Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
So Big Speeches Are a Qualification, Now?
Let's be honest about what we saw: a woman who was thrust into the presidential race in a farce worthy of Preston Sturges, reciting a speech written by Matthew Scully, faking as hard as she could fake, and lying as fast as she could lie.
You can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man.
This is the John McCain who grumbled about how much he hates immigration restrictionists before caving and ceasing to support his own immigration bill, yes?
I... championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
Says the woman who requested millions for her town and many more millions for her state.
I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.
Not even close to true.
For six months I've heard Republicans attack Barack Obama, on point, for having nothing to offer but a bunch of speeches. Tonight they're willing to overlook the falsified spin that got her this job, the blundering lack of vetting that sealed the deal, and the telling refusal of Palin to face questions from media tougher than People.
I guess this is the GOP coming to its sense on Obama. The idea that the country would reject a charasmatic, history-making fortysomething who makes great speeches wasn't working. So they looked for their own Obama, and they think they've found her, in the crudest sense.
|9.4.08 @ 12:17AM|#
uh yeah, I don't know Dave. Your petty attacks sound kind of desperate. I think you're scared.
|9.4.08 @ 12:24AM|#
actually, Dave's attacks do sound really petty.
After all, requesting money for a state that is statutorily
obligated to forgo some its greatest resources is no crime.
David Weigel|9.4.08 @ 12:25AM|#
Scared of what? I don't like being lied to, much less nodding and remarking on how effective and authentic-sounding the lies are.
Bill\'s Dog|9.4.08 @ 12:30AM|#
"Scared of what? I don't like being lied to, much less nodding
and remarking on how effective and authentic-sounding the lies
are."
Yup desperate.
Woof
Granger|9.4.08 @ 12:33AM|#
"I don't like being lied to"
Then then why are you a suckling on the ass of politics when you
could go out and get a real job?
Randall|9.4.08 @ 12:36AM|#
"when you could go out and get a real job?"
That is a mighty big assumption, Granger.
SIV|9.4.08 @ 12:36AM|#
Even you little media guys are in the tank for the Dems.
That was fucking pathetic Weigel. Why don't you demand the OB/GYN
records too ?
It is all about winning.Why the plea that it is all so NOT
FAIR ?
Marshall|9.4.08 @ 12:37AM|#
I'm with Mistah Weigel on this one. I too don't care for being lied to, whether it's Palin or Obama or Clinton, all of whom are superb at stretching the truth as need be. I don't see how it's desperate to just say you don't care for the woman's behavior.
|9.4.08 @ 12:38AM|#
SIV,
You forgot that thing you do where you capitalize the last four
letters in Democrats. That's really going to catch on.
I guess if pictures of W on his ranch got you excited than Palin
will probably do it for you too.
|9.4.08 @ 12:39AM|#
This post is so hyperbolic it could easily have been written by
Andrew Sullivan.
What is the sudden need to mention that a speechwriter wrote her
speech? A speechwriter wrote Biden's, O'bama's and McCain's
speeches, too. Singling her out is partisan hackery of the worst
kind.
It's not like Sarah Palin is the fist pol to selectively discuss
her record or the first VP candidate to make the Presidential
candidate sound like the next iteration of God descended. That is
the game as it is played.
She did the job she was handed tonight fairly effectively.
Admittedly, her speech tonight says little about her abilities, but
it is all we have to go on so far.
Dave T|9.4.08 @ 12:40AM|#
Wow, when did this place fill up with Republicans? Dave's
criticizing Palin so he must be schilling for the Democrats!
It's us or them, right guys?
|9.4.08 @ 12:40AM|#
It's remarkable how similar Obama and Palin are. Lack of what
most consider 'experience.' Political career launched at convention
speech. Weird past affiliations. Weird pastors/church. Rallies the
base. Young. etc.
Dave isn't desperate at all, and is only pointing out how quickly
we sometimes fall for a charismatic speaker, and are willing to
brush aside the inadequacies and failings. It's amazing, almost
conspiratorial (or at least overly political), that both
parties found an empty-suit-but-good-speaker to put on the ticket
in the same election.
Seward|9.4.08 @ 12:41AM|#
Slumpbuster,
That is the game as it is played.
Are you saying then that she is just another garden variety
politician?
David Weigel|9.4.08 @ 12:42AM|#
Dave's criticizing Palin so he must be schilling for the
Democrats!
To be fair, I could be tougher on Obama's speeches. But Obama does
more blurring of his record (community organizing=healing towns
hurt by plant closings? um, okay) and less repetition of utter bunk
that we know is bunk.
Neu Mejican|9.4.08 @ 12:44AM|#
Palin played well to the Republican base.
She will continue to do so.
As an independent moderate, she's came across as a light weight
conservative blowhard to me.
Sorta a family friendly Ann Coulter.
McCain needs the base. But he needs the middle too. Palin won't
help there, imo.
Seward|9.4.08 @ 12:44AM|#
Adamness,
...how quickly we sometimes fall for a charismatic
speaker...
I completely agree.
|9.4.08 @ 12:47AM|#
meh. She did ultimately tell the Bridge to Nowhere team to screw
off. Kinda like Barr told the Big Government Republicans to screw
off at some point.
Sorry, but isn't it valid when joe says that Biden is against the
war? Isn't it equally valid to say that Palin was against "The
Bridge"?
|9.4.08 @ 12:47AM|#
Dave,
Your post is frenetic... too much coffee?
Tossing shallow innuendo is dangerous for one's reputation, i.e.
your own.
If Governor Palin's statements are lies, as you allege so vaguely,
then I expect you have loads of documentary evidence. Where is
it?
Neu Mejican|9.4.08 @ 12:49AM|#
I wonder how the executive experience thing will play out. Given
that Palin has more than McCain I am not sure they should be
pushing it so hard.
Obama would be smart to use this line:
George W. Bush had 5 years of executive experience (more than
Palin)...and look where that got us.
Obama needs to play his lack of experience as a positive.
|9.4.08 @ 12:50AM|#
Wow, what a bitter post. I really liked the part where Weigel says she's a "cruder" version of Obama! Keeping it real!
Seward|9.4.08 @ 12:51AM|#
The Angry Optimist,
Depends on whether one values making the right choice the first
time, how often someone changes their mind on key topics, why they
changed their minds, etc.
I still do not see why people are so excited by her as the Veep
choice.
SIV|9.4.08 @ 12:52AM|#
Sarah Palin sure comes across as real and authentic and sincere.McCain landed one hell of a saleslady. I predict the VP has a little more impact on the election this time.
|9.4.08 @ 12:53AM|#
Adamness--good defense of Dave. However, he (at least that I've
seen) has never made the same points about Obama or even had any
criticism of Obama. He's totally in the tank for him.
You'll notice he only posts polls when Obama's moving up and many
times cherrypicks the polls. A month or 2 ago there were 2
ridiculous polls from Newsweek and LAT that showed Obama up by
12-15, they were clear outliers. Dave trumpeted them. He's made it
his personal duty here to defend Obama against any smear....has he
ever done that once for Palin or McCain?
I can see being a libertarian and supporting Obama if you're first
priority is a dovish foreign policy...but you'd do it reluctantly.
Obama is the most or one the most liberal nominees in my lifetime
and is promising a huge expansion of government.
This is clearly desperation for Dave. Perhaps instead of Reason he
should write for The Progressive or The Nation.
|9.4.08 @ 12:53AM|#
CN is right. This author seems to be losing it a bit. I mean if she's the new face of the Christian right, I think that will be a terrific thing for the nation, whether I like all her views or not.
Neu Mejican|9.4.08 @ 12:54AM|#
McCain: I led a squadron
Obama: I led a big campaign
Palin: I led a state with a population 200,000 shy of Albuquerque's
Metro Area and almost half the size of NYC's public school
population.
Seitz|9.4.08 @ 12:55AM|#
uh yeah, I don't know Dave. Your petty attacks sound kind of
desperate. I think you're scared.
Yeah, Dave. Your correcting of the record and telling the truth
about some of Palin's biggest lies is really petty. Why let facts
ruin the pretty lady's big night. I mean, who cares if she lies
like a rug? Stop being so petty.
|9.4.08 @ 12:57AM|#
"Scared of what? I don't like being lied to"
Political commentator seems to be an odd career choice then.
Seitz|9.4.08 @ 12:57AM|#
meh. She did ultimately tell the Bridge to Nowhere team to
screw off.
The earmark was removed in 2005, before she even became governor.
The pork still went to Alaska. She just used it on something else.
Quite the reformer.
|9.4.08 @ 12:59AM|#
Seward,
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I don't credit her for that,
but it is not fair to single her out for being more politician than
the three men who also are running.
SIV|9.4.08 @ 12:59AM|#
The reporting of the "media vet" sounds more like opposition research than journalism. I hope the FEC looks into it real hard as an "in-kind" contribution to the DemocRATS.
ktc2|9.4.08 @ 12:59AM|#
As far as I'm concerned she lost all credibility by stating (on video btw) that the Iraq war was a "task assigned by god". Well, that and trying banning books she deems "offensive".
Rhonda|9.4.08 @ 1:00AM|#
"But Obama does more blurring of his record (community
organizing=healing towns hurt by plant closings? um, okay) and less
repetition of utter bunk that we know is bunk."
Weigle logic:
Bunk, bad. Blurring, tolerable.
Seward|9.4.08 @ 1:01AM|#
Slumpbuster,
Sure, I agree. Still, she was the one giving the speech
tonight.
|9.4.08 @ 1:11AM|#
"I hope the FEC looks into it real hard as an "in-kind"
contribution to the DemocRATS."
And he's back! Classic SIV, playing the hits.
Mr. Hankey|9.4.08 @ 1:13AM|#
Weigel is using slight of hand here. He doesn't want you discussing just how big a dump Rudy left in Obama's mouth this evening.
|9.4.08 @ 1:15AM|#
But Obama does more blurring of his record (community
organizing=healing towns hurt by plant closings? um, okay) and less
repetition of utter bunk that we know is bunk.
Wait, "community organizing" as healing isn't utter bunk?
Eh, she knocked off an incumbent governor in a primary by riding,
among other things, the anti-earmark, anti-Bridge to Nowhere wave.
In the end, she did help kill the project, and that does make a
difference. "Utter bunk" is quite strong. "Not even close to true?"
How? "Taking credit for noticing a trend and getting in front,"
sure. In any case, I'd prefer that she run on it, because those
sorts of political promises do have a way of being somewhat
binding.
Yes, Alaska still gets more from the federal government than it
pays in taxes (though several things about the state would
guarantee that that would happen anyway.) Is it her fault if her
lieutenant governor barely falls short against Rep. Don Young? It
doesn't appear to be, but it might just be Dr. Rep. Ron Paul's
fault.
This is the John McCain who grumbled about how much he hates
immigration restrictionists before caving and ceasing to support
his own immigration bill, yes?
And he's still grumbling about it, as your link shows. But the way
he can be so delightfully bad at pandering when he doesn't really
agree with it can be endearing. "Alright, this is the position that
the majority of people apparently want, you deluded bigots. Fine."
Given that I both agree in expanded immigration and believe that my
position is wildly unpopular, and believe that politicians do have
to be elected, transparent pandering of that nature where it's
obvious what he really thinks is by far the closest that I think a
politician can come to a combination of both honesty and agreeing
with me. "John McCain: When he's pandering and doesn't believe what
he's saying, at least it's pretty obvious."
But hey, perhaps I should just join others in hoping that Sen.
Obama has just been biding his time, voting exactly the wrong way
on trade, ag subsidies, ethanol, the minimum wage, the "Patriot
Corporation Act" of his with Sen. Sherrod Brown, the "Free Employee
Choice Act"/ card check act, and everything else, but he doesn't
really mean it? But rather than pick a moderate on economic issues,
he picks a guy whose "moderate" bona fides include
bragging about writing the Patriot Act 6 years before it was
adopted ("John Ashcroft sent up my bill" from 1995) and being a
huge drug warrior.
Or of course I could go with the Libertarian candidate who also had
his own conversion after leaving Congress.
|9.4.08 @ 1:18AM|#
I am a thoroughly pro-Obama libertarian, in that I really want to see him win in November (though I'll probably vote for Barr). It has nothing to do with supporting any of the man's policies. But after the last eight years -- the spending, the wars, the ridiculous ban on online poker, McCain-Feingold, the contempt shown for Ron Paul by the Republican establishment -- I've simply developed an overpowering loathing for the Republican party. Yes, yes, a pox on both of their houses. But if I had my druthers, it would be chickenpox for the useless Democrats, and smallpox for the Republicans.
|9.4.08 @ 1:19AM|#
Huck,
Are there really so many pro-Obama articles on Reason? I don't see
many, rather, it's more anti-McCain. There wasn't anything wrong,
or more importantly, inaccurate with Dave's post, and I'm
bewildered by the sudden outpouring of defense for John McCain, the
most anti-liberty candidate in a long time.
Yes, Palin had a good, charismatic, but vague speech
tonight that was nothing more than political maneuvering. Falling
for Palin over this is no different than liberals falling for Obama
in 2004.
Neu Mejican|9.4.08 @ 1:22AM|#
The Angry Optimist | September 4, 2008, 12:55am | #
actually, NM, in sheer numbers, which one of those three is
bigger?
McCain's squadron about 1,000 men
Obama's campaign, like 2,500
Alaska has about 670,000
Do you have a point?
Bingo|9.4.08 @ 1:23AM|#
But Obama does more blurring of his record (community organizing=healing towns hurt by plant closings? um, okay) and less repetition of utter bunk that we know is bunk.
Bravo Dave, way to cut through the crap!
Seriously, these last couple weeks the staff at Reason have been
terrible advocates for libertarianism. You guys have been going way
too easy on Obama, going after McCain non-stop (which is actually
good)... but you've also been completely unenthusiastic about Barr!
Face it, he's the only chance that real libertarians have in this
race, and I have no idea why you guys keep ignoring him.
Start attacking Obama, its not like you guys have anything to lose
except the image of being a bunch of ivory tower pussies. It's okay
to be a "bad boy", christ man its the image that Gillespie
fosters.
|9.4.08 @ 1:36AM|#
I have no idea why you guys keep ignoring him.
Because he's ignoring us. Barr isn't running for
the presidency under the Libertarian Party, he's running for
president as a sort-of-libertarianish-Republican using the
Libertarian Party.
And I say that as someone who supported his nomination and
supported him until a few weeks ago, when he tried to sue Rick
Warren's church, a private organization, to get into that silly
forum.
cfpete|9.4.08 @ 1:45AM|#
I completely agree that the speech had very little substance and
was full of distortions, just like an Obama speech.
However, I think her delivery was just as good as Obama's.
And yeah, Weigel.
You have been taking a bit easy on Obama.
Now we have Obama/Biden.
So I expect to hear more.
|9.4.08 @ 1:49AM|#
Barr may be the only chance of real libertarians, but he certainly is not the only real chance of libertarians. There is a higher probability of a McCain heart attack and a Palin presidency than one of Barr getting elected. We have a better chance of a Ron Paul getting appointed secretary of State than a Barr presidency. We have a better chance of Lindsey Lohan turning Amish....
|9.4.08 @ 1:53AM|#
David,
Nevermind the bollocks. You bring up excellent points. Your critics
want to like Palin too much to be objective. She may not even be
close to being a libertarian. She may even be a secessionist
theocrat.
Like Obama, people seem to want to project their own beliefs and
values onto her. Nevertheless, Republicans have lost all of their
credibility on libertarian ideals and their biggest sell out is
still at the top of the ticket. This is not about his POW record or
who he trots out as his VP nominee. What the hell does he want to
do as president that has not been filtered through his
handlers?
Neu Mejican|9.4.08 @ 1:55AM|#
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94118849
I think it was SIV...
John?
|9.4.08 @ 2:02AM|#
There doesn't seem to be much of a philosophy about this election floating around REASON. It just seems to be "I hate McCain and I don't want him to be President." I guess that shouldn't be surprising but I can't really say that it seems reasonable.
Jason|9.4.08 @ 2:25AM|#
Let's be honest about what we saw: a woman who was thrust into
the presidential race in a farce worthy of Preston Sturges,
reciting a speech written by Matthew Scully, faking as hard as she
could fake, and lying as fast as she could lie.
Wow, that's quite a opening statement. Nice to see David as found
time in between blogging about his contempt for ridicules Obama
rumors pulled from obscure right wing websites to point out that
Matthew Scully wrote Palin's speech.
By the way, did Obama ever vette Rev. Wright?
|9.4.08 @ 2:27AM|#
For six months I've heard Republicans attack Barack Obama,
on point, for having nothing to offer but a bunch of
speeches.
Uh so you choose to attack Pulin for it but let Obama get a
pass?
Seriously that is fucked up Weigel.
|9.4.08 @ 2:40AM|#
You bring up excellent points. Your critics want to like
Palin too much to be objective. She may not even be close to being
a libertarian. She may even be a secessionist theocrat.
Criticism of Palin is fine but Weigel choose to give a complete
pass on Obama for nearly a year and only wrote about crazy Obama
rumors rather then point out how his speeches were light on policy
and heavy on stretches of truth.
I could go to Kos if i wanted to read lefty weighted coverage.
|9.4.08 @ 2:43AM|#
I'll second that, Anonymous Coward. Some things are tolerable, some aren't. Some forgivable, some not. The GOP can rot in a cold stinking grave.
|9.4.08 @ 2:52AM|#
Are there really so many pro-Obama articles on Reason? I
don't see many, rather, it's more anti-McCain.
It is the lack of anti-Obama articles. Obviously Weigel can
attack....the above article proves it.
But why put the mitts for only Obama and use the brass knuckles for
McCain?
|9.4.08 @ 2:56AM|#
That is a mighty big assumption, Granger.
Randall wins the thread. Well done.
-jcr
|9.4.08 @ 2:58AM|#
But why put the mitts for only Obama and use the brass
knuckles for McCain?
Probably because taking a shot at Obama would kill his social life.
DC's a company town.
-jcr
|9.4.08 @ 3:18AM|#
To be fair, I could be tougher on Obama's
speeches.
To be fair, I don't think anyone paying attention expects you to be
at this point.
|9.4.08 @ 3:45AM|#
For six months I've heard Republicans attack Barack Obama,
on point, for having nothing to offer but a bunch of
speeches.
Uh so you choose to attack Pulin (sic) for it but let Obama get a
pass?
This is the same missed point everyone's been making. The point is
not whether the line of attack is "right" or not. The point is
that, for the eleventy-trillionth time since 2000, the Republicans
aren't consistent on their own goddamn line of
reasoning. They are the ones who say that Obama
had nothing to offer but speeches, while the Democrats pointed to
this Senate experience (state/federal) or that book writing
experience or campaign running or WTF ever, they are the
ones who claim that Obama is nothing but words and no substance,
and then they offer up a candidate from the ends of the
earth with no record whose record in 72 holiday-weekend hours of
press digging contradicts every word out of her mouth. She and the
entire GOP are not even internally consistent, and you don't have
to be in the tank for Obama to point that out.
Mr. Blather|9.4.08 @ 4:24AM|#
And why are we comparing Obama's speeches (presidential
candidate) to Palin's (vice-presidential candidate). They aren't
even trying to get the same job and since when is it the vice
presidential candidate's job to provide the concrete ideas and be
anything more than an attack dog?
If McCain gives a speech empty of specifics, then THAT's worth
attacking.
McCain is, after all, the one running against Obama. That even the
anti-libertarian Dave W. has forgotten this might have been the
point of Palin's selection all along. Mission Accomplished.
Gilbert Martin|9.4.08 @ 8:03AM|#
"For six months I've heard Republicans attack Barack Obama, on
point, for having nothing to offer but a bunch of speeches"
The difference is, she is running for vice president while he is on
the top of the Dem ticket.
And he's not one iota more qualified than she is.
|9.4.08 @ 8:08AM|#
Oh yeah, the paleo-cosmo slap fight is BACK.
Dave, this post reads like it was written by someone who
occasionally rides public transit, and frequently uses
deodorant.
stephen the goldberger|9.4.08 @ 8:31AM|#
Dave, this post reads like it was written by someone who
occasionally rides public transit, and frequently uses
deodorant.
It think it reads like it was written by someone who goes to the
grocery store and buys Fiji apples instead of McIntosh.
|9.4.08 @ 8:44AM|#
I hear you stephen, but it's also got that sort of "stuff besides iceberg lettuce in a salad" vibe to it as well, don't you think?
|9.4.08 @ 8:50AM|#
Dave, do exactly as posters here tell you and have no opinion of your own. Do you hear me? I ORDER YOU!
|9.4.08 @ 8:57AM|#
Mr. Wiggles is obviously in a panic now that the Messiah he has been -- not very secretly -- pulling for, may have some serious competition. The almost uniform negative reaction across the Reason commentariat echoes that of many of the sexist "wingtip" conservatives like Brookhiser, Krauthammer, Brooks and the Powerline guys. You're in really good company.
|9.4.08 @ 9:05AM|#
panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism
Milena Thomas|9.4.08 @ 9:23AM|#
So we really are going to play the experience card over and
over? I think we need to look at policies, but I keep getting
laughed at when I say that. Furthermore, we need to look at the
policies relative to the two options, not on an absolute
level.
Obama's experience or speeches aren't my contention, so neither is
your assertion of Palin's experience or speech-making skills.
What are their proposed policies and track records? Personally, I
was incredibly impressed when she sold the jet and fired the chef.
I love that. And Mrs. Obama is frustrated that her young girls
won't get horseback riding lessons if Barack is in office. Sad.
|9.4.08 @ 9:32AM|#
Milena,
Here's a place to start.
The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
Introduced by Sen. John McCain in May 2005, and cosponsored by Sen.
Edward Kennedy. Barack Obama added three amendments to this
bill.
While the bill was never voted on in the Senate, the Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, respectively, drew
heavily upon the wording of this bill.
The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Lugar and Sen. Tom
Coburn.
First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill
expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which
helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related
infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.
Lugar-Obama expanded this nonproliferation program to conventional
weapons -- including shoulder-fired rockets and land mines.
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
This act of Congress, introduced by Senators Obama and Coburn,
required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations
receiving federal funds in FY2007.
Despite a "secret hold" on this bill by Senators Ted Stevens and
Robert Byrd, the act passed into law and was signed by President
Bush. The act had 43 cosponsors, including John McCain.
The act created a Web site, which provides citizens with valuable
information about government-funded programs.
Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy
Promotion Act
This law helped specify US policy toward the Congo, and states that
the US should work with other donor nations to increase
international contributions to the African nation.
The bill marked the first federal legislation to be enacted with
Obama as its primary sponsor. Following this legislation's passage,
Obama toured Africa, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti,
Ethiopia and Chad. He spoke forcefully against ethnic rivalries and
political corruption in Kenya.
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
In the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama worked with Sen.
Russ Feingold to pass this law, which amends and strengthens the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
Specificially, the changes made by Obama and Feingold requires
public disclosure of lobbying activity and funding, places more
restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and
provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure
bills.
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act
Following the Republican-sponsored voter intimidation tactics seen
in mostly black counties in Maryland during the 2006 midterm
elections, Obama worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer to introduce this
bill.
The bill has been referred to the United States Senate Committee on
the Judiciary. Obama said of the bill, "This legislation would
ensure that for the first time, these incidents are fully
investigated and that those found guilty are punished."
The Obama-McCain Climate Change Reduction Bill
The Obama-McCain bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman,
I-Conn., would cut emissions by two-thirds by 2050.
Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007
Introduced by Obama, this binding act would stop the planned troop
increase of 21,500 in Iraq, and would also begin a phased
redeployment of troops from Iraq with the goal of removing all
combat forces by March 31, 2008.
Amendments to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill
Obama worked with Sen. Kit Bond to limit, through this bill, the
Pentagon's use of personality disorder discharges in the FY 2008
Defense Authorization bill.
This provision would add additional safeguards to discharge
procedures and require a thorough review by the Government
Accountability Office. This followed news reports that the Pentagon
inappropriately used these procedures to discharge service members
with service-connected psychological injuries.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision
Working with Sen. Hagel and Rep. Adam Schiff, Obama authored this
provision, which would require the president to develop a
comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and
weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are
secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can
pose.
That doesn't even get into his accomplishments in the Illinois
Senate, such as the bill requiring the videotaping of confessions
and interrogations in homicide cases - remember the death row
scandals in Illinois?
Raphael|9.4.08 @ 9:38AM|#
Copied and pasted propaganda from a candidate's own website don't really provide for an objective argument that can be taken seriously or believed.
The Extispicator|9.4.08 @ 9:40AM|#
I basically agree with Milena. I don't like focus on "experience," which normally means 'how ingrained into the washington machine are you'. If it were up to me, every candidate for president would be a mayor or governor who could come in to Washington and say "What the hell is going on here?" instead of "I know how the system works."
|9.4.08 @ 9:43AM|#
Mr Weigel,
lI don't like being lied to
Nobody does. You know how to tell if a politician is lying? They're
talking.
Sarah Palin was a politician giving a speech. So yeah, lies. But as
far as 'candidate on the campaign trail' lies go, hers were rather
mild. Not anywhere near as flagrant and outrageous as you make them
out to be.
1. Changing positions is not the same as being two faced.
2. As a hypocrite on earmarks and corruption, her record includes
genuine reform to end abuse. That's more than can be said about...
everyone else.
3. "Thanks but no thanks" Not even close? Come on Dave, I
think it's close.
Speaking of being lied to, I'm surprised to hear you exclaim that
you are "shocked shocked" to hear a politician 'revise and extend'
her record. This is made even starker when set against the backdrop
of your Obama coverage.
The Hoarse Whisperer|9.4.08 @ 9:50AM|#
"And Mrs. Obama is frustrated that her young girls won't get
horseback riding lessons if Barack is in office. Sad."
Whay??? They can't get an Escalade ride to Warrenton???
|9.4.08 @ 9:59AM|#
What a strange post. Dave, I must agree that it seems a little
harsh, what with Obama being, if anything, worse. Palin has done
something, at least, and has legitimate credentials as a reformer.
Obama? Well, he has been running for president. The fact that she,
too, is a politician and has made compromises that offend us,
hasn't always behaved consistently, and employs speechwriters (??)
just shows that we don't generally elect our best and brightest to
any office. I won't defend her spinning of facts any more that I
defend anyone else's, but they all seem to think we should be lied
to.
Palin's too paleo for my tastes, which is where I think she's
really vulnerable, but I think her accessibility and
apparent principles set her off from the two experienced candidates
in the race, and I think she's more interesting and impressive than
Obama. All he's ever done is make some good speeches.
|9.4.08 @ 10:26AM|#
charasmatic, history-making fortysomething who
makes reads great speeches
charasmatic?
|9.4.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Charasmatic. Could mean the conveying a sense of lake-covering algae or maybe the exuding of character.
stephen the goldberger|9.4.08 @ 10:44AM|#
heh.
This post and the responses really just makes it clear to me that
when it comes to politics, everyone ends up losing their fucking
mind and any and all hope for objective analysis.
Accentuate the failures and extremes of the other side, promote and
play up the positives of your side, and repeat.
|9.4.08 @ 10:45AM|#
If there needs to be a liberal voice at reason, coul you guys maybe trade Weigel for Greenwald?
|9.4.08 @ 10:51AM|#
stephen the goldberger,
The fact that so many view politics as a competitive sport rather
than the process of picking our overlords is why we have such poor
candidates and such bad government.
Neu Mejican|9.4.08 @ 11:08AM|#
3. "Thanks but no thanks" Not even close? Come on Dave, I
think it's close.
I would say the fact that she kept the money but didn't build the
bridge makes "not even close" a fair assessment of this
claim.
"Thanks for the money, we'll use it for something else" is not the
same as "No thanks."
|9.4.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Raphael | September 4, 2008, 9:38am | #
Copied and pasted propaganda from a candidate's own website don't
really provide for an objective argument that can be taken
seriously or believed.
Then get off your ass, you lazy p.o.s., and google the bills. They
were either written and passed as described, or they weren't.
You can use The Google better than your candidate I hope.
|9.4.08 @ 11:15AM|#
All he's ever done is make some good speeches.
It's astounding how adverse this line of bullshit is to
evidence.
|9.4.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Not even close to true.
Actually, it is true, in the sense that she did actually say
that.
Of course, she had to reverse her earlier position to do so, but
still . . . .
PL pretty much nails it for me.
|9.4.08 @ 11:20AM|#
joe,
What's astounding is that you're spending so much credibility
trying to make a lightweight into something he isn't. The Democrats
have a number of candidates who appear qualified, but, for some
reason, decided to borrow a page from the GOP handbook (GWB
edition) and go for someone who obviously didn't belong in office.
Rather than defend someone who isn't defensible, I'd be bitching to
people within the party. Neither Obama nor Clinton nor Edwards
should've had a hope of getting nominated. Period.
McCain shouldn't be the nominee, either, you Republican partisans.
Nor should Barr, you Libertarian wackos.
I think I'm growing tired of this campaign.
|9.4.08 @ 11:29AM|#
You can keep saying that, Pro Libertate. In the face of the
rather long list of significant and meaningful pieces of
legislation, you can keep repeating your assertion.
I have actual, you know, facts and evidence and stuff. And you have
your feelings.
|9.4.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Barack Obama has a list of major legislative initiatives that take two screens worth of scrolling to get through, and Sarah Palin has a speech she gave in 2008.
|9.4.08 @ 11:37AM|#
joe,
My feelings have nothing to do with it. By the logic you're using,
Obama should quit now and apologize to McCain for daring to run
against him. If you want to argue that Obama has inherent
qualifications that have nothing to do with experience, fine. But
the more you try to make his limited time in office significant,
the more you highlight his insignificance.
In any case, experience to me is more about us getting an
opportunity to observe the candidate in action. Obama and Palin
both fail in that regard. McCain and Biden don't fail in the time
served, but they do fail in what they did during that time. As
cynical as I can be about politics, I'm absolutely flabbergasted
that we have the candidates we have today.
Be ashamed, America. Be very ashamed.
|9.4.08 @ 11:38AM|#
I have actual, you know, facts and evidence and stuff. And
you have your feelings.
Well done, joe. You insult a guy who is always, always
civil to you. You really are socially retarded, aren't you. Full
Retard.
|9.4.08 @ 11:44AM|#
By the logic you're using, Obama should quit now and
apologize to McCain for daring to run against him.
Nope.
I'm not making a case about experience. I'm refuting one. You threw
out the charge that Obama has a think resume and no accomplishment,
and I disproved that charge.
The positive case for Obama is about judgement, change, and
issues.
Episiarch, I'll block out some time to take social advice from you
just as soon as I'm done listening to this Gloria Steinham speech
about applying make-up.
|9.4.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Let's not forget too that president is an executive position,
not a legislative one. That doesn't mean that experience in
Congress means nothing, but it does mean that only one of the four
has any executive experience, as limited as it may
be.
And, while I'm thinking about the various overblown claims coming
from both sides, the foreign policy crap is just that--we're 0 for
4 in that regard. It's a totally different issue to be on a
committee that oversees some aspect of foreign policy than to
actually engage in it. Ideally, a Sec. of Stateship should be on
the properly prepared candidate's resume, along with a governorship
and a stint in Congress. Maybe the Romans had the right idea when
they required candidates for the consulship to hold other
magistracies first.
|9.4.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Perhaps, Episiarch, your confusion about my behavior stems from the fact that the internet is not MY primary social outlet.
|9.4.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Perhaps, Episiarch, your confusion about my behavior stems
from the fact that the internet is not MY primary social
outlet.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
|9.4.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Well, I don't see his lack of experience refuted at all. I
already knew he'd been in the Senate for half a term. If you want
to say that he's got qualities that you want in a president, that's
fine. I don't see those myself and think you're projecting a bit,
but that's a judgment call. Maybe he's secretly George
Washington--who knows?
I will confess one thing. If some complete tyro ran as a true blue
libertarian, I'd take the gamble and vote for him. That's an easier
risk to take these days, because libertarian values don't even get
much lip service, much less actually implementation, but it would
still be a gamble.
|9.4.08 @ 11:51AM|#
I think I'm growing tired of this campaign.
Good news, P L! Only two months to go; of course, the
recriminations and elbow-throwing as the candidates begin ramping
up Campaign 2012 will be in full swing by Christmas.
What we should do is put the losers to the sword, as part of the
inauguration festivities; at least then I could get some honest
enjoyment out of this shit.
|9.4.08 @ 11:52AM|#
That doesn't mean that experience in Congress means nothing,
but it does mean that only one of the four has any executive
experience, as limited as it may be.
Executive experience + no foreign policy experience.
Foreign policy experience + no executive experience.
That, by itself, looks like a wash.
Next, is the consideration of the amount of experience. Obama has
been a Senator twice as long as Palin has been a governor.
Next, look at accomplishments. Obama's are right there to see.
Palin sold the governor's plane, as I understand. And signed a
proclamation about jury nullification. Oh, she rescinded some oil
leases, and got more payments out of the oil companies. OK. Let's
put that up with, say, expanding Nunn-Lugar and setting a timetable
to withdraw from Iraq.
But by all means, if there is a record of Palin having meaningful
accomplishments in office, like I just posted for Obama, I'd love
to see it.
|9.4.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Well, I don't see his lack of experience refuted at all. I
already knew he'd been in the Senate for half a term.
And apparently, you didn't realize that he'd sponsored and written
a considerable list of significant legislative initiatives, or else
you wouldn't have written, All he's ever done is make some good
speeches.
|9.4.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Here's another modest proposal; we should require any sitting Legislator to resign its seat to run for another office.
|9.4.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Hmmm. I don't know about Episiarch, but for me, Hit & Run
and Urkobold are a way for me not to go insane at work. Contracts
and my other legal duties rob my soul, like a ringwraith.
joe, I still think you should avoid the Palin-Obama experience
comparisons. I honestly believe that was the primary reason she was
selected, to rope-a-dope the other side into fighting that precise
fight. No matter how you parse it, they have comparable
backgrounds, whether you give her a nod for being a governor or
give him one for being in Washington longer. Either way, they're
both weak, but only one has the arrogance to think that thin
background is enough to run for president on. Compare Obama with
Warner, who is going to add Senator to his experience as
governor.
As for legislation he's been associated with, yeah, so what? Like I
said, I knew he'd been in the Senate for three years. Senators are
going to co-sponsor bills, make speeches, throw in earmarks, etc.
His record is not at all remarkable, and he hasn't been the prime
mover behind any major legislation. Fluffy and fluffier.
P Brooks,
I'd like to use Thunderdome for this race. I suspect that Palin
would win that, with her crazy Alaskan ways, but the proof is in
the actual dirty infighting, not what's on paper.
And yes, I don't like sitting anybody running for office--whether
they hold a state or federal position.
|9.4.08 @ 12:16PM|#
No matter how you parse it, they have comparable
backgrounds
Evidence?
Back-up?
Proof?
Support?
What has she ever done?
joe, I still think you should avoid the Palin-Obama experience
comparisons. If you'll notice, I've never brought the issue
up. I've just smacked it down when others have brought it up.
Of course the Democrats aren't going to push the experience
argument. They've just got a whole lotta ammunition now for when
the Republicans bring it up.
|9.4.08 @ 12:22PM|#
joe,
Very well, I concede to your amazingly compelling argument that
Obama is substantially more experienced and qualified for office
than Sarah Palin. Therefore, I should vote for McCain, who has
vastly more experience than either.
Like I said, it's a loser's path to compare your presidential
candidate to their VP candidate. Besides, when
Obama replaces Biden with Takei, none of this will matter.
joe|9.4.08 @ 12:35PM|#
PL, if you weren't hiding behind your computer I'd punch you in the fucking mouth, pussy. Now kindly fuck off, child.
|9.4.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Therefore, I should vote for McCain, who has vastly more
experience than either.
If experience is your only criteria, you probably should.
For me, it's more a matter of clearing a bar of minimal
qualification, and beyond that, a tie-breaker.
|9.4.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Very well, then I'll continue to prepare to vote for Barr with
lukewarm support, and you continue to support Obama.
Shame on you Fluffy or other joe-substitute. joe would never risk
his taint by threatening an employee of the Urkobold.
|9.4.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Meanwhile, the sitting Vice President is demonstrating the
subtle wisdom gained from years of foreign policy experience by
whacking the hornets' nest which is the former Soviet Union with a
stick.
Take your Beltway experience and stick it up yer ass.
|9.4.08 @ 1:00PM|#
P Brooks,
What did Cheney do? I heard on NPR this morning that he made a
relatively mild criticism of Russia while in Georgia. Did he say
something worse? Of course, even being there is potentially an
issue.
Maybe Europe should start doing this stuff itself. It's hard to see
a direct American interest in further engaging the Sovi--I mean
Russia.
|9.4.08 @ 1:15PM|#
It's possible(!) I am predisposed to assume the worst from those
clowns in the White House, but what I heard on the BBC News this
morning sounded like Cheney was in Georgia, pledging solidiarity
(and money for rebuilding, and quite possibly more arms deals) and
generally giving Putin the big "Fuck you".
Of course, we could look on the bright side: maybe Cheney has
offered hiumself up as a human shield.
|9.4.08 @ 1:22PM|#
joe would never risk his taint by threatening an employee of
the Urkobold.
URKOBOLD PH'TANG!!!
|9.4.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Russia presents us with a major quandary right now. If we
totally back down, then we definitely will encourage more fun and
games. On the other hand, if we act all aggressive and threatening,
the ascendant nationalists will just use that to justify further
wackery.
I think Europe should take the lead in developing alternative
pipelines and tell Russia to piss off until it can behave. One big
problem for Russia is that high-priced oil will not carry them
forever. They are still a huge mess and are a one-trick pony. Take
away the oil, and things will get really bad, really quickly. If
the leadership weren't so bad, they see the advantages to
liberalizing their government and their economy, if for no other
reason than to diversify things.
BDB|9.4.08 @ 1:48PM|#
"Barack Obama has a list of major legislative initiatives that
take two screens worth of scrolling to get through, and Sarah Palin
has a speech she gave in 2008."
Big win there.
|9.4.08 @ 1:57PM|#
I confess, I have a lot of scorn about legislators and their
"accomplishments" from my own brief stint in DC. Co-sponsorships
mean little, especially if the real weight is borne by the senior
member, and it's rare that a legislator actually has much to do
with the actual drafting (or reading) of bills. Obama has never
been viewed as a major player in the Senate. Part of that may be
due to him being a presidential pretender from Day One in 2005, but
that doesn't change the facts.
Of course, this same criticism could be leveled at the other
Senators in the race. However, McCain and Biden both have been
quite influential, regardless of the actual legislation they've
been associated with.
BDB|9.4.08 @ 1:59PM|#
It comes from him being a freshman Senator, not because hes a lightweight. Freshman Senators rarely get big bills through, especially if they were in the minority for half the time and running for President the other half.
|9.4.08 @ 2:07PM|#
BDB,
Shouldn't he have to prove that he's ready for prime time? I mean,
why should I rely on his assurances that he is?
As I mentioned somewhere, maybe here, I'm more impressed by
Warner's path to the White House--governor, Senator (probably), and
so on. If he runs at the right time after all of that, he should be
a formidable candidate for the Democrats.
|9.4.08 @ 2:21PM|#
The only part of the Palin speech that matters is when she looked at the camera and said that Obama is going to "raise your taxes." That identifies her only audience, the richest 5% of Americans. Everyone else can go fuck themselves with a barracuda.
|9.4.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Looks like The Corner sent its troopers over here. Palin is a creationism-supporting, book-banning theocrat--as far from libertarianism as Joe Lieberman.
Matilda|9.4.08 @ 2:41PM|#
"It comes from him being a freshman Senator, not because hes a
lightweight. Freshman Senators rarely get big bills through,
especially if they were in the minority for half the time and
running for President the other half."
I wonder how many high schools elect a freshman for senior class
president?
|9.4.08 @ 2:58PM|#
The truly laughable aspect of the Palinoscopy is that it's being done to forward the fiction that a Senator who's been in D.C. for 26 years without showing any leadership whatsoever or making the slightest bit of difference is about to become the New Sheriff in Town and turn everything upside down, even though Congress will be controlled by the other party.
|9.4.08 @ 3:00PM|#
"A speechwriter wrote Biden's, O'bama's and McCain's speeches,
too."
Sorry, Obama writes all of his own speeches. Since you didn't know
that, I assume you know little else about him.
"McCain's squadron about 1,000 men
Obama's campaign, like 2,500
Alaska has about 670,000"
Sorry, Sarah Palin did not manage every citizen in Alaska. Her
staff was 53 people. The producer of the TV show I work for is
responsible for a few hundred.
So let's revise:
McCain's squadron: about 1,000 men
Obama's campaign: 2,500+
Obama's community organizing: Thousands+++
Palin: 53
Hell, your average Wal-Mart manager has more than 53 people on
staff, and operates a business that rakes-in millions more than the
budget of Alaska.
|9.4.08 @ 3:12PM|#
I thought she might try to move into Obama's territory and be
inspiring but she went for the usual right wing claptrap like Pat
Buchanan did in '92, mean and spiteful trying to drag us into
another culture war.
Same old crap from a has-been party.
BDB|9.4.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Pro L-
Evan Bayh tried that and it didn't get him much.
I think Obama realized he has to strike when the iron is hot if
you're a Senator and want the Presidency. Otherwise you kind of end
up as, well, Joe Biden. The Senate is where smart people go to die
if they stay there too long.
|9.4.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Here's my question: Why should I vote for Obama? He's given me no tangible reason. For many, the reason is that he's the Democratic nominee or that he meets some abstract symbolic value that I'm admittedly incapable of understanding. However, as much as the conventional wisdom says the opposite, I see this as McCain's to lose. All Obama really represents is not-McCain. I don't think that's enough. McCain may be a loose cannon, but he's one without much hope of Congressional support if he runs too far afield.
BDB|9.4.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Pro L, you really think Congressional Democrats will stand up to
McCain anymore than they stood up to Bush?
Actually, my ideal federal government is Democratic President and
Republican Congress (they both seem to show their better sides in
those respective roles) but I'm not sure how to bring that
about.
BDB|9.4.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Make no mistake about it--with McCain you get Democratic domestic policies from the Congress while getting a Bush foreign policy on steroids. He will cave into the Democrats (probably up to and including socialized health care) in exchange for them giving him a blank check on foreign policy. Bet on it.
|9.4.08 @ 3:40PM|#
No, not really. Where I think he might get resistance is if he
goes cowboy on foreign policy (which I think is actually highly
unlikely, despite his loose lips). My concern is that he's
socialistic enough to make compromises that I find unacceptable on
domestic issues. However, Obama and a Democratic Congress would
certainly be worse. McCain would at least think veto
occasionally.
Maybe Barr will save us all? Just kidding, we're friggin'
doomed.
BDB|9.4.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Pro L Obama is bad but a degree or two better than McCain.
I'll take lethal injection when the alternative is the electric
chair, how about you?
BDB|9.4.08 @ 3:46PM|#
BTW it really sucks for me because I'd freaking love to vote for Barr but now Virginia has become a swing state so I actually have to make a decision if its still close in October. :(
|9.4.08 @ 3:51PM|#
McCain is loony, but he plays around in the middle, usually.
Obama is largely a mysterious cipher. Maybe he won't suck.
Maybe.
Babar is our only hope. Too bad for us.
BDB|9.4.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Pro L my calculus tells me that Obama won't be very far left
because anything he does will ALREADY be seen as radical by the
very fact hes black. He will be forced to be centrist.
That's just my thought on the matter. YMMV.
BDB|9.4.08 @ 3:57PM|#
I wish Bob Barr would run for Georgia Senate on the Libertarian ticket. He'd have a good shot of winning, from what I understand he has a lot of goodwill in the state.
Neu Mejican|9.4.08 @ 3:57PM|#
What did Cheney do? I heard on NPR this morning that he made
a relatively mild criticism of Russia while in Georgia. Did he say
something worse?
He said that Georgia will be part of NATO, full
stop.
Sorry, Sarah Palin did not manage every citizen in Alaska. Her
staff was 53 people.
I am pretty sure the government of Alaska has more than 53 people
in it. Technically, if your number is correct and there are 53
people directly under Palin who oversee others, she oversees them
as well. I believe the number is several thousand by the time you
are done.
In other words she has more executive experience than McCain,
Obama, or Biden...but significantly less than GWB had when he
became president.
Hell, your average Wal-Mart manager has more than 53 people on
staff, and operates a business that rakes-in millions more than the
budget of Alaska.
You are under the impression that the average Wal-Mart manager
operates a business that rakes in more than 8 Billion a year?
|9.4.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Jon Stewart had the bestest clip ever of Rove trashing Tim Kaine
as a potential running mate for Obama because of his weak resume
(mayor of Richmond, such a pitifully small city) and calling ti a
completely political choice, and then praising Palin for the same,
if not worse, resume, calling her totally qualified.
Hypocrites, all of them!
BDB|9.4.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Richmond is about as big as the largest city in Alaska.
The metro area, on a crowded holiday weekend, has more people than
the whole state of Alaska.
|9.4.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Is that anything new? I'm not denying that the NATO expansion is
potentially a problem, but it's been going on for a while. It's
hard not to remember how awfully the Soviets treated all of those
client states, so I'm divided a bit on this issue. Georgia isn't
Ukraine, Poland, or the Czech Republic, of course.
|9.4.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Isn't anyone here just plainly pissed of that we now have two
candidates (one presidential, the other vice presidential) that
shouldn't be anywhere near the whitehouse?
I mean, seriously, no matter how much you like Obama or Palin,
there's a clear problem here with standards. Their levels of
competence, experience, wisdom and judgment (whomever you choose to
put over the other) are really not up to snuff. So if you nancies
want to argue about who's got the better underoos, fine, I'll be
over here thoroughly pissed that "it's come to this."
I am -not- happy that I am going to probably vote for McCain. If
Biden were the top of the Dem ticket, I'd probably feel
differently.
You're all a bunch of suckas.
MJ|9.4.08 @ 10:04PM|#
"I don't like being lied to,..."-David Weigel
You sure about that? You bought into the notion that such a thing
as a Libertarian Democrat existed.
|9.4.08 @ 11:25PM|#
Dave...
Could you review the New Lindsey Buckingham album?
Thanks,Babble and Chem trails.
|9.5.08 @ 2:52AM|#
Anytime somebody critiques Sarah Palin, people call him/her "sexist" or "scared." Pretty soon, people are going to stop buying it. I thought the speech was terrible. It was shrill, strident, full of lies, and it sounded like a speech for high school president. I didn't think she had to the gravitas to run a shoe store, much less this country. I'm not scared; I'm not sexist; I'm bored. Can we have some real candidates who could actually run our country please? This is NOT a reality show, but I'm more interested in whether Levi marries Bristol than in anything their incompetent mother has to say.
Gina|9.5.08 @ 1:42PM|#
The fact the Republicans are falling down on their knees over Sarah Palin is really pathetic. This party is so bankrupt of talent that this pathetic poser rose to the top of this group in 3 days. Boy, she has really paid her dues. She worked her way up over that 3 day period, gave her blood, sweat, and tears, wore glasses, put her hair in an updo, put her family in the spotlight, made a joke about pitbulls, and then clawed her way to the top. What a journey.
Terry Hull|9.10.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Mr. Weigel, you obviously don't get it. Palin is certainly NOT
the GOP's answer to Obama, nor is the GOP seeking an Obama-alike on
its ticket. If I understand Obama's appeal to those of you who
support him, it is that he is such a stark contrast to President
Bush. He is a supposed intellectual, while Bush is supposedly not.
He is eloquent, while Bush stutters and stumbles. He would reason
with the world when Bush would wield military might. To his fans,
Obama promises to be everything Bush is not, and Obama never misses
a chance to drive this point home, campaigning first against Bush,
and only secondarily against McCain.
Palin's appeal has nothing to do with any of those things. Palin's
draw is that she is most obviously coming at this from way outside
the Beltway, in a way Obama, Biden and even McCain can never claim.
She does not pretend to be intellectual or hip, nor does she want
to be perceived as such. Rather, she is real, straightforward, and
practical -- or at least, that is how most people are so far
perceiving her, despite your angry claims that she is a faker and
liar. Being straightforward and practical, although not direct
opposites to Obama's perceived virtues, are quite a bit different
from being intellectual, nuanced, diplomatic and
philosophical.
It is amusing to watch the nation's intellectuals and philosophical
dreamers continue to scratch their heads about Palin. It just
doesn't occur to them (you and your readers) that the majority of
Americans don't want an intellectual or a dreamer leading the way.
Obama would make a great college professor. But as a leader, Palin
comes closer to what many Americans have been looking for than any
candidate who has come along in a while.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245