Saturday, September 27, 2008

Who won the debate? This might surprise you.

We won the debate. You and me. Deep inside, I’m just a patriotic fool who loves John Wayne and loves his country. And the country won last night.

The candidates spoke and both sides can be proud. Prediction: Debate II will be better after both sides have had a chance to review the game film.

I would like an answer to one big question: where the hell was Sarah Palin after last night’s debate? The Dems trotted out Joe Biden and let him make his gaffes and take his shots. But the Republicans could only dredge up Giuliani for the debate post mortem.

I’ll bet Sarah Palin is mad as hell and I don’t blame her. Her boss belittles her by his actions while he praises her out of his mouth. Uh uhh.

Memo to Sen. McCain: take the muzzle off your pit bull. Your bizarre witness protection treatment is ruining her self-confidence.

That’s cruel and is no way to treat a human being. If you really love her,
let her go.


Max Fischer said...

Great take, George. You nailed it by keeping it simple. With all the hyperbole and partisan rubbish being hurled at us, there's been shockingly little uttered about about the Palin void. Pure condescention from the McCain camp. She should be furious.

The South Plainsman said...

Good one, George. I wonder if McCain is beginning to worry about Palin. She couldn't be any worse at gaffes than Biden. Of course, the press is easy on Biden and would not be on her.

Perhaps she is out busily campaigning and is getting no coverage.

Next Thursday will be the tell.

Anonymous said...

What a perception of the Palin lack of response to the debates....I think the Couric interview has destroyed the McCampain's trust...or maybe their own stupidity in putting her in there in the first place...or second place. Also they probably won't recover from the Letterman chewing out the other night. I wish Barack would hit him harder but I guess he defers to age. Bill

The South Plainsman said...

I challenge everyone that reads this to check the full transcripts of Palin's interviews by Gibson and Couric and then compare the transcripts of what was actually aired.

It was worse that the the photoshopped picture of Obama in Palin's haircut that has been floating around the Internet.

If I am given the power to edit a long interview into segments of a few minutes, I could make each of you look like a damn fool. That is what they did to Palin.

We will see who is too lazy to do the comparison.

George Phenix said...

Oh come on.

Network news programs have every right to edit for time and for content. That's the very definition of editing. And of news.

They might have taken some words away from Palin -- but they damn sure did not put any stupid string of words in her mouth. She managed that without any help.

She's in over her head. The McCain handlers know this and were afraid to let her speak after the debate.

Max Fischer said...

You know, politics was a whole lot more fun to discuss before Republicans started blaming all their shortcomings on the liberal media (and activust judges).

The South Plainsman said...

I see that nobody actually compared the versions, so let me post something below that does everything George says, but probaly conveys an incomplete and unfair story:

Now this one hurts Democrats, and I will bet they will then object to the editing.

The South Plainsman said...

Dunno why blogger wouldn't print the whole url. Here is another try:

The South Plainsman said...

Well, I guess I will just email it to George. This business about editing does remind me of a time when I held political office. I was always very careful of what I said on the record, and spoke only to reporters that I trusted.

After a trial, I made a statement to a reporter with our local paper and he wrote the story. When it appeared, the story had me saying something that I did not say, and in fact, it would have been unethical for me to say. When I asked the reporter what happened, he said that was not they way his story was submitted, but that the editor had changed it. So I was quoted as having said something that another party to the litigation said.

Editors do have the right to edit, but not to change the substance of the story, That is what ABC and CBS did. The ABC story actually put one of Palins responses as a response to a different question.

Journalist ethics: Oxymoron.

Jeff Hebert said...

SP, is there any percentage of what we see her saying that we should lend credence to, or are we to assume in every case that if she is saying something we find ridiculous that it's the result of press bias at some level?

I have seen this reaction before, on both sides of the aisle. When a candidate starts to do poorly, they blame the press. Bill Clinton did it, even though he looked right into the camera and lied to me.

We didn't hear about it so much in the run-up to the Iraq War, when the traditional media couldn't pass on administration talking points quickly or clearly enough.

But now, when we have very few pieces of evidence to look at wherein Sarah Palin actually answers questions (since they won't let her give press conferences or take questions), once again the media is biased against the person struggling.

I didn't watch any of the interviews myself, I've just read transcripts. And no matter how hard people try to distract from the content by waving the "Media Bias" flag around, this answer taken on its own merits just makes no sense:

[Alaska and Russia] have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

What the hell does that mean? Is she saying that ICBMs would fly over Alaska on their way to annihilate the US? Who is this "those" who get sent out to keep an eye on Russia from the shores of Alaska?

This isn't a "gaffe", an inartful statement of no real consequence. This is full-on flat-out ignorance, and she's proud of it!

People, this is the woman who could be one skin-cancer-relapse away from controlling our military, and she insists, after weeks of having a chance to back down from it, that simply having Russia as a neighbor qualifies as national security experience.

As Jon Stewart said, Alaska is also next to the North Pole, does that make her an expert on Santa Claus too?

We have an expression in Texas, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining". And that's exactly what the McCain-Palin campaign has been doing for the last three months, pissing all over us and asking us to believe a storm front just rolled in.

JohnSBoles said...

I love movies. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Dave. Two of my favorites. I live in the real world however. Leadership does not need to be like me or even liked by me. They do need to be able to form complete sentences on their own and to have a greater knowledge than mine about this country, the world and the history of both. In discusions of Sarah Pallins experience and/or lack thereof I hear comparisons to Harry Truman and to Bill Clinton and their inexperience. Hmm...Harry Truman was a Senator for ten years before his selection as Vice President. Bill Clinton couldn't see another country from his state's border but he was a Rhodes Scholar. Sarah Pallin is not the right person to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency from my perspective.

National Politics

News on Aging

Geriatric Medicine News

Senior Health Insurance News

Social Security & Medicare News

Posts From Other Geezer Blogs