Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Wednesday »

Youth or Experience

Amazing woman that Sarah Palin, as a seven year old she was listening to Joe Biden's speeches.





 

Comments

She has new ideas? Like what?

user-pic

I think she wants to build a tent or something.

user-pic

I think she wants to build an umbrella or something.

user-pic

ella, ella, ay, ay

Nice try Sarah. In an attempt to portray Joe Biden as a entrenched beltway insider to red-meat loving kool aid drinkers, she fell back on good old reliable mockery. She does it well and often, and when called on it, she backtracks. What was it she said about Obama talking one way in Iowa and another way in San Francisco?

Jesus, how can anybody claim with a straight face that Couric and CBS aren't advocating for Obama?

"Isn't it dangerous to bring up age when your running mate is 72 years old?"

That's a defensive question.

"defensive"

Calligraph, i remember you, you played trumpet, right? You were the guy who was always out of step with his squad. And arguing with your squad-leader about the fact, in school,in after school band practice. You always had to be the center of attention, but sadly, you were, alas, such a mediocrity, you had no talent ("your obsession with labeling everyone a celebrity" ), but you cut the diagonal off the square in your short-cut to eyes-on-you-instantly. It wasn't fair, so you, pooped the party. I'm ad homineming (excuuuuuse, please) you as an example of a political constituencey (but for lack of talent you could have been a Sarah Palin): the Repubs, since Nixon, have been skating on resentment and revenge, against those who didn't have to calligraph their intentions to be the center of at, just once.

Bush got votes by being in need of speech therapy. You, and Palin, are so cute, because you're soooo contrary, "Maverick" they call it this time, only you're out of step not just with your squad, but with REALITY, dude, smell the caffeine, what are the chances you can keep flipping the coin two out of three FOREVER?

Mellow out, Rasputin. The revolution is coming.

That's a defensive question.

You can't be serious.

I mean she calls Biden old while standing next to a man that would be the oldest man ever elected to a first term.

She wouldn't be journalist if she didn't bring it up. She wouldn't be a conscious life form.

Alaska in the 70's didn't get much TV. They only got one channel:

Bidenvision - All Biden all the time. 24 hour news coverage of Biden and all things Biden.

Heh, good point.

I'm completely serious. What amazes me is that you and so many others are so blind to bias that backs your predetermined conclusions.

And Katie Couric is not a journalist. She has a degree in "American Studies", whatever that means. She's a celebrity, like all TV anchors.

A journalist would have called Biden on his stupid "Roosevelt went on TV and explained the Depression" comment. She just let it slide. A journalist would ask Biden why he was so against Obama before being named as his VP candidate. A journalist would ask Biden why his position on clean coal is different from Obama's. Instead she gave a rub-and-tug interview to Biden, asked no followup questions even on the most ridiculously obvious goofs, and now she's asking defensive questions for the candidate with whom she's clearly smitten.

There was a video on YouTube of a bunch of these celebrity 'journalists' swooning and gasping and giggling as Obama made a phone call on his jet ... wearing jeans!!! Strangely it has vanished from YouTube. But that's the "journalism" we can expect from now until the election.

Well, first not doing follow up in a separate interview does not demand no follow up here.

Biden was against Obama in the Primary. Many republicans were against McCain in the primary. Yet the vast majority of those folks support their parties nominee because of shared beliefs in the general. That's the way the system works. Digging that shit up like its a scandal is absurd.

Bidens gaff was stupid, but he has said alot of smart things and had many policy proposals over his career. No one is wondering if perhaps Biden is perhaps ignorant of reality, even though obviously his mouth moves faster then his brain.

On the other hand Palin has never done anything bright in this or any other job. Conservatives have called for her resignation and the question of how long will McCain allow this absurdity to continue looms.

Yes the media is in piss poor shape but the idea that they are "in the tank" is absurd.

THey are school children that keep focusing on the shiney object.

This week Palin's lack of Grey matter will be brighter then 1,000 suns.

Well, first not doing follow up in a separate interview does not demand no follow up here.

There has been no followup whatsoever. There has been concerted mockery of Palin's "folksy" comment about seeing Russia from Alaska, but nothing about Biden being unable to figure out when the Great Depression happened, or any of his other cringeworthy gaffes.

but he has said alot of smart things and had many policy proposals over his career.

Biden has said many stupid things, and is a supremely dishonest politician. I'll again link the article from The Independent. I find it shocking that this man has yet to have to answer a serious question.

As for Palin, I've already said I'm not a fan. But even so I cannot fathom the blatant and ridiculous bias the mainstream media has against this woman. She has more political experience than Obama and is extremely well-regarded in her home state. I'd put her and Obama on about the same level in regards to foreign policy. Ideally both would know more, but neither has been in such a position before. Yet the one running for President receives less scrutiny.

I think most of her flustering and lack of ease comes from the frankly hostile attitude she has had to endure from day one.

Conservatives have called for her resignation

That's funny. I saw the same ridiculous headline on Yahoo! News and the like, and followed the link. One conservative writer said she should step down. One. And that generates a headline "Even conservatives don't think Palin is qualified!" I can link you to numerous articles which ask Biden to step down, all written by liberal commentators.

Personally I would have preferred it if McCain had picked Lieberman, just as a gigantic "eat shit" to the Democratic party. The thing is, McCain has been pushing the 'nonpartisan' angle very hard, and the one thing that is becoming clear is nobody cares. People are partisan in this country. Even the media is.

Yes the media is in piss poor shape but the idea that they are "in the tank" is absurd.

The evidence keeps piling up, and you keep calling it absurd. What will it take?

This week Palin's lack of Grey matter will be brighter then 1,000 suns.

The Obama campaign certainly doesn't think so. They know Biden has a long history of bullying and saying stupid things. Right now they're terrified he's going to make an ass of himself and allow Palin, who has a lot of debate experience herself, to look like the calm and reserved one. Here's hoping: he derailed his own presidential campaign with his big mouth, maybe he can derail his "well-spoken and clean" new buddy's campaign this time.

4:43 PM | Reply to this comment

"Roosevelt went on TV and explained the Depression" comment."

My friend, Calli-giraffe (always sticking your neck out), Biden was the owner of a false memory. It happens all the time. He probably saw Roosevelt on T.V. in his mind's eye, and I'll wager it was on a small screen, snowy, in black and white. In normal, non-photographic mnemonist types, memory is reconsructive. Dan Dennett does a damn good job of explaining it. We all do it. None of us is perfect. Palin is not under fire for her imperfection. She is under criticism for being a total fucking idiot. There is a difference, even if you play act that you a blind man , metaphorically, of course.

You yourself need to limber up, mentally.

post it Here, I meant to.

RedSeven, why do you feed the trolls? :-)

Don't interfere: watching this troll eat is a fascinating blend of comedy and horror. I'm enjoying the show.

"And Katie Couric is not a journalist. She has a degree in "American Studies", whatever that means. She's a celebrity, like all TV anchors."

Well Calligraph, Palin should know something about journalism at least...the only degree she has ever gotten was in "Sports Journalism".
If Katie is so obviously bias and slanted Calligraph, why has John McCain and Palin together given her three exclusive interviews in a row this past week? Your arguments just don't make any sense.

Actually, it was communications and journalism. That's closer to a real reporter's line of education than Couric has ever seen.

And they are doing the interviews because that's part of the process. It's just unfortunate that the mainstream media has already made a decision.

And Calligraph, what is your obsession with labeling everyone a celebrity?

Everyone? I label celebrities as celebrities. Is this some weird "identify that person" game? Here we go:

  • Sonny Bono: celebrity turned politician (like Al Franken!), but I can't say much about him as I didn't live in his state at the time. Hated his music though.
  • Ronald Reagan: celebrity turned politician. Very good president.
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger: celebrity turned politician. A surprisingly good Governor. I'm not happy with the tax increase, but at least we'll be getting more buses and metro.
  • Fred Thompson: sucked on Law and Order (and Die Hard 2). But I didn't live in his state, so I have no idea what type of politician he was.
  • Sean Hannity: TV celebrity. I've never defended him. He's almost as bad as Olbermann (almost because he at least invites dissenting viewpoints on the air, although he just proceeds to talk over them).
  • Sarah Palin: politician.

And I don't have a "party". I'm still a registered Democrat, although I will be changing that to independent this year. I'm voting Republican, however, for reasons too numerous to enumerate here; I've covered many of them already in various posts. Nobody who has truly studied the issues and the people running for office could sensibly vote Democrat.

Why did you register as a democrat in the first place?

I can't recall you listing a issue stance I would consider close to that of a democrat. I could guess when you made the shift.

And you are right about Biden he is a doof and a well documented one at that. What you fail to realize is that biden goes on air and gives a five minute interviews after the debates and on other occasions and does just fine. Palin is still hiding from those. that's part of why the increased scrutiny.

"for reasons too numerous to enumerate here; "

Wow, a gnarly-ly numerous reason set for someone who comes across as so stubborn, stubbornly loquacious, but in the final analysis, inherently (?) unreasonable!

Allow me to help. Having spoken with several McCain-loving fans of my own family, I can summarize their reasoning in a few handy bullet points:

  • They earn > $250k /yr, and want a tax break.

  • They want their stocks to stay up, and if this means saddling their children with $700B in additional debt, so be it.

  • They don't trust darkies.

  • They are aging boomers, long ago spoiled rotten, who believe they are ENTITLED to retire with a few million dollars, and then live to 100. To hell with their children, grandchildren, country and planet. So long as they can get a new HDTV, and a singing fish at Xmas, everything will be fine.

Needless to say, this election has removed the last few scraps of respect I had for the boomers. I respectfully request that they die at their earliest convenience, so that this world of ours might evolve.

However, those boomers who remain sane and reasonable, and who understand that drastic change is the only thing that can save us, you are welcome to stay and bore us with the legends of the good ole days. But only those of you who actually went out and caused trouble- watching "Woodstock" from a suburban movie theater doesn't count.

Also, anyone who quotes MLK Jr, and has admitted they don't trust Obama because his middle name is Hussein, need a vigorous beating.

I really need to shut up until November. My militant side is showing again.

Anyone care to join me in a rifle-clad march towards Washington? Of course not. Why march when we can comment, and remain sitting on our corn fructose-saturated asses.

Actually, it was communications and journalism. That's closer to a real reporter's line of education than Couric has ever seen.

Soooo, what you're saying is, is that Palin should know more about journalism than Couric. Why the hell is she so f-ing bad at responding to journalists?

So let me get this straight Calligraph...Palin graduated with a Bachelors degree in Journalism? Sarah Palin the VP nominee for the United States Presidency? Mean while Barack Obama Graduated with a Degree in Political Science and Harvard Law, and Joe Biden graduated with a degree in History and Political Science, and later went on to receive his J.D...and your concerned with Katie Couric's education history not being sufficient enough to perform HER job properly!?!

Your right, you've sold me Calligraph. Palin should be running for News Anchor, not VP of the United States.

Wow - asking a question relative to McCain's age. So out of line because no one has mentioned the fact that he is 72 years old so that was completely out of the blue. Cat's out of the bag now. McCain is even older than Biden and yet Palin wasn't listening to McCain on the radio. Oh - yeah - Biden is younger than McCain AND has more experience. Obama has new ideas so - her point was?

And Palin is not a politician - she has a degree in journalism. But - that doesn't seem to stop her from being accepted as a politician.

"Roosevelt went on TV" is not a political comment - it doesn't relate to his take on domestic policy or anything else. What would the question be?: "What did you mean by Roosevelt going on TV - are you not aware that TV wasn't around?" It would be a useless - probably funny exchange and I'm sure someone will have it with him because he's available to the press.

Biden not supporting Obama when he was running for the office is not surprising - he was running for the office. After that, politicians tend to pick who they think can win which - once someone wins, really becomes irrelevant. I don't know how Biden felt about Obama before Obama picked him but, if you say he wasn't a fan - more power to Obama for picking him. I also didn't know they had differing views on coal... How do you know these things about Biden? Have there been interviews? Has there been information out there about them? Has Biden been available to the press? Sorry you want more information than you have and can't seem to get it. How frustrating that must be for you - a voter.

As far as whether Couric is actually an Obama fan - I wouldn't be surprised - especially after her interviews with the painfully ignorant Ms. Palin. I am only surprised when someone is willing to support the Republicans again - especially with Palin. But - that doesn't mean the interviews haven't been fair - and so, so soft. Why do you think they picked Katie?

"Roosevelt went on TV and explained the Depression" comment."

My friend, Calli-giraffe (always sticking your neck out), Biden was the owner of a false memory. It happens all the time. He probably saw Roosevelt on T.V. in his mind's eye, and I'll wager it was on a small screen, snowy, in black and white. In normal, non-photographic mnemonist types, memory is reconsructive. Dan Dennett does a damn good job of explaining it. We all do it. None of us is perfect. Palin is not under fire for her imperfection. She is under criticism for being a total fucking idiot. There is a difference, even if you play act that you a blind man , metaphorically, of course.

You yourself need to limber up, mentally.

A journalist would have called Biden on his stupid "Roosevelt went on TV and explained the Depression" comment.

No, not stupid mixing up radio and TV. Or at least not stupid in the sense of saying that McCain was such a maverick but not having any thing to back it up with (especially since they were some examples!).

As for the comment about seeing Biden debate since she was 7: OK, trying to make Biden seem old. If she'd actually watched political debates for that long, you'd (pardon m e, that's "ya'd") think she'd have a better grasp on national affairs.

The sound of Palin's voice is like nails on a chalk board.

She really IS an AVERAGE hockey mom. Nothing outstanding about her.

The difference between a pitbull and Sarah Palin? A pitbull lowers his/her ass to shit. Palin opens her mouth.

And Calligraph, what is your obsession with labeling everyone a celebrity? What do you call Sony Bono, Ronald Regan, Arnold Swartzenager, and Fred Thompson? These are candidates from YOUR party. If Obama and Katie Couric are celebrites, then so is Shaun Hannity and Sarah Palin. So please give me a Break!

At 12 seconds, when Palin shrieks "Were gonna talk about..", does it look like the guy behind her just to her left plugs his ears due to her shrieking voice?

RedSeven, why do you feed the trolls? :-)

What should we sit around and debate ourselves. At least he is starting to answer questions and give responses to arguments.

Absurdity. There's no other word for what this race has become.

Seriously, this is like a cartoon shown in Logic class when the teacher is sick.

I do not know if there has ever been a more colorful and spotlighted assault on reason than Palin (or, to be fair, the manner in which the campaign uses her).

She desperately avoids even stating premises like its kryptonite. This vulnerability is supported by the complete breakdown of syntax and coherence when asked, for example, about the bailout, foreign policy cred, and something about blinking. And her most celebrated statements are like chapter-end examples of logical fallacies:

1) Begging the Question - demonstrate a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion: She knows she is ready because she has confidence in that readiness.

2) Non Sequitur - incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another: She has foreign policy experience because she has worked on increasing domestic oil production.

3) Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc - the fallacy of believing that happenstance implies causal relation: She has foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia (bonus metaphorical example!)

4) Fallacy of Many Questions - groups more than one question in the form of a single question: "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go?" (yeah that one's a stretch but that quote is a sore I can't stop tonguing)

5) Irrelevant conclusion - divert attention from the fact rather than address it directly: This includes ad hominems... Where to start? Pitbull with lipstick? 2nd grade Biden broadcasts? I guess being a mayor is kind of like being a community organizer except with real responsibilities? Or just the entire way she is presented to America by the campaign. A hockey mom! ERGO!!!

Is this really happening? or did I finally find good drugs?

And yes, all politicians are guilty of fallacies. Just as we all falter and slip into them at some point in almost every debate (including this post). But she is different. She is held up to embody this faltering as a VIRTUE.

Her slip-ups are INTO rationality (whoops she actually took a position on a foreign policy issue. Must have been gotcha journalism.) She is MEANT to distract from the issues. She is MEANT to attack the character instead of the content.

What's a less inflammatory way to say the Antichrist of Reason?

Yeah, that's what I meant to say. I was too, slow-witted, verbally to.

Calligraph: For once, I couldn't agree more. At first I thought this was one of those "gotcha" questions. Then I realized all the fatally prejudicial assumptions Couric's questions imply, in ways that expose her by now all too obvious bias.

First, for example, she obviously assume that people should speak with some bare modicum of rational consistency, and not use two separate standards for evaluating behavior, one for themselves, and one for others. (It's OK for to McCain to be older than Biden, not OK for Biden to be old compared to Palin). This is simply a relic of the bizarre and antiquated ethical prejudice which holds that whatever I do or say cannot be legitimated or justified merely by the fact that I am the one who does or says it, but rather that my behavior be held to some standard independent of my own whims. Absurd! Obviously! Second, Couric also has an obviously moralistic bias for rational consistency. She just flatly assumes that any claims to youth Palin makes for herself compared Biden would, absent any further qualification, apply a fortiori to Obama compared to McCain, who are the people actually in the running for the top of the ticket. But again, this assumption that public figures be held to some straw thin standard of rational consistency is obviously prejudicial and flaws. What if it just strikes me that I'd be great at defending the U.S. from Russia, due to the fact that I can see Russia from where I live in AK? It offends me in the extreme that this very important claim is not being taken seriously, and it is totally Couric's fault for bringing it up in the other interview, obviously not Palin's for making it, because she bears no responsibility whatsoever for what she says.

So down with Katie Couric and her obviously biased standard of rational consistency, demands for specifics over vague generalities, and her patent inability to desist from calling attention to flatly incoherent statements. To the extremist left wing ideologues that perhaps frequent this blog, and who may share some or all of these standards, all I can say is just look at what we've come to. It's like you want to avoid illegal wars whose justification was supported by a thin raft of lies in the future; it's like you actually think that some knowledge, say, about foreign relations or how market economies actually work is (somehow!?) an important quality for a leader of the free world to have.

But that's just crazy talk. And Couric is the worst journalist I've ever seen.

"(It's OK for to McCain to be older than Biden, not OK for Biden to be older than Palin). "

Brilliant!

And so plainly glaringly blindingly accurately ...on target bull's eye.

The thing is this petty, twisted, irritating, Tonya Harding-on-steroids approach is going to go over, HOW, in the real foreign policy world? If Ach! Medina-jihad in Iran is considered a roguish rogue, why would a pit-bull-shit-thrower on steroids be so much more welcome to the wider international political world?

She's a roguette. And when McCain croaks we will be a roguette state.

What's the big idea? That's the (new) idea.

She's a big fat middle finger aimed at all those snobbery French (Matamoros Martel, e.g.), et alia.

(Matamoros Martel),

Yeah, the French saved Europe from Islam back in the day, El Cid finished the job, but the Frankies halted the hated Musselmans in their tracks, otherwise London would have been minaretized back in 700, 800, whenever.

Calligraph: For once, I couldn't agree more.

If you put half the effort you put into facetiousness into actual rational thought, you would agree with me.

First, for example, she obviously assume that people should speak with some bare modicum of rational consistency,

What a strawman. First, it's blatantly obvious that Palin's statement that she has "been hearing these claims for years" was not an attack on Biden's age. It was an attack on him saying the same thing over and over for decades. It was only turned into a comment on age by Obama-advocate Couric.

In an unbiased environment, Obama and Biden would have taken this comment themselves and made the obvious turnaround: if you are going to say Biden has been around forever, yet he's promising change, how can you say McCain who has been around forever will bring change? And then McCain / Palin would respond with, well, Biden's been around longer than McCain! And both would bicker back and forth over who brought in the biggest 'outsider', blah blah blah.

What if it just strikes me that I'd be great at defending the U.S. from Russia, due to the fact that I can see Russia from where I live in AK?

Yet another distortion. I imagine, much like how people started doing impersonations of impersonations of Jack Nicholson after so many years of bad comics, you're misremembering Tina Fey's bit as what actually happened.

You can watch that interview in its entirety on YouTube. Charles Gibson stated repeatedly, prior to Palin's statement, "We are close to Russia, so let's talk about Russia." He then asked, pointedly, "What insight does your proximity to Russia give you?" To which Palin responded, smiling, you can see Russia from land here in Alaska - with no reaction from Gibson. She then went directly on to discussions of NATO policy, our alliance with Georgia, and the future relations of the US and Russia.

One statement of conversational friendliness taken completely out of context and misrepresented by an utterly biased media. If only she had been too busy watching Roosevelt on a 1920's TV, or perhaps commanding wheelchair-bound people to "stand up!" to do that interview, she'd be a media darling.

It's like you want to avoid illegal wars whose justification was supported by a thin raft of lies in the future

Ah, yes, that 'thin raft of lies' that was supported by:

  • Bill Clinton
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Al Gore
  • John Kerry
  • Charles Schummer
  • Jay Rockefeller
  • Ted Kennedy ("I sense ... CHANGE!!!")
  • Chris Dodd
  • The United Nations

... and a cast of thousands!

You can even watch Al Gore speak in dire terms about how Bush Sr. didn't do enough to curtail Saddam's world-destroyin' ways:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc

But, yeah, other than all that - blindingly accurate! Bulls eye! Spot on, old chap! Et cetera.

"Yet another distortion. I imagine, much like how people started doing impersonations of impersonations of Jack Nicholson after so many years of bad comics, you're misremembering Tina Fey's bit as what actually happened."

For the sake of completeness, before the Gibson interview the proximity to Russia claim was made by Fox News pundits and also Cindy McCain. You then quote Gibson. If this argument was in fact not one relied upon by Palin, why did she attempt to justify it directly asked by Couric?

"Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of...We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state."

Calligraph - California - really? Where will bus and metro make a difference? Are you in SF?

I've seen the Gibson interview with Palin and it's not at all like you're representing it. Which youtube video did you watch? I'm curious because it's obviously been edited and you've been sadly misled. I looked for it but couldn't find it. Would you please provide that link?

For the sake of completeness, before the Gibson interview the proximity to Russia claim was made by Fox News pundits and also Cindy McCain.

But that's not Palin. Lots of people say lots of things. And I don't think Cindy McCain, lack-of-god bless her, is the brightest bulb.

As for why Palin defended the statement to Couric: because Couric asked her to defend it. Because it became a media sensation the minute it was taken out of context. Being new on the national stage, she hasn't yet learned to engage in a bit of self-mockery to defuse other-mockery (something McCain has been doing with his age jokes).

And trivially it is a valid point, as much as it's a valid point to say those living in border states are more focused on immigration issues, or Joe Biden understands the working class because he came from a working family. When was the last time Biden picked up a shovel and dug for coal?

Really, at this stage, there's no sense discussing it. I get it. I get that you just like mocking her because you don't like her. But perhaps you could step outside of yourself for a second and see how ridiculous it is that the media is allowed to take such a position.

Calligraph - California - really? Where will bus and metro make a difference? Are you in SF?

I live in Los Angeles. More mass transit would work wonders here, if they can keep the fucking engineers off cell phones. If they'd just scrap HOV lane construction they could probably fund it with no new tax, but what can you do.

I've seen the Gibson interview with Palin and it's not at all like you're representing it.

The whole interview is on YouTube. At around 2:00, Gibson brings up McCain's statement about her foreign policy qualifications. Note that McCain specifically said that her command of the Alaskan National Guard was important because of the proximity of Alaska to Russia. Again, context is crucial. Palin dodges the question, redirecting the conversation to energy independence. At around 5:10 Gibson again asks, directly, how proximity to Russia is important (dropping the part about the National Guard). She smiles and delivers her famous line, then moves on to real policy. There is a cut there but it's in the source material. And after this exchange, she makes several statements on foreign policy that are perfectly in line with McCain's position.

It's tedious to sit through but I couldn't find an online transcript that didn't stop right after the gag line for some stageworthy mortified liberal eye-rolling.

Again, I'm not making the claim that she's the best possible candidate. Even McCain hasn't said that. I don't even like her, as far as I'm concerned she's just along for the ride. But I do find the media and public treatment of her to be indicative of a problem in this country.

Bullshit. This was a long line of people claiming Palin was experienced due to her proximity to russia.

First up, Steve Doocy on fox news Next, Cindy McCain, then, in a facepalm moment John Sydney himself. Then, other neocons picked up the meme and tried to push it too.

(yes, all of those links are from thinkprogress, but they had video imbeds and important links all in one place)

This is why Gibson asked her about how being close to russia gives you foreign policy experience, because BEING CLOSE TO is not experience!

Yeah, I'm sorry, Palin has herself said on multiple occasions that proximity to Russia is a foreign policy credential, as have a number of people in the McCain campaign. Cindy McCain on the View was merely repeating a claim Palin had already made. And as rixx pointed out, she defended it (or tried to) with Couric.

Incidentally: you're right about Tiny Fey: some of the things she said in the parody were in fact exact quotes from Palin herself. So the resemblance is not a coincidence.

The United Nations

The U.N. did not authorize our invasion of Iraq. Maybe you picked that up off Fox News, but that's not what actually happened. The Bush administration did not supply congress with all the information it had, there is ample evidence that the CIA was pressured by Cheney et al., and the Downing Street Memo makes amply clear that "facts were being fixed to fit the policy". (HRC claimed, implausibly to my mind, that members of congress were mislead by the administration. This is in part true, but, for reasons to involved to get into here, to sufficient to justify the congressional vote for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq).

Finally, your comparison of Biden vs Palin on the press taking them to task is simply confused. Off the top of my head, I have no idea whether Biden has ever been pressed on the clean coal issue. What I do know is that he has appeared on multiple talk shows, such as Meet the Press, and explained in detail his views on the foreign policy, the economy, health care, and much else. Palin has done none of this, and the McCain campaign has taken umbrage at the very idea that she do so. Is it any surprise the media take the few statements she's made as something to work with?

Yeah, I'm sorry, Palin has herself said on multiple occasions that proximity to Russia is a foreign policy credential

Hardly. She was asked if it was a foreign policy credential and she treated it as a one-off, kind of a conversational "interesting fact" note. After it was widely mocked as if she said that and then sat in stony silence, she was forced to defend it. But she certainly does not hold that fact up as her "one qualifying credential" or anything of the sort.

The U.N. did not authorize our invasion of Iraq.

Of course not. They only cleared no-fly zones, overflights, bombings, sanctions, restrictions, weapons inspections and the like for more than ten years. They only complained for years, almost to the start of the current Iraq war, that their inspectors weren't allowed access to the weapons they insisted were there. And then, after many members of the UN refused to act on the war resolution they had put in place, it was discovered that they only did so because they were profiting from the oil-for-food scandals.

Did you skip all the other advocates of this war for convenience, or just lack of attention?

Your accusations that Bush/Cheney created the WMD charge would possibly hold water if Al Gore weren't making the same charges in 1992 and 1997, and if Clinton hadn't bombed Iraq in 1998. Or if the other people I listed weren't making the same charges in the years leading up to the war.

Off the top of my head, I have no idea whether Biden has ever been pressed on the clean coal issue

Of course you don't, because the liberal blogs and media have downplayed their confusion on the issue. Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT12O9bWUQw&feature=related

What I do know is that he has appeared on multiple talk shows, such as Meet the Press, and explained in detail his views on the foreign policy, the economy, health care, and much else.

Heck, everybody knows coal-miner Joe just loves to talk! He's talked so much that he's been able to contradict and gaffe himself innumerable times. But I heard Palin said she can see Russia from her house! Tee-hee!

Palin has done none of this

Palin has undergone numerous interviews. But I can understand her skepticism and anger - each time she does an interview, one comment is taken out of context and played wide for ridicule. What type of person keeps going back to the dog to get bitten?

user-pic

calligraph - the UN did not support us going into Iraq. I know - I was on a ship headed out at the time. Whether they ended up coming around after we told the world it was happening anyways is irrelevant. Also, everyone supported the war because of this super-secret intelligence that later proved to be fabricated. But I guess we shouldn't concern ourselves with little things like facts and truth.

Your portrayal of the interviews is laughable. Look - it would be different if she said something stupid every once in a while, but she proves herself ignorant every time she opens her mouth without a teleprompter (which - gee I wonder why - isn't very often). Some of her responses aren't even coherent.

"We" are the ones blinded by bias?

"Ah, yes, that 'thin raft of lies' that was supported by: * The United Nations ... and a cast of thousands!"

The further back in time you go the longer your list will be of respectable people believing ridiculous things. Such as the world is flat, or that sickness is caused by bad humours.

Your response here would be appropriate if the criticism was that Palin believed those lies at the time, and isn't that silly of her. Offered as a response to the (albeit facetiously roundabout) argument that its important to incorporate lessons of the past into our present-day demands of our leaders, its a strawman.

But yeah, the UN and the US were not and are not on comfortable ground regarding Iraq. We are very aware that the Security Council would not have and will not now recognize the legitimacy of the invasion, as indeed preventive wars are illegal in classic just war theory.

The reason we had to watch with horror at how the local court handled the execution of Hussein rather than see him tried through a tribunal set up by the Security Council is because we knew the S.C. would refuse - they hold this belief that any involvement with affairs related to an illegal act of aggression would be a sort of ex post facto authorization of that act.

Really off-point I guess, but any excuse to say "just war theory" gets my engines going.

First of all, Palin is not stupid - she is just out of her league. There is a difference. Without getting into a deep discussion on multiple intelligences, the ability to manipulate others with charisma and charm is a skill - she has it. Book smarts, not so much.

Has anyone verified that calligraph is not Charles? Couric is doing a pretty decent job because she's asking questions you would expect her to ask and then rather than accepting the rehearsed answer which makes no sense, pressing until an appopriate response is given. If anything, Couric is much less abrasive and accusatory when compared with Stephenopolous' Obama interview. In closing, please do not think the Palin is going to get blown out of the water. She will not. Either Gwen Ifill will be label as relentlessly biased in her questioning or, believe it or not, Palin will shine just like she did at the RNC - for all the wrong reasons.

(nb: The McCain camp has already attacked Ifill for asking too many foreign policy questions in Thursday's debate - before the debate http://is.gd/3hpD)

I just want to restate this: Palin is and should be held to a higher level of scrutiny than anyone else right now because:

1) We just met her; 2) We only have a few weeks to figure her out; and 3) The campaign has actively sought to limit our ability to do so

The practical reason Biden doesn't get as much coverage I think all here would agree with: It's old news. We know he slips up as well as we know where he stands politically.

Caligraph, if you made the argument that the reason the "fundamentals of our economy" statement was covered so much was because of bias, I'd be much more willing to agree.

But it's important to recognize that the issue of Palin is fundamentally different, and while you might expect increased scrutiny because of a perceived bias, that doesn't mean that in her case there is also a valid justification for that scrutiny.

"Isn't it dangerous to bring up age when your running mate is 72 years old?"

"That's a defensive question."

She makes a crack about her opponents' age and Couric notes how bizarre it is. Sean Hannity would have never done that!

"But I do find the media and public treatment of her to be indicative of a problem in this country"

It's been a kind of feeding frenzy. A lot of opinion on her is unhinged. But the Gibson and Couric interviews are standard stuff. Obama was grilled for 45 minutes on whether his pastor loves America, flag pins, etc. Pure baloney. The questions Palin is getting are nothing, in terms of hostility, compared to what Biden, Obama and McCain have faced on the national stage.

What's more, she's a politician running for national office who is virtually unknown, and who has consistently lied about her record and refused to be accessible to the press. Frankly, a straight responsible reporter with an interviewee fitting that description should be at least at aggressive as Couric was. What kind of interview do you want? You should really spell it out. Should the Gibson interview have been open book, rather than expect her to know (by heart!) some basic features of Bush policy? You're acting as though Republican politicians don't have to know what every other politically engaged person is constantly talking about.

I'm actually pretty impressed by the ability of conservative commentators to see the reality in front of their faces. Frum, Douthat, Katthleen Parker, and others who initially liked Palin are admitting what a disaster of a pick she is. It's mainly incorrigible appartchiks like Hugh Hewiit that are trying to make this whole appalling story into outrage about media bias.

OK, the issue with Palin and the press is that the public has no idea of her qualifications. Therefore we really need an opportunity to see her on interviews, meet the press, whatever.

I do not think that Couric's questions were hard or difficult, she should have just said the age comment was humor, but Palin didn't. If the interviews were edited to make her look bad, fine, but NO ONE, including the McCain campaign has suggested that. No she goes on about how the elites just are against anyone like her being vice president.

What i do not understand is on the alaska videos i have seen she looks confident, knows a little about subjects and well is personal and likeable, on couric she was so ?? nervous??? or worried that she is immobilized to the point at times where she is not making sense.

So Calligraph, you have to admit her interviews so far are well pretty terrible, and that is all of us have. Sure most people here don't like her, I hate that she was chosen to appease the right wing of the party, rather than McCain picking someone he wanted. What did McCain think, he picks someone who has not stood the horrendous assault of the national media, whose family has some complications he knew the tabloid would eat up, and then he puts her in lockdown and no one can talk to her?????

I am supposed to be comfortable that the US gets to vote for someone they HAVE NO INFORMATION ON. You cannot compare things with Biden, he was a candidate for president twice, there are tons of things on the news about him. His views are like McCains, pretty well known. He has been in maybe 4 debates already this year?

Here is the kind of interview we have on her, with a very sympathetic interviewer.

palinonrightwingradio

Look, anyone who wants to run for vicepresident should know a lot more than I know on the world, and frankly we in the US need a more nuanced understanding on foreign policy than "good guys" and "bad guys". I guess it isn't "axis of evil".

Off the top of my head, I have no idea whether Biden has ever been pressed on the clean coal issue

Of course you don't, because the liberal blogs and media have downplayed their confusion on the issue. Here you go:

Obama is pandering.

There is no such thing as Clean coal. It's a myth perpetrated by the coal industry. Biden probably has little patience for listening to crap about it.

Obama saying he wants the coal industry to build clean coal plants is like daring them to prove how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It will keep them busy why we move on with our lives.

Of course you don't, because the liberal blogs and media have downplayed their confusion on the issue. Here you go:

I meant by the media, not by the McCain smear machine. Although it's a amusing both that you quote one of their ads as evidence and lambast someone who regularly links to the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times as a victim of the "left-wing" media bias.

Did you skip all the other advocates of this war for convenience, or just lack of attention?

Let me be absolutely clear. I am not absolving all those involved in instigating the war in Iraq. My claim was that your charge that the U.N. was party to it was absurd, and that the Bush administration distorted the evidence. You are free to engage with the evidence I cited, which is a tiny fraction among that available, so long as you do not quote a McCain ad, which are not in general known for their respect for facts.

Your accusations that Bush/Cheney created the WMD charge would possibly hold water if Al Gore weren't making the same charges in 1992 and 1997, and if Clinton hadn't bombed Iraq in 1998.

And you fail to distinguish the fact that a country can have a weapons program at one time, and not at another, and that in each case this assessment is based on available evidence. For instance, Iraq appears to have eliminated most of it's weapons programs in the 90's.

Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles within months after the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and its ability to produce such weapons had significantly eroded by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector for Iraq said in a report made public Wednesday.

The report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, intended to offer a near-final judgment about Iraq and its weapons, said Iraq, while under pressure from the United Nations, had "essentially destroyed'' its illicit weapons ability by the end of 1991, with its last secret factory, a biological weapons plant, eliminated in 1996.

So: (1.) U.N. and U.S. pressure--not full scale invasion--appears to have worked. And in any case, neither Gore nor Clinton decided for a full scale invasion, followed by an occupation for which there was no plan, no knowledge of knowledge of the region, nor of possible problems that might emerge. Your comparing apples with mountains. You also left out that the Bush administration did not let UN weapons inspectors finish in Iraq before invading.

Heh, one of you mentioned Charles. If he is reading/ lurking, I would be interested in his view of the economic bailout packages and anyone else's for that matter.

I just don't understand this enough to have a good opinion. Are Obama and McCain wrong about this? I will try and start a forum... if i can figure this out.

k:

For your consideration, here is an opinion on the bail-out from the far right-wing view of things:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul480.html

And kudos again to the House for tanking that POS promptly.

@Calligraph

Your main sin is twofold. First, you pull from an enormous corpus of current events and promote only the events that support your point of view. You disproportionately discount events that question your point of view that are every bit as factual as the events you promote. In other words, you constantly engage in the news version of quote mining.

Secondly, frequently, when somebody (Adam or RedSeven or jillbryant2003 or any of the regulars, really) seriously questions your point of view and appears to have refuted specific claims, you either change topics, complain, or go silent. Rarely do you try to refute them on points.

It reminds me of one Cectic cartoon.

The guiding principle behind most of your arguments seems to be that, fair treatment means equivalent outcomes for both parties. But you know what? Sometimes, one party really is better than the other, even if both have serious problems. And to convince us otherwise would require a better line of argumentation than you provide. Actually, to convince me that you even debate in good faith would require a rather substantial change, as I point out above.

Wow and I thought we could expect more from the party that brought us freedom fries. I also heard she couldnt name one supreme court case besides roe v wade, something you would expect the smart kids in any high school could do.

To defend Sarah Palin is to be a true champion of mediocrity. I suppose that after George Bush has significantly lowered the bar on intelligence in the White House, some people—Republicans at least—will now accept just about anyone. If it seems like the MSM is advocating for Obama, how can you blame them when the Republicans field a half-wit like Palin to be a heartbeat away from being America's next president? If she looked like Janet Reno I can't imagine she would have been the nominee.

Geezuz, you guys have infinite patience trying to 'splain anything to someone who thinks Palin and Obama are on the same playing field politically.

Asnd yeah, Couric and CBS are biased in this instance. They are blatantly anti-DUMBFUCK.

A final point of Calligraph:

He is located in California, California is going to Obama. Calligraph can vote McCain, or stay home and watch tv. It will make no difference to the outcome of this election.

If y'all enjoy killing time by debating him, I quite enjoy reading his stuff. But don't confuse this with any sort of political activism.

If activism is your game, stick with the folks in the rust belt- they seem to be swinging O's way, and gaining momentum.

I'd like to see Obama polling in the 60-40 range by November. Remember: the Bradley effect WILL rear its ugly head.

Oh, and JoAnn- I've been practicing my comment for you on election day:

"See? You were worried about NOTHING"

"SEE? You were worried about nothing"

"See? YOU were worried about nothing"

pbbbbt

;-)

I will thoroughly enjoy hearing the words: "I told you so". :)

Calli, for all his trollishness, is a useful troll for any other republican I run into. I know exactly what Talking points are coming, exactly which ones he has no answers to, and what deflection techniques i'll see used when debating these ideas later.

He's my whetstone for sharpening my knives-out.

A final point of Calligraph: He is located in California, California is going to Obama.

How is it he lost a house in Katrina? A real Enigma this fellow.

Perhaps he is a slum lord?

Perhaps he moved after the storm?

Perhaps he is a 16-year-old troll making things up?

Perhaps he is a 16-year-old troll making things up?

He is too bitter to be that young.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives