Did Palin Cheat During the Debate?
Members of the far-left blogosphere, especially the guys and gals over at Think Progress, have accused Governor Sarah Palin of cheating during Thursday’s debate. According to these enlightened beings, Palin took notes with her and simply read them on stage. That is in breach with debate rules and, of course, a sign that Palin is tragically uninformed.
Marc Ambinder quickly dealt with those accusations, however. She would not have been able to take notes with her. Instead, she simply wrote down notes during the debate itself. When Joe Biden was speaking, Palin wrote something down. When the moderator spoke, Palin did the same. That is, most definitely, not in breach with debate rules, or a sign that Palin was uninformed. To the contrary, one could argue that her notetaking was a sign that she was informed and sharp as a knife.
More than anything else, the accusation are yet another sign of the utter dishonesty of the liberal blogosphere, and especially of ‘blogs’ so clearly working together with the Democratic Party. Lest readers forget, Think Progress is a site dedicated to progressive ideals, and run by individuals working closely together with Democratic Party members. Its goals are to attack Republicans and conservative ideals, and to spread progressive ideals and to defend progressive politicians. That is what Think Progress does, and that is what it will continue to do in the coming years. It is not a source for reasonably objective analysis or views. It is a Democratic Party site, that should be considered a propaganda outlet; which it is.
Think Progress and blogs like it have launched a major attack on all Republicans, conservatives, and those who center or right-of-center. The idea is to destroy people’s image, basically these progressives are in the business of character assassination. They have opened the attack on Palin because she represents everything they hate, and because she poses a threat for them in so many ways (feminism, the role of women, society, etc.).
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Governor Palin did very well for herself.Joe Biden merely did well for Obama.But I have not yet heard anyone from any side express any concern about <a href="http://www.FairAndUnbalanced.com/?http://www.testimoanials.com/blog/blog1.php/2008/10/01/sarah-palin-s-heartbeat">the most dangerous possibility</a> if Governor Palin is elected to national office.
Am I seeing an attempt to turn progressive into a scary word like liberal? I’m serious, I am seeing a trend and I find it very sad and unpleasant.
Anyway, I just chuckled at your last extremely subjective and paranoid dig at Think Progress. Just lay it down as hard and with as much conviction as you want – it sounds hollow when it lands. Palin is the opposite of feminism. Feminism means getting a job because you deserve it no matter your sex. It is not about getting it because of your sex. She got in on a quota.
Yeah, Kaspar, that thing about her being the most popular governor in the US is absolutely no reason for her to have been picked as a running mate.
Am I seeing an attempt to turn progressive into a scary word like liberal?
You mean in reaction to liberals calling themselves "progressives" because they’d already destroyed the "liberal" brand?
Especially Christine.
Kaspar: I’m European. The correct word for ‘progressives’ is progressive, not liberal. Down here we actually have real liberals, who hate to see what happened to this once respectable word used for those who believe in a free market, a hawkish foreign policy and limited government in the U.S.
The term we use for the people you ironically call ‘liberal’ is progressive- and it’s the only correct term. And to me, this is indeed not a positive word.
The term progressive has been hijacked also; back when Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket, a progressive meant someone who wanted to achieve liberal goals but had conservative values, and wanted to achieve them through conservative means.But that’s the nature of politics, meanings of labels change over time as coalitions change.I really never understood the complaining about liberal being used as a bad word, so, right-wing was also used as a bad word whenever someone wanted to attack conservatives. Now neo-conservative is a bad word. That’s politics, too.
"Yeah, Kaspar, that thing about her being the most popular governor in the US is absolutely no reason for her to have been picked as a running mate."
Apparently the rest of the US aren’t as easy to win over as Alaskans. I’m not saying Alaskans are dumb or less concerned about competence and good results from their politicians, but seeing as the vetting was non-existant and she never would have gotten the ticket if she wasn’t a she, I simply can’t see the ticket as anything but a sad little gamble. Her approval ratings seem to be undeserved – she wasn’t good at what she did, but Alaskans seem so separate from their officials that they’ll accept anyone as long as they mess up stealthily.
What is your objection with her record as governor of AK, Kaspar?
"You mean in reaction to liberals calling themselves "progressives" because they’d already destroyed the "liberal" brand?"
Liberals have been the target of a memetic mob comprised of sickening morons, spearheaded by the very unconservative S:t Raygun, who I despise even more than Bill Clinton.
To me a progressive can have a healthy degree of scepticism or instead think that reality will change in the face of idealism. I’m the former – I know exactly what a decent society looks like and I’ll do anything within the bounds of morality and scientific rigor to get there. If a solution doesn’t have a high enough chance to achieve good results for the costs involved I won’t want it executed, but if I’ve successfully put the onus on the nay-sayers and regressives I’ll ignore them until they take the onus of themselves. I don’t care if people are scared or bothered by the change – change hurts and you don’t get to avoid it at the expense of those suffering from the imperfections in our global economy.
Andrew Sullivan brought up the fact that conservatism simply is applied scepticism, and with that in mind we are all conservatives to different degrees. That kind of conservatism simply prefers staying put if there is nothing more attractive, it has the tried and tested as a default, but is perfectly open to alternatives. I want an incredible amount of change, no matter the cost, but I don’t mind small increments or discussing the solution. What I am not interested in is accepting the imperfect, so that we can all pretend we are allowed to be satisfied. We can’t. Our lives are fundamentally evil unless we commit ourselves to working for a world where the golden rule is axiomatic. I’ll force others through that change, no problem.
"What is your objection with her record as governor of AK, Kaspar?"
Turning black ink red, talking about banning books from the library, the mismanaged sports center project, the bridge to nowhere, lying about resisting said bridge, appointing cronies and friends at the expense of getting meritorious people to work for her constituents, constantly refusing progress for gay couples, troopergate. If Alaskans can accept that, then I accept their masochistic lifestyle. But keep that person away from more power.
Kaspar writes:
I have to agree with Michael’s use of the word “progressive” in this case. Michael is completely correct that in most other parts of the world, the term “liberal” has a very different meaning than it does here in the United States. Yet even in the United States, the term “liberal” has become a virtually meaningless term, being ascribed various definitions by both its supporters and detractors that contradicts what the term initially stood for.
During the 19th century and early portion of the 20th century, the term “liberalism” in the United States had a definition that was very similar to what we would consider “libertarianism” today. It was people like Franklin D Roosevelt who hijacked the term “liberalism” during the 1930’s and ascribed to it a definition that would accurately be described as “progressivism”, an economically populist doctrine that borders on democratic socialism.
When people use the term “liberal” there’s no way to know what they’re talking about (classical liberalism? market liberalism? social liberalism? democratic socialism?). With the term “progressive” I (and I suspect most people) have a pretty good idea of what they’re referring to.
In response to Kapsar, Michael writes:
The correct word for ‘progressives’ is progressive, not liberal. Down here we actually have real liberals, who hate to see what happened to this once respectable word used for those who believe in a free market, a hawkish foreign policy and limited government in the U.S.
Here, I disagree with Michael. Liberalism (in the “classical” sense which I presume Michael is refering to) has never stood for a hawkish foreign policy. Michael is absoultely correct that classical liberalism refers to free markets and limited government, but is incorrect in arguing that it stands for a hawkish foreign policy. In fact, the definition that he argues for is inconsistent. A hawkish foreign policy is inconsistent with free market capitalism and limited government. You don’t spend $600 billion dollars waging a war of choice as well as nation-building and then call it free market capitalism and limited government.
Michael, I’m afraid that some of your “liberal” friends in Europe have distorted the definition of liberalism. I never cease to be amazed when I hear the supposedly “Liberal” political parties of Australia, Japan, and various countries in Europe supporting the hawkish foreign policies of George W. Bush. They are every bit as guilty of distorting the definition of the term “liberalism” as American Democrats have been.
Kaspar writes:
I have to agree with Michael’s use of the word “progressive” in this case. Michael is completely correct that in most other parts of the world, the term “liberal” has a very different meaning than it does here in the United States. Yet even in the United States, the term “liberal” has become a virtually meaningless term, being ascribed various definitions by both its supporters and detractors that contradicts what the term initially stood for.
During the 19th century and early portion of the 20th century, the term “liberalism” in the United States had a definition that was very similar to what we would consider “libertarianism” today. It was people like Franklin D Roosevelt who hijacked the term “liberalism” during the 1930’s and ascribed to it a definition that would accurately be described as “progressivism”, an economically populist doctrine that borders on democratic socialism.
When people use the term “liberal” there’s no way to know what they’re talking about (classical liberalism? market liberalism? social liberalism? democratic socialism?). With the term “progressive” I (and I suspect most people) have a pretty good idea of what they’re referring to.
In response to Kapsar, Michael writes:
Here, I disagree with Michael. Liberalism (in the “classical” sense which I presume Michael is referring to) has never stood for a hawkish foreign policy. Michael is absolutely correct that classical liberalism refers to free markets and limited government, but is incorrect in arguing that it stands for a hawkish foreign policy. In fact, the definition that he argues for is inconsistent. A hawkish foreign policy is inconsistent with free market capitalism and limited government. You don’t spend $600 billion dollars waging a war of choice as well as nation-building and then call it free market capitalism and limited government.
Michael, I’m afraid that some of your “liberal” friends in Europe have distorted the definition of liberalism. I never cease to be amazed when I hear the supposedly “Liberal” political parties of Australia, Japan, and various countries in Europe supporting the hawkish foreign policies of George W. Bush. They are every bit as guilty of distorting the definition of the term “liberalism” as American Democrats have been.
Yea, I was thinking about the first two terms, and then noted that, at least the large-L Libertarians (and a lot of small-L libertarians) are against the Iraq war, and most are non-interventionist.
Did anybody expect the Left not to whine and cry as usual? Much ado about nothing – words for the left to live by
"Did anybody expect the Left not to whine and cry as usual? Much ado about nothing – words for the left to live by"
And that’s today’s completely uninspired and useless generalization.
Please. Far-righters like Malkin etc. constantly see themselves as oppressed and stalwart in the face of meanies and LIBERAL PARTISAAAANS!
Kaspar:
Turning black ink red,
AK has a surplus, but I presume you switched from my question about her gov. record to her record as mayor of Wasilla. That red ink? A sales tax bond initiative that the voters supported for an indoor sports complex (presumably a thing the voters wanted to fund because they live in a place with no sunlight for half of the year.) And yes, there were some bungles with the project.
talking about banning books from the library,
At least you admit that she simply talked about it (asking a rhetorical question to the librarian.)
the mismanaged sports center project,
Already conceded some mismanagement in not getting clear title to the land first; they finished on time and under budget though despite of that, and the current mayor thinks they may be able to pay off the debt two years ahead of schedule.
the bridge to nowhere, lying about resisting said bridge,
A typical political flip flop, but she’s flipped to the correct side of the issue now anyway- and flip flopping isn’t lying.
appointing cronies and friends at the expense of getting meritorious people to work for her constituents,
According to the crooked ‘meritorious’ people she fired, if we can believe their ‘unbiased’ accounts.
constantly refusing progress for gay couples,
Constantly? Like when she vetoed the bill that came to her desk which would have prohibited benefits to same sex partners of gay state employees?
troopergate.
Ridiculous nonscandal.
Liberals have been the target of a memetic mob comprised of sickening morons
Well, yes. As nic points out, that mob co-opted the term "liberal" from the original owners, the Jeffersonians.
And having proceeded to destroy the brand name, they then adopted "progressive" as a replacement.
"Did anybody expect the Left not to whine and cry as usual? Much ado about nothing – words for the left to live by"
Q.E.D.