As Sarah Palin once again finds herself in the national limelight, largely due to the publicity surrounding the release this week of her bestselling book Going Rogue: an American Life, many of us have been reviewing the events of last fall’s campaign as well as contrasting her record to the biased media coverage of that strong Republican woman.
Yesterday, I noted that something Sarah Palin said in her interview with Bill O’Reilly had caused me to “review the tape,” as it were, of her interviews with CBS Anchor Katie Couric. Palin claimed the newswoman “didn’t know anything about Alaska, about my job as governor, about my accomplishments as a mayor or a governor, my record.” Today, I decided to take my investigation of Palin’s claim one step further. I printed out the transcripts of the CBS Interview and highlighted everything Couric said.
This review confirmed my initial evaluation. Not once did Couric manifest any knowledge of Palin’s record in Alaska, save the media scuttlebutt about her church and her views of social issue. But, that does not go to her record as a public official. Nothing about Palin’s work on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) where she took on a fellow Republican and ally of the Governor who had appointed her. Nothing about her work with a Democrat to bring down the corrrupt Republican Attorney General of her state. Nothing about the reforms she achieved as Governor by working across party lines.
Katie Couric, like many of her colleague in the mainstream media, ignored Sarah Palin’s record, perhaps to better portray as a clueless neophyte, chosen for her gender (so the GOP ticket could exploit divisions in the Democratic Party) and her “extreme” social views (so she could rally a dispirited GOP base).
It’s funny, they were as indifferent to Palin’s record in office as they were that of Barack Obama. By disregarding her record, they could dismiss her credentials as a real reformer, at odds with her party establishment. By turning a blind eye to his, they could portray him as a new kind of politician, ignoring that he had been a team player for the Chicago Democratic machine.
Stop! Any thinking person can listen to Sarah Palin for about 5 minutes and realize she is not fit for high office. I wish her the best. She seems like a fit mother…Maybe she can fill Oprah’s spot on 4 o’clock television…She simply is not presidential material. Her formal education, speaking, and level of literacy are all very average. Our country in general, and conservatives in particular need to elect leaders who are very capable. Sarah Palin just does not fit the bill. Actually, she is a horrible spokesperson for conservatism simply because there are so many women who could represent ideas of the right in a better way than Ms. Palin.
Did the perky one ever interview the Chump? Perhaps she was pissed that she got stuck having to interview “that Republican” instead of the messiah.
because there are so many women who could represent ideas of the right in a better way than Ms. Palin.
That may be so, but without charisma and political acumen, no one will listen to them. It seems everyone wants an intellectual, but intellectuals in the public sphere tend to be dull as dirt.
In response to “Any thinking person can listen to Sarah Palin for about 5 minutes and realize she is not fit for high office.”
That reads “if you disagree then you are not a ‘thinking person'”
How haughty, how dismissive. That is not the language of open debate – that is the phrasing of the defensive and close-minded.
Furthermore, “seems like a fit mother” is a veiled bit of subtle misogyny. Going still further, in what way is she “average?” No one cares about her “formal education,” as Obama persists in proving, education is over-rated. Her speaking skills, while they may not be to your tastes, draw crowds that few other speakers could command. And how DARE you comment on her “level of literacy?” You have no basis whatsoever for such an assessment.
I’d be interested to see a roster of the “so many women who could represent ideas of the right in a better way” – which by the way, even if it were produced does not by default reduce Sarah Palin’s capability to “horrible.”
The very fact that Palin seems to cause otherwise rational people to resort to weasel-ish personal attacks & wild dismissals speaks to her power as a public figure, whether one likes it or not.
i will vote for sarah palin in 2012! she is a great politician, just look up her political record and accomplishments in alaska.
also, be at the polls in 2010! we have to clean washington up! also, fight against voter fraud. we as americans need to stand up. after all, they are spending our money.
Just what is “the bill”?
Such as….?
The Democrat fears Sarah Palin for very good reason.
Sarah Palin is going to be our next President.
That is why they are out to destroy her. They see her coming and they are scared. They are going to pull out every trick they got to try and stop her.
If she runs, and I think she will, she will have my full support. Palin is the whole package.
Michael Reagan said in the last campaign that every Republican voter was looking for his father. The younger Reagan said that there would never be another Ronald Reagan. I grudgingly had to conclude he was right.
The last bunch of Republican candidates was profoundly discouraging to me. There was no winner in that paltry bunch.
Enter Sarah Palin.
Michael Reagan was wrong!
REAGAN IS BACK !
REAGAN IS BACK !
— And he is in high heels!
I watched her very lengthy acceptance speech six times!
I am very excited to have Sarah Palin as the titular head of our party. I am ripping through her book right now.
I understand that we will have a primary and I have to be respectful of the other candidates.
Reagan’s greatness after all was not universally accepted by rank and file Republicans at first. Palin will have to earn her spurs.
But I want to go on record here that I see Palin’s potential for America’s second renewal after four miserable years of Obama just as Reagan was after four miserable years of Jimmy Carter.
Sarah Palin – the right woman, the right time.
The Democrat fears Sarah Palin for very good reason.
——————
Uh, this is one Democrat that doesn’t fear her at all. Why should I when I voted for her. Me and millions of othe Democrats. Curious isn’t it how no one mentions all the millions and millions of Democrats for McCain/Palin that crossed the line. Ever wonder what happened to them? There’s a reason Elected officials and the goony left never mentions them to the public.
Here’s and update: we never went back and more and more democrats are joining us every passing day. That idiotic comment in the first post is pathetic. Sorry sweetie, it frosts your butt that so many Democrats voted for her and will vote for her again…in a heartbeat.That’s gotta make your liberal heart skip quite a few beats. it should.
This review confirmed my initial evaluation. Not once did Couric manifest any knowledge of Palin’s record in Alaska, save the media scuttlebutt about her church and her views of social issue. But, that does not go to her record as a public official. Nothing about Palin’s work on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) where she took on a fellow Republican and ally of the Governor who had appointed her. Nothing about her work with a Democrat to bring down the corrrupt Republican Attorney General of her state. Nothing about the reforms she achieved as Governor by working across party lines.
You’ve been watching too much Fox News. Journalism isn’t supposed to be a series of softball questions designed to let politicians ramble on about how great they are. It’s supposed to be confrontational. And in reality, Katie Couric doesn’t exactly fit the mold of what most people would consider a confrontational journalist. When you’re getting thrown for a loop on questions about where you get your news from, you’ve got bigger problems than who is interviewing you. The woman is practically brainless, and if it wasn’t Katie Couric’s interview exposing that fact, it was Charles Gibson’s, or the Joe Biden debate, or the Oprah interview, or essentially any time she’s been on television.
[Levi, funny, I should find this comment on my blog after reading/watching Couric’s interview with Biden. Couric tossed softballs to that Democratic windbag. Amazing the assumptions you make. I didn’t draw any of my conclusions from FoxNews, but from reading/listening to Couric’s own words. Amazing also the insults you toss without any foundation whatsoever. Even with softball questions tossed at him, Biden comes out as far out of the loop than Palin–and he’d had 36 years the national stage to prepare him for such encounters.]
This is a silly game you’re playing, but it’s typical of conservative writing. The media is just soooo unfair, isn’t it? If only they did things the way you wanted them to. It’s a ridiculous standard and it’s one that you hastily constructed to deal with the fact that this lady simply cannot cut it on the national stage. Even if I granted that all of the details of Palin’s past you’ve insisted should have been the focus of the interview are wonderful things that say something about her and her abilities, it just doesn’t matter if the she’s going to go on TV and say she’s got foreign policy experience because she lives closer to Russia than the rest of us.
[All this paragraph does is how how clueless you are about our criticism. We’re pointing out the double standards of the media, easily demonstrate by comparing the questions Couric asked of Palin to those she asked of Biden. And no, I didn’t say Palin’s past should have been the focus of the interview nor did I call Couric’s questions unfair, though at least one was patronizing and another misleading. I said she should have included questions about Palin’s past amidst those about policy. And no matter what Palin has done, no matter what those (including many on the left) who have met her have said about her intelligence, it won’t matter to you because like the advocates of anthropogenic global warming, you have reached your conclusion about Mrs. Palin first and will then look up facts to buttress your case, ignoring those that don’t fit the narrative you established before familiarizing yourself with her record.]
But I don’t need to tell you this. You know this is a game, you know you’ve got no consistency, and you know you’ll pass along pretty much anything, no matter how illogical or embarrassing, if you think it explains away Sarah’s brainlessness as some nefarious, leftist plot.
[Then, if I have no consistency, Levi, please, please make your case by juxtaposing my comments one against the other to show just how inconsistent I’ve been. Until you back up your charges with specifics, I’ll continue to believe you spend your time commenting on my blog to project your inner demons on people whose ideas you refuse to understand. -Dan]