The VP debate [Thread Retitled]

[Chalkperson]

Somebody else obviously did...I can see the Spin, it was her eyelashes, they stuck together, not if you use Chanel say I...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCunBErZ ... 31442.html

It's OK Ms Moderator, just leave it there till tomorrow...you can Hi-Jack it then...

[Chalkperson]

Palin obviously exceeded the expectation that she would make a fool of herself, Chalkie's commentary not withstanding.

It's a shame Barry, Corlyss thought I was attacking Palin, so she Hijacked my thread, you never saw the second part, where I said Palin nearly won, but called it a draw, she silenced me without having the decency to tell me the first time she hijacked my thread...it's a shame when Corlyss feels she Rules the World, I had no idea the thread had been moved...sad, I used to like commenting and conversing with you...the word Corlyss is Irony...guess that don't sell that in Utah...

I was thinking of changing my Screen Name to Alban Berg...anybody think that's a good idea...

[Chalkperson]

Maybe, I can throw in a comment here on why people thought Obama won the debate with McCain. It's because the "inexperience" issue was gaining traction, and all Obama had to do was show he could sound/ talk like a President. I've read that McCain was the underdog and the expectations were higher for Obama, but I think that analysis is incorrect. Yes, it's true Obama was considered the odds-on better debater/ speaker, but he was still considered less 'Presidential' than McCain. In that overall sense, Obama was actually the underdog and had lower expectations. He exceeded those expectations and thus people thought he won. And, of course, people's ears are more attuned to Obama at the moment, the winds of change are blowing again.

Obama did not win debate with McCain, McCain beat him to a pulp...Obama's a beginner, too inexperienced for President, remember I made the comment about only showing one ear on television, Obama showed two full time, McCain never, he should do what we did to Roger Waters, who also has stick out ears, gaffer tape them to his head...Obama's hopeless without a Tele-prompter, Pete Townshend has been using Presidential Tele-prompters for nearly thirty years...

[Chalkperson]

How Sarah Palin blew it..

Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were talking to two different Americas Thursday night. Actually, that's unfair to Joe Biden; he was trying to talk to everyone. I can say for certain, though, that Sarah Palin was talking to -- and winking at -- her own private Idaho, and for long stretches of the debate, it was an unnerving experience.

We could be in for a few days of pro-Palin commentary, since her subjects and verbs corresponded. For at least the first hour, she held her own; she was funny sometimes, occasionally charming. Still, the Obama-Biden ticket will survive it. Biden was stronger on every single substantive point, and that's the impression that will last.

But the pit bull in lipstick was back. After her disarming "Hey, can I call you Joe?" Palin was vicious, with a winning smile. After a passionate Biden plea to "walk with me in my neighborhood," in Delaware and Scranton, where "the middle class has gotten the short end," she ridiculed him: "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again! Pointing backwards again!"

There were two key moments for me when Sarah Palin blew it badly. One was substantive, one was symbolic. The substantive was her bizarre statement about being happy that Dick Cheney had expanded the powers of the vice-presidency, and wanting to expand the powers more. I think that's what she said, it was one of many moments I didn't entirely understand her point, but I got her overall meaning. Biden came back with a decisive: "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president in American history," and he defended the existing limits on vice-presidential power. Point: Biden. Big time.

The symbolic moment Palin flubbed was subjective, of course. But I instant-messaged a friend that she lost the debate when Biden choked up over losing his wife and child in a car accident in which his sons were critically injured -- and she went straight back into "John McCain is a maverick." I truly expected her to express human sympathy with Biden, and her failure to do so showed me something deeply wrong with her. But maybe that's just me.

She made other mistakes that others have already caught: She called the top commander in Afghanistan "General McClellan"; his name is David McKiernan. She said the troop levels in Iraq are down to pre-surge levels; they're not. She simply didn't answer a lot of the questions. Moderator Gwen Ifill tried to pull her back, but Palin is stubborn; she had her talking points, and she stuck to them.

I thought Biden and Palin tied for the first third of the debate, that Palin actually won the second third on moxie and charisma, not policy (Biden looked visibly angry at a few points, and that's never good), but Biden cleaned her clock in the last third. He quoted his dad telling him, "Champ, when you get knocked down, get up!" -- and he listened to his father. Biden got up, and he won the debate.

We'll see how it plays out in the days to come.

[Corlyss_D]

Palin obviously exceeded the expectation that she would make a fool of herself, Chalkie's commentary not withstanding.

It's a shame Barry, Corlyss thought I was attacking Palin, so she Hijacked my thread,

Corlyss thought your post belonged in Harris' VP debate thread. I'd have merged it regardless who put it up.

she silenced me without having the decency to tell me the first time she hijacked my thread..

How did I silence you?

I didn't hijack your thread. Flail away. Just do it in the debate thread. Tomorrow that too will be merged with the main Palin thread, where you can flail away too unimpeded.

[Corlyss_D]

Hey, the election is 30 days away. The debates usually don't change the game. Don't base any assumptions on their results. He is, however, running the most inept campaign I've seen since Gore and Kerry. He has a great response on the economic issue: he and Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie and the Dems blocked the effort.

That last bit ain't flying except maybe in some parts of Utah and Alaska.

I don't know where you are getting that Democratic crap you're filling your head with about the source of this economic debacle. I have given up trying to talk reason to you about it since you are swallowing Democratic talking points whole. But believe me, that last bit is getting traction with quite a lot of both commentators and strategists. If McCain's brain weren't besotted by years of collegial baffle-gab in the Senate, he would have gone for the jugular on this issue in the last debate and in the next debate. If he has an ounce of brains, he will attack the Democrats on it non-stop.

[Corlyss_D]

It's because the "inexperience" issue was gaining traction

Yep. Every time someone attacks Palin for it, the attack casts a shadow over Obama because he's at the top of the ticket and ostensibly will be making the decisions that McCain would be called on to make, not the decisions that Biden or Palin will be called upon to make. They are supernumeraries so policy inexperience can be tolerated at the No.2 slot.

True no-one expects "her". But surely there are better than "her" around for the job.

That's last month's news. She's the VP candidate, period.

I think Biden scored points simply by stating that he will be in the room for every major decision Obama makes.

Well, it's not up to the VP to decide when and where he will participate in the president's deliberations. True, the modern VP since Reagan has been intimately involved in decisions, but that's no guarantee it will continue. Obama plans to be a domestic president, just like Bush did. His foreign policy instincts are execrable and he has to be walked back by his foreign policy team, which doesn't include Biden, the make-weight. My guess is that Biden will most likely be used as a super liason with Congress because Obama has spent the last two years of his 4 years in Washington running for president. Morris likes to quip that Obama needed someone on the ticket who knew where the men's room in the White House was. In truth he probably equally needs someone who knows where the Caucus rooms in the Congress are. Because Obama's a loner and likes to do things himself, it is less likely he will rely on any advice before he shoots off his mouth.

And if Palin was in the room?

She has more executive experience than Obama, McCain, and Biden combined. She ought to be making the decisions, not McCain. God help us!

Now, Nancy Pelosi - she'd be a good running mate - just based on the speech she made to screw up the vote the other day - I was quite impressed with her speaking ability and command of the situation.

Let me get this straight. A Speaker of the House who couldn't persuade her own party members to vote, didn't know when she called the vote that she didn't have the votes, and then denounced the Repbulicans because they didn't vote for the bailout while 95 members of her own majority party defected, impressed you with her "command of the situation?" Henry, sometimes I think you just say these things to watch me go off like a Roman candle. If you're serious, your critical faculties as well as you familiarity with American politics are highly questionable.

[RebLem]

Can anyone please tell me what is the name of the moderator of the VP debate?
Also what is the title of her book which is due to reach
bookshops on election day?
Thank you,
Agnes.

Gwen Ifill, of the Peoples' Broadcasting Service. The McCain camp is so clueless they didn't know about her book until just recently, so they can't complain about the choice of Ifill to run the debate. But that's no excuse for not knowing who she was/is. She's one of the reasons I quit watching PBS 10 years ago. The moderator might as well be Jim Carville or Paul Begala or Bill Moyers.

Dear Agnes,

Its not due for publication until Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

Corlyss,

Its called the Public Broadcasting Service.

I have never detected bias in Gwen Ifill. Tell us what on Earth or below you are talking about. Of course, it is my experience that anyone who occasionally seems slightly to the left of Vlad the Impaler is unacceptable to you. Atilla the Hun seems to be your idea of a middle or the roader, maybe even a little too much of a lefty. Genghis Khan might be OK, but his son Kublai was just a little wimp. So, give us specifics on what you found offensive about Gwen Ifill's reporting that led you to stop watching her.

Oh, so John Fund likes Sarah Palin, eh? Wow, that's a real revelation! I'll bet John Edwards likes her, too, but for different reasons.

Personally, I thought Ifill's questions were thoughtful, direct, and appropriate. As for a general summation, I agree with Howard Fineman, who said Biden won, but Palin beat the spread.

I can see how someone of limited taste could consider Palin "energetic" and Biden "old and tired." But then that would be the sort of person who can't stand a fine wine unless it has bubbles in it.

As for those of you in this thread who didn't see it, don't you understand that these things are generally rebroadcast about 50 times? Check your CSPAN schedule for a convenient time.

And, I must say I agree with Chalkperson. People may have noticed that I post here far less often than I formerly did. That's because the combining of threads has destroyed much of my interest in posting. Lots of times, I am responding to what someone else says, then it gets jerked out of context and put in another thread where no one knows what I was responding to unless there is a quote in it, and where statements I may not have responded to and to which it is relevant preceded it. It can make someone look like a fool through no fault of his own. Sometimes, I think this is Corlyss's objective. Our Immoderate Moderator has destroyed much of the interest many of us used to have in this forum. She has made it a shadow of its former self, and all because she is a contradiction in terms--a Libertarian Control Freak.

Posted on October 3rd, 2008, the 1,983rd day after Shrub announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, the 32nd day before the November 4th US general election, and the 110th day before the end of the Cheney Kakistocracy. RebLem

[Teresa B]

Here's what I thought of the debate--Palin did extremely well for herself, considering the expectations. She had obviously been skillfully and thoroughly coached, and she knew much more about her running mate's policies than she had before. She spoke dynamically but sometimes went in circles. It was pretty obvious when she was asked something she didn't know, as she swiftly changed the subject back to "energy". I dislike her folsky gosh-darn hockey-mom thing, but I know a lot of people might find it charming. Biden was very careful to be polite, maybe too much so, but made more substantive comments. He was a bit hamstrung, as no doubt he had been advised ad nauseum not to deal any jabs to Palin in order to avoid sounding "smug" or patronizing to her.

My estimate was, neither candidate "won", and it was a chance for Palin to redeem herself, which she did.

Teresa

[Agnes Selby]

Tonight I watched "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" (for
the umpteenth time). A very good movie to watch at this
particular time. I can recommend it.

[Chalkperson]

Tonight I watched "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" (for
the umpteenth time). A very good movie to watch at this
particular time. I can recommend it.

They have just remade it, I forget who plays Mr Smith...

[johnQpublic]

I'm in agreement with Teresa B. except that I liked (for the most part) Palin being folksy. It's a part of her personna and for days prior all her supporters had been asking for her to just be herself.

[slofstra]

Maybe, I can throw in a comment here on why people thought Obama won the debate with McCain. It's because the "inexperience" issue was gaining traction, and all Obama had to do was show he could sound/ talk like a President. I've read that McCain was the underdog and the expectations were higher for Obama, but I think that analysis is incorrect. Yes, it's true Obama was considered the odds-on better debater/ speaker, but he was still considered less 'Presidential' than McCain. In that overall sense, Obama was actually the underdog and had lower expectations. He exceeded those expectations and thus people thought he won. And, of course, people's ears are more attuned to Obama at the moment, the winds of change are blowing again.

Obama did not win debate with McCain, McCain beat him to a pulp...Obama's a beginner, too inexperienced for President, remember I made the comment about only showing one ear on television, Obama showed two full time, McCain never, he should do what we did to Roger Waters, who also has stick out ears, gaffer tape them to his head...Obama's hopeless without a Tele-prompter, Pete Townshend has been using Presidential Tele-prompters for nearly thirty years...

If you want to see ears, take a look at Otto Klemperer.

I didn't see the Obama/McCain debate but it's clear that a majority of viewers thought Obama won. Those with a more dispassionate, objective view believe that McCain won.
We had a good discussion at the time on how these debates are not debates and how subjective the evaluations are, and so on.

[Ralph]

And to think while this historic debate took place I had over 20 captive students analyzing the intricacies of insider trading prosecution. Oh, the loss.

There was never a serious possibilty Palin wouldn't do a credible job. She's hardly dumb and like the Democrats, she had a stable of advisors and coaches for the big TV moment.

[slofstra]

Hey, the election is 30 days away. The debates usually don't change the game. Don't base any assumptions on their results. He is, however, running the most inept campaign I've seen since Gore and Kerry. He has a great response on the economic issue: he and Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie and the Dems blocked the effort.

That last bit ain't flying except maybe in some parts of Utah and Alaska.

I don't know where you are getting that Democratic crap you're filling your head with about the source of this economic debacle. I have given up trying to talk reason to you about it since you are swallowing Democratic talking points whole. But believe me, that last bit is getting traction with quite a lot of both commentators and strategists. If McCain's brain weren't besotted by years of collegial baffle-gab in the Senate, he would have gone for the jugular on this issue in the last debate and in the next debate. If he has an ounce of brains, he will attack the Democrats on it non-stop.

I don't read American political columnists. Period. I am surprised by your analysis of the credit crisis, and I've come to learn it's not even yours. My opinions are based on having followed this crisis from an economic and business perspective since John Mauldin alerted his readers to it in his investment analysis newsletter three years ago. I understood what he was saying then as to why the crisis would happen, and with my radar out, I've followed it since, from a business/ investment/ economic and NOT political perspective. The F&F/ CRA analysis is revisionist nonsense that is just a tiny bit of the picture. I only became alert to it from the articles you put up, as I'm not closely attuned to Republican/Democratic rat-a-tat except what I see here. At an economic fundamental level those articles and columnists do not prove their conclusions. Read them over; they are notably short on the statistics you believe necessary to establish any point. I am not really interested in the political/ Republican/ Democratic aspects of this crisis.

The main problem is loans that will never be paid back. Social policy is a contributor to the problem, but at root, it's caused by a bubble in housing prices, and lax lending standards. In fact the entire situation was predicted by the astute on purely this basis - F&F and government social policy never came into the predictive analysis.

[slofstra]

Now, Nancy Pelosi - she'd be a good running mate - just based on the speech she made to screw up the vote the other day - I was quite impressed with her speaking ability and command of the situation.

Let me get this straight. A Speaker of the House who couldn't persuade her own party members to vote, didn't know when she called the vote that she didn't have the votes, and then denounced the Repbulicans because they didn't vote for the bailout while 95 members of her own majority party defected, impressed you with her "command of the situation?" Henry, sometimes I think you just say these things to watch me go off like a Roman candle. If you're serious, your critical faculties as well as you familiarity with American politics are highly questionable.

You're half right about that. The Nancy Pelosi comment is pretty uninformed and off the cuff. I had never even heard of her before someone put up that video, but I was mightily impressed with the 'individual'. My familiarity with American politics is indeed, highly questionable, I have to admit. In fact, I get a lot of my information on the American perspective right here at the Corner Pub, so what does that tell you? My critical faculties were definitely suspended in this case and I think I said so.

[slofstra]

The comments about Palin's "folksy charm" are telling. Some people like her and some don't. As a leader, I find her representational rather than intellectual. She seems to be echoing and validating a certain constituency of the American public, so she's going to be loved or hated as a result, depending on whether you identify yourself as a part of that constituency or not.
Americans don't care very much what the rest of the world thinks, but someone like Palin comes off as pretty scary to those of us who live in Western social democracies. She seems like the type who makes up her mind based on instinct not evaluations. Basically, the rest of the world will not want her finger anywhere near the button; this is what is communicated at a gut level with her "folksy charm".

[slofstra]

Rob and Chalkie,

As much as I understand that you don't like your posts messed with, the other side of it is that you easily can get 5 or 6 threads going on a current topic. Then I find I'm saying the same thing a few times in response. Merging threads on a hot topic does make sense and Corlyss has been pretty consistent and even handed in doing this.

I also enjoy reading both your posts so if she's making that easier for the reader, there's a good side to it.

[GK]

Two losers emerged from last night's debate:

Gwen Ifill who allowed Palin to evade answering questions by making speeches.

Barak Obama for not selecting Hillary as his VP. Hillary would have clobbered Palin.

[RebLem]

The F&F/ CRA analysis is revisionist nonsense....

I have Googled F & F, F&F, and CRA, and F&F/CRA, and I must say I haven't the foggiest idea what this means in this context. Please explain.

Posted on October 3rd, 2008, the 1,983rd day after Shrub announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, the 32nd day before the November 4th US general election, and the 110th day before the end of the Cheney Kakistocracy. RebLem

[slofstra]

The F&F/ CRA analysis is revisionist nonsense....

I have Googled F & F, F&F, and CRA, and F&F/CRA, and I must say I haven't the foggiest idea what this means in this context. Please explain.

Posted on October 3rd, 2008, the 1,983rd day after Shrub announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, the 32nd day before the November 4th US general election, and the 110th day before the end of the Cheney Kakistocracy. RebLem

Saves typing out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (F&F) and Community Reinvestment Act, and it's a shorthand Corlyss and I got into on the bail-out thread.

For an overview, Wikipedia is quite good on this issue.

Check out this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act. Especially the section "relation to 2008 financial crisis" which provides a synopsis of both sides of the argument and plenty of useful links.

Background at a general level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_b ... tem_(2008)

Finally starting on page 5 or thereabouts on the bailout thread in Corner Pub, Corlyss and I go at it.

[Febnyc]

One comment on this sorry affair, a part of the abomination called the Presidential campaign:

What little of the VP "debate" I watched made me angry. I felt like I was being taken for granted as a know-nothing idiot. Palin's speeches were infuriating - speaking, as she did, from a script, she invoked all the apple-pie, motherhood, wave-the-flag, support-Israel gobbledygook that we hear from every candidate every time. Her grasp, if one could even remotely call it that, of the issues was a hoot. Palin had not the slightest idea of details on any subject (although she did, a number of times, demonstrate that she could pronounce Ahmadinejad and that she knew the name Kim Jung-Il), nor of how to address issues that would face a Chief Executive (Lord, help us if that ever happened). Her folksiness which so many have found "appealing" I found infantile and dangerous. She's running for the second highest office in the country for God's sake! This woman, I fondly hope, will disappear from the American scene when the Republicans manage to lose this election big time.

Biden, on the other hand, lost no opportunity to huff and puff about his accomplishments and promote the Messiah-like image of Obama arriving to save the day. A few months ago this Colonel Blimpish windbag was assailing Barack unmercifully. His smarminess, his forced smile - the nauseating "pleasantries" between the two opponents - Ifill's complete inability to follow on any response whatsoever - the whole thing should have been a skit on SNL. It was a pathetic excuse for an informative intercourse. The only good thing was that it aired two hours after I had dinner - any earlier and I would have been sick to my stomach.

The single choice the American voter has is which inept, naive, misinformed and politically milquetoasted team will do the least harm in the next four years. I think I'll just pull the covers over my head and hope it's all over soon.

[slofstra]

One comment on this sorry affair, a part of the abomination called the Presidential campaign:

What little of the VP "debate" I watched made me angry. I felt like I was being taken for granted as a know-nothing idiot. Palin's speeches were infuriating - speaking, as she did, from a script, she invoked all the apple-pie, motherhood, wave-the-flag, support-Israel gobbledygook that we hear from every candidate every time. Her grasp, if one could even remotely call it that, of the issues was a hoot. Palin had not the slightest idea of details on any subject (although she did, a number of times, demonstrate that she could pronounce Ahmadinejad and that she knew the name Kim Jung-Il), nor of how to address issues that would face a Chief Executive (Lord, help us if that ever happened). Her folksiness which so many have found "appealing" I found infantile and dangerous. She's running for the second highest office in the country for God's sake! This woman, I fondly hope, will disappear from the American scene when the Republicans manage to lose this election big time.

Biden, on the other hand, lost no opportunity to huff and puff about his accomplishments and promote the Messiah-like image of Obama arriving to save the day. A few months ago this Colonel Blimpish windbag was assailing Barack unmercifully. His smarminess, his forced smile - the nauseating "pleasantries" between the two opponents - Ifill's complete inability to follow on any response whatsoever - the whole thing should have been a skit on SNL. It was a pathetic excuse for an informative intercourse. The only good thing was that it aired two hours after I had dinner - any earlier and I would have been sick to my stomach.

The single choice the American voter has is which inept, naive, misinformed and politically milquetoasted team will do the least harm in the next four years. I think I'll just pull the covers over my head and hope it's all over soon.

But Frank (if I can use your first name), you didn't say who won the debate.

[Chalkperson]

Rob and Chalkie,

As much as I understand that you don't like your posts messed with, the other side of it is that you easily can get 5 or 6 threads going on a current topic. Then I find I'm saying the same thing a few times in response. Merging threads on a hot topic does make sense and Corlyss has been pretty consistent and even handed in doing this.

I also enjoy reading both your posts so if she's making that easier for the reader, there's a good side to it.

I understand that Henry, my thread had nothing to do with those who were talking seriously about the debate, I was making a satirical thread that I decided to do at 9.04 when Palin winked at the American People, I was updating my thread each time I saw something to post on, Corlyss moved my thread but did not tell me, I had a post open that I was updating, when at 10.21 the debate was finished I went to post my revised version the thread had been deleted, half my post was missing, because Corlyss moved it and did not tell me it made me look like an idiot because it was half finished...there is no point in me posting if the Moderator removes my post without informing me...speak to you when the election is over and GMG reverts to normality after Corlyss decides to stop running her tavern in such a Partisan Fashion...my post was Satirical and Ironic, I wasted an hour writing something that was removed from it's context because Corlyss thought I was mocking Palin, I was not mocking Palin at all, I admired her Balls in doing the debate her way, that is not a Hatchet Job, and I told you that McCain Thrashed Obama, how the hell can that be a Hatchet Job...this is the second time Corlyss has tampered with my Posts in two weeks, I had decided to post here as little as possible because she did that, I should have stuck to my decision until the Election is Over...I will of course update my Matt and Kevin thread whenever it is worthy...Today is a special day for those two, Matt is now an outpatient and Kevin's mom posted two photos of him...

[slofstra]

Rob and Chalkie,

As much as I understand that you don't like your posts messed with, the other side of it is that you easily can get 5 or 6 threads going on a current topic. Then I find I'm saying the same thing a few times in response. Merging threads on a hot topic does make sense and Corlyss has been pretty consistent and even handed in doing this.

I also enjoy reading both your posts so if she's making that easier for the reader, there's a good side to it.

I understand that Henry, my thread had nothing to do with those who were talking seriously about the debate, I was making a satirical thread that I decided to do at 9.04 when Palin winked at the American People, I was updating my thread each time I saw something to post on, Corlyss moved my thread but did not tell me, I had a post open that I was updating, when at 10.21 the debate was finished I went to post my revised version the thread had been deleted, half my post was missing, because Corlyss moved it and did not tell me it made me look like an idiot because it was half finished...there is no point in me posting if the Moderator removes my post without informing me...speak to you when the election is over and GMG reverts to normality after Corlyss decides to stop running her tavern in such a Partisan Fashion...my post was Satirical and Ironic, I wasted an hour writing something that was removed from it's context because Corlyss thought I was mocking Palin, I was not mocking Palin at all, I admired her Balls in doing the debate her way, that is not a Hatchet Job, and I told you that McCain Thrashed Obama, how the hell can that be a Hatchet Job...this is the second time Corlyss has tampered with my Posts in two weeks, I had decided to post here as little as possible because she did that, I should have stuck to my decision until the Election is Over...I will of course update my Matt and Kevin thread whenever it is worthy...Today is a special day for those two, Matt is now an outpatient and Kevin's mom posted two photos of him...

Yeah, I saw the post actually and responded at that time. I see the problem more clearly, perhaps Corlyss can react procedurally to the problem moving the post caused (though somehow I doubt that).
I've sent the 'wink' youtube on to a few friends. I'm not sure yet what to make of that.

To the pub at large, one question that has been bothering me is the oft-quoted incident about Roosevelt going on TV in 1929. Biden's not that clued out is he? Did he just misspeak? Hard to believe that a guy with all those years in the Senate wouldn't know when television was invented.

[Chalkperson]

Yeah, I saw the post actually and responded at that time. I see the problem more clearly, perhaps Corlyss can react procedurally to the problem moving the post caused (though somehow I doubt that).

When she moved the thread and I tried to post the final updated version the software delited my post, I have no record of all the work I did writing it, that is why I was so angry at her methods, if she had bothered to tell me I would have told her to remove the thread, not post the halfway version and I would have reposted it at the end of the debate, it was only supposed to be a single response...

I've sent the 'wink' youtube on to a few friends. I'm not sure yet what to make of that.

Trust me, I did people for a living, she made a comment like she would in her position as a small town Mayor egging on a Hockey team and Winked at the Camera in a purely reflex motion, that's what started my thread, some other people saw it too and You Tubed it, the Spinmeisters tried to suggest tha the Mascara had gotten stuck together, scatalogical stuff, I do Clinique, Estee Lauder, Maybelline and Cover Girl, I know a lot about mascara...she was probably using Chanel Mascara and it does not stick, and it's waterproof in case she burst into tears because the moderator put her in her place and refused to allow her to interview herself...Joe Biden's mascara did not stick either, what you do is to put a white line after the mascara on the inside of the upper and lower lid, it makes the eyes look wider, that's what they did to Joe to make him look more awake and alert...

[Corlyss_D]

I am surprised by your analysis of the credit crisis, and I've come to learn it's not even yours.

The only person on here with creds to address the issue without reading up on it is Frank, and you've been lecturing him fairly pointedly that he's a victim of Republican political spin. That's really laughable, Henry, notwithstanding your good intentions and lack or rancor when you do it.

They happen to be My opinions are based on having followed this crisis from an economic and business perspective since John Mauldin alerted his readers to it in his investment analysis newsletter three years ago.

Funny thing about economic writers - they often are political columnists. The two topics are inextricably interconnected. Vide Paul Krugman, Jim Glassman, and Robert Samuelson. However, if he just discovered this problem 3 years ago, he doesn't go back far enough and that's a fact Jack. If he's the source of your opinions, they aren't yours, self-generated on the basis of experience or study or background and he's filling your head with Democratic crap that F&F were simple victims of rapcious capitalism.

Let me get this straight. A Speaker of the House who couldn't persuade her own party members to vote, didn't know when she called the vote that she didn't have the votes, and then denounced the Repbulicans because they didn't vote for the bailout while 95 members of her own majority party defected, impressed you with her "command of the situation?" Henry, sometimes I think you just say these things to watch me go off like a Roman candle. If you're serious, your critical faculties as well as you familiarity with American politics are highly questionable.

You're half right about that. The Nancy Pelosi comment is pretty uninformed and off the cuff. I had never even heard of her before someone put up that video, but I was mightily impressed with the 'individual'. My familiarity with American politics is indeed, highly questionable, I have to admit. In fact, I get a lot of my information on the American perspective right here at the Corner Pub, so what does that tell you? My critical faculties were definitely suspended in this case and I think I said so.

I rise to my feet to salute my esteemed colleague from Ontario for his frank and good-humored admission. But I put the question to the Gentleman, why should I listen to "your" "analysis" of the economic crisis since it isn't yours and your source is historically ignorant? I yield back the balance of my time.

[JackC]

I saw part of the debate last night, but it was so silly I left to listen to a new recording of Brahms' 4th.

Palin is hot, but such a lightweight it is ridiculous.

Biden is a joke too.

These guys all package and then repackage the same old talking points. Its offensive to hear them repeat this stuff.

The whole thing is a game about what to say that might work best with people whose votes they are after. It has nothing to do with actual knowledge and judgment. It's a joke. It always has been.

[Corlyss_D]

For an overview, Wikipedia is quite good on this issue.

Check out this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act. Especially the section "relation to 2008 financial crisis" which provides a synopsis of both sides of the argument and plenty of useful links.

Background at a general level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_b ... tem_(2008)

Finally starting on page 5 or thereabouts on the bailout thread in Corner Pub, Corlyss and I go at it.

I rise in objection to the use of Wiki for any topic that is in raging current dispute. I say anyone looking into this situation cannot start now, or 2005, or 2003. You have to go back to the changes in the CRA and the banking laws that were being discussed pursuant to the passage of banking reforms to understand what knowledgeable people knew and understood about the CRA and F&F for many years before the grenade went off. In those discussions you hear both sides of the underlying dispute absent the hysteria that swirls around the issue now.

[Corlyss_D]

Corlyss,

Its called the Public Broadcasting Service.

Not by Republicans and libertarians. It's National Peoples' Radio and Peoples' Broadcasting System because they are so unrelentingly leftwing.

[Corlyss_D]

Listen up, you guys complaining about my merging threads. There's a simple way to avoid your heartburn: stop starting new threads on topics already under very active discussion. The reason I do it, indeed had to start merging, is that Harris started a new thread everytime he had a brain-cramp about Palin or McCain's lead in the polls. 10 and 20 threads on essentially the same subject makes it very difficult for people to know where to post or to find what they posted. IOW confusion reigns. The next tool in my kit is deleting new threads on older very active topics already under discussion. I don't want to do that. But if you can't develop some self-discipline in sharing your brilliant insights, and you just keep on whining about the fact that I moved your contribution, which you should have composed in a wp program and saved before posting, that is what I'll do. Chalkie's situation that he was caught in the middle of a post is unusual. I regret the loss of his deathless prose, but that doesn't mean that a merged thread is "lost" in the sense his was lost. They are just moved. I announce where I put them in the announcement at the top of the board on merged threads.

[slofstra]

I am surprised by your analysis of the credit crisis, and I've come to learn it's not even yours.

The only person on here with creds to address the issue without reading up on it is Frank, and you've been lecturing him fairly pointedly that he's a victim of Republican political spin. That's really laughable, Henry, notwithstanding your good intentions and lack or rancor when you do it.

Never said anything of the kind. The only discussion I had with Frank was on the govt takeover of AIG. He brought a lot of useful perspective to the situation and I commend him for it. I don't see Frank as a heavyweight on macro-economics as opposed to business or investment, but I could be wrong. As for myself I merely parrot what I read, but they are not political sources. I'm not strong on American politics but I'm fairly good on business and economics.

They happen to be My opinions are based on having followed this crisis from an economic and business perspective since John Mauldin alerted his readers to it in his investment analysis newsletter three years ago.

Funny thing about economic writers - they often are political columnists. The two topics are inextricably interconnected. Vide Paul Krugman, Jim Glassman, and Robert Samuelson. However, if he just discovered this problem 3 years ago, he doesn't go back far enough and that's a fact Jack. If he's the source of your opinions, they aren't yours, self-generated on the basis of experience or study or background and he's filling your head with Democratic crap that F&F were simple victims of rapcious capitalism.

No-one including him or me has stated "that F&F were simple victims of rapacious capitalism". You are starting to seem incapable of any subtlety of thought on this.

Let me get this straight. A Speaker of the House who couldn't persuade her own party members to vote, didn't know when she called the vote that she didn't have the votes, and then denounced the Repbulicans because they didn't vote for the bailout while 95 members of her own majority party defected, impressed you with her "command of the situation?" Henry, sometimes I think you just say these things to watch me go off like a Roman candle. If you're serious, your critical faculties as well as you familiarity with American politics are highly questionable.

You're half right about that. The Nancy Pelosi comment is pretty uninformed and off the cuff. I had never even heard of her before someone put up that video, but I was mightily impressed with the 'individual'. My familiarity with American politics is indeed, highly questionable, I have to admit. In fact, I get a lot of my information on the American perspective right here at the Corner Pub, so what does that tell you? My critical faculties were definitely suspended in this case and I think I said so.

I rise to my feet to salute my esteemed colleague from Ontario for his frank and good-humored admission. But I put the question to the Gentleman, why should I listen to "your" "analysis" of the economic crisis since it isn't yours and your source is historically ignorant? I yield back the balance of my time.

Again, I'm not knowledgeable on American politics, but fairly well informed on the credit crisis. I've yet to see you actually engage any point I've made. Demonstrate to me that you are "listening". What have I said that you disagree with?

[slofstra]

For an overview, Wikipedia is quite good on this issue.

Check out this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act. Especially the section "relation to 2008 financial crisis" which provides a synopsis of both sides of the argument and plenty of useful links.

Background at a general level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_b ... tem_(2008)

Finally starting on page 5 or thereabouts on the bailout thread in Corner Pub, Corlyss and I go at it.

I rise in objection to the use of Wiki for any topic that is in raging current dispute. I say anyone looking into this situation cannot start now, or 2005, or 2003. You have to go back to the changes in the CRA and the banking laws that were being discussed pursuant to the passage of banking reforms to understand what knowledgeable people knew and understood about the CRA and F&F for many years before the grenade went off. In those discussions you hear both sides of the underlying dispute absent the hysteria that swirls around the issue now.

Even taken purely as a repository of links and articles, wiki is a very useful resource.

[Corlyss_D]

Even taken purely as a repository of links and articles, wiki is a very useful resource.

Only on non-controversial issues because their open-editing policy allows people with partisan insterests to edit the entries of others and to put up partisan, biased accounts of history. That's one reason why Ralph won't let his students cite to Wiki. The entries on Bush were notorious for their status as battlegrounds between moonbats and conservatives. If the issue is controversial and current, the confidence in the reliability of the entry decreases. That's all I'm saying. Use it at your own risk.

[Febnyc]

But Frank (if I can use your first name), you didn't say who won the debate.

Of course, you may.

But seriously, I think this idea of "winning" or "losing" the debate is meaningless, since it is not in any way, shape or form a true debate. What matters in these set pieces is what information can be gleaned about the candidate's ability, positions on issues, and general demeanor before a questioning public. In the past few elections we've had nothing but glorified campaign speeches in place of real discussion and exposure.

(Oh, and just in case you're interested - my present position on all of this is: a fetal one.)

[Corlyss_D]

I am surprised by your analysis of the credit crisis, and I've come to learn it's not even yours.

The only person on here with creds to address the issue without reading up on it is Frank, and you've been lecturing him fairly pointedly that he's a victim of Republican political spin. That's really laughable, Henry, notwithstanding your good intentions and lack or rancor when you do it.

Never said anything of the kind. The only discussion I had with Frank was on the govt takeover of AIG. He brought a lot of useful perspective to the situation and I commend him for it. I don't see Frank as a heavyweight on macro-economics as opposed to business or investment, but I could be wrong. As for myself I merely parrot what I read, but they are not political sources. I'm not strong on American politics but I'm fairly good on business and economics.

Gee, who was it that wrote this:

Under the Dems (Clinton) Fannie and Freddie were "encouraged" to lower their lending standards and increase their exposures to subprime risks. See my thread entitled "Loose lending...".

It is amazing to me how even the basic facts are distorted through politicization. F&F exposure to subprime was through buying securities, not through adjusting their lending standards.

BTW Frank's thread was merged into the Meltdown thread. I forgot to mention it in the merger list. My apologies.

[Febnyc]

The only person on here with creds to address the issue without reading up on it is Frank, and you've been lecturing him fairly pointedly that he's a victim of Republican political spin. That's really laughable, Henry, notwithstanding your good intentions and lack or rancor when you do it.

Thank you, Corlyss. I bow to Henry's macro view, however and so have to share your spotlight with him.

But, "victim of Republican spin?" Gosh! And here I am wondering if I really can continue to support the GOP. If anything, they're spinning me right off the bandwagon.

[Corlyss_D]

The only person on here with creds to address the issue without reading up on it is Frank, and you've been lecturing him fairly pointedly that he's a victim of Republican political spin. That's really laughable, Henry, notwithstanding your good intentions and lack or rancor when you do it.

Thank you, Corlyss.

I alerted on your comment that you worked with Hank Greenberg in the early days of AIG. That makes you the instant expert.

But, "victim of Republican spin?" Gosh!

I thought I wouldn't mince his words.

And here I am wondering if I really can continue to support the GOP. If anything, they're spinning me right off the bandwagon.

I'm from the "leave us alone" coalition so I'm pretty disgusted with them too but I can't go there yet. Some grownups have to be left in Washington mind the store when the Dems take over and the only hope for grownup supervision is the Republicans.

[Agnes Selby]

The comments about Palin's "folksy charm" are telling. Some people like her and some don't. As a leader, I find her representational rather than intellectual. She seems to be echoing and validating a certain constituency of the American public, so she's going to be loved or hated as a result, depending on whether you identify yourself as a part of that constituency or not.
Americans don't care very much what the rest of the world thinks, but someone like Palin comes off as pretty scary to those of us who live in Western social democracies. She seems like the type who makes up her mind based on instinct not evaluations. Basically, the rest of the world will not want her finger anywhere near the button; this is what is communicated at a gut level with her "folksy charm".

In Australia the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC)
named Palin the winner of the debate. The ABC is normally a left wing
organisation. They found Palin a refreshing communicator in the style
of President Reagan. I tend to agree. I lived in
America during the Reagan years. After the catstrophic years of
Carter, Reagan WAS indeed a breath of fresh air.

To add to my own impressions, Biden has a nice set of teeth.
That's all.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, they are barracking for
Obama as with Obama the demise of America as the leader of the
Western World is assured. The silence is deafening, it is like a death watch.

Agnes.

[slofstra]

Even taken purely as a repository of links and articles, wiki is a very useful resource.

Only on non-controversial issues because their open-editing policy allows people with partisan insterests to edit the entries of others and to put up partisan, biased accounts of history. That's one reason why Ralph won't let his students cite to Wiki. The entries on Bush were notorious for their status as battlegrounds between moonbats and conservatives. If the issue is controversial and current, the confidence in the reliability of the entry decreases. That's all I'm saying. Use it at your own risk.

Does Ralph let his students cite any tertiary source? I would be surprised if he does; we used mainly primary sources at the undergrad level, and even secondary sources were discouraged at times.

But this is you giving short shrift to anything you disagree with so you don't have to answer anything. Saves trying to understand it, I guess.

[slofstra]

But Frank (if I can use your first name), you didn't say who won the debate.

Of course, you may.

But seriously, I think this idea of "winning" or "losing" the debate is meaningless, since it is not in any way, shape or form a true debate. What matters in these set pieces is what information can be gleaned about the candidate's ability, positions on issues, and general demeanor before a questioning public. In the past few elections we've had nothing but glorified campaign speeches in place of real discussion and exposure.

(Oh, and just in case you're interested - my present position on all of this is: a fetal one.)

My comment was meant as humour; e.g. it was difficult to determine which appraisal was more negative.

[slofstra]

I am surprised by your analysis of the credit crisis, and I've come to learn it's not even yours.

The only person on here with creds to address the issue without reading up on it is Frank, and you've been lecturing him fairly pointedly that he's a victim of Republican political spin. That's really laughable, Henry, notwithstanding your good intentions and lack or rancor when you do it.

Never said anything of the kind. The only discussion I had with Frank was on the govt takeover of AIG. He brought a lot of useful perspective to the situation and I commend him for it. I don't see Frank as a heavyweight on macro-economics as opposed to business or investment, but I could be wrong. As for myself I merely parrot what I read, but they are not political sources. I'm not strong on American politics but I'm fairly good on business and economics.

Gee, who was it that wrote this:

Under the Dems (Clinton) Fannie and Freddie were "encouraged" to lower their lending standards and increase their exposures to subprime risks. See my thread entitled "Loose lending...".

It is amazing to me how even the basic facts are distorted through politicization. F&F exposure to subprime was through buying securities, not through adjusting their lending standards.

BTW Frank's thread was merged into the Meltdown thread. I forgot to mention it in the merger list. My apologies.

The politicization did not begin or end with Frank.

[slofstra]

The only person on here with creds to address the issue without reading up on it is Frank, and you've been lecturing him fairly pointedly that he's a victim of Republican political spin. That's really laughable, Henry, notwithstanding your good intentions and lack or rancor when you do it.

Thank you, Corlyss. I bow to Henry's macro view, however and so have to share your spotlight with him.

But, "victim of Republican spin?" Gosh! And here I am wondering if I really can continue to support the GOP. If anything, they're spinning me right off the bandwagon.

Hey Frank, those weren't my words.

[slofstra]

I alerted on your comment that you worked with Hank Greenberg in the early days of AIG. That makes you the instant expert.

I hope you're joking. Frank's words can stand or fall on their own merit, I am sure.

[Ralph]

Even taken purely as a repository of links and articles, wiki is a very useful resource.

Only on non-controversial issues because their open-editing policy allows people with partisan insterests to edit the entries of others and to put up partisan, biased accounts of history. That's one reason why Ralph won't let his students cite to Wiki. The entries on Bush were notorious for their status as battlegrounds between moonbats and conservatives. If the issue is controversial and current, the confidence in the reliability of the entry decreases. That's all I'm saying. Use it at your own risk.

Does Ralph let his students cite any tertiary source? I would be surprised if he does; we used mainly primary sources at the undergrad level, and even secondary sources were discouraged at times.

But this is you giving short shrift to anything you disagree with so you don't have to answer anything. Saves trying to understand it, I guess.

*****

In legal research, primary sources (the Constitution, statutes, cases, regulations, legislative history) are usually critically relevant but so are articles and monographs. Quite often in law, at least in this country, a law review article or a scholarly book illumines the way to change, good or bad.

And I encourage students to also use popular sources and interviews when relevant to a research topic (usually in an advanced seminar).

I do not permit Wikipedia which often has been tampered with. However, most of my colleagues disagree with me on that.

[slofstra]

Even taken purely as a repository of links and articles, wiki is a very useful resource.

Only on non-controversial issues because their open-editing policy allows people with partisan insterests to edit the entries of others and to put up partisan, biased accounts of history. That's one reason why Ralph won't let his students cite to Wiki. The entries on Bush were notorious for their status as battlegrounds between moonbats and conservatives. If the issue is controversial and current, the confidence in the reliability of the entry decreases. That's all I'm saying. Use it at your own risk.

Does Ralph let his students cite any tertiary source? I would be surprised if he does; we used mainly primary sources at the undergrad level, and even secondary sources were discouraged at times.

But this is you giving short shrift to anything you disagree with so you don't have to answer anything. Saves trying to understand it, I guess.

*****

In legal research, primary sources (the Constitution, statutes, cases, regulations, legislative history) are usually critically relevant but so are articles and monographs. Quite often in law, at least in this country, a law review article or a scholarly book illumines the way to change, good or bad.

And I encourage students to also use popular sources and interviews when relevant to a research topic (usually in an advanced seminar).

I do not permit Wikipedia which often has been tampered with. However, most of my colleagues disagree with me on that.

A Wikipedia article, even if not used per se, can still provide a long list of underlying credible references. In fact, Wikipedia has very strong verification rules to encourage a high standard of citations. (Although the consensus by which wiki is administered is much more relaxed than the rules and policies would indicate).

[Wallingford]

Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click), Maverick (click).......

Ad nauseum (and I DO mean nauseum).

[slofstra]

Brent, Brett or Bart?

What America needs right now is an "all of the above" solution.

[Febnyc]

My comment was meant as humour; e.g. it was difficult to determine which appraisal was more negative.

And, it was taken in the same vein. I tried to be even-handed, and you read me correctly - they both were awful.

Although, I gotta say, compared to Palin's vapid nothingness, Biden came across as almost professorial. I simply cannot believe anyone with an scintilla of intelligence could consider her as a valid candidate for anything on a national scale - no less the Vice Presidency. It's brain-numbing.

[Corlyss_D]

Too bad we don't have a "none of the above."