Key points from Governor Palin's vice-presidential nomination speech in St. Paul, Minnesota last night:
-reporters don't like her and she doesn't care
-Obama talked about religion and guns differently when speaking to versus when speaking of middle America voters
-Obama only worked as a community organizer
-reform is hard but must be done
-she sold governor's jet and chef in Alaska
-she drives to governor's office (instead of taking the jet, presumably)
-she knows how the veto works
-she doesn't like tax on fuel
-she doesn't want federal funding for state projects
-she built a $40B natural gas pipeline to lead America to energy independence
-she knows that foreign powers don't have American interests at heart
-she is in favor of gasoline autarchy
-she wants to drill the North Slope of Alaska to go towards gasoline autarchy, presumable because it will stop our energy dependence on evil foreign powers
-McCain-Palin administration will do everything but drill for oil (lay pipelines, build nuclear plants, clean coal plans, and mover forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources)
-Obama has not written a "major law" or "reform"
-Obama thinks that "America's war" and "victory" are two phrases that just don't mix
-she doesn't like styrofoam Greek columns
-Obama is a hippy-dippy environmentalist
-Obama wants to reduce America's strength in a dangerous world
-Obama is too concerned about terrorists' rights (presumably, that means she just wants all people accused of terror to be put in jails with no due process)
-Obama is raising taxes when America is going into a recession
-how do extra Obama taxes help Americans suffering a recession? (implying that healthcare for uninsured and welfare for poor doesn't apply to those recession-struck Americans)
-Obama uses change to promote career, McCain uses career to promote change
-she doesn't like that Obama has buttons and self-designed presidential seals
-Obama doesn't have the idealism of McCain (presumably because the lack of experience in Washington has left Obama more jaded than McCain, who has been in Congress for around 3 decades)
-McCain isn't a party man (implying that he chose Palin because he has suddenly become hugely religious, strongly anti-choice, and hates the environment) [that last one may actually be true]
-Senator Reid hating John McCain is the best proof that McCain is a good candidate
-Harry Reid isn't as good at stuff as McCain
-Obama wants to make the presidency a journey of personal discovery
-McCain is a war veteran, Obama and Biden are not
-Obama's story of adversity is far less than that of McCain's torture in Hanoi
-McCain has already made his journey
-McCain is compassionate because he was tortured
-McCain is wise because he was tortured
-McCain is confident because he was tortured
-McCain was inexplicably exuberant when returning from interrogations conducted by the North Vietnamese torturers (who presumably didn't read him his rights, a view that Palin shares with McCain's torturers)
-America needs an inexplicably exuberant, tortured Vietnam War veteran as its president for the next 4 years
-Obama only talks, McCain has done things
-since character is "the measure" in this election and change the goal, McCain should be president
[via NYT]
2008-09-04
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Just saw the Guilliani speech. They make my stomach turn, all of them. And it made me sure that I'll never apply for citizenship of this country.
ReplyDeletePlease tell me, someone, anyone, how did such a large part of the American population get so ignorant and small-minded? How is it that a McCain-Palin ticket seems to be as likely to be elected as the Obama-Biden one? How is it that the eternal myth of the American dream is being used as a self-perpetuating lie over and over again and why does everyone keep buying it? Is it because of the poor education system? Is it because enough powerful men have told everyone that it is so?
I'm out. Can't take this. God bless.
yeah, i saw the giuliani speech too...
ReplyDeletei hope that you're wrong about the mccain-palin ticket being as likely to be elected as obama-biden. i would like to think that us americans aren't all that ignorant and small-minded.
you should explain what you mean by the myth of the american dream somewhere (feel free to use my comment space if you want). it'd be interesting, if only as a thought exercise...
oh that's right, i remember now! you DO have a blog!
ReplyDeletei am fearful of palin - that there are so many obvious flaws in the choice of her as VP means to me that there must be some cunning political advantages we just aren't seeing. she appeals to the far right? she's a woman and her daughter is an unwed teen mother. she appeals to ex-clinton supporters? forget pro-life, the woman wants to deny abortions to rape victims. i'm nervous for what the karl roves out there must be plotting...
haha, i love the bit about how palin is pro torture and anti due-process. what a disaster she is! it makes me sad that there are stupid voters out there who are voting for her purely because she is a woman, with absolutely no interest/clue about what she actually believes.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean with "the myth of the American dream" is that even supposedly liberal and progressive people such as Obama keep spouting out stuff like "this could only happen in America" or "America is the place where you can be born in the gutter and grow up to become a millionaire".
ReplyDeleteThere are so many flaws attached to these perceptions. First off, social mobility, which must be the best measure of whether a country really does offer chances to those born into less fortunate economic positions, is much, much lower in the US than in countries with a larger social network.
Secondly, America is one of the few "developed" nations, where people actually ARE born in the gutter: the number of Americans below the poverty line has grown to 37 million during Bush's tenure. That's six million up from when Clinton was in power, but more than 10% of a population under the poverty line is not that good of a record either and this is a continuous and completely neglected issue that Americans-- and particularly its politicians, it seems-- seem to just not care about.
How can the US be a "light on the hill"; a "beacon of hope" (Guilliani), when more than 40 mil people live without health care? I could drop many more statistics, but the point I'm trying to make is that "the American dream" is no more than a nightmare in disguise to millions of people...
jakobo,
ReplyDeletei think you're right about the "this could only happen in america" bit; i am pretty sure social (and economic) mobility is much greater in more socialistic countries, where the point at which people start off is far closer to equal than it is here. but that is not to say that there is no such mobility here, right? i think the part you seem to take offense at is the "only"; it should really read "this could happen in america". hehe.
i also agree with you that 10% of america living below the poverty line is a shame for america. while i don't know what the comparable statistic is for other nations, i do think that we need to have a better, wider social net for our poor. the root cause of this lack of a social net, i think, is the divisive nature of american politics and race relations. it is usually some other "group" that people think are the poor who are "stealing" from the hard-working american family by abusing the welfare system (an absurd notion). therefore, lots of people agree when (mostly republican) politicians try to cut down welfare programs. the truth is that there are lots of different groups who have members on welfare and it would be absurd to think that a particular racial/ethnic/religious group is just out there gaming the welfare system while the rest of us work to keep it going. i think the very same is true of our healthcare problem (i think it's something like 43 or 47 million without welfare, a crying shame) and the same politics drive the lack of universal healthcare.
also, frankly, even if there was just one group of americans who were abusing welfare and univ healthcare, i would ask americans which they would prefer:
A. cutting down welfare and univ healthcare to a level that reduces the number of free-riders but also reduces the chances of "legitimately" down-trodden folks to get the access to resources that they need
or
B. expanding welfare and univ healthcare to a level that will undoubtedly expand the free-rider problem (lots of welfare gamers) but also ensure that most people who "really" need the welfare and healthcare system get access to as much help as we can provide them.
i would much rather make a mistake in the direction of looking like a fool but making sure no one dies of hunger or lack of medical care than maybe looking like a keen observer of human nature while allowing thousands/millions of my fellow human beings to die from poverty, starvation, and poor medical care. i (would like to) think most americans agree with me and would choose option B, if given the direct choice.
Well, I would argue that Americans will never have that choice because none of the politicians running for Prez will ever convey that that is a real choice. As long as there's only two parties, both of whom have to appeal to a large group of people who see univ health care as a devilish, socialist plan. I say reform the whole thing and start a multiparty system (I'm not talking about Ralph Nader) and give Americans excatcly the choice you allude to, SR: Do you want univ health care and poverty reduction?
ReplyDelete