Home » Pre-debate musings on the bloodsport of dissecting Palin performances

Comments

Pre-debate musings on the bloodsport of dissecting Palin performances — 64 Comments

  1. I’m boycotting Friday’s debate, on account of the blatant conflict of interest involving the moderator, Ms. Gwen Ifill. She’s an Obama supporter and is publishing a book celebrating his ascension to power in January.

    In any fair or decent society she would either voluntarily recuse herself from that role, or would be asked to step down and be replaced.

    But this is increasingly no longer a fair and decent society. I am increasingly becoming gloomy about the fate of the nation and our people. If we do not wake up as things move forward during the next few years, the Left will consolidate its power, impose its templates, and this will not be the same nation it was founded to be.

    I see the polarization, going forward, only getting worse. Dare I write these words? Do I dare say we may see civil war in the future?

  2. When you watch the interview, just look at the expression on Couric’s face. Can you imagine sitting across from a person who was giving you such a hateful, disparaging look, and then trying to compose coherent sentences under that withering glare? Very hard to do. I think she did fine given the circumstances.

  3. What gets me is how idiotic Couric’s question is.

    She seems to think there’s this big $700 billion pile of free money lying under the Capitol Dome, and we’ve just decided to give it to Lex Luthor and the guy from the Monopoly game for no particular reason, while we could be using it to give everybody universal health care, heal the planet, increase funding for puppies, rainbows, and unicorns, etc.

    She doesn’t grasp that the very thing that troubles people is that it’s $700 billion we DON’T have? And that would (in the worst case scenario) simply add to an already enormous national debt?

  4. I wish Algore was asked for Bill’s regulatory efforts during the time Bill Clinton was the governor in Arkansas.

    The, “I’ll get back to ya” answer would’ve been the only thing Algore could say also.

    You’ll never see Biden asked, “What are Obama’s accomplishments or bills that he co-sponsored during his incomplete Senate term?” Or will Obama be asked about Biden’s regulatory efforts during Biden’s 30+ year career?

    The questions are gotcha questions NOT EVEN DESIGNED to LEARN about Sarah Palin’s views.

    You find out nothing about Sarah’s views when asking her if she can cite (other than what she cited) any other efforts of McCains to regulate during his time as a Senator. Citing that history of his regulatory history is what McCain HIMSELF should be asked.

    I’ve become so exercised by this election’s lack of journalistic integrity. I became a conservative in the year 1991 after visiting the library 3 times a week for a year and seeing an alternate point of view. My core beliefs were changed in 1991 dramatically and I’m glad I’ve done all the research I’ve done over the years.

    Journalists should do the same. Research. Reporting. Question the interviewee to find out their stands and their viewpoint. Sheesh! 🙂

  5. Very well and wisely said, Neo. You must be a fantastic therapist–you understand human nature and you really listen.

    I think Sarah understands human nature too. That’s the most important thing in governing. I hope that comes through to viewers Thursday.

  6. roc,
    I agree, and I think that coming from a small town can contribute to that understanding. People have far less opportunity to hide behind a facade of the “right” taste and ideas. A great example is found in To Kill a Mockingbird, where Scout comes to know family histories and see people in more than one dimension. I don’t think a modern-day Scout would be taken in by a Rezko.

  7. I don’t care how many gaffs Sarah Palin may make in answering questions. As long as she can retain her self-possession in the face of such relentless criticism she is ok by me. I feel the same about GWB.

  8. Eloquence in speaking or bumbler
    Sound judgement or poor judgement

    If these were the qualities I had to choose from, I would choose in the following order:

    1 – eloquent with sound judgement
    2 – bumbler with sound judgement
    3 – bumber with poor judgement
    4 – eloquent with poor judgement

  9. Well said, neo!

    I could wish that Palin had handled the first Couric interview better too, but all in all, considering the gauntlet she has run in so few weeks, I’m amazed that she has done as well as she has.

    All three of the other candidates have said things that came across as clumsy, stupid or incomprehensible, but it does seem that very special media fire has been prepared to roast Palin.

  10. Pingback:Palin and Obama | curtis schweitzer (dot) net

  11. Thank you for a sensible post on this non-issue. How did we ever get to the point in this country when Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric are taken seriously? As someone who has spent nearly half his life in and around academia and academics, I can vouch for the utter vapidity of their thought as a general rule when it comes to human nature and therefore politics. This doesn’t make Sarah Palin above criticism, but the shameful deference paid to those who have lots of education and little or no common sense is something that I’m not even sure Chesterton could deal with were he writing today.

    By the way…love this blog. I’m an ex-liberal myself.

  12. Very thoughtful as always Neo.

    As you so clearly show, when taken in their entirity, Governor Palin’s debate performances were acceptable and, at times, quite good. Unfortunately, by picking out sound bites and by dishonest editing, her detractors have found enough to tarnish her rather badly. It is particularly damaging when the Eastern elitist conservatives(?) like Kathleen Parker and George Will pile on. What can their motives be?

    I am very worried about how this will all play out. I think the McCain handlers may have ruined Sarah Palin by throwing her to the wolfpack before she had her feet on the ground. Since the debates they seem to have been very slow to counter some of the distortions that have gained credence. Of course McCain is slow to come to his own defense.

    I would like to boycott the debate tomorrow night because of the Ifill situation. But, I will tune in and hope with every fibre that the Governor rises to the challenge.

  13. Great analysis, neo-neocon. I always enjoy coming here.

    As for the debate, I’ve decided that no matter what Palin says the media will skewer her. And no matter how many stupid things Biden says, the media will praise him.

    sigh

  14. Frankly, it doesn’t matter to the other side. I typically read Maxed Out Mama’s blog for economic analysis. Nowadays, every post generates comments trashing Palin. I don’t get it. If Obama is ahead, like all the polls tell us, and if he is so full of wonderfulness that it should be obvious, why are his supporters beating the rest of us over the head? I find it interesting that we heard endless discussion about Hilary’s “near miss” in Bosnia, but nothing about Biden’s stories claiming he was under fire. It really is quite amazing.

    As for the claims Palin isn’t intelligent, well that’s why I don’t vote Democratic any more. About 16 years or so of hearing that about every single Republican candidate just got on my nerves. I don’t care if Pelosi is smart or not. She’s incapable of governing. Can you imagine Sam Rayburn handling things the way she does?

  15. Oldflyer: what can the motives of George Will and Kathleen Parker be? I think it’s quite simple: their identities as wordsmiths and “intellectuals,” and their status as journalists, mean they affiliate more closely with the chattering classes as a whole than they do with their own conservative philosophy. The former trumps the latter.

    Will was even a professor at Harvard for a while—not that there’s anything wrong with THAT. But my guess is that such things mean a lot to him, and Palin is quite the antithesis.

  16. Teri Pittman: I think also of Lyndon Johnson. He was apparently a genius armtwister as Majority Leader. Graduate of Southwest Texas State Teacher’s College—no ivy there—he was a political wonder in the Senate. His greatest tragedy was that he wasn’t suited for the Presidency; probably should have stayed as Senator. Here is a bit about him:

    Historians Caro and Dallek consider Lyndon Johnson the most effective Senate majority leader in history. He was unusually proficient at gathering information. One biographer suggests he was “the greatest intelligence gatherer Washington has ever known”, discovering exactly where every Senator stood, his philosophy and prejudices, his strengths and weaknesses, and what it took to win him over. Robert Baker claimed that Johnson would occasionally send senators on NATO trips in order to avoid their dissenting votes. Central to Johnson’s control was “The Treatment”, described by two journalists:

    The Treatment could last ten minutes or four hours. It came, enveloping its target, at the LBJ Ranch swimming pool, in one of LBJ’s offices, in the Senate cloakroom, on the floor of the Senate itself – wherever Johnson might find a fellow Senator within his reach.

    Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint and the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking, and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless.

    Pelosi, eat your heart out.

  17. – there are those women too who are quite upset about the blatant sexism directed at Palin – it seems the McCain camp is holding back on some things that could be thrown out there against Obama – with 5 weeks left, they need some fresh tactics because the media is hyping polls that I suspect are ‘stacked’ in favor of obama

  18. Oh, yeah, LBJ was a master. I saw him once, you know. I was in a school band and we played for a big political rally. I remember him being very sunburned–a redneck for sure! Politicans have a bad name, but you really do need to be able to compromise to get things done.

  19. This was an excellent look at an interesting subject.

    I previously pronounced Palin’s answer to Couric’s “why not give the money to middle class families” question “incoherent”. I was wrong to do so. I ought not have spouted such a judgment without seeing the larger part of the interview – or, given the editing of both ABC and CBS: without seeing a full transcript.

    I now see Palin was attempting to respond to a part of Couric’s question which I completely ignored, i.e. “struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries?” Palin’s answer showed more comprehension than my criticism.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I’ve been wrong about something else: I’ve been unable to believe Palin would be effectively attacked over lack of credentials for the job. I’ve believed such attacks would redound to Barack’s disadvantage. So far, it looks as if I was massively wrong about that.

  20. Teri,
    Palin got the gas pipeline moving. Obama legislated the privatization of public housing renovation and management that resulted in buildings that are now falling apart. He also threw about a hundred million dollars at Ayers-inspired education schemes that did nothing to improve education. He has accomplished nothing except overstating his accomplishments. He couldn’t even get his ccampaign co-chairman, Jesse Jackson, Jr, to vote for the bailout bill.

  21. Fallow’s critisism of Palin is toothless, considering the source. I remember listening to a Fallows commentary on NPR during the run-up to the first Gulf War.

    Here he was a former anti-Vietnam war activist mewling on-air about how he wished that he had been tested in “the crucible of combat.” How he felt that his lack of combat experience left a certain empty spot, or lack of gravitas in him.

    I immediately then and there wrote him off for the shallow fraud he is, a Kerry wannabe. Nothing that he’s said or written since then has done anything towards changing that opinion.

    Palin should wear the critisism of such a contemptible fool as a badge of honor.

  22. Neo, I completely agree with your response to my somewhat rhetorical question concerning Will and Parker. I know they are preeningbefore a different audience. Still, it baffles me that they would put in print material that advances the Obama campaign–and it definitely does. It calls into question whether they should have any conservative credentials whatsoever.

    Like many other conservatives, I am not a great admirer of McCain (except his obvious courage) and I had plenty to say in various forums during the primary season. But, once the primaries were over I had the good sense to keep my mouth shut about my reservations. The alternative to McCain is simply too awful to contemplate. That is why I find people like Will & Parker unfathomable. If they destroy Palin they elect Obama.

  23. Here’s how I think Palin should answer gotcha types of college board inquisitions – either in interviews or in the debate – about obscure concepts such as BLOVENT(which I just made up):

    [Palin smilingly gives a tiny yet good natured dismissive wave]

    [smiling, yet dismissive:]
    I don’t know what BLOVENT is.

    [confident, suddenly dead serious:]
    I will learn it, you can trust me on that.

    [bring it home with heart and feeling]
    But if voters are more interested in judging my knowledge of BLOVENT, as I stand here on this stage, than in judging whether I have the judgment and the guts to make good decisions ….[milk it, Palin is exasperated]…. then God help our great nation, because we are headed for a tumble.

  24. Sarah Palin was actually more direct and coherent with her style of answering questions to some depth than her counterpart is. James Fallows is a revolting poor excuse for a man. I never took him seriously, even when I was on the Left. I know his type and I would never, ever feel honored to be in the company of such a man for a drink or conversation. Like most of the radicals from the Sixties, he is of a type and it’s simple to name: COWARD. I wish all of the people from that cohort of the Boomers could be put in a groundhog day scenario where they have to watch “The Killing Fields” over and over and over again for eternity.

    It isn’t that I am not interested in the debate between Palin and Biden. I am actually intensely interested, but I am so incensed at the decision to allow this Gwen Ifill to be the moderator with the obvious conflict of interest that I am going to stick to my principles and boycott it.

    The fix is in, ladies and gentlemen.

    If you want to know how the Left regards the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, note how it treats students and faculty in academia who have to hide their politically contrarian views. The Left uses the Constitution as long as it serves their purposes. Then it goes into the outhouse to be used as toilet paper.

  25. The template used to destroy someone like Palin was perfected on people like Leona Helmsley, Ken Lay and Martha Stewart. All of which i now have to assume may be(been) fairly decent people considering who wanted them destroyed.

  26. Requoting my personal response at Townhall to Parker(‘s) commentary the other day, for what it’s worth:

    Constructive criticizm
    Ms. Parker, you could have offered constructive criticizm (and gotten your message across) instead of political sabotage; and not out of loyalty to the party, but out of thoughful consideration of the far reaching consequences, in your rush to judgement. I made a point of reviewing the famous question from Couric, actually it matched Sarah’s answer very closely. No question that Sarah made the mistake of attempting to respond and address the topics of an expansive, disjointed question, a borderline setup, when she should have just responded with something short and curt, like there are too many issues in that question to address in one or two comments. Sarah’s “gaffe” in response to the question about Putin and Russia, something maybe only a governor of a state indeed within eyesight of a potential enemy, now active supporters of Iran, Syria and Venezuela, might seriously contemplate; Of course a Biden or Obama gets a pass all day as they b.s. nonsensically and endlessly about negotiating,talking with the enemy,blah, blah… One thing is for sure, Sarah is a “quick study” as they say, she’s undoubtedly learned more in the last week about the consequences of “misspeaking”, than Joe Blow has in his entire political career. I predict Sarah will clean his clock, as they say, and by the time this campaign (training wheels for the Vice-Presidency) is over, she will easily be as appropriate for the office as any number of previous candidates.

  27. Pingback:Petition To Dump Gwen Ifill « Nice Deb

  28. Pingback:Thinking about the VP Debate « Bryan’s Basement

  29. If I were hiring somebody to be VP–of anything, including a TV network–would I outsource the interviewing to Katie Couric or Charles Gibson? I never watch them anyway, not for entertainment and certainly not for information.

    The most important thing to know about a potential hire is how they did in a job close to the one you’re considering them for. In the case of Sarah Palin, that would be Governor of Alaska. If she’s good at that, then it’s reasonable to expect that she merits a promotion and might do well in a more demanding job for which some training might be required.

    The whole premise of all these ridiculous Palin interviews is that a candidate for VP is supposed to be ready to be president, today. That premise is false. The vice-president is an understudy, and he or she gets a period of breaking in. Even granted that Charles Gibson and Katie Couric really knew anything about the what presidents do (and they don’t), examining Sarah Palin as they are is like giving her the final exam in the first week of class. Vice-President *is* a job that lends itself to on-the-job training.

    Answering questions from reporters or anybody else is a very small part of a VP’s job (or a president’s). Executives get briefings from advisors and *ask* a lot of questions. If we wanted to assess Sarah Palin’s actual work in a job like VP, we would let her call Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and other talking heads around a conference table and watch her grill *them*. You can find out a lot from the questions somebody asks. And I’d love to hear these disinfotainers giving answers about all these matters they pretend they know so much about.

    TV journalists have a lot of nerve to demand interviews with Sarah Palin. They can’t subpoena her. TShe can’t be cited for contempt of Campbell (Brown). The first amendment guarantees the press’s freedom, but it doesn’t include the press in the government. We can find out about Sarah Palin any way we want, and if we think she’s hiding something, we don’t have to vote for her. But the press has no formal role in approving candidates for office. And it’s a good thing they don’t.

    If I was Sarah Palin, I’d tell Katie Couric that I’ve already had a colon screening and I’m too busy with my important job to get another one.

  30. I have a master’s degree from Stanford University. And all that means is that I have a certain amount of specialized knowledge that helps me in my chosen profession. It has nothing to do with wisdom, judgement, or leadershtip.

    Like many others here, I was a lifelong Democrat until I voted for George Bush in 2004. Of all the votes I cast for Democrats the one I most regret is that for Jimmy Carter in 1980. And I think back to the “Reagan Democrats”, stereotypically blue collar workers with a high school education or even less. But they saw what I could not see, and understood what I did not understand.

  31. I’m with Gary Rosen on that last post. I voted for Carter twice, the first time was my first election eligible to vote in. And I voted again for him in 1980, when most of my college classmates voted for Reagan. I was on the Left then and did not leave the ranks of the Marxists until 1987. The first time I voted for a Republican was in 2004. But I actually began to drift away from the Democratic Party not long after 9/11. And I did so because so many over there, especially on the Left, were siding with Islamic jihadists and despotic state sponsors of terrorism. So, I burned that bridge and cannot see myself going back. And burned my Leftist intellectual ships too, much as Cortez burned his own ships.

    I think the Reagan Democrats were right. It is so sad to see that generation passing away now, before our very eyes. What is taking their place gives me cause for great concern.

  32. I supported Clinton in 1992. I was naive.

    I did abandon Clinton three weeks after his inauguration – when he abandoned his promised middle class tax cut – and I instantly realized he was a poseur and a world-class hypocrite. I don’t think I’ve voted for a single Democrat, for any office, since then – Feb. 1993. And I used to vote for Democrats a lot.

  33. @ SteveH

    “The template used to destroy someone like Palin was perfected on people like Leona Helmsley, Ken Lay and Martha Stewart. All of which i now have to assume may be(been) fairly decent people considering who wanted them destroyed.”

    I don’t think it was as personal with those three as it has been with Palin. Remember this portion of her speech at the convention:

    “And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion – I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”

    Liberal bias in the media is only part of it. At the precise moment she delivered that line, she became a target for personal destruction by the elite media.

    And this filleting of Palin is not only for purposes of this election, but to ensure that she will never again be a viable player on the national political stage.

    Payback is, as they say, a [Leona Helmsley].

  34. Being a governor and a mayor is excellent training for bigger things. However, few governors would be well versed in foreign policy, defense, justice or economics on a national scale. Here’s a news flash -we taxpayers pay for a large cadre of advisors to keep the President and VP informed. Vast, detailed knowledge of all issues and subjects are not as important as a set of core, guiding principles. If Palin follows the same principles and values she used as a successful mayor and governor, she will be okay. She should talk big picture and overall vision rather than getting drawn into nitty gritty wonkish details.

    I can predict one thing: There will not be any questions about energy in the debate. If there are I will be mightily surprised.

  35. Palin: I’m all [sic; it’s clear from the followup answer that she actually said “ill”] about the position

    You don’t need the followup question to clarify that Palin said “ill.” It is obvious at 1:32 of the second video on the linked page.

    I hate to say it but the use of “all” is an obvious blatant attempt to misquote Palin. At a minimum, the transcriptionist needs to be fired for cause.

    The persistent efforts by those high and low in the MSM to misrepresent Palin is sickening and reveals a complete lack of integrity in an industry that has nothing more than integrity to sell to the American public.

  36. …Palin is no intellectual. That’s absolutely true; she is not. But not being an intellectual is hardly the same as lacking intelligence. As a matter of fact, the two can be–and very often are–mutually exclusive. The former is connected with qualities that have much to do with words and the manipulation thereof: smoothness, syntax, pronunciation and accent. Being an intellectual is also at least partly a reflection of educational background.

    Hell, this describes me to a T though I could be a tad better I admit, yet fundamentally it’s true of what is character that is worthy of serving the public. Most people don’t want over intellectualizations of real issues that need real resolutions, they want someone who will do something at least reasonable well, as I’ve stated above as opposed to hmmmmm let’s wait a bit longer (12 years later (1991-2003) Iraq is still rotting) or hmmmmmmm not quite sure yet (Obama’s inability to do anything substantial as an elected official). Don’t be a lazy ass, just get out there and kick some ass, there’s work to be done, do some reasonable planning, get enough of the tools and supplies you need and get to it!

  37. “reasonable well” should have been “reasonably well” which is a good illustration of what is reasonably well enough — but ties back to “…I could be a tad better” :\

  38. Honestly it’s a shame that Palinmania, both in bashing her and praising her, has taken focus away from the two presidential candidates as well as the issues. I can’t remember a bit about either Cheney or Edwards four years ago. Did they debate? Did anyone care?

  39. “Seems pretty comprehensible to me, although not well-expressed. ”

    When the expression is this bad, does it matter? Palin is saying that “reducing taxes” must accompany “tax reduction” and “tax relief.” I suppose this is comprehensible, being a tautology.

    Also, why does she imply we shouldn’t see trade as “competitive”? Of course it’s competitive; that’s the way it should be.

    Sorry, but Fallows is right about her lack of substance, and character-assassinating him won’t make the problem go away.

  40. This tendency of humanitarians and liberal arts educated to sneer and scorn all other types of intelligence and knowledge is appaling. This type of culture war is very common here in Russia, I see it every time when these two tribes face each other and dispute – I due to my profession of scientific observer attend almost every event of this kind. Nation is in a big trouble when power is monopolized by philosophers, and technical minds are underdogs.

  41. Culture war is an issue in this election, as it was in most of the previous elections, too. Reagan got elected not on his economics – this came only in retrospective – but on family values. Palin by her personality focused discussion on these bedrock principles again, and I do not see it as distraction: this is really important in shaping all policy decisions, being it economy or foreign policy.

  42. You have a great site, Neo, and this is once again a great post.

    I have a lot of admiration for

    a) your clarity of writing

    b) the power of your analysis

    c) the courage and honesty of your intellectual journey

    I am looking forward to reading more of your work. Thanks!

  43. Peter the Alaskan Kid, oh yes, Edward and Cheney did indeed debate. Actually, let me back off that statement a bit: Cheney took Edward to school (it appeared to be grade school). It was a beautiful exposition of the contrasting seriousness of each candidate.

    DrJohnson, I had a prof once who styled himself a committed philosophical vegetarian. It was a Communication Studies course – critical thinking, I want to say? What a laugh – that he used as his private soapbox, encouraging his students to accompany him on his annual ten-day juice fast, assigning only such reading as would convince as many college freshmen as possible that MEAT IS MURDER! (I did in fact become a vegetarian for about a year. And naturally I’ve got no beef – you should pardon the expression – with vegetarians. But his tactics were silly where they weren’t insulting.)

    Yet he wore Birks and a leather belt. Someone in class had the stones to ask him about that. His answer? He wasn’t actually supporting the meat industry because the leather was only a byproduct, not the purpose for which the animals were raised. (If I’d heard this answer today, I think I’d ask why hot dogs were off his diet – a similar logic applies, doesn’t it? How about sweetbreads?)

    Now, my babysitter today, 33 years old, actually is a committed philosophical vegetarian; she even understands the words “committed” and “philosophical.” All her shoes and accessories that might be made of leather are fabric or faux. Steve Jenkins, wherever you are, you’re a fraud and you should have been ashamed of yourself.

    Disclaimer: I don’t mean to impugn his knowledge of his field. I can’t comment on that, because unfortunately I never learned any CommS from him because he was too busy indoctrinating me.

  44. One thing that puzzles me about George Will’s dislike of Palin is the Down’s Syndrome issue. Will has often written with conviction, humor and profound love about his adult son Jon, who has Down’s. In fact, back when I was still the kind of liberal Democrat who “knew” that all Republicans are heartless and stupid (give me a break, I was a teenager) I read a column Will wrote about Jon that was so intelligent and affectionate that it was one of my first clues that I might be, well, wrong.

    Now, much much later in life, the Palin nomination has led me to another uncomfortable discovery about my own preconceptions. I am the kind of person who generally believes that most people try to do the right thing. But now, witnessing the torrent of lies, personal vituperation and outright media bias that has followed the Palin nomination, I ‘m having trouble continuing to be that person. I’m beginning to feel, with FredHjr, that “we are no longer a fair and decent society.” I’ve watched
    -an intelligent, kind, feminist liberal friend spew poison about Palin, not because of her politics but because her daughter is pregnant and she got on a plane after her water broke. (“What does that say about her JUDGMENT”??!”)
    -another friend, ditto all descriptions above and add significant professional leadership role, stating that she knows Palin must be homophobic because “ALL Republicans are.”
    -too many more personal encounters like this to list when I should be getting ready for work.
    -and on the wider level, the media’s astonishing concatenation of criticism for anything that comes out of Palin’s mouth while openly ignoring far worse gaffes of Biden and questions about Obama’s background–
    -just in this last week, unapologetic anti-Palin editorials in both the New York Times and the Boston Globe on the rape-kit issue, which has, as both papers must certainly know, been thoroughly debunked;
    -most recently, Gwen Iffill as moderator tonight when she stands to profit directly and personally from an Obama victory . . .
    and so much more. It’s enough to make a hopeful sort of person, as I’ve always been, begin to feel quite hopeless about the future of our free press and of our free country. I have my own doubts about Palin’s readiness to lead but, at this point I’m starting to think that the only decent thing left to do is to vote for her.

  45. Where are the Saturday Night Live skits ridiculing Joe Biden, who (with much more experience at this game) has made plenty of assinine statements?

    Will SNL make fun of the obvious in tonight’s debate- a moderator who Openly supports Obama-
    or will they focus solely on their favorite target Palin?

  46. Woe betide us, Neo-neo. I’m right there with FredHjr. I despair the yawning political gap can be closed because of the Left’s intransigence and commitment to totalitarianism.

    Our personal journeys to conservatism are curious. In my case (liberal arts and MD degrees) I was a natural elitist until I heard my home-renovating carpenters listening to Rush in 1991; carpenters! just high school grads! And Rush made a lot of sense. So I put away the NYT and commenced my journey to sanity.

  47. I especially enjoyed Neo-neo’s remarking on Kennedy’s speaking style, with all the uhs. I have for many years joked that people who speak like that must have attended the John F. Kennedy School of Public Speaking and Communication. It amounts to a verbal tic, and is actually fairly annoying when heavily used; you hear it everywhere. People must think it makes them sound measured and thoughtful; it doesn’t. It makes them sound mannered and stupid. Condoleeza Rice is especially egregious in this regard, and I have sometimes thought that she should not be permitted to speak in public until she has been subjected to instruction through, for example, a Toastmasters International program.

  48. “His answer? He wasn’t actually supporting the meat industry because the leather was only a byproduct, not the purpose for which the animals were raised.”

    I always ask if the cow was killed for it’s leather would it then be OK to eat the meat?

    In actuality the cows are raised with both in mind – there are processes the farmers use to try and ensure good leather from their stock. Leather is not a “by product” any more than diesel fuel is a by-product of producing gasoline. They both come from pretty much the same source, same initial processing, and you will end up with a minimum amount of both in processing. In the cows case since it isn’t a one or the other situation so they try and maximize the yield in both.

    While it is true that if we didn’t use leather there would still be a meat industry it is also true that if we didn’t eat the meat there would still be a leather industry (we already raise a number of animals purely for their skins). The *only* reason to choose one over the other is because it makes you feel better over your choice.

    Of course, that is a similar thought process going on in what Neo describes above. Having your argument be true for *both* sides but ignoring the one you do not want to exist. That’s also been one of the issues causing congress to have a sub 10% approval rating – the democrats only noting that something hurts republicans and never even noticing that they got hit harder (and then republicans realizing they do not have to be good, only have to be a little better). See Pelosi’s speech on the bailout and the republican response.

  49. “I always ask if the cow was killed for it’s leather would it then be OK to eat the meat?”
    Prince Gautama already answered this question. He did not refuse to eat cow meat as soon as he was assured that the cow was slaughtered not specially for him.

  50. As expected, the bail out bill has a wheel barrow load of pork in it. The first bill was only what – 3 pages? It was never meant to be passed. It was a stall tactic to get this 435 page monstrosity written and passed.

    Question: How many senators read, and understand all 435 pages? Oh, hell. How many just read all 435 of them?

    WE NEED TO VOTE THEM ALL OUT. ALL OF THEM.

    To quote Glenn Beck, they are pissing on us, every day.

  51. Someone in the Oval Office or the Senate owes us an explanation why the bill is earmarked to the gills with pork.

    Holding the financial markets, our businesses, and our jobs hostage to this kind of malfeasance is criminal.

  52. Br549,
    I’d be interested to know if things would change the least bit if EVERY elected politician in Washington was voted out. Arent they really just the talking heads faction of an entrenched govt buracracy infested with liberal mindsets? Not to mention the incredible media onslaught that would take place against anyone showing up there to rock the boat.

  53. Excellent post and analysis, as usual, Neo. I can’t help but think that many (if not most) of those who have contributed to this current national and global financial meltdown are the products of “elite” educational institutions. How many Harvard MBAs are crawling around in the upper echelons of top financial institutional management. Frankly, if today’s crisis is the result of what advanced college degrees produce, give me a plain talking, practical minded governor from Alaska who has proven she knows how to balance a budget. Common sense should be rated as “priceless” in a Mastercard ad.

  54. Tom: so you were indoctrinated by your carpenters against your will? By the way, if they were anything like some of the workmen on my house a while back, they might have had a lot more education than that. I once hired a former high school principal turned house painter; he said the work paid better and was much more relaxing.

    But come to think of it, he smoked a pipe and listened to NPR.

  55. The other day I made a connection between the attacks on Sarah Palin and the outcome of the 2002 Maryland gubernatorial race. In that election, the incumbent lieutenant governor, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, was defeated by an upstart Republican who entered the race as a clear underdog. No Republican had been elected Governor of Maryland since Spiro T. Agnew in 1966. An interesting footnote: Agnew served one term as governor. His only previous elective position was Baltimore County executive in 1962. Townsend lost her lead for a number of reasons. The administration of Governor Parris Glendenning had run up a significant budget deficit and Townsend became the scapegoat for that and other administration shortcomings. She also performed poorly in press conferences and was characterized as being a poor speaker. This in spite of her being Harvard educated, well spoken and certainly the choice of the Democratic Party establishment. It seems that the perception of a candidate not handling the press well can be a severe blow when exploited by opponents, as happened to Townsend. Palin faces the challenge of proving she is “not incompetent”, having been tried and found guilty by a jury of hypercritical news anchors and every female liberal pundit on the planet.

  56. Steve H:
    In my opinion, the best we could hope for in voting them all out would be to get a message across, and slow the change over from a republic to a socialist nation. That IS where we are heading. Even those afraid to even whisper the word have to realize it is so.

    The democrats for the lies and deceit. The republicans for cowardice. They need to go. Some need to be prosecuted and incarcerated. They are costing us billions, more likely trillions, and our freedom. It is treasonous to our way of life. That’s how I see it.

    Entrenched bureaucrats will be harder to remove, take longer, and be less successful. I just don’t see an alternative. To be fired from the government, one has to go postal, as it stands now. Unless one is a member of a republican president’s cabinet.

    What surprises me is the lack of realization of those who are willing for this change to occur, who are not actually government employees or elected officials.
    They do not seem to realize they will not be included in the ruling class. They too, will be deserted and left with the rest.

  57. Pingback:sisu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>