Yes, Palin "beat expectations". About the only way she could not have is if she had gone out there, hitched her skirt, and taken a dump on the stage.
The Republicans who are celeberating this only show just how ridiculous their ticket is, and how little they understand of the real issues and stakes here. They are certainly free to "grade on a curve" if they want, but "not being as big of a joke as she was before" is not a very good standard of success.
Voters don't grade on a curve -- they look at the whole person. And the person Palin showed us last night is one who is not ready for high office. She acted mostly like a robot reading programmed lines, and needed her crib sheet to even attempt to respond to the most basic issues. Her response on the role of the vice-presidency shows that she understands little to nothing about the Constitution.
In the real world you don't get to "cram". You don't have the luxury of reading off crib notes.
She still can't hold a press conference to answer tough questions but we're supposed to believe she's going to make critical decisions and take on Washington? Who is really stupid enough to believe this? Only people who either can't think or choose not to.
Palin's overall attitude, with the plasticky smile and goofy lines, seemed to be that leading this nation is a big joke. But she is the joke -- one that makes a mockery of McCain's claims about the importance of the job he seeks. Anyone who thinks that it's a good idea to support a candidate who bluffs her way through easy questions is not a patriot -- he or she is someone who puts winning an election ahead of the good of the country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I agree with everything you say, Charles. But I find myself quite calm in the cool light of morning. In an odd way, Palin's performance (and that's what it was, not a debate) means that the spotlight goes back to McCain. He's losing, he knows it, and now everyone knows that (1) Palin is not going to help him pull it out, (2) she can't share the burden of either the campaign or, god forbid, an administration, and (3) her perky, spunky Campaign Barbie just highlights his age and erratic temperament. Despite her performance, they clearly cannot let her out on her own, and she said as much in her remarks. So he is really on his own. Barring a major change in the landscape -- another crisis of come kind, hard to imagine, he is done for.
In the group I watched the debate with, we marveled at how a man we once had so much respect for, even when we could not agree, has fallen so far. With all of his (and her) rants about corruption, this campaign shows that he has been corrupted to his core in his ugly quest for power. He is sort of a poster child for the the Rovian political approach that power is worth anything you have to do to get it. So very sad.
Hi Charles:
Love the blog; I'm a Canadian deeply interested in developments in America and am desperately hoping that Obama wins and (true to his word) helps to "change" America back into the "great and shining" example many thought it once was.
Things in Canada are done a little differently (our Prime Minister candidate debates were also on last night in a round table debate with a moderator and video questions from the citizenry)but I was struck by a few things and was wondering if you can help me to finding a way to understand them.
1. How is it that your debates are "sponsored"? Should I be concerned that someone or something calling itself the American Coalition for Clean Coal Engergy is acting as the gate keeper for a debate where Energy policy will no doubt be discussed?
1b. Have any liberal commentators mentioned this potential problem and how does it jive with the debate about limiting the powers of lobbyists?
2. Not being that well read when it comes to American opinion regarding U.S. foreign policy, is it often that foreign countries are referred to as enemies? The question regarding Iran and Pakistan really struck me as odd. Given the dire state of the economy and the presumed desire of a majority of the electorate for a cessation of action in Iraq/less intervention is this a question that normally is asked of V.P. candidates?
2b. Given that the U.S. is not currently at war with either country and barring some rather major developments they will not be in a position to attack the U.S. doesn't discussion about them as "enemies", "rogue states" "states of concern" presuppose the validiity of an interventionist position in the first place? How did a question that presupposes the perspective used in the formulation of the Bush Doctrine manage to rear its ugly head?
I'd really like your take on these questions if you have the time or inclination. Regardless, I will continue to visit your blog every day as per usual as I really enjoy your take on the events unfolding south of the border...:)
Thanks for all your hard work.
"Her response on the role of the vice-presidency shows that she understands little to nothing about the Constitution."
Apparently, she understands a little more than Biden, at least according to one constitutional law scholar.
But why pay attention to a constitutional law professor, when you've got Charles to interpret the Constitution.
"In the real world you don't get to "cram". You don't have the luxury of reading off crib notes."
Actually, in the real world, you've got a lot more than crib notes. You've got economists, generals, ambassadors, allies, lawyers, etc.
A proven leader seeks input from experts, considers opposing views, then uses HER executive experience to make a sound decision. A weak leader does the same thing, but in the end, votes PRESENT, because HE doesn't want to ruffle any feathers.
Charles talks of grades and curves, and would have you believe that being a good leader is akin to acing a pop quiz in a high school history class. We all know that's not the case.
baseballcoach,
Do you really believe your candidate would recognize a 'sound decision' if it wasn't handed to her by one of her handlers? I don't believe she would, and that's one reason why I've never gone to a republican blog. Some of us come here BECAUSE we've got Charles to interpret for us, and as he suggested before, no one is forcing you to come.
Besides, have you checked out what those who work with your 'proven leader' have to say about her own inavailability for meetings, etc?Frankly, I wish you wouldn't come here trying to 'educate' us, because at this stage it isn't going to work, and , for me, it spoils the atmosphere.
P.S. Was your 'ONE' constitutional scholar fifth from the bottom of his/her graduating class?
"P.S. Was your 'ONE' constitutional scholar fifth from the bottom of his/her graduating class?"
Again, I don't mind partisan commentary, but its this kind of BS that gets to me. Biden graduated in the bottom 10% of his law school, and would have been dead last if the F he got for plagiarizing had stayed on his record, so you might want to shelve the bottom-of-his-class argument.
Anyway, Article I of the Constitution is titled "The Legislative Branch." It doesn't take a brilliant con law professor to know that, and its not just a technicality, since the Legislature was intentionally put first to illustrate how important it was to the founders. Really anyone who paid attention in civics class should know this. As for the substance of Biden's argument, he was saying the VP was a purely executive office because it was created within the Executive Branch (he just said Art I instead of Art II). But the only power of the VP, other than succession, is his role as President of the Senate, which is found in Art I and is clearly a legislative power. So even had Biden spoken correctly, I find it an extremely poor argument and hardly a forceful illustration of Constitutional knowledge, as Charles (who presumably has never read the Const) described it.
As for the larger debate on pop quizzes, etc, I find the premise ridiculous and I don't think thats what Charles was saying at all. Of course you will often be able to consult notes or advisors for some decisions, but the important ones will require that she act quickly and off-the-cuff. And in all decisions she would need to be competent to balance the competing issues or recommendations and come to the correct decision. Even with notes, Palin was barely able to answer about half of the questions in an intelligible (read: scripted) way. Meanwhile, Biden was quite strong on most of the issues. No objective person could say she did well compared to their expectation of a strong candidate, they can only say she did well compared to the rambling fool that she looked like in the Couric interviews.
"...and that's one reason why I've never gone to a republican blog. Some of us come here BECAUSE we've got Charles to interpret for us, and as he suggested before, no one is forcing you to come.
I agree that no one is forcing me to come. I come here precisely to read and try to understand views that are different from my own. As a matter of fact, I exclusively read Obama blogs. Why would I want to read and/or post on a McCain blog? -- it would be like "preaching to the choir."
I'm a little concerned that you rely on Charles to interpret political news for you. Simply put, you are "drinking the koolaid."
I prefer to listen to all sides and come to an informed decision - one that I concede you may not agree with. And since you readily admit that you don't read all sides of the issue, then I am actually helping you to become a more informed voter. Now I admit that I have no chance of changing your mind. But when I post, I am hoping to present an alternative view to those that may lurk here without ever being heard from.
Frankly, I wish you wouldn't come here trying to 'educate' us, because at this stage it isn't going to work, and , for me, it spoils the atmosphere.
As I have said above, I harbor no beliefs that I can convince you to vote for McCain. What I am trying to do is present an alternative view to those that may stumble across this blog seeking a more balanced view.
Finally, am I to understand that you don't want to hear about opposing views because it spoils the atmsophere? Seriously, did you really say "spoil the atmosphere?" Then perhaps you would like to move to a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran where opposing views are heavily discouraged. You wouldn't have any freedom of expression, but hey, at least you would be in a comfortable "atmosphere."
Of course you will often be able to consult notes or advisors for some decisions, but the important ones will require that she act quickly and off-the-cuff.
Hi Ariel - thanks for your point of view. Can you describe any presidential decisions that have been made in the past, where the president was forced to decide quickly and without the benefit of consultation with advisors?
Perhaps the initial reaction to the planes hitting the towers on 9/11, where almost any decision would have been better than Bush's "deer in headlights" response, but I am having a hard time coming up with anything else.
"Meanwhile, Biden was quite strong on most of the issues. No objective person could say she did well compared to their expectation of a strong candidate..."
Because of her public perception, Palin's only goal was not to make a mistake. She could not afford to make a mistake. And that is why she came across as scripted. If she made the kinds of gaffes that Biden made, Charles, and the rest of the MSM would of "ate her for lunch."
Biden screwed up the constitution question, he made the ridiculous claim that Hezbollah was driven out of Lebanon. And these are just two of the TWENTY EIGHT (28) errors that various fact check organizations have reported that Biden made in the debate (I'll be happy to list them). Yet Biden somehow gets a pass from Charles and the rest of the MSM.
Sarah Palin said some stupid things in the Gibson and Couric interviews, and should have just admitted that living close to Russia does not give her any foreign policy experience.
However, she can talk as well as any other politician, either scripted or off-the-cuff. In the debate, she simply could not afford to make a mistake like those that Biden made, and she stuck to the script in order to avoid any mistake.
"Things in Canada are done a little differently (our Prime Minister candidate debates were also on last night in a round table debate with a moderator and video questions from the citizenry)but I was struck by a few things and was wondering if you can help me to finding a way to understand them."
Hi Mr. Mills. Actually, I was born and raised in Canada so I understand your system fairly well. I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.
"1. How is it that your debates are "sponsored"? Should I be concerned that someone or something calling itself the American Coalition for Clean Coal Engergy is acting as the gate keeper for a debate where Energy policy will no doubt be discussed?"
The debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which claims to be a non-profit, non-partisan group. It is indeed sponsored by individual and corporate donations, but really there is no formal government role in debates -- it's up to the candidates to decide what they want to do, and that's what the two parties agreed upon. So far they've done a fairly good job of keeping the debating neutral, though I was disappointed in seeing McCain being able to dumb down the VP debate for Palin's benefit.
"1b. Have any liberal commentators mentioned this potential problem and how does it jive with the debate about limiting the powers of lobbyists?"
I haven't seen much of any comment on it, actually. It's a good point though.
"2. Not being that well read when it comes to American opinion regarding U.S. foreign policy, is it often that foreign countries are referred to as enemies? The question regarding Iran and Pakistan really struck me as odd. Given the dire state of the economy and the presumed desire of a majority of the electorate for a cessation of action in Iraq/less intervention is this a question that normally is asked of V.P. candidates?"
Well, some of this is due to the Bush "axis of evil" rhetoric of the last several years, plus the mindless 100% support of Israel that is expected of any candidate who wishes to get elected. Unfortunately, but reality at least at the moment.
"2b. Given that the U.S. is not currently at war with either country and barring some rather major developments they will not be in a position to attack the U.S. doesn't discussion about them as "enemies", "rogue states" "states of concern" presuppose the validiity of an interventionist position in the first place?"
Again, a function of the current political climate I'd expect. I don't like it any more than you do, believe me. But at least it provides an opportunity for the candidates to try to differentiate themselves in these areas.
Sorry for the limited answers.
"Actually, in the real world, you've got a lot more than crib notes. You've got economists, generals, ambassadors, allies, lawyers, etc."
Yes, but in the end a good leader must use those as input and then make decisions based on his or her own experience, intelligence and judgment. Sarah Palin is sorely lacking in all three areas.
She sounds like a robot regurgitating lines because she is basically an empty book. She knew nothing about national or international affairs at the start of this campaign and brings nothing to the table in these areas. This makes her extremely dangerous, in that she is ripe for being exploited by the real power brokers in any administration, much as Bush was.
"A weak leader does the same thing, but in the end, votes PRESENT, because HE doesn't want to ruffle any feathers."
The fact that you bring up the "voting Present" canard shows that you are either dishonestly misportraying what that means in the Illinois senate, or that you don't understand it. Rather amusing coming from a supporter of the senator who has missed the most votes in Congress over the last several years -- and by a huge margin.
"As a matter of fact, I exclusively read Obama blogs. Why would I want to read and/or post on a McCain blog? -- it would be like "preaching to the choir.""
For what it's worth, I do admire that.
Sad that you won't hold your VP candidate to the same standard.
"Finally, am I to understand that you don't want to hear about opposing views because it spoils the atmsophere? Seriously, did you really say "spoil the atmosphere?" Then perhaps you would like to move to a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran where opposing views are heavily discouraged. You wouldn't have any freedom of expression, but hey, at least you would be in a comfortable "atmosphere.""
Again -- read that back to yourself and then recognize that the Republicans are applying that same standard to a candidate for the second highest office in the land, behind a 72 year old man with a history of cancer and possible mental impairments.
As Andrew Sullivan has rightly pointed out, one big difference between Sarah Palin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is that the latter is willing to hold a press conference. So much for an educated and informed electorate.
The fact that you bring up the "voting Present" canard shows that you are either dishonestly misportraying what that means in the Illinois senate, or that you don't understand it.
Well since you did not offer an explanation of what voting present means in Illinois, I thought I would add some insight:
Voting Present can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no. “If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
In other words, it's a way to CYA.
Again -- read that back to yourself and then recognize that the Republicans are applying that same standard to a candidate for the second highest office in the land, behind a 72 year old man with a history of cancer and possible mental impairments.
vicki cana said that she wished that I did not post hear because it "spoils the atmosphere?" I took her to task, by making a point that if she considers hearing both sides of an issue to be "spoiling the atmosphere," then perhaps she should move to a place that only permits one side of the issue to be heard.
Perhaps I am just being dense, but how does your response address my point. Are you saying that Sarah Palin doesn't want to hear opposing views because it would "spoil her atmosphere?"
The "voting present" bullshit already came up during the primaries.
--
In most legislatures, lawmakers vote either "yes" or "no" on bills, but in Illinois, senators and representatives can hit a third button for a "present" vote. Now that quirk -- not unique to Illinois -- has sparked heated exchanges among Democrats vying for president.
The two main rivals of Illinois' U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination accused him during a debate Monday (Jan. 21) of ducking important votes by voting "present" about 130 times during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.
But Obama's former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama's opponents don't understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.
"To insinuate the 'present' vote means you're indecisive, that you don't have the courage to hold public office, that's a stretch. But, it's good politics," said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party's floor leader.
In fact, he said, Illinois legislators get attacked for their "present" votes nearly every campaign season. "It's always been a campaign gimmick, really. If you vote 'present' once in 23 years, somebody will bring it up."
The "present" vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.
"The 'present' vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.
I mentioned Palin because of your comments about "opposing views" and "freedom of expression". Issues that are completely foreign to the McCain campain in its ongoing effort to use Sarah Palin as a propaganda robot who never has to face the media or the electorate.
"Can you describe any presidential decisions that have been made in the past, where the president was forced to decide quickly and without the benefit of consultation with advisors?"
Hmm, this seems like a rather odd question to me. A President makes literally dozens of decisions without someone holding her hand every time she steps into a meeting or answers questions from the media. And I imagine that the President faces decisions behind closed doors every single day that would benefit from her being able to decide on them quickly and intelligently. We don't vote for Presidential advisors... we vote for the President (and VP). That was why the experience argument was a good one against Obama back when they were using it - we don't want a President who needs on the job training. For me, his obvious intelligence and his performance over all these months has shown me that he has sufficient background and ability to make these decisions. Watching Palin dodge questions and read note cards for 2 hours told me nothing about her ability to analyze an issue, weigh advice, and reach an intelligent decision. I just don't see anything extraordinary about her other than her personality - she even calls herself a "Joe six-pack," which is charming and all, but is actually an argument against her qualification for this job.
What have you seen in the past 5 weeks that suggests she has the intelligence and decision making abilities required to be President? Aside from being a popular governor for 2 years, what has she ever done that shows those abilities?
"Palin's only goal was not to make a mistake. She could not afford to make a mistake."
She made lots of mistakes. I didn't mention any of them before because I was focusing on Charles' (and friends) ignorance with the Constitutional issue, but factcheck.org found plenty. And again, what kind of mediocrity are we asking for now, if the best we can hope for is for her to not make mistakes? Her goal should have been the same as Bidens - to prove that she was competent to be President if she had to be and that her ticket was better than the other - and that is how she should have been judged.
"However, she can talk as well as any other politician, either scripted or off-the-cuff."
What is that based on? She gives a great scripted speech, but she has only done two serious interviews in 5 weeks and both of them were absolute disasters. I literally have never seen a politician perform so poorly off-the-cuff. She even was terrible at the townhall meeting in front of a friendly audience when asked about the topic that she supposedly knows more about than anyone else in America. Please, if there is any evidence of her being good off-the-cuff on any substantive topic, I'd love to see it.
"A President makes literally dozens of decisions without someone holding her hand every time she steps into a meeting or answers questions from the media. And I imagine that the President faces decisions behind closed doors every single day..."
No, a decision is a choice of action. Responses in a meeting or a media interview are just statements. They can, and often are, undone in followup meetings/statements. Many times, the presidential spokesperson stands in the White House Press Room, and explains, twists, or retracts statements made by the president.
A choice of action, e.g. signing a piece of legislation, invading a country, submitting a budget, etc. is an action that cannot easily be undone/retracted.
Politicians often change their minds (The proverbial flip-flop charge is overused -- I want my leaders to change their mind, if there is new information, or a change in circumstances to support it). But it's often very difficult to change actions.
I still maintain that there are very few, if any, important decisions that will require a President/Vice-President to act quickly and/or off-the-cuff.
Please, if there is any evidence of her being good off-the-cuff on any substantive topic, I'd love to see it.
Go to youtube, and search for the Palin Alaskan Gubernatorial Debates.
"No, a decision is a choice of action. Responses in a meeting or a media interview are just statements. They can, and often are, undone in followup meetings/statements. Many times, the presidential spokesperson stands in the White House Press Room, and explains, twists, or retracts statements made by the president."
Regardless, having someone who is lacking in intelligence, education and interest in major nation and international subjects is not good for the country by any stretch of the imagination.
"Go to youtube, and search for the Palin Alaskan Gubernatorial Debates."
Yes, because that's a subject she (arguably) knows something about. On the national/international stage she is utterly clueless and proves that on a daily basis.
She can't even stay on the same page as her running mate!
Baseballcoach, that is an arbitrary distinction that fails to address the issue at all. You decide what statements you make... its a decision, just as much as pushing the button to launch a nuke. And yeah, of course a statement can later be negated by your advisor's better judgment, but it doesn't change the fact that you just made an ass out of yourself with Katie Couric or Vladimir Putin. We want intelligent and informed people making the decisions that matter (whether they be immediate or after advice), not average Americans with community college educations and no substance on national issues.
As for the Alaska debates, the only clips I have seen are of 15-20 second responses to softball questions without any opportunity for a back and forth. So while she did acquit herself well in those clips, I hardly see them as undoing the damage done to my perception of her by the past 5 weeks.
There is no doubt in my mind that Charles is way off in left field with his opinions, even on Palin, but it seems to me that you aren't taking an objective and educated position on her either. Perhaps you are both suffering from your own Palin Disorders, but from where I sit she doesn't look like either a lying bitch or like a qualified candidate. She just looks like a charming governor without the brain power or background to deserve my vote. John McCain is someone I could have been happy voting for, but Palin is not.
Yes, because that's a subject (Alaska) she (arguably) knows something about. On the national/international stage she is utterly clueless and proves that on a daily basis.
When she was a PTA mom, she had very little knowledge about Wasilla, but she campaigned for, and became a qualified mayor (I know $20 million in debt, but Wasilla has an additional $20 million in capital assets. The city took out a mortgage -- the same as any city in America that wants to grow). She was a popular mayor.
When she was a mayor, I would guess that she had very little knowledge in Alaska state politics, but she campaigned for, and became a qualified governor. She has become a popular governor.
Now I don't if there is any major theme that governs your choice, but one of my major themes is:
"DO AS I DO, NOT AS I SAY"
In my opinion, Obama gives a great speech. "Change We Can Believe In" and "Yes We Can." But there is absolutely nothing in his past that can convince me that he can deliver. With Obama, it's "Do As I Say."
So we have a pattern here. Palin has a little knowledge of a role, but takes on the challenge, and becomes more than competent. While she is not yet 100% competent in the role of VP, I have every reason to believe that she will rise to the challenge, and be more than ready by inauguration day.
If I am going to hire a CEO for a company, I want someone who has already been successful at another company and wants to accept the challenge, and not a recent graduate who espouses good ideas, but has not proven that he can implement them. If I want to hire a football coach, I want to hire a winner, someone who has been successful at another program and is ready to lead a new team, not a sideline quarterback who thinks he can call all the right plays.
Now, your choice can be governed by a different theme, and that's fine. But I prefer my own priorities.
"But there is absolutely nothing in his past that can convince me that he can deliver."
That says a lot more about you than it does about him.
The gig is up. Just as I said a month ago, moderates and independents are learning what Sarah Palin is really about, and they are rejecting her.
"That says a lot more about you than it does about him.
Ad Hominem. That logic fallacy is as old as Plato himself. You don't have any factual evidence, so you make the argument about me. With your technical background, surely
you must have learned to avoid logical fallacies in your freshman logic class.
You consistenly express your views without ever providing any FACTS to back them up!
Please answer these specific questions:
1. How has Obama ever brought any significant change to any elected position?
2. How has Obama proven that he can bring two bitterly partisan sides together and negotiate a bipartisan solution?
3. When has Obama every taken on corruption in his own party?
4. When has Obama ever shown that he can significantly reduce government spending?
5. Besides a celebrity trip to Europe and the Middle East, what specific foreign policy experience does Obama bring to the table?
6. What significant legislation has Obama authored? (Lugar-Obama doesn't count. It passed by voice vote, and was modeled after the very similar 1991 Lugar-Nunn Bill).
John McCain and/or Sarah Palin has significant accomplishments in each of the above areas. What about Obama?
Does this whole blog really boil down to "McCain is senile, and Palin is a bitch, so vote for Obama?"
"John McCain and/or Sarah Palin has significant accomplishments in each of the above areas."
McCain? Maybe. Part of the reason I used to like him before he went nuts and turned into an evil bastard.
Palin? Don't make me laugh!
"Does this whole blog really boil down to "McCain is senile, and Palin is a bitch, so vote for Obama?""
The whole blog? No. The election? For me, pretty much, yes. And right now the election is what's on my mind.
You say you've been following what I write but you clearly haven't gotten much at all of the gist of my viewpoint on this election. Or perhaps you just don't want to recognize it.
I laid out my views in detail here. You responded to that post so I thought that meant you read it. Perhaps you didn't.
Perhaps you did and are just trying to waste my time.
Either way, the purpose of this blog is for me to express my views. I really don't give a damn what anyone thinks of them, most especially including those who either cannot or will not even try to understand where I am coming from.
Post a Comment