PALIN: THE WAR CONTINUES
I don’t get it. What earthly good is it doing, raising the issues surrounding the candidacy of Sarah Palin for Vice President among the “professionals” who ran John McCain’s horribly mismanaged campaign?
I put pros in quotes because this latest dust-up is all about the gigantic egos of the principles in this scrum - a quite unprofessional attitude that helps no one except the opposition . And also because the McCain campaign will go down as one of the worst managed campaigns in history, rivaling Michael Dukakis’s nightmare of a run and the quixotically inept campaign of George McGovern.
But it is mostly ego driving Bill Kristol, Schmidt, Scheunamann, and the rest of the losers who refuse to stand up and say “I blew it.” Admittedly, such an admission is hard to make when one’s reputation, and hence, livelihood, is based on success at the polls. But you don’t have to be a brilliant strategist to see that the McCain campaign was poorly managed - slow to respond to the day-to-day jousting with the Obama team, not to mention a questionable overall strategy, curious ad buys, poor decisions on staffing state offices, and a host of other missteps that doomed McCain almost from the start.
And that’s not even mentioning Sarah Palin. Readers of this site know that when she was chosen, I was jubilant, believing it was a real game changer. But subsequently, it became painfully obvious that not only wasn’t she ready for the national stage, but the way the McCain camp was “handling” the Alaska governor guaranteed that her inexperience would remain an issue for the entire campaign.
Stacy McCain refuses to come out and say Palin wasn’t ready, but in her defense, he blames everyone else for Palin’s own missteps:
Palin would have been solid gold in any impromptu encounter with reporters on the campaign trail. Putting her into one-on-one interviews with the network anchors — eager to draw blood with “gotcha” questions — was a stupid blunder on the part of the campaign.
To schedule those interviews, and then to arrange sessions to “prepare” her for them, was to imply that she was incapable of handling the interviews without the “expert” assistance of the Team Maverick brain trust which, of course, had committed her to these interviews in the first place.
Am I the only one who sees that the problem with how Palin was “handled” had nothing to do with Palin and everything to do with the handlers? She is being made the scapegoat for the failures of others.
Stacy knows full well that running on a national ticket is not a game for the inexperienced. It is absolutely true that Palin was “mismanaged.” But the Couric interview showed that no amount of managing or coaching would have helped. She was as green as grass and Couric bored in as any experienced interviewer would have. Is Stacy saying that it is Couric’s fault that she asked questions that just about any experienced politician would have been able to finesse but that Palin couldn’t handle?
Palin was indeed, inexperienced and not ready for the Big Show. There is nothing wrong with her innate intelligence. She’s no dummy and has shown that when’s she’s well briefed, she can more than hold her own in debate.
But it takes more than brains to demonstrate readiness for national office and more than a good briefing to have a handle on issues. Palin wasn’t only inexperienced in dealing with the national press. Her biggest lack of experience came from not having immersed herself in the nuance and details of policy, personalities, and politics - a failing that she will no doubt correct if she is going to run in 2012. Such immersion gives depth to a politician’s personae and authority to their words.
Palin will do better if she runs again. But she won’t be able to lose the “diva” label unless Kristol, Schmidt, et al stop talking about the campaign as if it were all about them. Their incompetence elected Barack Obama and gave us the dumbest, densest Vice President in history (Funny no one does a hit piece on the horribly gaffe prone Joe Biden and his friends in the credit card industry who have made him a wealthy man.) And yet, here they are, snarling, sniping, and acting like 12 year old little girls at a slumber party who break off into little cliques dishing dirt on someone across the room:
“Steve Schmidt has a congenital aversion to the truth,” Scheunemann said. “On two separate and distinct occasions, he speculated about about Governor Palin having post-partum depression, and on the second he threatened that if more negative publicity about the handling of Governor Palin emerged that he would leak his speculation [about post-partum depression] to the press. It was like meeting Tony Soprano.”
Schmidt said Scheunemann’s charges were “categorically untrue.”
“It is inappropriate for me to discuss personnel issues from the campaign,” Schmidt continued. “But suffice it to say Randy is saying these things not because they’re true but because he wants to damage my reputation because of consequences he faced for actions he took.”
Schmidt is alluding, without saying so directly, to the stories that emerged after the campaign that Scheunemann had been fired.
Scheunemann said Schmidt did try to fire him but added: “I’ve got a pay stub through November 15th.”
The questions about Scheunemann being terminated are central to the larger battle about who was trashing Palin, something that quickly came to the surface in the back and forth between Schmidt and Kristol on Tuesday.
All of this came about as a result of an article in Vanity Fair about Palin that is so bad, much of it has to be a lie, or at least an exaggeration. No human being I know is as bad as the portrait painted of Palin in that article. No one could achieve the success she has in her career if she was truly as monstrous as the person described.
But beyond the description of Palin, one wonders why now? Why a hit piece more than 3 years before the election?
Two reasons come to mind: 1) Palin is such a polarizing figure that anything written about her sells copy; and 2) There is a growing recognition among liberal elites that Obama is heading for a one term presidency unless they can destroy each and every Republican challenger who emerges.
It’s no accident that the name “Carter” is being whispered more and more around Washington to describe Obama. Stimulus isn’t working, debt is skyrocketing, people may like Obama but support for his policies is tanking, largely due to the realization of how much his programs are going to cost us.
Republicans are liked even less but individual politicians are ranked much higher. Trying to destroy Palin, Romney, Huckabee, and anyone else who may emerge in the coming months could be the only way Obama gets a second term.
Why Kristol and Schmidt think the Democrats need a hand in that process is a mystery.
Alaska Govenor Sarah Palin is one righteous babe….
-Drool-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLQm1feCjnk&feature=channel_page
Comment by Dr Muttley — 7/1/2009 @ 10:42 am
Part of it may be prospective Republican presidential candidates realize Obama suddenly has become quite vulnerable, too. I do agree the Left has started to try to assassinate potential Obama rivals one by one because they smell the blood in the water as well.
As for Stacy McCain, I will have to say his devastating deconstruction of batshit crazy Andrew Sullivan may be among the best no-holds-barred hit pieces I have ever read. I normally would say a person with the obvious problems Sullivan manifests should be off limits, but as long as the Atlantic wants to sponsor his on line freakshow, he’s fair game.
Comment by jackson1234 — 7/1/2009 @ 10:47 am
Nice article Mr. M.
Granted the McCain campaign seems to have been staffed with Democratic double-agents (seriously, who told him that the best bet to get elected was to ditch his maverick, straight-talk image and go for a “I’m more Bush-like than W” strategy?), but no amount of bad organization erases the fact that she just wasn’t (IMHO still isn’t) ready for prime time. Seems like a nice lady and all, but I wasn’t giving her the launch codes.
Gotta disagree with this, though:
“not having immersed herself in the nuance and details of policy, personalities, and politics - a failing that she will no doubt correct if she is going to run in 2012″
No question she damn well should correct it if she’s ever going to have the remotest chance of getting elected (she’ll never get my vote, but there’s plenty of other votes out there), but I can’t detect the slightest trace that she’s even trying to fix this. Maybe she’s got the best poker-face on the planet, pulling an Annie Duke “gee, I guess you’re real smart and I’m such a silly girl, oops I got all your chips” fake-out, but honestly I’m terrified that she’s actually bought into the fanaticism that her “gee shucks you betcha” charm is all America needs (p.s.:when Reds moan about the ‘cult of Obama’. I just think about Palinites and shake my head sadly).
What has she done since the campaign? Gwet into a pissing match with GOP central, which would be a ballsy move if it was coming from a hard-core Playa, but is really coming off as “I’m too important for you not to jump when i say”. Either she’s brilliant or deluded . . . and I don’t know anybody that goes from that unprepared to ninja-level Art of War strategy that quickly.
Frankly, she should sit out 2012. Her name is still too scarred to not scare away voters. Give it a decade in the trenches, play the game, lay low and rack up a sizeable bank of favors, and she could (terrifingly for me) be a real force — basically, pull a Gingrich. Jumping back in without giving people a chance to think she’s “smartened” up is a recipie for disaster.
Comment by busboy33 — 7/1/2009 @ 11:10 am
Look on the bright side.
The country could now be governed by McCain and Palin. We sure dodged a bullet on that one!
RM wrote: There is a growing recognition among liberal elites that Obama is heading for a one term presidency unless they can destroy each and every Republican challenger who emerges.
Haha! I rather doubt your know what liberal elites think. Besides they’re all idiots, right? I read that here.
Or are they nefarious, evil people devising clever plans to thwart the noble republicans?
We are not even 6 months into this administration. You need to pace yourself. Can you sustain this level of resentment, paranoia, anger, and delusion for three more years? If so, your stomach lining will be much the worse for it.
Comment by HyperIon — 7/1/2009 @ 11:29 am
“Palin will do better if she runs again.”
“No human being I know is as bad as the portrait painted of Palin in that article.”
Let go, Rick, let go.
Politicians who came before Palin and will come after her are and will be narcissistic, lie when they don’t event have to, be willfully stupid and use their good looks as a cudgel.
It’s just that she is all those things and more.
Comment by Shaun — 7/1/2009 @ 11:32 am
I’m about half way between you and Stacy. She was clearly unprepared, and she was clearly on a losing and poorly managed team. But the biggest cause of the portrait presented of her to the public was the press’s seething hatred of her.
As far as Obama goes, you are correct- he’s heading for a 1 term presidency. I’ve compared him to Carter for over a year, and it is a valid comparison in many ways, on many levels. I even predicted Obama’s falling approval numbers (in your blog comment section), and warned Michael Reynolds to gloat while he can, because I’ll be the one gloating soon.
On the other hand, its kind of tough to gloat when your country is being weakened, your taxes are being raised, the economy is being wrecked and your children’s futures are mortgaged. So I won’t gloat, I’ll just say “I told you so”.
Comment by lionheart — 7/1/2009 @ 12:08 pm
McCain was the wrong candidate, chosen solely by the media, and his handlers ran the wrong campaign. If not for Palin, the GOP would have lost by 20 points or more.
This is not to say that Palin was a perfect candidate, but in the sorry state of affairs that is the GOP, she was the best candidate the party could muster. In a perfect world, Palin should have been a future star on the second or third string.
The GOP has been leaderless since Reagan, and rudderless since Gingrich. And now the circular firing squad begins.
I can’t fathom voting Dem, the GOP is within months of conceding to BHO’s 2012 re-election, and most wannabe Libertarians won’t put down the joint long enough to go vote.
What is a sane person to do? Emigrate to France?
Comment by Junk Science Skeptic — 7/1/2009 @ 12:09 pm
Sarah Palin in 2008 was like Ronald Reagan in 1968: a first term governor who wasn’t yet ready for the presidency. The raw talent was visible, but the candidate needed more seasoning. Nixon shrewdly fended off Reagan in 1968; Obama-Biden could rely on the media and McCain’s blunders to hang on.
No other probable Republican candidate has Palin’s potential or sheer charisma. If she learns from her mistakes in 2008, she could be unbeatable in 2012. Hence she must be destroyed now.
Comment by Hubbard — 7/1/2009 @ 12:18 pm
“No other probable Republican candidate has Palin’s potential or sheer charisma. If she learns from her mistakes in 2008, she could be unbeatable in 2012. Hence she must be destroyed now.”
You guys are just deluding yourself here. Julia Roberts and George Clooney have oodles of charisma to, but they aren’t running for President. This notion that liberals are trying to destroy Palin is about as real as a liberals notion that you are trying to destroy Joe Biden. Your real target is Obama because he’s the President, Joe is just a great sideshow who provides you with sources of entertainment (just admit it). Palin entertains us in the almost soap opera twists and turns of her life. It’s much more like covering Brittany Spears over the past years than say going after Reagan or some other politician that liberals wanted off the national stage. If this was Italy where politics IS entertainment, she might have a good chance but despite our national disgust with politicians we have a bit higher bar usually.
Comment by Derrick — 7/1/2009 @ 12:52 pm
Derrick,
If Obama could get elected, any Empty Suit deluxe could. That is what excites the Palin folks. If a bumbling, economic illiterate like Obama could be elected, certainly someone more marginally qualified than he could be. And let’s face it: Obama was and remains at the far margins of qualification. Obama had his Katrina/Iraq/name it moments in the first five months of his Administration as he engaged in economic policies that will implode in the near term. I don’t see him re-elected without a lot of media and other left-wing character assassination, and even that might not cut it unless the laws of economics are suspended.
I imagine, if Obama continues to go down quickly and surely, there will be numerous qualified candidates jump into the race. The Carter analogy is quite apt, but the field had been cleared for Reagan. So Rick’s point is a good one–the media and other leftists are compelled to clear the field for Obama so neither a Reagan nor even someone marginally more qualified than the completely marginal and mediocre Obama is left standing.
The problem the president’s enablers face, of course, is such tactics are about to wear very thin, as does the enabled. It will be a fascinating three and one-half years.
Comment by jackson1234 — 7/1/2009 @ 1:15 pm
Palin is no dummy, that is why I believe she will never run for national office again. She must realize she’s too polarizing to win herself, yet she is so popular with the base that she will have influence within the GOP for years to come. She now knows that being a cheerleader of the republican/right wing base that trusts her is far more profitable and less stressful than campaigning nationwide where a majority of the people have little faith in her.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 7/1/2009 @ 2:06 pm
I think you mean “the principals in this scrum”; I see no evidence of principles.
Comment by Pat Curley — 7/1/2009 @ 2:35 pm
People can argue all day about Palin’s abilities or lack thereof. One clear ability is that she could bring in money and crowds, the mother’s milk of politics.
That’s proof to me that the “brain trust” needs to rethink their own abilities. Since when do smart electioneers turn down the most valuable tokens in the game?
Comment by Allen — 7/1/2009 @ 2:50 pm
Rick, in the last several articles you’ve really found your post-RNC-implosion voice. More please.
I disagree (being to the left of you), but it takes some mental effort.
I imagine, if Obama continues to go down quickly and surely, …
Your imagination is strong. Reagan’s approval rating (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html) slid to below 40 percent by mid 1983. Unemployment continued to increase through the end of 1982. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE
(Also click on view data).
So a comparison between Reagan and Obama might be more apt.
(I’m somewhat hopeful that we’ll see a noticeable recovery in a similar timeframe.)
Comment by Bill Arnold — 7/1/2009 @ 3:49 pm
People are utterly, totally disgusted and disillusioned with elite politicians, pundits, pedagogues and petulant pissants who come from racist, inbred cesspools like Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago. Yes racist. They proudly discriminate against Asians, Whites and straights and preach marxist nonsense that would sicken an HIV cockroach. Beyond that the Ivy league mafia (both parties)screw the flyover people for their own benefits.
The website Muckety Muck is amazing how it reveals the incestuous, corrupt relationships between connected pols, media, foundations, big corps, and bureaucrats. Most of Obama’s crackpots are simply connected, not talented.
Palin has a huge asset–she is not one of them and that will be gold if she can withstand the elitescum onslaught. I live in Cambridge, MA and the repulsive elitism and willfull blindness to reality here, and up and down the elite community from NY to DC has reached critical mass.
Comment by LaFong — 7/1/2009 @ 7:00 pm
Obama, less than 6 months in is Jimmy Carter,yeah right.And Palin is the female Ronald Reagan,yeah right. Obama’s base is out here, we’re large, and motivated. Don’t fool yourself thinking were just going to fade into the night. His organization is on standby, its not going away. Bush ruined the country, it will take Obama a while to get it re-started. Were not ready to throw Obama under the bus quite yet. Don’t count Obama out yet pilgrims, and conservatives, better get your own house in order before you go gunning for Obama, savvy?
Comment by Joe — 7/1/2009 @ 7:36 pm
Here’s the GOP Platform for 2012:
1) Creationism should be required teaching in public schools.
2) Alcohol should be banned and Prohibition should again be the law of the land!
These two policies alone should get the Holy Rollers back into the voting booth.
Provided they can tear themselves away from online porn.
Comment by Commie Stooge — 7/1/2009 @ 7:38 pm
Steve Schmidt seems destined to take over for Bob Schram as the guy who can’t get anything right.
But frankly, after this food fight, it’s time to find a place on the ballot for “none of the above“.
Comment by Neo — 7/1/2009 @ 9:32 pm
Should Palin ever be a candidate again; I’m sure that the video of her with an African pastor denouncing “witches” will enjoy a second life.
How can a Govenor from an oil state promote Creationism?
Comment by Commie Stooge — 7/2/2009 @ 9:17 am
A nitpick re: Biden: IIRC, he’s one the very few senators whom one wouldn’t use the appellation “wealthy” to describe. I’m sure he’s well-off compared to the average American, but next to the average senator he’d be a pauper.
Comment by jpe — 7/2/2009 @ 10:06 am
Commie Stooge, Joe, Derrick, et al
If Palin is such a horrible choice as the GOP standard bearer, why are all the usual suspects, on the left, side in such a tizzy about her? They should be encouraging the GOP to nominate such a “obvious loser”.
Comment by Mike Giles — 7/2/2009 @ 11:03 am
If Palin wants to get back in the race I think she should take the time to start showing us what she is made of by putting out a monthly 15 minute video on YouTube covering what ever topic she thinks is important.
No reporters to say “Gotcha!”, no audience to distract her, no one except her and her ideas of what this country needs.
It doesn’t have to be the greatest video ever made. Heck, she can likely get the kids at the local high school to show her how to do it with a $20 webcam, and some open source software.
If that is not to her liking then she can write a monthly blog posting. I know that Huffington Post would love to give her access to an audience that will provide her with feed back.
Comment by KenGirard — 7/2/2009 @ 11:18 am
@Mike Giles: Maybe they think that she is the very last person on the planet they want in office?
If there is someone running for office that I think will destroy everything, then not only am I going to not vote for them, but I am also going to campain against them.
If the other sides choices are Average, Average, and Moron, I am going to do everything to avoid it coming down to my side vs Moron. I care to much for the country to risk that. I would rather see my side lose then see someone I thought was the worst possible person win.
I think that you will find a lot of people feel that way about it.
Comment by KenGirard — 7/2/2009 @ 11:29 am
@ Mike Giles:
“If Palin is such a horrible choice as the GOP standard bearer, why are all the usual suspects, on the left, side in such a tizzy about her? They should be encouraging the GOP to nominate such a “obvious loser”.”
We are. Dear god we are.
Why are people who don’t like her in a tizzy about her? Because she’s (a) relatively attractive and (b) a hilarious train wreck and (c) a target people can point to and say “see? That’s why Republicans are dangerous — bewcause they’re all like her.”
If I understand what you’re saying, you’re implying that if people are paying attention to her, then she must be either very skillful or very powerful. Taking the second part first . . . anybody that might have the ability to start a war with nukes is dangerous and someone I take seriously. That doesn’t mean I respect them. Assuming Iran gets the missles working, Ahmadiddlyajad becomes heart-stoppingly important and serious . . . does that mean you now think he’s a brilliant, talented, engaging and inspirational leader of men?
If you’re saying that people paying attention to her implies that she is respected, admired, and inspirational . . . well, then The Real Wives of New Jersey must be the template for the American Family, The Springer Show must be the our ideal of Journalism, porn is our target for inter-gender relations (well, that might be a bad example), and a 15-car pile-up on the freeway with a few fatalities must be our ideal for enjoying the scenery.
Personally, I consider her both — a hilarious joke that is terrifingly dangerous. I can’t think of a single thing she has said or done that has increased my estimation of her . . . usually the best she gets is I don’t respect her less when she’s done.
Like I said, she’s purty no doubt, and the platitudes are nice and all, but what has she said or done that makes anybody think she’s more qualified to run this country and speak for me than, say, Tyra Banks?
Comment by busboy33 — 7/2/2009 @ 11:52 am
“2) There is a growing recognition among liberal elites that Obama is heading for a one term presidency unless they can destroy each and every Republican challenger who emerges.”
Rick, I’ll take door #2.
“I’m about half way between you and Stacy. She was clearly unprepared, and she was clearly on a losing and poorly managed team. But the biggest cause of the portrait presented of her to the public was the press’s seething hatred of her.”
BINGO, we have a winner. Why does the press hate her? I dunno, but I was watching History channel and they were talking about how the EASTERN PRESS OF 1830 ABSOLUTELY HATED COUNTRY BUMPKIN DAVEY CROCKETT. Unlettered backwoods hunter Crockett was too much for the DC elites. “hey, that’s Palin!” I thought.
“Why are people who don’t like her in a tizzy about her? Because she’s (a) relatively attractive and (b) a hilarious train wreck”
The trains are fine. Alaska had done better under Palin than America has done under Obama.
“If there is someone running for office that I think will destroy everything, then not only am I going to not vote for them, but I am also going to campain against them.”
SO HOW HARD DID YOU WORK TO STOP THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE PRESIDENT IN OUR LIFETIME, BARACK OBAMA?
“If Obama could get elected, any Empty Suit deluxe could. That is what excites the Palin folks. If a bumbling, economic illiterate like Obama could be elected, certainly someone more marginally qualified than he could be. And let’s face it: Obama was and remains at the far margins of qualification. Obama had his Katrina/Iraq/name it moments in the first five months of his Administration as he engaged in economic policies that will implode in the near term.”
Governor Sarah Palin might not be the best Republican candidate we could put forward in 2010, but she would do a better job than Obama, as would hundreds, nay thousands, of other decent folks who have a clue about the economy, love freedom, and have a patriotic care for the sovereignty and security of USA.
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 7/2/2009 @ 12:22 pm
“might not be the best Republican candidate we could put forward in 2010″
oops, 2012 that is.
2010 is reserved for deposing Queen Nancy.
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 7/2/2009 @ 12:24 pm
“A nitpick re: Biden: IIRC, he’s one the very few senators whom one wouldn’t use the appellation “wealthy” to describe. I’m sure he’s well-off compared to the average American, but next to the average senator he’d be a pauper.”
That’s because he’s an idiot who cant manage his money well and racked up a lot of debt. A fiscal-anti-conservative. But he still manages to live in what most Americans would call a mansion.
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 7/2/2009 @ 12:26 pm
“The Carter analogy is quite apt, but the field had been cleared for Reagan”
Ahem - REAGAN cleared the field of more than half a dozen contenders in 1980 with his “I paid for this microphone” moment in NH. Nothing was set in stone in 1977. Nothing about 2012 is set in stone yet.
It never is 3 years out. If it were, we’d have had a Guliani vs Hillary race last year.
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 7/2/2009 @ 12:30 pm
“Obama’s base is out here, we’re large, and motivated.”
Obama’s base:
Out - just told the family you’re gay.
Here - at the public library on the internet. No place else to go that’s free.
Large - overeating out of nervousness to the point of binging.
Motivated - trying hard to find a job in this high unemployment Obama economy. Not succeeding, hence ‘here’.
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 7/2/2009 @ 12:35 pm
Freedoms Truth asked:
“SO HOW HARD DID YOU WORK TO STOP THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE PRESIDENT IN OUR LIFETIME, BARACK OBAMA?”
Didn’t work against him, as he was not then, and is not now, the person I worry the most about being the President.
“Obama had his Katrina/Iraq/name it moments in the first five months of his Administration as he engaged in economic policies that will implode in the near term.”
I am taking it from your analogy that you believe that the ambulance driver is at fault for the 3 car pile up he has arrived to try and save lives at? Katrina happened in 2005, Iraq started in 2003. ‘Name it moment’ is a little to vauge for me to date. Housing collapse started in 2008 before Obama was even the Dem candidate. So, what else do you have to blame him on? GM & Chrysler & the banking industry running themselves into bankrupty? I think it took more then 5 months of stupidity on their part to achieve that. Sanford’s cheating?
Or are you trying to claim that Obama has special magical powers that let him fool CEO and Politicians into becoming brainless idiots more then 6 years before he was elected President?
Comment by KenGirard — 7/2/2009 @ 1:36 pm
@ Freedom’s Truth:
okay, I’ll bite. What has she done for Alaska? What was Alaska like before she got there? What problems did she fix or avoid?
Alaska generally does allright — it’s got alot of income, and not too many expenses. She didn’t make that happen. She just didn’t fu@k that up . . . giving her the same effective leadership talent as a table lamp.
But you’re right about one thing: all of the negativity toward her is clearly a Liberal Media Elite Plot to make a genius look bad. Hell, you saw it with those “gotcha” questions like “what newspapers do you read”. Very sneaky of them to add “what” to “do you read”. No real American could be expected to answer a trick question like that on the spot. And all that trick editing, making it look like her answers were rambling, incoherent nonsense. I do some video editing, and I gotta tell you I’m impressed how they made it look like she actually said all that using such tricks like turning the camera to “record” and leaving it pointed at her. Sneaky liberals.
Oddly enough, I had much the same conversation with a hardcore Conservative friend of mine during the campaign. After telling me how it was all a plot I asked them if they had actually watched the Couric interview. She admitted she hadn’t, but Rush and Fox News told her everything she needed to know about it. I sent her a link to the video. Two days later I got a response, and I’m quoting: “wow — that was really pretty bad.”
p.s.: I’m taking a sidebet with myself as to your response. 20% odds you ignore the question and yell about how Obama is destroying Christmas, 30% you insult me for being such a gullible sheep, and 50% you do both. C’mon . . . disappoint me.
Comment by busboy33 — 7/2/2009 @ 9:36 pm
Yep and while the MSM media were slaughtering her and her family Biden was yapping about the wrong president going on TV before it was invented. Looks to me they all belong on the Jaywalk allstars.
Comment by windygeo — 7/5/2009 @ 8:56 am