|
September 13, 2008
–
It was interesting. After the full one hour
airing on a special 20/20, when ABC's George Stephanopoulos led a
discussion between a Democratic strategist and a Republican one
analyzing how the interview with Sarah Palin went, the responses
were the opposite of what you would expect.
Rather than the Republican doling excessive praise
and the Democrat criticizing, it was the Democrat saying, in
essence, that Palin had done fine, while the Republican strategist
said there would be things to work on. By the end of the
analysis session, the point became clear: the Democrat was
looking to be done with discussions about Sarah Palin and get back
to discussing the economy, etc. and John McCain, while the
Republican wanted to keep the Debate to Nowhere going until the
clock had been run on out possible time to discuss actual issues
this election cycle.
And the reality is, after seeing the rest of the
interview, everything one needs to know about Sarah Palin is crystal
clear, and can be summed up to two points:
1) Most of the claims she makes about herself
(being a reformer, against this or that, for this or that) are flat out
dishonest, and she is someone who has no problem lying and playing
word games to keep up those dishonest claims even in the face of
undeniable evidence that she is lying.
...such as when Gibson asked if she wanted to change
her claim with regard to saying "Thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge
to Nowhere now that we know it wasn't true - she didn't, and made
some justification that would make a teenager seem childish..
2) She has no reasonable knowledge about any
topic.
For example, she couldn't even have a basic
discussion about the economy. Asked what three things she
would do differently economically than the Bush administration,
after doing her best to avoid answering with a nonsensical ramble,
she finally said, "Reduce taxes, cut spending, and increase
oversight."
Um, different than Bush. Cut taxes? That
is different how? Oh right, in no way whatsoever. Yes,
obviously no clue what she was saying - just regurgitating
conservative talking points, just as Bush did. Different from
Bush; claim that she will cut spending? Just like Bush
claimed?
Nice.
The oversight part of her answer came as a spoon-fed
response she coughed out mentioning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -
attempting to cover up that she had made clear in a slip up a few
days back showing that she didn't understand they weren't government
entities but private companies.
Pressed about what she would reform, asked about what
spending she would specifically reduce, asked directly about Social
Security, all she could do was utter back incoherent, nonsensical
conservative catch phrases, like, "I would find efficiencies."
Gibson asked what efficiency would you find in Social Security, how
much? She said, I would find efficiencies in the agency.
He said, um, it's not an agency, its an entitlement program. She said part of it is and
she would find an efficiency.
Imagine, all this time, everyone in the country on
both sides of the aisle thought Social Security could not escape
collapse unless we make significant changes to benefits or intake.
Nope, according to Palin. She would make the "agency,"
whatever she means by that, more efficient, and that would take care
of it.
That answer shows not just a dangerous lack of
knowledge and understanding about a program millions of seniors
depend on for survival, but a small-brained arrogance to act as if
she has an answer no one else has about a topic she clearly knows
nothing about - even with all the lives at stake.
War with Russia. No understanding of the issues
facing Social Security - or anything else. Terrifying.
Now we know all we need to. Palin can go on
about things that are opinions or general views, like any caller to
a talk radio show can, but throughout the interview at no point did
she offer a single specific thing or display even basic knowledge,
never mind deep knowledge, about anything, foreign policy, domestic
policy, social policy, or other. Opinions and conservative
talking points. Like a monkey. But there's nothing going
on in this woman in terms of understanding, knowledge, or specific
policy thought with regard to anything related to anything outside
of her brother-in-law or the pipeline in Alaska.
Gibson did an excellent job. He was informed,
firm, fair. He has moved to the forefront of The Moderate
Independent's favorite TV interviewers. It is so rare these
days to find someone who is not a political tool. Gibson was
professional to the core, and competent. Tough enough to be
legit.
Is the Democratic strategist right, that it is time
to move on?
As I wrote when Palin was first introduced in this
article -
Choice of Sarah Palin Finalizes McCain's Conversion to the Dark Side:
"Pundits and reporters who have reacted
to Palin's selection are ignoring the two most basic goals of
Rove/Limbaugh/Murdoch-brand Republican politics:
"1) Destroy any attempt at having
useful, intelligent conversation about policies
"2) Appeal to people's lower
natures
"By putting up a candidate so
pathetically, obviously unqualified that people will feel sorry for
them, anything that makes them look bad, under-qualified, or
uneducated can be used to attack the other side as "arrogant,"
"aloof," "elitist," and, of course, "unlikable..."
We have seen this play out now ad
nauseum. And this is because of the one massive fact no one
has yet had the courage to say: no one, Democrat, Republican,
or Independent, likes John McCain.
John McCain is in a dire, desperate
situation. Even the old school Republicans I have talked to
have said things like, "She's what we need," only to be followed by,
"I don't like him."
Democrats already didn't like McCain
because his policies were too far right, and now they despise him
because of his gutter smear-and-lie tactics and his choice of the
least qualified VP candidate in history.
Republicans don't like him partly
because he isn't really far right enough for them, and partly just
because everything is personal with them, and so just as they like
Palin despite her complete lack of competence, they just don't like
John McCain simply because they don't like him.
And the Independents that John McCain in
the past would have won over - The Moderate Independent was his
biggest fan back about six years ago - no can't even consider voting
for him. His surrendering of his
moderate policies for those of the Bush right, followed by his
rendering himself unelectable and turning this election into a
circus by choosing Palin, has made the thought of voting for him a non-starter for
Independents.
So John McCain and the GOP rest all their hope
on keeping people talking about the dangerously unqualified religious extremist
from the 47th most populated state in the nation.
Well, maybe it's been enough. We
know all we need to know. And now it is time to get back to
covering what matters to our country. Palin
was a nice diversion - and good for ratings. Now that topic is
a bore, and we are coming back squarely to McCain and
the issues that will determine if America survives the massive
troubles that truly threaten its very existence.
Then again, her comments on war and
Social Security would make a great commercial, especially for
seniors. Can't you see it, "War with Russia?" Video clip
plays her saying, "Perhaps with so," "How would she fix social
security?" Video clip: Palin "I'd find efficiencies in
the agency" Gibson replying, "It's not an agency, it's an
entitlement." Her ignoring reality and continuing, "Part of
it's an agency, I'm sure I could find efficiencies." Followed
by a stat showing you could eliminate the whole administration cost
from Social Security and not help the program survive. Closing
frame on the words, "Dangerous for America - Dangerous for you. -
brought to you by John McCain."
I don't know, the Dems might not want to
run from her so quickly. In fact, I might do the opposite and
shove her down McCain's throat from now until the day he officially
regrets having made such an asinine choice.
| 
