Pre-debate musings on the bloodsport of dissecting Palin performances
It’s open season on Palin.
Of course, it always has been. From the moment she first stepped into the national spotlight, those who want Obama to win were out for her hide. Before she’d done much more than make a couple of fairly effective speeches they’d pronounced her unqualified, incompetent, dumb, and much worse. They then proceeded to set up a large industry to process every element of her life and to lie rather successfully about most of them.
These lies, in the famous words of Winston Churchill, got halfway round the world before the truth had a chance to get its boots on. And although there’s nothing new in politicians being lied about and having to correct the record, in Palin’s case it is compounded by four elements: (1) she is dealing with a huge number of lies promulgated at almost lightning speed; (2) there isn’t that much time left to counter them; (3) they are more likely to believed because she is utterly new on the national scene; and (4) she’s got some characteristics of her own that are putting many people off.
It’s the fourth of these problems that I’ve been thinking about lately, as I read the mountingly gloating ridicule of Palin on the Left and even a number of critical columns on the Right such as Kathleen Parker’s.
The gist of it seems to come down to a visceral reaction to Palin’s interviews with Charles Gibson and especially Katie Couric. I saw the Gibson one and wrote about it here, and I also viewed an interview with Sean Hannity that no one’s talking about, probably because she came across as articulate, reasonably well-informed, and relaxed in it.
But it was the first Couric interview—which I missed when it first aired—that seemed to swell the drumbeat of ridicule to an almost deafening crescendo. Last night I decided I really needed to go back and read the transcript as well as watch the whole thing (I’d seen a few clips). If Palin was as incoherent and downright clueless as people were saying, this would be something important.
So, what of some of Sarah Palin’s more shocking disfluencies, especially certain much-criticized answers about which James Fallows wrote that they indicate that Pain is “disqualifyingly ignorant of the fundamentals of public policy”?
It’s instructive to look at the Fallows piece, which offers three examples of Palin’s supposed stupidity, the last of seems to have been widely quoted and heavily criticized by many other pundits as well. Fallows criticizes the first highlighted statement in ways very similar to those directed at Reagan’s “evil empire” speech and Bush’s “axis of evil” pronouncement: lack of nuance and analytical skills. His beef with the second seems puzzling to me. Couric asked whether the current crisis might lead to another Great Depression, and Fallows thinks Palin’s answer, in which she essentially says, “Maybe, if we don’t fix the problem,” shows a total lack of knowledge of what the Depression was. Fallows might—but of course does not—just as easily say the same about Couric, who made the analogy in the first place—or about Obama, who compared the two events very early on in this crisis. And does anyone wonder what would have happened if Palin had said “no, it’s simply not possible that this could lead to something like the Great Depression”? Fallows would have excoriated her for making light of the current situation.
It was the third and most widely-mocked Palin quote offered by Fallows that seemed the most potentially troubling to me. I reproduce the exchange here:
Couric: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
Palin: That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.
Fallows calls Palin’s response “incomprehensible,” and says it shows that Palin is unable to understand major issues no matter how many briefings she gets. That it is a quote plucked out of a longer interview in which many of her other answers indicate that she does understand many of these basic issues is ignored by Fallows, as well as the fact that in her answer quoted above Palin is actually referring back to this earlier exchange in the same interview:
Couric asked about the $700 billion government bailout of bad debt—and whether [Palin] supports it.
Palin: I’m all [sic; it’s clear from the followup answer that she actually said “ill”] about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. And as Sen. McCain has said, unless this nearly trillion dollar bailout is what it may end up to be—unless there are amendments in Paulson’s proposal—really I don’t believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They’re not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind’s blowing? They’re waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson’s proposal.
This turned out to be more or less true; Americans have been wary of the proposal so far, and McCain has been much more active in the negotiations than Obama.
Looking at the two quotes together gives us some understanding of Palin’s later comment, the one Fallows found so incomprehensible. First of all, Couric’s later question is not that easy to understand. She is not asking for a description of or a reaction to the bailout itself, because that’s already been discussed. She seems to be asking Palin something like ‘why not just take those 700 billion dollars and, rather than bail out the companies, use the money instead to give tax breaks to the middle class to stimulate the economy, and/or to fund programs such as universal health care to benefit the people?’
Palin’s answer—although hardly as smooth or fluent as one might wish—is perfectly comprehensible in that context. She is referring back to her earlier statement about Americans feeling “ill” for being on the hook for the bailout, and then says that any tax reductions or programs of benefits must be accompanied by fiscal responsibility. Here’s a repetition of one of the lines from the ridiculed Palin quote:
So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade—we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing.
Seems pretty comprehensible to me, although not well-expressed. Palin is saying that, if we are to attempt to give more health care and tax reductions to the middle class and not break the bank even further, largesses of this type must be accompanied by other fiscal tightening and the growth of the economy through increased trade in the global economy. It is actually Couric’s question—and the removal of the entire exchange from the context of the rest of the interview—that has contributed mightily to the confusion.
But it takes time to figure all that out, and the will to do so. Much easier to mock someone you’re already primed to hate and feel contempt for, someone who repeats the terrible errors of Bush’s “nucular” and even says things like “gonna” and “I’ll get back to ya” (see this for a discussion of the class issues involved in Palin-hatred).
Most of the expressions of contempt for Palin’s intellectual abilities (we’ll skip the most vicious and unhinged hatred/lies and stick to the more reasonable offerings) seem to be engendered by the fact that she truly is different from the usual politician, and even the usual talking heads we are used to seeing on television. I touched on some of the distinctions in this piece, but the summary version is that Palin is no intellectual.
That’s absolutely true; she is not. But not being an intellectual is hardly the same as lacking intelligence. As a matter of fact, the two can be—and very often are—mutually exclusive. The former is connected with qualities that have much to do with words and the manipulation thereof: smoothness, syntax, pronunciation and accent. Being an intellectual is also at least partly a reflection of educational background. It’s not enough to have a mere college degree these days (Truman could never, never, never be elected now); one must have one from an Ivy school, although BDS proves that even an Ivy degree is hardly enough by itself to stem the tide of contempt when the smooth flow of highfalutin words just isn’t there.
I think of the statement of the late, oh-so-patrician and steeped-in-ivy William Buckley that he’d rather be governed by people chosen from a phone book than by Harvard professors (the exact numbers in the quote vary, but that’s the basic idea). And having spent more than the usual amount of time in academia and among intellectuals myself, as well as being a writer and lover of literature, I can attest that although I would greatly prefer that ideas be expressed smoothly and with eloquence (thus my love for Churchill), I can honestly say that, given a choice, I’m far more interested in judgment, real-world accomplishment, and content in my leaders.
I’d much rather we had the whole package, of course. But that’s rare, and if I have to choose between words and judgment, I’ll take the latter every time. Who cares if the statement is eloquent if the thought is wrong?
I think of the early years of the Kennedy and then the Johnson administration, during which some of the worst decisions were made regarding Vietnam. The book The Best and the Brightest describes that time, and I noticed when I read it so long ago that the title was an ironic reference to the fact that these plans were hatched by intellectual whiz kids and academics, flush with their own supposed superiority but lacking any real knowledge of the way wars worked.
That message seems to have been lost. I wonder whether the fact that such a high percentage of our population has gone to college has caused us to overvalue words and academia. I continue to be amazed at how dumb so much of what passes for journalism is, and how empty are the words of the extremely well-educated and fluent Obama, or of so many of the professorial talking heads and experts on TV.
Palin is facing her debate with Biden tomorrow night. I will bet that her every mistake will be jumped on—and that she will make them. I will also bet that Biden’s mistakes (he will make them, too) will be largely ignored or made light of.
The prospect of the coming faceoff has also led me to do a bit of historical research. I hereby offer up the following not-so-fluent exchange from a previous debate, concerning the need for experience in a President. For now I won’t identify the participant involved; can you guess who’s speaking?
Well, I’ll just say that the question is of experience and the question also is uh—what our judgment is of the future, and what our goals are for the United States, and what ability we have to implement those goals. Abraham Lincoln came to the presidency in 1860 after a rather little known uh—session in the House of Representatives and after being defeated for the Senate in fifty-eight and was a distinguished president. There’s no certain road to the presidency. There are no guarantees that uh—if you take uh—one road or another that you will be a successful president.
The speaker could be Sarah Palin, but it’s actually John F. Kennedy, in his first debate with Nixon in 1960. If you read the transcript of the entire thing, the intelligence and fluidity of both men comes across clearly, as well as the relative substance of their words compared to those of all the candidates today, not just Palin. Another striking impression is their general politeness to and seeming respect for each other.
These qualities, however, did not protect Kennedy from having been quite naive in many of his foreign policy decisions. And it certainly didn’t protect the highly intelligent (although not Ivy-educated) Nixon from the disgrace of his Watergate years. Which just proves the truth of Kennedy’s words (minus the “uh’s” for which he was famous): there are no guarantees that if you take one road or another that you will be a successful President.
It might even be added that fluency of speech, an Ivy-league education, and the ability to name all the tenets of the so-called Bush Doctrine won’t protect you, either. Who knows—in certain situations they might even be drawbacks.
[ADDENDUM: While I was Googling for last week’s Couric/Palin interview, I came across yesterday’s, the transcript of which seems to offer nothing alarming, and clarifies Palin’s positions on several controversial issues such as abortion, homosexuality, creationism, and climate change in ways that ought to reassure at least a few people who have heretofore seen her as a firebreathing cretinist creationist threatening the rights of women and gays.]
[ADDENDUM II: Jeff Goldstein describes how we came to this sorry pass, with the media is in the tank and unashamed, and common sense is becoming more and more uncommon.]
Seems to me that truth had better start sleeping with its boots on.
If McCain loses, I’m blaming it on Tina Fey.
I’m boycotting Friday’s debate, on account of the blatant conflict of interest involving the moderator, Ms. Gwen Ifill. She’s an Obama supporter and is publishing a book celebrating his ascension to power in January.
In any fair or decent society she would either voluntarily recuse herself from that role, or would be asked to step down and be replaced.
But this is increasingly no longer a fair and decent society. I am increasingly becoming gloomy about the fate of the nation and our people. If we do not wake up as things move forward during the next few years, the Left will consolidate its power, impose its templates, and this will not be the same nation it was founded to be.
I see the polarization, going forward, only getting worse. Dare I write these words? Do I dare say we may see civil war in the future?
When you watch the interview, just look at the expression on Couric’s face. Can you imagine sitting across from a person who was giving you such a hateful, disparaging look, and then trying to compose coherent sentences under that withering glare? Very hard to do. I think she did fine given the circumstances.
What gets me is how idiotic Couric’s question is.
She seems to think there’s this big $700 billion pile of free money lying under the Capitol Dome, and we’ve just decided to give it to Lex Luthor and the guy from the Monopoly game for no particular reason, while we could be using it to give everybody universal health care, heal the planet, increase funding for puppies, rainbows, and unicorns, etc.
She doesn’t grasp that the very thing that troubles people is that it’s $700 billion we DON’T have? And that would (in the worst case scenario) simply add to an already enormous national debt?
I wish Algore was asked for Bill’s regulatory efforts during the time Bill Clinton was the governor in Arkansas.
The, “I’ll get back to ya” answer would’ve been the only thing Algore could say also.
You’ll never see Biden asked, “What are Obama’s accomplishments or bills that he co-sponsored during his incomplete Senate term?” Or will Obama be asked about Biden’s regulatory efforts during Biden’s 30+ year career?
The questions are gotcha questions NOT EVEN DESIGNED to LEARN about Sarah Palin’s views.
You find out nothing about Sarah’s views when asking her if she can cite (other than what she cited) any other efforts of McCains to regulate during his time as a Senator. Citing that history of his regulatory history is what McCain HIMSELF should be asked.
I’ve become so exercised by this election’s lack of journalistic integrity. I became a conservative in the year 1991 after visiting the library 3 times a week for a year and seeing an alternate point of view. My core beliefs were changed in 1991 dramatically and I’m glad I’ve done all the research I’ve done over the years.
Journalists should do the same. Research. Reporting. Question the interviewee to find out their stands and their viewpoint. Sheesh! 🙂
Very well and wisely said, Neo. You must be a fantastic therapist–you understand human nature and you really listen.
I think Sarah understands human nature too. That’s the most important thing in governing. I hope that comes through to viewers Thursday.
roc,
I agree, and I think that coming from a small town can contribute to that understanding. People have far less opportunity to hide behind a facade of the “right” taste and ideas. A great example is found in To Kill a Mockingbird, where Scout comes to know family histories and see people in more than one dimension. I don’t think a modern-day Scout would be taken in by a Rezko.
I don’t care how many gaffs Sarah Palin may make in answering questions. As long as she can retain her self-possession in the face of such relentless criticism she is ok by me. I feel the same about GWB.
Eloquence in speaking or bumbler
Sound judgement or poor judgement
If these were the qualities I had to choose from, I would choose in the following order:
1 – eloquent with sound judgement
2 – bumbler with sound judgement
3 – bumber with poor judgement
4 – eloquent with poor judgement
Well said, neo!
I could wish that Palin had handled the first Couric interview better too, but all in all, considering the gauntlet she has run in so few weeks, I’m amazed that she has done as well as she has.
All three of the other candidates have said things that came across as clumsy, stupid or incomprehensible, but it does seem that very special media fire has been prepared to roast Palin.
Pingback:Palin and Obama | curtis schweitzer (dot) net
Ooops…
Comic relief
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001643.html 🙂
Thank you for a sensible post on this non-issue. How did we ever get to the point in this country when Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric are taken seriously? As someone who has spent nearly half his life in and around academia and academics, I can vouch for the utter vapidity of their thought as a general rule when it comes to human nature and therefore politics. This doesn’t make Sarah Palin above criticism, but the shameful deference paid to those who have lots of education and little or no common sense is something that I’m not even sure Chesterton could deal with were he writing today.
By the way…love this blog. I’m an ex-liberal myself.
Very thoughtful as always Neo.
As you so clearly show, when taken in their entirity, Governor Palin’s debate performances were acceptable and, at times, quite good. Unfortunately, by picking out sound bites and by dishonest editing, her detractors have found enough to tarnish her rather badly. It is particularly damaging when the Eastern elitist conservatives(?) like Kathleen Parker and George Will pile on. What can their motives be?
I am very worried about how this will all play out. I think the McCain handlers may have ruined Sarah Palin by throwing her to the wolfpack before she had her feet on the ground. Since the debates they seem to have been very slow to counter some of the distortions that have gained credence. Of course McCain is slow to come to his own defense.
I would like to boycott the debate tomorrow night because of the Ifill situation. But, I will tune in and hope with every fibre that the Governor rises to the challenge.
should have said interview performances. Proof read you dolt.
Great analysis, neo-neocon. I always enjoy coming here.
As for the debate, I’ve decided that no matter what Palin says the media will skewer her. And no matter how many stupid things Biden says, the media will praise him.
sigh
Frankly, it doesn’t matter to the other side. I typically read Maxed Out Mama’s blog for economic analysis. Nowadays, every post generates comments trashing Palin. I don’t get it. If Obama is ahead, like all the polls tell us, and if he is so full of wonderfulness that it should be obvious, why are his supporters beating the rest of us over the head? I find it interesting that we heard endless discussion about Hilary’s “near miss” in Bosnia, but nothing about Biden’s stories claiming he was under fire. It really is quite amazing.
As for the claims Palin isn’t intelligent, well that’s why I don’t vote Democratic any more. About 16 years or so of hearing that about every single Republican candidate just got on my nerves. I don’t care if Pelosi is smart or not. She’s incapable of governing. Can you imagine Sam Rayburn handling things the way she does?
Oldflyer: what can the motives of George Will and Kathleen Parker be? I think it’s quite simple: their identities as wordsmiths and “intellectuals,” and their status as journalists, mean they affiliate more closely with the chattering classes as a whole than they do with their own conservative philosophy. The former trumps the latter.
Will was even a professor at Harvard for a while—not that there’s anything wrong with THAT. But my guess is that such things mean a lot to him, and Palin is quite the antithesis.
Teri Pittman: I think also of Lyndon Johnson. He was apparently a genius armtwister as Majority Leader. Graduate of Southwest Texas State Teacher’s College—no ivy there—he was a political wonder in the Senate. His greatest tragedy was that he wasn’t suited for the Presidency; probably should have stayed as Senator. Here is a bit about him:
Historians Caro and Dallek consider Lyndon Johnson the most effective Senate majority leader in history. He was unusually proficient at gathering information. One biographer suggests he was “the greatest intelligence gatherer Washington has ever known”, discovering exactly where every Senator stood, his philosophy and prejudices, his strengths and weaknesses, and what it took to win him over. Robert Baker claimed that Johnson would occasionally send senators on NATO trips in order to avoid their dissenting votes. Central to Johnson’s control was “The Treatment”, described by two journalists:
The Treatment could last ten minutes or four hours. It came, enveloping its target, at the LBJ Ranch swimming pool, in one of LBJ’s offices, in the Senate cloakroom, on the floor of the Senate itself – wherever Johnson might find a fellow Senator within his reach.
Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint and the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking, and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless.
Pelosi, eat your heart out.
– there are those women too who are quite upset about the blatant sexism directed at Palin – it seems the McCain camp is holding back on some things that could be thrown out there against Obama – with 5 weeks left, they need some fresh tactics because the media is hyping polls that I suspect are ‘stacked’ in favor of obama
Oh, yeah, LBJ was a master. I saw him once, you know. I was in a school band and we played for a big political rally. I remember him being very sunburned–a redneck for sure! Politicans have a bad name, but you really do need to be able to compromise to get things done.
This was an excellent look at an interesting subject.
I previously pronounced Palin’s answer to Couric’s “why not give the money to middle class families” question “incoherent”. I was wrong to do so. I ought not have spouted such a judgment without seeing the larger part of the interview – or, given the editing of both ABC and CBS: without seeing a full transcript.
I now see Palin was attempting to respond to a part of Couric’s question which I completely ignored, i.e. “struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries?” Palin’s answer showed more comprehension than my criticism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve been wrong about something else: I’ve been unable to believe Palin would be effectively attacked over lack of credentials for the job. I’ve believed such attacks would redound to Barack’s disadvantage. So far, it looks as if I was massively wrong about that.
Teri,
Palin got the gas pipeline moving. Obama legislated the privatization of public housing renovation and management that resulted in buildings that are now falling apart. He also threw about a hundred million dollars at Ayers-inspired education schemes that did nothing to improve education. He has accomplished nothing except overstating his accomplishments. He couldn’t even get his ccampaign co-chairman, Jesse Jackson, Jr, to vote for the bailout bill.
Fallow’s critisism of Palin is toothless, considering the source. I remember listening to a Fallows commentary on NPR during the run-up to the first Gulf War.
Here he was a former anti-Vietnam war activist mewling on-air about how he wished that he had been tested in “the crucible of combat.” How he felt that his lack of combat experience left a certain empty spot, or lack of gravitas in him.
I immediately then and there wrote him off for the shallow fraud he is, a Kerry wannabe. Nothing that he’s said or written since then has done anything towards changing that opinion.
Palin should wear the critisism of such a contemptible fool as a badge of honor.
Neo, I completely agree with your response to my somewhat rhetorical question concerning Will and Parker. I know they are preeningbefore a different audience. Still, it baffles me that they would put in print material that advances the Obama campaign–and it definitely does. It calls into question whether they should have any conservative credentials whatsoever.
Like many other conservatives, I am not a great admirer of McCain (except his obvious courage) and I had plenty to say in various forums during the primary season. But, once the primaries were over I had the good sense to keep my mouth shut about my reservations. The alternative to McCain is simply too awful to contemplate. That is why I find people like Will & Parker unfathomable. If they destroy Palin they elect Obama.
Oldflyer: never, never underestimate the power of egotism.
Here’s how I think Palin should answer gotcha types of college board inquisitions – either in interviews or in the debate – about obscure concepts such as BLOVENT(which I just made up):
[Palin smilingly gives a tiny yet good natured dismissive wave]
[smiling, yet dismissive:]
I don’t know what BLOVENT is.
[confident, suddenly dead serious:]
I will learn it, you can trust me on that.
[bring it home with heart and feeling]
But if voters are more interested in judging my knowledge of BLOVENT, as I stand here on this stage, than in judging whether I have the judgment and the guts to make good decisions ….[milk it, Palin is exasperated]…. then God help our great nation, because we are headed for a tumble.
Sarah Palin was actually more direct and coherent with her style of answering questions to some depth than her counterpart is. James Fallows is a revolting poor excuse for a man. I never took him seriously, even when I was on the Left. I know his type and I would never, ever feel honored to be in the company of such a man for a drink or conversation. Like most of the radicals from the Sixties, he is of a type and it’s simple to name: COWARD. I wish all of the people from that cohort of the Boomers could be put in a groundhog day scenario where they have to watch “The Killing Fields” over and over and over again for eternity.
It isn’t that I am not interested in the debate between Palin and Biden. I am actually intensely interested, but I am so incensed at the decision to allow this Gwen Ifill to be the moderator with the obvious conflict of interest that I am going to stick to my principles and boycott it.
The fix is in, ladies and gentlemen.
If you want to know how the Left regards the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, note how it treats students and faculty in academia who have to hide their politically contrarian views. The Left uses the Constitution as long as it serves their purposes. Then it goes into the outhouse to be used as toilet paper.
The template used to destroy someone like Palin was perfected on people like Leona Helmsley, Ken Lay and Martha Stewart. All of which i now have to assume may be(been) fairly decent people considering who wanted them destroyed.
Requoting my personal response at Townhall to Parker(‘s) commentary the other day, for what it’s worth:
Constructive criticizm
Ms. Parker, you could have offered constructive criticizm (and gotten your message across) instead of political sabotage; and not out of loyalty to the party, but out of thoughful consideration of the far reaching consequences, in your rush to judgement. I made a point of reviewing the famous question from Couric, actually it matched Sarah’s answer very closely. No question that Sarah made the mistake of attempting to respond and address the topics of an expansive, disjointed question, a borderline setup, when she should have just responded with something short and curt, like there are too many issues in that question to address in one or two comments. Sarah’s “gaffe” in response to the question about Putin and Russia, something maybe only a governor of a state indeed within eyesight of a potential enemy, now active supporters of Iran, Syria and Venezuela, might seriously contemplate; Of course a Biden or Obama gets a pass all day as they b.s. nonsensically and endlessly about negotiating,talking with the enemy,blah, blah… One thing is for sure, Sarah is a “quick study” as they say, she’s undoubtedly learned more in the last week about the consequences of “misspeaking”, than Joe Blow has in his entire political career. I predict Sarah will clean his clock, as they say, and by the time this campaign (training wheels for the Vice-Presidency) is over, she will easily be as appropriate for the office as any number of previous candidates.
Pingback:Petition To Dump Gwen Ifill « Nice Deb
Pingback:Thinking about the VP Debate « Bryan’s Basement
If I were hiring somebody to be VP–of anything, including a TV network–would I outsource the interviewing to Katie Couric or Charles Gibson? I never watch them anyway, not for entertainment and certainly not for information.
The most important thing to know about a potential hire is how they did in a job close to the one you’re considering them for. In the case of Sarah Palin, that would be Governor of Alaska. If she’s good at that, then it’s reasonable to expect that she merits a promotion and might do well in a more demanding job for which some training might be required.
The whole premise of all these ridiculous Palin interviews is that a candidate for VP is supposed to be ready to be president, today. That premise is false. The vice-president is an understudy, and he or she gets a period of breaking in. Even granted that Charles Gibson and Katie Couric really knew anything about the what presidents do (and they don’t), examining Sarah Palin as they are is like giving her the final exam in the first week of class. Vice-President *is* a job that lends itself to on-the-job training.
Answering questions from reporters or anybody else is a very small part of a VP’s job (or a president’s). Executives get briefings from advisors and *ask* a lot of questions. If we wanted to assess Sarah Palin’s actual work in a job like VP, we would let her call Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and other talking heads around a conference table and watch her grill *them*. You can find out a lot from the questions somebody asks. And I’d love to hear these disinfotainers giving answers about all these matters they pretend they know so much about.
TV journalists have a lot of nerve to demand interviews with Sarah Palin. They can’t subpoena her. TShe can’t be cited for contempt of Campbell (Brown). The first amendment guarantees the press’s freedom, but it doesn’t include the press in the government. We can find out about Sarah Palin any way we want, and if we think she’s hiding something, we don’t have to vote for her. But the press has no formal role in approving candidates for office. And it’s a good thing they don’t.
If I was Sarah Palin, I’d tell Katie Couric that I’ve already had a colon screening and I’m too busy with my important job to get another one.
I have a master’s degree from Stanford University. And all that means is that I have a certain amount of specialized knowledge that helps me in my chosen profession. It has nothing to do with wisdom, judgement, or leadershtip.
Like many others here, I was a lifelong Democrat until I voted for George Bush in 2004. Of all the votes I cast for Democrats the one I most regret is that for Jimmy Carter in 1980. And I think back to the “Reagan Democrats”, stereotypically blue collar workers with a high school education or even less. But they saw what I could not see, and understood what I did not understand.
I’m with Gary Rosen on that last post. I voted for Carter twice, the first time was my first election eligible to vote in. And I voted again for him in 1980, when most of my college classmates voted for Reagan. I was on the Left then and did not leave the ranks of the Marxists until 1987. The first time I voted for a Republican was in 2004. But I actually began to drift away from the Democratic Party not long after 9/11. And I did so because so many over there, especially on the Left, were siding with Islamic jihadists and despotic state sponsors of terrorism. So, I burned that bridge and cannot see myself going back. And burned my Leftist intellectual ships too, much as Cortez burned his own ships.
I think the Reagan Democrats were right. It is so sad to see that generation passing away now, before our very eyes. What is taking their place gives me cause for great concern.
I supported Clinton in 1992. I was naive.
I did abandon Clinton three weeks after his inauguration – when he abandoned his promised middle class tax cut – and I instantly realized he was a poseur and a world-class hypocrite. I don’t think I’ve voted for a single Democrat, for any office, since then – Feb. 1993. And I used to vote for Democrats a lot.
@ SteveH
“The template used to destroy someone like Palin was perfected on people like Leona Helmsley, Ken Lay and Martha Stewart. All of which i now have to assume may be(been) fairly decent people considering who wanted them destroyed.”
I don’t think it was as personal with those three as it has been with Palin. Remember this portion of her speech at the convention:
“And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion – I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”
Liberal bias in the media is only part of it. At the precise moment she delivered that line, she became a target for personal destruction by the elite media.
And this filleting of Palin is not only for purposes of this election, but to ensure that she will never again be a viable player on the national political stage.
Payback is, as they say, a [Leona Helmsley].
Being a governor and a mayor is excellent training for bigger things. However, few governors would be well versed in foreign policy, defense, justice or economics on a national scale. Here’s a news flash -we taxpayers pay for a large cadre of advisors to keep the President and VP informed. Vast, detailed knowledge of all issues and subjects are not as important as a set of core, guiding principles. If Palin follows the same principles and values she used as a successful mayor and governor, she will be okay. She should talk big picture and overall vision rather than getting drawn into nitty gritty wonkish details.
I can predict one thing: There will not be any questions about energy in the debate. If there are I will be mightily surprised.
You don’t need the followup question to clarify that Palin said “ill.” It is obvious at 1:32 of the second video on the linked page.
I hate to say it but the use of “all” is an obvious blatant attempt to misquote Palin. At a minimum, the transcriptionist needs to be fired for cause.
The persistent efforts by those high and low in the MSM to misrepresent Palin is sickening and reveals a complete lack of integrity in an industry that has nothing more than integrity to sell to the American public.
…Palin is no intellectual. That’s absolutely true; she is not. But not being an intellectual is hardly the same as lacking intelligence. As a matter of fact, the two can be–and very often are–mutually exclusive. The former is connected with qualities that have much to do with words and the manipulation thereof: smoothness, syntax, pronunciation and accent. Being an intellectual is also at least partly a reflection of educational background.
Hell, this describes me to a T though I could be a tad better I admit, yet fundamentally it’s true of what is character that is worthy of serving the public. Most people don’t want over intellectualizations of real issues that need real resolutions, they want someone who will do something at least reasonable well, as I’ve stated above as opposed to hmmmmm let’s wait a bit longer (12 years later (1991-2003) Iraq is still rotting) or hmmmmmmm not quite sure yet (Obama’s inability to do anything substantial as an elected official). Don’t be a lazy ass, just get out there and kick some ass, there’s work to be done, do some reasonable planning, get enough of the tools and supplies you need and get to it!
“reasonable well” should have been “reasonably well” which is a good illustration of what is reasonably well enough — but ties back to “…I could be a tad better” :\
Honestly it’s a shame that Palinmania, both in bashing her and praising her, has taken focus away from the two presidential candidates as well as the issues. I can’t remember a bit about either Cheney or Edwards four years ago. Did they debate? Did anyone care?
“Seems pretty comprehensible to me, although not well-expressed. ”
When the expression is this bad, does it matter? Palin is saying that “reducing taxes” must accompany “tax reduction” and “tax relief.” I suppose this is comprehensible, being a tautology.
Also, why does she imply we shouldn’t see trade as “competitive”? Of course it’s competitive; that’s the way it should be.
Sorry, but Fallows is right about her lack of substance, and character-assassinating him won’t make the problem go away.
This tendency of humanitarians and liberal arts educated to sneer and scorn all other types of intelligence and knowledge is appaling. This type of culture war is very common here in Russia, I see it every time when these two tribes face each other and dispute – I due to my profession of scientific observer attend almost every event of this kind. Nation is in a big trouble when power is monopolized by philosophers, and technical minds are underdogs.
Culture war is an issue in this election, as it was in most of the previous elections, too. Reagan got elected not on his economics – this came only in retrospective – but on family values. Palin by her personality focused discussion on these bedrock principles again, and I do not see it as distraction: this is really important in shaping all policy decisions, being it economy or foreign policy.
You have a great site, Neo, and this is once again a great post.
I have a lot of admiration for
a) your clarity of writing
b) the power of your analysis
c) the courage and honesty of your intellectual journey
I am looking forward to reading more of your work. Thanks!
Peter the Alaskan Kid, oh yes, Edward and Cheney did indeed debate. Actually, let me back off that statement a bit: Cheney took Edward to school (it appeared to be grade school). It was a beautiful exposition of the contrasting seriousness of each candidate.
DrJohnson, I had a prof once who styled himself a committed philosophical vegetarian. It was a Communication Studies course – critical thinking, I want to say? What a laugh – that he used as his private soapbox, encouraging his students to accompany him on his annual ten-day juice fast, assigning only such reading as would convince as many college freshmen as possible that MEAT IS MURDER! (I did in fact become a vegetarian for about a year. And naturally I’ve got no beef – you should pardon the expression – with vegetarians. But his tactics were silly where they weren’t insulting.)
Yet he wore Birks and a leather belt. Someone in class had the stones to ask him about that. His answer? He wasn’t actually supporting the meat industry because the leather was only a byproduct, not the purpose for which the animals were raised. (If I’d heard this answer today, I think I’d ask why hot dogs were off his diet – a similar logic applies, doesn’t it? How about sweetbreads?)
Now, my babysitter today, 33 years old, actually is a committed philosophical vegetarian; she even understands the words “committed” and “philosophical.” All her shoes and accessories that might be made of leather are fabric or faux. Steve Jenkins, wherever you are, you’re a fraud and you should have been ashamed of yourself.
Disclaimer: I don’t mean to impugn his knowledge of his field. I can’t comment on that, because unfortunately I never learned any CommS from him because he was too busy indoctrinating me.
One thing that puzzles me about George Will’s dislike of Palin is the Down’s Syndrome issue. Will has often written with conviction, humor and profound love about his adult son Jon, who has Down’s. In fact, back when I was still the kind of liberal Democrat who “knew” that all Republicans are heartless and stupid (give me a break, I was a teenager) I read a column Will wrote about Jon that was so intelligent and affectionate that it was one of my first clues that I might be, well, wrong.
Now, much much later in life, the Palin nomination has led me to another uncomfortable discovery about my own preconceptions. I am the kind of person who generally believes that most people try to do the right thing. But now, witnessing the torrent of lies, personal vituperation and outright media bias that has followed the Palin nomination, I ‘m having trouble continuing to be that person. I’m beginning to feel, with FredHjr, that “we are no longer a fair and decent society.” I’ve watched
-an intelligent, kind, feminist liberal friend spew poison about Palin, not because of her politics but because her daughter is pregnant and she got on a plane after her water broke. (“What does that say about her JUDGMENT”??!”)
-another friend, ditto all descriptions above and add significant professional leadership role, stating that she knows Palin must be homophobic because “ALL Republicans are.”
-too many more personal encounters like this to list when I should be getting ready for work.
-and on the wider level, the media’s astonishing concatenation of criticism for anything that comes out of Palin’s mouth while openly ignoring far worse gaffes of Biden and questions about Obama’s background–
-just in this last week, unapologetic anti-Palin editorials in both the New York Times and the Boston Globe on the rape-kit issue, which has, as both papers must certainly know, been thoroughly debunked;
-most recently, Gwen Iffill as moderator tonight when she stands to profit directly and personally from an Obama victory . . .
and so much more. It’s enough to make a hopeful sort of person, as I’ve always been, begin to feel quite hopeless about the future of our free press and of our free country. I have my own doubts about Palin’s readiness to lead but, at this point I’m starting to think that the only decent thing left to do is to vote for her.
Where are the Saturday Night Live skits ridiculing Joe Biden, who (with much more experience at this game) has made plenty of assinine statements?
Will SNL make fun of the obvious in tonight’s debate- a moderator who Openly supports Obama-
or will they focus solely on their favorite target Palin?
Woe betide us, Neo-neo. I’m right there with FredHjr. I despair the yawning political gap can be closed because of the Left’s intransigence and commitment to totalitarianism.
Our personal journeys to conservatism are curious. In my case (liberal arts and MD degrees) I was a natural elitist until I heard my home-renovating carpenters listening to Rush in 1991; carpenters! just high school grads! And Rush made a lot of sense. So I put away the NYT and commenced my journey to sanity.
I especially enjoyed Neo-neo’s remarking on Kennedy’s speaking style, with all the uhs. I have for many years joked that people who speak like that must have attended the John F. Kennedy School of Public Speaking and Communication. It amounts to a verbal tic, and is actually fairly annoying when heavily used; you hear it everywhere. People must think it makes them sound measured and thoughtful; it doesn’t. It makes them sound mannered and stupid. Condoleeza Rice is especially egregious in this regard, and I have sometimes thought that she should not be permitted to speak in public until she has been subjected to instruction through, for example, a Toastmasters International program.
“His answer? He wasn’t actually supporting the meat industry because the leather was only a byproduct, not the purpose for which the animals were raised.”
I always ask if the cow was killed for it’s leather would it then be OK to eat the meat?
In actuality the cows are raised with both in mind – there are processes the farmers use to try and ensure good leather from their stock. Leather is not a “by product” any more than diesel fuel is a by-product of producing gasoline. They both come from pretty much the same source, same initial processing, and you will end up with a minimum amount of both in processing. In the cows case since it isn’t a one or the other situation so they try and maximize the yield in both.
While it is true that if we didn’t use leather there would still be a meat industry it is also true that if we didn’t eat the meat there would still be a leather industry (we already raise a number of animals purely for their skins). The *only* reason to choose one over the other is because it makes you feel better over your choice.
Of course, that is a similar thought process going on in what Neo describes above. Having your argument be true for *both* sides but ignoring the one you do not want to exist. That’s also been one of the issues causing congress to have a sub 10% approval rating – the democrats only noting that something hurts republicans and never even noticing that they got hit harder (and then republicans realizing they do not have to be good, only have to be a little better). See Pelosi’s speech on the bailout and the republican response.
“I always ask if the cow was killed for it’s leather would it then be OK to eat the meat?”
Prince Gautama already answered this question. He did not refuse to eat cow meat as soon as he was assured that the cow was slaughtered not specially for him.
As expected, the bail out bill has a wheel barrow load of pork in it. The first bill was only what – 3 pages? It was never meant to be passed. It was a stall tactic to get this 435 page monstrosity written and passed.
Question: How many senators read, and understand all 435 pages? Oh, hell. How many just read all 435 of them?
WE NEED TO VOTE THEM ALL OUT. ALL OF THEM.
To quote Glenn Beck, they are pissing on us, every day.
Someone in the Oval Office or the Senate owes us an explanation why the bill is earmarked to the gills with pork.
Holding the financial markets, our businesses, and our jobs hostage to this kind of malfeasance is criminal.
How long will it be before more money is required, Is this just a short term fix ?
Br549,
I’d be interested to know if things would change the least bit if EVERY elected politician in Washington was voted out. Arent they really just the talking heads faction of an entrenched govt buracracy infested with liberal mindsets? Not to mention the incredible media onslaught that would take place against anyone showing up there to rock the boat.
Excellent post and analysis, as usual, Neo. I can’t help but think that many (if not most) of those who have contributed to this current national and global financial meltdown are the products of “elite” educational institutions. How many Harvard MBAs are crawling around in the upper echelons of top financial institutional management. Frankly, if today’s crisis is the result of what advanced college degrees produce, give me a plain talking, practical minded governor from Alaska who has proven she knows how to balance a budget. Common sense should be rated as “priceless” in a Mastercard ad.
Tom: so you were indoctrinated by your carpenters against your will? By the way, if they were anything like some of the workmen on my house a while back, they might have had a lot more education than that. I once hired a former high school principal turned house painter; he said the work paid better and was much more relaxing.
But come to think of it, he smoked a pipe and listened to NPR.
The other day I made a connection between the attacks on Sarah Palin and the outcome of the 2002 Maryland gubernatorial race. In that election, the incumbent lieutenant governor, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, was defeated by an upstart Republican who entered the race as a clear underdog. No Republican had been elected Governor of Maryland since Spiro T. Agnew in 1966. An interesting footnote: Agnew served one term as governor. His only previous elective position was Baltimore County executive in 1962. Townsend lost her lead for a number of reasons. The administration of Governor Parris Glendenning had run up a significant budget deficit and Townsend became the scapegoat for that and other administration shortcomings. She also performed poorly in press conferences and was characterized as being a poor speaker. This in spite of her being Harvard educated, well spoken and certainly the choice of the Democratic Party establishment. It seems that the perception of a candidate not handling the press well can be a severe blow when exploited by opponents, as happened to Townsend. Palin faces the challenge of proving she is “not incompetent”, having been tried and found guilty by a jury of hypercritical news anchors and every female liberal pundit on the planet.
Steve H:
In my opinion, the best we could hope for in voting them all out would be to get a message across, and slow the change over from a republic to a socialist nation. That IS where we are heading. Even those afraid to even whisper the word have to realize it is so.
The democrats for the lies and deceit. The republicans for cowardice. They need to go. Some need to be prosecuted and incarcerated. They are costing us billions, more likely trillions, and our freedom. It is treasonous to our way of life. That’s how I see it.
Entrenched bureaucrats will be harder to remove, take longer, and be less successful. I just don’t see an alternative. To be fired from the government, one has to go postal, as it stands now. Unless one is a member of a republican president’s cabinet.
What surprises me is the lack of realization of those who are willing for this change to occur, who are not actually government employees or elected officials.
They do not seem to realize they will not be included in the ruling class. They too, will be deserted and left with the rest.
Pingback:sisu