http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/527218.html
http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election-2008/state-employees-to-testify-in-palin-probe-20081006-4v0i.html
Dontchaknow, 7 - count 'em - 7 of Palin's gosh-darn state employees will now testify in the abuse-of-power investigation against her. Palin insists that her mavericky firing of public safety commissioner Walter Monegan was based on insubordination, and not on his refusal to fire her state trooper ex-brother-in-law. McCain's camp has called Monegan a "rogue" for pursuing funding for a project Palin vetoed.
Now, hold the horse here a minute. We've got a saying where I come from. "A rose by any other name..." *wink* So Monegan was fired for being a "rogue" or having a "rogue mentality" but we're expected to entrust the next four years to a coupla "mavericks"? Now, doggonit, I ask ya - is that fair? Why does a rogue fail where a maverick succeeds? Here's a guy who went outside the box, wouldn't practice politics as usual and got kicked to the curb as they say on Main Street, some Main Streets, somewhere. *wink*
That's what I call gettin the short-end of the stick. Any Joe Six-Pack would agree. Monegan has, I'm sure, years of "roguish" experience behind him (you don't get to be a rogue overnight here, folks). But now that a coupla of mavericks might be 30 days from the White House, he can't benefit. It's clear to me he just wasn't an Alaskan insider. He just didn't know how those guys think. *wink*
Palin should say, "ya, yaknow, I fired him for not firing my worthless brother-in-law. That's a maverick thing to do." It'd be a lesson on how a maverick works and the unusual politics of the future. And besides, she might've been right to do it. I'm not tryin ta play the race card here, but a maverick can't tolerate a rogue. They just... They'll, well ya know. The newspapers'll fight this one out. You know how they are with their attention to words and such. One thing's clear. If Monegan had any chance of being brought to Washington, his "rogue mentality", his clear disregard for politics as usual as run by Governor Palin screwed it for him (as I like to say to appear likable to Joe Six-Pack). There's room for only one maverick in Washington. And that's John McCain. Or Sarah Palin. Well, they'll have to keep workin at each other. *wink*
A special shout-out to some kids somewhere!
Monday, October 6, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Gotta hand it to her...
...Palin did pretty well. But I don't feel she gave us any more than she did at the RNC. I have no doubt if I ask any parent anywhere about the economy I would hear fear in the answer. Naturally I would. I wouldn't bet against that. I know it. We all know. Palin saying it only lets us know that she's up with what's going on, but it sounds like she's only just now figured it out. She did well in talking directly to the country. But I disliked her folksiness. It was smug and condescending, especially when she addressed Biden ("Say it ain't so, Joe. There you go again."), and it speaks again to an insular, parochial outlook. "We need a little bit of Main Street Wasilla in Washington." What is it exactly that Wasilla has that can fix the housing market, Wall Street, and two costly, protracted wars?
The debate succeeded in being positive because the anticipation was both candidates would fall all over themselves. The upshot might come solely from neither candidate doing what many were worried about: Biden in looking like a bully and talking too frankly off-the-cuff; and Palin in tripping over her words and not being able to think on her feet. They redeemed themselves, both of them. There was so much worry heaped on this debate, it could be nothing but toothless. The first comment from the post-debate analysis last night was that it wasn't a game-changer. And that's been echoed this morning.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/03/palin-rebounds-in-debate-–-but-is-it-too-late/
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html
http://www.factcheck.org/just-the-facts/the_2008_vp_debate.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122300786229301597.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/10/palin_all_attitude_and_image_t.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5942414&page=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14236.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14235.html
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html
How many times can Palin say the word "maverick"? I used to do this as a kid, say a word so many times in a row it lost all meaning. It wouldn't even sound like a word after awhile. Has John McCain said "maverick" as many times as Sarah Palin?
I have to admit, I do find something of myself in Palin. She reminds me of my younger self, having just learned something in school and, feeling collegiate, running it into the ground - linking it to everything and saying it again and again and again.
She still talks in general terms, and assumes that's how we're all thinking. "John McCain's healthcare plan is detailed." I hope it is. I don't need the preamble to reassure me that a man with decades in the senate has a detailed plan for anything. I assume it. I assume that John McCain has thought things through. I assume general terms have been starting points. What I want is to hear about the middle and the end, the particulars and the results McCain and Palin hope to gain from them. A $5000 dollar tax credit for healthcare? That's a little open-ended.
The debate succeeded in being positive because the anticipation was both candidates would fall all over themselves. The upshot might come solely from neither candidate doing what many were worried about: Biden in looking like a bully and talking too frankly off-the-cuff; and Palin in tripping over her words and not being able to think on her feet. They redeemed themselves, both of them. There was so much worry heaped on this debate, it could be nothing but toothless. The first comment from the post-debate analysis last night was that it wasn't a game-changer. And that's been echoed this morning.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/03/palin-rebounds-in-debate-–-but-is-it-too-late/
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html
http://www.factcheck.org/just-the-facts/the_2008_vp_debate.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122300786229301597.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/10/palin_all_attitude_and_image_t.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5942414&page=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14236.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14235.html
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html
How many times can Palin say the word "maverick"? I used to do this as a kid, say a word so many times in a row it lost all meaning. It wouldn't even sound like a word after awhile. Has John McCain said "maverick" as many times as Sarah Palin?
I have to admit, I do find something of myself in Palin. She reminds me of my younger self, having just learned something in school and, feeling collegiate, running it into the ground - linking it to everything and saying it again and again and again.
She still talks in general terms, and assumes that's how we're all thinking. "John McCain's healthcare plan is detailed." I hope it is. I don't need the preamble to reassure me that a man with decades in the senate has a detailed plan for anything. I assume it. I assume that John McCain has thought things through. I assume general terms have been starting points. What I want is to hear about the middle and the end, the particulars and the results McCain and Palin hope to gain from them. A $5000 dollar tax credit for healthcare? That's a little open-ended.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Greta van Susteren's fair and balanced attack against Gwen Ifill's journalistic integrity
This is a comment I left in Greta van Susteren's blog over her concerns that Gwen Ifill won't be objective in the VP debate tonight. Seems Ifill wrote a book about the rise of black politicians and changes between generations of minority activists. That, at least, is what I gleaned from the quote provided by van Susteren herself in an interview with "The Politico"'s David Mark. To make her point, Ifill uses Obama as an example and this, van Susteren says, shows the potential of conflict. If Obama wins in November, then Ifill's book might sell "like hotcakes". So, wouldn't a reporter of Ifill's "terrific reputation" (as stated by van Susteren) want to slant the debate in favour of Obama and the almighty dollar? Of course she would. That's why she works for PBS. Here's my response:
Come on, Greta. This is a pretty hard slam against someone whom you call a talented journalist. Of course this is about her reputation. Stop dancing around it. Your concern is that Gwen Ifill will moderate the debate with a slant towards Obama inorder to sell her book. That is the very essence of calling her reputation into question. The headline on the Fox News site is "Can Gwen Ifill Be Fair and Balanced?" Do you mean, can Gwen Ifill cop to the Fox News standard and toady up? This is yet another play against Ifill that so many conservative pundits like yourself like to make. Her book is about Barack Obama's rise to being a front-runner in a presidential race. To being the leader of one of the only two parties in America that ever have a chance to make it to the Whitehouse. This is obvious even in the quote you provided in your interview with David Mark from "The Politico".
In it she says she's "taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it to talk about a whole new generation of black politicians who are doing very similar things in very different ways. They are younger, they are more likely to get to power not by marching in marches the way their parents did, or by leading protests. They have decided to do it by getting educations, basically walking through that the doors their parents opened and choosing public service in a different way."
It's no different than John McCain standing up on the night Obama accepted his nomination and congratulating him on an historic victory. This is a partisan attack and you know it. How often do you actually watch Gwen Ifill? Because it strikes me as odd that you fire off at her over a book instead of looking into record as a journalist. Don't you think, as you say, having "a terrific reputation as a journalist" should weigh heavier than a book that is only minimally connected with Barack Obama? She used his story as a jumping block. Wouldn't you do the same? How can you expect a journalist to ignore a sea-change in political activism when we're right in the heart of the swell? Obama is news and Ifill had something to say about it; not about him being president but about him and others being successful in mainstream politics that had previously frozen them out.
Honestly, Greta, how much do you expect Ifill to make off her book if Obama wins in November? Wouldn't you think that if Obama wins, she might write another book? Won't you write one? This issue is a non-starter and your claims of only wanting "fair and balanced" moderating in the debate are reprehensible. This is an attack on her reputation, calling her integrity into question. I'm certain that your inbox IS flooded - with outrage from your devoted veiwership. That doesn't make this as newsworthy as you're reporting it to be. Book or no, shouldn't we always be looking out for breakdowns in journalistic integrity? Gwen Ifill knows this and is cognizant of this in her duties as a journalist, as most journalists are. Give me one example where she comprimised her integrity while doing her job. If you have a problem with Ifill as the moderator, then come out with it but look at her entire career, not one book. McCain trusts her. Palin said she's "not going to let it be a concern", even though she seems to worry with you that Ifill won't be objective. (That's good company. Ask Sarah Palin if she's ever watched Gwen Ifill.) The problem with the Media isn't in trying to spin the public trust. It's in journalists trying to eat each other alive.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431613,00.html
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/what-do-you-think-61/
Come on, Greta. This is a pretty hard slam against someone whom you call a talented journalist. Of course this is about her reputation. Stop dancing around it. Your concern is that Gwen Ifill will moderate the debate with a slant towards Obama inorder to sell her book. That is the very essence of calling her reputation into question. The headline on the Fox News site is "Can Gwen Ifill Be Fair and Balanced?" Do you mean, can Gwen Ifill cop to the Fox News standard and toady up? This is yet another play against Ifill that so many conservative pundits like yourself like to make. Her book is about Barack Obama's rise to being a front-runner in a presidential race. To being the leader of one of the only two parties in America that ever have a chance to make it to the Whitehouse. This is obvious even in the quote you provided in your interview with David Mark from "The Politico".
In it she says she's "taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it to talk about a whole new generation of black politicians who are doing very similar things in very different ways. They are younger, they are more likely to get to power not by marching in marches the way their parents did, or by leading protests. They have decided to do it by getting educations, basically walking through that the doors their parents opened and choosing public service in a different way."
It's no different than John McCain standing up on the night Obama accepted his nomination and congratulating him on an historic victory. This is a partisan attack and you know it. How often do you actually watch Gwen Ifill? Because it strikes me as odd that you fire off at her over a book instead of looking into record as a journalist. Don't you think, as you say, having "a terrific reputation as a journalist" should weigh heavier than a book that is only minimally connected with Barack Obama? She used his story as a jumping block. Wouldn't you do the same? How can you expect a journalist to ignore a sea-change in political activism when we're right in the heart of the swell? Obama is news and Ifill had something to say about it; not about him being president but about him and others being successful in mainstream politics that had previously frozen them out.
Honestly, Greta, how much do you expect Ifill to make off her book if Obama wins in November? Wouldn't you think that if Obama wins, she might write another book? Won't you write one? This issue is a non-starter and your claims of only wanting "fair and balanced" moderating in the debate are reprehensible. This is an attack on her reputation, calling her integrity into question. I'm certain that your inbox IS flooded - with outrage from your devoted veiwership. That doesn't make this as newsworthy as you're reporting it to be. Book or no, shouldn't we always be looking out for breakdowns in journalistic integrity? Gwen Ifill knows this and is cognizant of this in her duties as a journalist, as most journalists are. Give me one example where she comprimised her integrity while doing her job. If you have a problem with Ifill as the moderator, then come out with it but look at her entire career, not one book. McCain trusts her. Palin said she's "not going to let it be a concern", even though she seems to worry with you that Ifill won't be objective. (That's good company. Ask Sarah Palin if she's ever watched Gwen Ifill.) The problem with the Media isn't in trying to spin the public trust. It's in journalists trying to eat each other alive.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431613,00.html
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/what-do-you-think-61/
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Hey, what's in a name?
Bail-out, Buy-in, Rescue Package. Not much to say here. This article from Australia's The Age covers it well.
http://business.theage.com.au/business/when-is-a-bailout-no-longer-a-bailout-when-its-a-rescue-package-of-course-20081001-4s4t.html?page=1
http://business.theage.com.au/business/when-is-a-bailout-no-longer-a-bailout-when-its-a-rescue-package-of-course-20081001-4s4t.html?page=1
Monday, September 29, 2008
Yay for people!
Took a walk before lunch today. (I work at the Library of Congress in the Madison Building. I can see the Capitol Dome from the steps as well as the endless fencing hemming in the equally endless renovation to the grounds surrounding the Capitol.) Code Pink was staging a protest in front of the Cannon Office Building. About ten people lay sprawled on the steps dressed as nurses, executives, various business types. They were doing a call-and-answer routine. Someone would shout "Bailout?" and the rest would respond, "Over my dead body!" - hence the sprawling on the steps. It looked rather uncomfortable. One of the nurses kept switching positions, ostensibly in futile attempts to straighten the banner lying beside her. Another woman looked like she stepped out of the thirties, and looked like she was asleep. A man, the organizer I assume, was rushing about taking pictures of them and leading most of the call-and-answer. One guy, a Hunter Thompson wanna-be, was really into it. Loud, fiery, he projected his "Bailout?" from deep within his politically indignant bowels.
Then the police started to gather. A couple were already there when I arrived, and more showed up. Just to watch from across the street, it appeared, but I suppose also to lend a hand if things turned ugly. One officer was filming the entire thing with a digital camera. And was he ever devoted! Different angles, steady shots - the man was a pro. I wonder now how much he would've filmed if things had turned bad for Code Pink. I think the highlight he needed to capture was the official warning of dispersal. Another officer shouted it out through a bullhorn.
And then, one of the women got up and congratulated everyone on a job well done. Lesson no. 1 for staging a lasting protest: only make it look like you're leaving. They got up and starting chanting again, and posing for the cameras. The nurses were the shock-troops here. One wouldn't leave the police cameraman alone. She gave him the whole spiel. I could only catch snippets but the jist was we the taxpayers shouldn't bail out the plutocracy of the government and big business. The organizer was some CEO, I think.
The other nurse posed for the cameras so they could get good shots of the signs on her front and back. The one on her back was folded over, so it was hard to read. But the one on her front said "No Bailout!" The police gave another warning and this woman just ate it up, nodding smugly. The organizer and "Hunter Thompson" started shouting for an end to the plutocracy and tripped each other up. I'm not sure if they were supposed to be shouting the same thing at the same time, or something different each time or what, but they ended up drowning each other out and "Hunter" knew it. He looked off to the side smiling. At least he could see the humour in it.
The protesters had a bullhorn too. One of them asked to use it and the man holding it said no. He was actually pretty funny, immediately starting in on Cheney. "Where's Cheney? He's getting the getaway car ready for the biggest heist in history! I think I can see him coming down Independence Avenue!" The biggest heist in history? I don't know. What about that 99 cent taco from Taco Bell? Then, amid the shouts of "Down with the plutocracy!" and "Bailout? No way!", one of the women shouted "Yay for people!" At that point I left.
A businessman walked up beside me. "Looks like some people who spent a lot time in campus protests," he said to me. "I wouldn't know," I told him, "but I suppose they would rather 25% unemployment."
I respect their resolve and we certainly need to have a lot of oversight so this bailout doesn't fail under the weight of yet more fraud. And this $700 billion check can't be used to pay out severance packages to the worst offenders in this crisis. They should be investigated and some sort of sentence passed if it's proven they acted illegally instead of just neglectfully. But what would any of that do if this bailout didn't happen and the biggest banks in the world have no way of covering their debt?
This effects every single taxpayer in America. We're not bailing out the bad guys, we're bailing out the system under which we all buy cars, buy homes, pay bills, and get by everyday. It's the economy, stupid! The justice system is nothing without the free market system that's given us a great amount of liberty, as is education, the military, everything.
Those liberties went unregulated and unwatched for too long. If this bailout were a government measure to help out some high-end friends, it wouldn't have been held up this long. And I believe it was the Republicans who've held it up. The bailout is necessary. I don't want to lose my job. Do you? We labour under the assumption that my money is mine, and yours is yours. It isn't. It doesn't even belong to the government. Money is the wind that steers the ship. Sometimes it blows strong, sometimes weak. If you don't keep an eye on changes in the weather, you find yourself in the middle of a storm. Do you then try the captain and hang him while the ship is sinking? No, you save the ship and then recriminate. Not the other way around. Yay for you and me if we can keep an eye on those steering the ship this time so we don't find ourselves talking about 25% unemployment again in another few decades.
Then the police started to gather. A couple were already there when I arrived, and more showed up. Just to watch from across the street, it appeared, but I suppose also to lend a hand if things turned ugly. One officer was filming the entire thing with a digital camera. And was he ever devoted! Different angles, steady shots - the man was a pro. I wonder now how much he would've filmed if things had turned bad for Code Pink. I think the highlight he needed to capture was the official warning of dispersal. Another officer shouted it out through a bullhorn.
And then, one of the women got up and congratulated everyone on a job well done. Lesson no. 1 for staging a lasting protest: only make it look like you're leaving. They got up and starting chanting again, and posing for the cameras. The nurses were the shock-troops here. One wouldn't leave the police cameraman alone. She gave him the whole spiel. I could only catch snippets but the jist was we the taxpayers shouldn't bail out the plutocracy of the government and big business. The organizer was some CEO, I think.
The other nurse posed for the cameras so they could get good shots of the signs on her front and back. The one on her back was folded over, so it was hard to read. But the one on her front said "No Bailout!" The police gave another warning and this woman just ate it up, nodding smugly. The organizer and "Hunter Thompson" started shouting for an end to the plutocracy and tripped each other up. I'm not sure if they were supposed to be shouting the same thing at the same time, or something different each time or what, but they ended up drowning each other out and "Hunter" knew it. He looked off to the side smiling. At least he could see the humour in it.
The protesters had a bullhorn too. One of them asked to use it and the man holding it said no. He was actually pretty funny, immediately starting in on Cheney. "Where's Cheney? He's getting the getaway car ready for the biggest heist in history! I think I can see him coming down Independence Avenue!" The biggest heist in history? I don't know. What about that 99 cent taco from Taco Bell? Then, amid the shouts of "Down with the plutocracy!" and "Bailout? No way!", one of the women shouted "Yay for people!" At that point I left.
A businessman walked up beside me. "Looks like some people who spent a lot time in campus protests," he said to me. "I wouldn't know," I told him, "but I suppose they would rather 25% unemployment."
I respect their resolve and we certainly need to have a lot of oversight so this bailout doesn't fail under the weight of yet more fraud. And this $700 billion check can't be used to pay out severance packages to the worst offenders in this crisis. They should be investigated and some sort of sentence passed if it's proven they acted illegally instead of just neglectfully. But what would any of that do if this bailout didn't happen and the biggest banks in the world have no way of covering their debt?
This effects every single taxpayer in America. We're not bailing out the bad guys, we're bailing out the system under which we all buy cars, buy homes, pay bills, and get by everyday. It's the economy, stupid! The justice system is nothing without the free market system that's given us a great amount of liberty, as is education, the military, everything.
Those liberties went unregulated and unwatched for too long. If this bailout were a government measure to help out some high-end friends, it wouldn't have been held up this long. And I believe it was the Republicans who've held it up. The bailout is necessary. I don't want to lose my job. Do you? We labour under the assumption that my money is mine, and yours is yours. It isn't. It doesn't even belong to the government. Money is the wind that steers the ship. Sometimes it blows strong, sometimes weak. If you don't keep an eye on changes in the weather, you find yourself in the middle of a storm. Do you then try the captain and hang him while the ship is sinking? No, you save the ship and then recriminate. Not the other way around. Yay for you and me if we can keep an eye on those steering the ship this time so we don't find ourselves talking about 25% unemployment again in another few decades.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Study up, Sarah!
In the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman", physicist Richard Feynman relates this situation he encountered while teaching in Brazil:
His students were smart but every question on every test was answered in the exact same way by every student. He quickly found out that when they studied, they only memorized the laws and theories of physics with no idea of their real-world applications. They couldn't even recognize those laws in action when they saw them being practically applied. Physics, as Feynman knew, is practiced.
Sarah Palin would have made an excellent student in that class in Brazil. When Katie Couric asks about Rick Davis and money his firm received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, she gives as much as it seems she knows - which, once again, isn't much.
"My understanding is Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings in the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago and that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I would — I would hope that that's the case."
I hope so too, Governor, but aren't you supposed to KNOW?
Couric asked a follow-up:
"But he still has a stake in the company, so isn't that a conflict of interest?"
What should I do here? Should I just paste Palin's response from above, 'cause she sure did.
"Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there."
(And cue McCain's first law of government: No more politics as usual!)
"And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've been on a more local level been on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made."
There it is. Steer the question away from the practical into the theoretical and leave it there. Stymie everybody with another blizzard of words and leave them guessing. We covered this on day one of your run for VP, Governor. You're here to clean up Washington. Wouldn't it be good, then, to make sure that Davis is not in a conflict of interest? I would hope that that's the case, but I guess it can't be. You can't give a firm answer not because you've been told not to, but because you don't know. The only answers you know are what you've read in the campaign playbook.
Pretend with me now. Sarah Palin is your real estate agent and she's showing you a house. It looks fine from the outside but let's go on inside.
"Hey," you ask her, "what are all these cracks in the corners? Is the foundation okay?"
"Well", she answers, "American home inspectors do a good job for American homes. Let's go on back outside. Isn't this a nice house? But you can't blink. Inaction is not an option."
Nevermind the specifics. She doesn't know the answers, why should you? Specifics aren't necessary. Oh, those details that those reporters like to jump on. What's needed is resolve and commitment. All of her rhetoric sounds like someone trying to keep her head above water.
You know that person. We've all known that person: has no firm ideas on how to move forward but talks the talk of the hopeful. When you live with that person in a dire situation what else can you do but trust they'll get you both out of trouble with a good idea sometime down the road? All that person needs to you to do is move without hesitation. Just shut your eyes and take the plunge.
That's what McCain and Palin want from us. Not questions for a reasoned discourse, but immediate action. Inaction is not an option. Here we have the next thread being woven into the narrative and an idea of the Palin strategy: Get America to find something of themselves in her, and then jump when she says to. If she's like me, then it's got to be a good idea. Why wouldn't it? We and Palin think alike, don't we? But we never know what she thinks. Every answer on every test is always the same and we're expected to realize it's the only answer worth giving and the one we'd give ourselves. The book she studies from is thin and we're expected to only look for answers from it instead of the real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ
His students were smart but every question on every test was answered in the exact same way by every student. He quickly found out that when they studied, they only memorized the laws and theories of physics with no idea of their real-world applications. They couldn't even recognize those laws in action when they saw them being practically applied. Physics, as Feynman knew, is practiced.
Sarah Palin would have made an excellent student in that class in Brazil. When Katie Couric asks about Rick Davis and money his firm received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, she gives as much as it seems she knows - which, once again, isn't much.
"My understanding is Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings in the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago and that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I would — I would hope that that's the case."
I hope so too, Governor, but aren't you supposed to KNOW?
Couric asked a follow-up:
"But he still has a stake in the company, so isn't that a conflict of interest?"
What should I do here? Should I just paste Palin's response from above, 'cause she sure did.
"Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there."
(And cue McCain's first law of government: No more politics as usual!)
"And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've been on a more local level been on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made."
There it is. Steer the question away from the practical into the theoretical and leave it there. Stymie everybody with another blizzard of words and leave them guessing. We covered this on day one of your run for VP, Governor. You're here to clean up Washington. Wouldn't it be good, then, to make sure that Davis is not in a conflict of interest? I would hope that that's the case, but I guess it can't be. You can't give a firm answer not because you've been told not to, but because you don't know. The only answers you know are what you've read in the campaign playbook.
Pretend with me now. Sarah Palin is your real estate agent and she's showing you a house. It looks fine from the outside but let's go on inside.
"Hey," you ask her, "what are all these cracks in the corners? Is the foundation okay?"
"Well", she answers, "American home inspectors do a good job for American homes. Let's go on back outside. Isn't this a nice house? But you can't blink. Inaction is not an option."
Nevermind the specifics. She doesn't know the answers, why should you? Specifics aren't necessary. Oh, those details that those reporters like to jump on. What's needed is resolve and commitment. All of her rhetoric sounds like someone trying to keep her head above water.
You know that person. We've all known that person: has no firm ideas on how to move forward but talks the talk of the hopeful. When you live with that person in a dire situation what else can you do but trust they'll get you both out of trouble with a good idea sometime down the road? All that person needs to you to do is move without hesitation. Just shut your eyes and take the plunge.
That's what McCain and Palin want from us. Not questions for a reasoned discourse, but immediate action. Inaction is not an option. Here we have the next thread being woven into the narrative and an idea of the Palin strategy: Get America to find something of themselves in her, and then jump when she says to. If she's like me, then it's got to be a good idea. Why wouldn't it? We and Palin think alike, don't we? But we never know what she thinks. Every answer on every test is always the same and we're expected to realize it's the only answer worth giving and the one we'd give ourselves. The book she studies from is thin and we're expected to only look for answers from it instead of the real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)