At least writing something on your hand is much more cost effective than using a teleprompter.

It might be a little silly, but I wouldn't blame her for writing on her hand if it was something difficult to remember, say a specific quote of Reagan's. But it's telling when you have to crib the three things you consider a priority.

Let's be realistic here: Her presence was most of the $100k, not what she said. And she earned her money once she delivered "How's that hope-y, change-y stuff workin' out for you?" Anything after that was gravy for the organizers since they'd already gotten their money for ticket sales & she came up with the home run line that summed up the feelings of a lot of people in a very concise nutshell.

Given the problems that Obama has with speeches (and fair reminder that I defended him here for his lack of 'prompter skills) I don't know if anybody should say much about whatever works for somebody if it keeps them on track. Palin's trick isn't one I've used but I imagine plenty of people have, and could be as simple as an idiosyncrantic thing to avoid fidgeting with index cards (as one example).

There aren't detail as to whether the speech was good or not.

If she really attended this speech with only a few notes on her hand and with no telepromter and the speech was done well, would you feel differently about her? Or do you feel the Huffington Post told you all you needed to know about the situation?

That has to be staged, right?

I mean, she scratched out budget and put "tax cuts". Did she really change her mind on that on the fly? That sounds more like something her handlers told her to do beforehand.

SI

However, I think youre ignoring the point I brought up in the Obama thread which is that she is MORE than just a speaker, a paid for one at this particular event. She carries more weight with her words than just any joe blow and considering that I believe she will be running for Pres. than that makes things like this all the more glaring in regards to whether or not she is qualified to be a President of the country. Writing shit on your hand before giving a speech is just pure and simple outlandish regardless of party affiliation. Use a fucking teleprompter....she did just fine at the GOP convention with one. Its simply put stupid and in all honesty, so much so, that I was certain it was photoshopped.

A paid speaker solely because she was an attraction that could sell tickets. This had nothing to do with anything she said, this had to do with people willing to pay to be in proximity to her. Period.


I'll give you that one. And based on the quotes I've seen, she delivered quite well on what the audience wanted.


Sorry, I just don't see it as an issue. And I wouldn't have ripped Obama for it either (not many things I can say that about). Whatever works afaic when it comes to public speaking, and she appears to have hit the points she needed/wanted to hit for the speech to serve its purpose, I really don't give a damn how she got that done.

well we disagree there. I dont think the Pres or VP for that matter has their hands, In lieu of index cards/teleprompter, as a luxury to be written on.

Seriously? Bitching about writing on a hand? *sigh*

I don't think this is a big deal at all.

Same old mindless partisan bullshit. It goes both ways, I guess.

I don't know if anyone thinks it's a big deal. Maybe someone out there does.


...but it is kindof funny. *snicker*

SI

It's not a big deal, but it is very amusing. It gets a little more play because her intellect was already in question, this compounds it. But if it really blows up for more than a day or two I'll be annoyed.


I agree, but rather than going for the gravy or lack there of, she may haven taken a dump in the potatoes. If this gets play beyond rabid blogs it's damaging to the tea party's image, warranted or not.

Writing key points to hit during a speech on your hand is not questioning one's intellect. This will be a talking point argument of the left, nothing more.

Like I said, it compounds the image already there. On it's own? No it doesn't.


No kidding, but irrelevant. Everything is only a talking point for one side or the other at the end of the day.

Well I dont mind being in a camp alone, to me I find it mind-numbingly dumb to do it, and inexcusable for ANYONE on that stage. Perhaps, I view her as being on a bigger stage than most of you all, and that would explain our incongruity on the severity of the event.

We agree.

I still think the pics look photoshopped, and if that is the case more harm is done than good (much in the same way constantly referring to "teabagging" by the left provides an easy out for those on the right who rather than wishing to engage in an actual debate want to point fingers.)

Both sides suck.

Pretty much. It's what's in the speech that matters, not how it's delivered. Index cards, writing on hands, teleprompters, whatever. People more concerned about mindless bullshit to propogate hate.

I don't think his speech was far off from one you'd see at a white supremacist rally.

hate? thats an awfully strong word. I dont think I hate her. I think she's a liar, a hypocrite, and completely unqualified to be P or VP but I most certainly dont feel hatred. At least by how I define it.

come to think of it, I dont hate many people.

How would you classify yourself, Rainmaker? A moderate Democrat?

You don't get out much, do you?

Moderate libertarian. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal but not as far as Libertarians would want to go on eliminating stuff.

I donated to Ron Paul in the primary and no one in the general election. Knew he wouldn't win but thought his message should get out there more.

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read. You're not even close.

How so?

Unless you simply say things in your posts for the sake of saying them, there is no chance you would ever be considered a Libertarian in any, way, shape, or form.

You are firmly left of center in every post I've ever read from you in a political thread. You might be seeing yourself one way but the world is CLEARLY seeing you as the opposite of what you say.

That wouldn't make him the opposite, just the tangent. Libertarian is not the opposite of Liberal.

I don't argue my position a lot, just like to point out hypocrisy in statements by partisians. Don't see a huge difference in the two major parties with the exception of one party hates what they used to love four years ago. Rinse and repeat as powers shift. I'll even argue a position I like because I feel it's presented with bullshit. Such as those who want lower taxes for the rich because it'll "trickle down". I want lower taxes for the rich because I think they pay way too much of our revenues right now. I know the "trickle down" stuff is bullshit and just used to sell it the the public.

One of the problems is what you mentioned above. If you believe in 70% of a party's platform, they consider you on the other side. Independent thought within a party is discouraged and they essentially want robots spouting the daily talking points (see MBBF).

As for my thoughts and what you'd classify them as, I don't know. I don't believe in welfare and think unemployment should be privatized. People should have the ability to opt out of Social Security at any age in life. I think we should eliminate limits on competition in health care and open borders for prescription drugs. Only fight in wars that effect our direct public safety and stop occupying lands.

I know that's not hardcore libertarian thinking because I don't want to eliminate things like the FAA, NTSB, and CDC, but I think it's a rather drastic cutback in what we do spend and what our government operates and has control over. Liberterians are the only party for reduced spending so like I said, I lean in that direction. I don't know if I'd ever want that party controlling government, but I'd love to see them have a nice percent of the voting block in the Senate and House.

Socially I'm pretty much anything goes. I don't care what you inject into your body as long as you don't hurt others. I don't care if you want to gamble your paycheck away or spend it on hookers. Gay marriage wise, I don't even think government should be involved in marriage at all. Should be a spiritual thing between two, three, or 50 people if that's what they want. The fuck do I care if some guy wants to have 49 wives (as long as their not minors). At the same time, I do believe in the death penalty (in cases of extreme guilt) and feel it should extend beyond murder to multiple time rapists and those who sexually abuse children.

I don't know what the chart says that would make me. Moderate Democrat, Moderate Libertarian, or just an independent. I do know I liked a lot of what Ron Paul had to say in the primary with the exception of eliminating all the stuff he'd want to. I wish we had 50 people in the House and 10 in the Senate who would vote down all the bullshit like him.

I'm basing it off of charts like this and tests that are out there. Most of the time I show up near the middle and half way up the chart. Not in libertarian area but close.

really i don't need to even post in this thread, can we just create a new screenname that represents both of us, because i think you about nailed me in this post too (maybe with the exception of welfare+unemployment)

If scrawling notes on her hands can help her make sense, and maybe even make a few truly relevant points in her speeches, then it is a massive improvement for her. She might want to write the name of a newspaper on there too, before her next interview with hardballer Katie Couric. "All of them" is not a realistic answer and nobody with a brain bought that answer last time.

She read her speech. The notes were used in the Q/A session after the speech, which, btw, featured pre-screened questions.

She didn't wing her first major address on national television.

With unemployment I just think it could be better privately. We all pay 6.2% on the first $7000 we make. That's on top of whatever the state has for a program. So in essence, we are all paying for "insurance" one way or the other.

If you did it privately, it would allow those who don't need it to not have it. High school kids, college kids, or those working small part-time jobs would not have to give up that kind of money for something they'd never need. On top of it, if it was private, you could pay for more customized coverage.

Lets say you have a really in-demand skill and know that you'll never be out of work for more than 3 months. So buy a plan that will cover you for up to 3 months at a cheaper rate. Lets say you have a family and can't afford to miss or have any reduced income. Buy a more expensive plan and get your full salary. Or if you have a huge nest egg, don't bother with anything at all.

We all currently pay into a plan that doesn't really suit anyone in particular. I just think a more customized approach would work better for everyone and having a lot of competition would get everyone good rates. On top of it, it would be in their best interest for you to get a job quickly so maybe they offer job placement services or training for free.

I know when someone says eliminate unemployment it can sound heartless, but I actually think in this case it gives people way better options (including those who get hit hardest by job loss). Wouldn't you rather have a custom plan for your job based on what you need on a monthly basis and how long you think it would take to find new work?

Live by the teleprompter joke, die by the teleprompter joke.

If that is true, this certainly changes the spin a bit.

While I'd want to see it in detail, I can at least buy the premise of this. However, nobody should "know" they won't be unemployed for more than three months.

Google the video. You can clearly see her reading the speech and much later checking her hand during the Q/A.

I'm not saying you, just those that turn every single thing into a way to cut down someone on the other side. Those that throw a fit over a someone writing notes down for a speech or what kind of mustard they put on their cheeseburger. I think there hits a line when the person is no longer talking about the issue but instead a hatred toward the other person. Barack Obama could literally recite a Ronald Reagan speech word for word and before he finished there would be people flooding the web with how liberal and socialist. There is nothing he can do, just as there is nothing Sarah Palin can do.

I consider what people like Olbermann and Limbaugh do an almost form of politically correct hate speech. There are a lot of extremists on both sides that get off on hating others. You are definitely not one, but I'm talking about a percent of the Daily Kos/Red State diehards. They don't want to talk about issues, they just want someone to hate.

If you're over 50 or perhaps work a unique job that just doesn't have a lot of options, you might know it'll take awhile. Just as a guy working a grill at a fast food joint might realize it won't take long to find a similar job.

very interesting point - you know honestly i had never thought about it that way (and also wasn't sure what exactly your thought was). That's a really good idea!

I don't know if I can put myself through that so soon before the Super Bowl. Maybe tomorrow.

I just think it's a terrible idea for anyone to save for unemployment that they know won't last for more than three months. I wonder how many people in the current recession knew they wouldn't be unemployed for long?

Yeah, what happens when everyone needs to cash out at once in a recession. Particularly when those insurance companies go under at a time like this? It's a lucrative industry for 9 years and then they go under every 10 and people are screwed.

SI

I'm pretty sure antagonizing the left-wing media is part of her modus operandi. Surely it's at least 1/2 the reason she was hired by Fox News. (Clearly they didn't hire her for her extemporaneous speaking skills.)

good point on the other side

Confirmation on the speech thing. I am certainly convinced that (1) she read her speech, and (2) those notes on her hand were to help her with the Q&A.

Can anyone tell me what her appeal is? I get the whole MILF / Hot Grandmother thing, but I would never even slightly entertain $100k speaking fees or an election to any position of responsibility based on that alone. People tell me they like her because she isn't as polished as the other players. So, they like that she crashes and burns in her interviews? Even the friendly ones with people like Glen Beck. They like her speeches, which all seem to wander off into the wilderness, seemingly devoid of any major point or thesis behind them? I really don't understand.

When people say they like her because she isn't polished, they're invariably saying her lack of polish makes her more "real" than other politicians.

She would not be the first politician who has tried to use this particular bit of image-crafting to her advantage.

Well first, separate the $100k fee and being elected, because the two have different criteria.

Specifically the $100k fee is based almost entirely on her ability to draw achieve the desired result for the organization hiring her. In the most recent case, it was the ability to sell tickets & therefore raise money, so look no further than that on that part. How she does it (within the confines of the broader goals of an organization at least) is pretty much irrelevant.

Now the second part is tougher.

Well I dont think the money was her main motivation so I guess we differ there and therefore differ on the 'polished-ness' I think is acceptable or not...no?

I know. I was just stating that I couldn't understand doing either.

Not her motivation, the motivation of group(s) hiring her. In this case, raising money. In other instances probably more about attracting attention than directly raising funds.

Although I'd probably argue how much of her motivation the checks provide too.