By Matt Maul
In a previous post, I said that Sarah Palin is no Dan Quayle. I’ll add that the Alaskan governor is no Tina Fey either.
If you’re afflicted with PDS ("Palin Derangement Syndrome") the symptoms of which include: extreme hatred, e-mailing all your friends YouTube clips of that horrible Katie Couric performance, and rushing home early to catch Fey on Saturday Night Live, then it’s unlikely that you appreciated just how well she did at Thursday’s Vice Presidential debate. My guess is that it made your PDS flare up even more. For instance, I hear that Sandra Bernhard has now amended her calls for gang-raping Palin to include cannibalism.
Contrary to expectations, Palin was pretty damn good. Because I had predicted a bloodbath, the original title for this post was going to be: "Hot Potatoe" (clever, don’t "ya" think).
Did she win? I don’t know. I’ll concede that, if one were to strictly apply the rules of scoring, Biden won. But the same could be said for Apollo Creed. And neither Biden nor Creed won by the expected floor-mopping margin. In my experience, when people harp on the scorecard, it means their guy (or gal) has gotten smacked around a bit. For every point Biden scored challenging Palin to explain one of McCain's position on the war or the economy, Palin was able to score one challenging Biden to explain his previously stated negative positions on Obama.
Chris Matthews, who now seems to have a full-blown case of PDS, histrionically (even for him) complained that Palin refused to answer the questions that were put to her. Perhaps. But Palin hardly invented that tactic. In my 22 years of watching debates, candidates routinely answer the questions the way they want to. Palin’s mistake might have been admitting to it.
During the RNC, I said I didn’t like the Palin pick. I still don’t. By putting the novice governor on his ticket, McCain jettisoned the experience argument he could have pounded Obama with during the campaign. I wanted the VP to be Romney because I assumed that the presidential election would be as much about the economy as foreign policy. As it turns out, I was wrong. The events of the last two weeks has made this election MORE about the economy than anything else. Romney would have balanced the ticket and given McCain a strong shot at rust belt states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and my home state of Michigan (where McCain, due to money problems, has just shut down operations).
The rocket of Palin’s announcement did seem to propel McCain’s campaign upward. However, that flight path leveled off very quickly. It’s not clear if the Palin effect had only so much fuel, or that the McCain camp erred by shutting down her engines in mid-burn. Palin made a number of appearances after the RNC, but she didn’t hit the media circuit as hard as expected. It gave many (including myself) the impression that Palin was secluded in some sort of VP candidate boot camp cramming for the campaign. Thus, the two times she did venture outside for an interview, it got a lot of attention and inflated importance. Her Couric appearance was a disaster. This, along with McCain’s fumbling of the "bailout" issue, toppled his campaign into full gimbal-lock.
I beg your indulgence as I go on yet another financial market crisis rant. If Sarah Palin is an alleged incompetent because she lacks experience, then someone explain House Leader Nancy Pelosi who is a proven incompetent with plenty of said experience. She gave a ridiculously partisan speech that skewered the Bush Administration and Republicans before the vote on the first bailout package. If she was so concerned about getting support from the reluctant GOP members of Congress (and based on what I’ve read about the bailout bill, I don't blame them), then why did she go out of her way to throw them under the bus?
Democratic House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, his fingerprints all over this crisis and a recipient of two and a half million dollars in campaign contributions from the likes of JP Morgan Chase, the American Banking Association, and the National Association of Realtors, had the stones to pile on by remarking that those who voted "No" did so because their "feelings were hurt."
I’d remind Congressman Frank that a number of Democrats voted "No," too. Do the math. The Democrats outnumber Republicans in the House 233 to 202. To pass the damn bailout bill (or "rescue bill," as it’s now being called), they didn’t need ONE f’n Republican vote. Not one. The problem was that the majority party of the last two years didn’t want to own it.
"One of the disadvantages of being a Patrician," Lawrence Olivier’s Marcus Licinius Crassus comments in Spartacus, "is that occasionally you are obliged to act like one."
The Senate version, 150 billion dollars more costly, containing tax break provisions for rum producers and auto-racing tracks, looks, if I can borrow an Obama phrase, like putting lipstick on a pig. But since McCain has already pissed in the pool, he’s in no position to complain now that it’s too warm.
Getting back to lipstick and pigs: on Thursday, Palin exhibited a common sense, down-to-earth persona that those who hate her don’t get and probably never will. Even Camille Paglia lauded Palin's "brand new style of muscular American feminism." And she did surprisingly well on the tough foreign policy questions. I agree with the pundits who thought her answers sounded a bit "rehearsed." But Palin’s personality scored points before the first question was even asked, when, upon greeting Biden, she could be heard asking, "Can I call you Joe?" As Vincent Vega once said about pigs, "Personality goes a long way."
Biden, by contrast, seemed like one of those stereotypical, polished politicians. Just when it seemed that I had gotten used to the hair plugs above his forehead, I now have to deal with the jarring result of what appears to be some eye work below it. Certainly, his years of experience showed as he effortlessly droned through the wonkish details of various legislative initiatives. Once, in the middle of an answer and lost in the minutiae of Senate procedure, Biden took a breath to acknowledge that the process "gets complicated." This is why senators generally make bad national candidates. They get so engrossed in talking about the steak, they oftentimes forget to sell the sizzle.
To be sure, Palin had her bad moments too. My gut tells me that between the two, she’s more in touch with my life experience (forties, middle class, bunch of kids, yadda yadda). But there’s a hint of a Mary Kay sales lady about her. The incessant winking just didn’t work. And constantly bringing the conversation back to her ONE area of expertise, oil refineries, reminded me of an Eskimo that’s always talking about snow. When she made a reference to hearing soccer moms talk about their economic woes, I couldn’t help but think about Jimmy Carter discussing nuclear proliferation with his eleven year old daughter Amy. For what it’s worth, I’ve been around plenty of soccer moms (and dads). They almost never stop to discuss anything lest they miss a golden opportunity to see their kid kick the ball once. Hell, I get funny looks for using my cell phone.
For all his detail on most topics, Biden gave little on Obama’s future plans for Iraq. It’s frankly not too clear to me what "shift responsibility and draw down" means any more than Bush’s plan to "clear, hold, and build." Oh, I know what Biden’s trying to say. But, I don’t believe for a minute that a President Obama would do anything other than what the generals recommend. And Biden did support what I considered the goofy idea of repartitioning Iraq into its pre-World War One boundaries. Talk about looking backward. Good luck with that.
I was particularly fascinated by their answers to the same-sex partner benefits question. For what it’s worth, I’m not only for "same sex marriage," but think that the term "civil union" is a cop out. Predictably, Biden supported rights for "committed couples." Then, Palin, who did veto a bill that would have banned granting such benefits for public employees in Alaska, chimed in to make it clear that she was against "marriage" rights for gays. Biden responded, very quickly and almost too firmly, that he and Obama were opposed to "gay marriage" as well (I wonder what Andrew Sullivan thought right then). My hypocrisy detector was going off for both of them. But, I think it sounded just a little louder for Biden. If he and Obama are against same-sex marriage, how would they define "committed couples." This is where I scream "a pox on both your houses."
I’ll finish by just noting that Gwen Ifill did a fine job. I believe that the controversy over her new book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" (due out in, ahem, January of 2009), was much ado about nothing. If anything, it helped Palin because any hint of one-sidedness in Ifill’s questioning would have been pounced on by McCain’s surrogates. And besides, are there ANY conservatives on NPR?
So, there we are. Americans, who love a good David versus Goliath story, got to see Palin go toe-to-toe with Biden and give as good as she got. SNL will still do those Tina Fey skits. Only, they just won’t have the same bite. I realize this will make the PDS’ers groan, but that Palin chick has a future in the Republican party.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention that it’s going be an Obama landslide in November?
Matt Maul is author of the blog Maul of America.
Friday, October 03, 2008
The Vice Presidential Debate: It Gets Complicated
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
39 comments:
A moment that stuck out at me was when Gwen brought up Cheney and the Executive Branch and supposed VP powers and whatnot (sorry, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to politics). Palin seemed totally caught off guard by the question that contained a lot of political minutiae and mumbo jumbo.
Her response resembled her Couric performance, where she stammered through and completely avoided the real question with vague answers. Biden seemed to take advantage of the situation by clearly showing his knowledge. He quoted articles and presented a strong, decisive view on what Cheney was trying to do.
Again, it was just a moment that stuck with me.
"reminded me of an Eskimo that’s always talking about snow."
Talk to a lot of eskimos, do you? I agree, they're so dull! It's like, I get it, you have 30 words for snow!
Jonathan, I don't think Palin was stumbling there; I think she was explicitly declaring that she thought what Cheney did was just fine and perfectly maverick-like that she'd approach it the same way. It would've been too much to expect her to disagree with Cheney's approach, but still, it's absolutely scary to think she thinks the VP role is so malleable.
Jonathon, you crack me up. Biden cited Article 1 of the Constitution, which deals with the legislative branch, not the executuive. He was completely wrong! (You could look it up.) The VP is in fact president of the Senate, and has an important role to play, even if the VP only gets to actually vote as a tie-breaker. Biden's forte is making shit up and sounding convincing while doing so. Palin's answer was more detailed and on-point: she will be managing energy issues, and the concerns of special-needs children, in particular, as opposed to Biden's nebulous "advising" Obama on everything.
Funny how where we're coming from colors our interpretation, eh?
Section 3
(blah blah blah)
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
Article 1 is where the only responsibility of the VP is explained, outside of article 2, where it describes the VP's role in succeeding a prez.
Biden specifically referred to the V.P.'s role as president of the Senate. In fact, he said it was the only written role the V.P. actually has. However, just as Biden said, the V.P. is a member of the executive branch, always has been and always will be. Palin's answer was laughable only because it displayed no knowledge of the constitution. Every constitutional lawyer would agree that Biden is correct about the role of the V.P.
Here is what Biden said: "And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress."
Here's the Constitution: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President"
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
These are the essential mentions of the Vice president in the constitution. To think that the Palin was correct is to not understand basic American principles.
"As a non-member of the assembly, the Vice President has no vote unless the Senate is equally divided, in which case the Vice President has what is called a casting vote. This is as contrasted with the Speaker of the House, who has always been chosen from among the Members of the House of Representatives,[38] and as a Member of the assembly can vote to both make or break a tie. This provision is typically seen as one of the "checks and balances" built into the U.S. Constitution, whereby the 3 branches of the federal government (Congress, President, and the courts) are given the ability to influence the others. In this case, the Vice President's ability to preside over the deliberations of the Senate and (more importantly) break tie votes, presumably in favor of the presidential administration's preferences, allows the Executive Branch to influence the behavior of the Senate (and, consequently, Congress)."
That's from a Wikipedia entry on Article 1 of the Constitution. Sounds to me like the VP is NOT a member of the Legislative Branch ("not a member of the Assembly")
Yeah. Biden's the one "making shit up". What idiocy, and how dare these cynical bastards foist this winking used car dealer on us.
mercury
I'm not sure why everyone is giving Palin a free ride based on 'personality'. That isn't going to help when it comes to making the big decisions. Even in the debate, she dodged the questions very frequently whenever the focus moved to an issue she wasn't well enough rehearsed for.
Here's what Palin said.
"We know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and we'll take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda. That is energy independence in America and reform of government overall, and then working with families of children with special needs."
Certainly, Palin's remarks were a bit fuzzy and left her open to the comparison with Cheney (which scored a huge point for Biden). But I didn't see it as Palin making an Al Haig-like claim for power (as when he incorrectly listed the Constitutional chain of succession).
Frankly, I think this is much ado about nothing. Do you honestly see Biden just waiting around to gavel the Senate to order and cast tie votes? The Constitution doesn't prevent VPs from taking a broader role in the administration.
Michael Barone describes how the VP role has evolved since Truman (bold added):
From Why Veeps Matter (Michael Barone)
"...The problem was that everyone knew vice presidents had little to do. Presiding over the Senate is a clerk's job, and opportunities to break ties there seldom arise. As late as the 1950s, veeps did business from an office in the Capitol and had little occasion to visit the White House.
When Harry Truman was summoned there on April 12, 1945, and told of Franklin Roosevelt's death, he did not know that the president was out of the city -- he had met with him just twice in his 82 days as vice president. After Truman's first Cabinet meeting, Secretary of War Henry Stimson took him aside and told him the government was developing a weapon of enormous power. This was the first time Truman had heard about the atomic bomb.
Truman's unpreparedness may have prompted some later presidents to give vice presidents useful things to do. Dwight Eisenhower sent Richard Nixon on important foreign trips. John Kennedy gave Lyndon Johnson responsibility for the space program. Gerald Ford gave the energetic Nelson Rockefeller some assignments, then dropped him from the ticket.
Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale turned the vice presidency around. Mondale had offices and staffers in the West Wing, regular one-on-one meetings with the president and access to top appointees. Their example has been followed since. And presidential nominees have not waited for the very last minute at the convention to pick their VPs since Ronald Reagan did it in 1980. Potential VPs are vetted closely and with a view to how well they could work with the president. An office that was long the vermiform appendix of American government has become a useful organ."
Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker, October 3, 2008:
Most of the [VP debate] commentators, again, seemed to get it wrong, mainly because they were grading on a curve. Palin did "better than expected." On the other hand, she had been expected to do so poorly that she could hardly fail to do better than expected, i.e., she was expected to do better than expected, which means that she did about as well as expected. But according to the insta-polls, the electorate, as opposed to what I once called the expectorate, seems to have concluded fairly clearly that Biden "won," possibly because what the electorate was expecting was a debate between two candidates for Vice-President, not the raw materials for some arcane calculation of who exceeded whose expectations. Biden succeeded in making a case for the Obama-Biden ticket. Palin succeeded mainly in making a case that she, Palin, is a person of near-normal intelligence and great superior adorability.
To completely dodge this discussion about the power of VP (the thought of giving Palin more power after the fallout from the current VP is frankly terrifying) and go back to what I was saying about personality, I think the example Matt Maul gave of Palin's powerful personality, her asking "Can I call you Joe?", is a great example of her calculated and insincere approach. She asked that she would be able to use the "say it ain't so, Joe" line. Soon after this was out of the way, she went back to calling him Senator Biden.
I know my "vote" in all this is to visit or not visit this site, but:
Y'all are not political or Constitutional experts, as amply demonstrated by the post and comment responses from the writer.
I come her for movie analysis, and of course discussion of the most popular art form in the world will, at times, rightfully spill over into the World, including politics.
But there's also something to be said for writing what you know, as well as not alienating fully half of your readers.
For my part, if someone can't see the Sarah Palin is breathtakingly UNqualified to serve ANY kind of national office, it simply means you're analyzing the debate the way Rich Lowry did, with "starbusts" shooting all over the room and dripping down your TV set.
You lose my respect, and, if you keep it up, you'll lose my click. Get back to movies.
P. S. Even when Roger Ebert--whom many around here smugly snub--talks about the debate, he clearly does so in his own area of expertise: optics, theatricality, show business.
Jim emerson...(quoting Hertzberg) the electorate was expecting was a debate between two candidates for Vice-President, not the raw materials for some arcane calculation of who exceeded whose expectations. Biden succeeded in making a case for the Obama-Biden ticket. Palin succeeded mainly in making a case that she, Palin, is a person of near-normal intelligence and great superior adorability.
Hertberg has been slamming Palin since she was picked. So, I can’t imagine him ever giving her props for anything. BUT, as someone who didn't like the Palin pick, I don't disagree with many of his broad points. Okay, the "near-normal intelligence" knock is a cheap shot and the "superior adorability" rap is lifted from a Tina Fey skit.
BUT, I'd hasten to add that much of the same could be said about Obama (and HAS been by opponents in his party). In my humble opinion, Obama frankly hasn't done anything to prove HIS bona fides but look good on TV and make great speeches. If qualifications were what counted in the Dem primaries, then Clinton, Biden, or Edward should be the candidate. Along those lines, I'd further suggest to Hertzberg that Biden made the case for a Biden-Obama ticket.
cde...her asking "Can I call you Joe?", is a great example of her calculated and insincere approach.
calculation and insincerity in politics. I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED :)
Anon... Even when Roger Ebert--whom many around here smugly snub--talks about the debate, he clearly does so in his own area of expertise: optics, theatricality, show business.
I’d offer Ebert's column,"American Idol," panning the Palin pick, as one of many over the years where the legendary film critic ventures into politics and hardly confines himself to "optics, theatricality, show business."
Well I can't say I wasn't expecting this article I also can't say it doesn't find me somewhat aghast as well. If the only recourse one has to defending Palin is saying her folksy charm cuts through the Washington BS, well, how did that last folksy, one of the people pick turn out?
Honestly, her whole "debate" strategy was one of repeating empty talking points which lacked substance and the utter avoidance of questions that strayed from said talking points. Perhaps you believe Biden's actual discussion of issues, numbers and substance about policies didn't play as well as Palin's pandering and winking but to claim that it didn't also reflect, you know, actual qualifications is ridiculous. Do you honestly think Palin by simply equalling ridiculously low expectations (given that there were no follow up questions, those pesky things that seem to stump her when she actually has to think on her toes and mention specifics) proved herself to be a)as qualified as Biden, or b) even comptetent to hold a position such as VP? Can you imagine any other politician getting away with the bullshit she offered? The construction of this Palin image and her place on the ticket is insulting to the electorate (those voters who seem to conspire towards gotcha journalism) and the views on display here seem horribly clouded by preconceived notions and rationalization. Have a goddamn press conference, give an actual interview or two (oh sorry she's given 4 in 5 weeks, two of which were with what are essentially Republican party mouthpieces), the lack of either is actually the biggest insult to voters.
If she is the future of the Republican party, well, the party is more fucked than you can even imagine.
I love it when people complain about what's published on someone else's blog. There's no rule that says you have to read every post, you know.
I thought this explanation of the role of the VP on TalkLeft did a good job (much better than I did) of getting at who got the role-of-the-VP question right at the debate.
Matt--
It's suspicious that your conclusions are shared only by conservative columnists, and are pretty flatly contradicted by polling results that show Biden winning by a healthy margin. The objection to Palin's performance is not so much that she didn't answer the questions asked, but that her answers contained very little substance.
Not to be pedantic, but the Pulp Fiction line was from Jules, who was actually making the point that dogs have more personality than pigs.
And to say that "even Camille Paglia" likes her is laughable. Camille Paglia has yet to meet an anti-feminist stereotype that she doesn't like.
I'm not sure what your argument is for assuming that it's the Palin-haters rather than the Palin-lovers who are "deranged." You would think the burden of proof for demonstrating the competence of a previously unknown politician would fall with that politician herself.
anon...I hardly think my post on the VP debate was pro Palin (unless there's something ambiguous about my statement that During the RNC, I said I didn’t like the Palin pick. I still don’t).
Palin can't be blamed for the fact that the yardstick for debate performance of the last two decades has been who could score more score sound bite points or perform better.
Furthermore, if one were to apply your standard of evalutating the "actual discussion of issues, numbers and substance" to the Democratic Primary debates, then Obama lost hands down and Clinton should be the nominee.
It isn't a question of your post being pro or anti Palin its a question of how you choose to evaluate the debate. You can crawl under the cover of "it wasn't my idea to say personalities trump substance" but do you yourself believe that? Do you belive she displayed the qualifications to be VP? Do you believe she didn't avoid numerous questions and repeated empty phrases? Just because many choose to drift in the realms of personality politics doesn't mean substance doesn't matter. The equation of Obama to Palin on rhetoric is a foolhardy one. You can push the talking point that Obama has avoided specificities but look at his speeches, debate, etc. I can't really agree that holds true. I just feel like I'm reading too much rehashed talking points and not a lot of actual analysis.
I love it when people complain about what's published on someone else's blog. There's no rule that says you have to read every post, you know.
And there is no rule that says you can't state that you disagree with what someone wrote. That is such a foolish argument, that you don't have to read it. Well, you can also read it and state your contrary opinions. Its published with the intention of being read!
And, some numbers: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299
The insane thing is that there is little or no discussion of the fact that Sarah Palin's very presence on the GOP ticket in the first place is all a deeply cynical and desperate calculation.
Anyone with sense can see that there's nothing whatsoever authentic about this empty-headed huckster. ("Can I call you Joe so I can knife you in the side later?") Again and again with the Repubs it's the Emperor's New Clothes, and the rest of us have to suffer through humoring the idiots who fall for it.
Mercury
Anon said...It isn't a question of your post being pro or anti Palin its a question of how you choose to evaluate the debate. You can crawl under the cover of "it wasn't my idea to say personalities trump substance" but do you yourself believe that?
No. And I said that in my post on the Presidential Debate: "Political debates have become glorified press conferences where the participants have a very narrow window of opportunity to score some sound bite points and get out. These small moments may appeal to our Thunderdome mentality, but I’m not so sure are very instructive."
However, these events are what they are.
Do you belive she displayed the qualifications to be VP? Do you believe she didn't avoid numerous questions and repeated empty phrases?
In both cases no. And, again, I've said as much in my posts leading up to and including the VP Debate.
Just because many choose to drift in the realms of personality politics doesn't mean substance doesn't matter.
Agreed. So, I challenge you again to explain why Clinton isn't the candidate?
The equation of Obama to Palin on rhetoric is a foolhardy one. You can push the talking point that Obama has avoided specificities but look at his speeches, debate, etc. I can't really agree that holds true.
If all you have to prove Obama's qualifications are his "speeches, debates" (I'm not sure what "etc." refers to) and NOT his accomplishments (an accounting of which I'm still waiting to hear about), then you don't have much of a case.
I just feel like I'm reading too much rehashed talking points and not a lot of actual analysis.
Really? What "talking points" derided the supposed wisdom of "soccer moms" or compared Palin to a Mary Kay saleslady. AND is ANYONE discussing BOTH candidates resoundingly negative position on gay marriage rights? Even famed Log Cabin Republican turned rapid Obama supporter, Andrew Sullivan, has been incredibly silent about that on his blog.
Well, the comment on speeches, interviews and debates was responding to the context of debate answers, spoken words, re. the specificities given in answers by Biden vs. Palin. That seemed pretty clear in the context of a dismissal of the substance of Palin's answers. If one does a search for Obama + accomplishments you will find many documentations of legislative accomplishments in both the Illinois and US senates. Perhaps you will dismiss that as being coy but I trust you can use google pretty easily. If you like here is a link or two, though they do come from democratic boards so perhaps that will be seen as delusional.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4678548
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4578207
Your shifting of questions and arguments here seems like you did pay some close attention to Palin in the debate.
The equation of dismissing Obama on the account of dismissing Palin's "personality" is I find a faulty one. I don't think it is a question of those being equal. Saying then why isn't Clinton the nominee then appears apple to oranges. Perhaps because both Obama and Clinton had actual records, had actual outlined policies and positions. People voted based on those not on the Fox News propogated belief that people just like Obama. Dude is kind of a policy wonk, not particularly cool personality. He was a constitutional law professor. He isn't the "celebrity" that McCain thinks he is.
RE: Gay marriage, the question posed by Ifill concerned same-sex couples civil rights. Yes, in an ideal world both candidates would say yes to marriage for all. And I agree this is a suffering of playing politics, hoping not to alienate voters. But there is a question of supporting and promoting equal rights while withholding the title marriage and not supporting equal rights. Andrew Sullivan did respond to Palin's statements, perhaps hers are more in need of analysis as there is more question on where she stands: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/palin-on-benefi.html#more
I don't know which anon I am speaking to but seriously, get over yourself. You claim to not come here for political analysis and that Keith should stick to just writing about movies. Then you proceed to rip apart the argument and claim Matt is not capable of writing effectively about politics. Why do you feel the need to comment anonymously? Keith and MSZ have requested on more than one occasion that people not post anonymously. These writers are willing to put their name on their work, you should be able to do the same when you criticize them. In addition, why do you get to decide who is and who is not capable of astute political analysis? I have enjoyed reading all of the diverse opinions presented at The House. If you don't like it then shut up and get out so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves. I don't question your right to criticize the analysis. It's your arrogant assessment of the Keith's right to publish whatever he wishes on his blog that is infuriating. As Joan says...it's not your blog. Go start your own and I'm sure we'll all be happy to mosey on over and tell you how much it sucks.
Wow. Too many anonymouses! Who's who? Anyway, Anonymous 9:58, I don't think it's fair to say that "many around here smugly snub" Roger Ebert. The founder of HND certain does not, and I'd say in general it happens here much less than you'd expect.
Another tangential point: I love Michael Barone and he's certainly phenomenally knowledgeable, but, although there was a shift in how VPs were treated after Truman, it's somewhat misleading to pick him as a typical example of earlier arrangements. Roosevelt did not respect Truman; He pointedly and completely left him on the outside of all important dealings. He was a man seemingly in nearly complete denial of him impending death and acted with a concordant severe lack of judgment as far as preparing the man who would have the responsibility of the world on his shoulders.
Re: Gay Marriage Rights
As far as I recall, Palin said she would 'tolerate' gays and would not support gay marriage. Biden said Obama would give equal civil rights to gay couples. Ifill later asked if Biden would allow gay marriage, and he said no, as they claimed to think there was a specific religious element to marriage that they didn't want to interfere with, but they would provide equal civil rights to gay couples. She then asked Palin if McCain/Palin would provide equal civil rights to gay couples and she completely dodged the question and said she agreed with Biden about what marriage means (i.e. religious institution between man and woman).
Ifill then said something like "Wonderful, you agree".
It's pretty clear there was not truly an agreement there. If you read between the lines (Palin choosing not to answer the question) it seemed pretty clear to me than Obama/Biden would support equal civil rights for gay couples but not provide the title of 'marriage' while McCain/Palin would not provide these equal civil rights. If I'm reading this wrong (it seems in line with Republican positions though) its because Palin said literally nothing when questioned on the issue.
Jared....It's suspicious that your conclusions are shared only by conservative columnists, and are pretty flatly contradicted by polling results that show Biden winning by a healthy margin.
Frankly conservative columnists have been all over the board. And, I did state that I thought Biden won on points.
The objection to Palin's performance is not so much that she didn't answer the questions asked, but that her answers contained very little substance.
Well actually a good part of the complaints leveled at her WAS about not asking the question asked. And I did acknowledge that many of her answers "sounded "rehearsed."
Not to be pedantic, but the Pulp Fiction line was from Jules, who was actually making the point that dogs have more personality than pigs.
Ugh..you're right about it being Jules. But the statement, in the context of the conversation, could technically be applied to either dogs OR pigs.
And to say that "even Camille Paglia" likes her is laughable. Camille Paglia has yet to meet an anti-feminist stereotype that she doesn't like.
You dismiss Pagila a bit too off-handedly.
Anon...If one does a search for Obama + accomplishments you will find many documentations of legislative accomplishments in both the Illinois and US senates. Perhaps you will dismiss that as being coy but I trust you can use google pretty easily...If you like here is a link or two, though they do come from democratic boards so perhaps that will be seen as delusional.
I'll be equally coy and do the same.
The equation of dismissing Obama on the account of dismissing Palin's "personality" is I find a faulty one. I don't think it is a question of those being equal. Saying then why isn't Clinton the nominee then appears apple to oranges.
We'll never agree on this one.
RE: Gay marriage,...Andrew Sullivan did respond to Palin's statements, perhaps hers are more in need of analysis as there is more question on where she stands: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/palin-on-benefi.html#more<
In the post you cite, Sullivan only takes Palin to task over the benefits question. I was referring to the gay marriage issue on which Biden forcefully agreed with Palin. Mr. Sullivan, whose book, "Virtually Normal," addresses that topic had been silent about the fact that the Obama/Biden ticket seems to hold such an absolutely negative position on that issue (well, to be fair, I haven't checked his blog yet today).
To clarify the gay rights issue, here is what was said during the debate, copied from a transcript:
IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?
BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
(LAUGHTER)
Biden said there should be no difference in civil rights for gay couples, Palin did not. At the end, when she was questioned over whether she said that no distinction should be made in civil rights for homosexual and heterosexual couples, she dodged the issue and instead chose to reiterate Biden's rejection of officially granting the title of marriage. She didn't want to state the truth, which is no, she does not support equal civil rights for gay couples.
cde...I'm not going to cast Palin as a champion for gay rights (she certainly came close to saying "some of my best friends are gay"), but as I said, she did veto a bill that would have banned same sex benefits for public employees in Alaska.
Palin said...But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
I'd just pull the phrase, albeit murky, "contracts being signed" out of her reply to suggest that she's more in support for gay civil rights then you give her credit for.
In the end, it's sadly clear that Biden and Palin were both walking on political eggshells to avoid alienating their core constiuents. And, as I said, I found Biden's "No" to the gay marriage issue a bit too forceful and "us tooish" in response to Palin's "no gay marriage" stance.
Noma...Another tangential point: I love Michael Barone and he's certainly phenomenally knowledgeable, but, although there was a shift in how VPs were treated after Truman, it's somewhat misleading to pick him as a typical example of earlier arrangements. Roosevelt did not respect Truman; He pointedly and completely left him on the outside of all important dealings. He was a man seemingly in nearly complete denial of him impending death and acted with a concordant severe lack of judgment as far as preparing the man who would have the responsibility of the world on his shoulders.
I think Barone was just citing the Roosevelt/Truman situation as what prompted Ike to be more inclusive of Nixon in his admimistration. But earlier Presidents and VPs certainly didn't have the same type of relationship they do today. For instance, Teddy Roosevelt was put on McKinley's ticket as VP by the Republican party basically just to get him out of their hair. Of course, the punchline was that McKinley was assassinated and we know the rest.
While I'm at it, CDE, one thing I forgot to say Re: Biden's gay marriage answer at the debate (bold added)...
No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
Bunk. To pull faith into the mix, especially for a Roman Catholic like Biden who should know better, is a cop out.
Right now I could get married in my church AND, if I don't take care of the civil paperwork, still not be "married" in the eyes of the state. Likewise, a simple civil proceeding does not fullfil the requirements for the Sacrement of marriage. Furthermore, if got a civil divorce and became "single" as far as the state is concerned but didn't follow the church's procedure on dissolving the sacrement, I'd still be considered "married" in my church.
That said, an Obama/Biden adminstration COULD create a civil same-sex marriage right that also allows various faiths to maintain their own respective dogma. That means, a gay couple could get "legally" married, which may put them outside of the rules of their respective faiths, but would still allow them to enjoy the civil benefits of such a union.
On the matter of Clinton vs Obama and personality vs. substance, while the "we'll never agree on this one" line in the sand has been drawn, there's something to be said about the fact that when two candidates policies are not that different from one another, character/personality becomes a bigger point.
There's a significant difference in policy between Obama and McCain, and when add the current state of the economy to the mix, personality moves down the list of importance to the average voter.
In other words, it's apple season right now... those oranges aren't in season anymore.
drake...There's a significant difference in policy between Obama and McCain
I actually don't grant that assumption.
McCain's recent erratic reaction to the bailout issue as compared with Obama, has been the personality factor that accounts for the former's drop in the polls.
McCain's recent erratic reaction to the bailout issue as compared with Obama, has been the personality factor that accounts for the former's drop in the polls.
"...the personality factor" is a good way to put it, as it's just one (and a minor one) of many factors that help explain McCain's recent dip in the polls, the one that the media has more a stake in, obviously (theater!)
Of course, the number one factor (and probably the most boring one to the 24-hour news cycle - save perhaps, the un-bore-able Tweety) is that he's a member of the incumbent party with a president's approval hovering at 21%.
drake...There's a significant difference in policy between Obama and McCain
I actually don't grant that assumption.
Is there a difference on foreign policy? On healthcare? On regulation vs. deregulation? On the environment? On energy? On the treatment of veterans? On abortion rights? On women's rights? On tax cuts? On the economy? On potential supreme court appointees? On immigration? On education?
Really? Do you find their positions on all these issues to be pretty much similar? I can't say I do.
Concerning McCain's "erratic behavior" in regards to economic crisis, this is not just a question of personality. It is a question of competence. It is a question of judgement. It is a question of politicizing the economic crisis. It is a question of temperment. This is not empty personality but qualities that are certainly relevant to he or she who wishes to earn ones vote in leading this country. And yes it is obviously due to party association. But to chalk that up to "personality politics", that which might lay upon the same plane as saying Obama is a terrorist and friend of Ayers is taking David Baldacci and Flaubert to be equivalent because they both write novels.
"And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also."
Take that and the "joe six-packs" and "hockey mom's" and all the bs and empty phrases and lack of interviews and lack of press conferences and repeated stump speeches and what does it leave one with? Nothing of substance.
Drake...Of course, the number one factor (and probably the most boring one to the 24-hour news cycle - save perhaps, the un-bore-able Tweety) is that he's a member of the incumbent party with a president's approval hovering at 21%.
Amen.
Is there a difference on foreign policy?
McCain wants to stay the course in Iraq, Obama wants a timetable but would defer to the generals (whatever that means). He also has promised to enter Afghanistan and Pakistan if need be.
On healthcare?
McCain claims to want a free market approach, Obama is after a limited government plan.
On regulation vs. deregulation? If you're suggesting that McCain's deregulation stance is what caused the financial crash, think again. He proposed more stringent controls on Fanny and Freddy a while ago (which Dodd and Frank opposed). McCain also was part of McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations that made him an outcast in his party.
On the environment?
Both acknowledge global warming.
On energy?
While both oppose ANWR drilling, McCain is more in favor of finding more domestic sources. While Obama has proposed a ten year plan for "energy independence" he's less supportive of such domestic drilling. Frankly, I'm not sure how he'd get there from here. Obama also called for renegotiating NAFTA. Which would alienate our number one source of imported oil Canada (30+ percent).
On the treatment of veterans?
The suggestion that McCain is less supportive of veterans is BS.
On abortion rights?
Classic Pro-choice/Pro-life difference. I'm a Roe v. Wade supporter, so I don't want to see it overturned. BUT, I'm also in favor of a late-term ban (which IS allowed under Roe v. wade). Obama doesn't seem to be.
On women's rights?
Seems like a wash to me
On tax cuts?
Obama has promised to cut 95% of the population's taxes. Can't see how he does that. Can anyone? While he's talking tax cuts now, McCain opposed Bush's original tax cut plan. Yet another time he was ridiculed by his party.
On the economy?
Both populists who promise to fight greedy, corrupt forces.
On potential supreme court appointees?
A lawyer friend of mine, and Obama supporter, claims that Obama's legal philosophy is surprisingly conservative.
On immigration?
Both seem on the same page. Remember the bill McCain sponsered with Kennedy that practically ended his chances for the nomination?
On education?
You tell me.
Except for some nuances in the margins, I honestly don't see a significant difference between the two policy-wise.
McCain's grandstanding on the bailout was incredibly bungled political stunt. But, I don't think it proves anything about his temperament except to reinforce the opinions of those who already have reached conclusions on the matter.
I'm at work and can't take time to fully respond at the moment, but just a brief note:
First,
On tax cuts?
Obama has promised to cut 95% of the population's taxes. Can't see how he does that. Can anyone? While he's talking tax cuts now, McCain opposed Bush's original tax cut plan. Yet another time he was ridiculed by his party.
And now he supports making permanent the Bush tax cuts on the top, what is it, 2 percent. You can't cherrypick some statement from years ago which contradicts what he's running on. (That in itself is a huge issue. That McCain has sold out this "Maverick" image he is so proud of ((dubious in itself)) to pander and do whatever it takes to get elected. Compare any statement from the past on the type of campaign he said he would run and the campaign as is run. Compare taxes, a number of issues. That is a huge problem. The contradictions between his campaign and what he has claimed in the past are endless)
The question of temperment is about how one makes decisions while leading. I've personally had enough of one who has the absolute conviction of their first instincts.
On the environment?
Both acknowledge global warming.
Don't play dumb and say that that is all there is to questions of the environment. You say global warming is legit so you think the same? And for the record MCcain's running mate isn't so sold on that...
On women's rights?
Seems like a wash to me
Come on man.
McCain,- opposed the Equal Pay Bill for Women, and skipped a vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that would ensure women an opportunity to recover back pay for discrimination once discovered (he later acknowledged he would have voted against the Act);
- initially supported abandoning the Family and Medical Leave Act;
- opposed legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women with health care services such as breast and cervical cancer;
- opposed a Senate initiative to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program;
- promotes abstinence-only education, a policy that overlooks HIV/AIDS prevention;
- opposed allocating $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions;
- opposed legislation designed to improve the availability of contraceptives for women;
- opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control;
- voted against increasing funding for law enforcement programs designed to address domestic violence concerns, including the Office of Violence Against Women program and the Center for Missing and Exploited Children;
Look, maybe I'll be able to respond further later but I don't even think it is worthwhile at this point. We're both talking past each other. I think you're taking things out of context and giving limited arguments. Do you really find the women's right question a wash? If so, well there is no point in continuing this discussion. I'm sure you think the same of me. Essentially we probably both think the other is full of shit and nothing anyone says is going to change it.
Oscar...I'm at work too, so I'll cut to the chase:
First off, this is one of thosed conversations that would play better over beer and cigars and not the more constrictive, less nuanced, format of a comments section. I hope I don't come across as confrontational, I don't mean to.
Certainly McCain's record on many issues has shifted back and forth. Now, those could be legitimately viewed as lacking any conviction. And I wouldn't accuse you of being full of shit because for taking that stance. Quite the contrary. That McCain has altered his positions to avoid alienating his GOP base is a legitimate critcism. And I'll grant that the "Maverick" thing was stale the first time he used it. It's shorthand for the fact that he often pisses off his own party.
Listing a cacophony of bills frankly doesn't necessarily prove anything. The devil is in the details. And as we've seen with the financial bailout package, they often contain items that have nothing to do with what their title would suggest.
As with all Senators, McCain has cast tons of votes. That's why Senators don't win the White House. Obama has the advantage of not having such a lengthy Washington record.
Before this campaign started and he won the VP nomination, Obama's own running mate sang McCain's praises. Joe Biden was indeed quoted as saying that he'd run on a McCain ticket! That would seem illustrative of something.
BUT, and I'll probably address this in my 2nd debate post, given the campaign he's run, it's hard for me to feel anything but empathy for those who don't like McCain.
Matt -- I think Barone was just citing the Roosevelt/Truman situation as what prompted Ike to be more inclusive of Nixon in his admimistration.
Yes. Haven't checked, but I bet you're correct.
i can't to see those additional VP debates that Palin promised
Post a Comment