How good was Sarah Palin's speech?

[Intune]

I can state for the record that Obama's speech had little to no substance and looked more like a monsters of rock show then a political speech. Like I said I am objective.

Thank you for your candid response. I agree! Is it possible that your "objectiveness" is being overshadowed by unreasonable expectations?

After all, her only requirement was, "I accept my nomination as Vice President of the United States of America." The policies/platforms will be hashed out and put forth in the upcoming debates/town halls and ticket statements. This has traditionally been the practice for both parties.

Can you see my point? Objectively? Please note the sarcasm. I'm yankin' yer chain a bit. No, that wasn't comparing you to a dog, either.

If you didn't like Governor Palin's form/style of public speaking, please share with us who you find to be a powerful orator? Thanks.

 

[dm1333]

The speech was light weight. It did not address any of the real issues facing the United States.

rella, I agree with you on this but the substance should come in the speech by John McCain tonight. Did you happen to watch any of the Saddleback conference? For me it put the two candidates in a very different light. Obama seemed to stumble and struggle with a lot of his answers and was not the polished speaker that we are accumstomed to. McCain seemed thoughtful, decisive and very sure of himself. It gave me a lot of confidence in McCain.

 

[Intune]

I will stay here and fight for country I can believe in as long as I want to. Being in lock step with red and blue ideologies is not requirement for US citizenship last time I checked.

Being in lock step with anything brings up bad memories... Thank you for your dedication to this country.

 

[JuanCarlos]

So, had a chance to sit down and really watch her speech (I was only listening last night, being a bit busy).


First, on a random note, what's up with the GOP? YouTube? Seriously? It's a great fallback for those who perhaps can't take advantage of more demanding or restrictive streams, but as your only video available from your website? My eyeballs hate the Republican Party right about now. Ugh.


But, moving along to more important things, the speech itself. I'm hearing a lot from Democratic supporters about how it was nothing but a bunch of attacks and blah blah negative blah. And sure, she did spend a lot of time launching barbs at Obama rather than saying much positive about herself. But so did Biden. The only difference I'm really seeing is that he was marginally better at it, in that many of hers came of sounding at least a bit sophomoric (maybe there should be a "more" in there, for fairness). But for somebody with her relatively limited experience on a stage this size, I'd say she handled herself pretty competently.

As for the "style versus substance" argument, I think I've got it pretty well figured out. See, none of the four have really shown me anything of substance yet. Or, depending how you want to look at it, you could argue that all four have shown roughly the same amount of substance (which is non-zero). See, both sides are basically just throwing out vague allusions to policies they'll support or implement, with a few details thrown in (very few in their speeches, more elsewhere). So what I'm thinking is that to most people "substance" is "vague allusions to policies I support," where "style over substance" (or "empty suit," or whatever you want to call it) is "vague allusions to policies I don't support."

Which makes sense, since both sides have argued vehemently that the other hasn't offered any sort of "substance" yet. Go figure.

So yeah, by that measure Palin didn't offer much substance. Nor did Biden, nor did Obama, nor is McCain likely to.

 

[Erik]

"How good was Sarah Palin's speech?"

It was very good and will go down in the books that way.

 

[Saab1911]

There was one thing that Sarah Palin said which troubled me a little bit, the
quip about reading terrorists their rights.

I really don't support the whole imprisonment without trial, rendition, Patriot
Act, etc. I think that the medicine may be worse than the disease.

When the "War on Terror" is over, the erosion of our rights has to stop and
the Patriot Act needs to be rescinded.

 

[rellascout]

Thats the trick the war on terror will never end. You will never get those right back IMHO

 

[Sixer]

Rellascout,

I'm sorry to hear about your lack of hope. I know more than a few people that share your thoughts. I however do cling to hope ( along with my guns and religion ) and am honestly fearful of having a man like Obama in the White House. I respect and admire John McCain. While I do not agree with him on many issues, I still agree with him more than I agree with Obama. I definately trust the man more than I trust Obama. In a perfect world there would be a "perfect" candidate that we all agreed with, but as you well know we dont live in a perfect world, far from it.

As for the Russia comment, I hope you didnt think I was telling you to actually go to there. I was just making a point that even though politics in America are not perfect, they could be much worse (ie Russia)

 

[rellascout]

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

The fact is that she stopped the bridge project but kept the seed money.

 

[Saab1911]

Thats the trick the war on terror will never end. You will never get those right back IMHO

Aren't you sunshine on a cloudy day?

No, we will restore all of those rights to everybody. I personally have not
lost any rights.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. When
that war was over, Habeas Corpus was restored.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Yeah, Saab, I'd have to agree with you on that one. I had to re-wind it to make sure that I had actually just heard her say that. Obviously she said some things I didn't agree with, but that was probably the one thing that still sticks in my mind as being...I don't know, more actively objectionable. Most of the rest I can understand how somebody could get behind it, but for some reason this is one thing that I just can't even wrap my mind around.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

My wife and I found it odd that she would compare herself to a dog. To me that attempt at humor failed miserably.

The emphasis in that sentence should be: To me

Humor doesn't fail because certain people don't think it's funny. If your first thought at a joke like that is that you can;t believe someone compares themselves to a dog. You may have a Politically Correct sense of humor. It is a very serious condition but, fortunately, can be corrected. Try this: laugh at something, really anything will do.
The effect she was going for was tenacity, fierceness, stubborn resolve. Not that she looks like a dog or pees on the carpet like a dog or that women are dogs. We are not robots, try to analyze the INTENT of a statement not the summary dictionary definition of the words.

 

[rellascout]

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Clearly not a civil rights champion. It is easy to protect those you agree with but when rubber meets the road the real test of one's dedication to civil rights is when you have to defend the rights of those you hate the most.

 

[rellascout]

I suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged — directly to the people of Alaska.

Yet she was the first mayor in Alaska to hire a lobbyist who secured $27 million for the small town of Wasilla, Alaska. I do not understand how you can be against earmarks but yet lobby for 27 million. She did not even get all the ones she asked for.

 

[rellascout]

I think that you under estimate the erosion of your rights.

Did you know that upon re-entry into this country on a US passport the TSA can sieze your digital media, cameras, latops, jump drives for up to 6 months without a warrant.

That is something that effects you and every other citizen.

 

[Saab1911]

Did you know that upon re-entry into this country on a US passport the TSA can sieze your digital media, cameras, latops, jump drives for up to 6 months without a warrant.

The TSA can have my pictures. We as a people decided that that's one
inconvenience we can live with to prevent near eastern people from flying
planes into buildings.

In time, we will rescind Patriot Act. But, for now, if TSA likes to make
copies of pictures of my cavorting around on a Mediterranean beach less than
fully dressed, I'm comfortable with that.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Did you know that upon re-entry into this country on a US passport the TSA can sieze your digital media, cameras, latops, jump drives for up to 6 months without a warrant.

Please name a time, place and person to whom this has happened.

 

[rellascout]

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has concocted a remarkable new policy: It reserves the right to seize for an indefinite period of time laptops taken across the border.

A pair of DHS policies from last month say that customs agents can routinely--as a matter of course--seize, make copies of, and "analyze the information transported by any individual attempting to enter, re-enter, depart, pass through, or reside in the United States." (See policy No. 1 and No. 2.)

DHS claims the border search of electronic information is useful to detect terrorists, drug smugglers, and people violating "copyright or trademark laws." (Readers: Are you sure your iPod and laptop have absolutely no illicitly downloaded songs? You might be guilty of a felony.)

This is a disturbing new policy, and should convince anyone taking a laptop across a border to use encryption to thwart DHS snoops. Encrypt your laptop, with full disk encryption if possible, and power it down before you go through customs.

It is happening in the name of the "war on Terror."

 

[justwondering01]

A bridge to nowhere is very different than asking for money for projects that are needed. Do you have a list of the projects that she funded with the $27 million? I am curious to find out how she spent the money. As far as the civil rights issue, I found her comment a little odd but I think I know what she meant. She was in no way saying we shouldn't uphold someones civil rights here in America but we shouldn't be worrying about the civil rights of someone who is fighting a terror style war with us half way around the world. As far as the border patrol goes, they have always had more authority to do things than the normal police even before the Patriot Act. If they want to they can tear your car apart looking for contraband and leave you to put it back together even if they don't find anything. That doesn't make it right but has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. I am curious though, who are planning on voting for at this point in time?

 

[O6nop]

Are we still on topic?

I think she brought encouragement to a lot of voters. She may not have been aiming for those with absolute objectivity, because you can't please everyone all the time. If you are hoping for Utopia there's disappointment in your future.
Try to make lemonade from the lemons... not figuratively, of course, that is an analogy. So everyone knows, that means despite the fact that some people look at things as if there are never positive moments, you can try and make the best of what you have and not whine about how things are not just the way you like them.

It was poor use of violent image. It will come back to bite her in the ass.

Why would anyone bite Sarah in the ... oh, a pun... good one.