The pit bull in lipstick

I thought Palin's incoherence during the interview with Katie Couric was plenty scary, but having seen only part of her debate with Joe Biden, I must have missed this part, the transcript of which I will post here. Read it carefully:

Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

The phony folksy opening: Say it ain't so, Joe ... Saturday Night Live parodied the bit in which she comes out at the start of the debate to shake hands, and she makes a show of asking "Can I call you Joe?" Biden says "Of course" and the SNL skit has her going on to say "OK, 'cause I practiced a couple of zingers where I call you Joe." Well, apparently it wasn't a joke ... it was the truth! I wonder what would have happened had Biden said "I prefer that you address me as Senator Biden" ... it would have thrown off her entire shtick, with no other material to fall back on!

Then she immediately tries to co-opt Reagan's famous "There you go again" because her handlers told her how well it worked for Reagan.

Let's look at her next "sentence":

You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration.

OK, perhaps she misspoke and said "preferenced" instead of "prefaced" ... it happens. But in these times of declining literacy it's also possible she doesn't know the difference between the words "preference" and "preface," and doesn;'t know that "preferenced" isn't a real word. But, OK, fine, never mind that ... what the hell is up with that sentence?! It goes nowhere, says nothing. What does it even mean?!

Then she throws in a gratuitous bullshit "doggone it" just in case anyone didn't pick up on the fact that she's just "one of the folks."

And then she throws a bone to the evangelical base with this inarticulate mess:

I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?

And, of course, more "gee, shucks" bullshit with the "shout out" to the third graders. Give me a break.

Actually, Michelle Goldberg analyzed this much more succinctly and eloquently than I ever could in the 3 October issue of The Guardian. Here are a few choice excerpts:

At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have been universally noted, discussed and mocked ...

... [Palin] proceeded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity.

It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise.

In her only vice-presidential debate, [Palin] was shallow, mendacious and phoney. What kind of maverick, after all, keeps harping on what a maverick she is? That her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn't show how high Palin has risen, but how low we all have sunk.

Spot fucking on.

Sincerely,
Fred

quote:

Spot fucking on.

Seems like you guys have got absolute hatered running in your veins, and venom spitting from your mouths.

Cheers

Don

Fred

Please change the record!

I'm interested in the US election and would like this forum to have a thread discussing it but your posts are a huge turn-off and I think they do you no credit. Nobody here is actually arguing with you about Palin, just your haranguing style.

I speak as somebody who has politics that make even Obama look like Genghis Khan!

Bruce

quote:

Spot fucking on

How were some people confused by my comment about Fred's language? As I have already said Fred I have no issue with you saying what you do, just the way that you say it!

Regards,


Dom

There appears to be a theme.
Theme
A little surprised that the "f-bomb" was allowed to stay in this post, Adam must be distracted.
And I have to wonder what was removed in Adam's edit of the initial post, though today I'm going to worry about things such as my stock portfolio. Looks as if there may be some bargains out there...

One thing that can be enjoyed in election season is the lowered fuel prices. I have no data to support a trend or conspiracy, but prices have dropped from $4.20 to $2.75 in the last 3 weeks (and expecting a bounce up in early December). All this with hurricane Ike disrupting the supply chain. And I remember this same trend from past election seasons.
Hmm.

David


See how innocent it can be?

I often edit for long quotes, abysmal spelling and links to websites.

Is the "f-bomb" banned on the forum?
DCT

Seriously, though - does anyone think any of the current crop of candidates are up to the task(s) presented by the current world situation?

The problem with the Presidential elections in the USA is that you are voting for the President, but with regards to bhazen's question the far more important thing is who the victor will appoint to the various positions that are of relevance to the economy etc. You don't imagine (or do you?) that Bush or Clinton etc. etc. was personally responsible for their administration's economic policy?

I believe HRH QEII might have a slot in her calander to help out, after all she has seen lots of this kind of rubbish over the years, and she does command some respect globally.

Just a thought.

We could also make room for you boys in the Commonwealth!!!

Jono

As I see it, the key attributes of leadership are to (i) pick a strong and capable team that will present a broad range of options with recommendations supported by coherent arguments (ii) have the intellectual curiousity to understand the underlying differences between the choices presented and then make an informed decision and (iii) be willing to be challenged on your decisions and to change them if necessary. So these are the criteria I think should be used to decide which of the candidates is most up to dealing with the challenges to be faced.

Personally, I think it is clear which of them comes out ahead on this yardstick but either of them would IMO be better than the present holder of the office who has been a dismal failure in all three areas (although, on second thoughts, the pit bull gives me serious reason to question this assertion in McCain's case -she is clearly one of the most shallow politicians to be eligible for high office for a long time.)


Michael

quote:

We could also make room for you boys in the Commonwealth!!!

Not sure that worked out as planned the last time.

And I don't think I've seen a response in this thread defending Palin's intellect.
Though she is a shrewd and VERY lucky politician. I think we can agree on that.

David

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:

And I have to wonder what was removed in Adam's edit of the initial post

Sorry to disappoint ... it was just a link to my MySpace page; didn't know it wasn't allowed.

Fred

quote:

Originally posted by bhazen:

Seriously, though - does anyone think any of the current crop of candidates are up to the task(s) presented by the current world situation?

Seriously, though, yes I do: Obama and Biden.

Thanks for asking.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Trotz:

Personally, I think it is clear which of them comes out ahead on this yardstick but either of them would IMO be better than the present holder of the office who has been a dismal failure in all three areas (although, on second thoughts, the pit bull gives me serious reason to question this assertion in McCain's case -she is clearly one of the most shallow politicians to be eligible for high office for a long time.)

I must have been very naive to have thought that no one could possibly be worse than George W. Bush, but Sarah Palin lowers the bar to an all new low.

And while I'd like to think that McCain would be an improvement over Bush (and once upon a time he would have been), all bets are off due to his choice of Palin, which also gives us an idea of the kind of choices McCain would make in his cabinet and administration.

The prospect of that woman ever becoming president of the USA should give everyone major concern and anxiety.

Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

quote:

Originally posted by bhazen:

Seriously, though - does anyone think any of the current crop of candidates are up to the task(s) presented by the current world situation?

Seriously, though, yes I do: Obama and Biden.

Thanks for asking.

All best,
Fred

Well Fred, I pray you're correct and I'm wrong. Obama seems pretty callow to me and, quite apart from his "change" rhetoric, reflexively old-school left-wing. Potential disaster, both in foreign policy and economics.

Can somebody provide a simple/concise explanation of the role of the Lower House and Upper House in US policy making and government? and how effective these bodies actually are?

Likewise the role of the President and how effective he/she is in establishing policy and implemnting it?

Has each (recent) president been entirely responsible for the success/failure of US ventures, or is this responsibility shared with Congress and others?

I ask, because you seem to be placing an awful lot of hope on the choice of President (as we do on the choice of Prime Minister, even though we don't get to vote for him/her).

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Can somebody provide a simple/concise explanation of the role of the Lower House and Upper House in US policy making and government? and how effective these bodies actually are?

Likewise the role of the President and how effective he/she is in establishing policy and implemnting it?

Has each (recent) president been entirely responsible for the success/failure of US ventures, or is this responsibility shared with Congress and others?

I ask, because you seem to be placing an awful lot of hope on the choice of President (as we do on the choice of Prime Minister, even though we don't get to vote for him/her).

Cheers

Don

In the U.S., the President tends to get the blame for everything, and the credit for everything; the position has become a bit totemic, I suppose. I should've amended my previous post to reflect the fact that nothing happens in economic policy unless Congress goes along. The Presidency has, however, become a bit autocratic as regards foreign policy (see: Bush and the "war on Terror".)

I actually think the U.S. has become largely ungovernable; too many special interests lobbying to have their own conflicting agendas implemented. One voting bloc picking the pockets of another, etc. Obama advocating $800 billion (or whatever it is this week) in new domestic spending, while simultaneously lowering the taxes on 95% of U.S. citizens? Good laugh, that one.

Thanks bhazen

Cheers

Don

Amazing read this thread for a non-politico like me.

Having seen Palin in the debates, she scares me. To think she could become the 'leader of the free world' (bit like the Superbowl winners being world champs) if an elderly man were to be incapacitated, fills me with dread.

I can only think she is a lobbyists dream. Maleable and dangerously ignorant of current affairs, by her own admission.

Must admit, I found Obama very articulate and spontaneously so, suggesting there is a real intellect there.

Fred's Obama Express is way up in the polls (if they can be believed) and the win is most likely Obama's for the taking.
I'm guessing Obama will be playing it very safe for the next couple of weeks.
There has been (premature) talk of an Electoral landslide, not unlike Reagan's back in 1984. However, in that election Reagan won only 26% of the eligible vote. Landslide my ass (arse). My vote went to John Anderson, a very resonable third party candidate (and had nothing to do with being a fan of Yes and Jon Anderson).
Fickle American voters, seems as if they had fogotton that you can't bitch if you don't vote.
David

And thanks for the edit, Adam.
We knew you were on the job all along.
David

quote:

Originally posted by bhazen:

Obama seems ... reflexively old-school left-wing. Potential disaster, both in foreign policy and economics.

You mean, as opposed to the resounding successes in foreign policy and economics of the right-wing's reign during the last eight years?

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by bhazen:

Obama advocating $800 billion (or whatever it is this week) in new domestic spending, while simultaneously lowering the taxes on 95% of U.S. citizens? Good laugh, that one.

Lowering taxes on 95% of US citizens, and raising taxes on the wealthiest 5%. Which is the fair thing to do.

Go to Obama's website, read his proposals. All additional spending would be accounted and paid for.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

Likewise the role of the President and how effective he/she is in establishing policy and implemnting it?

Of course, Congress has a role in establishing and implementing policy, but the bottom line is that the fish rots from the head down.

Another point to consider is that at Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney's instigation, unchecked presidential powers have broadened under the BushCo reign.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:

Fred's Obama Express is way up in the polls (if they can be believed) and the win is most likely Obama's for the taking.
I'm guessing Obama will be playing it very safe for the next couple of weeks.
There has been (premature) talk of an Electoral landslide, not unlike Reagan's back in 1984. However, in that election Reagan won only 26% of the eligible vote. Landslide my ass (arse). My vote went to John Anderson, a very resonable third party candidate (and had nothing to do with being a fan of Yes and Jon Anderson).
Fickle American voters, seems as if they had fogotton that you can't bitch if you don't vote.
David

It is looking good for Obama, but anything can, and often does, happen.

Take the so called "Bradley effect," a reference to African-American gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley's loss in 1982 (he had served five terms, 20 years, as mayor of Los Angeles). Many polls had Bradley ahead in the weeks and days before the election, but he narrowly lost. Conjecture is that white voters who said they would vote for Bradley when polled did not do so in the anonymity of the voting booth.

That may, or may not be a factor now; that was 26 years ago. Also, Obama's mixed heritage may have a mitigating effect. Another factor is that Obama's team has shrewdly pursued an electoral college victory, which, for better or worse, is how the presidency is won ... he could win by less than 10 percentage points in the popular vote, but depending on which states those votes came from, could very well win an electoral landslide.

Voter turnout in the primaries set records, and subsequent voter registration, especially among Democrats, has been gangbusters. Obama is currently polling above 50%, in some polls, at least a ten point lead over McCain.

But there are three weeks to go, and like I said, anything can, and often does, happen.

Let me ask you something, David: Would you have voted for Reagan or Mondale, or no one, if John Anderson hadn't run in 1984? I'm theoretically attracted to the idea of a third party; I do think the two major parties have an unhealthy lock on the political process, but the reality is that a vote for a third party candidate is often a proxy vote for the major party candidate you least want to win. For about a minute I considered voting for Nader in 2000 before I came to my senses. Well, that, and my mother threatened to kill me.

All best,
Fred