by hilzoy
I thought Palin’s speech was quite good: well-written, well delivered. And, as I said earlier, I think she’s a genuinely engaging person, and comes across very well. There were just a couple of problems. One, which I have seen people notice, but which I suspect won’t be a big deal for a lot of voters, is that it had very little substance. The other, which the commenters I saw on TV for some reason neglected to mention, was that she told a lot of lies. A few that stood out for me, or that I spotted in my quick run-through of some blogs:
Palin: “To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.”
Sarah Palin might have changed her mind on this one recently. However, a comment here notes that Palin actually slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62%. Budgets: FY 2007 (pre-Palin), 2008, 2009 (all pdfs). UPDATE: This is wrong. As you can see if you look at the list of component budgets here (2007) and here (2009), funding for the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy was broken out into its own budget category, which accounts for the drop in funding for the original item. I regret the error. END UPDATE.
Palin: “As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man.”
Steve Benen’s list of McCain flip-flops is here. See for yourself whether constancy is, in fact, John McCain’s middle name.
Palin: “I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves.”
Just to reiterate what others have said: Congress’ requirement that funds be spent on that bridge (aka the ‘earmark’) were removed before Sarah Palin became governor. She was therefore in no position to tell Congress anything about the bridge, one way or the other. During her campaign, she said she supported funding for the bridge. Brad Plumer, citing the Anchorage Dialy News via Nexis:
“5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”
Later, she accepted the money — now not restricted by an earmark — and used it for other infrastructure projects. Here’s her statement about why she wasn’t building the bridge (also via Plumer.) Decide for yourselves what role a principled opposition to earmark funding plays in it. Hint: here’s what residents of Ketchikan AK said when they heard her recent remarks:
“In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere,” political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska’s Congressional delegation during her run for governor. (…)
“People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I’m for this’ … and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting,” Weinstein said.”
Palin: “But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform – not even in the state senate.”
Ha, ha, ha. I gave a rundown of Obama’s accomplishments in the Senate here. They include the Lugar-Obama bill on nonproliferation, and an ethics reform package that the Washington Post called “the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet.” Ruth Marcus summarizes his record on reform:
“He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush’s signature and pushed — again to the dismay of some colleagues — to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers. He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns.”
Not a single major law or reform, indeed.
And I wasn’t aware that writing memoirs was something to be ashamed of. Obama has, in fact, written only one. McCain (with Mark Salter) has written at least two.
Palin: “America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.”
No — he plans to develop a lot more energy than John McCain does. It’s just that a lot of it is renewable, not carbon-based. Moreover, Obama hasn’t skipped the last eight votes on renewable energy.
Palin: “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business – like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up?”
Well, it all depends whose taxes go up, doesn’t it? If Heather and her husband make less than $250,000, their taxes will not go up. Most Americans will pay less in taxes under Obama’s plan than under McCain’s. So they might well be better off.
Those are just the falsehoods that leapt to mind. I’m sure there are others.
Whether or not Sarah Palin’s engaging personality matters more than the fact that she tells lies depends a lot on the media, and whether they allow her to say that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, or that Obama has never authored a major law or reform, without calling her on it. I hope they do. But I’m not holding my breath.
***
UPDATE: Mark Kleiman posts an Obama campaign rebuttal, which is more thorough than I was.
Yup. She’s a liar. No doubt about it. But mostly she is a wingnut and should be exposed to the scorn that all wingnuts deserve, because they are self styled revolutionaries, and lie as a matter of course.
Mostly, I want to know who bent ex-presidential candidate-te Sen. John McCain over and told he he couldn’t have his first (or even second) pick for VP?
That is the real story here. Nothing else.
I thought I’d take a peek in here to see what you guys are saying now.
I know you instantly suppress the beginning of the thought that conservatives like Sarah (you may call her Governor) Palin and John McCain (and Ronald Reagan) might be real people living real lives with real families with real friends living in real communities filling real states who understand how to interact with other real people in this real world. Having discarded that thought, you’re right that we conservatives (me) just don’t understand the world of, nor do we respect, a “community organizer”. At least I know I don’t understand that world because I know I haven’t lived in it, because I (most of us) deliberately rejected it back when I was 13 years old deciding what direction to take in life.
Your (liberals’) fantasies about how Sarah Palin might somehow connect only with “stupid” Americans and their “wedge” issues is one way to deal with (avoid) the subliminal connection that revulsed you tonight. Whatever. The truth is supposed to hurt.
huh?
A good post, though I’d add the Road To Nowhere to your debunking of Palin’s claims about the Bridge To Nowhere. As to the question of whether the punditariat will comment on the strikingly divisive and dismissive tone, the nearly complete lack of substance, and the frequent misrepresentations (read: lies), well, I keep looking for that sort of a mainstream media to arrive, in part because they’d be good for the country, but mostly because I’m dying to see the flying rollerskating talking pigs they’ll be riding in on.
“At least I know I don’t understand that world because I know I haven’t lived in it, because I (most of us) deliberately rejected it back when I was 13 years old deciding what direction to take in life.”
What direction was that, may one ask?
dfp21: what rob1 said. Where did I say anything about stupid Americans, their wedge issues, etc.? And I seem to recall reminding people that Sarah Palin and her family are people just a few days ago…
Dfp12, considering that most of tonight was about how the Republicans think that we liberals and city dwellers are not “real people living real lives with real families with real friends living in real communities filling real states who understand how to interact with other real people in this real world”, I’m having trouble taking your objections (or projections) seriously. The people in the “heartland” are real, but I’m real too.
I see you have no defense of the lies. There were plenty from people other than Palin too. I especially like the completely manufactured statistic (what’s two orders of magnitude between friends) about how many votes Biden got from that great Christian Mike Huckabee. Not a big fan of the Ninth Commandment, I guess.
Yglesias has photographic evidence of her “Bridge to Nowhere” support.
I know you instantly suppress the beginning of the thought that conservatives like Sarah (you may call her Governor) Palin and John McCain (and Ronald Reagan) might be real people living real lives with real families with real friends living in real communities filling real states who understand how to interact with other real people in this real world.
I call BS and triple strength projection to boot.
Throughout my adult lifetime nobody, and I do mean nobody has spent more time, energy, images and words on painting a narrow and exclusive picture of “REAL AMERICA” and both implicitly and explicitly excluding everyone else as strange, scary, different, defective, traitorous, and just about every other negative trait imaginable, than have the GOP.
So take your cut-and-paste GOP talking points and shove em. With extreme prejudice.
And by the way, I have been going out of my way to refer to the 2008 Republican nominee for VP as Gov. Palin, so you can take that talking point and shove it too.
Damn, I didn’t even notice that one. How is “Sarah Palin” any more disrespectful than “John McCain”, “Barack Obama”, “Joe Biden”, “Hillary Clinton”, “Nancy Pelosi”, “George Bush”, “Bill Clinton”, or “Ronald Reagan”? Do only governors require titles, and then only while they’re in office?
Your (liberals’) fantasies about how Sarah Palin might somehow connect only with “stupid” Americans and their “wedge” issues is one way to deal with (avoid) the subliminal connection that revulsed you tonight.
It is interesting that you put stupid and wedge in quotes considering that you aren’t actually quoting anyone. Indeed, as far as I can tell your psychoanalysis of whomever it is you’re talking about seems entirely imaginary.
On this nomenclature-accusation issue, I tend to use last names only for all the candidates, though I may have said “Barack”occasionally in a more informal vein. I usually eschew titles; about the only exception is that I always refer to “Sen. Clinton” and to “Bill Clinton” because I want it to be clear which Clinton I mean, and I really don’t want to just call her “Hillary” in case it’s read as demeaning. Unless you think there’s some real risk that a comment about contemporary American politics will be misinterpreted as referring to ex-Python Michael Palin, where is the harm in simply calling her Palin? P.S. I also confess to a weakness for using disparaging nicknames for Rudolph Giuliani. In my defense, no-one could deserve the disrespect more.
Damn, I didn’t even notice that one.
I’m not sure is this is a good explanation but I think it has to do with the social dynamics of addressing someone who you’ve only just met. Normally it is awkward to use the 1st name of someone that you don’t know, so titles are preferred.
I don’t think this rule really applies to the use of the 3rd person, but copy editing rules and informal etiquette are not always synonymous. Also, it seems to me that blog comments occupy a sort of middle zone between written text and verbal speech partaking of some of the rules of both domains, including some unspoken social mores from the latter area.
To me, it feels less awkward using more personal forms of address including use of the 1st name for the political figures who have been on the scene long enough to become familiar fixtures in our lives, but Gov. Palin doesn’t fall into that category yet.
I guess I was the only one who watched this and was reminded of the Pat Buchanan “culture war” speech in 1992, huh?
Hilzoy:
Help me out here. The budget in 2007 included the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy. In 2008 it did not. That was the big change from what I can see, not some slashing of the special ed budget.
Here is the budget component for FY 2008 that shows an almost $3 MILLION dollar increase in funding for the Academy which is now a separate line in the budget for some reason.
It’s easier to see in the summary for 2009 here as compared to the 2007 summary here . Notice that under the first category “K-12 Support” in 2007 there is no separate category for the Academy while there is for 2009.
In short, she INCREASED the budget by almost 1.9 million over 2007 from $6.9 to $8.8. That’s quite an increase.
Am I missing something? Not at all a “lie.” Really hoping you (or the commenter) didn’t pick this up from DailyKos without fact checking it.
No, Linkmeister, you weren’t alone. I had the same thought, and some of the TV pundits mentioned a new culture war as well — Gloria Borger and Carl Bernstein, at least. The reaction hasn’t been so disastrous, as least so far. I don’t know how quickly the conventional wisdom on the 1992 GOP convention crystallized.
Not a single law or accomplishment…as far as she knows. But then, she hasn’t been paying much attention to the world outside Alaska.
Sadly, she believes she believes her ubercocooned RW buddies aren’t paying attention either. Lies are safe–repeat as often as possible.
Well, it all depends whose taxes go up, doesn’t it?
So how does this make it a lie? Maybe too general, but how a lie? Isn’t Obama in favor of putting estate taxes back in full swing in 2011? Increasing the capital gains tax? Paying for social security with a higher payroll tax? All true, aren’t they?
You can always tell a driveby troll, and dfp21 is clearly one.
I know you [Hilzoy] instantly suppress the beginning of the thought that conservatives like Sarah (you may call her Governor) Palin and John McCain (and Ronald Reagan) might be real people living real lives with real families with real friends living in real communities filling real states who understand how to interact with other real people in this real world.
Yes indeed. One can see here how Hilzoy instantly dismissed that idea.
bc: Isn’t Obama in favor of putting estate taxes back in full swing in 2011?
Actually, so was George W. Bush. Apparently. After all, it was the Bush administration’s idea to have the repeal of estate taxes time-limited to end in 2011.
Increasing the capital gains tax? Paying for social security with a higher payroll tax? All true, aren’t they?
Obama is in favor of raising taxes on people who have more than $250,000 a year. From the point of view of the husband of Cindy McCain, that’s the struggling lower middle class, yes. It’s also more money than 95% of Americans make in a year.
On the issue of taxes, all through this campaign my guess has been that taxes are going to go up, probably substantially, about 30 seconds after the Asian central banks decide to stop lending us money at ZIRP rates.
Either that, or the US Govt. shuts down.
Meanwhile, states, counties and municipalities don’t have that long to wait – their revenue streams are already drying up due to the economic slowdown, and they will get a lot less bang for their buck on bond issues from this point forward, assuming they have any luck being able to float them at all.
Oops.
In other words, neither candidate is telling you the truth about taxes, they just differ in the degrees of political cowardice with which they are unwilling to break the bad news: everybody’s taxes are going up, some more than others. The argument is going to be over who gets stuck with the biggest share of George W. Bush’s 5 trillion dollar credit card bill.
Let me just ask this. Does anyone here realize that the art of politics is to manipulate the human emotions of herds of people?
And that hatred is probably the easiest emotion to manufacture? (for example, read “1984” by George Orwell)
Well, if you agree with that much, try to ask yourself the next time you feel contempt for someone whom you’ve never met, but you’ve only read about on a website or in the “news”, ask yourself whether that feeling you have is the result of enlightenment or manipulation.
Jes: After all, it was the Bush administration’s idea to have the repeal of estate taxes time-limited to end in 2011.
Not sure what you mean by this. I recall that Repubs in general wanted a complete repeal but all that could get passed was a compromise (current exemption is at $2 Million, goes to 3.5 next year, no tax in 2010 then back down to $1 million in 2011). I’m quite sure it was not Bush’s idea to have the exemption go way down in 2011.
Dfp12, I still don’t see how your comment is connected with anything Hilzoy wrote. You and the Republicans at the convention are the ones doing the hating (liberals, urbanites, community organizers, etc.). Is the idea that you want us to understand that you’re only doing what you’ve been manipulated into doing?
BC, Bush’s idea was to pretend that it would expire in 2011 so that the budget projections looked better.
KCinDC – My comments here are directed toward “liberals” in general, and my intention is to try to connect human-to-human through the fog of hatred. My comments are colored by the tenor of the commentary and the “us” versus “them” thinking, not any particular post.
bc:
If you really don’t know why Bush agreed to the ridiculous sunset provision on his tax cuts, I will tell you: because budget scoring is done for a 10-year window, and formally sunsetting the tax cuts in that 10th year was the only way to gain a talking point in 2001 — the talking point being that the tax cuts would not bust the budget.
It was all a transparent scam. The GOP wanted the talking point, and figured that Congress would never dare let the tax cuts actually expire. The GOP does nothing so well as it does talking points, and they had the obvious one worked out in advance: letting the tax cuts expire is a (gasp!) tax increase. Almost as neat a swindle as the one about “The bonds in the SS Trust Fund are worthless because, hey, we already spent the money.”
As J.R. Ewing once observed, “Once you throw integrity out the window, the rest is a piece of cake.”
–TP
dfp21: My comments here are directed toward “liberals” in general, and my intention is to try to connect human-to-human through the fog of hatred.
By telling “American liberals” in general that they have no human feeling for people who don’t share their political views, you are generating the fog of hatred, not trying to connect through it.
Well, if you agree with that much, try to ask yourself the next time you feel contempt for someone whom you’ve never met, but you’ve only read about on a website or in the “news”, ask yourself whether that feeling you have is the result of enlightenment or manipulation.
Good Christ, DFP, I’m a lesbian. Any LGBT person knows all about people who “feel contempt for someone who they’ve never met” – For example, the conservatives who have such contempt for LGBT people that they wrote into their party platform that LGBT people shouldn’t have the right to marry or to serve in the military. That’s contempt. That’s a fog of hatred.
And you think it’s “liberals” who are the problem here?
Sorry, I shouldn’t have responded to the drive-by troll. (If not a “drive by”, wait for tomorrow, DFP – there’ll be an open thread where you can post all about your contempt for “liberals”, &c. In this thread we might at least try to stick to the lies Palin’s telling…)
BC: What Tony and KCinDC said. It was Bush’s idea to have the estate tax sunset in 2011: blaming it on Obama is just typical spin.
She delivered the speech only kinda well. When she has her lines down, she’s engaging and only a little bit smarmy, but watch her “foreign policy” section. She clearly has no idea what she’s talking about and even has to word-read off of the teleprompter (if you’ve got the speech on your tivo, check out when she’s talking about Venezuela for the clearest example). Now, that’s not the worst sin in the rhetorical world, even having to read a section of the speech she’s obviously unfamiliar with she’s a thousand times more engaging than Lieberman and having Giuliani introduce her really helped viewers appreciate her presence… After 20+ minutes of that narcissistic creep at his most smugly mendacious, even a guy in a panda suit would seem measured, serious and trustworthy.
I can’t believe they’re trying to attack Obama’s years as a community organizer. This is work that shows he’s serious about helping people, understands their needs and has the strength and resolve to get results. That’s not the sort of point you want to make about your opponent.
Anyhow, seriously, watch for the bit on Venezuela, it’s hilarious.
tony and KCinDC: if you’re referring to the Byrd rule provisions, sure, but that isn’t what he wanted. I mean, any law is subject to going down the drain under that rule in the Senate, but that’s different than saying it was Bush’s “idea.” He outright campaigned for full repeal in 2004. Am I getting this right?
For your fact-checking interest:
My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business – like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up?
Speaking as someone involved in running a very small business (3 people), the single biggest barrier we face is health insurance. Taxes going up, yeah, it’s a pain, but they’re not likely to go up 10% or even 15% per year, year after year.
I know a *lot* of people who are self-employed or run small businesses, and the issue of health insurance absolutely dominates our “so how are things going for you?” discussions. The fact that insurance status in the US is bound up with employment chained many of us to jobs we didn’t want and delayed our ability to set up on our own.
There is *nothing* that would help small and independent businesses more than a national, universal, single-payer health system.
bc: but that’s different than saying it was Bush’s “idea.” He outright campaigned for full repeal in 2004. Am I getting this right?
No. In 2004, Bush/Cheney claimed that as Kerry would not renew the tax cuts they had themselves set to expire in 2011, that meant that Kerry wanted to “raise taxes”. This is exactly the same gimmick as McCain claiming that as Obama won’t renew the tax cuts the Bush administration set to expire in 2011, that means Obama wants to “raise taxes”.
And of course, all the frothing about “tax raises” from Bush, Cheney, and McCain makes clear that they are themselves in the 2% top group of Americans who will actually benefit in any significant way from them – how much does George Bush stand to gain, for example, if George H. W. Bush should die in 2010 – and how much will he lose if his father lives on into the teens of this century?
For most people, Obama’s plan to cut taxes for those with less than 250,000 year will benefit them far more than a continued refusal to tax the estates of the very, very wealthy dead so that their heirs – George Bush, for example! – will benefit enormously, and their country, not at all.
Palin: My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business – like millions of others who run small businesses. How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up?
Why should that bother Palin? It’s not as if she actually believes in paying taxes.
[I think she’s a genuinely engaging person, and comes across very well]
really? I saw a bit of it and, well, different cultural references but I thought she came across as churchy and self-satisfied. I suspect that to the vast mass of ordinary people, she’ll remind them of the person who always elects themselves to the top job on every neighbourhood committee and who’s always telling you, unsolicited, about their children’s and family’s latest triumph. A lot of those people are also no better than they should be, by the way.
Whatever one thinks of the reductions, and ultimate repeal, of the estate tax, the 2011 expiry date wasn’t a gimmick, but rather a political necessity given the Byrd Rule and the makeup of the Senate in 2001. Rather than going to the Bush administration, credit for this budgetary sleight-of-hand should go to the Senators, sadly including a few Democrats (chiefly Breaux and Baucus), who pushed the final bill.
Or: “You go to cut taxes with the Byrd Rule you have—not the Byrd Rule you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
Does anyone here realize that the art of politics is to manipulate the human emotions of herds of people?
and the Dems are the elitists… ?
fudge off
The thing that initially struck me is that I had not expected her to be so brutal. I knew she was tough and was going to give as well as she got, and the VP’s role at this point is one of attack dog – but she seems to relish not only sticking the knife in but giving it a good twist. All the prior speakers tonight were pretty rough, but they were definitely just the warm up act. LJ challenged me to find examples of Republicans saying nice things about their opponents, as Democrats did during their speeches. I concede that challenge right now…
It will be interesting to see in coming days if some of that was just blowing off steam at the treatment she has received since Friday or if she sustains it. Truthful or not, she was landing body-blows left and right. Most of her knocks on Obama were handed to her by Obama – but she played them very well. (Mocking the small town thing worked out really well, huh?)
She is a good to great speaker. Not soaring rhetoric, but an ability to really connect with her audience in a down to earth way. Of course she didn’t write it. (Politicians have speechwriters? Who knew?) But she owned it. She made it her own. (Apparently the teleprompter operator was screwing up, kept scrolling when the applause didn’t stop – and it didn’t faze her a bit.)
And hilzoy – of course she lied (she’s a politician and her lips were moving). But 98% of the people who heard the speech will never know that.
A quick tour of the right-o-sphere this morning: Ecstatic doesn’t quite get there; it may be closer to orgasmic…
Nothing to change my original opinion or predictions: Vetting or no vetting, gamble or not – the pick was a political masterstroke and Obama is in serious trouble.
tonight = last night
The President signed the bill. After accepting the compromise. I agree that this doesn’t make it ‘his idea’ but it also doesn’t make it only the other side’s evil scheme.
If press reports are to be believed, Gov. Palin read a speech that had largely been written with a different candidate in mind. A funny way to ‘introduce’ one’s self, but that’s where we are. I’m hoping some reporter asks her what, specifically, she’ll do different from Dick Cheney — she is going to change Washington, right?
Seems to me that going on about how the Liberals are full of hate is not only contrary to fact, but also a posting rules violation.
Or: “You go to cut taxes with the Byrd Rule you have—not the Byrd Rule you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
Yes, but again, much of the impetus for the legislation came from Congress, not the administration, though Bush did campaign on the issue. Those interested can read “Death by a Thousand Cuts”, parts of which are available at Google Books.
But we’re straying from the subject, which your reference above to Palin’s tax payments more interestingly raises.
OCS, I think Obama is in trouble with people who were never going to vote for him.
OCSteve: And hilzoy – of course she lied (she’s a politician and her lips were moving).
Please, OCSteve, do analyse out Obama’s acceptance speech for us and point out the lies you seem to be claiming he made there. Because he’s a politician, and his lips were moving, so you think he must have been lying? Where? *waits*
But 98% of the people who heard the speech will never know that.
Well, 28%, at least. You know: the ones who are still convinced that Bush is just the bestest President EVAR.
A quick tour of the right-o-sphere this morning: Ecstatic doesn’t quite get there; it may be closer to orgasmic…
They like George W. Bush. Sarah Palin is just like him, right down to the slightly criminal background, egoistical attacks on anyone who dares to criticize her, and complete incompetence for the job.
“Vetting or no vetting, gamble or not – the pick was a political masterstroke and Obama is in serious trouble.”
To repeat my question you didn’t answer: why do you think that rousing the base, and pissing off independents, will win the election, given the minority status of Republicans?
You mean I missed the guy in the panda suit? Damn!
That’ll be this guy.
LJ challenged me to find examples of Republicans saying nice things about their opponents, as Democrats did during their speeches. I concede that challenge right now…
Jes, lay off OCS so I can bask in the sweet smell of victory
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok, all done, have at it. ;^)
“I can’t believe they’re trying to attack Obama’s years as a community organizer. This is work that shows he’s serious about helping people, understands their needs and has the strength and resolve to get results. That’s not the sort of point you want to make about your opponent.”
from the obama campaign this morning to supporters:
“Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.
And it’s no surprise that, after eight years of George Bush, millions of people have found that by coming together in their local communities they can change the course of history. That promise is what our campaign has been about from the beginning.”
hopefully the word will get out about how to respond to the community organizer smear (what in the hell were R’s thinking?)
[A quick tour of the right-o-sphere this morning: Ecstatic doesn’t quite get there; it may be closer to orgasmic…]
whistling past a graveyard, I thought.
Also, what’s with the McCain photo-ops with the pregnant daughter? I hope nobody’s going to turn her wedding into a political rally.
How can a speech be good and well written if it is dishonest complilation of lies?
It was, unfortunatley effective and the effectiveness comes from her excellent delivery–topnotch bullshit skills–but the speech itself was bad: illogical, lacking in real or honest substance, packed with disinformation. Those are BAD qualities.
And she didn’t write it. She’s an actress, not a thinker.
Ultimate irony: all the people swooning over her are the very people who sneer at Obama because he gives effective speeches, and yet all she has done is give a speech effetivley–one she didn’t even write!
Oh and I think that von is right, she is to be feared and might not be the horrible choice we are all hoping she is.
I’m just hoping the critical five percent of swing voters who, even though they don’t know much and don’t thnk carefully about what they do know but who nethertheless determine the outcome of close elections will see her as that annoyingly fake-nice homecoming queen type from high school, the social climbing backstabber.
And yes of course the Republicans are going to ruthlessly exploit her children while whining continuosly that the Demos are being mean to them which the MSM will dutifully broadcast without debunking.
“How can a speech be good and well written if it is dishonest complilation of lies?”
I don’t see what one has to do with the other. Goebbels was a very effective speechwriter, too. Good writing and truth have nothing whatever to do with each other. Thus the entire concept of “fiction.”
to my surprise, NPR actually fact-checked some of Palin’s speech, though they did it in a way that made the Bridge issue sound far more complicated than it really is.
They are playing it again on CNN International. The unrelenting negativity is absolutely astonishing. It is also interesting when when I caught them cutting to various known Republican figures in the audience ,their reactions seemed to be rather tepid with only Rudy 9-11, along with Cindy McCain, were the only one’s applauding.
I also noted the ‘servant’s heart’ line, yet nothing in else in that speech indicated any other Christian qualities.
I think that there is a connection between the quality of the speech and the quality pf its argument (if it is a persuasive speech). obviously if a speech is intended to be fiction, and is understood that way by its audience and evaluators, then different critieria would be used. Then the quality of the speech would fepend, not on the quality of the argument but on the storytelling aspects or the descrition language and so on.
It was an effective speech in that she accomplished what she intended to accomplish (snow job!) but, if submetted to a professor as a example of persuasive writing,or used in a debate, the speech would be a failure.
So I don’t think the speech itself should be called “good” since that implies, at least to me, that it was honest.
But I have to leave now so I can’t continue this debate and I am really sorry about thehorrific emergency room bill.
A persuasive
cleek: NPR took on the Bridge and the earmarks and was pretty pointed in saying that reality didn’t match up to her speech. The only complementary thing they said was the speech went over well.
One thing I don’t see highlighted is how taxes changed in Wasilla. Taxes on the rich and on out-of-town businessowners went down significantly, with a 40% drop in the property tax. And the ones who felt it the most were left paying more, with a sales tax increase that covered even food.
This is the same sleight-of-hand that Bush and McCain love, and they’re going to keep getting away with it until we start to understand the scam.
lj: Ok, all done, have at it. ;^)
You’re a quick basker!
That depends on how you define a good speech. A speech needn’t be honest to be effective. What if it moves those listening in the intended direction?
NPR took on the Bridge and the earmarks and was pretty pointed in saying that reality didn’t match up to her speech.
“pointed” was definitely not the impression i got.
dsquared: Also, what’s with the McCain photo-ops with the pregnant daughter?
Homesick? The story does remind me of this very old dialogue:
– I hear Blodwyn’s getting married.
– Blodwyn? I didn’t know she was pregnant.
– No, she’s not pregnant.
– Oh. Posh, like?
OCSteve: Truthful or not, she was landing body-blows left and right. Most of her knocks on Obama were handed to her by Obama – but she played them very well. (Mocking the small town thing worked out really well, huh?)
Body blows? If they were flat out lies, how? If not, where?
One good thing about my wife calling me upstairs last night was that I got to see practically the whole speech broken into highlight showings.
And I realized my initial reaction was probably too harsh: For someone who found out a week ago that she’d be on the Republican presidential ticket, Palin didn’t bat an eyelash (another one of those phrases that risks being called sexist all of the sudden).
Her speech was most effective in that they’ll be playing it for days — it was very sound-bite friendly, and her delivery added to that.
But that’s about as far as I’ll go.
If I want sarcasm and hitting below the belt, I’ll turn to Bill Maher, David Letterman or John Stewart. Not a future president.
What’s her vision? What’s her plan for America to re-gain its standing in the world? Is our answer to everytthing “drill, baby, drill,” as the Republican crowd chanted as Palin spoken?
If Hillary Clinton gave that same speech, I don’t think the reviews would be nearly as good — too shrill, too strident, they would say.
If Joe Biden gave that same speech, I know he’d be viewed as mean-spirited and petty and accused of the same-old partisan politics.
Instead, Sarah Palin draws comparisons to Norma Rae — a right-wing crusader who we hardly know being compared to a storied left-wing crusader.
Palin is a self-described pit bull with lipstick, yet every time we criticize her we run the risk of being sexist.
She stands up and laughs at the man 18 million voted for in the Democratic primary and another 40 million tuned into last week to listen to his vision for America. She offers up ridicule about him parting the waters and healing the planets, apparently borrowing for her campaign’s own attack ad.
One morning talk show today annoited her “the new leader of the Republican Party.”
Move over John McCain, you’ve been supplanted.
Jes: Please, OCSteve, do analyse out Obama’s acceptance speech for us and point out the lies you seem to be claiming he made there. Because he’s a politician, and his lips were moving, so you think he must have been lying?
IMO it’s a given that much of the American public assumes that political speeches contain exaggerations and yes even outright lies. They tend to tolerate it to an extent. YMMV.
But I think you’re falling into the same trap here that the Obama campaign has, you’re getting pushed into the same corner:
It’s a losing proposition for the D presidential candidate to go on defense against the R VP candidate. Obama is suddenly in the position of trying to convince voters that he is at least as qualified as the R VP pick. That’s a losing game and one of the reasons I say he is in trouble.
Gary: To repeat my question you didn’t answer: why do you think that rousing the base, and pissing off independents, will win the election, given the minority status of Republicans?
Sorry – I didn’t see that. I don’t often keep up with long threads anymore, especially after the troll infestation begins.
It’s kind of a hodge-podge, but it goes something like this:
-I fully expected Democrats to have a double-digit advantage. I’ve been surprised at how close it has been – as often as not polling has been within the margin of error.
-From that point, I figured that too many on the right where too disillusioned with McCain and would just sit out this election. I thought that it was the base that was going to cost him the election in the end. I still don’t think that Democrats in general fully understand just how disillusioned the base was (is) with McCain. I didn’t see Independents making it for him as I still saw them leaning more towards Obama and Democrats in general. I think McCain lost a lot with Independents when he began flip-flopping positions to whatever looked best that day.
-Palin changes all that completely.
It was a bit surprising that she kept in the ‘mistatements’ on the bridge to Ketchican, and her crusade against earmarks. But, she has stopped saying ‘nucular’.
Republican politician fires up base with speech filled with misleading claims, baseless attacks, and rank incivility. And the base loves it. Dog bites man.
At least we won’t have to listen to Republican politicians complain that celebrity is disqualifying.
What I really want to know, though, and this is OT, is whether OCS thinks Gilchrest’s endorsement will move any voters in the Maryland 1.
OCSteve: “Not soaring rhetoric, but an ability to really connect with her audience in a down to earth way.”
In this way, she is the anti-Obama. But while it is clear she connected with last night’s hardcore GOP audience, the jury is still out on whether the rest of America will find her so “down to earth.”
As lj noted upthread: “The unrelenting negativity is absolutely astonishing.”
Given that was essentially her introduction to the world, I wonder how well it will play in middle America — where clearly the GOP think this “hockey mom” with strong family values will play well.
Even when I backed Hillary in the primaries, I found Obama’s class impressive, refreshing and rare.
Palin was many things last night — classy wasn’t one of them.
OCSteve: IMO it’s a given that much of the American public assumes that political speeches contain exaggerations and yes even outright lies. They tend to tolerate it to an extent. YMMV.
I see. So when you said “of course she lied (she’s a politician and her lips were moving)” you meant “much of the American public assumed that she lied because she’s politician” – but you didn’t include “98% of the people who heard the speech” in “much of the American public” – since you asserted then that this “98%” would never know she lied? Although you sounded as if you yourself believe that when politicians lips are moving, they are lying, you were in fact speaking for “much of the American public” but explicitly not for yourself?
But I think you’re falling into the same trap here that the Obama campaign has, you’re getting pushed into the same corner:
It’s a losing proposition for the D presidential candidate to go on defense against the R VP candidate.
No, OCSteve. I was trying to get you to justify your assertion that you think that when “politician’s lips are moving” they are lying. You’ve now backed down from that and are simply claiming that “much of the American public” (though not the people who were actually listening to Palin’s speech) make that assertion.
Try to make clearer when you are speaking for yourself – what you believe – and when you are speaking in persona as a representative of “much of the American public”, but not actually giving us your own opinion.
So, if you do have an opinion of your own, what did you personally think of all the lies in Palin’s speech?
OCSteve: Do you think that Palin’s energizing a disillusioned base will outweigh pissing off independents, particularly in key battleground states? That question weighed on my mind during her speech.
Charley, you might think Gilchrest was a maverick, but apparently not, according to a McCain spokesman: “It makes it very clear to any moderate Republican who’s thinking about voting for Frank Kratovil that Wayne Gilchrest was never a maverick. He was always a Democrat in Republican clothing.” I guess that means they agree Lieberman is a Republican?
CharleyC: I’m hoping some reporter asks her what, specifically, she’ll do different from Dick Cheney — she is going to change Washington, right?
What makes you think she’s going to be talking to reporters, other than perhaps Fox and some locals?
OCSteve, I don’t want this to feel like a pile-on, but I’d like to hear how you get the math to work out. There are more Democrats and fewer Republicans than there were in 2004. Democrats are more energized than they were in 2004. You say that McCain is losing independents. But from what I can tell you’re saying that Palin energizes the base so much more than Bush did that it makes up for all those advantages and McCain can somehow win with just the base? It he going to get 125% turnout among them? Were there really a huge number who sat on their hands in 2004 but will come out for McCain now because of the VP?
I’m waiting for the Republican flacks start telling us that McCain is not only going to win, but also have coattails.
In the meantime, to drift further OT, the court decision (pdf) from Friday about whether, when, and with whom the US is at war, is a good read.
KCinDC: It he going to get 125% turnout among them?
With Diebold – and a good press narrative to justify the result – that’s quite, quite possible.
This Detroit Free Press panel (via Ezra) suggests that the speech didn’t help McCain with independents. Of course no conclusions should be drawn from a focus group like this, since Frank Luntz wasn’t involved.
I fully expected Democrats to have a double-digit advantage. I’ve been surprised at how close it has been – as often as not polling has been within the margin of error.
This reminded me of this from the 60 minutes Obama/Biden interview, which sort of answers that in a positive way.
“…And there are people that believe you should be much further ahead in the polls than you are. What do you say to that? And are you comfortable with the way this race is going and where you are right now?” Kroft asked.
“This is gonna be a rough, tough battle,” Obama said. “The Republicans don’t govern very well. But, they know how to campaign. And, you know, what I would expect is that it’s gonna take-mid-October before a whole lot of people start making up their minds. And there’s nothing wrong with that. This notion that somehow this should be a cakewalk and I should just walk into the election with, you know, a 10, 15 point lead, I think doesn’t give the American people enough credit. They wanna get this thing right.”
Blackburn asks the $64,000 question: “Do you think that Palin’s energizing a disillusioned base will outweigh pissing off independents, particularly in key battleground states?”
Hopefully, we’ll get some solid polling early next week.
Clearly, Republicans think she will appeal to working-class voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, where Obama’s “bitter” comments sting most.
Her “drill, baby, drill” plans will probably appeal to more voters than Dems realize — unlike wind and solar power, it’s something people understand.
All I know is if I ever hit the lottery and get to take my dream cruise in Alaska, I won’t recognize the place after Palin gets done with it.
KC: Are you being sarcastic? Luntz may be a righty but I think he’s pretty good with those focus groups.
Looking at the front page of the Politico right now, it’s all positive for McCain/Palin, including “media swoon over palin’s” speech; “media should apologize” to palin; “Clinton aides: Palin treatment sexist”; “Palin may help other nominees”; “Palin…puts dems on notice”.
I’m waiting for the Republican flacks start telling us that McCain is not only going to win, but also have coattails.
your wait is over
Yes, Bedtime, I was being sarcastic. I think it’s ridiculous when the media treats a focus group run by Luntz as some sort of neutral, scientific measure of public opinion.
you’re right that we conservatives (me) just don’t understand the world of, nor do we respect, a “community organizer”. At least I know I don’t understand that world because I know I haven’t lived in it, because I (most of us) deliberately rejected it back when I was 13 years old
The message I get here is that Obama, and American liberals generally, are not like you, you don’t understand them, you don’t care to understand them, and you don’t like them.
Next step, if you care to take it, might be to explain why. What’s important to you, why you don’t see that reflected in the liberal point of view, etc.
Or you could just stop by now and then to drop another turd in the punchbowl. Or, you could just move along and leave some bandwidth for someone who’s actually interested in dialog.
Your choice. We’re liberal, we’re into choices.
If you’d like to see how the game is played, check out some posts by folks like bc, or OCSteve, or Slartibartfast, or Sebastian.
We all enjoy talking with folks who bring something constructive to the table.
Thanks –
bc: You’re right about special needs, and I updated accordingly. I did check it — I examined the budgetary statements. I did not, stupidly, examine the general breakdown of education funding to see whether the categories had changed. That was dumb, and I regret it.
I find it funny that our newfound troll is trying to liberate us from hate, since Palin’s speech last night was (on reflection) one of the most hate-filled I think I’ve heard in mainstream American politics in some time.
[Scarily effective, though.]
But beware of the dark side. Anger…fear…aggression. The dark side of Politics are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did the GOP.
Linkmeister: guess I was the only one who watched this and was reminded of the Pat Buchanan “culture war” speech in 1992, huh?
No, you weren’t.
It’s a measure of how far to the right the national media-political framework has been pushed since then that Hilzoy characterizes the speech as “well written and well delivered” rather than as yet another seething screed of right-wing resentment.
I’m bemused by the direction they’re taking their party and convention. They’re offering nothing but “drill now” to all the people out there who are hurting. Unless McCain’s entire speech is detailed, convincing promises to those voters (which it might be)…
I’m waiting for the Republican flacks start telling us that McCain is not only going to win, but also have coattails.
your wait is over
So the next step is to tell us that they will win a mandate for reform.
“And, you know, what I would expect is that it’s gonna take-mid-October before a whole lot of people start making up their minds. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I should just walk into the election with, you know, a 10, 15 point lead, I think doesn’t give the American people enough credit. They wanna get this thing right.”
That’s well-done spinning and it’s what Obama should say to flatter the people who are still undecided, but I doubt that very many of the people who wait until mid-October before deciding are doing this because they’re extremely careful thinkers who want to get this right.
OCSteve: the pick was a political masterstroke and Obama is in serious trouble.
Remind us to shake.
I’d just like to remind Nell, since she seems in danger of forgetting, that the Republicans are the Party Of Ideas, whilst the Democrats are the Party Of No. Charles Bird said so.
[Scarily effective, though.]
I’m not so sure. The Rebups might be fired up, but the polling break-outs in the last 3 days (including this from EMILY’s list) show that the McCain-Palin ticket is losing the “experience” battle and alienating independent and uncomitted democratic voters (look at Obama’s spike in Gallup, for instance).
Also check out the comments from a Detroit Free Press panel. The independents are NOT impressed.
Jes: So when you said “of course she lied (she’s a politician and her lips were moving)” you meant “much of the American public assumed that she lied because she’s politician” – but you didn’t include “98% of the people who heard the speech” in “much of the American public” – since you asserted then that this “98%” would never know she lied?
To clarify – the 98% will never pay much attention to those pointing out the lies. If we’re playing gottcha, then yeah 98% is probably way too high as well. It’s a number I pulled out of my butt, not based on any poll I commissioned before breakfast.
So, if you do have an opinion of your own, what did you personally think of all the lies in Palin’s speech?
I expected them and thought that they were very well delivered. And not everything hilzoy noted are lies:
Sarah Palin might have changed her mind on this one recently. However, a comment here notes that Palin actually slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62%.
I think that is called a promise. And I think it’s pretty obvious that her perspective may have changed on the issue. If she fails to deliver then you can call it a broken promise I guess… It is not a lie.
But to your and hilzoy’s larger point: She lied in her speech, yes. I don’t expect that factoid to have much impact on how it is perceived.
Blackburn: Do you think that Palin’s energizing a disillusioned base will outweigh pissing off independents, particularly in key battleground states? That question weighed on my mind during her speech.
Strictly my opinion, but I don’t think he will lose as many Independents by this pick (I think he already lost most of the ones he’ll lose by changing his positions) as he will gain back in the base.
KCinDC: I can’t really account for turnout at this point, except that I now think that R turnout will be higher than it would have been. Are you going to get all those newly registered Dems to the polls? Could be. In mid August McCain had about 88% of his base. We’ll see next week but I’m guessing that goes to 95% plus. There were about 30% truly undecided voters in mid-August. Is he going to lose all of those? I doubt it.
CC: whether OCS thinks Gilchrest’s endorsement will move any voters in the Maryland 1
I do. I think that Gilchrest still has a lot of respect here. Enough to matter? Who knows… It’s a red district in a sea of blue. But given other factors it could help push him over the finish line.
To clarify – the 98% will never pay much attention to those pointing out the lies. If we’re playing gottcha, then yeah 98% is probably way too high as well. It’s a number I pulled out of my butt, not based on any poll I commissioned before breakfast.
No kidding? Republican guts and butts, always so reliable. At least to other Republicans.
So, if you’re standing by your view that all politicians lie when their lips are moving, I repeat my challenge: fact-check Obama’s acceptance speech (or Biden’s: I’m not fussy) and show us where they were lying.
And I think it’s pretty obvious that her perspective may have changed on the issue.
It would be nice to think that she’s now filled with concern for other parent’s special needs children – after they’re born, that is, since we all know pro-lifer concern for fetuses begins at conception and ends at birth, and never extends to their mothers – and her offer to be their “friend in the White House” wasn’t a pro-life dogwhistle. Which, you know, I rather think it probably was.
Especially as, if you remember, she didn’t write the speech: if you recall, the speech was written for whichever VP candidate McCain ended up picking who accepted, and got “made more feminine” once Palin had accepted.
She lied in her speech, yes. I don’t expect that factoid to have much impact on how it is perceived.
You’re right. Everyone except Bush’s 28%ers expected McSame’s speechwriters to write lies: and we already know that Palin lies routinely, stupidly, expecting that she won’t be found out by anyone with the status to call her on it. Of course, now her field of action isn’t Town Council meetings but the national/global stage, she might find it a tad harder to get people to shut up just because she doesn’t like what they’re saying to her. Even George W. Bush only managed this with the mainstream media and his loyal Republicans…
I think that is called a promise. And I think it’s pretty obvious that her perspective may have changed on the issue
For those that didn’t read my above comment, it’s no lie, which Hilzoy has (as is her candid nature) corrected. She INCREASED funding by a huge amount.
Interestingly, this particular error is perpetuated across the internet (see Yglesias) which is either a testament to the efficiency of the net or to our desire to believe what we want to believe or both.
There is also a baseless argument she slashed funding for pregnant teens. Also not true.
And I don’t buy into the langauge of “lies.” Distortions, yes, but that is politics. It goes both ways. Frex: the comment on McCain wasn’t so much that he doesn’t flip flop, but that if he did he’d flip flop the same in Scranton as he would in S.F. Let’s face it, Obama was pandering (don’t they all) and he got caught on tape.
Obama’s legislative record is still mighty thin. Wasn’t that the Nunn-Lugar program before? Didn’t Obama just take over and improve? I could be wrong there. And the ethics thing, how much was Feingold and how much was Obama? Not sure if co-sponsoring alone equals “authoring,” so maybe a little wiggle room there.
The energy “lie” and the tax “lie” simply aren’t outright lies. Sure there’s more to the story, but what speaker is going to give the whole story in a convention speech?
The most notable thing to me is the focus on what she said and how she said it (and Trig getting passed around for a photo op) rather than on her qualifications or other topics de jure that were previously making the rounds.
Point Palin for that.
God, I wish I had as much time as yesterday to engage with all of you. Love this site.
But just want to give props to OCS for that last comment. Well reasoned.
I still think that the Republicans made a big mistake with this culture war onslaught. Last night looked like 1992 except 16 years older. It didn’t win then, and it didn’t age well.
And even though there’s no evidence for this at all, I just would like to give a shout out to von one more time:
Eagleton Eagleton Eagleton
Although some might regret the execution of Socrates, there is one thing in the indictment against him that has a great appeal, especially today*.
Socrates was accused of teaching his disciples the means (=rhetorics) to make the weak (or untruthful, mendacious) argument look stronger than the strong (or truthful) one.
One can only dream of an enforced law that would punish politicians the harder, the better they hide their lies behind skilled oratory (and the stronger the lies are themselves) ;->
Attacking people for things oneself made up (like simply inventing lies the opponent allegedly has spoken and damning him for said lies) should be exempted from the 8th amendement >:(
*the other two points on the other hand are right out of the rightwingnut playbook: belief in science and adherence to no or the wrong religion.
I recommend reading at least the first few paragraphs
Aoplogy of Socrates (Plato)
Last night looked like 1992 except 16 years older. It didn’t win then, and it didn’t age well.
in some ways, it look exactly like 1964
My last comment in this thread – To be frank, after watching the last week of liberal hatred spewed by liberal bloggers (fundraisers of the Democrat party) and liberal “reporters” (contributors to the Democrat party) toward a conservative woman who challenges liberal dogma, I thought I’d try to cut through the fog with some comments. Rather than simply contribute some stuff tagged as “facts” and accuse unbelievers as liars, I’m noting that to me it looks like the last week in America has been obscured in a “fog of hatred”. I think you all know what the source of the hatred is. It’s the belief by somebody that they can make political progress by righteously shouting down and belittling the unbelievers. When you feed on those slurs and rumors, and repeat them on your blogs, or repeat them on the “news”, you’re just proving your utility as a useful idiot.
Dfp12, I will give your attempts to enlighten us about hatred as well as your psychonanalysis of all liberals the attention they deserve.
KC: Yes, Bedtime, I was being sarcastic. I think it’s ridiculous when the media treats a focus group run by Luntz as some sort of neutral, scientific measure of public opinion.
I agree with that. But as long as you know where he’s coming from, I think you can glean bits of what the so-called regular person is thinking.
Luntz is strongest when he sticks to his “power of words” riffs.
Peter Hart, on the left, does a good job of engaging focus groups.
—
Nell: “It’s a measure of how far to the right the national media-political framework has been pushed since then that Hilzoy characterizes the speech as ‘well written and well delivered’ rather than as yet another seething screed of right-wing resentment.”
Agreed: I was willing to give Palin the “well delivered” (although I found her sarcasm eventually went over the top) but not the “well written.”
Hilzoy, could you please tell dfp21 that he (or she?) is talking to a mirror (and just in case also explain how such a device works)?
[drat! the sarcasm ate another hole into the carpet]
KCinDC: Dfp12, I will give your attempts to enlighten us about hatred as well as your psychonanalysis of all liberals the attention they deserve.
Now that was well delivered and well written…
I think I pay way more attention to bc than dfp12. He’s managed to change my mind once or twice.
And I think he respects facts. No quotation marks.
My last comment in this thread
OK. Nice meeting you.
Rather than simply contribute some stuff tagged as “facts”
God forbid.
and accuse unbelievers as liars, I’m noting that to me it looks like the last week in America has been obscured in a “fog of hatred”.
You’re just noticing this, what, now? Where have you been for the last 40 years?
Hey, since we’re all unburdening ourselves, here’s my point of view.
I think you’re a rude, sanctimonious jerk who entertains himself by going to someone else’s house and crapping on the rug.
I think you don’t have the stones to hang out and explain yourself or defend your point of view. You’re just going to drop a couple of incoherent tirades on us all and then you’ll run away like a spineless little punk.
I think you and people like you have no idea how to function in a world where everyone isn’t just like you, and you’ll drive this country off a cliff before you’ll get your heads out of your *sses and learn to deal.
That was my two cents. Are we cool now?
I think you all know what the source of the hatred is. It’s the belief by somebody that they can make political progress by righteously shouting down and belittling the unbelievers.
Whatever. You stay on your side of the road and I’ll stay on mine, and we’ll both be a lot happier.
And it’s “Democratic” party, mf’er.
Thanks –
Dfp12 fills a much-needed gap in the ObWi commentariat.
I think I pay way more attention to bc than dfp12
There is no comparison between dfp12 and bc.
It ain’t about agreeing about everything. That ain’t gonna happen.
It’s about dealing with each other with respect and honesty so we can all try to understand each other, or at least get along.
bc has hung in and paid his dues. He’s damned sure earned my respect.
Thanks –
dfp12 is effective in catching the Deer Fly that circles your head & bites, so you can relax and enjoy the outdoors.
Well, actually, I do hate.
I hate stupidity. I hate willful denial of reality. I hate lazy idiots who throw aspersions and won’t lift a finger to change my mind. It gives me the impression they themselves think their arguments aren’t worth supporting.
KCinDC (@12:43): What… the idiot gap?
Ridiculing Obama’s work as a community organizer in south-side Chicago while touting her experience in an Alaskan PTA? The two activities are extremely similar except for where they were done. It’s hard for me to avoid thinking that she’s very subtly tweaking racial prejuidice.
One thing that I think is important that is seldom commented on: many whites are much more comfortable with people of African ancestry who are not culturally African American (e.g. Colin Powell). Obama, raised by whites and and an Asian stepfather, and with a foreign father, is much more comfortable for them than someone who grew up in a black family. (Obama understands this- he constantly mentions his white relatives.) Palin is tweaking the inner city associations: slums! drugs! gangs!
Cleek,
How did you ever come up with that?
Anne E,
“Ridiculing Obama’s work as a community organizer in south-side Chicago while touting her experience in an Alaskan PTA?”
We do have to be fair. Obama first went after her as a mayor of a small town.
It’s not good to criticize her over a comment that Obama made.
And let’s also face the truth before going off half-cocked. Hilzoy’s first point turned out to be false. It only makes us look bad when we don’t make sure we have all the facts straight.
It’s a losing proposition for the D presidential candidate to go on defense against the R VP candidate.
Which hasn’t happened yet. The GOP campaign has made another short-term choice to a long-term problem- the need last night was for Palin to be introduced to the country. To tell a story about how she would make a good President.
They chose instead to have her define herself almost completely negatively- she is “a small-town person who attacks Obama”.
It may have been delivered well, but the points themselves weren’t anything novel. So IMO the short-term bump from a bully pulpit attack on Obama will come at far too high of a cost. In the future her highest profile speaking opportunities will either be when being questioned by journalists or in the debate against Biden, and she won’t be able to just tell her story as easily.
She is good for firing up the base, that’s very true. But I don’t think her attack-dog intro is going to produce any converts in the middle. I mean, can you imagine an independent who was unsure of her qualifications feeling any better about her having watched that speech?
Xanax, wouldn’t you say that having a gap in idiots is valuable?
I find it funny that our newfound troll is trying to liberate us from hate, since Palin’s speech last night was (on reflection) one of the most hate-filled I think I’ve heard in mainstream American politics in some time.
It’s not hate, anarch. They are ‘Defending America’ from all us who hate the flag, apple pie and puppies. We’re not real Americans and we don’t count.
Well, if you agree with that much, try to ask yourself the next time you feel contempt for someone whom you’ve never met, but you’ve only read about on a website or in the “news”, ask yourself whether that feeling you have is the result of enlightenment or manipulation.
Wow, you’re right! I’ve never met Stalin or Pol Pot, and I’ve got some really negative opinions about those fellas. Must be some kind of Orwellian groupthink- how can I hate someone without meeting them in the flesh?
Thanks for settings me straight on that.
If you want to understand how batsh1t your talking points sound to non-right-wingers, read Biden’s speech. Read Obama’s speech. Then read Palin’s speech.
After that, see if you’re still convinced that you need to be preaching to the left about running on hate. Maybe take care of that beam in your own eye first?
I repeat my challenge: fact-check Obama’s acceptance speech (or Biden’s: I’m not fussy) and show us where they were lying.
Here you go: Describing Al Quaeda as a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries is a lie, since we don’t know squat about its organizational structure and most of what the US claims to know is based on the “testimony” of a very questionable witness called Al Fadl, who had several good reasons for simply making stuff up.
TV Alert:
Obama is doing O’Reilly tonight.
According to what I just read in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Murdoch himself brokered the deal.
“brokered” being a nice way of saying “begged on his hands and knees for a truce” according to what I’ve read.
Speaking of just plain folks, Cindy McCain was wearing a $300,000 outfit (it’s mostly the earrings).
KCinDC, I’ve always loved that joke and this was the right place for it. Good one.
Conservative victimism is always an interesting phenomenon, in that it is so persuasive to so many people, yet so divorced from facts. A movement that can control all 3 branches of the federal government, most state and local governments, the national education curriculum (set by a combination of NCLB ukases and the market power of Texas schoolboards on textbooks), the entire AM radio spectrum, easily half of TV, the armed forces, most newspapers, and most businesses — and yet consider itself unfairly oppressed, is miraculous. It is also pathetic.
When I can stomach it, I read right-wing blogs & books, listen to talk radio, etc. My unquantified but certain conclusion is that winger spokespersons, from Palin to Coulter to Limbaugh (and now dfp1) spend much more of their time sneering at, belittling, and dehumanizing liberals than prominent lefties spend on that sort of thing. Yet a consistent theme is that we are bad because we sneer at them. Most liberals, in contrast,blow off the endless right-wing sneers and hatred. We point out that it’s inaccurate, but it doesn’t mostly get under our skin.
When two (groups of) people hurl insults at each other, and only one is offended, it’s because the other side is right and they both know it. Lies irritate, but the truth HURTS.
kc, I meant the “much-needed gap” line, not your intervening post about Cindy McC.
Palin’s speech was quite good: well-written, well delivered. And, as I said earlier, I think she’s a genuinely engaging person, and comes across very well.
Really? Because I found her speech to be a big, fat, unvarnished, nationally televised, sneering (literally) F-U to anyone not already on the team. I kind of hate her guts now actually, since that kind of feeling tends to be mutual. And oh yeah, she’s also a bald-faced liar.
And talk about presumptuous — who the hell does she think she is? A little humility would seem to be in order, simply as a matter of presenting herself as something other than a shrill, egomaniacal, obliviously out-of-her-league freak if nothing else.
I will be checking into rehab shortly for Palin Derangement Syndrome. But in the meantime, no; I do not see her aggressively ignorant personality winning a lot of friends and influencing people — at least not in numbers equal to those she alienates.
Sarah Palin and her speech are an insult to civic decency and American optimism and anyone of at least fair to middling intelligence. So I hope we only get more of the same from this transparency between now and November because, come what may, no one can claim that they don’t know exactly what they’d get with her.
John McCain, what a disgrace.
Conservative victimism is always an interesting phenomenon,
i think it’s utter bullsh!t: ritualized scapegoating from people who pretend they could be the rugged individualist cowboy they’ve always dreamed of if only the libruls weren’t keeping them down.
“From that point, I figured that too many on the right where too disillusioned with McCain and would just sit out this election. I thought that it was the base that was going to cost him the election in the end.”
To repeat:
If every single registered Republican is roused to fanaticism, and every single one goes to the pulls, but so do most Democrats, and most indepdents go for the Democrat, because they’re pissed off, the Democrat wins: so how does your belief make sense?
Please show your work, using numbers, not your gut.
For bonus points, explain why I or anyone who isn’t a diehard Republican should give a flying fig for what the loony “base” of Republicans thinks, including what they think is a “body blow,” given their eagerness to swallow flattering lies. Thanks!
novakant,
Describing Al Quaeda as a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries is a lie, since we don’t know squat about its organizational structure…
Do we have to know every detail about AQ’s organizational structure to know that they’re operating in, say, Afghanistan?
Of course not.
If this is the best you can come up with as a lie- a statement based on the best knowledge available, and you can’t even refute it, merely suggest that it lacks perfect knowledge- well, I guess we can take that as a concession that Obama didn’t lie, even if you can’t bring yourself to admit it.
From that point, I figured that too many on the right where too disillusioned with McCain and would just sit out this election. I thought that it was the base that was going to cost him the election in the end.
I think that this is why McCain has such a hill to climb, and why his veep selection was so likely to be problematic: he needed to both placate the base and make a claim on the middle. There are so many factors making it hard to run as a Repub this cycle, he needs more than just his reputation as a maverick to overcome Obama’s attempts to tie him to the current administration.
So, he needed someone satisfactory to the base that wouldn’t alienate the middle. And such a creature doesn’t really exist. They also needed to be young, but experienced enough to step in as President- again, it’s not at all clear that she’s passed this test yet. Will the middle accept adding years as a small-town mayor as ‘experience’ useful to being President?
For the moment, the base is excited, and are making much noise. But that’s really only half of the equation. Maybe Palin can convince the middle that she’s 1)competent and 2)ideologically acceptable- but that hasn’t happened yet. She’s going to have to explain a lot of positions and comments that aren’t moderate.
Pollster.com’s national map still looks pretty good for Obama- can she appeal to the economic woes of the middle class in Ohio, or the suburban voters in Colorado? The swing voters of Northern Virginia?
“It’s a measure of how far to the right the national media-political framework has been pushed since then that Hilzoy characterizes the speech as “well written and well delivered” rather than as yet another seething screed of right-wing resentment.”
Again, where’s the dichotomy? It was a well-written, well-delivered seething screed of right-wing resentment. I don’t get where the “rather” comes from: that it was hateful doesn’t mean it was badly written or badly delivered. Claiming otherwise is just incorrect.
Stuff doesn’t become badly written or badly delivered because we don’t like it.
It really doesn’t help one’s analysis to confuse these things. Hitler gave speeches that were tremendously effective with Germans. Goebbels gave very well-constructed, persuasive, speeches. Saying these things doesn’t mean I agree with them.
And especially the latter was able to fine-tune his speeches to the specific audience at hand. He could both screech and speak softly without effort. The modern GOP seems to lose the latter capability more and more (for lack of need, I fear). Iirc Goebbels thought about emigrating to the US before he became Hitler’s man. That could have been interesting 😉
Well, that was an interesting week. After years of being told to get a spine, we overreached and made this dangerous fundamentalist a sympathetic figure, setting her up perfectly to deliver that hate aria.
Now we’re back to our normal selves and once again the Democrats are going to bring a peer-reviewed study on handgun fatalities to a gun fight.
Do you seriously not realize that “community organizer” means “black troublemaker?” Get a dog. The bleeding ears’ll tip you off to these sorts of things.
Do you seriously not realize that “community organizer” means “black troublemaker?”
more than that, it means “radical”, and “radical instigator”.
you know, like a certain Mr. Ayers.
Do we have to know every detail about AQ’s organizational structure to know that they’re operating in, say, Afghanistan?
Of course not.
What are you talking about? Nobody is denying that. But Obama made a claim about a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries. He has no way of knowing that. There is no expert on the issue who would ever make such a claim. Yet he presents it as if it were an indisputable fact and that’s called lying.
Well, many will hear “communist” organizer or think that organized in Chicago can only mean the mob.
The most notable thing to me is the focus on what she said and how she said it (and Trig getting passed around for a photo op)
And here I thought that decent people left politicians’ children out of the campaign.
here is no expert on the issue who would ever make such a claim.
Council On Foreign Relations 4/08:
Al-Qaeda has autonomous underground cells in some 100 countries, including the United States, officials say.
Yeah, but they’re using it to evoke Sharpton. When they roll out the Ayers stuff they’ll go right for “terrorist.” Republican barnburners are always good case studies in KISSism.
There’s a side benefit to using the word “community” that I won’t go into so as not to out myself as just the sort of knee-jerk contrarian tool they’re trying to peel off.
The insult did provide a profit opportunity for some.
“Do you seriously not realize that ‘community organizer’ means ‘black troublemaker?'”
At least it’s not sexist.
“KCinDC, I’ve always loved that joke and this was the right place for it. Good one.”
It’s a line from a Dorothy Parker review, not a joke.
How many countries was Al Qaeda in before Bush started acting as their PR agent and motivated every gang of vaguely Muslim malcontents to call themselves an Al Qaeda affiliate?
“Sarah Palin and her speech are an insult to civic decency and American optimism and anyone of at least fair to middling intelligence.”
Margarita: I’m guessing you didn’t buy her claim that Obama wants to “forfeit Iraq.”
russell and gwangung: Thanks and back at ya. I’ve had my share of opinion changes here. Although russell is getting a bit testy lately. 😉 Even that testiness has caused me to reevaluate. That being said, it’s not hard to look better by comparison to that certain conservative. And, no, that’s not what I meant by needing more conservative voices here in my comments in a previous thread.
However, I do note that with all the legitimate points being made on the left, there are points that are simply bunk. With those in the mix, IMHO there is a much larger emotional reaction to Palin from the left than I thought there would be. Objectivity is not the watchword (not that I would expect that, but at least some semblance).
Here’s my short take on Palin’s speech: On a global level, it was well delivered and apparently exactly what was intended. As the teleprompter apparently failed, she showed great composure. She did her role very well as attack dog (pit bull with lipstick!!). In this sense, she crushed it.
Looking at the particulars, I liked some of the jabs (what was Obama thinking with the Greek columns!) and not others. O.k., I’ll admit I liked all of the jabs at some level, but I thought an opportunity was lost. There weren’t any “lies” of any significance. Just typical distortions. I thought the community organizer stuff was well written and was set up by Obama himself.
I would have written a similar speech but at the same time shown a bit more respect and certainly more substance (but not a lot; it’s not the purpose of the speech). There is a legitimate argument on drilling in ANWR SLIGHTLY more intellectual than “Drill, drill, drill!” In short, I think the powers that be thought a building a bridge to moderates was a bridge to nowhere during the convention where I would have earmarked some of the speech to do exactly that. There was a “somewhere” there. All it would have taken is one small true policy discussion on any one of a number of topics to show her ability to reason on a policy level. In fact, she could have used the “bridge to somewhere” quite effectively as a theme . . .
But maybe the plan is for the “kinder, gentler, more sophisticated” Palin to come out later, maybe in the debates. But that doesn’t take away from a tremendously effective speech. Show me where there is any discussion of her qualifications in the media now. I didn’t expect her to change anyone’s mind here and it comes as no surprise that that didn’t happen.
The amount of time spent on a) illegitimate arguments about Palin; b) silly things like the pot shot at community organizers etc. makes me think there is a bit of hysteria on the left, which reinforces my take that the speech was quite good from a strategy standpoint. But then again, I understand why it annoyed the hell out of a lot here. I’m not one to go crazy with all the red meat that was thrown out there even if I did find it entertaining rather than annoying.
I hadn’t heard that those preparing the TelePrompTer text had specifically shifted her away from the Bush pronunciation of “nuclear”.
There was nothing wrong with the TelePromTer. Care to revisit any part of your assessment, bc? Or at least join me in wondering why the pretense that it failed? Did “they” not think she did well enough as it was?
Usually Newsweek is pretty good, but this seems like a hit piece to me.
Fact Checking Obama
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.
http://www.newsweek.com
Newsweek’s Howard Fineman set forth an interesting observation late last night on MSNBC — that, being so used to having the “phenom” candidate, the Obama campaign was taken aback by the media/public reaction to Palin and that it took them a few days to re-gain their footing.
—
Given the postive reviews Palin is receiving, is it naive to think that the bar should be raised in her debate with Biden?
Also, does anyone think the GOP is making headway exploiting the absence of executive experience on the Democratic ticket? If you put any merit on that — or even if you think it’s working as a strategy — I guess Tim Kaine would have been a worthy choice; but then, we’d hear about his lack of experience.
makes me think there is a bit of hysteria on the left, which reinforces my take that the speech was quite good from a strategy standpoint.
So name one thing she will do as vice president. Did she even address that in her speech? Nope, instead we see what the gop has arrived at – if it pisses off liberals it is good. That’s worked so well for the last 8 years.
The amount of time spent on a) illegitimate arguments about Palin; b) silly things like the pot shot at community organizers etc. makes me think there is a bit of hysteria on the left, which reinforces my take that the speech was quite good from a strategy standpoint.
bc, this comment makes no sense to me at all. I don’t think it is wrong; I just don’t know what it means. Even if there was hysteria amongst a random group of left-leaning blog commenters on the internet, how could that possibly affect anything that happens in the real world? I mean, a left-leaning group of blog commenters were not going to vote for McCain no matter how good Palin turned out to be, so it is not like hysteria costs or gained any votes for McCain. Most of us don’t live in places where our votes actually matter, so the most that most of us can do is donate or maybe volunteer at a call center. But making us hysterical increases the probability that we will do those things! So how can making left leaning blog commenters hysterical be good from a strategy standpoint?
Do you understand why I can’t make sense of this argument? It seems like your metric for good strategy is “it must be good if it pisses off leftists” which doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that you’d believe in.
Palin Potpourri for a Conventional Thursday
Yeah, I know, obsessive a bit. But … Factchecking Palinand The Reality-Based Community: Palin v. Reality- Palin’s Big Speech and the, um, misrepresentations therein. Putting Words in Palin’s Mouth -…
Care to revisit any part of your assessment, bc?
No, that’s why I said “apparently.” there are others that said there were problems. Even without any problems it was well-delivered which is what I expected and predicted.
However, if this were simply made up and put out there by “Rove,” i would wonder why. It certainly wasn’t necessary.
Oh, so I’m hysterical now? SHUT YOUR FAT FACE YOU SON OF A
Seriously though, gotta dock you points for b). That’s a racist dogwhistle so overt it might as well be a Ricola horn.
But boy, you nailed it with a). I’ve been sitting here all week utterly slack-jawed in amazement at the way liberals have been forging a weapon to be used against Obama.
I realize this is backhanded, and I apologize for that, but I can’t believe how much sense right-wingers have been making on left-leaning comment threads lately.
bc: “But maybe the plan is for the ‘kinder, gentler, more sophisticated’ Palin to come out later, maybe in the debates.”
I would think that would mark her as inconsistent, but then if the media remains impresssed, it might say she’s showing “depth.”
P.S. That “Greek columns” line didn’t have a whit of substance to it but sure did sting.
Newsweek’s Howard Fineman set forth an interesting observation late last night on MSNBC — that, being so used to having the “phenom” candidate, the Obama campaign was taken aback by the media/public reaction to Palin and that it took them a few days to re-gain their footing.
This seems a little bit ridiculous. The only way it makes sense to me is if you had a specific model of the Obama campaign’s behavior that predicted strong responses after the Palin announcement while at the same time documenting many fewer strong responses than your model predicted. In other words, you have to demonstrate both those things, and really, to be convincing, you’d have to demonstrate that your model did a good job of predicting the Obama campaign’s behavior during the rest of the campaign. Both of those tasks are difficult and I think they’re both well beyond the limited capabilities of Howard Fineman, or indeed, most people who talk on TV for a living.
turb,
jinx! you owe me a coke
Jes: I repeat my challenge: fact-check Obama’s acceptance speech (or Biden’s: I’m not fussy) and show us where they were lying.
Yeah – that would be a useful exercise. Look – maybe things are different on your side of the pond. But I’m going to stand by the statement that it is not at all uncommon, at least in American politics, for politicians to exaggerate, obfuscate, and even lie in speeches. And the public is used to it, and doesn’t normally hold a politician to account for it at the polls.
We’re looking for the same outcome here… What’s with the nit-picking? I just don’t believe that things are going as well as many here apparently do. You don’t have to believe my gut (or my butt), it’s just my opinion.
OK – I’ll play for a minute.
Biden: Because Barack made that choice, 150,000 more children and parents have health care in Illinois. He fought to make that happen.
The Health Care Justice Act came out of a coalition of nonprofits, labor, and healthcare advocates. Obama sponsored it. It narrowly passed, after Obama amended it to be more to the liking of the insurance industry. Might be an example of wrangling competing interests – hardly proof he was primarily responsible for it. All the act actually did was “encourage” the General Assembly to get something done by July 2007. It created a task force in 2004 that submitted a report in Jan 2007 which again just “calls for expanding health care coverage in Illinois” and makes recommendations. No mandate passed into law. It’s a report that took 29 people almost 3 years to write. That’s it. No there there.
So where does the number 150,000 come from? Besides Obama’s fact check site – I don’t know. All I find is this (repeated several places):
He sponsored the legislation expanding Kid Care and Family Care that added 20,000 children to the state health insurance program.
20,000 more kids covered is great – but it’s not “150,000 more children and parents”. So – lie or exaggeration? It is not verifiable that Obama is responsible for 150,000 more children and parents having health care in Illinois. So that’s a “lie” right?
Biden: And because Barack made that choice, working families in Illinois pay less taxes, and more people have moved from welfare to the dignity of work.
In 2000 Obama was a minor cosponsor of a bill that gave a tax credit to low income workers. Welfare to work: partly due to Clinton Welfare Act, Obama one of five state senators cosponsoring state bill signed by Republican Governor. Lie or exaggeration?
Those are like the first two claims in Biden’s speech once you get past the opening fluff. I guess we could play this all day. I don’t think those are lies. I think they are exaggerations typical of any political speech I have heard my entire life.
Barack Obama will put more cops on the streets
Whoa! No factual verification for that – that’s a lie! (No – it’s promise.)
Back to Palin and this post:
“you will have a friend and advocate in the White House” – promise, not a lie.
“you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man” – context was “guns and religion”. She didn’t say he never changed his position; just that he didn’t have different things to say to voters in different parts of the country.
“Bridge to Nowhere” – lie, IMO.
“authored two memoirs” – wiggle room on “authored”.
“opponent is against producing it” – opponent is certainly against new drilling.
“supports plans to raise income taxes” – I didn’t think this was in dispute.
So what’s the takeaway here? IMO – it takes more experience in Washington to be a smooth liar (exaggerator).
Al-Qaeda has autonomous underground cells in some 100 countries, including the United States, officials say.
Well, maybe I should have said “independent experts without vested interests”. The CFR is just regurgitating politically convenient hearsay, as in “officials say”.
They present no proof apart from:
Law enforcement has broken up al-Qaeda cells in the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Albania, Uganda, and elsewhere.
That’s eight countries and what counts as an “al-Qaeda cell” is hotly disputed, since of course every group is eager to claim that they are al-Qaeda to increase their importance.
On the size of Al-Qaeda they say:
How big is al-Qaeda?
It’s impossible to say precisely, because al-Qaeda is decentralized. Estimates range from several hundred to several thousand members.
Make of that what you want, but the proof for Obama’s claim is about as solid as the proof for WMD was.
Fledermaus, maybe we can convince them we’d be really pissed off if they enacted universal health care.
What are you talking about? Nobody is denying that. But Obama made a claim about a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries. He has no way of knowing that. There is no expert on the issue who would ever make such a claim. Yet he presents it as if it were an indisputable fact and that’s called lying.
So he’s lying because your gut feeling is that no experts believe what he said. Got any, you know, *experts* to actually back up your claim, or are you satisfied with using your hypothetical experts? I mean, care to present these so-called indisputable facts of yours?
Oh, and he’s also lying because “he has no way of knowing that”, like information about where AQ is active is unknowable in some sense. Yet, it’s easy to see many countries where AQ is active based on publicly-available information… which you seem to simultaneously admit (since it’s undeniable) and then deny. How many countries do you (oh, sorry, your ‘experts’) think AQ is active in?
[btw, here’s George Tenet putting the number of countries AQ was active in at “more than 60” in 2002. Guess he’s a big ole liar too, according to your fictional experts.]
So name one thing she will do as vice president. Did she even address that in her speech?
Well, she did say that she would be an ‘advocate’ for special-needs children and their families as VP. You can count that as something she will ‘do’ — or not.
But somebody ought to ask her: advocate to whom? It’s not like Democrats need browbeating to support programs for special-needs kids. Not as much as Republicans, anyway.
–TP
Turb: I’d hate to think that Fineman might be able to offer any insight through old-fashioned reporting and experience.
So how can making left leaning blog commenters hysterical be good from a strategy standpoint?
I see where you’re coming from. No, I meant it in a “blood in the water” sort of way. If it were simply “nice try you little conservative poseur” that would be one thing. I sense (just my opinion) that the race just got a lot more interesting.
That’s a racist dogwhistle so overt it might as well be a Ricola horn.
Interesting. I didn’t take it that way. I thought it was just a nice counter to Obama’s “Mayor of Wassilly” comment. but then I grew up in the sticks of Alaska, not Chicago. We had community organizers of sorts, like those starting the youth soccer league, getting people together to improve parks, that sort of thing, but obviously not the same issues as inner-city Chicago. But, then, since the dig was simply aimed at responsibilities, can’t it still be a valid point? Does it HAVE to be racist?
*Pondering and reassessing*
If McCain changed his positions for political advantage, which I think it’s clear that he has, on a huge range of topics, then he’s telling people what they want to hear, which is what she’s accusing Obama of. That’s not being “the same man”.
Objectivity is not the watchword (not that I would expect that, but at least some semblance).
We’re not referees, we’re players. A fair-minded discussion of how elegantly she just high-sticked us is really a lot to ask.
Well, maybe I should have said “independent experts without vested interests”. The CFR is just regurgitating politically convenient hearsay, as in “officials say”.
Ah, yes, any experts that disagree with your fictional experts have a vested interest. Since they’re in the national security field. And anyone outside of the national security field wouldn’t be an expert? And if the world-renown expert on AQ with the Nobel in Evil-Related Activities said so, you’d ask to see his list. And if you got it, you’d ask why X, Y, and Z were included. And if he told you you’d ask for citations for the facts that led to inclusion. If given those, you’d attack the journalists, media outlets, or experts cited. Rinse and repeat.
Or, you could save everyone a lot of trouble and admit that 1)you’ve got no experts with a lower number and 2)you are completely unwilling to admit that you were making stuff up.
In return, I will admit that it is impossible to prove anything, as sources can always be doubted.
Make of that what you want, but the proof for Obama’s claim is about as solid as the proof for WMD was.
So, your claim is that it’s possible that there is no Al Qaeda whatsoever! Remarkable. I must speak to your experts about that, too.
Sure, there’s some variation. Apparently, Obama’s statement falls within the variation- according to experts. Like many complex things, there won’t be a single number here, any more than there’d be a single number for ‘members of the mafia’ or ‘diehard Bengals’ fans’. That certainly doesn’t make Obama a liar, it just makes him *correct*.
That’s not being “the same man”.
Depends on the definition: “consistent opportunist”, i.e. always saying what he thinks will help him, would fit the bill.
That would of course not be a compliment.
Same as somebody who will never ever tell the truth can be considered ‘reliable’ until that person is caught to speak the truth occasionally.
OC,
In 2000 Obama was a minor cosponsor of a bill that gave a tax credit to low income workers. Welfare to work: partly due to Clinton Welfare Act, Obama one of five state senators cosponsoring state bill signed by Republican Governor. Lie or exaggeration?
First, I’ve no idea what a ‘minor cosponsor’ is. Does ‘minor’ serve any actual function here?
Second, by this standard no one can ever claim credit for any bill. Executives only sign the bills. Legislators will always need many votes from others in order to pass the bill.
I think we all understand that Obama did not singlehandedly create Illinois law. Just as we understand that when McCain says he’ll drill on the outer continental shelf, that doesn’t mean he’ll do it personally. When there’s a clear meaning to a text that doesn’t make it a lie, I think you would do well to assume that meaning absent any reason to think otherwise.
Might be an example of wrangling competing interests – hardly proof he was primarily responsible for it.
You’ve turned Biden’s “because he made that choice” into a claim for primary responsibility (where I can at best read it as a claim for being necessary, not sufficient), and then questioned the truth value of your exaggerated reading.
In short, I think the powers that be thought a building a bridge to moderates was a bridge to nowhere
I think that’s about right.
I tuned in Palin’s speech with the best approximation of an open mind that I could muster. There are things in her gubernatorial resume that I find interesting, I was curious to see what she had to say for herself.
In a nutshell, her speech was all about firing up the base by trotting out the usual “liberals bad” talking points.
That’s all well and good but in addition to firing up the conservative base, she’s fired me up as well. I will do whatever I can to make sure she doesn’t come within 100 miles of the White House.
Obama will be getting my money and my time between now and November. He wasn’t before, because I wasn’t really that enthusiastic about him on all the issues. Specifically, he kind of turned me off with the FISA vote. But I’ll be damned if I’ll put up with another four or eight years of Palin’s brand of garbage.
And yes, it shows up on both sides, but it’s basically been the heart of what Republicans have been running on for so long that IMO it’s their reason for existence at this point.
Why should I put up with that crap? The answer is no good reason, and I won’t.
I can’t count the number of times that both Obama and Biden have spoken respectfully of McCain, even while criticizing his positions. Palin’s speech was a big raised middle finger to anyone not in her tribe.
If she wants to play that way, bring it. I’m not in her tribe, and I have a middle finger, too. It’s called a checkbook.
She didn’t say he never changed his position; just that he didn’t have different things to say to voters in different parts of the country.
Look, this is sophistry.
McCain would tell you your farts smelled like roses if it would get him one step closer to the White House. He’d even let you pick the color of the roses.
And I say that with all due respect for his service to our country.
I think it’s fair to say that Obama tailors his rhetoric to the situation. He’s also backtracked on a number of positions that are, frankly, important to me.
But I think McCain’s in another league altogether.
Thanks –
Does it HAVE to be racist?
Yes, it absolutely does, but I should’ve mentioned I was using shorthand. “Racist,” in this instance, doesn’t mean “dislikes colored people,” it’s more subtle. Whoever wrote that speech wants white people (who might not have a shred of hate in ’em) to picture Obama out in front of a bunch of blacks. They might even consider it perfectly valuable work to do whatever it is a community organizer does. The point, though, is that they’ll have an image of Obama leading his people instead of the country.
The Republicans haven’t been bringing their A game lately but I still wouldn’t accuse them of wasting time on Klan outreach. There’s a black guy in the race. No need to gild that lily.
No, but I think it elitist and out of touch. The one thing that community organizers will tell you is that they have a lot of responsibilities, but not a lot of power. They have to do a lot of things, but they don’t have a lot of clout, either economic, political, social or legal, to carry them out.
Um. That’s what Alaska voters accused Palin of….
She didn’t say he never changed his position; just that he didn’t have different things to say to voters in different parts of the country.
Is that claiming that it has to be geographically-based? Because that’s no even clear about Obama’s comment- there are small towns everywhere.
Make of that what you want, but the proof for Obama’s claim is about as solid as the proof for WMD was.
So Obama used an unverifiable number, a high estimate that strengthened his side of the argument. It seems strange that Republicans would be accusing Obama of overestimating the threat of Islamic terrorism, but if you want to go there…
Compare with this bit of Giuliani’s speech:
And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that when they gave up on Iraq they were giving up on America. The Democratic leader in the Senate said so: “America has lost.”
Well, if America lost, who won? Al Qaida? Bin Laden?
So many lies in so few words. He’s characterizing the Iraq war as a fight against bin Laden, he’s calling those who questioned the effectiveness of a surge traitors and he’s presenting Harry Reid’s opinions on Iraq as identical to Obama’s.
I maintain that this is different in kind from the example that you offered and that holds true for much of what I’ve heard so far.
“Looking at the particulars, I liked some of the jabs (what was Obama thinking with the Greek columns!)”
The same thing George W. Bush was?
But it’s OKIYAR. No hypocrisy here.
I see where you’re coming from. No, I meant it in a “blood in the water” sort of way. If it were simply “nice try you little conservative poseur” that would be one thing. I sense (just my opinion) that the race just got a lot more interesting.
Thanks for explaining bc; I have a better idea of where you’re coming from now.
I dunno…if I saw some evidence that Obama and Biden or their campaign staff or their surrogates on TV were acting irrationally because of Palin, I’d agree with you that picking her was a good strategy. But I haven’t really seen any indication of that. He’s been very good at running an organization that stays cool under pressure and doesn’t expose its inner workings much at all.
Obama needs his base hungry because that’s what keeps them donating and volunteering; if his supporters reaction to Palin’s speech was ‘yawn…nice try poser’ that doesn’t help him nearly so much. By condescending to us and insulting us and implying that we’re not real Americans, Palin is helping Obama. You won’t see it, but there will be clips of her doing all those things being sent out over a million local Obama supporter discussion email lists and it will harden people’s resolve. In contrast, if she had painted herself as a nice little centrist, eager to bridge the partisan divide, it would have been harder for Obama supporters to get motivated; that would have deflated them.
The race may very well have gotten more interesting, but in a sense, I think that was bound to happen no matter what. I mean, if McCain had picked Romney or Huckabee, I’d guess that would definitely make the race more interesting. Multiple choice Mitt has some fascinating policy positions and I think Huckabee is a genuinely interesting guy; certainly, watching Grover Norquist’s head explode would be interesting. I see both of those picks as worse for Obama and better for McCain than Palin FWIW.
And since small towns are the same everywhere, experience in one can be seen as truly national. Big cities on the other hand are individuals, so experience in one will not necessarily help you in others.
=> Palin can claim nationwide experience while Obama is limited to one part of two US cities each (Southern Chicago and the inside of the Beltway).
Btw, I would not mind if the Son of Cain and the Plain One would do all the drilling by themselves. That would keep them from doing harm in other places, and two people without help might be unable to do too much damage even in Alaska.
I think Turbulence is spot on. Her polarizing nature is going to energize the Democratic base as well.
Did it? For the 98% of the audience who don’t obsessively follow right-wing commentators, I’d think it would be mystifying. I don’t think any of the 40 million people who watched Obama’s speech noticed any Greek columns unless they had been tipped off ahead of time to keep an eye out.
“The amount of time spent on a) illegitimate arguments about Palin; b) silly things like the pot shot at community organizers etc. makes me think there is a bit of hysteria on the left,”
Actually, I think the fact that Republicans think community organizing and community organizing is inherently mockable to be quite salient. It simply shows contempt for non-rich people, and their attempts to politically organize. Why do you consider that to be either effective, or a legitimate point? What legitimate point do you believe it makes to mock community organizing?
I think it goes to the heart of the point that most Republicans appear to have no clue how people other than themselves live, or struggle, or what it’s like to live as a poor person in an city, or what it’s like to be a minority.
Did you know, incidentally, that there were all of 36 African-American delegates at the Republican convention, out of 2,380 total?
Why do you think that is, given that the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln? Delusion? Brainwashing? Or recognition of who is actually here to help the non-rich and those who are not among the economically elite?
And may I again, with the greatest possible strength, recommend to you and everyone that you read Dreams From My Father for Obama’s own account? I’d really like to hear back from you after you’ve read it as to what you think is funny, rather than deeply moving, about what he did.
care to present these so-called indisputable facts of yours?
So it’s on me now to disprove the not further substantiated claims of people who rely on what “officials say”? That’s interesting – normally if someone makes such a strong claim as Obama has, we would expect him to be able to back it up with proof. It’s awfully hard to prove a negative, you know and relying on what government “officials say” hasn’t exactly been a great way to get to the bottom of things in the past years.
Got any, you know, “experts” to actually back up your claim, or are you satisfied with using your hypothetical experts?
How about Jason Burke, chief foreign correspondent of The Observer in London and author of no less than 3 books on radical Islam and Al Qaeda in particular:
There’s an understanding among the Western public that Al-Qaeda is a coherent, organized terrorist network with a hierarchy, a command and control structure, a degree of commission and execution of terrorist acts by a few individuals.
That simply isn’t the case.
The biggest myth is that all the various incidents that we are seeing are linked to some kind of central organization.
One of the reasons the myth is so prevalent is that it’s a very comforting one.
(…)
Unfortunately, that idea is indeed a myth and bears very little resemblance to what’s happening on the ground.
When Obama speaks of a a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries in a speech like this, he is clearly trying to perpetuate this myth for political gain, namely to appear tough in the so-called “war on terror”, and he should know better.
I would certainly be willing to discuss these matters with people who are actually interested in this matter, but it seems to me that you are less interested in the subject matter and more in backing up Obama no matter what he says.
I have no general problem with Obama and prefer him over both McCain and Clinton, but when he is regurgitating the exact same stuff we have heard for 8 years coming from “administration officials”, then I’m willing to call him on it. If only Democrats would show the same critical spirit they displayed when Bush was playing up the Iraq threat.
KCinDC: If McCain changed his positions for political advantage, which I think it’s clear that he has, on a huge range of topics, then he’s telling people what they want to hear, which is what she’s accusing Obama of. That’s not being “the same man”.
I agree that McCain has flipped flopped. The “lie”, in context:
We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment.
Not the same thing.
Carleton: “because he made that choice” [going into politics, being in the state Senate] seems to clearly imply to me that what follows would not have occurred had he not made that choice. I’ll defer to the house editor if he says I’m wrong.
But that’s kind of my whole point, and why I noted that the exercise wouldn’t be very useful. What appears to be misleading to me in their speeches will be defended by most here. And what are labeled lies here are some things I’ll defend.
OK all – I give up on the “liar” issue. It’s a side-track. I said from the start that she lied in her speech. The rest is degree and number. It just amazes at times what people will jump on to argue about for half a day.
You people are impossible to agree with most days.
😉
Sorry about the italics, I think that was me
italics off
one more try, else, please somebody help
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) isn’t exactly expert with the dog whistle:
novakent, I’m having trouble understanding what part of that sentence from Obama’s speech is inconsistent with viewing AQ as a franchise operation. To the extent that the AQ network consists of a popular brand with lots of local franchises, it seems clear that invading Iraq will not lessen the brand’s appeal to the franchises or lessen the individual franchises’ interest in conducting terrorism operations like 9/11 based on the AQ model.
I mean, if you assume that the phrase “terrorist network that operates in 80 countries” really means “centralized hierarchical organization with strong command and control” than I can totally understand your point. I just…don’t see that as the only or even primary fair reading. It is not what I thought of when I heard the speech. It might be if you could find a bunch of other statements that Obama made that indicated he was clearly confused about the nature of AQ, but it seems like you’re relying heavily on one particular interpretation of a half dozen words.
OCSteve: I said from the start that she lied in her speech. The rest is degree and number.
No, the rest is your trying to make out that all other political speeches are equally just lies. Eh.
(Novakant, I agree with you that “over 80 countries” is just plain wrong. )
“Most of us don’t live in places where our votes actually matter, so the most that most of us can do is donate or maybe volunteer at a call center.”
Nobody needs to go to a “call center”; volunteers call from home via a dial-in number; everyone can do it, as much or little as you like, at any time convenient to you, including you.
And there’s lots more you can do; please volunteer, via above links, if you want Obama to win, if you’re not signed up or aware of this.
I order all present italics to vanish into the pit they came from!
The biggest myth is that all the various incidents that we are seeing are linked to some kind of central organization.
One of the reasons the myth is so prevalent is that it’s a very comforting one.
(…)
Unfortunately, that idea is indeed a myth and bears very little resemblance to what’s happening on the ground.
When Obama speaks of a a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries in a speech like this, he is clearly trying to perpetuate this myth for political gain, namely to appear tough in the so-called “war on terror”, and he should know better.
You’re mixing up two issues here: how (or perhaps whether) al Qaeda is internally organized, and how far its geographical reach extends. I don’t see Obama saying anything about the former, and what he says is consistent with this from Burke:
So the hardcore Al-Qaeda…defined in that narrow sense, is over effectively as a really powerful force in modern Islamic militancy.
But if you’re talking about Al Qaeda as in a general phenomena, as in something far broader, something that involves groups all over the world, many of which predate bin Laden’s involvement in Islamic militancy by decades. Others that have sprung up subsequently to the end of 2001. Others that can be seen as individuals who are attracted by bin Laden’s ideas and bin Laden’s tactics.
If you’re looking at Al Qaeda in that sense…then it’s immeasurably strengthened, and has been by the war on terror.
Unless you’re taking “network” to mean “top-down hierarchical organization,” which is not the usual meaning (it’s actually the opposite), Obama appears to agree with Burke.
dag nabbit.
What Turbulence said without the supererogatory italics.
“Actually, I think the fact that Republicans think community organizing and community organizing is inherently mockable” should be “Actually, I think the fact that Republicans think community organizing and community organizers….”
Sorry.
New posting rule I propose:
Each poster has to start his or her post with
[/i] (replace ] with > and [ with <)
As the teleprompter apparently failed, she showed great composure.
Wrong. Points off for already-fact-checked right-wing, victimology bullshvt.
I would certainly be willing to discuss these matters with people who are actually interested in this matter, but it seems to me that you are less interested in the subject matter and more in backing up Obama no matter what he says.
Yeah, calling him a liar was a great way to start of the intelligent discussion you claim to have wanted. I suppose you could call me a b@stard and then wonder why we aren’t having a pleasant discussion about our respective family trees.
It couldve gone something like
n- 80 sounds high to me, maybe an exaggeration?
w- here’s the CIA saying 60 in 2002
n- oh, I hadnt realized that
btw, are the CIA a bunch of liars as well, for saying AQ was in 60+ countries back in 2002? Or do they count as ‘experts with vested interests’ since they disagree with you?
So it’s on me now to disprove the not further substantiated claims of people who rely on what “officials say”?
You called the guy a liar. Said that no experts would agree with his number. The CIA has a number in that ballpark. You’ve yet to come up with an expert with numbers that would dispute that ballpark.
But maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe you meant that it was impossible to prove that number beyond any possible doubt to someone committed to disputing it, and that you could muddy the water with off-point quotes about how AQ is a relatively dispersed organization.
And I agree with that; you’ve amply demonstrated it.
bc: I thought it was just a nice counter to Obama’s “Mayor of Wassilly” comment.
Please provide a cite with the comment itself quoted.
If you can’t: nice try, you conservative poseur.
But it’s OKIYAR. No hypocrisy here.
No, see, there is no religious symbolism in Bush’s set. Just a lot of Americanisms like the presidential seal with some columns added in reminiscent of the WH or Capitol Building.
Obama’s, OTOH, looks like a Greek temple, similar to the one he took so much grief over in his world tour. With the video monitors going, there were three of him but really only one, a clear appeal to the Nicean nature of much of the American voter populace. They couldn’t have set up him up for Obamassiah jokes any better than they did.
What legitimate point do you believe it makes to mock community organizing
I didn’t take it to necessarily mock community organizing, but the degree to which Obama relies on that particular part of his resume to bolster his claims to the WH. Look, I’m not one to harp on experience that much anyway. I like to shake things up. But his slaps at her “small red neck town” experience deserved,IMHO, a response of like kind, which he got.
I lived in downtown LA for a while (Korea Town, near Pico and Olympic). I understand the value and utility of community organizing. Still a fair point.
Why do you think that is, given that the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln?
I’d like to think that it was as simple as that. I don’t think most African Americans view it that way (as an inner city vs. red state/rich life experience sort of thing). But I don’t really know that.
I agree that it is in part due to the perception of genuine caring for the community coming from the left. The RNC could do a lot more on that front, no question. And there’s lots of past history, no doubt, that’s hard to erase even though it does not exemplify the typical republican today.
But the DNC panders to that particular demographic. One refreshing aspect of this campaign is the relative lack of that because of the candidate himself. That vote is locked up already.
I was planning to read the book anyway (getting to it is kind of hard because I have a tendency to read too many books at once and bounce back and forth and am currently reading five). I’ll let you know what I think.
According to CNN
http://cnn.com
I can’t find the video. Often, they edit these comments to clean them up a bit.
It does seem obvious that when asked about her experience he ignored her time as governor and talked about when she was mayor.
I would need the video to reach a real conclusion.
I linked to your post in my “Civics Lesson for Sarah Palin” post at the CA NOW blog: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/09/a-civics-lesson.html
Thanks for that cite, toml.
So it’s as I suspected? In other words, there is no “mocking” of Wassila, much less using the term “Wasilly” — just a straightforward, factually based comparison of his legitimate claim to executive experience heading a national campaign organization and the Republican claim that she has “six years of executive experience” as compared to his none.
Nell:
Dang! You made me have to look hard. I actually heard it on Anderson Cooper 360, which I don’t listen to usually (cable was turned back on for the Olympics and we havent’ turned it off yet). But, here it is in all its glory!!
Please note Obama’s comparison between his campaign and the City of Wasilla, of Iditarod fame (which he rather humorously calls (Wuhsilly), and his campaign rather than the State of Alaska, which has a slightly higher (i.e. 10x+) number of employees and slightly higher (factor of 70+) annual budget not to mention complexity of budget, etc.
-Le non-poseur
oops. off on my math. I think the budget is only 14 times higher than the Obama campaign. Not enough sleep last night.
his slaps at her “small red neck town” experience deserved,IMHO, a response of like kind
Okay, I’m getting pretty tired of this. Point to the quote where he says anything like this or get ready not to be given the benefit of the doubt on your arguing in good faith.
Here’s the video
http://www.cnn.com
Go to about 7:50 mark and he says “Wasilly,” not “Wassilla.”
I’m sure its an honest mistake.
Please note Obama’s comparison between his campaign and the City of Wasilla, of Iditarod fame (which he rather humorously calls (Wuhsilly), and his campaign rather than the State of Alaska, which has a slightly higher (i.e. 10x+) number of employees and slightly higher (factor of 70+) annual budget not to mention complexity of budget, etc.
The point isn’t the Obama running his campaign is exactly the equivalent of Palin’s experience, but that Palin’s experience running a small town is just not that impressive, really, as far as ‘executive experience’ goes. If the GOP is going to trumpet that experience as relevant, then they’re going to have to stomach a look at the numbers. You can’t claim the small town executive experience is important but run back to the governor numbers when that is called into question.
Or, you can. But why bother, it’s too transparent.
I’m sure its an honest mistake.
Probably was. But the gaffe happens in a slap at her experience in the small town of Wasilla which raises the question. And it just sounds stupid (Chicagy?) And he didn’t literally say anything derogatory, only by implication.
I don’t personally think the Wasilla experience is anything all that important, but, as I’ve now said many times, I’m not all that into the experience argument anyway.
And, Nell, I wasn’t speaking literally but using quotes as an informal, sarcastic paraphrase. I should have been clearer that it was such.
And I’M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE THE EXPERIENCE ISSUE. I’m only saying the rejoinder was appropriate. That’s all.
Carleton: I don’t necessarily disagree. But it’s Obama that’s running to the Wasilla numbers. That’s too transparent as well. I think it’s rather silly to trump up experience in one’s own campaign as the experience for the job, even though I respect his win over Clinton.
Jon Stewart last night had video of Karl Rove arguing last month that Tim Kaine’s executive experience (two terms as mayor of Richmond, lieutenant governor and now governor of Virginia) was so laughably thin that he could not be considered a serious selection for vice president, then arguing last week that Sarah Palin’s executive experience was unquestionably of vice presidential caliber.
Also a defense of Dick Morris that I can’t repeat here, but it contained the words “lying” and “sack.”
I’m not sure how we’re supposed to be reacting to you at this point, BC? Are your comments about the columns all a joke, or a piece of performance art, or what? Are you withdrawing the objection? Surely we’re not supposed to take that Onion-level parody of an intellectual Republican critique seriously as something you actually believe?
Hm, I think a rejoinder is appropriate, just that this particular one is uneccesarily insulting and arrogant. IMO.
“I’d like to think that it was as simple as that.”
Of course, things never are; I’m writing a blog comment, not a thesis. I agree it’s not remotely as simple as that.
“And there’s lots of past history, no doubt, that’s hard to erase even though it does not exemplify the typical republican today.”
I’d be fascinated to know just what most delegates attending the Republican convention today are doing to improve the lives of American minorities, including, but not limited to, African-Americans, and the economically disadvantaged, besides running businesses that give employment to people, giving to their churches, and voting Republican. What are they doing about the inner city, and rural and suburban, poor? What are they doing that’s the equivalent of spending years as a low-paid community organizer for the sake of idealistic goals? How do they compare in this to the average attendee at the Democratic convention? Is it all just “perception”?
“But the DNC panders to that particular demographic.”
The poor and minorities, and those who need help, who don’t have wealth and power on their side? How dreadful.
“That vote is locked up already.”
Or do you mean African-Americans? They’re “pandered” to by Democrats? How so? How does it compare to the groups Republicans “pander” to? Which groups would you identify as being in that category?
“I’ll let you know what I think.”
Please do; I’ll look forward to it; I think you’ll find it an easy read, but let us know.
Are your comments about the columns all a joke . . .
Pretty much, yet no. I thought Palin’s comment was funny and was just responding to Gary’s comment re Bush. In looking back, I did think it was all the more humorous with the “three in one” look of the thing. And “Nicean nature” just had a nice alliteration to it. That part was a joke.
But what were the organizers thinking? I wouldn’t have opened him up to any ridicule after the previous speech. I have to admit that it does affect me somewhat just as Kerry’s movies affected me and Clinton’s “eye on the prize” since early youth. It says something that Obama approved that podium. But I’m not here to make a big issue out of it (and hence my lame attempt at humour).
gwangung: I’ll have to go back and listen. I thought she just said “actually has some responsibility.” That’s obviously a bit overreaching, but it’s not in a debate. It’s a red meat speech. More insulting than I would have said, certainly.
Turbulence and Hogan, I’m glad that you seem to be genuinely interested in the matter, so I’ll try to do my best to further clarify my misgivings (and yeah, I read the whole interview, so I was kind of anticipating your responses) and suppress my anger.
Firstly, I stand by my claim that Obama is lying in that he is unable to back up his claims and probably knows this or possibly doesn’t really care:
If you asked him point blank to name these 80 countries he’s speaking of I’m certain he would be at a loss. Now one might consider that an unfair gotcha tactic. But if you asked his campaign office to name those countries within a week and provide uncontroversial proof that there are Al Qaeda cells operating in each of them, I am am equally certain that they would be at a loss. This has to do with the fact that this seems to be just a nice sounding round number being bandied about and also with the fact that the very nature of the organization called Al Qaeda has been the subject of much discussion since it was first mentioned in the Western world (note, that I am certainly not denying its existence).
This brings us to the second point: what is Al Quaeda, is it a network or a franchise or what? Burke gives us three definitions in the interview:
Is he talking about bin Laden, [Ayman] al-Zawahiri, [and] a few senior militants who were with them in Afghanistan?
Is he talking about all those people who went to Afghanistan and may have gone through camps connected to bin Laden in a certain period?
Or is he talking about anybody in the world who feels strongly that it is their religious duty to violently resist what they see as a Western bid to subordinate and humiliate Islam?
I think it is very important to differentiate between those three definitions and I think it is at the very least careless, but more likely a conscious twisting of the truth when Obama mixes all of these together for domestic consumption. A “network operating” does not necessarily imply a top-down organization, true, but it does entail a certain amount of cooperation among the different parts, else they wouldn’t be networked.
One could grant that the second definition would describe such a network to the extent that the individuals who have been in the training camps have at least actually interfaced with the core group. But even in that case it is not always clear what exactly the connection between the training camp session and actual or planned terrorist attacks is. If you look at the individual cases, there were many young people who went there and never hurt a fly later on. Calling all of them Al Qaeda sleeper cells is highly misleading and counter productive, it has to be judged in each individual case.
The third definition is today the most important, as many groups who have had no contact with the core Al Qaeda group have found it convenient to retroactively put that very popular label on their front door, especially after claiming responsibility for terrorist acts and Al Qaeda is happy to let them do that. Neither in the case of the London, nor the Madrid bombings could any significant link between the perpetrators and Al Qaeda be established. Calling these acts the operations of a terrorist network would be misleading. The only thing uniting these people is a certain belief system and certain tactics, yet terrorist network implies something much stronger. Calling it a franchise seems a little more apt, if not in the traditional business sense of the word. But anybody can blow himself up on a bus tomorrow and as long as he’s made sure that he leaves a few bits of easily obtainable evidence pointing towards Al Qaeda he would be considered part of that franchise.
This leads me to my last point, and since this already getting a bit long, I’ll try to make it quick: how are terms and phrases like “Al Qaeda”, “war on terror”, “terrorist network” used by politicians and how are they perceived by the public? What makes me so angry about Obama’s undifferentiated usage is that it signals to me a continuation of Bush policies – minus Iraq.
The “war on terror” is already being used to curtail domestic freedoms and to justify the presence of US army and special forces personnel abroad. And most citizens won’t bat an eyelid if they see houses being turned into rubble in some far away country on TV, as long as the commentator doesn’t fail to add that US forces were disrupting a “terrorist network”. In the UK many people are fine with detaining citizens without charge for a month as long as they are labelled a “sleeper cell”. The rhetorical framework that has made these attitudes possible relies on proclaiming a perpetual terrorist threat, that is perceived as both unified and vague. Words are very important in playing this game and I’m disappointed in Obama because he seems to continue the rhetorical strategy of the previous administration. It might well be that I’m overly sensitive in these matters after 8 years of Bush/Cheney and let’s hope that I’ll be proven wrong.
I’d be fascinated to know just what most delegates attending the Republican convention today are doing to improve the lives of American minorities
One of the token minorities paraded out before a list-less audience told them that by some date (I don’t recall when but it was within a few years) “people of color will be an emerging majority” and “one in three Americans will be Hispanic”. I’m not sure of her point — there was NO reaction from the crowd — since she seemed to think the right-wing antics of the GOP would play well with these constituancies.
Incidentally, on that pool about dates by which Palin will resign from the ticket, I’ll take, unless some significant new development occurs in the Trooper investigation, or some new scandal is unearthed, “won’t happen.”
I just saw This, not that it means anything.
How do they compare in this to the average attendee at the Democratic convention? Is it all just “perception”
All valid points and good questions. One of the things that gets lost in the shuffle is that conservatism posits that we fellow citizens, rather than gov’t, should help our fellow man. Thus, you aren’t going to have as much discussion of how the gov’t can help, especially in a convention. I have no idea how the average convention attender helps their fellow man, but the studies I hear on the news (no cite for now) seem to indicate conservatives give more of their own money than liberals to charity. Don’t know how that affects inner cities in particular, though.
Like you, I’d be fascinated to know too. To be clear, I’m not defending the RNC’s dedication to ending poverty. But I think that there is more credit due to the average republican than most dems are willing to give.
But if you asked his campaign office to name those countries within a week and provide uncontroversial proof that there are Al Qaeda cells operating in each of them
Since he is a smart and capable person, he could get the data that the CIA used (that you’ve been told about three times!). That would be 60 right there. It probably wouldn’t be difficult to add 20 more, based on the criteria that the CIA used.
Since you want to use a different criteria than an offical one (unless you think there’s a more official criteria than the CIA), I suppose you should go back in time, supply the Obama campaign with the “offical criteria” (signed and stamped by novacant), so they can rework their speech to not have a “lie”.
Otherwise, get a grip and admit it was not a lie. Mmm’kay?
Wonder how that sets with the community activist line….
Giving USA and Philanthropy USA occasionally touches on this and I think that conservatives give more towards churches and liberals give more for social service. But as you say, how that affects inner cities isn’t clear, since many churches do social service work in the inner cities….
Firstly, I stand by my claim that Obama is lying in that he is unable to back up his claims…
You realize that he doesn’t read OBWi, right? So his failure to respond to your question probably shouldn’t be read into too far.
If you asked him point blank to name these 80 countries he’s speaking of I’m certain he would be at a loss.
Oh, I didn’t realize we got to use ‘certainty’ as evidence.
Again, are you certain that the CIA couldn’t name 60+ countries in 2002? You have yet to address this point, despite claims of wanting a serious discussion & despite how serious a blow this is to your case.
I think it is very important to differentiate between those three definitions and I think it is at the very least careless, but more likely a conscious twisting of the truth when Obama mixes all of these together for domestic consumption.
Or, he could try giving a speech instead- expecting a masters thesis tangent on this issue is disingenuous. Any more than he should take a half-hour to discuss geology when discussing the outer continental shelf drilling issue- what consititues the “outer” shelf? What about the geologists who think that a division between “outer” and “inner” shelves isn’t scientifically useful? Why, just saying “outer continental shelf”, that’s basically a lie!
Im just certain of it!
Jes: No, the rest is your trying to make out that all other political speeches are equally just lies. Eh.
I responded to you. You keep repeating the first thing you said this morning. OK. Or you can respond to my response. It’s not really worth your time – I know what you’ll say. You know what I’ll say. We’re like an old married couple. We can complete each other’s thoughts…
I’m sorry if that made you throw up in your mouth a little. OK – not really. 😉 Eh.
Nell: From your link:
Perhaps there were moments where it scrolled slightly past her exact point in the speech.
I don’t know about you, but… If I was giving my first national speech (and an audience almost equaling Obama’s) (although on 4 fewer networks) and “it scrolled slightly past” exactly where I was trying to read – I would need a change of underwear. All my crap that I thought was all in one bag would have gone flying all over.
You know what? All these detractions would have a hell of a lot more impact if you all gave her credit for what she did last night. From there you might get to legitimate criticism, and from there maybe even pull this thing out.
IMO, only, YMMV – you’re all (mostly) covering your ears and singing “La La La – I don’t want to hear you…”
Enough for me today.
One of the things that gets lost in the shuffle is that conservatism posits that we fellow citizens, rather than gov’t, should help our fellow man. Thus, you aren’t going to have as much discussion of how the gov’t can help, especially in a convention.
Then why bother having one? Why try to get jobs in government at all?
I don’t know about you, but… If I was giving my first national speech (and an audience almost equaling Obama’s) (although on 4 fewer networks) and “it scrolled slightly past” exactly where I was trying to read – I would need a change of underwear. All my crap that I thought was all in one bag would have gone flying all over.
Yes, but you have been neither a mayor nor a governor, especially of super-neat places like Wasilla and Alaska. And it’s not like they don’t rehearse these beforehand.
“One of the things that gets lost in the shuffle is that conservatism posits that we fellow citizens, rather than gov’t, should help our fellow man.”
Indeed. So, I just got a $1200 emergency room bill for a single visit. How are my conservative fellow citizens going to help me, rather than have the mean old government make sure I get health insurance, and if I don’t get a Social Security disability claim approved, how are they going to help me? Tell me to pull myself together, quit having problems, go out and work, and quit whining? (The max I’m apt to get is on the order of $500/month, btw: enough to live in vast luxury.)
How about all the people currently receiving disability claims, or trying to? All lazy frauds who should rely on private charity?
“But I think that there is more credit due to the average republican than most dems are willing to give.”
I would never contest that many Republicans give to charity, both to organizations and individuals; indeed, a fair number have made donations to my blog in the past. That’s great. Is that enough to help all the Americans who need and deserve help? Is that what people who are unable to help themselves on their own without outside help should rely on? Begging? Feeling the shame and embarrassment of asking for help?
“I just saw This, not that it means anything.”
This is the sort of thing that strikes me as being, if the Democrats did it, something that OCSteve would immediately be explaining how dreadful it was of them and Obama to have left an opening for attack for, and when Republicans attacked about it, explain that “body blows” were being struck.
I could be wrong, of course, and if I am, I apologize for taking Steve’s name in vain.
But it strikes me as a meaningless bit of trivia: what difference does it make if they were real soldiers or not? Who would know if they didn’t read the article? How does it change anything? At most it gives a bit of an eyeroll opportunity, but it, as CharleyCarp says, means nothing.
he could get the data that the CIA used (that you’ve been told about three times!). That would be 60 right there.
And what the CIA says is always true? Forgive me if my trust in this specific institution has been somewhat diminished over the last 8 years – I still remember them rubberstamping the WMD hoax and thereby the Iraq war.
As for the “offical criteria”, well, that was part of my larger point, yes. Are we now at a stage at which we mindlessly accept the official definitions we are fed without inquiring if they are sensible or productive?
I remember a time when 16 words in a Bush speech were subjected to a lot of scrutiny, and rightly so because they turned out to be a lie. Is it now inappropriate for citizens to ask politicians to back up their claims? Are we supposed to accept the same smokescreen Bush put in front of our eyes for the last 8 years, just because it is upheld by a Democrat?
I responded to you. You keep repeating the first thing you said this morning.
Well, yeah: until you answer it. But hey. You’re not going to.
but… If I was giving my first national speech (and an audience almost equaling Obama’s) (although on 4 fewer networks) and “it scrolled slightly past” exactly where I was trying to read – I would need a change of underwear.
Her first job was as a sports journalist for KTUU-TV. So she already knew how to read from a teleprompter on live TV. Which was all she had to do.
I’m not seeing why you’re so impressed by this. Television presenters do this all the time. Was that what particularly impressed you about Reagan’s presidency – his ability to read from a teleprompter?
You know, there is a very interesting factcheck opportunity, which is that of McCain’s time as a POW. I would be very interested if bc or OCSteve (what is it with you guys and the two letter handle thingies, anyway? ;^)) went thru and gave an actual accounting of what sort of treatment McCain received and compare it to the comments at the convention, looking at the contemporaneous accounts by other POWs, not retellings that succumb to the advantages of memory. My understanding is that the Vietnamese realized that the POWs were a valuable bargaining chip and endeavored to keep them alive.
And what the CIA says is always true? Forgive me if my trust in this specific institution has been somewhat diminished over the last 8 years…
So far, that’s the only hard number I’ve seen. It’s a few years out of date, but 60+ jives pretty well with 80.
You claimed that Obama was lying, and that no one could give you a list if you asked. I think the CIA’s number might not be correct (and it’s a nebulous thing to begin with), but I bet that they had 60+ specific countries in mind when they came up with that number.
Im not vouching for the CIA’s list. Im pointing out that experts came up with a similar number, and so far all you have to justify your accusation of lying is 1)a hunch on your part and 2)distractions about the nature and organization of AQ. Not one expert saying that AQ is in considerably fewer countries than Obama said.
And, of course, if anyone gave you a list you’d just start questioning various inclusions, as outlined here. There is no end to your rabbit hole. You wanted experts (proclaiming There is no expert on the issue who would ever make such a claim), people quoted experts. You dismissed the experts. And so on.
Whether true or not, this teleprompter stuff will only add to the legend of Sarah High Plains Drifter.
Next thing you know, they’ll be saying she killed a moose with her bare hands.
—
Notice not a word was said about “conservation” in Palin’s energy plan, if you want to call it that.
Dick Cheyney has won.
—
Ara: “I think Turbulence is spot on. Her polarizing nature is going to energize the Democratic base as well.”
And if it doesn’t, shame on us.
—
I’m going to watch it, but McCain’s speech seems awfully anti-climatic after Palin’s coming-out party last night — plus he’s up against the NFL season opener: Washinton Redskins (the Beltway’s team) at defending world champion New York Giants.
I’d love to be at a bar watching the game on one TV and McCain on the other with Mike Murphy off mic — heck, he can even bring Peggy Noonan, might be fun seeing her tie one on.
Taking bets: How soon into the speech before the first “My friends” — I’ll take the third sentence.
Come to think of it, my friends, that would be a dangerous drinking game.
—
Hand it to the Republicans for not taking any chances with red-white-and-blue symbolism: Pretty hard to ignore that big screen behind the podium and rotating pictures of the Liberty Bell, sunsets and a flapping American flag.
Sunsets?
—
Can’t wait until next week’s SNL premiere. I’m betting that Tina Fey will make a guest appearance like she did in the primaries when she gave her pro-Hillary rant on Weekend Update. Darrell Hammond seems like he’d make a great McCain.
This is also an potentially interesting exercise in fact checking that illustrates how simply grounding it is ‘facts’ misses a bigger point.
This has been nagging at me for a while. Karl Rove this morning told yet another variation on the story of the McCains’ adoption of their daughter Bridget. In his version, like the others I’ve heard, Cindy didn’t tell John in advance that she was bringing this child back with her from abroad. She just did it, a fact which usually gets a hardy-har-har from friendly audiences.
In Rove’s version today, Cindy specifically told someone else not to tell John in advance. The point of Rove’s story was that John McCain needs to reveal more of himself publicly so that voters can see the kind of character he has.
Am I the only one who finds that story to be a poor reflection on Cindy, John, and their marriage?
Bear with me for a moment, but let’s say that the first story is true, and the second is an elaboration. (Is it possible for just one parent to adopt? Don’t both have to sign off?) At this point, we have to ask, why elaborate the story?
I’d suggest that it is to show what the dynamics of the McCain-Palin administration. McCain would be the stern father, while Palin will be the mother who is able to sneak in small acts of kindness from time to time. ‘your dad, he loves you so much, he just isn’t able to show it’
So the factcheck opportunity is to obtain the adoption papers and see when John McCain knew. Yet, if a democrat did that, there would be squeals and screams. So this demand on fact checking can be (not saying that people who are talking about it here are engaged in bad faith argumentation) a way of creating privileged narratives that, if they are investigated, can be held up as a lack of respect for privacy. Note that I use an example from McCain to avoid being charged with sexism, but we see that same dynamic play out with Palin’s private life and charges of sexism (does anyone else giggle uncontrollably when remember Guiliani screaming ‘they would never ask that about a woman!’)
Sorry, that was from TPM and is found here
I remember a time when 16 words in a Bush speech were subjected to a lot of scrutiny, and rightly so because they turned out to be a lie.
Are you equating “According to the best criteria we have (however bad it may be) this is what we know” equate to “a known forgery has been used to ‘prove’ a lie”?
Maybe you want to rethink that analogy?
@OCSteve:
I love ya, guy, but you’re the one who’s got your fingers in your ears, and over your eyes.
Palin and her handlers missed a big opportunity, speaking to a national audience that doesn’t know who the hell she is, to go for those up-for-grabs voters that may determine the election.
But, no; they went for firing up the right-wingers instead, larding the speech with snide little in-group digs that only Republican political geeks would even understand, much less appreciate — the ‘Greek columns’ (!), the slam at community organizing.
The question in the watching-on-TV voters’ minds was “could she step in as president”? What they saw was just another highly partisan attacker. So they still don’t know the answer to the question.
But the attack-dog persona just feeds into the very real problems that people are going to hear more about — Palin’s vindictive use of the power of her office against opponents. And it’s just going to reinforce McCain’s impulsive, short-term-thinking decision to announce her before much if any vetting was done.
It’s all just more of the same from the party that brought us George W. Bush: partisan thinking over governing for all, divisiveness vs. bringing the country together to face real problems, not bothering with important details.
It’s fired up the wingnut base? Fine. It’s fired up our base, too. We’re f***ing sick of the politics of manufactured resentment.
And Obama-Biden are picking up those in-betweeners.
People are hurting out there; they’re losing their houses and they’re afraid they’ll lose their health insurance — if they have any.
And Mr. I’ll-check-with-my-staff-on-how-many-houses-I-have has no plans to do anything but funnel more of the national income to the tiny slice he belongs to, people raking in $5 million a year or more. His health plan is … nothing. Go to the emergency room.
Oh, and on the “soft bigotry of low expectations with a Teleprompter” front: Her previous professional experience in that line of work aside, there’s this:
Pardon me if I’m not persuaded by imagining how you or I would handle the situation. This woman’s a political performer.
Here’s a bit of hypocrasy from the Reslugs who’ve been speaking so far: John McCain is a great man for reaching “across the aisle”, but those on the other side of the aisle are worthless, rotten scum, if not traitors (how nice to be called a traitor again!).
The whole lot of them are, well, scum.
Jes: Well, yeah: until you answer it. But hey. You’re not going to.
Huh?
OK – for the record.
Gary: This is the sort of thing that strikes me as being, if the Democrats did it, something that OCSteve would immediately be explaining how dreadful it was of them and Obama to have left an opening for attack for, and when Republicans attacked about it, explain that “body blows” were being struck.
Huh?
I could be wrong, of course, and if I am, I apologize for taking Steve’s name in vain.
Thanks?
LJ: I would be very interested if bc or OCSteve (what is it with you guys and the two letter handle thingies, anyway? ;^)) went thru and gave an actual accounting of what sort of treatment McCain received and compare it to the comments at the convention, looking at the contemporaneous accounts by other POWs, not retellings that succumb to the advantages of memory.
Huh?
OK – Three – “huh?”s and I am officially out.
Doing better than the Seattle Mariners….
how are terms and phrases like “Al Qaeda”, “war on terror”, “terrorist network” used by politicians and how are they perceived by the public? What makes me so angry about Obama’s undifferentiated usage is that it signals to me a continuation of Bush policies – minus Iraq.
This strikes me as the key point–to what extent any invocation of “al Qaeda” involves buying into the Bush/Cheney framing of our conflict with some elements of the Islamic world.
I don’t agree that describing “al Qaeda” as a global network is as much of a capitulation on that as you do; I think that frame involves a lot more than “global” and “network.” It involves, for one thing, a usually unspoken assumption that goes back to the Carter/Reagan era: that any terrorist group must be sponsored by a state; therefore if a terrorist group is attacking us or anyone we like, it must be sponsored by whatever state we’re currently designating Public Enemy Number One (the Soviet Union if you’re Claire Sterling; Iraq if you’re Dick Cheney before 2004; Iran if you’re Dick Cheney in or after 2004; if you’re McCain, anyone from Iran to Russia to whoever honks him off next week).
If you want to jump from that frame all the way to the one that I suspect you and I would prefer, then what I take to be Obama’s incrementalism is going to be a disappointment. I think that if we want to get to the US foreign policy I want (or even can live with without intermittent screaming and heavy drinking), incrementalism is all we can get these days; there’s no anti-imperialist mass movement here, now or in the foreseeable future. If he moves us away from knocking down states as the way to deal with stateless people who attack us, I consider that progress, and talking about al Qaeda as a global non-state network moves us in that direction.
May I make a pre-emptive response to a catch-phrase McCain is sure to trot out tonight?
McCAIN: ” … serve a cause greater than self-interest.”
Me: Does paying taxes count? Is clamoring for tax cuts NOT self-interest?
Thank you, my friends. God bless America.
–TP
But, no; they went for firing up the right-wingers instead, larding the speech with snide little in-group digs that only Republican political geeks would even understand, much less appreciate — the ‘Greek columns’ (!), the slam at community organizing.
In fairness, the wingers didn’t know her either, it’s not like she was Huckabee. In order to get into the base’s heart, she had to come out frothing at the mouth.
If she had done a soft-pedal bio with a couple of light jabs, they might have had their first impression be that she’s a lightweight.
I do agree that it was a missed chance though- the base they could’ve picked up later, and her views should certainly appeal to the Christianist groups. But the muddled middle, you don’t get that many chances to reach out to them.
So, according to Gov. Palin’s speechwriters Barak voted “Here” a few times. Wonder how Big John’s doing on that same score. Hmmmm…let’s check.
From: The Moderate Voice:
“It’s a given that presidential candidates who are running for president are going to miss a vote or three, but the situation with John McCain is ridiculous.
The Republican wannabe has not voted since April 8, missing a total of 76 votes. This includes several key votes on important legislation, among them Social Security, which he views as “a total disgrace,” and expanding veterans’ GI bill benefits, which he vociferously opposed and then took credit for after that bill passed.”
At least Obama showed up for work.
But, no; they went for firing up the right-wingers instead, larding the speech with snide little in-group digs that only Republican political geeks would even understand, much less appreciate — the ‘Greek columns’ (!), the slam at community organizing.
In fairness, the wingers didn’t know her either, it’s not like she was Huckabee. In order to get into the base’s heart, she had to come out frothing at the mouth.
If she had done a soft-pedal bio with a couple of light jabs, they might have had their first impression be that she’s a lightweight.
I do agree that it was a missed chance though- the base they could’ve picked up later, and her views should certainly appeal to the Christianist groups. But the muddled middle, you don’t get that many chances to reach out to them.
All these detractions would have a hell of a lot more impact if you all gave her credit for what she did last night.
Look OC, what Nell said.
Among other things, last night Palin threw down the gauntlet. This year is going to be a blood match. Didn’t have to be that way, but McCain apparently decided he couldn’t make it without the social cons, so that’s what it’s going to be.
The reason it’s a blood match every time the social cons get into the mix is because they can’t get three words out of their mouths without congratulating themselves on what real Americans they are, how much they love their families, how hard-working they are, and how much they just love their god.
I don’t know who the F they think they are, but they have no special claim to make on any of those things. None.
I have no, absolutely no, issue with religious people, family-oriented people, patriotic people, or people who are by habit, outlook, or temperament conservative. None.
I have, however, no time for people who think god, family, or this country are their special and unique little heritage. Those things belong to all of us. Or, more correctly, they belong to none of us. We, each and every one of us, belong to them.
I have no hatred for Palin. I wish her well in life. But she has made herself my enemy, and I take that perfectly seriously.
Whatever I can do to keep her the hell away from national office, I will do it. I think she’s a sanctimonious creep, and I want no part of her in any public life that touches me or mine. I’m no great shakes, but I do have some resources to bring to bear toward that end, and toward that end they will be brought.
Mark my words.
That’s what she accomplished last night.
Thanks –
“Huh?”
What’s your question, Steve?
About the 80 countries- I decided to do a bit of research, and it turns out (using a moderately broad definitition of “operating”)- that Obama is factually correct.
I did a google search on about 100 countries, putting in “Al Qaeda United Kingdom”, etc. I used only hits on reputable websites (no unknown websites, way-out-there websites, or conspiracy mongers). I did not count any evidence derived from torture, or based only on assertions by the Bush administration. I didn not consider Al Qaeda to be operating in a country they had only threatened from afar (e.g. Denmark). I did not consider Al Quaeda to be operating in a country just because a fugitive had fled there from somewhere else.
I considered Al Qaeda to be “operating” in a country if any of the following applied:
(1) Al Qaeda had perpetrated an attack there.
(2) There was credible evidence that Al Qaeda had “boots on the ground” in that country- e.g. members of a cell had been arrested on credible evidence.
(3) An Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group was operating there.
(4) The government of that country had cooperative contact with Al Qaeda.
(5) Al Qaeda had procured war materials from that country.
(6) Al Qaeda had financial operations (e.g. money laundering or diamond trading) in the country.
I came up with the following list- more than 80!
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Columbia, Congo, Cyprus, Denmark, Dijbouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopea, Ethiopea, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyryzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Niger, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Somaliland, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, Uganda, UK, USA, Uzbekistan, Venezuala, Western Sahara, Yemen
Sorry, the two letter observation was just designed for levity.
The question about McCain being tortured is something that many of the speakers noted, and I could see that me trying to make a determination of whether particular comments were exaggerations or worse, lies, would be difficult to present as being objective, so I was wondering if you guys would look at it. But for a Obama supporter to question, or indeed actively enquire into some of the aspects of McCain’s imprisonment (remember the cross in the dirt anecdote?) would provide lots and lots of heat with no corresponding light.
Again, sorry to have been unclear and no slam was intended against you or bc. Apologies if it seemed that way.
OCSteve: OK – for the record.
And, for the record: you were unable to find any lies like the ones Palin told in Biden‘s speech. Yet I don’t see you acknowledging that…
Anne E: Thanks for that: it’s an interesting list. Though bear in mind that “arrests on credible evidence” in the UK at least, have included groups kicking MacGyverisms around on Internet discussion boards.
Given that al-Qaeda is not state-sponsored and is not centralized, Obama’s statement was indicative of a certain (and wrong) mindset on al-Qaeda – which is worrying on a different level, supposing he were to be President*, but it constitutes a serious misunderstanding rather than a lie.
*Of course, McCain will be worse…
liberal japonicus: Bear with me for a moment, but let’s say that the first story is true, and the second is an elaboration. (Is it possible for just one parent to adopt? Don’t both have to sign off?) At this point, we have to ask, why elaborate the story?
I googled on “Bridget McCain” and found an interview in “DadMag” from April 2006, I think (here) in which McCain presents Cindy bringing Bridget and another child back from Mother Theresa’s orphanage for medical treatment in the US, as wholly her own idea which he didn’t know about in advance: and that it was Cindy’s idea initially to adopt Bridget, which she sprang on John McCain as “Here’s your new little daughter” – but the legal adoption, according to this version of events, happened in the US with the consent of both Cindy and John.
I have no idea if this is an accurate version of events. Most countries in which Western parents go shopping for babies/young children to adopt have now tightened up their procedures – you must have clearance to adopt from both your own country and the child’s birth country – but I don’t know what the procedure was in Bangladesh in 1991, and this may have been further complicated by Cindy McCain merely initially offering to take the children to the US for medical treatment, not to be adopted – however rapidly she picked up the idea that she would adopt one and a friend would adopt the other.
Given that al-Qaeda is not state-sponsored and is not centralized, Obama’s statement was indicative of a certain (and wrong) mindset on al-Qaeda…
I didnt think the statement went into enough detail to determine something like that- I read it as “here is the scope of this problem”. The GOP has used terrorism as a smokescreen for bad acts, but it’s still a serious issue to be dealt with- centralized or not, state-sponsored or not.
I said “indicative”, Carleton. I don’t think I can say more or less than that until/unless we see what Obama does if he gets to become President.
My hopes that President Obama would deal with al-Qaeda in a more realistic and effective way than Bush ever did or McCain ever would, are grounded in Obama being more intelligent and more able than both of them put together, not in any sure knowledge that he won’t.
I hope, for example, that Obama will follow through on what he said here about the military commissions legislation to approve torture of suspects: certainly given that he both voted and spoke out against it, while McCain voted for it (and von, who I believe once opposed torture, would doubtless find a way to defend McCain’s vote for torture) gives me some hope.
But not only am I doubtful that (whether or not he wins the election) Obama will get past the inevitable vote-rigging to the Presidency, I am also doubtful (have been ever since Obama caved on FISA) whether he will follow through on the most urgent need to clean house after the Bush administration fouled it.
Regarding the special needs funding, as noted by hilzoy, the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy had its own budget in 2008 and 2009. If you count that, it appears that there was actually an increase in spending for special needs:
2007. $8,265,300
2008. $8,234,000 (ACYA) + $3,156,000 = $11,900,000
2009. $6,082,100 (ACYA) + $3,156,000 = $9,238,100
The Alaska Challenge Youth Academy is described in the state budget like this:
“This instructional program is operated in Anchorage with student enrollees from across the state. Students work on challenging academic programs in a ‘boot camp’ environment. Completing high school and building career goals and skills are the goals.” (Source: http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/EED/comp2837.pdf)
However, the program referenced in the budget as the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy appears to actually be a program run by the state National Guard at Fort Richardson in Anchorage for “at risk” teens from 16 to 19. See the web site here:
http://www.ngycp.org/index.php
As far as I’ve been able to determine, this program seems to have nothing to do with special education. Special needs children (e.g., autism, Down syndrome) do not appear to be eligible to participate in the program.
It probably does not belong in the special education budget.
And it does appear to be getting favored treatment, while other programs for special needs have been cut or remained flat.
Regarding Obama’s legislative history in Illinois, here’s a good Washington Post article first published in January.
Judge Him by His Laws
Here’s my personal affront at the GOPs snide remarks about community organizing. It especially hits hard as I am a Chicagoan about to lose my home.
So community service is something to snark at
I said “indicative”, Carleton.
Sorry, point taken.
Hilzoy: Is an update of the update in order?
The Republican Party has been high-jacked by the religious right as McCain’s selection of Palin proves. I thought McCain might bring some sanity to back to the party but it turns out experience does count and he is following the George Bush/Carl Rove play book of appealing to the “Gun tottin, God fearin” mob with his choice of Sarah Palin. The least you can say for George Bush is that he picked Cheney, whatever you may think of him, he is no light weight. Another trait about McCain that makes me very uncomfortable is his quick shoot from the hip decision making process. His selection of Palin seems to be a perfect example of this. This seems very similar to George W. Bush’s decision making methodology which landed us in $3 Trillion and counting war without end. And I’m not a democrat. I voted for Bush the first go around. But McCain just doesn’t seem to have the necessary personality traits to be an effective executive. He lost my potential vote for good with his selection of Palin.