Slumberland wrote:
I watch PBS. At least they show the speeches. Even though David Brooks gives me the willies and Mark Shields looks like a melting marshmallow (not pretty in HD).
I always flip around, but ended up primarily on PBS too. There was some interesting post-speech stuff on CNN though. Decent debate on the sexism issue, etc.
Where's Jeff Greenfield these days? I saw him on the floor, but I didn't see him on my cursory swing around the channels. He's the kind of commentator I like. He wears his bias on his sleeve, but his intelligence and humor render the bias moot.
I'd love to watch on C-Span, whose commentary-free broadcast is like fresh cold water...but it's only in Standard Def. Assaulting my eardrums with David Gergen and Donna Brazile is worth it for HD LOL
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
I'm a firm believer that NO ONE is experienced enough to become President. NO ONE. It's a unique job which requires on-the-job training. Sure there are experiences and qualifications you can bring into the job, such as managing people and budgets (US government is by far the largest US "company"), but the challenges to the country from both internal and external forces are unique.
I have full confidence that I or any of you on the forum could be President. Just takes that on-the-job training. I'd say the talent pool for becoming President is many orders of magnitude larger than the number of citizens who can hit .300 in the MLB.
RobVarak wrote:
I'd love to watch on C-Span, whose commentary-free broadcast is like fresh cold water...but it's only in Standard Def. Assaulting my eardrums with David Gergen and Donna Brazile is worth it for HD LOL
I agree. C-Span is the only way to go for me and my wife during the conventions.
F308GTB wrote:
I have full confidence that I or any of you on the forum could be President. Just takes that on-the-job training. I'd say the talent pool for becoming President is many orders of magnitude larger than the number of citizens who can hit .300 in the MLB.
Teal wrote:There were many great lines in Palin's speech tonight, but I thought this one took the cake:
"Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."
Yeah, whoever wrote that for her rules...
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, particularly, or not, greg, but I've gotta say, I've heard alot about how this speech was written for her. All the speeches are written by someone else! Obama's silver tongued speeches are written by someone else, Bill Clinton's best speeches are written by someone else, Ronald Reagan's speeches were written by someone else. The accentuation that fact in this case alone is ludicrous and hypocritical, at best.
Not saying that's what you were alluding to greg, but it's something that needs to be addressed, because it's ignorant on the part of the people doing it. But yeah, it rocked.
Why? Because hardly anyone gives a sh*t about issues anymore as long as the slogans are catchy and the sound bites are red-meat juicy. "CHANGE!" "COUNTRY FIRST!"
Try this one, instead: "F*CK ME!"
Take care,
PK
Man, that is one enormous windmill to tilt against.
Tippecanoe and Tyler Too
54-40 or Fight
Don't Swap Horses
He Kept Us Out of War
A Chicken in Every Pot
I Like Ike
In Your Heart You Know He's Right
A New Frontier
Morning In America
Building A Bridge To the 21st. C.
There's nothing wrong with advertising and marketing.
But were those slogans promulgated and burned into America's consciousness by 24-hour news cycles, with campaign talking heads treated as legitimate sources and allowed to spew their message points ad nauseum on the air or through loyal foot soldiers in the blogosphere?
That's why I think style has trumped substance far more than ever in American politics even if it has been part of the landscape for two centuries.
Advertising used to be a big part of politics. Now it IS politics.
Take care,
PK
Last edited by pk500 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
F308GTB wrote:
I have full confidence that I or any of you on the forum could be President. Just takes that on-the-job training. I'd say the talent pool for becoming President is many orders of magnitude larger than the number of citizens who can hit .300 in the MLB.
Good point.
Hitting .300 is the equivalent of being a good president. The pool to be President might be large but it's hard to be a good president. Now to be a .400 President like Lincoln or FDR might be rare these days.
Bush is below the Mendoza line.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
That kid is missing too much training -- get him back into the gym!
Love,
Eddie Futch
P.S.: Sorry I haven't called back, brother. I'm going insane with preparations for the MotoGP race. Working nine hours during the day, taking a two-hour break for dinner and family time and then heading back to the desk for another good five hours of work each night. Good thing I shaved my head, because there isn't much left to push around up there anymore.
Last edited by pk500 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
GTHobbes wrote:So the Republicans loved Palin, and the Democrats didn't. Big surprise there. As an independent, I thought she read the speech that someone else wrote for her very well. Which is also no surprise, given her past experience as a sportscaster.
Dude, you do realize that it's probably been 50 years since a politician read a speech that he or she wrote more than 2% of right? I'm only asking because apparently the Obama campaign is expeting the pupblic to be ignorant of that fact.
Although I can't find a link, I'm pretty sure Obama wrote his red state-blue state speech in 2004, and primarily wrote his 2008 convention speech.
There were many great lines in Palin's speech tonight, but I thought this one took the cake:
"Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."
It's a good red meat for the base line. But to work, it relies on assumptions about Obama (that he's running for president as an act of self-promotion) that most people don't have. This line would have worked well on Hilary, but its primarily the Republican base thinks of Obama as an ambitious, me-first pol.
There were a lot of lines in the speeches that might work for the base, but had me scratching my head. For example, Romney was railing on about the East Coast elites, although he's rich and was the gov. of Massachusetts.
pk500 wrote:Palin is a tougher cookie than I thought. She also has genuine quality about her that I like. She seems about as "real folks" as a politician can get. That resonates with me.
But I do find three things odd about the Republicans' day today.
One, they insist on the media keeping the Palin children off-limits. Yet who was waiting at the base of the McCain jet this afternoon to greet the presidential nominee for a carefully orchestrated group hug and photo op? The entire Palin brood, including the father of Bristol's baby, Levi Johnston.
Note to GOP: You simply can't have it both ways, especially 48 hours after you called the kids off limits to the media.
I saw the same thing at the DNC. I see knothing wrong with introducing your family at the conventions. Biden and Obama did it. I do think it's wrong for the media to go after kids of any of the candidates.
Except she was a bit hypocritical. She said her daughter is off-limits. That's fine and I agree. I disagree that the mainstream media went after her daughter. The talking heads did. But I didn't read on NYT they called her a whore or something. They just reported her daughter was pregnant, which the campaign released a press release confirming. The bloggers did go overboard.
Here's my point. It's not okay to go after your daughter, but it is okay use their son, who's will be going to Iraq.
That's using your children for political benefit. Granted Biden did the same thing but I find it hypocritical because McCain/Palin said the family is off-limits. Doesn't that also apply for all children.
This is a ludicrous point. Obama has made EVERYTHING negative about him off limits, and he's the damned candidate! You can't say his middle name, you can't talk about Jeremiah Wright and the fact that he was Obama's mentor for 20 years, you can't mention any weird associations he's had...he's even got a team designed to shut down this stuff. Oh, and on top of that...his WIFE is off limits. Yeah, the first lady.
Kids are off limits. Period. Their son is deploying to Iraq next week. That's a fact. What're they supposed to do..LIE about it? The rest of her kids are 17 and under...minors. Hands the f*** off. The media are all acting like TMZ.
Teal wrote:There were many great lines in Palin's speech tonight, but I thought this one took the cake:
"Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."
Yeah, whoever wrote that for her rules...
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, particularly, or not, greg, but I've gotta say, I've heard alot about how this speech was written for her. All the speeches are written by someone else! Obama's silver tongued speeches are written by someone else, Bill Clinton's best speeches are written by someone else, Ronald Reagan's speeches were written by someone else. The accentuation that fact in this case alone is ludicrous and hypocritical, at best.
Not saying that's what you were alluding to greg, but it's something that needs to be addressed, because it's ignorant on the part of the people doing it. But yeah, it rocked.
We have no proof if Palin wrote this or not. Likewise, we have no proof how much of the important speeches Reagan, Clinton and others did write.
This is silly arguement because we have no proof.
Personally, if she can't write a huge speech like this or if she had it completely written for her, not just parts, that's a big minus for me. I like electeds that can write good speeches like a Bobby Kennedy. Giving an important speech often times can unite, heal national wounds, or focus the nation towards a national goal. I would like for that politician to have written it or have had a large presense in crafting it. The handlers and party will often refine speeches but it should be the candidate to have the most influence on it.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
GTHobbes wrote:So the Republicans loved Palin, and the Democrats didn't. Big surprise there. As an independent, I thought she read the speech that someone else wrote for her very well.
I've already said it before, but I'll say it another way: This is a f***in stupid point. EVERYONE'S SPEECHES ARE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. To make an issue out of this just reveals bias, not facts. We all know that her speech was written by someone else-it's the way it's been done for forever. How about getting a point that has some point to it?
GTHobbes wrote:So the Republicans loved Palin, and the Democrats didn't. Big surprise there. As an independent, I thought she read the speech that someone else wrote for her very well.
I've already said it before, but I'll say it another way: This is a f***in stupid point. EVERYONE'S SPEECHES ARE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. To make an issue out of this just reveals bias, not facts. We all know that her speech was written by someone else-it's the way it's been done for forever. How about getting a point that has some point to it?
If people are going to vote for someone who makes good speeches, if that is the criteria for the most powerful person on the planet, then we're f***ed.
Palin was heavily involved in the crafting of her speech, for god's sake. The speechwriter said it was a joy to work with her, because she knew what she wanted to say, had many of the 'zingers' already in her mind. You people try to make it sound like she can't form a damned sentence without help. Pathetic.
"I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter," Obama said in Muncie, Indiana.
"So I said well you know when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community," he said.
"Now, I didn't say it as well as I should have."
In an interview with the Winston-Salem Journal, Obama said, "If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.
"The underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so," he was quoted as saying.
GTHobbes wrote:So the Republicans loved Palin, and the Democrats didn't. Big surprise there. As an independent, I thought she read the speech that someone else wrote for her very well.
I've already said it before, but I'll say it another way: This is a f***in stupid point. EVERYONE'S SPEECHES ARE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. To make an issue out of this just reveals bias, not facts. We all know that her speech was written by someone else-it's the way it's been done for forever. How about getting a point that has some point to it?
JRod wrote:We have no proof if Palin wrote this or not. Likewise, we have no proof how much of the important speeches Reagan, Clinton and others did write.
This is silly arguement because we have no proof.
Personally, if she can't write a huge speech like this or if she had it completely written for her, not just parts, that's a big minus for me. I like electeds that can write good speeches like a Bobby Kennedy. Giving an important speech often times can unite, heal national wounds, or focus the nation towards a national goal. I would like for that politician to have written it or have had a large presense in crafting it. The handlers and party will often refine speeches but it should be the candidate to have the most influence on it.
What proof do you want? It's pretty much common and accepted knowledge that none of these people write their own speeches.
Is it also a minus for you that Obama does not write his speeches? I even have proof (Aside from the "just words" one he lifted). Listen to one of his prepared speeches, and then listen to him speak for more than 1 minute when it's not prepared. No way is he the same guy writing his speeches
Teal wrote:
I've already said it before, but I'll say it another way: This is a f***in stupid point. EVERYONE'S SPEECHES ARE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. To make an issue out of this just reveals bias, not facts. We all know that her speech was written by someone else-it's the way it's been done for forever. How about getting a point that has some point to it?
GTHobbes wrote:So the Republicans loved Palin, and the Democrats didn't. Big surprise there. As an independent, I thought she read the speech that someone else wrote for her very well.
I've already said it before, but I'll say it another way: This is a f***in stupid point. EVERYONE'S SPEECHES ARE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. To make an issue out of this just reveals bias, not facts. We all know that her speech was written by someone else-it's the way it's been done for forever. How about getting a point that has some point to it?
A good portion of the speech was written before Palin was even the candidate...so it's difficult to tell how much she contributed to the ideas and shaping of the speech (something that politicians will do, even if they don't write the speech).
As for making things off-limits, did Obama really do that? He gave multiple speeches discussing his association with Wright, he gave long, completely open interviews to the Chicago Tribune about Rezko, etc. Is there any evidence of him cutting off access to reporters that talk about these things? And if this is a concern, then I'm sure you're just as angry at McCain for cutting off CNN/Larry King because one of their reporters asked hard questions, correct?
JRod wrote:
Personally, if she can't write a huge speech like this or if she had it completely written for her, not just parts, that's a big minus for me. I like electeds that can write good speeches like a Bobby Kennedy. Giving an important speech often times can unite, heal national wounds, or focus the nation towards a national goal. I would like for that politician to have written it or have had a large presense in crafting it. The handlers and party will often refine speeches but it should be the candidate to have the most influence on it.
Maybe. And I'd like candidates who can turn water into wine too. The fact is that this is not how it's done. It's like saying, "I'll only draft an NFL QB who can call his own plays." That's just not how the game is played anymore. I suppose you can award bonus points if he calls his own plays or if he sits down with the offensive coordinator to gameplan, but it's not the best way to evaluate what they do on the field.
There's an article on Obama's principal speechwriter. The article says that Obama did write the '04 speech himself, but interestingly not the post-Iowa speech that I feel is the best he's given. He's definitely more active than most modern pols in the process. I don't reduce the value and power of the Iowa speech because it was written for him, just as I wouldn't value him or any politician more because they wrote their own speeches.
Incidentally, the '04 speech was obviously brilliant. But given his inclination to write an autobiography every 2-3 years, it really was right in his wheelhouse
Last edited by RobVarak on Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:12 am, edited 3 times in total.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
