Ishtvan on 4/10/2008 at 23:03
I can't believe this shit:
(
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/index.html)
First off, this story is old news and has been given the "who cares" treatment pretty soundly. Ayers is now a professor of Education at U of Chicago, and he was at a meeting on school reform in Chicago. Obama went to the same meeting on school reform. They live in the same neighborhood. They taught at the same university. OMG, someone call the Dept. of Homeland Security!! I lived in the same neighborhood too until '99. Guess I'd better not try to board any planes.
Second, it's surprising that the McCain camp is actually admitting that they're focusing on a strategy of baseless attacks.
Quote:
"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, requesting anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss strategy. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here."
In other words, they know they're losing and are desperately flailing out with whatever bullshit attacks they can think of. Let's hope voters can actually see through this.
Ghostly Apparition on 5/10/2008 at 02:01
The thing that bothered me about the debate is Palins refusal to answer a lot of questions. Then went off in a completely different direction. It was a debate, not a stump speech, the moderator asks questions, and the participants
by agreeing to be there are obliged to answer. Or should be.
I hope that came off to everybody watching the same as it came across to me.
Shes avoiding the question. Why? Either she doesn't know the answer or knows her position is not defensible.
Starrfall on 5/10/2008 at 03:53
Quote Posted by Ishtvan
In other words, they know they're losing and are desperately flailing out with whatever bullshit attacks they can think of. Let's hope voters can actually see through this.
Yeah but everyone knew this was going to happen once October rolled around because McCain is a angry ineffectual old man and Palin is a twit so they don't really have anything else to run on.
BEAR on 5/10/2008 at 06:17
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
The thing that bothered me about the debate is Palins refusal to answer a lot of questions. Then went off in a completely different direction. It was a debate, not a stump speech, the moderator asks questions, and the participants
by agreeing to be there are obliged to answer. Or should be.
I hope that came off to everybody watching the same as it came across to me.
Shes avoiding the question. Why? Either she doesn't know the answer or knows her position is not defensible.
They were pageant answers. She clearly had rehearsed all her points and was totally unable to roll with anything new. All things considered, that was a pretty good tactic. If she actually attempted to actually think about the questions, she would have had a tough time and they knew it. So she just tried to relate her answers closest to what was asked.
It was really like watching a robot who was programmed with a certain answers just picking which one to use at which time, no thought about anything. I don't know that it will sway anyone, I know there are a ton of people that ate that shit up because that kind of rhetoric is all they really ask from a politician.
theBlackman on 5/10/2008 at 07:59
Along with the above Palin discussion. I saw some interviews with comedians both male and female, and they love her. They say that they don't even have to write material about her.
The audiences ROTFL if they just use exact Palin quotes. After listening, to my regret, to both the Palin perfomances, I have to agree with them. Who needs standup when we have Palin.
Gryzemuis on 5/10/2008 at 14:23
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
Shes avoiding the question. Why? Either she doesn't know the answer or knows her position is not defensible.
I expected her to ignore the questions even more. See my previous post.
I think she did that because of the 2 reasons you gave (ignorance and not a defendable position). But also because of 2 more reasons.
Going into details will show you know what you are talking about. That means you must be a smartass. If you discuss with your opponent, and suggest you know better than him, you seem condescending. Being smart and being condescending is something the average person doesn't like. It's a pretty sad state, but if you seem smart and knowledgeable, people are less likely to vote for you.
Second reason is that if you go into details, you have to use words with a negative conotation. You have to saw the other guy is wrong (wrong is a negative word). You have to talk about losing the war in Iraq (losing is a negative word). Even saying "you're looking at the past, you should look at the future" already has some negative tone. Etc, etc. And people don't like negative words. If you want to win voters, you have to only use words like win, victory, great americans, great future, the beautiful american people who are not from Washington ("not from Washington" is suddenly positive. :)).
If you go into a real discussion it is harder to avoid the negative words. And you are more likely to misuse the positive words and make a fool of yourself (reusing the exact same words multiple times in a row, like she did in TV interviews). If you use pre-rehearsed paragraphs, it is much easier to keep the positive tone in your words.
Remember, elections are not about issues, they are about individuals.
Remember, elections are not about which individuals are best suited to run an office. Elections are about which individual you like best. Which individual you want to drink a beer with.
The republicans have understood this much better. Their current candidates are a pow-mascotte and a beauty queen. They've used actors before (Reagan and Schwarzenegger). GW Bush is a muppet who had the right image, being a born-again christian with a cowboy image. And the right parents with the right friends of course. It's all about image, blank history, and who can read best from a teleprompter.
Read Orwell's 1984, if you haven't already in the past. Besides the fact it is a really good and entertaining book, it is really scary to see how much of it has come true. And maybe Brave New World. I can't remember what was in what book, as it's been 30 years since I read those 2 books.
Ladron De La Noche on 5/10/2008 at 18:37
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi3oP74kMjA) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi3oP74kMjA
Sarah Palin: Sen. Obama, terrorist sympathizer and unpatriotic.
Unforunate comments usually left for the right wing political pundits on television and radio not on a national campaign rally. Who exactly is she reaching out to?
Starrfall on 5/10/2008 at 21:35
Her kindred twits, obviously.
edit: like these people
Quote:
Obama "just doesn't seem like he's from America," said Beth Bailey, 25. Ben Bailey, 32, noted that Obama's middle name is Hussein, "and we know what that means."
