Politics: Palin’s speech is online
I didn’t want to watch it, but I did get a chance to read it. Sarah Palin made her case very well, I think. But her case seems to be against the media almost as it is against Obama. But then, the media is a frequent target of the GOP-inclined. But will it bring in votes that might not have gone to the Republican ticket otherwise?
And here is the winning line:
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:13 am
I believe conventional wisdom is that a VP candidate can’t help you but can hurt you. We’ll see.
You know times have changed when the GOP wears the pregnancy of its vice presidential nominee’s 17-year-old unmarried daughter as a badge of honor.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:10 am
[...] local blogger thinks that she made her case well. Hmmm, change is a 72 year old man who voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time (a claim [...]
September 4th, 2008 at 9:07 am
It’s only a badge of honor when it’s their kid. If it’s someone like say… Jamie Lynn Spears.. well…it is outrageous.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I don’t think they’ve yet realized they’re the bad guys.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am
You know times have changed when the Democrats are aghast at the pregnancy of a public figure’s 17-year-old unmarried daughter. Apparently sex outside of marriage is only a private affair when it’s their candidate. If it’s someone like, say, Bristol Palin… well… it is outrageous.
See? It works both ways! That’s one of the pitfalls of stereotyping.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Nice spin, C.J., I see what you did there.
Nobody I’ve talked to is “aghast” over her daughter being pregnant. They’re aghast at the hypocrisy of the people who consistently presume moral authority claiming they don’t give a damn about it, yet have no shortage of criticism for anyone else who happens to be in the same situation.
No sir, we’re not appalled that a 17-year-old daughter of a political rival is pregnant. We come from Reality, we know what it’s like there. The only thing we are appalled at is the Right’s brazen hypocrisy.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
C.J: Are you serious? There’s no difference between what Bill Clinton did (an elected president, having sex with an intern in the Oval Office, then getting her a paid job elsewhere, then lying about it under oath) and what Bristol Plain did (had premarital sex with her boyfriend)?
I was never furious at Clinton for having sex with someone outside of marriage. My disgust centered around his having lied about it under oath, then with Democrats in Congress rallying around him after the failed attempt to impeach him like he was some sort of conquering hero.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Here is how I see it: Palin’s “appeal” in large part rests with her “narrative” and they are running on that.
Hence, the press is absolutely correct to fact check her narrative and it is good politics for the Obama campaign to lay off of that.
Clinton: lying under oath during testimony in a civil trial that was later deemed to be “irrelevant” is NOT a high crime or misdemeanor; it didn’t involve his office.
That is the Constitutional standard; I’d say the same thing about, say, Nixon cheating on his taxes.
So to me, Bill Clinton’s conduct, while reprehensible, didn’t meet the impeachment standard as outlined by the Constitution.
Does it rub me the wrong way that lesser officials were impeached for similar offenses? Sure, but the Constitution doesn’t specify such a high standard for impeaching those officials.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Ollie: The fact that the qurestion was ruled irrelevant after the fact is, itself, irrelevant to my deciding that Bill Clinton is a liar and was unfit to continue to be president. I voted for Clinton twice. Yet the fact remains that Clinton was put under oath, asked a direct question, and lied. Up till that point, the whole Monica Lewinsky affair was, to me, about sex. When it was apparent he lied, it became about having a president who disregarded the rule of law.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:48 am
So what’s your take on the current president’s disregard for the law?
September 4th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I think I’m on record as opposed to:
1. His use of signing statements he thinks gives him the right to operate as if new laws don’t mean what they say they mean.
2. His jailing of people under pretense they are combatants when they need to face trial.
3. His abuse of Patriot Act laws to circumvent the need for due process.
Shall I go on?
September 4th, 2008 at 11:58 am
And do you think he ought to be impeached for that?
September 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I’m not sure there is any specific crime that’s been committed. He’s a liar and incompetent administrator to be sure. Clinton lied under oath. That’s a crime, regardless of whatrever chickensh*t ruling about “irrelevancy” exists.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
It seems to me that the GOPers’ embrace of Ms. Palin shows the complete draught of enthusiastic politicians in their own party. The envy that they have had for the Dems for having someone like Obama has been obvious and overwhelming. Now they think they have found their Golden Child, using the same arguments FOR her as they have used AGAINST Obama. No one who is fawning all over her knows anything about her. The voters of the Democratic primaries have gotten to know Obama and chose him to be our candidate for President of this great and wonderful country because we know he can restore our standing in this big, complicated and dangerous world. He went to law school and did pretty well for himself, even beating the Clinton political machine. No small potatoes.
With Palin, she has been annointed by John McCain. No GOPers have gotten to vote for or against her. In the end, it’s still McCain vs. Obama for President. But at least she has excited the base, something McCain couldn’t do, apparently. So, you have your token woman. Someone who can excite the base, but still has shown no meat to the issues of the day, just drawing blood.
What has also happened is that this has re-energized the Obama/Biden supporters, and independents alike. It’s been such a long primary season, people needed a break. But now, we are more enthused than ever. Thank you, Ms. Palin! (Blows kiss)
September 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“Here is how I see it: Palin’s “appeal†in large part rests with her “narrative†and they are running on that.”
Hasn’t that been Obama’s entire campaign so far? Amazignly though, the media doesn’t seem to do much fact checking on him at all.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Amazignly though, the media doesn’t seem to do much fact checking on him at all.
—————
Actually, they have. With BHO, what you see is what you get.
And in BHO’s case, it is much more than narrative; it is about an exceptionally bright, perceptive individual with immense political skill.
Just one example: look at how carefully BHO vetted his VP picks, and look at what McCain has done.
Re: Billy’s remarks on Bill Clinton. Yes maybe you think that his lying under oath made him unfit for office. You have a point. But that is NOT the Constitutional standard for impeachment.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“It seems to me that the GOPers’ embrace of Ms. Palin shows the complete draught of enthusiastic politicians in their own party.”
Thats ridiculous, since obviously Palin is IN the party, and because that’s the whole reason you and the rest of the Dems elected a Senator who decided to run for president after about a year and a half in office.
But go ahead and continue to make statements like that Ms. Pot.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
1. I’m all for soft shell crab, in sandwiches, sushi – you name it, I’ll eat it.
2. when I was in high school, “fish” was a pejorative term for an icky or lame or possibly slutty girl. So what is that strip implying (did they go to my hs?)? Is it that John McCain goes in for the harlots? I find it interesting that both Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin were once beauty pageant winners. Relevant – no. But definitely interesting from a psychological perspective.
Or is it that the media only goes in for sluts? That the media wants all the sex scandal it can get?
Flip a coin – either one is plausible, no?
3. I can’t believe people are missing the blatant and brutal hypocrisy of wearing Bristol Palin’s pregnancy as a “badge of honor” either, anotherexjser. No, technically it’s not relevant to Palin’s politics, but she’s the one who announced it. McCain’s office is the one that sent out the letter about it. No one knew up until they presented the fact. If they’d have let it lie, and let some other media person discover it and unveil it – ONLY THEN could they claim that it’s irrelevant and people shouldn’t be harping over it.
But when YOU release the news, on the first day of your national convention – you better expect some crap about it. If they wanted to make it a non-issue (which I understand because it is family and nobody’s business, though being upfront about it tends to diffuse it, I get that logic) why didn’t they wait until AFTER the RNC to announce it? One week doesn’t make that much difference in the size of a pregnant woman’s belly. At 5 months, clothing can mask a lot. Bristol could have worn long blazer jackets or loose shifts or flowy shirts over the hips with pants or skirts – I can think of a ton of garments in my own darn closet that would work! And if anyone had blown the cover – then they really could criticize the media for making a circus of her family issues. But as it stands, they’re getting what they deserve based on how THE REPUBLICANS chose to time the info release re Bristol’s bun in the oven.
Or it’s all just a ploy (using the divisiveness that family issues ALWAYS generates for EVERYONE, regardless of party) to cover up the fact that they are indeed running on “narratives” and have no substantive issues to talk about. That Sarah Palin is a weak VP choice. And/or that John McCain has all the appeal of a dead fish to the 80% of folks who disapprove of his political twin buddy, GW (oh, there’s another possible meaning in the comic!).
I don’t know, you can make the call for yourself.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
It’s refreshing to have mature, adult conversations regarding politics, despite 11Bravo’s repeated attempts to take it down to the playground. She wasn’t on a national GOP stage or radar until McCain chose her. Otherwise, the media wouldn’t be in a frenzy to learn who she is and what she stands for.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Personally, I find your comment incredibly offensive. Aside from attacking the integrity of Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin, my wife competed in pageants. The harlot statement is completely out of line. I don’t know, maybe you were the high school equivalent of “Ugly Betty” and were made fun of by the “pretty girls”, but just because you have some kind of preconceived notion about a group based on your personal experience doesn’t give you the right to attack their integrity like that.
Cgiselle, has it really come down to this? Since you don’t have a reasonable argument otherwise you’re going to resort to groundless character attacks? Grow up!
As for you Linda, yes calling someone a prostitute is definitely a refreshing adult conversation, isn’t it?
How exactly am I taking it to the playground? Is it because I’m not drinking the Kool-aid? Sorry, but not everyone has been brainwashed by the Obama bandwagon.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
No, 11Bravo, it’s because of your extreme hostility to anyone you don’t agree with. No one called anyone a ‘prostitute’ so I don’t even know where that is coming from. Instead of telling Cgiselle to “Grow Up!” maybe it is you that should.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
cgisselle…you have to stop overanalyzing things.
The cartoon is clearly indicating that the only use for a newspaper is to wrap fish. No hidden meaning about women or their virtues……y
September 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Bill – The illegal wiretapping directive doesn’t break any laws? According to International Criminal Court (which I realize we are not a party to), he’s committed war crimes by invading Iraq and the ill treatment of war prisoners.
How about this: Do you think he ought to be under investigation?
September 4th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Sarah Palin has give two major speeches to the nation so far, and she’s badly misrepresented her record regarding the Bridge to Nowhere both times (aka LIED). More & more facts are coming out about her abuse of power as governor and dictatorial tendencies as mayor of Wasilla. She’s Dick Cheney’s personality in a skirt with none of his credentials. After 8 years of Dubya, she’s the last person we need one 72-year-old-heartbeat from the Oval Office.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
PeoProud – I started out typing in my comment about the strip for shits and giggles, really. That’s why I opened with yummy soft shell crabness.
But nonetheless – I didn’t mean to refer to all beauty pageant contestants/winners as sluts. Should have written that better. I do find it very interesting, though, that McCain cheated on and then ditched his first wife and the mother of his children for a beauty queen (that’s one hell of a character story if you care to research it), and then ditched several highly qualified candidates (Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, Lieberman) for another beauty queen. Seriously – take out beauty queen and replace the term with “lovely woman” or “newcomer” or whatever – still quite a thought!
Anyway, I started out writing a joke, and found myself square in the middle of a great point – that McCain/Palin are the only ones at fault for the scrutiny Bristol Palin is generating during their own damn convention. Folks have yet to argue or dispute that, the actual serious and relevant point in my post. So carry on criticizing my slut comments – they weren’t great. I’ll wait patiently for someone to dispute the actual meat of my post.
And I totally, honestly, forgot about wrapping fish in newspaper. I can’t remember the last time I bought a fish wrapped in a newspaper. Anyone? I used to shop in the Pike Place Market in Seattle – and even the guys who throw the fish there don’t wrap fish in newspaper, mostly in the nice, CLEAN, white, one side waxed paper you get meat in at the butchers. Does Dixon’s wrap fish in newspapers? Honestly, that’s kinda gross.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Also … Republicans like to portray Obama as arrogant.
{SNORT}
Last night Sarah Barracuda put on one of the most astonishing displays of arrogance that I’ve ever seen … and that includes many years of watching Bill Clinton, who obviously loves himself dearly. What’s even more galling is that she has absolutely NOTHING to back it up. You’d think that such an absolute neophyte to the national political stage would have some humility. Apparently not.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
oh, and while I’m thinking about McCain’s children – have they been on the campaign trail? I imagine they’re adults. Have they been working for dear old dad? I usually just see him and Cindy. Obviously not his ex-wife, natch.
Palin and Obama have it easy – most of their children are minors and they can parade them at will.
Funny, all of Joe Biden’s adult children were campaigning with him last week? Hmmmm….
September 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
cgiselle – you really do amaze me. Yes, McCain’s children campaign with him. One blogs about the campaign on the trail….
Yes McCain is divorced. With 50% of marriages ending with that unfortunate situation, I’m not sure why it’s an issue for the Dems. Trying to assess an individual’s character based upon one action in a lifetime is somewhat disingenuous. He married his first wife, adopted her children, had a child with her and then they divorced. He’s admitted multiple times that it was his fault. He’s remarried…. for quite a while I might add…to another woman. As far as I can tell from published reports, he has a good relationship with both his former spouse and all his children.
As someone with a birthday only 1 month after my parents wedding date, should I fault them for having had premarital sex and getting pregnant? Or should I admire them for taking the action that they did by getting married, having the child, and providing for it? Would you have preferred if they threw their daughter to the wolves and disowned her? Or would it have been better to have encouraged an abortion in this case? They clearly have a difficult situation to deal with.
I will agree that it’s unfortunate that the daughter and her boyfriend are being subjected to the negative press….not easy for anyone, let alone young adults of their age. But the issue would have come out, and if the R’s hadn’t disclosed it, the claim would have been coverup.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Sorry ladies, but 11Bravo tends to stick to the subject and avoid personal attacks. I don’t always agree with him and when we debate we have a real discussion instead of the mudslinging that many of these conversations devolve into.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Okay Linda, maybe I just misread her comment and she really didn’t say harlot… Nope it’s there.
Maybe she meant something else by it, but since the definition of the word is “a female prostitute” she should put more consideration into what she writes.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
11Bravo, we’re in agreement on that much, at least. If I were to say to you,”Jeez, stop being a baby-raping serial killer,” you’d be rightfully offended, and I’d be hard-pressed to offer an alternate definition.
Some things mean what they mean, guys.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Retitious–if you also read the Peoria Chronicle blog–also off topic because it is about Romney’s speech, not Palin’s.
“Opportunity rises when children are raised in homes and schools that are free from pornography, promiscuity and drugs; in homes that are blessed with family values and the presence of a father and a mother.â€
I am curious as to what Romney was thinking—or not thinking–when he wrote (or read) this portion of his Wednesday night Republican convention speech. His whole speech was a series of contrasts between liberal and conservative stances. So was he suggesting that if a child is raised in a conservative Republican home (as opposed to a Democratic liberal home), there will be no promiscuity and that a father and a mother will be present in the home?
If so, McCain’s children (from his first marriage) are exceptions to the rule, aren’t they—at least I don’t believe there was a father “present†in their home (after the divorce). Right?
The use of the word “promiscuity†might cause some to think of Palin’s daughter (admittedly it came to my mind). Or theologically speaking does one have to be married to be promiscuous? But isn’t the implication of Romney’s speech that if parents are not promiscuous, then the “family values†will be passed on to the children. If so, the Palins are also exceptions, right? At least, there has been one glitch—by their own previously and publicly held standards.
My whole “convoluted†point—point of view—is that I wish that conservative Christians would stop claiming that “family values†are practiced only in conservative Republican homes. By doing so, they set themselves up to be called hypocrites. By the way, I can be easily misunderstood here by those who agree and by those who disagree with me. I truly am not criticizing McCains or the Palins for falling short of these ideals. We all fall way short—I believe. I just wish that “family values†would stop being a political football.
I wish that Christians would quietly live lives upholding Christian values (and people will notice)—as witnesses to Christ’s redemption rather than creating this impression that they believe they are paragons of virtue because of their own goodness. That is the way others see us when we claim to be better than others (especially, our or their political opponents). Doesn’t the Biblical warning “pride comes before a fall†apply?
One other possibility—I know the mind of evangelicals (as I am one myself) enough to know that many hold Romney himself suspect because of his religion—but the “family values†stance is very much an evangelical stance, also. I just hope that this stance of “Republican equals Christian†will end soon—for the sake of Christianity. Sorry to bring religion into this political discussion—or did I?
September 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Good grief, Bill. Such as bunch of radical liberals on your site. I only read most of these “comments” because you are my friemd.
And yes, I know Giselle well. She has had her comments deleted from my email site as they contained nothing of value.
September 4th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Merle: That’s the price we pay for freedom of speech.
September 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I think we should make 11Bravo an 11Zulu. He’s top dog around here.
September 4th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Thanks anon, but I’m actually going the route of an 11Alpha.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Physical demands rating and qualifications for initial award of MOS. The infantry senior sergeant must possess the following qualifications:
(1) Physical Demands Rating: N/A
(2) Physical Profile: 222221
(3) Color discrimination of red/green*
(4) Minimum score in aptitude area: N/A
CLOSED TO WOMEN
The major duties, physical demands, physical profile, and skill levels were obtained from Army Pamphlet 611-21.
———————-
Well, we know you can tell the difference between red and blue.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Merle, it’s not my side that moved the extreme.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
He’s right, they were always way out there.
“Radical liberal” is kind of redundant Merle.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
11Bravo: Not always. Remember what Reagan used to say, that he never left the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him? I think it happened after the JFK administration. For all the hero-worship the Dem do with him, the fact is that JFK would be drummed out of the modern Democratic Party much in the same way they did to Joe Lieberman. But then, the GOP would do the same thing with Lincoln.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Funny, according to their overall policies, most Democrats appear to be centrist conservatives. I guess that would be extreme to the authoritarian free market fringe.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Take a step back there Billy, I said liberals, not Democrats. The story of JFK is what got me interested in politics initially in 3rd grade. It wasn’t until 6th grade when I realized that the modern Democrat Party had left JFK long ago, been a Republican ever since.
postsimian, what Democrat policies are you referring to? And no country has a free market, we just have significantly less government control than most other countries. And capitalism was one of the driving forces behind the revolutionary movement. I’d be interested on how one would propose we could separate the “free” market from the individuality of the typical American, or the “American Dream”.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:23 am
What are you talking about? Capitalism wasn’t the main driving force, it was taxation and the ideological case for self-rule. Actually, capitalism was one of the driving forces behind corrupt bankers taking control of our currency nearly a century ago. Thanks for the national debt, capitalists.
I’m by no means anti-capitalist, but I’m confident business can be reigned in to prevent it from shipping jobs overseas (thanks to Republican policies), or from gouging the public, or from screwing employees, fraud, unethical policies, discrimination, etc…. but still entitling them to their profits. It can be both ways, but one side is resistant to playing by the rules and is instead focused on their bottom line. Frankly, when 1% of the world’s population controls approximately 50% of its wealth, I don’t see my views as being all that unreasonable.
Anyway, I’m not referring to specific policies, I’m referring to their policies in general on an ideological scale. To understand just where they stand in comparison to actual radical leftism, you must understand varying political philosophies (Right now Republicans seem to be operating under Hobbes’ proposal of going along to get along). Compare the positions of the two major parties to that of other democracies in the world, and you’re bound to notice a few things.
By and far, the Democratic Party is squarely right-wing centrist in nature. They’re pro-business and have a significantly more tolerant social agenda than the Republicans do, but still at times try to exercise a type of moral authority (think certain ZT policies). On most issues, Dems and Reps are separated on details, but rarely on the main ideas.
Of course, the only thing we hear about is hot-button issues. The right wing, however, has moved significantly further to the right over the past thirty years, and the Democratic party has followed right behind it. What they did was change the dialogue to make the mainstream seem fringe, but not distance themselves from the fringe side of their policies, thus making them mainstream. Clever of them, wouldn’t you say?
Do some research on it and you’ll see for yourself that trying to make the case that the so-called left is on the fringe is not only ignorant, but begs for a pot-and-kettle response. Do keep in mind that calling something, such as universal health care, “radical,” does not make it so. Compared to other modern democracies, we’ve some catching up to do.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
[...]Thus, the main thrust of the Democratic tradition is deeply steeped in fighting wars, but approaches this task with four things in mind: Wars should not begin until the last possible moment and ideally should be initiated by the enemy.Wars must be fought in a coalition with much of the burden borne by partners.The outcome of wars should be an institutional legal framework to manage the peace, with the United States being the most influential force within this multilateral framework.Any such framework must be built on a trans-Atlantic relationship.Democratic Party Fractures[...]