heywood on 4/9/2008 at 02:04
Quote Posted by Starrfall
The "well that may have been bipartisan but it wasn't good enough!" argument is depressingly predictable and doesn't counter the fact that he has reached across party lines. (edit: although I understand demo to be saying Obama is not a bipartisan PLAYER, not that Obama isn't a bipartisan player)
Yes, that's the point. Even staunch partisans like Ted Kennedy and Newt Gingrich have teamed with the other side to sponsor bipartisan legislation. But that level of bipartisanship doesn't compare to records of McCain, Lieberman, Russ Feingold, Susan Collins, the Blue Dogs, etc.
Thanks for pointing me to that one. I've read enough about Obama's 130 "present" votes in the Illinois Senate on controversial issues. It helps to know that he's stiffened his spine while in the US Senate.
Quote:
And if you want to talk about confidence McCain probably shouldn't be in the picture at all because
we already know how that story ends. He may have moved away from the party in 1994, but he moved right back over in 2008. And the 2008 McCain isn't even the good one for god's sake.
Yeah, I know. A real shame his campaign has become.
Starrfall on 4/9/2008 at 03:41
Quote Posted by heretic
FFS, Palin's big speech has yet to even occur (which may well make or break her) and you're allready declaring victory.
Did you watch it? I'm eager to hear about her policies and vision for the nation.
demagogue on 4/9/2008 at 04:32
Quote:
And for the record: Using GWB's terrible reign as somehow a case against Obama is one of the more laughable things I've ever heard.
Bush didn't do the horrible job he's done because he was inexperienced or unskilled, its because he is part of an arrogant group of neocons who have been trying to do this shit for years. You dont start a war like iraq out of inexperience, you do it by being completely full of shit.
For the record, on the first paragraph, I never said Bush & Obama had anything in common, in personality or politics, certainly not more so than McCain. I meant the situation is similar in predicting how partisan/open minded he'll be once in office. I'm not a big fan of election by flash-in-the-pan. I have respect for establishing yourself as a political stalwart on the national scene before taking the top job. That doesn't mean I like McCain over Obama; it just means that's an uncomfort zone with Obama. I wish he weren't such a flash in the pan candidate ... like JFK, like Bush 2 ... not like Bush 1, not like Clinton.
If you don't like the analogy to Bush 2, I don't really like it either; by all means substitute with JFK, who is by far the more appropriate analogy anyway ... flash in the pan rise to power, hugely popular, loved still today, kept a tight circle of advisors and snubbed the political establishment around him, didn't try to broaden his political horizons or establish himself (cf LBJ's frustration), and ultimately poor rating by historians for his decision-making. I don't know that Obama will be like JFK in that kind of out of touch decision-making, it's just a feeling I get. I think it's what Clinton supporters were worried about, since I foresee they may feel snubbed. He won't get us into an unnecessary war and McCain just might, so the stakes aren't the same. And of course some like Bush 1 were very established and still fell out of touch with political reality over time (it changed under his feet), so who knows...
On the second paragraph, I agree with your gist (not your wording because Bush was never part of the GOP philosophical elite & do you really want to bet on how careful a student he is of conservative ideology?); But the gist is the reasons behind Bush's awful decision-making have been documented over and over (cf McClellan's book)... blind unreflective loyalty to partisan dogma, even if it flies in the face of rational policy. That was my point.
To get more to the root of it, I don't like what the spirit of partisanship does to people (I'm not speaking about anybody here, just generally speaking), esp when it's not attune to political reality ... makes them froth at the mouth and start spewing all this vitriol, or making decisions without worrying about what happens when it gets out there in the world. It's really bewildering to me, since politics to me has always been a dispassionate debate over technical issues of policy, and facing political reality with open eyes and taking it as it comes.
If market forces work for some things, I don't see why it should be distorted and create inefficiency for everybody just because some blind dogma says it can never be trusted; if there's a clear market failure or blindspot, I'll be right at the front of the pack calling for regulation and not let some dogma "but the market's always right" get in the way. And those are technical sorts of questions, plus you look at certain values like fairness and justice. Not sure where all the vitriol comes from, unless your entire vision of politics is all about "those idiots on the other side".
Anyway, on that note ... gack there was a lot of brow-beating on the Rep side tonight. Mitt Romney was scraping the bottom of the barrel, which made Huckabee look like he was taking the high road by comparison. Giuliani was better without the hate pop shots (as Mark Green used to say "Giuliani: you either love him or he hates you."); he at least got some people to wake up ... there isn't near the energy or electricity in this Convention as the Democratic one.
But of course Palin's speech was the most vetted and came out as the speech of a national candidate, whether you agree with it or not, and there was a lot to dislike IMO policy-wise ... But it was much sharper than the more brow-beating speeches before it. I know Kay Baliey Hutchinson couldn't have pulled a speech like that off (she spoke at my friend's graduation). It helped that I think people were almost expecting her to drop the ball under pressure... In the context it was in, it was really a good speech to make the case she deserves to be a national candidate and isn't a shrinking violet.
heretic on 4/9/2008 at 05:19
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Did you watch it? I'm eager to hear about her policies and vision for the nation.
Yes, and I more or less agree with demagogue's keen description.
The only thing I would add is that at one point she mentioned how it takes a special kind of love to care for "special needs" children, and that if she made VP then the parents of these "special" children would have a voice within the whitehouse.
I then had a glorious vision of a bumper sticker reading :
'Retards for Mccain/Palin '08!'
Then she made vague mention of her husband's Eskimo heritage, so the bumper sticker became an even more argent affair:
'Retards & Eskimos for Mccain/Palin '08!'
Was it the three doses of Pernod I drank during the RNC?
Who knows, but more importantly..who cares?
That's all I've got.
jay pettitt on 4/9/2008 at 11:38
Just been watching Palin's speech on the (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7597238.stm) beeb. There's some good lines in there - "I sold it on eBay" deserves special credit (assuming eBay isn't a really silly place to sell airplanes). Some of it is just frivolous - I'm sure it's cute to poke fun at the polystyrene stage backdrops at the Democrats bash - but cute is all it is. There's some inconsistency and contradiction and some skirting around some basic policy problems - offering parents of special needs kids a voice in the white house is all well and good - but does that mean that the Republicans are going to stop supporting discounting the economic value of ill people and people who are disabled in cost benefit analysis - the thing is if you stop undervaluing groups of people who might benefit from particular state help it turns out that the state sometimes can afford to do stuff and your impetus not to legislate and the republican mantra for ever smaller government goes out the window; instead you start to ponder new legislation on its merits rather than dismissing new legislation out of hand. In other words you become a liberal.
The main gist I get from this speech though, is that Palin has just cast herself as the pantomime villain with her nationalisms and implied threats for the good people of the Kings fair land should they interfere with her schemes; setting herself up only to be thwarted after the intermission by a dashing young prince wearing tights and pixie boots.
heywood on 4/9/2008 at 13:31
Last night was apparently "attack" night. Giuliani's speech was filled with cheap shots and mockery - very low brow stuff. Palin's speech started out by talking about herself and her family, and then transitioned into a long series of sound bites that weren't much better than Giuliani's material (she just doesn't come across as vitriolic when delivering them). Even Romney, who I expected more from, just reiterated the talking points.
It's not like watching her read a speech that somebody else wrote was going to tell us much about her, but I think she missed an opportunity to convince people she was ready for the job and/or appeal to women voters. Her speech solidified my view that her only purpose in the campaign is to rile up the base.
heretic on 4/9/2008 at 15:48
Quote Posted by heywood
Last night was apparently "attack" night. Giuliani's speech was filled with cheap shots and mockery - very low brow stuff.
With exception to Giuliani, last night seemed more like "response" night to me.
Should the speakers (including Palin) have simply not addressed the attacks volleyed by their opponents? Not to do so would have been a huge weakness, given the nature of the 'smear or be smeared' environment.
In the end Palin did what was needed as far as answering back to the most oft heard criticisms. She could have made more mention regarding policy, but the upcoming debate between Palin and Biden (Oct 2) will give her the opportunity to do just that.
BEAR on 4/9/2008 at 16:00
Quote Posted by heywood
Last night was apparently "attack" night. Giuliani's speech was filled with cheap shots and mockery - very low brow stuff.
Its Giuliani, what do you expect? He's only where he is for one reason, 9/11. He has no real qualifications to speak besides being an utter twat, so why would you be surprised when he delivers?
How many times did he mention 9/11 in his speech by the way? I couldn't possibly watch it because he fills me with such rage and loathing.
Starrfall on 4/9/2008 at 16:06
I'm reading a transcript of Palin's speech and she's a blatant liar.
