Comments by netloafer
Page 1 of 53 | Next
Posted on October 3 at 12:26 p.m.
Create
I watched the video this morning after I read the transcript. I saw both of them fiddling with notes. I suspect both were schooled, so I don't see a problem with Sarah Palin being prepped.
Your response about the "average" person sort of begs the question. I happen to think that "average" people can actually be intelligent and can actually lead. In fact, there have been some very "average" people who have turned out to be quite extraodrinary. There's a part of me that is a bit troubled when I see a politician who thinks that he or she has all the necessary answers to all the necessary questions. I don't subscribe to the idea that human wisdom and precise knowledge of policy is adequate for this nation's challenges. In fact, I think that the issues should lead any potential leader to fall to their knees, recognizing their need for guidance.
Is Sarah Palin one of those extraordinary "average"people? I don't know, but I do know that she has the ability to connect with the average person in a way that makes them feel that they matter. Joe Biden's gifts lie in other areas, as do Barack Obama's. Hillary Clinton proved that to the satisfaction of the people in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Does that mean the Obama-Biden ticket can't or won't win? No. I think it means that Sarah Palin has somehow tapped into a reservoir. It's the type of thing that drives wise men, experts, etc to the brink of rage.
Posted on October 3 at 9:38 a.m.
Momus:
I can tell you that the divide is very real. Whether or not that's a reason to vote for a canidate is another matter.
I think we are looking for someone to lead, not someone to either have a beer with or cite policy positions.
I started this election cycle as a Huckabee supporter. When McCain secured the nomination I switched my support to Obama (I have the donations to prove it). After listening to Senator Obama for some time and examining his positions I decided to switch my support for the final time to Senator McCain. I did so not only for policy reasons, but also for "intangible" ones.
I am well aware of George Bush's failings. I'm as aware of them as I was of Lyndon Johnson's or Richard Nixon's or Jimmy Carter's. Policy failure is one of the true constants in our political landscape.
By the way, I didn't watch the debate last night. This morning I read the transcipt and then watched the video of it. I didn't think it was a draw. I'll leave it to others to conclude who I thought won.
Posted on October 3 at 8:47 a.m.
I thought Peggy Noonan said it better than most of the talking heads:
"As far as Mrs. Palin was concerned, Gwen Ifill was not there, and Joe Biden was not there. Sarah and the camera were there. This was classic "talk over the heads of the media straight to the people," and it is a long time since I've seen it done so well, though so transparently."
One of the great difficulties Sarah Palin's critics have is their inability to see her ability to connect with "average" people.
I think she played skilfully to those people. I think when Barack Obama and Joe Biden attempt to talk to the "average" person it doesn't quite connect. It feels like it's coming from someone who has grasped all the facts, etc and is speaking to the "average" person as someone who is super enlightened.
That has been the Democratic problem for years. Al Gore is an extremely bright man, but he couldn't connect with the "average" person because he came across as a policy wonk detached from the concerns of the "average" person. This wasn't easy to do, especially when he was actually attempting to connect to the "average" person. The Democrats had the same problem with John Kerry.
It's interesting for me to see the visceral reactions Sarah Palin's critics have toward her. They really don't like her. In fact, I think many actually hate her passionately. They support choice; they just hate her "choice." Many think she is stupid, which is another way of claiming extraordinary intelligence for themselves. When Governor Palin connects to well to the "average" person and her critics dismiss her with contempt, the contempt also transfers to the "average" person. This is the great failing of the critics. They're saying, in essence, that anyone who would support someone "like her" must be stupid. It exposes the great gulf between the "average" person and the "really smart" ones.
Posted on October 2 at 3:56 p.m.
I've been busy painting, making raised beds for the spring and such. You know, the little, unimportant things.
I'm sure that any candidate would gladly embrace the ideals of Camelot, even a dolt like Sarah Palin.
Bentsen did get the best of Quayle, but George H.W. got the last laugh in the general election. He of course got the boot in large part because of his pledge ("Read my lips, no new taxes").
Speaking of zingers. A woman who absolutely detested Winston Churchill once told him that if she were his wife she would poison him. Churchill replied "Madam, if I were your husband I would gladly take it."
Posted on October 2 at 2:58 p.m.
I honestly haven't seen much of Sarah Palin, so I don't know how she'll fare in a debate. She may lose on substance and win on style. She may lose on both style and substance. I think a lot of people have concluded that she could never win on substance. We''ll see.
A lot of people, particularly "experts," were convinced that Ronald Reagan was nothing more than an amiable dunce.
Well, to paraphrase Bob Dylan referring to Lenny Bruce, "He just showed the wise men of his day to be nothing more than fools."
It would certainly be like Camelot if the candidates we have to choose from were as in tune with the times, wise, intelligent, generous, caring, and charming, as we are. We do get them once in a while and we usually crucify them.
Posted on October 2 at 1:11 p.m.
I think it will be an interesting debate. Sarah Palin may be able to hold her own, maybe not,. We'll see.
I don't think Gwen is the type of moderator who has any interest in cute questions. Those are the types best left to Charles Gibson.
I suspect a lot of us will go into this assuming that our candidate will be the winner, no matter what. Most of us will say we intend to listen with an open mind. I tend to doubt that.
In the end I think style is every bit as important as substance. Both matter. In the first debate between Mondale and Reagan, Reagan stumbled over one "fact" after another. He looked lost. Then, in the second debate the moderator asked about Reagan's age. Reagan responded "I will not use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him." Spontaneous laughter erupted in the room. Even Mondale let out a real belly laugh. The reports following the debate mentioned little about policy issues. Reagan's one liner won the night. Charm and wit won out over substance.
If it had been up to the expert debate judges Reagan would have lost on policy issues. But blue collar America loved Ronald Reagan and that one liner did more to win him the election than any of his answers about nuclear weapons. It's also interesting that experts painted Reagan as an empty headed nuclear explosion in a suit looking for a target. I think that little throw away answer told blue collar American otherwise. In the end, blue collar America was right and the experts wrong. There was no nuclear war, unless a lot of us missed it, and Ronald Reagan was far from being an empty head.
Posted on October 2 at 10:33 a.m.
I think I'll wait till the debate is over before I decide who the winner is.
Myself, I would blame Gwen if either candidate shoots off. I think Joe Biden has as remarkable a gift for doing that as Sarah Palin.
Posted on October 2 at 9:21 a.m.
I don't know much about Gwen's politics.
While I sense that we wouldn't share political points of view, she has always seemed to me to be a fair minded person to me.
I think this could actually work in Sarah Palin's favor. As moderator, with her possible support for Barack Obama now made public, I trust that she will be especially careful to both candidates. The last thing she would want would be perceived to be a political partisan tossing fluff at one candidate and high inside sliders to the other.
As I said, I believe Gwen is a fair minded person and I believe she'll conduct herself well in the debate. I believe the lines of questioning will be tough, but fair.
Posted on September 30 at 10:09 a.m.
Deepthoughts
That was my observation. I can't say that's what others observed. I felt that on one side there were the "enlightened" wanting to "protect" us and on the other were "average" Emporians who just wanted government to leave them alone.
The divide looked pretty clean to me. The ban proponents were sitting together up front, prominently placed. They appeared to be a slice of Emporia's blue ribbon citizens. The other side seemed to be blue collar workers and small business owners. I suspect that many of them feel that their views and needs aren't considered in this city's machinations. I can't say that the feeling is right on, but I can that that it is a very real feeling. The last thing most of them want is more government intervention.
And I can't say that the divide I sensed was completely clean, but it was there nonetheless. Others who were there could speak to that I suppose.
I think the last speaker made an excellent point. She asked why CEA hadn't spent more time trying to working with the counter group. Had CEA done that a proposal satisfactory to both sides might have been drafted.
I spoke to Ms. Walters about that. She reminded me that it was just a "draft." I think what she failed to mention was that the draft language included everything that CEA wanted. Had no one objected, they would have taken every item in the draft and made it law. The one thing that stopped them in their tracks was the pushback from the other side. Only then (last night was the first time I heard CEA offer alternative language) did they shift their position. I think it was the sense that CEA was trying to jam this down their throats that got opponents really riled up.
Page 1 of 53 | Next
Posted on October 4 at 9:55 a.m.
Momus
I think Mike Huckabee said it better than most. He was asked in a debate what party Jesus would have been in. He responded: "Jesus was far too smart to have ever run for political office."
There's some merit to the idea that we should vote for candidates based on facts and reason. But there are also some gaps in that kind of thinking. While I think it is a great idea to trust the wisdom of our political leaders, I also believe that many of the issues we face are far too complex for human wisdom alone to solve. For example, geopolitics and economics. Much of the human wisdom applied to problems in these areas has been little more than creating problem B in order to solve problem A.
In terms of the economy, we all stand to lose a lot. I take comfort in the fact that if we do go over the cliff, we will all do it together, fat cats and Main Street America. That's the way democracy works.
Almost all Americans have retirement plans invested in the stock market. Almost all Americans have been on a consumption binge for a little over a generation. I'm as willing as any American to find someone to blame. If it settles on Republicans, I'll provide the matches when we burn them at the stakes or provide the lumber for the gallows. Lord knows, I am absolutely guiltless in this spree of greed and spending that's taken place over the past twenty years. I'm sure you are also absolutely guiltless, Momus, as is every other American save a the Wall Street fat cats and laissez faire economists.
One of the most amusing movie lines I ever heard was from "The Graduate." The young hero is wondering about the future and a businessman tells him that the future is "Plastics." He was so right. Wal Mart counts on "plastics." So does Macy's, Lord and Taylor, Bloomingales, K-Mart, Target, Applebee's, Princess Cruise Lines, Disney World, the Flint Hills Cinemas, Stage, Montana Mike's, Dillon's, Sutherland's, Country Mart, Golden Corral, etc, etc, etc.
Ah, but I digress. I'm sure we're all guiltless. None of us took second mortages so that we could take that cruise we couldn't live without. None of took out second mortgages so that we could pay for the plastic load we already had, then went out and piled up more on the plastic. I'm sure none of us ate out five nights a week, using plastic, and then couldn't figure out why our bills were so high and our food costs had gotten out of control. Yes, this is all the fault of a few fat cats and George Bush.
On Debate between vice-presidential candidates