She didn't really seem to say much about what she would do if elected.
Printable View
She didn't really seem to say much about what she would do if elected.
She's going to be VP. She won't be doing much of anything.Quote:
Originally posted by Grantref
She didn't really seem to say much about what she would do if elected.
Man, if saying nothing meant politicians would do nothing, we'd have a better country.
I generally pray for gridlock. The less the federal government does, the better off we all are.
Huh, that's an interesting viewpoint, Kestra.
I guess the reasons I didn't like Palin's speech were slightly more substantive. If I was into hateful, derisive and immature, jeering politics - I'm sure I would have loved it. I know they say the VP has a greater lenience, maybe even duty, to do the dirty work that the presidential nominee can't or shouldn't do - and Palin certainly took that liberty with much gusto.
As a fence sitting swing voter - I was just disappointed at the utter lack of pertinent, viable material. I also found myself offended by the many slams against Obama, the Democratic party, and even the media - the many insults which were far more frequent than anything else. Though I can understand their malice towards the media... just slightly - from the media I've watched, every mention of Palin and her family has been by and large in the form of a query, not an attack. It's easy to misconstrue a question for a statement, sometimes, and it's also very convenient to do so. Maybe I'm watching the wrong media.
Guliani certainly failed to identify who "they" were quite on purpose, I'd imagine, as he screeched from the podium about, "How dare they say Palin can't raise her family while in office." I'll tell you now, it wasn't Obama camp making that claim. This evinces the type of politics we can expect from the McCain camp - but hey, what's new here.
Yes, there is quite a difference. And you're right, it was far more impressive to watch. I was quite impressed by the immaturity. Essentially what you'll miss if you read the text, and don't watch, is the sarcastic, wry grinning and smirking during the constant barrage of insults and hate, and simultaneous lack of anything that really matters. Some people are impressed by this, I was simply was not, and it incites a feeling of elitism on the part of the GOP. I was extremely put off by the spectacle, and I'm not sure how they intend to grab the independant vote with this pathetically derisive, Jerry Springer-esque method. I wish them luck.Quote:
Cyrinne: Those who watched the convention and heard her speak found the speech far more impressive than those who didn't watch and read the transcript of it.
John McCain's speech, on the other hand, was far more calculated and far less derisive - I respect John McCain for his service in war, and I found myself extremely overjoyed that his speech was far more conventional. Conventional in that he stuck to his platform an acceptable percent of the time, and conventional in that he distorted his opponents platform to shine a more favourable light on himself. That's, of course, to be expected. I'll take that any day of the week over Palin's pathetic display. John McCain's speech almost made me forget about his attack add which compared Obama to Spears and Hilton - something that is truly and extremely offensive if anyone bothers to look at the juxtaposition with anything but party loyalty in mind.
If Thompson's, Romney's, Huckabee's, Guliani's, and Palin's speeches are any indication of how the McCain camp is going to conduct themselves through the course of this election - I'd expect more hate, more derision, more elitism, more anger, and more immaturity from the GOP. Good luck to them appealing to people outside of their base with this type of politics.
I felt the exact same way. But after giving it time to settle, I came to the opinion that the GOP did exactly what they needed to. With the current administration suffering from a crippling approval rating from both democrats and republicans this showcase was their chance to win back their own party. When backed into a corner people lash out. they did so by placing blame on a congress run by democrats, the media, and touting change within their own party. Though, the first two were much more obvious.Quote:
Originally posted by Cais
Yes, there is quite a difference. And you're right, it was far more impressive to watch. I was quite impressed by the immaturity. Essentially what you'll miss if you read the text, and don't watch, is the sarcastic, wry grinning and smirking during the constant barrage of insults and hate, and simultaneous lack of anything that really matters.
Incite emotion. Incite loyalty.
Sadly, +1 -but a vote's a vote no matter how you get it.Quote:
Originally posted by Cais
Some people are impressed by this, I was simply was not.
From an absolute strategic perspective (not that im in any way a political strategist) I would expect that we will see more of this and less of the hate-mongering as the campaign continues. If the GOP accomplished what they wanted during the convention, now is the time to win back the undecideds and the more centrist crowd by appealing to more rational concepts, ie. policy and McCain's nearly inpenetrable and unrufflable character.Quote:
Originally posted by Cais
John McCain's speech, on the other hand, was far more calculated and far less derisive-
Wait. This isn't the Spore thread? :-)
To Ilusan: Yes, yes and yes. The response in the RNC was zealous and energetic, but I wouldn't really expect anything less. I'd personally wager a slim chance of any official party member switching sides (unless you're Leiberman), but it definitely rallied the base, and the religious right is eating up the 'pro-life' candidates.
However, I'd love to poke holes in McCain's character. When half the ticket is engaged in such deplorable behaviour as agent to McCain - I don't think his hands are clean. Obama has been pretty cautious to rein in his constituents in several situations where third parties have taken cheap shops, or have atleast been accused of taking cheap shops - I'd call that a measure of his character. When McCain decided it was okay to degrade Obama in an ad that compared him to Paris Hilton - a degenerate, spoiled porn star - and Britney Spears - a recently spazzed out, child neglecting drama queen - I hardly call that dignified, mature, or civil. I'd actually call that hateful, heinous, and immature. It also makes me suspicious of his other emotional appeals such as one third of his speech being about his experience as a POW.
Now that's dangerous ground to tread, because I'd hardly want to take away from his hardships in Hanoi, or cheapen his service to this Nation. But I'll also call it like I see it, and with absolute respect to McCain as a servant to this Country in Vietnam, my respect for him as a politician and my confidence in him as a moral person is waning hard away.
Anyway, yes, the speech certainly rallied the base. For me, it takes a great deal more effort than cheap and petty insults and distortion to garner my vote. Unless something miraculous occurs, this is one fence sitter's vote they ain't gettin'.
When I think of this situation, I think of Battlestar Galactica. In the event that something terrible happens, we'll be left with this lady. And she doesn't seem to be as hardcore as Laura Roslin.
In all seriousness, it does look like McCain thinks the Mavarick image is a party buff and adding Palin to his ticket will boost what he lost since his last go at President. IMO, I don't think it works.
That really is the kicker and makes the VP more important than ever in this election. Despite his apparent good health, McCain is on up there in years. And Obama? If elected, his life expectancy grows pretty thin, too.Quote:
Originally posted by Jolen
In the event that something terrible happens...
Before anyone jumps through the roof on that one, I like Obama. I hate his politics (McCain's too for that matter) so it's doubtful he'll get my vote, but I like the man and have no ill wishes for him whatsoever. However, with the amount of absolute venomous hate that some people have for him, I'd be surprised if he made it through the first year if elected.
I'm not so sure about that one. Look at how many people violently despise Bush, and he's lived through all eight. I think we are more prepared for such things than we were in days past.
That being said, its always smart to have a VP you wouldn't hate as a president. Its kind of the point.
You really can't even compare the Bush-hate with the Obama-hate. It's a whole different mentality with the latter having much more of a basis on race and religion. At least once a week, I get a mass email forwarded from someone comparing Obama to a Muslim terrorist. I have no idea why people believe this, but there's a huge segment of the population, especially in the deep south, that does.
Plus, Obama doesn't have near the connections that Bush has, especially with groups like the CIA. On top of that, Bush isn't the bumbling idiot he's made out to be - sure, he's bumbling and a megalomaniac to boot, but he's not an idiot. He knows to take the advice of those in charge of keeping him alive. On the other hand, I can easily see Obama placing himself in riskier situations because of his personality and his desire to identify with the general public.
That is one of the reasons this Ohio voter, and quite a few of us, are strongly considering voting for McCain.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
I generally pray for gridlock. The less the federal government does, the better off we all are.
I shudder at the thought of having Democrats in charge of the House, Senate, and White House. (Just as much as I was against having the Republicans in the same position).