The midnight ride of Sarah Palin.

[dlgoff]

And to think that when I saw the title of this thread I thought it meant a different kind of midnight ride of Sarah Palin.

Oh. You're bad.

 

[WhoWee]

And to think that when I saw the title of this thread I thought it meant a different kind of midnight ride of Sarah Palin. I can't decide which is worse, the fact that Sarah Palin actually thinks she is up for the job or the number of voters who think she is up for the job.

Actually, I think it's driving the Left crazy to know that all of the attacks on Palin will only serve to keep her in the news - free to attack the President at will on the economy and his policies. She is free to influence elections - and make a ton of money doing it. I think she's having a great time and regardless of what she says (IMO) the people who like her will continue to like her and the people who don't - won't.

 

[turbo]

Actually, I think it's driving the Left crazy to know that all of the attacks on Palin will only serve to keep her in the news - free to attack the President at will on the economy and his policies. She is free to influence elections - and make a ton of money doing it. I think she's having a great time and regardless of what she says (IMO) the people who like her will continue to like her and the people who don't - won't.

Sarah Palin is no more effectual than the Kardashian sisters. Famous for being famous and attracting press means nothing. Kim's butt is better than Sarah's AND Kim has s $2M engagement ring. What's Sarah's come-back? The media need to start ignoring camera-hogs that have no intellect or content.

 

[drankin]

She's my favorite Ameerican.

 

[WhoWee]

Sarah Palin is no more effectual than the Kardashian sisters. Famous for being famous and attracting press means nothing. Kim's butt is better than Sarah's AND Kim has s $2M engagement ring. What's Sarah's come-back? The media need to start ignoring camera-hogs that have no intellect or content.

Like I said - it drives them crazy - IMO.

 

[KingNothing]

regardless of what she says (IMO) the people who like her will continue to like her and the people who don't - won't.

...and this is why we can't have nice things.

 

[lisab]

Like I said - it drives them crazy - IMO.

Actually it's more of an embarrassment. Not sure if you're aware, but she gets a *lot* of coverage in the foreign press. Egads, just what we need to add to the caricature of Americans so much of the world already believes !

 

[WhoWee]

Actually it's more of an embarrassment. Not sure if you're aware, but she gets a *lot* of coverage in the foreign press. Egads, just what we need to add to the caricature of Americans so much of the world already believes !

Let's be honest - the foreign press dislikes her because she is unapologetic of American leadership for the past 100 years - and would like it to continue (IMO).

 

[mege]

People say stupid things all the time, what she is wrong about is harmless fluff. It's not like she's basing a policy decision on the history of the specifics of the Revolutionary War (see then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi expounding on the 500 million Americans that will lose their jobs because of not passing the stimulus). That mistake barely got any attention and it was made on the house floor!

Point being - everyone makes mistakes, why do we focus on fluff-mistakes for entertainment in the first place? Also, why is it worse for a conservative to make a mistake than a liberal? Can you imagine what would have happened in the media if President Bush signed the http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-signs-westminster-abbey-guest-book-using-2008-date/ ?

The media focus and hypocrasy that glows around stories like the Palin-Revere misspeak is upsetting.

 

[drankin]

People say stupid things all the time, what she is wrong about is harmless fluff. It's not like she's basing a policy decision on the history of the specifics of the Revolutionary War (see then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi expounding on the 500 million Americans that will lose their jobs because of not passing the stimulus). That mistake barely got any attention and it was made on the house floor!

Point being - everyone makes mistakes, why do we focus on fluff-mistakes for entertainment in the first place? Also, why is it worse for a conservative to make a mistake than a liberal? Can you imagine what would have happened in the media if President Bush signed the http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-signs-westminster-abbey-guest-book-using-2008-date/ ?

The media focus and hypocrasy that glows around stories like the Palin-Revere misspeak is upsetting.

There you go again. Pointing out the obvious and making sense and stuff. :)

 

[ideasrule]

I don't think that would have helped. If you remember the whole North Korea/South Korea thing, she corrected herself immediately (as in the next sentence) afterwards - but that correction never seemed to be mentioned, and when the audio was circulated, it was cut right before the correction.

You're misrepresenting the situation. It was Glenn Beck who corrected Palin, not Palin herself, and that was after she made the same mistake two times. See here:

I'm willing to pass this off as a brain fart, but that doesn't change the fact that she made a stupid mistake and didn't correct herself.

Point being - everyone makes mistakes, why do we focus on fluff-mistakes for entertainment in the first place?

Some mistakes are simply interesting slips of the tongue, and don't necessarily imply anything about the intelligence of the speaker. Others, like Palin's comments about the Midnight Ride, show a serious lack of understanding that's very worrying for somebody running for president.

Also, why is it worse for a conservative to make a mistake than a liberal? Can you imagine what would have happened in the media if President Bush signed the royal guest book with the wrong year?

That's hardly a fair comparison because Bush is widely considered one of the worst presidents of all time. Regardless, if Bush had signed using the wrong year, I would consider it evidence that he's not a perfect robot, not evidence that he's unfit to be president. I've often put the current year as my birthdate, so it's not a difficult mistake to make.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Some mistakes are simply interesting slips of the tongue, and don't necessarily imply anything about the intelligence of the speaker. Others, like Palin's comments about the Midnight Ride, show a serious lack of understanding that's very worrying for somebody running for president.

There is no defense for Palin's many idiotic comments.

She isn't running for President. And even if she did, she has no chance of getting elected. Her chance has already come and gone, thank goodness!

 

[drankin]

There is no defense for Palin's many idiotic comments.

She isn't running for President. And even if she did, she has no chance of getting elected. Her chance has already come and gone, thank goodness!

I'm not so sure. Obama got elected.

 

[turbo]

I'm not so sure. Obama got elected.

Are you equating Obama's election with the idiocy of Sarah Palin? He's a Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history. Palin's only claim to fame is that McCain was ignorant enough to take her on as a running-mate.

If McCain had chosen Bill Cohen or maybe Colin Powell, he would be president of the US today, IMO. Hillary Clinton had a lot of baggage and Obama was largely unknown, so I think McCain would have been a shoo-in if he had a running mate that had a track record or a public record and more than a couple firing brain-cells.

Instead, McCain picked a self-absorbed clothes-horse who self-destructed when Katy Couric asked softball questions, like what periodicals do you read. That was really sad.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

People do make mistakes all the time. The more you say, the more mistakes you make. And if you are in the public eye, your mistakes get amplified. It is surprising to me that Palin would miss on a lay-up question like who is Paul Revere, but taken in isolation that mistake wouldn't sway my opinion of her. The problem is that she defended the mistake because of a technicallity. This was a disservice to herself and more importantly to the children of the country. Teachers have enough trouble as it is, they don't need this extra headache. I would suggest to Sarah that she make a video for use in schools and explain who Paul Revere was. No apologies, no mention of the mistake, just a little history video. She would gain points for free with that one.

 

[mege]

People do make mistakes all the time. The more you say, the more mistakes you make. And if you are in the public eye, your mistakes get amplified. It is surprising to me that Palin would miss on a lay-up question like who is Paul Revere, but taken in isolation that mistake wouldn't sway my opinion of her. The problem is that she defended the mistake because of a technicallity. This was a disservice to herself and more importantly to the children of the country. Teachers have enough trouble as it is, they don't need this extra headache. I would suggest to Sarah that she make a video for use in schools and explain who Paul Revere was. No apologies, no mention of the mistake, just a little history video. She would gain points for free with that one.

The children of the country? If they're getting history lessons from any politician or public figure, then we're in trouble. SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy is funny because it's true.

I think Palin defending her mistake was more offensive towards the media than actually trying to defend herself. She could say that the sky was blue and there'd still be a major story "SARAH PALIN SAYS CLOUDS DON'T EXIST" so she can't win either way. While I know she's not a valid Presidential candidate (she's already in too deep of a media-hole), I think she has done a lot of good for the Republican party. There are a lot of conservative young women that do use her openness as a model, and do learn from her mistakes. Palin has put a relatively youthful family face, warts and all, on politics. While it's hard for die-hard collectivists to see these as positives: Palin is honest and very straight-forward, isn't that really what we want in our politicians when it comes down to it? Whenever I ask my Democrat friends what it is about Palin that incites them so much all I get back is grumbling "omg, how can you like her at all?" as if anything Palin is ad hoc negative without any real reasons (maybe a "she's so dumb" thrown in there).

As an aside: I still don't think we've seen the Republican Presidental nominee make headlines yet. The VP Candidate may be someone in the spotlight now, but in the 24/7 news coverage this is just too much time for the eggs to fly. Did you even know who President Obama was before April 2008 or so?

 

[mege]

Are you equating Obama's election with the idiocy of Sarah Palin? He's a Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history. Palin's only claim to fame is that McCain was ignorant enough to take her on as a running-mate.

If McCain had chosen Bill Cohen or maybe Colin Powell, he would be president of the US today, IMO. Hillary Clinton had a lot of baggage and Obama was largely unknown, so I think McCain would have been a shoo-in if he had a running mate that had a track record or a public record and more than a couple firing brain-cells.

Instead, McCain picked a self-absorbed clothes-horse who self-destructed when Katy Couric asked softball questions, like what periodicals do you read. That was really sad.

Claiming Sarah Palin is inexperienced in government has no warrant. She was one of the most well liked governors in the country and has been in public service for almost 20 years now, executive positions for most of that. President Obama only got elected to the federal Senate because Jack Ryan (by most accounts a huge favorite) pulled out - Obama was really just a body on the ballot until Ryan withdrew months before the election. Palin's book Going Rogue actually has a good explanation about her Vice Presidental selection. I highly suggest reading it, esspecially if you feel the need to make ad hominem attacks against her.

On President Obama as a 'constitutional scholar' - I would be really interested in his papers while he was at Columbia and Harvard. Too bad they're all locked away. Also, he was a part time faculty instructor, not a Professor.

Some mistakes are simply interesting slips of the tongue, and don't necessarily imply anything about the intelligence of the speaker. Others, like Palin's comments about the Midnight Ride, show a serious lack of understanding that's very worrying for somebody running for president.

I don't think anyone seriously puts her in contention for the Presidency except for MSNBC, only so they can keep on pounding the negative portrayal of her. In conservative circles, she's respected a bit, but people understand she's too much of a lightning rod.

That's hardly a fair comparison because Bush is widely considered one of the worst presidents of all time. Regardless, if Bush had signed using the wrong year, I would consider it evidence that he's not a perfect robot, not evidence that he's unfit to be president. I've often put the current year as my birthdate, so it's not a difficult mistake to make.

Why isn't the comparison fair? They're both Presidents and calling President Bush one of the worst is highly ambiguous. Very few Presidents leave office with high approval ratings. Heck, President Bush even got re-elected (with a popular majority, even)! Also, if he's so bad - why does President Obama keep on extending his policies like Tax Cuts, NCLB, etc?

But the point still is - why would the media treat them differently about the same thing? (to the original discussion in the thread) There are lots of gaffes by President Obama and other leftist politicians that get overlooked by the media. This Palin 'story' is just an example of twisting a knife for fun.

 

[hillzagold]

Mege, you bring up that wrong year thing a lot, as if it matters at all. No one would ever make more than half a joke if Bush pronounced a name wrong, and no one would ever make more than half a joke if Obama wrote the wrong year. Because we're actual people, we realize that these mistakes don't reflect on what kind of people they are. But if Bush, Obama, Palin, or anybody else said anything as dumb as what Palin's been saying, we know why. She didn't make a mistake, she didn't get hit by a 'gotcha' question ("What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?"). She's just an idiot trying to convince us she's not an idiot.

She could say that the sky was blue and there'd still be a major story "SARAH PALIN SAYS CLOUDS DON'T EXIST" so she can't win either way.

That...Sure that would happen, you go ahead and think that.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The children of the country? If they're getting history lessons from any politician or public figure, then we're in trouble.

Unfortunately, it has percolated. So that while Palin is the ultimate source of the misinformation, the kids may not necessarily hear it directly from her. There are people now determined to rewrite history. That is not Palin's fault, but is a fact that simply cannot be ignored. I don't see any downside to her making a video and setting the record straight.

 

[mege]

Unfortunately, it has percolated. So that while Palin is the ultimate source of the misinformation, the kids may not necessarily hear it directly from her. There are people now determined to rewrite history. That is not Palin's fault, but is a fact that simply cannot be ignored. I don't see any downside to her making a video and setting the record straight.

That is, http://www.nas.org/polimage.cfm?doc_Id=1983&size_code=Doc").

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That is, http://www.nas.org/polimage.cfm?doc_Id=1983&size_code=Doc").

I fully agree with you, this is a serious problem and getting worse. Are you presenting this as a reason not to make the small fix that I propose?

 

[mege]

I fully agree with you, this is a serious problem and getting worse. Are you presenting this as a reason not to make the small fix that I propose?

I'm ignoring the 'Sarah Palin should make a video' comments you're making because I don't have an opinion on it. One hand, yes, fully accepting actions and correcting statements is a good thing. On the other hand, I have limited faith in it being of consequence. The lack of consequence is not because it's Sarah Palin, but because the public's attention span for any news story only extends through the initial orgasm of information.

Take this discussion for example - we've already discussed this mistep for dozens of posts. If Palin did release a video correcting her self totally and humbly, would we pay much attention to it (esspecially compared to this thread)? Very likely not, causing the earlier action to be more prevelent in our memory anyhow totally negating the effort of the 'corrective' video.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm ignoring the 'Sarah Palin should make a video' comments you're making because I don't have an opinion on it. One hand, yes, fully accepting actions and correcting statements is a good thing. On the other hand, I have limited faith in it being of consequence. The lack of consequence is not because it's Sarah Palin, but because the public's attention span for any news story only extends through the initial orgasm of information.

Take this discussion for example - we've already discussed this mistep for dozens of posts. If Palin did release a video correcting her self totally and humbly, would we pay much attention to it (esspecially compared to this thread)? Very likely not, causing the earlier action to be more prevelent in our memory anyhow totally negating the effort of the 'corrective' video.

The video would be for distribution in schools. I am suggesting that she do it because it is the right thing to do to correct a mistake. I understand that she is a politician and her enemies will never give her an inch, but what has that got to do with it?

 

[hillzagold]

Take this discussion for example - we've already discussed this mistep for dozens of posts. If Palin did release a video correcting her self totally and humbly, would we pay much attention to it (esspecially compared to this thread)? Very likely not, causing the earlier action to be more prevelent in our memory anyhow totally negating the effort of the 'corrective' video.

It must be nice having so many unproven assumptions to make your arguments better.

 

[WhoWee]

Are you equating Obama's election with the idiocy of Sarah Palin? He's a Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history. Palin's only claim to fame is that McCain was ignorant enough to take her on as a running-mate.

Once more - please support your description that Obama is a "Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history" - we discussed this in another thread last week didn't we?

As for Palin - wasn't she a mayor and a governor?

edit - I see Mege beat me to the point.

 

[hillzagold]

Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school, is that not enough?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/margaret-thatcher-sarah-palin-meeting

Anyways, the American right once again shows how moronically stubborn they are. Even the British right laugh at Palin's idiocy.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school, is that not enough?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/margaret-thatcher-sarah-palin-meeting

Anyways, the American right once again shows how moronically stubborn they are. Even the British right laugh at Palin's idiocy.

Actually - no. Turbo made a very specific claim that he has not yet supported.

 

[lisab]

Once more - please support your description that Obama is a "Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history" - we discussed this in another thread last week didn't we?

As for Palin - wasn't she a mayor and a governor?

edit - I see Mege beat me to the point.

I can't find that thread, do you remember which one it was? The keywords "Obama" and "constitutional" are all through P&WA.

 

[apeiron]

Once more - please support your description that Obama is a "Constitutional scholar and professor with a strong grasp of history" - we discussed this in another thread last week didn't we?

Google knows the answer in 0.13 seconds...

Statement Regarding Barack Obama

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

 

[mege]

Google knows the answer in 0.13 seconds...

I was going off what Wikipedia says, which doesn't make any mention of him as a Professor in the section I looked it (but it does make mention, at second look, in another section).

Even conceeding the point of President Obama's legal creditentials, at worst case, (what spurred this discussion on President Obama) Sarah Palin and President Obama were equally qualified to run for office. She still had more executive experience than him as both a Mayor and Governor, he had zero executive experience (unless you count his [strike]revolutionary[/strike] community organizer experience).