Palin’s babbling

What you heard in Palin’s recent statement about Paul Revere is of such poor quality that – even without her political positions – it is anathema to the educated, whether they lean left or right.

She sounded like an airhead – her usual Modus operandi.

Asked about what she had seen in Boston, as usual, she blathered on mindlessly: "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

Over and over, we have seen Palin’s statements dissolve into something we could call fact-mishmash as she tries to say something important off the cuff, but what comes out of her mouth is the sort of nonsense you would expect to find coming from the mouth of a stroke victim who, unable to understand the nature of his injury, or even that he is injured, babbles incoherently not realizing that the brilliant discourse he has prepared in his mind sounds like babble to the world around him.

Palin's comments were the epitome of bumbling semi-literacy. In too many of Palin’s utterances, the facts are sort of there – and she intends to use them – but her ability to order them into something other than babble is absent.

It is safe to say that every American over the age of twelve has some version of our historical stories in his or her head. Palin had just visited a history center that should have reinforced what she already knew about Paul Revere’s famous ride. Yet, instead of coming up with a simple, sequential capsule version of the Revere story or even saying ‘Wow! That trip to the center was beautiful,’ out of her mouth tumbled something akin to psychobabble. It was a bucketful of fact-mishmash, delivered to a reporter who asked a simple, off-the-cuff, softball question. In a later interview on Fox, she said the ‘lamestream’ reporter had asked her a ‘gotcha’ question.

Yea, right. It's only a gotcha question if your head is half empty.

But the important issue here is not what she said, irrespective of its importance or how much time she had to prepare, nor is it her stubborn defense of her “position” in subsequent interviews; it is the image of her in a position of power as president of the United States and reacting to events that require quick, decisive thinking and action. I envision her responding to the office’s demands on her powers as president by releasing clouds of psychobabble. What makes intelligent, educated people shudder is the thought of a President Palin filled with the milk of conservative values whose every thought gushes forth in a language indistinguishable from that of a stoner who is ripped out of his mind.

Even scarier are Palin's supporters who went into Wikipedia to make the history of the midnight ride of Paul Revere match the words of their heroine. That set off a bit of a war at Wiki between the editors who are not insane and the Palinites who are.

It appears that the biggest problem in this country is willful ignorance, particularly on the right, and particularly among Palinites. All over the internet you can see debates between right and left – but on the right, if a politician's statements do not fit reality, well, then reality must be wrong. So they attempt to change history books and Wikipedia to fit their own ‘facts’.

Here is a suggestion of what she should have said (paying homage to her view on gun rights):

“Being in the city where Paul Revere’s famous ride to warn his fellow Patriots that British troops would soon be on the move in an attempt to capture stores of weapons that would prove crucial for the nascent rebellion, was a moving experience. I’m not sure of one thing: did he put a lamp or lantern in the church belfry or did he ring the bells in the church? I cannot remember. It’s been a long time since grade school. Whatever the details, thank God he warned the patriots who, in turn, foiled the British plan to seize their weapon stores, demonstrating once and for all the value of our traditional right to bear arms. Thank God for his courage.”

But a statement like this would be too intelligent for her – there is not enough babbling.

Playing the victim

In her Youtube video put out just after the Tucson shootings, Palin said that we cannot blame her toxic political rhetoric. But then she quite foolishly and voluntarily gave us something we can hang our hats on: In a unfortunate use of the words "blood," "pistols" and "shooting" to accent her points and the use of outrageously offensive timing in terms of releasing it on the same day as the memorial, she showed a shocking lack of empathy, sensitivity, and compassion.

Palin denounced the "manufacture of a blood libel," which adds an extra level of vitriol. Not only did it demonstrate a pathological narcissism on her part, but total ignorance that the phrase “blood libel” has a terrible history. Copy-cat Palin picked up on the term “blood libel” from a right wingnut’s op-ed. Obviously, she liked the way the phrase sounded and never bothered to look it up. It refers to the scurrilous accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children to use their blood to prepare Passover matzo. Charges of blood libel have spurred massacres of Jews throughout centuries; the myth was revived by Hitler and persists today from Russia to the Arab world.

The tone of Ms. Palin’s message was not appropriate for a moment of national grief. She could have used the opportunity to try to elevate the discourse, but, instead, she further coarsened it. She is acting true to her character in lashing out at critics and presenting herself as an aggrieved victim.

Reading from a teleprompter, Palin obviously took time to consider and craft her remarks. Yet she missed an opportunity to be seen as a leader. Did she really think that her 8-minute diatribe helps to heal a shocked and grieving nation? It certainly did nothing to repair her image as an incendiary politician. Her behavior, tone, and overall message in her video are beyond comprehension and – to use one of her words – reprehensible.

At a time when the country is looking for words that heal, Palin chose to do what she does best: attack and provoke. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black because Palin does exactly what she accuses the media of doing – and she is one of those who are responsible for the coarsening of our public culture.

Sarah’s video validates once again that Sarah Palin is all about Sarah Palin. Wallowing in her own narcissism, she refuses to shoulder any responsibility for her words and actions. She sees herself as the victim of the Tucson shootings in a profoundly distorted view of reality when the true victims, the six Americans murdered just a few days ago had not yet been buried and the fourteen other victims, with lives forever altered, lay wounded recovering in hospitals.

This week has given politicians and the media an opportunity to reflect on the quality of discussion and debate in this country today – and many have – but not Sarah. Sadly, self-reflection is not one of Sarah Palin’s character traits.

Maybe Palin has finally crashed – and hopefully burned. In a perfect world, she would not politically recover from this faux pas. Although she will always be a national hero to the ignorant right-wing fringe crazies, it is my hope that on a national level, as a serious presidential candidate, she may have just imploded – unless too many in this nation forget her self-serving words about the Tucson shooting. 

Sarah Palin is once again playing the victim.

a little more about Sarah Palin

Joe Biden and Sarah Palin are in different leagues. During the debate, Biden proved that he is capable of understanding complex issues, handling power responsibly and changing the standing of America in the world. Palin proved she is capable of standing on a stage and speaking memorized talking points, and managing a small town and a state with a large amount of frozen land and a very small population of around 670,000 – about the same as one good-sized city.

Remember, Palin has proven to us over the last several weeks that, without a script, complex national and international issues are beyond her understanding. The brain power is not there. She strings together as many talking points as she can, whether or not it has anything to do with the subject. Without a script, her answers are as nonsensical as a beauty queen up on the stage answering a question with babble and then ending with “world peace.”

The Republican Party insulted the public's intelligence by setting up a well-coached Sarah Palin to face off with Joe Biden, her head filled with nothing more than the clichés she's been babbling on the campaign trail. Most of us did not fall for the trick. That is why the majority of polls show Biden as the winner by double digits. When can we see this woman actually speak her own mind? Oh, yes, I forgot – she tried to do that in the Katie Couric interviews – yes, that really went well, didn't it?

Since she did well keeping to her talking points during the debate, even though she did not really answer most of the questions, she will now be declared the winner by her base and then kept out of the media, touring states where she can speak to the choir in her cutesy colloquialisms. By November 4, Sarah will have been well in the background. The election will once again become Obama vs McCain.

Palin seems to think she will be running the Senate, as she indicated in her debate. She needs to study the constitution and try her best to understand what her job will be: to break tie votes. But with a larger majority of Democrats, there will be no tie votes to break.

I’m “gonna betcha” that if McCain wins, Sarah will be kept completely in the background, occasionally attending ceremonies and giving her scripted speeches, but mostly forgotten.

The VP debate changed nothing

Palin's strategy was clear - to be folksy, perky, and look straight into the camera as often as possible. Biden's strategy was to not attack her and instead link President Bush and McCain together as a package. You could tell that not being allowed to directly go after Palin caused Biden to feel frustrated because he would smile while she attacked him. But he ran the risk of alienating women if he had been too tough on Palin. He did well as he managed to be forceful without appearing overbearing when he challenged Palin's facts.

Early on, Palin told the moderator, Gwen Ifill, that she could ask whatever she wanted, but "I'm gonna answer whatever I want." She kept true to that promise, refusing to answer the question of whether a bailout bill showcased the worst of Washington or the best, refusing to answer the question about the McCain-Palin plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq, and refusing to discuss McCain's record as a deregulator in Congress. Instead, she repeated the Republican mantra of low taxes as being good for the economy and issued charges that Obama had voted for tax hikes on families that make as little as $42,000, which Biden answered with facts that proved her statement as untrue. Palin also avoided discussing McCain's deregulation history by declaring that her own record in Alaska shows her as a tax cutter, although under Palin the sales tax in Wasilla did go up. Politicians often avoid tough questions and try to point the finger at the other guy, but Palin seems to do so because she doesn't have an answer to the question.

As the economy took center stage, Biden argued that McCain's conversion to being a regulator of Wall Street was only in the last two weeks. He pointed to a recent article where McCain had called for deregulation in the health care industry similar to the deregulation on Wall Street. He said, "And while (Democratic presidential candidate) Barack Obama was talking about reinstating those regulations, John on 20 different occasions in the previous year and a half called for more deregulation. As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."

Palin was at her best when she injected her sarcastic humor into her remarks. "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again looking backward," she told Biden. Yet, it was the Biden who got off the best one-liner of the night by using Palin's favorite line against her: "I call that the ultimate bridge to nowhere," he said while describing McCain's health care plan.

Biden did well in exposing McCain's $5000 health insurance tax deduction for those who need to buy insurance as not being nearly enough to pay for a policy which, on average, would cost at least twice that amount. He mentioned McCain's plan to tax an employee's health care benefits. Since employers would have to pay payroll taxes on the money they are spending on their employees' health insurance, there is a risk that many businesses will drop their employer-provided health care.

Palin did a decent job of exposing Biden's disagreement with Obama over Iraq policy during the Democratic primaries. But Palin was unable to sustain that line of attack because of Biden's superior understanding of Senate votes by Obama and McCain on the war. He pointed out several times when McCain voted against money for the troops.

The issue on Afghanistan and Iraq showcased a huge difference between the two presidential candidates, with Obama favoring a 16-month withdrawal from Iraq in order to focus on Afghanistan, and McCain opposing this strategy. Biden was knowledgeable and comprehensive when the questioning turned to the threat of a nuclear Iran, and the pursuit of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In one response he linked McCain's policies in the middle-east repeatedly to those of the deeply unpopular President Bush. Palin's talking point that Obama's plan for a troop withdrawal timetable was a "white flag of surrender in Iraq, and that is not what our troops need to hear today," was well delivered at just the right moment, but she noticeably failed to answer pointed questions on Bush's handling of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Palestinian question.

There was another misstep by Palin after Biden almost lost his composure while speaking of the death of his first wife and daughter in a car crash in 1972. Palin failed to acknowledge his obvious distress as she hastily delivered a prepared answer into the camera - which did not work well toward forging an emotional attachment with the viewers.

Throughout the debate, Biden was clearly in control of both his facts and his demeanor, while at times Palin struggled to appear in command of the subject. Palin was better when she was attacking Obama's record and plans than she was in explaining her team's positions.

Who won last night's vice presidential debate? The answer depends on which ticket you support. If you like the Democrat ticket, then Joe Biden won as he consistently did a better job of actually answering the questions, using facts and policy. If you prefer the Republican ticket, Palin won, performing better than expected, as she skirted difficult questions and used memorized talking points that often strayed well away from what was asked.

The debate changed nothing in the race.

Palin as President?

There remains a tremendous amount of support for Palin among the Republican base. She draws huge crowds and continues to raise large amounts of money for the McCain campaign. Yet, a growing number of Republicans, who were supporters of Sarah, are now expressing concern about her poor performance with the media and what it could mean.

• Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside for the good of her country. Parker, who is a conservative journalist, states "Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves."
• Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, agrees: "that’s not a crazy suggestion."
• Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says "You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water."
• Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. "…she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden, and definitely not Hillary Clinton."
• Rich Lowry, a writer for The National Review, says, "I thought Palin was dreadful. She obviously didn't have the reaction to the Charlie Gibson interview that I had hoped. She had better be better prepared for next week or she risks damaging her political brand forevermore."

So far, Palin has only given three interviews since being announced as McCain's VP. In these interviews, she has demonstrated a clear lack of knowledge regarding basic political fundamentals. This would explain why the McCain Team has not let her out much without being scripted.

Here are some of Palin’s difficult moments during interviews:

Speaking with Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off guard by a question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused of profiting from the companies just as recent as one month ago, despite his denials. She seemed genuinely stumped with Couric’s follow up question, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to memorized talking points about the "undue influence of lobbyists." When asked to discuss her knowledge of foreign relations – in particular, her assertion that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her international experience – Palin spoke in incoherent circles.

"It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state."

Asked about the $700 billion bailout package, Palin gave a nonsensical answer that strung together every economic talking point she could think of:

"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."

In an interview with Charlie Gibson, Palin gave an answer to a question about the Bush Doctrine that displayed an obvious ignorance as to what it is. When asked to describe her foreign policy credentials more fully, Palin said that her experience with Alaska’s energy policy was sufficient preparation for dealing with national security issues. When asked about the difficulties between Russia and Georgia (a democracy in western Asia that borders Russia), she declared it might be necessary to wage war on Russia, a suggestion that most average Americans know to be something we would not want to do.

In an interview with a much more friendly Sean Hannity, of Fox News, Palin responded with vague, wandering generalities to a question about a possible Wall Street bailout, and then definitively came out against it, while at the same time, McCain was indicating that he would help to negotiate the details and therefore support it.

Every time reporters have questioned Palin on foreign policy, she’s been confused. Some Republicans are now worried Palin could blow Thursday’s debate, based on her weak and unsteady interviews, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does. But she is probably in the process of internalizing the talking points so well that she will manage to get through it and perhaps even do well. According to George Stephanopoulos, a reporter with ABC News, Palin cannot continue those deer in the headlight moments where it seems like she doesn't know what to say. He continued with the statement that "a major mistake, particularly on foreign policy, would be absolutely fatal to her candidacy." Does this mean that if she makes a major gaffe, she will very quickly "resign" from the team "to spend more time with her family?" Probably not, because it would shine a light on McCain's judgment, putting him on the defensive for the final five weeks.

But would Palin’s "winning" the debate really make her a good candidate for vice president or possibly for president?

Think about this: If you vote for McCain/Palin, according to the life insurance actuarial tables, you will be voting for a 33% chance for an unqualified Sarah Palin to become President. She is a charismatic politician who seems to have done some good things for Alaska, but it is so obvious that she has never spent a day thinking, much less studying or reading, about any important national or international issue. She is in over her head. Sarah Palin is not equipped to be vice-president, much less president. She doesn't know enough; she lacks the necessary understanding of our complex world.

A very conservative newspaper, The Stockton Record, which has not endorsed a Democrat for president in 72 years, questioned McCain for his surprise choice of Palin, "We worry he won't have four years," the editorial said. "If elected, at 72, he would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He's in good health now, we're told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president. And that brings us to McCain's most troubling trait: his judgment."

Are you sure you want Palin as President?

I cannot abide a liar

I cannot abide a liar.

There’s a saying that the truth is the first casualty of war. Well, if that's true, then the presidential race must be World War III. I know many of you would never vote for a Democrat even if your life depended on it…BUT, I cannot abide a liar. Especially one who promised to run an honorable campaign.

McCain has been lying about so much that I cannot believe anything he says – I do not believe he will do anything that is good for this country or the average person. I have listened to both McCain and Palin tell a bushel full of lies. I have fact checked their statements and found most of them to be cherry-picked half truths and outright bald-faced lies, not only about their opponent but about their own records: i.e. McCain being against lobbyists and Palin turning down the “bridge to nowhere” are both outright lies. Palin did not sell the jet on Ebay – she sold it through a broker at a great loss to the state. She did take earmarks as governor -- $256 million she sought last year, and the $197 million wish list for 2008. Now the McCain/Palin team is obfuscating the troopergate investigation, refusing to honor subpoenas, when, before being nominated for VP, she once agreed to cooperate. This sounds too much like the Bush administration personnel refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas. Hang the rule of law.

The notion that there is any serious equivalence between the campaign sins of Obama and the massive moral sins of McCain is inane: “Ideological differences aside, John McCain's campaign has been more dishonest, more unfair, more -- to use a word that resonates with McCain -- dishonorable than Obama's… McCain's transgressions, though, are of a different magnitude. His whoppers are bigger; there are more of them. He has outright lied about his opponent. He has misrepresented [to put it nicely] his vice presidential nominee's record. Called on these fouls [lies], he has denied and repeated them....” Ruth Marcus, Washington Post

Is there any reason to trust that a man running this campaign full of lies would go on to be an honest president? The only answer is NO.

He's a fantastic and shameless liar. In a heated campaign, some half truths will be told, but this is sickening. During an interview with the women of "The View" last week, McCain offered one lame excuse after another for his conduct: Obama's ads are “hard-hitting”, too… The tone wouldn't be so negative if Obama had agreed to the townhall debates… his own lipstick comment was different because he was referring to health care. McCain refused to admit that Obama had not been speaking of Palin in using that time-worn cliché.

Too many times, I have watched McCain directly questioned about his lies and listened to him deny that he is lying. The mark of a moral person is not their occasional failures, but their response to them. Does he correct and apologize? Does he ultimately care about the truth, about reality? Or does he refuse to acknowledge his lies and continue to repeat them, even after they have been proven beyond the slightest doubt?

Now the economy is so very bad that even McCain has to admit there is a problem. But, yesterday, when called on his statement that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, he sat there and lied once again, saying that he really meant that the workers were strong, that the “fundamentals” were the workers. He did not mean the workers when he made that statement over 20 times in the last several months. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

McCain has failed the most basic of ethical tests. He is morally and ethically unfit to be the president of the United States. The same is true of Palin.

I cannot abide a liar.