfortable the US would be with an assertive European foreign policy which, by virtue of differing national interests, would be at odds with our own. Americans may want to be careful what they wish for in asking for a more assertive EU.
BTW, I also thought the “terrific, tough, well-centered and accomplished woman” was fantastic. And I’m sorry that McCain didn’t pick Meg Whitman for the VP slot.
Greetings, especially dg:
Maybe next time you meet your Muslim friend, you should ask him what the Koran says about Muslims having non-Muslims friends.
He’ll only ask me what we bible-toting Christians should do to football players for handling pigskin on Sundays… But thanks for the interest in what he thinks.
>>He’ll only ask me what we bible-toting Christians should do to football players for handling pigskin on Sundays>>
Then he’ll be guilty of taqqiyeh. That’s not what the Koran instructs him to do…
taqqiwhat? Now you’re way over my head on religion. Given the strange passages in nearly all holy books, I try and keep a safe distance from the dogma. It makes my head hurt and clouds my thinking…
Getting back to the original subject, I thought Governor Palin gave an excellent speech and has clearly established herself as a force to be reckoned with in electoral politics. Even if, as dagon has noted with the sort of precious oneupsmanship that is dagon’s specialty, Palin did not write her speech, it remains her speech, about her life, family and career, her remarkable delivery (I am informed the teleprompter went kaput at some point and she delivered the speech from memory) and mirrors the force of her personality, which is formidable.
DG - here’s a perfect example of what we have been talking about (from the UK-Guardian) as far as the gulf between (many, not all) EUro perceptions of the world and the U.S. The condescension oozes from this article (for real fun, read the commentaries).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/04/sarahpalin.johnmccain
They really, really don’t understand the core of this country (which is OK, as many people in the enclaves of NY, Boston, D.C., San Francisco don’t either). And, as one of the commentators remarked, things really haven’t changed in many of their perceptions of us since the days of King George III.
I offer this example only to buttress a point made about a certain (and I believe dominantly influential) mindset and I do not mean to imply that all Brits (or other West EUropeans) feel about the U.S. this way. The highly publicized article in the Sun (a working-class paper) suggests that some really do get it.
Incidentally, the article brings back a memory of some nice Kiwi tourists I met in Washington, D.C. during the early-1980s, who chided me for how Americans could elect such a dunce (a favorite EUro and Democrat term for American presidents they don’t agree with, I note) as Reagan. I asked them to compare and contrast the performance of Reagan with the highly educated intellectual giants who were running Europe and Australasia at the time - they just looked at me embarrassed.
DG - “Taqqiyeh” refers to a Koranic exhortation by Mohammed to deliberately lie to infidels in order to deceive them if it furthers the faith.
OK, I’ll play too. What should Bible-toting Christians do to football players for handling pigskin on Sunday? Cheer ‘first in ten, do it again.’
zhombre,
the teleprompter DID NOT go kaput. that’s just a rumor being floated on red state to bolster her perception:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/The_teleprompter_did_not_break.html?showall
her delivery was fine but i don’t give props to people for reading prepared speeches reasonably well. granted the bar has been set low by bush and mccaine but anyone who has taken a speech class can do what she did and she is after all a former sportscaster. i’ll wait til the press conference when she is going to have to answer some very tough questions on her feet.
peace
It didn’t go kaput. What happened was that it kept scrolling, even as she was waiting for applause, so that it was completely out of synch with her speech. That’s why she switched to paper notes. So no, it didn’t freeze up or go blank, but it became useless.
book
read the above.
there were no serious scrolling issues either. she read the speech well. leave it at that.
peace
She did a very fine job delivering the speech and I will not quibble regarding technical matters. I would not be so quick to dismiss Governor Palin. This woman may prove formidible. We shall see what she does subsequently in speaking and thinking on her feet. You may wish to fasten your seat belt and keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle.
well zhombre,
she’s already bold-faced lied to you about a number of things. provable things. if that sits well with you right now then i really can’t say anything.
but lying in a stump speech is one thing and having to explain that lie when being grilled with contradictory information by people who have done the research could be very telling. the question will be whether or not her supporters really care if she lies. thus far, it seems like they don’t.
peace
she’s already bold-faced lied to you about a number of things. provable things. if that sits well with you right now then i really can’t say anything - dagon
When winning is everything, lying is acceptable.
By the way, have you seen the photo of Palin in her “Nowhere, Alaska” sweatshirt?
ozzie,
sure have. that is one of the “provable lies” i was talking about. i was just holding back until someone came on here and told me what a reformer she was and how she went up against her party re the “road to nowhere”. what, did she think no one was going to fact-check that? it’s already been thrown out here as proof of her maverick bonafides.
peace
Not sure exactly what the penalty is, but it definitely is toevah (an abomination?). As the football season kicks off tonight, we should all be reminded the sin we will be watching each Sunday. In addition, the following fun article highlights the other strange prohibitions found in our Bible:
Livin’ Leviticus Loco
Guy Kramer
Issue date: 4/6/06 Section: ViewPoint
It never takes long for a quote from Leviticus to surface in the debate over gay marriage, reminding us of how the (so called) scourge of homosexuality is destroying the fabric of our God fearing society.
It’s a good thing we have Leviticus to save us from such iniquities. But what other supernal guidance can be gleaned from the pages of Leviticus? Can it help protect us from other vices?
The answer is an emphatic yes, and since that is the case, a thorough examination of Leviticus has been conducted for the benefit of the student body specifically and the wider populous in general. It is hoped that this effort will maximize the number of souls that can ascend to the heavens following a (hopefully) ripe and timely death.
First, all of us should immediately abstain from eating any form of pork. That means no more bacon, ham or sausage. Leviticus 11:7 is quite clear on this point: “And the pig may not be eaten, for though it has split hooves, it does not chew the cud.”
As good Christians, we must also be wary of several entrees available at any local seafood restaurant, for though we are permitted to eat marine animals with both fins and scales, according to Leviticus 11:12, “any marine animal that does not have both fins and scales is strictly forbidden to you.” That means no more calamari, lobster, crab, shrimp or shellfish.
Giving up these tasty dishes may seem hard, but don’t despair, because according to Leviticus 11:22, we are permitted to supplement our diets with insects that jump with their back legs, including “crickets, bald locusts and grasshoppers.”
Most of us will need to start shopping for a new wardrobe without delay. Leviticus 19:19 plainly states that we “should not wear clothing woven from two different kinds of fabric.” Dump all your cotton/polyester blends immediately or run the risk of violating the sanctity of monolithic fashion.
Leviticus 19:27-28 also warns against slips in personal hygiene. We are not to trim the hair off our temples (no sideburns), clip the edges of our beards, or mark our skin with tattoos.
Once all of us have adjusted our diets and appearance to conform to Leviticus, we have to organize ourselves, because to really live the word of Leviticus calls for drastic action.
To begin with, although football is America’s second most traditional sport, the Bible explicitly prohibits the handling of any part of a pig carcass. Not only can we not eat it, we can’t toss the old pigskin around on Sunday afternoons. Unfortunately, it’s too late to institute a simple fix (like making sure all the leather used by football manufacturers comes from cows).
Since all the players were getting paid to play on a Sunday, that technically counts as work. And as we all know, Sunday is a holy day of rest and “anyone who works on that day will die” (forgive me, that was Exodus 35:2).
Once we’ve taken out the NFL we can target Cleo and her cabal of phone psychics. Leviticus is quite explicit in what we must do. Leviticus 20:27 states, “Men and women among you who act as mediums or psychics must be put to death by stoning.”
The final task will really require some effort since it requires a partial nullification of the Constitution, specifically a voiding of the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery.
Leviticus 44:46 makes it clear that slavery is permissible, “you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.”
If you’ve made it this far, you no doubt have deduced the satirical flavor of this article, and though its taste may be unpleasant, it’s important to comprehend its unsweetened quality.
If you read the Bible with the intention of finding a way to hate or persecute someone else, you’ll find something every time. All too often the Bible is abused by the hypocrite, who first selectively pulls quotes to reinforce a prejudiced viewpoint, then sanctimoniously claims divine superiority over all comers.
Perhaps all of us are guilty of that at some point, but never has the practice been so prevalent as it has been in the debate over gay marriage.
Perhaps it’s time for everyone to start taking the Pollyanna approach to reading the Bible. Try looking for reasons to love someone, instead of hating them, even when that someone chooses not to live by your favorite lines of scripture.
It works, even in Leviticus. All you have to do is “love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18).”
was just holding back until someone came on here and told me what a reformer she was and how she went up against her party re the “road to nowhere”. - dagon
I dont think people care if she lies.
As long as people buy the lies, and the media shuts up, all will be well.
I thought it was a good speech; it had some good zingers, delivered well. What really interested me was the overall politics of the thing. The American people do want things done differently. Obama offered up Biden, McCain offered up Palin.
I think Obama’s pick works against his own message, while McCain’s certainly works with his “maverick” theme.
allen,
well if palin had at least a modicum of input into the speech, i still woiuld think it lacked substance but would give her credit for some of the one-liners. but she didn’t.
gov. palin has about as much knowledge about sen. obama, his history, the economy, mccaine’s policies, obama’s policies and virually everything else as the rest of the country had about her until last friday. she remains an alaska-firster!
i just can’t see how that sits well with so many people. it really is all about her social conservatism. and let’s be honest, the single-issue of abortion. if any of her supporters really gave a damn about securing our nation or bolstering our economy (things she said nothing about btw), they would have been throwing eggs at the screen. that is why her religiosity troubles so many.
peace
Dagon,
You really should try to come up with your own ideas. Passing along other peoples’ talking points is intellectually bereft, and makes you look foolish. First you wheel out two things that are impossible to substantiate: she had no input into the speech; she has no knowledge. Then you make an assumption about what other people think, who you don’t know the first thing about. Try again, with something original.
Allen, I’ve never thought Obama had much of a message; I regard him as an Empty Suit, brains w/o balls, who will probably lose in November.
(See http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html)
Palin is a bold choice for McCain and may prove herself between now and November but her resume is rather thin for the position of VP. Reagan served as Governor of Calif for two terms; Giuliani mayor of NY for two terms; Howard Dean was governor of Vermont (population about the same as Alaska) for 10 years; Huckabee and Bill Clinton had long executive tenure in Arkansas. Palin now seems tough, determined and articulate, and in touch with millions of middle class working people out there in the hinterlands, but she’s got a long way to go yet.
Allen, I agree that she gave a great speech, but we know how Republicans feel about those politicians who give good speeches given the comments about Obama. What I don’t understand is how she is a maverick. How is someone who was for earmarks before she was against them a “maverick”? How is someone who stops the bridge to nowhere only after political pressure against it had boiled over, but then keeps the money for other pet projects, a maverick? How is someone who self-congratulates for balancing budgets in a state that is flush with cash, enjoys negative taxes and is not facing the tough budgetary fights of the lower 48 a maverick? How is someone who tells victims of rape or incest that they need to carry the child to term a maverick?
Also, didn’t McCain lose his maverick cred when he hugged Bush onstage and became his lapdog after the 2000 campaign? I thought that’s why the Economist’s editors and other media pundits, not to mention millions of former fans (myself included), are so disappointed with the guy now.
Zhombre, to support your prediction that Obama will lose you are citing a dude with only one name (”Spengler”) who writes for the Asia Times (Ya Jou Ri Bao) and who thinks putting Hillary on the ticket was a fatal campaign error, and who quotes only David Broder, a Republican, for an indication on how the Obama convention speech went. Hmmm…
I could find nothing relevant in Leviticus and thus resorted to other sources. But thank you for sharing that lengthy and completely useless post anyway.
I cite Spengler because many of his past writings have shown lucidity and insight. He is often rather harsh in his pronouncements and I certainly do not agree with every word he writes but I believe he may be prescient in his column.
What’s wrong with the Asia Times? Do you harbor some antipathy toward Asia and Asians? It is a large and articulate world out there and you ought to check out non US press at times and not be so provincial.
Many people believe Senator Clinton should have been Obama’s VP and would agree this was a fatal campaign error. I personally never thought that was a real possibility because having Hill as VP brings Bill along too and for Obama that would be like having the Borgias watch your back.
Is David Broder a Republican? I don’t know his party affiliation.
allen,
the mccaine campaign admitted that it was a pre-prepared vice-presidential speech. get v.p,give speech. it is that cynical.
peace
There is great appreciation for Sarah Palin among people other than religious wackos. I know that Bookworm is one example, but the following surprised me even more.
A very brave man, indeed - one I’d be proud to call a friend.
Read the whole thing:
http://stopsmearingsarah.blogspot.com/2008/09/my-decision-to-back-palin.html
Oh……and, my friends, there’s some good advice floating around out there — “Don’t feed the trolls.”
Zhombre, Obama does have a powerful message of “Change.” It resonates, Americans are not happy with the way things are going. Just on a shear political level that moves people, on the policy level that might be different. His pick of Biden I think undermined the current of his message.
McCain picked Palin which at first blush looks like a big change; it might not be but it is consistent with the theme. I would note that some are saying “no she’s not, same ‘ol same ‘ol.” Which is a recognition of the importance of the idea.
earl
no one is trolling here. it’s called having a discussion. we may differ in opinion, but i’m not dropping ad hominems here. i’m providing an opinion and where available, sourced information around an important choice.
if you want to ignore that information (or my opinion) that is your right, but by simply covering your ears, or tarring the messenger, know one learns anything.
peace
Allen, regardless of what He Who Shall Be Nameless insinuates in his usual affected and disingenuous style, there is nothing sinister or cynical about using speechwriters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756
Yes, Obama uses them too. Even though unlike most politicians he can actually write, having written two books, presumably by himself, both about himself. Sort of Profiles of Me instead of Profiles in Courage.
And Earl’s advice is on point.
Agreed, Allen. Biden undercuts that message of change. But I suspect the whole mantra of change is all but meaningless. Sure, a majority of the country professes to pollsters that The Country is Moving in the Wrong Direction. OK. So? Americans number 300 million and are individualistic, diverse, often contentious. Do you think for one bloody second they could agree what direction the country should move in? I suspect a large chunk of the population thinks the country is going to Hell in a bucket because of creeping socialism, gay rights, etc. Others would prefer we attempted an American version of European democratic socialism. I think “change” is a chimera.
Zhombre, don’t get me wrong. The sentiment is that it’s not going well, how to change it is a different matter. I’m just saying that people want a different approach, not anything about what that approach should be.
A large percentage of people think the direction of the country is wrong. That only says they’re not happy with the status quo. Nothing else.
CAUTION! RELIGIOUS CONTENT.
That would be “as Orthodox Jews, we must…”
I’m not sure whether you were just bringing levity to the conversation, or whether you don’t know much about the Bible.
Jesus came to fulfil the law, to provide the perfect sacrifice for us, to reconcile us to God, to do for us what the law couldn’t do.
Here’s what Paul in Romans 3 said:
“Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses and to bring the entire world into judgement before God. For no one can ever be made right in God’s sight by doing what his law commands. For the more we know God’s law, the clearer it becomes that we aren’t obeying it.
But now God has shown us a different way of being right in his sight–not by obeying the law but by the way promised in the Scriptures long ago. We are made right in God’s sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done.”
He begins Chapter 4 by saying:
Abraham was, humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation. What were his experiences concerning this question of being saved by faith? Was it because of his good deeds that God accepted him? If so, he would have had something to boast about. But from God’s point of view Abraham had no basis at all for pride. For the Scriptures tell us, “Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous.”
Paul goes on to talk about David and his experience.
In terms of love Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, the Pharisees hoping they could trip him up. he said: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and the second commandment is equally important, Love you neighbor as yourself”.
I Corinthians 13, describes love in eloquent terms which I think is summed up in the concept that love requires sacrifice.
dg, you shouldn’t worry about what I think, I’m just the messenger. People were critical of David Brickner, but each one of us is going to give an account of what we have done at some point in the future. But we’ve all failed and all stand condemned. Jesus offers the way to be reconciled to a loving God.
Palin’s speech was electrifying. I also thought McCain’s this evening was excellent.
I couldn’t help but think of Hillary Clinton who must have been thinking something along the lines of “oh s**t” while watching Palin. If McCain/Palin win, Palin may well be running against Hillary one day. If they lose, she is now a national presence and a rising star and much more appealling and human than Hillary. Either way, she remains a threat to Hillary down the road.
BTW, am I the only one who has noticed a a similarity in the writing styles of dg, Dagon and maybe Ozzie? Could they be the same person? Just wondering…
Could they be the same person? Just wondering…
They’re people with similar philosophies, beliefs, and world views. That is why they sound the same.
It doesn’t matter what their identities or gender are. What matters is what they believe, for that is what determines everything else.
Try again, with something original.
That is original, for him. You should lay off him. Lower your high moral standards, you know.
Danny Lemieux
DG - “Taqqiyeh” refers to a Koranic exhortation by Mohammed to deliberately lie to infidels in order to deceive them if it furthers the faith.
They got any word for when the enemies deceive themselves willingly
So no, it didn’t freeze up or go blank, but it became useless.
Sort of like the Democrat party values of justice and liberty, Book.
zhombre,
how many books has mccaine written? how many were about himself?
anywho, check out this vid. apparently they’re going to be hiding palin for the next few days so she can handle her business and ostensibly get some learnin’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh-HFZ8I_0Y
now bear in mind, she has a 4 month old special-needs child. how much sarah time do you think he’s going to be getting?
peace
y
errr…well, duh?
peace
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-accuses-o.html
peace
errr…well, duh?
Links are your way of saying “I’m too stupid to actually argue with people”.
Was that elementary enough for you to understand past the ers and duhs of the stuttering nutcracker crowd, Dagon?
anywho, check out this vid. apparently they’re going to be hiding palin for the next few days so she can handle her business and ostensibly get some learnin’- dagon
This confirms exactly what I’ve been thinking. Like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin’s lack of interest about Iraq isn’t a bad thing, it’s a PLUS
From Howard Fineman, Newsweek
Sarah Palin is the “Ideological Heir of George W. Bush without having anything to do with George W. Bush” and the McCain Campign will use upcoming “plane time” and “time of the ground” to “begin the education of Sarah Palin”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh-HFZ8I_0Y
From PBS’ “War Behind Closed Doors,” which aired on the eve of the war in Iraq:
EVAN THOMAS, Asst. Managing Editor, “Newsweek”: When George Bush was running for president, he essentially went to school. And various great and worthy men trooped down to Austin to teach George Bush about the world. And by and large, they told him that Iraq was unfinished, basically, but they had to be a little careful about it because, of course, George Bush’s father was the one who hadn’t finished the business. And if George W. Bush was elected president, he may end up having to do what his father didn’t do or couldn’t do, and that is killing off Saddam Hussein.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/script.html
Let’s see… where to start? (My last point will be the one that brought me here to comment…)
- Name any governor of any state that has actually had foreign policy experience? Yet many of them have made fine presidents, let alone VPs.
- Sarah Palin has shown exceptional charisma and ability to speak to common Americans. She’s 100% American, proud of her country, and she puts her country first. Obama is an internationalist. There’s nothing *wrong* with that and some people agree with it; I certainly don’t and many others don’t agree either.
- But Governor Palin must now prepare for Phase Two: no teleprompter. Senator Obama did *not* prepare and he has repeatedly paid the price. Sarah Barracuda’s performance with a malfunctioning teleprompter shows that she covers her bases well, and there is much reason for optimism here. For the next few days she will be in intensive preparation to ensure that she does not make the kinds of mistakes that Obama has repeatedly been making, when shorn of his security blanket (teleprompter). This is not a knock on Palin; it is political and media reality.
Now to my main point: The most important aspect of Sarah Palin’s VP nomination is that we have an extraordinarily effective spokesperson for feminism within the conservative movement. Her impact in this area lasts far beyond any two-month campaign or election. There is no such person within the doctrinaire left of feminism that can match this. Suddenly the playing field is tilted. And the doctrinaire leftists immediately recognized the seriousness of this threat, and with rabid, Pavlovian instinctiveness they piled on with extreme viciousness, trying to destroy her within 72 hours.
To be fair, immediate destruction of “the new face” has been political doctrine for a while. They’re probably actually just following the usual playbook. But, just as the 9-11 terrorists showed that our doctrine on airplane terrorism actually worked against the airplane passengers and destroyed them, the political playbook on destroying Sarah Palin failed. And now the doctrinaire liberal feminists have played tactics when they should have played strategy, and they have lost the critical opening round, and invalidated much of what they might say for the next two months, via their sheer outrageousness and viciousness. They’re now behind the eight-ball and militarily, must plod uphill against thier “enemy” - never a good position to be in. They would need to become prudent and thoughtful in their criticisms, and what are the chances of THAT?
The elevation of Governor Palin to the VP slot changed the debate on feminism dramatically, and the doctrinaire left failed spectacularly in their response. The ramifications of this one-week (one-week!) conservative success and liberal failure, long term, not just for this election, could be shocking. What an amazing week.
To be fair, not all in the doctrinaire feminist left went ballistic. I read this headline:
“Obama-backer Bening pillories Palin”
and I was dismayed because I tend to like Annette Bening. So I went to the link and read it:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=6285285d-08d0-4e3f-88a5-655dec731ce7
And I found that Bening’s criticisms were delivered with her usual thoughtfulness. (Not that I agree with her!) Bening remains classy in my book. The problem for the doctrinaire leftist feminists is that the Benings within their movement have been few and far between over the last week.
Name any governor of any state that has actually had foreign policy experience? - Mike
My problem isnt that she has no experience, but that, by her own admission, she hasn’t even given much thought to the war in Iraq.
The more I look at it, however, the more I see her as mallable, which is EXACTLY why Govenor Bush was such a boon to those who’d been pushing for war with Iraq since 1991.
She lies without flinching, as well.
Ozzie said:
“My problem isnt that she has no experience, but that, by her own admission, she hasn’t even given much thought to the war in Iraq.”
Since Obama has an equal amount of experience in foreign policy (like never holding a sub-committee hearing on Afghanistan, a country he wants to double down on including a possible invasion of a sovereign country), I’m glad you give her a pass.
So the difference is Barack has thought about Iraq and she hasn’t– being tied down to the responsibilities of the offices the citizens voted her to and such. Given Barack has thought about it so long, his judgment has still been incredibly poor.
In fact, has he thought about much except his campaign for presidency for the last two years?
From Salon.com:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/
Ozzie said:
“The more I look at it, however, the more I see her as mallable…”
Shall we hold a memorium for the people thrown under Obama’s virtual bus?
“She lies without flinching, as well.”
You’ll have to elaborate on this one.
Presidents surround themselves with competent people, part of whose job is to give the President options. We hire the President to apply consistent principles that they have identified during a campaign to known and unforseen events.
Every indication is that Sarah Palin has shown good judgement in the past, and will do so if ever called upon.
Let’s not forget she is running for Vice-President, not President. By the way, what does a vice-president do?
anchorage daily news says palin is stalling the investigation, trying to run out the clock:
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/516641.html
of course we should dismiss all of this out of hand because as everyone knows, the anchorage daily news is just filled to the brim with liberals.
peace
Zhombre, if you didn’t find the part about handling pigskin on Sunday in Leviticus, then you’ll have to re-read it. Sorry you found a relevant post useless.
I have nothing against the Asian Times. I have read both the Chinese and English articles with great interest and harbor no ill-will toward Chinese. Having lived there, I happen to like much about that part of the world. I found the author rather clueless and that particular source a better authority on Asian affairs than American ones. That’s all.
Broder is a Republican.
BrianE, I won’t shoot the messenger, but I will ignore his message about a day of reckoning. I live in the world that you can see empirically. I do not believe in angels, souls or judgment day any more than I believe in unicorns, fairies or Santa Clause. Show me a soul on an MRI scan, and then I’ll listen to that message. Otherwise, the stories in the Bible should hold no more authority than those found in Greco-Roman or Nigerian mythology…or in Batman or Superman comic books for that matter. If one person worshipped a can of Coke as God he’d be committed to a mental institution, but if one billion people do it, they call it a religion.
Dagon, while I agree with your analysis, Palin now has a higher favorability rating than McCain or Obama, according to the latest poll. She has the luxury to stonewall and call the otherside politically motivated.
dg
here’s a taste of how they’re reporting this story in canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Coy1OAQXY
there is a marked difference in the coverage don’t you think?
peace
Dagon, do the dates/ages make sense? I thought the little boy with Downs is 4 months old, but Bristol is 5 months pregnant. How can that CBC report make sense?
dg,
because skeptics in alaska are assuming that if you lie once, there’s no reason to believe that you won’t lie again. they are claiming that the ages are off one way or the other. if you note, there is no record of trig being born on the day that has been claimed. also, we only have the palin’s word that bristol is 5 months pregnant.
in any event, something certainly seems off here. and as loath as i am to delve into this tabloid stuff, it does bear investigation in this case. really, it would be a very simple matter to resolve (just release the records), but as with everything else, it appears the palin’s are stonewalling.
peace
dg
watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQdYdCfl60
everyone, i understand the salacious nature of this clip so please don’t watch if you find this speculation unseemly. but it does raise a number of questions relating to this family and their judgement. frankly, i don’t think they have anything to be ashamed of one way or the other but it does appear that on at least some levels, they are trying to preserve their image.
none of these photos have been doctored and the statements of fact are indeed that. i’m not making any conclusions but my logic tells me that there is something going on here. i’m not sure what, but maybe those are answers that will be provided later.
peace
Dagon, I hate conspiracy theories. Most of them are dumb and easily disproved (e.g., 9/11 intentional explosions). I would think that this one will be as well, and I would expect something to come out showing doctored digital photos from a smear campaign at some point to prove Palin’s case. It is strange, however, that Palin hasn’t released records. I mean, this wouldn’t require personal medical records but merely a sworn statement from an Ob-Gyn specialist or a birth certificate. Still, it feels too weird to be true, that Trig is her grandson.
dg,
i hate conspiracy theories too, but apparently this has been circulating around the legitimate media in alaska for some time.
also, i think it would be weirder to believe that a 44 year old woman who was having a premature downs baby would go ahead and give a speech AFTER her water broke, then would forgo local treatment and instead get on an ELEVEN HOUR flight, then drive several more hours to an out of the way hospital to have the child.
and the fact that there are no records of the child being born at that hospital on that day.
now, which sounds more far-fetched?
peace
Dagon, obviously the 11 hour flight and 5+ hour drive sounds more far-fetched, but I don’t know what the true dates are. I need the facts verified, but I guess that is your point.
Dagon, enough with the trash conspiracy talk. It has no place at my blog.
book,
so you don’t think the cbc is credible?
peace
“She lies without flinching, as well.”- Me
You’ll have to elaborate on this one.- Brian
Her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere and on earmarks come readily to miind.
Dagon, you believe that crap because you WANT to believe that crap. Your mind has shut down, as even a fellow traveler as DG (a good debater, challenger and thought-provoker, nonetheless) has noted.
People like you, however, are sooo easy for bad people to manipulate. So, chill and seek a different path to happiness. This isn’t it.
>>i think it would be weirder to believe that a 44 year old woman who was having a premature downs baby would go ahead and give a speech AFTER her water broke, then would forgo local treatment and instead get on an ELEVEN HOUR flight, then drive several more hours to an out of the way hospital to have the child.>>
I had a friend who’s water broke when she was 6 months pregnant. She delivered normally at full term. That’s nearly 3 months…or at least between 2 and 3 months. She had to be careful. She was not allowed to lift her 3 yr old son who was very sturdy - as in big for his age and solid. She was not allowed to do housework (she had a hard time with that one, believe it or not). Other than that, she had no restrictions.
As for the “downs baby” …what does that have to do with anything? She could have it aborted if she chose…so what’s your problem?
>>Her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere and on earmarks come readily to miind.>>
Elaborate please.
Also, please elaborate your definition of “lies”, and how it might compare with “changed her position”.
We’ll discuss “flip-flop” and “changing her position” after that….!
>>Her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere and on earmarks come readily to miind.>> me
Elaborate please. suek
Palin “bridge to nowhere” line angers many Alaskans
By Yereth Rosen
“. . . . During her first speech after being named as McCain’s surprise pick as a running mate, Palin said she had told Congress “‘thanks but no thanks’ on that bridge to nowhere.”
In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere,” political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska’s Congressional delegation during her run for governor.
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901
Prominent Alaska Democrats said Mrs Palin had supported building the bridge while she was campaigning for governor and reversed course only after opposition by fiscal conservatives in Washington, including Senator McCain.
“She was the only candidate who was saying ‘We’re going to build that bridge’,” said the former governor, Tony Knowles, who lost to Mrs Palin in 2006.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/this-ladys-for-turning-over-a-bridge-to-nowhere/2008/09/01/1220121135181.html
McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin
Three times in recent years, the Arizona senator’s lists of ‘objectionable’ pork spending have included earmarks requested by his new running mate.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,2482434.story
On Obama, Earmarks, Palin Less Than Honest
Palin’s RNC Speech Bent the Truth on Her Record and on the Opposition
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Sept. 4, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/story?id=5726571
We’ll discuss “flip-flop” and “changing her position” after that….! - suek
No need to. To you, she merely changed her position, while to me, she’s being deliberately dishonest.
She wants to give the impression that she’s a reformer who hates earmarks and wasteful spending, while she backed ALL of those things when they were politifcally expedient.
Did you see this clip from the Daily Show? Everyone seems to be “flip-flopping” these days:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card&byDate=true
America, this is a 72 year old professional, retired person. We are dealing with the beginning or should I say, the continuation of an American Fascist Government. This country has been free from persons that dictate how women should choose about themselves. This country has not created laws that will abandon civil liberties for all persons. What happened to “The land of the Free” I am a reg. independent. I fear for what has been happening to our country. Uphold the Constitution. These laws were written with purpose. God Bless our Country.
I am a reg. independent. I fear for what has been happening to our country. — liugim
Me too, Luigim.
Luigim - when people use terms like American Fascist government, it demands an explanation. Please elucidate us? What do you mean by “fascist” and how is America fascist?
“This country has been free from persons that dictate how women should choose about themselves”. What do you mean by this? Choose what “about themselves”? Should women have the freedom to kill their husbands and children if they wish?
“This country has not created laws that will abandon civil liberties for all persons.” What laws? Which civil liberties have been abandoned or about to be abandoned for all persons”? Help us to understand.
“What happened to “The land of the Free”?” What DID happen, Luigim? You aren’t free? What freedoms have been taken away from you? Do you know any countries that are more free? Help us to understand.
DG - so you fear for what has happened to our country. What are we - Darfur? Please explain what you fear has happened, is happening or will happen Are we headed for a calamity? A Gulag society?
Ozzie
I am a reg. independent. I fear for what has been happening to our country. — liugim
Me too, Luigim.
That makes you a Democrat, Oz, when you fear Palin’s contributions to “what has been happening to our country”. Certainly a fellow traveler.