Via Andrew Sullivan.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Literature, Religion, Politics, Rants, Murmurs, and Medieval History
About Me
- Liam
- Currently scratching history to see if it bleeds, I have also been known to write poetry, fiction, and absurdities.
Twitter Updates
Links
- Liam's Homepage
- Cabinet of Wonders
- Catholicism, holiness and spirituality
- Cradlesong
- Chaldean Thoughts
- Habakkuk's Watchpost
- Ghost in the Machine
- If Charlie Parker was a Gunslinger...
- The Late Adopter
- The Lesser of Two Weevils
- The Outline of a House
- Perspective
- Sandalstraps' Sanctuary
- Aun Estamos Vivos
- Cura Animarum
- Musings from the Big U
- The Lost Fort
- semitism.net
- St. Blog's Parish Hall
- zone
12 comments:
That's great. The more I think about her performance last night the more insulted I am that the GOP thinks I'd vote for someone that stupid.
This only shows she is learning how to not answer and deflect questions. She will be a Washington pro in no time. One only has to look at Biden's clean coal comment in the rope line and his explanation to see how it is really done. His lies and mistakes in this debate are being exposed as we speak!
Let's see now, she is stupid but Obama wanting to inflate tires instead of drill is smart!
Come on now, try to be a little objective and fair............
garpu,
Speaking of stupid……
Biden stated that he believed climate change was totally caused by human activity (“We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause.”). This is complete and total nonsense. It is an established scientific fact that cyclical changes in the climate of the earth. The temperature of the sun varies. We have had ice ages over the centuries and in fact are still coming out of what is referred to as the little ice age. Before this little ice age began people were farming in Greenland. Yet, Biden would have me believe that climate change would be static without human activity.
This is either a totally stupid opinion or an attempt to promote man made global warming hysteria through deception. Frankly, I believe it is the latter which is actually worse than being stupid. To deceive through promoting lies is the stuff of tyranny.
Hi Jazzycat,
Do you really want to try to defend Palin at this point? They won't let her do press conferences. She has had two real interviews (Hannity and Hewit don't count) with journalists who are not particularly adversarial but who did follow up the questions and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the debate, after actually stating she would not answer the moderator's or her opponent's questions (!) she just aped memorized talking points. This has nothing to do with being a Washington pro -- she is not a credible candidate (as a number of conservatives have recognized) and the fact that she is on the ticket is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.
Obama has given countless press conferences, interviews, and speeches, and has written two books. From all of that, all you can do is take the tire inflating thing out of context and pretend that's the end all of his energy plan (by the way, it would save gas). That's grasping at straws.
As far as Biden goes, he is obviously not talking about seasonal variations in climate, but the gradual warming of the climate about which there is a consensus in the scientific community (perhaps not completely about severity, but about its existence and its major causes).
To sum up, Jazzycat, you certainly could make points about McCain's policies vs Obama's, but I cannot take seriously at this point any defense of Palin. If she's not capable enough to deal with the media, she's not capable enough to deal with the presidency. If you lower expectations just for her, you are being careless and insulting about the office she aspires to, the future of our country, and the ability of women in public office.
Oh, you beat me to this. By several hours.
It's very perceptive and funny.
What's amazing is that some people still consider Palin a worthy choice for VP. It's almost as if facts don't matter. According to all the polls I've seen, though, she lost the debate, so I guess most people are paying attention.
1. If Hannity and Hewit don’t count for Palin then all of Obama’s with the liberal media do not count either. That means Palin has had two that count (Katie and Charlie) and Obama has had one (O’Reilly). BTW, if you do not count the disconnect between Obama’s rhetoric and what his actual record has been then he did a fair job with O’Reilly and the debates. EXAMPLE of DISCONNECT: For Obama to assert a support for gun rights with his past record and intention to appoint judges who will overturn gun rights is disingenuous at best.
2. The tire thing: "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!" Whether this is his entire energy plan or not he said it and I suspect if Palin had said something this stupid she would be grilled!
3. To suggest as Biden did that human activity is the only cause of global warming is untrue and down right stupid! It seems he gets a pass because that is the “politically accepted” view and no one dares to suggest that natural cycles and sun activity also have a major effect on climate change. For example: The following information is in the Glacier Bay National Park Brochure and it is also on their web site:
1794: Captain George Vancouver of the H.M.S. Discovery, along with Lt. Joseph Whidbey, describes Glacier Bay as "a compact sheet of ice as far as the eye could distinguish". 1879: John Muir records his "discovery" of Glacier Bay. The glacial ice has retreated up into the bay 40 miles from where Whidbey saw it.
4. If Palin had said as Biden did that Franklin Roosevelt went on television in 1929 after the stock market crash then I expect the eastern elites would have had a hissy fit. Since it was Biden who said it, then no one mentions it and it is has not been used on Sat. Night Live. The double standard is so obvious.
Since Pelosi is only two heart beats away from the presidency, the democrats certainly have plenty of stupid to worry about in their own camp.
Jazzycat,
Let's get back to the main subject here, which is Sarah Palin (I have no interest in getting into a "your candidate is dumber than mine debate"). Obama, McCain, and Joe Biden have all made themselves available to the press, and all answered questions. Sarah Palin has been kept away from the press except for four interviews. It's not a question of liberal vs conservative, it's a question of asking real questions and trying to get her to really answer them. Palin has done well reading speeches. She made it through a debate only by repeating talking points and by refusing to answer questions she didn't want to. In the two interviews in which the interviewers tried to make her answer (not skirt around) questions, she BABBLED. That's the truth of things.
I have no idea whether Sarah Palin is stupid or not. All I know is that the McCain campaign will not allow her to be put to the test, so we have no idea is she has any real ideas on the issues or not. That is an insult the electorate.
liam,
Fair enough. There is four weeks to go and if she does not become more accessible, then your point is certainly valid to a degree.
That being said, I think it is obvious that the MSM is in the tank for the democrats and I would suggest that critics of Palin should insist on seeing the entire transcript of the CBS Couric interview rather than the filtered version.
I believe I am correct that NY Times just addressed the Ayers situation for the first time. It was a smooth over job, but at least they finally mentioned it. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I know what a huge issue it would be if a Republican had such ties to right wing nut terrorist. You know such a person would be drummed out of the primaries before he ever got started.
Hi Jazzycat --
It's funny -- everyone on the left feels the MSM is biased towards the Republicans and everyone on the right feels the opposite. I think that really what is going on is that they are shallow. There are a million stories they don't follow that they should, some of which would benefit the right and others the left.
I personally feel that the Times is dignifying the Ayers story too much by giving it front page treatment. As a matter of fact, the Times story quoted a Chicago Tribune story on Ayers without reporting as well what the same story said about McCain's own version of Ayers - G. Gordon Liddy. So the Times seems to be biased against Obama here.
Personally, I think McCain's association with Liddy is as meaningless as Obama's with Ayers or as Palin's association with the Alaskan Independence Party. They're all cheap shots and guilt by association. But apparently that's the game the GOP wants to play. Palin said Obama "pals around with terrorists." I really don't like her, to be honest.
liam,
Hey, I absolutely love Sarah. She is very popular among conservatives and is she a babe or what!
You will be glad to hear that I have vowed to check in with the NY Times electronic edition from time to time.
Seriously, I admire your frankness and willingness to express your opinions.
I do believe a comparision of Liddy and Ayers is a huge stretch....
Hi Jazzycat,
Thanks for your comments, it's nice to have a calm discussion.
I personally don't feel that the Ayers-Liddy thing is such a stretch, but rather than get into that, lets' look at it this way: extremists on the right and on the left who have done anti-American things of differing degrees of nastiness (lawbreaking to fix an election, planting bombs) reintegrate into society and cross paths with mainstream politicians. If you want to, you can draw lines between most politicians and unsavory characters.
Ayers becomes a professor of education and, in the capacity of an education specialist, is involved in local politics in Obama's neighborhood. Obama appears at an affair at his house. They serve on a couple of boards together. They are not friends (don't take the "friendly" quote out of context like Palin did), they do not work closely together, Ayers never advises Obama, Obama never shows interest or compassion for violent 60's radicalism.
So what is the problem? Palin's take on it is that Obama is "not like us," and even the AP, which has been heavily pro-McCain during this campaign because of the influence of Ron Fournier, says that her statements are racially tinged.
The problem is that all the references to Ayers never say exactly what the problem is. Why does his fleeting association with Ayers damning for him? What does that mean about Obama? I wish someone would explain that to me.
Post a Comment