VP Debate analysis: Palin hits home run
posted at 7:54 am on October 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Normally, I would have written this post last night, but as it turns out, it was almost impossible to do any writing at The Patriot’s event last night at Trocadero’s. In a way, that turned out to be a blessing, as it got my head out from behind the laptop screen and allowed a greater focus on the debate itself, as well as the crowd of hundreds that came to Trocadero’s to watch it with the Northern Alliance Radio Network. And I can tell you that the crowd had a great time watching this debate.
VP debates usually feature two people attacking two other people who aren’t on stage. In this case, we could make that three people. Joe Biden did a good job in carrying the Democratic talking points last night, attacking both George Bush and John McCain and making the case that they’re one and the same. Biden actually did a much better job staying on point in this regard than did Barack Obama in his first debate, sticking with it all evening long. Biden delivered a good performance in the debate, sounding authoritative even while telling whoppers, such as the claim that NATO had driven Hezbollah from Lebanon, a flabbergasting moment from someone whose strength is supposed to be foreign policy. Overall, though, Biden delivered a competent performance, as he almost always does in debates.
However, that simply wasn’t enough. Sarah Palin demonstrated both the wisdom of adding her to the ticket and the folly of the McCain campaign’s press bubble for the last four weeks. Palin was confident, assertive to the point of aggressive, knowledgeable, and open. She repeatedly went after Biden, which is not usually a tactic seen much in VP debates (candidates usually attack the presidential nominees), and Biden had no answer for Palin. On foreign policy, she offered good answers, made only a couple of rhetorical stumbles in segues when she wanted to change the subject, and delivered an exceptionally fine performance.
In fact, Palin had an answer ready for the entire Democratic strategy of tying McCain to Bush, exposing it as a tiresome and empty allegation:
PALIN: Say it ain’t so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let’s look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. …
No, in fact, when we talk about the Bush administration, there’s a time, too, when Americans are going to say, “Enough is enough with your ticket,” on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game. …
But for a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there’s just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that’s where you’re going.
Biden then attempted to bluster his way through a response, using a “past is prologue” excuse, but essentially proving her point. The Democrats have run their 2004 campaign all over again as the anti-Bush ticket, this time with a less-offputting nominee. Palin has been the only person in this campaign to effectively make that point.
Moreover, thanks to the media reaction to Palin on the basis of her interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, expectations had been set rather low. Biden and the Democrats talked about her experience at debates as a way of raising that bar, but one has to doubt whether Biden really believed she could play on his level. He seemed flustered at times — at one point tugging on his collar as she attacked him, to the delight of the Trocadero’s crowd. Even without those low expectations, she beat Biden — and the nation got a look at the real Sarah Palin.
Will this boost McCain’s standing in this race? I think it will, and I thought that even before I saw the Frank Luntz focus group. McCain needed this debate victory tonight, and it may restart the Palin phenomenon, just in time for the final stretch of the election. This time, though, the McCain campaign has to get Palin out in press conferences, interviews, and contact with the people. She’s sharp, able, and energetic, and she could win this election for McCain if he would just let her.
Update: I want to thank Jazz Shaw for moderating last night’s chat room, and his take on the debate is here. Bottom line:
Point to Palin for the race from me. The pundits will tear the individual statements apart for weeks, but Governor Palin not only beat expectations, but beat Biden fair and square.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
McCain can’t give names because he and Bush are complicit in the credit crisis. A number of years ago (2004?) they encouraged illegal immigrants to get mortgages so they would be be less likely to get deported.
You see the Republicans can’t expose the Democrats for their social engineering foolishness without bringing down some strategically placed “compassionate conservatives” with them. So there isn’t going to be any exposee – it would not be good for McCain.
aengus on October 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Is McCain the weak link?
albill on October 3, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Hey! Leave them alone… they may dislike Palin but I’m sure they all LOVE the energizer bunny…
CC
CapedConservative on October 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM
When will Katie Couric report on Biden’s 14 lies?
marklmail on October 3, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Haven’t read all the posts but here I go anyway…
Did anybody else notice how nervous and twitchy Joe Biden was? At the end of nearly every one of Joe’s responses, he jerked his head towards Palin like she was in mid-air about land on him and clobber him. The first time he did it he jerked his head so violently I though a stage light had crashed to the stage, or he’d heard a gunshot.
He was twitchy, always jerking his head towards her with a worried look on his face.
I think Palin came off very well, honest and forthright despite being a small town girl thrown into the national politics shark tank; Biden came off as a typical greasy plastic politician spewing BS.
In the end, it was a Rorschach Test: people are going to see what they want to see.
rockbend on October 3, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I tend to agree with you, but Obama seems to be getting mileage from playing the blame game on Bush.
csdeven on October 3, 2008 at 10:31 AM
right2bright on October 3, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I will agree that naming names may not be the best course but he has got to show that he was aware of the problem several years ago and tried to fix it. Many people want to know how in the world we got to this point. AND Sen. Biden had the nerve to say that Sen. Obama had warned the public but cannot produce any proof. Sen. McCain can.
Cindy Munford on October 3, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Can you provide a link so I can check the context?
Thanks.
csdeven on October 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Congratulations Gov. Palin! Definitely a home run.
Mulligan on October 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM
True. However, to the Left, Bush is the enemy, right?
OldEnglish on October 3, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I was both relieved and disappointed. And I have to add, encouraged.
Relieved because Gov. Palin did not make a complete fool of herself, and was engaging without sounding juvenile.
Disappointed because she had to resort to talking points and little set speeches, and clearly is still not conversant with the issues.
If anyone objective—i.e. not involved with these campaigns—had scored the debate, qua debate, Sen. Biden would have won hands down. He bombarded Gov. Palin with ‘facts’ (many of which were either false or misleading, or both) and arguments (many of which were specious or disingenuous, or both), to which she had no reply, no riposte.
Apparently she was advised, when confronted with an argument which she could not counter, or a question (even from the moderator) that she could not answer, to simply change the subject, start reciting a set speech about something else. The moderator, challenged beforehand because of her public pro-Obambi position, let these evasions slide. Was it for fear of being accused of bias?
Substantively I was also disappointed because Sarah Palin let Joe Biden get away with all manner of misstatements and errors of fact. And she failed to challenge him on his egregious history of being ‘Wrong-Way’ Biden: against the Alaska pipeline, against the Gulf War, in favor of turning Iraq into Yugoslavia, etc. If Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, or Tim Pawlenty had been up there, they would have eviscerated Sen. Biden.
Gov. Palin spoke forcefully, even compellingly, but her arguments were formulaic, mostly rhetorical, or just weak. Her statement on ‘climate change’ was just as incoherent as the one she gave Katie Couric last week. Is this because she’s having trouble meshing her own sensible views with Sen. McCain’s idiotic position? Or because she doesn’t understand the issue?
When Sarah Palin talks about Alaska, she is smart, sure-footed, and convincing. When she talks about national and international issues, she still appears out of her depth. However, I was relieved that she was able to stand up there for 90 minutes with a veteran Senator, chock-full of decades of Senate-floor and committee debates, and appear unfazed, even cheerful. Most of us would have been scared stiff, but she wasn’t. That was impressive. And when she went off-script, as she did several times, she was engaging, even funny. Sen. Biden managed a few grimaced smiles, but otherwise came across as workmanlike, deadpan. Does he really want to be Vice President, an understudy to this ambitious, wet-behind-the-ears kid who knew no more than Sarah Palin a year or two ago? Remember what John Nance Garner said of the Vice Presidency: “It ain’t worth a bucket of warm piss” (later bowdlerized to ‘spit’).
Sen. Biden is at this point a time-server, going through the motions after his failed presidential bid. He was chosen to add foreign-policy expertise and weight to the Obambi ticket. As for he latter, he may succeeded: my wife thought he displayed far more ‘gravitas’ than Sarah Palin. I thought he was his usual, smug, pompous self, ready to propound any half-arsed idea as if it were Gospel truth.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a natural political talent who captivates people with her ready smile and disarming, folksy manner. Her instinctual grounding in the basic (conservative) principles of the American Experiment lead her in the right directions, even when she is short on the facts. If she is not the policy wonk that a multi-term Senator is, she will only grow in knowledge and competence in national affairs. Even if the McCain ticket loses, I don’t think we’ve seen the last of her.
So all told, I was encouraged. She brings energy and life to an otherwise lackluster campaign. I especially liked her closing statement:
It’s all about freedom, really. Obambi doesn’t get it; Sarah does.
MrLynn on October 3, 2008 at 10:38 AM
No prob.
aengus on October 3, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Oh I think you are just slightly. True, Palin doesn’t have depth of knowledge of what goes on inside the beltway and that is part of why conservatives are thrilled with her presence on the ticket. True also that there would be a steep learning curve if she had to very quickly take over the Presidency. But, last night proved that she’s not the yokel from Alaska the MSM has tried to suggest. Palin was sharp, focused, and easily beat up a man whose entire life has been devoted to running for public office and preening himself as a great statesman.
Will Palin be ready for the top job in 2012? Hard to tell and few VPs have managed to make the leap directly (GHWB and Calvin Coolidge) through the electoral process since Thomas Jefferson became President in 1801. Most times succession from VP directly to POTUS was unexpected (Ford, LBJ, Truman, Calvin Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Chester Arthur, Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler). The fact of the matter is that Palin is what is keeping hope alive for John McCain.
highhopes on October 3, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Just a side note… Did anyone notice the camera on Sarah had it’s sharpness turned up more…. Nixon vs Kennedy
deptofredundancydept on October 3, 2008 at 10:41 AM
From Hugh Hewitt:
Sarah Palin’s comeback performance last night re-energized the GOP base, reignited her anti-Manhattan-Beltway elites message and re-opened the door to John McCain.
Now he has to walk through it.
His simple, closing message ought to be that the world is threatened by terrorism, and the global economy is threatened by rising taxes, chains on productivity and pressure on trade.
McCain needs to declare that he’s been around a long time, and he’s seen all the big mistakes made and all the costs paid, and that he isn’t going to stand for it now.
McCain should pledge to be John McCut from day one in the White House:
He’ll cut taxes on new businesses and construction to jump start a flat economy and invigorate employment;
He’ll cut federal spending to make; sure we have the resources for those that need it and not those who have gotten fat off of subsidies;
He’ll cut the chains that government has put on productivity, allowing builders to build and energy companies to explore and producers to make;
He’ll cut ever trade barrier he can find and commit to an export economy that will surge the growth in American production of the goods and services demanded around the globe;
He’ll cut the corrupt culture of self-dealing that allowed Freddie and Fannie to pump hundreds of billions of bad loans to over-their-head borrowers and into the economy and thereby infect our financial system to the point of collapse;
And finally, he’ll cut the MSM down to size, calling them on their ridiculous double standard that sought to impale Palin while protecting Obama from his past. McCain should demand a MSM that serves that common interest, not the interest of Beltway-Manhattan elites and which holds all elected officials, not just conservative ones, to the fire. McCain should particularly demand that big media look at Fannie and Freddie and who turned them into Frankensteins and who profited thereby.
The “mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore” tone would reflect the mood in the country after the financial tremors of the past month, and the disgust with the Pelosi-Reid Congress and increasingly an absent Obama who, even when he was to be found, spoke only in the sort of finger-in-the-wind cliches that work in seminars but not in crises and certainly not in war.
John McCain has an opportunity not just to win but to demand senators and Congressmen and women he can work with to set the economy right and continue on the path to victory in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider war.
A country at war and on the brink of economic crisis cannot afford four years of massive tax hikes, redistributionist rhetoric, and retreat. The Obama plan is depression and defeat delivered with ironic detachment. John McCain can stop that from happening, and he ought to spend the next 33 days promising to do so.
Keemo on October 3, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Real question which showed the American people who they were has not even been disected yet…
The one where they were asked if the worst happened, and they were suddenly President… would their be changes from the Presidents policies…
Biden came off as a Yes man… worshiping the feet of the one…
Palin basicly said that while she agreed with most of McCain’s stuff, there would be some changes…
Stark difference… Palin’s answer was realistic… Biden’s was the answer of a politician.
Romeo13 on October 3, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I didn’t notice that but I did notice how quickly they cut away whenever Biden began sneering.
highhopes on October 3, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Debates aren’t about reciting minutia. The Dems never seem to get that. If one can take complex themes, distill them to their essence, then communicate them directly to the people, he/she will convince a small percentage. That’s what Palin did.
pugwriter on October 3, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Um, not quite. I read the Malkin article and the closest Michelle comes to a damning indictment is this:
Even then, Michelle cites this as part of the problem – not the cause of the problem. Like it or not, the main culprits in this mess are Dodd, Frank, Raines, Gorelick and a few others – all Democrats. If he chose to, McCain could go nuclear on these guys.
ManlyRash on October 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM
from yahoo news ( always leaning left imho)
PALIN: Criticized Obama’s “plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program” for health care, and added: “I don’t think it’s going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the Feds.”
THE FACTS: Wrong on several counts. Obama’s plan does not provide for universal coverage, only mandates insurance for children and doesn’t turn the system over to the government. Most people would still get private insurance through their work. Obama proposes that the government subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who have trouble affording it and he’d set up an exchange to negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers — with one option being a government-run plan.
___- well perahsp these guys should read this….
why do liberals flat out lie about their candidate? o yeah because if they told the truth they would not win a single state
Donut on October 3, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Of course they’re the main culprits. Just the kther day I said they should be hauled off to jail. But there is some Republican complicity which is enough to make it inadvisable to pursue the matter further.
So why hasn’t he then?
aengus on October 3, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Correct me where I’m wrong. But FactCheck.org misrepresents itself as unbiased.
FactCheck.org
-by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson, Joe Miller, Jessica Henig and Justin Bank
on Palin/Biden debate
1. NO WHERE is the VP Constitutional Role job description Gaffe noted!
2. SPAIN: “McCain appeared confused when asked whether he would meet with President Zapatero of Spain. …but it wasn’t clear he’d understood the question.” Couching anwer prior to “That’s not a refusal to meet with Zapatero, as Biden said. It’s simply a refusal to commit himself one way or the other.”
3.IRAQ TROOP LEVELS: “and with the surge that has worked, we’re now down to [TOWARDS] pre-surge numbers in Iraq.” –not worth a factscheck spank.
4. Afghan General’s Name: Biden didn’t even try naming the General. Biden also did not correct Palin’s mispronounciation of the General’s name. Biden earned no points on “getting that right” as Fact Checks claims he did. Palin clarified that “surge” principles of holding what you take would indeed work in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq. Palin scored there, but FactChecks ignored her point. Biden’s oversimplification denying that any surge in Afghanistan would work was wrong, and FactChecks hardly noted just how wrong Biden was on Afghanistan, giving him credit where he earned nada. Biden misrepresented the “surge” context and abused the report mentioned that seems to have been to place emphasis on unshakable TRIBAL allegiances in the mountains of Afghanistan. Neither Palin nor McCain ever said that the geographical landscape of Iraq matches Afghanistan, nor that the ideological mindsets of Iraqis matches Afghanis.
5. Taxing lower bracket income earners and not providing adults with health care are things that Obama/Biden have yet to own up with explications. FactChecks isn’t helping clarify the DNC POTUS platform’s false promises. In fact, the Democrats have been touting health coverage for “every American”. There’s no loud admission YET that Obama will only fund health coverage for children. Hell, that’s already on the books per state! CHIPS in TX.
maverick muse on October 3, 2008 at 11:05 AM
This is exactly right. The WSJ makes the point as well, in their laudatory editorial today:
To make health insurance portable (like all other insurance), you have to divorce it from employment. When Sarah failed to make the point, my wife was shouting at the TV, “Portability! Portability!”
Excellent post, philwynk; the other numbers were right on the money, too.
MrLynn on October 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM
She lost me in the first 5 minutes when she agreed with Biden that we definitely need to go after those evil “predatory lenders”. She could have named names and mentioned the CRA, but she didn’t.
Cheerleaders might want to go back through these threads and take a look at the following. You might see what I see. We’re screwed both coming and going.
More ads all in Spanish John !!!
BowHuntingTexas on October 3, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Can you tell from that photo that Joe was just dying to hit on her? I can.
Jaibones on October 3, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I really appreciated her no-nonsense style. Very reassuring.
chiefeditor on October 3, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Not to mention, she was lookin pretty hot last night.
ballz2wallz on October 3, 2008 at 11:21 AM
McCain et al will NOT name names until the bail out is passed and signed.
Otherwise it could very well do a Pelosi, and blow up the deal.
Romeo13 on October 3, 2008 at 11:22 AM
We’ve got to hand it to Governor Palin for saying something about being thankful for being able to speak directly to the American people without her words being filtered through the media. I don’t remember the exact quote, but that was sharp!
Governor Palin has found out, through short but bitter experience, how the MSM can distort her views through gotcha questions and selective editing (the media are probably more friendly to Republicans in Alaska). She is a lot sharper in a LIVE debate where the adversary has to deal with the same questions as herself, than in one-on-one interviews where the interviewer becomes the adversary and quiz-master and absent adversaries pounce later on.
From now on, she should be willing to go on live MSM debate shows where she debates an Obama supporter who has to offer rebuttal, and whom she can rebut, and who will have to face the same questions she does. She should AVOID all one-on-one interviews where the interviewer is the hunter and she is the moose. If the MSM complains about that, she should just tell them, “Here is my campaign schedule, come to a rally and point a camera at me, and I’ll tell the American people what we’re offering them.”
Steve Z on October 3, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I look forward to seeing her at the top of the ticket someday.
ronsfi on October 3, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I take no one gives a rat’s a** about Ifill’s “conflict of interest” anymore?
Grow Fins on October 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM
This may be a point of detail, but Palin did say during the debate that if the surge strategy was used in Afghanistan, it would have to be adapted to the geography and topography of Afghanistan.
She didn’t go into any more detail, but she is probably aware that Iraq is mostly flat while Afghanistan is very mountainous in some areas, and that McCain would probably adapt the strategy to prevent the Taliban from fleeing into the mountains if they are evicted from low-lying urban areas.
Steve Z on October 3, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Not even close to reality. She just handled herself reasonably well moderating this debate. As such the conflict of interest will not come up again until someone bandies her name as a possibility for a host of meet the press.
Marine_Bio on October 3, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Hopefully the American people are astute enough to see that she made her MSM filtering case and that they (the MSM) have lost their power to present her as a twit avoiding scrutiny.
pugwriter on October 3, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I think she should be the next host of MTP, when Russert died I had her on my shortlist. I really don’t think there is anyone who comes close, especially if you look at NBC’s talent pool.
LevStrauss on October 3, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I (and others) have said this before, whether intentionaly or not, the McCain camp’s “bubble” around Palin served as a form of rope-a-dope…setting them (and the Dems) up for a big fall last night.
Genius or just lucky? As they say, you have to be good to be lucky. Say what you want about McCain’s currenty strategy, but he’s doing it his way and he’ll live or die by it. I for one think it will work, and as Ed said, the timing of this is more than excellent: Get Palinmania back in high gear, pass the bloody bailout (with no side taking credit or blame) and it’s down the home stretch to November, with two more Pres debates were McCain is free to come out swinging in a “nothing to lose” mode.
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I don’t know, guys. I watched part of it. She wasn’t particularly convincing to me and wasn’t particularly smooth. She reminded me at times of a Moose in the Headlights.
jim m on October 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Britt Hume brought up a good point with Krauthammer last night. McCain has not taken the opportunity to raise the issue of his own warnings and support for reigning in Freddie and Fannie two years ago. The Dems struck down the bill to add regulation to these institutions uncharacteristicly supported by a few Republicans….McCain being one of them. Another opportunity was missed during the debates last night.
There was a moment last night when I found myself arguing with the television when Biden kept insisting that McCain voted against funding the troops. That was an outright lie. McCain (as anyone paying any attention at all knows) is the last person to ever vote that way. Instead he fought to have the timetable removed from the bill and won, thereby giving the troops the money and TIME to win this war!
Biden flat out said Obama and McCain voted the same way on the bill when the end reuslt was just the opposite.
Goodeye_Closed on October 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Hey, I’ve always wanted to know from someone who seems to form opinions from Saturday Night Live… How well does that really work out for you?
Wouldn’t it really work better to just start thinking for yourself?
Just food for thought.
Marine_Bio on October 3, 2008 at 11:46 AM
RattlerGator, on the debate.
http://rattlergator.typepad.com/rattlergator/2008/10/admit-it-she-kicked-his-natural-behind.html
Dr Evil on October 3, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Look, no one on the right was saying she was a friggin genius and the second coming or anything, just a good politician with a good record and respect from those that actually worked with her.
The problem is that the left was pushing the meme that she was an idiot. They were proved wrong big time. That’s all the feedback on the debates last night by McCain supporters is more or less saying.
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Yeah, that burned many folks up that I know as well. If there was any critism of Palin it’s that she didn’t tee those bloopers right of the park….
Oh well, they’ll make devastating campaign ads. There’s still a month left folks….
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Excellent point. There is a reason why the Soviets had such difficulty there. It is terrain that heavily gives the defense an edge. Throw in the border they can cross into Pakistan and this is going to be a tough one.
The key to victory there is similar to Iraq in that the Afghani people need to fight the Taliban more rather than the US and other country’s troops doing the work.
Sapwolf on October 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Maybe someone else has said this, but…
It’s the hair, stupid!
I got it. Palin does better when she wears her hair down. I’m serious. The Convention speech and the debate.
Sarah, oh Sarah! Let down your hair!
—-
As an aside, there’s an old Bible joke about the fellow who took a snippit of Scripture out of context to criticize women wearing hair up in what were called, “top-knots”. He used Matthew 24:17:
Tommygun on October 3, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Really? Ever see a Moose in your headlights?
Somehow, I believe… no… unless it was on Rockie and Bullwinkle.
Romeo13 on October 3, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Palin was perfect. The only thing I would have liked her to bring up, was when Obama said Iran was a tiny country and not a threat to us.
That would have been the perfect “foot on the throat” moment.
JellyToast on October 3, 2008 at 11:52 AM
I have in fact seen a moose in headlights…one rainy evening on the highway outside of The Pas, Manitoba, Canada. Let me tell you, it’s the scariest thing you’ll ever see…they don’t run like deer, they just stand there. All 1200 pounds ready to smash through your windshield.
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 11:54 AM
If you don’t like what you hear, just change the transcript. Apparently that is what CNN has done
ConservativePartyNow on October 3, 2008 at 11:56 AM
BINGO
You are almost better off hitting a wall, because walls don’t have legs and move. I’ve seen photos where the moose went through the windshield after being struck and killed the driver.
Marine_Bio on October 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Folks might think you’re joking, but seriously people, it really is better to hit another car since at least your airbag with deploy. Every fall in parts of Canada there are dozens of deaths. The high center of gravity (think a brick on four toothpicks) means the mass comes through a car’s windshield WITHOUT any airbag deployment. Add the pointy pointy antlers, hooves, etc and you’ve got a pretty gruesome sight.
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM
…of course I haven’t seen a moose around since I put a McCain-Palin bumper sticker on my car….
:)
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM
She was smart not to be caught up in defending specifics. Sometimes they are traps set by the opposition to open up a whole line of attacks.
Best to let some be pointed as as not being factual after the fact, but stay on point and get your message across. And that is not to attack every idea, but to distance your self from those ideas.
Often the debate is won by not what was said, but what was not said…giving the other side an opening (she didn’t take the bait on the bridge) is setting yourself up.
History: Benson was waiting for Quayle to use that I am youthful like JFK line (he had used it before and no one ever said it), and Benson delivered the knock out blow.
Reagan knew that Carter was going to bash him on medical care so out came the famous “There you go again” line.
The first rule of debate, don’t give the opponent an opening, control the sound bites.
right2bright on October 3, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Thanks for clarifying, I hadn’t even considered that someone would think I wasn’t serious.
I used to work with some very fine members of the Canadian Navy. They shared the photos and tales. (You’ve got a lot of hours to kill on quiet mid-watches.)
Marine_Bio on October 3, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Sorry, aengus, but this is a ridiculous proposition. And it illustrates perfectly the reason why Republicans aren’t able to maintain endless majorities in both houses: they don’t fully understand that this is about the overall well-being of our nation…tender sensibilities and blood-free-hands-or-nothing be damned. Politics is no different than a boxing match: you have to be willing to risk a broken nose for the glory that comes with knocking out your opponent. It’s a ruthless chess match where you need to always be looking a few moves ahead.
The only way that any Republicans could be hurt by what you’re citing is if the media and Democrats admit that the CRA and Fannie/Freddie are to blame for the crisis!. Do you honestly think they’d be stupid enough to do that? Of course not. But it creates an impossible Catch-22 for them, one that they can’t possibly get out of…one that will win the election for John McCain.
Their first choice – and most probable reaction – will be to dispute it…stand there, stammering and mumbling, about “deregulation…then desperately attempt to quickly change the subject. Why? Because they’ve already invested so much into the deregulation lie, if they change their story now, it will be the flip-flop of all flip-flops.
Also, they know that if they really try to push the point, they open up the possibility that the public will stop sucking down what they’re being spoon-fed by the media – “ummm…it’s Bush’s fault…hey, look over there…it’s “hope and change”! – and will start looking for real information. And that’s the last thing the Dems want to happen. Because they know that the FACTS are on the Republican side.
All McCain would have to say is the following:
Obama would faint on the stage. And the election would be over.
Of course, the Dems could always choose to say “Yeah, it was the CRA and Fannie/Freddie, but Republicans didn’t do anything about it…and in fact, some Republicans encouraged lending to illegal immigrants!” To which, John McCain would simply need to reply:
Again, Obama would wet himself and the race would be over.
rvastar on October 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Well, I take your point, but the Iraq vote lie by Biden was cleary a mistake on his part…he wasn’t baiting her with some other vote on the surge that he could “Ah HA” her with.
Plus, given that this specific example was a strength for the McCain Palin ticket, she should have been happy to talk about the success of the surge, Obama’s vote to cut of funds to troops in a war zone, etc.
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Palin did well, but she didn’t hit it out of the park. Base hit. Hit with the Base. This late in the game very few people haven’t already concluded who they will vote for. Palin didn’t change many minds, but she stopped the bleeding.
trailboss on October 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM
In northern Quebec province, during moose hunting season, hunters used to cut off the heads and display them right on the hood of thier cars for a few weeks (well, in the 70’s anyway). Yup, put a piece of carboard underneath and strap er on, blood dripping all down the front. It was funny. I remember one French guy talking about the highway deaths too and him essentially saying, “It’s a war! They kill ours, we kill thiers!” Ha Ha
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Wait, we won? O.o
Woohoo!! :D AP and MR almost got me into the despair bucket….
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 3, 2008 at 12:25 PM
The see-saw poll numbers over the past two months say you’re wrong, with all due respect.
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
rvastar,
If we accept all that – and its fairly convincing – it still doesn’t answer the question I asked:
aengus on October 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
If I can answer this one….there is still plenty of time…four weeks to be exact. You could argue that this is the best time to reverse Obama’s (very) recent gains, and turn the tide right down the hope stretch…the distance runner’s “kick” so to speak.
You’re right though. McCain has to turn it on pretty much starting Monday morning to make this happen.
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 12:30 PM
There was a moment last night when I found myself arguing with the television when Biden kept insisting that McCain voted against funding the troops. That was an outright lie. McCain (as anyone paying any attention at all knows) is the last person to ever vote that way.
Biden was right here. It was no lie. What he was doing is calling BS on Palin shaking her head at Obama and basically asking “what kind of person votes against funding our troops.”
Biden shot right back and said, McCain voted against funding our troops (which he did). But, instead of shaking his head and pretending that McCain is a horrible person for doing so, he told the truth about the vote — that he voted against it because it had a timeline attached to it. Obama voted against a different version because it DIDN’T have a timeline.
McCain tried this in the first presidential debate, and Obama did a good job of pointing out the inherent BS of his statement.
Tom_Shipley on October 3, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Nahh its way too late to introduce an entirely new narrative re: the crisis into a political campaign. The time for that was last week. I’m glad I listened to Mark Levin so I know what the CRA is but anyone who didn’t isn’t going to have much of a clue.
Last night Palin blamed “predatory lending”. Thats the maverick-y McCain narrative – blame Wall Street.
aengus on October 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Look, if you have misgivings about McCain, by all means, stay home. Hope you enjoy a happier life under an Obama Presidency.
Don’t cook up some flimsy excuse.
Just because you can pronounce nuclear vs. nukular, doesn’t make yours a smarter mind, a better judgment on policies, or a proven executive.
Sir Napsalot on October 3, 2008 at 12:37 PM
You haven’t convinced anyone on this thread. Given the current 24-minute news cycle world? Come on, it’s 2008, not 1908.
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM
aengus on October 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM nailed it and i thank him for it.
Christine on October 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM
The see-saw polls mean nothing. The RCP average is one measure that has any predictive capability, as demonstrated by the 2004 and 2006 elections, and 2008 primaries. Nearly every time it was right on the mark. It has Obama, unfortunately, steadily increasing his lead.
The McCain campaign has been hemorrhaging badly, partly because of Palin, and she managed to do her part to stop the bleeding. As is repeated ad nauseum – people vote the top of the ticket, and Palin hasn’t changed anyone’s mind about McCain.
McCain, well he is predictable in his unpredictability. Will he take advantage of the lifeline thrown him? It likely doesn’t matter.
trailboss on October 3, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Loved Palin.
She is terrific. But I wish McCain would have her stop harping on Capitalism. And its time to point fingers at Barney Frank and Harold Raines and gang.
Would have been a good time to teach Conservationism and the evils of big government. But that wont happen with McCain at the top of the ticket.
But yes she won the debates hands down. And Biden has got to stop telling stories and fabrications – and the Botox or face lift thing – DOESNT WORK. People expect 65 year olds to look it…
Botox just numbs your face – it makes Pelosi always look surprised. Bidens face lift or botox looks unnatural.
winged on October 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Okay, fair enough. I’m not trying to be discouraging or anything. But given Palin’s remarks last night how likely do you think it is that McCain will inject the truth into the news cycle?
It behooves McCain to fight a little harder to win. I think on that we can all agree.
aengus on October 3, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Wait a minute…rvastar on October 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM makes some excellent points. Please send it to the McCain campaign!
They need to use it not only in the debates, but every day from now on…beat the drum.
Christine on October 3, 2008 at 12:47 PM
You assume that a trend a month or two out can be extrapolated to November like it was in 04 or 06? The trend you mention (Obama gains) is 3-weeks old…go back 3 months and they’re all over the board! “Steadily increasing lead” is a 3-week trend based on an extreme event that will lead to another event (a “yes” to the bailout) which may not change the final trajectory at the end of the day, but it will have an AFFECT. This negates your use of multi-month trends from past campaigns to predict an Obama victory. Anyway, this has been the campaign season from hell as far as polling is concerned, and I would like to suggest that this is an extremely event-driven campaign compared to past years.
I don’t suggest that you’ll be wrong in the end, but as I said, you’ll need to provide something better to support your point, at least speaking for myself anyway.
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 1:00 PM
BowHuntingTexas on October 3, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I heard her, too, and felt the same tinge of disappointment.
I wondered if she was keeping things “civil” in order to avoid starting a food fight too soon.
When she said that things would get sorted next morning–NOW–it curbed the disappointment slightly.
If Palin wants her supporters help in managing Main Street conversations, no problem. She isn’t going to hide her opinions given time with a microphone–on her own terms.
maverick muse on October 3, 2008 at 1:03 PM
We are in the home stretch of the campaign, and Obama is increasing his lead. The poll average is settling down to a trajectory favoring Obama. This late in the season, it will indeed take game-changing event(s) to disturb that trajectory.
I believe you are right that this has been an event driven campaign; unfortunately, it seems most of the big events are turning out to favor Obama. McCain knows it, which is why he keeps trying things to ’shake up’ the election. For me, at least, his wild swings at the ball just confirm my lack of faith in his decision making. Nothing Palin can do changes that.
trailboss on October 3, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Well, I would only reply that no poll that I’ve seen in the past few months has “settled down” for very long, but we’ll see when we see.
You know your stuff, that’s clear, but I think you’ll be proven wrong.
Cheers
Waterboy on October 3, 2008 at 1:15 PM
We will indeed see when we see. Hope for the best, prepare for probable realities.
Cheers to you.
trailboss on October 3, 2008 at 1:20 PM
aengus, I answered this question in the second sentence.
Republicans – for some utterly unfathomable reason – appear to be genetically incapable of going for the jugular…it’s almost as though they feel like it’s bad form to embarrass their political opponents.
Meanwhile, whilst Republicans wrestle with their tender sensibilities, Democrats look the American people straight in the eye and lie through their f-cking teeth…day in, day out…month after month, year after year.
They create financial crises with their social tinkering, then turn around and blame it on Republicans…lying that “deregulation” is at fault, when the particular deregulation they’re referencing has nothing to do with what’s going on. And all the while, failing to mention that they voted for the very same deregulation that they’re denouncing!
They leak national security secrets to their Ministry of Information – the MSM – jeopardizing American lives; all in an attempt to embarrass a Republican administration. Then, once they’ve milked everything they can out of beating the administration over the head for “destroying the Constitution” and “creating a police state”, they turn around and quietly approve the same tactics they’ve been demonizing!
And I could go on and on and on…It’s unbelievable!
To put it simply: Republicans believe in a fairy tale. They believe that – deep down inside – Democrats actually want to compromise with Republicans in order to create a better society. They are wrong – fatally wrong. Democrats understand that politics are about one thing: power. And that those with power shape the future. They’re not interested in compromise…they are only interested in gaining power…because when they have it, they can cram their vision of the future down everyone’s throat. And once it’s done, it’s very difficult to undo…just look at the Social Security cliff that our whole nation is going to go over in about 40 years.
Republicans could stand to learn a thing or two from the Dems about the true nature of politics. And once they’ve done so, they need to grow the stones to mercilessly beat their faces in.
rvastar on October 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM
X 10
We’re screwed by defecrats and repubs.
And as I write the bailout appears to have been passed.
Welcome to the USSA.
BowHuntingTexas on October 3, 2008 at 1:26 PM
You know, Marine_Bio, I did watch it and did form my own opinion. My wife thought she was impressive. I thought she wasn’t quite ready for prime time (making use of your Saturday Night Life reference).
No reason to insult me because we disagree.
jim m on October 3, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Right out of my sub-division, there is a big blue sign on the elementary school yard, reads “Delaware’s Joe Biden”.
Every time I saw that sign, I thought “World’s biggest Gaffmaster” should be next to it.
/me, north Wilmington, where you at?
Sir Napsalot on October 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Re assigning blame for the mortgage mess where it belongs, with Dodd and Frank and Raines and the rest, with Obambi in the thick of it, a McCain spokesman said (paraphrase): “We don’t want to point fingers.”
To which I say, “Why not? Has John McCain got something to hide? Or is he just chickensh*t?”
MrLynn on October 3, 2008 at 2:16 PM
That doesn’t seem quite coherent to me. Taking your apparent view that the trend is clearly settling in Obama’s favor as the premise, why would the introduction of random perturbations (wilds swings at ball) be an unreasonable tactic?
Is there another, more direct tactic or strategy that you see but leave unsaid?
DarkCurrent on October 3, 2008 at 2:16 PM
The use of “nucular” is pretty common, sort of like the use of “aks” (for ask). It’s essentially an accent at this stage of the game. Show me that she cannot spell “nuclear” and maybe I’ll get worried.
See Ann Althouse for a list of politicians who used “nucular.” Hint: one of them studied nuclear physics.
Y-not on October 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM
John McCain NEEDS to follow Palin’s performance with one of his own next week. It needs to be on the same theme and tone as Sarah. \\
Don’t try to WOW the audience with your breadth of knowledge and command of policy so much as CONNECT with the voters as an agent of change. Sure, John is well versed in DC insider info but in this time of upheaval, that is more of a turn off than anything else.
Be forceful and say the things that piss off Democrats, but endear independents and fence sitters to your campaign. The atmosphere today is similar to the time when Carter was running for reelection and Reagan was the challenger. Americans are FED UP with Politics as usual and our country is in disarray. Be plain spoken and hit the chords that resonate.
Don’t be afraid to criticize Bush and distance yourselves. Let the media call you reckless because the more the media hates you, the more popular you will be with main street.
Goodeye_Closed on October 3, 2008 at 3:08 PM
As Rush pointed out this afternoon, there may be a closer analogy with 1976, when a luckluster ‘moderate’ Republican, President Ford, was running against an upstart unknown from Georgia, called Jimmy Carter.
There is more than a little resemblance between the vile Mr. Carter and the Junior Senator from Illinois. Not to mention. . .
MrLynn on October 3, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Politicians are not the answer, attorneys are not the answer, journalists are not the answer…that is why he went to Alaska to find someone who could speak to the people, of the people, for the people, to make sure that he continues to follow what he has always known…government is often more of a problem then a solution, committees have been now proven to be ineffective, and that the less government you have, the less corruption you have…and Barack hates that thought.
right2bright on October 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM
So many comments, so few buzz ups. Please people don’t forget to buzz the story if you like it. The button is right there at the end of the post. The Huffs and other Dem sites are dominating social sites like digg, yahoo buzz and technorati. We should change that.
arma_virumque on October 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Palin was very clever and smooth. She wove prepared text (we are not perfect but have perfect ideals) seamlessly and didn’t waste time knocking down the cheap cheese Biden was dropping all over.
Had Palin mocked, or corrected Biden’s gaffes she would have lost points on the PResidential scale
Some are disappointed she did not name names. A debate is not the place to name a Congressman, Senator or home builder by name unless they have already been indicted. Libel isnt pretty even if you are sure you are right. The minimum cover is an indictment or at least a hearing.
Had Palin named names she would have made the audience uncomfortable with her. It would have been a Lazio moment
Ronald Reagan never attacked people. He attacked systems. That made it possible to work with people later on, and gave him a reputation for decency. The prosecutors can name names.
Few are mentioning the cheesiest moment in the debate, when Bidn was asked his faults. He made a self loving remark that one of his beiggest faults is his passion.
It was on par with a man patting himself on the back for his own great humility
entagor on October 3, 2008 at 9:14 PM
On a side note.. is there any bigger putz than Alan Colmes? I mean seriously.. he just got his ass handed to him AGAIN, by Ann Coulter and Pat Caddell.
jewells45 on October 3, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »