You show silly little charts that portray her as a fool. It seems that you want to portray her a not only as being incompetent, lacking in intellect, a terrible debater, a person who uses her facial mannerisms in a vain attempt to gain favor, the Governor of Alaska who doesn't really have much to do that means anything, but as a silly little not-so-bright women that should be home baking cookies and punching out children. Does that about sum it up?
Which we must assume then, based on her sidestepping, included every single matter of substance connected with her desired field of employment and claimed areas of ability. Unless you find, as I did not but some believe, that her comments on energy had substance. Biden did answer several questions, so he was not doing "exactly the same thing". That only works if both candidates are in some relevant sense "equal". If one candidate is more evasive or defiant than the other, tells more lies or attempts to scam the debate, than a truly unbiased moderator would be harder on that candidate.
Let me ask you NGM... Did her performance inspire confidence in you regarding her ability to perform the job for which she is applying? If so, how?
I have to preface my comments with a little bit of my past. I worked for a person who was very high in the DC food chain. I won't be specific. As a result of that experience, I've had first hand experience with how the upper echelons operate and the fantastic resources that they have at their disposal. Having said that, then I would say that since I firmly believe that McCain/Palin will be the winning ticket this time, that I also believe that Sarah Palin is a very intelligent person who will use those resources to rapidly learn those things in which she is lacking as far as being the Vice President of the USA. I realize that regardless of her qualifications, she has been selected, has accepted and will be the next Vice President of the USA. Her performance during the debate was remarkably agile. As she responded with obvious scripted replies, I saw that she was indeed handling a performance that would stop most people, (even a lot of the Pros), dead in their tracks. I think she ducked, weaved and avoided most of the bullets that were aimed at her and gave a reasonable performance in the entire effort, all things considered. That very agility and ability to remain as cool as she did actually does inspire me to believe that she will perform admirably as Vice President. She'll use the power of the office efficiently and with good results. I believe that she will be an effective Diplomat for our country and will, after the first six months in office, be given a passing grade by the people of the USA. That is what I think. Does that answer your question?
It does, though I can't say I agree. The best dodgers do it without you even realized they dodged (at least not until further scrutiny after the fact). Her dodges were painfully obvious, in my opinion, and that is a reflection of her lack of experience in the critical arena of diplomacy. She was remarkably confident and solid in her answers, which can sway some, but that belies any diplomatic seasoning. To display confidence in a situation that would humilate most generally makes someone out to be a good actor, a good liar or a fool. You seem to be betting on actor - I'm not so sure. Some seem to be betting on a fool... I think she's a liar, but the prospect of her being a fool is not out of the question for me. She is certainly not as naive as she is portraying herself. She seems to be aiming for an image of a simple, honest-to-goodness mom with the genuine common sense that Washington has never had. Her record seems to contradict that image. It's sad I feel I need to make this disclaimer whenever I insult a Republican, but I am not a Democrat. I am voting Obama this year, but I consider myself to be more of a Republican than a Democrat.
I doubt the Presidency operates in a world in which superb bullshitting within a carefully circumscribed arena of rules respected by one's enemies is adequate for handling the problems which will arise. In fact, I think we've recently seen what happens when the Presidency operates on that assumption. Nor do I regard the ability to bullshit well in a long-practiced manner and the ability to learn and acquire new competencies in matters of substance as all that tightly linked. In my own experience, the correlation is negative - bullshitters take a lot of convincing before even admitting that they don't know what they're doing. Palin's demographic class, her type, is particularly hard to train in on a new job - they already know everything of real importance, see. I think, for example, based on my experience in training and educating others of her general style and approach, that her repeated and amplified claim to foreign policy experience from proximity to Russia is not a joke, to her. She believes it, and regards the mocking of it as a mocking of her real competencies.
I won't ask you who you worked for (though I am very curious). I would like to ask if you are comfortable sharing in what capacity you served this person. What was your job and what was your area of expertise?
Sorry man, I referred to it only to say that I have seen quite a lot of the powers that be, in operation up close and personal. It was one of those things where they make you sign a lot of times when you leave. I'd rather not be specific in any way at all. The things that I witnessed as far as the resources I speak of, were very, very impressive. It's remarkable what power and money will do in a very short time. At the time, I was military.
I also find it disturbing that she wants to expand the powers of the Vice President to include a more actuive rols in teh Senate, effectively breaking down the walls between the three branches of government. She strikes me as yet another fascist-minded neo-Conservative parading as a Republican, all the while expanding the power of the federal government - and the executive branch, in particular - and grasping for power and control to be handed over to the power elite aristocrats. As I have said a few times before, the more I learn about her, the less I trust her.
one_raven, i admit i missed the debate but im wondering how expanding the funtion of the VP breaks down the seperation of powers? After all the VP is part of the executive branch and i dont like your system where by one person holds all the power of the executive anyway. I prefer a system where that is a group of people (the cabinate) chaired by the president (or the PM). Where he is only one member and his vote only counts as the deciding vote rather than the tyranical ideal of ultimate power in one person. It suggests that the president can never be wrong which is crasy, they can be just as deluded on a paticular issue as anyone else
Quite the contrary really. On all counts. I was replying to someone else who displayed the chart. I do not need to portray her as being anything. She portrays herself in such a fashion to the public. Which begs the question.. why? Why does she feel the need to portray herself in a manner that is, to put it mildly, so simply lacking. And as a woman myself, I find it offensive that she portrays herself in a manner that would lead people to think that she is the slightly dim witted woman who should (apparently) be home baking cookies and popping out kids. If she is that dim and really does not understand what she is embarking on, then this is the time she needs to tell the American people that she's going to burst a vein doing everything that she can to bring herself up to speed and beyond... You know.. show some honesty about your abilities instead of lying about it.. Strange concept, I know.. The debate did not show that. The debate showed a polished performer sticking to scripted by-lines and campaign slogans. She would make a brilliant actor. The fact that she 'lala'ed' through the economy questions is yet another indication that she is not getting herself up to speed, but has been more intent on her presentation.. stuff the content.. just look good and sound good. It is the very content that was missing that is causing the most concern. In short, I think people would have been more content if she'd offered content that was valid and viable instead of so much on the folksy 'I'm a mommy' from a small town, who is apparently a "maverick" along with her sidekick who really cares about "joesixpack". The simple fact of the matter is that she is not the average 'soccer mom'. It's not good enough for someone who will be just a heartbeat away from the highest seat in the land. She needs to do better.
She wants to expand the power of the VP (yes, Executive Branch) to play a more active role in the Senate (Legislative Branch). I am not ceratin she is really up to par on her civics understanding (Bush didn't quite get it either) and understanding of the separation of power and the roles of the three distinct branches. Either tha, or she just doesn't give a shit and wants more power in the Executive (also like Bush).
bells i find it highly amusing that baking cookies seems to be a prereck for what should be the second most powerful job in the country. Could you imagin if rudd, gillard or turnbul said that there only experiance and the reason we should have them as the leaders of the country were that they could bake good biscuts and they drive a 4wheel drive to get there kids to football?
one_raven not that i disagree with you but in what respect does she wish to expand the powers she would have if elected? After all the constitution limits the powers of each branch and gives the most power to the judicury as far as im aware (im guessing because thats what our consitution is for and it was based on the US model)
i see your point, to be honest i dont find the notion of an executive that is part of the legisilative branch that concerning because our whole executive is part of the legilsaltive branch and no legilsation can pass without goverment aproval in a normal parliment (a minority goverment is slightly different) I do prefer the duel chamber system to that of queensland thoughPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Notes on the Veep The key to the judiciary's power is a long and tangled argument. Some would argue that the Supreme Court awarded itself the power of judicial review. To the other, though, that key—namely judicial review—seems to be invested in Article III, Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority .... As to the question of expanding executive power, the Constitution didn't seem to discourage the Bush or Cheney. Furthermore, while McCain works to distance himself from Bush, Palin's behavior in the state trooper scandal is very familiar after these last eight years; she now seems to think she and her aides are immune to investigation. The vice-president's job is only vaguely defined. The VP is part of the executive branch according to Article II, Section 1— 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 .... —and is the President of the Senate, as stipulated in Article III, Section 1: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. And that's pretty much it. The joke when Dan Quayle was VP was that his job was to attend the funerals of foreign dignitaries and beached whales. Under Al Gore, the joke was that Al Gore was the VP. The joke about Cheney ... well, there are many. That Cheney convened meetings to set energy policy is not, in and of itself, the worst thing in the world. That the contents of those meetings are subject to executive privilege is a little bit strange, given that the resulting policy appears to have been dictated by energy executives. That Cheney runs the "shadow government" is probably disturbing to people largely because he's Dick Cheney. That he was in on decisions to torture suspects is more than a little unsettling. And he seems to have operated an intelligence service whose job it was to produce reports contradicting CIA and other output so that Bush and the Pentagon would have something seemingly actionable to wave in front of the people. (See PBS' Frontline: The Dark Side for a peek at what Cheney seemed to be doing, and his role in bringing the United States to Iraq.) In truth, Governor Palin does not seem, based on what we've seen of her thus far, capable of playing a similar gig. There is a certain irony about her candidacy. Many of the same McCain and GOP operatives who condemned Hillary Clinton's claims of misogyny during the primary have lined up to whine that it is somehow sexist to hold Palin to the same standards as any male candidate. Yet it may well be that her entire purpose is to be nothing more than a pretty face who at once energizes the party's conservative base while giving conservatives a weak lever against their own longstanding misogynist image. I don't like that theory, but I admit I'm having trouble figuring out a better one. And, yes, the irony of it, if true, is sickening. ____________________ Notes: United States Constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html See Also: PBS. "The Dark Side". Frontline. June 20, 2006. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
