#1
blah, blah blah. Another example of why their editors should be fired because they don't do what editors are paid to do - edit. Just another slobbering, long-winded attempt to write around Obama's weaknesses and turn them into strengths. All that is missing from the story are violins playing in the background.
I suffered through a few paragraphs but it's so blatant and blubbering I can't see wasting my time.
#3
I actually read through it from an ealier link (instapundit?)
I came away from the article thinking he did realize that "getting windows fixed" helps only until the next window gets busted. This story says he became disillusioned and casts some doubt on his claim that he "learned more as a community organizer than at Harvard Law school".
His major non academic endevor was completely pointless, except for hooking him up with his political god fathers.
(I'm just old enough to remember Tom Eagleton. If you aren't, read his Wikipedia bio here first.)
Marc Armbinder
In memos, e-mails and phone calls this week, Obama campaign officials have urged surrogates and allies to mention Republicans who are "nervous" about the Palin pick and to link those worries to George McGovern's aborted vice presidential pick of Thomas Eagleton in 1972, according to three Democratic surrogates.
That year, McGovern rescinded the pick after learning that Eagleton had been treated for depression. Questions about the thoroughness of the Palin vet have been raised, ... by the Kos kiddies and Keith Olberman (pardon the redundancy)
... particularly about how and when Palin disclosed the news that her teenage daughter is pregnant and whether Palin's political resume had been thoroughly scrubbed.
On Wednesday, the campaign's chief surrogate wranglers distributed a three page compilation of alleged quotes from purported Republicans (some of whom may actually exist) concerned about the Palin pick. One surrogate said he had been urged to bring up the example of Eagleton in order to seed the idea that McCain might consider dropping him from the ticket.
Obama spokesperson Bill Burton said that surrogates haven't been pushed to mention Eagleton. "We did not give that guidance," he said. Obviously, he lied.
Responding to Palin has been a challenge. In public, the Obama campaign has stuck to its message, noting that Palin's speech last night barely referenced the economy. Today, Obama told reporters that he didn't particularly mind Palin's jabs at him, and he then made one of his own: "I assume that she wants to be treated the same way that guys want to be treated which means that their records are under scrutiny. I've been through this for 19 months. She's been through it, what for 4 days so far?"
One of the Democratic surrogates said that when he asked for guidance about Bristol Palin, Palin's pregnant daughter, his handler at the campaign told him that the campaign had nothing to say about it and did not want Democrats to mention it. Professor Althouse comments:
You know, I remember the McGovern campaign. I was a big supporter of McGovern's, and I hated Nixon, as did all of my friends. And the scenario then was completely different from what you are seeing now. We were never excited about Eagleton in the first place. We just wanted McGovern to win. Eagleton didn't infuse new energy into the McGovern campaign or jazz up am important subset of voters. He was just some boring Senator that got slotted in. And then he brought nothing but trouble and distraction as the news came out that he'd been hospitalized for depression 3 times and had receive electroshock treatments. It wasn't just that there were a couple of old political controversies or a family member was less than perfect. We were getting significant new information about his brain, the brain that we might need to rely on to make presidential decisions. It was simply not acceptable, especially since he'd also withheld this information from McGovern, which showed some really poor character. It should also be remembered that McGovern didn't come out looking very good, either. First, he said he was behind Eagleton "1000%"--then, two weeks later, he tossed him under the bus. Didn't make McG look very steady in a crisis. Even McGovern now admits that was a colossal mistake on his part.
McCain does not strike me as the sort of person who would bail on Sarah just because a bunch of Kos Kiddies have gone all attack-dog on her
The Palin candidacy has virtually nothing in common with the Eagleton scenario, and the people who are saying it does are displaying their desperation. Obviously -- I'm not the first to say this -- if you want McCain to lose and you think she's so terrible, you should be happy to see Palin as the VP nominee. It will help defeat McCain.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2008 15:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I watched on TV while Eagleton gave his acceptance speech at the '72 donk convention. I don't remember what he had to say but I do remember he was sweating and his hands were shaking. He got through it but you could tell he wasn't very well prepared.
Sarah Palin was cool, calm and collected all throughout her speech even when the teleprompter got ahead of her. She was very well prepared and she did a wonderful job. No comparison.
If they're trying to compare a girl's pregnancy to Eagleton's depression and shock therapy I'm not seeing that either.
#3
The liberals just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole. If they think Palin is going away, then they're even more delusional than usual. I smell fear. I love it.
#5
"Obama surrogates told to compare Sarah to Thomas Eagleton"
Oh, goody - another briar patch.
Whatever you do, mister, please do don't throw Sarah in that Eagleton briar patch!
Pretty please? With hockey sticks and moose guts sugar and cream on it? :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/05/2008 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"particularly about how and when Palin disclosed the news that her teenage daughter is pregnant"
This was a well known item in their home town for WEEKS before the VP announcement. It was no secret. The only thing was that the idiots in the MSM didn't know it, therefore they claim it as a surprise, as if those fecking arrogant urban elite morons are the fount of all knowledge.
#7
I have a (very) low opinion of Obama and crew, but this, THIS, is just bottom-of-the-barrel clueless. Can they possibly stay this stupid for the next 60 days?
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
09/05/2008 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#8
They can chalk up next week's McCain/Palin poll jump to convention/9-11 anniversary bounce. Much after that though, and even they will catch on.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
09/05/2008 20:04 Comments ||
Top||
Kim Chipman and Julianna Goldman
Fri Sep 5, 12:29 AM ET
Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama said the buildup of American forces in Iraq has ``succeeded beyond our wildest dreams,'' though Iraqis haven't done enough to take responsibility for their country.
The surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,'' Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, said in a recorded interview broadcast last night on Fox News's ``The O'Reilly Factor'' program.
#1
What he didn't say and can't say is that there was one politician in Washington that knew what the outcome of the Surge would be and his name is John McCain. McCain had to call in some chips with W to get him to approve this and he then told Petraeus he would run interference for him on the Hill. If it wasn't for McCain and his cohorts - Lieberman and Graham - the Dem congress would have kicked the Surge to touch without gaining a yard. I only wish O'Reilly had challenged him on this but he let it slide.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/05/2008 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated".
Nonsense. While the surge has not been perfect, it has worked very well, and a lot of people expected it to.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
09/05/2008 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
Political conventions in the modern era are supposed to be partisan lovefests, pre-ordained coronations. There isnÂ’t supposed to be anything like real politics going on there. ThatÂ’s what the media keeps telling us. But the Republicans, not listening, just broke that rule. Barring unforeseen circumstances, unknown shoes that might drop, or the unlikely event of Democratic strategic brilliance, it is now the Republican PartyÂ’s election to lose, and we have just witnessed what might be one of the neatest, most explosive, most dastardly genuine political manuevers of presidential politics in our time.
John McCain, in his speech tonight, has reclaimed the vast middle ground of American politics, where people may hold a variety of views, but value directness and character above all. His rejection of partisan politics has been the hallmark of his three-decade career, whether youÂ’ve always liked it or not. He doesnÂ’t just talk about it, heÂ’s lived it, and America knows that. Tonight, in speaking in earnest to all Americans, he severely undercut the Democratic line that he is pandering to the right. He had placated the right with the naming of Sarah Palin, no doubt, but she is also likely to bring in a large part of the center. Because America loves a fighter, and Americans like someone who looks like them. They will respect her, even if they donÂ’t agree on every issue or every aspect of her life.
America has been presented with a team that represents genuine accomplishment, character and independence. And America, I suspect, is smart enough to get that and appreciate that.
The inspired choice of Palin prompted a tsunami of slams, from lefty partisans and the media that has only focused on ObamaÂ’s negatives when forced to. There is no way the GOP strategists didnÂ’t know that was coming. We have to assume they knew enough about Palin to know she could handle it, and remain cool, as she did. The GOP strategists were no doubt gratified when, as expected, the left and a large part of the media did their work for them, bringing the audience, lowering expectations, and giving the American people an underdog to cheer on. Palin brought the Louisville slugger.
McCain was then supposed to be the anti-climax, and for a while there in his speech, he obligingly droned on. Then he told his war story, without JFK-wannabe photos or phony Benny Hill salutes or slogans. It was an unadorned tale of a tough guy who got humbled in the fire, and learned how to fight, learned it wasnÂ’t about him at all, as he suffered and endured for all of us.
McCain indulged himself by reminding everyone that he is WashingtonÂ’s original maverick. Then he did something IÂ’m not sure any politician has done since JFK. Without asking for them to support his platform or his party, without offering any election bribes, he asked them simply to serve, each in his or her own way, and with him, to be the best they can for their country.
I donÂ’t think you have to have been tortured, or even to have shown up in dire, mortal circumstances to get that. I think the librarians and nurses and PTA moms and little league coaches all get that, and understand it is the most basic non-partisan political message of all. Give something, expect nothing.
The Democrats have a problem. TheyÂ’ve got several. ObamaÂ’s rock star status has been seriously challenged. In fact, he peaked some time ago. In fairness, the grueling Democratic primary forced it on him. But you can only fool the American people for so long, and sooner or later the charm was bound to wear thin. Going into the final election season, he is no longer the flavor of the month, and voters will find that desperation has a bitter taste.
Image and charm aside, his Iraq war issue has been severely undercut. He miscalculated when he rejected the surge and the counter-insurgency strategy. He was on the wrong side, and Americans prefer to win. The surge has worked, and now Bush and his generals, reacting to conditions on the ground just as they said they would, are beginning to do the things Obama said heÂ’d do regardless of conditions on the ground. Meanwhile, the economy is sending mixed messages, with factory orders and house sales up, housing prices stabilizing and foreclosures easing. Then thereÂ’s change. With Old Hairplugs beside him, the untested neophyte is going to have a hard time reclaiming that from the veteran maverick and the tough-talking woman from Alaska.
The lefties would dispute, disparage, probably use a lot of eff words, maybe laugh at all this, but then again, the lefties thought they could make Palin withdraw.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2008 08:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
my thoughts exactly! I could have written that if I was as good a writer as he. Perfect analysis.
. . . John McCain’s speech has been described as “workmanlike”. That’s correct in a wonkish sort of way. At its deepest level the speech cannot be understood in terms of word clouds and policies. McCain’s speech was the declaration of someone with nothing left to prove. Any man who can admit that he was broken and afraid under interrogation is describing a kind of endurance, which while any intelligent person might understand, I think only men who have themselves been afraid can truly empathize with. There are places on that dark path which you know you could not have crossed through your strength alone. And whether you owe your emergence to luck or to God might be a matter for debate. But you know you do not wholly owe it to yourself. And this realization makes you less willing to blame others; less ready to stand in judgment of those who failed the test. It doesn’t make you lower the bar. But it makes you aware of how high that bar is.
What John McCain was describing was his redemption; which always brings with it a kind of recklessness; in the true sense of the cost being immaterial. It is the realization that the first person singular truly doesn’t matter. “In the end, it matters less that you can fight. What you fight for is the real test.”
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2008 08:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
beautiful. I wasn't a McCain fan and I disagree with many of his policies, but I came away from the speech believing that he is a man doing public service for the right reasons. His stock went up for me after watching his speech.
#2
I heard him speak many times before. This was the first time I was ever moved by anything the man said. Well done, John.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
09/05/2008 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I wasn't a McCain fan and I disagree with many of his policies, but I came away from the speech believing that he is a man doing public service for the right reasons.
Same here but I do trust his judgment and believe that, once he's got the relevant facts, he'll act in a wise manner far more often than not. I tend to think that on some issues, see e.g. carbond cap-and-trade / global warming, he's probably just the victim of a relentless drone inside the Beltway. I expect there's a good chance he'll reverse on those things if he's elected and I expect a shot of he and Palin standing on the dreary moonscape of the North Slope to be the catylist.
#4
Azcat - I've been hoping that too, though I fear it may be a bit of wishful thinking on my part. It really doesn't matter because he will be far better than the blatant marxism and Chicago corruption that Obama will help to further entrench in our political system.
#5
Whether or not it's wishful thinking I still respect, admire, and, most importantly, trust McCain. Obama doesn't pass that threshold test and is IMHO therefore unfit for the office he seeks.
#2
I'd ask him to be the DCI for a few years first. A more pressing need in my opinion. No question however, moving Rice along is urgently needed. Her visit to Libya and commitment of aid (US Dollars) is absolutely over the top. I cannot imagine what could possibly justify such actions.
#6
Assuming McCain wants to reform an entrenched bureaucracy. CIA is probably a better target for this than DoS, and whoever McCain appoints will face Senate confirmation. I expect this to be another close, bitter election. If McCain wins he will face a Senate that may well be veto proof. Dingy will be flexing his muscle quickly. Getting confirmations through will be tough. His nominations will be more in the McCain-Feingold tradition than the McCain-Palin. He would be better off saving his confirmation mojo for SCOTUS nominees.
#9
Colonel heard that speach where it has been talked about foreign aid for allies and friends only. He thinks McCain will win. He knows he does not have ally credentials, but triends? Doable. So he called Condi next morning.
#1
Overall, he writes that four factors combined to reduce the violence: the covert operations; the influx of troops; the decision by militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to rein in his powerful Mahdi Army; and the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda.
Is it just me, but isn't it a 'surge' when you get an 'influx' of troops? And would there have been an Awakening if the locals had seen an 'exit' of troops? [rhetorical questions].
#2
Paterius was behind a lot of that. IT was his use of spies and show of strength combined with Al Queda abuses that made the Anbar Awakening possible. It was the increase of troop strength that made Sadr's decision to rein in his troops rather than see them slaughtered.
#5
So Woodward says that we've been spying on Maliki? Either it's a lie, or it's true. If it's a lie, then this is technical sedition. If it's the truth, then it's exposing an active covert operation in a warzone.
Either way, in a rational world, Woodward would be brought up on criminal charges and do hard federal time.
Some days, I wish the Comedian hadn't been fictional. Although I admit that Bernstein didn't really make as obnoxious over the long-term as his asshole partner has.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/05/2008 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
With his tough stance on US withdrawal, Sunni militias and the Kurds Iraq's leader risks doom
What's up with Nouri al-Maliki? As security anxieties subside in this slowly calming city, political speculation has rarely been so intense. First, it was Maliki's demand that all US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Then came signs that his government wants to undermine the Sunni tribal militias, known as the Awakening councils, on whom the Americans have relied to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq. Now there are moves to take on the powerful Kurdish peshmerga troops and push them out of disputed areas in the strategic central province of Diyala.
Why is the prime minister doing this? Is "the puppet breaking his strings", as one Arab newspaper put it? Or is the more appropriate metaphor "dropping the mask"? Those who knew Maliki in exile in Syria during Saddam Hussein's time now recall that he opposed the US-led invasion. His Daawa party did not attend the eve-of-invasion conference of US- and UK-supported exiles in London, and he opposed the party's decision six months later to join the hand-picked "governing council" set up by the first occupation overlord, Paul Bremer.
Maliki's new line has discomforted the Americans. Some officials put on a brave face, saying it is a sign of Iraqi confidence in their own sovereignty, a development that, of course, they support as proof that the Bush administration's strategy of rebuilding a proud country is succeeding. Others say it reflects overconfidence, even hubris, as Iraq is a long way from being able to survive without US military protection.
Either way, playing the nationalist card has huge potential consequences in Iraq. With provincial and parliamentary elections expected next year, it will sharpen the struggle for dominance in the Shia community. It is designed to undercut the appeal of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a consistent opponent of the occupation who is re-profiling his movement on the lines of Lebanon's Hizbullah. Its Mahdi army militia will be slimmed into a group of experienced resistance fighters, kept in reserve for action against US troops rather than to fight Iraqi Sunnis, while the rest of the movement goes into communal politics.
Posing as the nationalist who managed to get the US to accept a timetable for withdrawal (the tense negotiations could yet founder) allows Maliki to distance himself from his main Shia allies in government, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), seen as keen backers of the occupation. It also diverts attention from the chronic power cuts and other economic troubles. Every government has to fight on its record in office, but, by turning himself into a patriotic Iraqi hero, Maliki may sidestep this. Some observers suggest he may even go to the elections on a "prime minister's list", to redefine himself as no longer a Shia or a political Islamist, so as to win support from Iraq's secular and non-sectarian urban middle class. But there are uncomfortable echoes here of the effort by Ayad Allawi, the prime minister appointed by the US in 2004, to project himself in the December 2005 elections as a strong man. His vote total fell a long way below his expectations.
But if Maliki wants to present a new image as a man who stands up to the Americans, why does he choose this moment to go after Sunnis and Kurds? The principle of disarming all militias, and not just those of his Shia rivals, such as Sadr, may be laudable but the timing is highly risky and threatens to overload the circuits. Going after the Sunnis and Kurds may fail, dooming Maliki to defeat. Many Sunnis already believe he is a tool of the Iranians. Now they say his sudden anti-Americanism is no proof of Iraqi patriotism, but just shows he is a tool of Tehran. The Iranians want the US out of Iraq, not only in order to undermine US credibility in the region. They interpret Washington's support for the Awakening councils as a tilt towards the Sunnis and an effort to re-balance Iraqi politics from the Shia dominance of the early post-invasion period.
Maliki's tough stance towards the US could doom him personally. The US toppled his predecessor, Ibrahim Jaaferi, and, even though US power in Iraq has declined since then, it may find a way to remove Maliki too. It would not demand that the prime minister go, as it did in 2006, but could undermine his parliamentary majority. The US has alternative candidates, including the ambitious vice-president, Adel Abdel Mahdi, and the Sunni defence minister, Abdul Qader al-Obeidi, who told the New York Times in January that US troops would be needed for another 10 years.
Whatever his motives, Maliki's move has certainly shaken up Iraqi politics and forced the issue of a clear US departure timetable on to the agenda. The Iraqi prime minister has put Bush and McCain on to the back foot, and given help to Obama. Whether Maliki or Bush blinks first remains to be seen.
What's interesting is that it is a speech that's heavily dependent on the central Judeo-Christian trope, but McCain isn't churched up enough to have used it as effectively as Reagan, Clinton or W would have.
Start with the fact that whatever his strengths and weaknesses and regardless of whether he's actually right, W's presentation as president is that of a man who is profoundly certain of himself, not just politically and strategically but morally. That can't help but put off especially those who disagree with him. Next you have Obama who--whether consciously or coincidentally or both--has been marketed as a semi-divinity, our superior and virtually flawless.
Comes Mr. McCain and he says the following:
"I thought I was tougher than anyone. I was pretty independent then, too. I liked to bend a few rules, and pick a few fights for the fun of it. But I did it for my own pleasure; my own pride. I didn't think there was a cause more important than me. [...]
[A]fter I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me."
This admission, that he broke, ties into everything we believe about Man being Fallen and necessarily fallible. Recall that when Christ is on the Cross He too breaks: "My Lord, My Lord, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Even God found that, when He tried to live as a man, He could not avoid the pitfalls that go with our mere mortality.
John McCain, having lived that pivotal episode in his life, was able to imbue it with the requisite emotion, but not really to convey its broader meaning, its eternal lesson. He even stumbled somewhat over the most important line--"I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need"--making it only a jibe rather than a skewer that drives home the devastating point. And there's a coda that's missing: "I have been too humbled and made too wretched to mistake myself for anything more than the all too human John McCain you see before you." The implicit contrast is that while Barrack Obama has pretenses to be more than human, I am very much one of you.
The speech -- this worthwhile portion of it, at any rate -- is structured to bring out this kind of humility, but there was so much other clutter in it and such theological talk is so foreign to him that he failed to take full advantage of the setup.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2008 13:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't quite know how to express my thoughts on Mr. Judd. Reminds me of an English teacher that analyzes a paper for structure without any real consideration of content.
#3
I had the same difficulty understanding NRO criticism of Governor Palin's speech. The NRO round table thought she was "sarcastic" and their analysis was obsessed with minor points of delivery while missing the emotional effect of her words, apparently because they could not emotionally grasp it themselves.
When I heard Sarah Palin speak, I thought I was finally hearing a politician tell me the truth.
intellectuals no matter their stripe tend to be very impressed with their own intelligence and will pick apart anything. Real good at trees but not so good with forests.
This is also known as over processing and leads to paralysis by analysis. This is, to me, one of the biggest failings of Lawyers and Academics. They go round and round chasing their nits while missing reality.
On top of that they are very prone to believe that they can "think" their way through any issue without bothering to consider that other people are involved that might think differently. That's why Zero's belief that he can talk anyone into anything is so dangerous.
What's that line about no military plan surviving first contact with the enemy?
Intellectuals of this sort are like people playing chess against themselves while pretending that the alternate moves were considered independently.
#7
Mr Judd, having never been there, nor done that, simply does not get it, neither do his effete Manhattan buddies at NRO, nor the lawyers and pundits that live in the Country Club atmosphere of the beltway.
From my viewpoint, they are elitists, snobs and urbanites that look down their noses at us "Sam's Club" types. They are part of the disease that has nearly destroyed the GOP.
Us "Sams Club" types they look down on are the ones that build things, create things, and run businesses, we secure the streets, we fight the fires, and we fight and die in war.
Blue collar types do get McCain, the middle class does as well, small town and rural people do too - they know what happens when they can't meet a mortgage, when they have to cut back the grocery budget because food has gotten more expensive, when they go without lunch to buy medicine for their children. When they live 2 paychecks from losing everything, they know what matters in a way these snobby elites never will.
We know things and do things those country club types will never get because they have never ever truly had to put it on the line.
We understand John McCain.
On a personal level, having been "broken" as part of SERE training with coercive methods (think waterboarding), I can tell you its a humbling, even shattering, experience. Just realizing that no matter how strong you are, no matter how unbreakable you thought you would be (common in the military mindset), that you can be broken is a hell of a blow. Its at a base emotional level that cannot be adequately explained by words alone.
Once you've been through it, if you are the ones to make it, it turns out to be more like tempering a sword by shocking it in cold water then heating and forging it again and again. You learn that you weren't truly broken -that you are still YOU because you learn to depend on the things nobody can take away from you, not under duress, nor in a POW camp.
There are things that abide - and allow you to endure, to spring back from when the body cannot go any further.
God, family and country. True faith and true hope. Character. Principles.
Those stay with you, they cannot be taken out of you, they are part of your fabric, they allow you to spring back, they allow you to endure.
A good summary is from the Code (that all of us had to memorize when I went through). I'll leave you with what all of us that have been there done that know:
I will never forget that I am an American, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
John McCain, for all his faults, embodies this and lives it.
#8
Everybody breaks. It's expected. But when you break, you still stick to the code - give them the least you can, and make it obvious you're under duress.
#9
IIRC, up until the Korean War the US had always dealt with more or less honorable opponents. (The Japanese would torture POWs, work them to death or just outright kill them, but they didn't try to convert them. During the Korean War, many of the POWs were submitted to brainwashing (and torture). They broke, and at first they were looked down on as being weak. Later, we realized that, as several have said here, anyone can be broken. The best you can hope for is to resist as long as you can (the R in SERE), and give as little as you can when you do break. That is why pilots and others are given SERE training - to give them skills and tools to deal with what they might face if captured.
BTW, I have not been to SERE school. I had a friend in the Naval Reserve who said he wanted to go to SERE for his annual training. When I mentioned this to a mutual acquaintance, an active duty Navy pilot, he said that he swore he would give up his wings rather than go through SERE again. He thought my friend was nuts. Which my friend was, but in a good way.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
09/05/2008 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I despise Mr. Judd. I have discovered that if one makes a congent and powerful argument against his position in his comments, he deletes them. I caught him in the act modifying a comment while I was commenting on it, having quoted it at length. I then posted a comment chastizing him for modifying it, and he deleted all of them. I've caught him tryng to play the race card so blatanly that many of his visitors at that time called him on it. He deleted the entire thread.
In a call to have OPEN BORDERS, he claimed you couldn't get americans to cut grass or clean houses. I cited my black gardener and white maid, and he deleted the comment.
He cannot bear to hear the truth if it opposes him.
#13
And since I didn't want to trivialize my prior post, I felt "broken" during Hell Week in my fraternity in the 70's.
I am way non PC here, but I argue that hazing and Hell Week for me taught me exactly how far I could last under stress, without sleep... and it ain't very far. Watching others go through it as a brother also provided me with lasting lessons. I saw the meanest bad ass city kid who obviously had the bully gene in him cry like a little girl, while a wirey haired, geeky son of an astro physicist who was picked on even after he was brotherized never came close to breaking down.
Yes, hazing gets out of control if it turns into "lord of the flies" but my experiences lead me a credo I have always used since... I never ask people to do things or take risks that I wouldn't do myself.
OS, please don't misunderstand me . I am not begining to equivicate fraternity hazing with SERE... One of my little bros went on to naval flight training, and set me straight over beers on what professional military "hazing" is like.
Peggy said some dumb things the other day. She said some smart things in today's column. Go read it all.
What she did in terms of the campaign itself was important. No one has ever really laid a glove on Obama before, not in this campaign and maybe not in his life. But Palin really damaged him. She took him square on, fearlessly, by which I mean in part that she showed no awkwardness connected to race, or racial history. A small town mayor is kind of like a community organizer only you have actual responsibilities. He wrote two memoirs but never authored a major bill. They've hauled the Styrofoam pillars back to the Hollywood lot.
This was powerful coming from Baberaham Lincoln, as she's been called.
By the end, Democrats knew they had been dinged, and badly. After the speech they descended on cable news en masse with the dart-eyed, moist-browed look of the operative who doesn't believe his talking points. They seemed like they were thinking, "I've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well." Actually they haven't seen it before in that Palin is something new, but they have seen it before in terms of what she said.
Which gets me to the most important element of the speech, and that is the startlingness of the content. It was not modern conservatism, or split the difference Conservative-ish-ism. It was not a conservatism that assumes the America of 2008 is very different from the America of 1980.
It was the old-time conservatism. Government is too big, Obama will "grow it", Congress spends too much and he'll spend "more." It was for low taxes, for small business, for the private sector, for less regulation, for governing with "a servant's heart"; it was pro-small town values, and implicitly but strongly pro-life.
This was so old it seemed new, and startling. The speech was, in its way, a call so tender it made grown-ups weep on the floor. The things she spoke of were the beating heart of the old America. But as I watched I thought, I know where the people in that room are, I know their heart, for it is my heart. But this election is a wild card, because America is a wild card. It is not as it was in '80. I know where the Republican base is, but we do not know where this country that never stops changing is.
It all left me wondering if this campaign is about to take on a new shape, with the old time conservatism on one side, and a smoother, evolved form of the old style liberalism on the other.
It doesn't get more dramatic, or dramatically drawn, than that.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2008 06:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She really damaged her credibility with her off-mic statements. Now I don't know if she's just writing what people want to read or what she believes. In the process I've lost interest in what she has to say.
#2
Peggy Noonan is trying to back peddle from her off air hot mike comment the other day. A comment ("Palin's nomination is political bullsh*t").
That comment...made honestly pre-Palin's acceptance speech and what Noonan really believed at the time...will have to color everything Noonan says from this time forward.
The article set forth above is Noonan's attempt at penance...three Hail Mary's...three Our Father's...one Act of Contrition...together with a daily Rosary for the next month. It's a good start. Maybe what Peggy fails to understand is that Palin is more authentically consevative than...Peggy. Such a thing can happen when you hang with the belt-way elite for almost 30 years as Peggy has done.
Noonan has the ability as a writer to tell Palin's story. Noonan the other day said that when trunks push someone out front with only a good narrative they fail. I think Peggy should revisit that statment and be one of the first to tell the Palin narrative because what I'm learning about Palin is that her narrative has serious subtance. Only time will tell, but does anyone other than the dems in the MSM, DU, and DK think this woman to be a mere flash in the pan?
#3
Peggy Noonan is a marvelously gifted writer and it would be a sin against Charity for me to say "You're dead to me." As to her credibility, however, it is already and permanently "Six Feet Under."
#4
The day after her open mike moment, Ms. Noonan wrote a piece I saw at the Wall Street Journal's OnlineJournal.com, wherein she conveyed her shock at the swiftness with which the YouTube had spread and the large number of negative reactions she received. In the piece she tried to put a good face on what was heard... but the attempt was like a cat trying to cover up the mess it made on the linoleum. There are two possibilities:
1. Ms. Noonan has had a chance to look at the data, and to watch Governor Palin speak, and has revised her opinion, or
2. Ms. Noonan realized how much she angered her audience with a few snide and unconsidered words, and is making up to those who cause her to be paid.
I'm going to continue regarding her as I have done: a very good speechwriter whose analysis of the speech style and delivery is insightful, but whose opinions beyond the technical are worth no more than, say, my own.
#9
Peggy is dead to me. I was not in the least surprised by Palin's speech based on what I had read. Except that she could be so poised in front of such a large crowd. Peggy should have known that much.
Certainly there was calculation in McCain's thinking. And I should hope so. But it was not entirely the kind of cynical move she clearly thought it was. To be polite, Peggy is a wordsmith. To be honest, she's a bullshitter for hire.
I think Betty has it right. That is the evil of DC, to which I often fear McCain has succumbed in his naive desire for country first and heroic accomplishment in excess of his four star forebearers. Palin, on the other hand, can go home any time she wishes and life will be just as full for her.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2008 20:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
NS, I agree: a good part of Palin's power is that she doesn't lust after approval or office.
Noonan has for a long time struck me as one of the Republican elite (self identified) who are a good part of the party's problem - not through corruption but through smug complacency punctuated by shrill condescension. George Will lives in that place a lot too as do most of the NRO writers.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
What's up with Nouri al-Maliki? As security anxieties subside in this slowly calming city, political speculation has rarely been so intense. First, it was Maliki's demand that all US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Then came signs that his government wants to undermine the Sunni tribal militias, known as the Awakening councils, on whom the Americans have relied to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq. Now there are moves to take on the powerful Kurdish peshmerga troops and push them out of disputed areas in the strategic central province of Diyala.
Orrin Judd
