September 03, 2008
Palin's Speech and Noonan's Odds
Palin’s speech was delivered as well as it possibly could have been. But, it wasn’t written by her, and one has to wonder if she even understood the fallacious allusions and logical holes in her statements big enough to rival the Grand Canyon. Perhaps Noonan and Murphy knew what was coming when on an open microphone, they said the McCain ticket is dead, or words to that effect.
Palin apparently believes she has never fought for the American people. She said John McCain is the only candidate in this race who has fought for the American people. If Obama's work on the South side of Chicago for paltry pay despite his law degree capable of fetching vastly greater sums, was not fighting for American people, then who does Palin think those South Chicagoans were: Borneo Aboriginals? Perhaps! But, her statement also logically means she herself has never fought for the Americans in Alaska with public service.
She said Obama and Biden have no energy plan. Apparently she has a hearing problem too! Obama's speech was quite specific about plans for alternative energy, and expansion of drilling as an interim measure. But, the more likely explanation is that she never listened to Obama's speech and therefore didn't realize what a foolish line her speech writers had handed her to deliver.
After raising taxes on oil companies in Alaska, she had temerity to accuse Obama of planning to raise taxes on the oil industry. Apparently raising taxes on oil companies is not a bad thing when she does it as Governor, but an abomination if a Democrat proposes the option.
It was appropriate for her to spend half the speech talking about herself, because 90% of America haven't a clue who she is. But, when she delivered that line about her being advocate for parents with children with disabilities, did she really expect people to believe that she would advocate for the rest of Americans with special needs children receiving the same tax paid health care her Down's syndrome child will receive if she is Vice President? Get real! She will accept it for herself, but, she will not advocate for it for her fellow Americans. Tax payer subsidized health care is something she is opposed to for the rest of Americans.
There are many, many other illogical allusions in her speech, and I am quite confident Sen. Biden will address many of them in his debate with Gov. Palin.
She delivered the handler crafted speech very, very well. She is quite capable of reaching out to Republicans with emotion based references to POW status as qualification for President, and how having been tortured affords the credentials to become the leader of a nation, and how crafting a reform law like McCain-Feingold is a what? A good thing? A bad thing? Republicans hate the McCain Feingold law. So why was she touting McCain's only claim to reform legislation as a justification for McCain's presidency? Confusing is what it was, unless one was simply seeking emotional stimulation from the rhetoric devoid of any critical analysis or logical assessment.
The Peggy Noonan open microphone gaffe has achieved 450,000 hits on You Tube in just over 6 hours. I haven't found much use for Peggy Noonan's take on things for many years now, since she avidly supported the worst president in the last century named George W. Bush. So, I can't claim I trust her assessment that the McCain ticket is dead in the water with the Palin choice for VP.
Here is what was said on the open microphone while unaware the microphone was open:
Chuck Todd: Mike Murphy, lots of free advice, we'll see if Steve Schmidt and the boys were watching. We'll find out on your blackberry. Tonight voters will get their chance to hear from Sarah Palin and she will get the chance to show voters she's the right woman for the job Up next, one man who's already convinced and he'll us why Gov. Jon Huntsman.(cut away)
Peggy Noonan: Yeah.
Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --
PN: It's over.
MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.
CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.
PN: Saw Kay this morning.
CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --
MM: They're all bummed out.
CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?
PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --
CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.
MM: I totally agree.
PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.
MM: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.
CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.
MM: Yeah.
Here is a link to Noonan's response and explanation of what was said on the open mic, after the fact and in response to other's take on it.
This was of course, after Noonan published a very different commentary in the Wall Street Journal earlier today:
The choice of Sarah Palin IS a Hail Mary pass, the pass the guy who thinks he has a good arm makes to the receiver he hopes is gifted.Most Hail Mary passes don't work.
But when they do they're a thing of beauty and a joy forever.
***
Gut: The Sarah Palin choice is really going to work, or really not going to work. It's not going to be a little successful or a little not; it's not going to be a wash. She is either going to be magic or one of history's accidents. She is either going to be brilliant and groundbreaking, or will soon be the target of unattributed quotes by bitter staffers shifting blame in all the Making of the President 2008 books. Of which there should be plenty, as we've never had a year like this, with the fabulous freak of a campaign.
More immediately and seriously on Palin:
Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.
She could become a transformative political presence.
As if putting both feet in her mouth weren't enough, she has another post open mic commentary about the open mic commentary which reads:
Peggy Noonan offers a mea culpa after the fact. She says her on-air words were misconstrued. She now says that WSJ editors have allowed her to amend her post and change the headline to "Open Mic Night at MSNBC." The new top portion of the post reads:Well, I just got mugged by the nature of modern media, and I wish it weren't my fault, but it is. Readers deserve an explanation, so I'm putting a new top on today's column and, with the forbearance of the Journal, here it is.
Wednesday afternoon, in a live MSNBC television panel hosted by NBC's political analyst Chuck Todd, and along with Republican strategist Mike Murphy, we discussed Sarah Palin's speech this evening to the Republican National Convention. I said she has to tell us in her speech who she is, what she believes, and why she's here. We spoke of Republican charges that the media has been unfair to Mrs. Palin, and I defended the view that while the media should investigate every quote and vote she's made, and look deeply into her career, it has been unjust in its treatment of her family circumstances, and deserved criticism for this.
When the segment was over and MSNBC was in commercial, Todd, Murphy and I continued our conversation, talking about the Palin choice overall. We were speaking informally, with some passion -- and into live mics. An audio tape of that conversation was sent, how or by whom I don't know, onto the internet. And within three hours I was receiving it from friends far and wide, asking me why I thought the McCain campaign is "over", as it says in the transcript of the conversation. Here I must plead some confusion. In our off-air conversation, I got on the subject of the leaders of the Republican party assuming, now, that whatever the base of the Republican party thinks is what America thinks. I made the case that this is no longer true, that party leaders seem to me stuck in the assumptions of 1988 and 1994, the assumptions that reigned when they were young and coming up. "The first lesson they learned is the one they remember," I said to Todd -- and I'm pretty certain that is a direct quote. But, I argued, that's over, those assumptions are yesterday, the party can no longer assume that its base is utterly in line with the thinking of the American people. And when I said, "It's over!" -- and I said it more than once -- that is what I was referring to. I am pretty certain that is exactly what Todd and Murphy understood I was referring to. In the truncated version of the conversation, on the Web, it appears I am saying the McCain campaign is over. I did not say it, and do not think it. In fact, at an on-the-record press symposium on the campaign on Monday, when all of those on the panel were pressed to predict who would win, I said that I didn't know, but that we just might find "This IS a country for old men." That is, McCain may well win. I do not think the campaign is over, I do not think this is settled, and did not suggest, back to the Todd-Murphy conversation, that "It's over."
However, I did say two things that I haven't said in public, either in speaking or in my writing. One is a vulgar epithet that I wish I could blame on the mood of the moment but cannot. No one else, to my memory, swore. I just blurted. The other, more seriously, is a real criticism that I had not previously made, but only because I hadn't thought of it. And it is connected to a thought I had this morning, Wednesday morning, and wrote to a friend. Here it is. Early this morning I saw Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and as we chatted about the McCain campaign (she thoughtfully and supportively) I looked into her eyes and thought, Why not her? Had she been vetted for the vice presidency, and how did it come about that it was the less experienced Mrs. Palin who was chosen? I didn't ask these questions or mention them, I just thought them. Later in the morning, still pondering this, I thought of something that had happened exactly 20 years before. It was just after the 1988 Republican convention ended. I was on the plane, as a speechwriter, that took Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush, and the new vice presidential nominee, Dan Quayle, from New Orleans, the site of the convention, to Indiana. Sitting next to Mr. Quayle was the other senator from that state, Richard Lugar. As we chatted, I thought, "Why him and not him?" Why Mr. Quayle as the choice, and not the more experienced Mr. Lugar? I came to think, in following years, that some of the reason came down to what is now called The Narrative. The story the campaign wishes to tell about itself, and communicate to others. I don't like the idea of The Narrative. I think it is ... a barnyard epithet. And, oddly enough, it is something that Republicans are not very good at, because it's not where they live, it's not what they're about, it's too fancy. To the extent the McCain campaign was thinking in these terms, I don't like that either. I do like Mrs. Palin, because I like the things she espouses. And because, frankly, I met her once and liked her. I suspect, as I say further in here, that her candidacy will be either dramatically successful or a dramatically not; it won't be something in between.
But, bottom line, I am certainly sorry I blurted my barnyard ephithet, I am certainly sorry that someone abused my meaning in the use of the words, "It's over", and I'm sorry I didn't have the Kay Baily Hutchison thought before this morning, because I could have written of it. There. Now: onto today's column.
So, Peggy and Sarah, tell us now what you really think?
Posted by David R. Remer at September 3, 2008 11:41 PMUm, who cares what Peggy Noonan thinks? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
The reason this is interesting is that it was secretly picked up, but if the same stuff were said openly, who gives a care? She’s another Washington insider. It just so happens that she’s an old school Republican insider, but an insider just the same. Palin is an outsider turning over the apple cart. I’m glad that old Washington cocktail hostesses like Noonan don’t care for her. Palin wouldn’t want to go to her stupid fancy parties anyway. Palin is the real deal. Go Sarah!
Posted by: Liam at September 4, 2008 12:30 AMLiam, its news. WB does political news as well as other political topics. Why write two articles when they knit together nicely demonstrating what a sham it all is lacking in integrity and full of hypocrisy?
Palin’s opposition to social spending on Americans in need while perfectly willing to accept quality health care for herself and family on the taxpayer’s dollars, ties in nicely with Noonan’s public statements regarding the Excellent McCain/Palin ticket while all the while thinking the ticket is doomed because of Palin.
Has a certain balance to it, don’t you think?
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 12:50 AMI should think that the gov and her family have quality tax payer funded health care because she is a state employee. Or maybe they get it through her husband’s work? Do you actually know or are you just talkin?’ Has she said she wants to cut off state employee health benefits or are you talking about haaving socialist health care as if thats the same thing? Because they’re not you know.
Posted by: Liam at September 4, 2008 01:08 AMI saw the clip. ROFLMAO.
It’s funny that Republican pundits have to go on the talk shows everyday and carry the water for the GOP. That clip shows you that deep in their hearts they really can’t stand McCain choosing her over a large number of more qualified Republicans.
I think we are witnessing the demise of the Republican party. 28 Years ago they made a deal with the devil by alligning with the christian fundamentalists, and now the GOP’s chickens have come home to roost. The power brokers thought they could pander to the fundies over a few social issues, while they continue their economic agenda from behind the scenes. Now they see that the talibangelicals have grown like an untreated tumor that has completely consumed the GOP. Nothing can get done without their approval, and that includes McCain’s VP choice.
We have seen a large number of fiscal conservatives jump ship and join the libertarian party. The few that stayed behind tried to get Ron Paul on the top of the ticket, but it’s clear they are the minority of the party now. I think the only choice they have now is to leave the party to the fundies, and move into a third party like the Libertarians. By giving up the theocratic agenda they could attract a large number of moderate voters, and build a viable third party. Now is the time that they stand up to the wingnuts of their party.
Posted by: pops mcgee at September 4, 2008 01:10 AMGood article, David.
My take?
On Palin’s speech: Her voice is one I personally find grating, and it was more full of red meat (moose, I suppose) than I had expected.
As for the inadvertent on-air honesty between the pundits, I think Ms. Noonan literally meant it’s over when she said that — and I agree with her.
Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 4, 2008 01:22 AMShe said John McCain is the only candidate in this race who has fought for the American people.
No.
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you … in places where winning means survival and defeat means death … and that man is John McCain.Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 01:42 AM
Oh, and checking the transcript, she was talking about actual fighting. Military kind, you know? The whole POW thing again? Compelling story but I think I heard it a few times…
With regards to the comment about it being okay to raise taxes in Alaska, but not to raise taxes from a government - there is a GLARING difference that requires intellectual honesty to admit to.
Alaska OWNS its oil. The old system had Alaska receiving little or no benefit from the massive price of the oil WE OWN.
The government owns nothing and produces nothing. Governments regulate and tax and take from the productive to give to the unproductive.
Posted by: Yukon Jake at September 4, 2008 01:55 AMRhinehold, like I said, her comment clearly means she has not fought for Americans as a public servant just as Obama and Biden have not fought for Americans in their roles as public servants.
In her small town mind, fighting for the American people has to mean dropping bombs on women and children and old people in cities like Hanoi indiscriminately as John McCain did and confessed to doing on video tape.
Sorry you misread what was said or just misunderstood.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 02:06 AMYukon Jake, pick up a civics 101 book. The people are the government and the government is an agent of the people. The Government of Alaska extracts royalties from the oil and gas as the companies remove it and gives some of it to the people and pays for government budgets with the rest.
How is this any different than taxing corporations in order to fund the people’s government, or Palin as governor RAISING taxes on oil corporations to increase the money government could dole out to the Alaskan people? The people and government are one in America.
Perhaps you prefer a government in which the people have no say? Now that would be a separation of government and the people.
I think your comments need a bit more fact and less defense of things which escape your comment’s reach.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 02:11 AMOver? It’s not over. This campaign and this race really just began tonight. Conservatives basically haven’t even taken part in this race so far but will be rushing to the battlements of the Shining City on the hill after tonight’s speech. She did a great job and Obama and Biden better start looking over their shoulder after that performance. And the dems call Biden their ‘attack dog’. He’s got nothing on Palin.
Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 4, 2008 02:15 AMDavid H., she did a great job of rallying the base. She did little if not harm for the prospect of reaching out to independent voters, and McCain simply cannot win without them.
Sorry, to rain on your parade, but, that is the political reality. Experience was just removed from this campaign as a convincing debate point for independents. McCain needed that argument, and he threw it away too with the selection of Palin.
Independent voters are not riding the conservative right cultural wave, they are demanding solutions to economic realities threatening themselves and their children’s future and they are all to aware of McCain’s lack of economics education or knowledge, and Palin comes from a state where high oil and gas prices pays citizens, instead of robbing them like in the lower 48. Hardly qualification for dealing with the economic issues of the lower 48. Any high school educated young person could manage Alaska’s budget with $100 plus per barrel oil prices. It funds 80% of the entire state budget those oil and gas taxes and royalites.
That won’t work for the federal budget. Inexperience just got a whole new meaning with the selection of Gov. Palin.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 02:31 AMIf you think Palin is “inexperienced” then you got a better idea how we view the glorified community organizer and poster child of the Chicago political machine.
Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 4, 2008 02:56 AMYou apparently don’t see the dilemma David H. though your comment points directly at it. Either Obama is not inexperienced, or Palin is.
Can’t have it both ways there guy! And neither can McCain in the debates. He will get creamed over this. So will Palin against Biden.
I can hear Biden now.
” Gov. Palin, I may not have any experience being a hockey mom or giving birth, but, then your record seems to lack even one month of experience in federal government compared to my 30 some years. For this job we tried a governor without any federal government experience or education in the law and Constitution, and George W. Bush was a disappointment not just to Democrats and Independents, but, many Republicans as well. Been there, done that. Let’s move on, shall we? “
OUCH!!!!
Hope I haven’t given too much away. It would be good if Republicans don’t anticipate this. Give them something to get excited about when the debates are over.
David
Mark my words: That image of her little daughter licking her hand and then trying to pat down the hair of her infant brother will play thousands of times today throughout America.
It was practicially a perfect allegory for the sacredness of the family.
Here is what I know: Old Blow Hard Joe better bring his “A” game to their debate.
This one can counter punch.
And she’s still practicially in Spring training!
As a grizzled politicial operative for decades, I cannot remember such a tour de force speech at a Republican convention.
She is for real.
Posted by: sicilian eagle at September 4, 2008 06:36 AMDavid,
I do believe that the pit bull proved that she was a lap dog. For if the McCain/ Palin ticket is suppose to be about Country First, I wonder how many times the Republicans can point out the word (s) “We the People” instead of them vs. us in her first speech to America?
Great article David. I love these little candid moments when people think that aren’t being heard. The Dems got their dose with Jesse Jackson. What would really be nice is if one of these pundits would actually be candid on air - how refreshing would that be?
This nomination was a slap in the face to every qualified candidate, male and female in the GOP. I think this Hail Mary pass fell short, way short.
Posted by: tcsned at September 4, 2008 09:29 AMFYI:
Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.Thirty-nine percent (39%) also believe the GOP vice presidential nominee has better experience to be president of the United States than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
The potential problem for Democrats is that Obama, the junior U.S. senator from Illinois and a former state legislator, is the party’s standard-bearer, while Palin, an ex-mayor and now governor of Alaska, is number two on her party’s ticket.Palin’s highly successful debut on the national stage Wednesday night at the GOP convention is sure to impact these numbers, too. Her speech repeatedly highlighted her experience versus Obama’s, something she is expected to focus on from now until Election Day.
As stated, this poll was taken BEFORE last night’s speech. It will be interesting to see what the numbers look like in the coming days. It also appears that Obama’s ‘bump’ is already waning a little.
Nationally, the Rasmussen daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed Obama with a modest but expected bounce following the close of his convention last week, but that is already being offset by the bounce McCain is beginning to get from his party’s gathering.Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 10:29 AM
Rhinehold:
When you lie to the public a percentage believe it. A number still believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11.
Goebbels lives on.
Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 4, 2008 01:15 PM>And the lie here is..?
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 01:26 PM
Rhinehold,
On the 12th green and you’re 32 over par…relax and enjoy the rest of the game.
Posted by: Marysdude at September 4, 2008 01:47 PMRhinehold:
And the lie here is…?
Good Heavens. Where to begin?
As far as Palin goes, she told so many lies in her speech last night that it’s tiring for me to even think about combing through it in order to list them all.
Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 4, 2008 01:50 PMPerhaps we could begin with the one that was mentioned in response to the polling data I presented. Since that was what I asked for…
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 01:57 PMI was reading a book once, when I was a little boy, at my grandmother’s knee. If I remember correctly the title was, “Beside the Bonny Briar Bush”, and a passage in mentioned a ‘stick without an end’.
I asked my grandmother about the endless stick and being a very pious lady, she threw a fit, she said if I continued to ask questions like that I’d end up the biggest heathen in the world.
I speak of lies by the Republicans, and they ask what lie, and I tell them the lies are endless, and they say to me…since you won’t specify, you must be mistaken. The Republican lie is the ‘stick without an end’…I must be a heathen.
And she’s still practicially in Spring training!
No, I’d say she’s more like in witness protection. It seems, according to all Republican representatives being interviewed today, that she is not going to be “allowed” to face the press for a few days. Seems they feel she needs to get the feel of things, test the waters, so to speak. Sounds like she is being sequestered and indoctrinated with all the acceptable talking points and spin directions.
Posted by: janedoe at September 4, 2008 02:30 PMMarysdude,
Quaint story. Now, if you could perhaps answer my question so that we can debate the charge made, that would be excellent.
And if you think I am saying Republicans don’t lie, then I’m not sure I can help you there.
Straw men are wonderfully safe targets.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 02:33 PMThen I say dude, is time for all us heathens to unite!
Just being reported that Limbaugh has dubbed John McCain, as….. John McBrilliant….
The guy is an absolute sage…
janedoe,
The King of MotorMouth has dubbed his knight, Sir McBrilliant? Wow! There is an example of a lie…McPain has been known as a lot of things, maverick, reformer, etc., but I’ve never heard he was brilliant. Perhaps at 72, he saw the right-light, and brained up. I wonder if he will now join mesna???
Posted by: Marysdude at September 4, 2008 04:04 PMHere ya go….in all his sickening-ness….
http://medializzy.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/rush-limbaugh-mcbrilliant/
Posted by: janedoe at September 4, 2008 04:34 PMThe Noonan “narrative bullsh**” shows what Rpblcn partisans actually think when not parked in front of an applause sign.
Posted by: ohrealy at September 4, 2008 04:44 PMSpeaking of gaffs, does anyone else remember the comment made by David Brinkley about Clinton in his first nominating convention when he said That man has never had an original thought in his life.
Posted by: Jim M at September 4, 2008 04:49 PMjanedoe
I didn’t listen to the whole thing. His very voice makes me want to puke on him. I did hear one word right away though that did strike a cord. “Values” I wasn’t aware that he had any.
Posted by: RickIL at September 4, 2008 04:53 PMohrealy
Nice dig. Did you check out the daily show link over in the blue column. Great and very revealing stuff.
Posted by: RickIL at September 4, 2008 04:55 PMYeah, it shows that Republican hacks are just as slimey as Democratic hacks.
But… most of already knew that.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 04:58 PMSicilian Eagle said: “That image of her little daughter licking her hand and then trying to pat down the hair of her infant brother will play thousands of times today throughout America.”
And American voters are supposed to elect her on that basis? GOPAC has really pulled out all the stops, haven’t they. God help us all, if that image brings 4 more destructive years to our economy, our entitlement programs, our national debt, and war on third front.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 05:12 PMDavid,
We are going to get that stuff no matter which one gets elected.
By the time we get to vote for another president, our debt will be over 20 trillion dollars. AND we will have increasing entitlement programs putting such a strain on our economy that our dollar will be worthless. Think we have home ownership problems now?
I wonder what the sweet point is for China to call in their debts? I never thought the movie Americathon would be playing out, it just took a few years longer than they anticipated.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 05:15 PMRhinehold, Palin has and is a student of GOPAC, the organization designed to teach GOP up and comers how to hide their agenda in rhetoric that appeals to their base without alienating the moderate mainstream. You know, Gingrich’s organization. (Maybe former organization, not sure even GOPAC could stand Gingrich by 1996). Did you see him beaming on the Convention floor last night? The cameras were on him, several times (hint, hint).
Lies, like her lies of omission in refusing to address the economy even once, like her lie about Obama having no energy plan, like her lie about being a reformer in a State where the only crooks anyone can go after in government are Republican. Another lie of omission, leaving he allusion that she will go after Republicans in Federal government. Now that one is a real whopper!
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 05:26 PM
RickIL, you’re trending noticeably more sarcastic lately. Keep up the good work. We’re all posting the same Jon Stewart link, 4 times already. There’s another video on youtube on the Palin intro video that was skipped last night because Rudy G went long. I only watched a part, where they apparently think it’s great to be a moose hunter. Personally, I’m a big fan of Bullwinkle, and don’t understand why moose and man can’t coexist peacefully.
Posted by: ohrealy at September 4, 2008 07:10 PMRickIL, you’re trending noticeably more sarcastic lately. Keep up the good work. We’re all posting the same Jon Stewart link, 4 times already. There’s another video on youtube on the Palin intro video that was skipped last night because Rudy G went long. I only watched a part, where they apparently think it’s great to be a moose hunter. Personally, I’m a big fan of Bullwinkle, and don’t understand why moose and man can’t coexist peacefully.
Posted by: ohrealy at September 4, 2008 07:12 PMLies, like her lies of omission in refusing to address the economy even once
Wow, you really did drink the KoolAid, didn’t you David? You would never let a politican get away with such an obvious lie before, but to then parrot it?
Government is too big … he wants to grow it.Congress spends too much … he promises more.
Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.
How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you’re trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio … or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia … or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?
Please, feel free to disagree with what she said, but to parrot Obama who said that she never mentioned the economy?
Maybe he (and you) should have watched…
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 07:15 PMohrealy
You have to love John Stewart. Nobody else is capable of getting to the truth quite the way he is. And I was wondering how long until we had a Rocky and Bullwinkle reference. I think I saw one somewhere yesterday. But it wasn’t particularly good. Thanks for the laugh. Sounds like it might be time for us liberals to start a save the moose campaign just to piss some good ol boys off. How about ” Help save Bullwinkle : Shoot a Conservative” ;-)
Posted by: RickIL at September 4, 2008 08:25 PMRickIL, that Obama Palin factcheck link was great. Thanks for posting it.
Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 4, 2008 09:17 PMRickIL, they should really do a Bullwinkle themed protest before the Rpblcns leave Minnesota. Remember, he was from Frostbite Falls, MN, where that had an oogle bird and upsidaisium. On Palin, when I first heard her named, I immediately thought, I wonder if she’s related to Michael Palin. There could be some Python themed protests also.
Posted by: ohrealy at September 4, 2008 09:32 PMRhinehold, thank you for quoting the lies. Appreciate it. Compare what she says to what Obama has said about growing government for example, and the lies unfold like raindrops from the sky.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 10:04 PMRhinehold, FactCheck has their own take:
Sarah Palin’s much-awaited speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night may have shown she could play the role of attack dog, but it also showed her to be short on facts when it came to touting her own record and going after Obama’s.We found Rudy Giuliani, who introduced her, to be as factually challenged as he sometimes was back when he was in the race. But Mike Huckabee may have laid the biggest egg of all.
* Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.
* Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.
* The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.
* Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.
* Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain’s plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain’s own memoir.
* Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 10:13 PM
On Palin, when I first heard her named, I immediately thought, I wonder if she’s related to Michael Palin. There could be some Python themed protests also.
“I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok
I sleep all night and I work all day”
It might be a little hard to turn that into a protest song. I’ll get the guitar out & work on it.
Too bad he’s British. He also wouldn’t need a lame political joke writer. He would make a great running mate - he, like Sarah Palin, also wouldn’t mind putting on a dress.
McCain is starting to speak now. Let’s see what he has to say …
Posted by: tcsned at September 4, 2008 10:16 PMRhinehold, thank you for quoting the lies. Appreciate it.
It’s almost like you don’t even read what I write and craft a message to counter a point that was never made…
You, and Obama, said she never mentioned the economy in her speech. She did. I quoted the passage.
Everything else is your pontificating (and not saying anything I disagreed with) for whatever reason. Like I said, you took what Obama said at face value and you were wrong. He’s just another politician, doing and saying what he thinks he needs to to win. That you support him without question doesn’t change any of that.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 11:09 PMMy play by play:
He started off pretty well … talking about what he believes and who he is. He is now reading a binary list of stuff that boils do to:
“me good, him bad” it’s getting pretty simplistic and he’s starting to stumble a bit.
He’s alluding to school vouchers - oops stumbled again - bad idea - take money away from an education system that already is short. Oops blew a line again… and a gain.
Ok - I get he wants to drill for oil. That’s an ingenious solution. Now he sounds like someone from greenpeace.
His stuff on war sounded good and his delivery was better. Still don’t buy it. The surge isn’t providing a long term solution.
Now he’s saying he’s going to reform Washington after he and his party had control of every branch of government for 6 straight years.
Another poorly delivered Obama attack.
Now he’s back to bi-partisan talk - sounds better doing this stuff.
“My friends …” he uses that line too much. He usually follows with something condescending.
Talking about being a POW - stumbled a bit but pretty good overall. Some of his best stuff so far.
hmm … he was better than Palin last night but it was all pretty thin on substance. It was, in general, a pretty bipartisan speech. Still had come rough moments. His attempt to reach across partisan lines was tempered by the vitriol of last night. Though I gotta give him credit he seemed to whip up the convention not necessarily their favorite guy. I still don’t see how he thinks people are going to buy a message of change from a leader of a party that had total control for 6 years.
Posted by: tcsned at September 4, 2008 11:21 PMWell, the guy who’s party controls the least popular congress in history probably thinks he can win too.
It’s a dilema for many voters, take a chance on the guy everyone said would be different than Bush (until they had to run against him) or on the guy who votes lock step with his party who has being making things even worse the past two years…
Sucks, doesn’t it? That’s why I’m voting for Barr, at least that is REAL change. The stuff I’ve heard the past two weeks is nothing but more of the same, almost identical to 2004. and 2000. etc…
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 11:51 PMtcsned,
I had a similar take. When he talked about bipartisanship, he was at his best. The attacks on Obama sounded contrived. I thought he spent way too much time on the POW theme, which made the speech run longer than necessary. He mentioned the problems of the GOP in the past which kind of threw a damper on things. Saying ‘we suck, but we’re going to change’ just doesn’t get a crowd going. It ended in a high note. And that’s that.
McCain offering ‘change’ just doesn’t work. ‘Stand up and fight’ sounds good, and gets a crowd on its feet, but what does it mean? He came out four-square in favor of education. And saying ‘I love America’ is fine, but after a certain point it loses its meaning. We all do. We wouldn’t be participating in an election if we didn’t care. The point?
I follow politics at least as much as most people, and if all I had to work on was that speech, I would have little idea what McCain has in mind, never mind what he would actually do to accomplish those vague goals.
Posted by: phx8 at September 4, 2008 11:53 PMQuit smoking the salmon. America’s missile defense system is NOT controlled by the Alaskan governor. She has no authority to launch those missiles, nor authority to even direct the personnel manning those national defense systems.
Try, cod, I hear the oils are better for you when smoking them.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2008 08:17 AM>That’s why I’m voting for Barr, at least that is REAL change. The stuff I’ve heard the past two weeks is nothing but more of the same, almost identical to 2004. and 2000. etc…
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 11:51 PM
Rhinehold,
Since you no longer have a horse in this race…does that mean??? Nah, you can’t stay out of the fray.
But, in any case, why do you think voting for Barr will make a difference? He’s just another Republican…a conservative republican, and certainly not a middle of the roader, but republican none-the-less. You will still be voting the same platform and for the same policies, you might as well vote for McPain. At least that way your vote will be counted…it won’t count for much, but it will be counted.
But, in any case, why do you think voting for Barr will make a difference? He’s just another Republican…a conservative republican, and certainly not a middle of the roader, but republican none-the-less. You will still be voting the same platform and for the same policies, you might as well vote for McPain. At least that way your vote will be counted…it won’t count for much, but it will be counted.
Erm, I know this might be news to you, Marysdude, but Barr is a Libertarian and has been for 5 years.
As for why I would vote for a Libertarian when it is clear that he won’t win, I vote for them because they represent my views. If I want my views to be taken seriously in the future, we need to ensure that everyone knows that those views exist out there. My voting for someone that represents those views, we put that in record and let the people running the two major parties that they missed my vote for not addressing those views. And considering how important the non-partisan vote is in determining who is going to be president, one day they will get it and start addressing those views, especially if they lose by a percentage that could have been covered by the amount the 3rd party candidates got.
You know, like 2000 and I am sure 2008 will be, contrary to the assurances of a landslide. And i think if more had followed this example in 2004, Bush would have not gotten >50% of the vote.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 02:55 PMI know Barr calls himself a Libertarian, but a wolf in sheep’s clothing, is still a wolf. I remember him too well as an advocate for impeachment for a stained dress. He sure as hell was Republican then. What policy changes has he put forward that would make you think he ain’t still a repub?
Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 03:15 PMI know Barr calls himself a Libertarian, but a wolf in sheep’s clothing, is still a wolfExcept he’s not. He is now the director of an organization he fought against to get an anti-drug law passed, fighting to help them overturn that law. That is not something a wolf in sheep’s clothing does, it is something a former wolf and now a sheep does.Posted by: rhinehold at September 5, 2008 04:02 PMI remember him too well as an advocate for impeachment for a stained dress.Apparently you don’t remember Libertarians being a little upset about a sitting president perjuring himself under oath in a sexual harassment case. You know, fighting for women’s rights and all that. Even worse, he was lying to bypass a law that he himself signed, a law that Libertarians fought against because it was a violation of civil liberties. I wonder if he ever realized that was a bad law?
It wasn’t just Republicans that recognized the depth that that was wrong…
What policy changes has he put forward that would make you think he ain’t still a repub?Well for starters: http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/006154.html#261567
Criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals. (Jun 2008)
Applying habeas in Guantanamo reaffirms fundamental liberty. (Jun 2008)
Threats to liberty in post-9/11 world require libertarianism. (May 2008)
The Nanny State is getting increasingly intrusive. (Apr 2008)
Earmarks are an outrageous abuse by Congressmen to buy votes. (Apr 2008)
Remove both earmarks and cut the underlying spending. (Apr 2008)
Eliminate billions in corporate welfare. (Apr 2008)
Favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. (Jun 2008)
No national nannies: leave smokers alone. (Jun 2008)
Don’t let California home schooling ban spread. (Apr 2008)
Restore habeas corpus and protect citizens from government. (Apr 2008)
Restore military to defense; commit to non-intervention. (Apr 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Be aggressive in securing our borders. (Apr 2008)
New tax revolt: both reduce and simplify taxes. (Jun 2008)
Lower taxes by dramatically cutting back size of government. (May 2008)
The FairTax replaces the IRS plus payroll taxes. (Apr 2008)
Repeal the 16th amendment & eliminate the income tax. (Apr 2008)BTW, he was one of the guys that insisted on an amendment to the Patriot Act that put expiration limits on it. You should be shaking his hand, not belittling him, for that.
Rhinehold, I see little difference between Barr and Paul, except this. Barr is committed to being a big fish in a small pond. Whereas, Ron Paul is committed to being a smaller fish in a very much bigger pond. Matter of personal preference, and each has its merits and drawbacks.
Both men are to be commended for their fight for individual rights as defined by our Constitution and the legal system which that Constitution established.
Both men too, are to be footnotes in history for their failures to acknowledge the boundary that must exist between being a private citizen and their being a member of a society which has its own needs, and upon which every individual in it depends for the protection of their private citizen rights.
There can be no protected individual and private rights without the health and well being of the society. And conversely, there can be no healthy society without the adamant insistence for protection of individual private rights by the individual members of society.
When one looks at the FAIR Tax plan for example, it reveals Paul’s and Barr’s failure to recognize that such a horribly regressive taxation system
undermines the potentcy and potential of the individual citizen having a voice in the society and how it is run, because it structures a wealth tiered and gapped society in which those with wealth have a voice, and those without it, will not, and those without it, will be the vast majority in the society bearing the total cost of the decisions of the wealthy voices crafting those decisions.
It’s a shame neither Barr nor Paul can find an optometrist to remove that blind spot in their vision.
marysdude, there Barr distinguishes himself from being a Republican on the basis of his advocacy for the rights of all individuals, not just the GOP faithful.
Republicans believe it is acceptable to vote for a president who deficit spends if that person is a Republican. They demonstrated this in 2004.
Republicans believe it is acceptable to reelect a politician who marginalizes or cancels the rights of others so long as those others are not in the GOP party.
Barr, believes no candidate should be supported who deficit spends in areas outside the absolute essential defense of the nation’s integrity, or defines rights protection along party lines. Barr has shed his partisan double standard on issues like this and is to be commended for it.
I said commended. Not elected. Barr also retains his Republican proclivity for a society of haves and have nots serving the haves, as evidenced by his support for the UnFair national sales tax, a horribly regressive tax system that would put nearly the entire burden of wealthy decisions on the back of poor workers and servants.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2008 05:41 PMThe problem, David, in your refusal to accept that 1) The Fair Tax Plan is not regressive and 2) that we already pay those taxes in a much more regressive model right now because of the embedded taxation that people choose to ignore is what will keep us as slaves to the corporations who can control the government and by making the government more and more powerful we end up giving them more and more power over us as well.
So instead of being free we are being controlled on an ever increasing basis by Government, who have guns and the power to use them against us and the corporations who have the money to control the guns that the government has.
Nice little system we have developed for ourselves but it will never change as long as government retains power of our individual lives in all areas that it has no business.
The utopia you seek, of a government that controls the ‘societal resources’ and keeps those with capital in check is never going to happen because of the realities of the human condition. Make us inhuman machines and there might be a chance.
The blind spot resides in those who think that a tax on the wealthy won’t end up being a tax on themselves after everything is said and done.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 05:44 PM>The blind spot resides in those who think that a tax on the wealthy won’t end up being a tax on themselves after everything is said and done.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 05:44 PM
Rhinehold,
Actually it sounds like Reagan’s ‘trickle down theory’ to me, only this time instead of wealth trickling…tax costs trickle. That’s a step up as far as I’m concerned…an additional almost five trillion more debt under Reagan/Bush/Bush, which is the real regression on the economy and personal liberty, can stop anytime now. Flat tax won’t do that.
I don’t think you’ve seen me advocate a flat tax, of the three proposals I know if, it is the most regressive.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 06:48 PMMarysdude,
BTW, it has nothing to do with trickle down, it is a matter of fact. We know that when you apply higher costs to a business, it passes those costs on. Or it shuts down. If it isn’t worth the effort being spent, the effort won’t get spent.
Unless we decide to make it illegal to shut down a business? I’m sure there are many who would support this…
I don’t remember anyone mentioning higher corporate or business taxes, only bringing taxation on the wealthy into line. ‘O’, in fact has mentioned lowering small business taxation. If the wealthy are taxed according to their wealth, we will feel the pinch sometime or other, but not right away. That gives us a little breathing room in which to maybe break the back on deficit spending…maybe…yeah, I believe that, if we have a democratic leadership.
Posted by: Marysdude at September 5, 2008 07:02 PMMarysdude,
Nothing in O’s plan suggests a balanced budget, in fact non-partisan organizations have viewed it and determined that it will increase it. Just as McCain’s will.
For example, Obama has already promised to spend every dime of the money we are spending on Iraq on domestic spending (basically hiring 5,000,000 people). This at a time when our main problem is that our dollar is freefalling and any wealth that ANYONE might have is going to be lost.
As for taxing people because they can afford it, it doesn’t ring proper to me. We should treat everyone equally and fairly and measure their taxes on the goods and services they consume, not how much they make.
Posted by: rhinehold at September 5, 2008 07:14 PMBTW, this comment I made in another thread is about the same I would be making here, so to conserve space…
http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/006154.html#261518
Rhinehold, let’s then tax the wealthy on every single government oversight, regulation, and service provided to wealthy persons, including the fact that wealth requires a larger military deterrent than poor people do, FDIC and other asset protections provided by government be levied in accordance with dollar amounts protected, and usage of tax courts, contract enforcement courts, and all SEC, FCC, XXX,YYY, and ZZZ oversight and enforcement services provided by government come with costs provided by those with wealth who use those services.
Let’s tax corporations for their trucking deterioration of our highways and bridges as the heavier vehicles account for 70% of the wear and tear on those infrastructures, and every dollar spent on tax enforcement be allocated pro-rata on the those owing taxes.
You see what happens when your logic is carried to its logical conclusion? Those who consume government services should pay for government services. The wealthy would actually see their taxes remain about the same or go up as a result of use pro-rata taxation.
The poor already pay for their Medicare and Soc. Sec. so their other uses of government would be either exempt by virtue of poverty status or or remain the same. The wealthy however, who consumer vastly more government services for which they do not pay fees, and receive proportionately greater protective services by having more to protect, would not gain ground by a sales tax especially if they are shareholders in American business who would see profits drop as a result of lost consumerism due to a higher proportion of the working class bearing a higher proportion of the cost of government in a national sales tax system.
The National Sales tax system simply isn’t what it proports to be, fair. Not at all if implemented fairly with everyone above poverty status paying their pro-rata share of sales tax on every transaction private or government service. Remember that taxes are how we pay for government, and therefore, to be fair, those who receive the greatest services from government should pay the greatest share of costs for government.
Yes, and let’s privatize health care for soldiers and veterans and politicians while we are at it. Enough with this double standard of police having to pay for private insurance and military getting it free from the taxpayers. It is a volunteer military after all, and no one is forcing these people into their career choice. Why should they be treated differently? And tax them proportionately like the rest of us. A Fair Tax plan would require that, don’t you think?
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2008 09:32 PMRhinehold said: “it passes those costs on. Or it shuts down” and another company steps into the vacuum of supply and provides the same product or service cheaper. Let them fail, is the Libertarian absence of compassion for the fact that millions of small businesses fail as a result of government decisions, but, to to hell with them, right, Rhinehold?
Libertarians and Republicans have a lot in common on the so called ‘compassion’ front.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2008 09:35 PM>Nothing in O’s plan suggests a balanced budget,
Posted by: rhinehold at September 5, 2008 07:14 PM
Rhinehold,
Perhaps, but I can’t count the number of times he’s brought up our selling out of future generations. He speaks of our debt and our deficit spending. That is a beginning…the same beginning we had with Clinton (Bill of course), and that worked out pretty good. ‘O’ has not submitted his first budget, and you already know he’ll not deliver anything but samo-samo. I, on the other hand, believe he has the right message, the ability to negotiate a balanced governing body and the intelligence to know what we need.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
