Final notes on the election
This is it. This is the last time I'm talking about the election. I'm quite worn out and the Republican National Convention was the last straw. I am still feeling nauseated from it. So other than a few comments below, this is the LAST political commentary you will see on this blog. Ever. Back to science only.
Unless something interesting or important happens, of course.
I do want to point out a few posts that I think are worth looking at for a perspective on current issues. The first is Pharyngula's version of a recent John Stewart bit explaining how Republicans think. Then there is A Blog Around the Clock with the fifth in a series (of at leas five so far) of comparisons between Republicans and Democrats. Then there is an interesting chart at Afarensis showing how the deficit relates to Republican fiscal responsibility vs. Democratic tax and spend politics. Here is why Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. And here is why Republicans are Stupid.
So, here is the disturbing event of the week. I was checking out at the grocery store with Julia yesterday after tennis, and she said "So, I heard Sarah Palin gave a good speech yesterday." So I thought for a second and said "So, what do you mean by a good speech?" And she said, "..That she did a good job. Gave a good speech." So I said "Where the heck did you hear that?" ... "Oh, on the radio. On the news on the radio."
So I said, "Well, yea, it was a great speech. If you want to call a speech full of lies given with a sanctimonious holier than thou attitude mean spirited enough to curdle milk while it's still in the cow, then yea, I guess she gave a pretty freakin' good speech. Any more questions?"
I guess a got a little loud. All the people in the grocery story were looking at us. Julia was standing off to the side pretending she didn't know me, paging through an upside down magazine she pulled off the rack.
I paid for the fruit and ice cream (dental work ... only smoothies for dinner) and we went home.
This is disturbing because a speech like hers can actually be taken seriously enough to a) be shown on TV by news agencies and b) that people will actually like it, and possibly even vote for McCain/Palin. I really can't think of anything more disturbing than this in American Politics.
And do you know who is going to save our asses? Joe Biden. I saw him giving a speech today (on TV) and man, is he good. He laid into Palin with no holds barred, in a country gentlemen kinda way, making sense, being reasonable, and mainly pointing out how the Republicans are being entirely negative, never truthful, and always annoying.
In reference to his own role in the campaign, he made reference to Harry Truman's famous comment.
Truman was giving a speech. Someone from the audience shouted out "Give 'em hell, Harry" ... and Truman stopped the speech and replied "No, I won't give 'em hell. I'll tell 'em the truth and they'll think it's hell!"
The thing is, Biden was speaking extemporaneously. He made this mention of Truman when someone in the audience yelled out "Give 'em hell, Joe!"
And he will.
- Log in to post comments
The sixth and final installment is up, with a couple of additional comments of mine.
Greg says: "...this is the LAST political commentary you will see on this blog. Ever."
Boo ... you can sprinkle a few in there amongst the science every now and again.
I'm looking forward to the debates ... both the Obama vs. McCain and Biden vs. Palin ... should be entertaining.
I missed this Biden speech. Is it on Youtube yet?
You can see the Biden speech on my blog, as part of one of the six head-to-heads.
I think this is a different speech. What I saw just happened this PM at some rally Biden was visiting. I'll see if I can find it.
I just posted it. The harry Truman part is just at the end.
Something gives me the impression that you will find something important during this election cycle.
Almost every day.
I like Joe.
In the hopes that it will help your blood pressure, I'll point out that if she heard it on the radio she either heard it from a right-leaning talking head (which sadly includes much of NPR's staff these days :/), or she was hearing a news regurgitator repeating the consensus view that the pundits present reached about the speech. I assume you watched the speech in real time, so you probably witnessed the lovefest/over-politeness of the commentators afterward as well. It is infuriating, but all the polls I've seen mentioned have shown a decrease in support for McCain after that speech among the group he really needs to court; independents. I'm also glad to see in some of the links you provided that there are other people than me out there who recognize that the Republicans would have been calling her the second coming no matter what she said.
Julian wrote
In the prediction markets (Intrade and Iowa School of Business), there was essentially no movement. In VoteFromAbroad's tracking of the potential electoral votes McCain lost a little recently. So I see essentially zero effect of the hockey mom's speech.
BTW, a meme to think about: "Real hockey moms use chapstick, not lipstick." (Originally it was "Minnesota hockey moms..." since I grew up there, but that's too parochial. :))
I am a registered Democrat. I do not intend to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. I strenuously object (and have said so at length on several blogs already) to Sarah Palin's statements about Creationism and Abortion and Abstinence-only sex education.
But I am also a professional public speaker.
Can you accept the fact that some of us found her speech to be very successful on its own terms?
Whether it angers you or not, whether you are angered that someone accepts hearsay that it was a good speech, can you accept that, in many ways, it WAS a good speech? Making the points that she wanted, and well-delivered to reveal herself as she wanted, on a national stage? Regardless of what she did not say about jobs, economy, mortgage meltdown, or healthcare?
Not trying to covert you. Just asking. Really.
My problem here is not your gripes about Ms. Palin, or McCain either. Your gripes are entirely justified. My problem is that you seem to think Obama/Biden is the answer. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans, as they also are promoting a failed ideology that has been objectively shown to be not functional in reality.
Socialism is no more rational (and no more conducive to liberty and freedom) than theocracy.
No, the Democrats aren't full-on socialists, but they are for increasing the amount of socialism in this country well above what we now have. Obama's every sentence is about how "he" is going fix this or that problem by some government program or intervention.
This is also the opposite of what we need in this country. What we deeply need is some better alternatives to the Big Two parties, and we won't get them until we have the guts to vote against them both in large numbers.
I'm urging as many people as possible to vote third party. I don't even care which third party; that's entirely secondary to sending the message that we will no longer be satisfied with continually being presented with two evils to choose the lesser of.
PhilB
Phil, the US has a lot less of the basic services you'll find in just about every other part of the world. NZ, for example, has universal public health, rail, roading, power generation and lines (though actual supply is done on a competitive basis with several utilities vying for the public dollar) and a complete social security program including state housing and weekly payments for the unemployed. Would you say that NZ is a failed state?
The Democrats aren't even going to go that far.
Phil, I strenuously object to you categorizing Obama/Biden as being more of the same. At a bare, bare minimum, there is no way manageable they could screw America up worse than the lst eight years. But if you vote 3rd party, well, you're screwing everyone.
And, FYI, if you look at the evolution of the political parties in this society, the reason we have two has come about because the two parties are essentially "catch-all parties." But hey, if you think your pet issues are so important you're willing to shaft the American people for another four years of Bush failed policies, merely so you may feel smug and say "told you so, if everyone just voted for a third party, this would be fine." Except it wouldn't, but you don't appear to have any conception of how our political system functions, so bully for you.
Vote however you want, but I refuse to suffer another 4 or 8 years of proto-theocratic rule.
Go Obama!
I knew it! I knew it! :-)
Just about any idiot is better than the Republicans these days. And you know that full well.
Regarding socialism... learn the difference between socialism and communism, and then open your eyes and look out of your country. Man. The ignorance! Tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance at all and live in constant fear of going bankrupt whenever anyone in their family falls ill, and you don't even notice!
I should have mentioned, as always, that Obama would fit quite nicely into any of Europe's conservative parties. What is usually the second big party, a party that calls itself "Socialist" or "Social Democratic", is still a bit to the left of him, even though all over Europe these parties have been drifting to the right throughout the last 15 years or so.
Phil: You are a moron. A real third party as alternative to Obama/Biden (real meaning enough votes) would simply place the republicans in power for four more years. Why can you third party people not understand this?
Jonnathan: Yes, she did what she was trying to do quite well. I'm also a professional public speaker, and I was impressed.
Hitler was good to!
"Yes, she did what she was trying to do quite well. I'm also a professional public speaker, and I was impressed. Hitler was good to[o]!"
Hitler took books seriously enough to burn them. What are the titles of the books that Sarah Barracuda tried to ban from her local library? I keep hearing the same story -- but which books? Anarchist's Cookbook? Huckleberry Finn? Ulysses? Handmaid's Tale?
Librarian.net has a list from a commentator, unfortunately with no source listed. You can visit it here: http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/#comment-1198…
Even if Sarah Palin doesn't become VP, I get the feeling this country won't be seeing the last of her. She reminds me of Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota's 6th Congressional District, but smarter, and with a Delores Umbrage of Harry Potter fame mean streak.
Delores Umbrage ... perfect. I knew something like that was there but could not put my finger on it.
What do you think, will they appoint Bachmann as Secretary of State? And if so, as Secretary, will she have to make the coffee?
No, no, Greg. You don't make coffee in outfits like that. Coffee stains.
She'll have her girl do it.
Monica, that list isn't Palin's list. Someone else tracked it down to its source.
Right. That list is known to be a list of books ever or over recent years under some kind of ban or threat of ban. We know this is not a list of Sarah Palin's books to ban because it is too long. There is no way in the world that she knows about THAT many books.
Jonathan Vos Post: ... can you accept that, in many ways, it WAS a good speech? Making the points that she wanted, and well-delivered to reveal herself as she wanted, on a national stage?
I agree that the speech was technically excellent, on par with Obama's speeches. If this were a Toastmasters meeting, that would count for something. But this is real life, and reality is more important than eloquence. (We're just lucky to have a presidential candidate who understands reality and is still eloquent.)
That's pretty impressive. Truman's comment was made back before the Foundig Fathers put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Wow, that someone would try to float that line today. Eight years ago, some people were saying, "Bush, Gore - what's the difference?" Over the last eight years, we have seen the difference.
wazza wrote: "Phil, the US has a lot less of the basic services you'll find in just about every other part of the world. NZ, for example, has universal public health, rail, roading, power generation and lines (though actual supply is done on a competitive basis with several utilities vying for the public dollar) and a complete social security program including state housing and weekly payments for the unemployed. Would you say that NZ is a failed state?
The Democrats aren't even going to go that far."
Yes, and that's WHY America is the richest and most successful country in the world: we have more individual liberty and less socialism than just about anywhere else.
=====
Damien wrote: "Phil, I strenuously object to you categorizing Obama/Biden as being more of the same. At a bare, bare minimum, there is no way manageable they could screw America up worse than the lst eight years. But if you vote 3rd party, well, you're screwing everyone.
And, FYI, if you look at the evolution of the political parties in this society, the reason we have two has come about because the two parties are essentially "catch-all parties." But hey, if you think your pet issues are so important you're willing to shaft the American people for another four years of Bush failed policies, merely so you may feel smug and say "told you so, if everyone just voted for a third party, this would be fine." Except it wouldn't, but you don't appear to have any conception of how our political system functions, so bully for you.
Vote however you want, but I refuse to suffer another 4 or 8 years of proto-theocratic rule.
Go Obama!"
Except that Obama/Biden IS just more of the same. Obama's choice of Biden shows how little his claimed slogan of "change" really means; he could hardly have picked a more entrenched more-of-the-same partner, short of Robert Byrd. Not exactly more of the same as Bush, but more of the same as Clinton and all that side. They have nothing to offer that is new or different from what the Democrat Party has always offered, which is slightly different but no better than what the Republican Party has always offered. I don't love Bush any more than you do, and don't favor McCain any more than you do (which is why I am advocating a third party vote, not a McCain vote). Obama/Biden certainly could screw up America as badly as Bush has/McCain will. Implementing a universal single-payer socialized healthcare system, for instance, would be a massive mistake that would haunt us for generations.
The reason we have two is the first-past-the-post plurality voting system we have. That will always generate a limited two-party situation, and has in this country almost right from the start. What we really need is a fair and comprehensive voting system that is actually capable of determining what the people actually want -- Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), Condorcet, Approval Voting, several other options that would work a hell of a lot better than this. But the Big Two will not ever be in favor of those precisely because it would generate the possibility of genuine challengers. So the only way to get there is get some of our alternative parties to be big enough to have the clout to push for a fair voting system.
Liberty, and the principles of individual rights this country was founded upon, are not "pet issues". We have a "choice" between proto-theocratic hand-picked puppets and proto-socialist hand-picked puppets. Yay.
=====
David MarjanoviÄ wrote: "Just about any idiot is better than the Republicans these days. And you know that full well.
Regarding socialism... learn the difference between socialism and communism, and then open your eyes and look out of your country. Man. The ignorance! Tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance at all and live in constant fear of going bankrupt whenever anyone in their family falls ill, and you don't even notice!"
No, "any idiot" isn't better; for instance there are lots of people running countries all over the world that are worse than Bush and McCain. For some obvious examples, the people in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, etc. would all be overjoyed to have such a comparatively competent and uncorrupt leader as Bush or McCain. I'm not saying Obama is as bad as that. But I am saying that you ought to honestly evaluate the alternatives, and not be stampeded into supporting "anyone but Bush" at any cost without paying attention to the costs of that.
And I'm fully aware of the difference between socialism and communism. But both have shown themselves to be failures; communism just worse and faster.
And I notice alright. I did not say that the system we have now is working great. It isn't. But making it even worse won't make it better. Most of our problems stem from the fact that our system is about 50% socialized and run by the government already; making that 100% won't help. We need a cure that isn't worse than the disease. Socialized medicine isn't it.
I'm not voting for either McCain or Obama, because I'm done with voting for people I don't want to support. I actually do think that at this moment, McCain would do less damage to this country than Obama, if only because there will be a highly (perhaps even filibuster-proof) Democratic Congress to keep him in line. McCain's hugest flaw is the War, and a highly Democratic Congress could fix that regardless if they had the guts to do it. Then if we're lucky, four or more years of gridlock will ensue, thus limiting the damage either party wants to inflict.
=====
greg laden wrote: "Phil: You are a moron. A real third party as alternative to Obama/Biden (real meaning enough votes) would simply place the republicans in power for four more years. Why can you third party people not understand this?"
a) That's only true if you assume that any third party votes would be drawn only from Obama, which is a silly assumption. I'm promoting the idea that we ALL need alternatives, and that as many people vote third party as possible no matter which of the Big Two they think are the lesser of two evils.
b) Calling someone a moron for leaving a relevant and non-abusive comment on your blog, just because you disagree with the comment, is juvenile and shows the level of thought you put into this stuff. Clearly you want a blog that is insular and includes no thoughtful opposition that might say anything you might have to consider. So I'm going to say goodbye and leave you to your playpen.
PhilB
Phil. This is where you are wrong. I did not call you a moron because you disagree with me . I called you a moron because ... well.... Oh never mind.
*flounces in*
Hi Greg - Your non capitalization of the word 'fury' caught my eye. After reading the post I've decided the quality of your remarks makes over looking one small boo-boo very easy. Well done!
*twirls out*
Stephanie,
You are right! Not trying to fan the flames. I'll leave that to the candidate!
Michelle Bachmann as Secretary of State!! I am shuddering at the thought of it.
Also, Greg, I don't believe for one moment that you are giving up politi
Is it?
You are talking about the land of the working poor, my friend. You are talking about the land of the crumbling school buildings with creationist teachers inside. You are talking about the land of the tens of millions without health insurance who live in constant and justified fear of going bankrupt as soon as anyone in their family falls ill. You are talking about the land where only millionaires can campaign for president because there's no public campaign financing. Even when it comes to more trivial things -- the US system of color TV is way antiquated, and while lots of people have Internet access, very few have high-speed Internet access.
Several European countries, such as France, have higher productivity than the USA. Yes, France, the place with all the strikes. The USA have more people in prison than even China even in absolute numbers...
Successful? O RLY?
And besides, many countries are richer per capita. Try Luxembourg.
It's more of Clinton/Gore, yes. It is not more of Fearless Flightsuit/Richard the Lying-Hearted -- that would be McSame.
For crying out loud, take a look outside your borders. There's a world out there, you understand? Did you even know that the USA and South Africa are the only halfway developed countries without universal healthcare? Did you even know that Americans pay more for their healthcare and get less than the citizens of any other First World country?
That would almost certainly have to happen overnight. It's probably easier to convince one of the big parties to do it.
This runs against all evidence I'm aware of. What have I overlooked?
Judging from the last couple of years, they won't have the guts to do that, unless the president is a Democrat.
David: I totally agree with everything you've said except the very last comment. Well, yes, there is a guts problem. But the other problem is simply that an entrenched president can only be overruled by a supermajority in the Senate, effectively, and the Dems do not have that. In fact, what may be seen as gutlessness (and to some extent may really be gutlessness) may also be not engaging in a fight that would surely lead to an embarrassing lost ... maybe because of gutlessness but also maybe because of strategy.
This is why if you are in Mininesota YOU MUST VOTE FOR AL FRANKEN!!!