Last night on the Factor, Carl Cameron broke some strong rumors about the capability of Governor Palin.
So, anonymous staffers somewhere in the McCain campaign claim that Governor Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent, which nations were in NAFTA, spent like a drunken sailor on clothes, and appeared inappropriately to meet them once in a visit to her hotel room.
Now, each of the rumors regarding her intelligence can easily be debunked. For instance, she is a mother of five and as such, I firmly believe that she has helped each with their homework, including basic geography. At some point, I am certain, they went over world geography. As such, if Governor Palin didn't learn that Africa was a continent the first time around, I am certain she learned it when she was helping her own children with their homework.
As for the bit about NAFTA, that is just as ridiculous. As governor of a state, free trade issues are part of the job. When companies from nations involved in free trade pacts attempt to do business in Alaska, the Governor has some involvement. Knowing which countries are part of NAFTA would have been something she would have learned as part of her role as governor if not before.
What's truly stunning about these accusations is that, if true, her intelligence would be of a sixth grader. It's just simply impossible that she would have gotten this far in politics and no one would have noticed how dumb she was.
As for the last two, I really don't care if they are true. Who cares how she was dressed one time when answering the door in her hotel room? If the RNC spent $150,000 on her clothes, who's money was being spent on these other clothes?
What's clear is that there was some part of the McCain campaign that was not happy with the choice of Sarah Palin. It's clear that as soon as she made any missteps this force was determined to try and blame her for the failure of the entire campaign. There are rumors abound who these folks are. I won't deal in rumors, however the conservative movement will not stand for this smear job. Red State is starting Operation Leper. The Conservative movement will figure out who the leaks are and make no mistake, these folks will NEVER, EVER, work for another Republican again, if said Republican ever wants to win an election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I also felt they were vicious distortions of the truth, if not outright lies.
The petty nature of some of the complaints point to a deliberate hit job and that makes it all suspect. Then the whole thing is such a neat package of talking points.
Experience with this sort of thing (e.g. listening to the left whinge on about GWB for over 8 years in addition to events in my own life) immediately made me discard this as credible.
It's not really that hard to figure out where it's coming from. One has only to look back to the primaries & ask who was using precisely these kinds of dirty tactics to the point that the other candidates were pointedly giving him the cold shoulder... and who would probably not have a chance to run again if McCain had won... and whose campaign staffers went to "help" McCain after their candidate conceded...
Her lack of knowledge of the world stage, and even the national one, was more than evident in her interviews. There's no "debunking" to be done. The claims of her knowledge gaps are credible in light of her performances in interviews during the campaign. Make all the excuses you want, she's got an image problem based on the reality of her unpreparedness for a national position of responsibility.
And if the claims of the campaign staffers are so blatantly untrue, why are there no other staffers coming forward to refute them?
First of all, plenty of staffers have come to her defense and they have done it on the record. Rick Davis was on H&C last night to refute the claims. Nichole Wallace was on another show refuting the claims, and she is rumored to be one of the leakers.
Second of all, two heavily edited interviews by media that was attempting to play gotcha is not a sign of anything. She did just fine against Joe Biden.
If you are an opponent of Palin, then you are looking for a reason to dislike her. If you make a judgment of someone based on two interviews that is just silly.
You say the CBS Kate Couric interview was "heavily edited"?
If yes in what ways? Please name them.
I didnt see any editing when she -
1. couldnt name a newspaper she reads
2. thought Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience
3. couldnt name a Supreme Court decision aside from Roe v Wade
4. gave a ridiculous answer to the a question on the proposed bailout and its purpose
5. couldnt give further examples when McCain had fought for more regulation
Where was the "editing"?
Please enlighten me.
Every question you have a problem with was a gotcha question.
Joe Biden thought that FDR was President in 1929 and television was around in 1929 for which then "President" FDR used to communicate with the people. He was so annoyed with another that they kicked the station out.
It just seems as though you don't notice his unbelievable gaffes.
Palin sat down for two hours with Couric and the interview was cut into a few minutes. That's called editing.
I don't judge a person's qualifications based on an edited interview.
So you think asking what newspapers she reads is a "gotcha" question?
It was asked no doubt because they suspected what was actually true - [she didn't read any newspapers]
If she actually reads newspapers, she would be able to name some.
She couldn't name any because she didn't read any. It is quite simple. But shameful [on her part]
Ask McCain, Biden or Obama this question. Will they be able to name some? Yes, because they actually read some.
She said Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. Please admit this is a ridiculous answer. Is it not?????
Please, please please for the sake of rationality. Don't defend it and say she was set up. She chose to give that answer. No one forced her to say that. It was a ridiculous answer, so it is played over and over again.
Or her answer concerning the bailout. Again, a garbled mess. She chose to answer these questions and misrepresent herself as someone with a lot of knowledge. She didnt do a very good job of it.
It may be in 4 years she has more understanding and she can answer questions properly. But she was NOT ready this time [in terms of real worldly knowledge]
She is someone who is folksy and small town [which is fine] but she also doesnt get out much [she has seen next to nothing of the world].
Small minded Americans relate to her because she is like them. They see themselves in her. She has good qualities which I like. She seems to have a lot of common sense. But she has a small mind. A person with a small mind cannot be a good President. [just ask George Bush]
She has the typical mindset of a right-wing Christian in a small town. This would be ok if she also had wider world understanding.
Because being the leader of the free world requires a wide mind.
Doesn't it???
Better luck in 4 years Sarah.
Frankly, I don't care how she answered questions from two media persons who's goal was to make her look bad.
The question, re newspapers, was a stupid one that would never be asked of anyone else in her position. That's probably what she thought when she answered it and she responded in kind. Biden did the same thing in his interview with West but you don't seem to notice that.
Frankly, the whole idea that you are fixated on her two interviews speaks to the partisan nature that you view her in. She has a thirteen year career in government that spans local and state. She's accomplished plenty in those thirteen years, and those accomplishments are more than both Obama and Biden combined. Yet, you only focus on these two interviews.
She mentioned her proximity to Russia because she was trying to make the point that as governor she deals with foreign nations. Frankly, Barack Obama has less foreign policy experience and yet you are pefectly fine with that.
Your entire perspective is built on the premise that she must be horrible and then you work your way back from there.
She's a whistleblower. She's taken on corruption in her state and her party. She has a long and distinguished history of cutting taxes and limiting government and yet your entire line of attack focuses on two interviews. The bias is obvious and its boring.
Mike. I read in the comments that you think Palin has accomplished more than either Obama or Biden combined. You must have a serious case of blind love to be making statements like that.
Well...now that Palin is on an image rehabilitation tour...we have been treated to some more of her "unique" personality.
I offer this link to anyone. who wants to look.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ounsjGhCs&feature=related
Enjoy!
I notice that the last anonymous poster didn't actually counter what I said about Palin accomplishing more than Biden and Obama combined. Rather you have found some video of her.
So, really, all you have done is smear her. In your smear job though, you didn't challenge my assertion that she accomplished more than Obama and Biden combined.
Post a Comment