FOUSESQUAWK: Is This What We Can Expect in Tomorrow's Debate?

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Is This What We Can Expect in Tomorrow's Debate?

L-R- Joe Biden, moderator Gwen Ifill, Sarah Palin

"Ok, I want a good clean fight, no holds, and when I say break, I want you to break. One last thing. Biden, knock her out."

12 comments:

Anonymous said...: Answer: No.

Palin is clearly in over her head and out of her league. Tomorrow night is either going to be a disaster for her or she is going to pull a major surprise and actually appear competent.; October 1, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Gary Fouse said...: Bryan,

Perhaps you are right, but if I were Palin, I would tell her handlers to get lost, go out there forget about the talking points and just say what she feels. Never underestimate Biden's ability to stick his foot in his mouth.

Dennis Miller also suggested (or maybe it was O'Reilly-it was his show tonight)-that she should hold up a copy of Ifill's book and ask her to autograph it.; October 1, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Lance Christian Johnson said...: I think that even if Palin stands there with a slack-jawed look on her face and drools out the side of her mouth while reciting the opening soliloquy to Richard III in Mandarin Chinese, conservative pundits will blame it on the politics of the moderator.

Why do I think that? Because they blame her poor performance during the Couric interview on "gotcha" questions (even though Couric basically asked the same questions of Biden, who didn't look like a deer in the headlights.); October 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Gary Fouse said...: Lance,

Bryan says that conservatives are turning against Palin in droves because of her poor performance with Couric.

I am kind of torn down the middle. I think Couric's question asking her to recite Mccain's history of imposing regulations was a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, Palin needs to relax and be herself.; October 2, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Lance Christian Johnson said...: I think Couric's question asking her to recite Mccain's history of imposing regulations was a bit of a stretch.

Asking for one example and asking to "recite McCain's history of imposing regulations" are completely different. Couric asked for one example, and Palin couldn't even manage that.

It's still too early to tell, but I fear that she really may be a doofus. Still, it's not like the Republicans can't get a doofus in office though, lest we forget Dan "Potatoe" Quayle, who couldn't open his mouth without a barrel of stupid coming out.; October 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Gary Fouse said...: Lance,

Actually, Palin gave one example, but Couric wasn't satisfied. Maybe she is a doofus-or maybe, her opponents arev successfully defining her.; October 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: I think that even if Palin stands there with a slack-jawed look on her face and drools out the side of her mouth while reciting the opening soliloquy to Richard III in Mandarin Chinese, conservative pundits will blame it on the politics of the moderator.

I agree, that will definitely be the spin. They've already been setting up for it by sowing doubts about Ifill's impartiality or lack thereof. Yet, her book has been known about since August, from what I'm reading. And it is also not necessarily even a pro Obama book. It's simply about African-Americans in contemporary politics. Obama is a central figure in such a discussion, obviously. Apparently part of it is about Colin Powell, too. Hmm, so maybe she is actually conservatively biased, then? No, of course not.

I also don't understand the appeal of Palin being an "average" person. You know, the whole, "She's not one of them educated Washington insider elite types!" Why does that appeal to anyone still? Many people voted for Bush 2 because they thought they'd "like to have a beer with him." That he seemed like just an average Joe Sixpack. What did we get? Possibly the worst President in the history of our country. So yeah, we tried the whole Joe Sixpack thing (in Palin's case it would be Jane Sixpack I guess) and it turned out to be a disaster. Let's not have that again.; October 2, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Lance Christian Johnson said...: I must be thinking of something else. Wasn't that the one where Palin said that she'd have to get back to her on that? Perhaps I need to watch it again.; October 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Gary Fouse said...: Bryan,

First of all, part of her title is..."in the age of Obama". Today, I hear she is raising the "Racism issue" over the criticism of her selection as moderator.

Also, as to your evaluation of Bush, I realize I invite howls of derision by pointing out things where he did well, in my view (judges, attacking Al-Quaida, tax cuts), but you are obviously too young to remember the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Now there was the most incompetent boob that ever set foot in the oval office. Even Dems will tell you it was a "failed" presidency. There is nothing else they can say.

And as for Clinton, there was one of the most corrupt presidents in our history. (His first lady was corrupt as well.); October 2, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Gary Fouse said...: Yeah, that was the one, Lance. I would have to get back to you on that question too.

One more thing: What do you think Biden would say if you asked him to list Obama's political accomplishments/legislation in the Illinois state and US Senates?

"I would have to get back to you on that that." (What else could he say?; October 2, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: He did a good job of attacking al Qaeda? Really? That's funny, because he took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan (where al Qaeda is based) and decided to focus more on Iraq (where there was no al Qaeda at the time). Now al Qaeda has regrouped and said to be stronger than they have been in years. If you consider that one of his successes, then I'd be really curious to know what you think an actual failure of his has been. Because his policy seems pretty bad at this point.

The tax cuts? Hmm yes, another great success. They did wonders for the economy... er, wait a second... our economy is currently collapsing! Bush's handling of taxes and the economy has been disastrous. Don't get me wrong, I know he is not singled-handedly responsible for what is happening right now, because Clinton certainly signed off on plenty of deregulation during his time in office. BUT, his tax cuts sure haven't helped. Democrats get criticized for taxing and spending, yet this administration has done an OBSCENE amount of spending. And the idea of lowering taxes during war time is ludicrous in the first place. If we're going to be at war, there are sacrifices we must all make.

Also, I don't see how "in the age of Obama" is an inherently pro Obama thing to say. It's simply acknowledging that Obama is a central, defining figure in contemporary black politics, which he is.

As for you having to get back to Couric on that question, that's fine, because YOU aren't running for Vice President of the United States! SHE is, which means there's a higher standard! And considering McCain's age and poor health, there's a good chance Palin could actually end up as President, not just VP.

What about her absolutely incoherent response to the question about the bailout? What about her inability to name a single other Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade? What about her bumbling on about Russia's proximity to Alaska giving her foreign policy experience?; October 2, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Gary Fouse said...: Bryan,

Lots of good points. Perhaps, Iraq was a unwarranted diversion from Afghanistan. History will judge that whole thing. I sure was happy though when I saw those daisy cutters falling on Tora Bora. Also, driving the Taliban from power was a great thing. Important that we don't let them come back.

The tax cuts were the right thing to do-for everybody. You can scream "tax cuts for the rich" all you want, but everybody who paid taxes got a cut. Besides, don't be too hasty to complain about corporations and rich people getting tax breaks. They are the ones that provide jobs to young guys like you.

As far as our current mess is concerned -everyone is at fault. Yet, do some research. Start with the Community Reinvestment Act-passed under Carter and strenthened under Clinton. This is what started the pressure by government on lending institutions to give mortgage loans to folks who couldn't repay or couldn't afford the house they wanted to buy. Take a look at Barney Frank's role in pressuring these institutions to do these loans. Frank is one of the architects of the sub-prime lending mess.

In 2005, Republicans, led by McCain, tried to put controls on the free-wheeling activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Dems blocked any reform. Check out the past statements of Maxine Waters, who stated that there was no problem with Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Raines and Freddie Mac.

Finally, I hope you read my piece on Acorn. They are involved in that up to their necks. And they are not Republican fat cats.; October 2, 2008 at 4:58 PM