Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dimwittedness Might Actually Prevail (Palin Hit Piece)
NY Times ^ | 9/13/08 | nhwingut

Posted on 09/13/2008 2:01:55 PM PDT by nhwingut

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: org.whodat; Always Right

The wording is different but the meaning is the same, both wanted clarification.

We can come at this with two premises. One is Palin had no clue about what Bush’s foreign policy was or that she did have a clue and knew the question wasn’t specific enough to answer.

So, we have a woman who son is about to go to Iraq. I’m no policy wonk but when my son was scheduled to go to Iraq I read everything I could about Bush’s policies on war even though I follow much of it here on FR.

Then we have a woman who ran for Governor 2 years ago as a Republican. If you didn’t notice, just about every Republican that was running was running against Bush’s record. She would have fielded many questions in that campaign about the war. The entire election season became a vote regarding the war. For Palin to have no idea about Bush’s foreign policies, she would have had to go through that election cycle completely clueless about Bush’s policies in the face of heavy national scrutiny.

Then, we have a Governor who sees the troops off to war and sees them come home maimed or dead. She has to face families and friends regarding the effect of Bush’s foreign policies. So, for to be completely stumped by this question she had to enter a bubble, stick her fingers in her ears and say I’m not listening really loud.

Finally, we have a woman who was deliberately prepped for this event. We have a press who hates Bush and his foreign policies. Given this, the foreign policies of Bush was never reviewed? For her to have been clueless through her role as mother to a son going to fight, a republican running for office 2 years ago, a Governor in charge of National Guard, she then has to be clue less about her preparation for this interview.

Your premise that she had no clue at the outset of the question what the Bush foreign policies were is nonsensical on its face.


61 posted on 09/13/2008 2:49:47 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
  She answered the question very well and I like the way she refused to stumble when Gibson tried to goad her into saying something about bombing Iran or Russia.

  Of course, we are faced with a tremendous battle against the energetic Obama (he visited 57 states!!), the lamestream media and some of the dumbest celebrities on the planet.
62 posted on 09/13/2008 3:01:29 PM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut
 

  

 

Am I the only one who sees the resemblance between Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) and Sarah Palin?


63 posted on 09/13/2008 3:01:42 PM PDT by Radix (If Alaska were to secede from the Union it would probably become a power player in OPEC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maurice Tift

Celebrities are entertaining, nothing more. You can’t fault a rat for being a rat ....useful idiots (Matt Damon, et al)


64 posted on 09/13/2008 3:04:02 PM PDT by SkyDancer ("I Believe In The Law Until It Interferes With Justice")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
We can come at this with two premises. One is Palin had no clue about what Bush’s foreign policy was or that she did have a clue and knew the question wasn’t specific enough to answer.

Premise 3 - Palin knows what the Bush doctrine says, but also knows that most of the left, including "Charlie", have their own idea of what the Bush doctrine is. And, Palin knows that one of the premises of Obambi's campaign is that McCain and Palin are the same as Bush.

Given these two pieces of knowledge, it was in Palin's best interest to draw Gibson's opinion of the Bush doctrine out before answering the question. Elsewise, she would be on Obama's next ad, depicting McCain/Palin as "more of the same".

65 posted on 09/13/2008 3:04:54 PM PDT by meyer (Go, Sarah, Go!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut

Well, in one week the VP candidate asked a guy in a wheel chair to stand up, and said others would have been a better VP choice. Nor, is this an aberration. Previously, the candidate had been caught plagiarizing on more than one occasion. The candidate even wanted to partition Iraq in a way that would have strengthened Iran, and led to a Kurdish rebellion in Turkey. Now that’s dim. Now, that’s why we call him Slow Joe.


66 posted on 09/13/2008 3:10:52 PM PDT by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut

Perhaps if Charlie Gibson shared his internet browsing it could clear things up a bit. He has revealed he gives credence to the leftist blogs.


67 posted on 09/13/2008 3:11:43 PM PDT by Shanty Shaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut

The only weapon the left has is pure ridicule. The NY Times has the audacity to call anything simple minded? Do they read their own garbage? I guess when you live in your own little elite world where only elite dirt bags like this author are allowed to speak this is the what you get. I wonder if he even read the whole transrcipt of the interview LOL. We know what the answer to that is.


68 posted on 09/13/2008 3:40:41 PM PDT by Archon of the East (Universal Executive Power of the Law of Nature)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut
They call us these names and then wonder why we don't love and adore them. And they think we're clueless.
69 posted on 09/13/2008 4:31:23 PM PDT by Reaganesque (Vote: mccain/PALIN 2008!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut

The fact that Bob Herbert has been allowed to write a prominent column for the NYT these many years proves that dimwittedness has prevailed far too long. The Palin candidacy is merely an attempt to improve the nation’s political IQ.


70 posted on 09/13/2008 5:02:07 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
just phrased with much different terms. What difference to you see on their intent?

When I went to school different words had different meanings. Facts matter!

71 posted on 09/13/2008 5:10:56 PM PDT by org.whodat (Republicans should support the SAM Walton business model, and then drill???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
When I went to school different words had different meanings. Facts matter!

LOL, there is only one way to say something? Nevermind.

72 posted on 09/13/2008 7:04:33 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut

Can anyone offer any explanation for why the dumbest people would vote for the same candidates as the brightest, with those in between voting for someone else? Does that really make sense, if the “brightest” have the same motives as everyone else?


73 posted on 09/13/2008 9:26:00 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson