Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_moksha]

Hasn't Palin gained some new found credibility, since recently being within a few blocks of the Russian Tea Room in New York?

[_dartagnan]

I was responding to a specific gaffe by Biden and not the complete works or "best of" collections of either candidate.

LOL! You just gave me an idea, thanks.

No surprise, since Palin was in 2nd grade when Biden entered politics.

And he was commiting plagiarism in college when she was born. If Palin had done this, do you think she would be able to survive in politics? Biden's gaffes go back a long way to be sure, but I am speaking of his recent ones. He outnumbers her in gaffes on average, not because he's been around longer.

You mean the rheotrical "how stupid is that" question? Okay, I'm not ignoring it, but since it is obviously rhetorical I'm not sure what you expect me to do with it....

I'm asking you to judge his level of knowledge and capacity to be VP using the same standard as the peanut gallery. In all this debating we keep hearing about the qualified and unqualified, but nobody wants to come up with a standard. If you can get away with not even knowing the Presidential candidate's issues, and still be his running mate, then what kind of expectations are we really applying here? If Biden can get away with this stuff while Palin gets dragged under the bus for lesser crimes, can you at least see where I'm coming from when I say a double-standard is at play?

Oopsie!

LOL. Exactly. Just an "oopsie," and not even a slap on the wrist from the media. But when it is a religious female republican, it is much more than an oopsie. Instead, it is time to call for her withdrawl from the election process.

She isn't allowed to misspeak without it going against her as evidence of ignorance. She is not allowed to be nervous without it going against her as evidence of stupidity.

But seriously, you think after watching the Couric interview, that there needs to be a "smear campaign" against her? Such a campagin would be as superfulous as her office.

LOL. Good one.

I didn't get the chance to see the interview, but I have seen clips that the media is using to portray her as a monkey eating its own feces. I think the interview alone doesn't justify that image. In order to create that image you need people, like the guy who wrote your linked article, recreating the scenario as if answer X is the only possible answer acceptable, therefore anything besides X is 1) a dishonest attempt to avoid answering or 2) proof of ignorance.

This is just a continuation of the smear nonsense that began the day he announced her as his VP pick. Everyone has their own perspective. Trev thinks McCain won the debate, and I disagree. Not everyone reads Palin and sees a lack of confidence, ignorance, religious fanaticism, etc. This image is born from and nurtured by the liberal media, so it is easier for others to accept.

I mean do we really need to point out worse examples of question dodging from the experienced politicians in Washington?

I think the expectations from Palin have been raised much higher than what's expected from Biden and Obama or anyone else for that matter. Biden says rich people need to pay more taxes because it is "patriotic." When running for President he said it would be difficult to run against Obama because, "you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

You can't be serious.

Compare Obama's and Palin's interviews with Gibson. He was thrown every softball question in the book. The camera was not fixed in a manner that portrayed Obama as a tiny inferior being overpowered by a journalist. He wasn't asked if he agreed with an ambiguous catch phrase like the "Bush doctrine" and then chided for being ignorant as if it had only one specific meaning. He was not spoken to or looked upon in a condescending manner. There simply is no comparison.

And don't expect Obama/Biden to be asked about religious matters as Palin was asked. Nothing about abortion either because their responses will likely put them in a pickle.

And was Biden even interviewed by Charles Gibson? Turns out he was:

CG: I'd like to welcome Senator Joseph Biden to our studio and thank the OBAMA/biden campaign for allowing us this chance to sit down with Senator Biden in a one on one interview. Welcome Senator Biden.

JB: Thank you, Charlie and on behalf of Senator Obama, I thank you as well. He also wanted me to remind you about your lunch together with him coming up next Thursday and it's your turn to buy the drinks.

CG: Great! I'm glad you reminded me of that, now moving on - America wants to know who Joe Biden is. We want to know who is the man that will literally be a heart beat away (and Obama's is a very young heart, I might add) from being the President of the United States.

JB: Oh Charlie, you know who I am, I'm Joe Biden! And for those of you watching, Hi America, I'm Joseph Biden! You can call me Joe.

CG: Okay, but we need to know about you. What makes Joe Biden tick?

JB. Well, obviously it's my heart. (I call it my "little ticker", you know.) Other than that, I'm just a regular Joe (See even my parents knew I was going to be regular so they gave me that name) who commutes to work every day in a private Amtrack car just like everyone else. I've been an agent of change since the Nixon era. What most people don't know is that I've been a secret agent for change. It's kind of like being a spy for change, I guess you'd say.

CG. You and your trainee...er running mate often talk about change. Exactly what do you and Senator Obama mean by change?

JB. Charlie, simply put, we are for change. We will go to Washington as true outsiders (he's from Illinois and I'm originally from Scranton) to affect change. Since we are both secret agents of change, we bring a wealth of experience at changing things that no one knows we changed. Did you know that it was Senator Obama that changed the way we change things in DC when he first arrived? It's true!

CG. I didn't know that! I see what you mean by being secret agents of change! Do you have code names or numbers like 007 or something?

JB: Officially - no. Let's just leave it at that. But we do have these really neat secret agent decoder rings of change. Barry gave me one the night he selected me as his Vice President!

CG: Interesting! So what do you bring to the ticket, Senator Biden? Why you instead of Senator Clinton.

JB: As I said last week, Charlie, Barack had a tough choice to make and Senator Clinton (Who I admire and who is a very close friend) would have been a great pick - maybe even a better pick! Leaving aside his probable lapse in judgment, I bring a wealth of foreign policy experience Obama desperately needs. I also bring security for the future.

CG: Security for the country's future? How so?

JB: No, security for Obama's future. Charlie, as much as I love, admire and respect my great friend, Senator Clinton, no one would be crazy enough to put her a heartbeat away from the oval office, I don't care how young your heart is! Also, Senator Obama is following a winning game plan by nominating me as his Vice President.

CG: How so?

JB: Well Bush chose Cheney for gravitas and I provide that for Senator Obama. And if we win, I'll also be too old to run in eight years. We might be secret agents for change, but we are also smart enough to use strategies that work!

CG: Speaking of Bush (spit), I asked PTA member Palin this question, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

JB: Obviously not!

CG: Exactly what is the Bush Doctrine, Senator Biden? Define it and tell us why you are against it.

JB: Well Charllie, the simple definition is that it is evil and as secret agents of change and being highly trained in covert methods of change, we know how to spot evil and Bush (spit) is, as we all know, the epitome of evil evilness in today's world.

CG. Well stated Senator. Now what do you think of Homemaker Palin's prayer where she allegedly quotes Abraham Lincoln?

JB: Well, as I stated in my original speech yesterday to the National Association of Supermarket Cashiers And Restockers (I've always been a big NASCAR fan!) about religious values, I said this about my Republican counterpart who, I might add, enjoys killing cute, innocent, forest creatures:

Two score and seven years ago, a mother brought forth to us, a new Light, conceived in Honolulu, and dedicated to the proposition that all prayers are equal in the sight of The One.

Now we are engaged in a great civil discussion, testing whether that prayer, or any prayer so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure and also, thou shallt not covet prayers from dead Republican Presidents!

We here highly resolve that these prayers shall not have been said in vain -- that this nation, under Obama, shall have a new birth of prayers -- and that prayers of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Essentially, Charlie, what I'm saying is that everyone has the opportunity to pray and that as dedicated secret agents of change, President Obama and I will even be changing the way America prays! Did I mention that Palin likes to murder cute, furry, forest creatures?

CG: Wow! Well said, Senator, I wish I had your gift with a phrase! Thank you so much for taking the time from your busy campaign schedule to talk with me and tell America a little about who you are.

JB: Thanks Charlie, but as I said, you already know who I am!

CG. Quite right! Good night everybody, this is Charles Gibson for ABC news. Courage!

[_EAllusion]

You can't be serious.

He asserted upthread the New York Times is the most liberal source on the planet, then demanded I point out a more liberal source when I laughed at him for it. This is a long running issue with Kevin. Either his bias has destroyed his capacity for even the most basic critical thinking skills when it comes to politics, he's trolling, or he's trying to work out issues in his head by playing an especially dumb advocate for the devil.

By the way, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric are notoriously softball interviews. That's why they, along with partisan hack Hannity, were picked to interview Palin. They gave softball interviews. Those questions were either things Palin would reasonably be expected to prepare for or should have no problem winging. Palin just showed poorly, and in the case of Couric failed spectacularly. (The response to the bailout question is epic. I was shocked she wasn't better trained by that point). There's people from all over the political spectrum fretting about it.

[_antishock8]

Um... yeah.

Do you have a habit of considering a large volume of words "substantive" or is this new? I've always preferred quality over quantity, myself.

I dunno. I thought it was funneh.

[_dartagnan]

So funny how many of you have called me dumb on this thread whereas you later turn around and complain because that is supposed to be my MO. Schmo made me laugh when he tried to describe himself as a humble, tolerant seeker of truth who has no problem with dissenting views. Nevermind his previous rants against anyone who believes in God, describing them as stupid by nature. That is the point where he and I went our separate ways sometime last year.

As I said before, the reason so many people used to like me here, but no longer do, has nothing to do with my persona (it hasn't changed one bit) but everything to do with the fact that I do not follow them down their path. Its a right of passage or something on this forum. The only way to get along is to agree with the rabid majority or keep your opinions and your participation to a bare minimum. Not only have I damaged bridges by refusing to indulge atheism as a way of life and thought process, I'm now expected to go along with their politics expressed in their favorite SNL and Bill Mahrer skits, which seems to be a standard of truth here.

He asserted upthread the New York Times is the most liberal source on the planet, then demanded I point out a more liberal source when I laughed at him for it.

Maybe a tad hyperbolic, I admit, but my point got across - that you cannot expect much objective reporting from the NYT.

By the way, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric are notoriously softball interviews.

Which makes the point even more salient that there is an agenda going on when they depart from that style and start throwing sliders Palin's way. Well, Gibson at least. I haven't read the Couric interview yet. I did see where she asked Palin to give her a complete list of examples of what McCain has done in office, and when she did, she kept asking for more as if she was pushing for an "I don't know any more" answer, which would have made a great headline for the next day, which means more money, which means more kudos to Couric from her employer. You don't see them pushing the religious points with Biden and Obama. There simply isn't any comparison. These guys were in the tank for the democrats from day one and they were licking their chops when they knew they'd be interviewing Palin.

That's why they, along with partisan hack Hannity, were picked to interview Palin. They gave softball interviews.

They were picked because they were the biggest names in the News business, and it gave her the exposure they needed. Hannity would be a jackass towards Biden or Obama. I can't stand Hannity.

Those questions were either things Palin would reasonably be expected to prepare for or should have no problem winging. Palin just showed poorly, and in the case of Couric failed spectacularly.

You think she showed poorly with Gibson? I thought she did OK considering the pressure on her. If you read the unedited version, Palin certainly comes out better.

The response to the bailout question is epic. I was shocked she wasn't better trained by that point). There's people from all over the political spectrum fretting about it.

Here is that clip from the cbsnews website:

Next, Couric asked about the $700 billion government bailout of bad debt - and whether she supports it.

Palin: I'm all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. And as Sen. McCain has said unless this nearly trillion dollar bailout is what it may end up to be, unless there are amendments in Paulson's proposal, really I don't believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this.

The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They're not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind's blowing? They're waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson's proposal.

EA, is this what you're referring to? Do you fault her because she wasn't elaborate enough on the question?

Palin has an annoying tendency to go back in mid-thought and add qualifiers to a previously stated statement, and I think that in this case she had too many different thoughts in her head and she threw them out in an incoherent manner. But she did answer the question didn't she? She was asked if they would support the bailout and she said only if there were amendments. Unless there is more to the question that I don't know about, this was a yes or no question,and she wouldn't ben required to explicate the details and the causes of the bailout.

In any event, it certainly isn't the first time a politician has done this, but it might be the first time the media has responded as it has. But then, its been out to crucify her from day one. WHen is the last time there has been so much scrutiny and controversy over a possible vice-president!?

EDIT: Hey EA, I think you're probably referring to this...

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the--it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

... is that correct?

[_EAllusion]

I did see where she asked Palin to give her a complete list of examples of what McCain has done in office, and when she did, she kept asking for more as if she was pushing for an "I don't know any more" answer, which would have made a great headline for the next day, which means more money, which means more kudos to Couric from her employer.

Kevin, she didn't answer the question. She reasserted a loose string of political buzzwords while Couric was looking for a single example.
Here's the transcript:

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

EA, is this what you're referring to? Do you fault her because she wasn't elaborate enough on the question?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kjFn4s4sU&feature=related

Go to 1:50.

My initial reaction was profanity laced shock. It makes me look bad, because I spent some time arguing that this sort of thing would be unlikely to occur because of her knack for speaking and how tightly she would be concealed and coached. I thought she was going to give a few easy interviews that are as close to scripted as they come (by the campaign picking people like Gibson) and coast through the debate with her training on the few issues that are likely to come up. Apparently, word is there's a serious learning curve going on. I don't know, but she came off so bad there that it got people all over the spectrum worrying. There are people on the right starting to openly call for her head.

By the way, there are literally tens of thousands of sources more liberal than the New York Times. Even if you limited it newspapers, there are tons of 'em. Forgetting the reality of this stateside, it's like it didn't occur to you that people read in places that range from China to Sweden.

But for your enjoyment, this is a picture I took of the magazine rack at my local grocery store in order to mock the liberalness of Madison.

[_dartagnan]

Kevin, she didn't answer the question. She reasserted a loose string of political buzzwords while Couric was looking for a single example. Here's the transcript:

Thanks for that. One thing I think is important to note is that Couric asked for specific examples where McCain had pushed for more regulation.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

Do you think that Al Gore would be able to provide specific examples of Clinton pushing for regulation, even after they both served eight years together? Maybe, but I doubt it. Nobody, Couric included, seriously expected Palin to know exactly when and where McCain had supported "regulation" in his 26 years in office. Palin knows as much about McCain as McCain knows about Palin, and the one thing that attracts them to one another is their maverick characteristic. They haven't been memorizing each other's voting records. But I don't recall Biden being asked to recall Obama's bills from the past, even though it isn't much of a past.

By the way, don't you find it curious that nobody is asking Biden why he doesn't know Obama's current position on clean coal? What's more disconcerting, a VP who doesn't have an encyclopedia knowledge of his running mate's past regulatory acts, or a VP who doesn't know his running mate's current position on such a crucial issue as alternative energy? Well, the lib media will tell us which one is more important, but I think Biden's ignorance of basic historic matters and Obama's policies, is scarier than anything Palin has said thus far. And Palin didn't pay for an Ivy league education, so what's Biden's excuse?

But I see Couric seems to conflate oversight and regulation as if they were necessarily one and the same. FM/FM has always been regulated, but there wasn't much oversight going on. McCain had pushed for reform that would provide more oversight and less regulation. Republicans had pushed for this many years ago but the Democrats shot it down, all the while going off on rants about how there is nothing to worry about FM/FM. It was clear these politicians were in their back pockets, some Republicans as well.
Couric initially asks "can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?" Palin said a whammy of an example was just mentioned, and really, it does McCain much credit to have done that. McCain sought reform and more oversight years ago.

And then Couric shifts her question a bit:

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin doesn't deny that he's been against more regulation even though she already noted he had pushed for more oversight. So it seems that between the two of them, Palin is the one who at least understands the distinction. At least in this sense, she knows more than Obama who consistently rants about how McCain was a deregulator, therefore he can not have been for more oversight.

Palin just points out, again, that McCain wants to reform the system.

Couric asks for more examples of "this" but doesn't explicitly state what "this" is. So at this point is she referring to regulation or oversight? She doesn't say in that question, but in her last question she explicitly refers to examples of regulation. This is kinda like the "Bushg Doctrine" trap laid out by Gibson. No matter what answer is given, the interviewer can switch back and forth between any version of what was mentioned and make her victim look like she's ignoring a question or just plain ignorant.

Democrats love regulation because it puts more government into the recipe of disaster. Thanks to democrats, the banks were "regulated" in a way that coerced them to provide loans for minorities, in spite of their inability to pay them off. This is really where the problem originated.

But "oversight" is something they don't want, because that would have put more pressure on the swindlers like Raines to come clean. It would have also placed an unwelcomed eye over the lobbyist funds that were being funneled to politicians like Dodd and Obama. The media doesn't seem at all interested in reporting these things.

This computer doesn't have speakers, but if the clip refers to the last clip I posted at the end of my post, then I see your point. It was a pretty lame and convoluted response. But I don't think it necessarily proves she's an idiot, but more likely just had a brain fart and couldn't keep track of what was asked amidst all the thoughts going on in her head. It happens. We'll see what happens during the debate. She should do well considering expectations at this point really aren't that high.

And you're right, the NYT isn't the most liberal publication. It is just the most circulated liberal publication.

More on this in a few days.

[_dartagnan]

ROFL, OMG... I have to post this before heading to bed, because it is just too funny, especially after reading EA inform us that Couric is notoriously a softball journalist.

Look at how she tries to trap Palin and tell me if she would in a million years, try something like this with a Biden/Obama discrepancy (i.e. Biden said they would never support clean coal, Obama said they will):

COURIC, TO PALIN: Over the weekend, Governor Palin, you said the U.S. should absolutely launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan to, quote, "stop the terrorists from coming any further in." Now, that's almost the exact position Barack Obama has taken and that you, Senator McCain, have criticized as something you do not say out loud. So, Governor Palin, are you two on the same page on this?

SARAH PALIN: We had a great discussion with President Zardari as we talked about what it is that America can and should be doing together to make sure that the terrorists do not cross borders and do not ultimately put themselves in a position of attacking America again or her allies. And we will do what we have to do to secure the United States of America and her allies.

COURIC: Is that something you shouldn't say out loud, Senator McCain?

JOHN MCCAIN: Of course not. But, look, I understand this day and age, "gotcha" journalism. [to Palin] Is that a pizza place? In a conversation with someone who you didn't hear the question very well, you don't know the context of the conversation, grab a phrase. Governor Palin and I agree that you don't announce that you're going to attack another country-

COURIC TO PALIN: Are you sorry you said it Governor?

McCAIN: Wait a minute. Before you say, "is she sorry she said it," this was a "gotcha" soundbite that, look she in a conversation-

COURIC: It wasn't a "gotcha." She was talking to a voter.

McCAIN: No, she was in a conversation with a group of people and talking back and forth. And I'll let Governor Palin speak for herself.

PALIN: In fact, you're absolutely right on. In the context, this was a voter, a constituent, hollering out a question from across an area asking, "What are you gonna do about Pakistan? You better have an answer to Pakistan." I said we're gonna do what we have to do to protect the United States of America.

COURIC: You were pretty specific about what you wanted to do, cross-border-

PALIN: Well, as Senator McCain is suggesting here, also, never would our administration get out there and show our cards to terrorists, in this case, to enemies and let them know what the game plan was, not when that could ultimately adversely affect a plan to keep America secure.

COURIC: What did you learn from that experience?
PALIN: That this is all about "gotcha" journalism. A lot of it is. But that's okay, too.

COURIC: Governor Palin, since our last interview, you've gotten a lot of flak. Some Republicans have said you're not prepared; you're not ready for prime-time. People have questioned your readiness since that interview. And I'm curious to hear your reaction.

PALIN: Well, not only am I ready, but willing and able to serve as Vice President with Senator McCain if Americans so bless us and privilege us with the opportunity of serving them, ready with my executive experience as a city mayor and manager, as a Governor, as a commissioner, a regulator of oil and gas.

McCAIN: This is not the first time that I've seen a Governor being questioned by some quote, "expert." I remember that Ronald Reagan was a "cowboy." President Clinton was a Governor of a very small state that had "no experience" either. In fact, I remember how easy it was gonna be for Bush I to defeat him. I still recall, whoops, that one. But the point is, I've seen underestimation before. I'm very proud of the excitement that Governor Palin has ignited with our party and around this country. It is a level of excitement and enthusiasm, frankly, that I haven't seen before. And I'd like to attribute it to me. But the fact is that she has done incredible job and I'm so proud of the work that she's doing.

COURIC: Tomorrow: On the campaign trail with Governor Palin.

There is a hilarious comparison of this with her Biden interview here.

[_Analytics]

Go to 1:50.

My initial reaction was profanity laced shock. It makes me look bad, because I spent some time arguing that this sort of thing would be unlikely to occur because of her knack for speaking and how tightly she would be concealed and coached. I thought she was going to give a few easy interviews that are as close to scripted as they come (by the campaign picking people like Gibson) and coast through the debate with her training on the few issues that are likely to come up. Apparently, word is there's a serious learning curve going on. I don't know, but she came off so bad there that it got people all over the spectrum worrying. There are people on the right starting to openly call for her head.

That question was a true softball. An obvious question for average-joe American is if we are willing to spend $700 billion for the economy, why bail out Wall Street rather than giving everybody a big stimulus check every quarter for the next few years?

People who have experience “managing an economy” (e.g. Ben Bernanke) would be able to clearly and directly address why buying $700 billion in distressed assets in a Wall Street bailout is a better way to keep the economy going than giving away $700 billion in stimulus checks. Palin seems to have bought into the idea that the bailout is necessary to save the economy, but showed no indication of having any idea why it is allegedly necessary, much less why it is the best course of action. Her answer was no more coherent than Miss Teen South Carolina’s answer to why 20% of teens can’t locate the U.S. on a world map.

[_Analytics]

Democrats love regulation because it puts more government into the recipe of disaster. Thanks to democrats, the banks were "regulated" in a way that coerced them to provide loans for minorities, in spite of their inability to pay them off. This is really where the problem originated.

And virtually every economist agrees this is the cause of the problem, right?