Charlie Gibson's War
Well, not war, but a milder though satisfying combat and a valuable moment of self-redemption. By network standards, Gibson was a lipstickless bulldog. The encounter was combative enough to blow some of her Teflon off.
Much has already been written on segment one of the Gibsonthon, aired on World News Tonight Thursday. Palin didn't recognize the pillar of Bush's foreign policy, and then mischaracterized it. She repeated her absurdity about command of the Alaska National Guard and proximity to Russia. (He might well have asked her what she'd learned from all that proximity.) She declared that she was ready for war with Russia. Mild-mannered Charlie, who is always wishing us a good day, confessed: "I get lost in a blizzard of words there." I've never heard him so blunt.
On the Friday night 20/20 segment, Kate Snow's teaser began: "You discover her story is part fact and part fable." Palin was an earmark queen, winning $27,000,000 for 6000 people. She spent $8,000,000 on a road to nowhere. "Some of her best friends...are reluctant to endorse Sarah Palin the candidate," Snow reported.
That was for openers. Then Gibson continued: "We've got a very sick economy....What are three principal things you would change in the Bush economic plan?" Her answer: "Put government back on the side of the people." She touted "what I did with Wasilla. We cut the personal property tax." Gibson: "You came into a debt-free city and left it with considerable debt."
Gibson: "You've advertised yourselves as the party of change. What would you change in the Bush economic plan?" As she rolled into her preprogrammed cant, drifting away from his question, he had to keep pressing her. Here's what she came up with at last: 1. Reduce taxes. 2. Control spending. 3. Oversight. Now, oversight is only partly an executive prerogative, though it's awfully important. The question she skirted (but so did Gibson) was, why have eight years of Republican rule seen such an abdication of oversight? Where does she intend to find honest regulators when her party--the traditional font of executive appointments--specializes in cronies and other interested parties who buy their way into the ostensible headquarters of regulation? Where was her party when it elevated the likes of Brownie--remember him, the horse association leader who ran FEMA into the ground? Did she call for oversight when she was a mayor or governor?
When she called for "efficiencies," Gibson asked whether that included entitlement programs. "All sectors," she clarified.
He might have asked what's so inefficient about Social Security. He might have asked whether she agreed with her running-mate that Social Security is a "disgrace." Still, to me, Palin sounded unconvincing.
"Why do you keep saying Obama's going to raise taxes?" "What was wrong with the Clinton economic plan? He produced 22,000,000 jobs against 5 million for Bush." Her bulldozer bulled on.
On the Bridge to Nowhere, he was Robert Jordan and William Holden in "The Bridge over the River Kwai" rolled together.
What do I know? I don't, of course, know how any of this played with independents who are disinclined to believe that Charlie Gibson is Satan's playmate. Are they prepared to believe that "Alaska is such a microcosm of the rest of the United States"? Do points 1-3 sound like a plausible remedy for the grave economic malaise and the Bush depredations? Doubletalk, tripletalk.
I suppose there are some independents who are independent not because they're conflicted but because they know little, pay attention to little, and like to style themselves just fine because of their ignorance. Perhaps the fact that she kept talking works to her benefit--she's "strong," which seems to be American for obdurate.
I give Gibson a B+. He didn't ask about Palin's affection for the Alaska Independence Party, the America-hating affiliate of Jerome Corsi's lunatic Constitution Party. There's much more to be said about her grotesque misunderstanding of the melting Arctic ice cap next door--about as close as Russia, in fact. There's vastly more to be known.
Still and all, I'm guessing that Sarah Palin has peaked, and my apprehensions about Charlie Gibson are, for the moment, assuaged. Who'll step up next to fill in the spaces he left?
Update: Thanks to a reader whose first initial is J. for pressing me to clarify what I meant about oversight.
Sean Hannity.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/next-up-for-palin-sean-hannity/
His interview will be taped Tuesday in Cincinnati, Ohio, and will be shown on “Hannity & Colmes,” Fox’s 9 p.m. political talk show, on Tuesday and Wednesday.
September 13, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know that Steve will hand the questions to Sean. They may even rehearse together. Pure Kabuki Theater. Why do they even bother?
September 13, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I won't be watching as it will be painful, I am sure, to see his face lodged to tightly up her behind.
September 13, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sean Hannity.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/next-up-for-palin-sean-hannity/
His interview will be taped Tuesday in Cincinnati, Ohio, and will be shown on “Hannity & Colmes,” Fox’s 9 p.m. political talk show, on Tuesday and Wednesday.
September 13, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
oops.
September 13, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain/Palin -- The Lie to Nowhere
September 13, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good one.
September 13, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Todd,
if you go to the 1:08 mark of the Palin interview featured by Josh you will see her justify earmarks, and not just hers.
September 13, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Todd,
if you go to the 1:08 mark of the Palin interview featured by Josh you will see her justify earmarks, and not just hers.
September 13, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Todd,
if you go to the 1:08 mark of the Palin interview featured by Josh you will see her justify earmarks, and not just hers.
September 13, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
mcSham and Lady mcShame: Partners and Soul Mates in Lying!
September 13, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howdy Doodie and Clarabelle
September 13, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the bit when they showed a shot of her wearing the T-shirt which said "Nowhere Alaska 99901" -just as she referred to it as a T-shirt with the zip code of the town. Now which part of that shirt don't you want to talk about Sarah?
September 13, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
At some point her newly minted mcSham positions are going to lead Alaskans to dump her as gov! Ah... the irony!
September 13, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
onemip,
I noticed the same thing. She's just another dissembling winger.
September 13, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
onemipi,
I picked up on that too, she's just another dissembling Republican.
September 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the bit when they showed a shot of her wearing the T-shirt which said "Nowhere Alaska 99901" -just as she referred to it as a T-shirt with the zip code of the town. Now which part of that shirt don't you want to talk about Sarah?
September 13, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Argggh!
September 13, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give Gibson credit because he did make sure to point out that she kept that damned money she received for the bridge to nowhere. I'd have like a follow up that asked her just what she did with "our" money.
I enjoyed her trying to explain the seal DNA and crab research. She said that research money was requested by various institutions and agencies, but it was all okay because it was "out in the open, not inserted by lobbyist." I'd counter that any governor would say the same for his/her state's earmark requests!
If Alaska wants infrastructure, might I suggest a state income tax? Or at least a roll back of the annual "you live here so here's a great big check"? To the rest of us, Alaska is no more that the biggest welfare state in the union.
Clueless on the economy, clueless on foreign policy, but gee, she sure has spunk!
PEACE
September 13, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I don't understand. If she is getting so much money from you and from me--then how come she gives thousands away to every state resident every year? MY state doesn't give me money, it takes money. But I don't mind paying for the services they provide. I think street signs and traffic lights are a good thing.
September 13, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of her statements can made into such great attack ads.
September 13, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
c4 asks;
Excellent observation and question.
September 13, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What she did with the money was explained in the intro: she built a road to nowhere which can only be seen from the air.
September 13, 2008 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That gravel road cost anywhere between $8 and $20 million, depending on who's talking.
So what happened to the other $200+ million?
PEACE
September 13, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment makes me wonder if the reason Gibson was so calm and soft and non-confrontational was precisely because he understands that if she had appeared to have had to defend her self from the "evil media" by talking tough it would render her actual answers meaningless. This way, her answers are on the record and can be slowly dissected over the next two months.
I still can't believe they LIED about the teleprompter malfunction at the convention. It's all theater with Rove and this interview took away that stage -- at least for this set of answers.
September 13, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this review Todd. We can easily ascertain that the Gibson interview damaged Palin by perusing the many hastily-penned post-interview articles by neocons rushing to rescue Palin from her Bush Doctrine gaffe and personally excoriating the hand-picked Charles Gibson for the interview. Very telling. You might even say that if you've lost Charles Gibson, you've lost the country.
But we'll see.
September 13, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin peaked the day before Gibson's first interview. It's time for Obama to turn all the focus on McCain and not allow his campaign to distract him by using Palin.
Pavin will self implode, she doesn't need any help from critics who will be seen by women as being sexist.
September 13, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin's the best thing McCain's got. Go after her with surrogates.
September 13, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point definitely tie McCain and Palin together. They're both incredibly huge liars and she reflects horribly on his judgment. If you're such a earmark reformer Senator McCain then why did you pick the the single biggest pork abuser from the single biggest federal welfare state in the country as your running mate?
Even Fournier's damn AP which is carried by about every little paper in the country is turning on them. Every little paper mind you that we all should be commenting on with the facts with links to the videos if their comment policy will allow it. Expose these frauds, as George S. Patton would say turn their flank and kick 'em in the ass.
September 13, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
"McCain is just like Bush and Palin is just like McCain"
or
"What's the difference between a dangerous man and a dangerous woman? Lipstick, of course."
September 13, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Partners and Soul Mates" in Lying.
September 13, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. 90% and Lady 90%!
September 13, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take down Lady mcSham, you knee-cap mcSham.
The mcSham Slander Sircus:
1. lying
2. crying (wolf)
That's all they seem to stand for!
September 13, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! "Cry Wolf!"
That would make an excellent ad theme from Team Obama. Turn those wolves right back on them.
PEACE
September 13, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Despite the conventional wisdom which says to beware offending them at all costs...
Other than winger women (with whom I try, generally, not to hang), every woman I know, or whom I don't know but whose comments I've read, actually thinks that the whole meme of "Criticize Sarah--you're a sexist!" is a condescending, total crock of shit. Women.
American women, taken as a whole, are nowhere near as dumb and gullible as the Republican Party would prefer them to be. That's one encouraging thing.
September 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally some sensible answer to the McCain whine about sexism. Can you imagine what the neo-cons would say if Hillary had used that truly SEXIST whine to divert others from criticism of her. She never did it and for women to accept that silly idea about Palin is a REAL form of sexism. For women to get in the kitchen and then their surrogates cry "sexism" because they cannot stand the heat certainly turns me off - a 75 year old woman who has worked all my life and have been treated very fairly for the most part. Palin makes me ashamed of her because she is such a whiner.
September 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joy Behar? Let's get little Sarah on The View. They'll have her for lunch.
September 13, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lunch, hell - Whoopi and Baba will share her as an hors d'oeuvre.
September 13, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lady "Readiness" is too scared to be among strong women! She'd cave!
September 13, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Charlie was as reasonably objective as a figure such as himself might be expected to be. Even still, the questions were pretty soft. It was obvious from her answer about the economy that she doesn't really know what goes on inside those govt agencies. I have worked inside of one of those agencies, I write software for them--and while there may very well be some inefficiencies somewhere, I haven't see it at my current agency. I don't think most Americans, including Sarah Palin do not know what goes on behind the scenes, because it is mostly invisible. Here's a hint: 100 million worth of transactions flow through the business mail entry units of the USPS every day. The FBI must evaluate the datasets on 100,000 visitors to the USA every day, arriving by plane, boat, car and on foot. I know because I have written the software that glues these activities together. It is doubtful to me that many senators or congressmen know what goes on, day in day out. Do you know how many containers arrive in US ports every day? How many cows are slaughtered? How many medicare claims are processed? How many tax returns are processed? How many open cases the FBI is investigating? How large the NIH campus is?
This woman is simply ignorant. Yes, her hubris is beyond astonishing. She didn't blink when asked to get ready to inherit the presidency? Not a single word of rationalization, such as, I never thought such a thing was possible for me, but I want to serve the people so badly, I will work so hard to master the details needed to make good judgments--or, I have dreamed of this all my life and worked hard to achieve this opportunity, beginning with my undergraduate studies in Political Science. But No. Not a word of rationalization or justification. Just like that, without thinking, she is willing to take responsibility for the health, education, welfare, and security of 300 million people in the depths of a historic economic crisis in the middle of two military adventures. This is so breathtakingly surreal that she is either too stupid to understand the responsibility involved, or she's just flat out crazy as a loon.
September 13, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or both...She is the equivalent of Caligula making his horse a Roman Senator...
September 13, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ c4Logic
I'm an American. I know what goes on in some of those agencies because I've been involved in getting grants from them. They're as inefficient and mindless as their critics assert, hampered by endless rules designed to prevent fraud and assure decent pay (which are only mildly successful), and applied without regard to common sense by overworked bureaucrats.
This is not an easy criticism. They often provide for good works that wouldn't happen without them. And I'm still thinking about whether or not there's a better way to do things.
September 13, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a generalization that simply does not hold water universally. It is a popular mythic trope, usually spread by people who have no actual knowledge, and love to engage in bombast. For the criticisms you mention to have any meaning, they must be addressed on a case by case basis.
I would say the biggest problem I have observed is that when people such as yourself observe problems, there doesn't seem to be an effective omsbudsman process to investigate and come up with an improvement. I admit, I and many others saw internal beaureaucrats' interfere with and impede aspects of Al Gore's program to reinvent govt. But here you had a case of business process re-engineering that was upending the organizational status quo in terms of power and budget. And any organization must deal with these issues, so brilliantly detailed in the wonderful book 'Parkinson's Law'.
I'm saying that the kinds of 'efficiencies' Palin is looking for require an expertise that She or no other outsider is going to acquire in 4 years. And I have seen examples of McCain attempting to interfere with an micro-manage govt procurement processes such as the bid to buy new refueling jets for the military. His kibitzing added many, many more millions to the cost of the project.
People need to stop and consider how big the task of government actually is, logistically, day in, and day out--and what happens when one of these services is suspended. Think about it. One, by one, turn off each Agency and extrapolate the consequences. Try it as a thought experiment. With the legitimate security concerns that have emerged since 9-11, the public wants government to do MORE, not less--and new emerging technologies, such as digital communication create new needs that did not exist 20 years ago, such as computer security--or drugs imported from China.
If we are going to have a national discussion on how to improve the efficiencies of government, at least bring in some players who actually know what is going on, and not these know nothings who spin castles in the air as a substitute for actual knowledge. People need to get real or they will make things worse. Maybe we should look at countries that actually do government better than we do. Oh, I don't know, maybe Sweden or Norway? Oh, that's right, they are Socialists. Well then, never mind. We only give handouts to big financial corporations that need assistance.
September 13, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ c4Logic
I was replying to a generalization of yours with a genalization of my own. Seems fair to me. I didn't see you limiting your stuff to case by case criticisms and, you ought to be far more careful than you are about characterizing those who don't share your views. Writing software for a government agency hardly qualifies you as an unimpeachable expert. Your attempt to portray yourself as such is - to put it delicately - off-putting.
But here are a few case-by-case examples.
California State Hospital inspectors recently reviewed the performance of a small, rural critical access hospital and found severe deficiencies in paperwork, demanding a very time-consuming and expensive review of procedures. They found no fault with actual care of patients. Meanwhile the state has cut off all Medicare funding because of its general financial condition and a dispute over the budget, resulting in non-payment of vendors and threatening non-payment of employees, closure, and permanent damage to the community if payment isn't resumed very soon. I know this first hand because I'm on the hospital board of directors.
Water system improvements ware mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act on virtually all water systems. A very small system, serving only about a 100 people, was impacted despite the fact that untreated water from its spring has been safe for more than a hundred years. The improvements could have been made with local volunteers working in conjunction with contractors and using their own designs, for very little money. But volunteers were not permitted when using grant money, and grant money was necessary because the district could not afford even the low bid of a decent contractor. So granting agency procedures were followed and an engineering firm was hired. The produced great drawings but shit ideas...and they were enormously expensive. The contractors were then required to meet the engineering specs, many of which were impossible or inappropriate. In the end we paid something like 10 times what it would have cost us to do the job in a rational manner. And the amount spent, for the benefit of a hundred people, was horrendous. Horrendous at any time, but in current economic circumstances, absolutely criminal. I know first hand because I was involved in all stages of bidding and construction.
September 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a chip on your shoulder and you are looking for a fight. That is boring. I pass. You have utterly failed to win me over with your charm or your reasoning. Find someone else to dance with.
September 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ c4logic
So you're a typical liberal moron.
September 13, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ c4Logic
The second part of your criticism had more validity but is highly partisan. Neither Palin, nor McCain, nor Obama, nor Biden possess, or will ever possess, the expertise to reform procedures of particular agencies. They will all rely on experts.
What separates them is a general philosophy of government. The Democrats believe that expanding government generally solves more problems than it creates, Republicans the opposite. It's not clear who is right.
You cite Scandinavian Socialism in support of the Democratic view. That is so flawed as to virtually discredit everything else you've said. They're homogeneous and very small societies. Very, very well educated with long traditions of civic virtue. And, despite that, their institutions are crumbling under the pressures of globalization and immigration.
September 13, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not picking up the gauntlet. I know who you are.
September 13, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
c4,
he will start insulting you, and his insults will increase in venom in direct proportion to how much you either aggravate him or show him up with superior posts. :-)
September 13, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the warning. I picked up on his psychopathology immediately. Like a hurricane, you don't need to fuel a twisted mind.
September 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ c4logic
This is an insult
This is questionable. Had you left out "such as yourself" it would be a straightforward analysis. But you didn't.
And this is terrible. First, you have no sense of your own rudeness. Second, I've been around a long time, long enough to know - with certainty - that I'm neither boring or stupid. You're playing ugly mind games. I would guess you're from the San Francisco Bay area, the capital of such dishonesty.
September 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I have a very strong sense of my own rudeness, a very appropriate social posture towards someone who is intentionally transgressive. You're also a last word freak.
September 13, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
@OTY
You're a typical conservative clown with the cognitive capacity of a cockroach. The real problem with conservatives is their a priori belief that they're more intelligent than everyone else while it's apparent that they're really the stupidest people on the planet.
September 13, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
@OTY
You're a typical conservative clown with the cognitive capacity of a cockroach. The real problem with conservatives is their a priori belief that they're more intelligent than everyone else while it's apparent that they're really the stupidest people on the planet.
September 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Questions were just right because she was so pathetic, if he had pushed any harder, she might have crumbled. Talk about not blinking, I saw her blink a few times from his questions. As Mat Damon says of her "Imagine her trying to stare down Putin." Indeed.
I guess "Charlie" asked her to drop the "Charlie" for the second interview.
September 13, 2008 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The usual plan is to implement the new software AND maintain the old procedures so that in a few years they can implement new software, maintain the old software and maintain the even older procedures proving that if you can enter the same data in 2 or more systems and on 4 or more forms no enemy foreign or domestic will be able to reconcile the data.
September 13, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, of course. But this is not new. Do you think George W. Bush understood one iota more during the 2000 election when Al Gore was cast as the know-it-all fabricator?
September 13, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. You had to be auto-didactic in 2000 to know that Al Gore actually DID provide the funding the National Science Foundation needed to bring the WWW on top of the Internet to the public. He WAS the father of what we think of as 'the internet'. He DID hold the first hearings on Love Canal.(Rove!Mr Upski-Downski)
But that election was determined by the Mammalian brain(and vote theft), the limbic system--the minute that Al Gore strutted out with 'My Turn' on his lips. We were all back in grade school then, and everybody wanted to see the popular kid beat the smartest kid in the class down during recess. Having been possessed by an Alien from another galaxy, I found this to be suicidal and irrational, but, then again, the citizens will be primates, won't they?
September 13, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lady "I'm Ready" clearly lacks the kind of complex, highly elaborated neural networks and cognitive expertise, which come from years of careful thinking and close reading of events and policies.
This woman may be able to memorize facts and throw around big terms like "infrastructure," but she clearly is at sea in terms of reasoning, judgment, decision-making based on a nuanced understanding of national and international issues.
I'm a psychologist. I've evaluated people's intellectual functioning in addition to their personalities. Vocabulary (understanding and being able to explain terms) is the best single factor associated with IQ. She's gonna fail an individually administered vocabulary part of an IQ test. And maybe not do well in terms of reasoning and judgment either.
I am appalled and offended that a woman of such obviously poor education and experience has been foisted upon the American public. She is a poke in the eye of people who care about this country and the world. She is a punch in the nose. She is a kick in the groin. Americans should literally rise up and rebel against such arrogance and contempt on the part of mcShame - to poke us in the eye, punch us in the nose, kick us in the groin - with this Trophy VP Sham!!!
September 13, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, same impression. She's learned to play a very carefully rehearsed role, but her intellect does not run deep. Question is, will a sufficient proportion of the electorate a) see her for what she is; and b) care enough to vote for the Dem ticket and make sure these two clowns don't make it into the White House?
September 13, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, the level of her actual awareness, knowledge and expertise compared with the gravity and responsibility of the job makes her a ridiculous candidate and insults the voters. Anyone who falls for such a cynical gimmick is a media programmed zombie who is prepared to be a victim all their lives. McCain is a senile old fool with a voracious appetite for power. Just what America needs in a time of peril.
September 13, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP - I jumped up and started poking and punching kicking them back when I read your comment! SOB's all. You are so right - what the Republicans have done is a Ffing insult and there are people that going to say "Whatever, I don't know all those answers either and it is important that someone like me is in the White House because they understand what I want. Just like Shrub was the person that I could have a beer with and tell him that I wanted economic disaster and $5.00/gal. gas and mass foreclosure and the biggest ffing deficit in the universe. And Shrub delivered so when he gets laid off just like me we can sit on the porch and drink beer together right? THAT'S what I want."
Who is going to tell the people they have been so insulted they shouldn't bother getting out of bed for the rest of their lives? Fox news? Rush Bimbaball? Sean Henhead?
The repubs are getting beyond out of hand. Now I am reading the crowd numbers are inflated - Do they have any idea what the truth is?
September 13, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, I didn't hear any neocons taking Gibson (or Stephanapoulos) to task over the questioning style during the Democratic primary debate, and that was truly pathetic. Well at least I'm glad to see Gibson came up with some decent questions this time.
If Palin is trying to make a case for more TRANSPARENCY with respect to earmarks, then she is not proposing anything that Obama has not already addressed. In fact, his proposals to bring more transparency to government dealings by making them available online and so forth is one aspect of his governing philosophy that is important to me.
Unfortunately, I think that many people still haven't learned their lessons from the past eight years. Above all, they are voting for themselves. Thus, they gravitate toward the candidate who they think is most "like them" -- and we are reaping the consequences of an inferior educational system that leaves many many children -- and adults -- behind. They don't know what they don't know, including what qualities and level of knowledge a prospective leader should possess.
September 13, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's catching even Barbara Walters was sounding a bit like a real journalist on the View with McCain.
September 13, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never realized she had it in her. It should have been more organized and sustained, but they get marks for going there. I saw more courage in that little segment than I have seen on TV for a very long time.
September 13, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Walters was interviewing world leaders like Quadafi, Arafat, etc when Palin was sleeping through world history in school.
September 13, 2008 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, nice. I suppose people have to come to take it for granted that Walters would offer fluff - well, why not, we're talking about The View. Great to see her actually engaging in some journalism there.
September 13, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it was done so casually, too, with weary eye-rolling that won't be missed by the gals in the audience at home.
September 13, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gibson's interview looked okay because the bar has been set so low. At least he asked meaningful questions. But he let some of her talking point speeches go without the follow-up questions they called for. What does she mean Alaska is a microcosm of the rest of the country with the same concerns (hello?)? What does she mean by she'd find "efficiencies" in "agencies" to cut "entitlements?" What does she want to cut? She says we can't rely on government for everyone right after she says we need to get government on our side. What does that even mean? And what areas does she want to remove government from? Also, with yesterday's questions about her faith, why not a straight up question about how she sees the role of religion in government?
At least it was an attempt, though...
September 13, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, clearly the tv team allowed Lady "readiness" to have time to prep between topics. That is obvious from the camera shots. So she can't even sit for a real, wide-ranging interview. Nope, she needs time to "prep" each topic.
September 13, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might be a good thing to send them some fan mail.
September 13, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Macarel Batman!
No wonder those knuckle heads vote Republican no matter what!!
That is a real welfare state for rich people, just a few thousand people and get those electoral votes, unbelievable. I think they just go have voting machines in the country clubs or skiing resorts and that's it.
September 13, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
amazingly beautiful how you guys at tpm are playing into the hands of the republicans. the guys really really want you to spend most your blogging time talking about sarah, and look at you. the reason we always loose is this. she is nothing, no-one. mccain will probably get rid of her after being elected. lets talk about the ISSUES and expose john mccain for god's sake!!!
September 13, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't get it. This is an effort to find the weak spots of the opposition. And get that info out! We have complete faith here that Obama and Biden can focus on the issues - cuz they know we have their backs!
There will be plenty of time, after the election, to address the nuts and bolts of issues in the Obama-Biden administration.
We're not stupid here! Ploys to distract us will not work!
September 13, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Gibson, contrary to all expectations, showed how to handle Palin. He never asked agressive questions or questions that tried obviously to set her up, which would have tipped her off to give bs canned answers (which she did frequently anyway), and he never berated her for her evasive answers, which would have allowed the republicans to spin her as a victim of a hostile media.
He asked simple, clear questions and then waited for her to ramble on until he returned to the question.
In the debate, Biden should seek the most open framework possible, be as clear as possible, let her prattle on, and the succintly give a clear and correct answer to his own question.
September 13, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make a lot of points. I can't respond to all of them so let me start with only a few
But this is a highly partisan conclusion. Look at the front page of today's Washington Post - about as mainstream as you can get. Follow the links to the articles by Michael Abramovitz and Charles Krauthammer. I am in agreement with them, not you.
Then there's your stuff about the Bridge to Nowhere and her ties to the Alaska Constitution Party. I know a little about that; she had no ties to the party but her husband did for awhile. She was for the Bridge while running for office and against it after she became governor, when she decided to use the already allocated money for other purposes. Senator Obama twice voted to provide that money.
Finally you say
That can be interpreted in a number of ways. One is that he threw only softballs when interviewing Obama. And how do you explain Obama's response to a question O'Reilly asked him "How could you associate yourself with Jeremiah Wright who said such hateful things about America"? "I never heard him say those things". In 20 years of close association with the man he never heard him say those things? Do you find that believable?
Sorry but both campaigns are full of mind-numbing platitudes and dreadful evasions and lies.
Finally, there's your characterization of independents
I'm an independent and I'm just smart enough to know when some arrogant, pretentious schmuck insults me. Since Obama can't win without the votes of independents I come to the exact opposite conclusion - Sarah's just beginning, you ain't seen nothing yet.
September 13, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaa!!!
September 13, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second the motion!
September 13, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Charles Krauthammer is not "mainstream", he's a neocon shill. If you read some of the reader responses to his WaPo column and you'll find much more relevant criticism of Sarah Palin's interview responses re the Bush Doctrine.
Re Rev. Wright: there appears to be one short clip of his "incendiary" comments, from among tens of thousands of sermons he gave over his many years as a pastor. From all accounts that one clip is not representative of the other sermons. So if Sen. Obama was not in church for that one incident (and it's been credibly confirmed that he was not), I believe we can take him at his word that he hadn't heard Rev. Wright make such remarks.
September 13, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ TrentinaNE
I was referring to the Washington Post. But Krauthammer certainly is mainstream. Read his biography over at Wikipedia. The guy is IMPRESSIVE! As opposed to you, for example.
Reader responses are indicative of the readership of the Washington Post, which is why used it as a source which would be respected on this site.
Then there's the article by Abramovitz. You neglect to mention that.
Finally, there's the question of Wright. Do you really believe a man can make an incendiary comment like that without really believing it to the core of his being? Not possible or believable. Therefore it is not possible to believe he said things like that only once. Further, such comments are common in many black churches. And then there's his friendship with Farrakhan and their trip to see Gadafy.
September 13, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But Krauthammer certainly is mainstream. Read his biography over at Wikipedia."
HahahahahahahahhaHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh stop. Please.
Wikipedia?
ROTFLMAO
September 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
TrentinaNE,
anyone that claims Krauthammer is mainstream needs to submit their definition of "mainstream".
September 13, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can see what alaska had to offer as competition for gov.
At some point before this you would think (??) someone would grab old pardon man and tell him to get some advice.
September 13, 2008 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You folks could do no better job of energizing the Republican base and reminding the swing voters how vindictive liberals can be, than you are today.
If Obama loses, you can pat yourselves on the back. Keep up the good work.
September 13, 2008 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You folks"? Just check in much?
September 13, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah.... all 25%.
September 13, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
airgun177,
Where's your lipstick? With that and some eye makeup to disguise the weak pink eyes from three generations of inbreeding, if you would wiggle your behind like a good doggie, well, a lot people would buy a poke in a pig.
Cheers,
z2v
September 13, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah, It's easy to cut taxes for the citizens of Wasilla and Alaska when both as governor and mayor you passed on hundreds of millions in bills for things that Alaskans should have been paying for themselves to the taxpayers of the rest of the country in the form of earmarks.
My state, as I imagine most do, funds all transportation infrastructure improvements through gas taxes. If that tax were cut--as you imply should be done to bolster the economy--are the citizens of Alaska going to replace that money?
September 13, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou
1. If you prefer Charles Krauthammer's perspicacity to my own, you're welcome to it--but you're not welcome to your own facts.
2. She spoke to the Alaska Independence Party convention this year. A party leader, deputy chairman Dexter Carter, says she was a member. The clip is here: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_alaska_independence_party.php
Curious to me, btw, that if you love objectivity you choose a (fake) name that doesn't enshrine your, well, objectivity. Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym?
September 13, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Gitlin
1. Krauthammer cites at 4 meanings for the term "Bush doctrine" and claims he was the first to use the term. Abramovitz talks to experts who think there may have been as many as 7 different meanings. What "facts" are you talking about?
2. I was not aware of the clip you've linked. I am aware of the claim made by Rosenberg in an earlier thread that she was a Buchananite and therefore an enemy of Israel (Buchanan was quoted as saying she was a supporter in some way). That claim turned out to be false in its implication and maybe in its substance. I suspect the same will be true of this one.
I can't make out what your trying to say about my choice of alias/avatar. Part of the reason I chose them was because I knew I was posting as a contrarian, part because I think politics is brutal and lacking in honesty and directness - in other words in need of a lot of impaling, part because Vlad's historical situation has obvious parallels to our own, part because I was struck at the moment by that imagery.
Ask me that when this site stops accepting pseudonyms, and when voting is no longer secret.
September 13, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Todd,
Freddie Barnes is probably "mainstream" to Sean Hannity.
September 13, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
looks like we have a few 'lipstick independents' posting comments about how good Palin is going to be in the future.
well, right now, she appears to be a very average choice as a prospective VP.
A true independent would be rejoicing and partaking in a robust vetting process, NOT sooking about the nasty tone of the Palin skeptics and the ease with which she is dismantled by a few direct questions from a handpicked interviewer.
Besides, for nasty, we need only look at Palin's RNC speech and remember, she is supposed to be a leader. I_don't_think_so.
two words.. chutzpah.
September 13, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Tim Tyrant
"lipstick independent"? Boy that's going to win my vote. But, no doubt, you feel terrific at your display of courage and wit?
"how good Palin is going to be in the future"? If you'd actually read my stuff you'd know that I have serious doubts about her ability. What I was saying was that insults like yours and Gitlin's would make me more sympathetic to her and her positions. Got it, genius? It's basic human pyschology.
"well, right now, she appears to be a very average choice as a prospective VP". You have to be a fucking dope to believe that. In the 50 years I've been voting I can't remember a VP choice who's had this kind of influence, this kind of effect on a campaign.
"a true independent"? Who the hell appointed you as judge? Once again, if this is typical of the liberal approach to independents you're surely going to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.
September 13, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says;
That sounds more like pathology than psychology.
Would insults directed toward Obama cause your cohorts over at FreeRepublic.com to be more sympathetic to Obama?
September 13, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Johnwjackass
Let me do this slowly, so that even you can understand. Insults directed at me by Obama supporters will cause me to view his enemies more sympathetically. Insults directed at me by McCain supporters will cause me to view his enemies more sympathetically. Got it?
September 13, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would you presume anyone to care, unless you labor under 'the delusion of self reference'. It's really all about you, isn't it?
September 13, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ c4Logic
People who don't care don't respond. That's basic. This blog is not equivalent to a restaurant or a class in which one person shouting can disrupt the entire proceeding. I can be ignored. I do not respond inordinately unless I am having a real conversation.
I suggest you count the number of your posts on this thread before your criticize others. Ditto Johnwjackass.
Despite your denials, and your pathetic last word comment, you are fundamentally dishonest. I tried to engage you substantively, providing specific cases as you asked, as well as general arguments. You declined. Yet here you are again, joining another half-wit by trying to teach me manners (or whatever your point is).
Tell me, are you from the Bay area? The software doesn't allow me to access profiles with any consistancy so I have to ask you directly.
September 13, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh heh
September 13, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou suggests;
as of right now
offensivetoyou 23 posts
c4logic 18 posts
johnw1141 10 posts (not counting doubles)
What's your point?
September 13, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the lecture. You write as if you have some insight not available to myself or others. You think you need to point this out. Why should I or anyone else regard you or your opinions as if they have any practical value? You claim to engage 'substantively' but from where I sit you attempt to stir up shit for no other reason than to savor the stink of it. I would never attempt to teach you anything. That would be a thankless, futile task. You speak as if you think you have earned some kind of special entitlement, but to me, you're just talk a lot of guff. Save it for someone who finds it amusing. Your charms are wasted on me. Aren't you busy enough wrestling with your demons to try to wrestle with people?
September 13, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then its pathological, gotcha!
September 13, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is not pretty when some people go off their meds. Some days it just isn't worth it for them to chew through their leather restraints.
September 14, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
c4 says;
"Yes, it is not pretty when some people (OTY) go off their meds. Some days it just isn't worth it for them to chew through their leather restraints."
hahahahha. If you keep beating up on ole offensivetoyou like this he may decide to make FreeRepublic.co. the only site he visits.
September 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the interview was just right. It pointed up the weaknesses, rubbed some of the shine off, but can't be called a "partisan attack by the liberal media." He was 'deferential' while still skewering her.
What I do find amazing is that there are friends of the Right who thought she did 'great'. I can't imagine how anyone thought it was great, but I'm beginning to realize that rationality is just out the window when you talk about political belief. I was speaking to a man who runs a $500m corporation, and is virulently Republican. I explained to him I was looking at hiring a woman who was very charming, a go getter, not a lot of experience but her resume said she'd saved a few million dollars in her last job and cut some bad projects. In reference check, this record turned out to be really inflated, that the cuts had come from other sources and she'd supported the program until it was clear that it was losing support, then switched positions. But she was real popular with her staff, and well paid. Asked him if I should hire her. He said no way, that her integrity was too suspect. I then asked him why he liked Palin so much, and he was a deer in the headlights...
September 13, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
skdiver,
Beautiful. There's a web-published book on authoritarianism -- http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ -- which notes the compartmentalization which keeps the H2O and the H2SO4 safely separate in the brains of authoritarians. Then you go and bust the bottles.
z2v
September 13, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ skdvr369
Are you regularly reading the postings at Free Republic with an open mind? Because that's where those people explain their views. I don't think so. I doubt that you read their stuff at all, let alone with an open mind.
Yourself excepted, of course. Geezus, are you 5 years old? Have you never served on a jury? Haven't you seen enough cop dramas to know the importance of jury selection? Don't you pay attention to advertising techniques? I'm sick to death of pompous pontificators trying to pass off mundane observations as brilliant insights.
September 13, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love this, SKD! Please visit a few of the sites that lean conservative and share it.
September 13, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
You are in agreement with Krauthammer. I'm shocked, shocked!
1) Not always. 2) We may have to do without your and CharlieK's votes.
September 13, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ zeno2vonnegut
What? No spelling corrections? Is that because my standing has advanced in your estimation...or because it has fallen and therefore is less threatening?
September 13, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
You have advanced in my estimation. I was only tweaking you with "Not always", but I couldn't resist such a fine straight line. Sometimes the devil makes me do things.
I do disagree with comments about AIP since I seem to remember Sarah-AIP involvement from last century being mentioned in some article. Where's my Google? And enlisting CharlieK is kind of like bringing marshmallows to a rock fight.
z2v
September 13, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ zeno2vonnegut
The intent of associating her with AIP, creationists, Buchanan, etc., is to show she's some kind of flat-earth crackpot. It'll fail for two reasons.
First, she isn't.
Second, in the general population crackpots are far, far more common than is generally appreciated. Most people don't have a clue about science, economics, religion, etc. They are as shallow as could be about everything except whatever it is they do to earn their daily bread and rely upon their tribe to tell them how to think.
By the way I don't know a thing about AIP. Do you?
September 13, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
No. The distinction between flat-earth crackpots and crackpots who want to teach creationism and who deny human causation of global warming is not worth making.
Yes, there are many Americans who are scientifically ignorant. Except when OldSarg and the less bright members of the shooter242 sock puppet team are here, this site is usually free of them.
Yes, I have read a couple of articles on AIP.
z2v
September 13, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ zeno2vonnegut
Those are pretty high standards you're applying for distinguishing crackpots from clear thinkers. How do you classify Marxists? How about laissez-faire advocates like Milton Friedman? What about Arthur Jensen? Or the guy who invented the transistor? Einstein greatly distrusted doctors and Eysenck had very little good to say about psychology. I think you're on shaky ground.
Returning to Sarah Palin, creationism, and evangelicals. Some of them have surprisingly sophisticated views of their beliefs and others are more tolerant than "more rational" thinkers. I found that to be true when I compared Mike Huckabee to Hillary Clinton. I was also surprised to learn that something like 25% of evangelicals intend to vote for Obama while a smaller percentage of blacks intend to vote for McCain.
September 13, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 13, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 13, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Sarah's just beginning, you ain't seen nothing yet."
A doubtful sentiment?
September 13, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Next interviewer should be Rob Caldwell !!
(the guy from the ABC affiliate in Maine-"207" that did the tough -for MSM- questioning of McCain)
Mainers know not to kiss a moose - even if its wearing lipstick!
THREE THINGS the press does not seem to be covering: (maybe Todd could look into these since he's such a good writer...)
1) The Republican Platform from the convention: MOST. CONSERVATIVE. EVER.
2) Europe and the rest of the world have a HUGE stake in the race and the outcome. Who is reporting on what they think of what 4 more years of neo con (artists) control would mean to the rest of the planet?
3) the Obama folks keep using the slogan 'McCain= more of the same' but a McCain/Palin administration would be far worse, not the same. Bush started with a surplus and ran up the largest deficit. McCain would be digging us deeper in debt from far down in a deep hole. Hey, maybe he -we- will find out what is at the bottom of a deep hole of debt: China!!
(And as a P.S. To anyone who says Palin and the VP spot doesn't matter, lets 'focus on the top of the ticket', I have one name: Dick Cheney...)
September 13, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Palin always refer to Mr. Gibson in an overly friendly way as "Charlie" and he consistently respectfully calls her Governor. She seemed coquettish, related fiction and revised facts; other than that...
Well, I guess we have never had a President or VP who lied...
September 13, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Next interviewer should be Rob Caldwell !!
(the guy from the ABC affiliate in Maine-"207" that did the tough -for MSM- questioning of McCain)
Mainers know not to kiss a moose - even if its wearing lipstick!
THREE THINGS the press does not seem to be covering: (maybe Todd could look into these since he's such a good writer...)
1) The Republican Platform from the convention: MOST. CONSERVATIVE. EVER.
2) Europe and the rest of the world have a HUGE stake in the race and the outcome. Who is reporting on what they think of what 4 more years of neo con (artists) control would mean to the rest of the planet?
3) the Obama folks keep using the slogan 'McCain= more of the same' but a McCain/Palin administration would be far worse, not the same. Bush started with a surplus and ran up the largest deficit. McCain would be digging us deeper in debt from far down in a deep hole. Hey, maybe he -we- will find out what is at the bottom of a deep hole of debt: China!!
(And as a P.S. To anyone who says Palin and the VP spot doesn't matter, lets 'focus on the top of the ticket', I have one name: Dick Cheney...)
September 13, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Next interviewer should be Rob Caldwell !!
(the guy from the ABC affiliate in Maine-"207" that did the tough -for MSM- questioning of McCain)
Mainers know not to kiss a moose - even if its wearing lipstick!
THREE THINGS the press does not seem to be covering: (maybe Todd could look into these since he's such a good writer...)
1) The Republican Platform from the convention: MOST. CONSERVATIVE. EVER.
2) Europe and the rest of the world have a HUGE stake in the race and the outcome. Who is reporting on what they think of what 4 more years of neo con (artists) control would mean to the rest of the planet?
3) the Obama folks keep using the slogan 'McCain= more of the same' but a McCain/Palin administration would be far worse, not the same. Bush started with a surplus and ran up the largest deficit. McCain would be digging us deeper in debt from far down in a deep hole. Hey, maybe he -we- will find out what is at the bottom of a deep hole of debt: China!!
(And as a P.S. To anyone who says Palin and the VP spot doesn't matter, lets 'focus on the top of the ticket', I have one name: Dick Cheney...)
September 13, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Next interviewer should be Rob Caldwell !!
(the guy from the ABC affiliate in Maine-"207" that did the tough -for MSM- questioning of McCain)
Mainers know not to kiss a moose - even if its wearing lipstick!
THREE THINGS the press does not seem to be covering: (maybe Todd could look into these since he's such a good writer...)
1) The Republican Platform from the convention: MOST. CONSERVATIVE. EVER.
2) Europe and the rest of the world have a HUGE stake in the race and the outcome. Who is reporting on what they think of what 4 more years of neo con (artists) control would mean to the rest of the planet?
3) the Obama folks keep using the slogan 'McCain= more of the same' but a McCain/Palin administration would be far worse, not the same. Bush started with a surplus and ran up the largest deficit. McCain would be digging us deeper in debt from far down in a deep hole. Hey, maybe he -we- will find out what is at the bottom of a deep hole of debt: China!!
(And as a P.S. To anyone who says Palin and the VP spot doesn't matter, lets 'focus on the top of the ticket', I have one name: Dick Cheney...)
September 13, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Next interviewer should be Rob Caldwell !!
(the guy from the ABC affiliate in Maine-"207" that did the tough -for MSM- questioning of McCain)
Mainers know not to kiss a moose - even if its wearing lipstick!
THREE THINGS the press does not seem to be covering: (maybe Todd could look into these since he's such a good writer...)
1) The Republican Platform from the convention: MOST. CONSERVATIVE. EVER.
2) Europe and the rest of the world have a HUGE stake in the race and the outcome. Who is reporting on what they think of what 4 more years of neo con (artists) control would mean to the rest of the planet?
3) the Obama folks keep using the slogan 'McCain= more of the same' but a McCain/Palin administration would be far worse, not the same. Bush started with a surplus and ran up the largest deficit. McCain would be digging us deeper in debt from far down in a deep hole. Hey, maybe he -we- will find out what is at the bottom of a deep hole of debt: China!!
(And as a P.S. To anyone who says Palin and the VP spot doesn't matter, lets 'focus on the top of the ticket', I have one name: Dick Cheney...)
September 13, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Next interviewer should be Rob Caldwell !!
(the guy from the ABC affiliate in Maine-"207" that did the tough -for MSM- questioning of McCain)
Mainers know not to kiss a moose - even if its wearing lipstick!
THREE THINGS the press does not seem to be covering: (maybe Todd could look into these since he's such a good writer...)
1) The Republican Platform from the convention: MOST. CONSERVATIVE. EVER.
2) Europe and the rest of the world have a HUGE stake in the race and the outcome. Who is reporting on what they think of what 4 more years of neo con (artists) control would mean to the rest of the planet?
3) the Obama folks keep using the slogan 'McCain= more of the same' but a McCain/Palin administration would be far worse, not the same. Bush started with a surplus and ran up the largest deficit. McCain would be digging us deeper in debt from far down in a deep hole. Hey, maybe he -we- will find out what is at the bottom of a deep hole of debt: China!!
(And as a P.S. To anyone who says Palin and the VP spot doesn't matter, lets 'focus on the top of the ticket', I have one name: Dick Cheney...)
September 13, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Todd did a good job of reviewing the Gibson/Palin interview.
Josh Marshall noted in another post that real journalists don't usually agree to multi-session interviews because subsequent sessions are dependent on the good behavior of the interviewer. That being the case, I thought Gibson did well considering he had one hand tied behind his back. also, the chinks in the teflon Gibson exposed will be fodder for discussion for some time to come. For these reasons, I would grade Gibson a bit higher than Todd did.
Finally, the best take I've read about why we should care that Palin didn't know about the Bush Doctrine is by James Fallows over at the Atlantic.
September 13, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Fallows is brutal.
September 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Ellen
I think Fallows has correctly assessed Palin's current position. I think he overestimates the importance of such detailed knowledge, and you overlook his caveat that Palin might be a quick study.
On the first point, I would say that McNamara and Johnson and Nixon and Kissinger were about as knowledgeable as people can be. Look where it got us.
September 13, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there's very much of an argument that we do, every four years, elect a king* -- and have done so since sometime around 1940.
The question I've been pondering is what sort of a person the common people -- to the extent they wish to maintain their self-respect as free citizens of a free republic -- should want to elevate to kingship over them.
It seems logical to me that the common people should wish to elect someone very like themselves, someone who will drink a beer with them and not compel them to recognize their lowly and impotent status. It's really a question for psychologists.
And that's why -- to my way of thinking -- the charge of elitism is so effective and why when one's candidate is perceived as elitist so difficult to counter.
* A king is defined as that person who has the power to take a country to war notwithstanding that when his treasury runs out of money he may have to turn to the common folk for funds to continue his enterprise (Parliament, Estates General, etc.).
September 13, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with you about the whole 'King' thing. I suspect that the latent influence of English culture, and the fact that the Tories never completely fled America(they just became partners with the English running guns and Opium), is one of the reasons for it. But this other point you make:
I think that most common people have a limited awareness of the behind the scenes logistics that they are dependent upon for everything they need in their lives. The world is frightfully interdependent and complex, now-- and it was not when we were largely a self-sufficient agrarian nation. Most of the common people have a culture than is descended from the family farm, town wheelwright days of America and they may not realize the stawberries they eat in Jan came from Chile, or that there are dissolved pharmaceuticals in the water from the tap. Most of the complexity of the world is invisible to them, so they have no idea the level of knowledge and understanding required for somebody in the Oval Office to actually make improvements. And if they are unable to judge those qualifications, it must be disturbing to them. Much more pleasing to think they can simply pick the guy they would like to have a beer with, or invite over for barbecue.
September 13, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an aside I invite attention to the heads of Wall Street firms.
Unless one has a completely cynical view of the intentions of these men and believes them to be utterly selfish, it must be presumed that they did not intend to destroy their enterprises. And yet, they seem to have done an admirable job of doing just that. Why?
Because the system is so complex and so nontransparent that it cannot be grasped by the "best and the brightest." Why then, should we expect the common people to understand it or indeed, "somebody in the Oval Office to actually make improvements" to it?
As a voter, then, why not chuck the whole meghillah analytics and cast your vote for someone who's like me? At least, you're not setting up some patronizing elitist to run your life for you while congratulating himself on his brilliance and noblesse oblige-ness.
September 13, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, except that a whole lot of otherwise smart people got caught up in the real estate bubble who should have known better. But that is the way bubbles ALWAYS work. With no due diligence on documentation, inflated appraisals, and liars mortgages, the guys who securitize mortgages had to know the foundation was made of straw. They had to know the the Fed would inevitably raise rates. They had to know the loans would reset. Smart people were sounding the alarm and warning home owners to sell now! back in 2003. Goldman Sachs was smart enough to write put contracts on sub prime loans. SOMEONE instructed mortgage brokers to steer the riskiest borrowers into sub prime loans. That is how they gamed the system. It is difficult for me to see why not everybody understood what was being set up. The bubble was DESIGNED to burst. When it did, Goldman Sachs and others cleaned up. It was a game of musical chairs. But some players got so caught up in the greed and the easy money that it eclipsed their fear. Fear can be a very good thing. My whole point that that a 'regular joe' would have no idea what was happening or how to fix it. Only government regulation could have prevented the problem, and only government regulation can provide the stability necessary for the real estate market to recover. This is not philosophy--this is a pragmatic understanding of the fiscal realities involved. Most people cannot buy a house unless they can borrow money. But if there is no money to borrow, or they cannot qualify for a loan--no transaction is possible, ad the house is worthless to the seller. We need pragmatic problem solvers in the White House, not philosophically driven ideologues. If they are too eggheaded for the common person--well, too bad, it's a tough, mean old world.
September 13, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how GS will do in the long run (or whether their counterparties to the trades you admire would have made good if Bernanke weren't bailing out those counterparties, as we speak).
I do know that very smart people at Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Wachovia, and a whole host of other financial institutions proved they knew no better than the common people.
So, why put one of those "bright boy types" in the White House? Unless, of course, you're looking for someone with champagne tastes to lord it over you in a proper kingly manner.
September 13, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'bright boys' were overcome by their own greed. They needed government regulations to protect the public from their ravages. They got to do things under Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that they never got to do before. Enron was the first casualty. But all these other failures have merely followed in Enron's footsteps. Clinton may have signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, but he did so in Dec 2000 as a lame duck. So there were no sentinels outside the henhouse on GW's watch, and the bright boys were promised they would be richer than their wildest dreams. Classic. Confidence. Game. The problem isn't intelligence, per se, or Kingly privilege. It's clockbuilding. A wise CEO and a wise president, needs to be a clockbuilder. That way they people always know what time it is, and never have to ask the King or anyone else for the time. James Madison understood this--but well once the weasels invaded Toad Hall, well, I'm still waiting for the Rat and the Mole to show up with Badger and run the weasels off. English Kings ruled until death. Ours have to get re-elected, and then term limitations kick in. That gives someone an opportunity to do a lot of good for somebody--just like the last 8 years have been very good for SOMEBODY. It was always thus in the halls of the great castle as well. But Rome had it pretty good under Claudius, and not too bad under Augustus. Of course, these are exceptions. America got two good Rooseveldts, and then two Bushes...it's a flawed system, but a virus that kills the host isn't a very successful virus. The best relationship in nature is symbiotic, like the bacteria in your gut, or the mycorrhizal fungi. The best rulers understand symbiosis. They are trying to build a sustainable system. They aren't just looking to take the money and run.
September 13, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ c4Logic
Tell me how it is that government regulators escape from greed into wisdom? Why would you presume that since they are appointed by people who are elected by average joes too stupid to understand the real workings of the system?
Clockbuilding? You've discovered the long-lost alchemist method of transmuting lead into gold? I don't think so. I think wisdom is as rare as its always been, as rare as it was when a Greek sage first posed the problem.
I can't make out your criticism of our system. Are you arguing for a return of life tenure for a King? That doesn't seem at all likely. And then there's "Rooseveldt". Normally I ignore stuff like this, discounting it as a spelling error, but in your case...
September 13, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next interviewer should be Rob Caldwell !!
(the guy from the ABC affiliate in Maine-"207" that did the tough -for MSM- questioning of McCain)
Mainers know not to kiss a moose - even if its wearing lipstick!
THREE THINGS the press does not seem to be covering: (maybe Todd could look into these since he's such a good writer...)
1) The Republican Platform from the convention: MOST. CONSERVATIVE. EVER.
2) Europe and the rest of the world have a HUGE stake in the race and the outcome. Who is reporting on what they think of what 4 more years of neo con (artists) control would mean to the rest of the planet?
3) the Obama folks keep using the slogan 'McCain= more of the same' but a McCain/Palin administration would be far worse, not the same. Bush started with a surplus and ran up the largest deficit. McCain would be digging us deeper in debt from far down in a deep hole. Hey, maybe he -we- will find out what is at the bottom of a deep hole of debt: China!!
(And as a P.S. To anyone who says Palin and the VP spot doesn't matter, lets 'focus on the top of the ticket', I have one name: Dick Cheney...)
September 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops! Sorry TPM readers!!! This was my first post and I didn't realize that it kept posting my response every time it said "internal server error" Now I know!
September 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
blowtorchwilke:
Caldwell was super. He deserves a national platform.
Re specifics:
1. McCain's already said that he disagrees with the platform in one respect--rather minor, I forget the details--& this helps him reinforce the maverick claim.
2. I totally agree with you on the stakes elsewhere. Europeans are beside themselves about this campaign, in a good way. But I'm not sure that independents want to hear this--it reinforces the Republican talking point, disgusting as it is, that Kerry "looks French," Obama was a crowd-pleaser in Berlin, etc.
3. Think about undecided voters--low-info, low-attention. The question is, what would impress them? They're disillusioned with Bush but not yet ready to go to Obama. For them, "more of the same" is probably the right note. My crude opinion, anyway.
September 13, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink