Posted on 10/02/2008 8:04:30 AM PDT by disraeligears
Interesting
” Not saying it can’t work, but then again, it’d be nice if the supposed savoirette of conservatism had some interest in the subject.”
Maybe she will now.
Hey - we all have our weak spots, and this clearly is one of hers.
No one is going to be invincible, and no one is undergoing the scrutiny she is going through.
Smart people recognize when they have a weakness and then they go do something about it.
She didn’t pretend she’d been shot at when she hadn’t, and she didn’t say we have 57 states.
She came out so strong, but man, she’s really done poorly. And I know the MSM is trying to trap her, catch her, but do they have to succeed so regularly?
“The Dred Scott decision would have sent Katie into an area where she had no knowledge.”
And that hits upon something crucial.
Katie Couric is a brainless lightweight.
I think it’s high time for opposition research to investigate these journalists prior to interviews and identify chinks in THEIR armour, and then bring it out during the interview.
It would be nice, for once, to hear a republican say..”well Katie, I’m sure during your extensive investigative work in Chicago you became well aware of the various fraudulent activities of ACORN...”
That sort of thing would be very refreshing to see.
Problem with Kelo v. New London is that the oil pipeline that she touts as an accomplishment is currently being held up by scores of private property owners who are objecting. The State of Alaska is confiscating loads of private land in court. No use to give the libs anything to scream “hypocrisy” about.
Besides the problem caus by dumb silence, the question could have been viewed as a softball had she been prepared. Hell, less then three months ago Gov. Palin sent out a press release complaining against the Exxon v. Baker decision which greatly reduced cash won by Alaskans in the Valdez case. Additionally, the campaign (admittedly before her addition to the ticket) spent a great deal of time railing against the recent decision that overturned death for child rapists. I fear that as attractive as Palin’s ideology is, and as mad as it makes libs to have her on the ticket, her shortcomings may outweigh her strenghts in the end.
No, she did give that silly canned answer, but it was a nice way of saying “screw you”
She started hitting back in that bus interview also when Katie was probing her about the morning after pill and evolution.
HAHAHAHAHAH good one!!
I actually think there were several ways to attack Plessy v Ferguson. Modern opponents of smoking bans might see a correllation with gubmint edicts about which passengers can ride where and with what kind of accommodations, on a privately own railroad. Lousiana was telling a private company who was allowed to ride where. And what about the right of a white person to ride with a black companion? All based on skin color. What a bunch of nonsense.
“She came out so strong, but man, she’s really done poorly. And I know the MSM is trying to trap her, catch her, but do they have to succeed so regularly?”
I don’t know what you mean about “regularly”.
Clearly a weakness was identified here.
Gibson played “gotcha” with her and he didn’t succeed.
Gibson pretended he nailed her on the Bush doctrine, but as it turned out - Palin got that one right and Gibson got it wrong.
He kept trying to back her into corner by asking the exact same question over and over, and she didn’t let him.
If they treated all candidates like this, they would be “catching” everyone with something or other everyday.
Obama is ripe for the picking! But he won’t allow it - and the reporters obey nicely.
My personal view is that Sarah is a natural talent that has yet to be polished.
And if it comes down to “on the job training” - I’d rather the VP be doing that than the president.
lol. That's pretty funny.
But to the point, your continuous sarcastic remarks show that you never had any intention of voting for McCain and Palin.
Wrong again. I'm pretty much a GOP voting automaton. I've never voted for a DEM for any office ever. I voted 3rd party in 2000 for president. I have intended to vote for whatever bozo the GOP ended up with since the whole process got going. Palin was a pretty exciting pick, with a great intro. It all leads up to this debate. Make or break time.
To answer you question directly, she does not need to know the names of cases to be the President.
I agree. But she needs to have an intelligent, well-considered answer.
Secondly, as stated before, McCain, Obama, and Biden did not discuss specific cases.
And yet they are able to articulate where they stand. It's an easy question to answer.
the answer you quoted was edited out of the piece I saw.
Typical isn’t it?
I did see the questioning about the pill and about evolution.
Thought she handled all that pretty well.
"Charlie, since 2000 there have been four or maybe five of what you in the press call "the Bush doctrine"...there was the Bush doctrine about preemption, the bush doctrine about spreading democracy, the bush doctrine of with us or against us. You're gonna have to tell me which one you mean."
That's what a home run would have sounded like. Instead, she looked and sounded uneasy, she let Gibson do what he was trying to do, and left the uninformed viewers still uninformed, possibly misinformed.
It took talk radio and the conservative commentariat to come to her rescue, after the fact.
Further possible benefit: Obama/Biden would have jumped at the bait, and defended child rapists!
Good one. That was just this last term...wasn't that handed down the same day as Heller?
So what I’m gathering from your post is that it isn’t enough for to be right - she needed to excel to your increasingly high standards that is expected from none of the other candidates.
And that isn’t the point I was making.
You claimed she is being caught “regularly” and yet the only point I see you hammering her on is this Supreme Court issue.
What’s really going on here?
You’re a Romney fan? Guliani?
What’s the deal?
It really would have hit on all the strong points: states rights, protection of children, legislating from the bench, etc. But Sarah's had so much McCain-speak drilled into her head lately, and I sure didn't see John McCain denounce this vile decision, so I have to conclude that the handlers prepping Sarah don't consider it worthy of mention.
But that's not the job she has been nominated for. How about one thing at a time?
And that 3 or 4 hour cosuse on basic Con law could come after she bacame President, couldn't it? As to her answer to the question: "What has that to do with the job of VICE PRESIDENT?"
The answer is; NOTHING. By the way -- exactlywhat is the job description for Vice President of the United States? And where might it be found?
Yeah. Look at Wilt Chamberlain and Joe DiMaggio. That DiMaggio couldn’t hold a candle to Chamberlain.
Humph!
Oranges and apples anyone?
I think that's a realistic view to have. It's the facts of life. It's definitely not enough to be right. You have to be able to speak persuasively in support of your view.
You claimed she is being caught “regularly” and yet the only point I see you hammering her on is this Supreme Court issue.
I thought she got nailed in the first Couric interview also. And I explained my view of the Gibson/Bush doctrine kerfuffle.
What’s really going on here?You’re a Romney fan? Guliani?What’s the deal?
Sorry. I was just ranting. I'm disappointed so far in Palin. Tonight's the big night. We'll see. But I think she's been weak. Whether that's due to handlers or what, I don't know. Her problem in the interviews was not that she wasn't being herself. She just didn't have sharp answers. She let them get away with what they were doing.
I wasn't for any of the primary candidates. Technically, when it came time to vote on Super Tuesday, I voted Romney. It was all I could do to muster enough motivation to bother. I almost stayed home. Turns out I might as well have.
I waver between two positions: 1) Duh, vote against the Socialist Party 2) Stay home, and write epitaphs for America--my current favorite is "At least we tried."
I guess that's the reason McCain has dispatched his two top dogs, Schmidt and Davis, to prepare her for the debate. Apparently he wasn't happy with the way Bush's people have been managing her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.