Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

payday and other excitement

Which is to say, shopping. ;)

Seriously, though...up later than I originally planned last night since I decided to catch part of the RNC, first on streaming video and then on NPR. Michael Steele was most excellent ("Drill, baby, drill!"), Mitt Romney not so much, and I missed most of what Gov. Lingle and the Huckster had to say since I was attending to important matters of personal hygiene. I came out of the shower just in time to catch Rudy Giuliani, who was en fuego*. That speech was great honking wheelbarrows of steaming, bloody raw meat and the crowd ate it up. That was just a warmup, though. Rudy was followed by Sarah Palin, and she ROCKED THE HOUSE**. Hit all the marks, gave McCain and her family their propers, and then ripped into the Democratic ticket*** like a Last Frontier Steel Magnolia. Fun to listen to, and definitely proof that the Angry Old White Guy made the right choice for VP.

Too cute for words:

*(also Ace)
**(not Ace, but Althouse)
***Which, as far as Sarah Palin, the RNC delegates, and I are concerned, includes what El Rushbo is pleased to call "the Drive-By Media". I get the feeling any invitations from Sally Quinn are likely to be used for fingerpaint canvases at the VP Residence for the next four years...


( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
Sep. 5th, 2008 05:56 am (UTC)
Rudy was followed by Sarah Palin, and she ROCKED THE HOUSE**.

My assessment from this side, after watching the web and office conversations light up, is that she sure gave the RNC base plenty to be happy about, but drove away the moderates and fortified the liberals. She can talk the talk, but there was nothing in her speech that bolstered her shortage of experience, or quelled fears of right-wing extremism.

In short, she makes the faithful happy, but doesn't win any friends.
Sep. 5th, 2008 12:36 pm (UTC)
In short, she makes the faithful happy, but doesn't win any friends.

Polls say otherwise, but we'll find out in November. Minnesota != America, after all. ;)

I think it's also worth noting here that the Republican base was, at the very least, unenthusiastic about Senator McCain, and Governor Palin may have been chosen partly as a ticket balancer - yeah, she's a maverick reformer like McCain, but she also is walking the pro-life, pro-guns, drill here drill now talk, and that has the base stoked.

Finally, you don't really want to get into an argument about your wannabe President's experience vs. our wannabe Veep's experience. It does nothing for him at all, especially considering that not only his main primary opponent but his own running mate said he wasn't ready to be President.

Edited at 2008-09-05 12:58 pm (UTC)
Sep. 5th, 2008 03:28 pm (UTC)
Obama has at least gone through the lengthy primary process and was vetted by the voters in his party. Palin was just picked for political strategy reasons. I still say he could have found a right-wing female with lots more experience than her. If they want to look silly by claiming Obama isn't qualified but she is, go right ahead.
Sep. 5th, 2008 03:43 pm (UTC)
Sure, he went through the lengthy primary process - and got beaten like the family mule in just about every primary by HRC*. As far as being vetted goes, the press has been strangely incurious about his past - arguably, we know a lot more about Palin after a week than we do about Obama after 19 months.

Yeah, he could have found a conservative woman with more experience, but you miss the whole point of picking someone like Palin: she is not part of the Washington (or even Juneau) establishment and doesn't want to be. Picking someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson (frex) would not have been the same.

Besides, it's not just us Republicans saying Obama's not qualified - both Clinton and Biden are on record as saying he's not ready. Keep going there, though, by all means. It hurts the Donks a lot more than it hurts us.

*Most of his delegates came from early caucus wins, and as we both know, caucuses are famously vulnerable by being bumrushed by well-organized cadres. Winning primaries actualy requires convincing people to vote for you, which is a lot harder.

Edited at 2008-09-05 03:44 pm (UTC)
Sep. 5th, 2008 04:53 pm (UTC)
Obama won 18 primaries and 13 caucuses. Of the Primaries he didn't win he was within 2% in 3 states, within 5% in three more states, and within 10% in 5 more states. I think he convinced a fair number of people. Who knows what mischef may have been caused in the 3 closest races by Operation Chaos.
Sep. 5th, 2008 05:14 pm (UTC)
He failed to carry New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California and Texas -his delegate wins there were due to hardball caucus tactics that alienated a lot of Texas Democrats. He wouldn't have carried Illinois if he weren't a loyal son of the Daley machine. Pretty much every other state he carried had a significant black voting bloc. Despite all the fuss, I doubt Operation Chaos actually had that much effect, but we'll never know for sure.
Sep. 5th, 2008 07:48 pm (UTC)
Texas was one of the ones he lost by only 2%. Hardly a wipeoout there. Downplay the primaries and caususes all you want. I think you are underestimating things. The Democrats had record turnouts in most of the states. The base isn't going to disappear because Hillary didn't win and they registered a lot of new voters to expand the base. Both of the Clintons gave strong endorsements of Obama at the convention, with Bill giving a very strong endorsement for Obama being ready to lead. Much more effective coming from a former President than if Hillary had said it. They clearly coordinated their speeches for the greatest impact.
Sep. 5th, 2008 08:55 pm (UTC)
"Just words...just speeches..."
-some Chicago political hack

If you go by the delegate count, he won Texas, but the actual primary vote wasn't that close. As for the Clintons, yeah, nice speeches at the convention, but I notice a lot of her people are sticking it to the O'Biden ticket whenever the opportunity presents itself, and I don't see either Bill or Hillary busting a hump for the the ticket.

You should also be aware that there's a term for politicians who count on the youth vote in Presidential elections. It's "loser". That's been true in every election I've seen since 1968. Every four years we hear about how the youth of America are energized and ready to make an impact on the election (usually for Democrats), and every four years it turns out to be bullshit.
Sep. 6th, 2008 03:06 am (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thanks for the link.
Sep. 5th, 2008 04:58 pm (UTC)
"... but you miss the whole point of picking someone like Palin: she is not part of the Washington (or even Juneau)..."

Well, that's pretty hard to support on the evidence.

Have you read: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,2482434.story

It discusses the three times McCain decried her desires as porkbarrel spending. My favorite paragraph debunks the notion that she found the system like that.

"Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark."

Wow, scoring almost 12 million for a backwater with fewer than 10,000 people in three years is indeed pretty impressive. But it hardly demonstrates the qualities she's claiming.
Sep. 5th, 2008 05:08 pm (UTC)
On the other hand, she turned against Stevens and Young (endorsing their primary opponents), turned veteran GOP governor Frank Murkowski out of office, and forced the state GOP chairman to resign from the Oil & Gas Commission after he was caught doing party business on Commission time. So while the earmarks as mayor are a fair cop, you can't reasonably claim she's part of the Alaska GOP machine, much less a Washington insider.
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )