Palin could've said this. Maverick!
She pretty much did. She agreed he was for deregulation and also for more oversight. Couric was the one who didn't know the difference the same way Gibson was too stupid to know when Palin was quoting Abraham Lincoln. You're argument is mostly based on psychoanalysis, which makes it entirely weak. There are several ways to perceive these comments; you choose to do so in the most cynical way. But at least admit it is just one of many preceptions you choose to indulge, and not a demonstrable fact.
This happened during the primaries and is a regular aspect of his speeches. That's why. It would be a silly question.
What? So Obama campaigns on "change change change," but it would be silly to ask his VP pick what "change" he has done in the past? But on the other hand it is just natural to ask Palin to list as many recollections as she can, where McCain proved he was a reformer on regulation?
This is a double-standard. A perfect example is the fact that McCain doesn't do earmarks. Palin didn't mention this either. Do you really think that because Palin didn't mention this one, that she was ignorant of it? She knows McCain's distate for earmarking. She also knows of the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform. But she stopped because she couldn't name specific examples of McCain's attempts at regulation reform. She probably understood that this is what Couric was getting at, and this is supported by the fact that Couric reiterated the question with that specific qualifier inserted.
By contrast, McCain doesn't talk much about why he is a reformer during his speeches because doing things like mentioning campaign finance reform or immigration reform would not go over well with the people attending his speeches.
Why do you think his efforts on campaign finance reform or immigration wouldn't go over well? Oh, so you think Couric was trying to drag those issues out of Palin?
I wouldn't put it past her. But don't expect her to ask Obama about controversial things like abortion or his record on tax voting. His responses wouldn't go over well with the people attending his speeches either.
A more appropriate analogy would be to ask Obama surrogates what Obama's legislative accomplishments were during the period his experience was coming under intense scrutiny. But that also occurred frequently during the primaries. There was a famous bit on Hardball where a supporter couldn't name one.
Can you? Because I don't think Obama accomplished much of anything that mattered. He spent a lot of time supporting ACORN, which is now under investigation, again, for voter fraud.
question simply was attempting to add substance to the reform rhetoric given McCain's reputation. The trap in that question is the type of reforms McCain has been known to push, but Couric leaves an out in the way she asks it.
So you do believe Couric was trying to trap her, albeit for different reasons.
This is the sort of question the camp should've been able to anticipate. All Palin had to do is list some polices the McCain camp supports to provide reform and she would've got passed the question. That's what McCain would've done. Palin tried to bluff her way through and just did very badly.
I don't see much evidence for this. You're the first person I've heard even talk about this possibility that this is what Couric was trying to do. It seems to me that by bringing out the McCain-Feingold bill, we'd see a clear example where McCain and Bush parted ways. That goes against the current liberal spin which tries to marry McCain and Bush on virtually every issue that matters. HMO reform is another point where McCain and Bush disagree. Climate change, gun legislation, torturing war criminals, tax cuts during war time, etc.
No she didn't. Palin did not at any point actually give a response. He first reply was to refer to the example Couric handed her when Couric specifically asked her to name something besides that example.
But that was one whammy of an example that pretty much proved the point. For what other reason would Couric go into pop-quiz mode? She knows McCain has the reputation of a reform minded politician and she knows the example alreayd mentioned proved it. I see nothing crazy about Palin pointing out the significance of this example by reiterating it. Take the following analogy:
Couric: Yes, it is true that Ted Bundy raped and killed dozens of young women, but can you give me any other specific examples that would support your claim that he is in fact a murderer?
Palin: He raped and killed dozens of women. Why do you need more examples??
In fact Palin might have been asking herself if Couric was even serious about asking such a dumb question. You said it yourself, Couric was up to no good. She was trying to lay a trap for her. Palin clearly had something else on her mind, so I suspect she also sensed something was going on at this point: "gotcha journalism."
CBS has let it be known that they're holding on to some damning tape still. One of the leaked points - call it a fairly reliable rumor - is that Palin couldn't name a Supreme Court Case outside of Roe vs. Wade. By contrast, I'd have no problem competently discussing dozens and I'm not in her position, nor do I have a minor in Poli Sci like she does.
And instead of responding in silence, Biden would have mentioned the Bart v. Homer case of 2011. And it would just be an "oopsie" in the eyes of the media.
I'd have to actually see the tape first before passing judgment. I'm sorry the feeling isn't mutual. I must say I'm fairly suspicious because it doesn't make sense for CBS to sit on something that most of their audience would consider gold. I mean what are they waiting for? The day before election? Their whole purpose was to create stuff like this, and they're going to sit on it now? In any event, I don't understand how "discussing" various Supreme Court cases makes one a better President. What's next, a pop quiz about the tallest mountains in the world, to see if she names Mt. McKinley?
And isn't it just possible that her silence was evidence that she was thinking of an example? This was clearly an unexpected question, and Palin was under a lot of pressure not to screw up. You've never had a brain fart when asked to recall things most people wouldn't know? I remember Roger Cook attended an Evangelical conference in Utah. He stood up and started talking to someoen who was at the podium. He mentioned that numerous scholars believe the Bible teaches an anthropomorphic God. When he said this, several Evangelicals in the crowd started taunting him by saying "Like who?" Who? Who? Who? His brain froze. And then after he sat down he stood up again and started naming several like Gerhard von Rad. He told me he was embarrassed because he cracked under pressure like that. Who hasn't had something like this happen? And let's face it, a quiz on supreme court cases wasn't on the agenda of things to be interviewed on.
We'll see. You can start working on your Palin apologia now, though.
Why, because you've already decided to start attacking without verifying? A rumor is good enough for you to attack Palin, but verified facts making Biden look like a complete buffoon don't seem to interest you.
FDR was president during the depression. But yeah, I know what you are talking about. He was getting cute with his rhetorical point and let his mouth get ahead of his mind. Bad Biden. Bad.
In other words, "Ooopsie." Nothing like, "pathetic, stupid moronic, dishonest, etc." Those qualifiers are reserved only for Palin when she doesn't answer questions as the lib pundits insist she must. It is a double-standard dude, period.
But it gets better. Biden said people were watching TV during the depression!
He's against it - or thought it would be appropriately bold to say he is - and didn't think through or know whether Obama was when he was running his mouth.
Now who is the apologist? Biden didn't say just he was against it, he said "We're not supporting clean coal." Again, he doesn't even know Obama's position on clean coal. Ads were running before and after this statement, making it clear Obama supported clean coal. Then he goes to Pa. and tells the coalmining community that he is a "Hard-coal miner...its nice to be back in coal country!"
LOL!
Palin and McCain disagree on some issues but they acknolwedge that disagreement as healthy disagreement (and Couric pounds on them for disagreeing while giving Biden a pass). Palin doesn't misrepresent the campaign as if she were the one going to be President.
Forget memorizing Supreme Court cases, or McCain's specific support for regulation, Biden cannot even remember what he said the day before. He is too busy talking out of both sides of his mouth. Doesn't this scare anyone? He is the typical politician who will do and say whatever he has to, for personal ambition. This is why Obama selected him, then are so much alike.
Of course she's treated differently. Why shouldn't she be? If Obama or Biden said the kinds of things she has in the limited number of allowed interviews, they'd receive the treatment she's getting
At first I thought you had made this comment, and you had me worried. But then I quickly realized who said it, and wasn't at all surprised. Palin has given three prime-time interviews over the past few weeks. How many has Biden given? Obama? You have to be out of your gourd to think the media is treating Palin the same as Obama/Biden.
We might be witnessing the largest scale concerted attack the media has ever unleashed on a candidate. They flew in dozens of investigators to Wasilla the next day and purposefully tracked down any democrat they could find who would say something bad about her. They interviewed her ex-brother-in-law and made him look liek a victim, they tracked down the former mayor who she had beaten during the election and as a disgruntled loser, had nothing but nastiness to say about her. And when they finally tracked down that librarian, she said she doesn't recall anything about Palin and burning books.
I couldn't create such a stinky pile of dung if I ate nothing but Mexican for a week.
Even politico admitted the media was Obama's weapon, and this was when he was running against Hillary!
