My Photo

Authors and Book Reviews

My Articles

« Paglia on Palin | Main | David Foster Wallace, 1962 - 2008 »

September 12, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c191353ef0105349dfde8970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Waiting for the Great Big Shoe...:

Comments

No one is crying 'foul' because Palin is being "grilled". They are crying foul for the false attacks against her character. That being said, there is another potential surprise that could come before November:

Biden suddenly drops off the ticket for 'personal reasons' and is replaced by Hillary. Polls are showing working class white women Democrats in swing states such as Michigan and PA fleeing from Obama over to McCain just to get a woman in the WH. If that trend continues, I really wouldn't be that surprised.

In addition to having several people a day email me anti-Palin missives that contain many adverbs and exclamation points (the most overwrought being a supposed "dream" one gal had that should be filed in the dictionary under "bathos"), I have now been told, by three or four people, that Obama should have chosen Hillary; that it's an abomination that he did not; that they find Biden dreary. I certainly agree it would become a racier race were Obama to do as Aroyo describes above, though ate more twists and turns what this race needs? Hang on.

The McCain/Palin surge is having an effect on congressional races as well. According to the latest Gallup poll of likely voters, Republicans have now taken a five-point lead in "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. If this trend continues I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Democrats tried something drastic like shaking up the ticket. But would that step, if taken, work? I have my doubts.

Pre-emptive strike by Palin? If so, this is pretty crafty. Would make it harder for Obama to dump Biden from the ticket:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5791068&page=1

All I have to say is that I hope somewhere Palin is chewing some ass and taking names on whoever in the McCain camp started the pig controversy. That was horse!@#$.

But that's the thing; I don't think it was a realistic VP choice. She's thrown into this national arena and is going to be reduced to talking points and memorizing speeches. Maybe she might say to hell with you and bust out with the "I'm working for the people in this country who want ethical government so let's make it happen. That's the only campaign strategy you need. That, and banning the book that Richard is working on." I don't know, I'm pretty naive. She's more effective as a governor for now. That's what I'm saying here. The End.

Sarah Palin saved Wasilla's taxpayers a lot of money by charging rape victims for their forensic exams:

http://www.newser.com/article/d934tn907/when-sarah-palin-was-mayor-wasilla-billed-rape-victims-for-forensic-exams-evidence-gathering.html

The state had to pass a law to get her to stop.

The right should call foul! The difference between how Palin is being treated vs. any other politician on the left is akin to flicking the ear (politicians on the left) vs. hauling back and sucker punching between the eyes (how journalists treat Palin). You call it "grilling". To me it was more of a public flogging.

The media left Chelsea alone out of respect for the Clintons. Not so for the Bush girls and definitly not so for Palin's daughter who is a minor. Double standard all the way.

Do we see the disdain from journalists for any politician on the left that Charlie Gibson showed for Palin? His Bush Doctrine question was pathetic. He didn't even know the answer. Because the Bush Doctrine is many different things to many different people. And Gibson acted like a teacher repremanding a student for not answering the question which answer is ambiguous depending on what one means by the Bush Doctrine.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODFkOTU3MjUwYWM4N2I1NzE2ZjU3NGQzZjg0MzYyZjk=

And suddenly journalists who touted feminism 15 minutes such as Couric and others are questioning Palin's choice to work outside the home insteand of being a mother when they themselves have worked high profile jobs with minor children at home.

What a bunch of hypocrites!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080910/cm_uc_crmmax/op_197344

That's all very nice, Brett, a good show of outrage. But the fact remains that Palin is the most unqualified person to grace a major party's presidential ticket in history. And that's a serious problem.

"That's all very nice, Brett, a good show of outrage. But the fact remains that Palin is the most unqualified person to grace a major party's presidential ticket in history. And that's a serious problem."

eh hem . . . . Richard left Obama his list. I have yet to hear any plausible explanation as to why he is more qualified to be PRESIDENT than Palin much less VP. Is it because he is polling so well in France and Germany?

Obama is an intelligent, well-educated person (degrees from Columbia and Harvard Law) with a life-long curiosity and interest in national and international affairs. When your parents are professors and your daddy's from Kenya, that sort of thing tends to happen.

Palin, on the other hand, is a former beauty queen who attended six different junior colleges and universities on the way to her communications degree and admitted a couple of years ago to having no interest in the Iraq War. She's a creationist.

There's really no comparison between the preparation of these two people for high national office. Obama has some, not as much as many would like, while Palin has none. Being governor of a rural state for few months doesn't cut it in my book; medium-sized American towns have more population than Alaska, of you don't count the mooses.

Obama's Kenyan father was never in the picture...did he even meet him growing up much less visit him in Africa? No - he never saw him except briefly when he came to BO's home in Hawaii before he died in a car accident.

Where do you come up with the premise that Obama had a "life-long curiosity and interest in national and international affairs"? Had he traveled overseas at all prior to his recent campaign stops in Europe? Has he ever written anything about foreign policy/relations? No. He knows no more about foreign affairs than Palin does. Zippo. His curiosity, however, did lead him to abusing cocaine and marijuana in high school.

As for education, Obama is no more educated than our current Commander In Chief, and you've let it be known what you think of him, so I hardly think you can claim that is a crucial resume' padder.

The hysteria over Palin these last few weeks has been entertaining. Watching he American - and European - left melt down in a mass of bigotry and hatred over this VICE PRESIDENTIAL pick has been something to behold. I was originally skeptical about the choice. But within 2 or 3 days of the choice, the overreaction from the left told me McCain hit the jackpot. And polls are proving him right. 2 pt difference in NJ?! 2 pt difference in PA? Leading by 4-5 in Ohio and FL? Leading in NM? Who da thunk it when he first made the announcement?

Richard....how's that Biden pick looking?

OK...I'm done now..... :-)

"She's a creationist". I'd take that over a bigot like you any day.

They said Reagan was dumb too! Then the Wall came thundering down.

Obama has NO executive experience. He was a senator for 143 days before deciding to run for President of the United States. He chaired one committe but never convened it, not once. He served on a board to overhaul the school system in Chicago. He failed miserably in that effort with nothing to show after spending tons of money.

You can tell a lot about someone by who they choose as friends. Among Obama's friends is an unapologetic terrorist named Ayers. Obama is unethical. He will befriend anyone no matter what kind of scum they are if it enables his ambitions.

Palin's latest executive position as Governor showed her intelligence and abilities. She astounded oil executives who underestimated her negotiation skills resulting in more oil profits going to the people of Alaska instead of into oil executive's pockets.

She has got a pipeline being built in under 2 years that was stagnant for 30 years due to bickering about profits among U.S. oil company executives. She put the contract out for bid and took a Canadian company's contract when U.S. oil interests tried to screw her and the citizens of Alaska.

She was responsible for a 6 billion dollar budget in Alaska! Richard, that is $6,000,000,000. That's 9 zeros Richard. Count them yourself!

I'm having a blast defending Palin! It's so easy it's almost not fair. Furthermore, when the opposition has to stoop to comparing Obama, their hope for President, to Palin, the Vice President of the other side, they have already lost the battle for President! Isn't it ironic? Obama has even less experience than the V.P. pick for the Republicans.

Brett, Aroyo .... wait, stop, please, you're killing me, hahahahaha, I can't take it anymore. Who writes your material? It's amazing. My sides hurt. I haven't laughed this hard Bush said "Mission Accomplished." Really. It's terrific stuff. You couldn't make it up -- and that's saying a lot since you guys clearly did. Brilliant. Wait....you do come up with this stuff on your own, don't you? I mean, you don't have someone write your jokes for you, do you? Doesn't matter. It's all in the telling. Your timing's impecable. And the punch lines?
Obama is no more educated than our current commander in chief." Please stop before I soil myself. Really. I give. I mean whatever you say. Sure, Palin is the most qualified. And McCain...if he lasts a only a little more than two years and then Palin takes over, she can still run twice more, right? I give up. Really. I'm convinced. Your work is done here. You're now both free to go straight to ... hahahaha.

david, yours needs no response. but keep it coming...pleez...

"She has got a pipeline being built in under 2 years that was stagnant for 30 years due to bickering about profits among U.S. oil company executives"

Is the natural gas pipeline being built? From what I understand, the license was granted to TransCanada, but there is no contract and building hasn't begun. They need support from Exxon who controls shipping. I like what she's trying to do, and has been successful at using new strategies, but it seems too soon to call how the pipeline is going to play out just yet. Maybe she can acquire more momentum with higher contacts.

"They said Reagan was dumb too! Then the Wall came thundering down."

Indeed. The libs always resort to the "we're smart, you're stupid" argument which, aside from being demonstrably false, drives more and more voters over to the McCain/Palin camp.

So, as aroyo said, please keep it up.

Mike: You're smart enough to know that none of what you say is true. No one always does anything except when it comes to people who set up straw men and knock them down to "prove" their invalid points. "The libs always ..." Oh my gosh, those fiends.

Aroyo: I appreciate the sense of humor. Try the veal. I'm here all week.

Don't feed the troll. It's adding nothing to the conversation as it has nothing of merit to say.

The troll adds nothing to the conversation because the conversation itself is nothing. So the troll adds as much as anyone -- except Richard, who makes plenty of sense, who is reasoned and articulate, who bothers to try and inform instead of insult. If anything the troll gives you a taste of your own inane medicine. You're unconvincing, defensive, and apparently happy to continue the policy of the last eight years, and thrilled to death for the distraction that Sarah Palin provides -- and the willful ignorance she taps into.

Brett, that's a cop out. David is presenting the situation as he sees it, just as you've been. We're having a conversation here. You are absolutely allowed to not participate, but to accuse someone of being a troll because you disagree is schoolyard stuff; name calling as opposed to engagement.

"Obama and (especially) Biden have been in the national eye for too long; we've sniffed every piece of their laundry"

I can't accept that. Obama has not been in the national eye for any appreciable time (much of his appeal is his newness!), and for the time he has been, has not been subjected to a Charlie Gibson-style grilling.

"The libs always resort to the "we're smart, you're stupid" argument"

Maher actually said it explicitly the other night. Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgjyOuvuCPc

And Maher was right. Sorry. I won't paint everyone I disagree with, with the same brush -- unlike my opposite numbers who will -- but there is clearly a segment who -- subconsciously of course, because any sign of sentience would illicit another reaction-- clearly fit the profile. I remember it well. Listening to an interview on the radio in 2000, someone voting for Bush said that Gore was just too smart. So he didn't trust him. We've had eight years of that. If you like it, vote for McPalin. I won't.

And Maher was right. Sorry. I won't paint everyone I disagree with, with the same brush -- unlike my opposite numbers who will -- but there is clearly a segment who -- subconsciously of course, because any sign of sentience would illicit another reaction-- clearly fit the profile. I remember it well. Listening to an interview on the radio in 2000, someone voting for Bush said that Gore was just too smart. So he didn't trust him. We've had eight years of that. If you like it, vote for McPalin. I won't.

My point is that Mike has a legitimate basis for what he said (that liberals like to play the "we're smart; you're stupid" argument), as evidenced by what Maher said the other night. What's your argument? That he shouldn't have said "always?" That's it?

Nancy ~

So you are going to defend trollish remarks. I'm not very familiar with David but his remarks regarding my comments and others had nothing to do reasoned discourse. I may disagree with Richard but at least Richard puts out points he passionately believes in althought they differ from mine.

David on the other hand simply used 2 paragraphs to sneer, deride, and mock what I wrote while saying nothing of the topic. He made it personal.. Yet, Nancy defends him and says I'm the one using highschool tactics. Something is very backwards here!

Heh. Thanks, Zev. That would be the same Bill Maher who, one year ago, bought that ridiculous story about cell phones killing bees hook, line, and sinker. I recall that he even used a bogus Einstein quote to back his "argument" up.

Being called stupid by Bill Maher is like being called a crackhead by Amy Winehouse.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, besides David's mocking and derisive tone he ended his remarks with this:

"You're now both free to go straight to ... hahahaha."

Nancy, I just find it amazing you find fault with me for calling David out and then you defend David for his inflamatory post personally attacking Aroyo and me. By tolerating that behavior you only encourage it.

If the shoe fits, Zev.

Vote for a team that studies the issues or one that doesn't feel the need because they can see all the way to Russia, as you wish.

Playing the victim used to be a Democrat trick, but the Republicans have certainly mastered it lately. There's not a news cycle that goes by where they're not whining about how they've been hard done by the mean old elite mainstream liberal corporate media or some imaginary slight or other. And that crybaby spirit is all over Blogistan these days as well. The USA is becoming a nation of people who need to grow a pair.

Brett:
1. When you say what I might construe as insulting things about me (e.g., "That post was so insulting to my intelligence") I don't pipe up. We're allowed to disagree.
2. When I have seen what I think is BS coming from the left, I have called it (i.e., the supposed "Sambo" comment)
3. Aroyo and Bennett, for sure, have knocked heads, but it seems -- after some back and forth -- to ameliorate; there's even been some humor.
4. I can appreciate you do not think David's comments are funny, and I agree that there's real anger beneath them. But I don't see his comments as trollish, which is why I said so.

Vote for a team that studies the issues

You'll excuse me if I'm not impressed by Obama's and Biden's (!) mastery of the issues.

Furthermore, while study is fine, what's most important is what emerges from that study, and the big-government/national-health-care/tax-and-spend/affirmative-action/soft-on-defense conclusions of Obama-Biden are not my cup of tea.

How much did Obama actually "study" the potential benefits of 'The Surge'? Or did he merely vote for political expediency rather than listening to the advice of our Generals as McCain did?

Nancy,

First, let me say that I really enjoy your blog and have been checking it daily as of late. I enjoy your writing style and reading your views although they differ quite a bit from mine.When I said that post was insulting I put forth my reasons in a clear and concise manner. I would not have been offended if you replied with arguments to validate your opinion.

What I do not tolerate are passive-aggressive comments telling me to go to hell but pretendingn it's all a big joke. Futhermore, up to that point in the comments he had added nothing to the discussion. His post was simply a personal attack with not one point backing up his opinion (whatever it was). Apparently his post was simply put there to mock, deride and tell me to go to hell!

What is interesting to me as a psychology major is human behavior. And I think I see that even you Nancy, whom I respect in many ways, are beholden to bias. I think that as you find David's political opinions validate your own you may be inclined to overlook personal attacks on his part and defend him yet put me in my place for calling him a name (troll).

Of course, I may be way off base but your response to this interaction intrigues me.

I've said enough and anyone reading the posts can see David's passive-aggresive comments and my refusal to tolerant them. Its just interesting that a personal attack telling me to go to hell and offering absolutely no counter arguments to discuss is defended while I am reprimanded for calling him a troll because of it.

If that is out of line than I guess I need to look up the definition of troll.

Oh, and so as not to misinform, I am not currently a psychology major. I graduated with a degree in pyschology years ago.

Oh, and Nancy, I'm glad you percieved the anger behind the pretended joking comment. To me it was clearly a sneering, angry comment. I just don't understand the anger and hatred many liberals have toward conservatives.

I think there is a lot of anger here, on the right and the left. Some people are smoothies about it, some use links, some are passive-aggression, some try humor. A few seek to appreciate other perspectives; most are digging in.

It was not my intent to single out Brett as the bad guy. Really.

As for "the anger and hatred many liberals have toward conservatives," I am not the person to elucidate on these points. I can tell you with some certainly that many liberals feel it's quite the other way.

Here's a quote I came across regarding the "we're smart; you're dumb" argument used by liberals:

“I just do not trust the American people,” said Eleanor Shavell, 58, a computer programmer, who, along with several others, joked she would move to Canada if Mr Obama loses. “I cannot believe that 80 per cent of this country thinks we’re headed in the wrong direction yet 50 per cent are supporting McCain and Palin. I guess it’s like at school, there’s always got to be a bottom 50 per cent.”

I assure you, this sort of derision works against Obama. People don't like being called stupid.

The article is here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afc25cf0-827f-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html

More math: type "liberals stupid" into Google, you get more than 4 million hits. "Conservatives stupid" gets you 3.5 million.

"Conservatives stupid" gets you 3.5 million."

Perhaps that's b/c they use less flattering terms than conservative.

I am angry; in fact I've long been disgusted by the winger tactic of innuendo and parsing every statement to look for the one word they can fixate on and use to twist the straw man's knife instead of dealing with the issues of what kind of country you want. If you don't want what we want, just say so. You don't have to disprove us, just stand up for what you believe in.

But there is a method to my humor/anger. Taking a cue from George Lakoff, I refuse to honor your framing. Deal with mine instead. For too long "liberals" have been unwilling to dish back the foul medicine they get from the other side. That's one reason we've been saddled with Bush. Karl Rove figured it out. (Wedge politics and semantics.) So I purposely gave you some of what your ilk hand out -- not caring that it makes me no better than you, because I think it's the only language you understand, and if you're not going to participate seriously then why should I? -- and I can tell (and am gratified) that it doesn't go down so easily. Now you know what it's like to be in our shoes. Grow up. Leave the playground behind. We're supposed to be adults.

I also find the whole exercise authentically humorous, like a cosmic joke. No matter what careful reasoning we libs" come up with, you're only thinking of how to strike back. I can't tell you how many times I've abandoned a blog commentary because it's impossible to get anywhere with people who willfully ignore the issues just to one-up the other guy. But with the country in the state it is today, I can't afford to lay back. So if you're going to play the game of telling me red is green and on is off, if you're going to play gotcha, and naner naner naner, and think that repeating bullshit makes it true, well here's back at ya.

Once I realize that you don't give a damn about anything but being right, my emotional investment went out the window. Now I just laugh. You're so transparent.

So it becomes a game. You just don't like it when I play you with your own tactics. I wouldn't call it passive aggressive, just aggressive. And now you just want to dismiss me because I'm angry -- as if that disqualifies anything. You say I don't add anything to the discussion: well, what discussion?
Just tit for tat.

However, if you're over the "he said, he said" and the faux outrage -- I'm happy to actually talk about the issues of where the country is heading and why we're in deep shit now. We probably won't agree with each other's solutions, but maybe a sense of common purpose would be helpful.

Of course, we get to hear that Palin tripe (authored ot not) about how some people (her kind) use their careers to promote change, and others (my kind) use change to promote our careers. This is just the kind of bullshit I'm talking about.

Are we in it together or out for ourselves and just pretending to be in it together. That's the question.

I think we're in it together like it or not. When the ship goes down we all drown.

Enough blather...

David, that's just the way I used to feel when commenting on liberal blogs, as if nothing I say will ever make any difference, b/c these people have already made their minds up, and will twist my words to mean whatever they want. Which is why I rarely read and never comment on lib blogs these days.

zev
i feel for you. and when we -- either side -- think nothing is heard, then it's no wonder the conversation degenerates into insult and anger. this time i decided to mock it because, well ... you know.

the big question, I guess, is why don't we listen to each other? why are we so angry? are we forever polarized? is it the media or the wedge political consultants? will it take an alien invasion to bring us together? Should the religious stop believing in the God fairy tale, and the athiests recognize something greater than themselves -- it doesn't have to be God, just humanity's survival.

I think we have in part been manipulated by relentless media blather in pursuit of dollars and eyeballs and ears. the media reports breathlessly on what the media says. it's a copy-cat world. they highlight our differences, not our commonality. i think most people don't want others telling them how to live. you don't want to abort, fine. just leave me out of it. you want to use ak47s to hunt, oh okay. we can find common ground. we're in this together. if the dialectic proves anything it's the the dialect continues, ergo we continue, ergo the world does not have to be either lib or conservative in order to function. we just need some common decency and we need to resist ostracizing the "other" just because she or he is different.

i know: if we all just hold hands.

but what's the alternative?

i'd rather talk about the human condition any day than play political gotcha because, you know, i think we all spout off facts and figures that we really have no way of confirming. we know nothing. we are all in the dark.

time to stand in the light.

Well, speaking from my perspective, the reason there's anger and emotion is that much of this stuff, notwithstanding that it is mired in politics, is really important. Take abortion, for example: For many of those opposing, it's murder, plain and simple. If you believe that, you can't just say, "Oh, murder, let's just let everyone do their own thing." So you have to yell and scream and fight for what you believe is right. Truth is, I think that with all the rancor, we do pretty well in this country, b/c the vast majority of those opposing abortion and of those supporting remain able to get along, in the real world if not online. We're mostly not killing each other even over things that we believe most fervently. There are huge swaths of the world in which that cannot be said. So I think we can give ourselves a pat on the back. When all is said and done, we're pretty darn civilized.

The comments to this entry are closed.