Sarah Palin acceptance speech
Posted by Mike Sylvester - 9/4/08 @ 8:09 am - Filed Under 2008 National Elections, National Politics
I took the time to watch Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech last night. I thought she gave a good speech; however, it was fairly typical for speeches of this type. It was meant to energize the crowd and throw some “red meat” to the Republican base.
She mischaracterized Obama’s tax plans in a blatent and dischonest fashion. In other words she lied. She would have been accurate if she would have said that Obama wants to significantly increase taxes on the income earners of this country who are in the top 5%.
Instead she characterized Obama’s plans for those who have high income as if they were also his plans for the rest of the country.
It is impossible to read Obama’s tax plan and come to the conclusion that he is going to raise taxes on most Americans. It is just not honest. The fact of the matter is Obama’s tax plan is fiscally irresponsible because it increases the National Debt by 3.5 trillion dollars over 10 years.
I thought she had some great quotes in her speech:
“The American Presidency is not supposed to be a jounrey of personal discovery.”
“A small town Mayor is like a community organizer except with responsibility.”
“The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick.”
“That luxury jet was over the top, I put it on EBay.”
Mike Sylvester
Comments
16 Responses to “Sarah Palin acceptance speech”
Leave a Reply
I flipped back and forth between CNN and MSNBC last night to watch Rudy and Palin. Keith Oberman and Chris Mathews are insufferable (keep in mind that I find Oreilly and Hannity to be insufferable too). Mathews and Oberman nearly wet themselves after the Obama speech, and last night they were so clearly disturbed by Palin it was unbelievable. The Democratic protesters behind Mathews had signs that said “9/11 was an inside job”. I hope that these nutjobs are on the camera again tonight because it only helps McCain.
I thought her speech was a home run and nobody can deny that we are in for one of the most interesting 2 months in American Political history.
I think Sarah will address the tax issues more directly during a VP debate (actually, I’d like to see her go against Barack…that would be very interesting).
As for Oberman (puh-lease), send that boy to the Bill Maher camp…ASAP! He’s not even as entertaining as Jerry Springer once was.
I enjoyed the convention telecast last evening…and I don’t much take to politics in general.
(too much “politics” in politics for me)
And Mike…if Obama’s tax plan will INCREASE the national debt…where do we all KNOW the money is going to be coming from…anyone?
How’s about MOST of US?
(’cause just that 5% alone of the “rich” won’t cut the muster when filling that $3.5 TRILLION financial hole)
And I’m glad you posted those fantastic quotes…love it!
B.G.
C-Span delivered the best coverage of the DNC and now the RNC convention coverage.
Mike, I think I understand your views on Public paid TV & Radio (because it’s tax-funded dollars).
However, I find it a refreshing change to watch
C-Span over the Media Moguel biased Networks.
Not that it matters, but for what it’s worth the two minute rule on making changes…(for example, like editing spelling)
If I post then click on edit (the 2 minute count down starts) then in red it states, “You are not allowed to make editing changes”.
Has anyone else tried to make an edit change and have received the same message?
I think it is a great feature on this blog, but am unable to utilize this feature.
With or without the edit feature, I enjoy FWP.
“It is impossible to read Obama’s tax plan and come to the conclusion that he is going to raise taxes on most Americans. It is just not honest.”
Of course, Mike, one would have to first assume that Obama’s tax increases were going to happen in a fiscal vacuum. But historically speaking, each and every time the big dogs get their taxes hiked, the rest of us get to pay the bill.
Literally.
Perhaps we don’t pay the tab directly to the government, but rich people generally don’t print their money, they get rich by convincing the rest of us to give our money to them. If their taxes go up, they’ll find a way to either shelter their assets more thoroughly or they’ll just pass the bill to the rest of us……..just as they’ve done for centuries.
As opposed to blatant dishonesty, I would be willing to concede that Palin skipped from “A” to “C” without properly explaining the logic path passing through “B.”
But hey, in a society obsessed with sound bytes and reality TV, who’s got time for details or logic?
It seems to me that doing any sort of “analysis” on scripted political speeches is a phenomenal waste of time. A guy might as well analyze daytime soap operas or professional wrestling.
Andrew, this is why I endorse C-Span to cut out the Network news’ analysis (drama).
We all pay taxes directly to the Federal, State,
Local, City/County, Airport, Library, and most states pay more toward k-12 education.
I suggest we ask our political correct system to cut government taxes.
Let’s check, Indiana is one of the few states
in our USA…not in a State budget deficit.
I believe there maybe more, but I’ll let the readers figure which States of the Union are in
the Black & Green without raising taxes.
I read through his tax plan and have no clue how it works for sure but at this time I am not sure anyone can get their arms around either one of them.
What people should be concerned about is any plan that contains tax cuts containing “credits.” That means, in my simple world, I pay taxes and then if I qualify I get part or all of it back.
Consider how I play with a credit. I take 200 bucks from you over the year. Then under when I filling out my tax form that for each dependent I claim I get 5% of that back. So, if my form shows three dependents I get 15% back. So in my simple world, I just paid 170 bucks.
Yes, some family out there got a full credit but most people will be paying more in taxes.
Found this on another blog, and thought it was quite amusing: “Many are writing about Sarah Palin’s speech last night, but Roy’s one-liner won’t be beaten: Governor Palin’s address tonight was basically Reba McEntire doing a one-woman show on the life of Phyllis Schlafly.”
Bobett,
I’ll check into the comment editing problem…
Assuming that Cara is a woman, it is amazing how sexist democratic WOMEN can be. A women is simply not a women if she is pro-life. God forbid such a comment would have been made against Hillary.
Mrs. Green Jeans
Cara’s a woman, old enough to recall Schlafley’s inconsistent messages, and smart enough to know what they really meant. (”Stay at home and do not even try to compete for our husbands’jobs”.)
Cara, wow, what an amazing interpretation. You have the first woman with a REAL chance of becoming VP. She has 5 children and is competing for the second most powerful job in the nation. She has been Mayor and she has been Governor, but somehow she has done this all while being held back because she is a woman. You truly have to be a fool to have made the above statement.
P.S. Old enough, maybe. Smart enough?, not sure.
You miss the point. Had Palin lived by Schlafley’s advice, she’d not have had the opportunity to be all that she is. I like her energy, am not impressed by titles ofMayor and Governor, that is just political machinery in a small state, but would like to know more about her knowlege on foreign affairs and Constitutional law. The news mags and Economist will fill us in shortly, should be a great campaign.
Cara, how could Palin be doing a speech on the life of Schafley, Shafly, or whoever you’re talking about, if she didn’t live by her advice? I’m thoroughly confused.
The title of governor doesn’t impress you? Hmm…tell that to four of the five last elected presidents (no Senator elected President since Kennedy, and to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Barack, you’re no Jack Kennedy). I guess I should say four of the last six since this year we will elect a senator.
Granted, succession from Senate or Governor to President is very common, but the playing field is not level just because each Governor holds the same title. That is what I meant by not being impressed by the title.
Titles are just names of the office held. Performance is what we seek. Reagan’s performance elected him, not his title as Governor of CA. Being elected Governor was noteworthy, but his building CA’s economy, understanding global politics, knowing how to motivate Americans: those strengths elected him, not the title.
Show us the person: achievements, policies, character. Who are their friends, who do they owe, who owes them, and who damns them with faint praise? How do they delegate authority, can they build consensus, will they lose a battle to win the war? Do they know the difference between force and power, and the cost of each? Will they uphold the Constitution of the US? Reagan did, not because he was Governor of CA, but because of who he was.
As to the Schlafley thing, forget it, it is from long ago and far away. Her premise was that a woman could have a family and a career, but not at the same time. Economic pressures, tax structures and standard of living expectations made that a bit of a moot point years ago. Unfortunately.