There seems to be much discussion about the significance of the Sarah Palin wink, i.e., her tendency to wink into camera repeatedly.
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the only reason someone has for winking directly into camera is that Lois Lane has just made a snide comment about how they're never around at the same time as Superman.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at October 4, 2008 08:05 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingOn the wink: the way the following "Worst Persons" segment ended had me laughing my ass off.
I am now without an ass. I require a new one.
I guess you didn't need to know that last part.
Anyway, here's the link:
The self same Republicans who belittled those who thought Obama was a worthy candidate, partly due to his inspirational speeches and writings, now support a candidate because of her flirtatious winks.
Am I missing something?
Yeah ed, I'm afraid you didn't get the memo that says Republicans are allowed to be shameless hypocrites. *sigh*
Here's what I see as one of the biggest differences between Obama and Palin. People respond to what Obama says, and how he says it. That's his appeal. By contrast, some of Palin's biggest fans respond to the way she looks, her mannerisms, the fact that she's a "hockey mom", and other superficial stuff like that. The "celebrity" ad wasn't fair to Obama, but it would be accurate if the description were applied to Palin. Palin is a classic example of style over substance.
(Another big difference would be the fact that Obama has accumulated four years of experience in Washington while Palin has got something like half that much experience as the Governor of one of the "freak states", to borrow a phrase from The Simpsons.)
Strangely enough, Sarah Palin will also duck if a gun is thrown at her.
Very strange, the disconnect between what TV pundits are saying and what most of the blogs I read right after the debate were saying. The blogs couldn't talk enough about Biden's emotional moment (and, by extension, Palin's tone-deaf ignoring of it in favor of spouting more talking points); the TV people, on the other hand, seemed obsessed with the wink.
It somewhat reminds me of the gushing over G W Bush's cod-piece flight suit when he landed on the Aircraft Carrier.
Posted by Mike at October 4, 2008 10:28 AM
Strangely enough, Sarah Palin will also duck if a gun is thrown at her.
SO: ... Which will help her immensely when she meets outdoors with Cheney... :)
Susan, Right idea, wrong hunting partner. My understanding is that Cheney will be taking McCain hunting to celebrate if they win the election.
The GOP needs another puppet for the next 4 years.
--Ed
Pete .. has anyone seen Obama and Palin in the same place at the same time ....?
Ed
I don't think so...Cheney has shown he's no good at shooting old men in the face.
Mike: What will Palin do if a duck is thrown at her?
Howie: OMG...you're onto something...Woefully inept Silver Age, Clark Kent was a bumbling fool, fun in it's days but really an embarrassment of a character to modern readers, who expect their comic characters to be more inspirational and well rounded...
Well, Elayne, Biden's emotional moment didn't make them hard.
Well, Elayne, Biden's emotional moment didn't make them hard.
Speaking of Clark Kent fooling everybody, you'd never believe who helped him...
http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/10/01/revealing-a-piece-of-comics-history/
=D
I'm going the "fake" vote on those pages, Rob.
I'm almost 100% sure that the actual art pages are real, Jerry. If you mean the scripted pages afterwards, then I'm completely with you.
As Dan Rather would say, can you PROVE they aren't real???
Yeah, I was talking about the script, Tim. I've seen the art pages before and know that they're real.
I wonder if Palin winked after saying Obama is "palling around with terrorists".
Is this simply more "respectful" campaigning from McCain's camp?
I call it "desperation", personally. And it looks like Palin's role in these remaining four weeks will simply be to play attack dog, rather than candidate that can actually give this country leadership.
Yes, the art pages are real, I'm old enough to have read that story when it originally appeared, back in the early Sixties, and I remember it well.
The script pages are clearly parody, and I got a good chuckle out of them.
"As Dan Rather would say, can you PROVE they aren't real???"
Can you prove that the aliens didn't bring the dead back to life?
I didn't think so.
did I miss something or is she the VP choice????
Can we please concentrate on Mcain.He is the top of the ticket.
Screw palin and concentrate on mcain---PLeASE
dave, given McCain's age and family history, there's a fair chance that should be be elected, his veep might well need to succeed to the office of the Presidency before the end of their first term. Further, the choice of vice-presidential candidate is perhaps the clearest reflection of the presidential candidate's judgment under pressure.
In short, by examining the VP candidates, we are concentrating on McCain. Chill, dude.
"Screw palin and concentrate on mcain---PLeASE"
Dude, we're not John McCain. We can focus on two things at once.
The wink was clearly meant to propose to males that she actually liked them.
Check out the movie Varsity Blues. In a scene in the second half of the movie, the high school football players go to a strip bar, get free drinks, then see one of their female high school teachers, Miss Davis, do a striptease.
Sarah Palin looks a LOT like that character, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she was chosen because of that similarity. Pretty high school teacher does striptease for students---an all-time favorite fantasy for many males. A link to the imdb page of the actress who played Miss Davis.
Rob Brown,
Republicans are allowed to be shameless hypocrites? And Democrats aren't? Really?
The truth is the Democrats obviously don't give a fig about experience or else Biden would have been going te-to-toe with Chris Dodd. Or even Kucinich.
Instead, the Big Three were:
1.) A woman with barely more than one term in the Senate, who never ran anything, and whose main qualification was that her last name was Clinton, only she didn't even have the same DNA as a popular ex-President. She had his last name. And she infamously bragged about dodging sniper fire to inflate her credentials, which when you really look at them, are pretty damn weak.
2.) A sorry excuse for a man who served only one term in the Senate and engaged in demagogue-worthy class warfare. Ans as recent events have shown, there are few if any hypocrites on Earth bigger than John Edwards.
3.) Someone who by many accounts is the least experienced, least accomplished nominee for the Presidency in at least a century. he has LED NOTHING of any serious note. Not a brigade in battle. Not a city. Not a state. NOTHING. But he gives pretty speeches!
So, obviously, experience was never an issue for Democrats this year until McCain selected Palin. All of a sudden, a conservative woman is picked and people engage in the incomprehensible logic that because there is a POSSIBILITY Palin will become President if she is elected as Vice-President, that somehow that is and EQUAL OR GREATER RISK than electing someone as inexperienced as Obama when it is CERTAIN he will be President if his ticket wins.
Ah, but at the end of your post, we find the truth behind your statement: You claim Palin is Governor of one of the "freak states". Right, it's full of people you don't understand or don't care to. So that means you can dismiss her experience. What are the other "freak states"? is there a list?
Palin does connect with the "average" people Democrats supposedly care about. Only instead of talking about them theoretically in the halls of Harvard, in press rooms or at art galleries, she actually KNOWS them. But she is against abortion and has a deep-rooted faith in God. And that means she needs to be discredited and killed - politically, anyway.
The venom against this woman is like nothing I have ever seen. More than the invective hurled against Reagan, both Clintons and Dubya. It is really amazing. And quite sad.
A strong woman, a woman of accomplishment, with a family and a sense of humor could possibly makehistory and become Vice-President. Yet "women's groups" like NOW are terrified and horrified. Not only do they not at least offer a token "It would be a step forward" despite disagreeing with her on issues, they are determined to bring her down. Yet it's the Republicans who are hypocritical? It's the Republicans who don't appreciate diversity of culture or opinion? While you refer to a state you have likely never visited as a freak state? Really? REALLY?
"The venom against this woman is like nothing I have ever seen."
Pointing out that she's in over her head, tells lies often and that she was the joke of the debate is hardly venom. It's also nothing like the venom and smear machine that the Repuplicans have had running against Obama.
there are few if any hypocrites on Earth bigger than John Edwards.
While I can disagree intensely with the rest of your rant, how can you forget that scum Joe Leiberman? They don't come more hypocritical than that. Pthew! Pthew! I must go find the Listerine and get that foul two-faced taste out of my mouth. I should soak my hands in Lysol for ever voting for him. The Dems should make him wear a sign around his neck that says "Hypocrite", warning people.
The venom against this woman is like nothing I have ever seen.
...says the person whose preferred VP candidate is claiming that Obama "pals around with terrorists".
Uhhhh huh. Yep. She's the one getting the undeserved venom.
The wink thing?
We call that a tic, may be a symptom of the dreaded Republican Tourrets as evidenced by the repeated instances of digressing into non-sequiters and spouting of unrelated information.
"Palin does connect with the "average" people Democrats supposedly care about. Only instead of talking about them theoretically in the halls of Harvard, in press rooms or at art galleries, she actually KNOWS them."
So growing up with a single mother and working in the poor neighborhoods in Chicago, you don't KNOW the real people? Not like small towns in Alaska.
Because Alaska is much more American than Chicago? Why is that?
rik levins: Yes, the art pages are real, I'm old enough to have read that story when it originally appeared, back in the early Sixties, and I remember it well.
The script pages are clearly parody, and I got a good chuckle out of them.
Glad you enjoyed them, rik. :)
For everybody else, he's right. That particular post has the tags "Photoshopp'd" and "Bad Comedy" on it, for one thing. Of course you don't notice those until you get to the very bottom, and I admit when I initially read it I thought it was real at first. Then when it started to get really ridiculous I saw it for what it was. :p
The original panels haven't been altered. I've read enough of MGK's parodies to know the font he uses when replacing dialogue, and the lettering there was different.
Susan O: I should soak my hands in Lysol for ever voting for him.
How do you think AL GORE feels?
Jerome Maida: 3.) Someone who by many accounts is the least experienced, least accomplished nominee for the Presidency in at least a century. he has LED NOTHING of any serious note. Not a brigade in battle. Not a city. Not a state. NOTHING. But he gives pretty speeches!
Well, that's an incredible oversimplification if ever there was one. I'd contend that being in the Senate for four years does certainly qualify as experience.
The venom against this woman is like nothing I have ever seen.
The venom coming FROM this woman is like nothing I've ever seen.
Do you know what one of her big complaints about the Couric interview was? After she made such an ass of herself, there were people even on the left who were starting to feel sorry for her. But then she complained that she had wanted to attack Obama throughout the whole interview and Couric didn't give her a chance to do that.
That is the kind of person she is. She LIVES to attack people, to tear them down. To run anything but the "respectful campaign" that John McCain promised earlier this year.
So you can take your outrage over poor little Sarah Palin and use it as a suppository, Jerome.
And the freak state thing? You obviously don't watch The Simpsons much, otherwise you'd have gotten the reference. My point is that this woman has been isolated from the lower 48. Alaska is very different from the lower 48. People in Alaska are very different than people in New York, or in Iowa, or in Oregon, or in West Virginia, or in Georgia (the one containing Atlanta), etc. Plus there are many, many fewer people in Alaska than in most of the other states. So executive experience there does not translate to the sort of executive experience required to run a country, or even help run a country.
I'm sorry, I made an error in the above post. I said that Jerome could take his "outrage over poor little Sarah Palin and use it as a suppository."
I meant to say "you can take your outrage over the plight of poor little Sarah Palin and use it as a suppository."
My bad.
Jerome Maida said:
"...her last name was Clinton, only she didn't even have the same DNA as a popular ex-President."
In her defense, she did take occasional injections of his DNA.
Posted by Rob Brown:That is the kind of person she is. She LIVES to attack people, to tear them down. To run anything but the "respectful campaign" that John McCain promised earlier this year.
I also heard she eats small children in fact, she LIVES to eat small children.
Hey, at least she does her own attacking instead of having a surrogate do it for her.
Posted by Pat Nolan: Hey, at least she does her own attacking instead of having a surrogate do it for her.
Except for the fact that she IS the surrogate, since she's speaking for the McCain campaign...
Posted by Patrick Calloway:Except for the fact that she IS the surrogate, since she's speaking for the McCain campaign...
No.. I would say being one half of the McCain campaign makes you a bit more then a surrogate
Only 2 states have fewer citizens than Alaska.
Alaska's population is about 700,000. The rest of the US has a few cities that have more than that, and many, many more urban areas that have more than that.
Lucas County, Ohio (Toledo area), has 450,000 citizens; a small county halfway between Dullsville and Nowhere.
he has LED NOTHING of any serious note. Not a brigade in battle. Not a city. Not a state. NOTHING.
What has McCain lead? He has done none of these things either.
Yet, he's been in Congress 25 years. And we can certainly see the 'change' he has brought in those years, can't we?
So, obviously, experience was never an issue for Democrats this year until McCain selected Palin
And here I thought it was the Republicans who had been harping on experience, EVEN AFTER Palin was selected.
Only instead of talking about them theoretically in the halls of Harvard, in press rooms or at art galleries, she actually KNOWS them.
Ahh, more anti-intellectualism. The dumbing down of America for political gain is alive and well.
But she is against abortion and has a deep-rooted faith in God. And that means she needs to be discredited and killed - politically, anyway.
Umm, no. But thanks for completely twisting the arguments (again). It's the fact that she doesn't know squat about anything. It's that she tries to claim that because Russia can be seen from one of Alaska's islands it gives her foreign policy experience. It's the fact she didn't even have a passport before last year yet claims to be knowledgeable about the world. I could go on, but it's not worth the effort.
I cannot believe the crap flowing from the McCain/Palin camp over the last few days. Sarah Palin has got to be one of the most witless politicians I have ever seen in my lifetime, and to do such damage to the campaign by bringing up such pre-dismissed charges like the Wright crap, the "Women who do not SUPPORT other women" gaff, and just being so dense not to realize if you are going to Lie or attempt to smear, thousands will be all over your comments within the hour. It's not the media attacking you, you are just kicking yourself in the face trying to get more than one foot in your mouth at a time.
Only 2 states have fewer citizens than Alaska.
Oddly, I don't recall that being much of an issue when Howard Dean was running.
Whatever Palin's other possible deficiencies, this one seems bogus, about as valid as claiming that Bush must be more qualified than Dean, being as Texas is so big and all.
A strong woman, a woman of accomplishment, with a family and a sense of humor could possibly makehistory and become Vice-President. Yet "women's groups" like NOW are terrified and horrified. Not only do they not at least offer a token "It would be a step forward" despite disagreeing with her on issues, they are determined to bring her down.
I can't imagine why that would be.
Perhaps it's because her record on women's rights--even putting aside her views on abortion--is so abysmal? This is the small-town mayor who made rape victims pay for their own evidence kits, and she's far from the only politician to do that, but that doesn't make it okay. She was a mayor in the state with the highest sexual assault rates in the country, who upheld the practice of billing rape victims for their investigation kits while her then-governor battled the practice. Her town was saving taxpayer money on investigating rapes--the only violent crime in which the authorities sometimes pass the cost of investigation onto the victim--and she still managed to leave Wasilla with $20M of debt.
This is also the governor who slashed funding for women's shelters--again, in a state with especially high rates of violence towards women. What, with all the earmarks she got for Alaska, she couldn't have asked for some help in looking after their battered women?
It wouldn't really be a step forward in women's rights to have a VP who sees women's safety as a luxury the state shouldn't have to pay for.
I'm not even particularly comfortable with the way she handles her children in the campaign, but we won't get into that.
There are millions upon millions of Americans with happy marriages and well-adjusted children and a great sense of humor, who do not claim to be qualified for national office. As a woman with a mother, grandmothers, girl cousins, and a lot of girlfriends, I'd much rather have national leaders who are honest, knowledgeable and have a good record of defending women's rights. Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act. Not just voted for it--he wrote it. Compared to that, Gov. Palin's chromosomes mean nothing.
Red Monster: There are millions upon millions of Americans with happy marriages and well-adjusted children and a great sense of humor, who do not claim to be qualified for national office.
A couple of weeks ago I went home for a family reunion. My sisters got great amusement out of saying that Sarah Palin thinks she's ready to be VP, then they'd throw up their arms and say, "I'm ready too! I have kids! I've balanced a checkbook! I'm ready too!"
My sisters both have law degrees. Heck, they graduated with honors. And they have great kids. They are extremely intelligent, honest, wonderful women. But they know that's not enough, just like I know I'm not qualified to be President or VP either.
So yeah, I agree. Chromosomes be damned, Sarah Palin's not ready. I have issues with Obama's experience as well, but at least he's given intelligent answers to tough questions instead of just saying, "I feel confident that I'm ready."
Supporting a candidate because he or she is like you instead of who would be the best at the job is one of the reasons our country is in the fine shape it is today. Women's groups can clearly vote for their best interests, not just for the female candidate. Or, should we vote for the woman without thinking. Would any of you males out there vote for a candidate for such a flimsy reason? I want the best person for the job. Politics is still disproportionately male, but if Sarah was a democrat on Obama's ticket, I would be voting Green. She is not only unqualified, but her politics are 180 from where I sit. Don't tell me to vote for the woman. Stick to the issues if you want to convince me that there is any reason on earth to vote for her and McCain.
Actually, there seems to be some evidence that Palin is appealing to men more than women.
Bill Mulligan: Oddly, I don't recall that being much of an issue when Howard Dean was running.
Except that if you try to leave Vermont your options are not "water, water, water, Canada." I'll also wager than Dean left Vermont more often than Palin left Alaska over the course of their respective lives, both because it was easier for Dean and because Dean probably took more of an interest in seeing what other states were like. Palin, by contrast, went straight back to Alaska after she finished college.
I remember Palin saying something like Alaska is just like small-town America and I thought "how the hell would you know? When was the last time you were in the Midwest, or someplace like that?"
Palin does connect with the "average" people Democrats supposedly care about. Only instead of talking about them theoretically in the halls of Harvard, in press rooms or at art galleries, she actually KNOWS them.">>
I don't want an 'average person' or 'Joe Sixpack' in the White House. I want someone smarter than I am, who is actually interested in learning and does not use "God" as the rationalization for everything. The whole "friend of Israel" thing with her is just because that's where the Biblical final battle will take place, not for any love of spreading democracy or loving the Jewish people.
Except that if you try to leave Vermont your options are not "water, water, water, Canada."
True...but so what?
really, I mean, if there are valid reasons to oppose her--and there are--they should be made. When people start spouting what frankly seems to me to be really goofy stuff like her being chosen for a resemblance to a character in Varsity Blues or that people from Alaska have no business running for higher office (which seems to be the implication)...I don't know, it makes it seem like people are grasping at straws.
From the feeble arguments some are presenting you'd think McCain/Palin was going to win. And they aren't. In fact, I'll predict right here that not only will Obama clear 300 electoral votes easily, the Democrats will get to 60 in the senate.
I'd also predict that republicans will then immediately say that anything bad that happens for the next 2 years is 100% due to the Democrats while Democrats will say that it will take at least 5 or 6 years to undo everything Bush has done so they are blameless for anything that happens during that time...but that's all so obvious I can't honestly call it a prediction.
(Neil C...by any chance do you have a sister named Mimi? If not nevermind. If so...just more evidence in my mind that this is a very very small world).
Jason M. Bryant said:
"Actually, there seems to be some evidence that Palin is appealing to men more than women."
True. That's because she winks at them and they think they have a chance to screw her.
Face it, guys, you aren't gonna get to screw her. You aren't 71 and a presidential candidate.
There is a weird 'breaking the fourth wall' kind of thing going on with Palin.
When you see a character winking at the camera on TV, in the movies or even in comics, it is the character telling the audience that they know this is a joke between them and the reader/viewer. What's the joke here?
Are we supposed to know that she's lying and that she knows we know? It goes beyond being cute, if that is what Palin was going for, and into creepy.
Do we want a VP (or possible President) who doesn't take a debate on national issues seriously? Apparently some people do, considering that there is positive reaction to the debate among some of the GOP faithful.
True...but so what?
"So what" is that she keeps trumpeting her executive experience and saying it prepares her for the White House. It doesn't, since running Alaska of all states is not the same as running the country.
Once she stops talking about how she has Executive Experience that prepares her for the White House, I'll stop talking about how much of a joke that is.
PAD,
You just don't get it. Those are tears in her eyes from all of the smoke the Obama/Biden are blowing our way these days.
;-)
Was in the middle of nowhere during the debate with no internet, so will catch up on your in depth analysis on the debate later.
Iowa Jim
that people from Alaska have no business running for higher office (which seems to be the implication)
Damn, Bill. NO, that is NOT the implication, and I'm surprised you'd think it was.
The fact is that I wouldn't give a damn where she was from and how much experience she had or didn't have, if she would just avoid bragging about how experienced she was. It gets on my nerves, because it's such a crock.
Why is it a crock?
Well, first, because Alaska not only has a small population, but is far removed from most of the rest of the United States. So she can't really claim to have her finger on the pulse of the nation. She's spent most of her life way up north.
Second, because she has LESS THAN TWO YEARS of that ultra-important "executive experience."
(No, her time as mayor of Wasilla doesn't count. And if she'd never been Governor, if she's gone straight from Mayor to VP candidate and blathered on and on about having executive experience then you'd be rolling your eyes at her just like I am.)
So here's one of the things I would enjoy saying to her, if I had the opportunity:
"Sarah, will you please shut the fuck up about your executive experience?! You barely have any, and you have absolutely none that would make you more prepared to run the entire friggin' country than Barack Obama or Joe Biden."
I don't think that would be an exchange that would make you look particularly good.
I easily grant you that 2 years experience as governor of Alaska is pretty thin executive experience...but I would maintain that it is still more executive experience than the other 3 guys on the tickets. That's one reason why this year will be a rare example of a senator winning the presidency without being a vice president or having some executive experience first. Other than JFK I think you'd have to go all the way back to Benjamin Harrison (Harding was a lieutenant gov before becoming senator).
There are two responses to this. One is to deny that her executive experiences are actual executive experiences. That seems to be the tack you're taking and it doesn't work.
The other is to acknowledge she has that experience and simply say that it doesn't make up for the other problems you have with her. Which seems like an eminently easy statement to make but in today's political climate it just isn't enough to say that you disagree with someone--they have to be liars, frauds, senile, commies, Manchurian candidates, fundamentalist atheists hiding deep dark sexual perversions...etc.
I mean c'mon. It bothers you that she touts her experience? Good grief, what do you expect? It's one thing to want someone to lose it's quite another to get upset that they themselves want to win and do not share your negative opinion of themselves.
As for being in Alaska means you don't have your finger on the pulse of the nation...I don't know if there is any spot that actually would give you that finger. New York would certainly give you A finger but not necessarily THAT finger. Washington DC might as well be Mars to most of the country. Anyway...they DO have TV there, right? The internet? That's the beauty of the world wide webb--Micha, in Israel, has a better sense of what goes on here than some of the people who actually live here, in my humble opinion.
Look, I'm voting Obama. At this point it would take something pretty unlikely to get me to switch. But I'm voting for the man. If my decision was based on a lot of the people supporting him...feh. Too much hate, too little reason. But i think I've allowed myself in the past to be too influenced by the people behind the leaders--it's the leader himself or herself who should be the focus.
Bill Mulligan: but I would maintain that it is still more executive experience than the other 3 guys on the tickets.
If you look at "executive experience" as a checkbox, then sure, she has it and they don't. Just like they have the checkbox for foreign policy experience and she doesn't. However, if you actually look at what she's done with her executive experience, it's pretty thin.
Obama has done some stuff in the Senate that's worth talking about. He's worked on ethics reforms bills. He's worked with Dick Luger (R) to clean up loose nuclear material from Russia so it doesn't get in bad hands. Obama doesn't have a very long list of accomplishments, but he has a few things.
Governor Palin has a windfall profits tax. That's it, that's the only thing I've heard of her doing that's worth mentioning. And that's something that McCain derided when the Democrats suggested it for the rest of the country earlier this year.
She's made lots of claims about what she's done, but they didn't add up. That pipeline she's building? They're not actually building it yet, she just gave a Canadian company $500 million to consider doing it, under no obligation. Balancing the Alaska budget? Well, Alaska gets more oil money and Federal money than any other state, so that's no big trick. Plus, she has such a bad relationship with the Alaska legislature (partly because she doesn't even go near the state capital), they overruled most of her line-item vetoes, so she didn't actually accomplish that.
So yeah, she has legislative experience. But it's not very good executive experience, so that's not worth much.
The other is to acknowledge she has that experience and simply say that it doesn't make up for the other problems you have with her. Which seems like an eminently easy statement to make but in today's political climate it just isn't enough to say that you disagree with someone--they have to be liars, frauds, senile, commies, Manchurian candidates, fundamentalist atheists hiding deep dark sexual perversions...etc.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I haven't called her most of those things. I do consider her a liar, because she lied about the bridge, for one thing. I also consider her a bitch, because of statements like "Obama pals around with terrorists."
I mean c'mon. It bothers you that she touts her experience? Good grief, what do you expect? It's one thing to want someone to lose it's quite another to get upset that they themselves want to win and do not share your negative opinion of themselves.
Well, look at it this way. Barack Obama has four years of experience in the legislative branch. It's not a long time, and he isn't acting like it's a long time.
Yes, he'll talks about what he's done while in the Senate. He needs to do that to remind people who consider him inexperienced that he's been doing more than occupying a chair. But he does not go on and on and on about how much experience he has. He doesn't even say something like "I have years of experience in Washington," even though that would technically be true.
That's because he knows it would make people go "what are you talking about? You only have one lousy four-year term under your belt!" And those people would have a point. He would seem to be exaggerating his credentials, and he would seem to be bragging.
So when Palin touts her experience, there is no reason not to respond by saying "what are you talking about? You weren't even Governor for two years!" Because, again, you'd have a point. For the same reasons.
She should stick to the issues instead of talking herself up. She's in no position to brag about her experience, since she has so little of it.
Politics in America in the 21st century (and the tail end of the 20th):
My guy is allowed to make mistakes; any mistakes your guy makes show his/her utter ineptitude.
Everything bad my side says about your guys is true; everything bad your side says about my guys is at best taken out of context, or blown out of proportion, and at worst outright lies.
Popular votes frequently wind up showing neither candidate has as much as a 2/3 majority of the vote, but that won't stop the winner from claiming they have a mandate from the people.
A part of me thinks that all votes should require a 2/3 majority, from election through all votes in the legislature. At that rate, nothing would get done unless people cooperated. Unfortunately, the cynical side of me says that you could stop that last sentence three words early, and it would be just as accurate.
Sigh.
You know what's still got me rocked? In the CBS interview (with Katie freakin' Couric, for crying out loud - a "newswoman" whose previous experience was on the morning show!), Palin claimed to have read "every newspaper and magazine put in front of her", yet could not name one. As far as I can tell from my Internet research, Juneau, Alaska's capitol (where the governor would presumably have spent a bit of time), has exactly one daily newspaper - and she couldn't recall it! (The Juneau Empire, if you're curious.)
Looks like she's got a mind like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 17 states...
Jerome Maida: Someone who by many accounts is the least experienced, least accomplished nominee for the Presidency in at least a century. he has LED NOTHING of any serious note. Not a brigade in battle. Not a city. Not a state. NOTHING. But he gives pretty speeches!
Luigi Novi: A lie.
If you were really interested in discussing Obama’s experience, you could’ve looked it up. I listed some of the things he’s done and led in my September 7 post on Peter’s 8.29.08 “The Sarah Palin Thread”. These included important groups he was a part of, founded, or headed, which included matters in foreign relations. By contrast, Palin thinks being able to see Russia from Alaska gives her foreign policy experience. To argue that Obama has “led nothing”, and that Palin has greater experience in such matters, is extremely questionable.
But if you insist on this idea, then may I ask what brigade, city or state McCain has lead?
Jerome Maida: So, obviously, experience was never an issue for Democrats this year until McCain selected Palin.
Luigi Novi: No, you have it the other way around. It was the Republicans who made experience an issue first, only to then select a VP candidate that showed that this was hypocrisy on their part. Experience wasn’t an issue for Democrats because they knew that Obama had it, and that his quick rise to the top merely underscored how gifted a leader was. Only when the Republicans selected Palin have critics pointed out the inconsistency. Even Karl Rove said that Palin’s selection was political, and an insider on McCain’s campaign told Brian Williams that she crammed for two weeks on the material relevant to the campaign that she would need for interviews and debates.
Jerome Maida: All of a sudden, a conservative woman is picked and people engage in the incomprehensible logic that because there is a POSSIBILITY Palin will become President if she is elected as Vice-President, that somehow that is and EQUAL OR GREATER RISK than electing someone as inexperienced as Obama when it is CERTAIN he will be President if his ticket wins.
Luigi Novi: There is certainly a greater risk of having another ignorant, misinformed empty suit with no intellectual curiosity and the inability to answer a question coherently or honestly if McCain/Palin win, than if Obama/Biden win. McCain is elderly, and suffers from a number of serious medical issues that could seriously impact his health during his administration. (See “John McCain's health records must be released” on YouTube.) Palin would be in control of the country if he were incapacitated, or even if she found herself in charge of the emergency bunker in the White House, as Cheney was on 9/11. By contrast, if Obama is President, the public can know that there is someone intelligent, accomplished, insightful, literate and thoughtful in charge, who can answer questions, including ones from harsh critics, without euphemism or dishonesty, and he does not present the health risk that McCain/Palin do. So yes, there is a higher risk in terms of health with a McCain victory.
Jerome Maida: Palin does connect with the "average" people Democrats supposedly care about. Only instead of talking about them theoretically in the halls of Harvard, in press rooms or at art galleries, she actually KNOWS them.
Luigi Novi: So in other words, because Obama, who was raised by a single mother in poverty, worked his ass off to get into Harvard, and worked as a community organizers to get citizens registered as voters, among other things, that means he doesn’t know “average” people? The fact that he has enjoyed prestigious employment and financial success means he doesn’t know “average” people? The fact that he learned about such things by studying and later teaching at Ivy League schools means that his knowledge of these things is inadequate, but Sarah Palin, who had no interest in the Iraq War until her son signed up for it, and didn’t have a passport until 2006, has greater knowledge of these things, precisely because she hasn’t experienced higher education for it? So where did she learn it? Being a beauty pageant contestant? A sportscaster?
And on what evidence do you base the assertion that Obama does not know average people? Because he went to Harvard means he can’t know average people? Why does the former exclude the latter? Seriously, where do you get such preposterous ideas from? You’re saying that in choice between a Harvard-educated Ivy League professor, and a former beauty queen and sportscaster, you choose the latter, because the latter are better qualifications?
And do you also feel this way of McCain? McCain has spent his entire life working for the government, going directly from working in the military to working in the government, never having held down a job in the private sector, engaging in infidelity that ruined his first marriage, eventually marrying a wealthy second wife while his first wife was still undergoing medical treatments for injuries she received in a car crash while he was a POW, an act for which McCain and his three children from his first marriage would not reconcile for several years. How is he any less “elite” or more “average” than Obama? At times I am incredulous that the GOP can be so cynical that they think they get away with fooling anyone with this sort of hypocrisy. Then I see people like you repeating their Kool-Aid-induced delusion like a mantra, and am forced to remember that the GOP’s cult-like, True Believer base is fooled by it because they want to be.
Relating to ordinary citizens is nice, but the most important criteria for electing a U.S. President is ability and what one intends to do in office. Not the ability to convince the public of your image of a “down home average” person. If the positions were reversed, the rest of the GOP supporters would obviously be arguing this with Obama. The fact that they’re so sore about his popularity that they dared compare him with empty-headed celebrity flakes like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears makes this scenario likely.
Jerome Maida: But she is against abortion and has a deep-rooted faith in God. And that means she needs to be discredited…
Luigi Novi: That she is against abortion may be one reason for me to not vote for her, but it is not necessarily a reason for her to be “discredited”, as that is an ideological issue on which the country is divided. If she sticks to her guns, that that is to be respected, even if one does not agree with her position. She is, however, to be discredited for the way she refuses to be honest about that position. Katie Couric asked her if abortion should be illegal, even in matters of rape and incest, say, for a hypothetical 15-year-old, and Palin refused to answer the question directly, preferring instead to talk about how she would “counsel” a woman in that situation against it. She said she wouldn’t want to see someone go to jail for having an abortion, which I find encouraging, but it contradicts her statement that she’s “pro-life”, since “pro-life” is not typically used to mean “I’m personally against abortion” (as there are pro-choicers who hold that belief), but that you’re against anyone having an abortion, and feel it should be outlawed.
Jerome Maida: The venom against this woman is like nothing I have ever seen. More than the invective hurled against Reagan, both Clintons and Dubya. It is really amazing. And quite sad. A strong woman, a woman of accomplishment, with a family and a sense of humor could possibly makehistory and become Vice-President. Yet "women's groups" like NOW are terrified and horrified. Not only do they not at least offer a token "It would be a step forward" despite disagreeing with her on issues, they are determined to bring her down.
Luigi Novi: The vast majority of the criticism leveled at Palin is quite legitimate, as it is based on her ignorance, her lack of intellectual curiosity, her insistence on being sheltered by the media, except for cherry-picked interviews, her inability to answer a question articulately or honestly, her tendency to spout the same sort of logic-twisting propaganda as the worst members of her party, and her complete lack of qualification for the office she’s seeking. Feminists are quite right to be critical of her (which has nothing to do with “bringing her down”), as she is hardly the ideal model for female progressiveness, and as there are man other conservative women, from Elizabeth Dole to Christie Todd Whitman, who would’ve been more respectable choices for a VP running mate.
Jerome Maida: Yet it's the Republicans who are hypocritical? It's the Republicans who don't appreciate diversity of culture or opinion?
Luigi Novi: The Republicans are indeed hypocritical, and you have to ignore reality to argue that they’re not.
It was not the Democrats who cautioned against Hilary Clinton playing the gender card when criticized, and then played that very card themselves when referring to criticism of Palin, it was Dick Morris, a Republican.
It was not the Democrats who ridiculed their opponent for mentioning proper tire inflation as one method of reducing oil use, and then later say that that was indeed a valid measure. It was McCain.
It was not the Democrats who attacked their opponent for lack of adequate experience, ignoring his record of accomplishments, accusing him of superficial, intellectually inadequate celebrity by comparing him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, and then turned around to select a VP candidate with much less accomplishments, claiming that very same sort of popularity as some type of virtue, insulting those very same “citizens” who happen to be community organizers, and then accuse anyone of pointing this out of “attacking her and all women who got their start in small towns”. It was the Republicans.
It was not the Democrats who attacked their opponent for citing the U.N. as one important tool in the foreign policy toolbox, only to subsequently admit that it indeed was. It was John McCain.
It was not the Democrats who attacked their opponent’s wife, and then, after selecting a VP candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, opined that family was “off limits”. It was the Republicans who did this, with Bill O’Reilly excoriating Jamie Lynn Spears for her teenage pregnancy, only to later attack critics for focusing on Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. Obama, for his part, asserted that family was off-limits even after Bristol Palin became a target, displaying one example of how he’s the class act in this election.
It was not Barack Obama who said, prior to the current financial crisis, that the economy was strong, only to later say after the crisis hit that he foresaw it and tried to warn about it. It was McCain.
It was not the Democrats who attacked their opponent’s ties to questionable figures known to have made anti-American statements, including ministers with dubious sermons, only to ignore such questionable ties in their own candidate. It was the Republicans. They attacked Obama because his former minister—not Obama himself—made anti-American statements that Obama has publicly denounced, and because 60’s radical Bill Ayers was linked to bombings that occurred with Obama was eight years old, which Obama has also denounced, as he and Ayers were never close, despite the fact that Palin welcomed an anti-American secessionist organization at the RNC, thanked them for their work, participated in a “witchcraft” exorcism ceremony at her own church, favors teaching creationism, and despite the fact that McCain was one of the “Keating Five”, and cited for his “poor judgment” in his ties to convict Charles Keating. Terms like “Willie Horton” and “Swift-boating”, which have been coined for this type of attack, engaged in when a candidate/party knows that it cannot win on the actual issues, were not coined after Democrats engaged in it. They were coined after Republicans did.
It was not the Democratic VP candidate, who feigned confusion, during the VP debate, that voting for the Iraq War after Bush asserted evidence of a Hussein-9/11 connection, and then changing position after finding out that evidence was of poor quality, was some type of inconsistency, and attempted to argue that this supposed confusion had any bearing on the fact that they were a small town outsider, in order to shamelessly emphasize that canned talking point, as if their opponent wasn’t also from a fairly small town. It was Sarah Palin.
It was not the Democrats who tried to acquire federal pork for a Bridge to Nowhere, and then lie about it by claiming that they said “Thanks but no thanks” to Congress regarding the money for it. It was Sarah Palin.
For my part, I don’t like Edwards or Clinton, so you’re preaching to the choir regarding them. But if you can list examples of hypocrisy on the part of the Obama campaign during this campaign, much less a longer list than this one, please do so.
Rob Brown: My point is that this woman has been isolated from the lower 48. Alaska is very different from the lower 48. People in Alaska are very different than people in New York, or in Iowa, or in Oregon, or in West Virginia, or in Georgia (the one containing Atlanta), etc.
Luigi Novi: How so? People are people.
Rob Brown Alaska not only has a small population, but is far removed from most of the rest of the United States. So she can't really claim to have her finger on the pulse of the nation.
Luigi Novi: Non sequitur. Having one’s finger on the pulse of the nation is merely a question of availing yourself of access to the media. Not geography. Sarah Palin is unqualified because she lacked any intellectual curiosity or experience about matters outside of Alaska, and the ability to articulate an opinion on them. Not because being Alaskan precludes her from doing so.
They attacked Obama because his former minister—not Obama himself—made anti-American statements that Obama has publicly denounced, and because 60’s radical Bill Ayers was linked to bombings that occurred with Obama was eight years old, which Obama has also denounced, as he and Ayers were never close,
By the way....anybody take a look at the OTHER people who served on the same committee as Ayers and Obama? You know, the president of a CHicago Presbyterean seminary? And the board member of the Chicago Symphony (who also happens to be a supporter of Sen. Orrin Hatch?). Shouldn't they be investigated as well for their associations with a "known terrorist"?
Peter David: I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the only reason someone has for winking directly into camera is that Lois Lane has just made a snide comment about how they're never around at the same time as Superman.
Luigi Novi: I can think of another one: She's trying to signal her main handler in Morse Code. She's trying to say, "What the hell have you people gotten me into???!!! Get me outta here NOW!!!!!!!"
Hopefully her knowledge of syntax will eventually exceed single winks, so that if she and McCain win, she'll be able to form complete sentences by the 2012 debate, which will be on a par with her verbal skills.
Luigi Novi: Non sequitur. Having one’s finger on the pulse of the nation is merely a question of availing yourself of access to the media
I don't know, Luigi. I think that it's one thing to read about a place, or to chat with somebody in a place, and another thing to visit that place and explore it for yourself.
Michelle Obama said something in "Time" recently that seemed to back this up. Just to be clear, she wasn't talking about Palin when she said this, she was just talking about her experiences on the campaign trail. Here's Michelle:
"I've realized that there are two conversations that go on," she said. "There's one at the punditry level — the polls, the writers, the folks in the know, they have one set of conversations — and then there's what's happening on the ground. Early on, I learned to base my reactions on what I see on the ground, because that to me is a more accurate reflection — even, as it turned out, in the primary. If you read the papers, you wouldn't have predicted the outcome of Iowa. But if you were in Iowa, you could feel the clear possibility of what the outcome would be."
If she's right, then you can't always get a complete picture of things if you just read about stuff.
Luigi Novi: How so? People are people.
Did you see "The Daily Show" tonight? Jason Jones was in Wasilla interviewing the residents. I didn't know whether to laugh or be disgusted.
So you have people like that up in Alaska, or in Wasilla anyway. You have different sorts of people in California. You have other types of people in Texas. You have other types of people in New York. Etc. Different kinds of people live in different areas.
Like these people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs
Think you'd find anybody like that in Greenwich, Connecticut?
Hopefully her knowledge of syntax will eventually exceed single winks, so that if she and McCain win, she'll be able to form complete sentences by the 2012 debate, which will be on a par with her verbal skills.Optimistic, hm?
Really, she hasn't performed very well. If she had a scintilla of wit, she'd cop to the brainlock in the Couric interview, and use a little of the charm she supposedly has to make a more graceful escape out of what was an embarassing performance. She could have salvaged SOMETHING out of it. Instead, she played to the base and attacked the media, which is fooling no one.....
Like these people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs
Think you'd find anybody like that in Greenwich, Connecticut?
Stupid drunks? Are you serious? If anyone from Greenwich Connecticut would share the secret of how they got rid of all of their stupid drunks please share it with the rest of what will be a grateful nation. Unless it's something like they let the Skakel brothers take care of them.
And I note that one of the guys on film was so embarrassed by the drunk's ranting that he tried to hide his face, so perhaps this scientific survey is not an entirely accurate portrayal of southern Kentuckians as a whole.
Rob Brown: I don't know, Luigi. I think that it's one thing to read about a place, or to chat with somebody in a place, and another thing to visit that place and explore it for yourself.
Luigi Novi: And just how much "exploring" do you personally require in order for someone to "have their finger on the pulse of the nation"? How many states? How many cities? How many cities and states did Barack and Michelle Obama visit before he became a Presidential candidate? You yourself pointed out that Michelle said this when she herself was on the campaign trail, not years and years earlier. So if Michelle and Barack can make this observation based on recent experience, why can't Palin? What aspect of the citizenry is exhibited in the Lower 48, and not in Alaska, that Palin wouldn't be privy to?
Rob Brown: Did you see "The Daily Show" tonight? Jason Jones was in Wasilla interviewing the residents. I didn't know whether to laugh or be disgusted....Like these people...(YouTube link)...Think you'd find anybody like that in Greenwich, Connecticut?
Luigi Novi: First of all, the statement by you that I responded to was about Alaska, not Wasilla.
As for Greenwich, well, I've been to Greenwich Connecticut, and I've met some really stupid people there.
But if you really think that a satirical piece on The Daily Show, which is edited to maximize that effect, is a reliable measuring stick of the thousands of people who live in a town, much less an anonymously-made YouTube video of people not even identified as Wasilians, or that people are so qualitatively different that there are no people in the Lower 48 like that, then your problem is not that Wasilians are different from other Americans. Your problem is that you're a small-minded bigot who can't form coherent reasoning.
Of course not. They're not running for President.
True.
On the other hand, I think the point is that if it's guilt by association they're trying to get, then Ayers is associated with a wide range of people....people who are quite mainstream as far as American society is concerned. And these people find nothing wrong or radical about Ayers.
Don't know if this has come up anywhere else, but the biggest thing I can say against Palin is that, for someone with a degree and experience in media, she really doesn't seem too familiar with how to, you know, interact with the media.
Bill Mulligan: "If anyone from Greenwich Connecticut would share the secret of how they got rid of all of their stupid drunks please share it with the rest of what will be a grateful nation."
Clearly, they sent them all to Wasilla.
Your problem is that you're a small-minded bigot who can't form coherent reasoning.
Wow, where did that come from?
Look, I live in Toronto. I've taken trips to New York (both upstate and NYC), to Vermont, to Connecticut, to Niagara Falls, to Chicago. I've also been to San Diego, Atlanta, D.C. and Orlando, visiting relatives and such. That's because many of those places were relatively easy to get to from Toronto, either by car or by plane. I also went to those places because I wanted to go to those places, because I was interested in seeing them and meeting people there.
Because I've been to all of those places I like to think that I have a better sense of what they're like than if I just stayed here in Toronto my whole life and read about them.
Contrast that with Palin. Visiting any of the places I listed would mean she'd have to go to a certain amount of trouble since--as I said--Alaska is pretty isolated. As far as I know she has not gone to that trouble before this year.
(I skimmed her Wikipedia entry and it looks like she only ever left Alaska to go to college in Idaho and, briefly, Hawaii. Then she headed back up there, where I believe she stayed until this year. She didn't know much about what the rest of the country was like, and she didn't care. Which was sort of how George W. Bush viewed the world before he ran in 2000; he wasn't concerned about any part of the world aside from his little corner of it.)
Palin's only got experience governing Alaskans and interacting with Alaskans. Does saying that make me a "bigot" according to you? So be it, then.
But alleged bigot or not, I believe that in order to govern effectively you need to know all the different kinds of people that comprise the nation, you need to understand them at least partially, and you need to CARE how they feel. In that area, I believe Palin comes up short. Up until this year, again, she's mostly only known Alaskans. She's mostly only governed Alaskans. And the people she's meeting on the campaign trail now are all fawning supporters who agree with her on everything.
I wonder if she's ever talked to a voter who didn't share her view of the world, who didn't want Roe v. Wade overturned, who believed in ending the Iraq War ASAP, who was against drilling in ANWR, etc. If, God forbid, she ever became President, it would be her duty to weigh the desires of those people, those liberals of whom she speaks so contemptuously, against her own desires. I'm not convinced she could, and I'm not convinced she would even try. I believe Barack Obama would because he has been willing to *talk to people who disagree with him*, and sometimes he has talked to those people in the red states.
Bill Mulligan: Stupid drunks? Are you serious? If anyone from Greenwich Connecticut would share the secret of how they got rid of all of their stupid drunks please share it with the rest of what will be a grateful nation. Unless it's something like they let the Skakel brothers take care of them.
Not stupid drunks. Hillbillies.
(And I think only one of the Skakels had a hand in killing that girl, but am not completely sure.)
I actually wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of Republicans in Greenwich because, after all, they're pretty well off. I mentioned Greenwich because it is one of the most un-hillbilly-like places I could think of.
I did this to illustrate that no, people aren't generally the same wherever you go as Luigi seemed to be saying. People are very different, and where they grow up plays a big part in creating those differences.
Contrast that with Palin. Visiting any of the places I listed would mean she'd have to go to a certain amount of trouble since--as I said--Alaska is pretty isolated. As far as I know she has not gone to that trouble before this year.
(I skimmed her Wikipedia entry and it looks like she only ever left Alaska to go to college in Idaho and, briefly, Hawaii. Then she headed back up there, where I believe she stayed until this year. She didn't know much about what the rest of the country was like, and she didn't care. Which was sort of how George W. Bush viewed the world before he ran in 2000; he wasn't concerned about any part of the world aside from his little corner of it.)
I don't know that her Wikipedia, or anyone elses for that matter, is so extensive as to mention every single time they have ventured out of state. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And right off the top of my head I can give an example; she was criticized for getting on an airplane to return from Texas to give birth to her last child. For all we know there could be scores of such trips which did not have an ending dramatic enough to be noted.
Anyway, if it turned out that Palin has actually done a road trip to all 50 states, including the admittedly tricky feat of driving a Winnebago to Hawaii, would it make you one iota more likely to vote for her?
And right off the top of my head I can give an example; she was criticized for getting on an airplane to return from Texas to give birth to her last child. For all we know there could be scores of such trips which did not have an ending dramatic enough to be noted.
You have a point there.
Bill Mulligan: Anyway, if it turned out that Palin has actually done a road trip to all 50 states, including the admittedly tricky feat of driving a Winnebago to Hawaii, would it make you one iota more likely to vote for her?
If it turned out that she had traveled all around the country and the experience hadn't changed her one bit, hadn't helped her to better understand and sympathize with the myriad people of the United States of America, then no.
But if you really think that a satirical piece on The Daily Show, which is edited to maximize that effect, is a reliable measuring stick of the thousands of people who live in a town, much less an anonymously-made YouTube video of people not even identified as Wasilians, or that people are so qualitatively different that there are no people in the Lower 48 like that, then your problem is not that Wasilians are different from other Americans. Your problem is that you're a small-minded bigot who can't form coherent reasoning.
Luigi, I agree with you on the larger point about Rob's argument but I don't agree at all that he's a small minded bigot. I think we are all getting way too caught up in the admittedly ugly spirit of the moment and while the culture as a whole may have embraced this "I'm right, you're evil" mindset there's no reason for the rest of us to join the mob.
It's the same thing I felt when people told Iowa Jim he was a bigot for opposing gay marriage. I'm for gay marriage, as I think I've repeatedly made clear. A dear friend from college, one of the favorite people in my life, just married her partner of several years; I'm happy for them. But I can see where it's hard for some people to make the jump.
Condemning them all as bigots puts one in the position of pretty much having to vote for a bigot, whether or not you vote for McCain or Obama, since they both oppose gay marriage. When Obama wins, as I think he will, I don't expect too many of the liberals celebrating his victory to temper their remarks with "But of course, he's a bigot."
Which is my roundabout way of saying; We are way to quick to sling around insults that should be reserved for people of genuine malice. I've seen nothing to indicate that Rob deserves that sort of comment. You're a terrific debater, Luigi, someone I do not want to be on the wrong side of an argument with, but don't go on the attack when you can better win with reason.
The foundation of bigoted isn't "meanness" but "intolerance." Merriam-Webster keeps the definition online. Opposing gay marriage is bigoted against homosexuality -- by definition.
The intolerance is arbitrary by even your account. What is the hardship in accepting that which is unambiguous and plainly observable?
Rob Brown: Look, I live in Toronto. I've taken trips to New York (both upstate and NYC), to Vermont, to Connecticut, to Niagara Falls, to Chicago. I've also been to San Diego, Atlanta, D.C. and Orlando, visiting relatives and such. That's because many of those places were relatively easy to get to from Toronto, either by car or by plane. I also went to those places because I wanted to go to those places, because I was interested in seeing them and meeting people there. Because I've been to all of those places I like to think that I have a better sense of what they're like than if I just stayed here in Toronto my whole life and read about them.
Luigi Novi: Nice try.
But anyone who reads my above post will see that you're switching the points to which I made the "bigot" response. I didn't make that response with regard to your statement about Palin's travels. I made it in regard to your statement about Wasilians.
And I stand by it. None of your travels qualify you to judge an entire city of thousands of people in the bigoted manner that you did.
If you can provide reasoning/evidence to prove me wrong, then do so.
-----------
Now, if you want to talk about Palin's qualifications, I would agree with you that her small amount of travels make her less qualified than someone with a larger history of it.
So why did I disagree with you?
Well, it's simple.
You didn't say that in your original statement that I responded to.
Instead, you said:
"Well, first, because Alaska not only has a small population, but is far removed from most of the rest of the United States. So she can't really claim to have her finger on the pulse of the nation. She's spent most of her life way up north."
And there you have it. She can't have her finger on the pulse of the nation because she lives in Alaska. If you said she can't have her finger on the pulse of the nation because she's not well traveled, I would not have challenged that.
But you didn't.
Bill Mulligan: You're a terrific debater, Luigi, someone I do not want to be on the wrong side of an argument with, but don't go on the attack when you can better win with reason.
Luigi Novi: I did use reason, when I explained to Rob why his statement was a bigoted one. Doing so does not constitute an "insult" if the point has been validly illustrated as an accurate description.
However, I will concede that it might've been more accurate to say, "Rob, that was a bigoted statement on your part", since we all sometimes act on prejudices, so I apologize for not being as precise a I could've been. Iif Rob Brown considers that he could've thought out his words a bit more carefully, and this does not become a pattern on his part, then this would've been the better response on my part. But if he doesn't, then what I said would hardly be inappropriate.
Well put.
I think a lot of what's wrong with political discourse is that you have people searching for a reason to support their conclusions, whereas it might be better to do it the other way around. They don't want Mccain to win but instead of actually looking at the reasons why that is a perfectly valid descision to make they grab the first crazy sound bite they can find. "He killed over 100 guys on the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal!" Well, no, not at all, but it lets you off the hook on having to do any actual thinking. Ditto those who insist, despite any and all evidence to the contrary, that Obama is a secret Muslim and is hiding the fact for some cowardly and/or nefarious purpose. Ditto Sarah palin calling dinosaurs "Jesus Lizards".
The only good thing about that nonsense is that it saves you the trouble of engaging them, since there seems little point. You aren't going to change their, um, "minds" and they probably have little to contribute to your.
First of all, thank you Bill. I certainly did not deserve to be called a bigot, which was what Luigi did. Now I'm going to apologize for what I have to do, which is talk to Luigi in the confrontational and insulting tone he established.
Luigi did not say "that statement sounds bigoted", he said that if I believed most Wasillans were like the people shown on The Daily Show, then "Your problem is that you're a small-minded bigot who can't form coherent reasoning."
And Luigi, your problem is that right now you're being a dick. If all you want to do is trade insults then okay, I'll play that game with you.
I don't know what your problem is, but if you think that the following qualifies as some kind of mea culpa:
However, I will concede that it might've been more accurate to say, "Rob, that was a bigoted statement on your part", since we all sometimes act on prejudices, so I apologize for not being as precise a I could've been. Iif Rob Brown considers that he could've thought out his words a bit more carefully, and this does not become a pattern on his part, then this would've been the better response on my part. But if he doesn't, then what I said would hardly be inappropriate.
If you think that, then yeah, you're a dick. "Bigot" is a strong word, and you shouldn't be throwing it around lightly.
I don't know what I did, if I did anything at all, to cause this reaction in you. But if you think that by talking to me like this you're going to get me to say that I was wrong, that I should have used different words, and beg your forgiveness, you've got another think coming pal.
The difference between your use of the word "dick", and my use of the words "bigot" or "bigoted" is that my choice of words are accurate in describing of your statements of the citizens of an entire city that you've likely never been to. So yeah, your statement is indeed an insult. Mine isn't. It's a criticism of a statement by you in which insulted an entire city of people, based on the prejudicial information of an edited comedy skit and an anonymous YouTube video of dubious origin. That is indeed bigotry, is indeed what you did to deserve that label and is indeed applied as a legitimate criticism, which is not "light".
The fact that you do not like to have this pointed out to you does not mean that the person doing so is a "dick", and whether or not you admit this is true will not change this.
It's a criticism of a statement by you in which insulted an entire city of people, based on the prejudicial information of an edited comedy skit and an anonymous YouTube video of dubious origin.
Oh lord...since you still don't get it, let me explain something to you.
The YouTube video was...not...Wasillans. I never claimed it was Wasillans. I never even IMPLIED it was Wasillans. If you look at the description of that video, it says "Kentucky."
You jumped to a conclusion that I was saying "everybody in Wasilla is like the people in the YouTube video." How the hell you got there I don't know, because I didn't link to the video right after talking about Wasilla. I linked to the video after I said something along the lines of "different kinds of people live in different parts of the country."
So please give the whole "Rob says that this is a YouTube video of Wasillans" a rest. I never said anything like that and you know it.
As for The Daily Show, it's more reliable than you might believe. And no matter how they edited it, the fact that any Wasillans would say the sort of stuff caught on tape in that segment does not reflect well on that town.
The fact that you do not like to have this pointed out to you does not mean that the person doing so is a "dick", and whether or not you admit this is true will not change this.
Oh ho ho...
I guess when people called Iowa Jim a "bigot" then that wasn't an insult either, right? Please. If you go around calling people bigots, you are insulting them.
When you tell me I ought to choose my words more carefully, it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I'd like to clarify something before Luigi makes a post saying that I'm contradicting myself.
Up above I first said:
You jumped to a conclusion that I was saying "everybody in Wasilla is like the people in the YouTube video."
Then I said:
I never said anything like that and you know it.
Looking back, I thought Luigi might come back by saying "Which is it, Rob? Did I believe you said that, or did I know you never said anything like that?"
Yes, it looks like a contradiction. But it isn't.
Luigi knew I didn't make that statement. So the second sentence is true.
Luigi apparently jumped to the conclusion that even though I didn't make that statement, it was what I believed. So the first sentence--the one that said he jumped to a conclusion--is also true.
I'm sorry that I neglected to look carefully enough at the video to see that it said Kentucky. That said, you are still attempting to use it and TDS to illustrate your point that people are so qualitatively different across states that you can judge an entire town of thousands of people you've never met, based on a comedy skit. That remains a completely untenable conclusion borne of prejudicial thinking.
Rob Brown: I guess when people called Iowa Jim a "bigot" then that wasn't an insult either, right? Please. If you go around calling people bigots, you are insulting them.
Luigi Novi: If the point was illustrated, on the basis of Jim's own statements, that the word was accurate, then no, it was not an insult. If the word was chosen only for its pejorative or inflammatory edge, then yes, it is reasonable to say that it was merely rhetoric or invective, or an insult. Since Jim has indeed shown intolerance towards certain groups, and wishes to limit their rights, it is indeed unreasonable for some who are offended by such intolerance to call him one.
But if you're saying that the word is always an insult, then you're saying it's always an insult to point out that someone is intolerant in matters of race, religion or politics, since that's the definition of the word (American Heritage Dictionary), and that therefore, one cannot be criticized for exhibiting said intolerance. Is this what your position is? If not, then how is it an insult? Do you deny that you judge an entire city you've never been to, filled with thousands of people you've never met, based on a comedy skit? Do you deny that judging said town and people from the few who appear in a skit edited to maximize its comedic effect is not prejudicial?
Rob Brown? As for The Daily Show, it's more reliable than you might believe.
Luigi Novi: And your empirical basis for that assessment is what, exactly? Go ahead, tell me. Tell me the analysis you've made of the Daily Show that indicates that the correspondents not only interviewed a wide-enough swath of Wasilians to form a scientifically reliable sample, but that those edited to be included in the ski were a fair representation of them, and that the primary aim of that show is journalism rather than comedy.
It's one thing to argue an assertion on TDS can be relied on if it is supported by actual video or articles that they show on the air, which they frequently do. It's another, however, to argue that the ideas implied in skits at the expense of interviewees should necessarily be afforded the same credence.
To show, in context, a video of McCain saying something days or weeks or months ago that directly contradicts what he said today, is reliable, so long as there is no manipulative editing. But to argue that a two-minute skit in which 7 people in a family bar & grill restaurant are shown speaking in lightning-fast soundbites somehow qualifies you to assess the entire 5,400 people who live there, is not just a flawed assertion. It's flat-out stupid, and indicative of an inability to form coherent reasoning, the type of that is typical of people who judge entire swaths of people they never met.
In other words, bigotry.
The fact that you're sore because you're being criticized for morally and intellectually unjustifiable statements that reveal your character does not mean that that criticism is an "insult".
But if you can refute any of this, either on the usage of the word "bigotry", or the reliability of a two-minute comedy skit, then please do so. Otherwise, stop playing the part of the victim.
But to argue that a two-minute skit in which 7 people in a family bar & grill restaurant are shown speaking in lightning-fast soundbites somehow qualifies you to assess the entire 5,400 people who live there, is not just a flawed assertion.
First of all, in order for it to be a "skit", everybody involved would have to be acting. That wasn't the case. These people were saying what was on their minds. It makes no difference how they edited things, because if you edit out any and all footage of those people acting semi-intelligent it doesn't change the fact that they acted like boors, such as when they made fun of Biden momentarily stuttering.
To put it another way, to use another example: if you edited George Allen's infamous speech to include nothing but his "macaca" comment, it doesn't change the fact that he made the "macaca" comment.
Second, this is a town that *elected Sarah Palin*. That says to me that the majority of voters in that town have pretty poor judgment. If you want to go on calling me a stupid bigot because I think that, hey, go right ahead. Free country and all that.
Since Jim has indeed shown intolerance towards certain groups, and wishes to limit their rights, it is indeed unreasonable for some who are offended by such intolerance to call him one.
I assume you mean it's "reasonable" for people to call him one.
Plus, that is just your opinion, and it's a stupid opinion (long as we're calling each other stupid, I might as well tell you that you are as well).
I don't agree with him being against gay marriage, but if I were calm and composed then I would ask him why he felt the way he did instead of just dismissing him as a bigot and insulting him. Which is, whether you are capable of understanding this or not, THE SAME THING.
Know what, Luigi? You got me. There are some parts of the country that I don't think much of. I don't think much of Texas, for example, because it's a very red state. Aside from the occasional oasis of liberalism and reasonability such as Austin, mostly you have not only people who vote Republican living in Texas, but people who vote Republican for stupid reasons. Stupid reasons like "Barack Obama doesn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem", which is a myth, but one that has apparently caught on this year.
Texas is a place that I used to want to visit, but don't any more now that I know more about it. Am I judging Texas unfairly? Maybe. Maybe if I met some Texans who were open-minded I'd feel differently. But right now Texas doesn't look too good to me, the voters there don't impress me with their record (with the possible exception of when they elected Ann Richards), and that's just how I see it.
Also, you are being a dick here. Dictionary.com has many definitions for "dick", one of which is "Vulgar A person, especially a man, regarded as mean or contemptible." Well, you've been pretty mean, and you're showing me contempt. So to use your logic, when I call you a dick I'm not being *insulting.* I'm being *accurate*.
Rob Brown: First of all, in order for it to be a "skit", everybody involved would have to be acting.
Luigi Novi: You're splitting hairs. We can call it a "comedy piece" or "story" or "bit", and the point is the same. It was a short video made the purposes of satire.
Rob Brown: It makes no difference how they edited things, because if you edit out any and all footage of those people acting semi-intelligent it doesn't change the fact that they acted like boors, such as when they made fun of Biden momentarily stuttering.
Luigi Novi: Which has nothing do with judging the entire town of 4,500 people, a point I already made repeatedly. The fact that you keep ignoring this point shows that you know you're wrong and can't refute it. Did Jason Jones and his crew go to a bookstore? A library? A school or college? A lecture hall? Did they go to a number of locations in the town? No, they went to one location, a bar & grill restaurant, where any number of the patrons they interviewed could’ve imbibed alcohol. And the reason for this is simple: They were not trying to do a piece of true journalism, but a piece of satire. They were not bound by the obvious ethics of journalistic or statistical integrity, to accurately represent an entire town, nor did they even intend any intelligent viewer to think they were. One might get a cross-section of the city in such a place, but there's no way to know that for sure. In addition, look how many people filled that restaurant (lots), and look how many people were actually shown speaking on camera: Eight. Now why is that? Simple. They had to edit everything to fit into a two-minute comedy bit, and so their priorities were A. time, and B. maximizing the comedy. You not only said that those eight people were somehow fundamentally different from the rest of Americans, and that they caused you to wonder whether to “laugh or be disgusted”, but that we could judge all Wasilians from them.
You remain wrong. And you haven't proven otherwise.
And while the notion of how these eight people's statements was not the primary point of my rebuttal, let's focus on that, since you insist on doing so, to the exclusion of the other points I mentioned. You say that editing could not change the “fact” that they acted like boors.
In point of “fact”, that they acted like boors is not a “fact” at all, and editing can INDEED create that appearance. Let’s look at these eight people. Let me start with
1. The old bearded guy wearing a shield that looked like Santa Claus. He sounded completely dumb, and his behavior was probably not falsified through editing. But how does this make him different from Americans from the lower 48? There are no dumb people where you’re from? Wow, where do you live?
2. The older woman with the long, dark curled hair. She said that Palin hit the issues really well, and when pressed to name one, said “all” of them. This could cause one to recall Palin’s “all of them” answer to Couric’s question about the papers she reads. But for all we know, maybe this lady actually gave some examples. We don’t know if she did or didn’t, because, of course, the clip immediately cut away from her after she said this, and the entire exchange between her and Jones that was shown lasted mere seconds.
3. The large lady in red. She said Palin’s responses sounded thoughtful and unrehearsed, and not like a bunch of canned clichés. This is pretty much the opposite of what people like me or Peter David have been saying about both McCain and Palin, and while this would make her comment partisan, it would not bolster your theory that “Wasilans are different from other Americans”. Jerome Maida repeated GOP talking points here on this blog. Is he from Wasila?
4. The guy with the salt-and-pepper goatee wearing the t-shirt with long-sleeved shirt underneath. He said that Palin’s performance was not just a home run, but a grand slam. Again, this is political, and partisan, and is what the GOP, and many in the media, have been saying, and therefore, does not support your idea that he is “different” from other Americans, but quite the opposite, since he’s saying the same thing that a lot of them are saying. If you said that the behavior of the GOP in this regard caused you laughter or disgust, that would be one thing, because a private group can be judged by the behavior of its most prominent members. But you didn’t specify arguments or positions that caused you disgust. If you had, I’d have agreed with you. You chose to focus on where these people are from, which has got nothing to do with it.
5. The guy in orange with the cap. He called Palin a “fucking great fantastic standup Alaskan tough-ass Wasila warrior bitch.” So he’s enthusiastic about Palin, and expressed this using language you’d find in a bar. So what? Any other time or place, when we could be assured that he had not been drinking, he might’ve given a more articulate answer. For all we know, maybe he did give such an answer to Jones, and figured he’d cap it off with a more salty and colloquial line, and that was the only portion shown. To argue editing the clip to show only that portion would not give a false impression of him is specious. Do you always speak the exact same way with everyone you know, in every place you visit, at every point in your life? Are you saying that selective editing of footage shot of you on a fairly bad day would not give others a false impression of who you are? And again, even if he is as he appeared in the video, how does this make him different from other Americans?
6. The old man in the dark baseball cap, sitting down with Jason Jones, who said he’d be “hoppin’” on Palin in a heartbeat if she weren’t married. An old man talking about an attractive younger woman, and stating his tastes with an innocuous term like “hoppin’” is hardly something that should cause one to wonder if they should “laugh or be disgusted”, and hardly something you wouldn’t hear in the lower 48. Most would assume his comment was intended to be good-natured, and take it as such. Are you saying you’ve never had a conversation in which you expressed how you’d be “all over” an attractive celebrity if given the chance? If so, why does this guy prove Wasilans are different?
7. The guy in the olive green windbreaker who responded to Jones’ relation of criticism of Palin with “he’s gay” and “they’re gay”. It’s possible that he was just as inarticulate and churlish as he sounded. It’s also possible that, as with the guy in orange, he gave a more lengthy answer that what was shown, and the “gay” comment was just him attempting to be sarcastic or facetious. Even if we dismiss this, and conclude he was as dumb as he sounded, that is hardly something you don’t find in the lower 48, much less something that necessarily characterizes all Wasilans.
8. The guy in the cap and glasses. This guy was clearly speaking tongue-in-cheek, saying that they’re not hoping McCain dies in office, because, as he says jokingly, “That would be mean.” When Jones presses and says, “But you kinda…?”, the guy responds with an unintelligible “Hey…..” Again, there is nothing about this calls into question this man’s character, that allows us to judge all 4,500 Wasilans, or that we cannot find in the lower 48.
So eight people out of a bar & grill filled with dozens does not allow you to judge the entire city, nor is there any behavior in that bit that you don’t find everywhere else. Human behavior is mostly universal.
Rob Brown: To put it another way, to use another example: if you edited George Allen's infamous speech to include nothing but his "macaca" comment, it doesn't change the fact that he made the "macaca" comment.
Luigi Novi: But it does not mean that we can judge the entire city in which he lives, and it does not mean that this behavior only occurs in his state, and not in the others.
In addition, we can assess this comment because there was presumably no selective editing created to highlight that comment out of some other context. If there had, and he had informed the public of this, and it were discovered that the raw footage indeed provided a different context, then the ire would instead be directed at the person who edited and publicized the clip.
Rob Brown: Second, this is a town that *elected Sarah Palin*. That says to me that the majority of voters in that town have pretty poor judgment.
Luigi Novi: First of all, we’re not talking about “poor judgment”. We’re talking about your original comments that I responded to, and it wasn’t about poor judgment. Second, a discussion of what it takes to be mayor of Wasila is not the same as a discussion of what it takes to be VP/P.
Rob Brown: Plus, that is just your opinion, and it's a stupid opinion (long as we're calling each other stupid, I might as well tell you that you are as well). I don't agree with him being against gay marriage, but if I were calm and composed then I would ask him why he felt the way he did instead of just dismissing him as a bigot and insulting him. Which is, whether you are capable of understanding this or not, THE SAME THING.
Luigi Novi: This implies two things:
1. That trying to understand someone’s point of view is mutually exclusive from concluding that they’re a bigot.
2. That Jim that he has not been asked about why he feels the way he does, and that he has not explained this to us, and that by extension, any conclusion about him is not informed by this.
Both of these ideas are obviously false.
Trying to understand someone’s viewpoint is not mutually exclusive from concluding, after you’ve done so, that their position is indeed bigotry. It is only an insult if you use that term blindly or indiscriminately, before or without such understanding, and in a way that is divorced from that word’s definition. Entire threads have been filled over the past few years here on this site in which Iowa Jim has explained his position on homosexuality, and it is clear that it is not motivated by rational adjudications of fact and reason, but by the same religious or aesthetic origins of all homophobia. If I were to call him a bigot before listening to his explanations, or without listening to them, then yes, doing so would be an indication that I was using that term for its pejorative or inflammatory value instead of its description. But I have not. And just because he and you do not like being properly labeled is not what the word “insult” means.
It is precisely for this same reason that my conclusions about your statements about Wasilans are similarly accurate: They are informed by the proper usage of that word, and based on the nature of your statements. By contrast, you calling me “stupid” or a “dick” is not, as you flat-out refused to provide an articulated response to the reasoning I provided above about the word “bigot”. You could’ve given a definition of the word “bigot” that proved me wrong, but you didn’t. You could’ve shown how your statements and Jim’s did not fall under that definition, but you didn’t. You could’ve shown how your statements about Wasilans did not constitute “intolerance”, but you didn’t.
So let me ask you one more time:
-Do you deny that the word “bigotry” means intolerance in matters of race, religion or politics?
-Do you deny that some people are thus intolerant?
-Do you feel that telling those people that they’re intolerant is an insult? If so, why? If not, then why is calling them a bigot an insult? Why is it an insult to point out that someone is acting the way that they’re acting?
-Do you feel that judging a town of 4,500 people from brief clips of 8 bar patrons is not intolerant?
Your ability to show that I insulted you is directly dependant on how you answer these questions. If you continue to evade doing so, you’re only confirming that you know that your assertion is without any basis.
Rob Brown: Know what, Luigi? You got me. There are some parts of the country that I don't think much of. I don't think much of Texas, for example, because it's a very red state. Aside from the occasional oasis of liberalism and reasonability such as Austin, mostly you have not only people who vote Republican living in Texas, but people who vote Republican for stupid reasons. Stupid reasons like "Barack Obama doesn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem", which is a myth, but one that has apparently caught on this year.
Luigi Novi: None of this means that A. Texans are different from people in the other 49 states, or B. that all Texans are like this, much less that all of them can be judged by a two-minute series of clips of eight Texans in a bar.
Rob Brown: Also, you are being a dick here. Dictionary.com has many definitions for "dick", one of which is "Vulgar A person, especially a man, regarded as mean or contemptible." Well, you've been pretty mean, and you're showing me contempt.
Luigi Novi: I’m criticizing you for judging entire swaths of people you’ve never met. This is only labeled as “contempt” or “mean” because those who judge such swaths of people like that typically do not like to admit that they’re wrong to do this, and get sore when others tell them that they are. Words like “dick” or “insult”, therefore, are just an expression of this soreness.
So naturally, if you want to argue that it is not “contempt” or “mean” to judge an entire town of thousands of people from brief clips of eight bar patrons, but that it somehow is “contempt” and “mean” to tell someone that they’re doing this, and that they’re wrong to do this, then hey, have a party.