As Election Day gets closer, political candidates bring out their rhetorical big guns. In the case of McCain/Palin, they're hitting on Barack Obama's questionable decisions, including his ties to domestic terrorist William Ayers. This, of course, has given Obama and his media buddies a chance to paint McCain/Palin as "going negative" and even "being angry." Their proof? People at McCain and Palin rallies yelling "Hang him" and "terrorist" and booing when McCain and Palin try to keep things civil. Maybe it's me, but I'm not sure McCain/Palin can be called "angry" when they're the ones trying to keep the focus on issues instead of personal attacks.
Is there anger on the Right? Absolutely, but it's not nearly as widespread as some would have you believe. The real source of anger in this election year has been the very people talking about angry the Right is. In my years of following politics, I have never seen the level of anger by one side as I've seen coming from the people supporting Obama. Some of it is passive aggressive, some of it is overt, but all of it is anger directed at a surrogate for George W. Bush: the Republican Party. Obama supporters still haven't gotten past George W. Bush winning two elections, and it's caused them to turn angry and mean. If you doubt me, look at the stories that came out about Sarah Palin and her family within the first two or three weeks of being named as McCain's running mate. Look at how they've maligned John McCain's service to this country, as well as his age.
What you'll find is that none of these attacks are focused on any real policy matters, but instead focus on the personal. This tells me that Obama's supporters know how weak a candidate he is, so instead of trying to help their candidate get stronger, they focus on tearing down his opponent. Granted, this has caused some McCain/Palin supporters to respond in kind, but most of the time, their supporters have kept things civil, and more importantly, factual. Sticking to the facts acts like a jeweler's cloth and exposes the flaws of the opposition, and that scares and angers Obama's supporters even more.
Calling McCain/Palin angry is misinformation at its finest. If anything, McCain/Palin has erred on the side of civility more often than not. On the other hand, Obama/Biden has tapped into the anger of the Left and allowed its supporters to act on their behalf to slander the candidates, personally attack anyone who doesn't agree with them, and commit acts of vandalism, theft, and fraud.
So, who are the angry ones here?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
George Soros: Activist Investor
A friend of mine tipped me to a story that should get everyone thinking. Former CEO of Sovereign Bancorp Jay Sidhu said that he was forced out of his job by "activist investors" who ultimately lead to the demise of Sovereign Bancorp by trying to make as much money as possible for themselves with no concern for the long-term consequences. Regardless of whether you think he's telling the truth about his situation, he does bring up an interesting concept, that of businesspeople giving in to the dark side of capitalism for short-term gains.
From where I sit, the Big Kahuna of activist investors has to be George Soros. Soros is known in political circles as a big donor to Leftist causes, including Media Matters and MoveOn.org. His economic writings tend to also suggest Leftist solutions to economic issues, and people on Wall Street listen to him. But what may not be as known is how intertwined the two are.
Soros emigrated to this country with a healthy disdain for capitalism. After learning economics, he's used his knowledge to advance his wealth at the expense of others. In a move that put Soros on the map, he nearly caused the collapse of the British pound because he sold it short. His actions almost took down the British banking system, and it made him a ton of money.
As the former Soviet Union was struggling with new political and economic freedom, Soros made another play against the ruble. This caused massive economic upheaval (as well as helped his ideological allies who still view communism as pretty nifty), and it made Soros a lot of money. He repeated this pattern in Indonesia with the same results. Soros is so hated in Indonesia that he would be arrested if he sets foot in the country.
And what does he do with all the money he made off his unethical economic practices? He promotes Leftist organizations, while at the same time preaching of the virtues of what he calls an "Open Society." Seems pretty inocuous, right? Once you dig into the concepts of the "Open Society," you'll notice it looks and sounds a lot like communism or socialism. And of the political factions in America, which one do you think would be the most willing to accept millions of dollars as well as the concepts of the "Open Society"?
Three guesses, and the first two are "Democrats."
But you don't have to take my word for it. Research "Open Society" and "George Soros" on your favorite search engine and read Soros's words for yourselves.
Put simply, George Soros is the worst kind of activist investor. The fact he's still highly regarded on Wall Street should give us all pause to think.
From where I sit, the Big Kahuna of activist investors has to be George Soros. Soros is known in political circles as a big donor to Leftist causes, including Media Matters and MoveOn.org. His economic writings tend to also suggest Leftist solutions to economic issues, and people on Wall Street listen to him. But what may not be as known is how intertwined the two are.
Soros emigrated to this country with a healthy disdain for capitalism. After learning economics, he's used his knowledge to advance his wealth at the expense of others. In a move that put Soros on the map, he nearly caused the collapse of the British pound because he sold it short. His actions almost took down the British banking system, and it made him a ton of money.
As the former Soviet Union was struggling with new political and economic freedom, Soros made another play against the ruble. This caused massive economic upheaval (as well as helped his ideological allies who still view communism as pretty nifty), and it made Soros a lot of money. He repeated this pattern in Indonesia with the same results. Soros is so hated in Indonesia that he would be arrested if he sets foot in the country.
And what does he do with all the money he made off his unethical economic practices? He promotes Leftist organizations, while at the same time preaching of the virtues of what he calls an "Open Society." Seems pretty inocuous, right? Once you dig into the concepts of the "Open Society," you'll notice it looks and sounds a lot like communism or socialism. And of the political factions in America, which one do you think would be the most willing to accept millions of dollars as well as the concepts of the "Open Society"?
Three guesses, and the first two are "Democrats."
But you don't have to take my word for it. Research "Open Society" and "George Soros" on your favorite search engine and read Soros's words for yourselves.
Put simply, George Soros is the worst kind of activist investor. The fact he's still highly regarded on Wall Street should give us all pause to think.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop
There's been a lot made out of ACORN and its attempts to falsify voter registration records, mainly from the Right. The Left has been trying to downplay the implications of ACORN's actions, playing the "it's a right to vote" card to the "it's not really voter fraud" card. But it's the latter argument that I'm going to address right now because it's the most dishonest.
On the surface, ACORN appears to have a point. All some members of the organization or the people working for them have done is fill out or have others fill out voter registration cards that don't match up with eligible voters in different states. Surely that can't really be considered voter fraud, right?
Not so much. The fake voter registration is the first step of the scam. Once these folks are on the voter rolls, they can then request...absentee ballots. Then, these same illegally registered voters could have the absentee ballots mailed to...oh I don't know...ACORN. Then, ACORN could fill out the absentee ballots and mail them in to be counted. And if the election officials aren't thorough and spot the problems, those votes will get counted, illegally.
And three guesses who benefits the most from such an enterprise.
So, don't buy into the notion that the only thing ACORN did wrong was sign up people who weren't eligible to vote. It was only the first phase of their plan to steal an election for a man they're allied with, Barack Obama.
On the surface, ACORN appears to have a point. All some members of the organization or the people working for them have done is fill out or have others fill out voter registration cards that don't match up with eligible voters in different states. Surely that can't really be considered voter fraud, right?
Not so much. The fake voter registration is the first step of the scam. Once these folks are on the voter rolls, they can then request...absentee ballots. Then, these same illegally registered voters could have the absentee ballots mailed to...oh I don't know...ACORN. Then, ACORN could fill out the absentee ballots and mail them in to be counted. And if the election officials aren't thorough and spot the problems, those votes will get counted, illegally.
And three guesses who benefits the most from such an enterprise.
So, don't buy into the notion that the only thing ACORN did wrong was sign up people who weren't eligible to vote. It was only the first phase of their plan to steal an election for a man they're allied with, Barack Obama.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Afterthoughts on the Second Presidential Debate
Two men, one debate, and one blog post from me on the debate.
- Did Barack Obama answer more than 2 or 3 questions directly? From the opening question to the last question, I noticed he talked a lot, but rarely addressed the question asked of him. This made him look defensive. And the fact that he used every question to launch into a pre-programmed talking point from a stump speech made him look like he was afraid to think on his feet. You might be able to get away with changing the questions in Toastmasters, but in a Presidential debate, you actually need to talk about the subjects presented.
- The town hall format worked in John McCain's benefit. From the outset, he got up, walked over near the person who asked the question (when it wasn't someone from online), and talked to them. Obama didn't initially, but then did it after McCain did. From a public speaking standpoint, such a move made McCain seem more interested in the audience, like he was trying to make a personal connection with them. His tone of voice also aided this. While Obama was talking at the audience, McCain was talking to the audience.
- For the most part, Tom Brokaw kept a tight leash on the candidates, letting them talk and reminding them of the rules. And when Brokaw showed a little leniency to Obama by letting him respond to one of McCain's responses, he showed leniency to McCain to allow him time to respond to Obama's response. Gwen Ifill could learn a thing or fifty on debate moderation from Brokaw.
- Speaking of rules, did you notice the number of times Obama wanted to break the rules of the debate by asking to respond to McCain's statements? The candidates agreed to the rules, and after being admonished a couple of times for going over, McCain really tried to follow the rules, but Obama didn't. And, rightly so, Obama got shut down most of the time. Not a good sign for Obama.
- Obama made some big blunders last night, but one of the biggest ones was focusing so much on George W. Bush. By focusing on the past, he allowed himself to be mired in the past without giving much time to talk about what he was going to do to fix the situations he blamed on Bush. As easy as it is for Leftists to do, not everything can be blamed on George W. Bush. You guys were just as guilty as Bush, if not more so on economic issues.
- Once again, Obama tried to paint the subprime mortgage and bank failures on the lack of regulation promoted by President Bush. But we've seen the facts, and the lack of regulation was promoted by Democrats like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and others. And who called for tighter controls on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? George W. Bush and John McCain. So, Senator, just how is it Bush's fault that the Democrats in Congress rejected regulation?
- Just where are the news networks finding these "independent voters" they poll after the debates? Many of them gave the nod to Obama as winning the debate because they felt he answered the questions. The only way you could make that statement is if you weren't paying attention or if you were in the tank for Obama.
- I listened to Sean Hannity and a number of conservative friends of mine about how McCain needed a knockout punch last night in order to win, but that's not quite right. Remember, there is one more debate, and if McCain went out loaded for bear in this debate, what would he do for the third debate? Repeating the same lines from the previous debate won't help him win, as we saw from Obama. Instead, I think McCain's using Muhammad Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy, letting Obama hit McCain for a while before McCain gets started. This strategy seems to work because Obama's first two debates have been weak, so he didn't land too many rhetorical punches before getting tired. This leaves McCain with an opportunity to not just nail Obama on his plans, but to introduce a primary campaign concept: Obama's judgment is not good for the country.
As far as who I gave the nod to, this one was easy. John McCain ran away with the debate. He put Barack Obama on the defensive from the outset and Obama floundered as a result. This was not Obama's best showing, and we'll see whether it hurts him in the polls. By my scorecard, the Obama/Biden ticket is 0 for 3 in debates, which means the media will have to figure out a way to turn an embarrassing loss into a near victory before the next debate.
Three down, one to go.
- Did Barack Obama answer more than 2 or 3 questions directly? From the opening question to the last question, I noticed he talked a lot, but rarely addressed the question asked of him. This made him look defensive. And the fact that he used every question to launch into a pre-programmed talking point from a stump speech made him look like he was afraid to think on his feet. You might be able to get away with changing the questions in Toastmasters, but in a Presidential debate, you actually need to talk about the subjects presented.
- The town hall format worked in John McCain's benefit. From the outset, he got up, walked over near the person who asked the question (when it wasn't someone from online), and talked to them. Obama didn't initially, but then did it after McCain did. From a public speaking standpoint, such a move made McCain seem more interested in the audience, like he was trying to make a personal connection with them. His tone of voice also aided this. While Obama was talking at the audience, McCain was talking to the audience.
- For the most part, Tom Brokaw kept a tight leash on the candidates, letting them talk and reminding them of the rules. And when Brokaw showed a little leniency to Obama by letting him respond to one of McCain's responses, he showed leniency to McCain to allow him time to respond to Obama's response. Gwen Ifill could learn a thing or fifty on debate moderation from Brokaw.
- Speaking of rules, did you notice the number of times Obama wanted to break the rules of the debate by asking to respond to McCain's statements? The candidates agreed to the rules, and after being admonished a couple of times for going over, McCain really tried to follow the rules, but Obama didn't. And, rightly so, Obama got shut down most of the time. Not a good sign for Obama.
- Obama made some big blunders last night, but one of the biggest ones was focusing so much on George W. Bush. By focusing on the past, he allowed himself to be mired in the past without giving much time to talk about what he was going to do to fix the situations he blamed on Bush. As easy as it is for Leftists to do, not everything can be blamed on George W. Bush. You guys were just as guilty as Bush, if not more so on economic issues.
- Once again, Obama tried to paint the subprime mortgage and bank failures on the lack of regulation promoted by President Bush. But we've seen the facts, and the lack of regulation was promoted by Democrats like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and others. And who called for tighter controls on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? George W. Bush and John McCain. So, Senator, just how is it Bush's fault that the Democrats in Congress rejected regulation?
- Just where are the news networks finding these "independent voters" they poll after the debates? Many of them gave the nod to Obama as winning the debate because they felt he answered the questions. The only way you could make that statement is if you weren't paying attention or if you were in the tank for Obama.
- I listened to Sean Hannity and a number of conservative friends of mine about how McCain needed a knockout punch last night in order to win, but that's not quite right. Remember, there is one more debate, and if McCain went out loaded for bear in this debate, what would he do for the third debate? Repeating the same lines from the previous debate won't help him win, as we saw from Obama. Instead, I think McCain's using Muhammad Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy, letting Obama hit McCain for a while before McCain gets started. This strategy seems to work because Obama's first two debates have been weak, so he didn't land too many rhetorical punches before getting tired. This leaves McCain with an opportunity to not just nail Obama on his plans, but to introduce a primary campaign concept: Obama's judgment is not good for the country.
As far as who I gave the nod to, this one was easy. John McCain ran away with the debate. He put Barack Obama on the defensive from the outset and Obama floundered as a result. This was not Obama's best showing, and we'll see whether it hurts him in the polls. By my scorecard, the Obama/Biden ticket is 0 for 3 in debates, which means the media will have to figure out a way to turn an embarrassing loss into a near victory before the next debate.
Three down, one to go.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Obama Asks for the Wrong Discussion
The last month of a campaign always brings out the big guns as candidates jockey for position going into an election. This election is no different. With both John McCain and Sarah Palin bringing back the ties between Barack Obama and William Ayers, Obama has been on the defensive. His initial response was to say he was "ready for a character discussion." Then, his campaign launched into McCain's connection to the Keating Five scandal.
Ah, but the issue isn't about character, Senator. The issue is about judgment.
The William Ayers situation is proving troublesome to the Obama campaign because they thought they dealt with these claims during the Democratic primaries. The problem with that conclusion, however, is that the lack of media attention does not mean the issue goes away. With the media being in the Obama camp, they simply didn't bother to do the legwork, but the issue remains. When Hillary Clinton tried to make the Obama-Ayers connection, it wasn't followed up on to determine whether the connection was real. The most they did was to "fact check" it on a cursory level, which worked best for Obama.
Now that the McCain/Palin ticket has resurrected the Ayers story, Obama is left having to play defense yet again, but against a more aggressive candidate, one with more to gain from discussing Ayers than what Clinton had. And one who can build on the Clinton gambit to establish a real question about whether Obama can lead.
That's why Obama wants to take the attention away from the judgment issue and more into the realm of character. Obama can talk up his character and, compared to some of the things McCain has done in the past, he would win that discussion. But on questions of judgment, he's going to lose because of the multiple questionable decisions he's made during his life, of which his connection to Ayers is just one. Once voters consider the Ayers situation, they might reconsider Obama's connection to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Tony Rezko, and others that the media have not covered as extensively as they have with questionable connections involving McCain/Palin. Then, these voters might wonder why Obama has made so many bad or questionable decisions over his life.
And that's not a discussion Obama wants.
Ah, but the issue isn't about character, Senator. The issue is about judgment.
The William Ayers situation is proving troublesome to the Obama campaign because they thought they dealt with these claims during the Democratic primaries. The problem with that conclusion, however, is that the lack of media attention does not mean the issue goes away. With the media being in the Obama camp, they simply didn't bother to do the legwork, but the issue remains. When Hillary Clinton tried to make the Obama-Ayers connection, it wasn't followed up on to determine whether the connection was real. The most they did was to "fact check" it on a cursory level, which worked best for Obama.
Now that the McCain/Palin ticket has resurrected the Ayers story, Obama is left having to play defense yet again, but against a more aggressive candidate, one with more to gain from discussing Ayers than what Clinton had. And one who can build on the Clinton gambit to establish a real question about whether Obama can lead.
That's why Obama wants to take the attention away from the judgment issue and more into the realm of character. Obama can talk up his character and, compared to some of the things McCain has done in the past, he would win that discussion. But on questions of judgment, he's going to lose because of the multiple questionable decisions he's made during his life, of which his connection to Ayers is just one. Once voters consider the Ayers situation, they might reconsider Obama's connection to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Tony Rezko, and others that the media have not covered as extensively as they have with questionable connections involving McCain/Palin. Then, these voters might wonder why Obama has made so many bad or questionable decisions over his life.
And that's not a discussion Obama wants.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
An Open Letter to the State of Michigan
Normally, I don't gear my blog posts to a specific audience, but this one has to be written. If you're not from Michigan, hopefully you can take something out of this one and prevent what happened in Michigan earlier this week.
Dear Michigan,
How are you? How are the kids? Haven't heard from you in a while, so I figured I'd drop a line.
Listen, the real reason I'm writing is to set you straight on something. John McCain pulled up stakes and left Michigan earlier this week because he was no longer competitive against Barack Obama. Given how the state has leaned leftward in recent years, I'm sure a good number of you there think it's a good thing McCain's leaving. After all, why would you want someone who would follow the previous 8 years of economic policy, which have been disastrous for you?
Well, you might want to take a look at what got you here, and contrary to what you've been lead to believe, it's not George W. Bush at fault here. Sure, some of the things he's done nationally haven't been so economically sound, but he's not the one with his fingers in your wallets. He's no more responsible for the unemployment and tightened finances in your state than I am.
In fact, all you need to do is look to your capitol at your Governor, Jennifer Granholm, for the person most responsible for the economic woes you have. When jobs were getting scarce and your state's economy was tanking, she signed bills into law that increased your taxes. And it didn't help. Recently, she signed into law a requirement that 10% of your state's energy come from renewable sources. She's promising it will create jobs, but even if it does, the problem will still exist. The higher taxes are making it harder for people to be hired and to live on what they earn from the jobs they have. It's not Bush who signed those higher taxes into law; it's Granholm.
And have you checked with your unions lately? What have they done to help you in these tough economic times? Aren't they supposed to be fighting for you against the big corporations? Let me let you in on a little secret. They're not fighting for you nearly as much as you think they are. Right now, they're more about making sure their jobs are secure and keeping Democrats elected than they are about making sure you're represented at the workplace. Ask yourselves what unions have done for you in the past, oh, 20-30 years. They may have gotten you some things, like a bit more money in the retirement fund or a bump up on the insurance plan, but those are small things compared to what's needed now. An extra buck towards dental insurance doesn't mean that much when you're struggling to make ends meet.
Look at your Congressional representation. By my count, all but 52 of your Representatives and neither of your Senators are Democrats. What are they doing to help Michigan right now? I know that Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow have been attacking George W. Bush for one thing or another and demanding he be held accountable, but who is keeping them accountable for their actions or lack of them? How many Representatives agree with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's tactics to marginalize the Republicans as they tried to pass a bill that would have removed the Congressional ban on offshore drilling, an act that would have made gas more affordable and would have created jobs more than what Granholm suggested?
But it's easier to blame Bush than it is to dig a little deeper and find the ones truly responsible for the economic situation. And thanks to your unwillingness to consider John McCain, your chance to break the cycle and make a break for a different future has gone with him. Instead, you're solidly behind Barack Obama, a Democrat who has promised great things if he's elected. Just like, I'm sure, Granholm, the unions, and the Democrats you've put into political office have. But before you pull that lever for Obama, ask yourselves one question.
What has voting Democrat consistently actually delivered for you?
From where I sit, not a hell of a lot.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lindaman
Dear Michigan,
How are you? How are the kids? Haven't heard from you in a while, so I figured I'd drop a line.
Listen, the real reason I'm writing is to set you straight on something. John McCain pulled up stakes and left Michigan earlier this week because he was no longer competitive against Barack Obama. Given how the state has leaned leftward in recent years, I'm sure a good number of you there think it's a good thing McCain's leaving. After all, why would you want someone who would follow the previous 8 years of economic policy, which have been disastrous for you?
Well, you might want to take a look at what got you here, and contrary to what you've been lead to believe, it's not George W. Bush at fault here. Sure, some of the things he's done nationally haven't been so economically sound, but he's not the one with his fingers in your wallets. He's no more responsible for the unemployment and tightened finances in your state than I am.
In fact, all you need to do is look to your capitol at your Governor, Jennifer Granholm, for the person most responsible for the economic woes you have. When jobs were getting scarce and your state's economy was tanking, she signed bills into law that increased your taxes. And it didn't help. Recently, she signed into law a requirement that 10% of your state's energy come from renewable sources. She's promising it will create jobs, but even if it does, the problem will still exist. The higher taxes are making it harder for people to be hired and to live on what they earn from the jobs they have. It's not Bush who signed those higher taxes into law; it's Granholm.
And have you checked with your unions lately? What have they done to help you in these tough economic times? Aren't they supposed to be fighting for you against the big corporations? Let me let you in on a little secret. They're not fighting for you nearly as much as you think they are. Right now, they're more about making sure their jobs are secure and keeping Democrats elected than they are about making sure you're represented at the workplace. Ask yourselves what unions have done for you in the past, oh, 20-30 years. They may have gotten you some things, like a bit more money in the retirement fund or a bump up on the insurance plan, but those are small things compared to what's needed now. An extra buck towards dental insurance doesn't mean that much when you're struggling to make ends meet.
Look at your Congressional representation. By my count, all but 52 of your Representatives and neither of your Senators are Democrats. What are they doing to help Michigan right now? I know that Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow have been attacking George W. Bush for one thing or another and demanding he be held accountable, but who is keeping them accountable for their actions or lack of them? How many Representatives agree with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's tactics to marginalize the Republicans as they tried to pass a bill that would have removed the Congressional ban on offshore drilling, an act that would have made gas more affordable and would have created jobs more than what Granholm suggested?
But it's easier to blame Bush than it is to dig a little deeper and find the ones truly responsible for the economic situation. And thanks to your unwillingness to consider John McCain, your chance to break the cycle and make a break for a different future has gone with him. Instead, you're solidly behind Barack Obama, a Democrat who has promised great things if he's elected. Just like, I'm sure, Granholm, the unions, and the Democrats you've put into political office have. But before you pull that lever for Obama, ask yourselves one question.
What has voting Democrat consistently actually delivered for you?
From where I sit, not a hell of a lot.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lindaman
Friday, October 3, 2008
Afterthoughts on the VP Debate
After a night to think about it, I have some thoughts to share about the Vice-Presidential debate. And I've determined the order of the discussion by a coin flip. Let's start with Joe Biden.
- After Barack Obama came off as being an angry kid at last week's Presidential debate, there was a lot of unseen pressure on Biden to change the tone. Unfortunately, he didn't. He came off as an angry grandpa, which just doesn't resonate with the American people. Just ask Bob Dole. Democrats are of two minds on letting Biden do his thing, but after last night, that comes with an additional risk. The election is far from being sewn up, and the more Biden acts like Biden, the more that election gets put in jeopardy.
- I may torque off some of my readers with this, but I think Sarah Palin did a good job. Not great, but good. She was up against long odds, both with the media mostly mocking her and with the debate set-up making it effectively 2 on 1, thanks to moderator Gwen Ifill's pro-Obama book in the works. But, she managed to hold it together and put together a stronger than expected package. Was it as good as some say? Not so much. But I think she was buoyed by Biden's sub par performance.
- The media did their best to make this a no-win situation for Palin. The day before the debate, the media start talking about how well she did at a 2006 gubernatorial debate as a means to raise expectations to a point where she could do nothing but fail. Combine that with the Ifill situation, and you could tell the Leftists were salivating as the possibility of a Palin flame-out. That didn't happen. Palin ultimately came across as articulate and, dare I say it, human. Any undecided voters watching the debate had to have seen or felt that.
- Was it just me, or were some of the questions Ifill asked rather pointed and designed to undermine Palin? Ifill did try to balance it out by asking Biden a similar question, but the choice of questions left me cold. Some were irrelevant, like the question about gay marriage. Seriously, when will the Vice-President ever have to wrestle with gay marriage? It's not that important an issue. But the question that really made me cringe was the question involving what the two VP candidates would do should John McCain or Barack Obama die in office. Not only was it a pointed question designed to make Palin look unprepared for the office, but the way it was structured showed a level of disdain for both Palin and Biden as though they were irrelevant. If they were so irrelevant, why even have a debate?
- Biden tried to connect with the American people after Palin made that connection early on. With his frequent references to where he grew up, the people he knows where he comes from, and what they know, he laid the groundwork to try to draw on the same image Palin has. But after he almost teared up talking about his late wife and the car accident that took her life, it became obvious that it was all an act. He wasn't trying to make a real connection with the American people; he was trying to look like he connected on the same level Palin does. And he failed. What Biden tried to copy, Palin has naturally.
Now, for the winner of the debate. I give it to Palin on points because she didn't knock out Biden, but she landed a number of punches that left Biden reeling. She was also helped by Biden not being as prepared as he should have been. I think he underestimated her, and it put him on the defensive early on, leaving him having to play catch-up for the rest of the debate. Even if McCain/Palin doesn't win in November, I think we've seen the emergence of a front-runner for 2012.
- After Barack Obama came off as being an angry kid at last week's Presidential debate, there was a lot of unseen pressure on Biden to change the tone. Unfortunately, he didn't. He came off as an angry grandpa, which just doesn't resonate with the American people. Just ask Bob Dole. Democrats are of two minds on letting Biden do his thing, but after last night, that comes with an additional risk. The election is far from being sewn up, and the more Biden acts like Biden, the more that election gets put in jeopardy.
- I may torque off some of my readers with this, but I think Sarah Palin did a good job. Not great, but good. She was up against long odds, both with the media mostly mocking her and with the debate set-up making it effectively 2 on 1, thanks to moderator Gwen Ifill's pro-Obama book in the works. But, she managed to hold it together and put together a stronger than expected package. Was it as good as some say? Not so much. But I think she was buoyed by Biden's sub par performance.
- The media did their best to make this a no-win situation for Palin. The day before the debate, the media start talking about how well she did at a 2006 gubernatorial debate as a means to raise expectations to a point where she could do nothing but fail. Combine that with the Ifill situation, and you could tell the Leftists were salivating as the possibility of a Palin flame-out. That didn't happen. Palin ultimately came across as articulate and, dare I say it, human. Any undecided voters watching the debate had to have seen or felt that.
- Was it just me, or were some of the questions Ifill asked rather pointed and designed to undermine Palin? Ifill did try to balance it out by asking Biden a similar question, but the choice of questions left me cold. Some were irrelevant, like the question about gay marriage. Seriously, when will the Vice-President ever have to wrestle with gay marriage? It's not that important an issue. But the question that really made me cringe was the question involving what the two VP candidates would do should John McCain or Barack Obama die in office. Not only was it a pointed question designed to make Palin look unprepared for the office, but the way it was structured showed a level of disdain for both Palin and Biden as though they were irrelevant. If they were so irrelevant, why even have a debate?
- Biden tried to connect with the American people after Palin made that connection early on. With his frequent references to where he grew up, the people he knows where he comes from, and what they know, he laid the groundwork to try to draw on the same image Palin has. But after he almost teared up talking about his late wife and the car accident that took her life, it became obvious that it was all an act. He wasn't trying to make a real connection with the American people; he was trying to look like he connected on the same level Palin does. And he failed. What Biden tried to copy, Palin has naturally.
Now, for the winner of the debate. I give it to Palin on points because she didn't knock out Biden, but she landed a number of punches that left Biden reeling. She was also helped by Biden not being as prepared as he should have been. I think he underestimated her, and it put him on the defensive early on, leaving him having to play catch-up for the rest of the debate. Even if McCain/Palin doesn't win in November, I think we've seen the emergence of a front-runner for 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)