advertising and other stuff. no, really.



Sunday, October 26, 2008

WHAT is she talking about?

Two things about Sarah Palin bug/frighten/amaze me.

I realized it after her debate with Biden. (Not that this will matter to her supporters, because it’s clear that few of them will be honest in evaluating her weaknesses, likely viewing them as strengths instead. Whatever. It was after reading the transcript below from her Saturday appearance in Iowa that I was left dumbfounded.

First, like Hillary, she talks at you. She just doesn’t connect. Don’t confuse that with saying the right things either. She does, in spades, buckets and droves, nailing all of the GOP’s Greatest Talking Point Hits. I’m talking about one on one. She plays to the room instead of the individual she's speaking to.

Hillary was worse in this regard however. Say what you will about her policies, but her failure to connect as a person without this affect, this persona if you will, is what ultimately did her in. Ironically, it was only after defeat when she worked the talk show circuit in support of Obama that she became more human, even understated.

Something else though about Palin reveals another problem I have with her being nominated.

It’s one thing to attack a specific point made by a candidate, both sides do it. It’s another though to round the argument up to the nearest blanket statement, just because it makes a nice soundbite.

Vice presidents don’t usually factor in much, and sometimes even say things that get blown up out of proportion, but read the following excerpts from her appearance yesterday and tell me if she hasn’t lost it. The leaps from point A to G to R?

Staggering:
...She labeled Obama’s plan to provide tax credits to lower and middle-income wage-earners “the philosophy of government taking more, which is a misuse of the power to tax.”

“It leads to government moving into the role of taking care of you, and government and politicians and, kind of moving in as the other half of your family to make decisions for you,” she said. “Now they do this in other countries where the people are not free. Government as part of the family, taking care of us, making decisions for us. I don’t know what to think of having in my family Uncle Barney Frank or others to make decisions for me.”

With audience members shouting “socialist!” throughout her speech, the Alaska governor said that time is running out for Americans to realize the danger of a having a Democrat in the White House. “Are we hearing what he is saying with 10 days to go?,” she asked plaintively. “Are voters hearing what he is saying about his plans for bigger government?”

At the beginning of her remarks, Palin appeared to ad-lib a riff about her much-discussed wardrobe, which has the been the subject of scrutiny since Politico reported last week that the RNC spent $150,000 on clothes for Palin and her family before the Republican National Convention in September.

“Your state is filled with good, hard-working people all loving the outdoors,” she said, “and it was nice and crisp getting off the airplane and coming into the — it reminded me a lot of Alaska, so I put my warm jacket on, and it is my own jacket. It doesn't belong to anybody else."
Now, I could start to decipher this, like the part about Obama's policies leading to government running things in your life, but then I'd have to also mention the part where her potential future boss voted for a $150 billion dollar bailout, and how is that any different. But why let facts get in the way.

There’s something about the presence someone has, an
intangible, the vibe they give off that says, yeah, I’d follow them into hell mister. Doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with their experience per se, just call it a hunch, a gut feeling. Whatever.

But if you can honestly say after watching and listening to Sarah Palin that she’s better suited to step into the role of president than either Obama, Biden or McCain, you’re a better person than I am.

9 comments:

Andy 3000 said...

Love the Barney Frank reference. Because you know, not only is he gay, he's from Taxachusetts. I'm not sure which is worse!

Anonymous said...

I still don't get this whole "socialist" rhetoric. Up here in Canuckistan, we get to go to the hospital FOR FREE (well, our taxes pay the med bills, but you know what I mean). Am I being told what to do? Is the big, bad government deciding things for me?

First of all, we're a democratic society, so we elect our government. Which means we democratically choose to have universal health care. Which means we're deciding for ourselves.

And second, when I was lying on a cot in the hospital corridor a few years back with a nasty allergic reaction, the only thing I was thinking was: thank God I don't have to worry about paying for this.

Greg said...

Um?

She labeled Obama’s plan to provide tax credits to lower and middle-income wage-earners “the philosophy of government taking more, which is a misuse of the power to tax.”

Did she not take 'math' in the schools up in Alaska...

A credit is different than a debit.

RICARDO, NOT RICKY said...

Obama's long-stated position is to use the tax structure to ensure more fairness. (Admittedly, he defines fairness as a leveling of differences in income, a "leveling of the playing field.")
I.e. to use another of his favorite phrases, to "game" the tax system to re-distribute income. "To game something" is a phrase we will hear a lot of if he is elected.
Milton Friedman (free market Nobelist and monetarist) once proposed (it was a while ago) doing away with all welfare and the attendant bureaucracy and replacing it with direct grants, checks, a salary for existing. He thought it better than the welfare system in place. It met a lot of resistance from the professional welfarists who thought their "clients" would waste the money and not spend on food, clothing, and shelter.
Tax policy is very bad when it is temporary. You can't plan because who knows what the next gang will try.
But the key question for the future is how a % of income can government take before it becomes a) immoral and b) impractical?
Obama's most dangerous commment was in answer to a question from George Stephanopolous: if raising the capital gain tax would result in less money coming in, would you still be in favor of it? He said, "Yes." Reason is he sees tax policy as social policy first and revenue raising second.

Anonymous said...

"But if you can honestly say after watching and listening to Sarah Palin that she’s better suited to step into the role of president than either Obama, Biden or McCain, you’re a better person than I am."

I am a better person than you. Joe the Biden is a gaffe machine and a joke of a man. Look at both sides if you're going to continue to tear apart the GOP. Both parties believe their theories are the best - we all respond to people differently. Dems are full of hate for those who disagree with them - just read the Huffington Post blog and look for it with open eyes. The GOP is using their voice against this hatred and racism and it gets lost and distorted, thanks to the mainstream media.

Andy Jukes said...

Wait, is the election still on? What did I miss?

Make the logo bigger said...

“Dems are full of hate for those who disagree with them -”

There’s nothing quite like a blanket statement. You obviously don’t read enough of my takes on both sides here because HP is the last rag I support.

Make the logo bigger said...

@Andy. Yep. It’s over. (I know you wanted to come down and vote, but, maybe in 2012.)

Andy Jukes said...

It just seems a bit late in the game to be picking this fight!

I mean, when I saw this comment, I couldn’t even remember what post it referred to.