Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Still Not Ready for Prime Time
Via the indispensable Jake Tapper, a wonderfully incoherent distillation of what's ailing the GOP from the winkin' maverick, Gov. Sarah Palin. From an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:
"Sitting here in these chairs that I'm going to be proposing but in working with these governors who again on the front lines are forced to and it's our privileged obligation to find solutions to the challenges facing our own states every day being held accountable, not being just one of many just casting votes or voting present every once in a while, we don't get away with that. We have to balance budgets and we're dealing with multibillion dollar budgets and tens of thousands of employees in our organizations."
But you simply must meet her. Only then will you coastal elites understand her deep intelligence and political acumen.
|11.14.08 @ 12:49AM|#
Beneath the words "THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT
BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.", CNN's original
transcript apparently already has...
BLITZER: Is there anything new that you want to come up with -- a new Sarah Palin initiative that you want to release right now?
PALIN: Nothing specific right now, sitting here in these chairs, that I'm going to be proposing. But in working with these governors, who, again, on the front lines, are forced to -- and it's our privileged and obligation to find solutions to the challenges facing our own states every day; being held accountable, not being just one of many just casting votes or voting present every once in awhile.
We don't get away with that. We have to balance budgets. And we're dealing with multi-billion dollar budgets and tens of thousands of employees in our organization;...
Now that doesn't prove she's competent. But poorly punctuated
transcripts taken out of context are not the speaker's fault.
|11.14.08 @ 12:58AM|#
Seen beneath the words "THIS IS A RUSH DECLARATION. THIS COPY
MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED."...
All men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Anonymoose.|11.14.08 @ 1:16AM|#
MikeP | November 14, 2008, 12:49am | #
Beneath the words "THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.", CNN's original transcript apparently already has...
BLITZER: Is there anything new that you want to come up with -- a new Sarah Palin initiative that you want to release right now?
PALIN: Nothing specific right now, sitting here in these chairs, that I'm going to be proposing. But in working with these governors, who, again, on the front lines, are forced to -- and it's our privileged and obligation to find solutions to the challenges facing our own states every day; being held accountable, not being just one of many just casting votes or voting present every once in awhile.
We don't get away with that. We have to balance budgets. And we're dealing with multi-billion dollar budgets and tens of thousands of employees in our organization;...
Now that doesn't prove she's competent. But poorly punctuated transcripts taken out of context are not the speaker's fault.
Stop destroying our fun.
The Indispensible Anonymous Co|11.14.08 @ 1:25AM|#
I simply must meet you, elite bullshit-regurgitating guy.
|11.14.08 @ 1:32AM|#
Sarah Palin: Sharp as a light bulb. Bright as a tack. Winks like a Hooters waitress.
alan|11.14.08 @ 2:25AM|#
John in Nashville | November 14, 2008, 1:32am | #
Sarah Palin: Sharp as a light bulb. Bright as a tack. Winks like a
Hooters waitress.
What can I get'cha, hon.
That fits Palin to a T!
Mr. Blather|11.14.08 @ 3:05AM|#
Actually, she's much better here at delivering basically the
same message:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va4hnpu7JKs
What happened to the folksy twang?
|11.14.08 @ 5:02AM|#
MikeP says it all in the second comment of this thread. The
casual, spoken words of virtually *anyone* will look ridiculous if
rendered poorly into print.
Haven't you ever had your brain outrace your tongue? I know it
happens to me, and I'm no fool. I don't know that Palin is a genius
or anything, but this particular attack on her just looks like a
hackishly done hatchet job.
I'm not one of the people swooning over Palin. I just don't like
hatchet jobs, and will readily defend even the scum of the earth
against them. There's no need to waste your credibility through
crappy arguments, not when there are so many legitimate arguments
you could use instead. ;-)
|11.14.08 @ 6:43AM|#
As far as public speaking goes, your current president set the
bar pretty low.
CB
|11.14.08 @ 7:05AM|#
Question to Wolf Blitzer: Did Gov. Palin ever mislead the
Public?
Blitzer: Yes.
Question 2: Wolf, what full name is written on your birth
certificate?
A: Irrelevant detail, trivia, unimportant, technical...this
interview is over!
|11.14.08 @ 7:46AM|#
Michael, please provide a tripe avoidance alert when linking to
any piece by Fred Barnes.
Palin is just a symptom of what the Republican party has devolved
to: intellectual laziness and fiscal irresponsibility pressed in
the pages of an unopened Gideon Bible and wrapped in the flag.
Federal Dog|11.14.08 @ 7:51AM|#
Given your reliance on a preliminary and unpunctuated version of her remarks, you should be more concerned about your own lack of acumen than about any alleged shortcomings in Sarah Palin.
VM|11.14.08 @ 8:04AM|#
Palin is just a symptom of what the Republican party has devolved to: intellectual laziness and fiscal irresponsibility pressed in the pages of an unopened Gideon Bible and wrapped in the flag.
[steps back and admires (awesome!)]
(although "intellectual laziness" is giving the creationists*
a bit way, way, way too much credit. "intellectual
void" is more like it!)
* recalling the "evolution question" at the GOP debate
Fluffy|11.14.08 @ 8:04AM|#
To all Palin defenders:
Reason is obligated to continue to attack Palin. You may
not be aware of this, but before Palin became the GOP's VP nominee,
she was one of those Republican politicians that Reason
periodically anoints as a potential "savior" for the
libertarian-Republican caucus. Her relative obscurity made this
easy to do, because in the absence of any real information about
her Reason staff projected on to her all sorts of positive
libertarianish characteristics.
To make up for that "Era of Good Palin Feelings", they have to be
twice as abusive as anyone else now. Their Great Libertarian Hope
was exposed during the campaign as a governor whose popularity is
mainly rooted in her ability to collectivize and distribute to the
masses more oil wealth than previous governors, and as a happy
apologist for the most unlibertarian aspects of the Bush era. She
was only exposed as a Chauncey Gardineresque figure for whom
politics is just something she's doing instead of reading a
teleprompter as a weathergirl somewhere instead. If I was in
Reason's shoes I'd be doing everything I could to distance
myself from my previous embrace of Palin too.
SIV|11.14.08 @ 8:17AM|#
Governor Palin still looks more like a "libertarian-leaning"
small government politician compared to %98 + of elected
Republicans and %100 of elected Democrats.
You can't judge her on the issues from her stint on the McCain
ticket as she wasn't running on her own.Let's see what develops
over the next few years.
|11.14.08 @ 8:22AM|#
Why are people still fucking obsessing over Palin? She lost, you
chumps. If she has any political future, it will shake out over the
next few years. But I guess a little bit of moderately attractive
political pussy can't be resisted by a lot of you, whether it's to
love or hate.
Really, who the fuck gives a shit about Palin any more, and
why?
|11.14.08 @ 8:25AM|#
Governor Palin still looks more like a "libertarian-leaning"
small government politician compared to %98 + of elected
Republicans and %100 of elected Democrats.
Yeah that's why she thinks the oil industry in Alaska is
collectively owned by the people of the state so it's OK to tax the
corporations to distribute their profits to the citizens.
|11.14.08 @ 8:36AM|#
Epi,
Really, who the fuck gives a shit about Palin any more, and
why?
You said it: "moderately attractive political pussy".
Probably some Freudian thing about "screwing" a politician rather
than the other way around.
Xmas|11.14.08 @ 8:54AM|#
Commie,
She renegotiated mineral rights given away for a song by a corrupt,
former governor. FYI, the mineral rights are collectively owned by
the state of Alaska.
|11.14.08 @ 8:57AM|#
Epi,
Because she's the only moderately interesting politician on the
national stage right now? I mean really, who else in the
"mainstream" of politics should we be talking about right now?
We've got a played out lame duck in the White House that most
people don't even want to think about let alone talk about. We've
got a pompous blow hard on deck who promises more of the same. And
we've got the decrepit, uncharismatic gimp who just lost.
In terms of Palin's speaking style, I have a theory on whether or
not you view that as a negative correlates pretty strongly with
whether or not you enjoyed Deadwood. I loved Deadwood and I love
listening to Palin speak because it reminds of the show. People get
so caught up in the style they overlook the fact that she's an
incredibly coherent public speaker. Far more so than McCain and
even better than Obama when you factor in extemporaneous remarks
(which frequently reduces Obama to a series of "uh's" and
stammers).
SIV|11.14.08 @ 8:59AM|#
Yeah that's why she thinks the oil industry
resource in Alaska is collectively owned by the people of the
state...
fixed
actually what they own collectively is the pipeline corridor
IIRC.
|11.14.08 @ 9:01AM|#
Why are the costal elite's condescending to Palin ? They were thrilled with William Burroughs' cut-up BS in the "Naked Lunch". Maybe Palin supporters should defend her as a literary maverick.
shrike|11.14.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Go, Sarah, GO!
I can't think of a better spokesmodel for the vast innanity of the
fundie/conservative "movement". But please lie low for the time
being before you use your political hourglass up. We need you to
emerge fresh and perky toward the end of primary season in order to
"rescue" some soggy pragmatist the GOP is tempted by.
Then you can swoop in and save the GOP's "real American" movement -
thereby insuring another humiliating defeat and maybe - no - for
SURE -- some rational party will emerge from the ashes of the GOP's
dead carcass.
|11.14.08 @ 9:23AM|#
"MikeP says it all in the second comment of this thread. The
casual, spoken words of virtually *anyone* will look ridiculous if
rendered poorly into print."
I read the correctly punctuated transcript and she stills sounds
like she's all over the place, throwing in random thoughts, trying
to hit points she thinks might go with what she already said. Worst
of all, it sounds like she says things that don't mean anything in
order to give her a time to think of the next point.
|11.14.08 @ 9:35AM|#
MikeP,
Try listening to the interview. The properly punctuated transcript
gives her way to much credit.
I still don't understand why people are so eager to defend her from
her own words. Calling transcripts and interviews "hatchet jobs"
(bramblyspam) is kind of like me complaining to my boss about being
judged by my work product. Lame.
robc|11.14.08 @ 9:36AM|#
Lamar,
I read the correctly punctuated transcript and she stills
sounds like she's all over the place, throwing in random thoughts,
trying to hit points she thinks might go with what she already
said.
So, she speaks like Neil Stephenson writes?
I would consider that a good thing.
I think the question around Palin is - Do we want a president with
an IQ around 100?
I think we have had a number of very, very smart presidents - and
many of them have sucked.
Palin isnt dumb, she's just not a 140+ IQ type.
|11.14.08 @ 9:37AM|#
"People get so caught up in the style they overlook the fact
that she's an incredibly coherent public speaker. Far more so than
McCain and even better than Obama when you factor in extemporaneous
remarks (which frequently reduces Obama to a series of "uh's" and
stammers)."
Instead of saying "uh" Palin has the bad habit (I did the same
thing when I started law school) of saying throwaway phrases
instead of "uh".
BDB|11.14.08 @ 9:38AM|#
There's no convincing the Palin-bots who probably also keep laminated photos of her in their desk drawer.
|11.14.08 @ 9:38AM|#
Yah, she shore does talk funny.
Because an east coast accent always makes banalities seem
profound.
I expect that level of shallowness from, oh, Kurt Andersen, but one
likes to think that a libertarian publication might be a little
less provincial....
robc|11.14.08 @ 9:39AM|#
Chris S,
Calling transcripts and interviews "hatchet jobs" (bramblyspam)
is kind of like me complaining to my boss about being judged by my
work product. Lame.
This is one of my biggest problems with current politics. People
like you think that interviews are the "work product" of
politicians. I dont give a fuck what they say, I only care about
what they do. The "work product" of a governor or president is
something completely different.
Stupid Kennedy/Nixon debate.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 9:41AM|#
"Mike G | November 14, 2008, 9:38am | #
Yah, she shore does talk funny.
Because an east coast accent always makes banalities seem
profound."
Again, The Idiot's Guide to Defending Palin
1) Accuse your opponent of elitism (add in something about being
"coastal" for extra effect)
2) Accuse your opponent of sexim
3) Evade the relevant issue, and talk about Obama or Biden
4) Throw in something about "the MSM"
|11.14.08 @ 9:45AM|#
robc,
Oh, silly people like me. Do I think a person's ability to
coherenty discuss national issues reflects their grasp of these
issues and general intellect? For some strange reason, yes.
As for what "she's done," the answer is: not much. Same for Obama.
But we somehow have to find a way to judge these people. At the end
of the day, most people who sound like imbeciles are imbeciles.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 9:48AM|#
"Do we want a president with an IQ around 100? "
If we still had a late 19th Century Presidency, sure, but given
that we're stuck with an Imperial Presidency, hell no.
|11.14.08 @ 9:50AM|#
If Palin is such an idiot, I would think Reason could do better than some off hand quote taken out of context in a poorly transcribed interview. Really? This is all you have got? Reason really seems to be obsessed with the woman. I wonder how long before she has to get a restraining order.
robc|11.14.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Chris,
As I pointed out above somewhere, she doesnt sound like an
imbecile. She sounds like a 100 IQ person. Average. There may be
very good reasons we wouldnt want an average intelligence person in
the White House (they may not be able to grasp all of the foreign
dynamics and stuff) but lets not call them imbeciles.
However, I think that is the problem. If the anti-Palin people
called her average instead of an imbecile, it wouldnt resonate as a
problem. Which may mean it isnt a problem.
|11.14.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Oh for crying out loud. Does anybody really give a rats ass what the Governor of Alaska has to say? I know we are all waiting on pins an needles for the final results of the Stevens race. But after that, can we PLEASE go back to ignoring Alaska. If Palin crawls back out of the woodwork in four years we can pick it up then.
|11.14.08 @ 9:51AM|#
And didn't we just have the "average intelligence" president?
Who here still thinks that worked out?
No, not every genius has been a good president. But every idiot
have been a bad president.
robc|11.14.08 @ 9:52AM|#
matt2,
Care to share your reasoning? I probably agree.
BDB,
Maybe the best way to get back to a 19th century executive is to
have someone who cant handle a 21st century executive. :)
BDB|11.14.08 @ 9:52AM|#
"Warren | November 14, 2008, 9:51am | #
Oh for crying out loud. Does anybody really give a rats ass what
the Governor of Alaska has to say? "
She's the biggest celebrity in the world...but is she READY TO
LEAD?
robc|11.14.08 @ 9:53AM|#
Chris,
Have we had any "idiot" presidents?
I mean, Bush may be average, but I doubt he is an idiot.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 9:53AM|#
"Maybe the best way to get back to a 19th century executive is
to have someone who cant handle a 21st century executive. :)"
We tried that the last eight years. How'd that work out for ya?
robc|11.14.08 @ 9:55AM|#
BDB,
No, Bush seemed perfectly able to handle a 21st century executive
position, unfortunately.
robc|11.14.08 @ 9:56AM|#
Hell, Bush managed to convince congress to fund TWO land wars in
Asia, despite the popularity of The Princess Bride.
He was far too capable in the position.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 9:56AM|#
"robc | November 14, 2008, 9:56am | #
Hell, Bush managed to convince congress to fund TWO land wars in
Asia, despite the popularity of The Princess Bride."
That is more of a commentary on the spinelessness of Congress than
the cunning of Bush.
robc|11.14.08 @ 9:58AM|#
That is more of a commentary on the spinelessness of
Congress than the cunning of Bush.
We just elected 2 members of that congress to the executive.
Sigh.
|11.14.08 @ 9:59AM|#
robc,
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by calling "average" stupid. In
fact, if you can't name a single news paper, you're an imbecile.
Period. I'm not going to adopt a relativistic view of intelligence
and promote this woman because she's just as smart (dumb) as my
ignorant neighbor.
|11.14.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Just for those of us who find the continuing Palin pile-on a
little weird, could we have an unedited transcript of an Obama or
Biden interview.
You know, "fair and balanced" and all that. Practically nobody is
immune to fishtailing all over the road when speaking ex
tempore.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 10:00AM|#
"R C Dean | November 14, 2008, 9:59am | #
Just for those of us who find the continuing Palin pile-on a little
weird, could we have an unedited transcript of an Obama or Biden
interview."
I see RC Dean likes option # 3.
"robc | November 14, 2008, 9:58am | #
That is more of a commentary on the spinelessness of Congress than
the cunning of Bush.
We just elected 2 members of that congress to the executive.
Sigh."
Yeah well. I didn't say the opposition was that great, either.
Fluffy|11.14.08 @ 10:02AM|#
This is one of my biggest problems with current politics.
People like you think that interviews are the "work product" of
politicians.
Interviews are predictors of the work product of politicians. If we
can decipher them, they're one of our only tools to know what a
politician will do.
When Mitt Romney was asked during an early primary debate to name a
specific area of federal spending he would cut, he said, "I will
cut waste, fraud and abuse." Anyone who speaks Interview knows that
this answer means, "I won't cut anything, and I am afraid to name
anything I would cut lest someone say something mean about
me."
When Sarah Palin is interviewed, her most common answer is "Insert
arbitrary jumble of clauses remotely related to the topic at hand,
but poorly related to each other." I'm not 100% sure how to
translate this particular bit of Interview, but I don't think it
will be anything good.
robc|11.14.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Chris,
What is a "newspaper"?
I vaguely think I remember something called that back from the
1980s. Oh yeah, I use to pick up The Onion when I lived in Madison
in the 90s. Is that one?
|11.14.08 @ 10:04AM|#
"Hell, Bush managed to convince congress to fund TWO land wars
in Asia, despite the popularity of The Princess Bride."
That was excellent.
robc|11.14.08 @ 10:05AM|#
I'm not 100% sure how to translate this particular bit of
Interview, but I don't think it will be anything good.
Maybe it means "I wont do a damn thing". Which would be a good
thing. It could also mean "I will do whatever Karl Rove tells me",
which would be a bad thing.
I think her mayor/governship would be the best indicator - a mix of
good and bad. Probably better than the records of Obama, Biden and
McCain combined. A hell of a lot more executive experience than
they have had combined.
matt2|11.14.08 @ 10:05AM|#
robc:
It's pretty self-explanatory - the presidency is an extremely
complex job and requires real-time interactions with party leaders,
heads of state, etc. I wouldn't want someone in office whose
ability to comprehend and meet challenges in those situations was
approaching its limit.
I understand that someone who isn't particularly bright could
surround themselves with quality people (and might possess superior
political skills of some sort). That's fine for slow-developing
situations where the president is surrounded by good counsel. I'd
rather cut out the middle man, however, and have someone with
superior decision-making skills in charge to begin with. I don't
think that someone in the 50th percentile fits the bill.
matt2|11.14.08 @ 10:08AM|#
Also, 100 IQ is not a college-educated (for lack of a better
marker) average - it's a population average and probably falls well
below Palin's, and definitely Bush's, actual IQ.
I doubt that any who comment here (with a few notable exceptions)
fall at or below 100.
robc|11.14.08 @ 10:10AM|#
matt2,
I somewhat agree, but it is balanced out, in my mind, by the
experience of guys like Wilson, Hoover and Nixon, who were all very
intelligent.
Seems to be a damned if you do/damned if you dont situation.
One seems to be a short-term risk, the other a long-term risk. FDR
did more permanent damage to the country than anything a Palin
could do, IMO.
ed|11.14.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Why are people still fucking obsessing over
Palin?
Because it's easy, and Obama is in hiding?
BDB|11.14.08 @ 10:10AM|#
"I doubt that any who comment here (with a few notable
exceptions)"
Yeah. LoneWacko and Lefiti.
Jim Henley|11.14.08 @ 10:11AM|#
The hilarious part is, "voting present" is an anti-Obama campaign talking point. Did anyone tell her the election is over?
BDB|11.14.08 @ 10:12AM|#
"Jim Henley | November 14, 2008, 10:11am | #
The hilarious part is, "voting present" is an anti-Obama campaign
talking point. Did anyone tell her the election is over?"
It gets better. She actually talked about Joe the Plumber and Tito
the Builder. More than once. It is like she is a bot that was
programmed with a script, and can't cut it off.
robc|11.14.08 @ 10:13AM|#
matt2,
Considering the people now going to college, and her college
experience, its quite possible that Palin is pushing that 100 line.
She very easily could be below 110.
From a quick google search (and I know this varies, as IQ isnt a
good measure of anything anyway) it appears that 50% of the
population is between 90-110 and 70% between 85-115. That would
mean that 1/2 of the above 100 crowd is still below 110. I would
guess Palin is in that range.
Jim Henley|11.14.08 @ 10:16AM|#
"Tito the Builder?" Who the fuck was "Tito the Builder?" Are you
just making shit up, BDB?
;)
But for realz: "Tito the Builder?" I know about *Bob*. Who the hell
is "Tito?"
matt2|11.14.08 @ 10:17AM|#
robc:
I agree that a brilliant President with an odious agenda can do
more long-term damage. I don't think that justifies voting in
underqualified placeholders to fill the Presidency, who could
easily be manipulated by quicker-thinking advisors anyway.
From a pure "maximize the gridlock" perspective, I understand what
you're saying. That's a clock-killing strategy at best, and I think
that the enormous short-term downsides are too large to ignore.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Jim--
He was the Hispanic version of Joe the Plumber.
I don't know what the Jewish, Asian, and black versions were
yet.
|11.14.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Chris,
And are you honestly that stupid that you don't think Palin can
name a single newspaper? I mean, get real. On the one hand the left
argues she has a nasty temper and holds grudges, but then they act
like they believe Palin doesn't read or isn't even aware of the
very hostile newspaper in her own state that criticizes her all the
time. The pure absurdity of the Palin criticisms (NOBODY who uses
the newspaper smear can possibly believe it) is what tells you
there is something else going on here. McCain has spent a lifetime
proving himself to be a complete an utter moron. Obama carefully
constructed his life to an almost unbelievably absurd degree to
avoid ever leaving a paper trail that might shed some light on his
actual IQ (or lack there of). But Palin talks with a stilted
speaking style and freezes up in an interview once and a certain
crowd acts as if that's proof she's a bumbling hillbilly. Is Palin
a genius? No. Is she smarter than me? No. But neither is McCain or
Obama.
robc|11.14.08 @ 10:22AM|#
matt2,
Well, I did vote for Barr. Its not like I voted for her. Mainly
because she was behind McCain anyway. Of the "Big 4", I preferred
her. She is Wake Forest to the trio of senators
Duke/UNC/NCSU.
How's that for an analogy. :)
robc|11.14.08 @ 10:24AM|#
If I could prove* via IQ tests or some such that I was smarter
than any other candidates, despite the fact that my speaking style
would probably** be worse than Palin's, I wonder if I could get
elected President?
*and I think I can
**saying probably is unfair to Palin
Fluffy|11.14.08 @ 10:26AM|#
I believe the newspaper "smear".
The question wasn't "Name any newspaper". The question was a
request to name a newspaper she regularly reads.
I know lots of people who have heard of the New York Times
who don't read it. So while Palin may have an antagonistic
political relationship with a local newspaper, that doesn't mean
she reads it.
And remember, her answer was "All of them." Her answer was that she
reads ALL newspapers and magazines regularly.
I find it very, very easy to believe that Palin is not someone who
reads for pleasure, and most newspaper reading is usually "reading
for pleasure", even if we tell ourselves we're doing it to stay
informed. Something tells me that if we went to the Palin household
we wouldn't find a lot of books, magazines or newspapers in it -
maybe there'd be snowmobile manuals and Moose cookbooks, but that's
about it. It would not surprise me in the least to discover that
Palin does not read a newspaper even once a week, and that she has
never done so at any time in her life. She seems like "that girl"
who has never read the newspaper, and impressions are all we have
to go on here.
Abdul|11.14.08 @ 10:30AM|#
He was the Hispanic version of Joe the Plumber.
I don't know what the Jewish, Asian, and black versions were
yet.
There is this one Jewish carpenter who always gets chout outs from
presidential candidates.
|11.14.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Why are people obsessing about Palin gotchas when even the New
York Times has now admitted that many of the best-known ones were
fabricated by pranksters?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=palin%20pranksters&st=cse&oref=slogin
I don't care if Palin is never heard from outside of Alaska again,
with any luck the GOP will produce better governors to run for
president in 4 years, but I can't believe you're all basically
saying "Okay, half of the line the mainstream media fed me about
Palin was invented by some jokers, but I have complete faith that
the other half represents absolute reality!" I wouldn't go calling
anybody else dumb from THAT position....
robc|11.14.08 @ 10:43AM|#
There is this one Jewish carpenter who always gets chout
outs from presidential candidates.
Technically, he is asian too.
|11.14.08 @ 10:46AM|#
"Again, The Idiot's Guide to Defending Palin
1) Accuse your opponent of elitism (add in something about being
"coastal" for extra effect)
2) Accuse your opponent of sexim
3) Evade the relevant issue, and talk about Obama or Biden
4) Throw in something about "the MSM""
The Idiot's Guide to Attacking Palin:
1) Be a condescending jerk who takes his conclusion as self-evident
and in no need of proof
2) There is no need of Step 2
Jim Henley|11.14.08 @ 11:03AM|#
Technically, he is asian too.
Sure. And your Presbytarians say he was a Presbytarian!
|11.14.08 @ 11:10AM|#
"Why are people obsessing about Palin gotchas when even the
New York Times has now admitted that many of the best-known ones
were fabricated by pranksters?"
I haven't any mention of the "gotchas" in this thread.
Fluffy|11.14.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Why are people obsessing about Palin gotchas when even the
New York Times has now admitted that many of the best-known ones
were fabricated by pranksters?
Mike, your reading comprehension leaves something to be
desired.
The reporting about Palin done by Carl Cameron was not revealed to
be the result of pranksters. Only the outing of a particular McCain
aide as the source of Cameron's report was revealed to be the
result of a hoax report.
But I imagine most of the people pushing this "Palin exoneration"
already know this, and are perfectly willing to try to lie about
what the Times report says anyway.
|11.14.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Chris S.,
Try listening to the interview. The properly punctuated
transcript gives her way to much credit.
If only there were some way that you could let me know where I
could listen to it so I wouldn't have to spend 30 minutes calling
everyone I know to see if anyone had Betamaxed Tuesday's
Situation Room.
Oh, wait... There is.
You can hear -- and see! What technology! -- Sarah Palin answering
this question at 4:10.
Actually, even the revised transcript doesn't do her justice.
Everything she says makes sense as you hear it. The only complaint
that could be made is that she doesn't pause her speaking where one
might want to put in periods, semi-colons, commas, or dashes.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to see a President Palin four
years from now because she looks to be an unprincipled shell that
is filled in by whatever conservative has her ear -- and we've just
gone through eight years of that. But critiquing her interview
responses because they are hard to punctuate is really
unhelpful.
|11.14.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Here's how I would transcribe what she said...
Nothing specific right now, sitting here in these chairs, that I'm going to be proposing. But in working with these governors, who, again, on the front lines, are forced to -- and it's our privileged obligation to -- find solutions to the challenges facing our own states every day -- being held accountable, not being just one of many just casting votes or voting present every once in a while.
We don't get away with that. We have to balance budgets. And we're dealing with multi-billion dollar budgets and tens of thousands of employees in our organizations.
Oh noes. She put in a pronoun whose antecedent was a parenthetical
from the prior sentence rather than the subject of the prior
sentence. She is stupid.
|11.14.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Fluffy,
If you honestly believe that, then I believe you are dumber than
all four of the nitwits that were on the ticket this year. Palin is
extremely ambitious and a political animal. You honestly don't
think she reads the articles that are written about her and her pet
projects and policies on a weekly basis? You think she isn't
combing over every "troopergate" article to see which reporters are
fair and which are "big time assholes"? Get real. Of course she
reads newspapers. Every politician does. I'm not arguing she is an
intellectual. Whether she reads for pleasure is an open question.
We do know that she requested historical commentary relating to
jury nullification once, which suggests an intellectual curiosity
greater than anything ever displayed by McCain or Obama, but I
wouldn't be surprised if most of her pleasure reading is romance
novels. Just like most of McCain's is probably war histories and
most of Obama's is probably books about himself.
Mojotron|11.14.08 @ 12:35PM|#
My guess is that she didn't want to say ADN as they were doing a
fairly good job of covering (ugh) "Troopergate" and didn't want to
point them in that direction; NY Times and Washington Post are "too
liberal" for the base. I assumed she reads some newspapers but was
afraid of getting called out on a follow-up question.
FDaS, maybe she reads papers and maybe she doesn't, maybe she knows
that 2+2=4 and maybe she doesn't. All we know is that when she was
asked she left the answer blank.
|11.14.08 @ 12:36PM|#
I don't think she would pass the Turing test.
Maybe Sokol is attempting a larger scale hoax.
|11.14.08 @ 12:47PM|#
BDB wrote: "It gets better. She actually talked about Joe the
Plumber and Tito the Builder. More than once. It is like she is a
bot that was programmed with a script, and can't cut it off"
You know she'll be talking about Joe and Tito for the rest of her
life, like Al Bundy reminiscing about high school.
|11.14.08 @ 12:48PM|#
" I assumed she reads some newspapers but was afraid of getting
called out on a follow-up question."
It's always safe to say "The Economist" or "The Wall Street
Journal".
|11.14.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Mike P wrote: "Oh noes. She put in a pronoun whose antecedent
was a parenthetical from the prior sentence rather than the subject
of the prior sentence. She is stupid."
You might have a point if this were the only instance of garbled
vocalization we'd seen from Palin, and every other time she opened
her mouth she sounds like a BBC newsreader.
Unfortunately, it's only her latest incident of verbal
nonsense.
|11.14.08 @ 1:06PM|#
But it isn't verbal nonsense. So calling it her latest incident
of verbal nonsense is incorrect.
And taking as the best example of her verbal nonsense a badly
bookended excerpt from an incoherent transcript typed by some
intern who couldn't be bothered to use punctuation says more about
the commentator than it says about her.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 1:41PM|#
"badly bookended excerpt from an incoherent transcript typed by
some intern who couldn't be bothered to use punctuation "
Jesus H. Christ. Watch on video. It sounds just as stupid if you're
not the kind of person that is too busy getting hit by the "little
starburst" I hear she sends out.
|11.14.08 @ 1:46PM|#
The reporting about Palin done by Carl Cameron was not
revealed to be the result of pranksters. Only the outing of a
particular McCain aide as the source of Cameron's report was
revealed to be the result of a hoax report.
Not sure I follow, fluffy. As I understand it, the state of play
is:
Fox ran a report, apparently based on a single anonymous
source.
A known hoaxster stepped forward and claimed to be the
source.
Fox said, no, it wasn't him, but refused to divulge the identity or
otherwise corroborate the original report.
Assign credibility where you like, but frankly, I think the more
likely explanation is that Cameron got punk'd by
"Eisenstadt".
Delightfully, many who stick to the original Palin-is-an-idiot
story are now relying on Fox news and disregarding the NYT story
that the whole thing was a hoax.
|11.14.08 @ 1:54PM|#
It sounds just as stupid if you're not the kind of person
that is too busy getting hit by the "little starburst" I hear she
sends out.
It sounds like she is trying to move the question to one of the
half-dozen talking points she was trained to recite during the
campaign. Does it sound stupid? Yes, if you don't agree with that
talking point or if you don't appreciate people running to talking
points. Is it unparsably incoherent? No.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 2:09PM|#
"It sounds like she is trying to move the question to one of the
half-dozen talking points she was trained to recite during the
campaign."
If that was her intent, she failed hard at it.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 2:10PM|#
And why the hell try to steer a question back to a campaign
talking point from a campaign that is over?
I mean, Joe the Plumber? STILL?
Fluffy|11.14.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Assign credibility where you like, but frankly, I think the
more likely explanation is that Cameron got punk'd by
"Eisenstadt".
Again, you apparently don't understand the story.
There's no reason to put Eisenstadt in quotes. There is a guy named
Eisenstadt and he was in fact a senior McCain campaign
operative.
The hoax was that someone claimed to have been told that Eisenstadt
was the source of Cameron's report. That hoax was perpetrated by
some asshole in his basement, not Eisenstadt.
We don't know who Cameron got the story from, but Cameron covered
the McCain campaign directly, and presented the story as if he had
received it verbally from a McCain aide or aides. We have no
indication that Cameron's source was some asshole writing a blog in
his basement. Especially since Cameron specified that he had been
directly asked by a McCain aide or aides to embargo the story until
after the election.
|11.14.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Question: Do you have a Sarah Palin initiative you want to
introduce.
Answer/Talking point: We governors have lots of ideas learned from
executive experience, unlike some legislators I could name.
How did it fail?
|11.14.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Most people look like idiots in interview transcripts, because most people don't speak in well-thought prose. This is no different than when conservative snipers leave all the "uh"s in Obama transcripts.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 2:21PM|#
The idea, Fluffy, was to fabricate a hoax source and then have the echo chamber use this as "proof" that not only does this discredit this particular source, but any and all stories about Sarah Palin's lack of knowledge.
BDB|11.14.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Using campaign talking points when the campaign is over=fail, especially if by this point you can't do it in a concise way.
Fluffy|11.14.08 @ 2:28PM|#
BDB,
Yeah, that's probably it.
The funny thing is that other McCain people already tried to
discredit the story by coming forward and claiming it was all a big
misunderstanding - that she was confused by CAFTA and not NAFTA,
and that the source "misheard" her Africa remark.
Since that spin attempt didn't take, apparently the new talking
point is that it was all a hoax. "That thing we admitted happened,
but tried to explain away? Yeah, we changed our minds and now we
say it never happened and it was all a hoax. Thank you!"
BDB|11.14.08 @ 2:30PM|#
The thing is, Fluffy, I can understand a partisan carrying water
for a candidate in the middle of a campaign. That is what good
partisans do.
But why do it after the campaign when you have a very solid group
of people for 2012 that would make much better candidates? What is
the point?
|11.14.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Okay, you've sold me. Her use of repetitive talking points has
convinced me that she's an idiot, and not at all up to the
challenge of two Americas, one of which is full of little girls
without coats.
Seriously, there are two issues here. There's a woman who seems to
be a middling politician, arguably as robotic and shallow as many
another who has run for such offices (maybe even the guy who just
won one, we shall see).
Then there's the glee with which a lot of guys (and some women)
tear into her, as they have not torn into others-- except, that is,
the other woman who ran this year. I don't have to think she's
the one and the change we've been waiting for to find
something pretty nasty about the way people, the media included,
have gone after her.
But keep right on confirming my suspicions.
Fluffy|11.14.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Then there's the glee with which a lot of guys (and some
women) tear into her, as they have not torn into others-- except,
that is, the other woman who ran this year.
Who ever said Hillary wasn't smart? Bill was a Rhodes Scholar, but
Hillary still manages to seem more sharp than him.
I don't like Hillary, and would accuse her of a lot of failings,
but I never found her dim.
Vince|11.14.08 @ 4:08PM|#
I'm guessing the author has never seen the eminent B.Obama's raw
transcripts, sans the hacksawing of the countless pauses and
'uhh... uhh' stuttering. Yet, his intelligence is never
challenged.
As [Josh S.] stated, this is a ridiculous sniping piece. Without
removing anything, how bad is this -- including the initial
fumbling:
"Sitting here in these chairs that... I'm going to be proposing...
but... in working with these governors who again on the front lines
are forced to... and it's our privileged obligation to... find
solutions to the challenges facing our own states. Every day being
held accountable, not being just one of many, just casting votes,
or voting present every once in a while... we don't get away with
that. We have to balance budgets, and we're dealing with
multibillion dollar budgets, and tens of thousands of employees in
our organizations."
Fluffy|11.14.08 @ 4:14PM|#
I think I had the most fun tearing into McCain. I got to do it
for such a long time, you see.
For the limited amount of time he was in the limelight, I had a lot
of fun tearing into Huckabee too.
Jim Henley|11.14.08 @ 6:41PM|#
Without removing anything, how bad is this -- including the initial fumbling:
Ooh! Ooh! Teacher! Call on me!
It's really really bad.
|11.14.08 @ 6:56PM|#
I have to agree that Vince's transcription attempt was not so
good. Ellipses are not the balm that cures all transcript ailments.
In fact ellipses are terribly out of place in this excerpt because
they look like pauses, and she didn't pause at all.
As I noted above, here is what Palin said and the context in which
she said it:
BLITZER: Is there anything new that you want to come up with -- a new Sarah Palin initiative that you want to release right now?
PALIN: Nothing specific right now, sitting here in these chairs, that I'm going to be proposing. But in working with these governors, who, again, on the front lines, are forced to -- and it's our privileged obligation to -- find solutions to the challenges facing our own states every day -- being held accountable, not being just one of many just casting votes or voting present every once in a while.
We don't get away with that. We have to balance budgets. And we're dealing with multi-billion dollar budgets and tens of thousands of employees in our organizations.
Fault it for being off topic. Fault it for showing the speaker to
be capable only of parroting campaign positions even after the
election.
Don't fault it for being incomprehensible.
|11.15.08 @ 12:05AM|#
@Mike G | November 14, 2008, 2:33pm |
"Little girls without coats" sounds like a good name for a
band.
|11.15.08 @ 12:07AM|#
But, seriously, her answer to the question didn't have any perceivable relationship to the question. Maybe it isn't incomprehensible, but it is rambling and difficult to follow.
VM|11.15.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Correct, save for a few, minor edits
The
Idiot'sGuide to Attacking Palin:
1)Be a condescending jerk who takes his conclusion as self-evident and in no need of proofBreak out her verbatims.
2) There is no need of Step 2
|11.15.08 @ 3:09PM|#
I don't actually think Hillary's smarter than Bill, but in any case, since you apparently were in a coma during the primary season, Hillary was attacked for OTHER things male politicians weren't attacked for.
|11.15.08 @ 8:03PM|#
VM,
You would have a good point if the same standard was applied
to
Joe, "we drove hezbollah out of Lebanon" and "get on the TV like
Roosevelt" Biden.
I notice that this standard never was applied to Joe "drug war"
Biden. He said things on a regular basis that would have gotten
palin flayed.
Watching the amount of effort spent slagging Palin while ignoring
the walking gaffe machine and civil liberties disaster that is joe
biden was an interesting spectacle.
|11.16.08 @ 11:09PM|#
Joe,
Pass whatever your smoking if you think Biden's massive gaffes have
gotten a fraction of the attention they would have gotten if Palin
had made the same mistake.
Biden has 35 years of experience on the national stage, palin had
all of two months.
Yet he still managed to make so many stupid mistakes that obama had
to quarantine biden to keep him from causing more damage to
obama.
Somehow the media did not see fit to talk about that.
|11.16.08 @ 11:15PM|#
I just got pulled over by the clarity police and they demanded a
repost.
Joe,
Pass whatever your smoking if you think Biden's massive gaffes got
the same attention they would have if palin had made them.
Biden has 35 years of experience on the national stage, palin had
all of two months.
Yet he still managed to make so many stupid statements that obama
had to quarantine biden to keep him from causing more damage to
obama's campaign.
The media did not pay much attention to that.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245