By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions
David Brooks presumably has an idea of what his New York Times column should be about. Apparently telling us what he really thinks is not high on his list of priorities.
In the Times, Brooks has expressed — well, reservations about Sarah Palin. At a public event on Monday, he described her as “a fatal cancer to the Republican Party.” In the Times, Brooks has been skeptical about Barack Obama. On Monday, he said he’s “dazzled.”
Well, at least he’s straight with us when he’s not writing.
Embedded video from CNN Video
Among the many myths that have enveloped the Sarah Palin candidacy is the notion that the rape-kit nastiness of a few weeks ago has somehow been debunked. It hasn’t. What we knew then holds up quite well. As I wrote on Sept. 11:
The man Sarah Palin appointed to run the Wasilla police department thinks that forcing rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests is just a swell idea. He said so himself a little more than eight years ago.
Every word of that is true. Moreover, as mayor, Palin fired the previous police chief in order to put this guy, Charlie Fannon, into office. It strains credulity to believe that she didn’t bother to read her hometown paper, the Frontiersman, the week that Fannon whined about a new state law ordering that the practice be ended, complaining that it could cost Wasilla taxpayers $5,000 to $14,000 a year.
There is no record — none — showing that Palin ever publicly disagreed with Fannon, reprimanded him or said anything whatsoever about this reprehensible policy. Maybe she was too busy reading the Economist.
Fannon also said this: “In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible. I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.”
Now, we’ve all seen commentary suggesting that because the bills were sent to the insurance company, there was nothing wrong with the practice. But by treating rape as a medical problem rather than a violent crime, Wasilla authorities were sending precisely the wrong message in a state with the nation’s highest sexual-assault rate. Charging a victim’s insurance company is the same as charging the victim.
Neither the victims of non-sexual assaults nor the families of murder victims are forced to deal with their insurance companies for the cost of police investigations. By singling out rape, Fannon was wallowing in ugly old stereotypes.
We know a little bit more than we did a few weeks ago. We know that Wasilla wasn’t the only community engaging in this practice, although there is still testimony that it was among the most egregious offenders. We still don’t know for certain whether Palin knew, but I (dislocating my shoulders in order to give myself a pat on the back) have been careful about that from the beginning.
Rachael Larimore of Slate has supposedly debunked this story in two parts (here and here), as has Jim Geraghty of National Review. Go ahead and read them. They haven’t. Incredibly, Fannon doesn’t even make an appearance in Geraghty’s piece. Larimore trots him out briefly, for the sole purpose of invoking the insurance rationale.
The best summation of what we know and what we don’t know was reported by CNN on Sept. 22. Read it, watch it. And then try to claim there’s nothing to this controversy.
Instant update: Eric Boehlert weighs in on the rape-kit story in quite a bit more detail.
All right, I am assuming far more coherence and meaning in Sarah Palin’s ramblingly incoherent interview with Fox’s Carl Cameron than is warranted. But I do want to call your attention to this amazing passage, flagged by Jake Tapper of ABC News:
As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we’ve really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance.
To which I say: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Thanks to Media Nation reader MTS, who found it on Daily Kos.
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.
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.)
In my latest for the Guardian, I round up media commentary about the Palin-Biden debate — and argue that Barack Obama caught a break, as not even conservatives thought Sarah Palin did quite well enough to be declared the unambiguous victor.
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.
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.
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.
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?