Why do you hate Sarah Palin?

[RJMasters]

RJ, I appreciate your including the analysis from FactCheck.org but I'm curious about your assertion that I bolded. I suspect that you're quite right about the origin of Palin's fabrications because I doubt if she uttered more than a handful of original sentences all night. But I'm dismayed that you claimed a personal motivation behind Biden's and I ask you to back that up with specific examples.

Without specifics, a claim like this just sounds like a partisan who is regurgitating what they heard on Fox News (note "sounds like" - not claiming this is the case here with you) rather than one whose claims are backed by incontrovertible evidence.

MWY,

Well I did give an example in the sentence immediately following what you bolded in my above quote. Joe seemed to use the "I was there next to McCain" when he voted the same way Obama did on "fill in the blank".

By doing this, he didn't just mis speak a fact, he was claiming that he was an eyewitness and told fabrications in regards to McCain's voting record on a number of issues.

Simply put, he was there, and he lied about what he heard and saw in order to marginalize McCain.

My contention is that he did this deliberately, because if he didn't, then he's got to have some mdeical condition which should prevent him from runnning for VP. No matter how you slice it, if he is willing to bend truth and fatual history in order to score points in a debate or to ensure he and Obama gets elected, then imagine what he will tell us when he is in a position of power and something dire and drastic happens. Can we expect the truth if it in anyway cast a shadow on his or Obama's doorstep at that time?

I think not.

This economic crisis and going back through the entire war on Iraq, we have countless lies and avoidance of the truth for convienence sake from both sides. Why? Because most of them are guilty of not doing what they should have done, or they did things they shouldn't have.

If we just allow them to rewrite history when ever its conveinent, regardless of who is in office, then what's the point? The simplest way to say it is that last night two people that espoused different idealologies got up to make a case for themselves and for those they represent. And in my point of view, Palin's lies were only outdone by Joe's because Joe added a personal element to his. Others may not draw that distinction, but I do.

I was disappointed by both of them. If that makes me biased or seem partisan in some eyes, then so be it, I call it like I see it. But biased or not, it doesn't change the factualness that they lied, and that if your going to vote for which ever side, you have to somehow now swallowhard and get past that they did, you can outraged and speak up and ask why both of them did it.

For me I want to know why Palin lied. I want to know why Joe lied. Neather of them had to, but they both did. My question is why? I won't hold my breath for any answers, because as with all things, it will be all just swept under the rug in a few days. Sad but true.

 

[midwestyankee]

MWY,

Well I did give an example in the sentence immediately following what you bolded in my above quote. Joe seemed to use the "I was there next to McCain" when he voted the same way Obama did on "fill in the blank".

By doing this, he didn't just mis speak a fact, he was claiming that he was an eyewitness and told fabrications in regards to McCain's voting record on a number of issues.

Simply put, he was there, and he lied about what he heard and saw in order to marginalize McCain.

My contention is that he did this deliberately, because if he didn't, then he's got to have some mdeical condition which should prevent him from runnning for VP. No matter how you slice it, if he is willing to bend truth and fatual history in order to score points in a debate or to ensure he and Obama gets elected, then imagine what he will tell us when he is in a position of power and something dire and drastic happens. Can we expect the truth if it in anyway cast a shadow on his or Obama's doorstep at that time?

I think not.

This economic crisis and going back through the entire war on Iraq, we have countless lies and avoidance of the truth for convienence sake from both sides. Why? Because most of them are guilty of not doing what they should have done, or they did things they shouldn't have.

If we just allow them to rewrite history when ever its conveinent, regardless of who is in office, then what's the point? The simplest way to say it is that last night two people that espoused different idealologies got up to make a case for themselves and for those they represent. And in my point of view, Palin's lies were only outdone by Joe's because Joe added a personal element to his. Others may not draw that distinction, but I do.

I was disappointed by both of them. If that makes me biased or seem partisan in some eyes, then so be it, I call it like I see it. But biased or not, it doesn't change the factualness that they lied, and that if your going to vote for which ever side, you have to somehow now swallowhard and get past that they did, you can outraged and speak up and ask why both of them did it.

For me I want to know why Palin lied. I want to know why Joe lied. Neather of them had to, but they both did. My question is why? I won't hold my breath for any answers, because as with all things, it will be all just swept under the rug in a few days. Sad but true.

RJ, thanks for the clarification. I see now what you mean by "personal" in talking about Biden's performance and it's different from my initial interpretation.

I think it's plain that all politicians bend the truth pretty often to make their cases. I draw a distinction between a distortion and a factual misstatement. Most politicians will distort their opponents' actions or their own positions in order to appeal to a wider audience. I think most of us can take that kind of thing with a grain of salt and be untroubled.

However, when one of them makes a claim that can be analyzed on specifics, as Biden and Obama do when they say that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut under their proposal (to hit 95% they must be including young children who don't pay taxes directly), that's a bit of both. They're exaggerating their claim and it's provably false on the specifics. I can see their point if they mean that 95% of all Americans will benefit from their tax cut but that's not exactly how they say it so it falls into that exaggeration category.

When John McCain or Sarah Palin claim that she never said that global warming was not due to human action in any way, it's a probable lie because she's on the record and on tape having said that very thing. This is the kind of lie that bothers me and makes me deeply concerned about how truthful McCain or Palin would be if they were leading the executive branch.

 

[Homburg]

The conservatives I know saw the Palin pick as an appalling betrayal by McCain - and one they can not forgive unless & until she's removed from the ticket. Why? Because they HATE the culture wars and the Limbaugh/Dobson anti-intellectual vitriol crowd. And they genuinely believe that McCain is more qualified than Obama to be POTUS from a foreign policy perspective, but also believe that having Ms. "I saw Putin's head floating over Alaska so I get Russia" as a heartbeat away is too great a risk to take.

This is a fairly accurate way to describe my feelings on Palin.

--

What I walked away with was Biden is politically sophisticated, which (in my book) is a good thing. I get the feeling he can graciously (and firmly) represent US interests with foreign dignitaries, on a world stage, without significantly embarrassing us.

I'm going to be dead honest, and probably look shallow, but, after Bush The Lesser, I'm sick and damned tired of my country being represented by people that would embarrass me to be personally associated with.

I want some class for a change. Palin is Bush with tits.

Palin came across as, well, a bake sale mom. This does not impress me. I sat there thinking - do you know what it's inappropriate to do the "ya know" *winky winky* thing? Do you know when to shut up and listen to the person speaking? How will you carry yourself at a State dinner? when a foreign dignitary says something controversial or rude, will you respond appropriately? How will you bring other countries on board with our goals? Red peep toe heels and "gosh golly" don't cut in in the big leagues. I mean ye gods even *I* know when to not use "y'all" in conversation, and as a Texan people expect it from me...

There are times when it is inappropriate to say "y'all"?!?

--

Honey I want to buy you a dozen sympathy roses over the passing of Bill Buckley - your kind is the most under attack of all. The conservative who values intellect. And I thought the last 8 were bad for me.

This is why I don't even call myself a conservative any more. The appellation disgusts me.

 

[midwestyankee]

I finally figured out what Sarah Palin reminds me of: Robin Williams doing his standard Russian immigrant: the accent and intonation are dead-solid perfect but the words actually don't mean shit.

Secondly, I simply couldn't pass up the opportunity to share this little gem:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/mwy_photos/palinflow.gif

Source

 

[00Syd]

A really good friend of mine, who is almost completely apathetic about politics, who could not find anything he cared about enough to even pretend to pay attention, now cares a LOT due soley to his loathing of Sarah Palin.

And this is not an isolated phenomenon.

Last semester, I knew a few people who were interested in the election who I could talk about it with, but not too many. Over the summer none of my friends really cared too much. But as soon as Palin was nominated just about everyone I knew started to pay attention and care, not because they found Palin to be interesting or a welcome change, but because of their intense hatred of her.

Just this morning in my first class, before the professor arrived, there was a good discussion going about the debate and the election in general. It seemed like just about everyone had watched the debate.

I'm not used to my peers being so interested.

Thanks Palin!

 

[Netzach]

RJ, I appreciate your including the analysis from FactCheck.org but I'm curious about your assertion that I bolded. I suspect that you're quite right about the origin of Palin's fabrications because I doubt if she uttered more than a handful of original sentences all night. But I'm dismayed that you claimed a personal motivation behind Biden's and I ask you to back that up with specific examples.

Without specifics, a claim like this just sounds like a partisan who is regurgitating what they heard on Fox News (note "sounds like" - not claiming this is the case here with you) rather than one whose claims are backed by incontrovertible evidence.

Yeah, there's no personal intent to deceive there. Cause she's hot, you know. Cause she smiles while she says it. Wookatit, awwwww.

 

[Netzach]

MWY,

Well I did give an example in the sentence immediately following what you bolded in my above quote. Joe seemed to use the "I was there next to McCain" when he voted the same way Obama did on "fill in the blank".

By doing this, he didn't just mis speak a fact, he was claiming that he was an eyewitness and told fabrications in regards to McCain's voting record on a number of issues.

Simply put, he was there, and he lied about what he heard and saw in order to marginalize McCain.

My contention is that he did this deliberately, because if he didn't, then he's got to have some mdeical condition which should prevent him from runnning for VP. No matter how you slice it, if he is willing to bend truth and fatual history in order to score points in a debate or to ensure he and Obama gets elected, then imagine what he will tell us when he is in a position of power and something dire and drastic happens. Can we expect the truth if it in anyway cast a shadow on his or Obama's doorstep at that time?

I think not.

This economic crisis and going back through the entire war on Iraq, we have countless lies and avoidance of the truth for convienence sake from both sides. Why? Because most of them are guilty of not doing what they should have done, or they did things they shouldn't have.

If we just allow them to rewrite history when ever its conveinent, regardless of who is in office, then what's the point? The simplest way to say it is that last night two people that espoused different idealologies got up to make a case for themselves and for those they represent. And in my point of view, Palin's lies were only outdone by Joe's because Joe added a personal element to his. Others may not draw that distinction, but I do.

I was disappointed by both of them. If that makes me biased or seem partisan in some eyes, then so be it, I call it like I see it. But biased or not, it doesn't change the factualness that they lied, and that if your going to vote for which ever side, you have to somehow now swallowhard and get past that they did, you can outraged and speak up and ask why both of them did it.

For me I want to know why Palin lied. I want to know why Joe lied. Neather of them had to, but they both did. My question is why? I won't hold my breath for any answers, because as with all things, it will be all just swept under the rug in a few days. Sad but true.

Can you please point me to the last modern debate in which no one lied? I'd like to watch the tape.

Unfortunately that's not how the game works. Not even for a class presidential election, so let's get off the high horses - or fine stay on them. It's true, crooks liars scoundrels ne'er do wells, probably reflective of the imperfect people who elect them, lies damnable lies all.

If you actually buy into this imperfect and human process, you have to look at track records and statements and yes, exaggerations and lies and see whose you like OK in spite of yourself.

I guess I have a lot more *compassion* today for the Log Cabin Republican republicans I never could understand because I'm going to vote for someone content to throw me and my people under the bus again, because I'm sick of "well I don't know" people manipulatable by the same people who brought us the last 8 years.

Fine, the economic crisis wasn't bush. Wiretapping, Gonzales, Iraq, and torture is. I have a few fucking problems with that.

(check the McCain Russia Montenegro story before you get all whoop whoop fistpump USA first - THAT should scare if if THOSE are the people he pushes favors for.)

That's life in the USA. Whoever you pull the lever for is going to fuck you, but how deep, how hard, and where is the question. And with what.

I can stand to be fucked with a lack of 600 dollar rebate check (my business is me only, my income is nowhere near top bracket) and I cannot afford to be fucked with Vladimir Putin.

I'm afraid as one of the people who didn't even enjoy the right to make an ass out of myself in this event till the early part of last century, I can't imagine that there was less lying in the days of Tyler Too or James Madison than today. In fact, there's more immediate info sharing, more inability to control flow of info than ever before ever. That's good.

 

[JMohegan]

Palin Was Fine, But This Debate Was No Contest.

Spot on, in every respect.

 

[SweetErika]

Palin Was Fine, But This Debate Was No Contest.

Spot on, in every respect.

I couldn't agree more, JM.

I kept yelling at Joe when he lapsed into legislativese. He did so much better when he looked into the camera and talked directly to the viewers in more simple terms that I was surprised he didn't try to use that strategy the entire time.

I also would have liked to see him focus more on what he and Obama will do, as opposed to what McCain's done or what he did in the past. I think he lost a good amount of people in the moment by attacking McCain, rather than giving specific examples of how OBiden will create change.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Wookatit

"Wookatit" = "Look! A tit!" or "Look at it." in Palinbabytalk??

:: smirk ::

 

[Netzach]

When a senator says "I was there next to..." meaning I was in senate the same day the other person was, that's hyperbole. Unfortunately I agree it's a lie today because most people are too freaking literal to understand anything but literalness to the nth.

If this were Agincourt, these people would be looking for DNA evidence that you shed blood right next to King Harry.

Ugh.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

After time to digest last night's debate (and throw up a little in my mouth over parts of it), my net conclusions are these:

Early impressions (during and immediately after the debate):

Governor Palin did much better than I expected.

• She was for the most part articulate in expressing herself.
• She seemed to figure out fairly early that "go to a soccer game" and "hockey mom" weren't going to play, and dropped them from her repertoire.
• Stuck to her game plan: Answer the question if it fits one of the pre-rehearsed talking points; if not, appear to answer the question fairly quickly, then seque (though often rather awkwardly) to the script she'd been given during her debate training (or turn it to energy), but at all costs, don't fumble and stutter.

Senator Biden did better than I expected.

• No great gaffes.
• Didn't much attack Ms. Palin in such a way that it appeared that he was "bullying" her with his much greater debate and governmental experience.
• Was for the most part articulate in expressing his opinions/stands.
• Answered the "If your running mate dies in office, how will you complete his term?" question with grace and an assurance that despite the fact he might have differing feelings on some topics, he would work to complete Obama's agenda as far as possible.
• Showed a positive grasp of both the major issues facing us at this point (the economy, the wars, foreign relations) and Obama's stands on those issues.

Impressions after a chance to digest and think about the debate:

Governor Palin did better than I expected.

• She was fairly often articulate in expressing herself.
• She seemed to figure out fairly early that "go to a soccer game" and "hockey mom" weren't going to play, and dropped them from her repertoire.
• Stuck to her game plan: Answer the question if it fits one of the pre-rehearsed talking points; if not, appear to answer the question fairly quickly, then seque (though often rather awkwardly) to the script she'd been given during her debate training (or turn it to energy), but at all costs, don't fumble and stutter.

Senator Biden did much better than I expected from his history and reputation.

• No gaffes of any importance.
• Appeared very real and sincere in his responses, particularly when he spoke of his daughter - and very dignified (dare I say "presidential?") when he choked back the emotion and took care of the business at hand.
• Didn't much attack Ms. Palin in such a way that it appeared that he was "bullying" her with his much greater debate and governmental experience.
• Was for the most part articulate in expressing his opinions/stands, despite subverting some questions when he didn't want to be as direct as we might have wished.
• Answered the "If your running mate dies in office, how will you complete his term?" question with grace and an assurance that despite the fact he might have differing feelings on some topics, he would work to complete Obama's agenda as far as possible.
• Showed a positive grasp of both the major issues facing us at this point (the economy, the wars, foreign relations) and Obama's stands on those issues.

In all, I don't think the Governor hurt the McCain/Palin ticket or the Republican chances nearly as much as she could have... nor helped it. And I don't think the Senator hurt the Obama/Biden ticket at all, and did help it to a discernible degree, but not a great one.

Net result for me: Senator Biden scored not a knockout, but a unanimous decision, though not by a lot on my scorecard; Governor Palin did not look like a 14-year-old Golden Glover up against Mike Tyson in his prime, but simply overmatched and a step or two out of her (weight) class.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Oh, I almost forgot. In one question, Senator Biden did score a knockdown - or Governor Palin tripped over her own tongue and fell to the canvas: in re the Iraq war, when he emphasized that he and Senator Obama want to (in my words) achieve our goals and get us the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I (mentally) cheered. When she brought out the "white flag of surrender" snark, I wanted to bitch-slap her off the stage.

I noticed that his response on the CNN "Uncommitted Ohio voters" meter moved quickly and solidly to the top of the graph and stayed there for the remainder of his time... and that it dipped solidly below the neutral line and stayed there for her response. Not quite as far below as it would have had I been in the focus group, but noticeably.

 

[FurryFury]

Oh, I almost forgot. In one question, Senator Biden did score a knockdown - or Governor Palin tripped over her own tongue and fell to the canvas: in re the Iraq war, when he emphasized that he and Senator Obama want to (in my words) achieve our goals and get us the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I (mentally) cheered. When she brought out the "white flag of surrender" snark, I wanted to bitch-slap her off the stage.

I noticed that his response on the CNN "Uncommitted Ohio voters" meter moved quickly and solidly to the top of the graph and stayed there for the remainder of his time... and that it dipped solidly below the neutral line and stayed there for her response. Not quite as far below as it would have had I been in the focus group, but noticeably.

This is encouraging to me as I seem to be surrounded by people who are (it boggles my mind), going to vote for McCain.

*grr*

BTW, as an entertainer I recognized the stance and looks she gave so many times last night and in her interviews. These are the places at which she smiles and tries to act (emphasize on the word act) like she knows what's going on.

All entertainers do this if they are any good. Most of the time the audience doesn't notice that you skipped part of the script or are totally lost.

That's NOT what a politician is supposed to act like however.

The winking is strictly for beauty pageants and was overused during the debate even for that.

I truly think the party nomination should have been revoked when Palin was put on the ticket by McCain. There should be a mechanism to do that when a mistake of such stupidity is made IMO.

 

[WriterDom]

I found it weak when Biden said he'd sit in on every decision Obama ever makes. Like Obama needs a Daddy looking over his shoulder. Well, maybe he does. If Obama does have his eight years I hope this lady serves out her term and spends 6 years in the senate. She'll be a force. Biden and Hillary will be too old.

 

[FurryFury]

I still get the feeling all she has ever been is someone's pretty lil puppet.

 

[Netzach]

I found it weak when Biden said he'd sit in on every decision Obama ever makes. Like Obama needs a Daddy looking over his shoulder. Well, maybe he does. If Obama does have his eight years I hope this lady serves out her term and spends 6 years in the senate. She'll be a force. Biden and Hillary will be too old.

He can talk to the press without Biden holding his widdle hand. Weak.

How should he answer that question? Well, Barry'll keep 'er down and I can get in a few rounds on the whitehouse golf course.

 

[Netzach]

I still get the feeling all she has ever been is someone's pretty lil puppet.

Tina Fey has pretty much usurped whatever it was she was doing for them.

If you can be undone by SNL you have issues. They're not even that good.

 

[Netzach]

This is encouraging to me as I seem to be surrounded by people who are (it boggles my mind), going to vote for McCain.

*grr*

BTW, as an entertainer I recognized the stance and looks she gave so many times last night and in her interviews. These are the places at which she smiles and tries to act (emphasize on the word act) like she knows what's going on.

All entertainers do this if they are any good. Most of the time the audience doesn't notice that you skipped part of the script or are totally lost.

That's NOT what a politician is supposed to act like however.

The winking is strictly for beauty pageants and was overused during the debate even for that.

I truly think the party nomination should have been revoked when Palin was put on the ticket by McCain. There should be a mechanism to do that when a mistake of such stupidity is made IMO.

There is, but the people who could have done it were probably the ones who wanted her most.

History dumbass moment - by what mechanism did Agnew get pulled? Gen W people?

You know if this investigation goes where I think it will she may be an Agnew as well as a Barbie. That could only happen after a lost election outcome though - as we know it's really REALLY hard to get fired if you're a republican.

It'd take a lot to put her under the wheels of the bus if they really think this is presidential material next go-around, but it could happen. I mean there's a LOT of shit under the lid in alaska.

Maybe she should get some action in at the Mpls airport too, what's good for the gander and all...

 

[SierraMoon]

Best moments of the debate

 

[midwestyankee]

History dumbass moment - by what mechanism did Agnew get pulled? Gen W people?

Agnew was forced to resign when he was indicted for fraud that occurred while he was Governor of Maryland. He had been serving as Vice President for a couple of years when this happened. Nixon then nominated someone whose quiet competence he misinterpreted as weakness, Gerald Ford, in the presumption that this might inoculate him against potential impeachment. Good luck with that, Tricky Dick.

 

[Netzach]

Agnew was forced to resign when he was indicted for fraud that occurred while he was Governor of Maryland. He had been serving as Vice President for a couple of years when this happened. Nixon then nominated someone whose quiet competence he misinterpreted as weakness, Gerald Ford, in the presumption that this might inoculate him against potential impeachment. Good luck with that, Tricky Dick.

Thanks for the rundown, my biggest history blindspot is pretty much just as I was being born. I wonder if this would even happen now if it were today. People would just laugh it off as small shit - I think what nailed Agnew was at that point it was embarrassingly SMALL kickback if I do remember that part right.

Anyhow, I wonder what's going to come out in the firings up there. It's a small-town kind of thing that works fine until the scrutiny goes national.

 

[midwestyankee]

Thanks for the rundown, my biggest history blindspot is pretty much just as I was being born. I wonder if this would even happen now if it were today. People would just laugh it off as small shit - I think what nailed Agnew was at that point it was embarrassingly SMALL kickback if I do remember that part right.

Anyhow, I wonder what's going to come out in the firings up there. It's a small-town kind of thing that works fine until the scrutiny goes national.

Political convictions almost always seem petty because the prosecutors tend to focus on building a clear and simple case like a brick shithouse. Often it's the little bag of money that becomes the easiest to prove.

 

[midwestyankee]

10 to 1 Fox says she won. Haven't checked the Clinton News Network

I can see maybe maybe squeezing "tie" out of that event. If I were the most foaming at the mouth fan.

For all the re-airing of the Tina Fey thing totally inappropriately on CNN (news for idiots by day) I don't think they've jumped the shark on any and all reality.

She did not win. Make up all the facts you want she did not win. She put a tourniquet on the massive puncture wound to the McCain campaign that she is.

Fresh news:

CNN/Opinion Research Biden 51 Palin 36
CBS Biden 46 Palin 21
Fox Biden 61 Palin 39


Source: Kansas City Star

 

[Netzach]

Fresh news:

CNN/Opinion Research Biden 51 Palin 36
CBS Biden 46 Palin 21
Fox Biden 61 Palin 39


Source: Kansas City Star

I think 10 of Bill O'Reilly's inner demons outvoted one.