Jack Cafferty may have an opinion on Palin
I have this empathy for embarrassment. I’m one of those people who has a really tough time watching things like Crank Yankers or America’s Funniest Home Videos or a sitcom where it’s the episode’s big punchline moment where someone’s caught in something really embarrassing. I get all squirmy and can barely look at the TV.
It’s because of this reaction that I’ve had a hard time watching clips of Couric’s interview with Palin, but I finally suffered through this one in its entirety because it carried the promise of Cafferty being a grumpy old man at the end:
Talking Points Memo | Cafferty: Palin’s a Friggin’ Laughingstock
(Personal to M.G.: Why do I think Palin should be laughed off the public stage? This.)
This scares me because I know exactly what she’s doing. I do that. Hit the popular phrases and the right-sounding words. I have a general confidence that if I just start running my mouth, I’ll either shortly have enough of an idea what I’m talking about, or I’ll be able to present it well enough to fool non-savvy people into thinking I know what I’m talking about. But I don’t risk it unless I have a general understanding of the topic and when I’m under less scrutiny.
But when I do it, I also have the confidence that, if I don’t pull it off, I have the safety net of apologizing, saying “oh, sorry, I got confused there,” and promise to get a better answer later after some research. I can work a crowd well enough that I can keep goodwill through that if I don’t try it too often, and people’s bullshit meters are usually thrown off by an admission that you don’t have all the answers.
But of course Palin doesn’t have that luxury. She can’t possibly say “I don’t know”—well, she can maybe a few times, but the number of times she can get away with that is very small—so she has no choice but to barrel through. And that’s what she’s doing here. I’ve heard a lot of people say “this sounds like a bad interview” because that’s exactly what it is. It’s a job interview with a candidate who has no right to be there, but she’s trying to bullshit through the interview and hoping for the best. If you were hiring a Safeway regional manager and she answered a question like this, you’d kick her out the door.
You know JOBS. Jobs and 1 in 5 and immigration. And oh yeah taxes! Taxes so hard-working Americans can 9/11 and jobs overseas the economy strong Israel and Iran porkbarrel spending bridge to nowhere. Russia.
edit: this guy does that riff better.
September 26th, 2008 18:18
Certainly has been a rough week or so for VP candidates, huh…I get the feeling that the candidate is being overwhelmed with too much, too quickly with the added pressure of knowing that any slipup..ANY…will be run over and over. Oh wait…that last piece only applies to Gov Palin…the slipups by Sen Biden don’t get covered to the same degree.
I am concerned about her ability to handle all of this pressure (Couric really seemed to rattle her with this clip and the other one on her international experience)…but I also think that more people will be empathetic towards her than they will for Sen Biden and his many years of experience. This knife may cut the wrong way.
Personally I think the question is moot as Katie Couric is asking a question that I have not heard anyone really consider since it makes no sense (giving the 700 billion to average Americans to help with issues with healthcare and buying things). I am still getting my head around this whole financial mess…but I know some wealthy people are getting wealthier as the congress drags it out.
September 26th, 2008 18:55
No, man. No. I am reasonable to a fault, and I am sometimes guilty of over-hedging to the point that I don’t stand for a position strongly enough. But in this case you can’t pawn this off on “both parties are the same”. I have never seen Biden look incapable anywhere near this level; at worst he has a tendency towards a bad turn of phrase or a comment of the type that’s easy to soundbite and make fun of (see also: “Liberal media” is a joke of a myth). Show me where Biden looks anywhere near as unprepared and trying-to-get-away-with-it as Palin does here.
Look at her. She’s a moose in the headlights and she’s trying to get out of it by throwing bullshit fast enough to get away from them. If you have ever interviewed people you can see this for what it is.
September 26th, 2008 19:09
So explain why you are not laughing Sen Obama off the stage…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8
And this was not an interview…I like when he comments to the crowd that he can’t hear himself think…who has the temper?
September 26th, 2008 19:17
I still think the question is a strange one…and having tried to follow this crisis despite traveling and work…I can’t say I have seen this question raised by anyone reasonable. There is no way the 700 billion would be used for the things Katie Couric lists…however I was reading someone who said they thought she should have been prepared for the question anyway. Still not sure…
As for Biden…I just think he has a few more years of experience in recovering from his gaffes…and since he has so many, he is just so good at it. Again…one of those things that comes with time and I just think Gov Palin will be a quick study. Time will tell. Just do not like the quick lemming-like judgments being thrown out.
September 26th, 2008 21:56
As presented, that clip can’t compare. I’d need more context, but it looks to me like he’s trying to talk while being distracted by a heckler. If you have audio of the guy who’s yelling at him then we’d know if his comment was justified, but there it’s like we’re trying to judge him by one end of a phone conversation with someone who keeps interrupting him.
Also you can’t argue that Obama has a worse temper than McCain. His is well-documented and has been for years.
If the question’s a strange one then why is she bothering to answer it? It’s nearly even a softball question! I mean *I* could have answered that better with the things I’ve read over the past couple days. She clearly just bullshitted her way through it. That answer was a talking point word salad. If you can’t see that, that you are as closed-minded about it as you think I am.
September 26th, 2008 23:29
There is always a problem…find something wrong with the clip and go with that theory. No problem…there are others.
I didn’t say Obama has a worse temper…but that he does have one…and I think it will get the best of him in the end.
She has to answer it but the answer should have been…we won’t have to worry about health care for all or people paying for groceries if the entire US economy collapses because there will be no money to fund business. The 700 billion is necessary to keep the liquidity going.
I still think it was a strange question…and I don’t think you are closed minded, just differently aligned from me.
September 27th, 2008 00:32
Don’t get me wrong, I think Katie Couric is a useless hack and I cannot stand the woman, but that was a completely legit question that has been asked by others.
I’m sorry if your penultimate news source is busy sucking the dick of congress and the prez on this, but the fact of the matter is the government (having already put us trillions of dollars in debt) is taking our money and giving it to the same damn banks that screwed everyone over in the first place. Just a few months ago there was talk of bailing out the homeowners themselves, cutting people a check to fend off impending forclosures, and it was shot down quickly. Now we’re gonna bail out the banks, who, frankly, had to see this coming? How is that at all justifiable?
You wanna talk about smaller government, government staying out of business? Well then why the fuck should we bail anyone out? Let the market correct itself. Yeah, it’ll hurt, it’s gonna suck, but maybe it’s necessary. Teach a few people a lesson. Instead we’ll give the banks an almost blank check and the rich will stay that way and it won’t help the poor (especially the ones who couldn’t afford a damn house to start with) one iota.
An economy based so heavily on people spending money they don’t actually have is not a healthy economy.
September 27th, 2008 11:37
Palin sucks.
This economy thing is really just leverage for the candidates. We’ve been in a recession for years, and we’re at some weird middle ground where it’s kind of a depression, but different. The changes that would be necessary would require so much legislation and deliberation that by the time these fucktards get around to fixing the economy, it’s already completely plummeted.
Buy a gun, teach yourself how to survive in the wild, and learn to swim. It’s really coming to this soon.
September 27th, 2008 14:42
Mike, I can’t discount the possibility that Obama just had a brain fart and stuttered through a sentence badly. But we have a full body of his work where he’s spoken confidently and articulately that I think we can accept a charitable explanation. Palin does not have that advantage.
Still, man. It doesn’t matter.
Seriously? Reducing taxes has got to accompany tax reductions? And tax relief? And I know I’ve been focused on this one quote, because it’s just the most egregious example, but both her interviews (I’m not counting the “So, Governor, why do you think Obama hates America” treatment she got from Hannity) generally went like this, a strung-together collection of key phrases and dog whistles. Even with the baseline of what I expect from politicians on this point, she went way below expectations of someone who would likely be president.
Really. I can only conclude either your mind is made up due to your ideology, or you’ve just never had to interview someone who had this going on. She’s in way over her head and she was trying to bullshit her way out of it, it’s just right there on the screen.
(p.s.: mikki, “penultimate” means “next to last”.)
September 27th, 2008 14:46
Hey also about the mortgage problem in general: the real problem, in my opinion, is that it’s not just about bad lenders and people who couldn’t afford mortgages. The problem is, the economy sucks, and has for some time, but people who just look to the GNP numbers see them continue to go up, so don’t think there’s an issue.
But it’s not just the bad mortgages, it’s also people who were generally good credit risks, but since they’ve been losing their jobs and/or getting bankrupted by health care costs, they can’t make their mortgage payments. But unfortunately people are only focused on the subprime aspect now.
September 27th, 2008 19:16
Wait, we’re focused on subprime? I thought we’d moved well beyond that and straight through to credit crunch, waiting for the hedge fund shoe to drop.
People paying off only some of their retarded mortgages isn’t quite so bad as banks refusing to lend anyone any money.
September 27th, 2008 21:23
Oh man, yeah, Mike, you’re totally right, Palin must be absolutely exhausted from all these press conferences she isn’t giving, and softball interviews like Hannity asking her whether she feels Obama is more an America-hating Muslim baby-killer, or just a baby-killing Muslim America-hater. I can imagine that being just profoundly overwhelming.
Look, everyone says stupid things — Biden and Obama included, of course. But there’s a difference between making slipups and making a fucking career out of them. If you look at it on a “per word spoken publicly” basis, Obama and Biden flubbing things every so often or losing their trains of thought is statistically insignificant compared to Palin’s ratio.
If the American public is going to vote someone into office because they feel sorry for them, then what a sad state of affairs we’ve come to. “Oh, gee, she’s terrified of interviews and press conferences, and when she actually DOES speak publicly, almost every sentence sounds completely moronic… the poor dear, let’s give her the job!” And yeah, let’s hire people with Down Syndrome as surgeons and nuclear technicians while we’re at it, the poor things. Because after all, EVERYthing should utilize the same judgment criteria as the Special Olympics — it doesn’t matter whether a person can do a job, but whether they can inspire our empathy, like a sad widdle puppy.
September 27th, 2008 21:29
On the subject of tempers, by the way, after watching McCain bitch out the sister of an MIA Vietnam veteran for several minutes because questioning why he would try to bury the PAVE SPIKE program “denigrated his patriotism” — to the point where she broke into tears — I really don’t think any anger Obama has ever exhibited can even come close to comparing. And there’s no way an argument could be made that Obama is somehow in greater danger of succumbing to his temper than McCain is.
I don’t mind the $700 billion bailout so much, as long as there are the necessary restrictions in place on how that money can be used and how it will eventually be repaid to the American people. I mean, if it’s either a bail-out or the collapse of the economy, the choice is obvious. What I don’t agree with is the Republican notion that giving rich people more money and greater tax breaks is somehow going to make everything better because rich people will be, I don’t know, magically compelled to invest their money in banks that have proven themselves shitty investments, and how there’s any real motivation for investment if there are no checks in place to prevent the same mismanagement and abuses that brought us to where we are in the first place.
And I mean, if trickle-down economics actually worked, then executives getting rich with exorbitant salaries and ridiculously immense golden parachutes should’ve prevented us from winding up in the situation we’re currently in, right? Because after all, as long as the rich people are doing well, that’s all going to trickle down into the rest of the economy, isn’t it? So it’s logically impossible for us to be in the situation we’re currently in.
September 28th, 2008 11:52
You have a link to that McCain thing?
September 28th, 2008 14:17
Here’s something on it from The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/schanberg
And here’s the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CazKanlYDg
September 28th, 2008 17:33
Before we start jumping on the bad lenders (and I am not saying that there are not any out there), please remember that our legislature was threatening legal action if they did not include everyone in the mortgage process.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/mccainpalin_could_win_this_ele.html
The mortgage foreclosures are mainly those in that subprime category (subprime means loans given to high risk applicants)…where changes in the law made for income to include welfare and unemployment…and if the lenders did not make those loans, they would be sued.
There are just some people who should not have been given mortgages…
September 28th, 2008 19:16
Hey, here’s a solution: Price caps on housing. That way it’s more affordable, and the “values” aren’t tremendously overinflated, and perhaps more people could actually get loans they can be expected to pay off!
Of course, that would mean instituting legislation that might be “harmful” to landlords, house-flippers, rent-seeking entities and other people and businesses that make money practically just from owning a thing.
September 29th, 2008 08:36
So, what’s the over/under on Sarah Palin dropping out before the VP debates this Thursday?
September 29th, 2008 12:38
Dropping out of what, the debates or the VP spot?
Debates, I’d say it’s a longshot. Probably the McCain camp is busy monitoring the night sky for large-ish meteors headed roughly in our direction that will require Palin’s immediate attention due to her unique moose-hunting knowledge, but odds are low they’ll find one before Thursday.
VP spot: extreme longshot. It really can’t happen. If she got on TV and said she couldn’t be VP, it’s politically equivalent to McCain having a press conference and saying that he’s bowing out of the election. And besides, what we know about McCain is that he gambles big and sticks with his decision. (Except, oddly, the decision to skip out of the debates until an accord was reached on the bailout. That went strangely against pattern.)
September 29th, 2008 13:44
I meant the position, but I hadn’t really considered the other option. Dropping out of the debates for any reason short of a death in the immediate family would be a tacit admission that she wasn’t up to it, which would be just as much a blow to McCain’s campaign as getting her to fall on her sword for them.
If the debate goes on and is anything less than a bloodbath, Biden will have done very poorly indeed. But you’re probably right, their best bet at this point is to just bull through it and move on as quickly as possible. After all, no matter what happens on either side, the partisan hacks in Spin Alley will fall all over themselves in breathless admiration explaining how their candidate completely demolished their opponent. But I expect one side will have a much harder time than the other on this one.
September 29th, 2008 21:14
Before you look forward to the VP bloodbath, don’t forget a couple of factors: Biden seems to have this amazing fondness for the taste of his foot and the Republican spinpersons are going to be ready and willing to parse every statement he makes for sexism and cry foul accordingly.
September 29th, 2008 21:17
Oh, and as for Palin backing out, I have a question:
If you were the sort of person who was interested in power, would you pass up an opportunity to be a 72 year old former POW’s heartbeat away from the Presidency?
September 29th, 2008 23:29
No, you’re absolutely right, Biden does have a reputation for making some wild-ass statements, and I said in my post that the spin would be working overtime in both directions (as it always does). But this just adds to the entertainment factor. I must admit I think I’m going into full American-Idol-trash-TV mode for this debate, bathrobe and slippers, big bucket of popcorn, unplug the phone. This promises to be the most entertaining VP debate since Lloyd Bentsen bitch-slapped Dan Quayle for comparing himself to JFK one time too many.
As for your subsequent question, that’s a non-starter. The decision to back out of the ticket would never be hers, though that is definitely how it would be presented.
September 30th, 2008 09:24
Hum, that’s a point about Biden, I suppose. Not that I would worry about him saying something inappropriate in itself, but that it’s the sort of thing conservatives/the press love to run with.
I bet that’s a valid worry they have. I wonder how they attempted to train him. My guess is that he’s going to put a lot of praise on her, like over-the-top praise, so on the face of it he can’t be accused of looking down on her. But they’d be hoping that Palin herself would wind up casting doubt on that.
By the way, I am convinced they trained McCain to not directly engage Obama at all costs, that’s what the “no eye contact” thing was about. You could see his rising anger in that one exchange where they were almost going back and forth. That’s why he wanted town halls–because he could focus on the crowd rather than Obama directly.