I didn't watch the vice presidential debate last night. Listening to the post debate coverage, I was rendered speechless by Governor Palin's assertion that she wasn't going to answer the questions "the way her opponent might like or the way the moderator might like", and then proceeded to not answer the questions at all.
Lady, you are presuming to be the Vice President of the United States of America. When a citizen asks you a question, or when a member of the media, acting as a proxy for the citizens, asks you a question, YOU ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. Not some other question. That's not debate strategy, or cleverness, or rhetorical flourish, that's RUDENESS. Garden variety rudeness. I don't accept that from my twelve year old, and I won't accept that from you.
Sarah Palin's ridiculous evasion of answering questions angered me as well. It reminded me a lot of my ex boyfriend who would intentionally dance around the answer to a question, but would give me reasons why he was doing so, so it would pacify me, and eventually make me forget that I wanted the answer to something.
ReplyDeleteI learned something from that man, and if I told him once, I told him a million times...that hole is NOT... oh, wait, wrong topic. I told him a million times, when I ask, you answer.
The funny thing is is that there are a lot (or at least I know of a lot) of undecided voters. I can honestly say I'm one of them. I'm not overly impressed by either side, but I tend to lean to Obamabiden. However, if Palin, or McCain would blow me away in their debates or intentions or plan of action for their 'time in office', then I could be swayed.
Palin needs to know that we all know what has gone into her mouth to get her to where she is, but the things that come out need to be equally as powerful and hardcore-honest in order for her to go near the White House.
I frankly can't see how anyone can be for McCain/Palin.
ReplyDeleteThat's what the 1/3 of the population that is hardcore Democrats tend to think, and the 1/3 that is hardcore Republican can't see how anyone can support Obama-Biden.
ReplyDeleteAlso, "when a member of the media, acting as a proxy for the citizens"
ReplyDeleteGwen Ifil is not a proxy of the citizens. The media has no such proxy role. She represents PBS. The "proxy of the citizens" role is Constitutionally reserved for senators and representatives.
Even her role as an "impartial" member of the media was compromised when her pro-Obama book was revealed. She gets bigger book sales if she runs Palin down in order to ensure an Obama victory. So basically, you had 3 people in that debate for two campaigns: two from the Obama campaign (Ifil and Biden) and one from the McCain campaign.
Well, there weren't any other citizens there (who could speak), so Ifill had to be the proxy of the citizens. I have yet to see any evidence that Ifill tilted the field in favor of Obama.
ReplyDeleteAnd do you really believe that a journalist is going to sabotage their good name and reputation (and, possibly, employment) in order to win theoretical book sales? I read a lot of books, and I am probably not going to read hers-not because it's bad, just because, based on what I know of it, it's just not a story that interests me all that much.
I still frankly can't imagine why someone could support McCain/Palin.
The way for a journalist to sabotate a campaign is to be very subtle about it. Don't be like Dan Rather, who made up a George W. Bush AWOL story complete with Microsoft Word 97 documents from the early 1970s.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting for Dan Rather to burst back on the scene with an expose about the JFK assassination based on information he extracted from Jack Ruby's iPhone.
So, who moderate the next debate? I kind of want to see it at the State Theatre.
Brokaw.
ReplyDeleteRather didn't make up that story-they bought a line fed to them and didn't follow up on it hard enough.
There still isn't any evidence he fulfilled his service requirements.
Rather made the story his own by
ReplyDelete1) not checking it
2) after it was proven that the evidence was forged, he insisted it wasn't for a couple of weeks after.
As for evidence, Bush got an honorable discharge. That closes the case. People don't get that unless they do what they are supposed to do. Undistinguished? Certainly. Like so many who served in Vietnam stateside and overseas.
What about Brokaw?
He's the moderator for tomorrow's debate.
ReplyDeleteHonorable discharges are the default state-you are given one unless there is some reason not to.
He did not finish his time-he got in fraudulently, and he got out fraudulently. He took off early to go to business school. Who is allowed to do that? There is plenty of evidence of people who were in that unit that never saw him. Garry Trudeau even offered a cash prize to anyone who could prove he was there.
Brokaw is a class act. More than that, even. So was Peter Jennings and also Tim Russert. Not that they have anything to do with anything, but I figured I would name two other men who easily live up to the vaunted status that these anchor types have. And then some.
ReplyDelete"Honorable discharges are the default state-you are given one unless there is some reason not to."
The fraud you name would be a reason not to. A big reason. Since it did not occur, he was discharged honorably. Despite what Rather's forged documents may claim.
Yes, it would be a reason not to give him an honorable discharge-if he were John Q. Citizen, and not the scion of a politically connected family.
ReplyDeleteHe left before his term was complete, which is something that you and I, similarly situated, could not do.
So, what we have here is:
ReplyDelete- The evidence that Bush did something wrong was forged
- He received an honorable discharge, which you only get when you do what you are supposed to do
- Comparison to a hypothetical person (John Q. Citizen) which gets even further afield from the nonexistent "Bush AWOL" case.