Sarah Palin Bags on Tina Fey, Katie Couric

E-Online ^ | 1-9-09 | Gina Serpe

[Justaham]

You mess with the grizzly, you get the claws.

In new interview footage of Sarah Palin released on YouTube this week, the Alaska governor gets not only folksy but downright forceful in unleashing her opinions on the two women most responsible for molding her less-than-flattering public persona, calling out both Katie "What newspapers do you read?" Couric and doppelgänger extraordinaire Tina Fey.

Check out video of Sarah Palin's interview.....

[Cyber Liberty]

So I can put you down as refusing to vote for Palin if she wins the nomination, then? For the same reason as Katie Cupcake?

[Polybius]

Yes, the media are afraid of her. If they weren't, they wouldn't have done this: Couric Studied With Anti-Palin Advisers Before Palin Interview

You are confusing "bias" with "fear".

Is the media biased against Palin?

You betcha. The media is biased against ANYBODY that has an (R) after their name and they will try anything, fair or unfair, to trip up the Republican candidate while throwing softballs to the Democrat candidate.

So, yes, you can be assured that Katie Couric had the long knives out for Sarah Palin.

The problem with Sarah Palin is that a lightweight like Katie "Look at me having a colonoscopy" Couric was able to torpedo Sarah Palin below the waterline without much effort.

If Katie Couric had tried to take on, say, Dick Cheney, he would chewed her up and spit her out.

If Sarah Palin cannot take on the likes of Katie Couric, how do you expect Sarah Palin to take on Vladimir Putin?

[SouthernChick1]

Um, Palin was in the spotlight less than a month. Good grief. Some of you act like she’s had media exposure for years and years, like McCain, Obamessiah, Biden, etc.

I applaud Palin for her courage at confronting the media hacks. She will only get stronger and will emerge with even more confidence, ability, grace, and strength the next time she runs.

But oops...I guess some of you won’t be supporting her if/when she’s the nominee since she didn’t perform to your impossibly high standard, after being thrown in the media spotlight LESS THAN TWO WEEKS.

How gracious you are.

[Polybius]

So I can put you down as refusing to vote for Palin if she wins the nomination, then? For the same reason as Katie Cupcake?

Your logic is faulty.

The World is not perfect and, when faced with two imperfect choices, only the fool declares that "Since Candidate Y does not meet my definition of perfection, I will not vote for the 'lesser of two evils' and I will therefore refuse to vote for Candidate Y in order to keep a hard core left-winger out of the White House. I will stay home or throw away my vote on a hopeless third party candidate instead."

That is what many so-called "Conservatives" said in regards to John McCain and now we have far-left Obama in the White House.

IF Sarah Palin wins the nomination, she would be a seriously flawed candidate but it is better to have her in the White House than a liberal Democrat in the White House.

It would be better to have Janine Turner (remember her from Northern Exposure?) in the White House than a liberal Democrat.

Janine Turner is a conservative Republican and, with a competent cabinet telling her what to do, Janine Turner would probably make better decisions than Barack Obama.

As a conservative Republican, in the 2008 election, she campaigned for VP candidate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and expressed her concern for what she perceives as a decidedly liberal bias in the media as a guest on the Fox News Channel show Huckabee on October 25, 2008 and on the CNN show Larry King Live on October 28, 2008. Turner is a frequent contributor to Republican Party candidates and organizations, donating at least $7,000 over the past decade

It does not follow, however, that somebody with Janine Turner's experience or lack thereof is really a desirable choice for President of the United States of America.

A Cult of Personality is forming around Sarah Palin. As I said before, with her current qualifications, if she were "Sam Palin", nobody would give her the time of day in regards to the Vice Presidency or Presidency.

Sarah Palin is conservative and cute.

So is Janine Turner.

It does not follow that simply being conservative and cute makes either one of them the best choice for President of the United States.

[Cyber Liberty]

OK. I put you down as "Questionable."

You will voter for her, but you will bitch and complain every time she doesn't meet you standards. No problem. I plan on being there with you. I've seen a lot of standards not being met. I'm an old fart.

[deport]

A Cult of Personality is forming around Sarah Palin.

---

Interesting observation. That can also be a major distraction to her acceptance by the public at large if in fact it appears a cult is emerging. I don’t know if I would call it cult at this time but Palin does have some strong supporters on web sites pushing her hard. I think she has a lot of work to do to secure the nominee in 2012. We’ll see.

[Big_Monkey]

Um, Palin was in the spotlight less than a month

You're making my point for me. Palin was in the spotlight less than a month, because before that no one cared what Sarah Palin thought about anything before her nomination. She hadn't distinguished herself in any way.

As a party, we have to begin to expect more from our candidates other than the fact that they agree with us and are charismatic.

Remember, she was running for VPOTUS with a 72 year old man who had suffered three previous occurrences of a dangerous form of skin cancer. From a learning curve standpoint, there was (and shouldn't have been) any grace period. McCain thought he needed a trick play, but didn't realize he still had plenty of time on the clock for a reasonable drive. His mistake perhaps cost us all.

As for her running again; if she doesn't improve greatly, I will be critical. Graciousness has no place in big time politics. National campaigns are full-contact sports. The media and the opposition won't give our nominee any quarter, nor should we when it comes to the nominating process.

[Polybius]

Um, Palin was in the spotlight less than a month. Good grief. Some of you act like she’s had media exposure for years and years, like McCain, Obamessiah, Biden, etc. I applaud Palin for her courage at confronting the media hacks. She will only get stronger and will emerge with even more confidence, ability, grace, and strength the next time she runs. But oops...I guess some of you won’t be supporting her if/when she’s the nominee since she didn’t perform to your impossibly high standard, after being thrown in the media spotlight LESS THAN TWO WEEKS. How gracious you are.

See Post 104.

Who said anything about "won’t be supporting her if/when she’s the nominee"?

If she is the nominee, then we will be stuck with her as the best of two less than optimal choices. The GOP will then lose by a landslide as Sarah Palin already has a national "unfavorable rating" of 65%.

We conservatives make up 60% of the GOP but the GOP currently makes up only a meager 28% of all American voters. If Sarah Palin gets 100% of the conservative GOP vote, that still leaves 72% of all American voters that are not Sarah Palin groupies.

You are treating the Presidency of the United States of America as if it were a Fifth Grade soccer tournament where "Self Esteem Trophies" are handed out to everybody that participates.

"Good grief. Some of you act like little Sarah had played soccer before like Mary or Margie or Karen, etc. I applaud Sarah for her courage in playing on the soccer team. She will only get stronger and will emerge with even more confidence, ability, grace, and strength the next time she plays soccer."

You are making excuses on the basis of inexperience for an inexperienced candidate that was chosen to run for VP because of her gender and not for her experience.

If that is not a blatant example of Affirmative Action, what is?

Sarah Palin is a nice, likable, conservative lady with extremely limited experience in international issues and extremely limited experience in even living in the Lower 48.

That is not a good choice for the Oval Office. That is a good choice for Governor of Alaska.

[Arizona Carolyn]

All she did was respond to Katie Couric trashing her to David Letterman... I think more of our politicians need to stand up to this bias.

[Arizona Carolyn]

She had not heard what Fey had to say about her daughter when she went on; she did say she probably would have gone on anyway.

[Arizona Carolyn]

She needs to stay as far away from the Senate as she can (Alaska is probably far enough)... no way do I want some wimpy GOP senator for President, I don’t want ANY senator for President.

[Polybius]

OK. I put you down as "Questionable." You will vote for her, but you will bitch and complain every time she doesn't meet you standards.

Actually, the time to bitch is not AFTER a nomination.

The time to bitch is BEFORE the nomination.

Let me check my calander. Well, whadaya know? That happens to be right now and up until the late summer of 2012.

If you check my posting history, you will not find a single one of my posts criticising the choice of Sarah Palin from the day she was chosen until the day after Election Day.

If any Republican candidate is not to your liking in regards to 2012, be it Romney or Huckabee or Palin, or Jindal or (insert name here), now is the time to say, in no uncertain terms, why you feel that candidate is not a good choice for the Oval Office.

After the nomination, chances are that any Republican would be a better choice than the Democrat and, at that time, you shut up about your gripes and not give any ammunition to the enemy.

The one exception in 2008 was Ron Paul.

If, in a case of mass hallucination, Ron Paul had been the Republican nominee in 2008, I would have actually voted for Obama or Hillary to keep that nutjob out of the White House.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

-———— You are confusing “bias” with “fear”.-—————

Do I?

How many politicians have you seen the media smear and smear and smear despite the ticket losing in november?

They know she is a darling of the base, and they know she has reagan potential. Reagan defeated the media even when they had their monopoly. Yes, the media fear Sarah.

-—————If Sarah Palin cannot take on the likes of Katie Couric, how do you expect Sarah Palin to take on Vladimir Putin?——————

I think the premise is wrong. It became clear shortly after Sarah joined as veep that there were two Sarahs. There was the Sarah who wanted to be herself, and the Sarah who was filled with a whole bunch of junk from McCain’s handlers.

Do you remember how much damage handlers did to reagan? He got rid of the handlers, did things his way, and did much better in later debates as opposed to the earlier ones.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Somebody had to speak the truth. Thank you.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Yet, she’s dissed because of being a woman, wife, mother. Makes no sense to me.

That Governor Palin is a woman does not matter to me. What does matter is an ability to adapt. To my knowledge, Governor Palin continues to support abstinence-only sex education. It didn't work for her own daughter but she still expects it to work for other people? That shows extreme stubbornness to me. Preach what you will about the moral aspects of sex, but when something doesn't work for your own child, I would imagine that change is needed, and that is not a Barack Obama pun.

[nutmeg]

find later

[Polybius]

-———— You are confusing “bias” with “fear”.-—————

Do I? How many politicians have you seen the media smear and smear and smear despite the ticket losing in november?

How soon we forget.

Dan Quayle was the losing VP candidate in 1992 and, 17 years later, Dan Quayle is still the punchline of jokes.

Jokes2Go.com .... Stupid Things Said by Dan Quayle

They know she is a darling of the base, and they know she has reagan potential. Reagan defeated the media even when they had their monopoly. Yes, the media fear Sarah.

The "base" of the GOP consists of the 60% of Republicans that are conservatives. Unfortunately, the entire GOP only makes up 28% of the current U.S. electorate.

Do the arithmetic.

If you get 100% of the GOP base, you end up with 18% of the total American vote. That leaves 72% of all American voters outside of the Sarah Palin Adoration Society.

That simple arithmetic is why Sarah Palin can be the darling of the GOP base and STILL rack up a national 65% "unfavorable" rating.

In Presidential general elections nowadays, 100% of the GOP base and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee.

What Reagan did was fire up the "Reagan Democrats". Anybody that does that today is accused of being a "RINO". In regards to Democrats, Sarah Palin does not draw them in and I have been shocked to see how many people I know that have always voted Republican that, this past election, voted Democrat because they thought that Sarah Palin was a joke.

-—————If Sarah Palin cannot take on the likes of Katie Couric, how do you expect Sarah Palin to take on Vladimir Putin?——————

I think the premise is wrong. It became clear shortly after Sarah joined as veep that there were two Sarahs. There was the Sarah who wanted to be herself, and the Sarah who was filled with a whole bunch of junk from McCain’s handlers.

It was the fault of "McCain handlers" that Sarah Palin could not name a single newspaper when Couric specifically asked her to name which ones she reads?

Sarah Palin can't name one magazine or newspaper she read

How many regular FReepers can't automatically rattle off six or seven or eight of the sources that we regularly read on Free Republic?

The Washington Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Guardian (U.K.), Newsweek, Time, U.S. and World Report, the San Francisco Chronicle, etc., etc., etc.

My gut impression was that Sarah Palin was a small town politician in a small town state that read about local Alaska issues and, unlike most FReepers, cared very little about national issues in the Lower 48 and paid very little attention to international issues.

Sarah Palin could not rattle off six news sources because, unlike most FReepers, she never read them. That is why she was desperately tap-dancing around the question. She, literally, could not remember the name of a single news paper in the Lower 48.

Without a prepared script to read or memorize, Sarah Palin is a deer in the headlights.

To 65% of American voters, Sarah Palin has become Dan Quayle in a skirt.

Since she is the darling of GOP Conservatives, that arithmetic, unless the GOP gets in touch with electoral realty, will mean that, in 2012, Sarah Palin will be victorious in regards to the GOP nomination and then have a disaster of Biblical proportions in the general election.

Then, Sarah Palin will become both Dan Quayle and George McGovern in a skirt.

Do you remember how much damage handlers did to reagan? He got rid of the handlers, did things his way, and did much better in later debates as opposed to the earlier ones.

Ronald Reagan had the experience of years of political commentary in national and international issues and years as Governor of the very large State of California. He had something to offer. Before Sarah Palin became Governor of a State of less 700,000 in December of 2006, Sarh Palin did ...... what?

Even on Free Republic, we consider posters with December 2006 sign up dates as relative newbies.

[Revolting cat!]

Who is this 'Katie Couric'? Your post clearly implies that she in fact represents you versus some overly ambitious small town politician from Alaska, that she is qualified, and to be trusted to vet this candidate and to decide the uppity politician's qualifications for you, as she had, hadn't she. And that is where your entire post fails to persuade.

[mrsmith]

Equating the qualifications of the VP and the President so you can brand Governor Palin as an “affirmative action candidate” is too blatant a “false analogy” to pass on FR without comment.

Equating Couric to Putin (or hostile interviews to hostile negotiations) is downright pitiful.

The pro-governor choir overdoes it, admittedly, but the response from the anti-governor choir is nothing of worth.

With that off my chest: “You guys have a ball” ...
We’ll find out soon if she wants the presidency and in her strategy will be the proof of whether she deserves it.

[hopespringseternal]

The cardinal sin of the presidency is inaction. The primary example of that is Carter.

No one seriously believes Palin would have that problem.

The next far less serious failing of a president is to allow aides and cabinet members to dictate policy. This was the case with Bill Clinton and will likely be the case for Obama. Both wanted to be president but neither one cares for the job I suspect. (If Obama really wanted to do the job he would be keeping the Clintons as far from the White House as he could.)

Palin, by all accounts runs things. She didn't run for mayor or governor to get the title only to hand it off to aides. She has tackled the most pernicious evil of politics: The skeletons in your own party's closet.

Finally, presidents can make the mistake of trying to please people. The press and the polls can govern them. While this was certainly Clinton's failing, more seriously it is the problem with both Bush administrations. Neither one had a vision they were willing to go to the mat for. When the critical editorials came rolling in, they folded completely or compromised where compromise was wholly misguided and just muddied the waters. As a result they come off as confused and easily influenced. They do things but fail to articulate the overall strategy and message when the criticisms roll in.

As far as experience goes, what job is really anything like the presidency? Even the governor of a state like Texas or California does not have responsibilities that compare to the president's.

I find it appalling that supposed conservatives find the time to attack Sarah Palin for her lack of experience (and did so unceasingly during the campaign) when she is far more qualified than Obama. She was running for VP, he is now the president elect.

She did not lose the election, John McCain did. And while he did a poor job of campaigning, the fact is that he has been campaigning against the republican party for the better part of his career. Palin was a far better campaigner than McCain and didn't have his baggage.

The only thing I can fault her on (and this is as much McCain's failing as hers) is not being able to effectively counter Biden's pathological lying during a debate (a nearly impossible task) and not being able to more effectively deal with the gotcha press.