The circus comes to town
The Biden/Palin debate is upon us, and I’d expect it to get fully as much attention and coverage as the initial debate, if not more. We still don’t know who this woman is … although we’ve gotten disturbing sound bites and tell-all’s that make us collectively stare in uneasy fascination. Is the Dingy Soccer Mom persona all an act and a hustle? It’s almost unbearable to think this is who she REALLY is! Time will tell.
The straight-forward, no frills rules of this debate won’t allow Sister Sarah her usual latitude to dazzle with “just folks” homilies, and limits her ability to charm her Joe/Jane Six-Pack followers [and that has NOTHING to do with sexy abs ... it's a moniker for the folks I see around here that stop in the dead of winter with a car full of coatless, barefoot children to pick up drinkables for dinner.] The Pub campaign may regret their insistence on keeping it simple; she’s no whiz on facts and figures, and much better at tootling her flute. On the other hand, she won’t have as many opportunities to reveal herself as a ditz, either.
Still, Joe is going to have to mind his P’s and Q’s … make no sudden moves on the little woman … try not to lecture or appear condescending … attempt short, to-the-point policy propositions; not easy for our potential-Veep, given his cheerful verbosity and quick Irish temper. I suspect he’s been briefed in detail; she’s been cramming for days.
The debate will put us all in appraisal mode — did Joe stumble there, seem a little gabby? Did Sarah just add a handful of disconnected words from out of nowhere that don’t make any sense? Joe can become a windbag in a blink, and get off topic in a heartbeat; Palin will entertain with conservative talking points and Christocratic buzzwords, and when in trouble, she goes to her default position of quirky non-sense … something like this and definitely from the same School of Bullshit:
Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question
YouTube
Short and sweet, no matter how it shakes out it’ll be the best show in town. Get yer popcorn and keep your wings crossed. Excellent reads and analysis, below.
Jude
Listen to Sarah Palin
James Zogby, HuffPo
October 1, 2008
In response to an interview question from CBS’ Bob Schieffer about whether what Sarah Palin says is important or not, Barack Obama answered: “I think it is important. And I think that I’m more concerned about the fact that she doesn’t seem to have any differences with President Bush when it comes to foreign policy and would continue, as John McCain would, the same policies that we’ve seen over the last eight years that have, I believe, weakened our position in the world.”
Indeed. While watching and evaluating Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s debate performance, it will be important not to focus exclusively on what she doesn’t know about critical foreign policy issues. More useful, I believe, will be filtering out what she does know.
Here’s why:
It is fair to say that Palin began this process with largely a blank slate. One can dismiss her claims of having learned about foreign affairs by living, as she does, between two foreign countries. The geography is undeniable; but living across the Bering Strait from the frozen wastelands of Russia’s Siberia, or across a land border from Canada’s Yukon, provides more a sense of isolation than it does foreign policy experience. Similarly, Palin’s sole foreign trip, last year, to U.S. military installations in Germany and Kuwait (and stepping one quarter mile into Iraq) to visit with members of Alaska’s National Guard may have helped the Governor better understand her constituents deployed abroad, but would not have left her better informed about Kuwait or Iraq. And it is questionable how much useful information she culled from her speed-dating exercise with world leaders in Manhattan (other than the sorry fact that some of them could be fawning or downright embarrassingly sexist).
In selecting Palin, McCain’s operatives understood her obvious assets: solid “Christian” conservative credentials, unlimited ambition, effective stage presence and, yes, the fact that she is a woman. But, recognizing her equally obvious weaknesses (primarily a lack of policy, especially foreign policy, credentials), the McCain team sequestered their number two in an effort to give her a crash course in world affairs. Led by arch neo-conservative and foreign agent lobbyist Randy Scheunemann (who was an ever-present chaperone during Palin’s New York adventure), the team drilled their “quick study” in the ways of the world.
In the interviews that marked brief breaks in Palin’s sequestration, the fruits of their labor have been on display. From her three major and, I would add, “soft,” interviews (with ABC’s Charles Gibson, FOX’s Sean Hannity and CBS’s Katie Couric), much can be learned.
Some of her answers are nearly unintelligible, to be sure. But sifting through the jumbled syntax and incoherent babble, her “talking points” emerge. And it is these answers that deserve scrutiny, since they provide a guide to the world view that Palin’s handlers seek to project.
Having no independently developed experience-based knowledge of her own through which to sift this “received knowledge,” Palin’s recitation of her lessons reveals a raw and unfiltered neo-conservative view of the world. It is, at times, banal and oversimplified; but it is also, in many ways, perfectly clear.
It is absolutist and Manichean. There is good (”us”) and evil (”them”). “We” stand for democracy and the “spirit of freedom that is found in every human heart.” Since the clash between good and evil is both desirable and inevitable, “our” role is to bring “our values” to a waiting world and defeat evil. And, in this conflict, “our” victory is preordained. Compromise with evil is unthinkable and so traditional forms of diplomacy are to be rejected as a sign of weakness and surrender. In this world view, diplomacy means working with those who agree with us, not finding ways to bridge differences with those with whom we disagree.
Simple? Yes, but also dangerous. This is the world-view embraced by the current Administration, especially during its first term. (It is the consequences of this disastrous course that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has worked diligently, if unsuccessfully, to correct.) And this is, it appears, the course also embraced by Palin’s running mate and his advisors.
Now, Palin is no mere pawn. In many ways her Christian fundamentalism has prepared her for her role - since neo-conservatism is but a secularized version of her new faith’s absolutism. But while the theology provides a fit - it is the language and its application to complex world affairs that is new. And so, while the basic framework (good vs. evil, etc.) makes sense in Palin’s mind, she is not yet comfortable with the new phrases that have been written on the previously near-blank slate.
This is why I say that it is important to listen to what she does say, not how badly she says it. And don’t make fun: be afraid. ++
A Brief Guide to the Debates
George Lakoff, Common Dreams
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
In the first debate, Obama did what he needed to do: convince a majority that he has what it takes. But there is room for improvement.
1. Obama kept working within McCain’s frames: Earmarks, tax policy, military policy as foreign policy, and so on. McCain would say something false using one of his frames, and Obama would be lured into correcting McCain in McCain’s own frame and then stay in it. Rule 1: Change to your frame.
2. A simple thing: Instead of saying “I agree with Sen. McCain …”, Obama should try “Sen. McCain agrees with me that … ” The former frames McCain as setting the standard. The latter frames Obama as setting the standard. Or try ” Sen. McCain and I agree” if you are stressing bipartisanship.
3. Obama’s answers kept drifting off and falling in intonation at the end. Both beginnings and endings should be short and passionate.
4. Obama missed a great opportunity when McCain said he would freeze nonmilitary spending. A short, but powerful list of what would be cut and how it would affect people’s lives could have been devastation. This can still be done however, even by Biden on Thursday.
5. McCain used “no second holocaust” to effect last week in courting the Jewish vote, which could be decisive in Florida. Obama and Biden need to use it, while pointing to Olmert’s anti-bombing position along with Olmert’s reasons.
6. Obama didn’t take the opportunity to talk about foreign policy at the level of the person, not the state-about foreign policy issues like poverty, hunger, disease, clean water, women’s oppression, ethnic cleansing, refugees, global economics, and so on. Military experience doesn’t help with these vital issues, and McCain is inexperienced in them.
The reason the list is short is that Obama did so well.
The Democrats are assuming that Biden will win easily over Palin. I hope so, but Palin should not be underestimated. She is being tutored and much of what she will do should be obvious. She will attack Obama viciously, but with humor. I think she will come out as a populist identifying Obama and Biden with Wall Street and say that McCain improved the Paulson bill by going to Washington. She may argue that a corporate income tax cut will put money in the economy. That one’s easy to rebut: corporations that need bailouts have losses not incomes and so cutting their taxes would be pointless. But such logical arguments won’t carry the day with Conservative Populists. Biden will have to come on at the beginning as a populist attacking the need for such a bailout. Remember that polls among conservative populists are running more than 100-to-1 against. Also remember that conservative populists see liberals as elitists, and will see Biden negatively if he comes on as a policy wonk trying to upstage Palin on her ignorance about issues. Biden needs to be short, to the point, passionate, and should not forget the Big 5 reasons people vote for a presidential candidate: Values, Authenticity, Communication and Connection, Trust, and Identity. He has to undercut McCain on these, and support himself and Obama on them.
Again, look for the obvious from Palin: She will repeat “That’s gotcha journalism” when asked embarrassing questions. She and McCain are the populist reformers fighting Wall street, indentifying Obama and Biden with Wall Street, and touting no taxpayer bailout, private insurance, cutting corporate taxes, cutting spending, the defense of Georgia from the Russians, and drilling to lower energy costs. She will drop the names of the leaders she met in NY at the UN. She will call Obama too liberal and an orator with no content. She will bring back Reverend Wright and Bill Ayres. She will talk about being pro-life and saving the family and the Second Amendment.
Biden will have to practice not falling into any of these frames, but responding (or if possible starting) with framing of his own that casts McCain in a bad light in all these cases and draws her into his framing. I assume those prepping him for the debate will have already told him all of this.
Biden should go after McCain. He should call him a Yes-man for Bush 90 percent of the time, especially on deregulation of Wall Street (which caused this economic crisis), on refusing to fund alternative energy, on starting the Iraq War and not going after Osama bin Laden, and on privatizing-and eventually ending-social security. A debate on whether McCain is Yes-Man will displace the maverick frame from public discourse.
Biden should go after McCain’s gambling, and point out his gamble last week, which resulted in his messing up the bill to fix the economic crisis. In a crisis, you need a cool head, not an impulsive gambler. There should be a public discussion about McCain as a gambler.
Biden should not let McCain get away with his remark about freezing all spending except for the military and veterans. He should look at the audience and say, if you have a child who has or needs college loans, Sen. McCain will take them away. If your schools get federal funding for education, say for special needs, Sen McCain will eliminate it. If your town gets ……(fill in your favorites) , Sen. McCain will cut it - and give your money instead via tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations who don’t need it.
Biden should also go into the nonmilitary aspects of foreign policy, especially those at the level of the person: poverty, hunger, disease, water, ethnic cleansing, women’s oppression, and so on. McCain has no experience working on such people-oriented issues, where military experience doesn’t count.
Biden should criticize Palin for making women who’ve been raped pay for their own rape tests, on not being pro-life after birth because of her views of children’s health care, on helping to raise the rate of teenage pregnancies and hence abortions by being against sex education, and on helping to bring back back-alley abortionists by supporting laws that would have the government interfere with the intimate decisions that only individual women should be making. Lack of sex education, lack of pre-and post-natal care, and bringing on the return of back-alley abortionists supports a culture of death, not life.
This is the opportunity to bring up Palin’s Road to Nowhere, built from earmark funds, and going nowhere, routed through a nature preserve-a place that shouldn’t even have roads.
Biden doesn’t have to prove himself in this debate. Palin does have to prove herself. That means Biden can hold back, give short but powerful responses, and try to prevent gaffes.
Finally, there is “gotcha journalism.” If Palin brings it up, the right response is that journalists have a job to do, to find out what candidates know and believe, and that experienced candidates know how to respond by communicating clearly what they really do know and do believe. ++
What it’s like to debate Sarah Palin
I know firsthand: She’s a master of the nonanswer.
Andrew Halcro, Christian Science Monitor
October 1, 2008
Monitor opinion editor Josh Burek talks with former Alaska state representative and gubenatorial candidate Andrew Halcro about Gov. Sarah Palin’s debating abilities.
Anchorage, Alaska - When he faces off against Sarah Palin Thursday night, Joe Biden will have his hands full.
I should know. I’ve debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she’s a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do.
On paper, of course, the debate appears to be a mismatch.
In 2000, Palin was the mayor of an Alaskan town of 5,500 people, while Biden was serving his 28th year as a United States senator. Her major public policy concern was building a local ice rink and sports center. His major public policy concern was the State Department’s decision to grant an export license to allow sales of heavy-lift helicopters to Turkey, during tense UN-sponsored Cyprus peace talks.
On paper, the difference in experience on both domestic and foreign policy is like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing a bullet. Unfortunately for Biden, if recent history is an indicator, experience or a grasp of the issues won’t matter when it comes to debating Palin.
On April 17, 2006, Palin and I participated in a debate at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks on agriculture issues. The next day, the Fairbanks Daily News Miner published this excerpt:
“Andrew Halcro, a declared independent candidate from Anchorage, came armed with statistics on agricultural productivity. Sarah Palin, a Republican from Wasilla, said the Matanuska Valley provides a positive example for other communities interested in agriculture to study.”
On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.
“Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I’m amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, ‘Does any of this really matter?’ ” Palin said.
While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it. During the campaign, Palin’s knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn’t have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.
Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she’s met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.
In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn’t like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn’t name a bill.
And when she does answer the actual question asked, she has a canny ability to connect with the audience on a personal level. For example, asked to name a major issue that had been ignored during the campaign, I discussed the health of local communities, Mr. Knowles talked about affordable healthcare, and Palin talked about … the need to protect hunting and fishing rights.
So what does that mean for Biden? With shorter question-and-answer times and limited interaction between the two, he should simply ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone. Any attempt to flex his public-policy knowledge and show Palin is not ready for prime time will inevitably cast him in the role of the bully.
On the other side of the stage, if Palin is to be successful, she needs to do what she does best: fill the room with her presence and stick to the scripted sound bites. ++
Andrew Halcro served two terms as a Republican member of the Alaska State House of Representatives. He ran for governor as an Independent in 2006, debating Sarah Palin more than two dozen times
Why Sarah Palin Is A Better Debater Than You Think
Jed Lewison, HuffPo
October 1, 2008
Sarah Palin might not give a good interview, and John McCain’s advisers might not trust her to give a press conference, but in a highly structured debate like the one we are going to see on Thursday night, she has the ability to be dominant.
Because the format allows for very little give-and-take between Palin and Joe Biden, her “values”-oriented debating style stands a good chance of succeeding. The central feature of her debate style is that rather than getting bogged down in facts and specifics, she instead says what she is for and what she is against using terms like “healthier,” “stronger,” “more prosperous,” and “fairer.”
Andrew Halcro, who has debated her, explains his experiences debating Palin:
I’ve debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she’s a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do.
That sounds like a backhanded compliment, and perhaps it is, but that doesn’t change the fact that Palin’s debating style works, as you can see for yourself in this video that I edited together.
For the video, I looked at her past debates and randomly grabbed six answers that I thought were pretty good. These weren’t cherry-picked answers, they were just the first six answers that I thought she handled effectively. (I only rejected one answer in which I felt she was too defensive about her experience.) Open link for video.
Given the debate’s format on Thursday night, I expect Palin will do just fine. I will be quite surprised if she gets caught off guard or has a moose-in-headlights moment.
I don’t think she’ll display much in the way of specifics, but she will get the values-oriented language right, and that should be good enough at least for a draw, and that will mean she beats expectations.
Of course, the real political issue in the debate isn’t whether or not Palin meets or beats expectations, it’s whether she is able to make a case for John McCain that John McCain hasn’t yet been able to make for himself.
That’s something no vice presidential candidate in history has been able to do, and should serve as a reminder that in the end, this election is still between Barack Obama and John McCain. ++
McCain Rewrites Palin’s History, by Rep. Les Gara
AKMuckraker, HuffPo
October 1, 2008
Comments by Rep. Les Gara
Over the past few weeks we Alaskans have been scratching our heads over the interesting claims the McCain campaign has made about our Governor. A lot of them have been news to us. Governor Palin’s nomination to the McCain ticket has created unusual common ground for Alaskans. Whether we support her or not, we’ve been furrowing our eyebrows a lot lately as we watch the McCain campaign re-write Alaska history.
As a legislator who’s both agreed and disagreed with Governor Palin, I know some of her positions are difficult to sell. Some are not. But to avoid that whole messy thing of explaining controversial positions, the spin doctors running the McCain campaign are doing what got George Bush elected. Many campaigns spin in the gray areas, where the truth isn’t clear. But the McCain campaign’s taken a page from Karl Rove, and decided to spin past the margins. They’re pitching the verifiably false as true.
During the August Republican National Convention, Alaskans heard for the first time that our Governor opposed a national symbol of federal pork, what folks in the Lower 48 call the “Bridges to Nowhere.” We didn’t know that. In her 2006 Governor’s campaign, when her opponents took the risk of telling boomers these two bridges might be too expensive - candidate Palin said she supported them - and said she’d work to get more Congressional money for them.
Now the campaign has a new line, that Governor Palin “told Congress thanks, but no thanks” for this money. That’s a problem. See, she never could have said that. Congress debated our Alaska’s request for $400 million in bridge money in 2004 and 2005, before Palin was elected Governor.
A national outcry against these projects, at a time when a Republican Congress was pushing pork over effective relief for Hurricane Katrina’s victims, forced Congress to re-write this earmark. Alaska ultimately got the money in 2005, but the Congressional language requiring that we spend it on these bridges was deleted. We said thank you. Governor Palin never opposed this funding. She never offered to return it when she took office in 2007.
Then there’s the claim by Senator McCain that our Governor has been a “maverick” fighting federal earmarks. We didn’t know that either. Alaska takes more federal earmarks per capita than any state in the country. Governor Palin asks for them. She, like her predecessors, happily accepts them. Alaska’s budget contains hundreds of millions in earmark dollars. Alaska politicians love earmarks, and campaign on their ability to get them.
We also heard at the Convention that Governor Palin’s been a budget cutter. But in Governor Palin’s two years as Governor state spending has gone up by 20%. She did veto projects, and I supported those vetoes. But after vetoes, there’s still been a 20% budget hike. Depending on your views, a 20% spending increase might be defensible. It’s not defensible to make people believe you cut the budget when you didn’t.
Here’s what else I know about my state. We have the third worst children’s health insurance program in the nation. The Governor wouldn’t support cost-effective measures to extend insurance to the 10,000 children of Alaskan working parents who cannot afford coverage. She campaigned against a recent proposal to prevent large strip mines from spilling toxic chemicals into Alaska’s salmon waters - something that’s raised the ire of fishermen and Alaska Natives in remote Southwest Alaska communities. Thirty-five to forty percent of our kids don’t graduate from high school, and we can’t convince Governor Palin to join the 41 other states that have accepted the science showing statewide pre-k education helps kids succeed when they don’t have other good options at home.
There are a lot of important issues to discuss this campaign. They should be debated honestly. So far, as Senator McCain’s joined Barack Obama’s call for change, he’s only succeeded at changing the truth. ++
Biden’s Debate Ace in the Hole: George W. Bush
Barry Yourgrau, Smirking Chimp
October 1, 2008
Whatever goes down in tomorrow ’s VP debate, I say Biden needs to pound one message over and over:
McCain-Palin = Bush.
Bush has the highest disapproval ratings in history. He is political toxin. He must be continually sprayed in the debate air.
Forget the impact of any Biden gaffes, smirks, condescensions, mis-speakings, whatever. As long as ole Joey keeps flashing Bush Bush Bush every chance he gets, I say he’s done what needs to be done.
I expect McCain’s Rovian brain trust will have Palin try to throw Biden off balance. I don’t think she’ll make a big show of being “vice presidential”. I think she will attack attack attack, sarcastic and cheerily smiling. I think she will address any issue of her ignorance by chuckling it away as, you know, reporters, elitist nitpicking, insider wonkery, what have you. Debate Reaganomics, if you will.
Really, the longer one sees and hears Palin, the more one feels not mind-boggled amusement but naked outrage–and rank disgust at her vacuous triumphalist viciousness. She is clueless, and cheerily clueless about her cluelessness.
Gore Vidal said presciently some four or five years ago (?) that Bush would end up as the most despised president in history. “Straight Talk” McCain and “Fresh Face/New Ideas” Palin have already become the most despicable candidates on record. ++
McClatchy: Palin’s Approval Ratings Tumble — In Alaska
Editor & Publisher Staff
October 01, 2008
NEW YORK - Since she was picked for the Veep spot, the press has often noted that Sarah Palin has “80%” approval ratings in Alaska. Just yesterday, John McCain told the Des Moines Register editorial board that she is “the most popular governor in the United States.” But that may be outdated.
McClatchy reports today that her approval rating in her home state has tumbled to 68% — still high but surely not the country’s best. The poll by a local firm that works for both parties was taken Sept. 20-22. McClatchy writes: “Palin’s popularity has swooned as new information about the local abuse-of-power investigation known as Troopergate has trickled out, and as national and local media pick over her track record as a governor and small-town mayor.
“Palin still has overwhelming support among Alaska Republicans. But many Democrats and independents, who gave her positive marks just a month ago, have changed their views….
“Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., said an approval rating in the 60s for a governor is good. His recent polling in six western states found two governors with approval ratings in the low-80s, two in the 60s and one in the 50s.”
Also, contrary to McCain’s statement that Palin is “overwhelmingly popular” with Americans, in a new survey Pew finds that 51% of Americans now believe that Palin is unqualified, up from 37% after her announcement. ++
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Add comment October 2nd, 2008