…and this is a 
Palinoscopy
Category: Politics
Posted on: October 5, 2008 9:56 AM, by PZ Myers
Here's the VP debate exactly as I remember it: Palin was cheerful, folksy, always evading the questions and changing the subject she was prepped for, and completely devoid of substance. I especially liked the introductory ground rules, which the media have taken to heart: "Due to the historically low expectations for governor Palin, were she simply to do an adequate job tonight, and at no point cry, faint, run out of the building, or vomit, you should consider the debate a tie."
The 'folksiness' grates, as Patricia Williams notes — it's a misleading proxy for authenticity, and authenticity is too often regarded as a proxy for competence and knowledge. We need leadership that actually has some skill in managing, now that we're deep in this crisis the last folksy boob we elected led us into, and instead we're getting a beauty queen whose major qualification seems to be the ability to drop the ending "g" from words. That would be OK if she had some ability beyond that, but nope, it's not there.
Another example of the contrast: Biden and Palin were asked to name the past vice presidents they admire most. Palin fumbled, mentioned first Geraldine Ferraro (who only ran for VP) because she "shattered part of that glass ceiling", and then named Bush Sr., because she liked vice presidents who went on to become presidents. (Right. Chills run down the spine, don't they?) Biden didn't hesitate and said Johnson, because of his knowledge of politics.
Oh, but Palin does have one other talent: she's a well-trained attack dog. I think we can expect much more of this kind of slander from the Republicans in the next few weeks. She has come right out and accused Obama of associating with terrorists now.
Mrs Palin described Mr Obama as someone who saw the US "as being so imperfect... he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country".
Mr Obama served on a charity board several years ago with Mr Ayers, who is now a professor at the University of Illinois. The White House hopeful, who was a child when Weather Underground was active, has denounced Mr Ayers' radical past.
I expect she'll start talking about how Obama is a Muslim who will want to be sworn in on a Koran soon. It's all going to be lies and innuendo from the Republican side from here on out, and it might just work — especially if she says it with a dimple and a smile and a few lazily formed gerunds.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: steve8282 | October 5, 2008 10:04 AM
Is it the debate or is it Tina Fey, during last nights opening sketch I could not tell which was which.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 5, 2008 10:06 AM
Tina Fey is brilliant! I might be in love.
Posted by: Zeno | October 5, 2008 10:08 AM
The right-wing rag known as the Sacramento Union went bankrupt and folded back in the 1990s under the leadership of Joseph Farah, later the founder of WorldNetDaily. The Union is back as an on-line journal and a free weekly throwaway tabloid. Its standards are the same as those of the Farah era. In a recent Union column, the argument was made that Sarah Palin is just like Golda Meir. Yeah, right.
Posted by: cousinavi | October 5, 2008 10:10 AM
If the GOP pull this off by unleashing smears from the winking, vapid Caribou Barbie...if they steal this election by ginning up the racists, gun nuts, religious freaks and punching the fear button like a hopped up speed freak, I predict rioting in the streets.
Righteous, vicious rioting in the streets.
The Red States would do well to remember what happened to Germany when it found itself in a two front war.
Posted by: Mena | October 5, 2008 10:15 AM
Definitely a lack of gravitas. This is an important job, and it would be nice if she could just pretend to take it seriously. I can't remember if it was Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or Bill Maher who mentioned that she was like the Romper Room lady, but I can see that.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 5, 2008 10:19 AM
cousinavi,
I think the Dems have more to fear in the way of a two-front war than the Theothuglicans. After all, the Dems would be facing raving religious fundamentalists at home as well as abroad - natural allies. The Dems, on recent form, would simply knuckle under, even if defeated by outright fraud, as in 2000 and possibly 2004.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | October 5, 2008 10:23 AM
NBC Universal claimed copyright apparently, are they a proxy for the McCain/Palin ticket now?
Posted by: Doubting Foo | October 5, 2008 10:24 AM
Ya...newkewler!
Posted by: Isherwood | October 5, 2008 10:27 AM
I don't just predict rioting, I plan on it. It's already on my Google calendar, just in case. I will be unimaginably outraged at this country if that happens.
That clip was awesome! Kudos to the writers for capturing the soul of the moment.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | October 5, 2008 10:27 AM
I would love to see how her folksy attitude will work on Putin and all the other scary foreigners.
Posted by: terrence | October 5, 2008 10:28 AM
No need to invoke "terrorist" -on the scale of human shit, Ayers is one full degree lower than O.J. Simpson. At least O.J. never bragged in public on getting away with murder. I hope Obama wins and appoints him Secretary of Defense - we can use that kind of tough-minded bloodthirsty attitude.
Posted by: Lee Picton | October 5, 2008 10:32 AM
Agh! The video is "no longer available" here. I was able to get it from googling other sources, though. Hilarious!
Posted by: LisaJ | October 5, 2008 10:35 AM
Yeah, I got not available as well. Weird. My favourite part was when she threw in that extra 'maverick' at the end to acknowledge all of the drinking games that were going on. Hilarious!
Posted by: Jargon Scott | October 5, 2008 10:35 AM
"Lazily Formed Gerunds" is a great name for a band.
Posted by: raven | October 5, 2008 10:42 AM
Who is Bill Ayers? If he is a terrorist why is he a professor at the U. Of Illinois?
There is a contradiction here. Bill Ayers should stand up, point out that he is employed as a prof and tell the stupid bitch to stop slandering him and shut up.
Palin pals around with two different groups of vicious, known terrorists.
1. The christofascist morons who have wrecked the USA in the last 8 years and want to send it back to the Dark Ages. Millions are scared silly of Death Cultist Nihilists and her. For good reasons.
2. She is associated the the Alaska Independence Party and her spouse was a member. A fascist organization that openly hates the USA and wants to seccede. The founder was murdered while attempting to acquire illegal explosives.
Posted by: Jams | October 5, 2008 10:55 AM
PZ,
I think the conclusion that someone is ill-fit because they are folksy is as flawed as the assumption that someone is fit because they are folksy (not that you were necessarily saying that). I suppose the question is: is there any value to have-a-beer-with politics, or is it simply shallow rubbish?
All the candidates have their own version of folksiness. Obama rides a bike (appealing to folks like me), talks like a preacher (not my thing), and enjoys family outings. McCain tells stories (I like a little story), is martial (not so much), and tells a good joke from time to time. It's a matter of which folks one is appealing to, or rather, which thing appeals or doesn't appeal to folks who happen to be listening.
Government administration is a complex apparatus which politicians are tasked to explain in a time-frame shorter than your average lecture - sometimes in the 30 seconds range. The "folksy factor" is a politician's ability to translate that complexity into something everyone can hear, and want to hear. Aside from the fabrications, out-right lies, and the stupidity of his policies in general, George Bush can actually put things into simple unambiguous terms. I knew what he meant when he said "you're with us, or you're against us." I didn't like it. But I understood it. In spite of his linguistic blundering, he gets an A for communication.
What am I saying here? I don't think folksiness is just a method of determining authenticity, but also a sort-of key to the front door. If your listeners don't feel comfortable listening to you, don't understand the language you're using, or feel rejected by you, it doesn't really matter what you say. There's value to being able to speak as the Romans do while in Rome.
Of course, the whole phenomenon reminds me of that barrage of irrelevant interests scratched across the bottom of every resume. The disparaging thing about modern politics is that the resumes of politicians seem sometimes to be dominated by that section. I have to admit, politics in the U.S. (and more and more so up here too) sounds less and less like competing parties, and more and more like competing ethnicities.
Posted by: wildlifer | October 5, 2008 11:01 AM
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NBC Universal
Posted by: Ian | October 5, 2008 11:02 AM
Hulu is good for Americans (and those with American proxies):
http://www.hulu.com/watch/37730/saturday-night-live-vp-debate-open-palin--biden
@Jams nothing wrong with folksy, the problem is that it ends there!
Posted by: clinteas | October 5, 2008 11:03 AM
Say about Bill Maher what you want,but when it comes to religion or Palin,the man is spot on and just fantastic.Im willing to compartmentalize in his case,I freely admit !
New Rules on Palin from this week,including the witchdoctor vid here:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CIcnAt4fYTw
Oh,and its 2 am,I had a bad day at work and am off to the Casino lol
Posted by: Gibbon | October 5, 2008 11:04 AM
It's not really that surprising that McCain/Palin are resorting to slander. Obama/Biden have a strong lead, and are polling much better than their opponents, including in places that in the past traditionally went to Republicans. The GOP are now so desperate as to having to resort to Rovian tactics after they failled to use the economic crisis to rally greater support for their candidate.
By the way, whoever wins will not be dealing with Vladimir Putin. The Russian presidency saw a changing of the guard in May. Whoever becomes president of the USA, will instead have to "look into the eyes and see the soul of" Dmitry Medvedev.
Posted by: Orac | October 5, 2008 11:05 AM
I call Godwin!
In fact, that might almost even be Hitler Zombie-worthy!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 5, 2008 11:12 AM
Gibbon@20,
Putin is no longer Russian President, true, but there's little doubt he's still in charge, as Prime Minister.
Posted by: The Perky Skeptic | October 5, 2008 11:17 AM
Um... Why has YouTube pulled this video? And why do they SUCK SO MUCH lately???
Posted by: David R. | October 5, 2008 11:18 AM
Here's the video on NBC, where they probably won't take it down -- http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/vp-debate-open-palin-biden/727421/
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 5, 2008 11:19 AM
I get "video no longer available, but this worked.
Posted by: cousinavi | October 5, 2008 11:24 AM
Orac: I reject your Godwin. I did not call anyone a Nazi (even though, insofar as Red State America is concerned, the tag is appropriate...and particularly so in the case of Frau Palin). Merely a matter of tactics should the GOP succeed in fragmenting the electorate - again - and stealing the election with appeals to divisive, fear-mongering, weak-minded, single-issue bullshit rather than anything resembling competence or a cogent plan for the future of the country.
Great Dino-Riding Jebus! If you need any further proof (besides the Ayers crap from Palin) check out Rahm Emanuel and Marsha Blackburn on CNN with Wolf (GASP) Blitz....Er....(GASP) having a little slap fight. One of them has facts, the other lies and slanders. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.
Jams: You miss the point, I think. It's not the folksy speech, it's the lack of content and the obvious lack of comprehension that the folksy speech is designed and employed to mask. Bill Clinton had a folksy way of speaking - so did Ronald Reagan. The former was a Rhodes scholar who left the country with a budget surplus, the later was a senile B-list actor who spent two terms napping in front of John Wayne movies while the kids played Iran-Contra in the basement. I don't care HOW they speak, I care about what they SAY and what they DO. Everything we've seen from the GOP for the past eight years, and from the McCain campaign over the past few months, demonstrates nothing more than snake-oil wrapped up in buzz words...you betcha (WINK).
Posted by: gwangung | October 5, 2008 11:24 AM
Well, they better investigate Senator Orrin Hatch. Some of the same people who consorted with Ayers also gave money to Hatch.
Posted by: Scott | October 5, 2008 11:24 AM
Obama served on a charity board with Ayers.
Sarah Palin sleeps with an America-hating traitor.
Yeah, GOP, let's talk about contacts with terrorists. Sounds like fun.
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 5, 2008 11:26 AM
this would explain soooo much: http://www.briancuban.com/tina-fey-arrested-in-vp-debate-bamboozle/
Posted by: BobC | October 5, 2008 11:27 AM
Biden and Palin were asked to name the past vice presidents they admire most.
Biden didn't hesitate and said Johnson, because of his knowledge of politics.
Lyndon Johnson? Biden admires the man who sacrificed thousands in a lost war?
Some facts about Johnson's war:
By 1968 there were 550,000 American soldiers inside Vietnam; in 1967 and 1968 they were being killed at the rate of over 1000 a month.
Johnson escalated the war effort continuously from 1964 to 1968 and the number of American deaths rose. In two weeks in May 1968 alone American deaths numbered 1,800 with total casualties at 18,000.
I think any sane person who lived during that time would call Johnson one of the worst presidents in history, but Biden admires him. That's very strange.
Posted by: KristinMH | October 5, 2008 11:37 AM
Raven:
Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a militant anti-war group (yeah, I know, that makes SO MUCH sense) from the 70s. They bombed a bunch of public buildings, though it's unclear whether or not their bombs actually killed anyone - there was one bombing that killed a policeman and injured another one, but the WU disclaimed responsibility. They also were part of a raid on a Brinks van that killed three people. Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
Someone made a documentary about them a few years ago. It was called "The Weather Underground" and it was pretty good.
Bill Ayers is now, of all things, a professor of education.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 5, 2008 11:45 AM
BobC, while Johnson's handling of the Viet Nam war was questionable, his real impact was on civil rights and the welfare structure he put in place. He got major civil rights and voting rights legislation passed through a troublesome congress. The welfare legislation put a real safety net in place for poor people. While some of the welfare programs were later dropped and/or modified, some of those programs are still in place today.
I can understand how Biden could admire the man looking at domestic issues.
Posted by: cousinavi | October 5, 2008 11:46 AM
Bob: How do you know Biden wasn't referring to ANDREW JOHNSON (succeeded Lincoln follolwing assassination)?
And even if he DID mean LBJ (who admittedly had his bad days...weeks...oh, ALRIGHT! Years), that's rather a stronger response than naming Ferraro (who wasn't)...not to mention being unable to cite a SINGLE USSC decision or a SINGLE newspaper or magazine she reads.
One would hope the Gov of Alaska might know something about the Exxon case, and read something with more relevance to the principles of peace, order and good government than rags generated by the John Birch Society...
...or My Little Goat read upside down ala Dubya - a man too stupid to realize the books upside even when there are brightly colored illustrations.
It's time to send the phoney, destructive hucksters packing.
I want a f***ing LANDSLIDE.
"Heh heh...look at the goat. It can fly upside down. Heh heh."
Posted by: varlo | October 5, 2008 11:52 AM
I am not certain who sends more chills down my spine, McCain or his clueless running mate. I am also much afraid that the Bradley effect may be very real, perhaps enough so to cost Obama the election. Nevertheless I console myself somewhat with the thought that if Palin should become president, even most republicans in congress, despite what they may say now, realize that she is both bat and owlshit crazy, so no matter who controls the legislative branch may restrain much of her lunacy.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 5, 2008 11:58 AM
Now that the Dems gave y'all your "bail-out" with the help of their evil twins in Congress, with Obama and McCain both stepping forward claiming "I called it!" while two years of video disputes those claims...
...and a thirty year veteran Joe Biden scratches his head and still can't get a grip on what government and its monetary policy did to promote a debtor nation...
...and Obama still won't admit to watching the system distort the markets from the inside, taking money from and promoting two failed enterprises...
...and a 26 year Congressional veteran claims that the economy "is fundamentally sound" like a couple of hours before a crises was announced...
...y'all want to jump on poor Sarah Palin, claiming she is not knowledgably fit to "understand" the current economic crises?
The mind boggles.
These are all people who are about to facilitate the destruction of the value of the dollar and y'all are discussing which one will do it with less "folksiness" in their voice during a single, vapid and unacceptably shallow debate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o&eurl=http://aeleope.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Kel | October 5, 2008 12:02 PM
Scott from Oregon again with more asinine commentary. Why aren't we electing you?
Posted by: cousinavi | October 5, 2008 12:04 PM
Scott: Love the reasoning. "I find the experienced and educated candidates not to my liking. They have all made what I consider to be errors. Let's give the vapid moron who hasn't cocked anything up on a national scale a shot at the board."
This despite the fact that she has tried to ban books and fire the wee municipal librarian who stood up to her; seems to have used her office to run a vendetta against the man who divorced her sister; cheated on her taxes; wants to ban abortion; is opposed to same sex unions in any form; would "choose" to force rape and incest victims to carry a pregnancy to term, and wants it taught in the science classroom that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
All that, and stupid too. I can see why she appeals to you.
????
Pardon me, sir, but I think you may be a dolt.
Posted by: wildlifer | October 5, 2008 12:12 PM
Oregonian Scott
What's your point? None of your bulleted points change the fact that Palin is a dangerous death cultist, horny for Armageddon and shouldn't be anywhere near the presidency.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 5, 2008 12:13 PM
"I find the experienced and educated candidates not to my liking. "
I find Biden a Washington habit, and Obama a slick professional politician, whose only real foray into the private sector was in working for an indicted criminal.
McCain is so distasteful I have no words, simply bile.
Palin is a McCain ruse that unfortunatly just might work.
How does anyone get behind any of these knuckleheads is beyond me?
What's happened to this country?
Posted by: Norman Doering | October 5, 2008 12:14 PM
Jams wrote:
True, but the problem is that it's the Republican spin masters who are trumping the folksy style over substance argument when it comes to the debate.
I've got some Repug spin master hype samples on my blog, and I don't even include Rich Lowry's orgasmic "Little Starbursts" comments:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/10/vp-debate.html
Posted by: Sili | October 5, 2008 12:16 PM
So how long before someone finds evidence of Palin (and McBush) chumming it up with people who advocate firebombing abortion clinics?
Oh! Silly me. I forgot. That isn't terrorism, is it?
Posted by: DrBadger | October 5, 2008 12:19 PM
I hope that the people that are falling for the folksy stuff are already stupid enough to have made their mind up to vote for mccain.
Posted by: BobC | October 5, 2008 12:20 PM
While completely ignoring his responsibility for thousands of deaths in a lost war. Sorry, but I can't understand that at all. I lived during that time. My brother was shot at in Vietnam, and I got drafted because of it. People were getting slaughtered over there. Meanwhile Johnson made no effort to win that war or get out of it.
I doubt Biden admires Andrew Johnson who was a racist.
I'm voting for Obama, and I wouldn't have a problem with Biden becoming president if Obama died in office. I'm just very surprised Biden would have anything nice to say about one of the worst presidents in American history.
Posted by: Dahan | October 5, 2008 12:22 PM
You can download and own this clip (at least for now)at http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2161
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 5, 2008 12:23 PM
How does anyone get behind any of these knuckleheads is beyond me? - Scott from Oregon
Right. Everyone should have supported your hero Ron Paul, a man so crassly stupid he dismisses the scientific consensus on evolution and on global warming, because they don't fit his two barmy religions.
Posted by: raven | October 5, 2008 12:32 PM
As one of the army generals said about the Commander in chief, "we tried electing a moron and found out it didn't work."
The main reason people are appalled with Palin is that she is ignorant and basically not very bright. An airhead.
The USA can't keep electing idiots and expect to end up as anything but the next banana republic.
McCain is a sick old man of 72 who is unlikely to survive even one term as president. He has been rumored for months to be showing alarming neurological symptons, including transient ischemic attacks. If it looks like Palin is running for president instead of McBush, this is because she probably is.
Posted by: Dahan | October 5, 2008 12:37 PM
Scott from O,
Please, it's painful to hear you say the same things again and again. It's like listening to a three year old. I commented on this in another post.
Here's some advice that might keep you out of the dungeon for a bit longer. Before making a comment on any of the threads here, ask yourself this question "Do I have anything new to add that I haven't said dozens of times already? Is what I'm about to say relevant to the discussion? Will what I'm saying make me look like a complete ass-face?"
If you do these things, you'll find you post much less frequently (perhaps not at all, in your case) but you may walk out of here with a modicum of respect.
Posted by: Feedayeen | October 5, 2008 12:39 PM
YouTube pulled the video.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 5, 2008 12:45 PM
"Right. Everyone should have supported your hero Ron Paul, a man so crassly stupid he dismisses the scientific consensus on evolution and on global warming, because they don't fit his two barmy religions."
Say it enough times and it might make it true (at least in your mind).
"Crassly stupid" people don't get through a 50 year medical career and then engage in politics on the national level for over 20.
That said, I've always maintained he'd make a lousy president, and I still maintain that. The guy is an ideologue, and not very "presidential".
Which is why I am glad he is in Congress, promoting his simple ideas and trying to point out the fallacious nature of what Washington has been doing to this country.
He and Dennis Kucinich, who holds a completely different ideology, are heroic in my mind because they take strong and noble stances.
Paul, against the military and warring and empire maintaining and the Federal Reserve, and Dennis for going after Bush and the lies his administration told to sell a war.
Watching the "bailout" debacle, I have a few new heroes now.
DiFazio and Kaptur both come to mind...
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 5, 2008 12:47 PM
I can see I'm not the only one who goes in for drinking games meta-humour.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 5, 2008 12:51 PM
"Please, it's painful to hear you say the same things again and again. It's like listening to a three year old. I commented on this in another post."
And you think "Palin bad, McCain evil, Obama da man!" is something new and original?
The irony is so thick it clings like a booger when you flick it...
What's with all the threats of censorship? What kind of liberals do we now have who think censorship of ideas is kosher?
What's happening to America?
Posted by: wildlifer | October 5, 2008 12:54 PM
Scott,
What threats of censorship?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 5, 2008 1:00 PM
It has long been revealed that Johnson knew damn well the war against Vietnam was "unwinnable", but persevered because he knew that the Republicans (who also knew the politico-military reality) would slice him to bits, with the active collaboration of the mass media, if he didn't continue the annual sacrifice of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Asians and billions of dollars.
While by no means innocent, LBJ can be seen as a tragic victim of ruthless partisanship and public delusion.
Trying to answer Ifill's question in my own mind, I had to go back to Henry Wallace (1941-45) to find a veep for whom my initial reaction was not "j'accuse!"
Posted by: barkdog | October 5, 2008 1:03 PM
BobC: On the the grounds Biden cited, knowledge of politics, LBJ was undoubtedly outstanding. If you wanted to get a bill through Congress, he was the guy to go to. I lived through his presidency too and vividly remember hating his war, but let's not forget the civil rights and social legislation he fought for. He did far more in those areas than Kennedy ever even considered. I have gradually come around to the view that despite all his faults, LBJ was a great president. But then I have also decided that we could do worse, have done in fact done far worse, than another Eisenhower.
Posted by: Snark7 | October 5, 2008 1:09 PM
Just do what we germans should have done when there was still time to prevent a global catastrophe.
Posted by: Dahan | October 5, 2008 1:26 PM
Scott from O,
Please show any and all places on any thread where I have said that, much less repeatedly. You will find places where, on topic (which is more than you can say), I have commented on what an idiot Palin is, but that's not really the same is it? There's been no threats made against you. However, if you look at the killfile rules, you are breaking several of them. First and foremost, Insipidity. This is followed closely by Slagging, and perhaps not finally, Trolling. I should probably put in Stupidity, but I'll hold off for now.Posted by: Dean | October 5, 2008 1:36 PM
Biden stated he admired Johnson for his knowledge of politics (as PZ stressed at the start). You and I may believe that Johnson was a very bad man for how he prolonged the war, but it is difficult to ignore the fact that he knew the profession of politics inside and out.
Final comment: even if I could overlook Ron Paul's foolish notions about economy and international relations, his all too common relationships with the worst people around (racists and others, who were given free reign to publish in his newsletters) makes it impossible for me to view him with anything but disgust.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 5, 2008 1:38 PM
"However, if you look at the killfile rules, you are breaking several of them. First and foremost, Insipidity."
Two entire posts about me? Am I that interesting? Or are you being insipid?
The irony is so obvious I'm now picking its teeth out of my ass...
Politics in America has become a two-legged stool. That's why things are so fucking broken.
It's like watching a mob standing at the foot of a cliff, everybody pointing to two caves and declaring that they know the right way to go. I look around and wonder what's wrong with going back the way you came?
Or its like watching someone choose between an Ali jab or a right hand lead. I wonder why they don't just climb out of the ring?
There is far too much power in Washington, completely disproportionate to the level of intelligence IN Washington.
I want to see the power deflated and government given back to the people who make up communities.
Posted by: BMcP | October 5, 2008 1:38 PM
It's all going to be lies and innuendo from the both sides from here on out, and it might just work
Fixed it for you. Always stunned how people still believe one political party is fundamentally more honest or ethical then the other.
Two sides, same dirty coin.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 5, 2008 1:53 PM
"Two sides, same dirty coin."
Exactly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Fl2SqcpZU
Posted by: wildlifer | October 5, 2008 2:08 PM
It seems some take the exposure of the flaws of a candidate for one party as explicit acceptance of the practices of the other.
Posted by: Kryth | October 5, 2008 2:09 PM
Link no longer works. Thanks PZ you broke the interwebs again.
Posted by: Muffin | October 5, 2008 2:16 PM
'Mrs Palin described Mr Obama as someone who saw the US "as being so imperfect [...]"'
...as opposed to Palin and McCain, who think everything is perfectly fine and dandy and who therefore plan to just sit in the White House for four years twiddling their thumbs?
You can't solve problems if you don't acknowledge they exist.
Posted by: mandrake | October 5, 2008 2:20 PM
Scott from Oregon said: I look around and wonder what's wrong with going back the way you came?
You have got to be kidding me.
If you mean in terms of society, you must really be a jerk - would it be enough to go back to before gays weren't allowed to come out of the closet, or would you like to own slaves? Or perhaps to when only male property-owners could vote?
If you mean economically - back to what? The 90's bubbles? The 80's "trickle down"? The 70s inflation?
There's no "golden age" here to go back to.
Posted by: Dahan | October 5, 2008 2:22 PM
Scott,
Sigh.
Thanks for clearing that up for us Scott! We didn't understand that's how you felt, having only heard you state that one way or another some 300 times or so before.
I'm done feeding you, troll. You're sad and pathetic. Annoying as well, for sure! However, you're mainly just sad and pathetic.
Posted by: Jams | October 5, 2008 2:28 PM
"True, but the problem is that it's the Republican spin masters who are trumping the folksy style over substance argument when it comes to the debate." - Norman Doering
This is a a bit of a strawman. I haven't heard any Republicans promoting style over substance. What I have heard, is Republican pundits claiming that a leader who can't capture the ears of the people will never be heard - no matter what they have to say. In fact, Democrats argue this in favour of Obama. The point seems to be an excepted one across the board.
American politics in general right now is experiencing a significant trust gap between its people and its leadership. This is a bipartisan phenomenon most dramatically demonstrated by the competition between both parties for the position of "most opposed to government and George Bush". That trust gap, claim Republicans, will be bridged by politicians to a degree proportionate to their authenticity. Like her or dislike her, Palin is authentic.
In the end, the reasoning is that without that, the rest just doesn't matter. What good is a leadership noone cares to listen to? I think Republicans have a point there. The problems with Palin, I think, come after the folksy veneer.
As a point though, I think Biden has an authenticity to him too. His gaffes generally come off as imprudent rather than stupid - which points to honesty rather than idiocy.
Posted by: cousinavi | October 5, 2008 2:33 PM
Pfft. Scott is just a malcontent who considers himself clever for being so jaded and insightful as to see through and have contempt for all the flawed options on the table.
Unlike the true cynic, he's just a cranky, petulant child without any serious analysis or reasoned alternatives.
He just sits around saying, over and over again, how everything sucks. It's tiresome and pretty strong evidence of a weak mind that needs attention. While I wouldn't want to be seen as stooping to ad hominem (even though I did call him a dolt earlier in the thread) it would seem the poor lad just didn't get nearly enough hugs as a child.
Perhaps if we all just gathered round and showed him some love - the same sort of love that Sarah Palin has for the Lord...the same sort of love that all the gentle little creatures of the forest have for Obama...he'll find that life isn't so scary anymore.
Failing that, we could beat him with sticks.
On a lighter note: Voter intimidation is on in Philadelphia
http://cousinavi.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/voter-intimidation-philadelphia/
Posted by: Ronald Kephart | October 5, 2008 2:44 PM
PZ, I really like your blog and I'm with you all the way, even regarding the crackers, but... Palin's pronunciation of -ing in some words is not the result of "lazy gerunds." It's simply a dialectal variation of English, and in fact at certain points in the history of English it's been the prestige pronunciation.
Palin's got plenty of other baggage to mock, and plenty to be frightened about as well.
Ronald Kephart
Associate Professor, Anthropology and Linguistics
University of North Florida
Posted by: JoshS | October 5, 2008 2:46 PM
But - so what? Authenticity per se is neutral; it says nothing about the quality of a thing or person. Margarine made with 100 percent vegetable oil - and that proclaims the fact loudly on its package - is Authentic Margarine (TM), but what does that say about whether margarine tastes better or worse than butter? Precisely nothing.
It seems to me you're saying, "People are tired of Boastful Butter, prancing around in the dairy case like it was a shopper's savior. I mean, sure, butter tastes better than margarine, but it just doesn't present itself as authentic. Boy, if butter would just stick to the facts, I'd get behind it. At least margarine is authentic - it tells you just what it is, and doesn't try to hide its shortcomings. That's good enough for me. I mean, I don't like the taste of margarine, but I'm gonna buy it. No more fancy-pants peacock butter for me!"
OK, I went on waaaay too long with that tortured metaphor. Maybe that's not what you meant to get across, and I'm just being cranky:)
Posted by: JoshS | October 5, 2008 2:55 PM
Ah, but it's not now. Yes, yes, I know. Linguists are descriptive, not prescriptive. That doesn't change the fact that many people react positively or negatively to various regional dialects. It doesn't change the fact that politicians cynically heighten certain regional pronunciations to appeal to those who share them. As a linguist this must be obvious to you.
Those who don't share them often detect this ploy and find it extremely irritating (I'm among them). Especially when the regional dialect being deployed is conspicuously the non-prestige one, and is being aimed at a fearful and parochial demographic threatened by high-falutin' intallecshuls who talk all fancy.
There's nothing inherently better or worse about one pronunciation compared to another (unless one is largely unintelligible). But I don't think it's useful or helpful to ignore the obvious and intentional manipulation of these pronunciation signifiers to stoke emotion and class associations among the audience.
Posted by: Dust | October 5, 2008 2:57 PM
Ahem,
the question was "Who do you admire as VicePresident." If the question had been, who do you admire as President would Biden's answer have been the same? I think there would be a good chance that it would not.
Posted by: Norman Doering | October 5, 2008 2:59 PM
Jams wrote:
If you haven't heard it's because you're not listening.
It's worse than style over substance. This is Rich Lowry's orgasmic "Little Starbursts" OpEd:
Now linked on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/10/vp-debate.html
Posted by: White Guy | October 5, 2008 3:03 PM
Obama Muslim? I thought that the problem with Obama was simply miscegenation!? Perhaps our conservatives think that Blackness is not enough to discard Obama and they need to point an hypothetical Muslimness.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 5, 2008 3:05 PM
"If you mean in terms of society, you must really be a jerk - would it be enough to go back to before gays weren't allowed to come out of the closet, or would you like to own slaves? ""
Oh brother. Society IS NOT GOVERNMENT.
Just as society is not religion, society runs and grows IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT, not because of it.
The liberal fallacy is that government is the tool for leading societal change, when in fact, societal mores lead government.
Sure, you can point out legislation that aided in moving society forward, but you would be inaccurate if you assumed society hadn't already changed the zeitgeist within its own members.
"If you mean economically - back to what? The 90's bubbles? The 80's "trickle down"? The 70s inflation?
There's no "golden age" here to go back to."
Of course there is no "golden age", but there was once a time when the election of an idiot wasn't quite the rock in the pond it is now.
If GW Bush and Dick Cheney could be said to have anything positive in their eight years in Washington, it is that they showed the world and the American people why it is dangerous to place so much power and control in one place.
I mean, WTF? Oregon didn't deserve to have their forests ruled by a Bush administration. There was no need for that, when Oregonians are quite capable of arguing over the direction of forest management on their own.
This is one example in a thousand what I am talking about.
What does a Chicago Lawyer and his cronies know about Pacific salmon?
And why does anyone support the US burning huge amounts of oil cruising military ships around the globe? I thought y'all were the global warming types? Not to mention the money it costs to do so...
And why do y'all allow the Federal government to arrest those who use pot for pain med?
Why do you allow the Federal government to dictate what sexual orientation is allowed to marry and what is not?
Why do you allow the Federal government from taking your taxes to pay interests on loans they took out, because they all rushed into Iraq to.... uh... well, I'm not sure?
Why do y'all allow the Federal government to hand out huge sums of your money to foreign dictators?
Why do y'all want the US Federal Governemnt to be involved in South American politics? Does it bother you when people die in other lands because the US Federal government thinks it knows what is best for others?
Why do you want the US government to use your money and your young men and women to protect corporations doing business overseas? Are corporate profits worth the life of Americans?
Why do you allow the Federal governemnt to gloss over the fact that it really isn't in control of much of anything, that the banksters (as has just been observed) really hold the strings?
Yep. I be one them malcontents, alright!
Posted by: Shar | October 5, 2008 3:08 PM
My only real irritation with her speech patterns is that they've become overemphasized and pronounced over the past few months. Looking back on statements she made just this past year, and I don't hear any "cute" folksy phrases and her "g" dropping is a lot less pronounced.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 5, 2008 3:09 PM
After Palintology and Palinoscopies, all I really want to see now is a Palinectomy!
Posted by: JoshS | October 5, 2008 3:14 PM
Shar, #75 - that was exactly the point I was trying to make in my post #70. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed it.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 5, 2008 3:16 PM
ROTFL! So true, so true. Here's a Molly nomination for you if I don't forget.
LOL! But wasn't that photoshopped?
Here's the quote:
"This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference."
-- General Tony McPeak (retired), member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War
Egnorant people, however, do.
And you wouldn't perhaps like to read comment 24...? Why do you comment if you haven't read the thread?
Posted by: Eric Atkinson | October 5, 2008 3:21 PM