This was going to be an extended comment on Policraticus’s post, but I figured it would be too long. Anyway, here are my thoughts:
- I thought the speech was absolutely dreadful, and fully expected a panning. I was utterly flabbergasted the commentariat gave it a vigorous thumbs up. Were we listening to the same speech? I heard style over substance, personal narrative over policy, the virtues of ignorance over education. It was an utterly vacuous speech. It did not discuss policies, it did not provide a coherent theme, it did not even attempt to inspire.
- Being a mother of five children really has no bearing on one’s suitability for high executive office. A shout-out to spouse and children is par of the course, as is the customary post-speech hug-in, but building the first part of your speech around the fact that you are a wife and mother–what is that supposed to prove? Also, I found it a little offensive that a baby who is only a few months old is being passed around like a trophy, and that a pregnant teenage daughter is paraded on stage with the gum-chewing kid who had his “I never want kids” message recently scrubbed from myspace. When Obama said family was off limits, I think that should apply to exploiting one’s own family for political gain, knowing your opponent cannot comment.
- Where there any policies mentioned at all, aside from the need to drill the country to suck out every last drop of oil, and to achieve “victory” (whatever that means) in Iraq?
- One word that was not mentioned: abortion. Isn’t she supposed to be a pro-life icon? Isn’t that why she was chosen, and isn’t that why she is so popular? This is like Obama not even mentioning the Iraq war in a keynote speech! It speaks volumes about what the McCain campaign thinks of the pro-life movement.
- Did she mention torture? Well, she said that McCain went through “torturous interrogations” which is more than most speakers could bring themselves to say. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out, as Bush and Cheney have approved many of the techniques used on McCain, to say he was tortured would put them in a bit of a bind. But Palin did say something ominous. She mocked Obama for wanting to “read terrorists their rights” (or some such words). So, she is implicitly approving the lack of legal protections for detainees, which seems to be code for Bush-Cheney torture techniques (it’s certainly the language Romney and Giuliani always use).
- Some of the attacks on Obama were fair game– his position on Iraq, his policy shifts etc. But what in God’s name was the point of mocking somebody for being a community organizer, especially since many people who choose this course of action are motivated by their religious beliefs? Has altruism truly become a dirty word (unless you wear a uniform and wield a weapon)? Some other attacks were disingenious (Obama’s tax plans benefit 95 percent of the population, while McCain’s are focused exclusively at the top) and others were dumb (the “Greek columns” look suspiciously similar to Bush’s 2004 backdrop). Overall, whenever she criticized Obama, the tone was one of snark, with very little substance.
- She misrepresented her background, especially on special interests. She proudly claimed to have opposed the infamous “bridge to nowhere” in Ketchikan, but that is clearly not the case. What does this say about her?
- She also gave no indication of being versed in national policy, especially foreign policy. The attempt to exude gravitas by mentioning a few big words fell flat.
- Overall, this is Rove 2.0, the kindler, gentler Rove. The tactic is the same: run on character, not policy. Portray your blue-collar persona as somehow more virtuous than your educated and nuanced opponent. Mock mercilessly. Fire up the base. Nothing new here, not in tactics, not in policies. It’s Bush all over again, but with a feminine charm. Tell me again why this was supposed to have been a good speech?
I’m imposing some rigid commenting rules on this thread. If you wish to comment on this thread, state first whether you liked or disliked the speech, and then explain why. Anything that ventures off topic or gets into personal attacks against me or other commenters will be deleted.
I hope this comment meets with your approval… let’s see, I’m supposed to start with whether or not I liked the speech: I liked it. First criteria for commenting has been fulfilled. Second, why: because it rocked.
Now on to the rest of my comment:
Given the media crucifixion she and her family had been enduring over the last three days it would have been totally inappropriate for her to come out and pull a Kissinger — light on foreign policy details? Puh-leeze… NO ONE (except maybe you — this is not a personal attack, just an observation) wanted to hear that (though she give a bit of a foreign policy overview, when it came to energy policy). We wanted to meet the woman. And that’s what she gave us: an introduction to herself. She has the next two months to fill in the gaps.
As I’ve said elsewhere, having her stand up there with her family was a far more poignant pro-life statement than anything she could have read off the teleprompter (which wasn’t working anyway). Besides, with Obama is making the point for her pro-life credentials, why should she waste her breath?
I thought the criticisms of “our opponent” were on track: Obama has time to write two memoirs but no time to write or reform any legislation? Also the point about the community organizer was on target, too: how can you fail when your job consists in handing out grant money to people you agree with? Where’s the responsibility or accountability there? If you’re a sucky mayor, people know it … immediately.
As to your objections with her featuring her family, I would venture that you are not a parent. The parents of this country, more than anyone else, have the most invested in this election — our children. It’s nice to know that our leaders will take their responsibility to our children — especially the most vulnerable: our special needs children — seriously.
I loved the speech. Delivered with the same smoothness and articulateness that everyone swoons over w/r/t Obama.
Also, I found it a little offensive that a baby who is only a few months old is being passed around like a trophy,
Andrew Sullivan made the same remark. Haven’t any of you guys ever even held a relative’s baby? I suppose not. Put it this way: Have you ever stood in line at the airport for 30+ minutes while holding a heavy briefcase the whole time? Your shoulder feels like it’s going to explode. Same thing happens when you’re holding a sleeping baby. You start looking desperately around to see if anyone else can hold the baby.
But what in God’s name was the point of mocking somebody for being a community organizer, especially since many people who choose this course of action are motivated by their religious beliefs?
The point was to specifically respond to Obama’s ridicule of her for being a mayor of a small town (as if she weren’t currently a governor). So her point was, “OK, let’s look at the equivalent stage in Obama’s career.”
She misrepresented her background, especially on special interests. She proudly claimed to have opposed the infamous “bridge to nowhere” in Ketchikan, but that is clearly not the case. What does this say about her?
If one cares about the facts, Palin did initially support the bridge, but switched course when she was governor. As Newsweek reported in 2007:
M.Z.: I’m assuming it was a keyword catch of some sort. Calm down.
MM — energy policy isn’t “national policy”? (MZ, is that OK, or do I have to repeat the bit about how I liked the speech?)
M.Z.: I have no issue with that.
I liked the speech.
She is a much more interesting person than Obama, and her speech was every bit as detailed as Mr. Obama’s.
As far as detailing her family, I seem to remember seeing a 10-15 minute video detailing Obama’s growing up, his grandparents, his wife, and his own kids…
I also don’t recall Obama talking about abortion other than his newest radio commercial where he tries to scare women by saying that McCain will make abortion illegal in the U.S.
[Disliked the speech] This speech shows the utter desperation of the Republicans.
As there was absolutely no substance, I will ony ctitique the style and its terribe ironies.
Put a newcomer with all talk about “reform” but an opposite, miniscule record on it, to change the mantra from “change” to “reform”. And by reform she means mainly only cutting big spending. The irony is, she brought in $27 million of pork to a town of 9000 when she was mayor, left that town in major debt, and campaigned for the brigeto nowhere, in a state that still receives the most Washington earmarks
Ignite a culture war by putting a good’ ole American girl, who says she was always proud to be an American, against a “dubious”, “elitist” “”other” Obama and his spouse. But whose spouse was until very recently a Alaska Independence Party member, calling for a vote on secession?
Have a supposed “real worker, with real respnsibilities” belittle Obama’s job out of college as a community-organizer, whenever, at the same time in her life, she was making the executive decisions of what bathing suit to wear in the local beauty pageant and/or reporting on Alaskan sports teams on the local TV network.
Play the fear card about Iraq and terrorists, as the camera pans on her terrified looking son, who happens to be leaving fror Iraq on 9/11. Of course, her foreign policy credentials are mainly the end times theology she gets from her outalndish AOG pastor and her protecting the U.S. from neigboring Russia, as the head of the National Guard’s in-state activities. Chucle chuckle.
The base may buy this, but middle America wil be turned off by the sheer ugliness and lack of concern for the real isues facing them.
I liked the speech – because it was a good performance – she didn’t say anything we didn’t know already, except she proved she can slam Obama as well as the next one.
You say:
“I heard style over substance, personal narrative over policy, the virtues of ignorance over education. It was an utterly vacuous speech. It did not discuss policies, it did not provide a coherent theme, it did not even attempt to inspire.”
I think those are the reasons everyone else liked the speech – although I do believe she attempted to inspire. And the “pass the baby” thing worked for grandma, I’m sure.
Given the media crucifixion she and her family had been enduring over the last three days…
Crucifixion! Sarahmessiah! Messarah!
but middle America wil be turned off by the sheer ugliness and lack of concern for the real isues facing them.
Believe it or not, Middle America gets insulted when politicians say “we’ll take care of you” or insinuate (or state) that we can’t do it on our own. We also don’t like politicians telling us what issues are “real” and facing us.
Hey Michael J. Iafrate… By crucifxion I was only referring to the barbaric means of torture and execution. And I think “barbaric” is a term that readily applies to at least some of the media’s behavior over the last few days.
One further point, though: while crucifixion doesn’t make one a Messiah (neither does ascension by popular acclaim), it can make one a folk hero, a martyr, and a legend. Think Spartacus.
As there was absolutely no substance, I will ony [sic] ctitique [sic] the style and its terribe [sic] ironies.
As I mentioned, Palin did talk about energy policy. Is energy policy outside of the hearing range of liberals or something? Or did you guys just both happen to change the channel at that point? I’m mystified as to how you both could have missed it. You can obviously disagree with her energy policy, but it’s kind of weird to claim that she didn’t mention it.
Disliked the speech. I was completely and utterly disappointed. I expected her to “take the high road” and come across as a politician who wants to affect change. Instead, I heard shrill attacks on Obama’s record or lack thereof (ironic), the boogy-boogy “liberal media”, the “Washington insiders” (hmmmm, where has John McCain been for years!) and tax increases. At one point during the speech, when she spoke of McCain showing America’s strength to the world, I assumed she was speaking of military strength and shuddered. Isn’t our “show of military strength” what got us into the quagmire called Iraq? Plus, our military is stretched mighty thin right now.
I was left with the overwhelming sense that she and John McCain inhabit a different world than the rest of us. It seems like her message would’ve been great in 1982. However, in 2008, with the economy in the dumps and soldiers dying in foreign countries, it seems ludicrous.
Now, I believe that her speech was meant to energize the base. It obviously succeeded in this. However, she earned no votes from it, and, in my opinion, she went a long way towards permanently losing my vote. This was after I was so excited about McCain selecting her. BTW, as far as the pregnant daughter-thing goes: I could care less.
I was looking for substance and got the same old cynical, snarky, crap.
Stephen
I don’t know Tim. I live the Appalachian part of southwestern PA, and it’s going strongly for Obama already. Alot of them do not have health care, and their real pay goes down every year.
[]
Politics is a dirty game, and what I’ve found over the last several years is that the Republicans are better at it. They throw pandering bones to middle America while many on the Left come across as treating them with disdain (e.g. Red States, Flyover coountry, Jesusland, etc.)
Why on earth is it going to be a contest? The Democrats SHOULD win this fall 60/40.
But mark my words, I think it is going to be close, and Obama just may lose.
I liked the Speech
I think it did what had to happen to show that she is not some yahoo from Alaska.
As to Pro-Life the scenes last night were morepowerful than any words. In fact more so. There is no doubt that hse has a pro-life commiment. That was shown by the “gum chewing kid” also known as her daughters Fiance. I liked it. We are not going to hide this my daughter or her unborn baby or her Fianace under the couch. THis si wo we are. Refreshing
As for substance she did what she had to do. I am reading a whole much of things people wished she talked about but if she did that it would go on for two hours. It was already getting a tad longish.
I think the family will be a part of the scene so while there might be charges of expliotation I don’t think we are going to see Palin hire a nanny to take care of her special needs son. So the family will step up it appears and well I guess that means they will be in the scene. So I was not offended
It did what he had to do. For the first big outing I suspect they knew a lundry list of policy proposals would have people turning off the tv. Politics is theater and one has to grab the audience before getting the details of the plot often
I don’t know Tim. I live the Appalachian part of southwestern PA, and it’s going strongly for Obama already. Alot of them do not have health care, and their real pay goes down every year.
A lot of West Virginians are for Obama, despite the portrayal WV received in the media.
Tim feels he can speak for “middle america.” What about below-the-middle america?
I think it did what had to happen to show that she is not some yahoo from Alaska.
EXACTLY! She is one of the elite class, NOT someone “middle america” can identify with at all. She appeals to upper middle class and elites, giving the impression of “rural appeal,” which is complete joke. It shows the cynicism of the Republican party: their candidates often claim to be “one of us,” one with “rural america,” and then they protest when they are criticized for being “no one special,” a “yahoo from Alaska,” etc. They embrace a perverse form of class “solidarity” when it suits their interests, but it is absolutely false.
I live the Appalachian part of southwestern PA, and it’s going strongly for Obama already
Well, I live in the only state to have an increased poverty rate in the last year, the highest unemployment rate in the U.S., and the only state to undergo a recession (with a democrat in power of course) and I don’t see too much sentiment for Obama. Palin plays much better to blue collar middle class hard working, deer hunting, responsible people than people looking for handouts. Don’t underestimate how much “normal” people are impressed by her toughness opposed to Obama’s mile high attitude.
[Dislike it.]Thank you Stephen. You pegged the heart of the disappointment of my wife and I. We tuned in eagerly, looking forward to what was going to be said. Disappointed with the content, but surprised by her gravitas. Snarky sums it up.
She is one of the elite class, NOT someone “middle america” can identify with at all.
If Palin is one of the elite class, then every politician who is now living or who will ever live is also part of the “elite class.”
Michael, why do you think she’s one of the elite class?
The thing I like about both Palin and Obama is that neither are part of the elite class, whatever that is. Neither is a trust-fund baby, to say it another way. Neither comes froma storied political family.
[...] that she is absolutely committed to fostering a culture of life in the United States. I know that some people wish that she had said more about the issue of abortion (and other life issues), and I [...]
The thing I like about both Palin and Obama is that neither are part of the elite class, whatever that is. Neither is a trust-fund baby, to say it another way. Neither comes froma storied political family.
Family origins are one thing. Who a politician takes sides with once in office are another. Palin has not shown herself to have opted for the poor. If one of her disciples can show otherwise, that she has legitimately opted for the poor, please do. Otherwise, she is now part of the elite class.
I disliked the speech.
The “hockey-mom” rhetoric exposes her lack of experience and highlights the problems with the policies of the Bush administration, which the McCain-Palin ticket will continue. Where is the change that we’ve been waiting for? When will we recognize that the world does not begin and end with Iraq. We need to be willing to remain present in all issues of the person, regarding them in their fullness of dignity and their capacity for love. Where did Palin address essential issues like abortion? Where did she address the issues of same-sex relations? As I’m sure Morning’s Minion would confirm, we need to be addressing these issues. We need to ask the uncomfortable questions, questions about ensoulment and when a person is a person. Does personhood coincide with the ability to comprehend algebra? May we dispose of a being prior to the blossoming of their rationality? When will we recognize the gravity and beauty of relations between members of the same sex? These are questions we need to recognize and address, as the current Democratic platform does so eloquently.
[Liked the speech as noted below.]Michael,
Palin has not shown herself to have opted for the poor. If one of her disciples can show otherwise, that she has legitimately opted for the poor, please do. Otherwise, she is now part of the elite class.
either/or mentality much? How do you know she has not “opted for the poor?” Do you know what is best for poor people?
Define “opted for.” And define ahead of time what you would consider as “evidence” (as I’ve seen in many other threads, if you don’t want to believe something as evidence, you just ignore or dismiss it, so it would be helpful if you would pre-commit to accepting a certain category of actions as evidence here).
Whoops, that will likely get thrown into moderation. In an attempt to prevent this, let me say I liked the speech but would have like to have heard some explicit pro-life language. I would also have preferred fewer references to McCain’s war-hero status.
How do you know she has not “opted for the poor?”
Provide some evidence from her career that she puts the poor first.
Define “opted for.”
In her case, opting for the poor would mean placing the poor at the center of her policies and approach to government.
And define ahead of time what you would consider as “evidence”
Policy examples would be nice. This ain’t hard, S.B. Unless of course such evidence is lacking.
A few reactions:
LL: you don’t seem to know much about what a community organizer does. Often, it’s thankless fraustrayting work, such as persuading the city to remove asbestos from public housing. On the whole, it’s a noble endeavor. And he wrote one memoir not two (please don’t let Sarah Palin be a standard for truth-telling).
SB: On the bridge, TNR puts it best “Maybe I’ve missed something, but it sure looks like she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn’t forthcoming.”
And on energy, I did note it in the bullet point on policies.
Tim: Obama mentioned abortion in his speech. He talked about the need to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Imperfect sure, but at least he addressed the issue.
Palin is the kid of elementary school teachers. She made it on her own. To come from modest backgrounds and make it big, THAT is the American dream. THAT is why people come to this country. Of course Expatriate Michael would tax the crap out of them to ‘opt for the poor’ – and thereby making their condition worse. Maybe it’ because I’m not encumbered with Catholic thought, but what exactly is ‘opting for the poor’ supposed to mean ? LBJ’s “Great Society” ? Oopsies. Many a Catholic idealist involved in that disaster. The worst thing for any group is if the do-gooders start ‘taking care’ of them. I mean, it’s comfy for the Democrat Party to have a plantation err ghetto where they can make people believe they’re on their side and by virtue of crappy public schools keep them that ignorant. Who wouldn’t want to breed their own voters ? Brecht wrote, “The dumbest calves elect their own butchers.” (Die duemmsten Kaelber waehlen ihre Schlaechter selber)
And he wrote one memoir not two (please don’t let Sarah Palin be a standard for truth-telling).
Why not? She’s more accurate than you. As Reihan Salem observes:
Policy examples would be nice. This ain’t hard, S.B. Unless of course such evidence is lacking.
That’s not helpful at all. I was looking for specifics. Can you come up with any specific “policy examples” that you would, here and now, commit to viewing as evidence in Palin’s case?
Given the media crucifixion she and her family had been enduring over the last three days . . .
Lunchtime Legion,
What crucifixion??? There were scurrilous rumors on the Internet about Palin, but there are scurrilous rumors on the Internet about Obama. I read that the McCain campaign is indeed furious with the media, but not with anything that has been published, but rather with the probes that are going on behind the scenes. What did they expect, bringing a relative unknown on the scene with two months to go before the election? Did anyone honestly expect Palin and her family were not going to be thoroughly investigated?
McCain is engaging in the old political game of blaming the media, and it’s hogwash. (Remember he used to call the press his “base.”) It’s all a game that both sides play. We are all being manipulated, with all the stuff they throw at us being pre-tested on focus groups. The people we see doing analysis on television are spinning madly, not giving honest assessments (e.g., Peggy Noonan).
Michael,
In her case, opting for the poor would mean placing the poor at the center of her policies and approach to government.
More generally, can you provide an example of any policy which puts the poor “at the center”?
MM, back to your original claim:
She proudly claimed to have opposed the infamous “bridge to nowhere” in Ketchikan, but that is clearly not the case.
She originally supported it, yes, but later she flipped on the issue. That’s why the local newspaper referred to her “decision to pull the plug” on the bridge.
How many times have I heard Clinton or his supporters brag about balancing the budget in the late 1990s? Well, I remember back in 1995 when the major fight between Clinton and Gingrich was that Gingrich (and the Contract with America) wanted a balanced budget and Clinton wanted to push things off. Clinton finally agreed to a balanced budget plan. And then he took credit for it.
That’s politics. You get credit for the position that you ended up with.
[We're note hosting this debate. -M.Z. ]
Palin is the kid of elementary school teachers. She made it on her own. To come from modest backgrounds and make it big, THAT is the American dream. THAT is why people come to this country.
People come to the united states for all sorts of reasons.
Of course Expatriate Michael would tax the crap out of them to ‘opt for the poor’ – and thereby making their condition worse.
Oh would I? You just make this stuff up, don’t you?
Maybe it’ because I’m not encumbered with Catholic thought, but what exactly is ‘opting for the poor’ supposed to mean ?
“Unencumbered.” I like that. Nice way of saying ignorant and unopen to conversion.
The worst thing for any group is if the do-gooders start ‘taking care’ of them.
There is certainly some truth to that. Which is why Catholic social thought talks about solidarity rather than paternalism. There is a difference. But I would not expect the “unencumbered” to consider that distinction. You go by the republican playbook rather than the Church’s.
That’s not helpful at all. I was looking for specifics. Can you come up with any specific “policy examples” that you would, here and now, commit to viewing as evidence in Palin’s case?
The possibilities are endless. Let’s just see what you come up with. Just one example. Shouldn’t be too hard.
More generally, can you provide an example of any policy which puts the poor “at the center”?
Sure. In the united states, though, it’s certainly tough. Opposing the bombing of other countries is a good example. Another close to home example for me would be efforts to put a stop to mountaintop removal which destroys communities in the coal fields of southern West Virginia. Of course, our “good Catholic” (democrat!) governor has not opted for the poor yet and has done nothing on this issue. Concrete steps toward universal health care would be a third.
You seriously cannot think of examples? Does this say something about how central the principles of Catholic social thought are to your politics?
Gerald,
You mean to tell me that Socialism is instituionalized theft? Why can’t the government take your money and spend it the way they see fit, especially if it is for a cause that they deem as noble?
The way you talk you’d think that some people justify this theft and the benefits to themselves with some sort of distorted spirtual belief. Geeze!
What if “concrete steps toward universal health care” hurt the poor, rather than helped them? Can you imagine that as a possibility?
I’d also suggest this book, to start.
What if “concrete steps toward universal health care” hurt the poor, rather than helped them? Can you imagine that as a possibility?
Absolutely. Universal heath care can be organized in countless ways. Your capitalist health care commitments, though, have been an abysmal failure and have without doubt hurt the poor, in real life, not in some imagined one.
I’ll ask again: how has Sarah Palin opted for the poor in her political career? One example. Anyone?
Just a guess on this, but perhaps she left abortion out of her speech because her 7-yr-old daughter was there? I have not explained abortion to any of my kids yet because they are all too young. I don’t want to horrify them and give them nightmares. Perhaps she is protecting Piper from the cold harsh reality of abortion?
I personally took her direct statement to parents of kids with disabilities as a pledge against the push to abort our “imperfect” offspring. Yes, I’m reading between the lines. Maybe only a person who has faced pressure to abort a child because of his/her disability would have noticed. In that statement, though, she said what I had hoped everyone would say when I was pregnant with my youngest. (My own mother was leading the pressure to abort even before the tests were completed.)
Her plan to hand out debit cards to help Alaskans with their utility bills? From a local news story:
Sounds like just the sort of thing you’d like, but given that you haven’t pre-committed to viewing such a plan as “opting for the poor,” I’m betting that you’ll pull out all the stops to sneer at the plan. Increases global warming, perhaps.
I’m with Michael that it is how you implement the health care that will determine who it helps and how well. “Universal” and “for-profit” healthcare may not by nature be automatically good or bad. Devil in the details and all that. But the current healthcare system is not just hurting the poor in the United States. It is crippling the middle class, and landing many hard working families in bankruptcy.
All the while, I remember a sickening business report I heard last quarter. Some healthcare company with the name of something like Pediatrix reevaluated and downgraded their quarterly performance projections due to “lower customer demand for service.” So the stock dropped. This was BAD news. Lower customer demand for service meaning there were less sick kids in ICU! How disgusting is that?
OFF TOPIC, I know.
On second thought, for profit health care is by nature wrong. That is all. Still off topic.
S.B. – Provide the source? I’m intrigued. Let me pre-commit to considering that a great example.
I’ll ask again: how has Sarah Palin opted for the poor in her political i>career?
How has Barack Obama opted for the poor in his political career? One example. Anyone?
If he really wants to help the poor, he has MORE power to do so as a Senator then as President. Oh wait, he’s spent most of his Senatorial reign campaigning for the presidency.
I neither liked nor disliked Palin’s speech – it was effective for the intended audience I suppose (i.e., the hard-right contingent of the Republican coalition.) It probably was less effective with independent voters, but the next 8 weeks will tell the story, I suppose.
The generalizations about culture being made here are approaching caricature – take me, for example. I live in Berkeley, California, I’m for a constitutional amendment protecting all life from conception til natural death, have opposed the Iraq War as unjust since the beginning. Pro-Single-Payer-Healthcare, and an avid deer hunter. As a civil matter, I think gay people ought to have the rights of married people, including civil marriage. My favorite genre of “popcorn” movies is Westerns (I thought last year’s “3:10 to Yuma” was pretty great), but I also like art-house (Ozu, Antonioni, the French New Wave, the Italian Neo-Realists, etc.)
I drive a 5-year-old Toyota Corolla, and live in a studio apartment that is probably smaller than your car.
I’m appalled when anyone uses the term “flyover country” in a dismissive way to describe the regions of the country (and especially the people that live there) that Woody Guthrie sang such beautiful, touching songs about. I’m appalled that the term “Trailer Trash” is used so thoughtlessly in everyday discourse (I’ve heard Jay Leno use it, and get a big laugh as a result.) I think it’s a pretty serious sin to buy a home in an area because it advertises itself as being “exclusive.” I think money has too much power in Washington.
Michael,
I have no “commitment to capitalism”. I think the data shows that free markets have helped poor people more than any wealth redistribution program ever has.
Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
If it comes through, here’s the link: http://www.adn.com/politics/story/408969.html
Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
YES!
Kurt-Ummm Jesus wasnt a community organizer. He is the Son of God who became incarnate to free us from sin. He did namy things while on earth, including founding the Church, helping the poor, giving hope to the hopeless, and healing the sick, but we must not forget the fundemental reason he came was to save us from our sins. Praise God for that!
Mr. Iafrate, re: Mrs. Palin’s efforts to help her fellow Alaskans control their heating bills:
http://www.adn.com/front/story/442702.html
Please note the criticism of it as a “short sighted government hand out”
Also to add, equating anyone to Pintius Pilate is not a very charitable thing to do. Disagree with her if you want, but dont degrade people
I live in Tracy, California, a rural town about 50 miles from Matt Talbot. Sure, we live in a 3000 sq ft house, but it probably costs the same as a small condo in San Francisco. I’m against a constitutional amendment such as Matt is describing. I don’t think the Iraq War is unjust (it is unjust for Catholics though, I guess) but I do think it was probably unnecessary and in part very poorly executed. I want health care that’s tied to the person rather than the job. I own a hand gun but I’d feel bad shooting deer. Intruder, not so much. I am for gay marriage. I think ‘God’ has no place on the money, in court rooms or in the Pledge. I am for letting people keep most of their money. I am against grand redistribution and social engineering schemes. To me, Leftists are charlatans and thieves. At least the crazies on the Right don’t really impact my life. I used to read The Nation, then I read National Review religiously. I even had a religious phase – everyone’s entitled to one. Vox Nova pretty much caused me to get over that.
I drive a 1991 Honda Accord that I am currently pimping in my garage – $2000 stereo, new tires, rims, new trimmings, new Altezza lights front/tail etc. I just stripped it and am about to re-paint it. I decked it out with Red Sox merchandise. I also recently got a Honda Pilot. Honda’s never die, they just mature.
I grew up at the opera, philharmonic and theater. I also go to baseball and football games. I studied classical music and love me some good country music. I’ve seen every great conductor and orchestra, I’ve seen Jazz greats from Oscar Peterson to Gerry Mulligan and Sunny Rollins.
I like living in a safe neighborhood. Subdivisions may not be particularly original, but they allow for a neighborhood of people with similar backgrounds. I’d rather not have a crack house next door.
I oppose those the most that want to regulate me the most. I love the ease with which I could start my own business in the USA, which would have been impossible in Europe.
While the Right has some really annoying people, it’s the Left that is far more likely to be bad for my wife and I.
Zach,
Yes. There was so much shared wealth in America, before FDR came in and tinkered with the invisible hand of free markets.
Kurt beat me to it: that (excellent) line comes from Jonathan Martin.
Ummm Jesus wasnt a community organizer. He is the Son of God who became incarnate to free us from sin.
He was both.
Please note the criticism of it as a “short sighted government hand out”
I can sympathize with that critique. And if that critique is accurate, then it would undercut the claim that Sarah Palin has actually opted for the poor, now, wouldn’t it?
Re the post, I saw a comment on the American Scene that seems rather applicable:
Im thinkin that no state could survive having a preference for the poor. Can a man be president and have the mind of Christ. Nah, reckon not. Too much compromise.
She originally supported it, yes, but later she flipped on the issue. That’s why the local newspaper referred to her “decision to pull the plug” on the bridge.
S.B. and Morning’s Minion,
Neither of you does Palin justice on this issue!
Her exact words in her speech were as follows: “I told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks,’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.”
She was explaining exactly what happened. The first “thanks” was when she campaigned for and supported the bridge. Then she changed her mind and said, “But no thanks.”
“Thanks, but no thanks.” She was being utterly frank and upfront.
Every utterance in her speech, if properly interpreted, was scrupulously honest and blindingly true.
Now, she did keep the funds for the bridge and use them for other projects. But note in her speech she says she told Congress “no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere.” She didn’t say she told them no thanks for the money.
Jesus didn’t point to his record as community organizer as qualification for his later work.
I found it a little offensive that a baby who is only a few months old is being passed around like a trophy
Trust me, MM, young kids get passed around. A lot. Not because they aren’t loved (or for show), but precisely because they *are* loved. And because family members like to give one another a break now and then.
You know what I’ve noticed – and it has only intensified after her speech – the issue of a woman with children being somehow precluded from the job. Oh, nobody has come out and said that, but there are media people, pundits, bloggers, and commentators (all on the Left of course) who are saying – for the first time in my adult life – that asking if a woman with children can do a job, solely because she is a woman with children, is a fair question. A week ago, if you had told me someone would have said that, I would have laughed. But now, over night, it is OK to at least imagine that a woman – who is the natural nurturer I’ve heard – might need to be given a second look. What occurs to me is the ease with which yesterday’s God-given right for all people is now a qualified right. Oh, it’s just a baby step. But what a step. Last week, women were equal to men, gender meant nothing, full equality, break down the last barriers. Today, almost that. But with the first qualifier I’ve heard in my adult life. And all for political expediency. And all the more that Palin didn’t implode during her speech, but did everything Biden did – and better. I always imagined that while freedom is always in danger, that in the US it would take some massive cataclysm to erase the rights we have. No more. If the party and the ideology that has championed these rights, suddenly announces these rights we can taketh away, and can do it without flinching, what does it say about the rest?
daffey,
To the best of my knowledge, the only controversy at the moment is over John Roberts on CNN, who didn’t raise the issue of whether Palin could do the job because she has a special-needs child. He raised the issue of how much time she would be able to spend with her special-needs child if she took the job. It’s a very different question, and I am guessing you find it offensive, but isn’t one of the major themes of Catholicism the special role of woman as mother (and man as provider)?
Last week, women were equal to men, gender meant nothing, full equality, break down the last barriers.
This is not the position of the Catholic Church, and it certainly doesn’t reflect reality.
Kurt, I think it’s only right that you attribute that quote from the dailykos website, or are you the reader that sent it to kos?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/4/162029/0439/39/586772
What I liked about the speech.
1. It is good to see a woman who is strong, feminine, and joyful, in contrast to just about every bitter, angry, cold, scowling and complaining Democrat feminist.
2. She stuck it to Obama where he deserves it. Republicans need to pound him on his elitist Messiah complex, and his complete lack of accomplishment. The “two memoir” comment was devastating.
What I did not like about the speech.
1. She did not mention abortion. After Obama came out with his pro-death advertisement, she had a perfect opportunity to make the contrast, especially with her own personal circumstances with a Downs child and her daughter’s pregnancy. It was on a silver platter and my guess is, the McCain handlers said, “No, abortion is too divisive”. That was very disappointing, especially given that she followed the pro-death, pro-homo marriage Gulianni.
As far as detailed policy, this was not the venue for that. This was her public introduction. This was to tell us more about who she is. We will hear the policy stuff in the Biden debate. (Poor guy, he does not stand a chance.)
Mrs. Palin is indeed a breath of fresh air. She certainly will not win over the angry Hillary supporters but she will energize those Republicans that were ready to just stay home, as well as the important “undecided” middle. They are the key to every election. You have to have your base and then get the majority of those in the middle. Do that and you win. However, the Republicans will indeed need specific proposals with how to address the economy and healthcare in order to get the undecideds. Mrs. Palin by herself will not be enough.
Oh, I’m sorry MM. I did not realize that comment originated from Jonathan Martin. I just read it today at the dailykos. As Emily Latilla used to say, “Nevermind.”
his elitist Messiah complex, and his complete lack of accomplishment.
Obama was raised by a single mother, is black, and went to college on scholarships. Cindy McCain wore an outfit and accessories that literally cost more than the average American home…but Obama’s the elitist. Got it.
Elitism has nothing to do with how expensive one’s clothes are. It is about one’s attitude towards others. I have met plenty of poor, liberal elitists. Her skewering Obama on his two-faced comments ala Scranton vs. San Francisco was accurate and justified.
Yes, I will certainly agree that it is commendable that Mr. Obama was able to complete his education. However, that is actually quite common and is not what one is looking for when talking about the Presidency.
At least Palin is not swimming in the blood of 40,000,000 children murdered by their mothers as Obama and Biden are. They are complicit in the worst human atrocity in all history.
They should fear judgment day.
I loved the speech. No other comments because I’m sure they’ll be deemed inappropriate.
At least Palin is not swimming in the blood of 40,000,000 children murdered by their mothers as Obama and Biden are. They are complicit in the worst human atrocity in all history.
Obama is responsible for forty million abortions? Where did you get that figure? NRLC?
They should fear judgment day.
As should you, Father. The flag decal won’t get you into heaven.
David Nickol,
Didn’t say it was a Catholic thing. And it isn’t just that one instant. It has been discussed now for days. And women – women – on the Left are suggesting that it’s a fair question. My problem isn’t if it’s realistic, or Catholic. It’s that this is about as sacred of truth in modern America – that a woman should never be hindered for any reason to do with being a woman – as there is. And now bang! In the blink of an eye, it’s changed. And the media is entertaining the question. No, it isn’t a huge thing. It’s just a chink really. But it’sa chink nontheless. And I know if’s for political expediency. But it shows that, from the POV of at least some on the left, our equality, rights, and freedoms are not unconditional. Now, at least for some, a step has been taken backward for women’s rights. And that must give one reason to pause.
I don’t think I can take seriously the opinion that the Palin speech was a complete failure. I can accept disagreement with Palin’s political positions. For some reason the selection of Sarah Palin has caused many otherwise intelligent people to react in a hostile and irrational manner. Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg are questioning whether it’s appropriate for a mother to seek the Vice Presidency, Peggy Noonan and David Gergen are grimacing that McCain picked someone off their radar screen. Us magazine … well there is an example of complete lunacy. Why can’t the media and the pundits discuss her experience and politics in a rational manner? The speech was effective and solidly refuted the ubiquitous but baseless charges that she is a provincial light weight. How can you dispute that? She wasn’t there to lay out detailed policy positions. Let’s get over the petty and personal hostility and have a rational discussion of the issues. Please don’t suggest that Mitt Romney, Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, Condi Rice or Tim Pawlenty would have given better speeches. (Colin Powell, maybe). By the way picking Palin was a vintage John McCain move. I hear he’s a maverick.
“At least Palin is not swimming in the blood of 40,000,000 children murdered by their mothers”
Swimming? Sarah Palin is doing the backstroke in it. In her ENTIRE political career — ENTIRE — she has not achieved ONE protection of the unborn. ZERO, NADA, NONE (as one of her Catholic friends says). AN ENTIRE political career and not a single achievement for the unborn to defend them against their murdering mothers. TALK: A; ACHIEVEMENT: F.
Paul Krugman gets exactly what the Republicans are selling with Palin: Nixonian angry resentment: (NYT, 9/5)
“What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of resentment; you’re supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite that thinks it’s better than you. Or to put it another way, the G.O.P. is still the party of Nixon.
One of the key insights in “Nixonland,” the new book by the historian Rick Perlstein, is that Nixon’s political strategy throughout his career was inspired by his college experience, in which he got himself elected student body president by exploiting his classmates’ resentment against the Franklins, the school’s elite social club. There’s a direct line from that student election to Spiro Agnew’s attacks on the “nattering nabobs of negativism” as “an effete corps of impudent snobs,” and from there to the peculiar cult of personality that not long ago surrounded George W. Bush — a cult that celebrated his anti-intellectualism and made much of the supposed fact that the “misunderestimated” C-average student had proved himself smarter than all the fancy-pants experts.
And when Mr. Bush turned out not to be that smart after all, and his presidency crashed and burned, the angry right — the raging rajas of resentment? — became, if anything, even angrier. Humiliation will do that.
Can Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin really ride Nixonian resentment into an upset election victory in what should be an overwhelmingly Democratic year? The answer is a definite maybe.
By selecting Barack Obama as their nominee, the Democrats may have given Republicans an opening: the very qualities that inspire many fervent Obama supporters — the candidate’s high-flown eloquence, his coolness factor — have also laid him open to a Nixonian backlash. Unlike many observers, I wasn’t surprised at the effectiveness of the McCain “celebrity” ad. It didn’t make much sense intellectually, but it skillfully exploited the resentment some voters feel toward Mr. Obama’s star quality.
That said, the experience of the years since 2000 — the memory of what happened to working Americans when faux-populist Republicans controlled the government — is still fairly fresh in voters’ minds. Furthermore, while Democrats’ supposed contempt for ordinary people is mainly a figment of Republican imagination, the G.O.P. really is the Gramm Old Party — it really does believe that the economy is just fine, and the fact that most Americans disagree just shows that we’re a nation of whiners.
But the Democrats can’t afford to be complacent. Resentment, no matter how contrived, is a powerful force, and it’s one that Republicans are very, very good at exploiting. “
Sen. Obama considers this a viable solution for his daughter should she be impregnated, lest she be punished with a baby. We (brothers of Jesus Christ) cannot support this man, nor can he be considered the lesser of two evils (not that I’m calling the man Obama evil).
The Partial Birth Abortion Procedure
Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps.
The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole…
The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
Don’t vote for Obama.
I loved the speech. Witty with near flawless delivery. Same goes for Giuliani’s speech. Can’t say the same for the others. Thompson was decent. Romney was terrible. McCain was dull as was expected.
“The tactic is the same: run on character, not policy. Portray your blue-collar persona as somehow more virtuous than your educated and nuanced opponent. Mock mercilessly. Fire up the base. Nothing new here, not in tactics, not in policies. It’s Bush all over again, but with a feminine charm. Tell me again why this was supposed to have been a good speech?”
She mocked mercilessly and fired up the base.
I think you miss the point of these conventions. Policy is for interviews and debates. Conventions are intended to draw votes.
Her speech and Giuliani’s were vicious lies from start to finish. The Republicans will destroy America. No decent human being will vote for McCain. If you do, you serve Satan.
As for Palin’s speech, there’s a commenter at The American Scene who has been right on. As for the supposed lack of “policy”:
And she answers the claim that Palin’s religion is somehow a frightening thing:
Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.
YES!
To which Jim Treacher responded:
Policy is for interviews and debates. Conventions are intended to draw votes.
Too bad she won’t participate in interviews or debates.
September 7, 2008
FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK — Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has agreed to sit down with ABC’s Charles Gibson later this week for her first television interview since John McCain chose her as his running mate more than a week ago.
Em, we’re talking full press conferences, not a softball interview.
The McCain campaign manager addressed this question on (I think) the ABC network news today. To paraphrase, he stated that she would be available soon for interviews and that the delay had to do with concerns re: the media. Given what I have already seen and read, I think this caution is warranted.
I saw a TV interview( not press conference) with John McCain the other day where the interview was conducted almost as an interrogation re: his VP choice. Since Palin hasn’t been exposed to the national media, it seems reasonable to proceed with caution and to set some guidelines.
BTW, how soon into his candidacy did Obama do a full press conference?
I saw a TV interview( not press conference) with John McCain the other day where the interview was conducted almost as an interrogation re: his VP choice. Since Palin hasn’t been exposed to the national media, it seems reasonable to proceed with caution and to set some guidelines.
McCain should be interrogated about the VP choice and about all of his views, as does Obama. The “cautionary” approach is complete B.S.
Just as Obama was interrogated regarding his long time associations with Rev. Wright?
Just as Obama was interrogated regarding the meeting his campaign had with the Canadian gov’t. contact re: NAFTA (to contradict what he was saying publically)?
Just as Obama was interrogated regarding his associations with convicted felon Tony Rezco and former terrorist Willam Ayers?
He is treated with kid gloves.
I don’t expect Charlie Gibson to lob softball questions at Palin. We’ll see. Nevertheless there has never been a greater recipient of softball coverage from the press to my knowledge than Barrack Obama. Just ask a Hillary Clinton supporter, or a writer at Saturday Night Live. Also one can not reasonably suggest that the treatment Sarah Palin has gotten from the press is based on an unbiased search for the truth regarding issues relevant to her candidacy. She certainly ought to be cautious based on the treatment she and her family have received so far from the press.
As a performance, the speech was on par with the best of any high school pep rally or in the case of older voters, buffoonery before a hypocritical captive audience.
Void of content on goals, slyly appealing to the baser elements of humanity with innuendos and lies (or as one might say, playing fast and loose with the facts and truth), and discrediting substance and value of a measured approach.
The only memorable lines I recall from this speech last week was that she felt for those with parents with children having special needs and that she’d be their voice in the White House. As a full-time parent of children that didn’t even require the special care of a child with trisomy 21, I would have to say that all children have special needs, and we have had enough of one education president.