By Michael J.W. Stickings
I was going to write a post debunking Palin's response to Katie Couric's question about the separation of Church and State, but my friend Steve Benen, who knows a lot more about this than I do, beat me to it.
Make sure to read Steve's post here, as well as this interesting article by his former colleague from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Rob Boston, on Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, from 1802.
In brief: While Biden takes a firm stand in support of the separation of Church and State, noting that the Founders "took religion out of government" (but not out "the public square"), Palin waffles, declaring that Jefferson's original intent was to ensure that "government did not mandate a religion on people" and, in populist mode, talking up "the wisdom of the people," and defending the people's "right" to "express their own religious view" in public.
What Palin offers here, in an awkward way, is a limited (and one-directional) understanding of one of the core principles of American constitutionalism. As Boston explains, Jefferson held that religious liberty, or freedom of conscience -- given that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God" -- requires "a wall of separation between Church & State." In other words, just as there mustn't be a state-sponsored religion, so too mustn't there be a religion-sponsored state.
Evidently, Palin just doesn't get it. But, then, she's a theocrat. Jefferson would not be amused.
Showing posts with label CBS News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBS News. Show all posts
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Painful Palin: SCOTUS cluelessness
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I wrote in advance yesterday about Palin's inability, when asked directly by Katie Couric, to name a Supreme Court other than Roe.
Here's the clip, which doesn't disappoint. I'd call it incredible, but Palin's cluelessness is, alas, all quite credible. I'd call it amazing, but nothing about her amazes me anymore.
Whether she's an idiot or a moron, I'll leave up to you. What she certainly is is someone who has never had to deal with, or engage with, the key issues facing her country. And if she couldn't name an actual case or two, at least she could have mentioned an issue that has come before the Supreme Court, like segregation, privacy, or the rights of the accused. Or, to take an issue her running mate knows a thing or two about, torture.
But... no. She just mentions "rulings." -- "Going through the history of America, there would be others." Couric presses her, but... nothing. And her fumbling around is just pathetic.
Note, however, that she is an anti-abortion extremist yet believes, like any good liberal, that there is (in Couric's words) "an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution." Yes, she's cluelessly self-contradictory.
Watch it:
I wrote in advance yesterday about Palin's inability, when asked directly by Katie Couric, to name a Supreme Court other than Roe.
Here's the clip, which doesn't disappoint. I'd call it incredible, but Palin's cluelessness is, alas, all quite credible. I'd call it amazing, but nothing about her amazes me anymore.
Whether she's an idiot or a moron, I'll leave up to you. What she certainly is is someone who has never had to deal with, or engage with, the key issues facing her country. And if she couldn't name an actual case or two, at least she could have mentioned an issue that has come before the Supreme Court, like segregation, privacy, or the rights of the accused. Or, to take an issue her running mate knows a thing or two about, torture.
But... no. She just mentions "rulings." -- "Going through the history of America, there would be others." Couric presses her, but... nothing. And her fumbling around is just pathetic.
Note, however, that she is an anti-abortion extremist yet believes, like any good liberal, that there is (in Couric's words) "an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution." Yes, she's cluelessly self-contradictory.
Watch it:
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Painful Palin: Mocking Biden, lying, and spewing crap
By Michael J.W. Stickings
(Am I spending too much time on Palin? Maybe. But it's important for voters to keep in mind not just what a joke she is but what it says about McCain that he picked such as joke as his running mate. Plus, you know, there's the debate on Thursday.)
My "Painful Palin" series -- for the first two installments, see here and here -- looks at the Palin-Couric interview, parts of which are still being aired on CBS.
Here's the deal with the clip below: In her stump speech, Palin mocks Biden for being in Washington for so long. Needless to say, she doesn't mention his accomplishments, nor his expertise. But she does claim that she's been "hearing about his Senate speeches since [she] was in, like, second grade," which was, like, 1972.
This is ridiculously stupid on so many levels:
1) Was Palin really paying attention Biden in second grade? If so, what does that say about her? -- that she was some sort of crazed political junkie even at a young age. This seems unlikely. More likely, she's lying.
2) How can someone with next to no experience or expertise, someone who is so utterly unprepared for national politics and so applingly unqualified for the vice presidency, mock someone like Biden, who has not just expertise in areas like foreign policy and national security but an impressive legislative record and a long career of engaging with the issues that matter to Americans? Well, obviously Palin can, and does, but does so without even a hint of irony or self-awareness.
3) Biden has been in Washington a long time -- while living the whole time in Delaware, remember -- but so has, of course, McCain. Shouldn't Palin be mocking McCain? If she was listening to Biden's speeches in 1972, surely she was listening to McCain's speeches from as early as 1982, when he was elected to the House? No, because she's clearly lying.
4) Keep in mind that Biden was elected in 1972. Which means that he didn't actually enter the Senate until 1973. Was she really paying attention to Biden's candidacy for the Senate in 1972? No, because she's clearly lying.
5) Thankfully, Katie Couric asked her about this -- actually, challenged her on this. Given that she has a 72-year old running mate, is it not "a risky thing to say"? In response, Palin denies her comment was meant as a joke, that, in fact, she meant it as a compliment, referring to Biden's "lot of experience," "tremendous amount of experience." "Oh, no," she claims, "it's nothing negative at all." But of course it was. Watch the clip. Listen to the tone, the final inflection. She's obviously making, or trying to make, a joke. And Cindy McCain, right behind her, laughs, like it's funny to mock Biden's Senate career. (She's apparently as unironic and un-self-aware as Palin is.)
6) She claims that, in contrast to Biden, she's "the new energy, the new face, the new ideas" (and that "voters are going to have a choice"). She has some energy, I'll give her that, but it's hardly any more energy than Biden has. I give her her new face, too. But new ideas? What new ideas? Other than spewing empty promises of cleaning up Washington -- like she knows anything about Washington -- she just repeats Republican talking points, including, in her one and only Q&A with the press, agreeing with Bush's approach to terrorism, supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while tying the Iraq War to 9/11, and buying into, obviously without understanding, the warped agenda and worldview of the neocons. She may present herself as an outsider and reformer, but there's actually nothing new about her "ideas" at all.
Once again, though, she's clearly lying -- right to Couric's face, right to the American people, right to all of us.
And so it's just more of the same from Sarah Palin.
(Am I spending too much time on Palin? Maybe. But it's important for voters to keep in mind not just what a joke she is but what it says about McCain that he picked such as joke as his running mate. Plus, you know, there's the debate on Thursday.)
My "Painful Palin" series -- for the first two installments, see here and here -- looks at the Palin-Couric interview, parts of which are still being aired on CBS.
Here's the deal with the clip below: In her stump speech, Palin mocks Biden for being in Washington for so long. Needless to say, she doesn't mention his accomplishments, nor his expertise. But she does claim that she's been "hearing about his Senate speeches since [she] was in, like, second grade," which was, like, 1972.
This is ridiculously stupid on so many levels:
1) Was Palin really paying attention Biden in second grade? If so, what does that say about her? -- that she was some sort of crazed political junkie even at a young age. This seems unlikely. More likely, she's lying.
2) How can someone with next to no experience or expertise, someone who is so utterly unprepared for national politics and so applingly unqualified for the vice presidency, mock someone like Biden, who has not just expertise in areas like foreign policy and national security but an impressive legislative record and a long career of engaging with the issues that matter to Americans? Well, obviously Palin can, and does, but does so without even a hint of irony or self-awareness.
3) Biden has been in Washington a long time -- while living the whole time in Delaware, remember -- but so has, of course, McCain. Shouldn't Palin be mocking McCain? If she was listening to Biden's speeches in 1972, surely she was listening to McCain's speeches from as early as 1982, when he was elected to the House? No, because she's clearly lying.
4) Keep in mind that Biden was elected in 1972. Which means that he didn't actually enter the Senate until 1973. Was she really paying attention to Biden's candidacy for the Senate in 1972? No, because she's clearly lying.
5) Thankfully, Katie Couric asked her about this -- actually, challenged her on this. Given that she has a 72-year old running mate, is it not "a risky thing to say"? In response, Palin denies her comment was meant as a joke, that, in fact, she meant it as a compliment, referring to Biden's "lot of experience," "tremendous amount of experience." "Oh, no," she claims, "it's nothing negative at all." But of course it was. Watch the clip. Listen to the tone, the final inflection. She's obviously making, or trying to make, a joke. And Cindy McCain, right behind her, laughs, like it's funny to mock Biden's Senate career. (She's apparently as unironic and un-self-aware as Palin is.)
6) She claims that, in contrast to Biden, she's "the new energy, the new face, the new ideas" (and that "voters are going to have a choice"). She has some energy, I'll give her that, but it's hardly any more energy than Biden has. I give her her new face, too. But new ideas? What new ideas? Other than spewing empty promises of cleaning up Washington -- like she knows anything about Washington -- she just repeats Republican talking points, including, in her one and only Q&A with the press, agreeing with Bush's approach to terrorism, supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while tying the Iraq War to 9/11, and buying into, obviously without understanding, the warped agenda and worldview of the neocons. She may present herself as an outsider and reformer, but there's actually nothing new about her "ideas" at all.
Once again, though, she's clearly lying -- right to Couric's face, right to the American people, right to all of us.
And so it's just more of the same from Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin 2.0 (?)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
According to the Politico's Jonathan Martin, Sarah Palin is about to be re-introduced, "tak[ing] a more forward-leaning approach and do[ing] additional interviews in the weeks ahead."
First, though, she's spending some quality time at "McCain's cabin in Arizona" prepping for Thursday night's veep debate.
And "do[ing] a round of conservative talk radio interviews." After all, since she can't quite cut it with Gibson and Couric, and won't even try with Brokaw and Stephanopoulos, nor even Blitzer and Cooper, she requires a more friendly environment. So, no doubt, her interviews will, post-re-introduction, be more like the Hannity infomercial than serious exchanges with serious newspeople.
But, before all that, there's still the not-so-little matter of more Couric tape to consider. Martin explains:
Now there's a clip I'm looking foward to watching. Perhaps Marbury slipped her mind -- you know, because conservatives don't seem to care much for judicial review these days. And perhaps she just doesn't care much for, oh, say, Griswold and Brown and Miranda and Lawrence -- you know, for obvious reasons.
Couldn't she at least have mentioned Bush v. Gore? I'm sure she's a big fan.
**********
UPDATE: Atrios has "some sympathy for Palin," and Benen agrees that she "probably knows about as much as plenty of lawmakers on the Hill." Still, "it's a reminder that Palin is struggling on two parallel levels: she's painfully ignorant and she hasn't learned how to hide her painful ignorance."
For the record, I have no sympathy for her. She's what I would call, as I have called others before, a dangerous idiot -- dangerous because she's such an ignorant ideological extremist.
According to the Politico's Jonathan Martin, Sarah Palin is about to be re-introduced, "tak[ing] a more forward-leaning approach and do[ing] additional interviews in the weeks ahead."
First, though, she's spending some quality time at "McCain's cabin in Arizona" prepping for Thursday night's veep debate.
And "do[ing] a round of conservative talk radio interviews." After all, since she can't quite cut it with Gibson and Couric, and won't even try with Brokaw and Stephanopoulos, nor even Blitzer and Cooper, she requires a more friendly environment. So, no doubt, her interviews will, post-re-introduction, be more like the Hannity infomercial than serious exchanges with serious newspeople.
But, before all that, there's still the not-so-little matter of more Couric tape to consider. Martin explains:
Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.
The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.
Now there's a clip I'm looking foward to watching. Perhaps Marbury slipped her mind -- you know, because conservatives don't seem to care much for judicial review these days. And perhaps she just doesn't care much for, oh, say, Griswold and Brown and Miranda and Lawrence -- you know, for obvious reasons.
Couldn't she at least have mentioned Bush v. Gore? I'm sure she's a big fan.
**********
UPDATE: Atrios has "some sympathy for Palin," and Benen agrees that she "probably knows about as much as plenty of lawmakers on the Hill." Still, "it's a reminder that Palin is struggling on two parallel levels: she's painfully ignorant and she hasn't learned how to hide her painful ignorance."
For the record, I have no sympathy for her. She's what I would call, as I have called others before, a dangerous idiot -- dangerous because she's such an ignorant ideological extremist.
Friday, September 26, 2008
"Anonymous Liberal" gets it right
By Carl
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
When I watched the highlights of yesterday's twin train wrecks in the McCain campaign yesterday, I said to myself, "well, the only reason that John McCain cut out of the David Letterman taping (video at link) was to do damage control for the earlier massacred Couric-Palin interview.
In the course of that interview, Sarah Palin all but signaled John McCain's intention to vote for the bailout package. And if it wasn't his intention, it is now. She equated not voting for it to initiating a new Great Depression, and you can almost hear the one-liner from Obama: "He voted FOR the Great Depression, before he was against it!"
Not that he couldn't use this line anyway.
Too, Palin's "I'll get back to you" comment regarding whether McCain had ever passed a single piece of legislation that increased regulations was pretty much butchered, and showed her to be totally lost at sea when it comes to answering questions she doesn't know the answer to.
Anonymous Liberal posts a brief transcript of this exchange (video at link):
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.PALIN: He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?PALIN: I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you.
Now, I'm no Republican, but I can think off the top of my head of at least two bills that McCain supported that increased regulations on education (No Child Left Behind) and homeland security (the Patriot Act). I can't say that he *pushed* for passage of either of those, but I do know that the McCain-Feingold bill set new regulations regarding money in political campaigns and is indeed his signature bill in the Senate!
It's OK to draw a blank in an interview and say "I'll get back to you," but your damned handlers ought to be on a phone in another room, getting those answers to you. And if they can't get to you during the taping, they ought to get you as you walk out and hand you a slip of paper, so you can turn around and go back to Couric and say "McCain-Feingold" for her to add later.
So The Anonymous Liberal gets it right that McCain's stunt was damage control, to appear on Couric in the next news cycle... yes, news cycles can now be measured in hours, not days...to shore up his credentials. And kudos to Couric for asking a tough question.
But McCain suffers far more from his obfuscation to Letterman than he does from the stunt. If Senator McCain had been honest with Letterman, and said "Listen, I have to do damage control today, and if you'll keep it under your hat, I promise to drop by at the earliest opportunity to appear," Letterman would have been fine with that, and the endless replay of "Hey Senator, I have a question! Can I drive you to the airport?" wouldn't be getting more airplay than Sarah Palin's gaffes would.
Indeed, McCain could have called Letterman during the taping (both The Late Show and The CBS Evening News tape around the same time) and perhaps made a surprise appearance. This would have salvaged the day, and truly mitigated the unmitigated disaster that was the Palin interview.
As it is, McCain managed to limit its exposure, first by "cancelling" campaigning, and then by cancelling on Letterman, both dishonest acts of cowardice. And now, CNN is reporting that McCain wants to delay the VP debate! I wonder if he's thinking of replacing her with someone who's a bit more.. .seasoned. After this story, it's possible.
Letterman said it best last night: "What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"
Presidents are supposed to multi-task.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
