Rush Limbaugh, just now, raving about Sarah Palin at the debate.
AND: Much more substantively: "If she weren't shackled to McCain, do you realize how great this woman could have been?"
ADDED: If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you can see that the big right-wing idea is to save Palin from McCain and to have her as the perfect conservative in 2012. The serious right wingers are afraid of what will happen in the next 4 years with Obama, but they don't see much value in having McCain in there doing almost the same thing, stabbing them in the back. Better to stick the Democrats with the present mess, let Obama struggle with all this insane crap, and have Palin looming ahead as the true Messiah-ette. She'll be above the fray, principled, the veritable embodiment of... hope and change.
३ ऑक्टोबर, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०७ टिप्पण्या:
Win or lose this election, she is going to be a force in national politics for sure. In a few years, you are going to be saying, "Hillary who?"
Can she get the foreign policy credibility she'd need to run for President outright without a VP spot (or running for Congress)?
Either way, I think she needs to become more engaged with politics at a national level...get more comfortable with the press, without losing that hometown quality that draws people in to hear her.
Right now, she's at her best when she's talking directly to the audience, stepping over the media in the process. Imagine how effective she could be when comfortable engaging in dialogue on both levels.
BJK, I agree---she is not a presidential contender in 2012 unless she wins the VP spot. She could run for Senate perhaps, and then 2016 is a shot.
Clearly, the McCain campaign has mishandled Palin. Instead of putting her one-on-one with Gibson and Couric, they should have had her speaking with reporters live in front of an audience.
Any thoughts about Palin's ringing endorsement of civil unions and the rights of same-sex couples?
Palin is now the defacto Repubican nominee for 2012. I see a Palin/Jindal ticket as pretty promising.
To my mind she came through -- she looked and sharp, and Biden looked old and boring, and lost.
Any thoughts about Palin's ringing endorsement of civil unions and the rights of same-sex couples?
Honestly I don't think too many conservatives really care one way or the other over that stuff. It's the marriage thing that get's people rankled and not just conservatives.
I've said it repeatedly and gay couples need to be careful what they wish for. Marriage has its benefits as well as negatives. I don't have any reason to suspect their divorce rate would be any different than hetero couples and with that comes the joys of property settlements, spousal support, child custody. That is something to think about when the only thing on your mind is filing jointly and sharing health care benefits.
Biden looked old and boring, and lost.
In other words he looked like Biden.
If (when) McCain loses this race, Palin needs to look at Reagan as an example.
There was a guy who carefully thought through his own core principles even before he ran for governor of California. Starting in the 50s he studied the issues and worked out his own positions, writing his own speeches and radio addresses.
When he ran for president he had an almost effortless ability to communicate his thoughts, not because he was a former actor, but because he had grounded his political ideas on principle.
Palin needs to do that. At the moment her biggest negative for me is that she really doesn't have any ideas. She has values, and instincts, but no vision or philosophy of government. In short she looks like a typical politician -- likeable and competent enough, but not much more.
Win or lose this election, she is going to be a farce in national politics for sure.
Fixed.
Here comes MichaelTroll to convince us that she was not gorgeous, but "very ugly Reichwinger".
henry - I don't think Palin wants to run for higher office. I see her winning re-election for AK in 2010, then calling it quits in 2014.
2012 will be Romney's nomination for sure. Jindal runs for the US Senate in 2010, will probably win and we're going to have Romney/Jindal vs Obama/Binden in 2012.
The other key to Reagan is that he kept his focus on a few key principals and stuck to them. Yeah, he veered off course, especially in the last few years, but I'm still impressed at how focused he was, especially compared to his predecessor and several successors.
There's something more substantive than Sarah's knock-out looks?!
nrn312 = troll
People - forget about Sarah. She's too lightweight. Jindal is the real deal. Jindal in 2016.
Wow. Here's a video compilation of Palin blatantly reading from a cheat sheet.
You can see her pause, look down, recite prepackaged talking point.
This isn't for a city council position for cripes' sake. It's for one of the highest offices in the land.
Losers in presidential elections usually fade away. Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, the funny looking guy who windsurfs, Dole, Dukakis, that chick who ran for VP before, and so on. It's as if by losing your brand is tarnished forever. I have my doubts about what Palin will be doing in a few years if she is not elected - she may not accomplish anything outside of pissing off a lot of hateful liberals - which, by itself, is amusing and useful.
I think she is gorgeous. She'd turn my head on the street, governor and vp candidate, or not!
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/28/article-1063673-02D4BAAD00000578-832_468x527.jpg
It is the union of the elder white-haired warrior sky king from the desert south with the dark-haired fertile queen of the abundant north.
May their issue bring prosperity!
Governor is always better than Senator when someone is running for President.
Before she was asked to be McCain's VP she said that she'd like to serve at the national level at some point. She wasn't expecting to do so *now* however.
And certainly she'd have prepared differently and sooner if she had.
And really! AL, they had note pads and pens, both of them. They weren't supposed to use them? Can't you find any *real* things to be critical of?
bleeper said...
she may not accomplish anything outside of pissing off a lot of hateful liberals - which, by itself, is amusing and useful.
I think you nailed it. If McCain loses Palin will have a show on Fox News.
The debate got a 45 share last night. Nielsen said that was 60% higher than the Cheney/Edwards debate. That debate drew 43.6 million viewers. According to my calculation, some 70 million people watched last night.
No, Biden was not the attraction last night.
She'd look a lot better if she didn't open her mouth.
Some really gifted director needs to remake "Salo", with the right-wingers of 1980-2008 taking the place of the fascists of the 1930's and 1940's. I envision a Palin lookalike actress feeding the (trapped in the countryside villa) Reagan Democrat stand-ins a healthy dose of poop, with the Palin character laughing and playing with the poop in her mouth at the dinner table(as the fascist in the film does). The ideas I have for this project are endless, someone's gotta film this.
Keep feeding 'em shit. That's the ticket.
I think the ratings are a key point. Biden was clearly not the draw. The righties were tuning in to see if Palin could hold her own and the lefties were waiting to see her flop. One group was disappointed.
I think she will have an impact, perhaps a crucial one, in beating Obama/Biden.
Oh I see that AL is regurgitating his notes from one of his cheat sheets. I'll give him some credit - he isn't quite as weird as Michael.
I don't think Palin wants to run for higher office. I see her winning re-election for AK in 2010, then calling it quits in 2014.
Really? If she had no desire to run for higher office, then why would she have accepted McCain's offer of V.P.?
I think Palin could be an interesting national candidate someday, but I think she needs a bit more experience and knowledge under her belt.
I'm still trying to figure out how not crashing and burning somehow translates into doing a really great job.
No, Palin is not a moron. But she's also not a terribly good politician, and she doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on national issues or foreign policy. I understand the need to rally behind whoever ends up on the ticket you're ultimately going to support, but I still can't quite wrap my head around how desperate that support seems this time around.
There are many, many far more qualified Republicans that McCain could have put on the ticket. Maybe all of this blind Palin praise simply comes from that being a moot point now, but even still. Biden laid out pretty clear, concise policy and consistently took on McCain in the debate, whereas Palin mostly stuck to talking points and/or avoided actually answering the question. Regardless of whether or not you agree with either one's side of things, you had to have seen that.
Bottom line is that McCain lost the election on Sep 15 when he said:
"Our economy, I think still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Self inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Obama is running that gaffe on a loop 24/7 all across America.
BTW on September 15th, McCain was leading Obama +2.0 on the RCP average, now Obama has +6.0, an 8 point swing all because of one friggen horrible gaffe.
Ann, this is an OT question that you haven't addressed in thread and your input would be greatly appreciated by those of us trying to understand the ramifications of the bailout.
For example in the Senate bill under Section 110:
GENERAL.—To the extent that the Federal property manager holds, owns, or controls mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets ecured by residential real estate, including multifamily housing, the Federal property manager shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures.
(2) MODIFICATIONS.—In the case of a residential mortgage loan, modifications made under paragraph (1) may include—
(A) reduction in interest rates;
(B) reduction of loan principal; and
(C) other similar modifications.
Will the above "Modifications" trigger Consitutional/Commerce Clause challenges? Does the judicial have the power to regulate interstate commerce?
Can she get the foreign policy credibility she'd need to run for President outright without a VP spot (or running for Congress)?
Why is it nobody ever worried about that being a problem when it came to any other governor elected to the presidency? Not with Bush. Not with Clinton. Not with Reagan. Not with Carter. But now all of a sudden with Palin it's a big worry? Puh-leeeze.
alex forgets to mention that McCain's "strong" quote was immediately followed by "but, these are very very trying times". Video at the link, and if you click through to the WaPo and watch BHO's ad you'll hear an obvious snap as they cut the last part of his quote off. The Soviet Union would never do things that way, they'd do better sound editing.
And, in case anyone wants to actually do something, here's how to defeat Barack Obama. That's about the only way to do it at this point, and it's something that would actually work. If you don't want to do it, then at the least encourage others to get behind that plan.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with either one's side of things, you had to have seen that.
Uh, no, Emily. I would say that Biden was more consistently articulate in voicing his talking points than Palen.
But glibness is not the same as policy.
You do write that "Biden took on McCain in the debate" which I think is true. The really interesting thing, in my mind, is how little intereste either showed in Obama. Palin took a few shots at him, but she spend just as much time praising McCain. Obama was the invisible man.
Biden's attacks on McCain made clear how much more shared experience the Senator from Delaware has had with the Senator from Arizona than with his own running mate.
Think of the themes that Palin and Biden argued over: outsider vs. insider; maverick vs. McSame; reformer vs. deregulator. All of these concern McCain, not Obama.
Biden did a fine job hitting Democratic talking points but he was incapable of talking CHANGE. Maybe only Obama can do that.
Rush may not be the only one looking for Palin to advance.
Did folks see her tell Katie what characteristic is important to her when she evaluates previous VPs?
It looks like the mask was slipping when she answered that VP question.
Policy, advancements for the country, and principles; who gives a damn.
Personal power, self importance, and rising in rank; I'm getting a rush.
Palin First.
I saw Palin last night. I thought she was far more substantive than Obama has been and far more effective in speaking to the average citizen than anyone since Reagan.
Harry Truman was a HS grad. His executive experience was limited to county "judge". Yet he could talk to the common man and make good decisions.
Those trying to convince us that she is a lightweight seem worried to me. Otherwise they wouldn't take the time to try to convince us.
So...
I wonder how much difference early voting makes.
And I wonder if, like polls, there may be correlation between who votes early and who they vote for.
I feel that voting on voting day is a special thing, even if inconvenient. It's something we do together as a nation. It's special and important.
Doing it early and out of sync is like holding HS graduation for three weeks as people dribble in to pick up their diploma.
(And part of me wonders if those who promote early voting are afraid that people will change their minds.)
She'd look a lot better if she didn't open her mouth.
And Biden would be a lot more accurate if he didn't open his.
I find it amusing that the wisdom of the elite is that smooth talk/babbling and a lifetime on government assistance (aka the Senate) is somehow a beeter qualification for being in charge/potentially being in charge of something, as opposed to - I don't know - actually being in charge of something. And doing a good job. Now I understand that all those grueling years that Joe Biden and Obama have spent is the Senate... Wait, correction, that Joe Biden has spent in the senate are supposed to assure the rest of us that they have a grasp of the issues and a depth of knowledge that means that they'll helm the ship of state competently. But let's face it, Biden is the genius that wanted to partition Iraq, and Obama didn't think potential genocide was a good enough reason to stay in Iraq (but apparently it's a good enough reason to put troops on the ground in Sudan, which Obama was also against ealier). Biden talks with great pride about his leadership on getting the US involved in Bosnia, apparently without reflecting on the fact that we had troops there for 13 years. Foreign policy experts ladies and gentlemen. Not exactly sure what about either of their track records would fill one with Hope/Change that they do much more than make speeches about the latest fuckup. Undoubtedly eloquent, stirring speeches. Yet in Palin, despite the poor interviews and stubborn refusal produce either an Ivy League degree or a a suitable quote from a book on the approved reading list put out by the Oprah book club, we have someone that has actually accomplished things when in charge. Heck, that has actually had a job that didn't rely on government grants. But she's the bubblehead that's unqualified to even be the USA's designated funeral attendee.
Why is it nobody ever worried about that being a problem when it came to any other governor elected to the presidency? Not with Bush. Not with Clinton. Not with Reagan. Not with Carter. But now all of a sudden with Palin it's a big worry? Puh-leeeze.
Too right. She can, if McCain loses, go back to Alaska and start surrounding herself with foreign policy wonks. Four years of engaged study, and a few big "fact-finding" trips would make her a dynamite presidential candidate in 2012.
She should avoid the senate like the plague, however. Only two sitting senators (plus either McCain or Obama this time) have ever been elected president. And that's despite the fact that every four years the primaries are lousy with senators.
bleeper said...
Losers in presidential elections usually fade away.
I know the exception proves the rule, but what about Nixon? Lost to JFK in 1960 but then came back and won twice, the second time in a landslide.
"People - forget about Sarah. She's too lightweight. Jindal is the real deal. Jindal in 2016."
Exactly how much does David Axelrod pay his "astroturfers", Alex?
This isn't for a city council position for cripes' sake. It's for one of the highest offices in the land.
Then what is Biden doing there? Typical, you could not find a legitimate news source; again.
BTW, it was a debate. Not an exam. Ifil was a moderator, not a proctor.
Exceptions disprove rules. My conjecture was idle. Most of all, the 60s are over.
No, Palin is not a moron. But she's also not a terribly good politician,
80% approval rating.
and she doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on national issues or foreign policy.
To you. But I submit that it's one thing to "have a grasp" on things and another to be actually do something.
Foreign policy from Obama-yes-the-surge-worked-no-I-still-wouldn't-vote-for-it and Biden-let's-partition-Iraq?
National issues from these guys? "It'll take 10 years to see any oil from new drilling but unproven alternative sources are right around the corner!"
Not impressive.
I understand the need to rally behind whoever ends up on the ticket you're ultimately going to support, but I still can't quite wrap my head around how desperate that support seems this time around.
What I find amusing is that both sides love to throw out the "desperate" card. The left says McCain's VP choice was reckless and the support for it desperate--completely ignoring that Palin is way more popular with the base than McCain. The right says the left's attacks on Palin are desperate, when it's pretty much what they do to any female (or minority) right winger.
There are many, many far more qualified Republicans that McCain could have put on the ticket.
Not that the base was interested in.
Maybe all of this blind Palin praise simply comes from that being a moot point now, but even still.
The "blind Palin praise" comes from people liking her and trusting her more than they would elite insiders. This is a real sentiment and you would do well to understand that it exists, even if you don't agree with it.
Biden laid out pretty clear, concise policy and consistently took on McCain in the debate, whereas Palin mostly stuck to talking points and/or avoided actually answering the question. Regardless of whether or not you agree with either one's side of things, you had to have seen that.
I saw them both throw out their talking points. I saw, in Palin, a candidate who wasn't going to be railroaded by the Obama-loving media.
Biden seemed in command of all sorts of data, but that's easy to do when you make stuff up, as is his wont.
No, Palin is not a moron. But she's also not a terribly good politician, and she doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on national issues or foreign policy.
I bet three quarters of the commenters at Althouse could do the job just fine. You don't have to be an expert, you just have to be a decision maker who surrounds himself with the so-called experts. And what does a good politician look like anyway? A lawyer?
Wow, the first few critical comments about Palin were thoughtful and fairly critical. I think that those were the first honest criticisms I have read or heard of her, the rest have been slanderous B.S.
Then of course come the stupid commentors, but I was shocked to be reading some straightforward criticism of Palin as a candidate rather than a liberal's nightmare.
Great posts.
Trey
she didn't answer the questions, she threaded a single stump speech througout the "debate."
she used flash cards or an outline and at times blatantly read from it.
biden, like his answers or not, actually answered the questions, on his own.
Is Romney still sulking? Get him out to Michigan and stump for McCain-Palin. Listen, the chances of Mac-Pali winning are certainly less than 50% right now. If Mac wins, he may only serve one term. Win or lose, Romney would do himself an enormous service by stumping actively. Not only that, Romney would do the country a lot of good explaining the economic mess we are in and why the McCain-Palin approach is far better than Obama-Biden.
Romney could help a lot in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada. And Mac should strongly consider him as Secretary of Treasury (heck he will get 700 billion to play with, which is a heck of a lot of power if they win).
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement:
I rehash all of this not to dwell on Palin’s problems, which are increasingly irrelevant as McCain heads towards defeat, but to implore conservatives to stop ignoring reality just because they happen to like a candidate’s personality and biography {and looks -AL}. Besides being bad for the quality of conservative thought, it embraces the caricature that conservatives are indifferent to knowledge and have no use for expertise, which has become an all too legitimate critique of how conservatives have responded to the misrule of the Bush administration.
Alex, your mask is laying on the floor.
I don't think Palin wants to run for higher office. I see her winning re-election for AK in 2010, then calling it quits in 2014.
wha? She's the go-gettiest go-getter I've ever seen.
Did you hear what she said when she heard they were pulling out of Michigan? She practically said "Let me at 'em!"
But she's also not a terribly good politician
???
Say what you want, but you can't say this.
The Exalted sez:
she used flash cards or an outline and at times blatantly read from it.
Another “expert“ who's seen somebody elses lying excerpt. It was obvious actually watching the whole thing that Palin sometimes jotted down notes as Biden spoke, and sometimes referred to those notes.
Lawgiver sez:
I bet three quarters of the commenters at Althouse could do the job just fine. You don't have to be an expert, you just have to be a decision maker who surrounds himself with the so-called experts. And what does a good politician look like anyway? A lawyer?
A lawyer? LOL! Eeehhhnnh! Wrong. (You sound like some of the Volokh Conspiracy commenters.)
A good politician is somebody who's managed to get the people's support to elect them into office, and manages to keep that support after performing well in that role.
As I pointed out yesterday at somewhat greater length, high political office in this country requires political experience, and neither the CEO's of the Fortune 500 companies, nor all the Althouse commenters in the land, possess that kind of qualifications.
As to who is best in that regard, governors come first, senators a somewhat distant second, and representatives are out of the game. Palin, as the most popular governor in the nation (even before her exposure and record as a major party's vice presidential candidate), ranks high in that regard.
"biden, like his answers or not, actually answered the questions, on his own."
If you think Biden spoke extemporaneously all debate then you're delusional. And as Jonah Goldberg points out it's fairly easy to speak well when you're not constrained by facts. Unless someone can point out to me exactly when the US and France "kicked Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon" and Biden and Obama wanted the US to send in troops (One thing that struck me during the debate was Biden and Obama certainly want to send troops a lot of places. Hope/Change certainly seems a lot like Bush/Cheney, only with a black guy who's probably never shot anyone in the face. Although we really don't know what he had to do to get into William Ayers confidence, now do we?) he either misspoke radically (by confusing a sovereign country with a terrorst organization) or he made up the story out of whole cloth. Perhaps it was a flashback from his PTSD induced by getting forced down in Afghanistan, right after coming up from the coal mine and playing a game of football.
Alphaliberal, if you really agreed with the idea of "stop ignoring reality just because they happen to like a candidate’s personality and biography" you wouldn't be complaining about the number two person on one ticket while pimping the woefully under-qualified guy at the top of the other. Obama and his supporters define personality cult.
knox - You got me on that point. She is a good politician if we're talking "is good at advancing her position and getting people to like her". I suppose what I meant to say is I don't think she's a very good policy-maker.
Henry - Another fair point.
blake - That 80% approval rating? Taking a pretty hard hit since she started stonewalling investigations and the like.
To you. But I submit that it's one thing to "have a grasp" on things and another to be actually do something.
I should hope that a policy maker actually has some grasp on an issue before deciding to act on it. You'd prefer someone totally ignorant of the situation to be giving orders?
Biden seemed in command of all sorts of data, but that's easy to do when you make stuff up, as is his wont.
What did Biden make up? Granted, the man has said some crazy stuff in the past, and I don't agree with all of his ideas, but his performance in the debate last night was pretty damn good. As far as I've been able to find, most of what he said was true/accurate, too, even the "Bosniaks" remark.
As for the "desperate support" of Palin that I cited, you're right in that I'm overlooking those who genuinely back her candidacy. But I wasn't addressing those people, I was talking specifically about all of the really stretched out defenses of her that I've been reading from various pundits and politicians (and blog comments) who I strongly suspect, based on their own past assertions and positions, don't really care for her as the veep nominee but feel the need to fall in lock-step with the party.
I think that I probably have little use for expertise... as it's meant in this context.
I don't mind people who really are experts, because they also tend to know what they don't know.
But I've had it up to my eyeballs with people who seem to think I should shut up and value what the "experts" have said or more usually, what they themselves have said because they are an "expert." I don't think that the conservative brand will be improved if we all start sighing over someone just because he went to Harvard Law School. Particularly when that person can't claim to have ever stuck his neck out to combat corruption (since there isn't any in Chicago) and has said really stupid things about foreign policy.
An expert is, by definition, proficient in the very narrow area that person has studied.
By what possible measure can we figure that Obama, with his background, has even the slightest advantage over Palin, with her background, in understanding the dynamics on the ground in Iraq and how the surge and COIN relate to it?
But far too many "experts" seem to think that their opinion has more weight right across the board. That sort of elitist BS is *not* what should typify conservatives.
The reason people don't trust "experts" is that they so very often lack the humility, such as with Obama, to think that it's even possible that their ideas about something that other people study for their whole lives, like modern warfare and the sort of scholarship undertaken by generals such as Petraeus, could be simplistic.
The problem isn't conservatives discounting experts... it's the conflation of expert with elitism.
As if, you know, law graduates from Ivy League schools are better than the rest of us and ought to be deferred to. Not only are they not better... they aren't smarter either. Nor better able to understand things outside of their area of expertise than anyone else.
So get over it, already.
Actually if I had said;
Perhaps it was a flashback from his PTSD, induced by getting forced down in Afghanistan, right after coming up from the coal mine, playing a game of football, and then putting the coal on a boat for Scranton, by way of China.
...that would have been a Biden BS Trifecta.
Were she not shackled to McCain, perhaps she could have left all of that populist silliness out of the debate.
Aha! More evidence of Palin using cheat sheets during the debate!
p.s. It's a joke.
Synova -
I think this quote from Reagan pretty much sums up what you were trying to say:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
junyo -
Improved your post for you:
Perhaps it was a flashback from his PTSD that he had at Katie's Restaurant, induced by getting forced down in Afghanistan by the Hezbollah militants we forced out of Lebanon, right after coming up from the coal mine, playing a game of football, and then putting the coal on a boat for Scranton, by way of China.
What's the word for a five-fer?
"Were she not shackled to McCain, perhaps she could have left all of that populist silliness out of the debate."
I think that the populist silliness is genuine. As is the driving need for honesty in government and fiscal responsibility.
I can live with some silly populism when it comes with a driving need to combat corruption no matter who gets pissed at you over it and a true belief that lower taxes is good for the economy.
p.s. It's a joke.
p.p.s. You're a liar.
The low taxes and anti-corruption rhetoric were not the bits of populism I was referring to.
I was referring to the greed rhetoric and the higher pay for teachers/more money for schools rhetoric.
blake - That 80% approval rating? Taking a pretty hard hit since she started stonewalling investigations and the like.
No, that rating took a hard hit since the Democrats decided they needed to kill her. Period.
Anyone paying attention to Republican commentary in the past six months knew about Palin. And the advantage of looking at her before she got the nom is that there wasn't any of the bullshit that's been kicked into the air since then.
Did she magically get worse after getting nominated? No, she did not. The mud slinging is fast and furious and, let's be frank, none of the other candidates would survive "scrutiny"--where "scrutiny" means to publish whatever crap we can make up--on that level.
The disgraceful behavior of the media on Palin has moved me from a "leave the spot blank" to "vote McCain". It's meaningless, I know, but it's all I can do.
I forgot about the Katie's Restaurant thing. The beauty of that is it makes him seem genuine and in touch but if the MSM pounced on it like the do the gaffs of another VP candidate I could name it shows just how far out of touch he is. I might miss a restaurant I don't go to that often if it closed in the last couple of months. But Biden namedropped a place that's been closed for decades. Man of the people.
You have achieved the rarely seen Biden BS Quinfecta. I shall now top you:
Perhaps it was a flashback from his PTSD that he had at Katie's Restaurant, induced by getting forced down in Afghanistan by the Hezbollah militants we forced out of Lebanon, during which he recalled his days as the top student in his class at law school, where he would go right after coming up from the coal mine, playing a game of football, and then putting the coal on a boat for Scranton, by way of China.
What did Biden make up?
At last count, twenty-two items, all in a 90-minute period where he supposedly talked less than half the time.
That works out to a gaffe, error or outright lie every two minutes.
Yes, the school teachers and greedy lenders and that, yes. That's what I meant, too. I don't think that unions came up last night, but her tone there is similar. In some ways she's like an old school Democrat.
I think it's very genuine.
Since I also think that her view of public service is genuinely service and that she has a compulsion toward dragon slaying instead of career building (or believes that doing the right thing *will* result in rewards in this life if one does not flinch) I can live with the silly populism.
What she isn't at all, of course, is anything like libertarian. But the reasons that many libertarians liked her, remain. She's cut budgets starting with her own salary and benefits, fought corruption for *real*, and believes lower taxes are better.
peter hoh said:
Any thoughts about Palin's ringing endorsement of civil unions and the rights of same-sex couples?
Yes. Speaking as a conservative libertarian, I recommend she reread the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
biden, like his answers or not, actually answered the questions, on his own.
How do you know?
When he said the fundamentals of the economy are strong...
A. I think she covered that rather well.
B. But I'd go farther - Let me just put it this way - if you don't think the fundamentals of our economy are sound - then you have no HOPE.
I have HOPE because I know that Obama is wrong and only wins by saying everything is bad.
He needs to CHANGE his message. But he can't. It's the base for everything democrat.
This credit debacle not withstanding - the fundamentals of our economy and our country ARE STRONG!
Palin kicked Biden's - well, never mind, it's been well covered. But it was a great night.
If he hadn't spent so much time hanging out at Home Depot, he would have gotten the name of the restaurant right.
As for the MSM smears, here's the latest. The BHO campaign's "fact check" is completely misleading; ABC's coverage is only slightly less misleading. However, ABC uses as its main quote source the same person who served as the "validator" for the BHO smear.
Palin/Jindal '12. The Dems will make such a hash of the next four years that a Republican ticket can be a winner.
Barack Obama. Dumber than Jimmy Carter.
There's this "thing" which seems to be the idea that without the presidency that nothing can be done. So Obama needs the presidency and *then* he's going to personify change, *then* he's going to unite everyone in a bi-partisanship healing, *then* he'll have the power to do something.
The man is a Senator.
It's a little bit like Murtha (and you know I love an excuse to bring up Murtha) who had to slander the Haditha Marines and the Marine Corp and the whole system of military justice in a number of news interviews because... what? He didn't have the ability to do anything on his own authority? Of course he did. He's a senior (ancient) congressman and had the authority to exert oversight and to make darn sure that the military investigated and determined the facts and prosecuted if necessary... because it's his JOB to do that.
But he'd rather act like he's helpless and can't do his job without bringing it to the American people. (And now is being sued by those he slandered.)
When the Dems didn't have the majority in the house and senate they promised "change" when they got it.
Nothing changed. Nothing at all.
But NOW there will be "change" when they get the presidency?
Oh, really. Someone believes that?
A good politician is somebody who's managed to get the people's support to elect them into office, and manages to keep that support after performing well in that role.
I don't necessarily agree with your definition of what constitutes a good politician but I agree that Palin is an example of what I would call a good politician.
You don't think you could have done as good a job as VP as Cheney or Algore have done?
HArd to imagine this getting any better:
Well, again, as I tried to explain last night, our executive branch will know what our job is. We have the three very distinct branches of government. You know, we might be bleeding our authority over to the Legislative or Judicial branch to do our job in the Executive branch as administers.
Hey Alpha,
How come you never cite the idiototic comments the senile and moronic Joe Biden makes? Oh, yeah, the free pass rule.
Peter, that's a false comparison. THat would be why.
Palin mangles pretty much every sentence. She has few truly comprehensible utterances. This is born of a shallow or non-existent understanding of the subject matter.
I know you have a need for her to be good and you want to pretend she is good. But she's really quite bad and pretending will not improve anything.
But what I came here to say is that our country needs to move beyond the Bush years. We're burnt out, spent, on Bushian politics. Enough. Our economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, if not not collapsing. Enough.
It'll be a good day when we can turn this sorry page and have a breath of hope in our country. As it stands now, we've been driven into a ditch, no, a ravine by these sorry policies.
Ann is right, the next President will inherit a mess. But we need to rebuild our country and need to drop the fantasies and divisions and failures of a tired and discredited ideology.
You guys can try to rebuild your Republican Party. Maybe you can even make it into something useful. But let the rest of us get on with our lives and stop hurting the country.
But we need to ... drop the fantasies and divisions and failures of a tired and discredited ideology.
Heheheheh.
I agree with the sentiment that having Palin for a 2012 candidate is more important than electing McCain. He might be better than Obama, but he won't be MUCH better and he'll only be around for four years regardless.
Eight years of Palin, on the other hand, could really send us in the right direction.
Enough. Our economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, if not not collapsing.
Thanks to the progressives like Barney Frank, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd...
All in the pockets of the evil special interests. May they roast in hell. Along with Pelosi and her banker husband and the very corrupt and Mafia connected Harry Reid.
Eight years of Palin, on the other hand, could really send us in the right direction.
Rev,
Absolutamente!
Or as Comrade Pogo might say, EHTO NE TAK GAVNO TAVARSH!
Synova: "As if, you know, law graduates from Ivy League schools are better than the rest of us and ought to be deferred to. Not only are they not better... they aren't smarter either. Nor better able to understand things outside of their area of expertise than anyone else."
Not better, but on average, certainly smarter.
And I say this as a graduate of a southern state university.
Smarter? Or just more ambitious?
Wha'dya know?! Palladian was right. Alex IS a troll.
"...save Palin from McCain and to have her as the perfect conservative in 2012..."
This is the best the entire Republican party or the conservatives in general can offer up as the "perfect" candidate in 2012??
You're in deep shit.
"Thanks to the progressives like Barney Frank, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd..."
What was the surplus when G.W. took over?
Palin will be working for Fox within 6 months.
If she's gonna work for FOX it's gonna have to be in 8 years.
Right now, she's gotta be out there every day, on with every possible show host - Couric-types and Hannity-types. Show no fear, and do exactly what she did last night.
Goddam, we need that positive message, that pride in achievement and in being Americans again.
Obama only wins if we are beaten down, victims and wimps.
It really is an opposites deal.
Kirby O wrote:
In other words he looked like Biden.
Why is there no love for Joe Biden?
Frankly, though his debate responses were filled with inaccuracies, I was thinking to myself that if the Democrats were a serious Party, unconcerned with making historic statements that cater to their ideological g-spot, that Joe Biden would've been the perfect Presidential candidate.
He is the kind of man who looks Presidential, but in a non-threatening way. He has just enough gravitas and experience, in an non-high-handed way, to be able to project him into the role.
Republicans have made a fetish of choosing precisely this kind of man to be the head of their ticket for years, and it has worked for us more often than not.
I was struck by the SLOG live-blogging comments which echoed this thought. "I wish he were the head of the ticket", ruminated one brave liberal.
A slight peak behind the curtains of Obama-adoration which rang true.
Cheers,
Victoria
And if memory serves, he was judged to have been the winner of most of the Democratic debates, yes?
He can make a strong point without sounding like an hardass. That's a very good quality to have in a politician.
She has few truly comprehensible utterances. This is born of a shallow or non-existent understanding of the subject matter.
Alpha doesn't understand women.
You people amaze me. Don't you know? If Obama gets in, there won't be any 2012 elections. No elections in 2016 or 2020 or ever. The permanent government will be declared under the leadership of "The One".
Things will get so bad under the democrats that they'll have no choice but to declare an emergency and do what they've always wanted to do...trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obama's Truth Squads will get new assignments. They MUST restore order, you see.
Do you have any doubts that things will get that bad or that they would seek to profit from things reaching such a state? In fact, do you have any doubt that they wouldn't try to push the process along as much as possible? Just look at this current mess and how they caused it and are profiting from it if you do.
McCain/Palin was our last chance, but McCain won't fight. He's worried he might hurt his senatorial image. All the old school Republicans are the same. Sarah, for all her ability and charm, is being wasted. Unless she can sit that old coot down and talk some serious fight into him, she might as well go back to AK.
At this point our only recourse is prayer.
Have a nice day.
You guys can try to rebuild your Republican Party. Maybe you can even make it into something useful. But let the rest of us get on with our lives and stop hurting the country.
This is the kind of self-righteous, preening bullshit that eventually alienates liberal rulers from the country once they are in power. Alpha Liberal speaks for an activist base of, perhaps, 10% of the country's voters and he believes that he speaks for everyone.
What people like Alpha Liberal don't understand is that Republicans have been here before and have heard the same tired song from statist looters like Obama and Biden. The mantra of change is almost worn out because we heard it in 1976 with Jimmy Carter. We've seen this movie before. We also know how it ends. First with great tragedy, then with triumph.
See, if you look real close at the Obama campaign, it's all about Barack. It's not really about change, it's simply about power. It's as if the Democrats had nominated Ellsworth Toohey. Too bad the Howard Roark character is running as VP on our side.
When the McCain Campaign doesn't have the guts to raise the foundational issue of how the state held a gun to the heads of the financial industry to force them into loans they shouldn't have made, then skated away while people like Franklin Raines and Barney Frank walked away with the loot, you know that that's a ticket that's going to lose.
The point is, as in 1976, there's nothing new here in Obama-only an increase in government power for the sake of those who make their bones in government. So we've seen this before, and trust me, it won't be long before the Democrats find a way to disappoint the country. They can't help themselves: it's all about the looting.
But what scares people like Alpha Liberal is that someone like Palin can survive this campaign and come back like Reagan did in 1980 and say, "I told you so." She's a natural; the Obama people in their heart of hearts know this, which is why they tried to destroy her. Having failed to do so, they only made her a heroine to the right.
Should McCain lose, as is likely, she'll go back and be a good governor, win reelection handily, make foreign trips to Asia and the Pacific rim states, and be the top draw on the Republican chicken dinner circuit in 2010. Romney is done; his Bots haven't figured out that people were turned off by his grabastic phoniness. Her only conceivable rival will be the outstanding Bobby Jindal (we had hopes for Condi Rice, but it appears that she doesn't want to get into elective politics-that could change, however).
Someone, (it might have been Mickey Kaus) wrote that the biggest loser of the debate Thursday Night was Hillary, who understood immediately that Palin was only going to get more polished and far, far better as a national candidate between now and 2012.
Basically, the drill is this: McCain loses and Palin goes back. Half the Heritage Foundation decamps to Juneau and Anchorage and sets up offices up there so they can get their foot in the door (the other half will go to Baton Rouge). The RNC will be huge in Juneau as well. Juneau is going to become a huge pit stop for Republican House members making their curtain call for 2010. Sarah will take more foreign trips, but she'll have the good sense to keep her nose to the grindstone to make sure that they are Alaska-trade related and that the state is running well. Kissinger and Rice will show up to dump a lot of reading material in her lap. When she goes overseas to, say, Tokyo, expect someone like Rice or Winston Lord to be with her. That's how it will go.
By 2011, she'll be lethal. Too bad for Alpha Liberal, the Obamabots and the Media couldn't kill her off. Now they'll have to deal with her and an irredentist Hillary insurgency.
For better or worse, the Republican Party nominates people when its their 'turn.' It was McCain's turn this time, since he lost out to Bush and there wasn't a lot anyone could do about it, but next time will be Palin's turn. The Republicans love her and we are not like the Dems who turn their back on a good candidate (like Al Gore) because he almost won but couldn't clinch it. Reagan had the same problem before he went on to become President.
This whole 'Palin will go away' thing is just desperate fantasy for the leftoids. Sarahcuda is here to stay!
I don't think that McCain got nominated because it was his turn.
I think he got nominated because he was really moderate. Lots of people liked Giuliani (I did) and Fred and all that and liked them rather a lot but Giuliani is too liberal in some ways and Fred too conservative (and uninspiring)... and the people voting in primaries weren't looking for radical... they were looking for not-Bush.
And McCain has been sort of outside of the Republican party for ever... which makes the McCain is McSame thing a willful fantasy, if effective for all those who haven't paid attention.
Biden said his buddies at Home Depot said McCain is the same as Bush... he had to quote them to prove it because Biden knows it's a lie. It couldn't come out of his own mouth.
Section9 +1 on your comments. We're going to see the Carter economy all over again, plus uncontrolled spending since there will be effectively no barriers to political greed.
The Obama administration will become a statist kleptocracy. Plan on massive tax increases and military cuts.
The 2012 elections will be a repudiation of the liberals unchecked power, and a Republican president will be elected to balance the Dem congress. I agree that the most likely ticket will be Palin/Jindal.
But the damage will be severe by that time, 'tho a McCain administration wouldn't do much better, given the veto-proof congress likely to be voted in.
Save Sarah!
I agree that is it inEVITAble that Sarah Palin will be the successful Presidential candidate in 2012. Look how well those predictions worked for Hillary. Granted, Sarah doesn't have a big old billstone hanging around her neck. But a lot will happen in 4 years.
Sorry to throw a big bucket of reality on you all.
Unmerited comparison, MM.
Palin's not used her husband's office to secure her own.
The 2012 elections will be a repudiation of the liberals unchecked power, and a Republican president will be elected to balance the Dem congress. I agree that the most likely ticket will be Palin/Jindal.
Except that there is a decent chance that the Republicans may be back in power in at least the House by then. Remember, it is swinging back and forth via swing districts, and 2010 will see reapportionment, with more sunbelt seats and fewer from Democratic stalwarts like New York, etc.
Also, while the Republicans were at a competitive disadvantage in Senate races this cycle due to the number of swing seats they have to defend, the Democrats will be there probably in 2010 and maybe 2012.
Essentially, the same thieves are running the Democratic party in both the House and the Senate that resulted in the Gingrich revolution. The MSM is covering up that they were the ringleaders in the financial mess that was supposedly bailed out this week. Raising taxes, cutting the military, and funding a lot more earmarks is not going to endear themselves to the American public, esp. when they no longer have Bush to blame for everything.
Fair enough blake -- can you tell an Editorial Cartoon after Iowa really resonated with me? (The one where INEVITABLE crumbled leaving EVITA).
The bulk of my statement stands, however. The gung-ho-ness for Sarah Palin is gonna sound a lot like the inevitability of Hillary! -- and look how well that worked out for her. Predicting politics 4 years in advance does not work.
MM,
I agree with that for damn sure. A lot of prognostication goin' on.
Keeps the talkin' heads talkin', but seldom does anyone go back and read the quatrains.
and rush is still on drugs?
D said...
Win or lose this election, she is going to be a force in national politics for sure. In a few years, you are going to be saying, "Hillary who?"
ya'betcha! While George Bush flaunted his mediocrity, Ms. Palin and flaunt what???
surely not brains.
Liberals who complain about Sarah Palin not being experienced are missing the point. McCain knows he was going to lose yet he knew he could leave a little imprint on the Republican Party as his ship sunk. He knew that who he picked would have a big advantage for a future presidential run over someone McCain dislikes, Mitt Romney. Palin would get much media exposure as the first female VP choice for the Republicans and she would make a decent impression. Sure, she is inexperienced but running for vice-president would count for something. (Somewhat akin to Obama's supporters who say his running for president proves he can be president.) Liberals made a big mistake when they made Palin into a martyr as Republicans love that kind of stuff.
There have been some insightful comments here. Palin can return in 4 years if Obama struggles through his term and she will be the age Obama is now roughly but with 4 more years of executive experience plus a vice-presidential run under her belt. She knows she will have to increase her foreign policy experience. Look for fact-finding missions to come. Liberals made a mistake when attacked her inexperience since that can be fixed. They should have attacked her policies more. Her stances, if unpopular, cannot be fixed.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा