Victor Reppert has done a post on “Sarah Palin's Debate Flow Chart”:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palins-debate-flow-chart.html
But the laugh is on Reppert. Reppert is, himself, the parody of Sarah Palin. It would be easy to do a flow chart on Reppert, diagramming his intellectual charlantry. Indeed, his treatment of the presidential campaign is as fine an illustration as any. We just need the male counterpart to Tina Fey to play Victor Reppert. Is Dana Carvey available?
Does Palin know as much about domestic policy as Newt Gingrich? No. Does Palin know as much about foreign policy as John Bolton? No.
But for someone who’s only been on the national stage for 5 weeks (at the time of her debate), she proved herself to be a quick study.
More instructive, for those of us who, unlike Reppert, care about the facts, was Biden’s performance after 36 years on the national stage. Biden does a wonderful impersonation of someone who knows what he’s talking about. It reminds me of Peter Ustinov doing an impersonation of a Russian. Ustinov could fake Russian. It was total gibberish, but it sounded like the real thing.
Now, Reppert pretends to care about honesty in politics. He feigns indignation at the alleged dishonesty of Palin about the Bridge to Nowhere.
But, as usual, Reppert is just a poseur. If he really cared about honesty in politics, he would make some effort to double check Biden’s gaffe-riddled performance. In the age of the Internet, information is just a mouse-click away. Let’s take a few examples:
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/10/03/on-talking-points-and-joe-bidens-fifty-seven-facts/
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/2edf57de-edbc-4ec5-a319-e253c91ac85f
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/c332e71c-4efc-4a2a-a5b1-b295cb20c7ea
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/3/sarah-palin-won-the-debate-against-joe-biden.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/10/03/biden_tells_14_lies_during_vp_debate
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzc5ZTllZDk1N2JkZTI2ODMxODFiNDdlYjYyMTQxMzA=
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVhMThlNjRkZGFlMmUwOWFkNDZkZjk0MzBiY2JiYmY=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDljMDc4M2ZjYzc1YmM1MDlhZmFiZGEyMjBiZDRmYzc=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRhYjgxZjFkMDk2ZGQ0OWIxNmJhMjNkMThiOGIyMGI=
http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=343ba934-6417-4b65-ac9e-92348acb5e97
If you hooked up Biden to a polygraph, it would burst into flames.
Beyond Biden is the question of who’s primarily to blame for the current financial crisis:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/03/do_facts_matter?page=full&comments=true
Then there’s the candidate that Reppert voted for. Given his profession of concern about honesty in politics, why doesn’t it bother him that Obama is stonewalling about his academic performance?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74877
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/
What are Obama’s credentials to be president, anyway?
He has an Ivy League education, yet he refuses to release his college transcripts.
Even the New York Times admits, in a roundabout way, that he only became editor of the Harvard Law Review through racial tokenism rather than academic merit:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260
He then became a “community activist,” which is a euphemism for ambulance chaser.
In order make it up the political ladder, he formed cynical, but expedient alliances with the most corrupt elements of the Chicago machine.
His time in the Illinois state legislature was distinguished by two things: voting present and opposing the Born Alive Act.
He’s a first-term senator whose Congressional experience has been distinguished by two things: running for president and having the most far left voting record of any senator.
No wonder Reppert is plugging the Obama/Biden ticket: one lightweight likes another.
Steve: Find your favorite political parody. Put it on your site. Have a good laugh about it. On me. Obama, Hillary, Biden, Bill Clinton, take your pick. There's plenty of material for satire from all of them. I used to love Clinton jokes when he was in.
ReplyDeleteI do happen to agree with National Review's Kathleen Parker that Palin is unqualified.
But please, you can object to my arguments all you want when I make them. That wasn't an argument, it was a joke. It surely didn't deserve this sort of name-calling response.
I'm not a politician, I'm a layperson trying to explain my political positions. So are you.
Palin has put herself in the public spotlight. Comedy at your expense is part of the job if you are a politician. In fact, Palin's own reaction to the public mocking she has received is considerably better than the huffy reactions of the likes of Carly "Golden Parachute" Fiorina.
VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
ReplyDelete“I do happen to agree with National Review's Kathleen Parker that Palin is unqualified.”
i) That’s not an argument, Victor.
ii) And you’re ducking the question of what makes Obama (or Biden) more qualified. Just another example of your evasiveness.
iii) There’s more to qualifications than having a resume. Does one have the right worldview?
“But please, you can object to my arguments all you want when I make them.”
When you start making arguments, I’ll be happy to object to them. When can we expect you to start making arguments? Care to set a date?
“It surely didn't deserve this sort of name-calling response.”
I love your double standard. You do two posts that portray Palin as a dimwit, then you whine about name-calling.
If it’s about Palin, it’s “comedy.” If it’s about you, it’s “name-calling.”
“I'm not a politician, I'm a layperson trying to explain my political positions. So are you.”
Are you trying to excuse yourself by admitting that you’re incompetent to comment on political affairs? If so, why post on the subject?
Anyway, you don’t “explain” anything, Victor. You merely assert and emote.
You’re a serial offender against intellectual integrity. Time and time and time again, you dash off some thoughtless tripe about matters of great moral gravity. No attempt to research the subject. Not attempt to construct a careful argument.
“Comedy at your expense is part of the job if you are a politician.”
You’re an agent of evil. You are using your blog to promote the candidacy of a man who is an enemy of faith and family.
You may think it’s funny for you to be a small-time Goebbels, I do not—especially when you do this in the name of Christianity.
Christians can have a good faith disagreement about whether to vote for McCain. For a number of conservatives, McCain is one or two or three compromises too many.
Christians cannot have a good faith disagreement about voting for a man like Obama. You are culpable for your actions, Victor.
If Palin running for Vice President is inexperience, what about a man who's inexperience running for president?
ReplyDeleteObama and Biden have developed policy positions on most issues. They can tell you what the intend to do about the issues of the day.
ReplyDeleteLet's contrast this with Palin. When asked about Roe v. Wade she of course thought it was a bad decision and that this decision should be left to the states. OK. Then she was asked if we have a constitutionally protected right to privacy and she said yes.
Now the conservative constitutional argument against Roe is that r-i-g-h-t t-o p-r-i-v-a-c-y isn't in the Constitution, and therefore the SCOTUS exceeded its authority and legislated from the bench in the Roe case. So by accepting the Griswold claim that the right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution, she effectively undercut the central conservative argument against Roe. Then when she was asked about any other Supreme Court decision she disagreed with, she couldn't come up with any.
In short, this woman is clueless about judicial philosophy. We've had conservative President after conservative President put people on the court who have upheld Roe. Shoot, the guy who wrote the darned decision was a Richard Nixon appointee, and I remember Nixon offering to nominate "strict constructionists" to the court.
Finally, Palin is a public figure and a presidential candidate. So she is a fair target for humor, and you will find SNL making fun of everyone.
You apparently want to go into an "all-out war" mode where political affiliation is concerned. The "axis of evil" isn't Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, it's Obama's Democratic party.
Just don't assume that I am in all-out war mode. I am not. I will back away from claims if I find them mistaken.
Victor,
ReplyDeleteAre you serious?
1.) "Let's contrast this with Palin. When asked about Roe v. Wade she of course thought it was a bad decision and that this decision should be left to the states. OK. Then she was asked if we have a constitutionally protected right to privacy and she said yes.
Now the conservative constitutional argument against Roe is that r-i-g-h-t t-o p-r-i-v-a-c-y isn't in the Constitution, and therefore the SCOTUS exceeded its authority and legislated from the bench in the Roe case. So by accepting the Griswold claim that the right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution, she effectively undercut the central conservative argument against Roe."
Response: It seems to me that you are making a monolithic complaint about sterotypes of Conservatives and then somehow that is something against Palin. There are Conservatives who do believe in the right to privacy and is also against abortion. I assume you hold to these two positions as well as I do.
The quote I want to deal with here suprises me especially one coming from a philosopher. Why does she have to take the paradigm that you presented? I have read Roe vs. Wade and I have always been troubled with the either/or reasoning by Abortionists...either we have the rights to privacy with its underpinning of Roe vs. Wade and abortion or else, if we get rid of abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, we are doom because we no longer have any rights to privacy...BUT, wait! why can't the decision of Roe vs. Wade be overturned and the judicial reasoning be further clarified of the relationship of privacy and Abortion, so as to affirm privacy and deny abortion? I don't think that assuming privacy would lead one necessarily to banning abortion would it? If I disagree with Row vs. Wade, I disagree as a conservative and wish to overturn its decision because of its bad reasoning.
By the way, I also think that the court precedence of privacy have previous precedence before Roe vs. Wade so I don't think Roe vs. Wade is that foundational to the rights to privacy as others might think. What I'm saying is that the court could uphold the rights to privacy on the basis of other court decisions and legal reasoning without Roe vs. Wade.
2.) "We've had conservative President after conservative President put people on the court who have upheld Roe. Shoot, the guy who wrote the darned decision was a Richard Nixon appointee, and I remember Nixon offering to nominate "strict constructionists" to the court."
And what does this discussion of Nixon prove about Palin's qualification?
3.) "Finally, Palin is a public figure and a presidential candidate."
Correction, she's not running as a presidential candidate right now, she's running as a candidate for the Vice President.
4.) "So she is a fair target for humor, and you will find SNL making fun of everyone."
Everyone is a fair target and NBC is cool with it, even tasteless things such as abominable jokes about incests concerning Palin's family...except George Soros and some other guys connected to the bailout. Then NBC stops it and censors it. Granted, they will make fun of everybody but I wonder if the SNL crew would protest that NBC is censoring their freedom of expression. =)
VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
ReplyDelete“Obama and Biden have developed policy positions on most issues. They can tell you what the intend to do about the issues of the day. __Let's contrast this with Palin.”
You mean that Obama has policy papers written for him by his advisors. He himself has no paper trail to speak of.
As to Biden, he may well have developed policy positions on most issues. That doesn’t mean his positions are any good. Ditto: Obama.
Larry Tribe has a highly developed judicial philosophy. And it’s the wrong judicial philosophy. A well-developed position is a minus, not a plus, if it’s developed in the wrong direction.
I know what Obama intends to do as Prez. And what he intends to do is the problem.
More to the point: a Veep isn’t a policy maker. He (or she) simply does whatever the president assigns him to do.
“In short, this woman is clueless about judicial philosophy.”
Palin isn’t running for the job of Solicitor General. She wouldn’t be arguing cases before SCOTUS.
If she became president, then, like any president, she would rely on advisors for many detailed issues.
Historically, many presidents have been governors. As a rule, governors don’t have a deep grasp of national and international affairs.
Would it be nice if she new more? Sure. But better someone who knows less with a basically sound outlook than someone who knows more with a radically wrong outlook.
“We've had conservative President after conservative President put people on the court who have upheld Roe.”
It’s a cumulative process. Presidents can’t appoint justices to SCOTUS. They can only nominate them. Confirmation turns on Congressional advice and consent. When Dems control Congress, that impedes the cumulative process. When Dems control the White House, that reverses the gains.
At the moment, SCOTUS is at a tipping point.
Finally, you’re the one who’s turning this into a single issue debate. The value of having strict constructionists on the Court isn’t by any means limited to overturning Roe v. Wade. It affects a whole raft of issues.
“The ‘axis of evil’ isn't Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, it's Obama's Democratic party.”
False dichotomy. Obama’s Democrat party is an enemy of faith and family. Evil can be within as well as without. And the Rome Empire fell from the inside out.
You are quite right to suppose that it can sometimes be rational to accept a less-qualified candidate who agrees with you on the major issues over a more qualified candidate who is in the opposite camp. So if I were someone who believes in the right-wing agenda across-the-board, these Palin problems would not prevent me for voting for McCain.
ReplyDeleteStill I would find her ignorance of the major issues troubling.
The veep isn't a policy maker? Sure. McCain could assign her the job of making coffee and christening boats if he wants to. But she's supposed to be able to ascend to the Presidency in case McCain passes.
You consistently seem to think that someone hasn't thought through any issues unless they have considered the points you would put forward and answer them. You presuppose that I have the burden of proof on every question and am open to personal attack if I don't shoulder it to your satisfaction.
For example, I offered a substantial argument against the use of waterboarding, which of course you found unsatisfactory. Fine. Shoot, I even numbered my premises.
A good deal of my political discussions have to do with why I support Obama in spite of what I consider to be a morally deficient response to the abortion issue.
Do we need to be demonizing opponents here? That's quite a step, and it's a perilous one. It's the first step on the road to the Spanish Inquisition.
Is Obama the enemy of faith and family? Even if he's wrong on abortion, his intention, it seems to me, is to help families. Is he a real Christian? Is McCain a real Christian. One of these men is a known adulterer. Which one is it?
I do sometimes back off and say "oops" in the course of discussion, and try not to overstate my case. I never see you do that.
Am I an evil person? Is my contribution to philosophy mostly evil? If your answer is yes, there are quite a few atheists who will agree with you.