Wednesday, September 03, 2008

An able communicator with a likable style, Sarah Palin did an excellent job of setting before the American people the goals and values of the Republican ticket in her convention speech tonight.

Plus moment: I did laugh at the pit bull/hockey mom joke:

Q. What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?
A. Lipstick.

Minus moment: Maybe because it's a temptation I'm all too frequently led into myself, I thought she stepped over the line from pointed to snarky a few too many times. The sarcasm didn't become her.

Her job was to energize the social conservative base and she certainly did that -- but it creeped me out when she slammed Obama with this quote: "Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America; he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

Wow. I guess I really AM a bleeding heart liberal ... because it turns out I'm worried about anybody who thinks that anybody's constitutional rights are fair game to be dismissed when politically expedient -- not to even get me started on the "terrorists-are-out-to-get-you-fear-mongering" that has been a chief characteristic of the last 8 disastrous years.

I guess what we're looking at is Culture Wars 2.0
So here's what I'm thinking: Sarah Palin did her job of mobilizing the social conservative base of the Republican Party and she did it really well. What she ALSO did was point out to anyone who might be on the fence -- not yet sold on Obama and asking if a McCain administration would really be that bad -- that the answer is ... clearly ...

Yes, Yes it would!


Debra Peevey said...


Well said! Not only was she sarcastic and cutting, she stretched the truth about the Bridge to No Where, among other things. In less than a week, she has moved from appearing genuinely sincere-- to showing tonight how willing she was to dive into the dirtiest part of politics. It will not wear well over time.

Jim of L-Town said...

Dear Rev. Russell:

And, of course, Democrats are never snarky or sarcastic.
Here's one great example:
Ann Richards, governor of Texas, on President Bush 41:
"Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

Seriously, I don't think either party has a monopoly on snarkiness or saracasm.

I know you were listening to the Democrats last week, you must have heard the same things I did.

I just believe when the snarkiness and sarcasm is something we agree with we love it. When it isn't, we don't.

As one on the fence in this election, I have to say there is something attractive about a candidate who has only visited D.C. on vacation.

A sinner saved by God's Grace

Jim of Michigan

Elizabeth Kaeton said...

I did like the 'lipstick' remark, but did you hear the Freudian slip about her husband? She said something like, "a blue-collar worker, a four-time state champion ski mobile . . . something or other. (Sigh, I can be such a girly-girl), a Native Eskimo, a wonderful father and loving husband. . . put that all together and, well, he's quite a package."

Well, whenever I hear heterosexual women (or bi/homo men) referring to a man with "quite a package" I know what they are REALLY talking about.

Ms. Conroy raised the spot on her brow where her eyebrow used to be and said, "Those heterosexuals are always soooo in your face about their sexuality! Don't you wish they could just be a little more disciplined and discreet?"

Made me giggle. It was a good balance to the many, many times I grit my teeth when she outright lied or made fun of Obama's "community organizing" experience - or that sarcastic crack about "Hope is not a strategy."

And I am sooooo over all the McCain is a POW and the rhetoric bordering on fear-mongering about 9/11. What about the economy?

Oh, no. Let's not get into the issues that are hitting "the little people" where they really live."

Here endth the rant.

Unknown said...

I remember when Goldwater delivered his signature line - "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of freedom is no virtue."

The 'pubs roared.

Does anyone remember what happened that November?

Fr Craig said...

Seems to me that McCain gambled a lot to maintain the religious right - which he had already, in spite of their grumbling. Now he's lost substantial number, if not most of the moderate republican women who are pro-choice. Bad choice. The only reason, sadly , that this may be a close race is the large number of older conservative democrats who just won't vote for a black man...

seraph said...

She was great!

And the pointed references to Obama's rethoric and experience all while wearing a perfectly likable smile...were priceless!

Not bad for the unknown major of a small town unheard of until last night!

I disagree with the " it will not wear well over time". Some of us were quite enthused by Obama initially...and then we started actually reading his speeches. The moment our "planet began to heal" wore it completely out! Funny how we do not seem to mind the gaffes and truth stretching of those we agree with!

It will be an interesting race, but so far Governor Palin is definitely a breath of fresh air!



Robert said...

I noticed that she conveniently left out the fact that she originally supported and lobbied for the "bridge to no where". Additionally it turned my stomach when she promised to be an advocate for those with disabled children, using her own disabled child for political gain and then conveniently forgot to make the same promise to the families with unwed teenagers.

uffda51 said...

We were told people voted for Bush because they would like to have a beer with him. People are wowed by Palin because they can relate to a hockey mom with kids.

No one would use these criteria in selecting a brain surgeon. Why would we do so when selecting the leaders of the free world? Conservative icon Peggy Noonan referred to the choice of Palin as "political bullshit."

What if we had two candidates who had taught Constitutional law? What if we had two candidates who would uphold the Constitution instead of shredding it? What if we had two candidates who support a tax policy that favors the hockey moms with kids over the richest of the rich? Oh, wait a minute, we do have two guys like that running - Obama and Biden.

Does anything think that repealing Roe would eliminate abortions?

Does anyone think that if we "fight them over there" the terrorists will agree to stay out of the U.S.?

Does anyone think that if Gene Robinson resigned the split in the AC would heal?

Does anyone think we can "defeat evil?"

This kind of binary thinking, in the 21st century, is the last thing we need.

Does anyone think problems disappear by refusing to believe they exist (global warming, finite resources, crippling deficits, crumbling infrastructure)?

McCain/Palin hope that Americans will vote against their own best interests yet again. Obama/Biden hope that Americans, having experienced the catastrophe of Bush/Cheney, will demand serious change.

JCF said...

All I can say, UffDa51 . . . is Uff Da! Preach it, my friend! :-D

I'm so poor I live from month-to-month---but I'm still planning on giving what I can't spare, to Obama/Biden (under whom the economy might finally provide the job I haven't been able to find after DILIGENTLY looking for a year-and-a-half). God protect our country---and world---from McCain & Palin! :-0

RonF said...

I know what they are REALLY talking about.

What, Elizabeth, you're a mind reader now? That never occurred to me until I read your comment. And, having considered it, I think you're being a bit ridiculous.

She's right - hope isn't a strategy. We all need hope - which Gov. Palin frames more in terms of faith - but we need to make concrete plans as well.

RonF said...

What if we had two candidates who would uphold the Constitution instead of shredding it?

If Sen. Obama is such a good student and teacher of Constitutional law, I wonder if he's ever read the oath that Supreme Court justices take:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

I have just about zero expectation that Obama will, as President, appoint justices who will uphold that oath. I think he wants justices who will tilt the Constitution towards the social policies he favors regardless of what the Constitution actually says and what it's authors intended. I think he figures that the ends justify the means, and that what he can't get in the legislature he'll get in the courts from people who are appointed for life instead of from people who are democratically elected.

Does anything think that repealing Roe would eliminate abortions?

No. Repealing that horrible decision would remand the issue back to the states. A number of them would keep abortions legal. A number of them wouldn't. But that's where the decision belongs.

Does anyone think that if we "fight them over there" the terrorists will agree to stay out of the U.S.?

Seen any buildings blown up lately? Increased domestic efforts have been a big factor as well, but it's helped. We've killed an awful lot of terrorists over there, destroyed training bases, and also destroyed the very powerful myth that the U.S. is a "paper tiger". The number of foreign fighters streaming into Iraq has slowed greatly. So has the flow of money out. Make 'em play a home game and it greatly curtails their ability to play on the road.

Does anyone think that if Gene Robinson resigned the split in the AC would heal?

It might help. You never know what a demonstration of true grace might bring.

Does anyone think we can "defeat evil?"

Do you contend that it is not our duty to try?

RonF said...

Oh, and my daughter played hockey in high school, so let me tell you that the "lipstick" comment was right on the money.

Unknown said...

The line about rights was almost enough to make me stop listening. But I did my best to stay at the table to hear the conversation, as it were.