The teetering-on-the-edge-of-Faulkner VP Pool thread

[halplm]

the news right now is that it was the wrong speech in the teleprompter, but I'm not sure anyone knows for sure.

The guy who was sitting there reading the speech along with her seemed pretty sure.

She's not Superwoman; she didn't memorize that speech.

not claiming she did, but it was never for a moment evident that she was having trouble, and something was going on, because they've been talking about it all day, and if nothing happened, and she didn't show anythin happening... where would the story come from?

Ultimately it doesn't matter, except it makes all the dems harping on the "well delivered" bit seem a bit silly.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm sure the speech was worked on for a long time, just as all the speeches for these conventions were.

I think it's extremely condescending for the democrats to be harping on how much or little of the speech she wrote. Every one of them on the news today has made it very clear that it was "well delivered" but she didn't have anything to do with writing it, which is absurd.

How many speech writers does Obama employ? I'm seriously asking, don't know where to look that up.

He has a staff of speechwriters headed by Jon Favreau, but he contributes. Some on the staff say he's the best speechwriter they've got. The speech on race he delivered in March, the one that essentially ended the Rev. Wright controversy, was entirely written by Obama.

[sauronsfinger]

It is important in this regard: Palin has some impressive skills in talking before a crowd of adoring partisans. That made her convention speech a hit and a sure fire news making event.

But now she goes on the stump. Can she wing it before a mixed crowd? How will she do in debates? Will she have to learn scripted debate responses? How will she do on the cuff answering questions from reporters as she runs from hall to bus to dinner each day? What happens when she goes on the Sunday morning news shows and has to face that panel of pretty sharp and knowledgable professionals? What happens when she gets a surprise question nobody has prepared her for? These are the ones that throw McCain for a loop many times like the "how many houses do you own" question.

Nobody can give an accurate answer until we see her in action several times. She may be a natural. We will see.

I know what my advice to her would be but I will keep it to myself. Why help the opposition?

[halplm]

she won't be keeping anything to herself.

She's not a novice at this.

I fully expect her to continue blowing people away.

Dems are playing a dangerous game. The more they play down her skill, the lower expectations are, and the greater she will seem by comparison.

[Erunáme]

hal, I have to say I find it very interesting to see the contortions you go through to explain away or defend Palin on everything considering how damning you've been towards Obama in regards to the smallest things.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

"Unintelligent" is a popular insult that the Democrats fling at Republicans, and have done so since Douglas debated Lincoln.

It backfires on them much too often, yet they never learn. Hal's prediction is based on historical precedent.

[Primula Baggins]

The double standard is pretty marked. Michelle Obama is a menace to America because of the way she phrased an expression of pride in our country; Palin's husband belonged for years to a secessionist political party founded by a man who literally hated America, and it's no big deal.

Edited to add link to Wikipedia article on Joe Vogler, AIP founder.

[sauronsfinger]

Eruname - I was disturbed by it also until this week when Hal posted the Wall Street Journal article. I think its the whole thing that "she is one of us". Its the same purpose served by the old "secret handshake" that the Masons and other groups used to employ. The first thing they wanted to find out was "are you one of us". If you were, the rules were entirely different for you. You were okay. You were in the club. You were one of the boys.

Not to pick on Hal because I think lots of conservatives made that same assessment. They simply looked at Palins resume - lifetime member of the NRA, hunter of big game, libertarian leanings on government power and programs, supporter of creationsim in the schools, preacher of abstinence as sex education, member of a evangelical church .... its all there for them in bold print saying "she is one of us".

Her actual record matters little. Her experience matters little. So they will go through all types of mental gymnastics to prove that she has more experience than Obama or a better record or any such stuff. They believe for one reason ... because they want to believe.

And believe me, there are leftists on the opposite side of the spectrum who do much the same thing with their candidates. So this is not just a conservative thing.

In the end its pretty simple - do they know the secret handshake?

[halplm]

hal, I have to say I find it very interesting to see the contortions you go through to explain away or defend Palin on everything considering how damning you've been towards Obama in regards to the smallest things.

To what are you referring, Eru?

It's obvious I like Palin, and don't like Obama. Furthermore, most people here, like Obama, and don't like Palin. I only argue with things I disagree with.

For instance, I haven't been arguing the point about the bridge to nowhere statements Palin has made, because it seems the facts do show she's rewriting history a bit. To be honest, I tried to defend that, but didn't post my post, because I couldn't even convince myself .

I do think trying to tie that to the "earmarks" issue is disingenuous, as they're two different topics, but I'm not too bent out of shape about it .

[Erunáme]

The double standard is pretty marked. Michelle Obama is a menace to America because of the way she phrased an expression of pride in our country; Palin's husband belonged for years to a secessionist political party founded by a man who literally hated America, and it's no big deal.

I know. It boggles the mind.

And believe me, there are leftists on the opposite side of the spectrum who do much the same thing with their candidates. So this is not just a conservative thing.

I definitely wasn't trying to say it was a conservative thing. Just commenting on the observations I've made here.

[halplm]

The double standard is pretty marked. Michelle Obama is a menace to America because of the way she phrased an expression of pride in our country; Palin's husband belonged for years to a secessionist political party founded by a man who literally hated America, and it's no big deal.

Edited to add link to Wikipedia article on Joe Vogler, AIP founder.

There is a key difference here. Michelle Obama is actively campaigning with Barack. She clearly intends to be active politically if he wins. Her stump speeches are fair game. Todd Palin is not active in Alaskan Politics. He hasn't said a word in the short time she's been the VP candidate. If he starts making stump speeches and saying Alaska first or something like that, it would be comparable to Obama.

[Primula Baggins]

What has Michelle Obama said on the stump that remotely compares to "Alaska first!"? And why should Todd Palin get a free pass because in the six whole days since the announcement he hasn't made a campaign speech? Neither had she, until last night. Has he signed a pledge that he won't be politically active if McCain wins? The standards should be identical for both.

[halplm]

the quote you brought up, about not being proud of the US, is entirely relevant. We don't even know if Palin agrees with that aspect of the AIP.

[sauronsfinger]

When one belongs to an organization and attends their meetings, it is a fair assumption that they generally support the goals of that group unless otherwise established.

If anyone wants to actually hear Mr. Vogler, there is a site with lots of his musings on life, Alaska and politics.

http://uaf-db.uaf.edu/jukebox/yuch/htm/jvog.htm

[superwizard]

Now I just listened to Palin's speech. I won't hide the fact that I'm definitely not a McCain fan and that most of my beliefs, especially when it comes to economic and foreign policies, definitely fall to the left (pretty far left actually)

That said I usually pride myself in being able to, if not agree with someone, at least understand where they're coming from and respect it. That was the case with most of Palin's speech. I agreed with very little of it but I could understand why someone would agree with such statements. That however is not true when I heard what for me was by far the most frightening political statement I've heard in a while:

Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.

Seriously seriously is this how she's going to portray the advocacy for human rights? Now look I'm not going to go and claim that it is going to be the end of the world and free speech in the US if McCain/Palin win but I do believe that more infringements on personal liberties will occur. I lived in a place for years where person freedom was compromised, where speaking ill of certain key people meant imprisonment, where you have to watch what you say in public in fear of secret service and one of the reasons I believe so strongly in the US is the establishment of personal freedoms. To come along and casually claim that it all boils down to wanting to reading terrorists their rights is downright insulting and quite frankly frightening.

I didn't mind McCain too much but Palin is definitely another story. If McCain wins I'll be praying for his health every day if you get my drift.

[Primula Baggins]

She did not say she was not proud of the United States. She has never said that. Link to it, if you think you can find it; you can't.

And you hold Obama responsible for everything his pastor ever said, for everything ever done or said by anyone he has ever been associated with in any way. So, why should both Palins not be responsible for everything their pastors and the founders of their various political parties ever said?

Joe Vogler gems:

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government and I won't be buried under their damned flag...and when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home to be buried in my country."

[yovargas]

Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.

Yup, that about clinches my vote then.

Seriously seriously is this how she's going to portray the advocacy for human rights? Now look I'm not going to go and claim that it is going to be the end of the world and free speech in the US if McCain/Palin win but I do believe that more infringements on personal liberties will occur. I lived in a place for years where person freedom was compromised, where speaking ill of certain key people meant imprisonment, where you have to watch what you say in public in fear of secret service and one of the reasons I believe so strongly in the US is the establishment of personal freedoms. To come along and casually claim that it all boils down to wanting to reading terrorists their rights is downright insulting and quite frankly frightening.

[halplm]

I don't find it frightening. I find it frightening that democrats have put politics and hatred of Bush above the safety of the country and its people.

That's what the statement was about, but it was oversimplified.

[sauronsfinger]

Wasn't Bush president when the American people were attacked?

[Primula Baggins]

I don't find it frightening. I find it frightening that democrats have put politics and hatred of Bush above the safety of the country and its people.

That is quite a sweeping insult against all Democrats, halplm. To say that we put hatred of Bush above the safety of the country and its people—do you have any idea what you're saying there? Do you mean it? We're all traitors to our country, every one of us?

Examine your words!