Palin's Speech: What do you think?

[_dartagnan]

A few reasons I will vote Democratic this election are because I believe Obama is an excellent leader

Why, because he can talk the talk? He's a Mr. Ripley, who is able to convince anyone he can be anything. But what has he actually done? Reasonable minds will require some kind of record to go along with all the talk. He's been on the fast track to success because he is black; everyone knows he would not be the candidate if he were white. He relies too much on the black vote. Nearly every black person I know with praises him and they can't tell me why, other than the fact that they don't like an old rich white dude. Oh, and their certain that they will be rewarded by electing one of their own; financially of course. Beefing up the same broken welfare system is on his list of things to do.

I like his values

Like stealing from the rich and giving to the poor and running our government into the ground through meaningless social programs? He doesn't want to drill for more oil because that would piss off the tree huggers. Instead he wants to create this federally operated system, hiring "five million workers" (federally funded mind you), who will in some mysterious way do some kind of "work" that will enable us to replace our dependency on, not just foreign oil, but oil altogether! How? He doesn't know. But doesn't it sound nice? Just throwing money at something and tagging an idea to it doesn't sound like a reasonable plan to me.

I like his ability to be reasonable.

Like what? His absolutely stupid remarks about flat tires and Georgia's culpability in being invaed by Russia?

I like that he doesn't pull scare tactics like we heard at the RNC

What planet are you on? He pulls the usual crap from the liberal hand basket, scaring people into thinking they won't have social security, etc. Didn't you listen to Biden's speech? People are wondering if their Dad should move in with them because of Bush! I didn't hear any "scare tactics" at the RNC. I just read Biden's acceptance speech and I was amazed how many times he mentioned John McCain and attacked him, yet at the same time democrats have the audacity to complain about Palin attacking Obama's comments and ideas.

I loved Obama's statement at the recent forum where he noted that just waving a flag and calling ourselves good doesn't make it so, and that great evil has been committed in the name of righteousness.

As if we didn't already know that. If these are the kinds of common sensical slogans that you need to feel inspired, then have at it.

On a smaller scale I like that he saw right through Mr. McCain's and Hillary's political gimmick of the gas tax holiday which was clearly geared to please the ignorant; he spoke his mind on it when it didn't seem politically helpful to do so.

He speaks his mind too often, which is why he makes so many stupid remarks. But I don't expect his supporters to be very worried about those instances. As long as he belittles religious folk and accuses everyone else of putting down black America, he's our man!

For me it's not that McCain is a bad guy, for me it's that a global economy and a drastically changing world require something more fresh that I don't see coming from McCain.

Expect him to stick to economic conservatism of course, which is hardly the reason the economy has been struggling over the years (ever hear of this thing called the Iraq war?). The economy is not doing nearly as badly as liberals would like us to believe either. Last week U.S. gross domestic product grew by 3.3% in the second quarter - much more than previously stated. Economists say the economic stimulus package contributed to the rise.

Expect Obama to stick to the liberal philosophy as did Carter.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I loved Obama's statement at the recent forum where he noted that just waving a flag and calling ourselves good doesn't make it so, and that great evil has been committed in the name of righteousness.

As if we didn't already know that. If these are the kinds of common sensical slogans that you need to feel inspired, then have at it.

Quickly, before I decide to respond to anything else, (by the way, I really dislike your tone) the RNC speeches I heard were actually criticizing Obama's comments that evil has been done in the name of good. They thought that was massively weak, the sort of attitude that doesn't shoot first and ask questions later. George Bush himself said that America needs to continue to be on the offense. Sorry, but I don't buy it. They can mock attempts at more peaceful negotiations but they do so at their own peril, and they also forfeit any moral high ground they once thought they had.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

On a smaller scale I like that he saw right through Mr. McCain's and Hillary's political gimmick of the gas tax holiday which was clearly geared to please the ignorant; he spoke his mind on it when it didn't seem politically helpful to do so.

He speaks his mind too often, which is why he makes so many stupid remarks. But I don't expect his supporters to be very worried about those instances. As long as he belittles religious folk and accuses everyone else of putting down black America, he's our man!

This response completely sidesteps my point. This is the typical misdirection I see every single night on Fox News. (For the 20 minutes I can stomach it.) Belittles religious folk? There's something you guys have in common! (Except Obama doesn't typically do it at all.) It also seems as though you missed all the criticism from the "right" about Obama himself supposedly putting down black America.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

(ever hear of this thing called the Iraq war?).

Yeah, you mean the one John McCain fully supported from the get-go? Yeah I've heard of it.

The economy is not doing nearly as badly as liberals would like us to believe either. Last week U.S. gross domestic product grew by 3.3% in the second quarter - much more than previously stated. Economists say the economic stimulus package contributed to the rise.

Didn't both candidates support said package?

[_beastie]

Rove praises Palin's experience here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... e-rnc.html

Funny, just 3 weeks ago, he made these comments about Tim Kaine as a possible VP candidate:

NEW YORK Surely, the many months of John McCain charging Barack Obama with not being ready to be president will likely gain wide play on editorial pages on Saturday, following his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. But there's also the matter of GOP leaders previously mocking Obama for even considering less-than-fully-experienced candidates for vice president.

Appearing on CBS's Face the Nation less than three weeks ago, for example, Republican strategist Karl Rove singled out Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who was on Obama's short list.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. Palin has been governor -- of a much, much smaller state -- for less than two years.

Rove also said: "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America." Palin was formerly mayor of a town that must be ranked about 15,000th biggest in America.

He added, "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with -- is this person capable of being president of the United States?'"

CBS News summarized Rove's other statements as follows:

"He expects presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama to choose a running mate based on political calculations, not the person's readiness for the job.

"'I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice,' Rove said. 'He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president.'"

But USA Today notes this afternoon in the lead to its Palin story, McCain chose her primarily to go after women and possibly disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters -- not the "responsibilities of president."

[_EAllusion]

FactCheckingPalin

The earmarking issue and the bridge to nowhere in particular bother the heck out of me. First, because they are blatant lies that they were already caught on but are choosing to repeat anyway. Apparently their balls are carved out of granite. Second, because that is one of the chief selling points to EA the libertarian and it makes me feel betrayed. She's literally the opposite of how she is billed on this front.

Palin's recent partial reeling in of earmarks is motivated specifically by an effort to comply with a changing attitude in the federal government in order to make appreciation requests still seem credible and thus maximize them. Here's her saying it herself in this op-ed in March:

http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/ ... -straight/

I feel compelled to respond to your gross mischaracterization (March 2, "Earful of Earmarks") of my position on congressional earmarks.

I am not among those who have said "earmarks are nothing more than pork projects being shoveled home by an overeager congressional delegation." I recognize that Congress, which exercises the power of the purse, has the constitutional responsibility to put its mark on the federal budget, including adding funds that the president has not proposed.

Accordingly, my administration has recommended funding for specific projects and programs when there is an important federal purpose and strong citizen support.

This year, we have requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new requests. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from approximately $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.

I believe this represents a responsible approach to the changing situation in Congress. Some misinterpret this as criticism of our congressional delegation.

In fact, it responds to messages from the Congressional delegation and the Bush administration. They have told us that the number of earmarks in the federal budget will be reduced and that there must be a strong federal purpose underlying each request.

We have also heard that, wherever possible, earmark requests must be accompanied by a state or local match. So, there are state budget consequences that must be considered as well when we ask for federal help.

There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy between my previous statements concerning earmarks and the recommendations my administration made to the delegation on Feb. 15. Specifically, I said earlier that the state would submit no more than 12 new requests, excluding earmarks for ongoing projects and the Alaska National Guard. Our recommendations are consistent with my previous comments and recognize the new budgetary realities in D.C.

Further, I applaud the delegation's decision to post all earmark requests. Posting, along with other reforms, will help insure the open and transparent public process that good government demands.

Regarding your comments concerning earmarks requested by local governments and other Alaska entities, I have never sought to impose my views on their activities. In fact, my D.C. office meets with dozens of local governments and others requesting earmarks and this interaction has always been cooperative and cordial.

Each entity must interpret the new realities in D.C. for itself. The final decisions about which earmark requests to pursue are made by the congressional delegation as our representatives in Congress.

My role at the federal level is simply to submit the most well-conceived earmark requests we can. Of course, since the congressional delegation has told us that they expect state or local matches, requests submitted by others may have implications for the Alaska Legislature as well.

As I have said previously, we can either respond to the changing circumstances in Congress or stick our heads in the sand. For better or worse, earmarks, which represent only about 1 percent of the federal budget, have become a symbol for budgetary discussions in general.

Unfortunately, Alaska has been featured prominently in the debate about reform. By recognizing the necessity for change, we can enhance the state's credibility in the appropriations process and in other areas of federal policy.

One of my goals as governor is making Alaska as self-sufficient as possible. Among other things, that means the ability to develop our natural resources in a responsible manner.

However, I am also mindful of the role that the federal government plays in our state. The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship.

[/quote]

Prior to that shift in policy, she was Earmarkey McPorknstuff. There is ample, ample documentation that she was a tireless and rather egregious crusader for federal pork. The stories on this are making their rounds, but my personal favorite is this document:

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/wp ... ribble.jpg

For some context, that's her handwriting.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/43 ... n-earmarks

Yay!

[_beastie]

The earmarking issue and the bridge to nowhere in particular bother the heck out of me. First, because they are blatant lies that they were already caught on but are choosing to repeat anyway. Apparently their balls are carved out of granite. Second, because that is one of the chief selling points to EA the libertarian and it makes me feel betrayed. She's literally the opposite of how she is billed on this front.

They really remind me of Mormon apologists. LDS apologists frequently make assertions that delight their "base" and affirm the faith. However, these assertions only delight and affirm faith if they go unscrutinized. The claims often fall apart under scrutiny. Certainly apologists are intelligent enough to recognize that some people will actually scrutinize and investigate their claims, and will be disillusioned. However, they also know that there is a significant "base" who will accept any and everything they are told without bothering to do some background investigation (like your recent example with dart and the off shore drilling). They rely solely on biased sources for their information, so there is no reason to fear that these people will hear the "other" information.

It is very disheartening to me. I'm sure democrats do it, as well, I just notice it less because I agree with most (not all) of their points. Human beings just are not very trustworthy, and we tend to be easily blinded by bias. Add to that a good dollop of intellectual laziness, and sometimes it feels like we're all doomed to repeat the same dumb cluck mistakes over and over and over and over and over... kinda' like history.

[_EAllusion]

Hey Beastie, what did you think about the shot on community organizers? It came up more than once. I find it baffling. I wrote about it a lot, but I guess these two quotes sum up my confusion:

Any theory as to why mocking Obama's experience as a community organizer were such huge applause lines? It's just odd to me. Is it because that is viewed as something affluent liberals do? Do they see it as ineffectual, useless work? Is it because that has a strong association with helping organize blacks? I'm baffled.

My girlfriend is a community organizer in addition to her normal job. I've volunteered for community organizations on and off since I was a teenager. It's hard, responsibility filled work.

The contempt for community organizers displayed struck me as perplexing more than anything else. These people are supposed to like volunteer organizations that uplift the downtrodden. Churches generally are heavy into community organization. It's what they often advocate instead of social welfare. It's not the line that gets me so much as the crowd going insane over it. It's like they're a parody of themselves.

What Obama did in his 20's, when Palin was not mayor, was head what could otherwise be described as a faith-based charity. And mocking it got crazy applause. Why? I know the main theory running is that the term is being used as a dogwhistle for ghetto activist, but I'm not sure I buy that. Thoughts?

[_beastie]

I do think the disdain is due to the population he was focused on - minorities, the poor - you know, people who are often more inclined to vote democratic.

But it would probably help to get an EV viewpoint on that. I suspect that lens is the only lens that would truly "get" Palin. But I may be wrong. It's got to be something, though, to be such an applause line. I'm sure older dixiecrats, who now are republicans, view social activism as the sort of rabble rousing they opposed during the civil rights movement.

Speaking of which, it's hard to believe someone was finally stupid enough to actually use the term "uppity". We all know that's the subtext, but this fool actually used it:

"Just from what little I've seen of her and Mister Obama, Senator Obama, they're a member of an elitist class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

When a reporter sought clarification on the racially loaded word, Westmoreland replied, "Uppity, yeah."

Uppity

Of course, he's the same fool that was on Colbert:

Westmoreland briefly gained some national attention when he sponsored legislation to post the Ten Commandments in the House and Senate chambers. Asked by Stephen Colbert in 2006 to name all ten, Westmoreland stumbled. "Um, don't murder, don't lie, don't steal," he offered, before confessing, "I can't name them."

[_Bond James Bond]

I wonder how many of them even could follow the point, and just cheered because they figured she was taking a shot at Obama.

I also wonder how many there would cheer anything, including her belching the Star Spangled Banner or doing the William Tell overture on her armpit [alright, that'd be awesome].

And that goes on the Democratic side too, professional cheererers[sp?] who know that if they put their hands together and make sound they'll get a treat later on. Of course they're probably robots. That'd be pretty badass as well.