So Now We Know Why the Anti-Palin Effort Was So Desperate

[Pookster]

No, of course not. I'm just a robot, remember? Input speech by Republican in this USB port, output mindless praise to monitor.

This is really elevating the discourse.

So, why do you support her? What about her "positives" outweigh the "negatives" for you? For sake of discussion (since positives and negatives are in the eye of the beholder), lets use Cleon's post above as a basis for the negatives.

 

[Upchurch]

I didn't like McCain before, I am SCARED for my country now.

I still like McCain. Despite all his recent pandering, I never thought he would be over all detrimental to the country.

Palin, on the other hand, looks like just another Bush.

No, that's not right. She's easier on the eyes.

Palin, on the other hand, sounds like just another Bush.

No, she can give a speech and not sound like a trained monkey.

Palin, on the other hand, feels like....

I'll just stop now.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Nobody here thought the anti-Palin effort has been just a tad sexist, just a tad shrill?

It would be the same if McCain had chosen Ron Paul as his running mate.
Nobody would be worried if she was running for the Constitution Party, but somebody running on a major ticket like this can win, no matter how crazy they are.

 

[chulbert]

The usual exaggeration of Palin's position:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

So yeah, feel free to set up that strawman and demolish it.

Let's be fair. She also said the following, two years ago when she sought the governorship of the great state of Alaska:

“Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

To me, "Teach both," is pretty unambiguous and a fair degree stronger than the quote you provided. Perhaps her position has mellowed in the past two years or perhaps one of those quotes was pandering to the audience, but either way let's not pretend she clearly has some laid back, discuss-if-it-happens-to-come-up position on the subject.

 

[andyandy]

I heard about half of the speech and only on the radio, and desperately want the Republicans to lose, but with those caveats aside:

I thought the delivery was okay. It wasn't in the same league as Obama, but it was pretty competent and much better than McCain.

I thought the content was pretty dreadful. The part that I heard contained little other than a tedious family history and her banging on about being from a small town and about how brilliant McCain is because he was a prisoner of war. When she went on the attack against Obama there was very little of substance, and more than a bit of deliberate misrepresentation....

and the crowd themselves were completely idiotic.

Palin: "I'm from a small town"

crowdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Palin: "just like small towns all over America"

crowdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Palin: "they are the lifeblood of the nation!"

Crowdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Palin: I'm a hockey mom.

Crowdoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Palin: I understand smalltown families

crowdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Repeat ad infinitum.

The delegates at the Democratic convention were just as bad, it started to annoy me after a while just how ridiculously excited they were getting over the the banalest of statements

 

[Cicero]

Strange how even the usually obtuse Chris Matthews recognized that Palin was not a Hillary substitute, as the harpies on "The View" shrieked, "substituting one vagina for another," but that she is the antithesis of Hillary, culturally, politically, and physically. In fact, her public speaking ability leaves about 95% of the U.S. Senate & Congress in the dust.

 

[geni]

Strange how even the usually obtuse Chris Matthews recognized that Palin was not a Hillary substitute, as the harpies on "The View" shrieked, "substituting one vagina for another," but that she is the antithesis of Hillary, culturally, politically, and physically. In fact, her public speaking ability leaves about 95% of the U.S. Senate & Congress in the dust.

A bit early to judge on that one. She had days to focus on one specific speach. Need a larger sample to judge from before we can make judgements.

 

[Upchurch]

The VP debate will be more telling than this one speech.

 

[Cicero]

The VP debate will be more telling than this one speech.

Sure is. After that speech, Biden will not be able to say that the reason he was upstaged was because he had to pull his punches in the debates. Palin can take it and dish it out.

 

[R.Mackey]

Earlier I had asked what Ms. Palin brings to the ticket and didn't get many responses. This speech was the first of hers I had ever seen.

Was it a good speech? Yes, pretty good. She can tell a joke well, connects, has good poise (but not so much as to be threatening). Based on her performance I now accept that McCain's choice was not as risky as it had seemed -- she is competent behind the microphone, and that counts.

Policy-wise, however, her speech indicates every bit as much a shift away from center for McCain as we'd guessed. That fails to impress me, and I also don't expect it to trigger any "desperation" in the opposition. The polarizing Rove calculus isn't going to work in this election. I've long considered McCain the best of the Republican field simply for his moderate viewpoint, and with this speech he continues to give up that advantage.

All this hoopla over her family, exaggerated scandals, etc. is superfluous.

OT, why on earth were people chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill!" at the Convention? What the heck kind of rallying cry is that??

 

[fuelair]

Both those articles go on to say that the speech lacked x and y and z, which is fair from the standpoint of the authors.

But nobody is talking about how Palin flailed. She nailed it like Kerry Strug. Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party.[/QUOTE]
My favorite parts of her speech occured when the little girl, little bro next to her licked her hand and smoothed his hair. Total cute points. I also liked the point where she made som "humorous point and it took two+ seconds and her pausing for most of the audience to realize they were supposed to laugh. They also took awhile to rise on a pro-Repub. point they were supposed to rise to.

 

[BobK]

There is a rumor that if McCain wins in Nov. the Xcel Energy Center might get renamed to the Palindrome.

 

[Cicero]

OT, why on earth were people chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill!" at the Convention? What the heck kind of rallying cry is that??

The rallying cry of people who are not fond of $4 a gallon gas.

 

[Beerina]

She's a good speaker.

That doesn't justify the thread title's handwave of her continued lying about her record, but she is a good speaker.

Reagan. Clinton. Nixon. Kennedy. FDR.


Nah. It's a useless skill.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ah yes, it's mere lack of political will that keeps us from the halcyon days of $1.09 at the pump. How silly of me to forget.

Sorry for the derail, I'll not perpetuate it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since only executive branch experience is what counts, I suppose the Republicans will reverse the ticket and run Gov. Palin as the presidential candidate and Senator McCain as the V.P. candidate.

You mean they're not going to apply that particular criticism consistently?

Also, I thought the lack of experience they were claiming in Obama was lack of foreign policy experience. I know Palin wanted to make Alaska a sovereign nation, but you can't really count that as foreign policy experience, can you?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Since only executive branch experience is what counts, I suppose the Republicans will reverse the ticket and run Gov. Palin as the presidential candidate and Senator McCain as the V.P. candidate.

You mean they're not going to apply that particular criticism consistently?

Also, I thought the lack of experience they were claiming in Obama was lack of foreign policy experience. I know Palin wanted to make Alaska a sovereign nation, but you can't really count that as foreign policy experience, can you?

I loved the all-night drumbeat that Palin has "more executive experience" than both Obama and Biden combined, neglecting to mention that, by the same standard, they should have included McCain in that assessment.

 

[332nd]

Stilted, I will agree with. To some degree, that was due to all the cheering interrupting her. I have to disagree about her voice, though. For whatever it's worth, she has a good speaking voice.

Her presentation was good, but it did feel somewhat like what you'd see in a college debate. Making. Sure. To. Hit. The. Points. And. Don't. Mess. Up. Ocassionally, she would relax and her accent would become more pronounced. Those times seemed the most genuine and they were few.

As I said before, I think Palin is a more refined version of Bush. Compared to what the GOP is used to, she is very definitely an improvement in delivery, if not in content.

Spot on. From my actor point of view it was pretty bland but, looking at it from the politics angle it was great especially when you consider it was her first time in "the big game".

 

[Brainster]

So, why do you support her? What about her "positives" outweigh the "negatives" for you? For sake of discussion (since positives and negatives are in the eye of the beholder), lets use Cleon's post above as a basis for the negatives.

Fair enough, here are Cleon's substantive points, leaving off only the intro and the outro to his post:

Call the "anti-Palin effort" "desperate" if you like. Palin is still in favor of teaching creationism as science, and I will continue to attack her for it.

Call it "Palin Derangement Syndrome" if you want. Palin is still hostile to civil rights, and I will continue to attack her for it.

Call it "sexism" if you like. Palin still supports unscientific, counter-productive abstinence-only education, and I will continue to attack her for it.

Call it whatever you like. I don't want Palin, or anyone who shares her political positions, to be in any political position higher than dogcatcher. I don't want to live in her grand vision of America - where students are given a substandard Bible-based education, where women do not have control over their own destinies, where homosexuals are criminalized and relegated to third-class citizens.

1. Favors teaching creationism. I believe I talked about this before, but it's a mischaracterisation of her position. And even if she did favor teaching creationism, that's really, really low on my list of concerns about a vice president. Does Cheney favor teaching creationism? I don't even know. Has he done anything to further that?

2. Hostile to some unnamed "civil rights". When I asked him for specifics, he replied:

I regard anyone who thinks a certain group of people should have their rights limited to be hostile to civil rights. Whether that group is African-Americans, Jews, gypsies, or homosexuals.

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that he doesn't think that Sarah Palin is hostile to civil rights for African Americans, Jews or gypsies. So I'm going to guess that what he means by civil rights is simply gay marriage. I'm not opposed to civil unions of some sort; calling it marriage seems to have generated much of the backlash. I'm also very much in favor of removing many of the barriers that gay couples face regarding hospital visitation rights and the like. But again, where does this fit in my list of priorities for a VP? Well down the list.

3. Favors unscientific "abstinence-only" sex education. I don't favor abstinence-only if abstinence only consists of no biological discussion. But I also note that nobody ever seems curious how "scientific" sex education has worked over the years. It was sold in the 1950s and 1960s as a way to reduce teen pregnancy, but teen pregnancy rates soared after its introduction. Yes, that is the post-hoc fallacy; there were lots of other things happening at the same time that probably had more to do with what happened. But isn't the post-hoc fallacy precisely what those who are pointing to Bristol Palin's pregnancy are committing when they chalk it up to abstinence-only? But again, let's grant the point. Where does sex education fit into my priorities for a vice president?

4. Vague stuff about women controlling their own destinies. I assume we're talking about abortion here? I'm personally pro-choice. But unlike the Obama camp, I know what would happen if Roe V Wade were overturned. Nothing. The issue would simply be turned back to the states, where it would die a well-deserved death. No state would ban it. Arizona, which is pretty conservative, and used to be even more conservative, had a ballot proposition on banning abortion in 1994 or so. It went down to defeat 2-1, and has ceased to be an issue in our state legislature.

5. Palin favors criminalizing homosexuals. This is indeed a very serious charge and I would be interested in Cleon's evidence backing it up.

So those are her negatives, none of which are important issues except for the criminalizing homosexuals bit, about which I anxiously await further details.

Against that:

1. Supports winning in Iraq versus pulling out. Very important issue to me.
2. Supports lower taxes and has a record on that. Moderately important issue to me (I don't think there's a lot of gas left in reducing tax rates, although I would love to see simplified taxes). And yes, it is valid to bring up the tax hikes on the oil industry as a counter-argument. On balance I trust the Republicans not to raise taxes more than I do the Democrats.
3. Supports lower business regulation. Extremely important issue to me as a small businessman.
4. Pledges to be an advocate for families with special needs children. Not a major issue with me, for the obvious reason.
5. Supports nuclear power. Big issue with me; if climate change is real (I believe it is, but am no scientist), then nuclear is the only answer to our power needs.

And aside from that, I agree with the Republicans more than the Democrats in general (not always, despite David Wong's beliefs to the contrary).

But if you believe that Sarah Palin is going to institute a theocracy, then by all means, shout it from the rooftops that she must be stopped. And I'll just do the dog laugh smily.

 

[Pookster]

Fair enough, here are Cleon's substantive points, leaving off only the intro and the outro to his post:



1. Favors teaching creationism. I believe I talked about this before, but it's a mischaracterisation of her position. And even if she did favor teaching creationism, that's really, really low on my list of concerns about a vice president. Does Cheney favor teaching creationism? I don't even know. Has he done anything to further that?

2. Hostile to some unnamed "civil rights". When I asked him for specifics, he replied:



I'll go out on a limb here and guess that he doesn't think that Sarah Palin is hostile to civil rights for African Americans, Jews or gypsies. So I'm going to guess that what he means by civil rights is simply gay marriage. I'm not opposed to civil unions of some sort; calling it marriage seems to have generated much of the backlash. I'm also very much in favor of removing many of the barriers that gay couples face regarding hospital visitation rights and the like. But again, where does this fit in my list of priorities for a VP? Well down the list.

3. Favors unscientific "abstinence-only" sex education. I don't favor abstinence-only if abstinence only consists of no biological discussion. But I also note that nobody ever seems curious how "scientific" sex education has worked over the years. It was sold in the 1950s and 1960s as a way to reduce teen pregnancy, but teen pregnancy rates soared after its introduction. Yes, that is the post-hoc fallacy; there were lots of other things happening at the same time that probably had more to do with what happened. But isn't the post-hoc fallacy precisely what those who are pointing to Bristol Palin's pregnancy are committing when they chalk it up to abstinence-only? But again, let's grant the point. Where does sex education fit into my priorities for a vice president?

4. Vague stuff about women controlling their own destinies. I assume we're talking about abortion here? I'm personally pro-choice. But unlike the Obama camp, I know what would happen if Roe V Wade were overturned. Nothing. The issue would simply be turned back to the states, where it would die a well-deserved death. No state would ban it. Arizona, which is pretty conservative, and used to be even more conservative, had a ballot proposition on banning abortion in 1994 or so. It went down to defeat 2-1, and has ceased to be an issue in our state legislature.

5. Palin favors criminalizing homosexuals. This is indeed a very serious charge and I would be interested in Cleon's evidence backing it up.

So those are her negatives, none of which are important issues except for the criminalizing homosexuals bit, about which I anxiously await further details.

Against that:

1. Supports winning in Iraq versus pulling out. Very important issue to me.
2. Supports lower taxes and has a record on that. Moderately important issue to me (I don't think there's a lot of gas left in reducing tax rates, although I would love to see simplified taxes). And yes, it is valid to bring up the tax hikes on the oil industry as a counter-argument. On balance I trust the Republicans not to raise taxes more than I do the Democrats.
3. Supports lower business regulation. Extremely important issue to me as a small businessman.
4. Pledges to be an advocate for families with special needs children. Not a major issue with me, for the obvious reason.
5. Supports nuclear power. Big issue with me; if climate change is real (I believe it is, but am no scientist), then nuclear is the only answer to our power needs.

And aside from that, I agree with the Republicans more than the Democrats in general (not always, despite David Wong's beliefs to the contrary).

But if you believe that Sarah Palin is going to institute a theocracy, then by all means, shout it from the rooftops that she must be stopped. And I'll just do the dog laugh smily.

Thanks for being responsive. I appreciate it. It helps in understanding your arguments.

And I do mean this sincerely.