Tina Fey vs, Sarah Palin
MC
Here's the actual interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpmC9GXa-I
Can anyone who sees this seriously, actually believe that Palin is ready
to be president on Day One?
--
If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course,
on where you stop your story.
- Orson Welles
Alan Brooks
> Here's the Tina Fey parody.
>
> http://snipurl.com/3x4rm
>
> Here's the actual interview.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpmC9GXa-I
>
> Can anyone who sees this seriously, actually believe that Palin is ready
> to be president on Day One?
Oh... my... fucking... God...
Thank you for posting this. Now I know where Tina Fey gets her material:
she just turns on the television and copies down what Palin says.
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- America's Next
Top Muddle
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
Michael
> Here's the Tina Fey parody.
>
> http://snipurl.com/3x4rm
>
> Here's the actual interview.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpmC9GXa-I
>
> Can anyone who sees this seriously, actually believe that Palin is ready
> to be president on Day One?
>
M
MC
Michael <nswr...@netscape.net> wrote:
Another part of the whole parody was actually VERBATIM.
> and despair at the second.
I'm wondering why the ticket's biggest boosters in here aren't jumping
to their feet to say what a great interview it was and how she's 100%
ready to be president on Day One.
She was glancing down a lot in the real thing, Did she have 3x5 talking
points on her knee or something?
I'm sure her handlers selected Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric because
they perceived them to be soft... well I've seen Couric rip an interview
subject a new one (forget who) -- they may have miscalculated there.
Couric is a good interviewer.
The public stance amongst Republicans is still super-supportive "She
drew a crowd of 60,000 in insert-placename-here!" but I was reading a
piece yesterday to the effect that behind closed doors the honchos in
the party fear she's going to lose them the election.
Meanwhile, Biden's a bit of a loose cannon himself, but nothing like as
unprepared as Palin.
mary...@rcn.com
some interesting stuff about a woman who thinks killing big critters
makes her suitable for the Presidency
> Meanwhile, Biden's a bit of a loose cannon himself, but nothing like as
> unprepared as Palin.
>
This is one of my most favorite insults. A loose cannon is not one
that goes off without warning. A loose cannon is the one on the old
wooden warships that got loose from its chains, and went sliding and
roaring around the ship, crashing its random iron self into who-knows-
what with every breeze, wave, and toss of the ship. Imagine being in
a battle, preferably stormy, and there's a loose cannon crashing all
over the place, sliding around the deck - I'd pay to see Johnny Depp
jump over it in the next Pirates movie.
Skipper
<cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
First of all, Katie Couric is a nasty little bitch, and I'd say that to
her face. She's all gotcha and you fuckers know that. She's been
nose-diving CBS Evening News for a while - maybe they finally found
something Katie can do.
Charlie Gibson tried the same thing, and didn't pull it off as well. He
just looked like the sneering elitist hippie asshole he is under that
suit facade.
Sarah probably thought because Katie was a woman, she'd be better.
Republicans tend to be naive about the media, utterly sick fucks that
most of the media are. Most Republicans I know still don't quite get it
that Bush has fought two wars - one against terrorists and another
against media terrorists.
McCain/Palin are fighting two campaigns as well, one against the media.
When McCain was on The View, Barbara Walters in a rare display of her
actual vicious personality, snapped at McCain constantly and wouldn't
even look at him. In contrast, when Obummer was on she acted like she
was ready to fall on her knees and suck his dick. Most of them did.
Thank God for Elizabeth.
Biden's a "loose cannon"? Joe Biden's a total two-faced plagiarizing
country club asshole. Obummer's a fucking nasty socialist who will
WRECK this country if elected, in conjunction with the Uber-Bitch Nancy
Pelosi and the other train wrecks currently running Congress.
Of course, you fuckers are too abysmally stupid to figure that out, but
life goes on.
MC
Skipper <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> Of course, you fuckers are too abysmally stupid to figure that out, but
> life goes on.
Okay, I completely get whay you think of Couric, Gibson, Walters et al.
What did you think of Palin's performance on the Couric interview?
She struck me as out of her depth -- and that's not really anything you
can blame on Couric no matter how nasty she may be.
Alan Brooks
> First of all, Katie Couric is a nasty little bitch, and I'd say that to
> her face. She's all gotcha and you fuckers know that. She's been
> nose-diving CBS Evening News for a while - maybe they finally found
> something Katie can do.
Ooooo... Name-calling, how unexpected.
> Charlie Gibson tried the same thing, and didn't pull it off as well. He
> just looked like the sneering elitist hippie asshole he is under that
> suit facade.
Gee, this almost sounds like you're building to a diatribe against the
"media elite". Couldn't be, though... could it? That's so 1973...
> Sarah probably thought because Katie was a woman, she'd be better.
Couric was so easy on Palin it was laughable. Did you want her to sit next
to Palin on the couch and pat her hand while she struggled through those
difficult non-answers?
Palin is a fucking beauty-pagent moron who lucked into a couple of public
positions in a state full of whackos, and now she's been moved to the big
league and she's hoping that for her sake they'll tell the pitcher he has to
throw to her from second base.
If the Democrats brought forward this sort of candidate they'd be laughed
out of the election. The Republicans can only get away with trying it
because they have the fringe Christian community squarely in their corner, a
history of whining about the media being against them, and an odd little
strategy of trying to keep the media off-balance by crying foul whenever
anyone hits Palin with an average force punch.
It's not the media's fault you put a lightweight into a heavyweight bout.
The Republicans are like a football team that's trying to win a game with
two trick plays. A quarterback sneak and the Statue-of-Liberty play do not
make for a game strategy.
> Republicans tend to be naive about the media, utterly sick fucks that
> most of the media are. Most Republicans I know still don't quite get it
> that Bush has fought two wars - one against terrorists and another
> against media terrorists.
And just as McCain thinks he's still fighting the Vietnam war, his
Republican backers are still mired in Nixon's war against the media.
> McCain/Palin are fighting two campaigns as well, one against the media.
And it shows such diplomatic skill that the Republicans have managed to
maintain this war for 30 years, doesn't it? Bodes well for their abilities
with actual war.
> When McCain was on The View, Barbara Walters in a rare display of her
> actual vicious personality, snapped at McCain constantly and wouldn't
> even look at him. In contrast, when Obummer was on she acted like she
> was ready to fall on her knees and suck his dick. Most of them did.
> Thank God for Elizabeth.
>
> Biden's a "loose cannon"? Joe Biden's a total two-faced plagiarizing
> country club asshole. Obummer's a fucking nasty socialist who will
> WRECK this country if elected, in conjunction with the Uber-Bitch Nancy
> Pelosi and the other train wrecks currently running Congress.
>
> Of course, you fuckers are too abysmally stupid to figure that out, but
> life goes on.
You sound like, and probably are, a very sore loser. Again you have nothing
real to offer so you resort to name-calling.
The Republicans took a shot, and did their stunt-casting based on Palin's
"values". Now they're losing votes because of her lack of ability. Palin's
an idiot. There's no interviewer on earth who could make her look smart,
able or prepared to lead.
Personally, I rank a leader's values far below their abilities. I'd put an
atheist into the Presidency as long as he's dedicated to protecting the
rights of all religions. I'd vote for an evangelical Christian as long as
he or she was smart and understood the value of the separation of church and
state. More than anything, I want to see a separation of a leader's
personal values from their dedication to protecting the constitution and
maintaining the United States as a land of laws, justice and equality. The
Republicans are banking on winning the votes of a particular portion of
voters with a particular set of values who want to make sure that their
values are protected rather than that *all* values protected by the
constitution are upheld. And that's the politics of fear.
The GOP has become the Grasping Old Party
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Free Levi!
Skipper
<cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> In article <gbqpeh$a7j$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Skipper <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > Of course, you fuckers are too abysmally stupid to figure that out, but
> > life goes on.
>
> Okay, I completely get whay you think of Couric, Gibson, Walters et al.
>
> What did you think of Palin's performance on the Couric interview?
>
> She struck me as out of her depth -- and that's not really anything you
> can blame on Couric no matter how nasty she may be.
Ill-prepared but she didn't get it. She isn't like them, looking to
bring someone down because they think they're superior, smarter,
better-informed. I don't think that's quite dawned on her that they're
the enemy, period.
If I didn't actually have experience in person, one on one, with some
of these sick fucks, I might have a different opinion, but I'm met
them. I know what their agenda is, what their ego is, what their
sneering group think is.
Palin's "performance"? That's just it, she's not supposed to "perform."
It's telling that the word is even mentioned - people think it's one
big fucking sitcom. Meanwhile, with the Jubilee Act and some other
stuff he's backed, Obummer wants to give away $920 billion of American
taxpayer money from a bankrupt government.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/920-billion-more-to-bail-out-the-world/
This is serious business, and if you Canucks think you won't be
affected, start thinking for once.
Katie Courie, Gibson, Walters and the other multi-millionaires won't be
hurt, but what will they do if it's all Dems when the tsunami really
hits next year? They won't have GW to blame everything on any more.
But who am I kidding? They'll try.
MC
Alan Brooks <ch...@panix.com> wrote:
> "Skipper" <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > First of all, Katie Couric is a nasty little bitch, and I'd say that to
> > her face. She's all gotcha and you fuckers know that. She's been
> > nose-diving CBS Evening News for a while - maybe they finally found
> > something Katie can do.
>
> Ooooo... Name-calling, how unexpected.
<SNIP>
And a fine piece of misdirection it was. Can't defend Palin's
performance? Attack, attack, attack... (there's that good old
Scientology technique again).
No less a person than Laura Bush has said Palin lacks foreign policy
experience.
As you can see here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26877217
Laura Bush not enough?
How about a CONSERVATIVE reporter?
Bernard Goldberg didn't take off after Couric.
He put the blame whwre it belonhgs: On Palin.
No one but Palin decided which words should come out of her mouth.
http://snipurl.com/3xqhb [features_csmonitor_com]
(Jake Turcotte)
Can Sarah Palin survive in the age of YouTube?
By Jimmy Orr | 09.28.08
* E-mail a friend
* Print this
* Letter to the Editor
* Republish
* ShareThis
* Get e-mail alerts
* RSS
Back in 1994, a prominent Democratic attorney was running for Congress
in the heart of gun country. Running as a Democrat in that landslide
Republican year was perilous enough, but in Wyoming, it was nearly
impossible.
The last Democrat to occupy the state's sole seat in the House of
Representative was 1978 when Teno Roncalio announced he was stepping
aside -- allowing a young swashbuckling 37-year old Republican to enter
the race and eventually be elected to represent the Cowboy state. That
Republican? Dick Cheney.
Needless to say, this was - and is - Republican country.
Back to 1994
When asked a question by a television reporter on the second amendment,
the Democratic candidate had to be careful. He was without question
pro-second amendment. A gun-owner himself, he had no qualms with gun
ownership.
New to the game of politics and not entirely happy with his initial
answer to a question, the candidate waved to the camera and asked to
start again. The reporter did not oblige and the awkward moment was
saved on tape.
The TV station decided to air the entire incident unedited and the
candidate had to grin and bear it. Two times. At 5:30 and 10pm.
Those were innocent days.
YouTube
Enter YouTube. Like Google, YouTube has become a verb. Miss a great
play in the football game? YouTube it. Want to see the video of that
new song by perhaps the greatest band in rock 'n roll? YouTube it.
Want to see one of the most inspiring moments in television history?
YouTube it.
Now in the era of YouTube, not only can you be inspired or enjoy a great
laugh, you can be skewered as well. A gaffe is not only available to
everyone but can be embedded in news stories, blogs, individual websites
-- wherever. Campaigns and their tentacled organizations gleefully email
the video to their supporters and to the media in hopes of getting more
airplay.
YouTube is the third most visited site on the Internet behind only
Yahoo! and Google. Its rise to prominence has been meteoric. It wasn't
even around in the days of the last presidential election as it was
launched in February 2005.
Reader comments
One only has to look at comments following a campaign news story to
highlight the civility - or complete lack of civility - between those on
opposing sides. Post a video, like Sarah Palin's unfortunate
conversation with CBS News anchor Katie Couric and the reactions are
unseemly. Some would argue hurtful, mean-spirited and cruel.
Would these people spewing the harsher comments - on both sides of the
aisle - say the same thing if they were being interviewed by CNN?
Undoubtedly some would - boasting of their transparency and bravado.
But it could be argued that most would not - as the cloak of anonymity
lets one reveal a side of themselves that perhaps they wouldn't want
their neighbors or their children to see.
If ya' can't stand the heat...
Regardless, many will defend the explosive comments saying we should
expect more of our leaders. If they can't speak clearly on the issues,
then they shouldn't be there.
Out of her league
At least one conservative columnist agrees. It's time for the Alaska
phenom to head back up north says Kathleen Parker, a writer who appears
occasionally on the O'Reilly Factor. In a column written last week at
the National Review, Parker says after watching the Gibson, Hannity and
Couric interviews she comes to the conclusion that Palin is "clearly out
of her league."
"No one hates saying that more than I do," Parker writes. "Like so many
women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she
will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews
with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the
mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does.
My cringe reflex is exhausted. Palin filibusters. She repeats words,
filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much
content there."
High School
Parker hardly stands alone. She is just one of a seeming endless supply
of critics. Slate's Christopher Beam offered a number of public
speaking tips in case McCain campaign managers Rick Davis and Steve
Schmidt happen to log-on. He offers a lot of advice in his column and
Beam clearly thinks Palin needs it.
"[In] her latest face-to-face, with Katie Couric of CBS, she looked like
a high-schooler trying to B.S. her way through a book report," Beam
writes.
First interview
The Palin interview with ABC News anchor was highly anticipated. And in
comparison to last week, looks pretty good. If there was a controversy
it was when she blanked when ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson asked her
position on the Bush Doctrine.
"In what respect?" she said, appearing to ask for a clue to what that
doctrine is. Gibson didn't budge and offered, "What do you interpret it
to be?"
"His worldview?" she asked.
Seeing this was going nowhere but still determined not to give it away,
Gibson stated, "The Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before
the Iraq War."
Then a whole lot of nothing before Gibson offered his understanding of
what the Bush doctrine was.
Many in the media forgave this exchange as Gibson didn't seem to know
exactly what it was either. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, for
example, gave her some props for her presence alone.
"Even Palin's critics should admit that, in terms of demeanor, she
handled herself well for someone who three years ago was worried about
the books in the Wasilla library. She projected confidence and was not
openly rattled," Kurtz wrote.
Second interview
The second interview, to many, doesn't count. Fox News commentator Sean
Hannity might as well have been wearing a red, white and blue oversized
cowboy hat with a "Drill, Baby Drill!" t-shirt. She was in pretty
friendly confines.
Interview number three
This interview has undoubtedly created the biggest stir and led Parker
to issue her plea for Palin to bow out. The two excerpts most often
discussed are the clips in which Palin is asked to provide examples of
John McCain being pro-regulation in context of the U.S. credit crisis
and why her proximity to Russia emboldens her foreign policy credentials.
The answer to the first question, "I'll get back to ya."
As for the exchange on Russia, perhaps Palin should have used the same
answer. It is a painful conversation:
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your
foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a
foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land- boundary that
we have with- Canada. It- it's funny that a comment like that was- kind
of made to- cari- I don't know, you know? Reporters-
COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy
credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our- our next door neighbors
are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of.
And there in Russia-
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for
example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We- we do- it's very
important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as
Putin rears his head and comes into the air space 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.
Spin? Impossible...
Not even some conservative announcers on the conservative network could
spin this conversation. FOX News commentator Bernard Goldberg, when
interviewed on FOX, couldn't even bash Couric.
"It was a legitimate interview," Goldberg began. "She [Palin] doesn't
install confidence when she answers a question like that. She just
doesn't install confidence."
Goldberg said part of the reason is that she's a newbie on the national
stage which is admittedly difficult. He said that although he believes
the media has been too easy on gaffe-prone Joe Biden, he couldn't give
Palin a free pass.
"I just want to be clear," he said. "I don't think she is doing herself
any favors with these interviews. She's not doing all that well. "
As for Parker's "she's out of her league" comment?
"I hate to say it, but she may be right," Goldberg said.
MC
Skipper <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
So she strikes you as fully ready, able and qualified to be president og
the United States, I take it. And the answers she gave on the Couric
interview did nothing to make you think *maybe* she's not?
That's a hard position tosustain with any credibility when so many
staunchly Republican right-wing commentators are downright appalled by
what McCain has visited upon the GOP.
You're absolutely right about Canadians -- Canada and every other nation
on earth -- is going to be affected.
Even if you're right about Couric et al. they didn't put any words into
Palin's mouth -- and Couric didn't spring any surprises on her.
Sammyo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/mccain-replaces-palin-wit_b_130111.html
Skipper
<cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
Are you out of your mind? Show me ONE THING OBAMA HAS *DONE* THAT MAKES
HIM QUALIFIED. THAT SHIT FOR BRAINS HASN'T EVEN RUN A COMMITTEE.
Mother fucker can hardly speak off a teleprompter. Stutters and
stumbles over words, and he's the great savior?
You're NUTS.
wra...@aol.com
> In article <gbqvtb$3m...@reader1.panix.com>, MC
>
>
>
>
>
> <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> > In article <gbqv5h$5d...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > �Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > > In article <gbquct$ep...@reader1.panix.com>, MC
> > > <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <gbqpeh$a7...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still, Skip... not one word about anything Palin actually said. Attack
the media, attack other posters, attack Obama... but not one word
about Palin's complete inability to form a coherent sentence on any
single topic.
MC
"wra...@aol.com" <wra...@aol.com> wrote:
> Still, Skip... not one word about anything Palin actually said. Attack
> the media, attack other posters, attack Obama... but not one word
> about Palin's complete inability to form a coherent sentence on any
> single topic.
Oh, I'm sure he can do that if he wants to.
MC
Skipper <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > So she strikes you as fully ready, able and qualified to be president og
> > the United States, I take it. And the answers she gave on the Couric
> > interview did nothing to make you think *maybe* she's not?
>
> Are you out of your mind? Show me ONE THING OBAMA HAS *DONE* THAT MAKES
> HIM QUALIFIED. THAT SHIT FOR BRAINS HASN'T EVEN RUN A COMMITTEE.
>
> Mother fucker can hardly speak off a teleprompter. Stutters and
> stumbles over words, and he's the great savior?
>
> You're NUTS.
>
Uh-huh. I'm nuts. And you cannot answer the question.
To take a leaf from Couric's playbook: I'm going to give you one more
opportunity answer the question I asked. Not some other question.
Here goes:
When you watched the Couric interview, did you think that SARAH PALIN
(not Barack Obama) demonstrated a grasp of the issues, and left you in
no doubt whatsoever as to her readiness, ability and qualifications to
be the president of the United States of America?
Come on, Skip. It's a simple question. It has a yes or no answer.
If you want to froth at the mouth and call me deranged, go ahead.
I may be nuts.
But you are dodging the question.
MC
Sammyo <samuel...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080
Highlights:
Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's
performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the
needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most
effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally,
was a performer whoãbeing maternal, wounded, righteous and sexyãcould
stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch
heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and
country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie,
Sarah Palin could.
Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was
relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much
diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she
poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans
seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism.
However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this
campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist
who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to
capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good
lady's misfortuneãand, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their
highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably
well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.
The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside
Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface
(she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a
foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the
second most important job in the world, without any intellectual
training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her.
There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful
analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to
deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin
managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a
straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave
her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly
wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success storyãbut
she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town
politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world
history.
The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half
the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications.
When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this
country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that
(highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose
among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah
Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.
We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once
provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for
Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such
sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American)
detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must
immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change,
a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging
epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the
deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure
and Internet security ä the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem
competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less
address any one of them.
Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been
widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know
the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her
supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a
journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things
Palin is guaranteed not to knowãor will be glossing only under the
frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about
financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war,
modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or
emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these
fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got
nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning.
Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the
past 44 years on earth.
<SNIP>
What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to
which she representsãand her supporters celebrateãthe joyful marriage of
confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever
harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the
world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly
assume any responsibility on earth:
"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this
child's brain?"
"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid
hunter."
"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a
surgeon of any kind."
"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how
we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a
challenge, you cannot blink."
The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in
fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask
yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics?
There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and
rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our
planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite
athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote
the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And
yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater
responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards
of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and
actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone
just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earthãin
fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too
intelligent or well educated.
Steven J. Weller
> On Sep 29, 12:31 pm, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/mccain-replaces-palin-wit...
On the phone last night with mom - a committed dittohead - and
apparently the latest rumor from that side of the debate is that Biden
is going to bow out of the race, for "unspecified health reasons," and
Hillary will join the ticket.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
Skipper
Alzheimer's again, Rabid?
"Ill-prepared but she didn't get it."
Want me to post a transcript? Would that make you happy?
No, because nothing makes you happy.
Steven J. Weller
> In article <gbr4rj$m1...@reader1.panix.com>, <"wrab...@aol.com"> wrote:
> > Okay, I completely get whay you think of Couric, Gibson, Walters et
> > al.
> >
> > What did you think of Palin's performance on the Couric interview?
(snip)
> Alzheimer's again, Rabid?
>
> "Ill-prepared but she didn't get it."
>
> Want me to post a transcript? Would that make you happy?
>
> No, because nothing makes you happy.
So... she's supposed to be able to step into the Office of the
President of the United States of America in... (doing the math)... 38
days. A month and a week from today, she's got to be up for the job.
But it's okay that she was "ill-prepared" for some frankly softball
questions on a TV news show.
And "she didn't get it," meaning she - after all of her years of
experience in both politics and the media - is somehow unaware of the
basic, fundamental, high-school-civics-class-level reality of the
adversarial relationship between the press and the government?
But she's still your gal, for the presidency.
mary...@rcn.com
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:56:03 +0000 (UTC) wrab...@aol.com
> (wrab...@aol.com) stepped to the mic and said...
>
> > Still, Skip... not one word about anything Palin actually said. Attack
> > the media, attack other posters, attack Obama... but not one word
> > about Palin's complete inability to form a coherent sentence on any
> > single topic.
>
> vitriol and hate is just breath-taking. They offer no solutions, have
> absolutely nothing nice to say, they just want to spew their bile.
I'm gonna go visit Mom in a couple weeks - when my dittohead older bro
is out there - he's the fisherman, the Vietnam vet, and is bringing a
fishing buddy with him. It'll be interesting to hear his take on the
whole thing. Plus younger bro will be there - yep, the Merrill Lynch
guy, let's hope he still has a job. And I tell you, that Wall Street
bailout smelled like low tide on a hot day. I wonder what they'll
come up with next.
I do love Tina Fey's spot-on Sarah (not Sahara) Palin - but I do
sometimes want to call her Tina Feh, just because.
>
> Anyway, a little more Sarahahahah:http://tinyurl.com/4cfg3nfrom
> wonkette.com.
I'll check it out.
odocoileus
> In article <gbqdfs$q2...@reader1.panix.com>, MC
>
>
>
> <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> > In article <gbq5qc$l0...@reader1.panix.com>,
You Pubbies ran this one into the ditch. Effed up big time.
A Romney / Hutchison ticket would be pounding Obama / Biden right now.
Solid candidates with excellent educational credentials and extensive
experience in government and business.
Instead, because the Bible thumpers don't like the funny underwear
guys, you backed a two time loser with anger management issues and a
life long tendency towards reckless behavior. He picks a chick, who
lets face it, is like a white Maxine Waters. There's an upcoming part
of the interview where she is unable to name a single Supreme Court
case besides Roe v Wade.
Buffy the Bullwinkle Slayer ain't ready for prime time. You know it, I
know, and the honest Republicans know it too.
mary...@rcn.com
There's an upcoming part
> of the interview where she is unable to name a single Supreme Court
> case besides Roe v Wade.
Now now, in all fairness, I'm sure she'll remember that the Supreme
Court named Bush Jr President. Oh wait - was that a case, or was it
deus ex Scalia?
And you do get bonus points for Buffy the Bullwinkle Slayer. Props!
MC
odocoileus <cold...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Buffy the Bullwinkle Slayer
Now that's funny!
MC
> Buffy the Bullwinkle Slayer ain't ready for prime time. You know it, I
> know, and the honest Republicans know it too.
And that's true.
mary...@rcn.com
> In article <gbruuu$5u...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
> odocoileus <coldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Buffy the Bullwinkle Slayer ain't ready for prime time. You know it, I
> > know, and the honest Republicans know it too.
>
> And that's true.
>
now here's something we hope you'll really like!"
Cue the usual nonsense, this time from Frostbite Falls, PhD from
Wassamatta U. Mush dogs, Iditarod right to DC!
When I lived in DC, Marion Barry was mayor, we had a snowstorm (by DC
terms) and he was off in the Bahamas or something. Now, DC considers
four inches of snow a disaster. I admit, I was disastered - I was
stuck at my stupid day college with my uber-cool (then - now it'd be
sad, but at 18?) 1969 Mustang with the racing wheels that got me
nowhere in snow. Not a good tradeoff! Four hours to get home and to
hot cocoa. Ever since then it was stick shift and four wheel drive
Jeeps - drive one the fly, none of the Chevy Blazer, adjust the lugs,
oh no no no. DC always goes from placid to high-squawk - everything's
fine, but the the sky is falling. I'm rilly wondering what's gonna
happen with Wall St - morbid curiosity, plus I want my bro to keep his
job, But wtf?
And DC may be a city, but it ain't NY. I lived there, and way back
when I had a gay roommie, so we hit the hot gay spots - Dupont Circle
and P St - but it was so tame. It was like it was sneaking out and
misbehaving, just make sure you're home before Mom does bed check.
It's a careful city. I know, I lived there, I have a lot of family
there, some of whom dint like the rough and tumble here - some people
need safe. Me, I don't go looking for trouble - not all that often -
but I do want to see why the sirens are blaring.
I actually had some teen relatives from Alaska visit a few years ago.
They'd never seen skyscrapers. We were coming in from JFK (I think),
crested the highway, and the skyline - oh yes. I said, "Welcome to
the center of the universe." They loved it - a week in NY. I know
I'm a total snob, but I can say I come by it honestly - I've done the
other stuff, and I like this best - this being, currently, sub-
Saharan NYC. Looking forward to the next chapter, finishing this
script, getting a move on already.
Michael
see Obama up against a real candidate such as Colin Powell, an
experienced military man and statesman respected around the world.
Imagine these two going head to head. But he has two things that
apparently the Republicans don't value: intelligence and skin tone.
Either that, or the Republicans don't believe Americans will vote for
intelligence or skin tone, which is probably just as damning.
M
mary...@rcn.com
See, Powell is a respected statesman, but I do believe he folded for
Bush Sr., so he lost a lot of cred. Obama is a a junior, as is Mrs.
Palin, but I think the significant difference is this: Obama is smart
enough to know when to call - and listen to - the Pros from Dover,
while Mrs. Palin appears to be a woman of firm conviction and beliefs,
and seems pretty devoid of any actual knowledge, experience, and
flexibility. She's a True Believer - scary, at least to me - she
knows what's best for us, no matter what we want - she has the serene
disregard of How Life Really Works that scares the daylight out of
me. She reminds my of the sheltered PTA ladies who have ideas and
theories, without having the actual school-of-knocks experiences that
lead to compromise and peaceful coexistence. And hunting doesn't mean
you can get along with the people in the UN - a gun is no substitute
for knowing how to negotiate. And I don't think she would know a
nuance if it smacked her upside her chiseled jaw. My two cents? I'd
vastly prefer a smart guy who knows when to ask the right people for
advice over the smug woman who is blithely convinced that her opinions
pass for policy. And I'm quite opinionated, but I'd never try to put
them into law - because I respect the opinions of others.
Martin B
> Plus younger bro will be there - yep, the Merrill Lynch
> guy, let's hope he still has a job. And I tell you, that Wall Street
> bailout smelled like low tide on a hot day. I wonder what they'll
> come up with next.
Oops -- no bailout.
When can we visit New York and see the smoking hole our money disappeared
into?
--
Martin
mary...@rcn.com
economics to me - the poor stay poor and the rich get rich. Another
package will come down the pike - if Bush has a brain cell, he'll sic
his bean-counters on the plan.
As for coming to NY, please do. We will skirt Wall Street and head
directly to Canal Street and Chinatown, looking for Louis Vuitton and
Tiffany knockoffs, then head for the Lower East Side, looking for loud
music and cheap eats. Yeah, good times, we'll go to Crash Mansion,
it's on the Bowery. I used to live on Wall Street - no foolin - it
was a nightmare of construction and 24-hour jackhammer permits. I did
cry, then moved. And if you look at the map - Wall St is like a tiny
street, what, five blocks? Runs from Broadway to Water Street. Full
of tank traps and no cars allowed. Teams of cops - three have big
black guns, one has a big gun and a big dog, usually a German
Shepherd.
Tank traps in repose look like those metal plates in the road that
construction workers install when they're fixing a water main and they
have to come back later. But in Code Orange (or whatever) times, the
Big Guys push a button, and the plates rise up and become steel
Stegosaurus-like contraptions that will literally trap a tank. If a
tank comes upon this (say) twelve-foot-tall barricade, it would be
stopped, and if it tried to climb over it would tip backwards, and if
it tried to go around it would end up in the Trump Building or
wherever. So sometimes I'd be going down Wall St, eight a.m., cuppa
coffee (Greek stand, We Are Happy To Serve You paper cups) and the
traps would be up, and it's like, Oh Lordy, what's going on?
Meanwhile I glance up the street and see Trinity Church, spire dwarfed
by the office buildings, a tiny image of faith in a scary, tank-trap
world. Trinity is Episcopalian - no holy water - but it's where I go
to light a candle when I can.
MC
"mary...@rcn.com" <mary...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Trinity is Episcopalian - no holy water - but it's where I go
> to light a candle when I can.
I've been there and done that.
Light one for Beth...
Avoid normal situations.
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:56:03 +0000 (UTC) wra...@aol.com
> (wra...@aol.com) stepped to the mic and said...
[..]
> Today I stumbled onto a right wing site and the breath and scope of the
> vitriol and hate is just breath-taking. They offer no solutions, have
> absolutely nothing nice to say, they just want to spew their bile.
Partly to bring this thread back on topic, partly because this sort of thing
just *has* to get more exposure, and partly to prevent the "left-wingers are
the good guys, right-wingers are the bad guys" meme from getting any more
entrenched in this group, I'd like to contribute a left-wing web article that
I think is rather, ah, interesting:
Good gracious God. The author wants us to believe that she threw away a
promising career in Hollywood because her professors told her that the
audience is racist, sexist, and homophobic -- which really ought not to
come as a surprise to anyone over the age of 12 who's attended public school.
Also notice that Ms. Kesler claims to be "opting to fight the system from
without", but she has precisely zero credits in the IMDb and has absolutely
no suggestions vis-a-vis how to undo this filthy prejudice. As icing on the
cake, the entire article is written in the infamous "this is the Great And
Secret Truth that THEY don't want you to know" tone that I don't normally
see outside of UFO/conspiracy websites. Twenty bucks says that Jennifer Kesler
is another talentless loser who was booted out of university because she
showed off her large ego and large mouth (funny how frequently those come in a
matched set) once too often, and she is now hiding behind feminist dogma in
case anybody asks what happened to all that tuition money.
You might notice that out of 107 comments appending that article, not one
asks her for any compelling evidence to support her thesis. (In case it needs
saying, I don't count anecdotal evidence as "compelling".) One of the reasons
for that is that I left a comment myself with just such a request (well, I
*hope* I kept my smirk in my hip pocket, anyway) and received mail a couple
of days later informing me that Ms. Kesler had deleted my comment and labelled
me a troll besides. Any doubts I still had in my mind about the veracity of
her ideas disappeared at that moment.
The beautiful thing about this is that none of you have to take my word
for it, either. You are all welcome to also ask her for proof and witness
the "YAAAAAH! BLASPHEMER!" reaction for yourselves. *evil grin*
That *probably* doesn't count as a leftist hate website, but should I find
one I may post it here for general perusal. After all, for what is art if not
illumination of the human condition?
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"There cannot always be fresh fields of conquest by the knife; there must be
portions of the human frame that will ever remain sacred from its intrusions,
at least in the surgeon's hands... The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will
be forever shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon."
-- John Eric Erichsen, 1873
Avoid normal situations.
> odocoileus <cold...@gmail.com> wrote:
[..]
>> Buffy the Bullwinkle Slayer
> Now that's funny!
Personally, I prefer "Neocon Barbie".
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> Colin Powell, an
> experienced military man and statesman respected around the world.
Not anymore.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> First of all, Katie Couric is a nasty little bitch...
Ah..., so that explains why Palin doesn't have a clue.
You know -- don't you, Skippy -- that McCain could have actually
picked a "qualified", Republican woman to be his running mate?
Paulo Joe Jingy
She was like that Miss Whoever, people where making fun of EXCEPT
Palin went on and on and on and on, and that other poor kid is just a
teenager.
Someone from the New York Times described Palin as a high school
student trying to bullshit people on a book report, of a book she
didn't read.
She's clearly out of her depth. McCain was an absolute idiot to pick
her. I think he's trying to lose in all 58 states. ;)
MC
B-b-b-b-but Palin *is* a "qualified", Republican woman according to
Skip.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In article <gc1235$bn...@reader1.panix.com>,
> �Paulo Joe Jingy <dbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 29, 9:41�am, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > > First of all, Katie Couric is a nasty little bitch...
>
> > Ah..., so that explains why Palin doesn't have a clue.
>
> > You know -- don't you, Skippy -- that McCain could have actually
> > picked a "qualified", Republican woman to be his running mate?
>
> B-b-b-b-but Palin *is* a "qualified", Republican woman according to
> Skip.
Another debilitating case of "NeoCon Dementia".
Sad.
Hercule Platini
"Skipper" <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote in message
news:gbqpeh$a7j$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> First of all, Katie Couric is a nasty little bitch, and I'd say that to
> her face.
You know, I would actually pay to see that. Not a vast amount, but I would
put cash on the desk to see it.
I am finding the whole Palin thing extraordinarily fascinating.
Avoid normal situations.
> "Skipper" <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote in message
> news:gbqpeh$a7j$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>> First of all, Katie Couric is a nasty little bitch, and I'd say that to
>> her face.
> You know, I would actually pay to see that. Not a vast amount, but I would
> put cash on the desk to see it.
The act itself, or the consequent spectacle of Skip getting bodyslammed by
security and escorted off the premises?
> I am finding the whole Palin thing extraordinarily fascinating.
You ain't just whistlin' Dixie. This may not be the most promising U.S.
presidential election, but it's definitely the weirdest and most entertaining
in my lifetime.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"People expect wonders from democracy when the real wonder is just having it."
-- Walter Winchell
Remysun
<byend.removethisbityousillyper...@eskimo.com>:
> � You ain't just whistlin' Dixie. This may not be the most promising U.S.
> presidential election, but it's definitely the weirdest and most entertaining
> in my lifetime.
Nothing will ever top waking up at 4am Wednesday morning, 2000.