Thanks for Commenting
Let me see if I understand your logic:
We should vote for McCain because Sarah Palin is young and Joe Biden is old (but younger than McCain.) The person in the second spot of the ticket is more important than the first because... change takes time? Sarah Palin won the debate because... she's charming? McCain's the better choice because... Palin's demonstrably not ready for the job yet but she maybe will be some day? The cognitive dissonance is palpable.
Are we really supposed to wipe away Palin's inability to name a single SCOTUS ruling other than Roe vs Wade because she had note cards to read her talking points off in this debate?
The format for this debate (which the McCain campaign insisted upon) was an embarrassment to the Republic.
Palin refused to even address the question put forward by my count four different times. She blatantly referred to her note cards on nearly every question she did respond to.
She did do a good job of repeatedly winking at the camera (four times) and calling both herself and McCain a "Maverick" though (six times.)
Her whole performance consisted of spewing out pre-prepared talking points and trying to sound folksy by using the phrase "you betcha". As I watched it I thought to myself "man even the most hardcore of Republicans can't be falling for this cutesy act can they?" I guess I was wrong about that.
Palin didn't embarrass herself but for you to claim she won the debate is laughable. Remember her response to Biden's challenge to naming one difference between McCain's policy and Bush's policy? Yeah, me neither, because she didn't respond.
It's hilarious to me that the McCain campaign (and now, you) are trying to co-opt the Obama campaign's message of change. McCain hasn't put any ideas for change forward whatsoever.
The only change McCain has brought to this campaign is changing all his former positions which clashed with the GOP party line.
I did enjoy how proud she was of having obviously just learned how to pronounce Ahmadinejad though. Too bad that her debate preps didn't inform her that he's only a figurehead and has no actual power in Iran. She looked really confused when Biden informed her of that fact.
I watched the debate last night. Sarah Palin said two words which I believe is the major difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Those two words 'Personal Responsibility'. Democrats blame everything from their Mothers ( most psychiatrist are Democrats ) to the weather for their problems. People who believe that they are in control of their own destiny tend to be Republicians
Right Mike, except for when she pretended that McCain has nothing to do with the problems that were caused by things he voted for (like the Iraq war.) Then those things were Bush's fault and why do you keep looking at the past old man? UBETCHA!
I was speaking in general terms. I know people that live their lives as Republicans, yet vote Democrat.
Errr, what change?
McCain's foreign policy is an incoherent, bellicose muddle based on misunderstanding and overemphasizing the utility of hard power. This is no different from that of Cheney's or Bush's. Throw in some 50 year old anti-Communist blather and there you have it. No change whatsoever.
McCain's economic policy is more of the same, tired, failed, and finally disastrous, supply side fundamentalism we got from Cheney and Bush. You cannot print money, game interest rates, and perpetually cut taxes into prosperity. That should be painfully, frightfully obvious by now. That is McCain's economic plan. Palin's is, I think, just to keep cutting taxes (cause it's magic! and, uh, what Reagan said!).
And, no, Palin is not more prepared to lead than Obama is. She is painfully undereducated in foreign policy, economics (both micro and macro), energy policy, and geopolitical and military strategy. She needs a week to come up with a name of a magazine she reads regularly (The Economist, apparently, a choice put forward, no doubt, to make her appear to be mildly serious).
More seriously, though, she is an inveterate liar. From the "Bridge to Nowhere" to Troopergate to earmarks (Alaska is the federal earmark queen of these United States) to fiscal responsibility (she inherited zero debt as Mayor of Wasilla and left behind $19,000,000 in long term debt, even after raising taxes by 25%), to raising taxes in general (windfall oil tax) to lobbyists (she hired one as Mayor, her Lt. Governor is a former oil company lobbyist) to the amount of oil in the United States to, well, anything she talks about. That is, I think, a much more grave flaw than the facts that she isn't very bright or that her only relevant experience consists of spending a flood of federal subsidies and oil company royalties in a tiny, corrupt, conservative welfare state.
It is interesting that you claim that Bush's most significant (err, actually you said "one") failing is his surfeit of personal loyalty (how noble, indeed!). While there are, certainly, a few egregious examples of this such as Brown as head of FEMA or Rice as head of anything, this argument clumsily elides the underlying policies. It must be tempting to explain the Bush failures as bungled execution or even the epic failure of modern American conservatism as "just not quite conservative enough." In fact, this line of thinking is popular in the McCain / Palin camp. One must not question the policies of "Let's bomb Iraq until it becomes a stable, prosperous, pro-Western Democracy!" or "Let's deregulate the financial industry, relax oversight thereof, juice the money supply and interest rates, and cut taxes indefinitely until we're all rich!"; they have failed and are failing because of insufficiently fervent execution.
Oh, and one more thing: Despite the desperate wish on the right to not "play the blame game" i.e "figure out what went wrong, how, and whom to blame so as to avoid s
whoops. what's the limit?
Commenting by HaloScan
