Tag: Sarah Palin

What Palin might have said

Sarah Palin’s re-take on what papers she reads and what Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with reveals, among other things, the ineptitude of her handlers. Palin herself deserves most of the blame, of course. But to let her give answers to Fox’s Carl Cameron that sounded like brazen lies was pretty unforgivable.

Imagine, if you will, what the reaction would be if she’d said something like this:

You know, Carl, when Katie asked me those questions I was tired and irritable, and I guess I had something of a brain freeze. I apologize to Katie. Her questions were perfectly fair. And I should have answered them.

When I’m home, I read the Anchorage Daily News, of course. I have to. I am the governor, after all. And believe it or not, the AP makes it all the way up to Alaska, so there’s plenty of national and international news in there, too. Those East Coast liberals seem to think we’re cut off from the rest of the world. I do try to read some of the national papers on the Web, but I’m a pretty busy person, what with five kids and a state to run.

Not that I’m home much lately. Good thing for USA Today — it’s right there outside our hotel room every morning, and I try to flip through it between campaign stops. I catch Fox News and some CNN. I say thanks but no thanks when MSNBC comes on. I’ve got a subscription to National Review, but those back issues have a way of piling up.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, I don’t know the names of cases. Who does? But that decision about the Exxon Valdez outraged every resident of Alaska. And I don’t think they ought to be telling states they can’t execute child molesters, either.

But I’ve got to be honest. How long have I been at this? Five weeks? I’m not going to pretend that I follow the Supreme Court every day; I’ve got enough to do keeping an eye on the Alaska legislature. That will change if I become vice president.

If Palin had said something like this, who would not believe her? Cameron, instead of snickering, would be trashing the mainstream media for not taking Palin seriously.

I’m reminded of Bob Kerrey’s line that Bill Clinton was an unusually good liar. Among Palin’s many problems is that she comes off as an unusually bad liar. And her handlers are making it worse.

Sarah Palin, our well-read legal scholar

I love it. Sarah Palin now says she reads the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, and objects to Supreme Court decisions regarding eminent domain, the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the death penalty. And if only Katie Couric hadn’t pissed her off, she’d have told us earlier.

As you’ll see, even Fox’s Carl Cameron can’t take her seriously.

(Links now fixed.)

Peggy Noonan meant what she said

You’ve got to read Peggy Noonan’s take on Sarah Palin and the debate in today’s Wall Street Journal. Last month, Noonan tried to deny the obvious when an open microphone caught her referring to the Palin pick as “political bullshit.” Well, check this out:

I find obnoxious the political game in which if you expressed doubts about the vice presidential nominee, or criticized her, you were treated as if you were knocking the real America — small towns, sound values. “It’s time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency,” Mrs. Palin told talk-show host Hugh Hewitt. This left me trying to imagine Abe Lincoln saying he represents “backwoods types,” or FDR announcing that the fading New York aristocracy deserves another moment in the sun. I’m not sure the McCain campaign is aware of it — it’s possible they are — but this is subtly divisive.

There’s gold in every paragraph.

Noonan is scheduled to appear on “On Point” on WBUR Radio (90.9 FM) at 11 a.m.

Live-blogging the Palin-Biden debate

10:37 p.m. I tend to be really bad at picking up on what most people think is important — not just the pundits, but ordinary people, too. So I’m fully prepared to see my instant reaction torn down tomorrow morning.

But I honestly don’t think Palin did anything other than stand there and say stuff for an hour and a half. “How long have I been at this? Five weeks?” she asked. Yeah. And with few exceptions, everything she said tonight was crammed into her head during that time.

Biden was authoritative, knowledgeable and spoke in clear, complete sentences. He was able to point out discrepancies in Palin’s statements. And when he nearly broke down in talking about his family, he humanized himself in a way he hadn’t managed to do up to that time.

That’s all for tonight. I’ll be wrapping up media commentary tomorrow morning for the Guardian.

10:29 p.m. They’re wrapping up.

10:24 p.m. If I’d been playing a drinking game based on the word “maverick,” I’d be passed out on the floor right now.

10:21 p.m. Oh, my God. I don’t want to cheapen genuine emotion. But Biden nearly broke down talking about his family — and given his story, that’s all we’re going to be talking about tomorrow. Say good night, Sarah.

10:20 p.m. Biden gets the question, but other than being self-deprecating, he doesn’t answer, either.

10:18 p.m. Ifill: What is your real Achilles’ heel? Palin responds by talking about how wonderful she is. In Palin’s defense, Ifill’s question was a little hard to scan.

10:11 p.m. Biden: “The people in my neighborhood get it.” Here’s his neighborhood.

10:09 p.m. Live-blogging now being powered by an alternative energy source — Harvest Moon Pumpkin Ale. Surprisingly undistinguished. Oh, no wonder. Coors makes it.

10:02 p.m. Did Biden just call Bosnians “Bosniacs”? [Post-debate update: Bosniacs, or Bosniaks, are Bosnian Muslims. Biden knew what he was talking about.]

9:55 p.m. Biden debates the Palinbot. Random, Palin-like phrases come tumbling out of her mouth in response to every question.

9:51 p.m. Biden’s doing a good job of pointing out that McCain is now well to the right of Bush.

9:49 p.m. By saying Ahmadinejad is “not sane or stable,” Palin shows that she fundamentally misunderstands the real issues. Just because he’s dangerous doesn’t mean he’s crazy.

9:44 p.m. Northeastern journalism student Candice Springer is live-blogging the debate.

9:42 p.m. Palin’s doing a pretty good job of driving a wedge between Biden and Obama on Iraq. Biden’s comeback: Bush and the Iraqi government take our position; McCain’s the only one who doesn’t.

9:39 p.m. Palin says she’s “tolerant” of adults “choosing their partners.” Does she know what she’s saying? She probably does. Biden: Obama and I oppose same-sex marriage, too.

9:35 p.m. AP reports: “The two debated for 90 minutes with little more than one month remaining in the campaign and McCain struggling to regain his footing.” A little premature? Thanks, Mike B1.

9:33 p.m. Ifill asks Palin about “climate change.” Obviously biased!

9:30 p.m. Biden’s flashing some serious signs of cockiness when Palin’s talking. Careful, Joe — disaster ahead?

9:27 p.m. Biden: Obama and I support a windfall-profits tax on oil companies. So did Palin in Alaska. Maybe she can talk McCain into joining us.

9:25 p.m. Palin: “How long have I been at this? Five weeks?”

9:23 p.m. Wow. Palin’s taking a pass on Biden’s health-care attack, which was pretty effective: McCain wants to tax your employer-provided medical insurance. And Palin’s got nothing to say? I think I know why: It’s Gwen Ifill’s fault.

9:21 p.m. Biden calls McCain’s health-care plan “the ultimate bridge to nowhere.” Pretty good line.

9:19 p.m. Good grief. Palin just accused Obama of wanting to “mandate” health care. Didn’t Hillary beat him up for not wanting to mandate health care? (Answer: Yes.)

9:15 p.m. Palin repeats the lie that Obama wants to raise taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000. PolitiFact: False.

9:13 p.m. Biden’s looking right at Palin. I suppose he would anyway, but he’s making sure he doesn’t repeat McCain’s mistake with Obama.

9:11 p.m. Biden is flat and boring tonight. Is it deliberate? I’ll bet it is.

9:09 p.m. Biden lets Palin get away with the fiction that McCain “suspended” his campaign. What did he suspend?

9:02 p.m. Audio and video are out of sync on C-SPAN. Palin: “Mind if I call you Joe?”

I wasn’t going to, but oh, why not? If you’re interested in my almost-real-time ruminations, please tune in around 9 p.m. And if you’re not, I understand.

Readying the Ifill excuse

Today was the first time I’d heard there was any controversy over the choice of Gwen Ifill as moderator of tomorrow’s vice-presidential debate. It seems that Ifill has a book coming out that is largely* about Barack Obama.

Adam Reilly does a good job of putting together a timeline that shows everyone knew about Ifill’s book back in July and August, but that no one on the Republican side cared until John McCain and Sarah Palin began to tank.

Jack Shafer, meanwhile, observes that few media figures are as fair as Ifill. He’s right. The McCain campaign couldn’t possibly believe Ifill is going to stick it to Palin tomorrow. Ergo, it looks like excuses are being prepared in advance in case Palin performs poorly.

*Thursday update: Not even. It’s partly about Obama.

Kristol mails it in

Bill Kristol barely rouses himself in his New York Times column today. Simply as a student of opinion journalism, I’m amazed at the extent to which he’s willing to make assertions without even trying to back them up.

Today’s effort isn’t a bad column because he’s a conservative, but because he’s so lazy. Here are three examples:

1. “McCain’s impetuous decision to return to Washington was right. The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.”

I have not seen one account of the negotiations that shows John McCain had anything to do with the outcome; I’ve seen quite a few that suggest his parachute jump was a distraction. I make that point not to claim that I’m right, but to explain the conventional wisdom that Kristol, as McCain’s advocate, needs to puncture.

As if. Here was Kristol’s golden opportunity to work those inside connections and tell us why everyone is wrong; to say that McCain did X and Y, and that it’s time he got some credit, damn it. Kristol doesn’t even try.

2. “McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her — aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she’s a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.”

As we have all seen, Sarah Palin can’t answer simple questions about any issues of national and international importance. The reason McCain’s aides have been so parsimonious about her public appearances is that she stumbles every time she opens her mouth. We wouldn’t be talking about how she’s being handled if she could answer the questions.

Again, the columnist’s job is to tell us why everyone is wrong — to explain, on the basis of evidence, that the reason her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were so damaging was because McCain’s handlers have gotten inside her head and made it impossible for her natural wisdom to flow forth. Or whatever. In other words, give us some plausible explanation for us not to believe our own lying eyes and ears.

And again, Kristol doesn’t bother.

3. “On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words ‘middle class.’ … The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama’s eloquent memoir, ‘Dreams From My Father.’ There Obama quotes from the brochure of Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright’s church — a passage entitled ‘A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.'”

Why, yes, the McCain campaign might very well consider doing that. Would it be a good idea? Who knows? Kristol doesn’t make any attempt to try to characterize what the brochure says.

Wright has indulged in some pretty nasty rhetoric. But he is, after all, a minister. If Wright calls on people to disavow “the pursuit of middleclassness,” might he be urging them to eschew materialism in favor of service to one’s fellow men and women? Who knows? What we do know is that, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, Kristol manages to insinuate that Wright was seeking a race war against bourgeois society.

How much is he getting paid for this?

Your own lying eyes

I’m going to break one of my rules for blogging by engaging in a little mind-reading. That’s because it seems fairly obvious that the folks at the Washington Post have decided they don’t want to engage in a battle with the McCain-Palin campaign over Sarah Palin’s crystal-clear, public statement linking the war in Iraq to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

How else can we possibly explain Post ombudsman Deborah Howell’s column accepting the line that Palin was actually referring to a terrorist group known as Al Qaeda in Iraq? How else can we understand reporter Anne Kornblut’s contention that there was more than one interpretation that could be given to Palin’s remarks? Why else would the Post run a “clarification” to Kornblut’s article that might as well have been headed “obfuscation”?

By all means, watch the video above, but here’s the key sentence from Palin’s talk to Iraq-bound Alaskan soldiers, including her son Track: “You’ll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans. You’ll be there because America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before Sept. 11, 2001.”

Is this difficult? There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001. Al Qaeda in Iraq did not plan and carry out the attacks. Every one of the terrorists was either Saudi or Egyptian. I mean, come on. Palin’s words were plainly spoken. There is no alternative interpretation.

The U.S. military, after extensive study, found there were no ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The military also believes that Al Qaeda in Iraq is merely a homegrown, Iraqi insurgent movement.

Why is the Washington Post acting as enablers for the McCain-Palin campaign’s transparent attempt to explain away Palin’s ludicrous statement?

Sarah Palin and the Special Olympics

Several news organizations, including the New York Times and NPR, have reported that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin cut the state’s Special Olympics budget by $275,000 earlier this year. That’s accurate, but it’s not the whole story, and I’ve posted an update to reflect that.

According to Newsbusters.org, and verified by state documents, the Special Olympics sought $550,000 for the coming fiscal year. Palin used her line-item veto to cut that in half, but it still represented an increase of $25,000.

Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard gets carried away, describing the $550,000 as merely a number that was “proposed.” In fact, it was approved by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature, so Palin really went out of her way to make this cut. The question: Why? Alaska’s KTUU-TV tried to get someone from the Special Olympics to comment, but was unsuccessful.

What services would the extra money have paid for? Was it for new programs? Was it to make up for a loss of funding from other sources? What will be the effect of Palin’s veto?

I’d say someone ought to find out. How about it, Anchorage Daily News?

Picking apart Jeff Jacoby’s indictment

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby today takes on what he calls the “frenzy of rage and contempt set off by the nomination of Sarah Palin.”

Because Jacoby’s an important voice and deserves to be taken seriously, I’m going to take a little more space than I normally might to pick his column apart. As you will see, there is almost nothing in Jacoby’s piece that holds up to scrutiny.

1. “There has been legitimate criticism, of course. But there has also been a gusher of slander, much of it — like the slur that she isn’t the real mother of her infant son, Trig — despicable.”

Agreed. It doesn’t get much more despicable than that. But why bring it up? As we know, this rumor was nothing but the product of a pseudonymous hate-monger on Daily Kos. Until the McCain campaign itself cited it as a reason for going public with 17-year-old Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, the only mainstream journalist who mentioned it was Andrew Sullivan, blogging for the Atlantic. I unloaded on him for that.

This complaint makes as much sense as blaming the media and mainstream Republicans for anonymous e-mails that claim Barack Obama is a Muslim.

2. “Voters have been told that she slashed funding in Alaska for special-needs children.”

Perhaps that’s because, this summer, she cut the budget for the Special Olympics by $275,000. [True, but see note below.]

3. “That she tried to ban books from Wasilla’s public library.”

Unproven, though Bill Adair, editor of the nonpartisan Web site PolitiFact, now says there may be more to this allegation than first appeared. The investigation continues.

4. “That she was a member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party.”

That was a case of media overreach based on some pretty tantalizing information. We know, for instance, that Palin’s husband, Todd Palin, was a member for seven years; that she denies the testimony of several eyewitnesses who say she attended a state convention in the mid-1990s; and that, as governor, she recorded a cheery video message to be played at the party state convention.

Lest we forget, the words of party founder Joe Vogler remain emblazoned on the party’s Web site: “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”

5. “That she links Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11.”

She does, most recently last Thursday.

6. “That she backed Pat Buchanan for president.”

The source of this error was an MSNBC analyst named, uh, Pat Buchanan. In Buchanan’s defense, it’s possible that the “Buchanan for President” button Palin was wearing fooled him.

7. “That she doesn’t want students taught about contraception.”

During her 2006 campaign for governor, Palin answered a questionnaire that dealt with sex education and a number of other issues.

Here is one of the questions: “Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?”

And here is Palin’s answer: “Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”

Does not abstinence-only education by definition exclude teaching kids about contraception? That’s not a rhetorical question — I don’t know. But I think it does. (Or not. See “Update,” below.)

8. “That she called the war in Iraq ‘a task from God.'”

I think Jacoby is right in calling this a stretch, though reasonable people — including a Pentacostal scholar — believe otherwise. But she did ask people to pray that a natural-gas pipeline would be built in Alaska. Is it somehow better to refer to a pipeline as a gift from God than it is to call the war in Iraq a task from God?

9. “For months they [the media] refused to mention the infidelity of John Edwards, yet they leaped with relish onto Bristol Palin’s pregnancy.”

What the media refused to do was pass along — or at least investigate and verify — stories in the National Enquirer about Edwards’ infidelity. Now the media are ignoring stories in the Enquirer that Palin had an affair with an ex-business partner of her husband’s, and that her two oldest kids have a thing for OxyContin and weed. Sounds pretty even-handed to me.

10. “Yet the more she has been attacked, the more her support has solidified. In the latest Fox News poll, Palin’s favorable/unfavorable ratio is a strong 54-27.”

Polls prove nothing. But for what it’s worth, her favorability/unfavorability ratings are down 10 points in the past few days, according to Newsweek.

Jacoby also passes along some pretty nasty comments from the likes of Randi Rhodes and the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. I’m not sure what that proves. We’ve also heard Obama referred to as “uppity,” and recently a waffle mix featuring Obama as Uncle Jemimah was spotted at some sort of “values” conference.

The point is that Jacoby has gathered together essentially the entire indictment of the so-called liberal media with respect to Palin. And every bit of it is either wrong or distorted.

More: Sean Roche has similar thoughts at Blue Mass Group.

Update: Media Nation reader J.S. passes along this link, which shows that Palin does indeed believe contraception should be part of sex education. So yes, Jacoby is right about that. Not sure what Palin believed she was responding to when she also said she supported abstinence-only programs.

Thursday update: The NPR story on which I relied was imprecise. Palin did indeed slash the Special Olympics budget request by $275,000, but the program will still receive slightly more money than it did the year before. Thanks to Media Nation reader P.S.