EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 4, 2008 9:04:06 GMT -5
Guess most of you weren't listening to the same speech I was. Sarah Palin was brilliant last night. I repeat, she was brilliant. She was forceful and witty. To use an old Democratic term, she showed gravitas. She took on those who had excoriated her over the last five days and did it with skill and charm.
Democrats and the main stream media should proceed with caution with this amazing person and Joe Biden better watch his step when he gets to debate her. If they underestimate this person, they'll be in trouble.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 4, 2008 9:21:51 GMT -5
Honestly, if you all can't recognize that as a really excellent performance, then you're crazy. Disagree with her positions all you want, but your hopes of a veep candidate who is "not up to the job" or "will be jettisoned" or can't hold her own in this campaign seem pretty well dashed after tonight. But the media still won't let it go. Everyone seems to be making a point that she had a speechwriter for tonight. Well, duh! Like every other speaker over the last two weeks hasn't had a someone write part or all of their speeches.  Oh, and Bando? She came nowhere close to "using her children as a prop" when compared to Barack Obama last week. But at least we agree on Earth Wind & Fire. Ba duda ba duda Ba duda ba duda Ba duda ba duda Baduba, be yaaaaaaaa! |
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Sept 4, 2008 9:25:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure about "gravitas", Ed. I think that if you're showing gravitas you can't also be snarky and quippy. Mind you, I'm not suggesting I've seen gravitas on the other side of the aisle -- most of the speeches, particularly at the conventions, have focused on clever lines (both endorsing party platform positions and taking opponent jabs) designed to bring the party faithful to their feet. I think Palin did that exceptionally well - and was both forceful and witty in doing so. But I don't think that it showed any more gravitas than anyone else.
I agree that the VP debate should be a good one. And the presidential one, for that matter. There may be a lot to say against any of the candidates, but they all certainly appear to be intelligent, thoughtful, interesting, and capable of being quite entertaining. It could be an amusing couple of months.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Sept 4, 2008 9:43:41 GMT -5
2. I honestly can't understand why the idea of Palin sitting down with Putin can scare people, but Obama sitting down with Putin (or others much worse) does not. Please let me know how Obama -- the PRESIDENTIAL nominee, mind you -- has any more credibility on the world stage? (And if you answer with his international visits this summer, you will get a Billy Madison deduction). Yes, he has been focused on international issues for longer, because he's been running for President for...well, forever....but that does not equate to experience and it doesn't mean he's qualified to answer the question everyone at MSNBC seems to want to ask Sarah Palin: what if we have to go to war with Pakistan (why everyone at MSNBC wants to ask that particular question I don't know; maybe they think she won't know Musharraf's name either). Waaayyyy off topic, but this has been bothering me since Obama's speech, and I'm not sure if I misheard him or misunderstood him, and Boz' Pakistan comment triggered my memory. Obama said that he would have our military go cave by cave to find Bin Laden--wouldn't that require them to invade Pakistan? I was under the impression that OBL went to Pakistan, which is one of the main reasons we haven't been able to find him in Afghanistan. Am I wrong about Obama's stance or about the likely whereabouts of Bin Laden? |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 4, 2008 9:50:05 GMT -5
2. I honestly can't understand why the idea of Palin sitting down with Putin can scare people, but Obama sitting down with Putin (or others much worse) does not. Please let me know how Obama -- the PRESIDENTIAL nominee, mind you -- has any more credibility on the world stage? (And if you answer with his international visits this summer, you will get a Billy Madison deduction). Yes, he has been focused on international issues for longer, because he's been running for President for...well, forever....but that does not equate to experience and it doesn't mean he's qualified to answer the question everyone at MSNBC seems to want to ask Sarah Palin: what if we have to go to war with Pakistan (why everyone at MSNBC wants to ask that particular question I don't know; maybe they think she won't know Musharraf's name either). Waaayyyy off topic, but this has been bothering me since Obama's speech, and I'm not sure if I misheard him or misunderstood him, and Boz' Pakistan comment triggered my memory. Obama said that he would have our military go cave by cave to find Bin Laden--wouldn't that require them to invade Pakistan? I was under the impression that OBL went to Pakistan, which is one of the main reasons we haven't been able to find him in Afghanistan. Am I wrong about Obama's stance or about the likely whereabouts of Bin Laden? You're correct on both points (as far as we know re the 2nd). However, I was more bothered by that line due to the implication that McCain didn't want to find Bin Laden. Really? You think McCain doesn't care? |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 4, 2008 9:59:26 GMT -5
1. Following up om my praise last night, I do want to make it clear that I recognize this was just a speech. It was a great speech, in my opinion, and I think it went a long way to helping Palin, but there are still 60 days of proving left to do, and many of those days will be unscripted. 2. I honestly can't understand why the idea of Palin sitting down with Putin can scare people, but Obama sitting down with Putin (or others much worse) does not. Please let me know how Obama -- the PRESIDENTIAL nominee, mind you -- has any more credibility on the world stage? (And if you answer with his international visits this summer, you will get a Billy Madison deduction). Yes, he has been focused on international issues for longer, because he's been running for President for...well, forever....but that does not equate to experience and it doesn't mean he's qualified to answer the question everyone at MSNBC seems to want to ask Sarah Palin: what if we have to go to war with Pakistan (why everyone at MSNBC wants to ask that particular question I don't know; maybe they think she won't know Musharraf's name either). Leaving the Iraq war aside for a moment -- because we are never going to agree on his position about that -- but Obama has muffed, flubbed or just plain gotten wrong just about every foreign policy question (at least the first time around) that he's gotten in this election. Obama has name recognition and has had people advising him on foreign policy issues for a little bit longer, and that's about it. 3. Yes, all of these candidates use their families. And yes, they all get offended when you go after their families. And yes, that is more than a little hypocritical. Allow me to make just two points on that issue: First, I think you do have to make an exception for someone like Michelle Obama, since she has acted not just as a spouse, but also as a political operative & campaign surrogate. As such, it is legitimate to criticize her statements. And I think that applies to Cindy McCain too. I don't think it applies to either vice presidential spouse. Second, if families are fair game, then let's at least be equal about it. There is quite a bit about the Biden family that deserves some media attention, in my opinion, and hasn't received any. And I LIKE the Biden family. I have nothing against them, but if what we've heard about the Palins this week is a story, then you can't tell me there's not a story there too. I want to respond to your point #2, because I don't think that's correct at all (shocking, I know). To say that's Obama's gotten all these foreign policy issues wrong is just not true. Again, I disagree on the success of the surge, but we've had that argument 1000 times already and I don't want to rehash it. But events have certainly only confirmed Obama's judgment on these matters. He proposed the 16 month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, a view that the Iraqi government and the Bush administration soon endorsed, forcing McCain to backtrack. He proposed going into Pakistan to take out Taliban/al Qaeda forces there, which McCain called foolhardy, but which special forces did this week. While McCain is touting his response to the Russian invasion of Georgia as some sort of foreign policy coup, I thought he was imprudent and needlessly bellicose in comparison to Obama's more measured response. To say "we are all Georgians" implies some commitment to defend Georgia, which if McCain really believes that's so, is absolutely insane. I simply don't see acting like a tough guy as a desired response to every international crisis, which is why I back Obama. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 4, 2008 10:20:51 GMT -5
Also, I am still amazed that the GOP feels good about attacking a choice to forego a lucrative law firm job to work as a community organizer, to sneer at the idea of helping people. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what a "community organizer" is. Obama parachuted into the South Side of Chicago and reverend jesse jackassed around for three years, teaching the locals clever rhyming slogans that they could shout at the government and corporations to intimidate them into paying out cash on demand. That's not helping people. Heck, it might even do less good than being a lawyer. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 4, 2008 10:31:30 GMT -5
Bando, I can stipulate that you and I will disagree on whether he is right or worng on some foreign policy issues.
Frankly, with our newfound musical kinship, I am not going to pick a fight on that. ;D
But I think you'd have to say that he screwed up on Israel & Russia -- not because he was right or wrong in his original position -- but because he felt the need to almost immediately correct himself on those issues.
Now, don't get me wrong; it's good to have a politician who is willing to do that. My point is that everyone seems to think that if Sarah Palin gets a question wrong on foreign policy, it will mean she's not qualified for the job. Meanwhile, Obama, by his own admission, has gotten some of those issues wrong.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Sept 4, 2008 11:11:47 GMT -5
I thought Palin did an admirable job last night. The GOP wanted red meat rhetoric, and they got it. "Give the people what they want!"
Negatives: No specifics (unsurprising), just jabs. It's easy to do this when your convention runs second. Also, might her personality overshadow Johnny? Seriously.
Positives: Lots of GOP women that weren't too keen on voting will do so now. All of a sudden, they aren't too turned off by an abrasive woman in or around the White House...
Side note: professional snow racing???
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 4, 2008 11:17:56 GMT -5
Also, I am still amazed that the GOP feels good about attacking a choice to forego a lucrative law firm job to work as a community organizer, to sneer at the idea of helping people. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what a "community organizer" is. Obama parachuted into the South Side of Chicago and reverend jesse clowned around for three years, teaching the locals clever rhyming slogans that they could shout at the government and corporations to intimidate them into paying out cash on demand. That's not helping people. Heck, it might even do less good than being a lawyer. OK so Jesse Jackson is a waste. What did OBAMA do while in Chicago? I doubt he would have tried to out-rhyme J. Jackson. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 4, 2008 11:41:21 GMT -5
Negatives: No specifics (unsurprising), just jabs. It's easy to do this when your convention runs second. Also, might her personality overshadow Johnny? Seriously. I agree with you on the second point. I think there is a good chance of that actually, but I'm not convinced it's a negative yet. I repeat my earlier comments from the Olympic thread that I am not impressed with sports where a machine or animal does most, if not all, of the work. But really, can you get any more Republican than a guy who races snow machines? And hey, you learn something new every day. How many of us ignorant east coasters have been calling them "snowmobiles" our whole lives? See? We don't know everything. Tonight...John McCain as John McCain in Republican Theatre in the Round. ;D |
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,928
|
Post by Filo on Sept 4, 2008 11:58:10 GMT -5
The pundants are loving Palin's speech. Completely off topic, but was this intentional i.e. are you saying that 'pundant' is a word? Some are claiming that 'irregardless' is a word now because you can find it in various online dictionaries. Is this the same deal with 'pundant' - shouldn't really be a word ('pundit' is the right word), but is is starting to show up in places. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 4, 2008 12:00:13 GMT -5
Palin did a very good job last night. What I see here is a great degree of hypocrisy coming from the left. When Obama gave his acceptance speech, we ... yes WE -- as in both, those of us on the left as well as right -- recognized his eloquence and charisma, even if we disagreed with points here and there. But we all pretty much knew what we were getting in Obama. In Sarah Palin's case, she came in as much more of an unknown. But she impressed, and that has been virtually universally acknowledged by those from all political views. I watched much of the coverage from CNN and MSNBC as well as some from Fox, and the praise was virtually unanimous. In fact, the only real criticisms, if you can call it that, came in the form of warning that it's easy to look good in front of supportive constituents, but we still need to see how she does in an "unbiased" venue -- against Joe Biden in a debate for example. Point well taken. That being said, I come check out this thread and some of you schmucks toe the party line and totally discount the job Palin did last night. That is a bit too typical. Like Boz said, we aren't going to all agree on the specific points, but you have to give credit where credit is due.
Lastly, to be scared of Palin sitting down with Putin, only begs the question of fear and trepidation with Obama sitting down with Putin.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Sept 4, 2008 12:06:50 GMT -5
The pundants are loving Palin's speech. Completely off topic, but was this intentional i.e. are you saying that 'pundant' is a word? Some are claiming that 'irregardless' is a word now because you can find it in various online dictionaries. Is this the same deal with 'pundant' - shouldn't really be a word ('pundit' is the right word), but is is starting to show up in places. Just saying it how Palin said it. Apparently they couldn't phoneticize it like new-clear. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 4, 2008 12:07:33 GMT -5
I'd feel much better about Obama sitting down with Putin than somebody who claimed he could "see the honesty in Putin's eyes" or something to that tune.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 12:09:07 GMT -5
Why is everyone wasting time thinking about who is better qualified to sit at a table with Putin?
The guy bleeds KGB. You know that scene in every movie with a political or organized crime super-villain where the dude actually gets his hands dirty and double-taps someone who's crossed him square in the forehead while surrounded by a cavalcade of massive bodyguards that could kill anyone with a flick of their wrist?
Putin's that guy.
EDIT: Nobody is fit to sit at the same table with his scary ass, least of all Obama or Palin.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Sept 4, 2008 12:12:02 GMT -5
Why is everyone wasting time thinking about who is better fit to sit at a table with Putin? The guy bleeds KGB. You know that scene in every movie with a political or organized crime super-villain where the dude actually gets his hands dirty and double-taps someone who's crossed him square in the forehead while surrounded by a cavalcade of massive bodyguards that could kill anyone with a flick of their wrist? Putin's that guy. EDIT: Nobody is fit to sit at the same table with his scary ass, least of all Obama or Palin. Fred Thompson could! |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 4, 2008 12:30:35 GMT -5
Why is everyone wasting time thinking about who is better qualified to sit at a table with Putin? The guy bleeds KGB. You know that scene in every movie with a political or organized crime super-villain where the dude actually gets his hands dirty and double-taps someone who's crossed him square in the forehead while surrounded by a cavalcade of massive bodyguards that could kill anyone with a flick of their wrist? Putin's that guy. EDIT: Nobody is fit to sit at the same table with his scary ass, least of all Obama or Palin. Vlady Putin = Soda Popinski John McCain = Little Mac ;D |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 4, 2008 12:42:47 GMT -5
Tonight...John McCain as John McCain in Republican Theatre in the Round. ;D Unless, of course, the Skins/Giants game goes into overtime. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 4, 2008 12:58:33 GMT -5
Tonight...John McCain as John McCain in Republican Theatre in the Round. ;D Unless, of course, the Skins/Giants game goes into overtime. I, of course, am counting on the total ineptitude of the 'Skins and expect them to be losing quite embarrassingly by the fourth quarter. I'm not really sure why these conventions need to be covered by all networks and cable news stations anyway. I never really understood the point of that. It's too "1984." YOU ARE GOING TO GET ENGAGED IN POLITICS AND TO MAKE SURE YOU DO, NOTHING ELSE WILL BE ON!!! AND SINCE YOU ARE AMERICANS, WE KNOW YOU WON'T TURN THE TV OFF!! ELECTIONS ARE DOUBLE-PLUS-GOOD!!  |
|
