Page 6 of 12
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:58 pm
Not to mention the other lies that the The McPalin campaign are *still* perpetuating on the campaign trail - out of their own *actual* mouths:
"Barack Obama wants to inflict painful tax increases on working Americans."
"Barack Obama's health care platform is going to force small businesses to have to reduce jobs."
and for Palin:
Her fictitious "eBay plane sale"...the fictitious "firing of her cook" as some badge of fiscal responsibility...her fictitious National Guard executive interaction...etc, etc.
Geez, I guess the media's really got it out for them.
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:42 pm
Matt, you realize of course that some of the most dismissive reactions to her selection initially came from *conservative* and *republican* commenters/pundits -- talking to the dreaded mainstream media -- right?
And now they're all slobbering over her, the hypocrites.
As far as stuff that involves my line of work, her waffling about 'allowing the debate' over evolution is either sheer ignorance, or pandering to the
religious booboisie. It plays great with her new base.
And the 'truth' you quoted about her interactions with the librarian isn't exactly exonerating, are they? WTF is the mayor doing even suggesting
she has the right or mandate to ban books from the town library, in the US of A?
Dowd had a funny/serious column today, ending with questions Palin should be asked in her upcoming interview with Charlie Gibson; note how few correspond to the list of 'lies' you posted that supposedly desperately needed debunking. The two that do...the books thing and the science thing...remain legit:
In the end, none of it may matter, since Palin has rocketed in the polls, drawing women and men with her vapid — if vivacious and visceral — scripted cheerleading. But if you’re reading this, Charlie, we want to know everything, including:
What kind of budget-cutter makes a show of getting rid of the state plane, then turns around and bills taxpayers for the travel of her husband and kids between Juneau and Wasilla and sticks the state with a per-diem tab to stay in her own home?
Why was Sarah for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, and why was she for earmarks before she was against them? And doesn’t all this make her just as big a flip-flopper as John Kerry?
What kind of fiscal conservative raises taxes and increases budgets in both her jobs — as mayor and as governor?
When the phone rings at 3 a.m., will she call the Wasilla Assembly of God congregation and ask them to pray on a response, as she asked them to pray for a natural gas pipeline?
Does she really think Adam, Eve, Satan and the dinosaurs mingled on the earth 5,000 years ago?
Why put out a press release about her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and then spend the next few days attacking the press for covering that press release?
As Troopergate unfolds here — an inquiry into whether Palin inappropriately fired the commissioner of public safety for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law — it raises this question: Who else is on her enemies list and what might she do with the F.B.I.?
Does she want a federal ban on trans fat in restaurants and a ban on abortion and Harry Potter? And which books exactly would have landed on the literature bonfire if she had had her way with that Wasilla librarian?
Just how is it that Fannie and Freddie have cost taxpayers money (since they haven’t yet)?
Does she talk in tongues or just eat caribou tongues?
What does she have against polar bears?
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:11 pm
I know that ABC has already stated that Gibson's going to ask the "tough questions" (of course they would!), but has it been reported yet as to whether or not the McCain campaign will be tipped off in any way as to just what those questions may be - even if only in a rough sense? Is this going to be a completely unscripted interview without any kind of sympathetic editing in post-production? Images of her walking in a park side-by-side with Gibson?
Regardless, my guess is going to be that for any "tough question" he may ask (e.g. religion, abortion, etc.), she'll have a stock "I won't let anything -- including any deep personal convictions that I may have -- interfere in my judgment in making sure the American people always come first."
Hearts will be warmed...
Meanwhile, the Beltway press corps will continue to be stood up.
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:56 pm
Slow Slide Into Oblivion
09.08.08 -- 12:35AM
By Josh Marshall
I spent most of the day today traveling and then giving a talk up at Union College a few hours north of New York City. So I was offline most of the day. And though I heard about Charlie Gibson bagging the first interview with Sarah Palin, I was eager to get home and read the details.
Well, now I've read them. And it's pretty clear this farce is going to be close to unwatchable. Set aside that this comes just on the heels of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis saying Palin would not sit for any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference." The tell comes high up in the AP story by David Bauder. The second graf reads ...
Palin will sit down for multiple interviews with Gibson in Alaska over two days, most likely Thursday and Friday, said McCain adviser Mark Salter.
Political interviews are never done like this. Because it makes the questioning entirely at the discretion of the person being interviewed and their handlers. The interviewer has to be on their best behavior, at least until the last of the 'multiple interviews' because otherwise the subsequent sittings just won't happen. For a political journalist to agree to such terms amounts to a form of self-gelding. The only interviews that are done this way are lifestyle and celebrity interviews. And it's pretty clear that that is what this will be.
Here's some more to inspire confidence ...
The interview is a coup for Gibson, who also had the only sit-down with McCain during the Republican National Convention. During that interview, he did not question McCain about Palin's family, a decision that he fretted about for hours, Gibson said in a Web log posted last week.
"Once you know about her daughter's pregnancy, once you know about her husband's political interest in the Alaska Independent Party, once you know about the special nature of their latest child, I think that's enough," Gibson wrote.
The relevant questions about Palin all related to her experience and policy positions as a mayor and governor of Alaska.
ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said he did not believe Gibson's stated stance about family questions was key to securing the interview.
It will be unwatchable.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:12 am
I can't say this surprises me at all. It's sad, but it's the reality (no pun intended) of how news and entertainment are blurred these days. I *will* say that it's journalistic low-balling of the worst, least common denominator kind to be marketing a new warm and fuzzy "movie of the week" story only 50 or so days away from the election. I'll reserve judgment until after I watch it, but the above post doesn't indicate much to be optimistic about.
Thus, I've come to the conclusion that -- at this point -- all we can do is take care of our own house. Educate people on our candidate. Educate people on the issues and try and correct any smears, fallacies or prejudices. Stand up and fight back! Talk to our families. Talk to our friends. Talk to our neighbors. Hopefully, for their sake, the other "side" feels the same way. Though from what I've seen so far of the McCain campaign, it doesn't look encouraging in that regard. If they decide that they want to run a Rovian type show that's based primarily on personality, pandering, distortion, fear, ads that scrape the absolute bottom of the barrel of human decency, outright lies and false outrage...then so be it. Again, hopefully, America won't be duped for a third time. All we can do is fight back (strongly!) and inform. As of today, it appears that Obama has finally decided to start doing just that. As he stated...enough already!
Then, if the mainstream media simply wants to go along for the McCain/Palin train ride without challenging and, rather instead, selling shampoo or puff-piece human interest stories this late in the game, ditto for how the campaign stands up to this misrepresentation as well. If we lose...at least we fought the good fight to the best of our abilities. Can't ask for much more than that.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:18 am
The TV media makes me sick the way they go about making up a story if they don't have one. Polls this and polls that. I was working in TV until mid June, and I thought I was going to crack up completely. Besides that it was very depressing with nothing but bad news all around. That is all that sells I guess is bad news. But I walked out of that job every day bummed out about what I was seeing.
Anyway, we are in really bad shape so far as the country is concerned. And I think people must know it this time. But I thought that before and that people would not let Bush get reelected. But the bodies coming back in boxes from this war was not enough. Perhaps this time, with jobs gone, housing way way down, gas prices way way up, food up, and more bodies coming home in boxes, perhaps people will decide enough is enough. Just maybe?
I saw the latest saying Obama has slipped some in the polls. And I don't believe it. They just need a story, and made one up. I watched the news on four channels every morning and it was pretty tough. Of course on Sunday there was Tim Russert. That was only slightly easier to take than the rest of them. With him now gone, it was time for me to get the hell out of there too.
But back to the subject, we just have to make sure everyone knows the score. And everyone I talk to does. But here in California, people are more liberal anyway. It's elsewhere that the message needs to be heard.
I can't imagine another Republican in the White House. And not that RS is that great at anything, but if you look at the front cover of Rolling Stone this current issue, it says how Bush ruined the Republican party.
I am only worried about fixed rigged elections. I fear that some states will use voting machines with no paper trail in them. Who ever came up with that idea I'd like to know? There is just so much scaming by the rich, it's hard to not become cynical about it.
But I remain positive and hopeful. And since everyone can agree that Bush has screwed up this country badly, there is good reason to hopeful regardless of what some poll says.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:36 pm
Anyone see the Obama interview with O'Reilly. Bill O was impossibly rude and constantly interrupted and talked over Obama. Obama didn't finish a sentence. I've got a sinking feeling that we are fucked.
Why do people want people like them in the White House? Do you want a hockey mom operating on you?
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:09 pm
I'm not so sure that is necessarily comes down to people wanting a hockey mom. On the far right, she serves as a cultural rallying point. In that regard, they could've stuck anyone in there as long as they simply towed their extremist ideological line. Seriously, does anyone really believe that if Palin ran as a presidential candidate (and a complete unknown) in the Republican primaries she would have garnered 18 million votes as Hillary did? Of course not. She would've finished dead last, or close to dead last, against the old boys club. Which makes it all the more funny that folks like Limbaugh -- people who would've have completely dismissed her in any other situation -- are now "embracing" her. The flock simply follows and falls into line. The fact that they pandered for the female vote, with someone who is the ideological polar opposite of Hillary Clinton, only drives this point home further.
As far as the undecided middle goes, I'm still not convinced that the "hockey mom" love affair is going to hold. In fact, McCain's convention bump is slowly starting to erode in some key areas. Take it for what it's worth, but today a Quinnipiac poll shows that Obama actually has (and has increased to) a 5 pt. lead in Ohio. He's also increased his lead in New Hampshire. Furthermore, with Bill Clinton now soundly on board, I think that's only going to help bring back some of the wishy-washy middle. I still believe that as election day draws closer, the novelty factor of Palin will continue to wear off, and people will realize that the "heartbeat" away from the presidency thing is very real. Couple this with continuing bad news about the economy...and it's far from over. In terms of the media, even they're starting to call the McCain campaign on some of their shenanigans. Finally, and most importantly, Obama is *still leading* in most electoral map breakdowns.
Even if Obama somehow manages to give up Ohio and hangs on to what he currently has, he can still win it all if he snags Colorado and the Maryland/DC/Delaware group - the latter three a group that went Dem in '04. In my opinion...Colorado is going to be the decisive state in this election. No small coincidence that they chose to have the Democratic Convention there.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:10 pm
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:11 pm
I've got to say - I personally thought she came off looking worse than even I could have imagined with Gibson tonight. I don't think this did the McCain campaign any favors.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:09 pm
I had the same impression. Of course I thought the same thing of her convention speech, which has officially been ruled a smash hit. So what do I know?
I still lean toward thinking the Palin bubble will burst before long. But again, what do I know?
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:32 pm
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:06 am
On NPR this morning they were only saying that Palin didn't "implode."
I have a feeling that unless she wigs out and calls Obama a "Sambo" on live TV, she'll get a pass.
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:15 am
This was my favorite. BTW, this guy works for a conservative leaning think tank. He's generally identified as being a centrist:
http://www.politico.com/arena/index.htm ... DF25279110
"She had me at hello Charley-- had me scared to death. Not a single doubt that she is ready to be president-- everyone, no matter how experienced, should have doubts about the ability to take that job. A combination of utter inexperience and utter arrogance is about the worst possible combination I can imagine. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is would be bad enough, but saying unequivocally that Georgia should be in NATO-- meaning we would now perhaps be in a state of war with Russia-- and then without a beat saying that military action should be the last resort-- shows a series of knowledge and logic gaps that ought to shake every foreign policy specialist, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, to his or her roots. Maybe they can force feed her enough facts to skate through a debate, and maybe her self-confidence will still play well with many voters, but this first cut performance underscores our worst fears."
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:36 am
quotes a reader:
After watching that interview, can anyone honestly say that they think that Sarah Palin, the person who would take over the country in the event something happens to McCain, has more knowledge of policy than Charlie Gibson, the person giving the interview?
And isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
...Okay, isn't it at least supposed to be close??