Sat 28 Nov 2009
Dan Blatt ‘85 questions the honor of fellow Eph Katie Couric.
Katie Couric asked far tougher questions of Sarah Palin than she did of Joe Biden. And that’s fine. But, if she’s going to hold the Republican and Democratic nominees to the same office to two different standards, she shouldn’t put herself forward as a non-partisan journalist, but as a partisan one.
Had she acknowledged her biases, she might see her audience share drop far more rapidly than it has been dropping. And she would have had as much chance to interview Sarah Palin as I have of interviewing Barbara Boxer.
Ah, there are perils of acknowledging your political inclinations. But, at least, we have our honor, something that doesn’t seem much of a concern to Katie Couric.
How do you judge the toughness of interview questions? A good topic for a senior thesis in political science.
Print • Email| « “This is going to sound weird, but do you have any sage?” | Holiday Cards – for Deployed Eph ! » |
28 Responses to “Honor”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
JeffZ says:
The sad thing is, NO ONE ever asks anything remotely tough of Palin, because they are so afraid of looking biased against women / conservatives / dumb people, etc. She is handled with such kid gloves, including by Couric, that it’s a joke. Some question I would ask her if given a chance:
– why do you quit every job or educational program you ever begin before its completion? would you quit the Presidency or Vice Presidency if you felt you or your family was treated harshly by the media? Would Obama be justified in quitting due to some of the unbelievable nastiness he has faced from some of your supporters?
– why do you make your family, your family-related decisions, and your mothering skills a centerpiece of your qualifications for office, yet object to any scrutiny whatsoever of those decisions and/or skills? Is just the mere biological fact of being a mother really a qualification for vice president?
– why is it that every single person — including many, many republicans who have worked closely with you, and numerous members of your own family — apparently feel the need to lie about you, and only you, apparently, are ever telling the truth?
– why is it that your two signature political “accomplishments” (a bridge that you supported before throwing it under the bus for political expedience reasons — and not even by choice, really, and a plane you “sold” on ebay, but not actually) were lies from the outset?
– are intellectual curiosity and a desire to learn about the world traits that you consider important for a potential President to possess? List all the books and scholarly articles you have read, especially books putting forth views different from your own, addressing your signature issue, energy?
– why is asking someone what they like to read considered a difficult question, but only when asked of you?
– do you think it is productive for a genuine national discourse for you to label your opponents friends of terrorists, fascists and socialists?
– why did you call Hillary Clinton a whiner for complaining about sexism when basically all you ever do is whine about how you are treated by the media, making that the centerpiece of your book and book tour?
– can you discuss a single political issue without resulting to empty, hollow, platitudinous talking points that are utterly devoid of substance? can you remotely respond to a nuanced argument of any kind? (ok, fine, that one is rhetorical).
– there are about 500 more that a person more clever than me could come up with.
What an utter and complete joke to claim that Couric’s questions, most of which would be total softballs in the hands of the average Ephblog poster, were considered too “tough” for someone who might have to someday negotiate with world leaders. What the crazed defenders of anything Palin does is that liberals don’t care that Palin is an attractive woman who likes to hunt — we are genuinely scared that so much of the country is enchanted by a lazy, intellectually shallow, shrill, vindictive, dishonest, platitudinous quitter who lacks an in-depth understanding of even a single meaningful policy and shows no desire to even educate herself, yet somehow is still supremely self-confidence. We’ve all seen where the combination of utter and complete confidence / arrogance without accompanying hard work, intellectual heft, or accomplishments to justify that arrogance can lead. We really, really, really don’t need to see that again. How people who ARE intelligent, who ARE curious, who HAVE worked hard, who AREN’T quitters or liars or opportunist like Blatt can back Palin continues to mystify me. Fortunately, he is a very, very small minority. Even the vast majority of my GOP friends (all of whom are intelligent, thoughtful people) are mortified by her prominence in the party.
rory says:
in the words of a sports blog/message board i read regularly:
U mad? why for?
nuts says:
Katy Couric is not to blame for Sarah Palin’s anemic answers.
Dan may be right that Katy did not pose as difficult questions to Biden as Palin such as “What do you read?”
But seriously, Couric may not have been as tough on Biden as Palin. That said, Couric did not have to be tough on Palin to reveal a woefully unprepared candidate for VP.
If Couric wasn’t as tough on Biden as Palin, is it really a matter of honor? If so, who on FoxNews meets the bar of honorable? Hannity? O’Reilly? Beck? or on CBS Schieffer? or on ABC Stephanopolous? or on NBC neocon Brian Williams?
Dan Blatt '85 says:
Oh, Jeff, what a rant and what a nice way to begin my morning this Saturday after Thanksgiving.
You know, you don’t need to insult me to make your point, but then again, maybe that is your point.
I could have a field day going through your points, but, well, JeffZ, I just don’t have the time. Basically, with each word you reveal and bias, a prejudice, an animosity and ignorance not uncommon on the left.
Did you even read Sarah’s book? Are you even familiar with her actual accomplishments in Alaska?
Seems your sources are Andrew Sullivan’s blog and not Sarah Palin’s record. Go back and study her record, something Miss Couric failed to do (part of the point of my posts on this biased anchor was that she didn’t ask Palin about her record in Alaska.) And you seem to think her entire record was two things which you claim are lies. How sadly misinformed you are. She did far more in her 2 1/2 years as Governor as Barack Obama did in a similar time in the U.S. Senate (before becoming a full-time candidate for President).
Look, I’ve already spent too much time acknowledging your questions, most of which are based on dishonest coverage of her record. But, from the very outset of your response, you missed the very point of my post. It’s that Katie Couric held Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, two candidates for the same office last fall, to entirely different standards. And that point is quite clear in the text excerpted above.
If you think she tossed softballs at Palin, well then, she put the ball on a “tee” for Joe Biden. But, guess in your “need” to vent against this accomplished reformer, you missed the point of the post excerpted above.
Oh, and one more thing, if you feel Couric tossed softballs at Mrs. Palin, then please identify the tough questions she — or any other journalist — asked of Barack Obama. Did she ask him about his intellectual curiosity and to identify books he had read?
I didn’t know Katie Couric went to Williams. Well, for every James A. Garfield, Stephen Sondheim and Elia Kazan we’ve produced, we’ve produced a few incompetents along the way. A true embarrassment to our alma mater she is.
Oh, JeffZ, once again, thank you for your rant. You really made my day. That I can elicit such uninformed, prejudiced bile indicates that my words don’t go unnoticed. Just some advice, check your facts (on sources other than left-wing blogs) and consider your animus: why do you hate Sarah Palin so? What is it about this strong, charismatic and accomplished woman that causes you (and so many others) to get whipped into a frenzy at the mere mention of her name?
Dan Blatt '85 says:
nuts, seems we were posting at the same time. Please note that the post was about Katie Couric with Palin as an example. I grant that Palin delivered some anemic answers, even she acknowledges as much.
So far though none of the commenters here have challenged my argument (remember, it’s about Miss Couric, not Mrs. Palin)
jeffz says:
Dan, I didn’t insult you, I apologize if you thought so, my post reads a little different than probably intended — I wasn’t calling you a liar or opportunist as you may have thought, but rather the opposite — the ARE’s were directed towards you, actually. If you read back that section, you’ll see what I actually meant, I believe, even if my hastily-constructed lingo is unclear.
You, of course, are no more objective and unbiased on Palin that her fiercest liberal critic, however. No matter WHAT she does, WHAT she says, WHAT her laughable record in her public life betrays about her, NO critique of her, in your view, can POSSIBLY be anything but a product of the liberal media bias (or I guess, the many, many conservatives who think she is a total joke as well). You are trying to defend the indefensible, and I applaud your best efforts to do so, but the fact is, you are fighting a losing battle, and even many conservatives less emotionally invested in her success than you have, have admitted as much. If you were remotely objective, you’d see what I and her millions of critics see, which is someone who is nasty, intellectually shallow, has no original or ever really any coherent ideas, no record of accomplishments, and who has been fundamentally dishonest in ways that have debunked repeatedly, by sources on both the left and the right. So you live in a world in which no one can ever criticize Sarah Palin, and if they do it is by definition a product of their bias against her. You’ve essentially created an impossible situation: critique Palin’s record, ideas, brainpower, accomplishments, anything about her, and all that does is “prove” your point. It’s sort of like me saying any critique of Barack Obama just “proves” that Republicans don’t want a black man to succeed. Your POV on Palin is equally ridiculous.
jeffz says:
Katie Couric did not go to Williams.
But actually my original point stands — unlike Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and Palin’s other slobbering admirers, who might as well just ask her her own talking points (oh actually, they do), she has proven that any time she is asked a REMOTELY objective question, or one that calls for anything besides recital of one of her ten memorized talking points, she is utterly incapable of providing a coherent answer. That is not the fault of the questioner. If you can’t respond to anything but a fawning interview, you don’t belong in public life.
jeff s says:
Dan -
please educate the misinformed as to these accomplishments of palin.
as far as I am aware, every example trotted out during her conversation with the american people in the fall of 2008 has been debunked.
in the interest of learning, plese share.
jeffz says:
Stewart really knocks this one out of the park. It is SO infuriating to me the degree to which Palin’s defenders are divorced from reality, their need to categorize liberals’ (and many conservatives’) distaste for her into their preconceived obsession about a liberal media bias narrative, that they simply have lost the ability to objectively analyze the reality of why we can’t stand the infatuation with her by those on the right willing to forgive her numerous inadequacies simply because she is cute, folksy, hates abortions and loves guns:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Video–Jon-Stewart-explains-the-real-reason-liberals-do-not-like-Sarah-Palin
jeffz says:
Yeah, what Jeff S said. Why don’t you start by explaining her two biggest talking points of the election cycle: killing the bridge to nowhere that she actually supported (until it was no longer politically expedient) and selling her plane on ebay, even though, woops, she didn’t.
'10 says:
I haven’t seen the Palin or Biden interviews, aside from the couple of Palin clips that everyone’s seen.
But it should be pretty evident that Biden was a known quantity before, during, and after the election. There was no need to ask his positions on the issues, because they were well-established and widely known after his thirty-year record in the Senate. Palin, on the other hand, had never weighed in on the vast majority of national issues, so there was a much greater public curiosity there (from both the left and the right) which was perfectly legitimate for Couric to represent. If she held Biden and Palin to different standards, it was because those standards reflected their relative records and the questions that she thought viewers would most want answered by each candidate.
That said, it seems like the questions that Palin most famously tripped up on were the extreme softballs like “what do you read?”, so even if Couric had been completely “honorable” and refrained entirely from asking about the issues, Palin would still have looked like an idiot.
Ken Thomas '93 says:
Primary sources, anyone? Do we have links to the interviews?
ephling says:
Palin
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml
Biden
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/22/eveningnews/main4470063.shtml
Dan Blatt '85 says:
JeffZ, if you don’t want me to shake my head and curl my lips in a smile, you probably shouldn’t write about Palin. It seems the only thing you know about Palin’s record in what you read on blogs like Andrew Sullivan’s.
It’s amazing all the notions you impute to me. I think it’s entirely fair to criticize Governor Palin. You say she has no record of accomplishment, but in your first comment, you identify as her “signature” political accomplishments, two among the many things she did in office.
Go read her book and go learn about her record and bear in mind this statistic, when John McCain tapped her as his running mate, a majority of Alaska Democrats approved her record in office.
All your comments, Jeff, and you have yet to attack one specific point I made defending Governor Palin, repeating left-wing talking points about Palin, arguing not with me, but with a conservative Palin defender based not on my blog post, but drawn in your imagination. (Please find below links to article identifying her accomplishments.)
As to her accomplishments, well, no matter what I said, you would find some way of dismissing them, given how you misrepresent her record.
Please identify the comments she made saying she sold the plane on ebay. She never said that (which means, you misrepresented what little of her record that you know). She said she put it on ebay which she did. As to the bridge to nowhere, Alaska Democrats gave her credit for killing it. So please review the actual history of the incident instead of repeating a liberal talking point. And no, those weren’t her two biggest “talking points” of the election cycle, but two of her best applause lines at the GOP convention.
Amusing that you rant on and on about her numerous inadequacies, yet are clueless about her accomplishments.
What is it with guys like you that you so have to demonize this woman? I mean, just the mention of her name in a post on Couric’s bias whips you into a frenzy not about Couric but about Palin. That you have to reduce her to a caricature. Every example debunked? Every example? Give me a break, JeffZ. If you, like “Doc” Sullivan, weren’t trying to totally discredit this woman, you might have some credibility. Debunked perhaps by left-wing bloggers, but nearly all of them stand up to scrutiny.
Um, ‘10, nice try, but Biden’s views may have been known to Couric, but not to the American people. And Palin’s views were widely known in Alaska, but save where Palin differed from McCain (drilling in ANWR), she didn’t seem very interested in reporting them (or asking Palin about them). Nor did she present those well-established views of Biden.
As to the questions to Palin being softballs, has any journalist ever asked a Vice-Presidential nominee to identify bills her running mate supported related to her (the journalist’s) view of the causes of particular crisis? And please note, I don’t fault Couric for the great majority of the questions she posed to Palin, just that she failed to ask Palin about her record in Alaska and only asked Biden questions about the campaign.
Oh, and JeffZ, you still have yet to challenge the argument I made in the post excerpted above.
Glad to hear Katie Couric didn’t go to Williams; she doesn’t appear bright enough to be an Eph.
—–
Here, JeffZ, I’ve done your homework for you, with a list of articles identifying her accomplishments in Alaska.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/553oxoax.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjEyMzk3MWU4Yzk1NGQyMWYwZjk0OTcyNmEzYTM5N2E=
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-11-palin-cover_N.htm
'10 says:
Did you miss the part where Biden had just spent all of 2007 campaigning in the primary and appearing in debates on national television? He was a known quantity, and even if that weren’t the case, his Senate record was available to anyone who cared to look. Palin, having never held national office, had never spoken a single public word on most national issues (in Alaska or elsewhere) or even indicated that she had given any thought to them.
If your metric for intelligence is ability and willingness to engage in fair and civil debate, then I can think of at least one Eph that Katie Couric is almost certainly brighter than.
jeff s' says:
Accomplishments please.
JeffZ says:
Dan, you didn’t address any (but one, and at that, you didn’t touch on it substantively) of the original points I raised, so I don’t see why I should address yours. And everything I am saying about Palin are facts: she DID quit as Governor without completing a single term, so why should we believe she wouldn’t quit any other office when the scrutiny and pressure would only be higher?; she DID barely graduate college (for someone who apparently is a bit of an intellectual snob, I am surprised this doesn’t bother you in the least) going to six lower tier schools in five years or whatever it was; she is NOT well read, intellectually curious, or well-versed in any substantive policy area; she DID make a bit of a fool of herself whenever asked any remotely in depth, substantive question that she couldn’t just respond to with a talking point; she has been caught either lying (death panels) or misinformed (Reagan ended death tax) or both over, and over, and over again; she DID campaign for Governor based on SUPPORTING the bridge to nowhere, and it was Congress, not her, that killed it (and your only rebuttal to that is that some Alaska democrats supported her — that is not a rebuttal, can YOU address the FACTS of her involvement in that event and explain to me how the centerpiece of her campaign was not a total lie, or at a minimum disingenuous and deceptive, from the outset?); she did claim that her motherhood and her decisions related to Trig were some of the traits that qualified her for public office and/or which she herself raised in stump speeches, yet suddenly it was the evil liberal media who was to blame whenever the fiction she crafted about her family life was exposed as just that. and on and on … you are unable to address the substantive critiques of Palin, so all you can do, apparently, is claim that we don’t know anything, rather than address the actual points we are making. Which is why it is pointless to try to engage with you — it is YOU who has “Palin derangement syndrome” because you can’t accept her for what she has proven to be, and are determined to blame evil liberals for doing nothing but letting her expose the truth about her self, painful misstep by painful misstep. There are fifty things she has said and done that, had Obama done them, you would tear him to shreds over, in post, after post, after post, yet because you are utterly unable to have a shred of objectivity when it comes to her, you just whine that liberals hate her. Well, our distate for her didn’t come from nowhere. It’s based on her lack of brainpower, integrity, intellectual curiosity, civility, and accomplishments. And I can play the “links game” about her record too, there are zillions out there of this nature:
http://www.hereticalideas.com/2008/09/the-conservative-case-against-sarah-palin/
Dan, you’ve failed to demonstrate that a single question I raised in my original post is in any way unfair to ask of Palin, in any way inappropriate, or not grounded in truth. I just wish someone in the media would have the courage to do so, rather than continually toss softballs her way. Oh well.
nuts says:
@ephling:
9/19/2008
Preview: One-On-One With Joe Biden
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/18/eveningnews/main4459253.shtml
9/23/2008
VIDEO CBS Exclusive: Joe Biden
Joe Biden is known for not holding back and, in an exclusive interview with Katie Couric, he talks candidly about the upcoming debate and the attack ad against McCain he thought was “terrible.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4470093n
nuts says:
@JeffZ#17: It’s possible that you are 100% correct in this comment and at the same time so is Dan in his assertion that Couric asked Palin tougher questions than Biden and yet, at the same time, that Palin failed miserable answering those questions and Couric’s more difficult questions were not the reason Palin performed so poorly.
Notably, Palin blames Nicole Wallace and Katy Couric for the interviews, the former for pushing her to have the interview “to boost the anchor’s ’self esteem,’” which Nicole Wallace flatly denies, and the latter for being so perky. Yes! I was dumbstruck by Palin use of the adjective perky as derision without the least hint of irony. Meow.
Andrew says:
JeffZ: carriage returns and paragraph breaks, man! They make reading easier.
Comrade Blatt ‘85: while I have no interest in rehashing or arguing the specific facts of this situation, I’d like to question your premise here.
If (one of) the mission(s) of the press is to provide a body of information to the public re: government decisions and (potential) government decision-makers, THEN:
If candidate A and candidate B have had wildly different amounts of national media exposure and national-level governmental experience, such that one had a dramatically longer and dramatically more easily analyzed and interpreted track record, then would not a reporter, IN THE ABSTRACT, be justified in approaching interviews with the two candidates differently? The reporter’s general duty to add to the public pool of knowledge about each of these candidates differs in its specifics depending, in large part, on what knowledge is already easily available, no?
Now, you and I can disagree about whether what Couric asked of Palin or how she asked it was fair or appropriate, and I’m totally cool with you feeling Palin was treated unfairly — the case clearly can be made — but can we please do away with this notion of equal treatment uber alles as an ideal? It seems rather tangential to the basic duty of journalists.
I apologize for my wordiness. I get wordy late at night. Just ask any of my profs, lol.
Will Slack '11 says:
Watching Couric’s interview of Beck, she started committing the classic error of biased journalism, the phrase “some say.”
Some say the economy would have been in huge trouble without the stimulus, don’t they? Some say that’s what America needs to do, right? I strongly dislike that phrase – quote someone on the subject, or at least generally attribute a statement, please. And FWIW, I saw it a lot more on Fox than on CNN or MSNBC when I was watching a lot of cable news a few years ago.
On Palin in general:
I agree that she did some things to her credit, which many are ether unaware of or dismiss. However, McCain committed a giant political error in choosing her, because she was not a national politician. Obama said something to the effect that it took him 4 months to learn to be a national candidate, and she simply didn’t have that time.
Being a national figure is a completely different question than national security experience, foreign policy experience, domestic policy experience, or governance experience. We can have an honest debate about the former, because she did have time in office.
The difference between her and Obama was that Obama was under the stop from the moment after his speech. People looked at each other after he was done and predicted his presidency, though perhaps not this soon. From that moment on, he was a national figure. Gov. Palin is the same way – their respective book tours had little to do with their current office, and both have cemented their reputations as people of magnitude. The difference is that Obama had the book tour FIRST.
He could also retreat to being a senator; in fact, he spent the beginning of his term laying low. Palin didn’t have that option – they had to get her out immediately, and that put the McCain campaign in an impossible situation which they then passed onto her – causing he to “go rogue.” It was entirely predictable, and politically foolish.
Regardless of Palin’s policy positions, McCain was asking a governor who had never been a national figure to learn national politics through a campaign bubble, and then be prepared to take his place on Day 2 as national leader. I honestly think that was a dumb idea. Even the attention placed on PROSPECTIVE veeps helps to train that person – that was the risk, and McCain’s election Hail Mary was foolish.
I’m also very uncomfortable with the litany of claims that Palin lied, though I don’t have time to check them out at the moment. I can’t say the random page of the book that I read in the airport impressed me, either.
JeffZ says:
Apologies for my generally inarticulate nature on this thread, I tend to write VERY fast in comments, in an almost stream of consciousness fashion, and I will try to be more careful in the future.
Will, while I appreciate your efforts to be even-handed, if merely having a book tour was enough to be a person of “magnitude,” then Carrot Top would qualify. Palin is a famous” person, but that is different than being a person of magnitude in my book. To borrow a line from the Coen brothers, Obama, unlike Palin, had at the time he first entered politics demonstrated that he was a serious man, who had, from an early age, given serious thought to important ideas, and devoted himself to mastering the nuances and intricacies of some of those ideas both in theory (con law prof at — a little bias here — the best law school in the country and the Palin-derided but very valuable work as a community organizer, as well as many years as a State Senator, when he could have been earning big bucks at a law firm, not to mention his educational achievements). Palin has yet to give even an iota of indication that she has carefully studied, let alone mastered, ANY idea or policy of national or international import. Merely having someone ghost write for you a folksy score-settling self-aggrandizing puff piece (and yes, I’ve read enough excerpts to be satisfied that I don’t need to waste my time on the entire thing) of a book does not change that fact. The fact is, ANY question that calls for a detailed understanding of policy or complicated ideas, or which requires a thoughtful, non-pre-programmed, generic talking point response, ends up being a hard question for Palin to answer. And that is what troubles me more than anything else about her.
Because why did I go to Williams? Why did you? Why do any of us engage in inane debates with David on this blog? Because, apparently, all of us respect the process of argumentation, of study, of commitment to a thought process that involves more than memorizing a talking point or three. Although it will never happen, I would love to see a return to the type of political discourse embodied by the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or Madison and Jefferson. Now, there is a very fair argument to be made that intellect, intellectual curiosity, being well read, possessing a deep understanding of public policy, an interest in learning about and confronting opposing viewpoints, all of things that characterize (I hope) many in the Williams community are not remotely important traits for any politician to have Certainly, plenty of politicians who did possess all of these traits have failed miserably. But given my own priorities, these are traits I happen to look for in a candidate for national office. Heck, these are traits that I respect in almost all areas of my life. These are traits I value highly. And I have yet to see even an iota of evidence from her many months in the spotlight that Palin possesses any of these traits. Many Americans simply don’t care. And if Palin’s supporters want to argue that these simply don’t matter, that is a more than credible argument. But if they want to seriously argue that she has, at ANY stage of her life, demonstrated these traits, they face an uphill battle. But I realize I am far off the original point here.
All I know is that hardly ANY interviewers have asked Palin ANY remotely tough or probing questions that I would like to see asked of her, any questions that really challenge her to display her intellectual chops, and Couric gets crucified for being one of the few to see how Palin really is under a tiny bit of pressure? I realize the Palin fan base wants to see her protected from any situation that will reveal her lack of intellectual depth or ability to think fast on her feet, but were she in national office, that would be a luxury the nation simply couldn’t afford. We should all be thankful Couric was the only journalist to really push Palin even a tiny bit, rather than having those embarassing moments happen when, God forbid, she was negotiating with a foreign leader for the first time, or responding to a national crisis that didn’t fit into one of her talking points.
PTC says:
Jeffz and others:
“A winner never quits, and a quitter never wins.”
Palin is a poster child for the less educated (townies like me) who also unfortunately is an embarrassment to our abilities and thought processes. She wins through embarrassment; and on campaigns solely on the resentment of elite social structures. There is nothing wrong with fighting the elite… but resenting the elite is another thing entirely. Sara Palin runs on resentment. No doubt about it.
Many “elites” avoid these arguments against her because it would be obnoxious and elitist to make them, as well as play into her “populist” hand. She relies largely on that fact as well. She has your number Dan.
Dan can argue until he is blue in the face about all the “great things” she did in Alaska but the simple fact is- she quit. She quit just as oil dropped, conveniently. She’s a quitter.
We can give any number of examples where a plainly/ simply educated person has done well in the public sphere in terms of “chops” to debate well educated people and answer tough questions in interviews by using simple dogma and common sense- unfortunately for those looking for those Reaganesque qualities who have hung their star on Palin, this simply does not exist for her. She is a quitter who lacks the capability to do well, because unlike Reagan, she is completely self serving in her intentions, and frankly- not smart.
There are plenty of bright plumbers/garbage men/ and homemakers in this world but sadly Sarah Palin is not one of them. She is a manipulator who uses looks, simple populist messages, sound bites and ignorance to win the schoolyard fight. Much like a high school bully, she calls people names and then runs off the playground as soon as she sees a tough fight. That is why she scares the hell out of anyone who is thinking clearly. She is a belligerent bully who could actually win. Can you imagine? She has not treated those who have worked for her well in the past. To me, she represents every bad quality of the Clintons and Bush combined… with no redeeming features.
Until the Republicans find a person with the intellect outside the boundaries of the academic elite to carry their populist torch, we will be stuck with captain stupid. Captain stupid damages us all. It is sad that the Republicans have hung their star so strongly on this person and this demographic of the populace. Sarah divides us by race, class, religion, and geographic location. It will be a very sad day indeed if she wins the nomination for the Republicans. There will be no philosophical argument of D v R, just loud noises and a debate that will divide us all along lines that reflect the poorer instincts of our humanity. If she wins it will have nothing to do with her abilities, and everything to do with her followers needs to tell the rest of us “I told you so!” I urge you Dan, to resist the urge to fulfill the need at the expense of the nation.
To end- Don’t ever forget, Sara Palin quit. Last time I checked quitting an important job when it got tough was not the recipe for being hired for a position of much greater responsibility. She will need to buff up her resume with a whole lot more than a book tour after quitting an important job in order to gain my confidence. Why is that different for folks like Dan?
Let’s just say, this townie does not “get it.”
PTC says:
Greatest hits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_FhGFJFuo&feature=PlayList&p=D39843233193D0F3&index=27
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw3o3y77MaA&feature=PlayList&p=D39843233193D0F3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiKtR9Z95m4
Honor… you talk about honor…. don’t ever forget it! Don’t ever forget what Palin turned the race into… and the passions she will be sure to invoke again and again, if she gets a mike in her hand for this next cycle. We can do so much better than that.
Brandi '07 says:
Regardless, Katie Couric’s 2007 commencement speech changed my life.
Ronit says:
@Brandi ‘07: Smallpox also changes lives…
Henry Bass says:
Ronald Reagan was no great intellectual but he was not stupid. After Warren Beatty made the movie REDS be took it to the White House to screen it for the president and his family. At the end Beatty turned to get the president’s reaction which was, “Great movie, Warren. But, wouldn’t you have to admit, that it’s too bad that the whole thing did not have a happy ending.”
I don’t think Palin could edgage in that kind of banter.
rory says:
why are we rehashing interviews from before an election that already happened? Unemployed Sarah Palin isn’t worth it.
This all seems a horrible distraction at a time when some form of health care reform is moving forward, a much better stimulus (jobs!) bill is in the future, and cap and trade is also in the near-term horizons.
Sarah Palin as a political figure doesn’t warrant a second thought right now…or a first.