« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Palin's Gaffe Of The Day For Today - The Supreme Court Decision Question
The clip has finally emerged of the rumored cringe moment when Sarah Palin is asked by Katie Couric what supreme court decisions, other than Roe vs Wade, she does not agree with. This is part of a VP question and answer side by side comparison that Couric is presenting as part of her VP series of interviews, Biden's response is shown first. Do you think Sarah has an answer?
Advertisement
Comments (54)
For the love of all that is good, ENOUGH. Why is this woman pathologically incapable of saying, "I'm sure I do, but when you put me on the spot like that, I can't think of any."
What's so wrong with not knowing everything. She makes herself look 4,000 times worse with the crap she comes up with to cover.
It's okay to be such an idiot when you're a kid (although I'm feeling some sympathy for my college professors right now), but grown ups realize that when you talk out of your ass, you look infinitely more foolish than when you own up.
October 1, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got so worked up, I forgot to end my questions with question marks. My bad.
October 1, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. If you consistently get that rattled, you lack the mental fortitude to be anywhere near the White House.
October 1, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct. And let's remember that she wasn't stumped by just this question -- it's been *all of them*. She couldn't think of *one* place where she gets her news??? Not one??? Not even the local newspaper? Time Magazine?
Now we know why she advocates hunting from the air. If she were on the ground, the playing field wouldn't be level -- she'd be at a disadvantage.
Forget about shooting moose, she looks like the deer caught in the headlights. God must have an extreme sense of humor.
October 1, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly was hoping she'd get rattled and say "I don't agree with Brown v. Board of Education."
October 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just horrible. She has absolutely no idea and looks exactly like a third-grader trying to "finesse" from not being able to point out the Pacific Ocean on the map by launching into an explanation about how America is surrounded by water because the water is in awe of how totally cool the Americans are.
October 1, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me wrong, I don't think she's in the same universe as qualified to be president.
I just wish she'd show a little courage and admit it.
October 1, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a creationist: she isn't even qualified to be a science teacher to 1st graders.
October 1, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if there has ever been a worse interview performance on TV.
I doubt any regular person could get past a first interview if they performed anywhere near as badly as her. And yet she still could be sitting in the white house in a few months. Republican rule over the last 8 years has been nothing but a series of embarrassments.
People need to be aware of the voter suppression efforts. These people just cannot be allowed to steal another election.
October 1, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would also like to point out how stupid her answer to Roe v Wade is. For she claims she is a Federalist -- but she wants "States Rights". Total contradiction.
Second, she wants the States to decide. But why stop there? Why not the counties?
And if the counties decide, why stop there? Why not the individual?
Bottom line: like the faux-Republicans we've seen over the past 16 years or so, these are people who want more government in your life than outside it.
Again, a radical departure from the traditional GOP viewpoint.
October 1, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Thank you. I was just reading Federalist #10 last night and was thinking the exact same thing when I heard her say that.
On a tangent, I wanted to ask you what you think of Prop. 7. Any thoughts?
October 1, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point I'm not sure. I always have to dig deeper than my knee-jerk reaction because there be monsters here! I mean, when the Union of Concerned Scientists is against it...
And part of me knows full well that by 2025 it will be a meaningless situation anyway. At that point, we will be shooting over water. Not water rights, but water.
I hate Props in general. Usually, if I am on the fence -- which occasionally happens -- I go with the vote-it-down rule. I mean don't we pay the legislature to sort this stuff out? ;-)
I remind you that Enron was able to go on their spree in CA because of the well-intentioned energy rulings. So the idea is to avoid more of the same.
Fortunately, at least 1 prop (8) is a no brainer thumbs down vote. But that's a selfish measure on my part: as soon as gays can get married, divorce laws will become much fairer as gender won't be used as the emotional lever during property dispersion. I keep warning my gay friends: Careful what you wish for!
I assume you know about this handy site:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2008_ballot_measures
October 1, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I've got a pretty poor opinion of props and even the initiative process in general. I hate to say it, but public opinion is too ill-informed and too easily swayed by disinformation for it to be successful.
Take the recall. Gray Davis got railroaded by a state legislature that's been divisively contentious about the budget (as well as the energy boondoggle you've alluded to) and got recalled. Now people are talking about recalling Arnie. Whether or not it happens, the legislature has passed a state budget on time only once or twice in the last 30 or so years, regardless of who's been in office! To me, it represents a total failure of the idea of direct democracy.. at least within the framework of California state politics.
It reminds me of people who bitch about the electoral college. Good luck amending the Constitution to change that. It's a total failure to understand the system and its problems.
October 1, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we've seen a lot of that here lately, a misunderstanding of how the system really works.
*cough* earmarks! *cough*
Of course, that's the problem with the propositions. There is a ton of info out there on things like the general national election and what people do and say is divorced from reality. When you get to the props, it's much worse -- think about it: you and I aren't underinformed, and we are having issues!
October 2, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of my favorite moments in the debate was when Barack put it down on earmarks: They're less than half of 1% of the annual federal budget. Not only that, but they often go to necessary infrastructure projects (something that even Sarah Palin seemed to understand when she went off notes with Gibson). Does Congress play ball with them in all that legislative back and forth? You bet, but are we really any worse off because of it?
Yeah, 7 has me a bit baffled in that respect. I'm not sure it's the best possible proposal of it's kind, but I'm inclined to think that this is the sort of thing that needs to happen (the other possible route would be providing strong economic incentive). Either way, it seems that some top-level policy-making is in order to address energy issues and a weak law now might be better than a stronger law later. This is a time sensitive problem. I'm also suspect of the fact that the three largest energy companies in CA are funding the anti-7 campaign with ads talking about how it will "destroy small business".
Then again, why do groups like the Sierra Club, NRDC and UCS oppose it? Do they perhaps feel like their political importance is being side-stepped here?
October 2, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with many props, DF, is that you need real legal analysis to sort out what is really underlying things -- and try to figure out what unintended effect you can have. As I said, Enron drove CA prices sky-high because of unintended consequences in a law that was supposed to lower prices.
Similarly, I know several doctors that are very left of center, but do not want the type of single payer healthcare people here want. (It would literally tie doctor's hands giving you no choice whatsoever -- it would probably also discourage the better people from becoming doctors. There is already good evidence that more and more doctors are advising med students to specialize in a cash business for just this very reason. Do you think that will effect medical care for the negative?) Of course, the last time I mentioned this months ago, I had the whole board come down on me -- one pleasant lady telling me I was a GOP troll -- so I figured I'd move onto another topic and haven't brought up medical care again -- except here where few will see my comments to you.
Back to prop 7: So, it's very plausible that there are possible unintended consequences with the environment that the Sierra Club doesn't like. For example, it could be that several windfarms will be placed on protected land. Every person and entity (corporation) has it's own agenda and that's why politics makes strange bedfellows. (I was happy, for example, that the House GOP voted down the bailout bill on Monday.)
This is another reason why I loathe the (us=good, them=bad) mentality that permeates the groupthink here. I'm sure it does feel good for some to scream "repug", but that doesn't get any closer to the truth than when FNC calls everyone here a socialist.
It's all about subtly and sophistication... that's why the props are so very difficult to work through. Sometimes those large corps are against something for different reasons than your own, but, hell, they have deep pockets: wouldn't you like them to be fighting on your side?
October 2, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. I can see the complexity (as well as the failures of the group-think). I suppose that, as you put it earlier, this is why even informed people find it hard to make sense of whether to vote it up on down on merits.
You also raise a great point about unintended consequences. We tend to frame all policy proposals in consideration of their intended consequences. We may consider what we believe will be the primary effects, but what about the secondary (and even tertiary, etc) effects? These are much subtler and much more difficult to predict.
The House and Senate "bailout" bills are another interesting example. There's the camp that seems to think there isn't any real problem. Then there's the camp that thinks that there is a real problem, but that probably nothing much can be done about it. Then you have those that think there is a problem and, even though it's far less than ideal to find ourselves where we are, that something must be done. And then you have the "sky is falling" panic-mode crowd.
Let's say that there is a problem and that it's possible (though not by any means guaranteed) that some move at the federal level could mitigate negative effects. What move is to be made? Does it merely address the bad paper? The lack of confidence? Will it address regulatory conditions? Will it address energy?
And the $700B question: How do you ultimately know that you saved an economy from a deeper recession? (If that's really what's being aimed at).
October 2, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the complexities of the voting of the $700B bill:
I wrote a comment on oceankat's blog:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/10/in-favor-of-bipartisanship.php
showing how the "conventional wisdom" -- it was the bad GOP that defeated it -- is wrong. In fact, it was damned near split with disorganization on both the Dem and the GOP sides, but what tipped things were the vulnerable candidates who, by and large, voted nay. Will of the people and all.
I'd value your read of it...and while you're at it, give the blog a rec, so it won't disappear so quickly. (Yes, it's poor form to beg for a rec but at least I'm not trying to divert traffic away from TPM in the process! ;-))
October 2, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say you nailed it. When it comes to illustrating the point, having Nate Silver's data certainly doesn't hurt.
One thing that's become very apparent to me: Most people (even so-called political "junkies") have a very tenuous impression of how the Congress actually operates.
October 2, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I highly recommend KQED's Forum program, normally hosted by Michael Krasny. He's been covering ballot issues this week. Here's the segment that includes Prop 7: http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R809290900
October 2, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an avid listener ;). However, the main conflict I have over this one is that my instincts tell me the prop is probably the right thing to do. There's a number of reasons why I'm uncomfortable with it, but I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on what's being proposed.
October 2, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yay for Krasny. He's my second hero. (After Obama and before Colbert and Stewart.) Imagine if *he* were moderating a presidential debate!
October 2, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that Federalist in its modern connotation means someone who supports greater autonomy for the individual States. So no contradiction. Not that she is not stupid.
October 2, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord, that was even more cringe-inducing than I had imagined it would be.
Even George W. Bush managed to come out against the Dred Scott decision in a debate four years ago. Palin couldn't even do that.
This has ceased being funny. The thought of Palin getting anywhere near the Oval Office is now just plain frightening.
October 1, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
By Jove, I think you've got it.
(Sorry. Like Marcel DuChamp, I took this as a ready-made.)
October 2, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
(1) she didn't even nail the right wing talking points from the last 20 years: "Oh ya know, golly, I wish they'd stop legislatin' from that bench, there, ya know."
(2) There IS a Constitutional argument for why certain powers are left to the states or to the people. But she didn't even mention the Constitution, just that she thinks the states should decide stuff like that there stuff. And then of course you have to explain why the "liberty clause of the 14th amendment does not trump.
(3a) Believing in a right to privacy makes saying the government, federal, state or local, has the right to regulate it very difficult. Biden explained that tension as it was handled in Roe, quite well.
(3b)I wonder what she thinks of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas striking down Texas' sodomy laws ( overturning the odious Bowers v. Hardwick)
(4)The vice presidential oath (by tradition):
I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
How the heck can you defend the constitution, bear faith and allegiance to it if you don't even know what it says?
October 2, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing we need to keep in mind... we think--we--think her interviews are hysterical train wrecks. They will probably not bother in the least a large--large enough?--segment of the voting populace here in the good ol' U.S. of A!
Remember, George Bush was re-elected!
October 1, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading the transcripts of the interview is even more disturbing, because you're not distracted by her voice or her facial tics. What she's saying is beyond ridiculous. But still, I have a hard time believing she doesn't know any other supreme court cases. I think she was at a loss and instead of admitting it, she tried to cover and her true idiocy came through.
October 1, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.
Occam's razor and all.
October 1, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think Palin has several answers to the Supreme Court decision question. But I think McCain has forbidden her to say them out loud because they are too radical.
October 1, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin is also on record as having disagreed with the court's decision in Exxon v. Baker last June. This commentary includes a video of Sarah discussing it on an Alaskan news program: http://www.wearevotingyes.com/2008/09/sarah-palins-supreme-failure.html
Which points to her being flustered rather than totally ignorant.
October 2, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Which points to her being flustered rather than totally ignorant."
Which in turn points to her unpreparedness to be VP on day one.
October 2, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, you mean to imply that getting so flustered in an interview that she can't even pull up the memory of a case she spoke about and that directly impacted Alaska only a few months ago somehow says something negative about Palin?
How sexist. And obviously Couric was just practicing "gotcha" journalism. Biden only had an answer because he's adept at those silly political games.
(Personally, I would feel better about her qualifications if she simply hadn't known an answer.)
October 2, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to put too fine a point on things, but I don't know about her being "flustered". I don't see her searching for some answer, etc. Also, she gets flustered (e.g. nervous) too easily (this latest portion of the interview shouldn't just be viewed in isolation).
I'm happy with the simple theory that "she is overpreparing" -- remember when they said that about Reagan? -- because she really isn't sitting and having an interchange with Couric. She is mentally flipping through a thick binder and saying what is on the printed page (which is quite a feat in itself!)
In other words, she's not thinking. And I'm also willing to bet that her general depth of knowledge is about that of the average person -- which is to say, nothing much at all. Therefore, she can't even improvise on the spot.
Once upon a time, Presidents used to brag about being students of history. That sort of ended under our present administration.
However one thing is certain: say whatever you want to about GWB; at least he said straightup that he didn't read newspapers. I think the same is true for Palin, but she has been afraid to admit that. As a result, we get her deer-in-the-headlights look.
Either way, while she displayed excellent skills in building her political career (something none of us here has exhibited), she is a dummy once she actually attains office. But this is hardly a rare exception in American politics.
October 2, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can hammer that newspaper gripe all you want, clearthinker, but it's already been reported that Palin has read a newspaper or two in her life:
Palin didn't answer Couric for a political reason, not because she doesn't read newspapers. People whose parents are teachers (Palin's father taught science) usually do think reading is important.
October 2, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, cool. She reads a newspaper. Then why couldn't she name one?
I mean, this was the equivalent of "name 5 letters of the alphabet". Is this the person who you want negotiating on behalf of the United States?
I would love to hear your political reason why Palin didn't answer Couric's question -- unless you think that a politician doesn't have to answer any question at all.
October 2, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS I know Palin's father taught science -- he must be a helluva science teacher to have his daughter turn out as a creationist.
Almost as good as Palin preaching abstinence only sex ed -- really worked well with Bristol, wouldn't you say?
October 2, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, non sequitur much? Sorry, I can't answer your bizarro cause-effect tangent about Bristol.
If it's been documented that Palin has read newspapers since she was a child (per CNN) and that she has recently publicly disagreed with Supreme Court rulings, then it looks like either Couric didn't do her homework before the interview or she was setting Palin up.
Palin would know whether Couric did rudimentary or even-handed research on her, and she responded by not being forthcoming. Palin has answers that she didn't give, so the question is why she didn't, not whether she can.
If you've ever been interviewed, you know what it's like when a reporter is prejudiced (or having a pre-conceived judgment).
Just like your response to me is prejudiced, clearthinker: You are making multiple (erroneous) assumptions about what I think based not on what I've actually said but on what you imagine my thought processes are.
October 2, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Vice-Presidential candidate should be capable of listing her sources of information. Given that she's a politician, she could even broaden the answer to say "as an elected official, I get a lot of information by talking to voters blah blah blah"
And if can name them, but won't for political reasons, it suggests she's a total phony, to say the least.
October 2, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Are you joking? Since when did Americans ever demand to know what any VP candidate's "sources" were?
October 2, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when has a VP candidate been unable to name a single newspaper, news broadcast, etc?
The are a number of inferences one can draw from this, none of them positive.
And I don't buy your theory that she can name them, but won't for political reasons. As I stated before, if that's true, then she's a complete phony (and I noticed you didn't respond to that part of my post).
October 2, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Constantinople: Wait. Please stop reading my comments as a defense of Palin. I am merely defending myself, not her. I can't defend Palin, since I don't give a shit about her. But I don't give a shit about Couric, either. Couric is a jackass, not a journalist.
Even so, that doesn't mean I will be revisionist and agree that Americans have always given a shit about the VP candidates. If they did, Dick Cheney would never have been allowed in the White House.
October 2, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! So, bringing up Palin's father's profession as evidence for your assertion isn't a non sequitur, but making an analogy between that example and Palin's daughter is? Are you sure you know what 'non sequitur' means?
October 2, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure you can read, DF? I never said Palin's father's profession was "evidence" for anything, did I?
Here's the point spelled out for you: With no real "evidence" for assuming so, clearthinker assumes throughout this thread Palin doesn't read anything, including TIME magazine (as if that's something to name as an authoritative news source).
I offered an actual reference that refutes clearthinker's typically obnoxious assumption.
Then I made the generalization that people who are raised by teachers usually regard reading as important. I didn't say it is a divine law, I didn't say it is a genetic phenomenon, I didn't even declare that Palin was profoundly affected by having two parents in the school system who might pay attention to how their kids do in school. It's true I didn't provide a footnote to prove something I've studied on a rather casual basis. So sue me! That I linked the generalization to Palin, who was raised by a teacher, does not make it a non sequitur!
Do you know what a non sequitur is? Your friend obviously doesn't.
You misread me so often, DF, I'm beginning to think you're not that smart after all. Certainly you've proved beyond a doubt that you're not a careful reader.
Or maybe your blind devotion to your bff just makes you careless.
Who knows. Either way, I find you tedious. Bug off.
October 2, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket,
I know you come on here just to be contrary, but lately you're slipping:
You just slammed me for pointing out that Palin could have listed *any* news source (of with I offhandedly remarked that Time Magazine could have been one of them) -- meanwhile you cite CNN in your article as an authoritative source.
Well, here's some news: both Time and CNN are owned by Time Warner Corp and they even know have a joint project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_NewsStand
So they are either both authoritative, or both nonauthoritative, but you can't have it any other way.
I'll leave it to you to classify this type of absurb reasoning. All I know is it takes a special person to make this type of argument with internal contradictions.
October 2, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker, here's some news for you: I know plenty about TIME and CNN from working in big-league publishing in NYC. You have no idea how magnificently foolish you are.
I'll say why I cited CNN, but I doubt you'll understand, as you are dead-set against understanding any viewpoint but your own. I never claimed CNN was an "authoritative" source, as you say. It's a mainstream source. What that means is, because the information is available in the mainstream, you and Katie Couric could have easily researched Sarah Palin's newspaper-reading habits. But you both chose not to. Instead of doing research, you and Katie Couric simply made assumptions about Sarah Palin's intelligence, based on your presumed intellectual superiority. I'm not going to say what I think about that.
The comment of yours that I'd originally responded to was this one (not that it matters anymore):
I disagree with your many assumptions about Palin, including this one. I don't think Sarah Palin is afraid of anything.
October 3, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
She could easily have deflected the question by saying how great the Alaskan press is, yadda yadda. The point is she can't even deflect a seemingly tricky question. She's not even a good politician.
October 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty funny. Because not being a good politician might be something people like about her.
October 2, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"How sexist."
There is nothing sexist about the conclusion she is unprepared based on the substance that come out of her own mouth.
"And obviously Couric was just practicing "gotcha" journalism."
It was a simple question meant to probe the political leanings of a candidate we barely know. She blew it because she is unprepared both for the interview and for the VP.
"Biden only had an answer because he's adept at those silly political games."
Knowing and having thought of legal concepts that have wide ranging implications in peoples lives is requisite for effective governance. Palin's answer demonstrate she has done none therefore she is unprepared for VP on day one.
"(Personally, I would feel better about her qualifications if she simply hadn't known an answer.)"
But instead she tried to BS her way through it. This is a hint on how she would deal with situations she is not currently preoccupied with. Not very reassuring during moments of crisis.
October 2, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just thinking of that while watching the Palin Greatest Hits video that Josh posted yesterday. When she talks about the bailout, it looks like she's quite literally flipping through a binder.
October 2, 2008 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and I swear I checked the "reply to clearthinker" box !
October 2, 2008 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/02/nothing-to-say_n_131139.html
October 2, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
When asked which Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with, I'm surprised she didn't answer, "All of 'em."
October 2, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
gaffe [gaf]~ noun
a social blunder; faux pas.
Biden has gaffes this woman just doesn't know what the heck she's talking about.
October 2, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment