Why is this woman smiling? Perhaps because it's likely that she won the debate tonight. A few thoughts about what we saw in St. Louis:
- If Palin did win (and I suspect she did), it didn't mean that Biden lost. Biden was impressive, frankly more impressive than the fellow on the top of his ticket. He has a command at the podium now that he was sorely lacking 20 years ago and the time format helped him, because it kept him focused so he didn't ramble.
- Having said that, the most important part of the post-debate scrum will be the fact-checking. Biden threw out a lot of assertions that seemed dubious to me, but they came so fast that I didn't really know where to begin in thinking about it. It's easier to tell when Obama is lying because his style is more deliberative and pedantic.
- Moderator Gwen Ifill came into the debate with great suspicion because she is writing a book on the campaign that features Obama. It did not appear to me that she favored either candidate and she didn't betray any agenda with her questioning, which is more than I can say for Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric. Good for her.
- The challenge before Palin was to avoid gaffes. She did. Palin didn't always answer the question she received, which seemed to frustrate Ifill from time to time, but what we saw tonight was the star power that she demonstrated at the Republican Convention a month ago. She has a very winning personality and when she gets to speak directly to people, she comes across very well.
- I'm sure someone else has made this point before, but Palin's folksy manner reminds me a bit of the Marge Gunderson character in the movie Fargo. She does have a bit of the yokel in her, but you underestimate her at your peril. When it comes to pure likeability, I think Palin has more of it than any of the other members of either ticket. Biden and McCain are both senators of a certain generation and they aren't really accesible personalities, and Obama's persona is hardly that of a regular guy. I have lived in the Midwest for nearly my entire life and I have known many women who are like Sarah Palin. I've never met anyone who is like Joe Biden. And Barack Obama is sui generis.
- One thing Palin didn't do, and this is a definite problem, is adequately defend John McCain. Biden is a good counterpuncher and he got in a lot of shots about McCain's record that Palin didn't really address in any substantive way. Again, a lot of what Biden said needs to be fact-checked, but the traditional expectation is that the vice-president not only attacks the candidates from the other party, but must be ready to defend the standard-bearer. Palin may be capable of that, but I didn't see it tonight.
- Will this debate move the needle back? Hard to say. My first guess is that it probably takes the "Palin is a disaster" meme off the table. She may not be 100% ready to be President on Day One, but she doesn't have to be. She's running for Vice President. No one is 100% ready to be president on Day One - it is a job of such massive scope and fiendish permutations that all Presidents, even those who have a strong moral code like Ronald Reagan, end up spending much of their time necessarily operating in the gray. In the end, the decision isn't about Sarah Palin or Joe Biden. It's about John McCain and Barack Obama.
- So far Barack Obama has been able to skate on the Day One question. If the McCain/Palin ticket wants to win, they need to move that question to the front burner and turn the heat up. On balance, I think McCain/Palin won today. But they lost most days in September and the hour grows short.
Cross-posted at True North
32 comments:
palin passed so many oppertunities to roundhouse biden from the opening gate.
she threw a few eye pokes, but a national fight needs some serious uppercuts.
when joe talked about things in his neighborhood of scranton, she could have just said: you dont live in scranton, and havent in 30 yrs.
when he talked about asking the guy at the gas station how much to fill up, she could have come back with: maybe if you paid your own gas, you'd know.
or: dont tell ME how long it takes to get oil from a pipeline.
i could on.
only the north easterners dis the yokels.
any body else knows, it was yokels that survived the life on the edges of civilization to build one of their own, and still deal with the weather every year, much more brutal than what the NE's can imagine.
midwest life is a straight forward one. the language reflects that.
Mark,
no surprise, I think Biden won. He managed to not be condescending (which I'm sure was a challenge for him at times), and he generally was both good and specific on most issues (not to mention that he actually stayed on topic most of the time, unlike Palin).
Palin was both smooth and smiling, but only "good" if you judge her by the ridiculously low expectations she was facing going in. Half of the time she was completely off-topic; even going so far as saying that she wouldn't respond to questions, instead saying what she wants. Several times she had the "deer in the headlights" look, and what she then proceeded to say sounded like a hashed quip that she'd been memorizing for three days. For example: "Say-it-aint-so-Joe-there-you-go-again!" or "You're raising the White Flag of Surrender!". By any standard other than looking photogenic, she lost badly.
Whether or not that will reflect in the polls is another question. I'll wait and see what they say a day out from now, but I think both candidates were adequate, and I doubt this will be a real game-changer. Most likely, the Style-Over-Substance people will still go for her on the Conservative side, liberals will laugh, and independents will continue to gravitate toward Obama.
Regards,
Rich
Gino,
Fair points. And if it had been a different candidate up there, I would have expected that sort of thing. I don't think it was Palin's assignment to do that. Perhaps it should have been.
Rich,
Intellectually you are probably right about several of your points. It was pretty clear to me that she took the approach she did on purpose. You and I are political geeks; we're into this stuff, for better or worse. Most of the audience doesn't care that much about the issues, at least at the level of detail that you can talk about it. You're a Democrat, though -- you can't help that. Your party is the party of the litany and the laundry list. Biden gave you that. So did Obama in his speech in Denver. Perhaps voters are looking for a laundry list this year. I'm not sure of that, but I could be wrong.
The larger question in re Obama is this: can he actually do any of the things he says he'll do. He hasn't demonstrated anything approaching legislative or executive mastery in his very brief career. This is his fatal flaw and I remain shocked that the McCain campaign hasn't been hammering that point every single day.
Here's what ought to happen -- Obama should lose, then go to Springfield and clean up the mess there in 2010. He could come back in 2016 with an actual record of accomplishment and then I'd take him more seriously. Right now, the choice is betweeen a Man of Words (Obama) and a Man of Action (McCain). Historically, the Man of Action tends to win in the long run.
The snap polls gave the debate to Biden pretty handily. Apparently reading canned answers off of index cards for 90 minutes isn't that impressive to most people. No surprise to me, but I would think that of course. My feeling is that in dire times what people mostly want is a steady hand at the helm and Obama and Biden are giving them the calm, steady, competence that they are looking for. McCain is coming across more as drama queen than man of action.
So let me ask you, what does your guy do at this point? He just shut down his campaign in Michigan. The battleground states are shifting to places life Virginia and Indiana that ought to be automatic wins for a Republican. And the percentage of undecided voters is now equal to or smaller than then percentage that Obama leads by. So what do you think he needs to do in this final month to change the game?
Formerly SA
I guess I didn't see those index cards you're referring to, SA, but maybe you had a hidden camera on the podium.
And the snap polls you are referring to came from CNN and CBS. One had a sample of 437, I believe. I could ask my neighbor what he thought and it would be as statistically valid.
Biden got a lot of things wrong last night -- there was no joint U.S-France effort to kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon, the Vice President does have a constitutional role in presiding over the Senate, many of the claims on votes that John McCain supposedly made were wrong, etc., etc. Some of that will get the larger audience, even though there is a full-court press to keep anything adverse to Obama off the public airwaves.
As for what McCain should do the rest of the way, I've already made my opinion on it quite clear -- he has to take the gloves off. He has to start running ads that explain who Obama is; his connections in Chicago, his past with ACORN, his relationship with Ayers, all of that. And he has to start explaining precisely what the Democrats did to help cause the current financial crisis. You can give Wall Street some of the blame, but there's no way that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson and the others should skate on it. McCain fired a few shots about that a while back but didn't sustain the narrative.
And finally, he needs to press Obama on his incredibly thin resume. Your assertion about Obama's "calm, steady competence" is risible - Obama hasn't done anything to demonstrate that he actually can handle an executive position. He's an excellent candidate, but just about everything he's ever done - in Chicago, in the Illinois legislature, in Washington - has either been puffed up beyond recognition or has turned to ashes. Ask the people in the Woodlawn neighborhood how well things are going these days.
Obama is filled with more helium than a balloon in the Macy's parade and it would be easy to deflate him. For reasons that mystify me, McCain has refused to do so.
Okay, SA (and Rich, for that matter), here’s a challenge for you. Name five examples from Obama’s political career where he was involved in actually making something happen that actually had a positive, lasting impact on people’s lives. And no, reading a speech off a teleprompter doesn’t count.
Add one more poll giving it to Biden: Fox News has Biden 61% Palen 39%.
It's telling that your strategy for McCain consists entirely of "attack Obama". What does it say about a candidate when his supporters can't come up with a single persuasive reason to vote for him and not just against the other guy.
I'm not going to try to peck out answers to all of your questions left handed (the arm is healing nicely so far btw) - instead I'll just finish up with a couple quotes that I think sum up the situation nicely:
"Part of reassurance is intellectual. Like Palin, he's a rookie, but in his 19 months on the national stage he has achieved fluency in areas in which he has no experience. In the foreign policy debate with McCain, as in his July news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Obama held his own -- fluid, familiar and therefore plausibly presidential.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president." - Charles Krauthammer
"Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?" - George Will
SA,
In other words, you don't have an affirmative reason to support your candidate. You're projecting that on me.
I support attacking Obama because he's been getting by with pretending he's something he's not. People will find out what he is in due course, but it would be better for the nation if they found out prior to November 4.
As for reasons to vote for McCain, I can think of several.
1) He has 26 years of experience and the wisdom that goes with it.
2) He has a long track record of accomplishments in the legislative arena.
3) He's shown an ability to work across the aisle, which is something that apparently people want.
4) He's learned from mistakes he's made earlier in his career (like Keating Five) and he's made positive adjustments.
5) He's been right on the key issues, from my perspective, with one notable exception. Obama is wrong on almost every single one.
6) I'm Catholic and pro-life; Obama will ensure that Roe v. Wade lives on for the rest of my life.
Obama may or may not have a first-class temperament, but I strongly disagre that he is a first-class intellect. And lets face it, for columnists like Will and Krauthammer, Obama is good for business. He would give them both plenty of chances to excoriate him over the next 4 years. Will hates McCain for McCain-Feingold and has been sticking shivs in McCain's back for the last five years.
There's a pretty good chance you'll get your bobo in, good sir. Best case scenario is that he'll be another Jimmy Carter. I don't expect that McCain would be a great president, but he won't screw things up like Carter did.
Now, maybe you can answer my question.
Well, I've already addressed the issue of why I prefer Obama over McCain as a person. (That was the part you found "risible"). If you're looking for a laundry list of specific issues on which I generally prefer Democrats to Republicans then sure, I can write one up for you. I'll get on that. Watch this space for the exiting details.
And to clarify, I wasn't asking why you supported attacking Obama, every campaign attacks its opponents of course. I was asking why, if you believe that there are so many persuasive arguments in favor of McCain, do you advocate a campaign that consists exclusively of attacking Obama. The implication seems to be that you don't think that there is anything about him that would appeal to anyone beyond his base. Just asking.
I didn't say that McCain should simply attack and attack only -- that's your interpretation, good sir. My point is that things that people should know about Obama are not well known, at least among the general public. McCain can't count on getting any help from the MSM on revealing that information, so his campaign will have to do that work. Is it an "attack" to discuss his work in Chicago, or his paucity of accomplishments? I suppose. But if you want the electorate to make an informed decision, they need to be informed.
Bottom line is this, good sir -- the truth will out eventually. It may not come out until after the election, but it will. And if a certain percentage of people find that they voted for Obama based on incomplete information, they will feel betrayed. You're on board and you've made your peace with it. God bless you for it. But I meet people all the time who don't know even the most basic information about Obama's past in Chicago. I'm not talking about the bullshit like "he's really a Muslim" or "what's the deal with his birth certificate" or any of those things, which are canards. His relationship with Ayers is a different matter. His history of working with (and for ACORN) is highly relevant. His thin legislative resume is exceptionally relevant.
And finally, the question I'm asking you about Obama has nothing to do with his policy positions per se. It's about the likelihood that, given his utter lack of results as a legislator and his abysmal record of reform, that he'll be able to do any of the things he is promising. When has he been a leader? When has he actually moved a bill into law? The dude has no track record that would indicate that he would be able to accomplish the things he says he will do. What makes you believe he will?
obama showed leadership when he went to germany and all the media followed him.
"I didn't say that McCain should simply attack and attack only -- that's your interpretation, good sir."
I asked what you that McCain should do and your answer was "attack Obama". Maybe you have other ideas as well, but you certainly didn't give me any of them. Please feel free to clear up my misinterpretation. What positive, pro-McCain arguments do you have that you think will be persuasive to undecided and Obama-leaning voters?
"Bottom line is this, good sir -- the truth will out eventually."
Oh my. All that scandalous dirt on Obama that McCain, the Clintons and Rupert Murdoch couldn't come up with? I guess I better head on over to freerepublic.com and find out the real true facts that have been suppressed by the evil MSM. Whatevah.
"And if a certain percentage of people find that they voted for Obama based on incomplete information, they will feel betrayed."
A certain percentage of any political party is always composed of starry-eyed idealists who build their candidate up into superhumans and then feel betrayed when they're not. Eventually they grow up or start voting for Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. Again, whatevah.
"The dude has no track record that would indicate that he would be able to accomplish the things he says he will do. What makes you believe he will?"
True, he's accomplished almost as little in 19 months as McCain has in 26 years. Clearly I'm not voting for him based on his experience. I'm voting for him because I think he is a man of good character and sound judgment, because he's the most gifted American politician since Ronald Reagan, because he has the ability to disagree with people without disprespcting or dismissing them, because he has enough confidence in himself to listen to people who know more about an issue than he does, and because I do agree with him a lot of things on my laundry list of issues (to name a few things on that list: re-focusing the war on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, combating nuclear weapons proliferation, supporting a progressive tax system, and appointing judges who will respect the rights of women and gay people).
Maybe I'll lose my bet and Obama will turn out to be an ineffective failure. It's possible and I won't be shocked if it happens. But even that would be preferable to four more years of Bushism under an erratic, self absorbed, diva.
Obama's all Chicago has left after the Cub's and Sox meltdowns. My advice to Rich is sit back, pop open an Old Style, and watch political mumbo jumbo 24/7.
There's one month to go,and really all your guy has to do is pretty much not screw up and he should win the thing. Wait a minute that sounds pretty much like the Cubs. If he takes his eye of the ball, or if there are any real monsters in his closet, then all bets are off. That's why I sugget lots of Old Style, the south siders apparent elixir of choice
Gino,
That was funny. I believe you've solved the issue.
SA,
I'm not sure what else to say about this, but there are two little shots you took that I do need to address.
First, I'm not talking about some huge new scandal in re Obama. The existing information that's out there (but not widely known) will do well. Hillary's comeback in the primaries began about the time that news of Ayers and Jeremiah Wright started coming out. A hell of a lot of people weren't paying attention at that point, so the existing news would be news to them now. McCain should bring it to people's attention, but for reasons that I'll never understand, he's chosen not to. There's plenty more damning stuff in the Ryan Lizza article that appeared in the New Yorker during the summer. And the one part that isn't yet known, the records from the Annenberg Challenge, will be coming out soon. And spare me the Freeper crap, willya?
And the people who will feel betrayed aren't "starry-eyed idealists." I'm talking about people who aren't political regulars for either party and will decide between McCain and Obama. Depending on the polls you see, anywhere from 10-20% of the electorate fall into this category. If Obama gets their votes and they find out that material information that might have changed their votes, at a minimum they'll be disappointed. Many will feel betrayed, or cheated, or worse. And Obama will have a lot of trouble governing under those circumstances. And he would have trouble enough in any event. Naderites and Ronulans are a very small portion of the electorate. Gino supports Ron Paul, by the way.
I don't know if Obama is as talented as Reagan or not. There's an obvious difference - Reagan served two terms as the governor of California, an executive position. I cannot stress enough my view that executive experience is crucial. Neither of the main candidates has it; that's why I preferred Romney in the primaries. Obama has never been an executive - running the law review at Harvard isn't executive experience. I ran my college newspaper but I don't think it makes me qualified to be President. All other things being equal, McCain has a hell of a lot more relevant experience in Washington. I wish he had more executive experience, but I don't have any illusions about it.
Bottom line is this -- supporting Obama is a giant, enormous leap of faith. Based on what I do know about him and his career, I have zero reason to believe he'll be a good President. The only good news about an Obama election is that there are now a lot of good young Republicans who will be in position to clean up the damage that an Obama administration would do.
One last prediction - if Obama wins, the Israelis will cast their vote and take out the Iranian nuclear program before Christmas, because they will know that an Obama administration won't be willing (or able) to help them.
Gino,
That was funny. I believe you've solved the issue.
SA,
I'm not sure what else to say about this, but there are two little shots you took that I do need to address.
First, I'm not talking about some huge new scandal in re Obama. The existing information that's out there (but not widely known) will do well. Hillary's comeback in the primaries began about the time that news of Ayers and Jeremiah Wright started coming out. A hell of a lot of people weren't paying attention at that point, so the existing news would be news to them now. McCain should bring it to people's attention, but for reasons that I'll never understand, he's chosen not to. There's plenty more damning stuff in the Ryan Lizza article that appeared in the New Yorker during the summer. And the one part that isn't yet known, the records from the Annenberg Challenge, will be coming out soon. And spare me the Freeper crap, willya?
And the people who will feel betrayed aren't "starry-eyed idealists." I'm talking about people who aren't political regulars for either party and will decide between McCain and Obama. Depending on the polls you see, anywhere from 10-20% of the electorate fall into this category. If Obama gets their votes and they find out that material information that might have changed their votes, at a minimum they'll be disappointed. Many will feel betrayed, or cheated, or worse. And Obama will have a lot of trouble governing under those circumstances. And he would have trouble enough in any event. Naderites and Ronulans are a very small portion of the electorate. Gino supports Ron Paul, by the way.
I don't know if Obama is as talented as Reagan or not. There's an obvious difference - Reagan served two terms as the governor of California, an executive position. I cannot stress enough my view that executive experience is crucial. Neither of the main candidates has it; that's why I preferred Romney in the primaries. Obama has never been an executive - running the law review at Harvard isn't executive experience. I ran my college newspaper but I don't think it makes me qualified to be President. All other things being equal, McCain has a hell of a lot more relevant experience in Washington. I wish he had more executive experience, but I don't have any illusions about it.
Bottom line is this -- supporting Obama is a giant, enormous leap of faith. Based on what I do know about him and his career, I have zero reason to believe he'll be a good President. The only good news about an Obama election is that there are now a lot of good young Republicans who will be in position to clean up the damage that an Obama administration would do.
One last prediction - if Obama wins, the Israelis will cast their vote and take out the Iranian nuclear program before Christmas, because they will know that an Obama administration won't be willing (or able) to help them.
Ok, lets call this one done. Thanks for the dust-up Mark, its always fun. I sincerely hope that you're right about McCain and I'm right about Obama, because on January 20 one of them if going to be facing a world of trouble. Good luck and God help us all.
Mark said, "Name five examples from Obama’s political career where he was involved in actually making something happen that actually had a positive, lasting impact on people’s lives."
There you go again with "name five." Just because you can't name five of something doesn't mean they aren't there.
Signed, the starving children of India.
Dear starving children of India,
Excellent point. Ya got me there, Hadji.
One final bit of trivia related to McCain and Obama's lack of executive experience. There have been five American Presidents who had no prior executive experience in government, business or the military. They where:
James Madison
John Quincy Adams
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
John F Kenedy
Make of that what you will.
James Madison
John Quincy Adams
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
John F Kenedy
Madison was very good, Quincy Adams not so much (although he went back to Congress afterwards and served with great distinction), Buchanan was the worst president in history (although he had extraordinary credentials in non-executive posts), Lincoln was the greatest president in history and Kennedy was off to a good start when he was struck down.
Not especially predictive, I'd say. I know a lot of people think W. is the worst, or they like to say it because it makes them feel better, but he'll rank somewhere in the middle some day, once time and tide have receded.
Buchanan is down at the bottom with Grant, Nixon, Carter, Pierce, Fillmore and Hoover. And that's probably the thing that gives me the most hope about whatever happens -- if this nation could survive a run of Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, to say nothing of Nixon and Carter (Ford really doesn't count), even if the next guy turns out to be a complete monstrosity, the Republic will survive.
Wow, A lot going on here since yesterday. You guys have been busy.
How about 8 things:
As a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, Obama spearheaded an effort to register new voters that purportedly led to the registration of 150,000 new voters.
As an Illinois Senator, Obama sponsored legislation that put 20,000 children of the working poor into health insurance programs.
As an Illinois Senator, Obama sponsored and championed legislation to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.50.
As an Illinois Senator, Obama wrote and sponsored legislation forcing police to video tape interrogations. This law, which passed the State Senate 58-0, was triggered by a several highly publicized court cases in Illinois where innocent men were set free from Death Row when it was shown that their convictions had been attained via self-incriminating testimony as a result of their having been tortured or coerced during police interrogations.
As an Illinois Senator, Obama sponsored a bill probing police profiling, and legislating an end to the practice.
As a US Senator, Obama worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to revise and expand a program to track, locate and dismantle stray Russian nukes left over from the Cold War in former Soviet Republics after the disbanding of the USSR.
In Jan. 2007, Senator Obama crafted and sponsored a major ethics and lobbying reform bill with Senator Russ Feingold that insisted on tougher measures banning lobbyist gifts, meals, and travel. And restricts retiring Congress from lobbying on the floor of Congress.
On a trip to Africa, utilized his considerable popularity there and publicly took an AIDS test with his wife to de-stigmatize these tests and encourage reluctant Africans that these tests were a serious social responsibility.
I understand that as a Conservative, you might not find all of these actions to be laudable, but neither I nor Obama are Conservatives, and they all seem to be pretty positive actions to me.
Regards,
Rich
hmmm.
i consider lincoln to be one of the worst presidents we've ever had. maybe top of the heap in that regard.
There is no question that Obama is not as talented as Reagan.
Reagan passionately and optimistically embraced and implemented his ideology. Obama and his handlers are ruthlessly seeking political power with Obama as the vehicle to do so.
- D
Come on...Harding doesn't make the list of worst Presidents?
Rich
Rich,
I would say that list indicates two things:
1) Obama has done a few nice things in his brief career; and
2) In no way does that roster of accomplishments indicate he is even remotely ready to be President of the United States. I would imagine there are hundreds of other politicians with more extensive records of accomplishment than the junior senator from Illinois. You've come up with a list of 8 accomplishments spread out over a 10-year period, including taking a public AIDS test. And that's the best you can say about this guy.
I stand by what I've said before -- he should go back and run for governor of Illinois, clean up the mess that Rod Blagojevich is involved with, conduct some real systemic reform and come back in 2016. He'd still be in his mid-50s by then and he'd actually have the skill set needed to take on the job. The job of president is so huge right now that he doesn't stand a chance. As we're increasingly likely to find out.
Sure, you can put Harding on the list, too. He was on his way to being one of the all-time bad ones but he died before he could earn his bona fides. I personally think the ones I mentioned were worse, but Harding wasn't good, either.
Daria,
What have Obama and his handlers done that is 'ruthless'? He is running for President. What, egregious practices, beyond the normal political campaigning that most campaigns participate in, have they perpetrated? It's not like he launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS to send a wink and a nod to racists everywhere that he was 'down' with them.
Rich
Great post, Mark! Who would have thought that a few innocuous observations on the debate would lead to the ensuing commentary?
Anyhow, in regard to Rich's list of Obama's "accomplishments":
How many of the claimed 150,000 Obama induced new voters were fraudulent or not legally eligible to vote? Given ACORN's (which Obama was associated with at the time) criminal record of blatant voter fraud this is a legitimate question. And, as a practical matter, is it really beneficial to the society to get a bunch of people that did not have the gumption, intellect, and sense of personal responsibility to register themselves to vote? I'm certainly not saying these people don't have the right to vote (assuming they are citizens, they actually exist, are of legal age, do it once per election, etc.), but seeking out and building an army of uninformed, vote-themselves-government-largesse voters is not in the best interests of society.
Putting 20,000 children of the "working poor" (whatever that is) into yet another government program is not a positive accomplishment. As President Reagan said (paraphrasing here), a true measure of compassion is not how many people are on public assistance but rather how few people need such assistance. How many of these people were "working poor" and remained as such because of policies made by politicians of Obama's ilk? How many of these people were using the social safety net as a hammock or were outright scamming the system?
Obama pusing for a minimum wage increase only emphasizes his total lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of economics as well has his unhesitant propensity to pander to political special interests. Minimum wage increases do very little for the recipients (a few bucks more per week doesn't make a huge difference to the recipients, but collectively put a huge financial burden on employers) and invariably leads to increase unemployment, especially for entry-level and low-skill positions often held by young people and minorities. This is typical liberal symbolism over substance. High minimum wages also lead to poor customer service and is a de-motivation to improve one's skills to gain higher wages through promotion to a more skilled position.
Ended police profiling. Nice thought in theory, but what liberals call "profiling" used to be characterized as an essential component of competent law enforcement. Yes, there are sometimes abuses and those who abuse should be prosecuted, but in practice the way anti-profiling laws get implemented often has the effect of "civil rights leaders" playing the race card off the bottom of the deck to intimidate the police from rousting criminals who happen to belong to a protected class. It was anti-profiling guidelines enacted by the Clinton Administration that prevented security officials at Logan Airport from detaining the 9/11 terrorists who set off all sorts of "profiling" alarms before they boarded their flight.
Ditto for the video taping of interrogations. Again good in theory, bad in practice. Police should video tape for their own protection against baseless brutality charges and such, but it is a double-edge sword in that unscrupulous lawyers can twist the interpretation of what is on a video to the advantage of a guilty detainee. Improved police procedures, including the presence of attorneys and witnesses during interrogations, as well as rigorous prosecution of bad cops, would be far more effective. Bad cops are generally the product of a corrupt political structure such as the one in Chicago, a structure Obama is very much tapped into.
The lobby reform bill, and similar ones, are a absolute joke. All they do is inspire creativity to get around the Rube Goldberg-esque maze of often conflicting framework of rules that give clever martinets the means to game the system anyway (remember "no controlling legal authority"). Honest and rigorous enforcement of existing simple ethics rules (or something like the 10 Commandments) would be much more effective.
I do give the Obama credit on the recognition of the need for loose nuke tracking, although the actual practical impact of his legislation is questionable. If nothing else it sounds like Obama agrees with Reagan's "trust but verify" sentiment.
As far as taking an AIDS test goes, since he obviously knew he would come back clean it demonstrates he practices at least some good moral values, but the whole event could easily be interpreted as little more than political pandering to the gay and minority lobbies. And, morally laudable or not, where in the Constitution does this kind of activism fall into the purview of any branch of the United States government?
Laudable or not, none of these actions demonstrate any executive experience or acumen and many of them indicate a lack of understanding of the concept of limited government. Add to it his ties to many people of questionable character, his own statements (e.g. "White man's Greed versus a World in Need") and Obama does not look like good presidential material.
Right Hook,
Obama did not say "White man's Greed versus a World in Need". Rev. Wright did. Obama wrote about it, but didn't say it.
Also, Mark asked me to name 5 things that impacted other peoples lives. I named eight without digging too far. I noted that I and Obama are liberals, and I don't expect most of you to agree with all of the actions I listed, but I can make plausible arguments that the people who received a raise as a result of the rise in minimum wage felt positively impacted by that. That Matt Fox, who 'confessed' to raping and murdering his young daughter after 40 straight hours of brow beating and coercion by police and the States Attorney in Kankakee, IL (Look it up, it is fascinating reading.), and who had his 'confession' thrown out (and was completely exonerated by DNA testing) might feel positive about the taping of interrogations. That the 20,000 children of the working poor (i.e. people who are working, mostly in the service industry, but are still living at or near the poverty level) who received health insurance felt positively impacted by that.
Regarding the AIDS testing, you can call it political grandstanding and question Obama's intentions all you want, but if I remember correctly, President Bush lauded Obama for it, and Sam Brownback, a staunch conservative, took part in public AIDS testing as well. There is something to be said about leading by example, and effectively utilizing soft power.
Lastly, you guys seem awfully hung up on experience, which I will concede, has it's place in this election. I, too, wish that Obama had a little more experience under his belt, but I am not so sure that it is the be all and end all. Lincoln was elected President after a short career in the Illinois legislature, followed by one term in the US House of Representatives, followed by a failed run for US Senate. Yet he piloted this country through what is arguably its darkest hours.
Let me ask you this: If we could flip the roles of the current tickets and make it Biden/Obama vs. Palin/McCain, could I expect you guys to vote for the Biden lead ticket? Be honest.
Regards,
Rich
Seeing Rich's comment that came in when I was posting my last comment, I'll also pinch hit for my colleague Daria here (yo, D, go ahead and enjoy watching the Pack get beat - I'll handle this):
Obama's rise from street agitator to presidential candidate has been meteoric to say the least. This is seldom the way one who politically pays their dues ascends to power. He has used, and continues to use, radical Saul Alinsky end-justifies-any-means techniques which go way beyond conventional political hardball to vanquish his political opposition. Check out the way (described in the linked article) he made the jump from street agitator to state senator by eliminating long time civil rights leader and former state senator Alice Palmer, as well as other challengers, from the ballot. Legal, yes, but Obama would of been screaming "racism" (as his minions did on his behalf when Sarah Palin ridiculed the idea of "Community Organizer" as executive experience) if the same had been done to him. His official site has advocated "get right in their face" tactics (some of which were conveniently taken down when Conservative talk radio called him on it) for upcoming McCain/Palin rallies that cross the line between the expressing of contrary opinions and disrupting the free speech of others.
Conservatives will seldom agree with the political views of liberals, but most Conservatives can respect honest and ethical liberals. For example, I totally abhorred the political positions of former Senator Mark Dayton but had the utmost respect for his honesty of his positions, his tough but clean campaigns, and his willingness to go on Conservative talk radio to defend his views.
Believe it or not, I have a great respect for your passion and ability to articulate your views (and I know Daria also does). But when it comes to Obama not only do Daria and I (and a lot other Conservatives) disagree with his positions but completely disdain his associations and tactics and the patently phony image campaign consultant David Axelrod (and your side whines about Karl Rove!) has created to hide his radical agenda of massive expansion of government regulation and the social welfare state as well as virtual unilateral disarmament and the weakening of our dominant military.
The very thought of people and organizations like Reverend Wright, William Ayers, ACORN, CAIR, et al having the ear of the President of the United States is troubling to say the least.
Whew! Slow down Rich! I can't keep up and still try to get something done around the house!
Obama may have been quoting Wright, but the quote in Obama's own voice is played several times daily on Conservative talk radio as part of a rotation that reminds us of what Obama is all about. Put it this way: he doesn't seem to run away from it.
Honestly, I would feel better voting for the GOP ticket with Palin at the top instead of McCain. She has more executive experience than any of the three senators (or four, if you count Hillary) involved and has a Reaganesque view of Conservative principles. She is actually much more qualified on the executive experience count than Obama without regard to political ideology. Overall, McCain's lengthy Washington and military experience qualifies him in a different way and the same pretty much also applies to Biden. Obama is not, by any rational measure, qualified for the position even without regard to his political views.
I am no fan of McCain and have ripped him on the blog I write for harder than a lot of liberals did. For me this election is the choice of Bad vs. Exponentially Worse. The addition of Palin to the ticket is one of the few positive things about the ticket (Palin is the future of the Conservative movement and is adequately qualified to assume the presidency now if need be) that I can actually have some semblance of good feeling voting for, but my vote is primarily a vote against Obama.
I could not vote for Biden/Obama for two reasons:
1) Biden is a prototype liberal politician without a lot of substantive ideas, and he is a liberal. My opposition to Biden would be that his ideas are wrong (he has come down on the wrong side of history throughout his political history). His gaffs and past plagiarism problems are admittedly small potatoes, though fun for political fodder. Basically Biden is a decent enough guy - highly partisan (nothing wrong with that) and not as bright as he thinks he is, but a likable and stand-up guy. He is, like McCain, too Washingtonized for my tastes regardless of ideology, but not a abjectly dispicable figure.
2) Obama is still on the ticket and he is totally unqualified as well as politically dangerous to assume the presidency if need be.
The left is critical of having the relative newcomer Palin on the ticket due to McCain's age, but McCain's family has a history of living to an old age (how many 72 year olds still have their mother around that looks more like his older sister than his mother?). On the other hand, Biden has had some serious health problems himself. In any case even healthy high school athletes occassionally drop dead for no predicted reason, so the support of any ticket, regardless of the apparent health status of the members, is contingent on being able to accept the possibility of the VP ascending to the presidency.
If the choice was say Biden/Lieberman vs. Clinton/Schumer I could vote for the Biden ticket. Not enthusiastically, but without fear of serious and long lasting damage to the country as we know it. I could comfortably accept a Biden presidency and would more than likely work hard to limit it to a one-termer (which, funny to say, is about the way I feel about McCain). I will have to accept an Obama presidency if he wins the election and will rigorously work to limit the expected disaster to a single term, but would not sleep near as well as with Biden, McCain, or Palin in the office. I could even vote for McCain/Biden without a whole lot less enthusiasm than I have for the current GOP ticket.
Honestly, I don't envy your position, although mine isn't a whole lot better. I truly don't know what I would do if the Republicans were running a right wing equivalent of Obama and the Dems were running a hard lefty. Probably would either leave the ballot entry blank or cast a protest vote for the Libertarian or Constitutionalist Pary candidate.
I respect and understand your desire for a liberal president in the same way I want a true Conservative. I don't have such a candidate in the race and yours has a lot of attached baggage.
Maybe something we can agree on is that the primary system is badly broken and needs to be fixed. Neither side ended up with the best candidate it could have fielded to promote their ideology and the media, cross-over voting, etc. had an undue influence on how both of the headliners got on their respective tickets.
Oh well. The sun will still come up on November 5th.
Right Hook,
As the old saying goes, politics ain't bean bag. I know exactly how Obama knocked off Alice Palmer, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with what he did. Are you telling me that challenging faked signatures is improper? That's supposed to be some kind of radical tactic? In what universe? The woman dropped out of the State Senate to run for a Federal congressional seat. Lost at that and tried to push her way back onto the Senate ballot via a highly dubious signature initiative. Dubious in the sense that anyone with a passing acquaintance with nuts and bolts politics in Chicago knew that she had rushed her ballot petition, and almost certainly could not have amassed the number of signatures needed for ballot qualification. Obama challenged it via a judicial review and found rampant signature fraud. That is local politics 101. Also, I really doubt Obama would have accused Alice Palmer of racism if she had done the same thing to him. If he had, he would have looked pretty silly.
If that campaign is your evidence of Obama's radical tendencies, I have to wonder what your idea of radical is. Was the Bush campaign being radical in Florida in 2000? I didn't think so.
RH, you failed to sight a single example of radical tactics that Obama has personally practiced. As an organizer, he used rhetoric and emotion to inspire crowds? And continues to do so as a politician? Quick, somebody arrest Demosthenes!
And then, we've got the 'associations'.
Reverend Wright. Big deal. He doesn't say anything that isn't heard in more than half the Black churches in the U.S. on any given Sunday. Most intelligent people recognize that for what it is...rhetoric. Some of it, outlandish, and some with a lot of truth. Just like John Hagee, Rev Murthee, et al. But rhetoric none the less.
Rezko...Keating. End of story (and not anything radical.)
Ayers...an acquaintance Obama has participated on educational reform boards with.
Come on, we've done this already. Are you guys really gonna use Ayers, Rev. Wright and Rezko? That is an old narrative that smells of desperation. John McCain's October onsight kick. And guilt by association has its price. McCain has his own past, and Palin has her own dirty laundry list. We can talk about McCain's involvement in S&L bank scandal as a member of the "Keating Five". There isn't really much to it, but I don't think it will sit too well with voters in this climate. Maybe we can start running photos of McCain celebrating his seventieth birthday in Montenegro in August 2006 at a yacht party hosted by convicted Italian felon Raffaello Follieri. And if the McCain campaign wants to talk about Jeremiah Wright, The Obama campaign can start reminding voters about Palin's witch doctor hunting pastor giving her blessings in her church in Wasilla.
There's absolutely no shortage of mud on either side, but you haven't shown me one concrete example of any radical actions on Obama's part.
One last point. I try to respect everyone on here, and I hope I accomplish that. I, for one, have no problem with Karl Rove, or his tactics. The man is a tactical political genius, (structurally, I am not so sure, but that is a topic for another day)as is Newt Gingrich who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. They are also both political bomb-throwers, but just of rhetorical bombs, and I don't believe there is really nothing wrong with that.
Regards,
Rich
Post a Comment