Oh, no.
UPDATE: this is also the McCain/Obama debate thread!
I just watched several clips of the interview Sarah Palin did with Katie Couric.
And, ohhhh…no.
Let me just put it like this: if she were a Democrat, I would transcribe these interviews in painful detail for the express purpose of mocking her, and I would say she is a moron, and 99% of my commenters would say she is a moron.
I’m sorry, just being honest here, but seriously people. I cannot possibly be the only person who is thinking this. Have you watched the clips? Am I just cranky because I had a butthurtin’ week at school? Is she smarter than she seems? Because objectively, she does not seem very smart. At all.
The reason I watched the clips was this post at The Corner. I’d been too busy all week to jack with it, but that post made me curious, and I kinda wish I’d never read it because, just, oh boy.
I try to be a truly objective person and to avoid hypocrisy even when it hurts my “cause”, and the fact is, the only reason I don’t shred this woman to bits - after watching her in action - is because she’s running against a very liberal Democrat ticket led by a racist, inexperienced socialist who has only served 147 days as a Senator, which scares me just a tiny bit more than the current Republican ticket. That is the only reason. I admit it and I own it and I don’t give a shit what anyone says about it.
I know they say that the reason we don’t get great people running for great offices is because great people don’t want to be involved in politics. But Jesus on the dollar bill, THIS IS RIDICULOUS. These four people - Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin - not a single one of them deserves the job they’re applying for when you get right down to it. Not a one of them, not even close. McCain is the only one who I think is actually smart enough, but he’s an asshole. So you have three dummies and an asshole running for the two most important jobs on the entire planet.
Honestly. If you saw any of the Palin clips, can you in good faith and true objectivity tell me that you wouldn’t rip her up if she was a Democrat, or even just someone you wanted to defeat for whatever reason? The woman truly does not seem to know what she’s talking about.
This entire election is damn pathetic. Don’t even try to tell me it’s not. But I’m still going to vote against Obama because he’s a socialist and that’s worse than not being very smart. What a choice! God bless America, or something.
But woot! It’s Friday night and there’s a bottle of whiskey in the pantry with my name on it. Rupert will be home soon and we shall have alcoholic beverages and Italian food for dinner, and watch the Obama/McCain debate. We’re totally out of control, I tell you! I might even do some studying after that like the party animal that I am.
UPDATE: Okay so a few drinks makes me not cringe about Palin so much, and also made the presidential debate more palatable.
My favorite part? How McCain was openly laughing at Obama while Obama spoke. I don’t know if they showed the split screen everywhere but we happened to be watching NBC for some ungodly reason, and they split the screen, and whenever Obama was talking, McCain was giggling dismissively and making notes on his papers with a Sharpie. Now I feel bad for calling McCain an asshole earlier. I like him tonight.
I saw that interview and I agree that Sarah could’ve done better - but remember, what you saw was edited to fit the needs of the producers and reporters doing the story. I would bet that they where 100% objective when they put that together…yeah right…
September 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pmESTJournalists, college professors, and politicians. What do they have in common? They are the only people that should legitimately be making minimum wage.
No, Palin did not sound like I imagine that Aristotle would, but she sounds sixty times smarter than Barry “Slingblade” Obama.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pmESTSigh. I really admire your lack of hypocrisy, Rachel - that can’t have been easy. I’m not quite where you are, yet, but for me, too, it ultimately comes down to I just can’t vote for a racist, socialist empty suit. This is the most pathetic election I have seen in my life time. For awhile there it was nice to forget how much I don’t like McCain, but reality is sinking in again. He still has my vote. Dammit.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pmESTSadly, I must agree with your assessment. Charlie Gibson was a total ass, but I thought she handled that one OK. I wanted her to talk more about her philosophy for approaching a problem (ideally a conservative one) rather than trying to give solutions to the hypotheticals being asked.
I started to get squishy in the Hannity interview when she said, “we want to get in there and do reform, even if it ruffles some feathers,” five times in 30 minutes.
She should have been better prepared to handle Couric’s question about how being in eyesight of Russia provides for any meaningful foreign policy experience. That was near disaster. Couric did play gotcha with the pressing for specific reform/regulation efforts that McCain has made after taking away the efforts to reform Freddie and Fannie in 2005 as part of the question.
So, it is up to McCain to win it for himself. Hopefully the debate will expose Obama’s many weaknesses; however, we can’t expect any help from the moderator. As is the case in boxing, sometimes you have to win by KO since the judges won’t help.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pmESTCurt’s right. Editing is everything. It can be subtle, or ham-handed, or somewhere in-between, but it has a HUGE effect on the overall presentation, or just parts of it, whatever the editor “wants.” Some if it’s almost subliminal (if the editing is skillfully done). We’ve seen magazines “darken” OJ’s complexion for the cover, and photographers make McCain look like a Zerg. It’s not much of a stretch to assume TV interview editing is just as manipulative.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pmESTI think her brain works faster than her mouth, and her mouth only spits out maybe one thought in five.
In this regard, the press may recycle Bushisms as Palinisms.
I agree, it doesn’t look good, but one doesn’t get to be governor against the wishes of one’s own party establishment by being a moron.
From the thoughts she has verbalized, I can see she’s learning at a pretty quick clip. Think of it as a AAA call-up to the majors.
All she has to do is to relax a little, and stop thinking aloud before responding.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:39 pmEST“Barry ‘Slingblade’ Obama”
That’s good. That’s real good. I’m gonna hafta use that.
Anyway, Hubby and I are right this instant enjoying Mrs. T’s Bloody Marys (-ies?).
September 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pmESTAgree with Curt R. Will not judge Palin on the basis of this interview because of the obvious cut-and-paste job done to it; I am cynical enough at this point to suspect that some of the answers are deliberately chopped up and applied to the wrong questions. Never forget, this is the network that tried to sell us the forged documents on George Bush’s national guard service.
I am positive that if Palin had had the same mini-marshmallows tossed at her that Obama did, and she had had the benefit of the same kindly, protective editing, the resulting impression would have been very, very different. The campaign should have insisted on a live interview only.
I am content to wait until the debate with Biden next week; I am confident that she will do better. The only concern is that an overzealous campaign staff will rehearse her into paralysis.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:50 pmESTI agree. It hurt to watch. Hurt.
That said, Obama must be stopped.
I just hope that the October surprise is that Palin is putting on a stupid act until the debate. How freaking awesome would that be?
September 26th, 2008 at 5:55 pmESTRachel,
September 26th, 2008 at 5:56 pmESTYeah, I agree. Sigh.
Still waiting for the Palin-Biden debate before rendering judgment regarding her fitness for office. I still expect she’ll clean his clock; after all, in the land of the blind the one-eyed woman is queen.
Palin-mania was getting way out of control, anyway. It’s good for us to be more grounded about our politicians.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:01 pmESTHonestly? No, I wouldn’t. For several reasons.
1. This was (I believe) the first interview she’s done since the hit-piece concocted by Charlie Gibson. It’s understandable that she might be feeling self-conscious about what she says and that often tends to make a person look and sound like they’re nervous and don’t know what they’re talking about.
2. Palin supporters haven’t been touting her as some kind of intellectual ubermensch the way Obama supporters have been doing. Neither Palin nor her supporters ever claimed she was the greatest public speaker in politics today. But again, Obamanites cannot say the same.
3. I do not now nor have I ever questioned someone’s intelligence because “they don’t talk good”. I may whip out one of those “Obama Uh” YouTube clips when I find a lib crooning about what a great public speaker Obama is, but I don’t call him a moron because he fumbles his words when he’s away from a teleprompter. I have an entirely different set of reasons for calling Obama a moron, thank you very much.
4. I watched all the interview clips I could find and I didn’t hear Palin give any answers that were wrong. If she did make any factual errors then either they passed right by me or they weren’t in any of the clips I watched.
5. Remember Charlie Gibson.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:02 pmESTI haven’t seen the clips. Don’t want to; don’t need to.
A few terse points:
1. Bill Clinton was quite deft in front of a camera and microphone. He was good with spontaneous questions (FAR more than Obama!), and yet, who among the group would say he was a good President? I have always admired Tony Blair for his elocution, wit, and general eloquence. I would never credit GWB with being much of a speaker…not at all. But for his resolution and sureness of purpose, he’s always been my guy.
Don’t get stuck to the seat over speaking skills. There are geniuses with hearts of gold and brains the size of a Buick that stammer like idiots when interviewed.
2. We live in the media age. Before radio, TV and the Internet, all there was to gauge a candidate or politician was newsprint. What was said was all there was to go on (and the odd whistle-stop tour). You could be as ugly as Andrew Jackson and get elected. Today, everybody wants Jack Kennedy: young, sexy, eloquent…and now we have a complete ZERO like Obama, yet who has all these media qualities. Just no class, no values and no background. We are in the age of Hollywood Politicians: As long as you look and sound good, that’s all most idiots care about.
3. It was one interview, and with the prize bottom-feeder, K Couric. Editing, schmediting. I wouldn’t trust that “news” outlet to change my cats’ litterbox (and no, Rachel, my cats aren’t assholes, as they all shredded the wool Obama doll my sister gave them, and then pissed all over the remnants).
4. Sarah Palin could gargle in her own vomit on live TV, and for my money she’d still be MILES above Biden.
5. Pure and simple: She could have just had a bad day. Next interview could be dynamite.
The VP picks are very important, but this country will vote in its next president. As long as McCain puts Shimmy-Sham the Liberal Dummy in his rightful place during the debates, we need not worry about Sarah Palin.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:03 pmESTI agree…but only to you.
I’ll never admit it to my liberal friends! Her answers to a lot of things worry me.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:13 pmESTI’m hoping that Patterico’s Pontifications is right:
“Here’s my take — the McCain campaign is so concerned about staying on message and sticking with the narrative, they have tried to drill her with pre-programmed answers on a variety of subjects, rather than simply allow her to answer questions as she would if she weren’t part of a campaign team, and then deal after-the-fact with her remarks as needed.
Since she’s been part of the McCain campaign for only 3 weeks of the past 8 years, its hardly surprising that she’s having trouble spitting up the campaign’s talking points in a coherent fashion. Asking her do do so is only making her look like an idiot.”
September 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pmESTWhile I agree with you…remember Katie Couric’s interview with Biden the other day when he said that Roosevelt go on the ‘tv” in 1929 about the depression? Maybe Katie brings out the dumbness. Anyway, I think Biden was worse and he got a pass with the press for the most part. Take heart!
September 26th, 2008 at 6:21 pmESTI blame McCain. Just let Sarah be Sarah. 80% of Alaska can’t be wrong.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pmESTAmerica is designed so that civilians run the military. America is designed so that civilians run the government. Do we believe in that design or not?
Readiness for office is a question of principles and judgment. When issues arise, POTUS listens to advice and then decides. I have confidence in Governor Palin’s principles and judgment.
It’s nice that Sen. McCain knows a lot about Russia - yet, when issues arise, a President McCain will still listen to advice and then decide, just like every POTUS who holds office.
Principles and judgment. Who has superior principles and judgment? That is the issue.
Foreign policy experience is a nice factor, but it is only part of a mix of factors. The following had little or no foreign policy experience when they became President: FDR, JFK, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GWB.
Madeline Albright has lots of foreign policy experience. How do you like the governing principles Ms. Albright believes in? What is your opinion of her judgment? My opinion of her is low in both areas - just as my opinion of Sen. Obama’s principles and judgment is low. I thought Ms. Albright was a dangerously weak and semi-deluded Sec. of State. I think Sen. Obama obscures his true principles, and hides instances (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) where he has been called on to display judgment.
Finally, I recommend this Victor Hanson column. It’s one of the best columns I’ve read this year. It will instantly make you feel more confident about Gov. Palin. Excerpt:
September 26th, 2008 at 6:49 pmESTOne more thing:
While I commend Ms. Couric for doing a good job in the interview, the question everyone points to (paraphrasing): please give an extended recounting of Sen. McCain’s record as an economic reformer - was a clear gotcha question. Almost no one could’ve answered it. Palin’s best answer would’ve been:
September 26th, 2008 at 6:56 pmESTStarting with the fact that katie absolutly refused to use - or allow to be used - the title of Governor when addressing or referring to Gov. Palin, I’ve got the feeling that there was some pretty savage editting done to that interview. It just wasn’t done so ham-handedly as the chuck gibson interview.
And I agree that sarahcuda should be allowed to speak her own mind and from her heart. She knows what she needs to learn, and can get the mentoring she needs from experts in those areas (she’s already being mentored by H.Kissinger; and like him or not - he is the go-to guy on foreign relations.) I believe that when she gets into the debate with ol’ slow joe, she’s gonna clean his clock.
And just because she has one bad interview is no reason to talk about cutting and running; or to say how stupid she is and trying to figure a way to minimalize her contribution, now or in the future. She’s only been on the national stage for three weeks. Give her some rein and let her get her shoes broken in.
This is WAR, people!! It’s a war just as surely as if there were bombs and guns. We are in a war for the very survival of the United States of America! And the war is not lost because of one bad press conference by one of the principals. The war is lost if we lose hope and stop supporting the right people. (You may be right that none of the people running are truly qualified - but you go to war with the army that you have.)
oh. and: Fuck oprah!! (with letterman)
September 26th, 2008 at 6:56 pmESTRachel-
September 26th, 2008 at 7:00 pmESTI have an idea. In honor of the presidential debate tonight, where 2 people get to exchange views on the same stage, let there be an honest to goodness debate in your comments, instead of blocking anything that gets snarky or has an opposing view. What say you?
I’m so glad you posted this…I thought I was alone in feeling this way. I so liked her and wanted to be able to defend her, but she was craptastic and it’s just not possible. You’re 100% right, if she were a Dem, I’d be ripping her to shreds.
The worst part? I could have answered those questions better (couldn’t most of us have?), even the questions on her record and McCain’s record! What is UP with that???
*sigh*
September 26th, 2008 at 7:05 pmESTOK, I sat through it on You Tube. I didn’t think it was terrible, and I don’t think it was edited to switch answers between questions. It -was- obvious that the shot lingered long and lovingly whenever she appeared to stammer, and cut away abruptly when she was about to get roling, like when she was talking about how diplomacy is all about preparation - that was good stuff, but it got cut off.
I think Couric was a party to this - she would ask a question, Mrs Palin would answer it, and then Couric would drill her on some sub-point, which appeared to confuse Mrs Palin - probably (as it did me) in an I-just-answered-that kind of way. And the camera held the close-up.
Mrs Palin made two mistakes. She gamely tried to answer every question, and talked waay too much. Sometimes the answer is - in effect - I’m not sure your premise is valid, so I’m going to answer the question I wish you’d asked. Like it or not, ALL politicians do this - for good reason. Evading Bullshit questions should be SOP.
For example, she was off to a great start by answering that How does being able to see Russia count as foreign policy experience stuff with a snort and a ‘come on!’ She should have left it there. But then she tried to explain, and it got painful to watch. I was yelling at the screen, Stop Talking Now! Quit Being So Nice! This coont isn’t your friend!
But I don’t like Mrs Palin any less. She just came off as a basically good person who did a -lot- better than I would have done, and needs to take the media less seriously than they take themselves - and That’s not too hard.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pmESTRachel - The interview as shown was disappointing. But I do wonder…how long was the actual interview? I would suspect that the most unfavorable clips were shown (not to mention some selective editing as in the Gibson interview). What can Palin do about this?
September 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pmESTDoes voting third party still seem completely crazy to you now? At what point does “lesser of two evils” quit making sense?
Just wondering.
Oh well, at least you have reasons for supporting who you do. Most people don’t.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:20 pmESTI agree that what we as viewers saw was less than stellar.
I also happen to think that “dumb as a rock” trumps “raving socialist” any day.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:28 pmESTOne question: How the hell do you stomach actually watching and listening to the nasty little harpy that is Ms. Couric?
September 26th, 2008 at 7:29 pmESTIIRC, some time ago, some TV network wanted to interview Rush Limbaugh. He agreed, but ONLY if the interview was televised live, so as to prevent “unfriendly” editing.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:36 pmESTLots of sodium bicarbonate.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:48 pmESTYes. When a third option has at least a snowball’s chance in hell of success.
Sheesh. There may be a breakdown of the two party system someday, but it sure won’t be this election.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:49 pmESTI agree, John. I blame McCain, too. I wrote this earlier this morning over at HotAir:
The reason Palin seems so stilted is because she is in a tight little box right now. She is speaking on behalf of someone else - McCain. It seems like every statement she makes has to point back to McCain as if to remind everyone that he’s the point of all this, not her. It’s awkward and forced and contrived.
Powerful women have to do this sometimes lest their male colleagues (and their egos) feel overshadowed. If Palin were running her own show, as she did in Alaska, where she did NOT have to play second-fiddle to anyone, she’d come across very different.
McCain needs to cut her loose, and let her be herself. His campaign is stifling her.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:05 pmESTOne question and I’m already considering taking up drinking. I don’t know if I’m going to make it through this debate. Obama is a lying bastard and McCain isn’t hitting back. Bitch slap the socialist weenie, for fuck’s sake!
September 26th, 2008 at 8:14 pmESTOH. MY. GOD. I very nearly threw my remote through my TV when Obama said “grow the economy from the bottom up.” Asshole. Asscat.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pmESTMcCain got in a dig at Obama over earmarks. Digs are not going to work. He’s GOT to hammer his points home. STOP BEING NICE!!
September 26th, 2008 at 8:30 pmESTNo kidding. McCain needs to pull off the gloves and call Obama on the outright lies he’s telling.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:36 pmESTDid I understand Obama correctly? Did he really just say that funding for universal preschool education is a super high priority, like funding for veterans and the military????
September 26th, 2008 at 8:38 pmESTWouldn’t that be the best way to “get ‘em while they’re young”? Indoctrinate them young against the military and then, voila!, you don’t need to fund the military.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:42 pmESTI’m behind - I had to pause the debate with my DVR to get the kids sitting for dinner.
I absolutely HATE the idea of universal preschool - and I have two kids in preschool! THAT is a gravy train to free daycare and bad preschools, IMO.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:42 pmESTWell, I liked her on the Today Show.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:45 pmESTI think universal preschool is a bad idea also. Compelling everyone to go to preschool… sheeeeit. Starting at what age? Isn’t it the parents’ place to decide when their children are developmentally ready?
What’s the next step, instead of insisting kids learn to read by the end of kindergarten, will we be struggling to have them reading before they leave preschool? I think the way education (at least in my area) keeps pushing formal sit-in-the-desk-all-day schooling on children at increasingly younger ages is not a positive development.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pmESTRachel, you are not wrong. I heard some of her this morning on the local 6:00-9:00 a.m. show before switching over to Jim Rome and sports (Yay Beavers - my boss was almost crying this morning!). I cringed. But I suppose some of the other commenters have a point - it can be hard to sublimate your natural response to your running mate’s message. This is the first time I recall the VP candidates getting so much press; usually they’re just an afterthought (and their debates not worth watching, except for Admiral Stockdale a few elections ago). I think McCain really needs to step forward and pull the focus back to the tops of the tickets.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:55 pmESTAmelia, the way the public schools are, you are LUCKY if your kid leaves second grade knowing now to read.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:56 pmESTThat’s not luck, that’s parental involvement.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pmESTCan somebody please explain to me how the hell Obama has honored the fallen who have served? He says none of them die in vain because they are carrying out the orders of the Commander in Chief (the President) after having just said the war in Iraq was wrong. Asshelmet!
September 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pmESTDebate - not going to happen. I’m pretty drunk so it don’t matter. I won’t debate until the economic crisis is solved.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:13 pmESTDid anybody else catch that dig on Obama’s “presidential” seal? ROFLMAO!
September 26th, 2008 at 9:13 pmESTI feel like vomiting.
I wouldn’t care if Palin showed up to an interview naked and covered in blood and managed to say only “I eat cake”…I’d vote for her as President before voting for Obama.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pmESTYup. McCain: “I don’t even have my own seal yet.”
September 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pmEST“I have a bracelet.”
“I have a bracelet, too.”
“My bracelet has more bangles than your bracelet!”
“Well, MY bracelet is made out of 24k gold!”
“MY bracelet comes with a matching necklace!”
Sheesh!
September 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pmESTSouth Koreans 3″ taller than North Koreans - nailed it!!!!
September 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pmESTThat was a very good dig. Notice how Obama completely ignored it. I think he’s embarrassed about it.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:17 pmESTThat was just sweeeet. Not setting his visitor schedule before he becomes president.
And I had surgery yesterday, so this is my official disclaimer that I am enjoying better living through chemistry, and am thus not responsible for my words tonight.
HEH!
September 26th, 2008 at 9:19 pmEST# Jess Mills Says:
Does voting third party still seem completely crazy to you now? At what point does “lesser of two evils” quit making sense?
______________
When he says we have enough conservatives on the supreme court, I’m out of there.
______________
# Rich Says:
One question: How the hell do you stomach actually watching and listening to the nasty little harpy that is Ms. Couric?
______________
I enjoy seeing alligators on TV too. But I don’t forget what they are.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:20 pmESTYou’re in good company 14 Karat: my dad is also just recently out of surgery and “enjoying better living through chemistry.” I’m going to call him after the debate and ask what he thinks.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:21 pmESTAmen on the parental involvment, hM. But a good portion of public schools fail on teaching the fundamentals of phonics, so it becomes harder and harder to teach a child to read after they have been indoctrinated in a “whole word” system. To this day, my 15-year-old sister hates reading because of the slipshod way she was taught in school, and my parents had to re-teach her completely over the course of a school year and a summer when she was 11. It was a sticky situation, the school was no help, and my mom had to kick some serious ass when all was said and done.
I’m seriously considering keeping my daughter in private schools for that reason alone.
(Sorry for the OT comment, Rachl.)
September 26th, 2008 at 9:21 pmESTI think McCain must be winning. My wife the liberal schoolteacher just turned it off. Downstairs I go.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:22 pmEST*snicker* That jab about the seal was funny.
Deanna, I can only speak for the school system I’ve taught in. The curriculum they were using called for kids half way through kindergarten be reading. I’m sure there are a percentage of kids who don’t get it by that point, and still don’t have it a grade later.
I think it is unreasonable to expect all kids to be reading even at the end of kindergarten. I don’t believe that it is appropriate for all 5 year olds to spend that much time sitting at a desk cramming sight words into their brains. Some kids can do it, others are not as mature. That’s why there’s a growing trend to wait an extra year to begin kinder, so the kids are more mature and better able to handle the material, and subsequently more likely to succeed in school.
But that’s just my opinion.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:24 pmESTObama: “I have a plan…”
He says this every single question segement. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WOULD HE JUST TELL US WHAT HIS PLAN IS???
(I don’t really expect that. I’m just venting.)
September 26th, 2008 at 9:25 pmESTPlease tell me someone is counting the uhhhhs.
I didn’t see the beginning, so I don’t know.
Some would say that’s thinking out loud; really it’s just where he verbalizes his stupid.
I am assisting with teaching Speech Communication, so part of my job is counting the placeholders to help those who don’t even realize they are doing it. Ya know, college freshmen.
McCain needs to turn to the interrupting son of a bitch and say. “Yes, your point is noted, now would you please just have a big glass of shut the fuck up while I shoot you down?”
September 26th, 2008 at 9:26 pmESTImagine the historical value of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream if he’d said “I have a dream” then nothing else.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:27 pmESThM,
Love/hate/love/hate Percocet. Being stoned makes me feel like a libtard: so why can’t I empathize with Uhhhbama tonight? And I’d love to know what your dad thinks … I’m a tad hazy, but the obviosity is obvious (heh).
I hope your dad’s okay, hM. You’ve been through enough lately.
hM and Deanna:
Absuhhhlutely. Y’all are geniui!
September 26th, 2008 at 9:28 pmESTMaybe because he’s such an ass. Poor Bambi. Somebody needs to put him out of his misery.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:29 pmESThM, you are a genius. That’s hysterical.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:30 pmESTAmelia, re: kindergarten:
I went into kindergarten as a 4-year-old who could read. I did almost nothing my kindergarten year academically because the teacher was too busy trying to teach 30 other kids to read. (This was Seattle in the 80’s.)
My daughter will be almost six when she starts kindergarten (she has a December birthday) next school year. I’m good with that. My son has an August birthday and has a developmental delay. I’m so glad that I can give him an extra year to overcome his delays and hopefully enter kindergarten fully prepared for it. I fully support any parent wanting to keep their kid out of kindergarten for that extra year, which is why I hate universal preschool so much. Because once something becomes universal, eventually it will become mandatory. And once upon a time, even kindergarten was optional.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:32 pmEST“I will restore American’s standing in the world.”
I’ll make this really easy for you, Bambi:
WE DON’T CARE WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS. WE DO CARE THAT WE ARE SAFE, ECONOMICALLY SOLVENT, AND HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND OTHERS HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED FOR. FRANCE’S OPINION OF US MEANS JACK SHIT.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:33 pmESTI’ll second that.
Written English is a phonographic language, meaning each letter represents a sound. Teaching a phonographic language by any method other than phonics makes no sense to me at all.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:34 pmESTTo hM:
You are now my personal God.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:34 pmEST14K, they’re having a drinking game over at Michelle Malkin’s - one shot for every time Obama “uhh”s and one shot for every time McCain says “bipartisanship.” According to some commenters, they are quite smashed right now.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:35 pmESTI read an interesting column by Kathleen Parker today, Rachel, that mirrors what you’ve said.
Here’s a part:
September 26th, 2008 at 9:36 pmESTDeanna,
That is so awesome I don’t even know how to respond except to smash and snort a perc.
HEH!
September 26th, 2008 at 9:36 pmESTOH THANK GOD it’s over…
And did everyone catch that Obama’s father was from Kenya? And that’s where he got his name? I had NO idea! Did anyone else know that? (/sarc)
September 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pmESTI’m surprised I made it though. The first question, I shit you not, I was yelling at my TV whenever Obama spoke. The man is a liar. An outright liar. He’s also an economic moron if he actually believe the shit he’s spewing. Anything you can attach to the word ass, he’s it.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pmESTHoly shit … the talking heads on NBC just said that McCain “seemed irritated at times and would scold Obama a number of times … while Obama was much more reserved about any criticism by McCain.”
WTF did I miss while I was napping? From what I saw Barry was the great Interruptor.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:43 pmESTBWAHAHAHA!!
September 26th, 2008 at 9:43 pmESTMaybe “reserved” is NBC’s code word for “no teleprompter.”
September 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pmESTDeanna, I agree completely.
Best of luck to the post-surgical folks.
Me too! Me too! I was disgusted.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:46 pmESTBambi got spanked and the media is exploring that large river in Egypt. I think it’s called “De Nile”.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:49 pmESTHere are a list of polls where you can vote on the Presidential debate. (Note: the list of polls is provided on Daily Kos…)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/26/19044/7434/435/611793
September 26th, 2008 at 9:50 pmESTHee hee… Michelle Malkin’s already got the McCain media team’s first post-debate ad…
September 26th, 2008 at 9:54 pmESThM,
Thanks for that affirmation. I may be a tad stoned, but I’m not totally stupid, and I’m not kidding. I taped this and skipped back several times to get that specific quote right. I will be watching this again once I am feeling more in my right mind. Heh.
Denial, indeed.
And I really do hope your dad is well, my stonerific prayers (such as they are) are with y’all.
Except, hM for “et” and “ume”.
Because he isn’t an “et” to America, and can’t “ume” he will be POTUS, cuz’ we ain’t gonna allow that to happen.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:57 pmESTThanks. He’s doing well. Just in a lot of pain still. Didn’t answer the phone so I’ll have to ask him what he thought about the debate tomorrow. I’m interested to hear his take since I’m sure he wasn’t yelling at the screen like I was.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:03 pmESTI already said this in my own way earlier, but to emphasize, I agree with this article by K Lo: Free Sarah Palin!
September 26th, 2008 at 10:05 pmESTOh, and I’m sure some of you would like an update about my cousin and the baby and how they’re doing.
They had the funeral (wanted it to be a small thing so I didn’t go out of respect for their wishes). In general I think they’re doing better. I visited them within the last couple days and we had a good conversation. Makes me sad that we’ve missed out on spending all the time together we could have before this happened.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:13 pmESTYes. Completely, unequivocally, kick-Scarlett-Johannsen-out-of-bed-in-favor-of-Helen-Thomas batshit insane.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:23 pmESTAbout the debate tonight:
Kissinger Unhappy About Obama
September 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pmESTMy wife thought that McCain crushed on the final 75% of the debate (but she hates Obama - a lot - God I love that woman). I will watch on DVR later.
New Whittle essay at NRO. It is titled “Pain.”
September 26th, 2008 at 10:32 pmESTI can’t stomach Katie Couric for more than a few seconds at a time, so I haven’t seen Sarah’s interview. What clips I did see seemed quite obviously set up to make her look bad. They did the old shine the light bright in her face, come at her from a below the jaw angle, and keep making it seem as though she never blinks. Why would anyone trust the liberal media to play fair…ever?
September 26th, 2008 at 10:32 pmESTObama’s Bracelet
September 26th, 2008 at 10:32 pmESTDang, and I had this long drawn out paragraph describing why I thought McCain won hands down. I think you said it all hM. Thanks for that.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:36 pmESTOMG Redhead -
I could hardly stand to listen after the “I haz a bracelet too” comment. I felt embarrassed for him.
He was sooo on the defensive about every subject.
McCain won. Period.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:40 pmESTHere’s something that kept making me bang my head against my fist (couldn’t reach anything harder):
Obama kept saying he would give tax breaks to 95% of working families. He can’t. I don’t know the numbers, but if I recall income distribution correctly, over 20% of working families pay No. Federal. Income. Tax. AT. ALL.
Last year was only the second time I have not gotten every cent I paid into Federal Taxes back at tax return time. This means that he wants to use the tax code to do even more wealth redistribution (like we didn’t already know that), and McCain should have brought this up.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:02 pmESTPalin - it seems to me she doesn’t do as well in a structured interrogation as she does with unscripted real life. I’m very confident she’s plenty smart enough for either of the two jobs up for grabs here. Fundamentally, her values are what matter as they will be the basis of decision making. Watching her with actual people in dynamic situations like the recent World Trade Center Visit - she does as well or better than any of the four. I saw Couric as at least antagonistic, but it had the air of a queen bee kind of thing. Where I live, the votes don’t count (Territory). Donations matter, so I have voted against socialism.
The debate - the whole thing reminds me of Jr. High Class President activities run by old kids. Everyone’s (both sides) preconception of who won is being sounded out as verified. Nov 4th is what matters. Get every non-socialist to the polls and we’ll just have to live with the results of our best efforts.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:03 pmESTHere’s the thing to remember about Katie Couric–she’s a pit viper that looks like Bambi. I swear I think people forget and then when she interviews them–they are taken aback that she is so vicious and yet appears kind. Can’t stand her.
Meghan Kelly said this afternoon that maybe Sarah was still super nervous on TV and that some people just panicked when that camera turned on.
Frank Luntz’s undecideds were in the tank for Obama tonight
September 26th, 2008 at 11:12 pmESTApparently I’m more of a party animal than you, Rachel. So much so that when I got home from work at 5pm, I ate a bowl of soup and promptly passed out until just now. Nothing says, “party girl” like going to bed at 5:30pm on a Friday night.
Sheesh.
I’m now recording the re airing of the debate from C-Span.
As for the Katie Couric piece…I didn’t see it. I refuse to watch Katie Couric. I know it’s good to see what the other side is doing but I have my limits and that is definitely one of them.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pmESTI just looked at the interview on Youtube, and I have to agree with you about Katie being a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And I think that is what we saw on our dear Sarah’s face, having to deal with someone who so well-cloaks their real personality. If that is the worst thing someone can say about Sarah Palin then I’m all in…I still love her and her humanity.
Reminds me of the viper I interviewed with for a job many, many years ago. Apparently we attended high school together and she had a beef with the fact that I didn’t remember her or that I was more popular than her..whatever. Honestly, I have never screwed up a job interview before, had always gotten a job especially based on my interviewing skills. I knew about 10 seconds in that I was doomed, but still gave it my best shot.
Funny thing is, about a year later she came to where I was working looking for a job herself, even asked if she could use me as a reference. I said “abso-fucka-lootly NOT.” As she wandered about the warehouse (I used to be a department manager for Costco), waiting for her interview, I suggested to our security staff that she might be a potential shoplifter. Somehow she didn’t get the job.
Paybacks are a bitch.
I’m hoping that when Ms. Palin is in office she will remember those who treated her so badly. But she probably isn’t as vindictive as I am.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:36 pmESTDelayed by (unrelated) need to run to hardware store after the debate.
Obama was already losing when he let that, “Nyyeah, I have a bracelet, too.” fart. Love the warpspeed “||:Senator McCain is absolutely right:||” ad.
Couric interview has aspect [not] to be ignored: Jealousy. Sarah’s grasp is nearing levers of power, and she’s seven years younger than Katie. Hell, Katie is almost old enough for me. What the hell am I saying???? [smacks forehead]
September 26th, 2008 at 11:49 pmESThM,
Thank you for the update on your family. They are still in my thoughts and prayers. Continue to support one another as best you can. You were all blessed with a life that brought you closer together; no words can alleviate the pain of losing that life but I am grateful that this wonderful child’s existence brought you all closer together.
Amelia in TX,
Thank you. I had a very difficult couple of days, with some unpleasant news but a tolerable outcome. I’m trying to keep it in perspective, but sometimes I just want to feel sorry for myself when the two+ years of ongoing surgeries/treatments get intolerable. Sigh.
Redhead Infidel,
Heh! I’d LOL, but my mouth hurts too damn much! Teh funneh!
My Awesome Mixed Tape #6,
Ain’t justice GRAND!! Shoplifter … what comes around … and the mighty shall fall.
Serenity,
September 26th, 2008 at 11:49 pmESTAt least I have an excuse for snoozing through the early part of the debate … working too hard? Why? You know, you could just slack and get the bailout, ya know!?!
God I can’t wait for the time when Sarah Palin can talk with Katie Couric after she is V.P. It will be interesting. Palin when angry is something to behold. I watched her verbally kick the S**T out of our mayor one evening. I could not hear what was said but watched the mayor melt. Damn I like that woman, even if she did scrap our ‘bridge to nowhere.”
September 27th, 2008 at 12:02 amESTThis is why I have a fixed policy of avoiding all political speeches, interviews, debates, etc., dating back 36 years to the time I listened to a Nixon speech and needed a tranquilizer to keep from throwing my radio through a window.
That doesn’t sound like something that would improve an unbiased viewer’s opinion of McCain.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:53 amESTWatch her February CSPAN interviews before the MSM malstrom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBaEX6tfxJo
I too think she’s so guarded that it’s affecting how she comes across, but come on, she been attacked, as have her children and husband by the MSM and partisans on an unprecedented level. I’d be a little cautious too, wouldn’t you?
Oh. No you wouldn’t, you’d be ripping Couric’s face off and stuffing it up her smug ass. Never mind.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:05 amESTPalin obviously needs to start reading some blogs.
I felt like she stumbled over very simple questions that any of us here ( Lib Or Conservative) could have answered in our sleep. She’s got the themes down, not the specifics, and quite honestly, any trailer park jackass can spout “Freedom and democracy” all day, but also not have any idea of how to achieve either. A better answer to the foreign policy question is that her experience is similar that of former governor Bill Clinton, except that her state does border two foreign contries that she has dealt with on a State level. But no, People who have not been elected to Federal Office don’t generally have ANY foreign policy experience because as non-federal citizens, we don’t deal with foreign governments!!!!!
Couric knows this, the only reason she asked is to hurt Palin.
BUT>>>>>
Seriously, she couldn’t come up with any McCain led reforms? How about the oft cited McCain-Feingold, or the Comprehensive Immigration reform bill or the FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005!!! ( Which if passed woudl have kept us out of this financial mess, btw).
She is a dummy. I still love her, but she’s not going to ever cook up anything of substance in ther own head, she’ll maybe exercise good judgement and seek the advice of experts, but she’s just not on top of things.
I swear that if they let me at her for 4 or 5 days, I could lead to the places she needs to read every day ( like Rachel Lucas) to get up to speed on what’s what.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:07 amESTMy Awesome Mixed Tape #6:
Oh, sweet, SWEET revenge. Those are the types of moments I dream of having in my own life. I don’t typically envy people but in this case, oh I envy. I envy hard with this one.
14 Karat:
To think, this whole time I could have been sitting on the couch all day long, watching Oprah, (fuck her!), and then crying and whining about how things aren’t FAIIIIR! in order to steal from America to get the nice things I want. Unfortunately, I’m just a stoopit Rethuglican.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:19 amESTI didn’t see the Presidential debate tonight. I was busy watching the Phillies game. Going into tonight’s game, they were one game ahead of the Mets with three games left to play.
They won, the Mets lost, and now they’ve clinched a tie for the NL East! Go Phils!
Really, it’s not as if my vote hinged on the outcome of this debate. ; )
September 27th, 2008 at 1:57 amEST“Frank Luntz’s undecideds were in the tank for Obama tonight”
According to Frank Luntz, Mitt Romney was a shoe-in for the Republican nomination.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:00 amESTThe problem I can see here is that Rachel has been brainwashed along with so many others to believe that our Presidential candidates have to be Nobel geniuses or something. All a president has to do is delegate well, not cure cancer or win Pulitzer prizes. Palin is a good administrator and from that standpoint is qualified, not by how well she does in interviews.
Also as has been expressed by others, Palin is operating in a box. She’s been McCain-ized, not allowed to really express HER views. Also she has to defend McCain’s record. Always before she ran at the top of a ticket(city council, mayor, governor), she only had to defend her own record. This makes things doubly difficult. Also don’t forget she must be feeling a bit rattled from the 101 smears launched against her.
Another point. She’s coming form Alaska where the largest TV audience she ever had was probably 10,000 for a governors’ debate and suddenly she has to talk to 40,000,000 people at a time? That would rattle any sane person. Sarah’s only human. All that Saracuda talk simply built up too much pressure.
Para:
Sarah is no dummy. However I don’t expect someone to become a policy wonk in this cauldron she’s been thrust into. It’s just too much going on. The kind of stuff you expect her to know has to happen in a quieter environment with more time. I think in the end it comes down to values and she has them in spades.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:20 amESTI did, however, see a clip of the Couric/Palin interview somewhere on the internet last night. I missed it when it was on TV, since I simply pay no attention to the alphabet soup TV networks any more. If I had known about it beforehand, I would have watched it, though.
Anyway, the clip was pretty tough to watch. But not surprising. This is Katie Couric we’re talking about here. She is notorious for being all sweetness and smiles when interviewing Democrats, while treating Republicans like a prosecutor cross-examining a witness. The look on her face in some of the reaction shots was priceless. It said, “I don’t believe a word you’re saying, lady.” Which is exactly the impression she was trying to put across.
I might question Palin’s judgment in agreeing to an interview with Couric in the first place. Given the unprecedented media shitstorm she’s faced in the last month, I wouldn’t blame her if she adopted a “fuck you” attitude towards the MSM. They’re already tottering on the brink of irrelevancy; that could drive the final stake through their hearts. And it might even resonate with millions of middle-of-the-road, independent and undecided voters who must be standing there with their jaws hanging open in disbelief after witnessing the unhinged hatred that the nutroots and their MSM allies have unleashed.
This interview was edited much more skillfully than the Gibson one. It reminded me of an old Bill Whittle article, where he described editing an interview with Michael Moore. (For those who don’t know, video editing is his day job.) He said that it would have been very easy to edit that interview to make Moore appear to be a loyal, die-hard Bush supporter. The only reason he didn’t do that was that he didn’t own the rights to the footage.
As the VP nominee, she has to parrot McCain’s positions on everything. That’s just part of the job, and she’s obviously not used to doing that. Personally, I’d have a hard time endorsing his position on global warming while keeping a straight face, and without bashing a hole in the wall with my head.
Thanks, Crusader. I was going to go back through the comments and quote and respond to various commenters. Those are some very important points you made, and you saved me a lot of work.
Bottom line: I’d vote for her for President over the other three without batting an eye. But it’s good that she’s running for Vice President now. She needs a little seasoning, and she’ll get it.
Yes, one would think that a nation of 300 million people could produce better candidates than what we have. Still, which political candidates from which other nations would you prefer?
September 27th, 2008 at 3:38 amESTRachel,
Not to worry. The US has weathered any number of stupid presidents. They usually don’t make much of a name for themselves, don’t wreck much. The people around them smile, pick up the pieces, and things go on.
The most recent notably brilliant President that I recall was Jimmy Carter. He wrecked the military, the economy, and various and sundry other strengths of the US. Like his karmic twin, Barack Obama, Carter had trouble getting the rest of government to work with him, and not experience or understanding of how government is supposed to work. Carter was a very nice, very honest, very brilliant man. And an awful President.
Unlike Carter, Obama seems to have the morals and evasive manner of Richard Nixon, or that forgotten VP, Spiro T. Agnew. Now, that is a combination that bothers me.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:03 amESTWell, I’m going to with hold judgment on Governor Palin. There are many miles to go.
Reason being; although I am not up to speed on a majority of things I expect the government to know and do well for me, I could most certainly become so, were it my job, and I was getting paid for it - thereby allowing me the time to ramp up. Couple this to my personal belief that Congress is currently filled with the largest collection of dumb asses in high places my eyes have ever seen, how could I do worse? The brightest crayon in any box wouldn’t be caught dead working inside the beltway, for the U.S. Gov’t.
On a blog somewhere, someone said “nihilist”. Look up the meanings, if you are not already well versed in the meanings of the word. I have been searching for a one word term for Obama for months. MY PERSONAL OPINION: were he slightly older, he would have been a Weatherman, or perhaps a Black Panther, in those organizations’ heydays. He is a “closet” version of them now.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:12 amEST1) I want to see the out takes before I make judgment.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:28 amEST2) I don’t care, “the one” scares me more than she does and he’s at the top of the ticket.
3) Is this part of a campaign strategy? Look bad going into the debate and then during the debate cause a “Linda Blair” moment by Biden (At the beginning of the debate I want Sarahcudda to walk over shake his hand and whisper softly so that Joe has to lean over close to her mouth and I want her to say, “I am going to clean your skinny little ass so bad you will walk bowlegged for a week”).
“McCain was giggling dismissively and making notes on his papers with a Sharpie. Now I feel bad for calling McCain an asshole earlier. I like him tonight.”
well,how can he NOT laugh at him?
September 27th, 2008 at 8:42 amESTI think she was ok. As others haved noted, part of the problem is that she has been drilled to present McCain talking points, rather than say what she thinks and then the campaign deal with it later. So, she has to process each question to work out what she would have said and get to what she is supposed to say. She can’t be a dunderhead to do what she’s done in Alaska.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:42 amESTAs for McCain, the biggest dissapoinment for me was his blowing the chance to smack Obama and other democrats over the financial crisis. He had so many opportunities and just didn’t swing
September 27th, 2008 at 8:43 amEST“The problem I can see here is that Rachel has been brainwashed along with so many others to believe that our Presidential candidates have to be Nobel geniuses or something. All a president has to do is delegate well, not cure cancer or win Pulitzer prizes. Palin is a good administrator and from that standpoint is qualified, not by how well she does in interviews.”
seems that we had a PRESIDENT just like her,back in the 80s.Ronnie may not have been a rocket scientist,but he knew how to delegate well
September 27th, 2008 at 8:44 amESTBrad … explain ‘brilliant’ for Jimmy contrasted with his recent positions around Israel and the ME. I once had respect for his work in Habitat, but the body of his life work is just too misguided to look beyond.
IMO, Obama was not Presidential at all last night. You can’t get belligerent, make stuff up on the fly, change the subject, or go Street on world leaders. He did that last night when McCain outspoke him on the Georgia situation. Obama tried to change the subject. If I were McCain, I’d have said ‘name three of the important people in the Osetia region right now you poseur’. Sitting down with a man who intends to destroy a US ally is just misguided, and not consistent with US policy, and not realizing Russia has veto power in the UN drove his initial statements on how to deal with Russian aggression. Obama unscripted, which most tough decisions while President includes, is a dangerous thing.
And btw … Mac might have mentioned what people should know. Those 95% of tax filers pay very little today, and the top 5% almost all personal taxes. Sure it includes those who make excess, but most of those “rich” 250K people live in places where it takes every dime to live. Tell a guy in NYC, or LA, or any big city they have money falling out of their pockets at 250K. It’s just pathetic.
And those mean corporations … they create our jobs. Make it profitable to do business here, and bring the fucking jobs back home. Jesus, like it’s brain surgery. Drill here, loosen regulations so we can build refineries and other industries. Build the new plants with breaks on taxes so they can be operated cleanly and in compliance with environmental standards.
Mac let all the bailout economy stuff slide, rather than invite folks to fact check a few things he should’ve mention, loan programs under Clinton, contributions take by Obama from FRE, FNM, Wall Street. And he missed an opportunity to state the obvious - it isn’t all Wall Street, it was a failure of government, and greed and irresponsibility on Main Street. He should’ve named the legislation he put forward to address the problem.
Bush didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head to run up their credit cards, or buy what they never could afford. He missed the opportunity to slap the youngster around the war … how do you take seriously Obama “standing up against the war”, when he wasn’t in the Senate at the time?
McCain ended this where he needed to, but played to nice and too soft on that jackass … he doesn’t need “on the job training, HE’s ready to lead on day one. Obama is not”.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:53 amESTJohn: It’s too far away from election day to clean Obama’s clock yet. I am first to admit I don’t remember things for too long a time. There is much on my plate, as with just about every American.
I am sure McCain’s advisers taped the debate, are picking it to pieces (as are Obama’s) and are actually laughing themselves silly at the moment (still). The gloves have yet to come off, and I am confident the junk yard dog in them will come out in due time.
You see, what Obama and the far left stand for is not what America is about. It’s not. I am hopeful this will sink in to many more than it already has, and Obama will lose in a landslide - yes, landslide - to McCain. We need to let the man talk. He will lose the election all by himself.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:35 amESTSure we could have answered those questions……..on a blog.
Reading a question and carefully composing a typed response is entirely different from answering questions in a live interview. I don’t know about you but if I’m in the middle of a complex debate it sometimes takes me a good five minutes or more to craft a good, measured response to someone else’s post. I take a few moments to read through what someone else has said, type of my response, then re-read my post at least twice to make sure it sounds right. And even then mistakes still sneak up on me.
Also remember that when we answer a question on a blog we have the entire resources of the internet at our disposal. When someone asks us a question we can instantly fact-check it and cite links supporting our argument. I myself have an entire folder in the bookmarks section of my web browser labeled “politics” full of links organized by issue and by the political candidate(s) they pertain to. Sometimes when I’m bored I hop over to Michelle Malkin or Ace of Spades just to farm for new links that might someday be useful in an online argument. I have a link to FindLaw.com for checking laws, Dictionary.com for checking word definitions and looking up synonyms, Urban Dictionary for checking unfamiliar slang terms, BibleGateway.com for double-checking the context of Bible quotes, and the CIA World Factbook for general demographic info. I even have a link to a digital copies of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence just so I don’t have to remember them by heart.
(Also, as a hobby like to collect unusual wikis. You wouldn’t believe some of the crazy wikis out there.)
But take all those things away from me and I suspect I would be completely lost. Without time to prepare and research, I would probably stutter and stammer my way through that interview just like Palin did. And I think a lot of other people here would too.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:38 amESTI agree with John. McCain played waaaay too nice. Over at the Tigerhawk liveblog of the debate people were talking about how McCain was holding it together and Obama was falling apart and how that ultimately looked better. We were looking at “presidential” McCain, not “angry” McCain.
The thing is, I want to see the McCain who is not afraid to pull out the big guns and use them. I want to see somebody who can work with the other side but at the same time remind the other side that if they want to launch ad hominem and outright false attacks against him they’re going to have a shit storm of factual evidence of their complicity and duplicity coming back at them, no holds barred.
Maybe that’s why I would never make a good president. Because as much as I suck at memorizing things I’d memorize pages of web addresses to tell people to visit that detail assholes like Obama’s contributions to major economic and military crises. I’d also have no problem calling him a lying bastard to his face. On national television. Then I’d tell him to prove me wrong. Then I’d pull out the facts and call him a lying bastard. Again.
Same goes for people like Putin. I understand the idea of diplomacy, but for the love of God, out leaders need to grow a pair. Sometimes the best possible thing you can do is look an asshole square in the eye and say “You know what, this has gone on long enough. You’re an asshole.” No, it’s not very diplomatic and it might just piss people off, but it’s also a very effect way to remind somebody that you are keeping your eye on them. And if you have the bigger power, it also reminds them that you could kick the shit out of them if you really wanted to.
I currently know somebody who has been pushed around at work for a loooong time and he’s finally had enough. He’s about the call the asshole an asshole. It might get ugly, but ultimately the asshole will lose because the guy I know has the goods to back himself up.
Anyway, that’s what I want to see McCain do. Call the asshole an asshole and back it up with factual, you-can’t-wiggle-out-of-it-this-time-asshole evidence.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:43 amESTI didn’t see the interview or any of the clips but I did just get off the phone with my wacky mother who did and she is convinced Palin is a moron and only people who hate blacks will not vote for Obama.
She seemed unfazed by the fact that Biden is a bonafide idiot, Obama has no experience, a liberal track record and no plan. The only thing he has got going for him is the media con job and people like my mother who fall for it hook line and sinker.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:44 amESTMark, when OBie said the economic problems were systemic, I was positively drooling for Mac to slam him for the amount of money he’s taken from both GSEs and for putting their leaders on his campaign staff. If the economic problems were systemic then that must include certain legislators who were making money hand over fist on it. I’m pissed that Mac let it slide, and that he didn’t hit back at the false claim that deregulation caused this fiasco. He got better as the night wore on.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:50 amESTI really have to disagree strongly with this, Para. Sarah is not a dummy. She’s trying to use someone else’s words and concepts to answer gotcha questions and it showed. She just need to be allowed to be herself and answer those questions in her own common-sense words. Period.
I have some empathy for this situation. A couple of years ago, I was asked to join a panel on Fox discussing nukes. The producer of the show led me to believe the segment was going to be oriented one way, with a logical give and take. I knew my material inside and out and I still boned up for three days ahead of the live show. My head was crammed to bursting with facts and data. I was fuckin’ READY.
When the show started, the host tossed off some really shitty inane assumptions and I quickly realized that I was the sole dissenting view on the panel and had been set-up as a foil for the other panelists. The host was relaxed and chummy with the other [male] panelists and aggressive and condescending with me [the only female].
Further, the questions the Fox host asked were, in a word, unserious. My brain was flying frickin’ 10 miles a second and my mouth was trying to keep up. The other panelists were allowed to finish their generic statements (read: opinions) that a six-grader would say, and I was the only one attempting to inject facts and figures into the discussion. Each time, I was cut-off before finishing my statement. It was disconcerting and I did not have the television experience or confidence (or ill-manners) to over-talk the others.
It was a disaster. I knew my shit on this topic, but it didn’t show. That doesn’t make me a dummy, nor unqualified on the subject. I just didn’t have the experience in that live TV set-up to manipulate it to my advantage. And as the only woman on a panel about a very serious subject and as the only one who gave a shit about the FACTS, I felt the pressure. Now I know what I’d do and say in a similar circumstance.
Live and fuckin’ learn.
So I feel for Palin. She has weathered attacks on her family that would have sent me to a very dark and dangerous place already. She has singlehandedly revived McCain’s chances in November. She is not perfect and I wouldn’t trust her if she tried to be. I would like to see the McCain campaign quit HANDLING her, and cut Sarahcuda loose.
Fuck Obama.
Fuck Couric.
And fuck Oprah.
That is all.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:09 amESTAnd just because I can’t get over the fact that MLK, Jr. would, in all probability, be spinning in his grave to know that Bambi is what’s passing for a leader in the latter stages of his dream:
September 27th, 2008 at 10:11 amESTI have a saying about editing when I watch reality TV and participants say, “Oh, I was edited to look like that” and I always say, “Because you gave them enough to be edited that way.” I am not going to hold up “editing” to defend Sarah Palin in interviews.
Sarah Palin’s problem is that no one knew who she was when she was nominated, whereas we knew the other three, so to say that she was fresh meat is an understatement. Then to have her own camp say that she would do interviews when the press was respectful? Come on….there’s a bit of reaping and sowing here going on.
I seriously don’t know who won the debate. I had moments where I liked and respected John McCain. I also had moments where I was reaffirmed as to why I’m voting for Obama.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:39 amESTReally? Which moments were those? I’m not being snarky, I’m honestly curious.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:46 amESTWell, I know that a lot of people here don’t care about this, but when Obama stated that the U.S. has lost some standing on the world stage and that needed to be reestablished, I felt he was right. I also found it interesting that McCain dodged the question when asked respond to that.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:06 amESTWell I am.
Just because “you gave them enough to be edited that way” doesn’t mean they have the moral or ethical right to go ahead and maliciously edit your words. That’s called LYING.
What? What on Earth are you talking about?
Reaping and sowing? Since when does being a relative unknown justify deliberately disrespecting someone? Are you seriously saying it’s okay to purposely edit someone’s words in order to lie about what they say or believe if they happen to be a newcomer to the national stage?
September 27th, 2008 at 11:09 amESTthe financial crisis in 9 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o
September 27th, 2008 at 11:14 amESTWith whom precisely have we lost standing, Brooke? Muslim extremists and Russia? Canada, Germany, France, and Italy elected pro-American leaders in their most recent elections. Australia is also fairly pro-America, as is Great Britain, and Japan, India, and South Korea are also allies of ours. And Israel, of course. And ask the Africans some time how they feel about President Bush. He’s done so much for them (which the media hasn’t covered, of course). How about the Georgians? How do you think they feel about America?
As for Obama’s comment about kids not wanting to come here for their education, I guess that explains why my fellow electrical engineering master’s students are almost all from overseas.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:22 amESTReestablishing our standing on the world stage of opinion is mutually exclusive with cutting and running from Iraq. What diplomatic power can Obama possibly have when “negotiating” with tyrants and terrorists if he is perfectly capable of capitulating to al qaeda (and therfore Iran, Syria and a multitude of other sposors of terrorism) in Iraq?
One other ding that says he just doesn’t get it. I have had it with this OBL shit from Obama. It has been PROVEN that OBL had little more than NOTHING to do with 9/11. He did not plan it. He did not finance it. Yes, find him and kill him for his other acts of war. But dammit, realize and scream out loud that we got khalid sheikh mohammed . He planned it and ali abdul aziz was the main financier. Yes, we have to defeat al qaeda. But how is it that it isn’t household news that WE GOT ALMOST EVERYONE INVOLVED with the attacks of 9/11. We need to celebrate our victories. Obama ignores them and focuses on our shortcomings while basically speaking to the world with which he says he can restore our standing! He is either FUCKING LIAR OR A FUCKING IDIOT.
The fact that we have a FRONT (of sorts) against terrorism and they still flock there is a fucking bonanza by some terms and perhaps brilliant strategy by others. Either way, intended or not, it is a front in a global war that would not exist otherwise. Period.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:23 amESTWhat was I talking about?
“Rick Davis, campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., just told Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace that McCain running mate Gov. Sarah Palin won’t subject herself to any tough questions from reporters “until the point in time when she’ll be treated with respect and deference.”"
That’s what I’m talking about.
I don’t think she gets to be treated like crap - don’t think I’m saying that - but more than anything, what I wanted from Sarah Palin, was that when she hit the ground, she hit it running and medium speed. Now that she’s done three one on one interviews - no press conferences - she hasn’t demonstrated that.
As to how she was edited, I seriously don’t think that should be anyone’s defense of how she performed in those interviews. Either she has it or she doesn’t. I don’t think she has it.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:24 amESTTrue, I don’t really care - nor do I believe it for a second.
McCain didn’t answer satisfactorily for me either. Here’s what McCain should’ve said:
“My friends, 50% of Egyptians believe that we caused 9/11. A greater percentage of the ‘Arab Street’ believe the 2004 Tsunami was caused by a “Jew atom bomb” dropped in the Indian Ocean. Taiwan & South Korea EXIST because of the American military. When our soldiers have tried to help the world (Somalia, Yemen, Lebanon), we get blown up. Supposedly the world hates us, yet the best and brightest of the world come to school in America, and then want jobs in America. Here’s what I think about the ‘image of America’. We’ll keep doing what we’re doing, and the rest of the world can continue to sleep under the blanket of freedom and prosperity that we provide.”
Hooah.
Obama would never in a million years say such a thing, because he thinks AMERICA is the problem. I can’t get behind a guy who thinks so poorly of our great nation and its citizenry and all we’ve done and continue to do for a very ungrateful wretched world. Period.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:26 amESTI think this just about sums up the results of the debate.
Both John McCain and Barack Obama stuck to their own “safe” talking points. The same ones they’ve been running with for months now. About 99% of the things Obama said (more troops in Afghanistan, the US has lost international standing, etc.) is stuff his supporters already love him for and his detractors already loathe him for, and the same goes for John McCain. They both pretty much stuck to the things they already know are “safe” (i.e., things they’ve said many times without losing any significant support) and avoided the things that might have really swung this debate one way or another. For instance, even though Lehrer tried more than once to make them concentrate on the housing crisis and the bailout, both of them carefully avoided giving any real in-depth answers. Probably because neither one of them is totally sure where the electorate stands on those issues and they didn’t want to risk shooting themselves in the foot.
So in my opinion, neither candidate gained or lost even a single point in this debate. They’re both exactly where they were before the debate began.
Barack Obama supporters still support Barack Obama (and think he won), John McCain supporters still support John McCain (and think he won), independents and moderates who watched this debate weren’t terribly impressed or disgusted with either candidate, and most undecided voters are probably still undecided.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:29 amESTBrooke, I can get why you want to see our standing in the world go up, but why exactly does that matter?
We’re talking about countries that have been pissing and moaning for years about how much we spend on our military when it’s the very fact that we spend so much on our military that gives them the free reign to institute welfare states and field small, ineffectual militaries.
These are the same people we’ve bailed out in two very big wars and various smaller ones. The same people who hold their hands out for money while in the same breath talking about how horrible we are. The same people who are bowing to immigrants and allowing them to make up their own rules and laws. I’m not just pulling that out of my ass. I’ve lived in Europe. I’ve seen it.
I have sat and talked first-hand with a European who hated everything we stand for for three hours and every point I made he agreed with and he still came out the other side hating us just the same.
I guess I just have a hard time understanding why we need to impress those people when we have better friends who will disagree with us, but will do so respectfully. I don’t know about anybody else here, but I want horrible dictators to think twice about crossing us. Hell, I want anybody to think twice about crossing us. Because that is what keeps us safe. Putting our tail between our legs and ducking our heads and sheepishly saying I’m sorry will do nothing but show us to be weak.
Europe is still very much living in their own past and it irks them that we’ve managed to change the dynamic, which makes their process irrelevant. At this point I’d say it’s time for them to grow up and be responsible for themselves. You want to see attitudes change toward us, tell them we’re bringing our troops home or only hosting them in countries that show us real respect. It may take some time and a couple of nasty wars, but I guarantee we’ll be treated a lot better. At least for a little while. Then the cycle will start all over again.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:36 amESTExcellent, hM. Really well said.
I, too, have lived overseas and every time I encountered someone who really “hated” America, there was - without exception - a deep underlying sense of bitterness and jealousy. You can’t appease that.
Take the following situation: Americans deliver food and clothing to people in need in Albania (or Mexico or Somalia, etc). They swarm the semi and injure the volunteers in their attempt to grab everything they could. They scramble off like the thieves they are, and then return later with empty arms complaining to the Americans that they “didn’t get enough.” The Americans reply that the truck is empty. The thieves grow angry and leave in a huff muttering their hatred of the “stupid Americans.” They return that night to vandalize the premises, leaving anti-American graffiti on the exterior walls. Makes no fuckin’ sense, right? Right.
That really happened in Albania. Not just once. Every. Single. Goddamned. Time.
In Mexico, American generosity ended slightly differently, with the local Mexican Marxist thug placing a contract on the American contractor (who was building an orphanage and medical clinic) because the American refused to pay his bribes. The contractor, holding his baby daughter in his arms, was surrounded and threatened by angry peasants armed with machetes (thanks to the town’s “community organizer”) because 25,000 thousand pesos (=$2500) in socialist bribes were more important than a free medical clinic for the whole friggin’ community. Yeah, that’s what passes for macho in Mexico. The American family left Mexico within 72 hours, under threat of their lives. Stupid socialist Third World motherfuckers.
And we all know what happened in Somalia.
Anecdotal stories, sure, but indicative of how crap humans react to American largesse. So I don’t care what crap humans think about America - they are just not important, and I wholeheartedly do NOT think American foreign policy ought to be geared toward appeasing such crap humans.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:39 amESTI think Mighty Samurai just had the best post-debate analysis.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:44 amESTExcept that’s not what you said. You said there was “a bit of reaping and sowing” going on.
What reaping? What sowing? Precisely what has Sarah Palin or the McCain campaign “sowed” that they now have to “reap”?
Are you just not that familiar with the meaning of the phrase “as ye sow, so shall ye reap”? Because that’s the only reason I can think of as to why you would say there was any “reaping and sowing” going on.
Then what were you saying? Remember, I’ve got your original words right here:
“Sarah Palin’s problem is that no one knew who she was when she was nominated, whereas we knew the other three, so to say that she was fresh meat is an understatement. Then to have her own camp say that she would do interviews when the press was respectful? Come on….there’s a bit of reaping and sowing here going on.”
The proverb “as ye sow, so shall ye reap” means that your fate is a direct consequence of your actions. Because “they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.” Basically you’re saying that the McCain campaign brought the disrespect against Sarah Palin on itself.
Is this what you meant? If not, then why did you say it?
Precisely. You don’t THINK she has it, because her interviews have been carefully edited and she’s been blindsided with “gotcha!” questions designed to make it look like she doesn’t have it.
You’re an Obama supporter, so presumably you think he’s a smart and at least relatively articulate guy. How would you feel if he was interviewed by an openly hostile news reporter who blindsided him with constant gotcha questions and edited his statements to make it seem like he said something he didn’t?
Would you say he “doesn’t have it”?
Would you think it was fair to conclude that he is unintelligent based on deliberately edited footage and quotes?
Would you think it was okay for me to claim that editing his statements and purposely disrespecting him was just “reaping what he sowed”?
September 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pmESTThe thing with Obama that I couldn’t get over was that he came off in his composure as an impatient snotty disrespectful child. Eye rolling….CHECK…interupting to many times to count….CHECK….calling Senator McCain John when at least McCain had the repspect to always stick with Senator Obama…CHECK.
McCain is just an overall far better debator IMO. I also LOVED how about 8 times Obama continualy agreeed with McCain, silly me I thought the debate was about showing their differences in the issues, while McCain was like the dominate lion pushing Obama down with his paw by pointing out that Obama just does NOT get it.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pmESTRe: Sarah Palin = “dummy” because she didn’t treat Katie Couric the way you all obviously want her treated (as do I)…
Man, I’d like to see some of you Super Geniuses run for governor of your state. Oh heck, I’d like to see some of you intellectual giants get interviewed by Katie Couric and manage to come out of it looking good. Is this something like the people who still claim George W. Bush is stupid even though they’ve never seen the cockpit of one of those planes he was trained to fly?
September 27th, 2008 at 12:32 pmESTAndrea Harris
+1!
heh Super Geniuses.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pmESTWhat can I say, I get a little impatient sometimes. I mean, for the love of God, Katie Couric, the talking kewpie doll of network tv. Einstein couldn’t come off well in an interview with her. She exudes stoopid like a gas.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:41 pmESTWas I watching the same debate as the rest of you? I missed the first half, but the part I saw seemed like Obama was mostly calm, smooth, eloquent, and presidential. I disagreed with most of what he said, but he said it well. McCain made me think “curmudgeon” until the very end when he wrapped it up quite well. They both seemed like kids on the playground with the “oh yeah, but I heard you say xxx, and now you’re saying xxy” crap. I felt like anyone who truly was undecided would come away from the debate leaning toward Obama.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pmESTAndrea, I hear ya. I’m a little tired of folks criticizing Palin for something they could never in a million years do themselves - arm-chair quarter-backing her to death. I gave my own personal experience of blowing it on-camera so I certainly empathize. An awkward interview in an incredibly hostile environment is not an indictment of Palin’s intelligence - or her readiness. Besides, McCain wouldn’t even be in this game if it weren’t for her.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:51 pmESTYeah, you missed the part where he was shrill, stuttering, and petulant. But he gets a pass because he’s not Palin.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:01 pmESTObama “calm, smooth, eloquent, presidential” while McCain came off as “curmudgeon”? And this is supposed to be bad for McCain how? The last thing we need is another silver-tongued orator (cough Clinton cough) with bad ideas in charge. Cknight, you need to get over your lingering fears of that crusty old neighbor who yelled at you to get off his lawn when you were ten, or whatever your damage is. Curmudgeons rule, sweet-talkin’ bullshitters drool.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pmESTCurmudgeons don’t bother me - I hope to be one some day - but I’m concerned about the effect on the great mass of voters who don’t focus on the issues so much as which candidate they’d rather hang out with at Jamba Juice. There are an awful lot of them out there. (P.S.: not a lot of lawns in the trailer park where I grew up; but don’t you dare cut through Mr. Whistler’s lot on your way to the playground, or he’ll throw a beer bottle at you!)
September 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pmESTHow is asking Sarah Palin to name some of her running mate’s work on regulations (which strangely even I can name one) a “gotcha!” question?
In regards to the press, I think the McCain camp set Sarah Palin up to fail - or at least if she did fluff the interviews, they could say, “Oh, the press is just so mean.” And I think the press saw it and thought, “Oh, you think we’re mean now?” And everyone ran with it. That’s what I meant by reaping/sowing. What are they supposed to ask her?
If Barack Obama could not handle the press, I don’t want him for my president. And I mean that with all seriousness. The one open link that the public has to the executive branch is the media and I think whomever is answering the media has to be able to handle scrutiny. So to answer the above question, I think anyone who runs for office at that level has to be ready to get in and be prepared to handle extreme media pressure.
Seriously, I wish she’d do a press conference. Live on all the networks for her to show what she does or does not have in all of her glory. Cut the chances for “editorial” mismanagement, don’t you think?
September 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pmESTThat and he spent half the debate saying “That’s not true” while McCain was speaking. That’s something I expect to see from the various kinds of trash on Judge Judy, not from a presidential candidate. I don’t want a heartless president, but I don’t want one ruled by emotion, either. Obama failed big-time in that department.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pmESTSpeaking of the rest of the world’s opinion of us, I’m reminded of how I felt when I found out that so many folks in other countries really don’t like America or Americans. It hurt. I was shocked and stung, hearing about the eeeeevil American corporations that smother business and culture in Canada, hearing about our nasty aggressiveness and our warmonglering, finding out that we’re often perceived as imperialists and racists. Not to mention stupid, fat and lazy. And racist. And mean. And racist - can’t forget that.
I really wanted to change that perception. I seriously thought that people who thought that way about America were just ignorant; if they were told the truth then they would change their minds.
But over time I realized that wasn’t going to happen. Most of those people who hate us LIKE hating us. They don’t care if it’s true or not. They don’t care if it’s accurate, fair or reasonable. Changing their minds would require them to reexamine their world order, and that’s just too hard or too painful. So they won’t.
I blame a lot of the misconceptions about us on state-controlled foreign media. But a lot of it is also just that there’s a lot of crap humans in the world. (RI, I like that term!)
So my feelings are no longer hurt when I hear folks from other nations talk garbage about America. Whether I try to educate them or not, generally they don’t WANT to know better. I’m not going to lose sleep worrying about that a passel of fools in other countries don’t like us because we hurt their pride and offend their sense of the way the world should be.
If the way to make the world luuuuurve us is to crawl on our bellies and abase ourselves before a bunch of socialist-minded asscats, then I say HELL NO!
They can go right on ahead with their hating. They can hate us all they want as long as they never forget that we still have teeth.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pmESTTo show my thoughts on Sarah Palin, Katie Couric or no Katie Couric, I will repost this pic.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:30 pmESTHandle the press? They are his extended PR department. They are admittedly on the Democrat Team. They worship Obama - openly and unashamedly. What’s so tough about that?
Brooke, I’m far less interested than you in seeing Obama field softballs from an adoring press.
What I would like to see is Obama and McCain together in a townhall. Obama won’t. Why? Because of this. Or this. Or any of these. Too bad - that would be a fun one to watch.
Yeah, kinda like I wish Obama would do a townhall. I have a hunch we’ll see Palin in a press conference a bit sooner than we’ll see Obama in a townhall.
(If we’re not counting the press conference she did at Ground Zero, of course.)
September 27th, 2008 at 1:32 pmESThM … thought that was you over at Tigerhawk. Rachel, Michelle Malkin and Jack’s Tigerhawk … that’s pretty much my reading material …
I guess I agree that it’s still too soon to slam Obama. And generally I agree that if we just let him talk, he’ll do Mac’s job for him. But just the same, I’m looking for McCain to really pick a groove that works, and drive it in deep (yeah, I have a little kid, and we watch cars a lot).
September 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pmESTheh
And the other half saying, “John McCain is right…”
September 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pmESTPalin took a handful of questions (with no follow-up) from a handful of reporters.
Hey, I’m all for a townhall meeting, and I wish Barack Obama would do one. Let’s have a real towhhall, with real questions that aren’t vetted to the point of no return. Be honest - do you think EITHER candidate wants to face questions from the voters?
What would you ask Barack Obama if you could?
September 27th, 2008 at 1:56 pmESTHow about: why do you think socialism will solve all the world’s ills when it’s such a stupid idea?
September 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pmESTKatie Couric is one of the singularly most idiotic people on the face of this planet. I thought McCain did great against O’Bama, and these stupid debates are just for show, anyway. As is my following comment.
“More whiskey, and fresh women for my men.”
September 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pmESTWhen I think about McCain giggling and scribbling with his Sharpie, I can’t help but wonder what exactly he was doing. Was he actually making notes or was it more like doodling big mustaches and crazy eyes on pictures of Obama? I know what I would have been doing!
September 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pmESTWhen Couric interviewed Biden and he spoke of President FDR addressing the nation on TV when the stock market crashed, she said nothing. Does that mean Couric thought that had actually happened, or is she completely in the tank for Obama? I have no problem with tough interviews, but only if it’s applied to both parties.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:17 pmESTI’ve lived and worked in Europe as well and it pretty much sucks for the average Pierre, Hans or Angelo. The govt confiscates much of their wages and doles it out in sub-standard services and everything is subject to VAT, onerous fees and regulations.
Most Europeans I’ve met and worked with over the years are incredulous that any American can start a business as ordinary Europeans have little to no access to capital and the “tall poppy syndrome” rules so most don’t even try. I think that’s why they are so passionate about food, wine and the arts; a rich cultural tradition mitigates the lack of opportunity.
As to a President Obama changing world opinion of America; who do you think their governments will blame when Putin and his puppet regimes control their energy resources?
I don’t think Putin’s moves in Iran and Latin America are about the US; but regaining control over their former satellite states and as much of free/Old Europe as possible.
The European left will turn on Obama faster than his own as their expectations fade in the face of reality. The audacity of hope won’t light the dark or heat the cold and will fall upon deaf ears.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:30 pmESTI guess you haven’t heard that “hope” is what caused D-Day to be such a success. General Patton was just brimming with hope. MacArthur used hope to retake huge swathes of the Pacific theater. And let’s not forget, hope is what fell on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, causing happiness and rainbows so intense that the people just disintegrated into puffs of pure delight.
/sarcasm
September 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pmESTOK, so you don’t count it. *shrugs* I didn’t think you would. But it was a start and one I think she pushed for. McCain’s campaign is keeping her under wraps - to their own detriment. I certainly don’t agree with it, and I don’t think Palin does either.
You will notice that McCain’s numbers started to dip as soon as he muzzled Palin. I think McCain is still in shock that all his carefully cultivated good-will - and by goodwill, I mean kiss ass - with the media evaporated the very millisecond a conservative took center stage. He’s ham-handedly boxing Palin, and his campaign is paying for it. He was losing before Palin entered the game, and he’ll lose for sure if he muzzles her for much longer.
I am not interested in the convenient lies and spin of any politician. But for some reason, I am still fascinated with Palin’s opinion on everything - HER opinion, not the official campaign position - and I want to hear it in her own words. The sooner, the better.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:49 pmESTOT: no, not THAT glenn - I answered your question about Tolbert’s joke from the other day.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:57 pmESTSorry, forgot to answer this in my earlier comment. As I said above, I’m not interested in politicians and their spin. Obama especially - I can predict his answers as well as I can my own, simply because he is completely opposite of me on 100% of the issues. 100% freakin’ percent.
See, Obama is a socialist. I despise socialism - it is the death knell of sovereignty and freedom. To me, Obama is just a very suave face on a very ugly ideology.
So I have nothing to say to Obama. He is not of my Tribe, and I do not respect his opinions on any single matter under the sun.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pmESTCrap. Moderated twice in a row.
I answered your question about what I’d ask Obama, Brooke. My post at 3:03 is hung up in Akismet.
[Why do the moderation filter demons hate us, RI? There's simply no rhyme or reason to this. Garrrr! - Rachel]
September 27th, 2008 at 3:09 pmESTAmelia in TX, I missed your earlier comment and agree wholeheartedly. BJM’s too.
“Passel of fools”… I like that term! I’d also apply it to the UN.
Rachel, thanks for rescuing my comment so fast - especially on a weekend!
Lastly, before I head out to the movies, I’d like to know what Brooke thinks about Obama’s statement that the troops lives are wasted in vain - or not, as he said last night: Obama shamelessly contradicts himself about troops dying in vain
Which one do you believe, Brooke? The flip or the flop?
September 27th, 2008 at 3:26 pmESTEvidently, both the interview with Gibson and the interview with the she-devil, Katie “the witch” Couric, were heavily edited to make Sarah Palin appear as they - the liberal media - wish her to appear. We might as well ignore any MSM “interview” she does in the future, since we don’t get the whole thing at all.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/2887-CBS-News-Erases-Moderate-Quotes-from-Palin-Transcript.html
September 27th, 2008 at 4:49 pmESTOne old curmudgeon died yesterday - Paul Newman. One less vote for Obama but will make no difference as Connecticut will go for Obama. But why? In rankings one of the richest, highest incomes and best educated states. A dropout there is a person with a masters degree.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:53 pmESTHow is constantly grilling her about what her foreign policy experience is NOT a gotcha question?
Like the affair with Charlie Gibson, this was less an interview than an interrogation. Couric didn’t question Palin, she grilled her. If she had done the same to Barack Obama you would be screaming about personal attacks, smears, and conservative media bias. But because it’s Sarah Palin, well, “there’s a bit of reaping and sowing here going on”.
And that’s supposed to make it okay?
No offense Brooke, but where the Hell were you when your grade school teachers talked about manners and basic human decency?
Ah, I see. How he governs is completely irrelevant to you. All you care about is how well he can handle the press.
Good to know.
Except anyone who runs for office is not being subjected to extreme media pressure. Only conservatives and/or Republicans get that. Liberal Democrats like Obama get to skate by with softball questions and fluff pieces.
You say you wouldn’t vote for Obama if he couldn’t handle the press, but you have absolutely no idea if he can handle the press because they refuse to put the same pressure on him that they put on the right.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:07 pmESTSorry that Palin/Couric interview to me reeks of being edited to make Sarah say what the network wanted her to say. Every time they cut to Couric for a reaction shot, you can BET they are either cutting a sentence out of what Palin said, or they are cutting her off early so it looks like she can’t finish her thought.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pmESTSo, someone will have to work hard to convince me that Sarah Palin is a worse candidate than Jimmy Carter’s VP in ‘76 and ‘80 (Walter Mondale), and Nixon’s VP Spiro Agnew and Bush I’s VP Dan Quayle.
As far as reforming D.C.? Let Sarah try. I believe it can’t be done because it isn’t broken. A depressing thing to say, but this is a massive country with lots of big business, middle sized business and small business, and even more special interests.
The biggest issue is figuring out who should have their greasy mitts in the taxpayers’ pockets and who shouldn’t and who should be going to prison for doing what they shouldn’t have been doing.
THAT is enough to occupy a reformer for a lifetime!
I’m voting for Sarah. The fact that she flunked the Katie Couric interview is a big plus in MY book!
September 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pmESTAnd, never forget that Right Wing Donn (that’s Robert Walker Donn for those who want the whole name) was once a Democrat. I got the “Right Wing” from my demmie buddies who thought I had gotten too conservative as a democrat. That, just maybe, there WERE such things as “good” wars and that working for something is far better than the gov’t giving it to you.
So, there you have it.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pmESTReally? Well, in that case, I guess that means Obama agrees with everything McCain says.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pmESTKatie has lured people into bad territory before and then edited out how she did it.
Palin should have taped the whole interview and put it up on the web somewhere. It might change our perception.
My former boss managed an interview David Smith (former husband of Susan Smith, the woman who drowned her two boys and claimed her car was stolen by a black man). The rules for the Couric interview were that she would not go beyond the facts and there were certain questions that were stated and agreed to be off limits. So what did America’s “Sweetheart” do? She asked all of those questions, made the grief-stricken husband break down, and that’s what ran on TV — not what was agreed to. She is consciousless slime.
Palin may have come across as a dummy, but I suspect it was orchestrated. Palin needs to be more assertive with her interviewers and not let them push her into this. She will learn, if she has the time.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:33 pmEST“Speaking of the rest of the world’s opinion of us, I’m reminded of how I felt when I found out that so many folks in other countries really don’t like America or Americans. It hurt. I was shocked and stung, hearing about the eeeeevil American corporations that smother business and culture in Canada, hearing about our nasty aggressiveness and our warmonglering, finding out that we’re often perceived as imperialists and racists. Not to mention stupid, fat and lazy. And racist. And mean. And racist - can’t forget that.” - Amelia in TX
“The world doesn’t hate us, the left does. Remember that.” - Dennis Prager
September 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pmESTBrooke, I’d like to ask the obamassiah why has he spent so much of his political career with people who are under investigation, under indictment, or in prison. Why did he lie about his close relationship with bill ayers, the bomber& anti-American terrorist; and what did they do with the $150,000,000 from the Annanberg Trust for Chicago schools? What did he learn from his mentor, avowed communist and admitted pedophile Frank Davis? Why won’t he release his actual birth certificate? Why won’t he release his medical records? Why won’t he release his college transcripts (he’s a genius, you know)? What did he do to earn the hundreds of thousands of dollars from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac? Why did his wife get a $197,000 raise right after he added an earmark for the hospitol that employs her (same for the food company who’s board she sits on)? Why do his backers employ Stalinist tactics to quash any adverse publicity about him? Has he really stopped doing drugs - or is Larry Sinclair telling the truth about doing cocaine and having sex with him in the back seat of a limo? Why did he lie about his Free Trade stance when the Canadians called him on it? Why can’t he hold to a position for more than 24 hours? Why do the muslim community, and terrorist leaders worldwide, back him for president - when, by koranic law, he should be under a sentence of death for apostacy for leaving islam and converting to Christianity? Why did it take him 20 years to realize that the “church” he attended and the pastor who was his “spiritual guide” and mentor were anti-semitic anti-white and anti-American?
September 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pmESTAnd on and on. There are a lot of questions I’d like to ask - but I doubt that I’d get any more honest answers than what he’s already put out (which is none).
Face it: the obamassiah is a hollow shell, controlled and manipulated by puppet-masters who want nothing less than the complete destruction of the American system and way of life; and the subjegation of the American people under a communist order.
And, no, I probably won’t be voting for him.
It was a sucky interview. She will survive it and, no doubt, has had a realistic appraisal of her performance. Heh, I remembered how sucky Reagan sounded at times in interviews and how the press would leap all over it. Palin has that at a times 100 and appears to be surviving, bleeding yes, but she is not whining about it.
But Palin has her next major introduction to the US voter when she is contrasted against Biden at the VP debate. She must know this and is focused on this task. That format is more free flowing and she will have a fair(er) stage to show us her chops.
We shall see how she does. My opinion: Give ‘em Hell, Sarah.
Besides with the Missouri governor announcing:
This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
Palin can burst out singing, “I’m a little teapot!’ and I will still vote for her (and McCain) instead of a an increasingly worrisome Obama administration.
And I am glad to have that asshole McCain fighting Obama.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:31 pmESTI would agree with Rachel about Palin’s Couric interview, if it were not for two things.
First, I’ve seen Palin’s pre-nomination interviews and debates, and she was nothing like she was with Couric. She even did much better in the Charlie Gibson interview.
Second, I read the transcripts at CBS.com, and guess what? They actually read pretty well. The only place there is a problem is the bit about foreign affairs experience, but I have a feeling she’s been told by the McCain people to play it that way, and she just doesn’t feel comfortable with it. If so, she needs to get comfortable.
The list of McCain’s accomplishments was an absurd question, and Joe Biden would have dealt with it by simply lying.
Maybe she’s too sincere for the Big Time Liars League she now finds herself in. And maybe CBS was even more intent on editing to make her look bad. I dunno.
Anyway, I’ll wait until the VP debate to decide whether she’s a disappointment.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:31 pmESTI totally defend the idea that Palin is a dummy.
Yes, She has thematic ideas; Freedom is good, Terrorists are bad, taxes should be low, but to be honest when I hear her speak, she doesn’t sound as if she understand how any of these things work.
She just keeps saying “We’re going to Warshington to shake things up!!!’
What a naive thing to say. Presidents and Vice Presidents don’t “shake things up”. Government moves in excruciatingly slow increments.She can’t say what things she’s going to shake up. Oh, except lobbyists, she doesn’t like lobbyists, she’s going to shake up the lobbyists. One problem, lobbying is Constitutional, legal, and in some cases ( like lobbying for veteran’s benefits) noble. But she’s going to shake them up nonetheless.
She’s John McCain’s friggin’ running mate. Dontcha think she should have MEMORIZED McCains top ten achievements??????? Jeeze, me and Mighty Samurai, Pete from Midland and other have been bashing each other over the fucking head for months about McCain’s accompliments ( or lack thereof, if you will) and we’re just commentors on a blog.
Jeesh! The two guys who drive me nuts the MOST on the blog have a better undertstanding of the issues than PALIN!!! Brooke the Liberal is smarter than Palin. Sure maybe we’d all stumble on live TV, but who the fuck here doesn’t now what the GODAMNED BUSH DOCTRINE IS!!!!!
Sorry folks, Sarah is a dummy. She’s sweet, she’s attractive, she loves guns and god and she didn’t abort her retarded baby, so she’s a Saint, but she is not smarter than most of you on this blog.
I think McCain fucked up, the next 40 days are going to be brutal, but not as brutal as the next 4 years.
Although…
McCain kicked ass last night. Seriously, he was honest and believable. Obama was not.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pmESTSusabelle, thank you for posting those links. They are infuriating!!!! And they confirm what almost everyone already thought. Both the Gibson interview AND the Couric interview were doctored. Sarah’s comments were deliberately manipulated to look disjointed, irrelevant, hawkish, and unintelligent. Context was entirely removed, as were preliminary statements laying the groundwork of her premise.
This is outrageous. With the media actively working to elect their candidate Obama to office, they are pulling out all the stops. They are not even discreet about it.
Imagine if Obama DOES get elected, due to the media’s fawning adoration of him and their slime tactics against the Republicans. The so-called “Free Press” will become the de facto propaganda arm of the government. We’ll have a socialist President, an accommodating and corrupt majority Democrat Congress, and a lying/manipulating press to do their bidding. The press will become the Ministry of Information. There will be nothing an Obama Administration won’t be able to do and get away with or cover up with a willing media. No watchdogs, no accountability.
Gahhhh.
Fuck Obama. And fuck anyone who votes for him. Seriously. I mean that. I think I’ve been pretty fuckin’ nice all day about this but I’m done with that shit.
And last but not least, fuck Oprah.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pmESTCan’t we just settle the el(r)ection by looking at the tape? I mean the tape measure. Who’s better hung, or is it who’s hung better?
September 27th, 2008 at 7:45 pmESTPara, did you read the links to the proof that both the Gibson and Couric interviews were edited and manipulated to remove relevant and crucial statements from Palin’s interviews?
And I have to say, Para, that I find your statements about Palin to be condescending and fuckin’ irritating.
I know you’re a regular, Para, and we’ve often been on the same side of things, but ya know what? You can really be an ass sometimes. So I say this as a friendly co-commenter: fuck you, too.
Gawd, I’m irritated. Liberals are all mentally ill, Akismet is eating my goddamn comments and Para’s a dick. I’m headin’ over to Dogette’s to see what the fuck Dogliness is up to. Her poops are more goddamned intelligent than this shit. Fuck Oprah.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:46 pmESTYou see, disagree with the crowd and you’re and asshole and told to fuck off.
I see a pattern here.
BTW
My comments were agreeing with our Hostess, so maybe Rachel should fuck off too? You want me to pass that along for ya???
Even thought you’re a little emotional Redhead, I still think you’re smarter than Palin.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pmESTPara - to which “Bush Doctrine”, of the four (or six) touted by the press do you refer? There IS NO “B.D.” per se, and to say there is, in the same meaning as the “Monroe Doctrin”, etc., is disingenuous at best. That was a Gotcha! question, and you know it. It may be popular sport to denigrate Sarah Palin’s accomplishments and ability; but you and people like you had better realize that she’s no dummy. (I didn’t say she’s a genius, so don’t get your knickers in a twist.) And acting as condescending as you do only shows that a)you believe you have something to be snobbish about; and b)you’re a lousy judge of people and character.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:57 pmESTDon’t fuck with me Para. It’s not because you disagree with the crowd, it’s your condescending know-it-all arrogance that grates.
Yeah, go tattle on me to Rachel, Para. You well know that when she gets her hands on all the information she’ll have a different fucking opinion. I, for one, can’t wait to hear it.
And lastly, I don’t care that you think I’m so fuckin’ smart, nor how you assess my emotional state. I can get irritated over the magnitude of the cheating and the wholesale corruption of the flow of information in this country - and the dipshits who buy the entire rotten package - if I want to without some beta male telling me how fuckin’ “emotional” I am.
Goddamn it.
PS: I’m back because Dogliness didn’t take a shit, so I might as well stay here and wallow in yours.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pmESTBill,
I also read the article trying to defend Palin’s gaffe about the Bush Doctrine. Charles Krauthammer famously decreed that there are four different Bush Doctrines. But even Krauthammer (my favorite pundit) seems to have forgotten HIS OWN ARTICLE from 2005 in Time Magazine, titled;
wait for it….
“THREE CHEERS FOR THE BUSH DOCTRINE”
Oh yes he did…………and here’s the link.
The Link everyone including Palin should probably read.
The “Bush Doctrine” is and was well known before this interview.
You knew what Gibson was talking about, Bill. I’ve read your stuff. You’re pretty sharp. You knew what the Bush Doctrine was before Krauthammer told us all it was 4 things. ( after he told us it was one thing)
September 27th, 2008 at 8:08 pmESTRedhead,
Welcome back.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:10 pmESTMan, if there’s a political equivalent to the armchair quarterback, you’re it.
Yes, we here on Rachellucas.com could probably name John McCain’s top 10 accomplishments. Because we have the luxury of a nigh endless international database to instantly research our arguments.
But ask us to name McCain’s top ten achievements right off the top of our heads, without the benefit of an internet connection, with a hostile news reporter staring us down and waiting to pounce on the slightest verbal slip-up, and I guarantee you that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US could do it. We could maybe name SOME of McCain’s accomplishments, but his top 10 accomplishments? Without making a mistake? Without mentioning an accomplishment that we don’t even agree with, like amnesty or McCain-Feingold, because we blanked out and started grasping at straws?
Not. A. God. Damn. Chance.
If you think Palin’s performance in that interview makes her an idiot, then I guess we’re all idiots. You, me, Pete from Midland, Rachel, all of us. All jabbering, slobbering, retard helmet-wearing idiots.
Oh, okay, I guess it’s just YOU who’s the idiot. You must be, if you swallowed that nonsense about Sarah Palin not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:11 pmESTAnd here’s the link YOU should probably read.
Sarah Palin was right. The New York Time, Charlie Gibson, and now YOU, are flat out wrong.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:16 pmESTReally, Mighty? A Political Armchair quarterback?
This is a BLOG my friend, none of us are elected officials. That makes us all armchair quarterbacks by the fact that we are all expressing our ideas about politics!
As for the Bush Doctrine gaffe, you’ll have to read back a comment or two , I linked the truth about that.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:16 pmESTYou’re not “expressing your ideas on politics”. You’re insulting Sarah Palin because she did not perform to your satisfaction in a hostile MSM interview.
Oh, and you also don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is. Which I suppose by your standard makes you an idiot.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:18 pmESTLiberals are all mentally ill?
Seriously? Alice Paul was called mentally ill too, and look how that worked our for women in our country….granted, I’m no Alice Paul, but painting one person’s differing political beliefs as a sign of mental illness is a bit reaching if you ask me.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:19 pmESTI HAVE read the link, I referenced it in an earlier comment.
Krauthammer is contradicting HIMSELF in his defense of PALIN. Gibson was speaking of the very BUSH DOCTRINE phrase COINED by Krauthammer, and , lauded in a TIME magazine article 3 years ago by the Hammer.
Now that Palin stumbled, the definition has changed to cover her ignorance.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:19 pmEST“When I worked with Alice Paul I asked her about the abortion question — point blank. She said directly, “Abortion is just another way of exploiting women.” Then she went on to explain that the National Woman’s Party was organized for the benefit of women. Killing female babies was no way to benefit or protect women.”
–Mary Meehan
Brooke, I don’t think you want to portray Alice Paul as exemplary of modern liberalism.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:25 pmESTMighty,
How, in the WORLD do you know what my understanding of the Bush Doctrine is. You have no idea what my background is, do you. You have idea who has employed me for the past decade, do you?
Here’s a partial list.
The US Department of State (under both Clinton and Bush)
The Central Intelligence Agency
The Federal Bureau of Investigations
The US Department of Defense
The US Department of the Interior
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commision
The US Department of Commerce
To name a few.
I know a little bit about a little bit,my friend. Dont’ pretend to know what I know. I know what the Bush Doctrine is.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:25 pmESTWow. You’ve a had a lot of jobs Para. Ten years and 7+ employers.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:28 pmESTYeah.
Suicide is a sign of mental illness. Socialism is suicide for a free nation.
Own it.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:30 pmESTI worked for most of them at the same time.I was a government contractor, now I am an employee.
I cannot say very much, as most of the work was classified in nature, though my current job is unclassified ( thankfully)
September 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pmESTNo, apparently you HAVEN’T read the link. In fact if I didn’t know better I’d say you hadn’t read EITHER link. Otherwise you’d have realized that YOUR link is from 2005 while mine is from 2008, after the Bush Doctrine changed.
If you had actually read the link you would know that he hasn’t contradicted himself at all.
But then, you didn’t read the link, did you?
Ah, I see. So Krauthammer is right when he supports your argument but wrong when he supports mine.
Gotcha.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pmESTHey, Para said it on the internets so it has to be true! I’m the Queen of England, myself.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:44 pmESTGoodie for you. I sure don’t know what it means. That’s because different people attribute different meanings to the term.
Kinda strikes me as being like the word “liberal” - it means different things to different people, and we can all sit around snarling at each other over what it means until the cows come home and milk themselves.
I’d warrant that RI’s definition of “liberal” is no twin to Brooke’s definition of “liberal.” The two definitions might not be even as alike as 2nd cousins. I’m sure Brooke doesn’t see it as an insulting word. Based on stuff Brooke has said, she doesn’t fit my own definition of “liberal.” I’d call her left-leaning. Based on what I consider a liberal to be, Brooke is far too reasonable and coherent.
As to the Bush doctrine: has George W. Bush ever specifically articulated one, or is the argument over what “Bush doctrine” means a case of debating what various talking heads say it means? (I ask because I do not know, not to be snarky.)
September 27th, 2008 at 8:46 pmESTI wasn’t referring to Alice Paul as a liberal, more as a wrongfully accused mentally person who was advocating for what she believed in. Being called mentally ill because I believe differently than someone is lame.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:47 pmESTWell the fact that you’ve been running around claiming there is only one definition might have been a clue.
BTW, here’s a link for you:
Krauthammer in 2001, claiming the Bush Doctrine is unilateral foreign policiy, not pre-emptive war.
Oops.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:48 pmESTAH, but I have read both articles. Krauthammer is plying a defense of Palin because he is saying his definition of the “Bush Doctrine” has changed.
The Bush Doctrine is the doctrine of pre-emption, the spreading of Democracy as a form of self preservation, and the unwillingness to ally ourselves with any country that harbours terrorism.
The Bush doctrine has not been scrapped and replaced as Krauthemmer claims, it has been added to by way of clarification, but the big one, PRE-EMPTION, is the one that we all talked about before Palin messed up the answer.
Krauthammer excailms THREE CHEERS for the Bush Doctrine 3 years ago, we all knew what he was talking about, and it should be noted that though YOU and the HAMMER want to split hairs to defend Palin, the defenition has not changed AWAY from pre-emption. Bush has added, not subtracted.
The Hammer got it wrong, so did Palin, and so do you.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:49 pmESTAgain, the Bush Doctrine STILL CONTAINS UNILATERAL FOREIGN POLICY!!!, it also still contains pre-emption and anything else Bush adds to his doctrine. The doctrine has never had any thing drop off, only added, so the doctrine is still the doctrine. Palin should have been able to talk about any aspect, as opposed to looking like Miss South Carolina , saying ” In what respect , Charlie”
She could have and SHOULD have been able to speak on the interlocking themes of the Bush Doctrine, which date back to 2001, when he was elected.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:53 pmESTThe second one.
The term “Bush Doctrine” was originally coined by Charles Krauthammer, in reference to Bush’s decision to engage in a unilateral foreign policy, at the time citing Bush’s choice to withdraw from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty and his withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, then afterwards citing Bush’s “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” policy (Krauthammer separates this part into two separate doctrines but I would argue they are in fact the same, but that’s just my opinion). At the start of the Iraq War it became synonymous with pre-emptive attacks on nations that support or harbor terrorists. Later still it became Bush’s policy of democratization in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The point is, there is no single definition of the Bush Doctrine, no matter what Para says (apparently Para thinks that he knows the Bush Doctrine better than the man who named it in the first place). Even if there was a single definition, it would be so complex as to be impossible to express in one single statement, since there are 3-4 different aspects to it. And even if Palin had said “the Bush Doctrine is the policy of pre-emptive war” without missing a beat, Gibson would have just cited one of the OTHER 3-4 different definitions of the Bush Doctrine, just so he could cluck his tongue in a condescending manner and imply that Sarah Palin is a moron.
Para seems to think Sarah Palin is an idiot for daring (daring I say!) to ask Gibson specifically which aspect of the Bush Doctrine he was referring to. I just think Para is an idiot.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:07 pmESTThe Bush Doctrine has never been a published doctrine per se, rather, it has been the name that reporters have assigned to Bush’s list of foreign policy statements and actions.
It may be hard to understand , but let me put it this way, the Bush Doctrine has been growing since 2001. It’s been the same Bush doctrine, with things added, nothing taken away. There is only one Bush Doctrine, though Bush has never presented it as such.
The Bush Doctrine is, simply:
Unilateral Foreign Policy
Pre-emptive stike against threats
Spreading Democracy as a form of self preservation
Countries that harbor terrorist groups are not our allies.
This Doctrine has developed over 8 years, the unilateral policy part is still there, so is the pre-emptive strike. The Doctrine is the doctrine. It is not arguable what it is, because it is what it is. Only Bush can change the Bush Doctrine and he has never changed it, only added to it, he never cancelled any part of it.
You’ll note that all the themes are very interlocked as it were, all suppotrive of each other, and in some cases implied by the others.
For Sarah to ask “in what respect” serves to showcase she was ignorant of these 4 interlocking themes, she could have easliy answered, and did , when Gibson hipped her to what he meant.
It’s funny how such a famous and oft debated doctrine policy is now such a mystery to everyone.
It’s no mystuery to me, people are blinded by Sarah. Yeah, she’s great, but the truth is the truth, even for Good Ol’ Sarah.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:09 pmESTWait, is there an agency or authority who decides what the official meaning of “Bush doctrine” is?
If not, then why does the fact that Krauthammer’s definition has changed not matter?
If the meaning of the term has kept changing, I don’t see how it’s so unreasonable for Sarah Palin to ask Gibson to clarify what aspect, or if he means all aspects, he was asking about. Because Charles Gibson only mentioned the preemptive attack part, but not the with-us-or-against-us stuff, or the more generic ‘let’s spread freedom’ idea.
Doesn’t sound cut-and-dried simple or plainly obvious to me. But then, I readily admit I’m no genius. Nor am I a govt. employee.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:14 pmESTLook , I LOVE the Hammer. I do.
But let’s not gove him too much credit here. He didn’t invent concept of applying the word “Doctrine” to a Presidential decree. He named the “Bush Doctrine” in April of 2001, just a few months after Bush took office, later, Krauthammer acknowledged himself that the doctrine had been added to, and wrote abotu it in TIME Magazine. He made no mention of cancelling the original Bush Doctrine that he “coined” . He mentioned no change, only the addition of new part to the Doctrine, which all interlock with each other anyway.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pmESTBecause all those things are the same thing, articulated differently, but they are really the same thing:
“America will defend herself despite what anyone thinks”
THAT is the Bush doctrine. That is what Gibson meant, and that is what Palin could not speak about, unlike my pal Mighty S, who could and has spoken about it before.
(who also can’t seem to take a compliment, only dish out insults.)
You’re a strange one, Mighty.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pmESTNo, you looked at the articles and formed your own opinion in defiance of facts and logic. That’s not reading. That’s just being a stubborn blockhead.
Just like I said. He’s right when he supports you, but wrong when he supports me.
I guess we might as well chuck out this whole “government” thing because clearly Para is so damn smart that he’s never wrong about anything.
Thank you for admitting that a) there is more than one definition of the Bush Doctrine and b) Sarah Palin was right to ask what specific aspect of the Bush Doctrine Gibson was referring to.
So, let me get this straight.
The Bush Doctrine encompasses ALL the definitions Krauthammer claims, EXCEPT for the few hours during which Charlie Gibson was interviewing Sarah Palin. During that short span of time, the Bush Doctrine was ONLY defined as pre-emptive warfare.
Oh, right. We’ve ALL been talking about pre-emption. Not a single soul on this Earth has been talking about spreading democracy in the Middle East.
And we know this is true because Para The Great said so.
Because clearly YOU know the Bush Doctrine better than the man who created it in the first place.
Geez man, do you even hear yourself?
Which means SARAH PALIN WAS EXACTLY RIGHT IN ASKING WHAT ASPECT OF THE BUSH DOCTRINE GIBSON WAS REFERRING TO!!!
Are you done yelling now, or do you need to be sent to quiet time?
So the Bush Doctrine has multiple aspects, yet somehow Sarah Palin was still wrong to ask precisely which one of those aspects Gibson was referring to?
Seriously Para, are you drunk? High on something maybe? Are you even reading what you’re typing?
September 27th, 2008 at 9:21 pmESTThank you to mightysam and para for your courteous explanations.
Not that my opinion is particularly significant, but even after reading the summaries I was kindly provided with as well as both Krauthammer articles, were I in her situation, I too would have asked Gibson to clarify his question, because it is too broad a question.
Permit me to make an analogy to explain my point of view.
If someone asked me “What do you think of ice cream?” I would ask “In what respect?” because the subject is too broad to give a short simple answer to. Does the question mean
1 - do I like ice cream
2 - do I eat ice cream, assuming I like it
3 - my opinions on making ice cream
4 - my thoughts on the process of eating ice cream
I could assume what the asker means and try to answer based on my assumption, but it’s less efficient that way. It would be better to ask to see if my questioner has a specific aspect of ice cream in mind, before I answer.
So, yes, Sarah Palin COULD have launched into an answer to what she thinks of each of the 4 listed parts of the Bush doctrine, as it is understood by those who keep track of these things. But, in my view, a fair assumption for her to make is that Charlie was asking about a specific part of the doctrine, and therefore asking him to elaborate on his question is not unreasonable, nor stupid.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:29 pmESTI think I wound up saying pretty much the same thing as mightysam, just a tad more politely.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pmESTAhem,
Krauthammer did not create the bush doctrine.
Wanna guess who did?
I see by your escalating insults, “Para the Great” and statements like that that you are running out of defenses to your position. Maybe you are burned out. I know I can be frustrating to argue with.
SO
Let’s take a break. You go regroup, rethink your argument and meet me here tomorrow. I’d prefer to stick to the subject without distractions like name calling about each other. I believe I’m right in my statement:
Palin had a completely blank stare when asked about the “Bush Doctrine” by Charlie Gibson. There was no need for her to ask “In what respect, Charlie”, because the four major themes of the Bush Doctrine are so closely interlocked and overlapping that speaking about any portion of the Doctrine is speakign about all of it.
She was not familiar with the term “Bush Doctrine” , therefore, she is either a dummy, or just hasn’t been paying attention as well as Rachel’s own commenters about the issues of the day.
Charles Krauthammer tried to interject himself into the debate by claiming first rights to the term “Bush Doctrine” , but himslef waxed poetic about a later version of the doctrine without acknowledging that the earlier “Bush Doctrine” phrase he used first in print ( he didn’t actually “coin” the phrase if you thing about it) has been added to and while different from the first time he wrote abotu it was indeed the saem doctrine, only more broad in it’s definition.
Mighty, You believe you are right, but you are straying from your argument with inslting asides, which quite frankly distract from your point. You need to regroup. See ya tomorrow.
That is all
September 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pmESTIn other words, there is no single definition of the Bush Doctrine. Thank you.
Assuming my powers of addition and subtraction are up to scratch, that sounds like FOUR definitions. Meaning there is no one, single definition of the Bush Doctrine. Meaning Krauthammer is right, and you are wrong.
Or, for those of us who aren’t as stubborn and blockheaded as Para, it serves to showcase that the Bush Doctrine has multiple definitions and aspects. Palin knew this, which is why she asked what part of the Bush Doctrine Gibson was referring to.
But according to Para, asking someone to specify what part of a multi-faceted issue they are talking about is the same as knowing nothing about it.
Yes, it IS funny how such a famous and oft debated doctrine policy is such a mystery to you. You keep vacillating between “the Bush Doctrine has one definition” and “the Bush Doctrine has several definitions” that I don’t think even YOU know what you’re talking about.
The funny part, though, is that you originally started this whole argument by calling Sarah Palin a dummy.
Physician, heal thyself.
Which means he’s the one who gets to decide what it means. Not you.
So he had to actually come out and say it for you to understand it?
Translation: There is no single definition of the Bush Doctrine.
That’s, what, six or seven times now that you’ve admitted your argument is utterly wrong? I seem to have lost count.
If that’s what he meant then that’s what he would have said. But that’s NOT what he said, and you know it.
But because you’re such a stubborn blockhead, you don’t want to admit it.
Gibson was wrong. You are wrong. Sarah Palin was right. Deal with it.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:40 pmESTAmelia,
You are operating under the assumption that Sarah knew the 4 parts of the Doctrine. Go watch that video again, it is telling. She is not familiar with the phrase Bush Doctrine, and even after Gibson DOES tell her abotu what part, she is still unable to speak abotu it with any authority.
It looks very much as if she was ignorant of the basic concept of the Bush Doctrine in general, which makes her look like a big old dummy to me. Her asking for clarification looked like a stall, so Charlie could explain what the Bush Doctrine was.
But thanks for being nice Amelia. You’ll always get what you give, from me anyway.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:41 pmESTI disagree. But this right here explains why para thinks Palin’s answer indicates she’s stupid, and why I don’t.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pmESTNo, there is only one Bush Doctrine, with one defintion. It has four PARTS, but it is one doctrine.
It’s like asking “What do you think abotu the TV Show The office “. Should Palin ask “Specifically what characters and plot lines and episodes are you referring to Charlie?”
Or should she say, “I like Angela and Meredith, and I think the conflict between Dwight and Jim is very funny to watch” if she had even a rudimentary familiarity of the topic.
Go watch the video. Sarah didn’t know anything about the Bush Doctrine.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pmESTOh really? Then who did?
It sure wasn’t Bush. He never wrote up any specific “doctrine” and applied his name to it.
Right. You’ve admitted at least seven times already that you are completely wrong and there is no single definition of the Bush Doctrine, but clearly I’m the one running out of defenses.
In your opinion. Charles Krauthammer, the man who created the Bush Doctrine, says otherwise.
And to tell you the truth, I put more stock in his opinion than yours. What with him actually knowing what he’s talking about, and whatnot.
And neither are you, it seems.
You keep claiming in one breath that the Bush Doctrine has one definition, then admitting in the next that it has multiple definitions.
So which is it? Is there just one definition, or are there several?
See? There you go again.
Is there one definition, or are there several? Make up your mind.
Okay, how does this work?
He was the first to use it, first to define it, and first to articulate it, but somehow he didn’t “coin” it?
Again, are you even listening to yourself?
Keep telling yourself that.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pmESTNo I don’t.
You keep claiming that I am stating both, doesn’t make it so.
The definition “Bush Doctrine” does not belong to the Hammer. Krauthammer pointed to a piece of Bush policy and procliamed it “The Bush Doctrine” but Mighty, what exactly is someone’s “Doctrine” anyway.
A person’s Doctrine is their policy. Just because someone points it out doesn’t mean they get to decice what it is.
For example. What if I proclaimed to coin the phrase “The Mighty Samurai Doctrine”?
How would that work?
Because I am the first to put it in print, I get to be in charge of what is actually in your personal doctrine? That’s not equitable , Mighty, and I’ll actually skip the opportunity to illustrate my point by assigning a bunch of goofy made-up “policies” on your behalf.
But Dude, You have to understand that Charles Krauthammer does not reserve the right to determine what the Bush Doctrine is, just because he labeled an early policy “The Bush Doctrine” ESPECIALLY when he wrote so lovingly later about a different part of the SAME DOCTRINE!!!
As for definitions go, here is the difinitive defnintion of the Bush Doctrine.
What is Bush’s Doctrine?
The Bush doctrine is a statement of what he beilieves and how he intends to act upon those beliefs. It is the same definition for Mighty’s Doctrine, and Para’s Doctrine and Rachel’s Doctrine.
“What is contained in Bush’s doctrine” is not the same as the definiton of the words ” Bush’s doctrine”
September 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pmESTI get such schoolin’ when I read the comments on this blog! And I have read EVERY ONE of these, so far.
Couple random things:
Some talking heads characterize the debate as really two debates - the first one on the economy, and the second one on foreign policy. And some say Obie won the first and McMavie won the second. I actually found Obie’s answers on the economy frustrating - no matter how hard Lehrer pressed him to name what he priorities he would CUT because of the current economic crisis, he kept talking about programs he wanted to KEEP or GROW or ADD.
I agree to a point that McMavie didn’t come across as strong on the economic part, and I think two factors played into that. One, as I understand it, this debate was supposed to be pretty much on forgeign policy. McMavie was obviously prepared on that part and wiped the floor with Obie. Two, he just got back from hashing through the bailout bill mess in Washington, which was an unplanned event that took his focus away from preparing for the debate (which was supposed to be about foreign policy, which he knew, cold).
So, about economic policy, my incredibly intelligent, Texas-born, political-junkie hubby has started a blog! His first post compares the two candidates’ economic platforms. He did a lot of meticulous research, so go check it out!
And, feel better, 14K!
September 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pmESTWhy? Because she asked Gibson to elaborate on precisely what he meant?
That’s what you call stupidity? Asking someone to elaborate on their point?
Seriously?
Am I reading this right? Did Para just say his entire argument is based on his opinion of what he thought Palin looked like in the Gibson interview?
The word “stone” has four different definitions (five if you count British usage), but it’s still just one word.
What was your point again? Oh right, you don’t have one. You’re just desperately trying to prop up your ridiculous “Sarah Palin is a dummy because she asked Gibson to be more specific” argument.
Actually it’s more like asking “What do you think about The Office?”
What office?
The corner office?
The IT office?
The budget office?
The tv show The Office?
Which office are you referring to, Charlie?
No, I think that’s what YOU need to go do. Only this time you need to actually watch it, instead of just swallowing the leftist talking points floating around the internet about the video.
You probably think Palin said the Iraq War is God’s plan, too.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pmESTI tried to watch the video but Youtube is being uncooperative with me at the moment. Maybe it’s time for a reboot…
September 27th, 2008 at 10:20 pmESTYou keep claiming you aren’t stating both doesn’t make it so.
First you said there is only one, singular definition. Then you went ahead and listed FOUR definitions. Then you covered your obvious mistake by trying to claim they are so “interlocked” that it is impossible to separate them. But if that were true, then why would it be necessary to list four separate parts?
Just admit you were wrong and go away.
And George W. Bush has had four different policies.
Except Krauthammer didn’t just “point it out”. He defined it, distilled it, and described it.
Once again, if Krauthammer didn’t coin the term “Bush Doctrine” then who did?
So what if you did? How are you NOT coining the term? You were the first to create it, first to use it, and you would presumably be the first to define it.
How, by any logical definition, is that NOT coining the term?
Unless of course he happens to support your argument when he’s doing it. Then he’s unquestionable, right?
Interesting. Here is a partial transcript of the Gibson/Palin debate:
Now will you admit you’re wrong?
September 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pmESTGood lord, there are 215 responses to a minimally informed post from an obscure Texas housewife, many of which aren’t all that bad in their comprehension of one of the most complex topics in most MBA grad schools. I”m sorry, but I just don’t see this as a harbinger of serous trouble with the Great Republic. I’m torn about whether the “bailout” is justified by the risk of meltdown. Most of the intellectuals that I hold in some renown say “yes.” But I don’t really have any idea. My guess is that we’re not in that deep a hole.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pmESTI’m sure they said the same thing in 1928.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:37 pmESTW. T. F???
September 27th, 2008 at 10:39 pmESTOk. Watched the video of the interview. It comes at 7:52.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubsUQKd9c7c
First thing that struck me is that we can’t see her face when she’s asked what she thinks of the Bush doctrine. So no, I don’t think she had a blank look on her face.
I do think she took a deep breath and, when they showed her face, she looked like she expected the interview to get sticky and possibly unpleasant at that point. Not that I’m saying she looked timid or wary or whathaveyou, just that she was prepared to go into battle.
That’s how it looked to me.
And what’s this about an obscure Texas housewife??? Are you trying to be obnoxious?
September 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pmESTBreaking News!
Rachel Lucas is married!
Can ankle biters be far behind?
More at 11:00
September 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pmESTDemosophist
Go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious prick.
There are so many pointed insults in your comment, which you might be portraying as sheer stupidity, that there is simply no other response that I can be certain someone as arrogant and/or stupid as yourself would understand.
Leave your troll spoor elsewhere.
EDIT: Rachel, did you get a KOS or DU(h) mention recently?
September 27th, 2008 at 11:04 pmESTThanks for posting that transcript, Mighty
You made my point exactly.
Palin just described the definition of anyone’s “doctrine”, not Bush’s Doctrine.
She knew what the word “Doctrine” means, but she was unable to speak about Bush’s personal Doctrine.
Thanks.
Also, I just re-read through all the comments in our little discussion tonight. My first reference of the Bush Doctrine is as follows:
Then the next time I mentioned it, I offered an explaination of Kruthammer’s definition by way of his 2005 article:
Note I said KRAUTHAMMER procaimed it as one thing, not me.
Then , I offered my own definition@ 8:49:
Which I restated at 9:09 pm:
again at 9:19 PM:
and then at 9:41, I spoke to Amelia abotu the PARTS of the doctrine:
You see, Mighty, despite that you say I keep contradicting myself, I have been repeating myself all night. There are multiple parts to ONE doctrine.
( Can a person even have more than one doctrine???)
And since all the parts of Bush’s doctrine are interlocked and overlapping, you can’t talk abotu one without implicatin gthe other parts, since they are all part of Bush’s OVERALL Doctrine: “American will defend herself despite what anyoen thinks”.
As for your response to my “Office” anology, you completely missed that I specifically said; “The TV show the Office”.
I’ll give you a chance to re-state that because your answer was predicated on the concept that I just said “Office” not the “TV SHOW THE OFFICE”. It makes no sense for me to respond to a mistake response from you.
No, I do not think Palin said the war was God’s Plan. I know better.
And finally, you are getting really snagged on the idea that becasue Krauthammer first coined the PHRASE “Bush Doctrine” he gets to somehow choose what the Bush Doctrine is. Look, we all have a Doctrine. You, me, even ignorant ol’ Sarah Palin. We choose our own Doctrine. Just because someone points out that an idea we have shoudl constitue ourpersonla doctrine, doesn’t make it so.
For example. since I am the first to coin the phrase; “The Mighty Samurai Doctrine”,for the rest of yoru life, I get to dictate to you what your peronal world view is, what your policies are, what you think. Shoudl I get to decide for everyone else to adhere to m, that the official MSD is that everyone should address each other as “Idiots” from now on. It’s now your official doctrine, MS, because I say so, because I first typed the phrase. ( even though the phrase when attached to a person is the only way it is ever used)
Does that make sense? Of course not. Krauthammer does not get to dictate anything about Bush’s doctrine, because Bush’s Doctrine belongs excuslvely to Bush. The term “doctrine” pre-dates Krauthammer using it for Bush, or any reporter using it in reference to any President’s policies. There was a “Truman doctrine” when Krauthammer was in short pants. Just because Krauthammer said “Bush Doctrine ” first doesn’t mean he own the definition, or content of someone else’s thoughts, which is what a doctrine is.
Do you even remotely get that?
September 27th, 2008 at 11:10 pmESTAmelia,
Just watched agian. They show her from the side, which is what I’m refering to.
After Charlie asks her what her interpretation of the Bush Doctine is, she replies, “His world view”. ( which is what anyone’s doctrine is)
Then he asks her to elaborate, and she goes on to say;
None of that has to do with Bush’s Doctrine. It shows she was then ignorant of the phrase “Bush Doctrine” or any of it’s parts. The question she fields before that was even worse:
Al Qaeda has already stated it wasn’t about or “Freedoms’, rather, our steadfast ( and correct) support of the Zionist Devils in Israel,who “stole” their land. They have ridiculed us for our assertion that it’s about our “freedom”,
This ignorant “They hate us for our freedoms..” talk is very immature and ignorant, sorry. Palin should KNOW this stuff. It’s embarassing. All her answers lack any sophistication at all, she speaks like an idealistic 13 year old.
I’m, still voting for her, though, because ignorant trumps bad any day and Obama will be bad for the country.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:29 pmESTBush cannot control the public meaning and use of the phrase “Bush Doctrine” any more than Reagan could control the definition of “Reaganomics” or the assignment of the nickname “Star Wars” to SDI.
Krauthammer cannot control it either — he coined the phrase, but the public understanding of that phrase has evolved and broadened over time.
As to Rachel’s original point, the facts in this case seem incredibly simple and clear:
(1) Gibson intended this to be a “gotcha” question.
(2) All else being equal, Palin would have been perfectly justified in asking for clarification, BUT:
(3) She clearly hadn’t even heard the phrase “Bush Doctrine” before, which reveals a shocking lack of engagement in the defining American argument of the last six years.
My hope is that Palin is smarter than she seems, and has just been coming off badly in interviews because she’s sticking very rigidly to a fixed script to avoid making even one wrong statement, knowing that the media would use it to pound her into the dirt.
If so, she’ll be smart enough to realize that this strategy is not working. The media will pound her into the dirt anyway, and she’s losing 100% of her appeal by presenting herself as an unthinking robot. Interview Sarah needs to be just like Stump Sarah.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:56 pmESTHoly shit. Obscure Texas housewife?? HA Talk about MINIMALLY informed!
September 28th, 2008 at 12:51 amESTI’m sorry, I didn’t have the patience to wade through all of the comments to see if anyone got around to mentioning the actual transcripts of the interview. According to Breda they show a completely different interview than what was broadcast.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:51 amESTI looked at the comparative transcripts over at Mark Levin’s site, and while some stuff was edited out, for the most part, it was when Gibson asked a question and Palin didn’t answer it the first time, so he asked it again, and they included her second shot at the question.
Stuff shouldn’t be edited to start with, but in this case the editing was not particularly harmful or misleading.
Palin’s statements are available in full all over the web, and quite frankly, less is more at this point. Our self determined opinion of Palin is so much better than what any reality could be, that the less we actually see, the more we’ll like the fantasy in our heads.
Like I said before, the real Palin seems much dimmer than the average reader of this blog.
September 28th, 2008 at 1:01 amESTOkay, per the comment time stamp, it is now my birthday. I hereby order everyone to go to bed!
September 28th, 2008 at 1:26 amESTDeanna:
I was about to do just that.
Happy Birthday!
September 28th, 2008 at 1:31 amEST/zzzzzzz
Can I just get one little thing off my chest?
Throughout the debate, McCain consistently referred to his opponent as “Senator Obama”. Obama referred to his opponent as “John”.
Listen, Barack, you little punk. You do not have the stature to refer to Senator McCain as anything other than Senator McCain. Even President Bush doesn’t do that, and he’s the frakking president. You are not a close friend of Senator McCain. You are not his commanding officer. You are not Christ. So get the hell off your imaginary throne with its pathetic make-believe seal and extend this genuine hero some fucking courtesy.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:01 amESTBut Jeff, McCain is only a military hero. Which doesn’t count and can’t measure up to the likes of a community organizer like Barack Obama. Also, Bambi’s shit doesn’t stink. Let’s not get caught up…
I can’t do this.
Bambi, you’re a tool. Go back to smoking crack and organizing your community, whatever the hell that means. In the meantime, what Jeff said. You don’t have anything even approaching the right to call McCain by his first name, you disrespectful piece of shit. If you want to engage in image masturbation, do it in front of your mirror, not in the same arena with a man that has more to respect in his pinky toe than you do in your entire self-important messiah-complex, jackass brain.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:31 amESTJust out of curiosity, I wonder if Obama knows what the Bush Doctrine is. Or rather, Bush Doctrines are. Or Clinton’s were, Carter’s were. But we will never know, EVER, will we? Who’s going to ask him? CNBC? ABC? PBS? Laughable. And after the Palin interviews, it’s a cinch he’s been versed on them. If not, he’s dumber than a bag of hammers, to quote a line from “Oh, brother”. I’m also willing to think Governor Palin now knows them inside out and backwards as well. Will anyone ask her again? Well, hell no. They got the answer they were seeking the first time.
And again, Palin is running for V.P., Obama is running for P. Biden is not being scrutinized as Palin is, although he should be.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:34 amESTThe next time Obama calls him John, McCain doesn’t have a hair on his ass unless he responds with “That’s SENATOR to you, Hussein”.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:44 amESTREDHEAD INFIDEL FOR PRESIDENT!
September 28th, 2008 at 7:02 amESTPara: Charlie boy asked Palin about a specific Bush Doctrine, circa 2002, if I’m not mistaken.
So although you say (above, 09/27, 11:10 PM) you can’t separate Bush’s Doctrine, Charlie boy most certainly did. The question was vague, and he stated it as the 2002 Doctrine specifically. It was a gotcha, you know it. We all know it. It worked, or there would be so many less posts on this thread about it, at this time. I think had he tried to do that to me, were I being interviewed, I just may have bitch slapped him. Had he been looking down his nose at me as he did Governor Palin, I would have more than bitch slapped him, I’d have knocked his ass out. I am willing to bet - so would you.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:13 amESTOy vey!
First off, happy birthday Deanna!! Hope you have a very enjoyable day.
Second off, I’m a little irritated by people calling Palin a dummy because she asked a simple question that I myself have asked many times. I guess I’m a dummy as well when I ask someone, “please be more specific” or “in what context” when they ask my opinion about something.
But most of all, I find it incredibly nasty and appalling when someone says that Palin didn’t abort her “retarded baby”. He is a human being. He is a child with Down’s Syndrome and I’ve about HAD IT with people attacking an innocent child in this whole thing under the guise that it’s attacking Palin. Bullshit. That statement disgusts me beyond anything else that has been said here or anywhere else on t.v., in a newspaper or on a blog.
As for Obama calling Senator McCain, “John”, during the debate, it clearly illustrates his snobbery and how very unprofessional he is. I don’t want another 8 years of Animal House in the White House like we had with Clinton.
This whole election season is pissing me off. We are seeing the true colors of a lot of people and they are not pretty.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:42 amESTI recall a particular question on one of the many IQ tests I sat thru to let my ex-wife practice testing people … the question asked why “shallow brooks are noisy”.
I am actually less worked up this time then the last two Presidential elections. I certainly want McCain and Palin to win, and have a visceral dislike for Obama trumped only by my disgust for Biden. However, and in spite of the polls suggested Obama’s winning, I believe it’s only hope that convinces Obama that the electorate will put a guy like him in the White House.
Once you get past the “I’m hip, and BTW brown too” you look at a guy who is too far left to put him in the mainstream of American thinking. I trust that in the privacy of the voting booth, people vote their conscience, and make the right choice.
… and to the rest of the thread and flaming … Palin will have good days and bad. She’s new at this level, and human. In the end, who among us thinks that we could handle that pressure? Biden and Obama just make stuff up (FDR’s tv address during the crash, etc.) and we need to call and mock them for it. Thursday’s debate is key … let’s see how Sarah does. I’d wager many women voters will be watching …
September 28th, 2008 at 8:15 amESTSerenity,
I believe you are referring to me, since you quoted me.
You say:
Excuse me, but where did I attack an innocent child? Did I say anything bad about the child? Oh, I called the child “retarded” instead of describing that he has “Down’s syndrome”? Is that it? Is that word “retarded” really the most disgusting thing you’ve ever read this election season?
Get a grip.
Lemme ask you a question. Do you have any developmentally disabled people in your family? I do. My brother has Hydrocephalus Mental Retardation. We don’t say that. We say he is mentally retarded, or he’s retarded.
The fact that Palin knew that her baby was going to be retarded ( like my brother) led a lot of people on the left to say she should have aborted him, to avoid the strain on society. The fact that Palin didn’t abort him makes her a Saint in my book, which is what I stated. ( that’s right, go back and read it ) I personally think the folks from the left who say she should have aborted Trigg is much more “disgusting” than the fact that I said he is retarded. Don’t you???
You need go read my friend. Don’t skim and see one word and get all emotional and go off half cocked, attacking someone who supports YOUR position on a certain subject, or you risk looking like a dummy yourself.
And yes, when I see Palin stumble over a simple question ( basically speak about our foreign policy over the past 8 years, it’s been on TV every single day for crying out loud!!!), that makes her look like a dummy to me.
Your defense is predicated on the fact that she was asking for clarification about which part of the doctrine Charlie was speaking of, BUT EVEN WHEN HE DID CLARIFY, HER ANSWER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONCEPT OFTHE VERY VERYVERYVERY FAMOUS BUSH DOCTRINE !!!!!!!!
She OBVIOUSLY did not know what the Bush Doctrine was. She is a dummy.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:04 amESTDon’t go wobbly.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:29 amESTYou know, I wish I’d seen this festering piece of dreck earlier:
I know you guys schooled this fetid pile of skunk shit already, but I need my two cents, because NO one fucks with my friends!
Listen up, beastfuck!
Your GUESS is completely irrelevant to the scenario. No, we’re not in as deep a hole as the politicians would have you believe. We have positive (albeit minimal) GDP growth. That’s right GROWTH. Only a small percentage of all mortgages are actually in default. We have a pretty enviable inflation and unemployment rate compared to the rest of the world with energy prices falling 3.1 percent month-on-month in August. The CPI - minus food and fuel - is up only about 2.5 percent year-on-year. Not all that bad. The dollar has actually begun a recovery against the Euro.
A forecasted 5.6 percent unemployment rate in 2008 isn’t too shabby, considering “ideal” unemployment is calculated at 4 percent.
But that’s all kind of irrelevant compared to the fact that despite your most uneducated “guessing” you see a need to insult my friend as “minimally informed.” Fuck you, sparky! You obviously know shit about Rachel. If you know economics, then say what you have to say, and show your knowledge instead of insulting someone you obviously don’t know while offering absolutely no astute insight into the topic whatsoever. Don’t accuse Rachel of being minimally informed, after admitting you obviously have no fucking idea of what you speak, offer a “guess” with absolutely no factual evidence and then run away like a pusillanimous bitch.
It makes you look like a dumbass.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:29 amESTPara:
Don’t EVEN try to play me.
“Sorry folks, Sarah is a dummy. She’s sweet, she’s attractive, she loves guns and god and she didn’t abort her retarded baby, so she’s a Saint, but she is not smarter than most of you on this blog.”
I don’t care how you try to color that, it was nasty. You get a grip. I’m sure Sarah would LOVE to hear you say that to her face.
“Hey Gov. Palin, you didn’t abort your retarded baby, you’re a SAINT!”
GMAFB!
September 28th, 2008 at 9:58 amESTReally, Serenity?
What would Sarah do if I said she’s sweet, attractive, she loves God and guns, and she is a Saint because she didn’t about her retarded baby?
I’ll let you know when I meet her. If she gets elected, I’ll probably have a meeting with her at some point in 2009, or Biden if he’s elected.
Until then, do you stand by your statement that my statement is more disgusting than the statements of those who claim Sarah should have aborted Trigg because he’s a drain on society?
What does “playing” you mean?
What does GMAFB mean?
September 28th, 2008 at 10:13 amESTPara:
Yes, I DO stand by what I said. To me, it falls right in with the rest of those disgusting comments about her kid. Here’s an idea: let’s stop talking about her kids and focus on what she has done in her political life.
“Play me” means don’t even try to find some ridiculous excuse to try to color what you said and why you said it.
GMAFB means give me a fucking break.
Please, do tell how it went when you meet her and congratulate her on not aborting her “retarded baby”.
Until that time, I have nothing further to discuss with you on this matter. I’ll let you have the last word since you think I’m a dummy.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:27 amESTYeah, don’t forget to preface all that sweetness and light with what you really think: “Vice President Palin, you’re a real dummy. But I think you’re sweet and attractive, and a saint for not aborting your retarded baby.” Yeah, let us know how that goes, big guy.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:47 amESTOkay, then.
I’m starting to know how Dennis Miller felt for that season he sat in the NFL announcer’s booth, nobody understood a word he said unless he explained the context.
So here ya go Serenity:
On September 16th ( just a few days ago) “objectivist” writer Nicholas Provenzo wrote that he thiks Palin should have aborted, and he linked in his article about Diana Hsieh’s article in which she spoke of the the “worship of retardation”.
It caused quite an uproar across the blogosphere, including here at Rachellucas.com, you can go read about it here:
Rachel’s editorial on the subject linky Or just scroll down the page.
The word “retarded” appears 39 times in the comments to Rachel’s post. The concept the Palin didn’t abort her “retarded baby” ( get it, the context from the post down the page) is something that we all stated, including YOU, that made Palin a good person. Even Larry J, wrote in the comments abotu Margaret Sanger, the “Patron Saint of Abortions”. By calling Palin a “Saint” is within the context of the previous conversation ( that you were a part of, btw).
Basically, go bark up another tree, your displaced anger at me is just silly.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:55 amESTYour comment must be in moderation. I got an e-mail alert, but I don’t see it here yet.
Anyway, Sarah has now done three interviews: one hostile (Gibson), one friendly (Hannity), and one hostile (Couric).
It’s time for another sit-down with a friendly interviewer. I’d love to see her go on Mark Levin’s radio show. He’s a very intelligent man who has nearly zero tolerance for fools. Something tells me she’d do just fine with him. He would ask her serious questions, not marshmallows, but he wouldn’t be out to get her or trip her up.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:09 amESTThat’s a great idea, rickl. I love Levin.
Quite a few comments must be in moderation. I know some of mine are cooling their heels in Akismet - which is fine because I was on a freakin’ tear last night.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:14 amESTPara, you seem to be arguing in circles with yourself. Krauthammer named the “Bush Doctrine”, and, for that matter, defined it. You say there is one BD with four additions; K says there are four, as defined by him. Since there has never been any statement from the Bush Administration articulating a specific “Bush Doctrine” of one part or four, I believe that I’ll go along with Krauthammer on this one.
Gov. Palin is a governor, not a member of any federal bureaucracy wherin she would even need to know OF a Bush Doctrine - much less its varied parts and incarnations and meanings and implications. In fact, I doubt that (until gibson asked about it) there were two governors in the United States who knew anything more than Gov. Palin about the B.D. It isn’t necessary for the efficient management of their state. So, it doesn’t worry me that she didn’t jump right on that gotcha! as well as some govt. wonk would have.
Also - Sarah Palin is no dummy; and those who make the mistake of thinking that she is will find themselves having their asses handed to them and wondering just how it got cut off.
You may wish to rethink your position. Or not. Who cares?
Fuck oprah — with letterman!!
September 28th, 2008 at 11:57 amESTI figure what she’d do depends a lot on whether or not she interpreted the comment as sincere, or snide. But even if she did interpret calling her a saint for keeping Trig as an expression of admiration, I doubt she’d think of it as being a particularly remarkable thing for her to do.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pmESTBill,
I’m confused at your assertion.
Everyone has a doctrine. Bill, You have a doctrine. A person’s doctrine is the same as their opnion. Another person cannot assign anything to your opnion any more than they can assign something to your doctrine.
Krauthammer doesn’t have the privelege to “name” Bush’s Doctrine. He was the first to put into print, but he didn’t decide what is in it.Bush doesn’t have to stick to what Kratuhammer says the “bush doctrine” is.
The concept of calling a President’s opnion their “Doctrine” is a practice that goes back over 100 years. It is not new, Krauthammer did not invent it.
If I see President Bush go into McDonald’s for a milkshake, I could be the first to proclaim in print, that Bush’s favorite restaurant is Micky Dee’s. Am I now the “owner” of Bush Restaurant doctrine just because I asigned the concept to a single action of Bush? If Bush then went to different eating establishments, would I be the official person who decides what the doctrine is? Not to mention, every time Bush goes to a diferent restaurant, does that mean my previous declaration of the Bush restaurant doctrine is null and void? What if Bush still goes to McDonalds after he goes to Wendy’s? Well then the doctrine has been expanded, but it is still the doctrine, because a person can only have one.
Things can be added or dropped fom one’s doctrine, but there is only one doctrine per person. Bush has a doctrine, it’s pretty doggone famous, we’ve spoken of it here before. He hasn’t subtracted to what his doctrine is. He has stated what his doctrine is, every time he speaks about what he thinks. People do nt “declare” their doctrine. Others usualy talk about it after the fact.
But if you’re still convinced that Krauthammer owns the definition and control of the Bush Doctrine, because he “coined the phrase” , I wonder what you woudl say if I provided a link to an earlier article which named the Bush Doctrine months before Krauthammers article.Would that author’s comment trump the Hammer’s because he was first?
What would you say to that?
September 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pmESTI don’t have the courage to view the CBS interview, so I’m wondering how it compares to this relatively short piece from Charlie Rose? Over at The Corner, they also posted this interview from CNBC.
After viewing these two interviews, I think I determined the problem with her more recent interviews: she wasn’t wearing her hair in a beehive (or whatever it’s called).
September 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pmESTHA! She’s like Samson, then? Her hair is her strength? ;P
September 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pmESTmark:
I hadn’t seen either of those before. Thanks!
The Rose interview was OK, but the Bartiromo interview was great. Just one minor quibble: she used the phrase “our hungry markets” too many times. Apart from that, she was lively and animated, and clearly knew her stuff.
September 28th, 2008 at 1:18 pmESTstylinjulie:
You’re awesome. Thank you so much! A few more days rest and pain pills, and I’ll be back to full strength
ALL:
If I didn’t know how amazingly intelligent and well spoken the vast majority of you all are before, I certainly do now. My head’s on hold: I simply can’t keep up with your thought-provoking commentary, and the best I could come up with in response to an apparent troll was this.
HEH!
Now I really do know what it must feel like to be a know-nothing, insult-spewing liberal … I’m still taking strong medication today and tomorow, and I’m pretty much worthless when it comes to coherent, ratinal thought. What a horrible existence … I can’t imagine.
I am going to attempt to watch the debate this evening, and I will do so having at least read (perhaps not internalized, but READ) everyone’s comments. Should be entertaining.
BTW — My kids think I am hysterical. They keep waiting until I am half asleep and asking me for outrageous things and then taping my response.
Like, from Becs: “Mom, can you drive me to Alaska so I go on a Bigfoot hunt with Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney?” … and this little gem from Short Man: “Hey Mom, Dad says I can borrow the Mercedes and your charge card for a trip to the ‘Vu and casino … need anything from the liquor store?” (Vu = a strip joint about two hours from here.)
Brats.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:10 pmESTAn interesting tidbit regarding the “Chosen One” Obama.
Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son’s Bracelet… Where is Media?
Barack Obama played the “me too” game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.
Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son’s name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pmEST
Hey! Check out this Pass it on. It needs to go viral. Great information on the financial fuckup.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:51 pmESTCrikey. I go away for a few days to take care of important things like my daughter’s 4th birthday, and when I come back the comment thread from hell has opened up here. Eeek.
BTW, McCain wiped the floor with Obama, much like Cheney did with Edwards, on the facts. However, two old guys on TV against pretty guys? I’m firmly convinced that people in this country are stupid enough to fall for it and proclaim the Obamanation as the decisive winner. Shoot, people claimed that Edwards beat Cheney, when Cheney had shit better informed turds than Silky Pony.
Lots can change between now and election day, but with the press playing the part of Pravda these days, we might finally be in for it as a country. I’m actually more than a bit scared at the direction this country is headed if The One slimes his way into the White House with his Chicago Machine cronies.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:08 pmESTI’ve been out all day, and was hoping to find some answers to my questions posed here earlier, but, oh well.
I did a little reading and found an interesting quote:
It says in many words, that the Bush Doctrine is supposed to be well known to people. When asked what the Bush Doctrine is, the answer is not “His world view?” Bush’s Freedom agenda is indeed part of this “doctrine” as I’ve stated before, and it also ties in with the other part of unilateral policy, pre-emptive strike, and non-alliance with terrorist harborers.
When Palin answered Gibson, it was painfully obvious that she didn’t know about Bush’s “freedom agenda” or any other part of his doctrine. When prompted to speak about the (Still existing!) pre-emptive attack part of the doctrine, Palin gave an answer that was completely off-base, ignorant , and embarassing.
I think she’s got a lot going for her, but her ignorance of the common themes that we discuss here every day makes me think she is a dummy. Sorry, that’s the impression she left me with by providing dumb answers to common questions.
Oh, yeah, the quote above, which supports what I have been saying…..
……….it’s from the Krauthammer article everyone keeps citing to defend Palin. Even in his attempt to defen Palin, he points out her ignorance.
Once again, Rachel’s gut instinct was right. If Palin was a Democrat you’d all be ripping her to shreds. It’s because she’s a Republican that you are blind to her ignorance.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:32 pmEST[not really]Can I please throw religion into this quagmire? [/not really]
Para, I for one have been thoroughly convinced by your superior reasoning of your transcendence above one and all in matters of interview-posture-interpreting. We must certainly be too stoopid to comprehend you, especially because you have all insight to Sarah Palin’s congnitive abilities; therefore we appoint you our philosopher king to lead us out of this cave. Moreover, your numerous quasi- and actual-government jobs are matchless evidence that bestows upon you all authority in everything, everywhere, for all time. We inferior Americans (are we allowed to call ourselves Americans?) can only plead for a peerless elite like yourself to show us the error of our ways and compel us to behave as you see fit, for our own good.
Go ahead and sigh, I know you’re despairing that nobody “gets” you.
Sorry for getting personal; but then, I’m a person. This is not because you’re wrong. It is because you’re being an insufferable butthole.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:51 pmESTDr Feelgood,
Do you feel good about what you just wrote?
Have you read my pleas to stick to the subject and not get personal?
Did you read that my list of jobs ( which are relevant) was a response to an attacker accusing me of knowing nothing about what the Bush Doctrine is, and said list would provide some form of credential, in an otherwise uncredentialed forum?
Do you understand that I made a comment in reference to a recent conversation made right here at RL.com, using the very language contained in that noteworthy conversation , only to have one of the participants ( Serenity , who made several contributions to the conversation) accuse me of being the author of the most disgusting comment about Palin ever?
Do you see how I could get frustrated at Serenity attacking me based on her misunderstanding of my comments? My comments supported her position, but she didn’t understand or remember the conversation, and thus claimed I was “playing” her or trying to trick her or something.
Do you see how I feel compelled to assert my credentials when my nemesis , Mighty Samauri, asserts I have none? I complimented MS several times, he reponds with “Para is an idiot”.
And now, you, ( of all people) feel compelled to personally attack me, for sticking to my guns about Palin being a dummy. WTF, you don’t do personal attacks.
Where’s your rebuke of these two individuals who have attacked me personally, both MISTAKENLY? Both were wrong, yet I still commended their intelligence. I have made no personal attacks against these folks. I evern gave MS a chance to restate his answer to one fo my questions because it looked like he mis-read the question.
Where, Doc? Where is your rebuke?
Yeah, I’m the insufferable Butthole, the uncredentialed, disgusting butthole who is only being attacked because I am pointing out the obvious, that Palin screwed up her answer, WHICH BY THE WAY WAS SIMPLY IN AGREEMENT WITH RACHEL!!!!
September 29th, 2008 at 12:19 amEST@Para — well, I for one attempted to answer your question earlier. (And I’ve also got a bracelet.) Two things are simultaneously true:
(A) The Bush Doctrine is not well-defined.
(B) Sarah Palin apparently hasn’t even heard of it.
You seem to be arguing that B implies not A. In fact, they’re orthogonal. You’re right about B. But everyone else is equally right about A.
Perhaps it would help to set aside “Bush Doctrine” in particular.
Some well-known ideas are well defined: Powell Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, Gold Standard. Other well-known ideas are barely defined at all: Detente, War on Terror, Disco. A candidate for DJ should definitely have heard of Disco, but I would not expect him or her to be able to define it.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:19 amESTJeff,
I can agree with your sentiments across the board. It’s painfully obvious that different people have their own definitions of what the BD means, and to some extent, what a doctrine is in the first place.
I can’t help wondering if there was as much ambiguity concerning the Bush Doctrine on Sept 8th, versus the 12th among Palin supporters.
I honestly think there is an irrational rationalization going on here; People like Palin, (heck, I like Palin and I intend to vote for her), but some folks like her so much, that any criticism of her must be diverted away, lest they risk losing the Palin buzz.
The Palin buzz by the way, is new phrase I just coined to describe the euphoric feeling that manifests in one’s soul when they realize that Palin is not only almost the vice President, but she’s the person most like any one of us that will ever get this close to the White House. Just thinking about her makes some of us woozy with joy. The Palin Buzz, there, I coined it, now I am the lord and master of anything ever said about Palin, because I coined a phrase about her. HA!
And while I am at it, I’d like to also take this opportunity to coin the Phrase: “The Palin Doctrine” and define it as Palin being content with her current lack of undertstanding of all things Vice-Presidential.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:37 amEST“Oh poor widdle me, I act like a complete jerk and people are all mean to me! Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!” -shorter Para.
Keep digging, Para.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:49 amESTI feel a little bit like Obama for saying this, but can we please have a little restraint on all sides? I’ve been a little busy so I haven’t followed the whole saga of who offended whom how, but honestly, does it really matter?
The thing that makes Rachel’s house so pleasant to visit is that the Commentariat here is so intelligent and civil. Part of civility is letting the occasional nasty comment just sit there, unanswered, starved by inattention so that it can’t metastasize. Historically, we’ve been excellent at that. Let’s return to form, shall we? There’s a socialist out there needs defeatin’.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:34 amESTAt this point you are conferring a state of mind upon Palin that you could not possibly know. She has a “lack of understanding” and is “content” with it? That’s one hell of an assumption.
Don’t be surprised when people push back - you’re operating from an assumption that believes the very worst. Why it is so imperative for you to operate from this assumption, I don’t know - and don’t care. But it seems to be VERY important to you that people believe YOU are smarter than PALIN; or conversely, that SHE is less smart than YOU.
Very interesting…the “Para Doctrine”, perhaps?
September 29th, 2008 at 7:29 amEST“Don’t be surprised when people push back - you’re operating from an assumption that believes the very worst. Why it is so imperative for you to operate from this assumption, I don’t know - and don’t care. But it seems to be VERY important to you that people believe YOU are smarter than PALIN; or conversely, that SHE is less smart than YOU.”
just more of the same old tired “conservatives are drooling morons” mantra from the lefties
September 29th, 2008 at 7:50 amESTThe whole point is that I’m NOT refuting you, Para. You’re letting your ego get the better of you, and it’s time for a character check. I don’t feel particularly good about calling you out, but it’s a favor I’d do for you in person any day. Your frustration notwithstanding, when you condescend to explain your “context” and play that passive-aggressive woe-is-me game it quite frankly irks me and does no credit to your argument. I’ve also raised the flag on your claim-to-specialness gag (I’m a super government know-it-all) before, which amounts to little more than, “Trust me ’cause I know more than you do.” That’s BS and it always will be.
Do I understand your frustration? You betcha. I don’t however make the leap to accepting your behavior. It’s your job to guide your opponents through your reasoning process, according to the rules of logic. You haven’t done that. FWIW, both sides of this argument have made some egregious errors. That’s not to say both sides are wrong, just poorly represented.
Being right is worthless if nobody respects your opinions. It’s a self-pleasing mental exercise at that point. Ask yourself, what greater good am I supporting?
September 29th, 2008 at 7:59 amESTDang … practice my usual “no blog weekend” doctrine and what happens?
Rachel, hostess wity the mostess, would it be too much to ask for a button that would make Para’s comments disappear - at least on my screen? I’ll be glad to hit the tip jar again.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:37 amESTA NYTimes editorial contains advice from William Kristol, who is ALMOST as smart as the commenters right here at RachelLucas.com:
Sounds oh-so-familiar. I swear, it looks like Kristol cribbed straight from the comments in this very thread.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:04 amESTWhile not completely off topic, thought I would share yet more evidence of the media’s bias against conservatism. http://darkegop.blogspot.com/2008/09/abc-news-is-stifling-user-comments-that.html
It might be fun to replicate the experiment and gather the results.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:14 amESTDr. Feelgood,
You think I’m trying to play a round of one-upmanship by listing my credentials? Really. Go read the conversation again, my friend. My list was a response to MS calling me and idiot, and saying I have no idea about the basic foreign policy of the US, when in fact, do know a lot about it becuase my involvement with it as an employee of the Government. What a very Liberal way to look at things; it’s as if you’re saying a person should not use any leverage they might have if the other person doesn’t have the same leverage. It’s not fair!!!!! “Don’t list your credentials here, Para, you might hurt someone’s feelings who doesn’t have the same credentials.”
Fine then.
Next time maybe I’ll just sink to the level of everyone else, just call them names; idiot, butthole, horrible. When I started running out of things to say, I’ll turn the conversation to the person I’m debating, rather than the subject. I’ll get all Drama-queen ( which I tried to mock in my last post, but nobody got that either!!!???)
Then, at least I’ll wont’ have to be scolded from you , Doc.
You dolt. There, was that better?
Redhead,
At the risk of setting myself up for another post from the Doc, I feel compelled to explian my comment about the Palin Doctrine. You see, Palin has a very notable sound clip in where she expresses a self-proclaimed ingnorance of what the Vice President actually does. You may have heard it.
Now, let’s go back al little bit, to the previous conversation where Mighty Samauri made the assertion that when Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase “Bush Doctrine” he retained the right to determine what the Bush Doctrine was for ever. This is even though the Doctrine changed over time and was added to. Still, the originial Bush Doctrine was based on one of the first things Bush ever said about his presidency.
So, I decided to mock both Mighty Samauri and Krauthammer by being the first to coin the phrase “the Palin Doctrine” and add a bit of satire by assigning the doctrine to one of the first notable things she has said about her Vice -Presidency.
You see, I drew a parallel there. It’s Satire.
For you to respond with a tirade about “false assumptions” makes me fear that you don’t uderstand me, which is what I stated before.
Does nobody here get satire? Please tell me there was at least one person smart enough to “get” my Palin Doctrine comment as it related to her not knowing about what the VP does.
Just one.
Oh, and Pete…bite me.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pmESTHave you ever blown a job interview?
The McCain-ites have bought into turning her every interview into a job interview.
Palin’s plenty smart. She’s not a grinding wonk. She’s parochial in the best sense, and the McCainiacs better quit running away from that.
And she needs to quit talking about shooting spitballs at the Russians over the Strait, being a hockey mom and all that cute jazz. We got it–she’s cute.
Nobody who isn’t an idiot gives a damn about her foreign policy experience. We want her to stare down Putin like I’m sure she stared down the Log Lady in Wasilla.
She kicks ass, and she needs to slip her leash to start doing what they put her on the ticket to do.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:48 pmESTSo,
What exactly is wrong with the “Bush Doctrine”?
Preemptive strikes are what, unfair?
This can be viewed as a horrible hypothetical, but, I’ll say this: If I could travel back in time to 1929 Nuremburg, Germany, or better yet - Munich pre 1923, I’d shoot adolf in the face. How about you?
Cost benefit be damned. Pre emptive striking is often just simply the RIGHT thing to do.
Oh, and I love how W didn’t do enough with the intel pre 9/11 but now he is doing too much? That is armchair quarterbacking at its best.
So many left wing liberals in power today are such fucking pussies. They should get back to their barbie dolls and continue masturbating.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:39 amEST