RECENT POSTS
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
- White House State Dinner: The Menu, Entertainment, and Decor
- Dan Pfeiffer, White House Blogger
- Guests Begin to Arrive for White House State Dinner Festivities
- President Obama on Afghanistan Strategy: “It Is My Intention to Finish the Job”
- The Obamas Kick off their First State Visit, Welcome India's Prime Minister to the White House
- Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy To Include “Benchmarks” and “Off-Ramps,” Announcement Next Week
- The Presidential Planner
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Palin -- Pans and Plaudits
October 03, 2008 8:33 AM
David Brooks liked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's performance last night. "With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words, she laid out her place on the ticket — as the fearless neighbor for the heartland bemused by the idiocies of Washington," writes the conservative in today's New York Times. "Her perpetual smile served as foil to Biden’s senatorial seriousness."
His liberal colleagues on the opposite page do not agree.
"In the end, the debate did not change the essential truth of Ms. Palin’s candidacy: Mr. McCain made a wildly irresponsible choice that shattered the image he created for himself as the honest, seasoned, experienced man of principle and judgment," reads the NYT editorial. "It was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment."
In the Washington Post, E. J. Dionne Jr. agrees: "Expectations for Palin were so low that the mere fact that she managed to keep talking and to keep assailing Obama will be rated as a great victory by McCain's lieutenants. But it was Biden who knew what he was talking about, who could engage in argument and who showed he actually understood the issues. In recent interviews with CBS anchor Katie Couric, Palin came off as profoundly uninformed, as someone who had given little thought to the issues that will matter. Nothing Palin did last night changed that. Those rooting for her were relieved. Those who doubted her readiness going in were not persuaded by her endless repetition of the word 'maverick.'"
And his Post colleague Eugene Robinson agrees. "I thought Sarah Palin made one huge, central mistake -- and I expect it to be reflected in surveys asking voters who won (as it is already, indeed, reflected in a CBS snap poll of uncommitted voters indicating that they saw Joe Biden as the winner). Her error was that she hardly talked at all about policy solutions, except when the debate got onto the subject of energy and offshore drilling. There, she seemed on terra firma. But on everything else -- the financial crisis, the economy in general, health care, the war on terror -- she gave little more than promises of reform and 'maverick'-y governance."
Perhaps he and Robinson watched different debates? Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard says Palin "was conversant with every issue, domestic and foreign, that came up in the 90-minute debate and talked with seeming confidence about them. She may have passed two other tests, as well. Did she once more energize the conservative base of the Republican party as she had when McCain picked her a month ago? Probably. And was her performance strong enough to change the direction of a campaign that has seen Barack Obama widening a lead over McCain in recent weeks? Maybe."
The New York Daily News editorial page concurs that Palin had a good night, saying "she shored up her standing as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. ... The public benefited, but perhaps no one benefited more than Palin in showing that she could comfortably hold her own with a six-term senator who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. The hockey mom played a great game."
Where do you come down?
- jpt
October 3, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (474)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"Everyone in the country who owned property was benefiting from property value inflation over the past 15 years or more and happy to have it. No one in leadership from either party was trying to put the brakes on this thing. Bush bragged about how his administration was fostering the "ownership society".
I just don't agree that the mortgage mess can be layed on the Dems. I fault them for buying so heavily into flawed Republican economic policy -- "Government isn't the solution to your problems; it is the problem." - R Reagan. All of a sudden Repubs in Congress are for more regulation and have been all along? I don't think so."
I agree with the beginning of this post that both republicans and democrats looked the other way. Homeowners also knew it was a bubble but thought they were benefitting so didn't question it.
Republicans usually are not for regulations but in this case they were. And in hindsight republicans were correct and Barney, Dodd and other prominent democrats were wrong and showed a lack of foresight. Even Bill Clinton admitted democrats dropped the ball in blocking Fannie/Freddie regulation since his efforts to regulate were fought by democrats also.
Posted by: Cryos | Oct 3, 2008 6:53:31 PM
"4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage."
So McCain voted against funding the troops because he did not want them to have a schedule to come home. He woudl rather have them out on their 5th tour.
That's even better than I hoped for.
Thanks Palin Wins.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 3, 2008 6:50:39 PM
""Nice try yet again. Since it is a presidential requirement it shouldn't take Joe Citizen to demand it; it should be a matter of course."
Is there an application that the President fills out before he is sworn in?
Are all Presidents required to provide the birth certificates to prove not just natural born citizenry but also the age requirement?
Posted by: Ryan C"
I would say yes otherwise its messed up that average citizens have more responsibility when applying for a job than a president of the united states. When I want employment I have to produce a valid ID and an ORIGINAL birth certificate or social security card.
So I should have to produce this documentation but the most powerful position in the country should not? Hmmm interesting stance.
Posted by: Cryos | Oct 3, 2008 6:50:25 PM
Actually if you look at statistics the foreclosure rate is MUCH HIGHER in "low income" areas than others.
Posted by: Cryos
***************
I'm sure you're right, though in the end, by far most of the loss in real estate asset value is not going to be at the bottom of the market.
Everyone in the country who owned property was benefiting from property value inflation over the past 15 years or more and happy to have it. No one in leadership from either party was trying to put the brakes on this thing. Bush bragged about how his administration was fostering the "ownership society".
I just don't agree that the mortgage mess can be layed on the Dems. I fault them for buying so heavily into flawed Republican economic policy -- "Government isn't the solution to your problems; it is the problem." - R Reagan. All of a sudden Repubs in Congress are for more regulation and have been all along? I don't think so.
Posted by: Able | Oct 3, 2008 6:48:32 PM
"It was 50-50 (Cheney tie break) before Jeffords split.
That made it 50-49 with Jeffords a true indie. That led to a power sharing agreement between the Dem & GOP given the tenuous nature of the Dems "majority"
Thank you. I wanted you to be the one to post that democrats had an advantage in the senate in 2001 since if I forwarded that notion that republicans were not in charge of congress in 2001 you would have refuted it.
So how again is it that "democrats didn't block Fannie/Freddie deregulation?"
Posted by: Cryos | Oct 3, 2008 6:48:27 PM
"Amazing how you go post to post and think people can't put 2 and 2 together. It was only a dead bill because PEOPLE LIKE BARNEY AND DODD KILLED IT"
How did they kill it when they did not control the chair or committee?
The GOP had a firm majority by 2005.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 3, 2008 6:44:27 PM
"Nice try yet again. Since it is a presidential requirement it shouldn't take Joe Citizen to demand it; it should be a matter of course."
Is there an application that the President fills out before he is sworn in?
Are all Presidents required to provide the birth certificates to prove not just natural born citizenry but also the age requirement?
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 3, 2008 6:43:26 PM
"Yeah that's right by 2003 it went back to a republican majority the 49-49 was in 2001 after Jeffords went independant"
Still not correct.
It was 50-50 (Cheney tie break) before Jeffords split.
That made it 50-49 with Jeffords a true indie. That led to a power sharing agreement between the Dem & GOP given the tenuous nature of the Dems "majority"
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 3, 2008 6:41:11 PM
"Cryos,
For your analogy to work, it would have to be perfectly acceptable for Joe Citizen to demand people produce their insurance documentation."
Nice try yet again. Since it is a presidential requirement it shouldn't take Joe Citizen to demand it; it should be a matter of course.
Posted by: Cryos | Oct 3, 2008 6:39:46 PM
"10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie."
McCain voted for the Gramm bill for deregulation of the banks in addition to having a long career based on his efforts at deregulation.
Jumping on a dead bill a year and half after it was intro'd is not calling for more regulation.
Its called political posturing.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 3, 2008 6:38:31 PM
Yeah that's right by 2003 it went back to a republican majority the 49-49 was in 2001 after Jeffords went independant. However only 40 seats are required for a fillibuster so my point is still proven correct. Democrats ARE ON CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OPPOSING FANNIE/FREDDIE REGULATION. I'd like you to refute that FACT not dance around the issue.
Posted by: Cryos | Oct 3, 2008 6:38:14 PM
Cryos,
For your analogy to work, it would have to be perfectly acceptable for Joe Citizen to demand people produce their insurance documentation.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 3, 2008 6:36:00 PM
"As for the polls you seem to worship, Ryan, they are only as good as the pollsters and their methods."
Which is why I posted all of them.
And ALL of them show Obama WINNING.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 3, 2008 6:33:36 PM
"Lol missed this post early. Sounds like you're the "genius" since you don't realize there were 49 republicans and 49 democrats. When it comes to the "majority" the independents are classified with whichever party they caucus with."
in 2003, there 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 1 indie.
In 2005, there were 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 1 indie.
The indie was Jim Jeffords.
In 2007, Jeffords had retired and two indies were part of the Senate, Bernie Sanders & Lieberman.
In short you were wrong. Twice.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 3, 2008 6:32:53 PM
""If I got pulled over by a cop and he/she asked for my insurance, why would I refuse to produce the insurance and instead drag it out to a court date?"
So right wing nuts on the internet are now cops?
Stay away from the analogies. You don't do them very well.
Posted by: Ryan C"
I personally think this is a good analogy so would like input from others on it (logical minded people please).
You are asked to produce a legal document that is a requirement for your activity (driving in this case instead of presidential eligibility). You claim to have a valid document and could nullify the issue simply by producing that legal document. Instead you decide to delay the issue and go to court proceedings to "prove" what you could have proved in the first place.
As an addition it would then be like going to court and asking the judge to just take you on your word and dismiss the proof of insurance ticket without simply showing the judge the insurance you claim to have in the first place.
Posted by: Cryos | Oct 3, 2008 6:29:50 PM
Gotta admit that I missed that one, too Cryos.
I guess Ryan was taking "former Democrats" like Lieberman into the Obama fold.
Posted by: Palin Wins | Oct 3, 2008 6:28:53 PM
Fact check, again.
You can do better, Ryan.
The Obama payroll demands more.
So, once again, the 14 (count'em 14) lies told by Joe Biden during the debate. This list does not take into account half-truths.
JOE BIDEN’S 14 LIES IN DEBATE LAST NIGHT
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false. McCain's only reference to "de-regulation of the heath industry" is his support to allow us to buy insurance across state lines- period.
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan. In fact, taxes will average close to 35% similar to the Clinton years.
Remember 2000, Ryan.
Posted by: Palin Wins | Oct 3, 2008 6:26:12 PM
"So much for the polls."
Yeah who cares what voters think when we have conflicting editorials from newspapers to tell us who won!
Much like your namesake Palin Wins, once you get past the talking points, there is much there.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 3, 2008 6:25:28 PM
"Drive around your friggin neighborhood and look at the for sale signs. Are those all low-income people that Dems forced banks to finance?"
Actually if you look at statistics the foreclosure rate is MUCH HIGHER in "low income" areas than others.
Posted by: Cryos | Oct 3, 2008 6:25:01 PM
""Lets see the senate has been 49-49 much of the last 6 years regardless of the impression given that "republicans control congress." "
49-49 equals 98, genius."
Lol missed this post early. Sounds like you're the "genius" since you don't realize there were 49 republicans and 49 democrats. When it comes to the "majority" the independents are classified with whichever party they caucus with.
Posted by: Cryos | Oct 3, 2008 6:23:37 PM
Post a comment


