The clueless liberal PZ Myers, on Sarah Palin’s notes:
Sarah Palin gave a $100K speech to a convention of teabagging wankers, she faced a few pre-screened, prepared questions, and what did she need? She had to have the answers written on her hand ahead of time!….
She didn’t have a cheat sheet of wonky little details, stuff that would be hard to keep straight and important to get exactly right. No, she had to write down the three most important goals for a conservative majority. What, she’s shaky on that?
By stark contrast, Transplanted Lawyer, on the same incident:
How is that different than if she had used a teleprompter or index cards? Anyone who’s had to do public speaking for longer than five minutes at a stretch knows how easy it is to forget even very basic things. So she used a few notes, and chose a rather juvenile method to write them down. So what?
No other politician in America would have received such vicious scrutiny and content-free criticism.
I say, criticize what she said, not the notes she used to remind herself to say it. What did she say that’s worthy of criticism?
After spending ten minutes justly criticizing the Administration for the bank bailout and the stimulus package, she then advocated tax cuts without advocating a scaleback in government services. That’s bad for the national debt. (“Washington has got to across the board, lower taxes for small businesses so that our mom and pops can reinvest and hire people so that our businesses can thrive.”)
She complained that Abdul Mutallab (the Amsterdam “Christmas bomber”) got a lawyer and was read his Miranda rights, suggesting that basic and fundamental components of due process are somehow bad. (“The protections provided—thanks to you sir [PALIN ADDRESSES MALE VETERAN IN AUDIENCE]—we’re going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and wants to destroy our Constitution and our country? This makes no sense because we have a choice in how we’re going to deal with the terrorists. We don’t have to go down that road. There are questions that we would have like answered before he lawyered up.”)
She mocked the idea that the President ought to be respectful of the Constitution. (“Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at grave risk. Because that’s not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. They know we’re at war. And to win that war, we need a commander-in-chief, not a PROFESSOR OF LAW STANDING AT THE LECTERN!”)
She was dismissive of the possibilities of diplomacy to resolve international conflicts. (“…we must spend less time courting our adversaries and spending more more time working with our allies. And we must build effective coalitions capable of confronting dangerous regimes like Iran and North Korea. It’s time for more than just tough talk. Ah! Just like you … probably just so tired of hearing the talk talk talk … Tired of hearing the talk!”)
All of these suggest that she has not thought through her ideas for governing the country. All of this suggests that were she put in power, she would take the country down a dangerous path which we will later regret taking.
That last issue, of course, is no different from what the U.S. and A. is experiencing with Halfblack Obama at the wheel.
“Teabagging wankers,” indeed. As little use as I personally have for the “will of the people” in any context (not just “voting on science”), Myers and his ilk are the wankers there. The people (like myself) who want to see lower taxes, welfare turned into “workfare,” and smaller government? Not so much.
