File This Under, “Why?”

File This Under, “Why?”


Seriously, why give Palin this type of attention?

Also, doesn’t this make the White House seem unserious?

If you have any ideas, I’m all ears.

  • Chris

    Because they don’t get it. It’s actually pretty sad.

  • charliemax

    Because you know we like her and that upsets you. Poor thing.

  • gerryf

    It’s called pointing out hypocrisy. I’m all for it. No matter how unserious Palin is to the anyone who is paying attention, there is still a very large number of people who think she is something other than an opportunist playing on the ignorance of people.

    Now, if only the media would start pointing out the blatant lies rather than being glorified stenographers.

    It’s called dumbing down the message.

    We’ve got two years to convince them that her folksy act is just that. I used to think along the lines of there’s no way so and so could actually get elected…is anyone paying attention?

    And then W. was elected.

    Our government has been corrupted by big money and big money has hit on a formula that is working because the vast majority in this country are either ignorant or apathetic.

    If it takes stupid grocery lists cribbed on the palms of the press secretary to deliver the message, then that is what we need to be doing.

  • michael mcEachran

    I was so disappointed. It is hard to watch when this group takes an advantage and overreaches arrogantly. They’ve done it a few times. They need to “point out hypocracy” with gravity and seriousness, not with smirks.

  • Frank Hagan

    What hypocrisy? Reading from notes was not the issue addressed, and the left’s failure to be able to grasp a point because it makes them uncomfortable is a form of self-delusion. While President Obama remains popular with people on a personal level, the image of him addressing small groups and students in a classroom with a teleprompter bothered many people. He’s charismatic, he can inspire, but can he govern? (He has partially reformed that image with his town-hall style meetings with the Congress lately; prior to that we rarely saw him able to complete full sentences without hemming and hawing if the teleprompter wasn’t in place).

    The smartest public speakers know their material well enough that a list of keywords is all they need to deliver a speech. Palin’s well-received speech to the Tea Party convention was done from notes, not a teleprompter, and I suspect her notes were simply a list of keywords. I gave 45 minute seminars with a list of 10 to 12 keywords (this was before the deplorable practice of reading a bunch of Powerpoint slides).

    Labeling a political zinger an example of hypocrisy is simply a way of deflecting attention from the issue raised. Attack rather than engage, obfuscate rather than clarify.

    I suspect that the administration would love to see Palin as the nominee in three years, as they feel she would be a weak candidate. While I don’t think she’ll be the GOP nominee, I’m not so sure she would be a weak candidate. After all, we just elected a first-term Senator who had the least experience of any of the front runners who is great at giving speeches … with a teleprompter.

  • blackoutyears

    Frank: prior to that we rarely saw him able to complete full sentences without hemming and hawing if the teleprompter wasn’t in place).

    What a load of b.s. I’ve seen him in countless interviews and press conferences, both during the campaign and after his election, and he was just as self-assured as he was in his recent conversations with party leaders.

    Palin got busted because during her seated interview she had to glance down at her hand for a full second to remind herself that *that energy thing* needed to be addressed. It’s not that she used notes, it’s that she used them (all three of them by the way, including, most laughably, Lifting American Spirits) while taking Obama to task for using a teleprompter.

    Defending the indefensible. Take the White House to task for a weak joke, but it in no way excuses Palin’s inanity.

  • gerryf

    Labeling a political zinger an example of hypocrisy is simply a way of deflecting attention from the issue raised. Attack rather than engage, obfuscate rather than clarify.

    And that issue was…what? Oh yes, “How’s that hopesy changey thing working out?”

    Are you serious? Sometimes, Frank, I seriously doubt you are aware of the irony when you’re writing.

    You defend a pointless speech by Palen to a pointless organization filled with pointless zingers, and then criticize others for zinging her back?

    Then you end with a point about her maybe not being such a weak candidate after being a podunk mayor of a town smaller than my backyard and a half term governor who couldn’t hack it, then attempt a lame zinger about electing a first term senator?

    It’s getting harder and harder to take you seriously.

    You’re entire premise is based on the assumption you can engage people like Palin and those who follow her. This is a fallacy. You cannot engage people who have a wreckless disregard for reality.

    In the last 30 years the “conservative” movement has gone from a movement of ideas to a movement of disregard for ideas. You cannot have a conversation with someone who believes Palin who lobbied for the bridge to nowhere was against it simply because she now lies about it.

    It is astounding how many lies and half truths that spew from the right.

    (Yes, we can argue about the idiots on the left as well, and if you want to make a post on that, feel free–for now we are talking about this idiot and her lies, so let’s stay on point. the “I know what I am but what are you” argument didn’t work in second grade and it won’t work here.”)

    In the past 10 years the right has devolved to “teleprompters” invalidate everything you have to say. And now we have Palin going low-tech and it is somehow folksy and charming?


    I’m tired of the left sitting back and trying to engage. I’m tired of reasoning with the unreasonable.

    The left needs to learn a lesson from the right, You use every tool in the toolbox from sarcasm, to smears, to truth to discredit them to prevent the “movement” from spreading.

    Maybe Robert Gibbs was not the ideal candidate to point this out, but I’m all for as many sources as possible.

  • Trescml

    Gibbs did it because he was pissed off by the shots Palin took at Obama over the weekend. Was it good politics? Probably not, but I think it would be a stretch to call it bad politics either. Most of America for now has formed an opinion about her and no hand scribbling is going to change that. The people who could be swayed about Palin one way or another aren’t likely to start paying attention any sooner than primaries a couple of years from now.

  • Mike A.

    Invalidating Obama by his use of a teleprompter, all the while showing incredible tact and knowledge in his meeting with the republicans, is disingenuous at best. There were, what, 140 of the best republican minds there, and Obama held his own…and without the use of a teleprompter. Yet Palin gets tripped up by Katie Couric. Hmmm.

    I am tired of these “empty suit” claims. We live in a world where intelligence is derided by ignorant people. Idiocracy doesn’t seem so far-fetched…

  • Frank Hagan

    Perception is everything, guys. There is a perception that Obama is not good without his teleprompter; even Joe Biden joked about it when his teleprompter fell over at a speech he was giving. As I pointed out Mike A, he did help dispel that idea with his recent performance in front of the GOP members. He needs to do more of that.

    The White House has to stop “shooting down” at targets that are historically beneath them; its always a bad sign when an administration starts taking shots at pundits (Limbaugh), populist financial advisers (Kramer) or news outlets (Fox News). Its evidence that they are simply too thin skinned. Perhaps that was Justin’s point … I’m surprised that none of you took him to task and insulted him for criticizing the administration.

    As to Palin, she gave a good speech. Political observers are calling her speech in Nashville as good as her acceptance speech at the convention. David Broder also liked her performance on Fox News Sunday. Both are friendly venues, and don’t really prove much in my mind. She still doesn’t have a good answer as to why she quit the governorship, or why she falters so much when challenged by an aggressive press, so I doubt she will become the 2012 nominee. She is not my choice. But her zingers at the President really did hit home … we can see it written on Gibbs’ hand.

  • TerenceC

    If you’re not a fan of the Republican political agenda Sarah Palin is perfect. She’s the sacrificial goat – once again. I think it would be great if she becomes the Republican nominee for President in 2012 – it would all but guaranty a second term for Obama. The more press she gets, the weaker the field in 2012 for the Republino’s. Stupidity can only take you so far in American politics. To be successful you need charisma, good looks, a lack of original thought, a poor education, and of course God needs to tell you that you should run for Presidency of the Untied States.

    Does anyone ever feel like they are walking into the middle of a conversation when the media talks about politics and political agenda’s? They are having their discussions, but they don’t appear to be talking with any of the voters – only amongst themselves to other pundits. Where is the responsible journalism at the national level that discusses the crisis in leadership in our political system (both parties), the political dysfunction in many of our elected leaders, and an expose’ as to where some of these problems stem from and what we could do to start fixing a system that is clearly broken?

  • Mike A.

    Either the public (in general) is not interested in these discussions, or cannot understand them. Only barroom fights and WWF-style politics keeps our interest. The public has the same attention to the future as wall street….1 to 3 months ahead. We’ve lost the ability for strategic thought.

  • Chris

    “I’m tired of the left sitting back and trying to engage. I’m tired of reasoning with the unreasonable. ”

    Exactly. In fact there’s been a couple of studies released that show you can’t reason with them. You can’t reason with people who either won’t, or can’t use logic and facts to form opinions and make decisions. You can only manipulate them. Enter “big money” stage left.

    Terence – don’t under-estimate the stupidity of this country and humans in general (looking at you Australia). She has a 37%ish approval rating, easily enough to smear and manipulate her way to the top.

  • TerenceC

    Good – I hope she is the nominee – Dem’s win the White House again. There is a large, very silent, majority (30-40plus%) that doesn’t pay attention politically until the last few weeks of a campaign season. If she’s the nominee those 30-40’ish% will swing against her. If someone from the Republican Party with brains and an ounce of sense is the nominee (someone like Lincoln Chafee or Paul Ryan) they could take back the White House. But I am consistently amazed by the stupidity and downright willful ignorance of the American people when it comes to politics. So don’t count on the Republicans fielding a decent candidate. The last one who was a true conservative was Barry Goldwater – all the others were just puppets, con-men, or fronts. Not that the Dem’s have been much better – but they have been better.

  • Chris

    Taking a broad swipe at politics, and i’m sure that people with disagree with this. But what I see the difference being between the main parties is that the democrats generally do what they say. They follow their platform with their policies. This may have been true at one point for the republicans, but I haven’t seen it in the last 20 years or so. The republicans paint themselves as the party of family values, and moral superiority, yet are chock full of sex scandals, cheating, being gay and cheating, underage stuff. No doubt the democrats have their fair share of that as well, but they’re not the hypocrites pretending to be morally superior.

    I’m still waiting for Bush to be a compassionate conservative.

  • Rob

    Also, doesn’t this make the White House seem unserious?

    No starting a war in Iraq makes you look unserious. Along with wetting your pants over every perceived security issue. etc. etc.

  • Frank Hagan

    On one level, Palin is overrated by the media. She must boost ratings, though, because people can’t seem to quit talking about her.

    I like Sarah as a pundit, and think she has a good future there. The fact that she brings out the worst in liberals, including admission that they think Americans are stupid and easily led, is a plus.

    For the record, I think the American people are smart even when they disagree with me.

    Meanwhile, I’m waiting for a libertarian conservative to step up in the GOP, but alas, I’m afraid that Republicans will nominate Romney because he’s “next in line”. The GOP tends to do that far too often. And we don’t need another big spending conservative; we need someone to reduce the scope and reach of the federal government, eliminate complete cabinet level departments and scale back the intrusive laws that impinge on the states (drug laws, gun laws, etc.)

  • Chris

    You are quite the optimist Frank, and it’s nice to see that. But I think the evidence shows that Americans, and people in general aren’t all that intelligent, or at the very least lack critical thinking skills. If people were smarter and could use information aptly, then perhaps we wouldn’t have half the country believing that Iraq was behind the 9/11 terrorist attack, or that cutting taxes plus increasing entitlement spending plus pursuing two wars is not only NOT fiscally conservative, but in general it’s just a bad idea.