This is taken directly from this page here, and I think it hit the mark.
I think that it must have been extremely frustrating for the moderator to continually ask questions that just plain don't ever get answered, and then get overlooked altogether. I've watched both debates so far, and my impression so far is this: of the four people who have been on stage, Obama has been to the only one to give direct answers the questions asked by the moderator, at least 80% to 90% of the time. Sure, each one has had his or her moment of truth, but for the most part these people have treated this as nothing more than a moment in the spotlight, as if the man or woman standing in front of them asking questions was only a formality. If Sarah Palin was so concerned with the straight talk that the american people want, she would have answered the questions that the american people have asked of her. My biggest beef, and I realize that this is just how politicin' works, is that the response to most questions directed at person a are constantly redirected to be accusations about person b without ever answering the question. I should have known though, when Sarah got on stage and changed the rules right away. She said right in the beginning that she was not going to answer the questions asked of her by the moderator. Well that's great, cause then she can read a story to the people watching the debates, that which has been written for her on the note cards.
At least we know she can read...
-Joe
6 comments:
Wow, the daily Kos is critical of sarah palin? that's pratically a fox news headline.
I thought she did a fine job in the debate. I thought biden did a fine job too, except that he used the word fundamental too much :)
That's all for now. I'm hungry.
I suppose you liked the way she pronounced the word Nuclear: "Nucular" just like our current president. Not a big deal really, obviously it doesn't matter to the american people if our vise president can speak... Speak language. That's too harsh though, I should stop.
Cause really, that's just what I want, when I sit down and have a think about it: I want an everyday hockey mom, worth over a million dollars who want's rape victims to have rape babies, outright lies about who she has talked with, and things she's done in office. This isn't an attack on you, Josh, just Sarah Palin; our lovely vise president elect, who had a bigger flag pin.
I can tell you right now that I am not going to vote one way or another based on how someone pronounces a word. Be it an incorrect nuclear or a folksy "heck-of-a".
The way the internet is hyper critical of palin seems very fake in the same way that the internet is hyper excited about linux. It's a mob mentality and it doesn't do anything productive.
I mean, there is suspicion that Obama isn't even a natural born citizen, so no matter who it is people are going to sling mud at them.
I'm going to sit back and laugh as they sling mud and then make an informed decision.
Odds are my decision will not be influenced by the Daily Kos, Daily Mail, Michael Moore, Matt Drudge, Bill O'Reilly, David Letterman or John Stewart.
Fair enough, fair enough. But I just have one question: how can you make an informed decision if you have not one way of being informed?
The internet is in some ways the subconscious bully of the internet mass, and if there is one thing to say about a bully it's that a bully will likely pick on the easiest target. If Sarah Palin is an easy target, what does that say about her? You make a good point about considering the source of news, but when 60 to 80 percent of the sources agree on something, do you still fight it? If so, why?
Also: The credibility of a news source is very likely irrelevant when said news source is quoting directly with something like transcripts or posted video evidence, especially without giving it's own blatantly personal opinion on the matter. With the exception of some obvious extreme cases of "out of contexts" or video edits. So if the huffington post, a well known left wing internet site supporting Barack, while constantly lashing the republican right, posts a video of Sarah Palin doing or saying something embarrassing or contradictory, is it no longer credible or important information due to it being on the huffington post? And what if it is then on abc or msnbc? How are references like these simply "slinging mud" when the information is irrefutably factual, with or without an accompanied opinion.
I think that my informed decision will include things such as a candidates ability in pronunciation, or in reading a prepared and practiced transcript. This is information I can get myself, from a live newscast. No middle man.
Also: I love you Josh, I don't hate you.
The only thing you can go on are their track record and your impression of their integrity. Palin is making a huge error in judgment when she lies about the bridge to nowhere, however she does have a very good track record of cutting taxes, balancing budgets and making a government run more efficiently. She might only be the governor of Alaska, but she is at least a governor which is the most similar office a politician can hold next to the president. Senators do a completely different thing and in the case of Obama, he has spent two of his three years in Washington on the campaign trail.
However I think Obama does have a better plan for cutting taxes for the middle class which is of the utmost priority for me this election.
Huffington Post, don't get me started on the huffington post. They couldn't write a level headed post if they were wearing a brick hat.
-Josh
Getting in on the discussion a bit late, but this is the internet. Nijas and whatnot.
Intelligence is a pretty darn good criteria to have for elected officials, in my humble opinion.
The pronunciation of nuclear is a small issue, true, but it speaks to a larger one: simple cognitive competence. By refusing to re-learn how to pronounce important words, politicians display an unnerving pride in their ignorance.
The sad thing is that a lot of people actually like it when politicians mispronounce things. They feel that it makes them more 'normal.'
Well, I don't want a 'normal' person in a position of great power. I would prefer to have someone who is highly educated and articulate represent our nation to the world.
Post a Comment