« Does your 'era' define you? | Main | A blast from the past »
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Convention Speech
[Agree or disagree... that is your right. But read the whole thing]
Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for Vice President of the United States...
I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.
I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.
And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won - the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.
It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.
With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.
But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.
They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.
And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.
He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.
And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.
Our son Track is 19.
And one week from tomorrow - September 11th - he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.
In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between - my strong and kind-hearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.
And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.
That's how it is with us.
Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.
Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.
And children with special needs inspire a special love.
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. Todd is a story all by himself.
He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.
And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.
My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.
A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people.
They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.
They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.
I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.
When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.
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.< br> And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.
Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
No one expects us to agree on everything.
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.
I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.
Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.
But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.
And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.
That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.
I also drive myself to work.
And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.
I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher.
When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.
Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.
But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.
We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.
We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
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.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
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? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.
And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.
Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.
He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.
A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.
He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.
It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.
But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.
It's the journey of an upright and honorable man - the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.
To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.
As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" - as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.
For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
Thank you all, and may God bless America.
Posted by David Bogner on September 4, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e554dfe8d48833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Convention Speech:
Comments
The mind boggles that you think this was anything other than a shallow, jingoistic, snide and cynical low brow political attack. If you think her speech was anything resembling great political oratory, you ought to have your head examined.
Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Sep 4, 2008 3:12:39 PM
Did you see the commentary of Ben Stein? He's certainly a devoted Republican, but isn't willing to gloss over the reality of Palin's nomination:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OevzQ9XGd7Q
Posted by: Dave (Balashon) | Sep 4, 2008 4:29:17 PM
Part of what McCain/Palin are running against is the oratory of Obama. This at least puts them in the same ballpark.
Both sides are rallying their troops like its the last night of Color-War. Style is the only thing that can be learned from conventions.
Posted by: Aharon | Sep 4, 2008 4:31:49 PM
I watched parts of the speech- yes, it was much of what Jordan described. But... the delivery was effective (she did do a stint as a TV Sportscaster,after all). And a good chunk of the time, sadly, effective delivery hides the fact that not much was said outside of "red meat" style attacks.
The attacks on the media by both Palin and Guiliani conveniently missed the fact that media attention about Palin's family life (something which Obama- to his credit- has declared out-of-bounds) has come largely from tabloids such as the NY Post. Normally a right-wing mouthpiece.
David's gut feeling at the start- that this is a woman not to be taken lightly- is one that I had also. She bore that out last night. Remember Reagan? He could pull a rhetorical sleight-of-hand and get away with it on a regular basis.
It is now VERY important for Democrats to heed a warning that David's (mine also) favorite columnist of yore Anna Quindlen once wrote: That liberals should not fall into the trap of doing to the right-wing what they continue to do to liberals. We cannot play their game of sneer and belittle. Respond- yes, quickly- to any lies, stick to the facts, keep to the high ground, and lay out clear policies in a manner that shows the country what is truly in its long-term best self-interest.
The campaign is just starting. There's a long way to go...
Posted by: Michael Spengler | Sep 4, 2008 4:49:05 PM
Sara Palin will be our first female commander and chief after serving one term as Vice President. She will eat Senator Biden alive.
Posted by: David Bailey | Sep 4, 2008 6:05:40 PM
As a speechwriter, I know better than to judge anyone by written speeches. The chances that she wrote this herself, without a committee of writers and consultants, are zero. Put it up on the blog to give an indication of what she agrees with, but no one should think it's what she herself came up with.
There was an article about her in the Times where someone commented, "Not my value set." That's about where I'd put it. She can talk about family all she wants, but there is no way at all that her taking up full-time campaigning and then possibly a job in the White House is not going to result in a neglected family. Hello... newborn baby! with Down's! pregnant teenage daughter! who is going to need help from her mom! And yes, I would say the same thing about a father running for office with the same family situation--but say whatever you want, babies, and teenage mothers, need their moms more.
This is exactly why I agreed with Edwards' decision to pull out--sometimes, you have to make choices, and I don't want to vote for someone who doesn't choose his--or her--family first.
Posted by: uberimma | Sep 4, 2008 6:17:03 PM
"media attention about Palin's family life... has come largely from tabloids"
But the major sneering and smearing is coming from the MSM--catch Maureen Dowd's snide dismissal of Palin as a "babe in go-go boots" and Larry Derfner's foray into blatant sexist piggism today....and trust me, those aren't the only two in the MSM slamming her for being a woman. There are also pieces questioning her ability to hold office because of "motherhood" in both the SF Chronicle and the LA Times, both mainstream newspapers. I don't have the time to peruse all the on-line media, but my brief exploration shows that the "family life" slams are not limited to tabloids at all.
I'm voting for her on principle--NO one should be allowed to tell a woman to "go home" and leave running the government to the boys.
Posted by: aliyah06 | Sep 4, 2008 6:41:46 PM
Sarah Palin is an excellent choice for VP. She is more qualified to be VP today than Obama is to be President. If John McCain were to be incapacitated and Palin became president, she would appoint a new VP who would complement her experiences and abilities (e.g Condoleeza Rice, Joe Lieberman. Dick Cheney :). Think about it, folks, that is what Obama is already doing out of necessity with Joe Biden. It is Obama whose glaring lack of experience should be the issue here.
Posted by: Alan T. | Sep 4, 2008 6:50:19 PM
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
Some examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. 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."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
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."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
copied and pasted from ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check&printer=1;_ylt=Aq1j.fnP4DOE04OVlN8v.k1h24cA
Posted by: Drew | Sep 4, 2008 7:12:41 PM
Oh. My. God.
Jordan and Michael - I love you guys dearly, but you are so dead wrong about this. I mean, I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes, and you guys just can't get past that East Coast-liberal snobbery long enough to actually hear what the woman is saying!
Jordan - you simply dissed Palin without actually addressing any of her points. Exactly what you complain that conservatives do to Obama all the time. 'Nuff said.
Michael - you do make a few good points. Credit where credit is due - Obama did declare political families off-limits. Frankly, I can't imagine any candidate for public office wanting any candidates' families to be fair game, but still - I respect that Obama said something. And the NY Post certainly tried to play both ends of this game - not for the first time. What can I say - the NY Times certainly doesn't have a monopoly on journalistic hypocrisy.
I do find it interesting that you mentioned Ronald Reagan. What you call "rhetorical sleight-of-hand" was seen as something quite different by many Americans, myself included. I felt that Reagan was cutting through all the political BS and speaking directly to us, the people. Cynics kept telling us that the man is an actor, he's putting you on, don't trust him, yada yada yada - but I feel that Reagan, perhaps more than any other politician in my lifetime, had his finger on the American pulse, really knew what mattered to the average American, and promised to give them what they wanted, even if everyone else in Washington (in either party) said it was impossible. This ability to connect with Joe Citizen earned Reagan the kind of liberal hatred that George W. Bush could only dream of. There is definitely some of that populism in Sarah Palin, and her humble origins give her even more street cred than Reagan in that regard. (It's no accident that she invoked the ghost of Harry S Truman.)
And as for the "game of sneer-and-belittle" - that's a game that a lot of small-town, gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' hicks are very familiar with. I find it hilarious, Michael, that you ascribe that attitude to conservatives like Palin when it is (in my experience) primarily liberals who sneer at and belittle anyone who dares not to share their opinions and worldview. (Present company excepted.)
I do agree with you that Sarah Palin is not to be taken lightly. This election certainly has become much more compelling. And I think we can now officially retire the idiotic "McSame" moniker. Ya think?
Posted by: psachya | Sep 4, 2008 7:21:58 PM
Thanks to Drew for putting up the "fact check."
Aliyah- I agree totally with your last sentence.
And yes, it is true that the MSM (actually "corporate-controlled-provate-entity-for-profit) other than tabloids have printed articles questioning Palin's ability to hold the VP Office. But the tabloids have given it their usual (ugh) "snappy" eye-catching blazing headline style...
For your info, I happen not to be a fan of Molly Dowd's at-times "holier-than-thou" kind of writing. As written above, Dave and I share a great admiration for her predecessor Anna Quindlen.
That's someone whose "take" on this I'd like to see...
Posted by: Michael Spengler | Sep 4, 2008 7:40:02 PM
Whether or not I agree with her I think it was an effective speech for the conservative audience and for the huge group of people who are not party loyal, many of whom are hard working, blue collar, military folks.
She seems like a hard working, common sense, down-to-earth person. That's the impression I get, which is all you can really go on with any politicians.
I don't care if she wrote the speech or not. Or if any of them do.
She's someone huge numbers of people in this country can relate to, which is why I think she could win the election for McCain.
I take Huckabee's comment as hyperbole. That's just silly bickering to me, to bring up how many votes she got as mayor. Who cares. She won. I'm grateful anyone will run for office because we rip people apart when they do. And anyone who runs for office will have little time for their family. Just like people in the military often have little time for their family. It's called taking a hit for the team. It's a family sacrifice that is unavoidable.
I don't feel her criticisms were off the charts. The crack about Obama's books was witty.
Posted by: Alice | Sep 4, 2008 7:57:46 PM
Critics should review Hubert Humphrey's big speech at the 1964 Democratic Convention. That happy warrior did exactly what Vice Presidential candidates are meant to do, slam gleefully into the top of the other ticket. That was his job for the campaign and he did it really well.
Posted by: Bob Miller | Sep 4, 2008 7:59:44 PM
Surprising. A speech may be moving but it is hardly something that defines whether a person has qualifications to be anything other than a speaker. First off.. it was written for her by the same people that wrote attack speeches against McCain. Tucker Eskew , a GOP operative who led the McCain-defamation tour during the 2000 election cycle, has been retained as her chief handler. That should tell you what is really going on. It is not about anything other than winning an election. It is most certainly not about Sarah Palin. I lived and worked in Alaska off and on for about a year and I can tell you that she is not as widely regarded in , Alaska- or even inWasilla as the Reagan-Like icon the right would have you believe she is. Obama notwithstanding- this is about her. My ex partner ( still close friend of mine) moved to Alaska and is an oral surgeon there and he has treated her entire family and knows the family well. It is a very small state and even he, ex-air force, staunch republican thinks the whole deal is cynical.Why, because the claims being made arent true, they are easy to find out about , and simply put, she is not someone who is ready to do this.
To compare her to Obama is too easy, and silly. He might not be ready, but to give her bona fides based on what one thinks of him- does her a disservice. At the end of the day, the ONLY true thing we know about her is- she gave a good speech. That does not tell us anything. And for the recorrd- you can go on you tube and see for yourself the speech she gave three months ago where she points out that God wants us to be in Iraq and God wants us to win this war. evaluate it yourself. And, finally, at the same church where she prays she recently spoke at and introduced a man who is the leader of Jews for Jesus in which she praised him for doing "the Lord's work". Forget the left wing media. I understand that everyone has biases, but does this sound like someone who should be , possibly , president? Abortion politics, Gun rights and pretending that she is a reformer( even though she is on record as being "for" the bridge to nowhere, Until , pregnant pause- "she was against it"( sound familiar?) does not a great statesperson make.
Otherwise, how are Zahava and the kids?
Posted by: Neal lehrman | Sep 4, 2008 8:01:53 PM
Psachya- I love you too...:-) And I'll confess that without saying it I had Guiliani in mind more than Palin.
You DO know that what Reagan became famous for was his story about the "welfare queen." Which later was proven to be completely false. That's "sleight-of-hand." And I think Drew's fact-check posting bears out my argument.
You claim that liberals you know are the ones who engage in "sneering and belittling." No one's a complete saint or complete sinner on either side. I'm happy that you included "present company excepted." It would be nice if you would tell Ann Coulter that I'm not necessarily a "traitor." And I think you know me well enough to be able to tell Joe Lieberman that you know at least one non-religious person who has some moral values.
That's the kind of stuff I feel I and many others have been subjected to over the last 8 years.
This time the stakes are too high. Health Care affordability, national/energy security (I lump those together now). Hopefully this campaign will contain reasoned debates about those issues, and how McCain & Obama plan to approach them.
Democrats will make a big mistake if they continue with the "Bush/McCain" litany. The right-wing core of the Republican Party will make a big mistake if they continue to do nothing more than make snide comments about Obama.
We'll see. And again, thanks to David for providing a forum where we can debate all this in a civil manner between friends.
But as we all know... "he's a giver..." :-)
Posted by: Michael Spengler | Sep 4, 2008 8:05:38 PM
Well done! Until she got to Terrorist states are seeking new-clear(Nuclear) weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions. - Careful now, pull your socks up on this issue, seriously!
Posted by: Rami | Sep 4, 2008 8:49:53 PM
Why the media should apologize
By: Roger Simon
September 4, 2008 10:50 AM EST
ST. PAUL, Minn. — On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.
On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?
We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?
Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.
It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn’t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.
Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”
First, we should have stuck to the warm, human interest stuff like how she likes mooseburgers and hit an important free throw at her high school basketball tournament even though she had a stress fracture.
Second, we should have stuck to the press release stuff like how she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (after she supported it).
Third, we should never have strayed into the other stuff. Like when The Washington Post recently wrote: “Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body. … Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week she hired a lawyer to fight to move the case to the jurisdiction of the state personnel board, which Palin appoints.”
Why go there? What trees does that plant?
Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.
Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a “cloud of rhetoric.”
Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates. Unless the candidates want us to.
Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.
Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.
Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)
The official theme of the convention’s third day was “prosperity,” but the unofficial theme was “the media are really, really awful.”
Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying “I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody,” discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody.
“I’d like to thank the elite media for doing something,” Huckabee said, “that, quite frankly, I didn’t think could be done: unify the Republican party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin.”
And could that be the real point of the attacks on the media? To unify the Republican Party?
No, that is simply the cynical, media view.
Though as Lily Tomlin says, “No matter how cynical I get, it’s just never enough to keep up.”
I couldn’t resist that. For which I am sorry.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2B5BE65F-18FE-70B2-A8335B142E20CE63
Posted by: Drew | Sep 4, 2008 10:12:35 PM
Drew-
Roger Simon's intelligent riposte to the Republicans' "media bashing" would resonate more if the media was being bashed for asking what he points out are viable questions.
But that's not what they're being bashed for. The media- as partially correctly pointed out above by Aliyah- gave a lot of attention to coverage of Palin's family life and the question of balancing it and her political career.
The media also cannot "have it both ways." They can't hide behind 1st Amendment probity on one hand, and then decide to play up off-the-point-gossip-column stuff so that it will generate readership/advertising income via trivial controversy in order to line corporate boardroom pockets.
In other words, Roger, ask the right questions (as you do above), not the ones that will "sell"...
Posted by: Michael Spengler | Sep 4, 2008 11:48:52 PM
As to the above comment, from Ahron, that Palin delivered well because of her sportscasting experience, I have this to say...
No sportcaster, or commentator in my lifetime would have been able to address a 15,000-count audience, and untold millions of television viewers (now reported at 37.2 million by Nielsen's), after a week of the "elite" media's searing attempts to tear them down, WITH the poise, professionalism, charm and DON'T-GIVE-AN-INCH attitude exhibited by Governor Palin.
Was she sarcastic? At times, YES! Why does this seem to affront the liberal left that makes a career out of whining, or screaming at those that don't "fall into line with them?" Because, in large part, you have no class or balls. Like the whine for the Fairness Doctrine, you can't compete, so you opt to defeat a party/voice you can't beat.
In all, this woman had something that I have NEVER seen in a democrat, or even most Republicans: She had SELF-POSSESSION under what most of us would consider unbelieveable pressure.
This kind of self-possession, not the caliber of our current Washington politicians, is a sign of a true leader.
Posted by: Brigitta | Sep 5, 2008 12:02:03 AM
I know a former female governor of Texas who would have been able to do the same thing. Alas, she is no longer with us, but she sure knew how to exhibit grace under fire.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 5, 2008 6:03:58 AM
Psachya, I don't have to go into substance, because I was not addressing substance. I was speaking of the political oratory. Hers stunk. Drew actually addressed issues I think are important, but I am not interested terribly in discussing those points, because I think there are far better places to do that than on a personal blog, in this case one run by a friend.
There is a good discussion that could take place about the tabloidizatiion of the Palin news. It is painful to pry into the intimate details of a family's life, and there are many situations where I wish we would not, but with the help of Gary Hart and Ken Starr and Clarence Thomas, personal issues are political fodder. In this case, I can countenance a discussion of the Palin pregnancy on a few points. One is that the handling of the news by the McCain campaign calls into question their competence. Second, if you stake so much of your political identity on family issues, how your family functions becomes a more understandable question. Mind you I don't mean staking out her daughter and her future son in law. But I do think these issues need to be discussed with the candidate herself, as respectfully as possible. When an advocate for abstinence only education show up at the Republican National Convention with her pregnant, unmarried seventeen! year old daughter in tow, you goddamn well better believe some hard questions need to be asked.
Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Sep 5, 2008 6:50:50 AM
Whoever wins it should be a decision made by AMERICANS.
I find it very troubling that 100,000 of your citizens will be voting this year in our election through absentee!
Posted by: J.J. | Sep 5, 2008 9:13:59 AM
David - thanks for the text - the delivery makes it even better. And J.J., the people in Israel who will be voting with absentee ballots are those with dual citizenship. I will be voting, not only because I care about how the next president will treat issues dear to Israel, but because I care about family and friends living in America. I think an Obama presidency will be extremely unfortunate for Americans, and I intend to exercise my right to prevent that.
Posted by: westbankmama | Sep 5, 2008 10:15:41 AM
habber-dasher is one thing, but new-clear is another!
I do not vote absentee in the UK, and quite rightly.
Ultimatum - either a dog update, or I boycott this blogtill the Inauguration
And don't forget to sponsor Gila for the ALYN ride
https://www.alynride.org/portal/riderDetails.aspx?id=88ea68ba-6831-dd11-be2a-00096ba5d617
Posted by: asher | Sep 5, 2008 11:06:47 AM
"habber-dasher" is one thing, but "new-clear" is another
I cannot vote absentee in the UK, and I should not. One person - one vote, not two - one here and one there.
Either I get a dog update soon or I boycott you till the inauguration,
Most important - sponsor Gila (I already did)
https://www.alynride.org/portal/riderDetails.aspx?id=88ea68ba-6831-dd11-be2a-00096ba5d617
Posted by: asher | Sep 5, 2008 11:09:40 AM
J.J. -- Why shouldn't tax-paying American expats vote on an absentee ballot?! If I am liable to the US for taxes for income earned as a citizen living overseas, then damn-straight I have a right to exercise my opinion via an absentee ballot!
Posted by: zahava | Sep 5, 2008 11:52:12 AM
Oh. And Jordan: much as I love you, I gotta call foul!. Trep lead this post with Agree or disagree... that is your right. He didn't comment on the content, the tone or the style. Yet your comment -- the first comment on this post, was a judgmental explosion of your cynical, intolerant views.
Posted by: zahava | Sep 5, 2008 12:54:16 PM
The transcript doesn't have the pit bull joke. That was an ad lib.
Wasn't she great? Bish and I saw the speech separately and were both blown away (and we both cried, we're such saps).
Luckily we're neither of us American citizens and don't have to decide who to vote for here. We can just sit back and enjoy the show given by both sides.
What amazed me were the mean spirited reactions of the American media (and Israeli channel 10 as well) to the speech. Some of the comments made me think we were listening to two completely different speeches (The mind boggles).
Was it so difficult to say it was a good speech, beautifully delivered (especially considering she's such a nobody hick)?
Posted by: Imshin | Sep 5, 2008 1:33:36 PM
Jordan -
By all means, let's talk about the public humiliation of Bristol Palin. This has to be a new low, even by the gutter standards of today's tabloids. We're talking about savaging a teenager in order to politically wound her mother. That's beyond low. As I pointed out, even Barack Obama won't go there, for which he deserves to be commended.
As for the names you mentioned:
Gary Hart wasn't a teenager - he was himself running for President, he basically dared reporters to follow him around and look for dirt, and was caught with the babe on his lap. D'oh! I think the American people rejected him more for his stupidity than his promiscuity.
Ken Starr wasn't a reporter - he was a prosecutor investigating the President of the United States. He was doing his job, if a bit over-zealously. Is it the job of reporters to persecute pregnant teenagers? I sincerely hope not, no matter who their parents are or what office they may be running for.
And as for Clarence Thomas, as much as I think he was the victim of a witch-hunt, he was also not a teenager. He was trying to become a Supreme Court Justice. And the accusations against him were relevant - unlike those directed at Bristol Palin.
Yes, I know - Sarah Palin preaches abstinence. So when you were a teenager, you listened to everything your parents told you? We probably both know of very religious families where this sort of thing has happened. Kids rebel, especially when hormones are involved. They make dumb mistakes. And, FWIW, the Palins are handling the situation gracefully, and in full accord with their belief system. The politics of Bristol Palin's mom does NOT give tabloids the right to further humiliate her. She and her baby are off limits - period!
Posted by: psachya | Sep 5, 2008 2:10:19 PM
new-clear weapons
that was a phonetic spelling, yes?
Posted by: Yisrael Medad | Sep 5, 2008 3:55:32 PM
Forgive me all, I seem to be jumping in a LOT here. But...
Jordan- I'm sympathetic to your argument re: Bristol Palin and I understand Psachya's point also. To me, it's a tempest in a teapot ginned up to add revenue to the corporate media pockets.
I don't want to hear questions/debates about Bristol Palin. Parts of Sarah Palin's speech were obnoxious to me, and if I had the chance to ask her a question this would be it: "Governor, if you are willing to walk the walk as a 'reformer taking on the good ol' boy crowd', what would you as VP do to give bi-partisan support to Henry Waxman in investigating and stopping such matters as Halliburton/KBR/Blackwater Security's fraudulent waste of and unaccountability for billions of taxpayers' dollars in Iraq? How would you firmly put your foot down on the Pentagon's accepting weapons contracts such as the Efraim Diveroli/AEY deal that resulted in substandard and non-working ammo being sold to those we call allies?"
THAT'S what we need to be holding Sarah Palin's feet to the fire over. Forget Bristol Palin. Her mom married her high school sweetheart. For now, Bristol will marry hers.
Zahava- Love you dearly too, but forgive me for rising to Jordan's defense here. After eight years of being lied to, told that folks with views such as mine are unpatriotic and indeed traitorous, the temptation to roar right back can be very understandly unavoidable.
And on the dual-citizen paying taxes giving the right to absentee vote issue, I'm not so sure. My family owns property on the Jersey Shore. Pay pretty steep property taxes, but we don't get to vote there. Not that I should be able to vote twice in State/National elections, but local, perhaps. But I can't. So the tax argument doesn't quite convince me here. Further info needed- what's the tax rate for citizens earning income abroad? Greater? Less than if living/working here? I do feel a tad funny about the "dual citizenship" thing. If you decide to live somewhere and take that country's citizenship, than that's where your interests as well as your heart lies. And maybe that's where your vote should be...
Israel Medad- Yeah, I think "new-clear" was phonetic. McCain/Palin's big break with Bush? "At least you'll be voting for someone who knows how to pronounce the damn word..." :-)
Be well all... Good Shabbat...
Posted by: Michael Spengler | Sep 5, 2008 5:02:14 PM
Oops. When I said - luckily about not being an American citizen, I didn't mean to knock American citizenship. I meant - luckily I don't have to be part of making that decision. We have our own tough decisions here in Israel come election time.
Posted by: Imshin | Sep 5, 2008 5:35:30 PM
westbankmama I guess it doesn't come into play this year for you but who would you vote for if you thought that one candidate was better for Israel and the other better for America?
There will be lots of "foreigners" voting in the American elections this year. And I am not only talking about illegal alien voting which there will sure to be a lot of. I am talking about people who are technically US citizens but come at the voting process from a foreign perspective caring about the interest of some other country instead of America. These might be so called dual citizens (something that is an oxymoron and shouldn't exist legally) or naturalized citizens who nonetheless still identify with and remain loyal to the country they came from. They might even be native born Americans who however identify themselves with their ethnicity and care about their ancestral homeland instead of America.
And isn't Obama kind of the ultimate example of this. I don't know if he technically would be considered a "dual citizen" because his dad was from Kenya (though I am sure the Kenyan government would give him citizenship if he asked) but he sure identifies with that country. And it concerns me how that will effect his dealings with that country. And then you watch his world tour and it sounds like he wants to be "President of Europe" more than the President of the United States.
Why is it so wrong to say that only Americans should vote in American elections? You by the very name you have chosen westbankmama show that you identify yourself with Israel and specifically the west bank. Great, but please have the courtesy to politely drop your affiliation with the country you less identify with and do not even live in.
Posted by: J.J. | Sep 5, 2008 5:40:10 PM
By the way most the "foreigners" this year will be voting for Obama. That is why the issue of people voting in American elections on behalf of foreign countries is so important. It is important because it leads to people like Obama.
Posted by: J.J. | Sep 5, 2008 5:44:21 PM
No sportcaster, or commentator in my lifetime would have been able to address a 15,000-count audience, and untold millions of television viewers (now reported at 37.2 million by Nielsen's), after a week of the "elite" media's searing attempts to tear them down, WITH the poise, professionalism, charm and DON'T-GIVE-AN-INCH attitude exhibited by Governor Palin.
Sorry, I'll call on this one. A good actor/actress can handle this. Not a sign of leadership, just a sign of acting ability.
I am not all that impressed by her. Frankly I am concerned about a number of things including her religious beliefs, lack of experience and what is going to happen to her family.
I don't want religion injected into the election. It always bothers me when it is. I don't care if the guy plays for my team or the other, keep it out. Sep. of Church and state is important to me.
If I criticize Obama's lack of experience (and I have) then I am going to criticize hers. She was mayor of a town of 7,000, big deal. Look up the total population of Alaska and you'll see that it is tiny.
What sort of foreign policy experience does she have.
I'll grant that she has some attributes that are interesting, attractive even, but that doesn't warm the cockles of my heart.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 5, 2008 6:01:17 PM
Just stumbled onto some more info that might be of interest.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 5, 2008 7:52:16 PM
"A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day."
If I am to believe this, and I tend to, then why, why when Col. Bui Tin, a Vietnamese official responsible for the torture of American prisoners of war, came to speak in front of Congress inegarding POW issues John McCain hugged his former captor like a long lost brother?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bui_Tin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g
Why when it comes to looking at McCain's public record whenever an issue of Communist Vietnam came up in Congress John McCain always supported the position most favorable to the Communist Vietnamese, often being on the forefront on the issue such as suppressing POW claims and on the normalization of trade. His wife is even on a charity helping the Communist Vietnamese.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com
http://www.usvetdsp.com/
Now, I never have been personally tortured, but I assume that would lead you with a bad taste in your mouth towards the people torturing you. After all I never have heard of a holocaust victim later in life hugging a former member of the SS. Nor, were they too keen on supporting charities to help the orphans of the Nazi war dead.
Now, I am not one to believe in a "Manchurian Candidate" Mind control theory. I don't think John McCain gets phone calls in the middle of the night where some guy in a Vietnamese accent says "the rooster crows at midnight" and McCain's eyes all goes blank as in a trance, and then he goes off to vote the way the Vietnamese wants him to vote, so what's up here?
Well, while mind control is in tinfoil land, blackmail I don't think is. Who knows what the Viet-cong got McCain to say or do under the pressure of torture and/or death? Do they have film of that? Do they have film about McCain so terrible if released to the public McCain feels he needs to be the Vietnamese Communists Man in Washington, lest they reveal it to the world?
To me that is the only thing that explains McCain's otherwise unexplainable public record regarding Vietnam. And if indeed that is the case, do we want a guy who is being blackmailed become President of the United States?
Posted by: Albert | Sep 5, 2008 8:57:41 PM
As I've mentioned before elsewhere, I think Palin's family is her business entirely. I do not think that her personal choices regarding her role as a parent should have any bearing on our assessment of her as a VP candidate.
Regarding citizenship: Whatever people's personal view on the issue is, if the law allows people living outside the country to vote in the elections, they absolutely have a right to do this, and whether they choose to exercise that right or not is their own business entirely. (Full disclosure: I'm a U.S. citizen living in the United States. However, had I been living elsewhere, I would most certainly vote, not just because I'd be paying taxes, but because I believe citizens have a civic duty to participate in elections).
Posted by: Irina | Sep 5, 2008 9:26:09 PM
Zahava, you have no business calling me names. I was responding not to the content, but to the style and oratory, which I felt was sub par, and I call into question the judgement of anyone who thinks it was not. There re many republican speakers I respect and even enjoy listening to, but Palin's speech was a hatchet job. As was your characterization of my comment.
Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Sep 6, 2008 2:04:35 AM
For those of you who wish to vote for Ms Palin please be aware or some of her stands on issues.
For starters:
1) Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.
2)Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade."
3)Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'"
4)Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
Do you really think she should be President??
Hmmmmm....never mind her thoughts on women's rights.
I am happy to provide documentation on all quotes but did not want to take up even more space.
Sorry folks I do not want a commander and babe to lead to my country.
Posted by: Marjorie Hirsch | Sep 6, 2008 2:29:26 AM
This seems like a tough crowd here. As for me, I love Sarah, and I'd make her president instead of any candidate out there, if I could. I don't agree with all her views, but most of them. She's the only person that is running for office that would approximately represent me in the office. I can tell you Bush is NOT. And I want to believe in Obama, but can't really in my gut. But I do believe that Palin would stand up for our country and our friends. And I'm ridiculously tired of mush-mouthed politicians, and in contrast she is refreshing. Her entry changes the whole game for me.
Posted by: West Coast | Sep 6, 2008 1:11:06 PM
Palin has said she thinks it's fine if creationism is brought up in a debate or discussion in a school setting, but that she doesn’t think it needs to be part of the curriculum.
Just because a person believes something doesn't mean they would put that belief into legislation. On the other hand, just because a person thinks an action should be legal doesn't mean they would actually do it themselves. Know what I mean? What she believes is important, but even more so what she thinks should be law. That's my theory. : )
Posted by: Alice | Sep 6, 2008 7:38:09 PM
Palin has said she thinks it's fine if creationism is brought up in a debate or discussion in a school setting, but that she doesn’t think it needs to be part of the curriculum.
This is a hot button for me. I'll readily admit that people who tell me that they believe in creationism get classified as wack jobs who might have suffered a head injury or be missing chromosomes.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 7, 2008 2:52:14 AM
All I want to say is, I never heard Zahava call anyone names. Someone seriously needs to get a grip.
Posted by: Marsha in Englewood | Sep 7, 2008 4:44:17 AM
Marsha, you're right. Zahava did not call me names. She did use some pretty harsh words to describe my comments.
Look, I have said all along that my issue was with the speech. It was harsh and sarcastic, misleading and dishonest, a hatchet job. That does not mean that conservatives or Republicans have no ideas worthy of debate. In fact, the Conservative movement, even on ideas that I think are wrong, has been an important corrective to the excesses of the Liberal establishment. But Palin's speech was not that at all. It was mostly a sarcastic screed, belittling her opponents without engaging with any of their ideas. I don't expect every speech from people I don't agree with to sound like a scene from the West Wing, but for crying out loud, do we have to hear the wit of Bush's former hatchet man, Eskew, at the convention nominating his most notable victim, John McCain himself? It's like Bob Dole, but without the wit, service and knowledge, and, oh yeah, record as a war hero.
McCain is an authentic American hero, who has some good ideas, and what I feel are a lot of bad ideas. When he is true to himself, he is a challenging opponent. Selling out to the disciples of Karl Rove is way beneath him.
As far as Bristol Palin goes, Psachya, I agree, we should not be torturing her. But in the immortal words of Treppenwitz himself, "old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher." What that means in this context is that she did have the premarital sex, she was a student in a school system that pushed "abstinence only," and McCain's team was caught flat footed. Some responsibility for this predicament lies with her, although she has clearly suffered enough embarrassment. But that does not mean that we should not be engaging in a healthy, policy driven discussion of the bad sex education ideas of the Vice Presidential nominee. It speaks directly to whether her Christian Fundamentalist beliefs will serve her policy initiatives well or not.
And while we're at it, I think it takes a lot of nerve to be so categorical about what you think is a subject for discussion. Examples are too numerous to mention of the excesses of the Right Wing nut jobs intruding into the personal lives of others. Bristol Palin is not so innocent that she did not know how to get pregnant. Something tells me that there are many people out there who think nothing of passing judgement on teenagers of color who do the same exact thing except for having the misfortune of not being the daughter of a State Governer. So spare me your indignation. It does not suit you.
Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Sep 7, 2008 7:33:28 AM
Update: According to CNN, while Sarah Palin support "abstinence only" education, it does not mean she rules out kids learning about contraceptives. This is exactly the kind of detail it is necessary to discuss. Why, where, and when discussion of sex education needs to take place is not the major issue of this election, but the role of schools versus other institutions in guiding our children is or should be at the heart of the liberal-conservative debate. Let's hope we can shed more light than heat on this subject.
Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Sep 7, 2008 7:51:52 AM
Jordan -
I really hope you're not insinuating that I would be any less "indignant" if it was an underprivileged African-American teenager who was being roasted by the press. I would think you know me better than that.
And, for the record, there are plenty of wackos on the far right who absolutely don't speak for me. Ann Coulter and Michael Savage are two examples that spring immediately to mind. I'll make a deal with you: I promise to be just as indignant when (if) conservative mouthpieces humiliate kids in a public forum. Fair enough?
Finally - if we must discuss it - as famous as Bristol Palin is now, her situation is still anecdotal. Show me a study that proves that abstinence-only education is no more effective at preventing teen pregnancy than the sex-ed offered in most public schools, and maybe I'll buy your argument. To me, abstinence is still the only surefire way to prevent pregnancy. And you'd be surprised at how many average Americans out there agree with Sarah Palin's take on the subject - her daughter's pregnancy notwithstanding.
Posted by: psachya | Sep 7, 2008 10:19:52 AM
You are quite correct, Jordan, I used harsh words, though, I might add, no harsher than your own.
I stand by my comment, however. The mind boggles that you think this was anything other than a shallow... If you think her speech was... -- (emphasis added by me).
To whom was your you addressed?! It certainly read like an attack on David. Which, btw, considering the his introduction of "Agree or disagree.... seemed a tad... well... combative, antagonistic, or, ehrrr.... um, intolerant.
I hardly think I was alone in interpreting your comment as a slap in David's face. But even if I was, that is exactly how I interpreted your comment.
Jordan, our genuine affection for you has not changed in the slightest a result of this exchange. However, friendships have been needlessly jeapardized over far milder remarks, so I would encourage you to go back and reread David's opening sentence; he did not express an opinion for or against anything in the speech... he was encouraging the intelligent readers of his blog to weigh in on the specifics of the content.
Posted by: zahava | Sep 7, 2008 10:30:41 AM
Addendum to Mike: for the record -- while I appreciate the way you jumped in to defend Jordan, I would like to point out that I wasn't verbally hip-checking Jordan for his opinion, but rather for the manner in which he expressed himself.
Posted by: zahava | Sep 7, 2008 10:41:18 AM
zahava -
Jordan was not attacking David.
His comment was just an example of the knee-jerk frustration/condescension of left-liberals with those who disagreee with the party line.
Most of them can't help it - they are so convinced that they are obviously right that they have great difficulty respecting other opinions.
This the same tone taken by much of the media as they try to dump on Palin. William Kristol perfectly captures the irony of it all - liberals frustrated that conservatives are not the neanderthals they assumed they were:
By the end of the week, after Palin's tour de force in St. Paul, the liberal media were so befuddled that they were reduced to complaining that conservatives aren't being narrow-minded enough. Thus, Hanna Rosin--who has covered religion and politics for the Washington Post, and has also written for the New Yorker, the New Republic, and the New York Times--lamented in a piece for Slate: "So cavalier are conservatives about Sarah Palin's wreck of a home life that they make the rest of us look stuffy and slow-witted by comparison." I suppose it was ungenerous of conservatives, in our broad-mindedness and tolerance of human frailty, to have let Ms. Rosin down, just when she was counting on us to bring out the tar and feathers. But she gives us too much credit when she suggests we make the liberal media look stuffy and slow-witted. They do that all by themselves.
Read the whole article here:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/526mzhjz.asp
Posted by: Ben-David | Sep 7, 2008 10:47:04 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.