Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 447 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Sarah Palin Speech Empty of Substance

It’s more than 15 minutes into the Sarah Palin speech now, and so far, there hasn’t been a single bit of substance to her speech. No policies. No suggestions for what ought to be done to get America out of its current mess.

Just a bunch of platitudes – like saying that farmers love America, and her husband is good at snowmobiling.

Where is the substance?

Sarah Palin looks like an empty pantsuit.

What would you do as Vice President, Ms. Palin? What is your policy vision, if you should become Vice President upon the death or disability of the elderly John McCain?

Update: Over five minutes later, there’s still no substance, just superficial talk, such as that we should “leave this nation better than we found it”.

Did George W. Bush and his Republican followers leave this nation better than they found it?

33 comments to Sarah Palin Speech Empty of Substance

  • Rob

    At its best, her speech sounds like she’s running for Wasilla’s school PTA president.

  • Jim

    But she sounds so folksy when she reads the speech someone wrote for her! Just like a Ma. Oh, gee, can’t you imagine sitting down for a cup of coffee with her? Wouldn’t you like a president you could have a cupajoe with? Kind of like a president you could have a beer with.

    A lot of people will cast their votes on this basis. They won’t read. They won’t think. They’ll just hear her sounding like a Ma you could have coffee with and say, yeah, I want the Ma, go Ma!

  • Fool me once, can’t get fooled again? Nothing but a load of obvious, blatant lies by this little hockey mom with lipstick. I think that the American people are tired of being lied to and deceived by the Republican party.

  • palin supporter

    Sarah Palin gave a great speech which she wrote and prepared herself.Not like Obama who just stutters and stammers when asked a question. I cant wait for the debates . Then we will see who is the smartest.
    Sarah Palin did adress the economy and job creation if you were listening properly,you would have heard her energy policy , which will create millions of jobs,and help the economy.Many people lost their houses ,due to the rising prices of gas and heating oil and the cost of groceries for families ,and just about everything one needs to survive and to comute to and from work.I hope every woman across America will suport her. She deservs it and anyone who tries to put her down is just outright jealous.
    Good luck Sarah. Keep it going. I am confident that you will win

  • PS – She did NOT write that speech itself. Most of it was written by McCain campaign staffers even before she was chosen as running mate.

    Most of Sarah Palin’s substance was to say that everything will be great, if just we just drill, baby drill for more oil that will bring oil companies big profits, but only bring gasoline prices down a few pennies a decade from now.

  • Tom

    Palin Liar, notice in the very next comment how there are people out there who, despite the Republican trashing of the economy, the abuse of the government, the HUGE debt they incurred (as a result of the illegal, immoral Iraq war we continue to fund and all the bailouts they’ve roped us in to without our approval and that WE’LL be paying for along with our children’s children), the total ignorance of environmental problems, the ridiculously high cost of energy (and commodities as a result), and on and on, JUST DON’T GET IT! This people are the most shallow, superficial, ignorant citizens who don’t read and are glued to Fox News as if it’s gospel. Too lazy to search for what’s really going on, oblivious to the fact that their money has devalued significantly and that their homes are worth less now than 8 years ago, unconcerned that health care is becoming LESS affordable every year and of all our rights which have been taken away during the Bush/neocon years they eat up the Republican lies and, like Jerry Springer, wallow in personal concerns rather than issues which directly affect them.

    Woe be unto us if we have any more Republican “leadership” like the past 8 years, which McCain will surely extend.

  • My first impression of Sarah Palin was “Peggy Hill” in real life. Remember the episode of “King of the Hill” when Peggy ran for school board against Nancy and Mihn?. McCain puts me in the mind of Elmer Fudd looking for Bugs Bunny… which way did they go, which way did they go? haha

  • Tom

    Sarah Palin Speech Empty of Substance – does that make it a palinDRONE? (sorry, i couldn’t resist)

  • Sam

    Regardless what you all say…or think…Obama and for that matter the whole progressive agenda is toast…

  • Junga

    Amazing. A Republican comment on Sarah’s speech is devoid of substance as well. Sam can never refute the reasoned arguments here. All he does is say that we’re all toast.

    That’s the Republicans for you: Big threats that they can never follow up.

  • EvilPoet

    She was on teevee before she was a politician – it doesn’t surprise me that she did well. Anyone can read a teleprompter or memorize a speech and sound good. In my opinion, her record speaks for itself and that’s the part that matters.

    Sam – that remains to be seen. There’s still a whole lotta time left till people go to the polls. I will revisit this thread in a few weeks after the election and we will see which side is the one that is toast. Till then, best of luck!

  • Jim

    “it doesn’t surprise me that she did well. Anyone can read a teleprompter or memorize a speech and sound good. In my opinion, her record speaks for itself and that’s the part that matters.” Same goes for Obama except we know he can barely talk without the teleprompter. Um, um, well, um. 57 states, UN oversite on Georgia, I hate whitey, Um….

  • Loofa

    Gee, “Jim”, can you provide me with the place and date that Barack Obama said “I hate whitey”?

    No, of course you can’t, because it was never said.

  • Jim

    Comment #12 wasn’t me, btw. Barack Obama speaks astoundingly well without a teleprompter, with complex thoughts and complete sentences. People don’t like that he communicates complexity, but that’s not Obama’s problem in any fashion other than strategically.

  • Jim

    Communicates complexity, is that like pontificating profundity? No one would mistake comment #12 for you Jim, way too educated.

    No issue with the 57 states, UN Vote just hating whitey huh? Intellectually a-Loofa…

  • So, then, Jim #2 in fact cannot back up his claims. Jim #2 can’t be trusted, making stuff up like the “whitey” claim.

  • Jim

    Jim #2 is funny, Jim #2 has a sense of humor and stands next to the “hates whitey” comment. I think Obama may also secretly like Ellen better than Oprah for whatever thats worth.

  • Mike

    “But she sounds so folksy when she reads the speech someone wrote for her! Just like a Ma. Oh, gee, can’t you imagine sitting down for a cup of coffee with her? Wouldn’t you like a president you could have a cupajoe with? Kind of like a president you could have a beer with.

    A lot of people will cast their votes on this basis. They won’t read. They won’t think. They’ll just hear her sounding like a Ma you could have coffee with and say, yeah, I want the Ma, go Ma!”

    Hi Jim. Poor white guy from Kansas here. Believe it or not, I actually know how to read and know how to operate a computer. I know that I would benefit financially if Obama gets elected. He wants to take from the rich and give to the poor… I get it. I know you think the only reason a poor person would vote for a Republican is because they are gullible and stupid, and don’t understand that they are voting against their own self interest. But some of us actually vote on principle and not who’s going to give us more handouts.

    Now I won’t say I’m not ocassionally tempted to vote for the Santa Claus Party. And then I’ll read or hear some condescending bullshit like this…

    “Most of Sarah Palin’s substance was to say that everything will be great, if just we just drill, baby drill for more oil that will bring oil companies big profits, but only bring gasoline prices down a few pennies a decade from now.”

    It might be years before the new oil actually makes it onto the market, but the price drop could be immediate. That’s because a lot of the reason oil prices have spiked isn’t because of current supply and demand, but because of speculation about future supply and demand. Some analysts even attribute the recent drop in oil prices to the fact that Obama changed his position and now says he will support at least some new drilling.

  • What “principle” would you vote for, Mike? Giving more profits to big oil companies? Making global warming worse? Teaching kids Creationism? Proclaiming Assemblies of God prophecies about how it’s the will of God for American soldiers to keep on fighting and dying in Iraq? Shooting wolves from airplanes? Cutting funds for social programs while the budget is in surplus?

    The “some analysts” you cite are oil company analysts. The recent reduction in the price of oil has been due to energy conservation on the part of the American people. Expanded offshore drilling is completely unnecessary – unless you’re an oil industry executive.

    Those “some analysts” are like the “some doctors” who kept on testifying, decade after decade, that smoking did not cause cancer.

  • Mike

    Here’s sample of my beliefs J. Clifford:

    1) Global Warming: It’s real and it’s a problem, but we don’t know yet how big of a problem it is. But there are also other problems and concerns, and when we consider actions, we need to make dispassionate cost/benefit analysis. Generally, I think the dangers of Global Warming are overblown, often by Marxists who would love to destroy capitalism. And sometimes by people who know it’s a problem, but don’t think it will get any attention unless they convince people the sky is falling. Ultimately, the doomsdayers are hurting their own cause. When you make outlandish predictions that don’t come to pass, people will also discount your more measured predictions. It’s like when a Parent tells his kid that all drugs, including marijuana, are equally bad for them and they should never try any of them. Then the kid tries marijuana, realizes it’s not such a big deal, and assumes that the harder drugs are probably also OK and that Mom & Dad just want to spoil his fun.

    2) I believe in economic freedom in general. Lower, flater taxes. Less regulation. No price fixing, including the price of labor (minimum wage). Less spending. Balanced Budget

    3) I don’t believe the government should operate schools. Everyone should goto private schools with school vouchers. That would make debates about evolution or sex education moot. We don’t need a one size fits all education system. Parents can decide for themselves what kind of school to send their kids too. I don’t believe in the Adam and Eve story and I think Evolution is the best explanation we have for how we got here, although still not completely satisfying.

    4) I don’t think it was in our interest to liberate Iraq, but now that we’ve started, it’s definitely in our interest to finish the job.

    5) I think early term abortions should be legal, but I think Roe V Wade was a poor legal decision. And eventhough I think some abortion should be legal, I think it is morally ambiguous at best.

    6) Sarah Palin is freakin awesome

    I don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to debate all these issues with you liberals. I just wanted to give Jim an idea of why someone might vote seemingly vote against their own self interest, and not because they are uninformed on the issues and how a candidate’s policies would affect them.

  • Mike, you know the war in Darfur? That’s a war caused by climate change and the poverty of resources that result.

    WE KNOW THAT. Right now.

  • Mike

    Wow, I didn’t realize climiate change could CAUSE people to rape and slaughter other people. We KNOW that if not for human pollution, this particular genocide wouldn’t be taking place. This is the kind of exagerration I’m talking about. A more accurate, and less inflammatory statement would be to say that a change in rainfall patterns has led to food shortages, which have been a big influence in this war. Some scientists think that man-made global warming has contributed to this change in climate, making the drought more severe than it otherwise would have been.

  • Jim

    Kuddos all around Mike! Yes Virginia Global warming does cause rape, murder, racism, high taxes, warmer weather, colder weather, food shortages, and Detroit Mayors to go to jail. This is what I have learned here at least…

  • Gary

    “Mike” wrote: “I think the dangers of Global Warming are overblown, often by Marxists who would love to destroy capitalism.”

    Cites, please, for both halves of that claim.

  • This weird obsession with Marxists unnerves me. Are these people also worried about the Mongols’ sweep across Central Asia?

    Time to update the right wing rhetoric!

    You haven’t done much research into the Sahel, have you, Mike? Pick up the recent issue of National Geographic that gives a good introduction into the issue.

  • Jim

    Gary, 90% of the Bullshit on this site is opinion maybe thats Mike’s.

    Bioblography,

    Douchebag, Gary. Doesn’t know His Ass from a Hole in the Ground. Irregular Minds.
    Sept 6, 2008.

  • Jim

    What a shame we have to share a name. My mother should have named me “Zimbabwe.”

  • Jan

    I suspect that S. Palin hasn’t said anything because she has to be coached. For all the “big” talk she’s doing, she has not appeared before the national media by herself not once in the last week. McCain and company are coaching her so that she doesn’t put her foot in her mouth. Hope she’s a quick study. Instead of her trashing Obama, I want her to talk about the issues.

  • Gary

    Dear Jim#2,

    Will you explain your non-sequitur, please?

  • Gary

    (To be clear, I’m addressing the 8:31 a.m. Jim, hereinafter referred to as Jim#2)

  • Mike

    It’s not hard to find connections between marxist sympathizers and environmental extremism. It makes perfect sense. People who hate economic freedom will be quick to embrace any findings that capitalism is doing harm to the planet. People who value economic freedom will be more skeptical. If you’d like, read Carolyn Merchant’s book titled “Radical Ecology.” You can learn about all about theories and dogmas of Deep Ecology, social ecology, Marxist ecology, and ecofeminism from a writer sympathetic to all of these left-wing idealogies. A lot of these radical movements have a very tenous and ironic relationship with science. They think it’s tainted by capitalism, patriarchy, and all the usual left wing Boogeymen, and so they don’t think it is a reliable source of truth. And yet, they are completely depedent upon it. We wouldn’t know about CO2 levels, overpopulation, average temparatures, etc if not for science. So they’ll except scientific findings when it backs up their idealogies, and reject it when it undermines their beliefs.

    Evidence that sometimes even real scientists are prone to purposefully exaggerating environmental dangers can be derived from this quote by influential atmospheric scientist Stephen Schneider from an interview he did in Discover magazine:

    “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
    scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
    truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the
    doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
    are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
    we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context
    translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
    disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to
    capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting
    loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
    simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
    we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves
    in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
    right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
    means being both.”

  • Mike

    I should add that it works both ways. There are plenty of pro free market people who are overly dismissive of environmental dangers.

  • Red Zed

    Mike, I don’t dispute your claim that there is a correlation between Marxist leanings and environmental extremism.
    As an aside, I don’t consider support of the global warming idea to be extreme. It’s not a terribly new idea, at least not in a last-twelve-months kind of way.
    However, I think you might be putting the cart before the horse when saying, “People who hate economic freedom will be quick to embrace any findings that capitalism is doing harm to the planet.” Again, I don’t disagree with the substance of your idea (yes, hardcore Marxists actually do seek proof in the natural world for their ideology. Look at Lysenko biology, for example!), but to say that Marxists and other economic leftists hate economic freedom is misleading. Marxism is an approach to dealing with the inequities that can be brought on by economic disparity; it is not specifically about the hatred of anything. Well, arguably it’s about hatred of monarchy and the super-rich. Okay, not just arguably ^_^
    Not to say it’s a very *good* approach, necessarily, especially when you consider its track record as a guiding philosophy for authoritarian regimes in Russia and China.
    Still, even the most blind-faith global warming proponent (someone who supports the theory, that is) is not rubbing his hands together thinking, “Haha! THIS will strangle economic freedom! My pinko dreams are finally coming to pass!” No, more likely he’s thinking, “Wow, this global warming stuff is a problem, and economic freedom is not a big priority of mine. What to do?”
    While libertarians and other economic right-wingers think long and hard about the impact of government on personal and economic freedoms, socialists, Marxists, and other economic leftists do not tend to view problems in this way. They tend to see deregulation as a problem, but they do not see it explicitly as denying anyone’s freedom. This is like saying that, because someone is not a hawk on the terrorism “issue”, he or she must “hate America and want the terrorists to win”. Of course not – Democrats and other would-be doves simply have different ideas about how to solve the problems posed by and uncovered by terrorism.
    Should we drop everything for the environment, always? No. I think you and I can agree on that. But nobody in any position to implement such a thing is advocating it; heck, the whole Green craze is incredibly consumerist in nature, and definitely market-led, as opposed to government-led.
    As far as fringe leftists being anti-science, I argue that *any* person or group that puts ideology over facts consistently will be anti-scientific. Dr. Lysenko and the Creationist crowd have that in common, and they’re arguably at different ends of the political spectrum (not the economic spectrum, inherently, but one is Left and the other is Right, at least by common assumption).

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>