Sarah Palin Can't Comprehend the "Sputnik Moment"

[DRSmith]

Why are jobs and production going overseas then?

Why are our students lagging despite more funding?

Why is housing collapsing?

Innovation and leading takes more than investment.

Well could it be because they are investing in their kids and infrastructure?

You know those fights you have most countries have system where the government decides and it get implemented the only exceptions being places where coalition government fight over things

Housing collapsed in the US and in parts of Europe due to deregulating the mortgage and investments systems

Countries like Canada that did not had no major collapse

[twa]

Just for you I watched the whole thing.

Sorry, I didn't see anything new there. Maybe you could point out the new context I'm missing?

Perhaps reading it would be better(in more ways than one)

[Henry]

Perhaps reading it would be better(in more ways than one)

Read it too, when it first came out. Let's look at it together:

VAN SUSTEREN: Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is still with us. And Governor, last night there was a lot of discussion about the Sputnik moment that the president talked about. Do you agree with him? Do you -- and is this our moment?

PALIN: That was another one of those WTF moments, when he so often repeated this Sputnik moment that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. And he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yes, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.

So I listened to that Sputnik moment talk over and over again, and I think, No, we don't need one of those. You know what we need is a "spudnut" moment. And here's where I'm going with this, Greta. And you're a good one because you're one of those reporters who actually gets out there in the communities, find these hard-working people and find solutions to the problems that Americans face.

Well, the spudnut shop in Richland, Washington -- it's a bakery, it's a little coffee shop that's so successful, 60-some years, generation to generation, a family-owned business not looking for government to bail them out and to make their decisions for them. It's just hard-working, patriotic Americans in this shop.

We need more spudnut moments in America. And I wish that President Obama would understand, in that heartland of America, what it is that really results in the solutions that we need to get this economy back on the right track. It's a shop like that.

I've hi-lited the part that I think she totally whiffs on. Feel free to note the part that better explains her understanding of the analogy.

[Bang]

Read it too, when it first came out. Let's look at it together:

I've hi-lited the part that I think she totally whiffs on. Feel free to note the part that better explains her understanding of the analogy.

Oh, but perhaps if you listened to the audio book version.. then you might...

or if perhaps you read it upside down from a foreign newspaper.. or,, uh

Or if perhaps you watched it again with subtitles on..

or perhaps if you got the official transcript that is available for only the price of a self addressed stamped envelope and 4 to 6 weeks for delivery.

Maybe then your mind will comprehend the awe inspiring Smartitude of Sarah.

~Bang

[Hubbs]

and ambition... perhaps drive too.

I give Palin full marks for drive. She is self-created and has become very powerful and influential based on her own efforts and mechinations

Self-created? If McCain hadn't made her his VP pick after supposedly talking with her for all of 15 minutes, would any of us know who she is?

Well, if you didn't understand the analogy you had three choices.

1, you could sit there and nod along pretending you understood it and totally missing the point

2, you could sit there not knowing what it is and assume that he's said something wrongbecause it sounds Russian, or

3, you could get up and google it and know what it means in about 30 seconds. And a lot of us don't even have to get up anymore. Use the phone in your pocket.

But, I guess if someone talks about something you don't know about anymore, the response is to stone him for being a fancy pants intellectual know-it-all.

Is we keepin' it real, y'all?

~Bang

Okay, I don't understand the words you just said to me, so I'm gonna take them as disrespect.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Self-created? If McCain hadn't made her his VP pick after supposedly talking with her for all of 15 minutes, would any of us know who she is?

I used to love McCain. I had faith in him as a human being. And I'm liberal. But I don't think he should ever, ever be forgiven for putting Palin that close to the White House or in the spotlight in anyway. He sold his soul to the devil.

[twa]

Read it too, when it first came out. Let's look at it together:

I've hi-lited the part that I think she totally whiffs on. Feel free to note the part that better explains her understanding of the analogy.

Full transcript clearly shows a rejection of govt directed spending,which is what O's Sputnik analogy calls for.

Your highlighted portion illustrates her rejection of it

If she did not comprehend he was calling for another govt directed spending effort why is opposition to that the theme?

If you want to quibble over whether Sputnik was part of the arms race and led to the fall of Russia we can do that,but some scholars concur(I do agree her explanation on that was a weak effort)

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/palin-obama039s-state-union-address-full-039wtf039-moments

VAN SUSTEREN: I'm very well, but there are a lot of Americans aren't. They need jobs. What are we going to do about jobs? Do you have an idea that's any way different from what the president said last night because we're looking for all options?

PALIN: Well, speaking of last night, that was a tough speech to have to sit through and kind of try to stomach because the president is so off base in his ideas on how it is that he believes the government is going to create jobs. Obviously, government growth won't create any jobs. It's the private sector that can create the jobs.

And his theme last night in the Speaker of the House was the "WTF," you know, "Winning the Future." And I thought, "OK, that acronym, spot on." There were a lot of "WTF" moments throughout that speech, namely, when he made the statement, Greta, that he believed that we can't allow ourselves to, I guess, eventually become buried under a mountain of debt. That right there tells you he is so disconnected from reality! The problem is, we are buried under a mountain of debt, and jobs cannot be created by the private sector. We cannot grow and thrive and prosper as a nation when we are buried under this $14 trillion debt.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/palin-obama039s-state-union-address-full-039wtf039-moments#ixzz1CYve7KXz

PALIN: We go back to the fundamentals of how it is that the private sector can create jobs. That's getting big government off our backs. It's allowing our job creators to keep more of what they earn so that they can reinvest according to their own priorities. And then they can hire more people and get people off those unemployment rolls. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand just these common sense solutions because they've been tried in the past and they've proven in the past.

And they're proven in local communities when we cut taxes and then jobs are created. They're proven in states when we have to sue the feds when they overreach and try to thwart the 10th Amendment rights that a state would have. We see a problem with that going on on the federal level, too, by the way, Greta, is Barack Obama, our president, believing that it is a federal, centralized government and its growth that can be the solution to the problems that we face. Instead, allow the states to have more control. Allow our local communities, those on the front lines that - - the government that governs least governs best, and that usually is the most localized government.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/palin-obama039s-state-union-address-full-039wtf039-moments#ixzz1CYwPI7c7

[Bang]

I used to love McCain. I had faith in him as a human being. And I'm liberal. But I don't think he should ever, ever be forgiven for putting Palin that close to the White House or in the spotlight in anyway. He sold his soul to the devil.

I really don't think he had any choice.

~Bang

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I really don't think he had any choice.

~Bang

Explain please?

[twa]

I really don't think he had any choice.

~Bang

You mean a better choice he could stomach?

People and choices are funny things and impacted by much

[Bang]

Explain please?

I think the party decided who would be his running mate based on demographics rather than competence.

They knew she was charismatic and cute.

What finally convinced me was in the final push of the campaign when he said he wanted to run on issues, and the party wanted to hammer away at rev. Wright and other inflammatory issues. She continued to go against the candidate to do the party's bidding and focus on their strategy rather than what the candidate McCain wanted to discuss. The party backed grass roots efforts to focus on the inflammatory rather than what McCain wanted to do.

In the end that was what made me decide not to vote for him. He became an empty suit, an ideology in a tie.

~Bang

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Oh I definitely agree Palin was pushed onto McCain. But you don't think he could've stepped up and stopped it?

[Burgold]

I agree with Bang. The Palin choice was entirely cynical. They wanted someone female that was key and they wanted someone with firm conservative credentials, but I think the key thing is they wanted someone who wasn't a contender or a big name. I don't think even Palin gets why. The Republican establishment knew how disliked they were. It was incredibly unlikely that in that year the incumbent party could win so no one who was a major player in the Party wanted to be tied to the McCain ticket. They didn't want to be the loser. After all, what happens to the VP loser... obscurity (well, normally). So, Palin fit all the criteria including she wasn't a major player or an important star in the Party.

That said, at the RNC she did amazingly well and she was really good at rallying the base. Enough so, that people thought McCain had a chance until the policies of George Bush and the Republicans manifested in the economic crash. Considering that she was chosen as a sacrificial lamb, she really has made huge strides and is an incredibly important, powerful, and influential figure in today's political culture. Again, I think sometimes to mainstream Republicans dismay.

I think Palin was chosen to balance McCain's RINO status and because since they were going to lose putting an unknown an minor league player up to bat cost them nothing... or so they thought.

[elkabong82]

Perhaps O didn't link the points of resemblance well enough to keep people from rejecting his analogy....which seems the case for more than Palin (as I have linked)

A analogy rests on the strength of the linkage established and does not rule out a different one being applied...despite your protestations

" Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t even there yet. NASA didn’t exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment."

Seems pretty clear to me it's a call for America to respond to serious foreign competition in the same manner it did when Sputnik was launched, which to invest in innovation and education in technology, which was also a theme of Obama's speech. How does Palin's Soviet argument hold up when America succeeded doing the same thing? She completely ignored the success America had after the Sputnik moment, despite it clearly being the subject Obama was talking about.

[twa]

"

Seems pretty clear to me it's a call for America to respond to serious foreign competition in the same manner it did when Sputnik was launched, which to invest in innovation and education in technology, which was also a theme of Obama's speech. How does Palin's Soviet argument hold up when America succeeded doing the same thing? She completely ignored the success America had after the Sputnik moment, despite it clearly being the subject Obama was talking about.

Seems pretty clear to me foreign competition ain't the problem,nor federally directed spending the solution.....A vision might be nice though

You want a real response to competition?...level the damn playing field

or as Stilton Jarlsberg says:

America's problem isn't that her citizens need a Sputnik. It's that her politicians need a Buttkik.

[Larry]

I think the party decided who would be his running mate based on demographics rather than competence.

They knew she was charismatic and cute.

Oh, I'm firmly convinced that the characteristics they were looking for, in a Veep, were:

1) Female. Because they wanted to try to capture the people who'd voted for Hillary in the primaries.

2) Certified pro-life, because McCain wasn't getting a lot of support from that "camp".

What finally convinced me was in the final push of the campaign when he said he wanted to run on issues, and the party wanted to hammer away at rev. Wright and other inflammatory issues. She continued to go against the candidate to do the party's bidding and focus on their strategy rather than what the candidate McCain wanted to discuss. The party backed grass roots efforts to focus on the inflammatory rather than what McCain wanted to do.

In the end that was what made me decide not to vote for him. He became an empty suit, an ideology in a tie.

Now, I have to point out that that's a traditional role for the Veep candidate in the election. The Veep is the attack dog, the one who shoots off his mouth, who caters to the base, who's itching for a fight. The Candidate is supposed to look Presidential and above all of that.

Just like another role of the Veep candidate is to float trial balloons. If the campaign decides that "this isn't working, we need something different", then the Veep will come out with the New Idea. If the crowd likes it, then a few days later, the Candidate will begin using it. If it doesn't fly, then the Candidate announces that well, the Veep wasn't speaking for me.

[Bang]

Oh I definitely agree Palin was pushed onto McCain. But you don't think he could've stepped up and stopped it?

If he could have, he would have.

~Bang

[Boss_Hogg]

Well, if you didn't understand the analogy you had three choices.

1, you could sit there and nod along pretending you understood it and totally missing the point

2, you could sit there not knowing what it is and assume that he's said something wrongbecause it sounds Russian, or

3, you could get up and google it and know what it means in about 30 seconds. And a lot of us don't even have to get up anymore. Use the phone in your

~Bang

After the 2008 loss, Palin had the opportunity to study and learn history, incase the GOP calls on her to carry the torch for 2012. Yet Palin chose to quit on the residents of Alaska, write a book, and star on a reality TV show.

She is not presidential material and she never will be.

[twa]

Ya left out get rich and powerful.....and obviously annoying to some

[Boss_Hogg]

Oops double post

[Ron78]

This whole thread is false advertising.

1. Palin clearly understood what Sputnik was.

2. She did not say that Sputnik exclusively caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. She was just making the point that the former Soviet Union's collective spending caused its economy to collapse.

3. She did not say that Sputnik itself was a "WTF moment" from Obama. She said Obama's mentioning of it in the State of the Union address was a "WTF moment." I do question Palin's use of the acronym though. It wasn't very sophisticated.

[twa]

She has a number of redeeming qualities,but sophistication sure ain't one of them :pfft:

[Henry]

Full transcript clearly shows a rejection of govt directed spending,which is what O's Sputnik analogy calls for.

Your highlighted portion illustrates her rejection of it

If she did not comprehend he was calling for another govt directed spending effort why is opposition to that the theme?

If you want to quibble over whether Sputnik was part of the arms race and led to the fall of Russia we can do that,but some scholars concur(I do agree her explanation on that was a weak effort)

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/palin-obama039s-state-union-address-full-039wtf039-moments

Yes, as I said she actually makes sense and sounds reasonable in parts of the interview, and some of those parts include her distaste for government spending.

Nothing you've posted, however, changes the fact that she butchered the analogy, or showed more than a very rudimentary understanding of the effects of the space race on the Soviet Union, or it's relevance.

[twa]

She offered a counter to the analogy...a butchered one I agree

You don't counter w/o a grasp of the analogy

[Burgold]

This whole thread is false advertising.

1. Palin clearly understood what Sputnik was.

2. She did not say that Sputnik exclusively caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. She was just making the point that the former Soviet Union's collective spending caused its economy to collapse.

3. She did not say that Sputnik itself was a "WTF moment" from Obama. She said Obama's mentioning of it in the State of the Union address was a "WTF moment." I do question Palin's use of the acronym though. It wasn't very sophisticated.

I admire your dedication... esp. the way you were able to rationalize the Soviet collapse part in relation to Sputnik.