Nearly 8 years ago when President Bush was
debating Vice President Gore I wondered if we'd ever see the bar set this low again when it came to judging candidates for high office. My question has been answered.
Affirmative! I can't believe she didn't forget how to talk!
I'm really surprised she was so eloquent!
After what I had heard, I didn't think she'd be able to answer the questions!
I CAN'T BELIEVE SHE DIDN'T SHOW US HER TITS!!!
I want to give her some credit, for I've never seen a woman shuffle papers with such ease. Fortunately Gwen Ifel speaks slow enough to allow her to find the right tab.
It's funny that people expected her to be really bad because of her nearly scripted disasters with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, and her lack of availability to the media. Of course she's able to give a speech, hold her own in a debate when the cards are stacked in her favor. She's a governor! Why should we be so surprised when she hurdles a sidewalk, or limbos goalposts? Yet we are!
Gosh golly, I think she was dang spectabulous! She be gittin' my vote now...
She's supposed to be one of the most competent people in the world! Not some college student learning on the fly. She SHOULD be able to more than hold her own. She should be able to win it for her team, especially when the team leader has more deficiencies than the credit markets.
I heard a commentator on the radio today discuss how, like Reagan, she went right past Biden and Iful, and spoke to the people. And that when she didn't want to answer the question she just went right forward speaking what was on her mind. AND THIS IS A GOOD THING, according to the commentator. Her ability to NOT HAVE THE DEBATE, that's a good thing! She wins because she duped everyone by not debating. Awesome.
I cannot think of another country where this would be seen as acceptable, let alone "holding her own."
I've come to expect this from the oh-so-liberal media...riiiight.
After the debate I had expected to be sidetracked by the Cubs game, but instead, the Cubs were sidetracked by the debate. Instead I turned where any intelligent person would to get the lowdown on how things went: FOX NEWS with Brit Hume. Now, before I go on, I am always so surprised to see Brit Hume hosting a show because I really thought he died. Maybe it was just a dream, or maybe it's because I've always believed he and Tony Snow were the same person. Unfortunately they are two separate people.
Thankfully the Cubs were sucking so bad that I made it to FOX NEWS in time to hear Hume say, "I mean, there's no question, she's the better looking of the two..."
Deep.
FOX NEWS was holding it's own forum just down the road at the Anheuser Busch Brewery, hosted by pollster
Frank Luntz. It was brilliant. When I see forums like this the thing that usually tips the scales as to whether I should take what I see and hear seriously is the number of neon beer signs plastered to the walls in the background. In this case there were only two: Budweiser and Bud Light. Hey, at least we're going for fair and balanced. Things could have gotten really out of hand had someone yelled "Tastes great!"
So Luntz circled the room, while staring into the camera, and let us know we might be "really surprised" about what we're going to hear. Rather than bore you with the details, PALIN IS THE FUCKING GREATEST! That's what we learned. I know this for a fact (as do all FOX viewers) because all of the forum members were holding a little black box with a red button, and I assume that if at any time if the button was pressed that would assure that, again, Palin is the greatest. Many people pressed it. Some a number of times. It was quite telling.
I wondered about the makeup of the room here at the Budweiser plant in Missouri, but rest assured, they were evenly split. Yes, even the young black woman who was voting for Palin was initially an "independent." Independent, in this case means "split between people who voted for Bush and Kerry in 2004." Not mentioned was whether any of these people who voted for Kerry in 2004 actually voted for Bush in 2000. That may/may not have been part of Luntz's "fair and balanced" forum. I suspect quite a few did. Judging by the stupidity of this whole charade one could assume all of them did.
To the point. What was telling was how 3-4 people of the 25+ had actually made up their minds tonight because of how well Palin did. Again, 3-4 were now a fan of Palin, and the ticket on whole, and 1-2 went the other way. You'd never know this by Luntz's reaction as he closed the show. One would think the election over. But that's not important.
What is important is how dumb these supposedly independent voters have to be in order to switch to Palin from "undecided." Clearly, Candidate Undecided was in the lead before the debate since expectations of Palin were so low, and Mr. U was at least sitting 50/50. But Palin had taken the lead for some at the Bud Forum, which begs the question (not, was their beer served), "Is John McCain that weak of a candidate that you change your vote because his inexperienced Vice Presidential candidate can hold her own on issues she's not that familiar with?" Really? Apparently. And it was not just one woman. There were a few of them, nodding in agreement. Scary America. Scary. Or maybe I should say, "Scary Americans."
In closing, I want to get back to the title of this piece of shit piece: Just Give us a Reason!
The Republicans have needed a reason to vote for John McCain, no different in needing a reason to vote for George W. Bush (he'll hire good people; Cheney is experienced). What's ridiculous is Sarah Palin is NOT a good reason, at all. The majority of American voters, I'll say around 75-80%, do not think Palin is reason enough to vote for McCain.
I arrive at this number because there is a solid 30% who support George W. Bush no matter what he does. I have to assume those people are seriously conservative, and many of them religious. These same people did not care for McCain too much, so they went out and found this broad. Ironically, while many woman conservatives are seemingly excited about her, their religious beliefs should be telling them not to be. After all, Evangelical Christians believe a woman's place is in the home, catering to her husband, and raising a family. Clearly, one has to admit, Palin has had a problem keeping tabs on her children, yet she wants to leave the family unit, become the dominant partner in the relationship, and head off to Washington. It's called hypocrisy. But lets not discount one thing: she loves Jesus. These people don't care about hypocrisy, apparently.
Back to the number. There has to be a few conservatives who still believe in their own religious tenets, and think Palin should not leave the home, etc. etc. Therefore, she'll lose some of that 30% Bush holds. Also, many of them understand you vote for President, not VP, and McCain just isn't their guy. That's losing more. Not saying they go for the black guy, but maybe they don't vote at all? So I am saying that 20-25% is the number that back her relative to the 30% that support Bush.
Still, she's a reason, albeit a poor one, to vote for McCain where they had none at all, other than their fear of a Terrorist Muslim Nigger running the show. However, Palin will not be enough to overcome this.
She was a bad call. She came out with a bang, and then fizzled, but now has lifted herself back up to the stage by proving that she too can be mediocre, at the very least.
She will have no effect on the outcome of this election; this has been my call from the start, and is how I see it now. States Obama was not going to win in the first place, like Missouri, or that state called "the south", will likely go McCain's way. But in states where the contest will be tight she will not be the tipping point. In those states there are people, and people make cities, and cities make smart people, and smart people aren't going to be swayed by someone repeating the name of "Joe Six Pack", Anheuser Busch forum aside.
So again, she will have no effect. I also predict that within a year, she has Dan Quayle's love child, somewhere in a town I never want to be in.
Sidenote:
Every time Palin says the "Democrats" keep "looking backward again" someone should ask her why she references McCain's career in the Senate, and what his Crystal Ball is telling us going forward.
