After Palin's speech last night

Message

Sir_Galahad · #1 Post by **Sir_Galahad** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:30 am

This was truly a moment in US history.

At this point, in all honesty, I cannot see how you could vote for any other candidate. If you really are looking out for the best interests of the US (and are not in denial), I just can't see how you could vote otherwise. Of course, that's just my opinion. But, I would bet that millions of others who were on the fence share the same opinion.

And Rudy wasn't too shabby either.

What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.

Also, if you're interested, Bill O'Reilly will be interviewing Obama and it will broadcast tonight and into next week. I suspect this will not be the typically powder puff interview a la Larry King or Keith Olberman, though. I look forward to watching this (on Fox if you're interested).

dimmzy · #2 Post by **dimmzy** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:53 am

At this point, in all honesty, I cannot see how you could vote for any other candidate.

Sure. If the ability to give Good Speech is important.

Spock · #3 Post by **Spock** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:00 am

We saw history being made-Whether or not the McCain Palin ticket wins this year.-We saw a future president of the United States enter the national stage.

Sir_Galahad · #4 Post by **Sir_Galahad** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:01 am

dimmzy wrote:
At this point, in all honesty, I cannot see how you could vote for any other candidate.
Sure. If the ability to give Good Speech is important.

It is important (see G.W. Bush) but what's more important are the actions that prompted the speech. If you have no history of action behind the speech, what good is the speech? I could say that I am going to do all these wonderful things but if I have no history of having done (or tried to do) any of these things, why would you believe me?

wbtravis007 · #5 Post by **wbtravis007** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:19 am

Sir_Galahad wrote:This was truly a moment in US history.

At this point, in all honesty, I cannot see how you could vote for any other candidate. If you really are looking out for the best interests of the US (and are not in denial), I just can't see how you could vote otherwise.

This is an easy one. We're either misguided or idiots.

It's pretty funny to watch all this swooning by "some" -- those who have ridiculed that.

She made a great speech, especially for that crowd. If she'll make herself available to the press and others who will ask substantive questions -- instead of taking the approach that she shouldn't need to spend time on such irrelevant things (which is what I think they'll have her do) -- then I'll be able to develop my thoughts on whether she is qualified.

BackInTex · #6 Post by **BackInTex** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:26 am

wbtravis007 wrote:
This is an easy one. We're either misguided or idiots.

You are talking about liberals, right? Sit down.....I agree with you.

wbtravis007 wrote: It's pretty funny to watch all this swooning by "some" -- those who have ridiculed that.

Sit back down. I agree with you here, too. Not being funny. I think it is funny to see everying falling all over themselves over Palin. I like her and think she is a great choice, but she is not the Messiah, as Obama is not.

MarleysGh0st · #7 Post by **MarleysGh0st** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:28 am

Taking a cautious step out of the Moratorium Lounge...

Sir_Galahad wrote:What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.

Palin repeated the claim about saying "thanks but no thanks" to Congress regarding the "bridge to nowhere".

1. Is is true, as alleged in a blog quote someone posted, that Congress revoked that particular earmark in 2005, before Palin became governor?

2. Is it true that the state of Alaska got to keep all of the money previously allocated for that earmark to spend on highway projects at their own discretion? Isn't that counter to the implicit meaning of "thanks but no thanks," i.e., that "this project is a waste of money, so we're giving the money back"?

Bob Juch · #8 Post by **Bob Juch** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:42 am

MarleysGh0st wrote:Taking a cautious step out of the Moratorium Lounge...

Sir_Galahad wrote:What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.
Palin repeated the claim about saying "thanks but no thanks" to Congress regarding the "bridge to nowhere".

1. Is is true, as alleged in a blog quote someone posted, that Congress revoked that particular earmark in 2005, before Palin became governor?

2. Is it true that the state of Alaska got to keep all of the money previously allocated for that earmark to spend on highway projects at their own discretion? Isn't that counter to the implicit meaning of "thanks but no thanks," i.e., that "this project is a waste of money, so we're giving the money back"?

1. True
2. True

Bob Juch · #9 Post by **Bob Juch** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:45 am

Sir_Galahad wrote:This was truly a moment in US history.

At this point, in all honesty, I cannot see how you could vote for any other candidate. If you really are looking out for the best interests of the US (and are not in denial), I just can't see how you could vote otherwise. Of course, that's just my opinion. But, I would bet that millions of others who were on the fence share the same opinion.

And Rudy wasn't too shabby either.

What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.

Also, if you're interested, Bill O'Reilly will be interviewing Obama and it will broadcast tonight and into next week. I suspect this will not be the typically powder puff interview a la Larry King or Keith Olberman, though. I look forward to watching this (on Fox if you're interested).

Yeah right.

Palin just gave a well rehearsed speech that anyone could have given.

Rudy could have just played back any of the dozens of previous rantings about 9/11. 9/11, 9/11.

gsabc · #10 Post by **gsabc** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:55 am

MarleysGh0st wrote:Taking a cautious step out of the Moratorium Lounge...

Sir_Galahad wrote:What I took away from last night is that if there were any statements that either of the two made that were not true, I would like to know.
Palin repeated the claim about saying "thanks but no thanks" to Congress regarding the "bridge to nowhere".

1. Is is true, as alleged in a blog quote someone posted, that Congress revoked that particular earmark in 2005, before Palin became governor?

2. Is it true that the state of Alaska got to keep all of the money previously allocated for that earmark to spend on highway projects at their own discretion? Isn't that counter to the implicit meaning of "thanks but no thanks," i.e., that "this project is a waste of money, so we're giving the money back"?

Adding to this:
"Our state budget is under control." True, but simple when you have significant revenues coming in from booming oil profits during her 20 months in office.
"We have a surplus." See above.
"I suspended the state fuel tax ..." Easy to do when the above two situations exist.
"When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska. " Wasn't this started back in 1980 as the Permanent Fund Dividend? If so, it's misleading to imply that it was her idea and action. She did offer some of the recent windfall to the Permanent Fund as a one-time increase in the Dividend, but again, that's easy when you have so much money in the first place. Like the current $28 billion in the Fund.

Alaska Constitution, Article IX, section 15:
§ 15. Alaska Permanent Fund

At least twenty-five per cent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received by the State shall be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used only for those income-producing investments specifically designated by law as eligible for permanent fund investments. All income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in the general fund unless otherwise provided by law. [Amended 1976]

Interesting article from a Fairbanks newspaper:
http://tinyurl.com/65mgys
No idea how the paper leans politically, so take the article with as much NaCl as you want.

trevor_macfee · #11 Post by **trevor_macfee** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:43 am

Sir_Galahad wrote:This was truly a moment in US history.

At this point, in all honesty, I cannot see how you could vote for any other candidate. If you really are looking out for the best interests of the US (and are not in denial), I just can't see how you could vote otherwise.

[DISCLAIMER: This is an observation, not an argument. I'm not trying to persuade anybody of anything . . .]

It's funny, my wife or I made the same comment when we were discussing last night's speeches this morning. Just like Sir G, we couldn't see how anyone could vote for any other candidate.

Except we meant it in the exact opposite way he means it.

I'm not sure if Republicans and Democrats are just wired differently or what, but it sure is interesting that folks can watch the same thing and come away with diametrically different reactions.

silverscreenselect · #12 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:02 am

1) Palin did not answer specifics about her record, such as her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere (which both Obama and Biden voted to fund), which in my view was smart. She acted as if she belonged there. The specifics on the plan (lukewarm support by her as a candidate which cooled considerably once she was in office) are far more complex than either she or the Dems attacking her have made it out to be, and frankly are things most voters aren't interested in hashing out for themselves.

2) She definitely cooled the social rhetoric with only a couple of veiled references to parents choosing how their kids are educated. By not coming off as a complete harpy, she appears moderate to a lot of people thanks to the way the Dems have attacked her.

3) Palin has the same ability that Bill Clinton did, namely getting her opponents so angry that they can't think straight. By continuing to concentrate on her experience and family issues (there's now a story about her having had an affair at some undisclosed time in the past), they obscure the only area in which they have a chance to score points against her... the issues. The Dems are allowing the Republicans to frame the issues, once again, in this campaign. Foreign policy boils down to judgment about the surge. Domestic policy boils down to more drilling vs. inflating tires.

3) The reason the Republicans can do this is because the Dems have selected a candidate who has no firm policy in the issues, or rather has every policy on the issues at one time or another. Despite his rhetoric, Obama has never had a "Read my lips" moment. While this allows a lot of people to delude themselves into believing Obama feels as they do, it also allows his opponents to paint him as whatever sort of elitist extremist they want.

4) By turning on Obama, sharply but with wit, the Republicans are going to force his campaign to spend more time defending his record and experience (no one has yet shown one single accomplishment of his, even on a miniscule scale, as a "community organizer"), which allows the Republicans to dredge up all the details of his past yet again. Ridiculing Obama's hundreds of advisors who needed days to bring him around to John McCain's position on Georgia/Russia was a good touch.

5) You will see a lot more of Palin in the next two months than you will of Joe Biden. You'll be lucky to get more than a five second sound bite of him until the VP debate. Even if she is answering charges about her record or experience, she'll be able to turn the attacks, to some extent, to an examination of Obama. This allows McCain to take far more of a high road in the campaign while Obama is having to campaign one against two.

6) Seeing her speech, especially when she turned to the specific issues, reminded me why I am still a Democrat and am so enraged at what my party has done. At one point she criticized Democrats for being more concerned about "reading terrorists their rights" than protecting our country from terrorism. That ticked me off. The President (and VP) take an oath to protect the Constitution, not to protect the country from whatever the President thinks may be a threat at any particular time. When we allow the President to arbitrarily define who is and is not entitled to the protection of our Constitution and laws, then the Bill of Rights becomes a Bill of Convenient Niceties in Good Times.

I'd like to see the Democratic party taking a strong stand against this attitude. Unfortunately, we have a candidate who gave wonderful speeches about restoring this country in the eyes of the world, then caved on this very issue. Who know what a President Obama will do in the future when confronted with this type of issue? With McCain/Palin, I know where they stand and that they are sincere (if misguided). With Obama, I have no idea where he stands or what he will do and could only hope that his reading of the PR tea leaves is correct. I would rather choose the candidates with integrity rather than a man who has demonstrated none whatsoever in this entire campaign.

minimetoo26 · #13 Post by **minimetoo26** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:08 am

With McCain/Palin, I know where they stand and that they are sincere (if misguided).

Which reminds me of a certain other President. Pass.

Appa23 · #14 Post by **Appa23** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:18 am

Bob Juch wrote: Palin just gave a well rehearsed speech that anyone could have given.

Within the confines of the Hatch Act, let me just say:

I am amazed if you really believe that anyone could have given that speech.

All things aside, here is what I was strike by after I starting thinking about the speech.

Think back on the stump speeches that you have been hearing this year (and in years past). I recalled Hillary Clinton relaying in her convention speech the story about the women and teenage son that she met on the campaign trail. This is how politicians relate in their speeches: "I met a person."

Now, reflect on what Sarah Palin said. "I cared about my kids public school education" [not private school, like the others on the tickets], "so I got involved in the PTA."

"My sister and brother just opened a small business . . ."

"I have a child with special needs . . ."

"The traditional family can be a bit "dysfunctional" and not perfect, certainly our family is."

People have railed about politicians. The common person has railed about rich people making politics their profession. It is at the heart of the term limits movement.

You hear about how the original idea was for citizens to heed the call to serve their fellow man (and woman), and then return home after the job is done, "having made things better than when they arrived."

You can like or dislike Sarah Palin's positions. You can think that she betrays the women's movement with her true pro-choice position (in that she weighs the choices and effects of both the mother and the child). You can think that "I don't want someone like my next-door neighbor. He's an idiot." If you honestly think that John McCain and Sarah Palin will not be better for the country, then you should not vote for them.

However. from what I have seen so far, you can not say, "She is no different than the rest."

Joe Biden said that she never mentioned the middle class in her sppech. With all due respect to Joe Biden, who I think has given this country great service in the Senate for his entire life, the whole speech was about the middle class. You do not need to talk about how you feel for the trials and tribulations of the middle class when you are middle class.

Sarah Palin is exciting people because the GOP really has not had a big-time populist conservative in my personal recollection. (The same can be said for Mike Huckabee. You want a man of the people. He unabashedly lived in a double-wide trailer, in Arkansas, as Governor.)

Rexer25 · #15 Post by **Rexer25** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:22 am

Appa23 wrote:(The same can be said for Mike Huckabee. You want a man of the people. He unabashedly lived in a double-wide trailer, in Arkansas, as Governor.)

Big deal. The Governor's Mansion in Arkansas is a double-wide.

All-Purpose Merry Man · #16 Post by **All-Purpose Merry Man** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:23 am

Sarah Palin is exciting people because the GOP really has not had a big-time populist conservative in my personal recollecxtion. (The same can be said for Mike Huckabee. You want a man of the people. He unabashedly lived in a double-wide trailer, in Arkansas, as Governor.)

At the risk of sounding like one of those abhorrent snarky women, I've been thinking lately that if trailer parks had trophy wives, then Palin would be one of them.

peacock2121 · #17 Post by **peacock2121** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:23 am

All-Purpose Merry Man wrote:
Sarah Palin is exciting people because the GOP really has not had a big-time populist conservative in my personal recollecxtion. (The same can be said for Mike Huckabee. You want a man of the people. He unabashedly lived in a double-wide trailer, in Arkansas, as Governor.)
At the risk of sounding like one of those abhorrent snarky women, I've been thinking lately that if trailer parks had trophy wives, then Palin would be one of them.

[/quote]

That was bad, bad, bad.

clem21 · #18 Post by **clem21** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:27 am

After last night's speech I would describe myself as an undecided voter. It was an excellent speech and though I understand the issues that Palin has yet to answer, what about the one charge on Obama. I'd like someone on this bored (or in Obama's campaign) to explain to me what experience Obama has. If no one can answer that sufficiently then I don't think I can vote for him despite the fact that he's my party's representative...

earendel · #19 Post by **earendel** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:33 am

As far as I'm concerned, Governor Palin has not shown that she has the primary experience needed to be Vice-president. How many funerals has she attended? Not that she wouldn't look smokin' hot in basic black...I'm just sayin'...

franktangredi · #20 Post by **franktangredi** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:35 am

Sir_Galahad wrote:At this point, in all honesty, I cannot see how you could vote for any other candidate. If you really are looking out for the best interests of the US (and are not in denial), I just can't see how you could vote otherwise.

Here's a somewhat different reaction from somebody I know on another site:

“McCain deserves credit for the most courageous act of PUPPET-PANDERING in the history of the World. What an INSULT to anybody with a brain.… The front-page headline of the New York Times should read LYING BITCH CONVINCES STADIUM OF IDIOTS SOMETHING.”

For the record, I don't like the person I just quoted. (And I've actually cleaned it up a bit.) But this does have one thing in common with the opinion expressed by Sir Galahad: The assumption that no thinking, honest human being could possibly have a different viewpoint.

I wish people could disagree without assuming that anyone with a different viewpoint must be either stupid or evil or in denial or a traitor to 'the best interests of the US.'

silverscreenselect · #21 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:36 am

Appa23 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: Palin just gave a well rehearsed speech that anyone could have given.
You can like or dislike Sarah Palin's positions. You can think that she betrays the women's movement with her true pro-choice position (in that she weighs the choices and effects of both the mother and the child). You can think that "I don't want someone like my next-door neighbor. He's an idiot." If you honestly think that John McCain and Sarah Palin will not be better for the country, then you should not vote for them.

However. from what I have seen so far, you can not say, "She is no different than the rest."

Rudy Giuliani and Joe Biden gave well rehearsed speeches that any politician (of their party) could have given.

There has been some degree of blowback among the liberal blogs and media about how Palin's speech will play with the Minnesota farmers and Ohio factory workers she mentioned. They felt that "average people" will find her speech overly aggressive and a typical stump speech. However, 30-year-old political science junkie nerds who spend ten hours a day researching the Internet and composing blog posts are not average people, nor are reporters who take great delight in having politicians of both parties suck up to them, and their knowledge of what average people do and don't like is somewhat suspect.

My wife is, what I would like to think, an average person, albeit a liberal Democrat. She was impressed by how Palin handled herself, her background, her family and the points she raised about Obama. She was not impressed (neither was I) with the usual litany of Republican talking points that came midway through the speech.

That part seemed to me to be the most pre-scripted part of the speech she wrote. I would venture you would have heard those exact words last night from a VP Pawlenty or Romney. The parts that she managed to personalize in the last five days were much more effective. She won't be delivering prepackaged speeches on the stump, and I think she will be even more impressive and effective there (and will get far more coverage than Joe Biden will).

franktangredi · #22 Post by **franktangredi** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:42 am

clem21 wrote:After last night's speech I would describe myself as an undecided voter. It was an excellent speech and though I understand the issues that Palin has yet to answer, what about the one charge on Obama. I'd like someone on this bored (or in Obama's campaign) to explain to me what experience Obama has. If no one can answer that sufficiently then I don't think I can vote for him despite the fact that he's my party's representative...

Experience is important, but it's only one factor.

When they assumed the presidency, Lincoln was a failed one-term Congressman and Truman -- despite ten years in the Senate -- was considered by many a political hack. They did okay in the Oval Office.

Ulysses S. Grant led a big army to victory and he was one of our worst Presidents.

Governors, by definition, have no foreign policy experience. Senators, by definition, have no executive experience.

Basically, no job completely prepares anyone for the Presidency. And success at any job never guarantees success in the Presidency.

ne1410s · #23 Post by **ne1410s** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:46 am

David Gregory played a snippet from "Face the Nation" with Karl Rove in which he went to great length the explain that Gov. Tim Kaine was too inexperienced to be VP. Paraphrasing: "He has only been governor for three years and before that was mayor of Richmond which is the 105th largest city in America. That is not enough experience to be VP."

Don't these idiots know about video recordings?

JBillyGirl · #24 Post by **JBillyGirl** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:06 am

ne1410s wrote:David Gregory played a snippet from "Face the Nation" with Karl Rove in which he went to great length the explain that Gov. Tim Kaine was too inexperienced to be VP. Paraphrasing: "He has only been governor for three years and before that was mayor of Richmond which is the 105th largest city in America. That is not enough experience to be VP."

Don't these idiots know about video recordings?

You should have seen the Daily Show last night; Jon Stewart was in rare form. He put up the clip you mentioned above and ran it together with a clip of Rove defending Palin as having been mayor of "the second-largest city in Alaska." For the record, the second-largest city in Alaska is Fairbanks (pop. 31,000), not Wasilla (pop. 9,000). The population of Richmond, VA, is about 200,000. Gotta love it.

Rexer25 · #25 Post by **Rexer25** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:11 am

JBillyGirl wrote:
ne1410s wrote:David Gregory played a snippet from "Face the Nation" with Karl Rove in which he went to great length the explain that Gov. Tim Kaine was too inexperienced to be VP. Paraphrasing: "He has only been governor for three years and before that was mayor of Richmond which is the 105th largest city in America. That is not enough experience to be VP."

Don't these idiots know about video recordings?
You should have seen the Daily Show last night; Jon Stewart was in rare form. He put up the clip you mentioned above and ran it together with a clip of Rove defending Palin as having been mayor of "the second-largest city in Alaska." For the record, the second-largest city in Alaska is Fairbanks (pop. 31,000), not Wasilla (pop. 9,000). The population of Richmond, VA, is about 200,000. Gotta love it.

Hey! This is a political debate! Don't confuse the issue with objective facts like numbers and statistics!

WWTBAM Bored

After Palin's speech last night

After Palin's speech last night

Re: After Palin's speech last night

Re: After Palin's speech last night

Re: After Palin's speech last night

Re: After Palin's speech last night

Re: After Palin's speech last night

Re: After Palin's speech last night

Re: After Palin's speech last night

Re: After Palin's speech last night

Re: After Palin's speech last night

same speech, different reaction

Re: After Palin's speech last night