I believe such actions have been redefined as “gotcha politics”.
-Joe
I sometimes suspected W was pretending to be stupider than he was.
I’ve never thought that about Palin.
I never understood the Palin response to the Couric newspaper question. Could she really not just rattle off: The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Anchorage Daily Moosefucker? Did she really not even know the names of some major papers?
The funniest part was the Fox News crowd describing Couric’s questions as “gotchas!” Really? Gotcha is more along the lines of “Who is the president of Turkmenistan” or “What’s your opinion of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act” and not “What papers do you read” or “What legislation did John McCain support that favored regulation.” Yeesh.
Palin is an empty vessel, a completely transparent being. The only mystery there is what is under that gallon of paint she slops on her face every day
I’m in no way favorable to Sarah Palin’s running for president in the future, but take a look at this clip and I think you’ll find a Sarah Palin that is considerably different from the image she has today.
Ask him this question: “Do you think Sarah Palin is smarter than the average Republican?”
It is possible, though IMO unlikely, she froze up because she couldn’t think of a safe answer, one that wouldn’t anger some part of the conservative base. The Post and the NY Times would definitely fall into that category, the “liberal media” that is trying to ruin America. The Wall Street Journal, however, would have been a very good choice.
But honestly, I don’t think she’s that calculating, or was that calculating at the time.
That was pretty much my take on it. I don’t think she read any papers, hadn’t been briefed on what to say and froze trying to come up with a suitable lie. Not particularly impressive really.
“Hairstyle masquerading as a statesman”
-Hunter S. Thompson
Quoth puddleglum:
If by “the ‘see Russia from my house’ thing”, you mean “They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”, then yes, I do think she said that.
How’s about that quote in context, chum:
So, as anyone can see, the way the left has portrayed her comment - which is allegedly that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience - is every bit as misleading and dishonest as anything Rush Limbaugh ever says. While I’ll grant that she was trying to deflect Gibson’s question about what America’s policy regarding Georgia and Russia should be, she was nevertheless being quite reasonable in asserting that close neighbors benefit from good relations, and she in no way claimed that being able to see Russia from Alaska gave her any particular standing on foreign policy.
ETA: Has anybody looked at that clip I posted? Or do we all just want to go through life pretending there’s no difference between Palin and Tina Fey’s impersonation of her?
She said Russia was “our next door neioghbor.” Gibson asked her what insight that gave her into Russia and she said she could see Russia from her house. Along with some stock platitides like we have to keep our eyes on Russia," that was all she had (and lets not forget the gobbledygook about “Putin rearing his head” over Alaska like the Great Pumpkin). She said absolutely nothing of any substance and she never does. She is a fucking dummy and everybody knows it. I don’t know why any right wingers even try to deny it anymore. You don’t see lefties denying that Bill Clinton as a horndog or that Hillary is a bitch. Just admit reality. It won’t kill you.
Did you read what I just posted? She said Alaska and Russia were next door neighbors, not the U.S. and Russia. She said that Russia’s proximity with Alaska made her more aware of the need for good relations between the two countries. It’s all there in black and white and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with either of those statements.
Having said that, yes, she was evading the question…you know, just like Hillary and Barack Obama do even in formal debates.
And I have no problem admitting reality when it comes to Palin. Same with Christine O’Donnell. But a lot of what gets said about them is either mistakenly wrong, a distortion, or flat-out dishonest. And then when I try to keep it real, people accuse me of defending them. And yes, you may freely admit it if someone says Bill Clinton is a liar and a horndog and that Hillary is a liar and a bitch, but I doubt you’d admit it if someone claimed as fact that they’d murdered Vince Foster.
The things that are said about Sarah Palin in regard to this ‘see Russia from my house’ bit are nothing but lies and are equivalent in every way to the kinds of lies and distortions that so many people around here love to rail against Rush Limbaugh for.
So, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to distort or lie about what Sarah Palin has said, then you have no standing to complain when Limbaugh lies about or distorts the facts about Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi.
As for me, I’ll continue to challenge statements about Palin or O’Donnell or any other Tea Partier or conservative when I know their statements are being taken out of context, distorted or lied about, and it’ll have nothing to do with their qualifications as candidates.
It’s irrelevant that she said Alaska. The proximity of Russia to Alaska was irrelevant to what she was being asked. That’s the point. Nothing was distorted about it, Gibson played the actual video, so I can’t see how you can accuse anybody of distorting anything. She was on camera.
The clip where she refers to oil as clean energy?
It’s relevant if you want to try to portray her as thinking Russia and the U.S. are neighbors because she can see Russia from her house. It’s also relevant if you want to try to make it look like she’s claiming foreign policy credentials because she can see Russia from her house. So we’ve got three falsehoods here: 1.) She didn’t say she could see Russia from her house, but that it was visible from one of Alaska’s islands; 2.) She didn’t try to claim the U.S. and Russia were neighbors; and 3.), She never claimed nor implied that her proximity to Russia provided her with any sort of standing on foreign policy. None of these accusations are true and the only way they could not be relevant is if the truth means nothing. One would think that, given all her real and supposed weaknesses, people wouldn’t have to stoop to distorting or lying about what she’s said.
Nobody has. The “I can see Russia from my house” line was from Tina Fey on SNL. It was a satirization iof her actual remarks. Maybe you aren’t familiar with Saturday Night Live, but it isn’t a news show.
The criticism is that she tried to cite that as some kind of credential for claiming foreign policy expertise. And, yes that IS what she did.
Why, you young whippersnapper! I was watching SNL while you were still in diapers. (You’re 35, right?)
But that notwithstanding, the “I can see Russia from my house” meme has become so widespread and for so long that’s taken on the aura of truth. I’ve seen people here and on t.v. referring to it with dead seriousness. And, you know, given that is place is all about fighting ignorance and all I think it’s important to remind people (or educate them, as the case may be) that she did not actually say that, nor did she believe that the nearness of Russia gave her foreign policy expertise.
Okay, I’ll post one more time what she actually said (and this is according to ABC’s website, Gibson’s televising of it notwithstanding). From abcnews.go.com:
Perhaps you would be so kind as to highlight the part where she claims foreign policy expertise due her proximity to Russia, because I’m just not seeing it.
And once again, she is clearly trying to bluff it as ssome kind of foreign policy credential.
“I can see Russia from my house” is a perfectly accurate satirization of what she said.
I’m 44, by the way.
She said that Alaska and Russia are neighbors. I think even Sarah Palin knows that Alaska is part of the U.S.
She was asked a question about foreign policy with regards to Russia, and she brought up, unbidden, that it is geographically close to Alaska. That makes the connection. If it’s not a reflection on her experience and qualification, why bring it up?
But suppose she really didn’t mean it in that sense. She is then asked directly what insight the proximity has given her. If she felt that there was no connection, and that her remarks had been misconstrued, then this was the perfect opportunity to refudiate it. She didn’t.
If we can’t draw that conclusion from the interview, then what can we? What was Palin trying to say? Take away the proximity/experience connection, and there’s nothing left. As much as Palin would like to get publicity without without being tied to any specific content, she doesn’t get to make that call.
Thanks for the reminder of Palin’s most permanent contribution to American social discourse – “refudiate”. It hasn’t reached “cromulent” yet, but there’s still time.