News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence

[castlegates]

Since we are making things up about Sara Palin.
She caused hurricane Ike.
She made those two trains collide.
And she is a member of the KKK.

It's got to be eating you all up that people like her for being her.

 

[NeoDevin]

Since we are making things up about Sara Palin.
She caused hurricane Ike.
She made those two trains collide.
And she is a member of the KKK.

It's got to be eating you all up that people like her for being her.

Wow, she did those things? I'm not voting for her! (And I'm Canadian, so my vote counts double! (actually my vote counts 10 times as much, since we have 1/10th the population... it just doesn't count for anything in your election, hehe))

 

[las3rjock]

Since we are making things up about Sara Palin.
She caused hurricane Ike.
She made those two trains collide.
She is a member of the KKK.
She is qualified to be Vice President of the United States.

There, fixed it for you.

Astronuc provided a link to an article substantiating his claims, which as close to proof as we can get without FOIA'ing it ourselves.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But beyond the issue of the Mayor's authority to have acted to demand resignation, one has to question how such rhetorical questions can be asked about taking books off the shelf of a Public Library in the first place.

Perhaps someone can explain why a Mayor would ask such a question? What would she be thinking that such a situation could ever arise to be asking in the first place ... unless of course she was considering that she might actually ask to have books removed?

I recall that Gibson asked her about this and she gave a reason. My memory isn't that good, but I think it was that someone had asked Palin the question and Palin (perhaps thoughtlessly) passed the question on. Unfortunately, I can't find transcripts of the interview and apparently there is a reason for that in this link:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/09/14/a-public-challenge-to-charles-gibson-at-abc-news/"

 

[Evo]

I recall that Gibson asked her about this and she gave a reason. My memory isn't that good, but I think it was that someone had asked Palin the question and Palin (perhaps thoughtlessly) passed the question on. Unfortunately, I can't find transcripts of the interview and apparently there is a reason for that in this link:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/09/14/a-public-challenge-to-charles-gibson-at-abc-news/"

ALL tv shows are edited, he should know that since he's a big time editor of something I've never heard of. Has he demanded that "edited" interviews with Obama be re-released unedited? No.

Normally links to something that's not mainstream would not be allowed, but I'll let this pass because it shows how something is "ok" if it happens to the opposition, but cry foul when it's your candidate.

 

[Astronuc]

Gov. Palin’s Worldview
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13sat1.html

As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on Earth John McCain was thinking.

If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.

It was bad enough that Ms. Palin’s performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.

What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.

The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things — who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls “the mission” that they won’t even pause for reflection — shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.

One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”
. . . .

Bering Straight Talk
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14dowd.html

I’ve been in Alaska only a week, but I’m already feeling ever so much smarter about Russia.

The proximity of the country from which William Seward bartered to buy Alaska for $7 million — Seward’s icebox — is so illuminating that I suddenly realize that we would commit a grave error by overestimating Russia’s economic strength. After all, it represents only 2.8 percent of the world’s G.D.P., even though its gross domestic product has ballooned from $200 billion in 1999 to $1.7 trillion this year.

But I overanalyze.

An Arctic blast of action has swept into the 2008 race, making thinking passé. We don’t really need to hurt our brains studying the world; we just need the world to know we’re capable of bringing a world of hurt to the world if the world continues to be hell-bent on misbehaving.

Two weeks after being thrown onto a national ticket, and moments after being speed-briefed by McCain foreign-policy advisers, our new Napoleon in bunny boots (not the Pamela Anderson kind, but the knock-offs of the U.S. Army Extreme Cold Weather Vapor Barrier Boots) is ready to face down the Russkies and start a land war over Georgia, and, holy cow, what business is it of ours if Israel attacks Iran?
. . . .

OK - enough of the McCain-Palin comedy team. When is the GOP going to elect real candidates for P and VP?

It's got to be eating you all up that people like her for being her.

No - actually it's more like

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Normally links to something that's not mainstream would not be allowed, but I'll let this pass because it shows how something is "ok" if it happens to the opposition, but cry foul when it's your candidate.

Actually, I agree that the source was of low quality and would prefer that my offending post be deleted. However, the fact is that the interview was edited. Here is another site, also of low quality, that has a transcript of the interview with emphasis on the parts that were edited. The information is available on many web sites, but I can't find any from a reputable source.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview"
If someone can find a full transcript of the actual interview with or without emphasis, from a reputable source, I would prefer that this post also be deleted in favor of that one.

The practice of editing is not "ok". It is unacceptable to me on behalf of any side of any argument. I hope you will join me in this condemnation of a bad practice. If not, what is the point of requiring that sources be reputable?

 

[mheslep]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13sat1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14dowd.html

It appears opinion/editorial pieces and columnist/pundit pieces are ok. Since they're by definition just opinion and not held accountable, then the parent organization, mainstream or not, doesn't matter. Then opinion pieces from anywhere are Ok, as long as it is clear that is what they are?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

For instance, here is a report from the (mainstream?) Chicago Sun-Times purporting to contain a full transcript of an interview with Obama.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844597,transcript031508.article"
Why can't I get a full transcript of the interview with Palin from ABC News so I can link to it in safety?

As a single example of where the full interview changes the meaning of an answer, I point to this exchange which ABC is airing now:
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

The follow up was edited out (I too edited out stuff):
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia.

So the airhead answer is reported, and the sensible one left out. Rather than start a whole new discussion on just how sensible, I prefer that we agree that the discussion would not be helpful in a campaign of this importance and would not happen if ABC had reported its interview with a vice presidential candidate as it happened.

I have posted one Obama interview, but I don't have an example of a similar act of malicious editing. Evo, can you supply one from this or some other interview? It would strengthen my argument that the practice is unacceptable.

 

[Evo]

As a single example of where the full interview changes the meaning of an answer, I point to this exchange which ABC is airing now:
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

The follow up was edited out (I too edited out stuff):
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia.

So the airhead answer is reported, and the sensible one left out.

The piece that was edited out changes nothing, it's just back peddling drivel since obviously she couldn't give a real answer to the question. The "correct" answer would have simply been "none".

have posted one Obama interview, but I don't have an example of a similar act of malicious editing. Evo, can you supply one from this or some other interview? It would strengthen my argument that the practice is unacceptable.

First you haven't provided any "malicious editing". Second, I'm not taking your request seriously. Do you really expect me to find and watch every single tv interview Obama has done? I'll tell you what, why don't you send me a link to an interview of his that shows no edits.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'll tell you what, why don't you send me a link to an interview of his that shows no edits.

I did. Here it is again. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844597,transcript031508.article"
From a previous post of yours, I was under the impression that you knew of a case of editing. Am I now undeceived? Am I to understand that it is "ok" when it happens to a candidate you do not support and not "ok" when it happens to one that you do, even when it doesn't happen?

 

[LowlyPion]

I recall that Gibson asked her about this and she gave a reason. My memory isn't that good, but I think it was that someone had asked Palin the question and Palin (perhaps thoughtlessly) passed the question on. Unfortunately, I can't find transcripts of the interview and apparently there is a reason for that in this link:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/09/14/a-public-challenge-to-charles-gibson-at-abc-news/"

Excuse me. But that answer sounds absurd. The buck stops with her. She didn't mean to ask it? But she did. And she obviously thought it was an appropriate question (she asked it), without grasping the fundamental Constitutional issues involved?

I'd say her actions indicate quite the opposite. She asked the question and then I would note was very careful not to mention her knowingly unconstitutional reason for dismissal, rather instead chose to be too cute by half and tried fobbing the firing off on she had a right (divine right?) to loyalty test dismissal - where no such "at the pleasure" clause apparently attaches to the town Librarian's position?

 

[Amp1]

Hi Guys,

Had a hard time logging in recently. Well I'm here to give you this link to a dissident site, Charles Larson has this to say about McCain/Palin or should it be reversed Palin/McCain.

LOL, http://counterpunch.com/larson09152008.html

 

[Evo]

I did. Here it is again. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844597,transcript031508.article"

We seem to be on different pages here. You were complaining that you thought the editing of Palin's tv interview somehow made her sound dumber than she is. I said that all interviews on tv are edited to some extent, that's just what happens. I've been on tv and a lot more goes on than what gets aired. I am not asking you for a transcript, I asked, since you asked (and no I don't expect you to really do it) to find an original tv BROADCAST of an interview with Obama that was not edited. Unless you can prove that no interviews with Obama or Biden have been edited for content, then Palin's interview being edited for content is no different.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

We seem to be on different pages here. You were complaining that you thought the editing of Palin's tv interview somehow made her sound dumber than she is. I said that all interviews on tv are edited to some extent, that's just what happens. I've been on tv and a lot more goes on than what gets aired. I am not asking you for a transcript, I asked, since you asked (and no I don't expect you to really do it) to find an original tv BROADCAST of an interview with Obama that was not edited. Unless you can prove that no interviews with Obama or Biden have been edited for content, then Palin's interview being edited for content is no different.

I am agreeing with you. The practice is unacceptable. Your claim that such an interview exists does not require me to find one, I'll take your word for it even if you can't come up with one yourself. But surely you are not saying that since it happened to Obama in the past, it is ok now. It was not ok then. It is not ok now. We shouldn't be discussing my perception that the interview "somehow made her sound dumber than she is". We are doing so because of a practice I can't believe goes on and you tell me is widespread. We are talking about an interview with a candidate for Vice President of the US. That requires a level of honesty that ABC news lacks. I assume that the other examples are also in the mainstream media. Where am I to go for real news, FOX? Give me a break.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's got to be eating you all up that people like her for being her.

Actually, I think people like her for being like them - a shallow, god-fearing creationist with no academic caliber and no real interest in the world beyond the immediate surroundings.

Incidentally, it's the same crowd that's been crazy about GWB too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

At first I was thrown by the reaction to Palin, but it is important to remember that people are reacting to an idea, not the person. We have had two years to get our bearings on Obama. We have had two weeks for Palin. Already we see the facade cracking, and even a peak behind the facade reveals an empty space.

This just requires a little time to bring her into focus, but it is a job that needs to be done. Sure, the far right is going to love her. That's a given. But the independents are another story, and that's who they need.

Barring any last minute surprises about Obama [and major screw-ups on his part], I predict that McCain has already seen his best day of the race.

 

[Amp1]

On a different note, I found this excellent observation on a political forum. "Politics Forum.org"

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:49 pm
James Fallows explains why this is an issue. Quote:
Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I'd really like to hear answered is A.

Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture, the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (blush) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion. So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

Thats the way it appeared to me also.

One

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I am not asking you for a transcript, I asked, since you asked (and no I don't expect you to really do it) to find an original tv BROADCAST of an interview with Obama that was not edited. Unless you can prove that no interviews with Obama or Biden have been edited for content, then Palin's interview being edited for content is no different.

I have no transcript for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5fydONgwA8"
It purports to be live and so it might not be edited. It's from MSNBC.

 

[Gokul43201]

I am agreeing with you. The practice is unacceptable.

I think so too. And if you thought that was bad, try this for size:

CBS splices McCain interview clip, expunging his false claim on surge timeline and falsely suggesting he gave different answer

On the July 22 edition of the CBS Evening News, while airing portions of an interview she conducted that day with Sen. John McCain, anchor Katie Couric removed a part of his response in which he falsely asserted that the 2007 U.S. troop surge "began the Anbar awakening." In fact, the so-called Anbar awakening reportedly began in September 2006, months before the surge was even announced. Couric had asked McCain, "Senator [Barack] Obama says while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shia government going after militias, and says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?" But rather than airing McCain's direct reply, including the false claim that the surge "began the Anbar awakening" -- an agreement by some tribal leaders in western Iraq to accept U.S. aid and cooperate with anti-Al Qaeda operations -- Couric aired comments by McCain spliced together from three separate statements he gave during the interview, one of which responded to a different question. Couric gave no indication that these comments had been edited in any manner, nor did she otherwise note McCain's falsehood.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807230001

 

[Amp1]

Good catch Gokul!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think so too. And if you thought that was bad, try this for size:

The mainstream media have gone mad. Why do we continue to insist that our links are to the mainstream?

 

[Gokul43201]

The mainstream media have gone mad. Why do we continue to insist that our links are to the mainstream?

Perhaps because they're still not as mad as the rest?

Thing is with these interviews, while there may be a heavy dose of editing, the news agency will typically provide an unedited transcript (and expect us to be happy with that). But the overwhelming majority of people will not go about looking for transcripts.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Perhaps because they're not as mad as the rest?

Thing is with these interviews, while there may be a heavy dose of editing, the news agency will typically provide an unedited transcript (and expect us to be happy with that). But the overwhelming majority of people will not go about looking for transcripts.

I went about looking for transcripts. I could not find it on ABC, but was forced to go to the madder ones. In so doing, I took the chance that my post would be deleted on the legitimate fear that the transcripts posted there might undergo editing as well. After all, they were highlighted. Perhaps I just didn't look hard enough on the ABC site.

 

[LowlyPion]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807230001

So Katie is bowing to the McCain people to edit out his senility?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You can trust The News Hour on PBS.

 

[Evo]

It's the same reason why when I read a news article, I google for all of the major news sources as each tends to differ in what they choose to edit out.

Some of the non-mainstream sources I've found tend to edit in personal opinion and make it confusing as to what the main news story really was. Not to mention the often misleading sensationalist title.

 

[LowlyPion]

I went about looking for transcripts. I could not find it on ABC, but was forced to go to the madder ones. In so doing, I took the chance that my post would be deleted on the legitimate fear that the transcripts posted there might undergo editing as well. After all, they were highlighted. Perhaps I just didn't look hard enough on the ABC site.

The Transcript of the Palin interview looks decidedly more complete than the alleged sections edited out.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

This is the ABC link to the transcript, and sections I saw reported earlier as edited out are clearly there.

 

[turbo]

There is a new (to me, anyway) investigative journalism start-up operating as a not-for-profit entity, and their staff is about as mainstream as they come.

ProPublica is led by Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal. Stephen Engelberg, a former managing editor of The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon and former investigative editor of The New York Times, is ProPublica’s managing editor.

Lead funding for this effort is being provided by the Sandler Foundation, with Herbert Sandler serving as Chairman of ProPublica; other leading philanthropies also providing important support. A Board of Directors and a Journalism Advisory Board have also been formed.

According to them, the "Bridge to Nowhere" project was not killed by Palin, and it is still actively under consideration by the Alaska DOT.
http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-administration-still-pursuing-nowhere-project-913/

"What the media isn't reporting is that the project isn't dead," Roger Wetherell, spokesman for Alaska’s Department of Transportation, said. In a process begun this past winter, the state’s DOT is currently considering (PDF) a number of alternative solutions (five other possible bridges or three different ferry routes) to link Ketchikan and Gravina Island.

The DOT has not yet developed cost estimates for those proposals, Wetherell said, but $73 million of the approximately $223 million Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK) earmarked for the bridge in 2005 has been set aside for the Gravina Access Project.

Here is a PDF image showing the bridges and alternate ferries under consideration. Note that the date of the map is May 16, 2008. The Gravina Access project is alive and well.
http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/projectinfo/ser/Gravina/images/alternative_11x17_v4.pdf

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The Transcript of the Palin interview looks decidedly more complete than the alleged sections edited out.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

This is the ABC link to the transcript, and sections I saw reported earlier as edited out are clearly there.

I saw this article but passed it by because of this paragraph at the top:

The following excerpts are from the ABC News exclusive interview with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in Fairbanks, Alaska, conducted by "World News" anchor Charlie Gibson on September 11, 2008

Excerpts is the issue.

 

[LowlyPion]

I saw this article but passed it by because of this paragraph at the top:

Excerpts is the issue.

Except of course that most if not all of the dialog quoted in the piece you referenced as being edited out and improperly nuanced, as I recall are contained in the ABC version of the transcript.

 

[Evo]

I saw this article so decided to get more information on it.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Governor Palin's Reading List

Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that "some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow…

http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:huffington_post:517c268c04dec5a511d587ac4b0b3c51;_ylt=Ar.1nqnO2sJeNNL_KmGq6c3Zn414

This explains things in much more detail.

This was made clear in the most chilling passage of Palin’s acceptance speech. Aligning herself with “a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri” who “followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency,” she read a quote from an unidentified writer who, she claimed, had praised Truman: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.” Then Palin added a snide observation of her own: Such small-town Americans, she said, “run our factories” and “fight our wars” and are “always proud” of their country. As opposed to those lazy, shiftless, unproud Americans — she didn’t have to name names — who are none of the above.

There were several creepy subtexts at work here. The first was the choice of Truman. Most 20th-century vice presidents and presidents in both parties hailed from small towns, but she just happened to alight on a Democrat who ascended to the presidency when an ailing president died in office. Just as striking was the unnamed writer she quoted. He was identified by Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal as the now largely forgotten but once powerful right-wing Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler.

Palin, who lies with ease about her own record, misrepresented Pegler’s too. He decreed America was “done for” after Truman won a full term in 1948. For his part, Truman regarded the columnist as a “guttersnipe,” and with good reason. Pegler was a rabid Joe McCarthyite who loathed F.D.R. and Ike and tirelessly advanced the theory that American Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe (“geese,” he called them) were all likely Communists.

Surely Palin knows no more about Pegler than she does about the Bush doctrine. But the people around her do, and they will be shaping a Palin presidency. That they would inject not just Pegler’s words but spirit into their candidate’s speech shows where they’re coming from. Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, said that the Palin-sparked convention created “a whole new Republican Party,” but what it actually did was exhume an old one from its crypt.

The specifics have changed in our new century, but the vitriolic animus of right-wing populism preached by Pegler and McCarthy and revived by the 1990s culture wars remains the same. The game is always to pit the good, patriotic real Americans against those subversive, probably gay “cosmopolitan” urbanites (as the sometime cross-dresser Rudy Giuliani has it) who threaten to take away everything that small-town folk hold dear.

Continued...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14rich.html?hp

 

[Oberst Villa]

(from Evo's post above:)
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Governor Palin's Reading List
Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that "some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow…"


Westbrook Pegler surely was one funny guy, here is something he said about Truman:

After the assassination attempt on Truman in 1950, Pegler berated "hypocrites" for getting excited. "I hope this will be a lesson to Truman," he wrote in a column that was killed by Hearst. "I wasn't shocked, I wasn't horrified, and I believe that most of those who said they were were liars."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896539-1,00.html

It seems he just liked the idea of killing US presidents - makes you wonder: If he were still alive, what would he say about the punks that wanted to kill Obama ?

 

[Evo]

(from Evo's post above:)
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Governor Palin's Reading List
Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that "some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow…"


Westbrook Pegler surely was one funny guy, here is something he said about Truman:

After the assassination attempt on Truman in 1950, Pegler berated "hypocrites" for getting excited. "I hope this will be a lesson to Truman," he wrote in a column that was killed by Hearst. "I wasn't shocked, I wasn't horrified, and I believe that most of those who said they were were liars."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896539-1,00.html

It seems he just liked the idea of killing US presidents - makes you wonder: If he were still alive, what would he say about the punks that wanted to kill Obama ?

What a perfect choice to be quoted by the Vice-Presidential pick! I wonder if the speechwriter harbors some resentment, he is supposed to be President Bush's speech writer.

I read that this speech had been prepared weeks in advance of Palin being picked, but that he "customized" it for her after she was selected, apparently with the Pegler quotes to fit her 'small town America" image.

Palin had no problem taking credit for this speech when it made her "popular". I wonder if she's as willing to take credit for it now?

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin had no problem taking credit for this speech when it made her "popular". I wonder if she's as willing to take credit for it now?

Sadly I think there is little worry by the McCain camp in this regard, because those able to appreciate the irony of the remarks won't be voting for him anyway.

 

[turbo]

Palin loves pork. Still supporting a $600,000,000 bridge project to connect Anchorage to Wasilla (pop 7000). That about $86,000 per man, woman, and child to shorten (or maybe not) some commutes.

The Knik Arm was one of two bridge proposals in Alaska awarded more than $450 million from lawmakers who requested money for special projects in 2005, when Young chaired the House Transportation Committee. Young, Alaska's 18-term congressman, has said Alaska still lacks basic roads, railroads and bridges that were developed long ago in older and less spacious states.

At the time, Palin's running mate for the Republican ticket, Arizona Sen. John McCain, derided both projects as wasteful. He called Young's highway bill a "monstrosity" that was "terrifying in its fiscal consequences."

"I want no part of this," McCain said in a July 2005 statement. "This legislation is not — I emphasize not — my way of legislating."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/palin_bridge_to_wasilla;_ylt=Auqd6rKk8RXYVIL1tjOcwB6s0NUE

 

[Astronuc]

I'll bet that Palin will support a pipeline from the Treasury in Washington to Wasilla.

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin loves pork. Still supporting a $600,000,000 bridge project to connect Anchorage to Wasilla (pop 7000). That about $86,000 per man, woman, and child to shorten (or maybe not) some commutes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/palin_bridge_to_wasilla;_ylt=Auqd6rKk8RXYVIL1tjOcwB6s0NUE

Here is the map of that proposed bridge, and while yes it does shorten the Wasilla to Anchorage commute somewhat, I think seen within the context of shortening the Anchorage to Fairbanks trip, it makes some sense.

http://www.knikarmbridge.com/documents/RegionalConnection.PDF

Is that worth $600M? Not to me. Not for a state of 600K people.

Now on this bridge to Nowhere that flip-flop Palin said "thanks, but no thanks" to, she also said that if the state of Alaska wanted it built they would build it themselves. Sounds like a capital plan for this one as well. Exactly what the US should say "thanks, but no thanks".

If Alaskans want it built - build it themselves. McCain used to be right on this. But with his current desperate sell-out to the far moral right, I'd guess he doesn't quite see the Knik Knack Bridge as quite the abomination of PorkBarrel that he once did.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'll bet that Palin will support a pipeline from the Treasury in Washington to Wasilla.

They say that all politics is local. Well I guess all pork barrel is local too.

Pork barrel is like arm pits. Everyone has them and everyone else's stinks.

 

[LowlyPion]

The real insult to intelligence is the idea that picking an incompetent nominee like Palin, purely to capture the right wing Looney Tunes, could also be used as a distraction from the consequences of McCain's disastrous relationships with the banking industry and his career long positions against banking regulation.

The idea is that we forget his involvement with the Keating schemes of the late 80's, or his tight association with Phil Graham, the no regulation paid lobbyist for banking interests, who would be his Chief Economic Advisor still if he hadn't made the politically damaging statement that the American Public was a nation of whiners.

Just look at where the markets are today reeling under the wages of the current administration's overly lax regulation - a situation that McCain has spent a lifetime promoting.

 

[turbo]

A Palin spokeswoman says that the inquiry into her firing of the state's public safety director is "partisan" and that Palin would not cooperate. Hmmm...a review board made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats, voted unanimously to hire Steve Branchflower, a former DA and victim's rights advocate (who was appointed by Alaska's Republican Legislature) to investigate Monegan's firing, and the Democrats are playing "partisan" politics?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080916/pl_bloomberg/ahcjz0g1k_nu;_ylt=Ar5ckO6MtxnnY64g6Uczvdas0NUE

 

[LowlyPion]

A Palin spokeswoman says that the inquiry into her firing of the state's public safety director is "partisan" and that Palin would not cooperate. Hmmm...a review board made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats, voted unanimously to hire Steve Branchflower, a former DA and victim's rights advocate (who was appointed by Alaska's Republican Legislature) to investigate Monegan's firing, and the Democrats are playing "partisan" politics?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080916/pl_bloomberg/ahcjz0g1k_nu;_ylt=Ar5ckO6MtxnnY64g6Uczvdas0NUE

Palin Won't Cooperate in Probe of Trooper Firing, Campaign Says

And this after saying she would fully cooperate?

For the Bridge to Nowhere?

Against the Bridge to Nowhere?

Is this a confirmation of a FLIP-FLOP trend?

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin has made repeated public statements that she'll cooperate, and that hasn't changed at this point, Van Flein says.

http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/515508.html

The STONEWALLING begins?

Palin Won't Cooperate in Probe of Trooper Firing, Campaign Says

Not pretty.

 

[mheslep]

...This explains things in much more detail.

Surely this a misuse of the verb 'explains', as there is no explanation. The author does smear, defame, slur, and besmirch with the most opprobrious remarks, the last thing Frank Rich does is explain.

 

[Astronuc]

Surely this a misuse of the verb 'explains', as there is no explanation. The author does smear, defame, slur, and besmirch with the most opprobrious remarks, the last thing Frank Rich does is explain.

Umm - Evo's use of explain has nothing to do with Rich's Op-Ed in the times. She is referring to the other article.

Rich does not smear, defame, slur or besmirch. He offers his opinion and a reasonably accurate assesment of Palin and whatshisname.

 

[Astronuc]

Jon Friedman on - Why the Palin phenomenon is doomed

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The Sarah Palin Phenomenon is doomed.

But it's not because of her lack of foreign policy experience or her deer-in-the-headlights look during part of her interview last week with ABC's Charles Gibson.

The primary reason why the Palin bubble will burst is that the media will decide that they are bored with her. They'll need to move to shine a light on a fresh issue or individual.
This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down. . . . .

It isn't a case of quixotic behavior by reporters and editors. Internet sites, blogs and cable news operations all thrive on presenting fresh headlines and updated story angles as often as possible so readers think we're on top of things. The news world moves at warp speed.
. . . .
Gibson, as dignified a newsperson as America has now, treated Palin fairly and didn't resort to hectoring her with "gotcha" questions, either.

Palin's supporters may be chagrined that their candidate didn't sound more self-assured or expert when she discussed Alaska's relationship to Russia. But Gibson didn't try to trip her up. He pretty much asked the kinds of questions I would have put to Palin as well.

Gibson treated her with the respect befitting a vice presidential candidate. ABC, while discussing the interview Friday on "Good Morning America" unleashed political correspondent Jake Tapper to assess the "truthiness" of Palin's remarks on the ABC show.

The television networks appear to be treating Palin carefully, trying hard not to seem sexist or liberal or come across as intellectual, big-city bullies.

When ABC noted that Tapper had found a few holes in Palin's comments (though nothing Earth shattering), the network took pains to add that it, too, would be dissecting the statements of Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee.

I'm not overwhelmed by Obama, but at least he is not making exaggerated (make that egregious) claims like McCain and Palin are.

 

[turbo]

Asked on the McGraw Milhaven Show (radio) whether Sarah Palin had enough experience to run a large company, Carly Fiorina (who ran HP and is a McCain advisor) said that Palin doesn't have the experience, "but that's not what she's running for." What gets into these people's heads? You wouldn't trust Palin to run a company, but you'd put her one heart-beat away from running the whole country? What kind of Lewis Carroll-inspired world are these people living in?

http://beltwayblips.com/video/carly_fiorina_on_sarah_palin_s_experience/

 

[mheslep]

Gibson, as dignified a newsperson as America has now, treated Palin fairly and didn't resort to hectoring her with "gotcha" questions, either

As dignified a newsperson? Well that's one line, but I seriously doubt the author read the entire uncut transcript. On the other hand the NYT said:

Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

About which, BTW, Gibson should have kept his mouth shut, as he was wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,"

Summarizing, the Bush doctrine over time has meant:
-Prior to 9/11 the Bush approach to the ABM treaty
-Pre-emptive attacks, though given Korea/Vietnam, etc this can only weakly be credited to Bush
-Terror: those who harbor terrorists shall be considered terrorists
-Best way to achieve peace and security: expand democracy. "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." -2nd inaugural

 

[mheslep]

Umm - Evo's use of explain has nothing to do with Rich's Op-Ed in the times. She is referring to the other article.

Thats not clear -

Rich does not smear, defame, slur or besmirch. He offers his opinion and a reasonably accurate assesment of Palin and whatshisname.

How about McCarthyite? Gay baiting? Race baiting. Yellow journalism? Fear mongering?
"The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation, whether they’re wearing lipstick or not."
"As opposed to those lazy, shiftless, unproud Americans — she didn’t have to name names — who are none of the above."
"chilling passage"
"snide observation of her own"
"There were several creepy subtexts at work here. "
"...probably gay “cosmopolitan” urbanites (as the sometime cross-dresser Rudy Giuliani has it) "
"The racial component to this brand of politics was undisguised in St. Paul."

All of that crap is invention by Rich, his own 'reading between the lines'. If he does not defame or smear etc nobody does.

 

[quadraphonics]

-Pre-emptive attacks, though given Korea/Vietnam, etc this can only weakly be credited to Bush

No, no, it's not pre-emptive attacks, but preventative attacks. A pre-emptive attack is when your enemy is in the process of attacking you, and so instead of standing around waiting for his attacks to impact you before countering, you immediately counter in the hopes of weakening or defeating their (imminent) attack. This is uncontroversial, widely-accepted, millenia-old military doctrine, so vanilla that it would be ridiculous to give it a named "doctrine."

A preventative attack, on the other hand, is a very different beast. In this case, there is no enemy attacking you, or even able to attack you. The attack is taken to prevent an enemy from even developing the ability to attack you in the first place. This is vastly more controversial, as it implies a stronger force acting against a (much) weaker one, and that without any pretext of attacks by the smaller side. This is what the Bush Doctrine (or that version of it anyway) proposed: the United States can use overwhelming military force against states that are in no position to threaten the USA, in order to prevent them from ever gaining the ability to threaten the USA. Basically, anyone not already strong enough to deter the United States (which is a short list indeed) can be crushed and overthrown at any time, at the discretion of the United States. Needless to say, this was not a popular doctrine, what with its blatantly imperialistic implications.