2008 VP Debate Thread Part 2

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The engineer of the McCain Palin train wreck is and remains GWB&co. The straight talk express might be on track if yesterday's, today's, and tomorrow's current events were not ripping up the very rails they try to ride on.

Its quite apparent to everyone, McCain Palin included, that radical change is needed. And the I'm proud to be an ignorant hockey Mom message of Palin's exactly misses the change direction by about 179 degrees.

When things are clearly going drastically wrong, the first thing to demonstrate is what past events caused the current train wreck. Biden at least aimed for that mark while Palin was in denial.

In a better times, Palin might have been a brilliant VP choice for McCain, in these bad times, she is playing the incorrect role and singing the wrong song.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
The dumbing down of the GOP...

I remember the days of Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley when conservatives actually knew the meaning of the word "conservatism." It was a combination of spirit and intellect. That movement was hijacked by Ronald Reagan and has been gutted of all that was good about the movement. They have ruined the Republican Party. A portion of the American public has taken their faux Republicanism as their gospel. Somehow, middle class has been defined as anti-intellectual.

The Republicans made a deal with the devil when they seriously started to court the religious right. Instant Gratification, 1994 to present, but it's going to have some serious long term consequences. The public is not as stupid as some people peg them to be, the Republican Party schtick is hopefully coming to an end.

You gotta hand it to them, though.. As a political movement, you have to admit the Republicans have been pretty good at pulling together portions of the population who normally wouldnt identify with each other. The party of wealthy CEO's has widespread support from some of the poorest, least educated (often rural) places in the country.

Anti-intellectualism has been around for over two hundred years in the United States and it will never go away. So you just need to figure out how to play it. This is what these republicans have done. As a party, they have strayed far, far from the Republican ideals, individual freedom, economically conservative , etc., but they sure know how to play the game of politics well.

A wider cultural trend with parallels in TV reality shows that make bratty nonentities into marketable stars, game shows that turn average joes into millionnaires just by answering a few questions or guessing at suitcases, and the growing celebrity cult that celebrates celebrities for being celebrities.

Add this to widespread disenchantment over politics and a GOP that has been telling America that government should do as little as possible and it's no wonder that so many Americans no longer associate skill, vision, and intelligence with running for President.

If you watch videos of Palin's Alaska gov. debates she talks totally different. Normal without the 'you betchas and winks and posing and preening. She tried to be serious and come off as a serious candidate. Nothing like her image now. She is still not answering questions and ducking and shifting but, without all the fake behavior of the other night.

She saw herself as a serious person but, she did not care about issues. Now she is just a pretty package and window dressing complete with fake slogans and of what passes for just a middle class mom in a middle America small town. The ultimate irony of Palin's rise is that it has occurred at a moment when Americans may finally have grown weary of pseudo-populism - when intelligence, judgment, diligence and seriousness are once again valued, simply because we are in such deep trouble.

 

sprok

Member
Mar 10, 2008
101
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

A wider cultural trend with parallels in TV reality shows that make bratty nonentities into marketable stars, game shows that turn average joes into millionnaires just by answering a few questions or guessing at suitcases, and the growing celebrity cult that celebrates celebrities for being celebrities.

We still have jeopardy! And to a lesser extent: Are you smarter than a 5th grader.


I feel a bit insulted with her incessant winking along with the pseudo answers/talking points. Oh, and a shoutout, in a vp debate no less.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: sprok
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

A wider cultural trend with parallels in TV reality shows that make bratty nonentities into marketable stars, game shows that turn average joes into millionnaires just by answering a few questions or guessing at suitcases, and the growing celebrity cult that celebrates celebrities for being celebrities.

We still have jeopardy! And to a lesser extent: Are you smarter than a 5th grader.

I feel a bit insulted with her incessant winking along with the pseudo answers/talking points. Oh, and a shoutout, in a vp debate no less.
At least Governor Palin was straightforward in telling us all she would only answer the questions she wanted to answer.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
... when intelligence, judgment, diligence and seriousness are once again valued, simply because we are in such deep trouble.
Seems like unfounded optimism. I hope I'm wrong.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I find it interesting how Republicans consistently find ways to lower the bar in their nominees. They are jumping for joy that their VP candidate didn't look like a complete idiot on national television.

Something just doesn't add up.

Republicans lowered the bar? The Dems selected a slimy piece o' crap Chicago machine politician for their presidential candidate ... it's pretty hard to get lower than that.

Good grief

Only thing I see slimy in your post is you.

You don't get much more the opposite of what you said than a guy who can make a fortune as a minority Harvard Law Review editor instead choosing to serve the public.

But there are always pissants to attack good leaders.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I find it interesting how Republicans consistently find ways to lower the bar in their nominees. They are jumping for joy that their VP candidate didn't look like a complete idiot on national television.

Something just doesn't add up.

Republicans lowered the bar? The Dems selected a slimy piece o' crap Chicago machine politician for their presidential candidate ... it's pretty hard to get lower than that.

Good grief

And yet, the Republicans did.. in spades.. again.
 

ScottMac

Moderator<br>Networking<br>Elite member
Mar 19, 2001
5,471
2
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I find it interesting how Republicans consistently find ways to lower the bar in their nominees. They are jumping for joy that their VP candidate didn't look like a complete idiot on national television.

Something just doesn't add up.

Republicans lowered the bar? The Dems selected a slimy piece o' crap Chicago machine politician for their presidential candidate ... it's pretty hard to get lower than that.

Good grief

Only thing I see slimy in your post is you.

You don't get much more the opposite of what you said than a guy who can make a fortune as a minority Harvard Law Review editor instead choosing to serve the public.

But there are always pissants to attack good leaders.



There's no dispute; he's part of the Chicago machine, and *not* the motivator ... he's does as he's told, he goes along to get along.

How else do you explain his strong support for Todd Stroeger (for example)? He's probably the best example, but there are other Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois politicians he has been told to support and, like the good little machine person he is, he does ... regardless of how totally worthless the candidate is.

He's not for change, he's for The Machine. The corrupt and thriving Chicago, Cook County, Illinois machine ... he supports it, right or wrong ... not exactly a candidate for change when you can't even fight against your home town leeches.

"But there are always pissants to attack good leaders." Probably so, and there are also people that will support the lowest scumbag piece of crap politicians because they are presented by The Party as The Choice. The hometowne record supports my position; I was here, I saw it. He's pure machine product.




 

Goldfish4209

Member
Nov 21, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks
As a non US citizen, I can just say that it was interesting but it's not really a debate. It's just a bunch of talking points from both sides

The format should be more like the Sarkozy - Segolene debate from last year or the Le Pen - Sarkozy debate from 2003. The difference in style and dynamics is day and night compared with the American format.

Holy crap. Now that's what you call real debates. This is what the US needs to have.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: seemingly random
:laugh:

It's 99% unimportant except in the extremely rare case where it's 100% important.

It's not 1% - 10% of presidents are assassinated in office, more are disabled.

Funny you bring that up. Palin, at least, wouldn't lead us into another Vietnam the way Lyndon Johnson did after Kennedy was shot.

How exactly do you know this?

It's rather difficult to attack countries you don't know about.

You can't be serious....
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: seemingly random
:laugh:

It's 99% unimportant except in the extremely rare case where it's 100% important.

It's not 1% - 10% of presidents are assassinated in office, more are disabled.

Funny you bring that up. Palin, at least, wouldn't lead us into another Vietnam the way Lyndon Johnson did after Kennedy was shot.

How exactly do you know this?

It's rather difficult to attack countries you don't know about.

You can't be serious....
Wow, just wow.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I find it interesting how Republicans consistently find ways to lower the bar in their nominees. They are jumping for joy that their VP candidate didn't look like a complete idiot on national television.

Something just doesn't add up.

Republicans lowered the bar? The Dems selected a slimy piece o' crap Chicago machine politician for their presidential candidate ... it's pretty hard to get lower than that.

Good grief

Only thing I see slimy in your post is you.

You don't get much more the opposite of what you said than a guy who can make a fortune as a minority Harvard Law Review editor instead choosing to serve the public.

But there are always pissants to attack good leaders.



There's no dispute; he's part of the Chicago machine, and *not* the motivator ... he's does as he's told, he goes along to get along.

How else do you explain his strong support for Todd Stroeger (for example)? He's probably the best example, but there are other Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois politicians he has been told to support and, like the good little machine person he is, he does ... regardless of how totally worthless the candidate is.

He's not for change, he's for The Machine. The corrupt and thriving Chicago, Cook County, Illinois machine ... he supports it, right or wrong ... not exactly a candidate for change when you can't even fight against your home town leeches.

"But there are always pissants to attack good leaders." Probably so, and there are also people that will support the lowest scumbag piece of crap politicians because they are presented by The Party as The Choice. The hometowne record supports my position; I was here, I saw it. He's pure machine product.

I think your post improved somewhat this time from the simple base name-calling to getting a bit more specific and less ad hominem, but still attacking (which is ok).

I don't doubt that Obama has made the compromises needed for Chicago politics. His critics can't make up their mind, one minute attacking him as a naive boy scout and the next the most cynical of machine politicians. But you have to learn to not get bogged down only in the nitty gritty details with a politician and to judge whether they are also greater than those details would lead you to assume.

I can make a case for all kinds of widely viewed as 'great' leaders being compromised by petty politics. Since I know JFK history, I can use him - on the one hand, I can make a strong case that he was a remarkable visionary among the 20th century's greatest leaders for peace; and yet, many who knew him well knew the crass politician, the guy who slipped Teddy a note when he got married that all the other sex didn't need to end, the guy who had - yes, Chicago - mob help from his father's asking, who had real advantages in the election that were simply paid for by his father's wealth, including a private plane, a man who made many cynical political decisions, from angering his own brother Bobby with the selection of LBJ for VP to angering civil rights leaders as he recognized the limitations on what he could get done. It's all true, even if it appears contradictory.

And I'll tell you this: a guy I think a lot of, who I call JFK's "left hand man" (Bobby was his right hand), Ted Sorenson, who was with him all through his Senate Years and was his advisor and chief speechwriter, very early on recognized the qualities in Obama and said Obama had more of the leadership that was like JFK than any politician since JFK - and endorsed him for president in early 2007. That's not something that fits your description of a 'slimy machine politician'.

I could have shown you a sleazy Abraham Lincoln out pandering to the racist voters, often changing his message from speech to speech on just how anti-black he was, and he's look like the sort of crass and deceptive politician you attacks, yet his nickname was 'Honest Abe' for his other actions later as president.

There's an old saying, 'familiarity breeds contempt', and I wonder if your familiarity with Obama might not add to your perception of his weaknesses. That's always the case with those who know leaders well personally, and who see the public glorified image and the person and say hmmmm.

I'm not saying Obama will belong on Mt. Rushmore - he's largely an unknown to me, frankly, other than things making him far preferable than the alternative. He was my third, not my first, choice and I think he may yet make me have a lot of limitations on compliments for him, as I do for Bill Clinton. But your comments appear out of line, off-base, for the reasons mentioned previously. Obama *has* made sacrifices few would make for his personal wealth to serve the public and he deserves credfit for it.

It's fair game to note any political sleaze he's been involved in, but you need to also remember how many politicians have some of that and to look also at what they do that has more an effect - are they servents to the small private and powerful groups who buy them, or do they try to do good things for the general public.

Going backwards, I can point to Bill Clinton's reversal of the 12-year Republican deficit, to Jimmy Carter's Camp David Accord and attempts to put the nation on track for energy indepednance, to LBJ's cutting the national poverty rate by a third, to many JFK accomplishments - to pick two his limited nuclear test ban treaty and peace efforts - to Truman's efforts to get blacks in the federal courts and the military integrated, to FDR's massive programs to help the public like social security, and so on.

Sadly I can point to harm by each Republican president that stands out more than any good, as well - GWB is too obvious, his father continued big debt and played a key role in Iran-Contra, Reagan started us on the road of the massive debt and supported terrible atrocities throughout Central America and lost a great historic opportunity for nuclear arms control with Gorbachev, Ford did little but secretly approved the slaughter of 250,000 East Timorans by Indonesia and pardoned Nixon, Nixon too much to list, Eisenhower began the precedent of our having a CIA that ran around as an enemy of democracy and using violence, deception, assassination, for usually greedy interests - the first covert op the overthrow of democracy in Iran installing a dictator and secret police force for 25 years causing great problems later, the do-nothing Coolidge and Hoover's policies paving the way for the economic crash, and so on.

They may have all been 'good people', somewhat, and each may have had the sort of 'petty local political activities' you are so disdainful of Obama for in Chicago.

But there are other things. Obama has also shown some great qualities - go look at what Sorensen sees in him, consider how JFK went from a petty rich kid to a great leader.

Hopefully you can have a more balanced and open-minded estimation of the president Obama could be, even while I admittedly say he could greatly disappoint, too.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Go f**k a moose!

What's the story there? Is Palin rasing the sort of daughter that's like her? Palin's nastiness to set Joe Biden up with 'can she call him Joe' only to use it in an attack - tasteless IMO.

Elaborate. Me confused.
She did this in the vp debate last thursday.
 

sonicdrummer20

Senior member
Jul 2, 2008
474
0
0
Originally posted by: yllus
I think Governor Palin made a critical mistake in not appearing more presidential and not acting in a more serious manner. Folksy charm may carry you through the short term, but who honestly would want someone who speaks like that as the chief executive of their country? Around these parts I'm the first to correct people going overboard in calling her unintelligent - she's a smart woman, though not of the caliber of Senator Clinton or Secretary Rice - but ready to run a country she in my opinion is not.

I actually think that after the initial euphoria of not having imploded on stage, this debate will hurt her, and hurt Senator McCain. More people will realize that a wholly unprepared person is next in line in the White House and that really is unacceptable.

Just so you know Abe Lincoln made it to the whitehouse and he was from Hardin County, Kentucky. I don't think there is much more hick'ish than good old Kane-tuck.