... or the Academy Awards or opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.
We were tuning in like crazy not just for the big new celebrities, Obama and Palin, but even for crusty old John McCain, who, we know, isn't a good speechmaker.
Have we gone mad?
ADDED: Obviously, the election is important, but we aren't voting for best speechmaker. Why are we suddenly so interested in listening to speeches? Isn't that sort of a 19th century form of entertainment? Anyway, observing the trend, I want to propose a new TV show: "American Orator."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०५ टिप्पण्या:
In a nice way, perhaps
What a bizarre question to pose in response to the good news that Americans are interested in the presidential election.
Of course, you may have gone mad, embracing Sarah Palin, who hopes that prayer will eliminate the "gay movement."
Wow. I thought only chess has knight-jump movements.
Short answer: Yes. Long(er) answer: Look at why we're doing it. Remember it's a campaign on character, not issues. Sad, but true...but it's the road we're on. And we can't seem to get off.
`
Fascinating that McCain's Night outdrew either Sarah's or Barack's.
The 3-night Republican Convention was watched by more American's than the 4-night Democratic Convention.
Obama's speech was the most negative in attacks, though the Obama campaign won't own up to it:
If one compares Palin’s speech to Obama’s, it appears to me that they used similar amounts of sarcasm (not much), but Obama made considerably more extensive negative comments about McCain and Republican administrations than Palin did about Obama and Democrats. Palin’s negative comments, however, were on balance funnier, better written, and more pointed than Obama’s. Neither candidate’s comments were entirely fair in every characterization of their opponents’ positions.
By continuing to spread false memes about the nature of Sarah Palin's speech as if they were true, the press marches forward in the most biased season of political reporting I've seen since at least 1998.
The Democrats and their lapdog media are running scared.
`
We're not voting for best speechmaker!
Since when are we interested in speeches.
`
Heavy sigh . . .
Just as mentioned in my post above, liberals keep spreading Democrat misinformation and Democrat propaganda:
Of course, you may have gone mad, embracing Sarah Palin, who hopes that prayer will eliminate the "gay movement.
And your proof?
I think those numbers say that 'politics as usual' is finished as a campaign theme.
This is rather bizarre:
ABC News national poll:
Among conservative Republicans, 89 percent view Sarah Palin favorably, but only 74 percent believe she is sufficiently prepared to be V.P.
(And yes, I realize the push will be that she'll bone up and be just fine by election day.)
* Forty-two percent of all Americans think she is sufficiently prepared.
We're not voting for best speechmaker!
REALLY?!
That's certainly news to Democrats!!!!
What else does Barack bring to the table?
Seriously?
It's headin' for time, Ann, to put up.
Why can't it just be a good thing? People using the most accessible resource to make a decision? I think it is wonderful and say Yippee!
Ann,
You wouldn't believe how many people from the conservative wing are doing just that...at least right now: voting for who they consider to be "the good speech maker."
It's being able to answer straight forward questions that will be jey to Palin's success or failure.
Right now they won't let her even talk to anybody unless it's a scripted, teleprompter speech format...which is strange, considering she was selected a week ago, was formally nominated and accepted.
I've never heard of a V.P. nominee not making the rounds of the Sunday news shows right away.
Americans care more, and are more savvy, than most pundits, politicians, and partisans can bear to believe.
brent, Obama's speaking ability aside, the American public and every new source in the world has been vetting Obama for two years now.
You're actually trying to compare a single fine speech by Palin as a comparable vetting?
That is downright ridiculous and you know it.
Since when are we interested in speeches.
We are interested in a dishonest, and completely disingenous Democrat-leaning media, whose members can't begin to do their jobs fairlyt or correctly because they over-represent the left to extreme-left wing.
Over 90% of the Main Stream Media vote Democratic: 90%!
Over 90% of the media considers itself "pro-choice, with over 76% believeing their should be NO restrictions on abortion whatsoever prior to birth.
Oh, yeah - it's possible for the media to play it straight in this election year.
Which they don't have to, but they should stop the biggest lie of all, and that is telling everyone that thay play it down the middle.
I think we do go based on speeches.
Nixon v. Kennedy 60 - Kennedy in a knock out, though Nixon would have one on policy and performance overall.
Bush v. Kerry 04 - close call, because Bush is a terrible speaker.
Bush v. Gore 00 - close call, but Gore was painted too much like a tart.
"I've never heard of..." == "I've done no research."
The Democrats and their lapdog media are running scared.
If you mean lapdog media that accepts McCain/Palin telling them they ain't talking to anybody about anything I have to agree. Palin comes on the world stage talking smack and telling howler after howler that anyone with a modem can debunk in 1 minute and running back to Alaska telling the press to get lost is unprecedented as far as I can tell. Aside from her family story there was virtually nothing in her speech that wasn't an outright lie or complete distortion of the truth.
'You wouldn't believe how many people from the conservative wing are doing just that...at least right now: voting for who they consider to be "the good speech maker." '
Coming from a Bambi-supporter.
Cognitive dissonance must be a good thing
`
Fascinating that McCain's Night outdrew either Sarah's or Barack's.
The 3-night Republican Convention was watched by more American's than the 4-night Democratic Convention.
Obama's speech was the most negative in attacks, though the Obama campaign won't own up to it:
If one compares Palin’s speech to Obama’s, it appears to me that they used similar amounts of sarcasm (not much), but Obama made considerably more extensive negative comments about McCain and Republican administrations than Palin did about Obama and Democrats. Palin’s negative comments, however, were on balance funnier, better written, and more pointed than Obama’s. Neither candidate’s comments were entirely fair in every characterization of their opponents’ positions.
By continuing to spread false memes about the nature of Sarah Palin's speech as if they were true, the press marches forward in the most biased season of political reporting I've seen since at least 1998.
The Democrats and their lapdog media are running scared.
IT's NOT THE SPEECHES. Notice how quickly those uncomfortable being confronted with the truth are, and how they must change the subject they brought up:
We're not voting for best speechmaker!
Since when are we interested in speeches.
It's the LYING about the speeches and the way liberals/Democrats always act and seek to change the subject when they're nailed on it. That's what this is about.
Shoot, even Sally Quinn apologized for her unfair attacks on Sarah Palin.
Won't be readin' anything like that here on Althouse, though.
garage: put up or shut up. Please post the links to your posts where you complained about Obama hiding from the press when he avoided going on Fox for debates.
Ann disingenously said:
Why are we suddenly so interested in listening to speeches?
Gee, I dunno Ann. Let's see, who live-blogged all 3 speeches on Althouse . . . no, don't tell me . .
Brent, you are free to post here what you think are salient points about (R) or (D), thanks to Ann's cruel neutrality.
You'll have to endure a lot of ground noise and static, however.
Because otherwise we just get 24 hour news spin on what other people think. There's something about seeing for ourselves. There's so many layers of spin that people are tired of it.
Jeeze, enough with the urban myth of the liberal media. The media was McCain's base until a short while ago. Now the myth is his new strategy.
And this whole discussion is exactly my earlier point. It's been about gossip, innuendo, what they're wearing and how they speak. Not that unlike American Idol. Not that unlike high school, for crying out loud.
O, delicious.
Gov. Palin has left the left adjusting their collective shorts.
The best joke I've heard lately (and I don't hear many) is "What's the difference between Obama and Palin?"
Answer: One is sexy. The other eats what she kills.
Poor Joe Biden.
"Obviously, the election is important, but we aren't voting for best speechmaker."
That doesn't exactly bode well for Barack, then, does it? As Hillary Clinton pointed out, "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience ... and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002." to be sure, Clinton was being ungenerous; Obama has given speeches that are much more recent than that. But this country wants change, and while Obama has talked about change, McCain and Palin have been doing change, or at least trying to. So you've got a choice between McCain & Palin, who bring not only experience but a proven track record of change, on the one hand, and Obama & Biden, who between them bring a capacity to spew hot air out of their orifices unmatched in modern American politics. This election doesn't strike me as a tough call.
95% of Thread jack:
About those conventions, vendors in Denver discovered a metric ton of American flags destined for the dumpster. Republicans went nuts. Rescued flags. They're nice ones too. I'm confused why they weren't sought after if only for souvenirs. Bad show, there. The Republicans will use this symbol as objective proof that flags are mere props to Democrats.
Apologies, but it ^^^ does directly relate to these speeches.
What else do we base it upon?
What they say? but Bambi is all about saying, not doing. (And a lot of whining, too - "stop beating up on me, Sarah Palin! You mean lady!")
What they promise? Bambi has a roomful of people he's promised to support that he's later thrown under the bus. (That's why Rudy's line about "get it in writing, Joe" was so effective.)
We're left with the candidate for President on one side comparing his credentials with the Vice-Presidential candidate on the other. Is the irony meter broken?
I might have made up the metric ton part.
It's almost 1:15 pm here on the CA coast, and I've got to get to beach, but here's my last love letter:
Palin will be back soon enough for the talk show circuit, so let me give you your talking points, michael and george mahal ahead of time (we all know you can't operate on your own without them):
1) Sarah Palin had nothing of substance to say.
2) While Obama and Biden are talking solutions, she just keeps on with the attack.
3) Her first time before the American people, and she dodged the hard questions.
4) With so many American's hurting in this economy, she doesn't offer anything for the American people.
5) How disgraceful that she said the Barack Obama didn't support the surge. Barack said that the surge was overwhelmingly successful.
6) She still hasn't answered the question that is #1 uppermost on American's minds: why are you so mean to community organizers?
Got that boys?
I'm not worried, though, because there's enough left-wing dishonesty out there to keep you going for a while.
Back for your next lesson later. Ciao.
katherine said...
"The media was McCain's base until a short while ago."
This is the danger with politicians using satire and sarcasm. It's so easy to take a sarcastic remark, wrench it from context, spread it around to people who haven't sen the original and send them out to blithely repeat it without anyone being able to say it's a misquote in the direct sense.
Katherine, the lberal bias of the media isn't an "urban legend," it's apparent on the face of their reporting almost every day. And it has rarely been so unveneered as it has beenin their reaction to Palin.
It's ok. It's only flags. Now, if they found out that the Democrats had mixed up the recycling with the trash, then that'd be news.
(1) We are an economically and militarily secure people, as compared to the founders of our electoral form of government, and we can afford the luxury of casting our ballots for reasons other than immediate personal survival. That's why there's so much loose chatter these days about ideological beliefs.
Still, there remain many very sensible down-to-earth people who can be, nevertheless, old-fashioned in their own quirky, immediately self-interested sort of way.
And in this connection, it can become very important to them which candidates will become elected officials who will be using the transporter beam that is the television set to materialize in their family rooms for the next four years.
(2) Laugh about it, shout about it, when you've got to choose, every way you look at it you lose.
simon,
Your last comment explained the choices in this election succinctly.
Thank you!
Off to the waves!
Of course, you may have gone mad, embracing Sarah Palin, who hopes that prayer will eliminate the "gay movement."
Dear Mr. Al Franken. You are a lot funnier when you joke about raping children and having abortions. Maybe its time to find a hole for yourself.
I want to propose a new TV show: "American Orator."
Barak Obama's sppech was the preview of that show. The producers of American Idol decided to change the format of the show. They others were just convention speeches. American Orator just did not make the cut.
That nice, clean cut, young feller? He is a community organizer someplace.
Brent said...
"Over 90% of the Main Stream Media vote Democratic: 90%!"
That's not the strongest tack to use. The left looks at who owns the mainstream media, and because the left operates under the assumption that anyone who is rich is Republican, concludes that the media must lean right. This reasoning is entirely specious. But the right would make a similar if lesser mistake if it simply looked at the political preferences of journalists and, assuming that liberals can't be unbiased, concluded that the media is biased.
The only real, legitimate test of media bias is the product. Conclusions should be drawn from watching and reading how they report. And by that standard, any reasonable person would have to concede a great deal of liberal bias - often quite clearly subconscious - in an overwhelming majority of news reporting. This week has ben different. Since McCain chose Palin, all bets have been off; the media has actively and as one shilled for Obama's campaign in their effort to rip Palin to shreds. It is impossible for me to conceive, for example, how the cognitive dissonance between complaining about the experience of our veep nominee and accepting the experience of their Presidential nominee can remain in the subconscious. This week, the media's output has towed the Obama campaign's line more slavishly than the Obama campaign's titular candidates have.
About those conventions, vendors in Denver discovered a metric ton of American flags destined for the dumpster.
It's perfect symbolism for the Democrats - throwing out the flag.
Al Franken said...
Of course, you may have gone mad, embracing Sarah Palin, who hopes that prayer will eliminate the "gay movement."
Gay movement? You are joking right.
miller,
You derisively refer to Obama as "Bambi" based what you consider his lack of qualifications and constantly labeling him as nothing more than a "community organizer."
Well, (and I'm certainly not putting Obama in the same class), but as anyone with even a basic understanding of the of the Bible knows: Jesus Christ was a community organizer, too and Pontius Pilate was a governor, so unless you have something against those who help the needy, your criticism is rather silly.
And by the way, the massive push from Bush for "faith-based" programs is firmly based in what people have referred to for years as: "community organizations." Oh, and the community organizations run by who you refer to as Bambi provided assistance to 1,000's of citizens who belonged to Catholic parishes throughout Illinois.
That being the case, I'll take a "Bambi" over a short-term Governor any day of the week.
peter,
Actually Palin's church feels they can make a gay person straight...through prayer.
Do YOU believe that can be accomplished?
Michael said...
It's being able to answer straight forward questions that will be jey to Palin's success or failure.
What stright forward questions has Obama ever answered? He has been treated like the light weight puff ball that he is.
After the way the press smeared her, I do not blame her for not going on shows that will ask her straight forward questions like "how are you going to raise your kids and perform the duties of your office?" Or, "why didn't you choose to abort Trig when it was apprarent he would be handicapped?"
Those kind of straight forward questions?
Sloan,
Do you have an objective link to your flag account?
EnigmatiCore said...
Americans care more, and are more savvy, than most pundits, politicians, and partisans can bear to believe.
Ditto dat!
Michael said...
"peter, Actually Palin's church feels they can make a gay person straight...through prayer. ¶ Do YOU believe that can be accomplished?"
Can you explain, assuming that it's accurate arguendo, how that's relevant? Why should we care what her beliefs on this - or creationism, to bring another debated meme into it - are? Do you thik that Palin is going to be heading up some kind of "prayer for teh gheys" task force? Maybe she'll be placed in charge of the content of public school evolution curriculum? I mean, John McCain likes Abba, but I'm not going to vote against him just because he likes something I don't, or vice versa, unless there's some reason why it's relevant.
ADDED: Obviously, the election is important, but we aren't voting for best speechmaker. Why are we suddenly so interested in listening to speeches?
Who said "we" were VOTING for best spechmaker. I assume msot everyone who will vote for Mccain agrees he is a lame speechmaker. And I watched Palin to see what she would say. And I would NEVER vote for her.
People are actually interested. I know you find this hard to comprehend. Everything has to have some underlying secret reason. Why can't this simply be what it apears to be?!
Michael said...
"... Jesus Christ was a community organizer"
I have a Bible and in the very back of it there is: Bible Words for Quick Reference. There are no words community, or organizer, in my Bible. I was under the impression that he was a carpenter.
Simon,
For someone who tries to represent himself here as some kind of legal intellectual, I find it rather difficult to believe you would want a Vice President or a President who actually believes a gay person can be converted to a straight person, through prayer, but if your are indeed an American citizen...vote for her.
She also wanted to ban some books (although she suddenly backed off, calling it a "rhetorical" suggestion) from her local library. Are you for that, too?
Jesus was a carpenter dude. He had a union card just like Palins husband. A working man. A man who worked for his bread and fishes.
allens,
If you don't think Jesus was a community organizer you need to do more than refer to the "Bible Words for Quick Reference" section of your Bible.
I think most here know Jesus was a carpenter, and most here also know Obama was a Professor of constitutional law, a State Senator and a U.S. Senator, but I never hear anyone say it.
*Oh, and by the way, our Founding Fathers were community organizers, as was Martin Luther King,
Your argument is weak...as usual.
Well, let me see.
For Dem's you have first black Obama with the controversy of Unity Church, Ayres, Rezko, and death struggle face-offs with bulldog Hillary, what will the Clintons do to steal the nomination, drama.
For Repub's you have the unknown, gun-toting, pregnant-waterbreaking-flying, Downs syndrome baby, pregnant unmarried 17 year old daughter, former beauty queen, Alaskan woman governor and a 72 year old maverick, can't lift up his arms because of torture, practically on his death-bed will he drop dead on stage, ancient warrior, drama.
Simon,
I forgot to congratulate you on your really cool and hip use of internet verbiage:
"Do you thik that Palin is going to be heading up some kind of "prayer for teh gheys" task force? Maybe she'll be placed in charge of the content of public school evolution curriculum?"
"teh" (Cool)..."gheys" (Cooler)
Oh that was you Michael. Sorry strike my reply from the record. Nevermind.
There are no community organizers in Jesusland.
bearbee,
According to Bush and Cheney's definition of "torture," McCain wasn't actually "tortured."
And what may I ask does what he feels was "torture" (as do I) have to do with running the country?
Same ol', same ol'...bullshit.
Michael said...
brent, Obama's speaking ability aside, the American public and every new source in the world has been vetting Obama for two years now.
They have been coming up empty. In their lust to create and make history, the media is ignoring the fact that there is no there there when it comes to Obama. They did the same to Clinton. Nothing there.
Here is what they have:
Harvard Law
Community Organizer
Chicago Machine legislator
Chicago Machine Senator
All he ever did was took orders and voted the way others told him too. That's all folks.
Michael – Wow, you are really working the talking points.
She accepted the nomination 3 days ago, kicked off the general election yesterday and you wonder why she has not been on Meet the Press.
So Barack is more qualified, as he has now spent half of his US Senate career running for President? Obama agrees with you, he said Thursday that he has had 19 months on the stump compared to her 4.
I tell you what, Michael, if you do not believe that McCain’s team did an adequate job vetting her, why do not you look at her record as Governor and her campaigns in Alaska? All public record! Why aren’t the MSM doing that instead of calling her an unfit mother? I mean, for God’s sake, if Elizabeth Bumiller did that work, she wouldn’t have made so many mistakes in her story on her. She would have known, that whistle-blowers (I thought libs loved that, no?) of corruption have a lot of enemies and perhaps she should verify their claims. Bumiller doesn’t want to apologize for the article though, she stands by it because it’s what she wants (and so many others in the MSM) want to believe.
You know what I would like Michael, for all of his “vetting” (the biggest buzzword since 2000’s buzzword - gravitas!) how about the MSM asking Obama some tough questions. Such as, if he’s so pro-gun control and Chicago has some of the strictest controls in the country, why are there so many murders in his city? What was it, 50 some odd people in June and no one asked the One who can solve our nations issues why gun control doesn’t seem to be working. They had another school strike this week (as they did EVERY year I was in school there in the 80s) and did anyone ask him why the schools are such a mess.
But no one likes to talk about Obama’s record for some reason. You know, the quantifiable stuff, not the community organizer stuff.
Michael said...
"Simon, For someone who tries to represent himself here as some kind of legal intellectual, "
I don't represent myself as anything. I just say what I think is right.
"I find it rather difficult to believe you would want a Vice President or a President who actually believes a gay person can be converted to a straight person, through prayer"
I don't want it. I don't not want it. I just don't care. It is, as my mom used to say of things, a matter of supreme indifference to me. Not all information is relevant - information is only relevant when it tends to throw light onto truths that are of consequence in determining the issue at hand. This means that some evidence is useful in one context but not in another; if I'm taking Sarah Palin out to dinner, I very much care what her opinion of Italian food is; if I'm talking about electing her to the Vice-Presidency of the United States of America, I don't find that information useful.
"She also wanted to ban some books (although she suddenly backed off, calling it a 'rhetorical' suggestion) from her local library. Are you for that, too?"
That's been alleged, but to my knowledge, no one has yet adduced any evidence that (1) it actually happened or (2) what the supposedly-targetted books were. For example, if the books proposed to be banned were "the Wealth of Nations" or "Dreams from my Father" or "Mein Kampf" or "The Communist Manifesto" - any number of books about which people have strong feelings for or against but which are indisputably important historic landmarks of thought - that is concerning, on some level. But given the chinese whispers quality of every other falsified Palin meme, it is entirely plausible that what actually happened is more innocuous; one can conceive of many legitimate reasons for removing existing stock, such as freeing space, or judging that some materials may be out of bounds (compare the American Library Association case), or inoffensive by themselves but lacking conformance with the legitimate purposes of a library (Mills & Boone novels, for example). But in any event, the question that remains is why - even assuming the truth of the allegations and giving them the least positive spin possible - any of that is relevant to the Vice-Presidency. You say she's claimed it was a "rhetorical" suggestion, and any reasonably-curious person would immediately want to know the surrounding context before waving that away as you tacitly do. Are you a Babylon 5 fan? Think back to what Londo told Morden after their first arrangement: "why don't you take out the entire Narn homeworld, while you're at it?" Londo didn't order Morden to do it; it was sarcasm. It was used for rhetorica effect. You don't even have the comparable quote - only the 2d-hand information that she may have said something and may have denied it. Let's see what really happened instead of making lukewarm smears about it.
The only reference that I can find of Jesus doing any organizing, was when he had his apostle friends over for supper. Unfortunately, it would be his last.
peter,
Just keep telling yourself that the American public doesn't know Obama.
It's nothing more than pure right wing delusion.
Arguing against Obama's policies, things he's said or done, etc. is fine, but the constant drumbeat that "we just don't know who he is" reflects nothing more than the same ridiculous comments anyone can get from right wing radio and television pundits and talking heads.
And referring to his time as a State Senator and U. S. Senator as a Chicago Machine legislator and a
Chicago Machine Senator is just another cheap shot, and rings hollow considering how long McCain has been a Senator, associated with all kinds of "cash collecting political machines, and of course, how many lobbyists he has on his campaign payroll right now.
compared to her 4 days I meant to write
Michael, regular readers will know that I'm nothing if not cool and hip. Well, I have hips. And I own a fridge. But that's basically the same thing, right? ;)
allens,
Just keep telling yourself that Jesus Christ wasn't a "community organizer," that he was just a carpenter.
Maybe you can pass that premise along to your fellow church-goers this Sunday and see how many agree.
GFL.
simon,
No, no, I think you're really "cool."
I don't go to church.
Michael said...
"most here also know Obama was a Professor of constitutional law"
Really? I thought he taught a seminar on race and law, and maybe taught a class on a very specific section of a subset (rights) of conlaw. And besides: so what? You think that being a law professor necessarily means that you have a deep and abiding love for (or even understanding of) the Constitution of the United States? You understand that Joe Biden is a law professor, too, right? You understand that law is a really big, rich, deep field, and being qualified to teach, say, contracts doesn't make you qualfied to teach, say, antitrust?
catherine31: Why isn't she out fielding questions right now?
She doesn't have to be on Meet The Press or any of the news shows, but Cheney, Bush, and every other politician on the planet sure as hell does their best to appear when they have something to say...right?
Are you saying someone should accept the nomination for the 2nd most powerful position in the world, but not set aside time for people who cover such, to ask specific policy questions?
Why not an open press conference with the White House press corp? Representatives from ALL news organizations?
She needs to take a vacation?
Is that really what you're saying?
Oh, and this comment is really ridiculous: "But no one likes to talk about Obama’s record for some reason. You know, the quantifiable stuff, not the community organizer stuff."
The man has been vetted for over two years. Are you deaf, dumb and blind? Did you miss the debates, the town hall meetings, the appearances on every news...even O'Reilly last week?
Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Three days later, he arose, because he had better things to do. What does a community organizer do? We don't have any where I live.
miller said...
garage: put up or shut up. Please post the links to your posts where you complained about Obama hiding from the press when he avoided going on Fox for debates.
Better yet, post links that show accomplishment, experience, in depth knowledge of issues, and his Autobiography- Son of a Goat Herder does not count.
The media gave both Clinton and Obama a free pass. Now we may pay the price.
Michael said...
…but as anyone with even a basic understanding of the of the Bible knows: Jesus Christ was a community organizer, too and Pontius Pilate was a governor, so unless you have something against those who help the needy, your criticism is rather silly.
Jesus Christ was not a community organizer, he was a carpenter and a preacher. He never ran for public office. Pontius Pilate never ran for office either; he was appointed.
Many, you really have a God image of Bambi.
As to the needy, the only way to help the poor is not to join them.
Michael - You forgot the rumor that her church is anti-semetic. perhaps you have already posted that while I write this.
Rumors aren't truth and they make you look like the tool that you are. So eager to believe the worst in people you fear.
People who are afraid spread lies and lash out in fear.
Pathetic. Sorry I took the bait and responded to you in the first place. Didn't realize you weren't just following the talking points, but spreading lies.
Michael said...
She also wanted to ban some books (although she suddenly backed off, calling it a "rhetorical" suggestion) from her local library. Are you for that, too?
Oh, I just love your clap like dripping hypocrisy; I really do. The liberals have been trying to ban, and have actually accomplished banning books for years. Try to find a copy of Little Black Sambo. It was out of print for many years because of protests by the liberals.
They still want to change the words in Mark Twain’s books. When American Psycho was to be released, the liberal feminists were in such a tizzy that the original publisher dropped it. How about Harry Reid and the Democratic Party forcing Disney to paint Clinton in a better light in that movie no one watched P/911? The list goes on about liberal expression atrocities. If it was up to you people the only books allowed would have read covers and be authored by Chairman Mao.
Oh, and by the way, our Founding Fathers were community organizers, as was Martin Luther King,
Yeah, well, Jesus did not come to a good end. Martin Luther who?
Simon:
Via the University of Chicago:
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School.
He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996.
He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.
Senior Lecturers are also considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors.
peter asks: "Martin Luther who?"
I love it when racists rear their ugly heads.
Good work.
Only two people ever gave their lives for you. Jesus Christ and the American fighting man.
Bambi ain’t Jesus- sorry to burst so many bubbles here- and community organizers never fought for anyone. As to Biden, Hair Club For Men is not a religious or veterans group either.
catherine says: "People who are afraid spread lies and lash out in fear."
You've got that right.
Why else would she want to ban books at a public library?
Thanks.
WOW.
We've got some real racial hatred surfacing today.
I don't think I want to associate myself with the likes of Peter.
Back to football.
They had another school strike this week (as they did EVERY year I was in school there in the 80s) and did anyone ask him why the schools are such a mess.
It was not a strike, it was an illegal boycott- keeping kids out of school is illegal- by a very close friend of Obamas, the right Reverend James Meeks; also a long time Illinois State Legislator.
He should have been arrested, but, this is Chicago and they do not arrest right Reverends and State Legislators for committing crimes.
Michael said...
catherine31: Why isn't she out fielding questions right now?
She doesn't have to be on Meet The Press or any of the news shows, but Cheney, Bush, and every other politician on the planet sure as hell does their best to appear when they have something to say...right?
Why should she? What does she owe the media? They owe her an apology, along with Obama and KOS. The media shamed her, defamed her and her family, slandered her, and viciously bought into the Obama/KOS dirty tricks machine. Why the eff should she even acknowledge them.
Gee--I am still wondering--isnt Bambi running against McCain? Why is Palin an issue; we don't treat Biden like that--well, in part, because he is the senate's Foghorn Leghorn and is not deserving of our ridicule.
And poor bambi--that nasty ole hocky mom is tearing him a new asshole. Poor baby--he's proven to me that he can stand up to Iran, Putin, and the NORKS--boy, I feel better already.
Michael said...
peter asks: "Martin Luther who?"
I love it when racists rear their ugly heads.
Good work.
I love how liberals love to accuse others of being racist. That is the liberal way. Call names like little children on the school yard. you can make jokes about a fine, upstanding woman, but hands off Saint what was that guys name again?
Catherine31--you don't get it, although Peter just splained it to you--Paling will be giving interviews and connecting with people--except its not going to be through the MSM. Why should she adopt what you think is the appropriate thing to do? I lost the script on how these things are supposed to work--start thinking outside the box, Catherine. This is no longer politics as defined by the establishment. Thats what change is all about.
Different subject: I always thought that VP candidates were supposed to be the attack dogs--now Sarah has really attacked yet. She has just used --gasp--sarcasm. Oh the injustice. Lets see when Joe Hairplugs Biden will grow a set and go on the attack like VP candidates are supposed to do.
Michael: you really are that stupid. The reference was to Martin Luther you idiot. You know--the 99 theses guy? about 500 years ago? Led the protestant reformation? You got a great mind there son--Unsullied by education.
Michael said...
"Are you saying someone should accept the nomination for the 2nd most powerful position in the world, but not set aside time for people who cover such, to ask specific policy questions?"
I agree that she should answer questions, but it is no longer a valid argument that those questions should be asked by a media that has revealed itself as nothing more than unpaid surrogates of the Obama campaign.
"She needs to take a vacation?"
Her son's leaving to serve our country in Iraq this week. I think some family time before then is apropriate. Do you?
Your 4:16 PM is unfathomable to me. I have no idea what to make of it unless your standard talking point rebutting criticism of Obama's tenure (so to speak) as a lecturer is to refight the "was he a professor or a lecturer" argument, which has nothing to do with and doesn't address my point.
"Why else would she want to ban books at a public library?"
I don't know why she might have, or even that she did - and neither do you. Everything you've said on the issue is nothing but rumor and innuendo; you have zero evidence of it, we are left to conclude, because you woudl have brought it forward by now if you did.
I am sure that the fact that Obama was editor of Harvard Law review and that he was an adjunct at the U of Chicago is going to impress a lot of union members in Ohio, PA and WV
Blame that cyberspatial equivalent of the 18th and 19th c. broadside, the blogosphere!
simon says: "I agree that she should answer questions, but it is no longer a valid argument that those questions should be asked by a media that has revealed itself as nothing more than unpaid surrogates of the Obama campaign."
So, who asks the questions? Her husband? McCain?
Pretty weak, Dude.
As to book banning:
Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.
Anne Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.
The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: September 2, 2008
WASILLA, Alaska
Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.
Anne Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.
The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled.
Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.
In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.”
Sorry, about the double post
I hope she banned Harry Potter. I hate that little Limey asshole.
Harry Potter it the Sarah Jessica Parker of library books.
Roger J. said..."Michael: you really are that stupid. The reference was to Martin Luther you idiot."
Roger, I know who Martin Luther is, you idiot.
I was the one who originally posted Martin Luther King as a community organizer.
Peter came back with a veiled, but racist comment.
trooper, can we assume you have no children?
Try to fit this video into your day.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-McCain-Speech-090508.wmv
Identical awe inspiring rhetoric from G.W. and McCain.
Michael, let's start with the easy part: the library. You respond to the request for evidence an article that appeared (although you're at pains to hide that fact) in the New York Times. Even if that were a credible source - you might as well cite Fox News if those are the depths you've sunk to - it's non-responsive.
I said that all you've brought is "rumor and innuendo; you have zero evidence of" the charge that Palin "want[ed] to ban books at a public library[.]" I said that no one had brought forward evidence that it actually happened, what the supposedly-targetted books were, or why. I noted the absence of direct quotes, in context, without which Palin's claim to have been speaking rhetorically simply can't be evaluated. And nothing in Yardley's article addresses those problems in your case. Yardley relies on a self-confessed political opponent of Palin's whose description of what happened and why is extremely vague (the books at issue "were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her" (emphasis added)). Moreover, even Yardley concedes that Palin "never followed through" and that it is "unclear which books or passages were in question." If you really want to press the attack, you're going to need to find the article that Yardley refers to in The Frontiersman, not simply rely on vague assertions made by political enemies quoted by a discredited source.
You went on to say:
"simon says: 'I agree that she should answer questions, but it is no longer a valid argument that those questions should be asked by a media that has revealed itself as nothing more than unpaid surrogates of the Obama campaign.' So, who asks the questions? Her husband? McCain?"
It's interesting that you put it that way. We agree that she should answer questions. Think for a moment, however, about why you regard it as ridiculous that her husband or running mate should be the one to pose the questions. The most obvious reason is because that sort of Q&A would be tainted by the suspicion that the questions being asked were deliberately skewed in a way conducive to the political agenda of the questioner. Right? If you understand that, then you understand why for many of us, having the MSM ask her questions is as laughable as having McCain ask her questions. The media has made it absolutely clear that they are fighting to get Obama elected by tearing Palin down; if you're going to have them ask questions, you might as well just have the Obama campaign team themselves come in to ask the questions. It'll be a series of opportunistic gotcha questions froma deeply hostile source, designed to do everything possible to trip her up and catch her out.
Palin during hr acceptance speech:
"While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, U.S.-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries."
Can you say...contradiction??
By Reuters | Jul 2008 :
While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, U.S.-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.
AP
A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007.
Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.
The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
Michael said...
Peter came back with a veiled, but racist comment.
What is racist? Only a looney liberal could construe that remark as racist. I have no opinion on MLK. I could care less about him. That is not racist. As far as I am concerned he is a non-issue.
simon,
Look, the article appeared in the NYT's...so what?
The PEOPLE in the article live in Alaska.
It was also published by the North Shore Journal, The Jefferson County Republican Party, LISNews Librarian And Information Science News, the Boston Herald, and many other news organizations...which you probably already know.
This insane dismissal of anything you don't want to believe, because you don't like the source, is infantile at best.
Can I assume you'd have to hear this from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Fox News before it would carry any credibility?
Using your criteria for what you'll accept is just plain stupid...and you know it, too.
The real question should be this:
Why would Palin want to ban books, and what books were they? If they were racist or homophobic or anti=American or something that would incite or train a terrorist, that might pass muster, but I don't think that's the case here...and why was the librarian fired?
Why would Palin want to ban books, and what books were they? If they were racist or homophobic or anti=American or something that would incite or train a terrorist, that might pass muster...
So the Constitution only protects selected literature and non-fiction. Freedom of expression is not inclusive? Only books you that liberals deem without merit should be banned? Where do we stop?
Off the top of my head, here are just a few books liberals have tried to ban. I know there are many more:
Little Black Sambo
Mark Twain- change language
How to Kill- over ruled by courts
American Psycho
Hitman- over ruled by courts/pulled by publisher.
None Dare Call it Conspiracy
Maybe you should go live in one of those tin pot despotic pseudo-democracies that ban books on freedom.
michael,
Let me get this straight. Hypothetically speaking:
If an author were to write a book positing that homosexuals are an abomination before God and should be killed, you would allow that book to be banned.
If an author were to write a book positing that a race of people are evil and have no human or social redeeming value and must be wiped off the face of the earth, you would ban that book.
If a book posited that a woman must marry her brother in law if her husband dies, you would ban that book.
If a book posits that a married woman who is raped is an adultress and must be killed, you would ban that book.
If an author wrote a book advocating a race war, you would ban the book.
If an author wrote a book stating that Jews must convert or perish, you would ban that book.
If an author wrote a book that demonstrates using the geographic topography of Israel to destroy the Jews, you would ban that book.
If a book detailed the various techniques of horrendous torture and advocated its use, you would ban that book.
I just want to know what books are good and what books are to be banned and burned. Please tell me where to turn in my Bible and other scripture materials to the local thought control police.
RogerJ - did you read my post correctly or get me confused with another poster? I was not the one saying that Palin had to answer to the MSM. Honestly don't know what you are referring to in your response to me.
From what I have read, the "ban the books" story was from an email that included a well worn list of all books that have faced banning.
At a time like this, with so much at stake, it's best to wait a few days before you get too excited about any "news" you read about.
This is probably from the same people who said McCain, near the bottom of his college class, called his wife a trollop. I doubt he ever heard the term.
Michael said...
"Look, the article appeared in the NYT's...so what?"
"So what"? So what if an inflammatory story about Barack Obama appears on Fox News that just so happens to fit the network's agenda; it appeared on Fox News, right, so it must be true. You see how silly your position is now? You really think that news networks don't have political agendas, Michael? Paging Pollyanna...
"The PEOPLE in the article live in Alaska."
Allegedly, the article quotes her political enemies in Alaska. Gee. Can't imagine why their credibility might be diminished, even if the quotes are accurate and the context accurately reported.
"This insane dismissal of anything you don't want to believe, because you don't like the source, is infantile at best."
A story gains credibility when the facts on which it rests are confirmed by multiple independent news sources, or when the story cuts against the ideological inclination of the network. the New York Times no longer has any credibility reporting a story critical of a conservative; Fox has never had any credibility reporting a story critical of liberals. When Fox reports facts critical of Republicans, or when the NYT reports facts critical of liberals, or when both agree about the facts of any story, then the facts (if not necessarily the analysis) have credibility. The only solution to pervasive media bias is to read widely - and often.
"Can I assume you'd have to hear this from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Fox News before it would carry any credibility?"
You're being obtuse. My comments above quite clearly dismiss the credibility of Fox as a source for information.
"The real question should be this: Why would Palin want to ban books, and what books were they?"
You're being obtuse. In implying that I'm avoiding the real question, as you did, you ignore that I said that that was the real question several times above.
" If they were racist or homophobic or anti=American or something that would incite or train a terrorist, that might pass muster, but I don't think that's the case here..."
You have no basis whatsoever to make that assesment other than prejudice based on your existing opinion of Palin.
"[A]nd why was the librarian fired?"
Subordinates who can't or won't do what their superiors direct them to do should leave the employ of the administration, or be removed.
PatCa - that email was sent to me by the wife of a co-worker. It was a patheticly childish email being forwarded by all of her Ivy League HBS friends(she said she was passing this on to everyone she knows too!). The email is from "an Alaskan" who wants to make sure that the world knows that Palin is a redneck, blah blah blah.
They believe themselves to be so brilliant yet the fell victim to SPAM! And she thinks she is better qualified to be vpotus.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा