Friday, October 03, 2008
Odds and Ends post-VP Debate
Sarah Palin easily exceeded expectations for her in the VP debate. Or at least the parts I saw. Her "folksy" style began to grate on me after a while and I left for significant portions after the first half hour.
Whether a deliberately developed persona or not, Palin's "I'm one of you" public face is the result of Ronald Reagan's influence on politics. Much as I despise almost the entirety of Reagan's policies, many Americans apparently liked his easy manner and communication style. He lied, deliberately misrepresented, or forgot facts and events but, shucks, he made it seem like he just forgot to pick up the milk on the way home from work rather than distorting critical information and decisions related to his Presidency. In the latter years, it's possible that Alzheimer's was affecting him but that hardly accounts for the vast majority.
The real question is whether many Americans will think that style is preferable to substance and competence. Palin's responses were often full of deliberately self-conscious "hockey mom" references, catchphrases and isolated facts obviously prepared for her. Biden had some moments like that but he also showed comfortable comprehension of the information for the most part.
I admit I'm biased toward the Obama/Biden side but I also have to say I'm not inclined to believe what either Dems or Repubs say. At the national level, both represent elite money interests to a greater or lesser degree. Yet I heard the most incredible things from Palin, statements that obviously contradicted McCain's long record and beliefs up to that point. The clearest pandering I saw from the stage easily came from Palin.
In most other election years, a VP candidate is hardly an important factor to consider. Considering McCain's history of serious illness and his age at 72, Palin becomes more of a factor on their ticket. The odds of her ascending to the Presidency if elected are higher than usual. This is why she is being scrutinized so thoroughly.
I'm not impressed by her abilities so far and I've seen much that worries me.
Whether a deliberately developed persona or not, Palin's "I'm one of you" public face is the result of Ronald Reagan's influence on politics. Much as I despise almost the entirety of Reagan's policies, many Americans apparently liked his easy manner and communication style. He lied, deliberately misrepresented, or forgot facts and events but, shucks, he made it seem like he just forgot to pick up the milk on the way home from work rather than distorting critical information and decisions related to his Presidency. In the latter years, it's possible that Alzheimer's was affecting him but that hardly accounts for the vast majority.
The real question is whether many Americans will think that style is preferable to substance and competence. Palin's responses were often full of deliberately self-conscious "hockey mom" references, catchphrases and isolated facts obviously prepared for her. Biden had some moments like that but he also showed comfortable comprehension of the information for the most part.
I admit I'm biased toward the Obama/Biden side but I also have to say I'm not inclined to believe what either Dems or Repubs say. At the national level, both represent elite money interests to a greater or lesser degree. Yet I heard the most incredible things from Palin, statements that obviously contradicted McCain's long record and beliefs up to that point. The clearest pandering I saw from the stage easily came from Palin.
In most other election years, a VP candidate is hardly an important factor to consider. Considering McCain's history of serious illness and his age at 72, Palin becomes more of a factor on their ticket. The odds of her ascending to the Presidency if elected are higher than usual. This is why she is being scrutinized so thoroughly.
I'm not impressed by her abilities so far and I've seen much that worries me.
Labels: debate, Presidential race 2008, Sarah Palin
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Palin vs. Biden: Hilarious Hijinx or Serious Debate?
I'm looking forward to the Palin/Biden debate tonight. I don't know if I'm expecting a train wreck or a skillful rhetorical dance.
There's been a lot of advice to each side in the media lately so I doubt whether either side will be surprised. The big question is whether Palin can think on her feet after undoubtedly being drilled endlessly on her responses on major issues. The few interviews she's done since her nomination indicate she's a poor study so far but I suspect the campaign handlers have taken these lessons to heart. They will do everything they can to compensate and make sure she knows basic policy answers cold.
I still don't know the contract details of the event but the format of short, 90 second answers, will curtail meanderings from both. Palin has shown a tendency to sometimes flail wildly to very specific questions when she is uncertain of the answer. Extensive rehearsals will probably reduce that response.
My understanding is that Biden tends to wander and elaborate too much, probably a much easier habit to curtail and focus into the time period than Palin's previous gaps in policy knowledge.
I suspect at this point many people are looking for big gaffes on Palin's end. She's done poorly at some spontaneous answers. We'll see
There's been a lot of advice to each side in the media lately so I doubt whether either side will be surprised. The big question is whether Palin can think on her feet after undoubtedly being drilled endlessly on her responses on major issues. The few interviews she's done since her nomination indicate she's a poor study so far but I suspect the campaign handlers have taken these lessons to heart. They will do everything they can to compensate and make sure she knows basic policy answers cold.
I still don't know the contract details of the event but the format of short, 90 second answers, will curtail meanderings from both. Palin has shown a tendency to sometimes flail wildly to very specific questions when she is uncertain of the answer. Extensive rehearsals will probably reduce that response.
My understanding is that Biden tends to wander and elaborate too much, probably a much easier habit to curtail and focus into the time period than Palin's previous gaps in policy knowledge.
I suspect at this point many people are looking for big gaffes on Palin's end. She's done poorly at some spontaneous answers. We'll see
Labels: debate, Presidential race 2008, Sarah Palin
Friday, September 26, 2008
Palin, Dominionism and Witchcraft
While I find the story of Sarah Palin's blessing by Thomas Muthee a less-than-compelling reason to condemn her or her beliefs, it does bring to the fore certain lines of Evangelical thinking. (For background on the Palin/Muthee brouhaha, see "Targeting cities with 'spiritual mapping,' prayer", "Palin under fire over African pastor friend who waged witch-hunt against woman he believed caused car crashes" and "Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter" for a small selection of news stories.)
The whole "spiritual warfare" concept seems a dangerous philosophical practice. No matter how much the "spiritual" aspects are emphasized, couching it as "warfare" leads to a general perception of a life-or-death struggle. In that context, justification of the most horrible tactics becomes easy. If you are part of a war between Good and Evil and you consider yourself on the side of Good, what won't you do to vanquish all opposition? And what keeps you from lumping all those that oppose you into the Evil category?
There's a saying (the source escapes me at the moment) that what people do in the name of evil pales beside the atrocities people are willing do in the name of good, God or country. I don't mean this to damn all efforts to fight injustice but to point out the pitfalls of such extreme dichotomies of view, allowing no areas of grey and diversity of opinion. Believing only in absolutes is a poor match with a pluralistic democracy like the USA.
On a wider level, we can see this playing out in US politics. Rank and file political partisans are encouraged to demonize the opposition, to use flagrant insult and taunts in place of political discussion of positions and options. Classical debating styles are viewed as too intellectual, too boring, too forgiving of differences.
I had much more to say on this subject but time has run short tonight. I may return to it later.
The whole "spiritual warfare" concept seems a dangerous philosophical practice. No matter how much the "spiritual" aspects are emphasized, couching it as "warfare" leads to a general perception of a life-or-death struggle. In that context, justification of the most horrible tactics becomes easy. If you are part of a war between Good and Evil and you consider yourself on the side of Good, what won't you do to vanquish all opposition? And what keeps you from lumping all those that oppose you into the Evil category?
There's a saying (the source escapes me at the moment) that what people do in the name of evil pales beside the atrocities people are willing do in the name of good, God or country. I don't mean this to damn all efforts to fight injustice but to point out the pitfalls of such extreme dichotomies of view, allowing no areas of grey and diversity of opinion. Believing only in absolutes is a poor match with a pluralistic democracy like the USA.
On a wider level, we can see this playing out in US politics. Rank and file political partisans are encouraged to demonize the opposition, to use flagrant insult and taunts in place of political discussion of positions and options. Classical debating styles are viewed as too intellectual, too boring, too forgiving of differences.
I had much more to say on this subject but time has run short tonight. I may return to it later.
Labels: debate, Dominionism, intolerance, Palin, politics, Presidential race 2008
The CR FAQ - An Introduction to Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism
