Palin's failure -- and our political class's
Thursday October 2, 2008
Categories: Democrats, Republicans
Ross Douthat has an insightful reflection on why Sarah Palin's failure to perform well on TV substantively matters -- but also how that discredits the way we do politics today. Excerpt: In the process of performing very, very badly on...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Since people like Douhat and other political bloggers and pundits are largely responsible for amplifying the spin and perpetuating the political class, is he prepared to change himself? If political discourse has declined in this country, it's not just television to blame. It's also around-the-clock blogging, professional pundits, and the rise of the public intellectual as side show.
In this context it is interesting to read the transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. They went on for hours, used a higher level of vocabulary and discourse than most print sources do today, let alone TV, and they were delivered to crowds of ordinary farmers and workers out in the then-practically-frontier areas of Illinois. Sort of a reality check on how far our politics and our electorate has declined in the last hundred and fifty years.
Daniel, do you mean the sort of bloggers who are using one bad interview as fodder for a week's worth of posts dismissing a candidate's capability and character?
I don't really think it's about simply "performing badly on television". She can't articulate what we have every reason to expect her to as a VP candidate. She could be unlikeable, awkward, anything that may be "poor television performance" yet still be able to speak her message intelligently. She hasn't.
I think his criticisms mostly apply to the McCain campaign. They either support unpopular positions, offer verbal support to positions they have no intention of supporting, support senseless screwed-up versions of various positions, and/or they're Republicans and just generally unpopular.
That has left the McCain campaign without money or ground troops, leaving them to fight the campaign with nothing but the equivalent of mercenary cavalry. And the political form of mercenary cavalry is basically focused on inside the Beltway stuff like TV.
I think the McCain campaign has been pretty good about exploiting its only advantages, but they blew themselves up with the Palin pick, since they only saw it in terms of the spin of the day.
But that's because John McCain is basically a narcissist who only sees the world in terms of TV and how often he appears on TV. That makes him well-adapted to the Senate, but basically lousy at everything else.
max
['It's a real shame he did that to her.']
I agree with Douthat that proficiency in public speaking (which means speaking on TV now) is critical.
However, I think Daniel is right in his expansion of Douthat's point concerning the spin-happy PR and media classes. There is indeed a "gotcha" character here. In thinking about Palin's stumbles in addressing the kind of news sources she reads, it's interesting to ponder what the outcomes would have been.
Let's say that, as governor of Alaska, her primary news source was the Anchorage Daily News and local television station news broadcasts. The response would've been that she was too provincial. Had she said The New York Times, she'd have been branded as some kind of snobby elitist (not by Couric, but by the audience now). If she said National Review or the Weekly Standard, she'd have been labeled a neocon. What would the responses have been had she said Slate, or The New Republic, or Foreign Policy? What would they have been had she mentioned journals dealing with topics of direct interest to her as governor of a unique state: energy policy and production, rural and native population challenges, wildlife conservation and management issues? (And, assuming she likely reads such things, what is says about her ability to get up to speed on difficult questions.)
Palin stumbled badly on that question, but I think that giving a straight answer to it would have given very nearly as much ammunition to her opponents as the stumble did. THAT is a direct result of the phenomenon noted by Douthat, but, as Daniel says, it's being magnified by the grassroots news machine (blogs, pundits, etc.). Just look at how little things get magnified by HuffPo.
Realistically, the skills she needs to develop are redirection, evasion/dodging, and answering-another-question-while-satisfying-the-questioner. I'm not sure that those skills are really beneficial to the rest of us.
Nonetheless, she IS going to have to up her game if she expects to show people she's competent.
Actualy, all Governor Palin needs to do is take a quick trip to Ireland to kiss the Blarney Stone... Nothing else, so far, has worked for her.
It has been utterly hilarious to me to hear Republicans argue the following:
1) Sarah Palin is ready to handle tough negotiations with the likes of Vladimir Putin;
2) Sarah Palin should not be expected to handle tough questions from the likes of Katie Couric.
Forget the political class. Look at the voters who respond to this. Like the financial crisis, it's not just the fault of some muckety mucks in DC. Everyone has a share in the blame.
Politicians can never go wrong naming their hometown paper, especially if they can praise a gifted local writer on national TV. Print media is dying, as Rod can tell you, and there's nothing "provincial" or lowbrow about pointing to your own local paper as a source of information, especially is the politician can tie it to the value of local media in communities all across the country.
And seriously, she should have mentioned the Exxon case as a Supreme Court decision she didn't agree with. How hard is it to say, "Well, Katie, that decision hurt about 30,000 of my constituents who rely on fishing as an industry..."?
There's nothing wrong with sticking to what you know, because it shows a politician who's in touch with everyday people.
Yes, including, environment, upbringing, religious beliefs, situation, lifestyle *and* intelligence, all sprinkled with a hefty dose egocentrism.
Interesting, she mentioned having first listened to Biden's speeches, while in Grade 2. She wasn't yet conceived, while McCain was initially making his.
The very same criticism can be leveled at Barack Obama. He has very little executive experience and what experience he's had has been an unqualified failure. And speaking? Unless he's reading (his speech on the floor of the Senate yesterday was very polished--but he said more eloquently exactly what the Bush Administration is pushing for the bailout. Here's a part of what he said Sept. 16 at that Streisand fundraiser in Hollywood:
"All across America there are people who have worked all their lives, done everything right, and yet find themselves at the age of 55 or 60, uh, without health care, and without any savings to retire on. And they ask themselves what went wrong? What happened? How did we find, find ourselves, uh, in this situation? And all around the world, people, uh, are looking at America and wondering, um, you know, what’s happened to that, that bright and shining light, uh, that, that has stood for what’s best in the world, opportunity and, and, and unity and, and prosperity and freedom and due process and, uh, a Constitution that will respect and provide…"
The point is, he's no great guns when speaking off the cuff either--and he was speaking to a friendly audience. Go to YouTube to watch a video of his speech. It's stunningly bad and in the end doesn't really make sense.
My only point is that if Palin is to be criticized for performance, so ought Obama--in which case, in both experience and performance, it's a tie. And don't forget: Palin isn't running for president. Obama is.
"Actualy, all Governor Palin needs to do is take a quick trip to Ireland to kiss the Blarney Stone... Nothing else, so far, has worked for her."
She can do that, now that she has a passport.
Palin's problem is not that she doesn't "perform" well because she is not speaking well on television. Her problem is that she doesn't know much about the issues she's being asked about. Yes, maybe she could learn to BS better, but that would not mean that she knows any more than she does. I'm not arguing that she's stupid. She just doesn't know much about foreign policy or about other national issues. She isn't being asked "gotcha" questions. She's hardly being asked any questions because no one has had much access to her. She's being hidden away while she studies national issues. And no, the same can't be said about Obama. People may profoundly disagree with his positions, but he has positions and can articulate them. Anyone who has to talk as much as these people do is going to stumble and put their foot in their mouths occasionally. Think back to the primaries. All of the candidates of both parties knew more than Palin about national issues. Really, if she's not ready to face Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson, who can she face? Both are lightweights.
I'm getting dizzy. We're talking about the talk and spinning the spin. Why is Sarah Palin held up to a standard that Obama and Biden are not? Why are we still talking style instead of substance? Because the MSM tells us so? It's fun and dramatic, and far less work than actually comparing what candidates have done. Bread and circuses for the chattering class. Keep your eye on the arena and see who will be thrown to the lions next! In the current version you even get to BE one of the lions, or pretend you are.
I've watched the interviews, and she does come across as ill-informed and not particularly curious. So what? When compared to the statements of the "refined" candidates here answers make just as much sense.
It's gone beyond how they say things-we are now in the territory where the contest is who can promise exactly what we children want the quickest, and when we change our minds, who has the best pivot move?
The TV commercials I see argue about who can cut taxes more. And who can deliver more government goodies. We can't afford either tax cuts or more government goodies if this country is to have a future.
Why can't anybody tell the truth? I suppose we don't want to hear it, and you wouldn't want to risk dissapointing the voters.
We need a good dose of change we can believe in right about now-but it's not going to come from this election.
"My only point is that if Palin is to be criticized for performance, so ought Obama--in which case, in both experience and performance, it's a tie. And don't forget: Palin isn't running for president. Obama is."
True enough. And for the past 18 months we have withstood the criticisms of the right regarding Obama, everything from his pastor to his college career, from his wife's writings in college to his brother's hut in Africa, from his grandmother in Hawaii to his chain-smoking days in Chicago. We've heard it all, in grand and gory detail. We've even heard the muck about him being a Muslim, or not black enough, or too black, or tied in with Tony Rezko, or William Ayers.
We've had all of one month to get to know Sarah Palin.
For nearly two years we heard that Obama lacked experience, that his religion and minister were weird, that his wife was an extremist, that he hung with extremists. We've been read the litany of every vote he has taken in both the Illinois state legislature and the US Senate.
We've had all of one month to get to know Sarah Palin.
For nearly two years you could not open a newspaper, turn on a TV news program, or read a blog without hearing some salacious tidbit about Obama. And even after being proven wrong OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER AGAIN, we STILL hear that Obama is a closet Muslim, or that he is supported by foreign terrorists, or that he voted to have children executed outside the womb.
We've had all of one month to get to know Sarah Palin.
So gregorbo...you want some equality in this? Fine...let's drop Obama since he has been on your plate for the last two years, and let us dissect Palin the way the right dissected Obama. We've only got 4 more weeks to get through a lot of territory. We need to crucify...er, examine her husband's life, dig a little deeper into that cult she worships with, and get some square answers regarding allegations of infidelity that have been raised.
And as for her running for VP...come on, we all know that if McCain is elected he will be the oldest man ever sworn in for the first term of the Presidency. If the GOP doesn't want us to worry about Palin becoming President, then make McCain release his medical records like he did 10 years ago. Back then we had 1500 pages of material to go through on him.
What has happened since then that makes him unwilling to level with the American people? Until we get an answer to that question, you bet your bottom dollar we are going to go over Palin like she was on the top of the ticket.
A tie?
You are not reading any newspapers or watching the interviews on TV or online ???
Keep on dreaming. You have ever noticed a difference between night and day, perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gregorbo wrote:
My only point is that if Palin is to be criticized for performance, so ought Obama--in which case, in both experience and performance, it's a tie. And don't forget: Palin isn't running for president. Obama is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Palin is no Obama in any way, shape or form. It's not her performance in interviews that is the problem, it's her LACK of performance in interviews. Tonight's debate is ONLY about Sarah Palin and the reason is that she's the first candidate to NEVER have a press conference where she has to field questions on the fly from several reporters. We don't know Sarah Palin because McCain wouldn't permit her to speak. So we got these controlled experiments where she's talking the choir (Hannity) and the Couric interviews looked like two sisters sitting together with Couric being the older sister trying to help the younger sister remember something from the past.
We don't know what Sarah Palin thinks! That was the subtext of Couric's questions like "What do you read?". If she had said ONE thing like The Wall Street Journal, we'd have an idea of where her mind is. Sometimes when I'm invited to someone's home and discover they have a library, the first thing I do is look at the title of the books they read to see what's on their mind. That's what Couric was asking. She asked the same thing with the supreme court cases. And forgive me, but those stunning non-answers did not reassure me about Palin. It made me think she has a coffee table full of People Magazine because Evanna Trump added such elegance to Alaska by showing up for a book signing at Barnes and Noble. I thought of Condoleeza Rice when I heard of the Palin pick and wondered what the hell difference does it make that you prepare yourself for the job you want when a crummy degree in Journalism and a head full of platitudes is all you need to be a heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world.
Douthat: "Her performances reflect badly on her readiness for the vice presidency, no question - but they reflect badly on our whole compromised, spin-happy political class as well."
Well, which is it? (1) Is Palin unqualified because she hasn't mastered the fine art of Washington Senatorial b.s.? (2) Or, is our politics bankrupt because only those who have mastered the b.s. are qualified to serve?
Douthat is saying that Palin may be qualified but we'll never know before November 4th because she hasn't mastered the political b.s. necessary for persuading people to elect you to these highest offices. What do any of us really know about any of these 4 (Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin)? Do we know them personally? Of course not. What we understand about them comes from media images of them and our understanding of them based on TV appearances, etc.
Of course, we're not dealing with a level playing field. Let Obama and Biden come under the same scrutiny that Palin has received and the wheels would come off the Democratic ticket. Let Obama submit himself to a one-hour grilling (or to a day-long chat fest with camera crews shooting the whole thing) by a Laura Ingraham or a George Will or Charles Krauthammer or a Michelle Malkin. Only then would we REALLY get to know just what of person he is.
These MSM reporters and anchors are overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal and they can't help themselves. Many of them (Stephanopoulous, Bill Moyers, Russert) were former Democratic Party operatives.
None of them have any love for -- let alone grasp of -- social conservatives. When they can't use us (Dreher), they abuse us (Palin).
"Let Obama submit himself to a one-hour grilling (or to a day-long chat fest with camera crews shooting the whole thing) by a Laura Ingraham or a George Will or Charles Krauthammer or a Michelle Malkin."
Why haven't any of these folks talked with Palin yet? Obama went on O'Reilly's show and on FOX News Sunday. Has Palin been on O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone?"
Why not?
Reaganite, she can't even handle friendly venue interviews. Malkin would break her neck trying to toss softballs to Palin, as would Ingraham. And Krauthammer might even actually look alive as he teed up soft-pitches to Palin.
Why doesn't she come out and interview for these friendly people, Reaganite? The simple answer...she isn't ready for it.
If you aren't ready to be interviewed by friends, why should your enemies pay you any attention?
I think Turmarion is the only one that has hit the nail on the head. The biggest part of the problem is not the political class, its us. We have had many wonders in the past hundred years, Radio, TV, computers, blackberries. We are trained and conditioned to graze media and we expect bite size pieces. It used to be that people would travel to church and it might take all day. They would go and listen to a sermon that might last for hours, and they wouldf comu back and tell the people who weren't there what the sermon was about. When politicians couldn't use instant bedia, they might only have one chance to get their message in front of people and people would have expected long speeches so they could learn about the politician. Memory and attention spans are like muscles. They need exercise. We don't use them, we let our technology remember for us. How can we expect ind depth presentations from our political class when we can't, for the most part, sit still for it?
Reaganite: Obama HAS gotten grilled from someone far more hostile to him than Couric was to Palin: Hillary, many times. He beat her, by the rules, fair and square. Come to think of it Oldster McCrankypants was pretty rough on him too the other night.
You know very well what Douthat answers would be to your 2 questions... 1) Sure it's BS, but she is unqualified to serve because she can't think on her feet well enough, 2) our politics are bankrupt because BS is the major currency of our political discussions.
BS isn't the only currency - we all here are free from it of course ;) But BS does get the air time and - as I said on the other thread - very few people give any of this much thought at all. BS is the most effective vehicle to reach the vapid throngs.
C'mon Reaganite, you're reasonable. You know that exageration isn't going to convince many here.
Btw, I would love to see George Will take Obama down a notch or two - after the election, of course.
Why are basic communication skills important? Hmmm, do you think they might come in handy when you're negotiating with foreign leaders, trying to get a controversial piece of legislation passed, or talking to the public in the aftermath of a crisis?
I cannot believe how completely and uncritically most on the right have given themselves over to the identity politics and cult of personality that they claim to disdain. The false equivalences, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I's, and I'm-covering-my-ears-la-la-la-la-la-neener-neener-neener that are flying around on the Corner today are truly stomach-turning. If that's your base, y'all need a new base.
The medium is the message.
MarkM:
Palin's been interviewed by a couple of the folks at FNN (Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren). She's scheduled for O'Reilly later in the month. I'm not certain she's been interviewed by Chris Wallace for his Sunday show but she may have (perhaps someone else here can clarify this)
I saw O'Reilly's interview with Obama, who came across pretty lame. Of course, we didn't see the kind of continous re-looping of Obama's more embarrasing responses on the MSM. Of course, we didn't. And we should be surprised we didn't?
O'Reilly's was the first really challenging interview (as in having his answers probed and challenged and dissed if they failed the smell test) Obama faced, and as Reaganite says, he didn't do so well. Obama would not do well if faced by a Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh. But pigs will fly (or wear lipstick) before we ever hear or see that happening.
"I saw O'Reilly's interview with Obama, who came across pretty lame. Of course, we didn't see the kind of continous re-looping of Obama's more embarrasing responses on the MSM. Of course, we didn't. And we should be surprised we didn't?"
Have we seen them on FOX News? They own the footage. Have they been replaying it over and over?
If not, why not?
The crux of your argument seems to be that the media is out to get Sarah Palin, therefore we should not expect her to do as well as she would in an otherwise unbiased arena.
Now, heaven forbid anything happens to John McCain, for I honestly wish him many, many more fruitful years here on earth (especially if he happens to win in November), but let's say that something does happen, and Palin ends up as President. Will she be facing an unbiased arena when she sits down with the leaders of the European Union, or with NATO leaders, or with any other group of international leaders?
You are whining because you say she isn't getting a fair shake. TOUGH! Deal with it. If she wins does she really think that "the dragon" Putin will give her a fair shake if he finds himself across the negotiating table from her?
Quit your whining, Reaganite. If your candidate cannot handle the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. And if the best you can offer in her defense is a mealy-mouthed "it's not fair" then you are EXACTLY part of the problem Greenwald identifies with movement conservatives.
Face it...Palin is blowing it. All she has to do to not lose to night is keep her clothes on, keep the drool bib in place, and not fall down too many times.
Is that a low enough hurdle for her (and you), or do we need to not worry about the drool bib?
I completely agree. It is to some extent on both sides of the fence - but as a conservative I am pretty insulted when I am categorized with ignorance. Social and economic conservativism have gone to the wayside these days as we spend so much time focusing on the things that don't matter.
The MSM, and to a greater extent the populous, would rather skirt the issues and engage in quick quips than engage in a meaningful and productive debate. I sense a (subconscious?) belief in the USA where if two individuals (parties) don't agree explicitly; they are automatically in total opposition. That couldn't be further from the truth but it nevertheless puts all pieces of the puzzle on the defensive and stifles meaningful progress. The lack of discussion on Palin's readiness and her appalling lack of communication skills, and the outcry from the right that it is unfair to her is a complete embodiment of that process. Don't forget that Barack has been under the gun for nearly a year now. We've heard Palin speak twice (in the present tense) and both times it was completely structured and in no way representative of the pressure she would face as a vice president.
I think we all need to grow up a little bit.
Many post Bush43 conservatives strike me as the mirror image of cold war Soviets who feel ideology and loyalty trump competence-hence Gonzo, Brownie and Palin to name a few. Wouldn't McCain have been better served to name someone like Gov Jindal as his VEEP pick instead of the cypher that is Palin?
It's pretty clear that the whole dustup is designed to cover any possible failure by Palin as "media bias."
- Gwen Ifill's book announcement was made in a press release back in July, a press release that was carried in many national newspapers.
- She was interviewed by Time magazine about her book, and her interview was published in August.
- Obama and McCain signed off on her as moderator for as moderator the same day that the Time article hit the press.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/01/ifill-urged-step-aside-debate/
But hey, let's have her step aside. Let's put someone in the moderator's chair that even Reaganite would accept.
Let's put Ann Coulter in as the moderator for this debate. And just to make it "fair and balanced" we'll have the questions asked by a panel of unbiased media processionals, as per Reaganite's recommendations.
Michele Malkin
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Now...with that panel and with that moderator, do you think your girl might be able to not look too inept, Reaganite? Or do we need to have John McCain and a few members of the campaign team stand behind her and feed her answers on index cards?
The fat lady has entered the building.
www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_pulling_out_of_Michigan.html?showall
"O'Reilly's was the first really challenging interview (as in having his answers probed and challenged and dissed if they failed the smell test) Obama faced, and as Reaganite says, he didn't do so well. Obama would not do well if faced by a Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh. But pigs will fly (or wear lipstick) before we ever hear or see that happening."
So when will we see these august guardians of fairness interview Sarah Palin, EricW? When will we hear that strident baritone voice of Druggie Limbaugh tee up a few for Palin on his talk show? How about Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, or Michael Medved? Surely one of the three Mikes will be talking to Palin soon, won't they?
Boy...the way you conservatives are whining, I'm wondering where the "bulldog in lipstick" name came from. I mean, if she can't stand up to Gwen Ifill, maybe we shouldn't put her in the position where she might have to stand up to someone REALLY nasty, like Jeff Gannon.
MarcM: "The crux of your argument seems to be that the media is out to get Sarah Palin, therefore we should not expect her to do as well .... You are whining because you say she isn't getting a fair shake. TOUGH! Deal with it. If she wins does she really think that "the dragon" Putin will give her a fair shake..."
MarcM, you have no clue what my argument is. Yes, the MSM can't stand Palin and, yes, they're out to get her ... but I wouldn't mind this if they devoted as much energy to exposing the faults of those they favor.
Of course Putin will be tough to deal with and, yes, the MSM treatment will toughen Palin for the task. But the MSM handle Obama, Biden and other candidates they support with kid gloves and this severely affects the ability of the voting public to obtain the kind of unbiased information they need in order to make wise decisions. This systematic disinformation and journalistic malpractice is a crime against the civic culture in this cournty. What's worse is the way so many in this country (incuding a number of sincere but naive conservatives) allow themselves to become lambs for the slaughter without uttering a whit of protest.
BTW, in the interest of preparing our leaders to deal with Putin, shouldn't the MSM provide the same treatment toward those they favor (Obama) as they do towards those they despise (Palin). Doesn't Obama deserve the same preparation (and toughening process) as Palin is getting?
Reaganite: Hillary was damn tough on Obama. So was McCain - far tougher than Couric was on Palin.
Oh I think I know exactly what your doing, Reaganite. You know your candidate is going to tank, and you are making sure that when she does she and her supporters have a lot of excuses to offer as to why she tanked.
In short, you are pre-whining the defeat.
The truth of the matter is that she is in over her head, Reaganite. Which leads me to ask this question: why did she tell McCain she would accept the nomination? Why on earth would someone with as much going for her in the GOP as she had willingly walk down this path? I mean, she had to know that the experience issue would be HUGE with her. And, if she thinks like you do, she had to know the MSM would be all over her for this. Why on earth would she do this when it is so readily apparent that she is nowhere near qualified?
What was she offered for sacrificing what could have been a promising career?
"But the MSM handle Obama, Biden and other candidates they support with kid gloves and this severely affects the ability of the voting public to obtain the kind of unbiased information they need in order to make wise decisions. This systematic disinformation and journalistic malpractice is a crime against the civic culture in this cournty. What's worse is the way so many in this country (incuding a number of sincere but naive conservatives) allow themselves to become lambs for the slaughter without uttering a whit of protest."
And here we have the epitaph of the McCain/Palin campaign. The handwriting is on the wall. The "L" word is starting to be used in hushed tones in back hallways. McCain has pulled his campaign from Michigan, which was viewed as one of his best chances to turn a blue state red. Money is starting to be an issue for his campaign as people see the growing gap in the polls.
And the excuse machine is starting up. The media is unfair. They play "gotcha" games. People are uninformed because of this. And turncoat CINOs (conservatives in name only) are aiding and abetting the enemy.
This is what movement conservatism has come down to...whining about media bias. Gone are the days of expounding policy, whipping legislators, and pushing bills through Congress. Gone are the days of pointing to the economy and talking about growth. Gone are the days of always counting on FOX News to give you a friendly interview when needed.
Welcome to the ashheap of history, Reaganite, the new home of Reagan Conservatism.
I'm with Derek. I give the whole damn class -- yours, mine and ours -- a failing grade.
To the point that the electorate has the primary blame: where do you think the current members of the class started from? While campaigning and especially while in office, they have ample opportunity to turn it all around.
Of course, they want to get re-elected, so their motivation tends to be the brick wall "protecting" them from those opportunities.
Remove the sexy imagery, the gushy sentimentality, and especially the schoolyard taunting, and you have a basic message that the politicians are obligated to provide:
This is the situation. These are the facts. This is the cause. These are the solutions we've come up with. I think solution X is the right one, my colleagues agree/disagree with me. If you think another solution is better, tell me.
The only motivation the electorate gets for wanting to shoot the messenger comes from the messenger's potential opponents in the next primary and general elections. Remove that, and when a politician is caught lying, his or her removal becomes self-evident.
Journalism used to be the gatekeeper. It could be counted on to provide the disclosure needed to determine that a politician actually lied. Now, it is the politicians' bedfellow, that not being the strange thing: the strange thing is that we watch them avidly and applaud.
MarcM: Don't be counting those chickens just yet. Palin may not tank tonight and I have a hunch that Obama needs at least a 5% spread in polls to actually take any given state. I think people will actually vote differently when then close that curtain.
Oh, this is priceless...all the Palin-ites huffing and puffing that Katie Couric would never ask Joe Biden what he thought about Supreme Court cases. Except...she did. And the reason you don't know about it, is that he didn't embarrass himself the way Palin did:
(begin quoted material)
Couric: Are there Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?
Biden: You know, I'm the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act. And I said that every woman in America, if they are beaten and abused by a man, should be able to take that person to court - meaning you should be able to go to federal court and sue in federal court the man who abused you if you can prove that abuse. But they said, "No, that a woman, there's no federal jurisdiction." And I held, they acknowledged, I held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce.
Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force. And the Supreme Court said, "Well, there is an impact on commerce, but this is federalizing a private crime and we're not going to allow it." I think the Supreme Court was wrong about that decision.
(end quote)
So, the question becomes, are you Palin defenders really that ill-informed, are you willfully distorting the facts, or are you just makin' stuff up as you go along? Because really, you aren't helping her, or your cause. Kinda the opposite. You're making people ever more sure that letting this brand of conservatism die a natural death is exactly what this country needs. And face it: all it took was George Bush and Republicans holding every branch of government for everybody to see just what they're really getting with this brand, and for the majority of Americans to recoil in horror.
Or will that one last interview of Obama by Rush finally reveal that he's just as know-nothing as Sarah? Obama's never been grilled...it would be hilarious if the state of our country weren't so disastrous after 2 terms of Republican rule.
Rod, this may be slightly off-topic, but did anybody notice whether Palin's Christian Heritage proclamation for the State of Alaska mentioned that the earliest part of Alaska's Christian Heritage was and is Russian Orthodox?
"MarcM: Don't be counting those chickens just yet. Palin may not tank tonight and I have a hunch that Obama needs at least a 5% spread in polls to actually take any given state. I think people will actually vote differently when then close that curtain."
Hidden racism could certainly be a factor in the election. But the main reason Obama, or any other Dem candidate, needs to have at least a 5% spread is that the GOP probably couldn't steal the election by that wide a margin.
Has anyone explained to 'Reaganite' that the 'MSN' she claims 'despises Palin' is (after less than a two week honeymoon) largely Republican?
Confucius Say: “Gal trying to slay dragon right and left chops off own head.”
"Palin may not tank tonight and I have a hunch that Obama needs at least a 5% spread in polls to actually take any given state. I think people will actually vote differently when then close that curtain."
State Obama McCain Start End Pollster
Florida 46% 42% Sep 27 Sep 30 Suffolk U.
Florida 49% 46% Sep 30 Sep 30 Insider Advantage
Florida 51% 43% Sep 27 Sep 29 Quinnipiac U.
Florida 51% 47% Sep 28 Sep 30 Opinion Research
Georgia 44% 50% Sep 30 Sep 30 Insider Advantage
Iowa 55% 39% Sep 29 Sep 30 Research 2000
Indiana 45% 46% Sep 28 Sep 30 Research 2000
Minnesota 54% 43% Sep 28 Sep 30 Opinion Research
Missouri 49% 48% Sep 28 Sep 30 Opinion Research
Mississippi 44% 52% Sep 30 Sep 30 Rasmussen
New Mexico 52% 44% Sep 29 Sep 30 SurveyUSA
Nevada 48% 47% Sep 30 Sep 30 Insider Advantage
Nevada 51% 47% Sep 28 Sep 30 Opinion Research
Ohio 50% 42% Sep 27 Sep 29 Quinnipiac U.
Pennsylvania 54% 39% Sep 27 Sep 29 Quinnipiac U.
Tennessee 39% 58% Sep 29 Sep 29 Rasmussen
Texas 43% 52% Sep 29 Sep 29 Rasmussen
Virginia 53% 44% Sep 28 Sep 30 Opinion Research
Read 'em and veep, Reaganite.
I've been waiting for awhile for someone to say what Ross did.
In so far as Palin is a real person and not a phony at heart, she is going to have a hard time acting like a phony, which is what the MSM demands of politicians. Indeed, even Joe Biden, gasbag that he is, has always gotten into trouble because in the midst of all his fog of words he does occasionally stumble and say something that he is really thinking, like his comment about Obama being clean and articulate.
In the context of 24/7 media, awkwardness is realness, slickness is phoniness. Palin is articulate in many contexts, and is a super speaker in person or on TV. If she can do OK tonight she'll be fine. It's John McCain, and his failure to hang Fannie and Freddie around the necks of the Democrats--who caused this crises with their affirmative-action mortgages and the housing bubble that created--who will lose this thing, not her.
MarcM
So gregorbo...you want some equality in this? Fine...let's drop Obama since he has been on your plate for the last two years, and let us dissect Palin the way the right dissected Obama. We've only got 4 more weeks to get through a lot of territory. We need to crucify...er, examine her husband's life, dig a little deeper into that cult she worships with, and get some square answers regarding allegations of infidelity that have been raised.
Um, no, for equality we should just asserting things about her and let the media eventually correct them, or not. Like what happened with Obama. I'll go first: Alaska was not a US state when she was born and thus she's not a citizen. Also she secretly has red, demon-colored eyes and wears contacts to hid this.
But anyway, the idea that the media has been 'unfair' to Palin is idiotic. It's not the media's fault she suddenly appeared on the national scene a month ago and has refused almost all interviews. The media has, actually, be exceptionally lax at pointing this out.
Saying 'she shouldn't be asked hard questions now' is akin to saying she shouldn't be asked them ever. She's the one who showed up two months from her election, and then ignored the public for another month.
So, yes, the attacks might actually even be a little more frenzied than normal, although honestly I haven't seen anything like that. But all the vetting and hostility and raised questions that the other candidates had two years to fend off, she gets one month, but that is no one's fault but hers and McCain for putting her in this situation.
McCain, if you recall, sat around doing nothing after winning the GOP primary (While the Democrats were still fighting) for longer than the amount of time between his announcement and the election. Even if he was waiting for the Democratic fight to be over for some reason, there was still another two months there!
But McCain sprung Palin literally a week before she was nominated for VP. And then people had the nerve to assert she wasn't ready for interviews, when McCain had literally been doing nothing for, what, four months? You want to point fingers at the compressed media coverage of her, you point them straight at McCain.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.