The irony here is that Starving Artist is only contorting himself into such ridiculous arguments to rile up the libruls and support one of his own. I say irony because his main line of attack is to say “oh you guys are just making issues out of nothing because you’re so hyper-partisan”
It is if you start with the assumption she is not qualified to answer it. That is true for all of those so-called “gotcha” questions. If Palin were real presidential material–or even vice presidential material–she should have been able those questions, even the ones she was unprepared for, persuasively somehow. What she does is blunder and sputter very badly and then try to blame the media for her blunders. That really does not point toward national office being a good employment choice for her.
Nope. I’m not a poster inclined to take dares (or money) to stay off the board.
Well, first of all I’d think giving the candidate a little time to settle in might be in order. Then I’d think that questions such as “How to feel we should proceed with regard to the war in Iraq”", or “What would be your approach to solving the problems that exist between the Palestinians and Israel?”, “What are your idea about how to turn the economy around and create jobs?”, etc. What I wouldn’t be doing is asking what books the candidate had read that has formed their world view. I would also keep in mind that if the person in question were a candidate for vice-president, their answers would necessarily be limited to supporting the position of the presidential candidate.
It might have been her first interview but I’m sure she didn’t live in a vacuum prior to that. I’ve been hip to the ways of the press since I was in my early twenties, and I’m sure that, being a Republican, she has too. Plus I’m sure she got lots of coaching on what to look out for from McCain’s team.
Yes, I do. They convey respect for the candidate as a bona-fide decision maker. The questions create a whole other impression of the candidate than “What books and magazines have determined your foreign policy experience and worldview?”
Plus, Obama was able to speak more authoritatively, both because experience gained during his time on the campaign trail during the primaries, and as a candidate for the presidency. It’s understandable to ask what policy he would favor with regard to Jeruselem. A vice-presidential candidate on the other hand, really isn’t free to say what they’d do because it isn’t up to them.
Depends upon the context. If it was something along the line of “I’m wondering, Mr. President, if you could tell us how you get your general information about what’s going on in the country? Do you read newspapers or magazines, watch television news programs, etc., and if so would you mind telling us which of these are your favorites?”, then that would be fine. If on the other hand, the interviewer posed the question as “You’ve implied that you’re qualified for office because you’ve read books and magazines. Would you mind telling us just which ones those are?”, then yes, I would consider that a gotcha approach to interviewing him.
Thank you for your insightful, persuasive comment.
You guys wanna know why I bicker with you about Palin while at the same time claiming that I’m not defending her as much as I am fighting untrue liberal bullshit about her in the name of fighting ignorance? Then take a look at Joebuck’s statement, uttered as fact but utterly wrong, and you’ll see a perfect example of why I post things that on the surface appear to be defenses of Palin but which are in reality attacks or challenges about untrue/unfair things said about her or in regard to her.
And on preview I see that a whole new batch of challenges has come up while I was writing this. Given that I don’t the time (nor really, the inclination) to argue about this all day, I think I’ll let this post stand as explanation of my position for now.
The above seems to support Joebuck20’s observation. Making you, Starving Artist, the one who is wrong.
For the record, Palin was never involved in any trade negotiations with Russia or any other country. I don’t see how it is possible to construe her comments as anything other than using Russia’s proximity to Alaska in itself as evidence to support her foreign policy experience.
Why are we even still engaging someone who claims he didn’t know about Palin running for high office?
To any politician beside Palin, asking what newspapers and magazines he/she reads is a the softest of softball questions. The answer is:
No one in the LSM could lay a glove on her with such an answer.
Butchering such an easy question is just further proof that she’s a lousy politician.
[QUOTE=jpebuck]
After Palin said that being close to Russia gave her foreign policy expertise…
[/QUOTE]
Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.
Couric: Mocked?
Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.
Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/eveningnews/main4479062.shtml)
Damn, joebuck, SA totally pwned you there!
ETA: Ninja’ed, dagnabbit!
She wasn’t asked, “what have you learned,” she was asked the fluff question, “what have you seen so far today?” It was not a test. It was just a question about what she’d seen while sight seeing.
If someone asked Obama the same question, would you say it was a gotcha?"
This “liberal media” you righties always speak of is a myth. It doesn’t exist. It has never existed.
That exchange was what I came in here to post, but it looks like several people already beat me to it. 
Mostly, the morbid curiosity of seeing what he’ll say next.
Oh, please. All she did was express a certain amount of familarity with Russia, given that in Alaska they are practically next door neighbors. I don’t know about whatever dictionary you posess, but in mine “foreign policy experience” doesn’t equate to a feeling of familiarity with the country next door, and I’m sure in Palin’s mind it doesn’t either.
I will admit that Palin did not handle the issue well when Couric brought it up, but I already said upthread that she lacked polish. And she unfortunately allowed Couric to get away with rephrasing her comments, and then in attempting to answer them she wound up giving the impression that what Couric said was correct.
“Foreign policy” covers a wide range of nations and problems and relationships, and the Palin unquestionably never intended to imply that she had expertise in how the U.S. should deal with foreign governments and the world’s trouble spots merely because she could see Russia from the shores of Alaska.
She didn’t offer any explanation as to how Alaska being close to Russia gave her any foreign policy knowledge at all. Furthermore, she dishonestly implied that she had personally been involved in trade agreements with Russia when she hadn’t.
I’ll just post it again.
SA, you’re flat out wrong on this point.
So then, your beef with joebuck is that he maliciously reported what Sarah Palin said instead of what you, using your super-secret mind reading powers, know she really, truly meant?
Actually quoting the fool woman’s words has been seen as a direct and unfair attack for some time now.
-Joe
She never said it did. Or at least not in the interview that first raised the issue. Katie Couric rephrased it that way and Palin allowed her to get away with it and then compounded the error by trying to answer as if she really had said it.
If she did, it’s not apparent from the exchange that Knorf posted. It that’s what you’re talking about, all she did was say that Alaska had trade agreements with Russia. I don’t see anything there that implies she personally was involved.
Unless you can show me just where in those couple of lines “I have foreign policy experience because I can see Russia from Alaska”, then no, I’m not wrong.
Oh, fuck me. This is nothing more than moving the goal posts.
It’s not even that.
A life-long Alaskan here, and I have a story for you.
Back in 2005, politics up here were a goddamned mess. The sitting governor, Frank Murkowski was widely hated for being a corrupt scumbag. I mean, his first act as governor was to give his Senate seat to his daughter. He tried to sign deals with corporations without legislative approval. Bought a personal jet, with state money, to go on personal vacations, also with state money.
So, when it came time for reelection, in the Republican primary, the choice was between corrupt assholes or vote Democrat. We may be conservative, but we aren’t masochists. We didn’t really want to vote Democrat but the Republicans really left us with no choice.
Then, out of nowhere, the former mayor of Wasilla decided to step into the race. Palin was a young idealist, running a grass-roots campaign, all about transparency and ethics. Getting the economy back on track by cleaning up the horribly filthy politics that caused the financials to get so bad in the first place. It was exactly what Alaska needed. Alaska wanted a Republican, but one who was sane. Palin seemed to fit the bill exactly.
However, there’s a slight snag. You see, Palin came in from absolutely nowhere. She had no real budget, and came in from outside the Political System. Nobody votes for nobodies, and it’s not like she could really campaign against the Giant Pile of Money that was Murkowski.
It turns out, all of that didn’t matter. The fact that she came in from outside was more of a boon than anything else, as it led to a fresh perspective on how to fix the mess Murkowski made. And although she was far over-spent, her message resonated so clearly with Alaskans, that she trounced the other republicans. Palin took half of the votes in a three-way race. Her popularity transcended that common wisdom, and that popularity led her to a somewhat easy win to the Governorship.
Now, what doesn’t really get told, was how Palin followed through with her promise. She pushed for an ethics reform bill. She spent 80% less on gubernatorial expenses than Murkowski. She even turned down a pay raise. She cut federal funding for construction projects, but raised funding to services. She changed the gas and oil tax structure to a profit-based model. In short, she did everything she set out to do, and was absolutely loved by Alaskans. The work she did as governor led to a $10 Million surplus, without raising taxes, and without cutting services. Approval ratings in the high 80s. She did everything right.
Then, somewhere in the middle of her term, something happened. Something changed. I don’t know why, but she changed to almost an entirely different person. It was the birth of the Palin that everyone outside of Alaska knows. The lying, the manipulative remarks, the absolute certainty of things despite scientific data stating otherwise… all of it comes from here.
2007 Palin draws a lot of comparisons with Obama. I think she really does. A young idealist, from outside of the system, becoming popular enough to almost transcend normal political wisdom and do exactly what the People want.
2009 Palin also draws from Obama, as in later in the term, people are frustrated that they aren’t getting what they want. Only in this case, the reason why they aren’t getting what they want is because Palin is also drawing a lot of comparisons with Obama’s predecessor. Which doesn’t make any sense if you think about it for any amount of time, (and probably makes no sense in this paragraph,) but welcome to Politics.
TL;DR: 2007 Palin was absolutely awesome, and would make a great POTUS. Shame we have 2009’s model.
Very interesting post. Thanks for taking the time to compose and post it. I saw a clip of Palin on Charlie Rose’s show from sometime around 2007/2008 I think, and Palin truly did seem to be a very different person from the one we know now. She was relatively soft-spoken, had a good grasp of the facts and figures with what was going on in Alaska, and seemed pretty sharp and personable in a way that I think most people would find likeable regardless of their politics. And I would agree that she comes off much differently now.