More thoughts from Thursday night:
- I’m really disappointed that Palin didn’t beat Biden like a rented mule when he brought up the windfall profits tax on Oil companies. How many times is the Left going to take us down that road? That wasn’t a hanging curveball, it was a hanging grapefruit. Here’s how I would have responded: “Senator, can you explain to the American people tonight, the difference between Profit and PROFIT MARGIN? After you’ve explained that, I’m sure you’ll be able to cite for us what Exxon Mobil’s PROFIT MARGIN was for 2007?” Biden would no doubt mumble some talking point about how its all the same to the “struggling middle class” yada yada. I’d follow up with “Ok Senator, since you don’t seem to know the difference, I’ll help you out. Profit margin is what’s left to divvy up among the shareholders after all expenses are paid. Exxon Mobil’s 2007 profit margin was 10%. If you think that’s profligate, remedial business courses are in order for you. So that $11B that Exxon Mobil made in a couple of quarters ago, that you pitched such a hissy fit about? What you don’t tell the people is that it COST Exxon Mobil $99B to make that $11B. And once you levy this tax, how do you think the oil companies are going to respond? Just grab their ankles and say ‘it was a nice ride while it lasted’? No, they are going to invest less, hire fewer and compensate for your encroachment on their bottom line. This talk of windfall profits is nothing more than a smoke screen your party puts up to obscure the truth - prices of gas are high at the pump because your party, ever beholden to environmentalism, refuses to allow us to drill for more oil and build more refineries. We’ve investigated the oil companies repeatedly, Senator, and the result is always the same: no gouging can be found. Someone needs to hold hearings on the obstinence of the Democratic Party.”
- Palin was obviously nervous at the beginning of the debate, it was clear in her body language and speech. I don’t think that will serve as a liability in evaluating her performance or fitness to lead. Imagine yourself in her shoes, a young mayor, then, lo and behold, ten years later you are on the ballot to be at the threshold of leading the free world.
- All this blabber about Biden’s foreign policy credentials are just that: blabber. See Geraghty’s comments below. And go further to see milk-cartoned version of Peggy Noonan. She’s very right with regards to “surrounding herself with qualified, knowledgeable people.” That’s what effective executives do. I have yet to hear Palin make a foreign policy gaffe along the lines of Biden or Obama.
- Team McCain is missing a golden opportunity in these debates to turn this “change” issue around on Obama. Palin’s debate with Biden last night was the perfect opportunity to do so, and the best time to have done it would have been in the closing statement. THIS would have been very effective:
“Thank you, Gwen. In this campaign season we’ve heard a lot of talk from both of the tickets about ‘change’. It seems to be the buzzword of this campaign. There are two tickets talking change, but only one ticket is acting on that talk, and has an actual record of change – The McCain/Palin ticket. Senator McCain has stood up to his party leaders when he felt it was the right thing to do. He’s worked with such Democrats as Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Lieberman in crafting legislation for the benefit of the American people. He has went against the White House when he felt it was the morally proper thing to do, disagreeing with his party’s president. That’s refreshing, that’s different, that’s bipartisanship, that’s real change. While in Alaska, I’ve also stood up to party bosses, stood up to businesses flaunting the laws, and stood up to corruption, and I did it on behalf of the Alaskan people. That’s refreshing, that’s different, that’s real change.
Our opponents in this election love to speak about change too. And its nothing but talk, that is, unless your talking about the number of times they’ve changed their opinions. Senator Biden, with all due respect, hardly represents change. As one respected opinion journal put it “he’s been marinating in the Senate for the last 35 years.” That’s change? Is that refreshing to you? The hard left positions they take on everything – Senator Obama, for example, gets the following scores from Project Vote Smart (h/t Mark Finklestein at Newsbusters):
· Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006.
· National Right to Life Committee 0% in 2005-2006.
· Americans for Tax Reform 0% in 2005.
· NRA, 'F' in 2004.
· Federation for American Immigration Reform 0% in 2005.
· Americans for Democratic Action [old-style liberal organization] 100% in 2005.
- is that the change you are looking for? Its nothing new, its old time liberal machine politicians using flowery language and cults of personality to make you think they represent something new and different. These men are life long politicians. Some may say Senator McCain is too, however, Senator McCain has went against the grain and has done what is right, irrespective of potential career damage. Senator McCain and I represent real change in this election, not the empty but flowery talk that sends tingles up Chris Matthews’s leg. Thank you.”
