Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jul 6, 2009 13:52:09 GMT -5
I think somewhere Chelsea Clinton is quietly crying and wondering why nobody ever made a joke about her getting pregnant.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 6, 2009 13:54:31 GMT -5
Which daughter was with her at Yankee Stadium? The Palin daughter that everyone's heard of is the one who's 18. Even still, I think that this is the wrong way to attack this. Mocking an 18-year old single mom with a lecherous joke is pretty low - and even if Gov. Palin brought her kid into this, there's no justification for bringing out the knives. Someone doesn't morph from "total hands off" to "perfectly legit target" once they hit 18, and it's something that Letterman and his writers should have known. The other part that gets me is the "slutty flight attendant" crack. NOW should have been all over this to start - it's their standard line that women are still judged based on how they're dressed. And it's not like this wasn't a target-rich environment - this was Palin and Yankee stadium for crying out loud. They went for the unfunny, controversial jokes.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Jul 6, 2009 14:00:21 GMT -5
Which daughter was with her at Yankee Stadium? Making that argument basically says "I don't understand the concept of humor". The punch line was the daughter who got knocked up by the 18-year-old hockey player and has been on TV all the time promoting abstinence-only education even though she thinks abstinence is unrealistic. Not the daughter who has not been pregnant and that no one has ever heard of.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 6, 2009 14:42:42 GMT -5
1. Georgetown's power recruiting base is in California, the mid-Atlantic, and New England. None of these places are evangelical hotbeds. I don't disagree with your post, but Southern California is considered one of the birthplaces of modern American Christian evangelicalism. Granted, Rick Warren's congregation might be smaller were his church located in, say, Eureka, but the area between Orange County and San Diego is definitely an evangelical hotbed. One evangelical Christian from Southern California was my roommate for three years at Georgetown (and still a good friend). He participated in some Bible study groups, but there was no visible campus-wide group for him to join. I assume the student body is still around 50% Catholic by design. There's no problem with that, but percentage-wise, there's no real possibility of having a large group of evangelical Christians on campus, unless GU intentionally attempts to attract members of that group. I really don't see any reason for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 6, 2009 14:54:34 GMT -5
The Palin daughter faux outrage leaves a little to be desired. I am not a fan of political or journalistic attacks on children of politicians, and the same holds here. Letterman made a mistake and has rightly apologized.
In the case of Letterman, Palin's camp took it one step further by attacking Letterman for his joke and then framing what kind of apology they wanted to hear. If Letterman wants to apologize, fine/right thing to do, but don't tell him how to do it.
As to the attacks on the Palin daughters, while they are not appropriate generally, Palin should not be surprised or outraged. After all, it was her campaign that had the entire family and pseudo-family (Levi Johnston) on stage at the RNC. They helped to organize and promote interviews, photo shoots, and so forth. Some of the Palin daughters have even appeared on magazine covers. Some have sponsored town halls about promiscuity education.
As to Sarah, one of her central "maverick" talking points surrounded the bizarre delivery of her special needs child. She has been dangling out the story of how she took a flight and drove herself to Wasilla after her water broke. Most mothers, I think, would find the story deeply irresponsible especially in the circumstances. I don't find it to be an issue worth discussing. It is a lose-lose. But, I do find unfortunate the charges coming back from Palin toward those who seek more information, since the original disclosures led to misunderstanding as to whether S. Palin was in fact the mother. It is bullying to suggest that people are being insensitive to a special needs child by seeking follow-up on this or suggesting that the behavior was bizarre, and S. Palin will consistently make the charge while also talking about how tough she is for having taken hours of transportation before delivering the baby.
It reminds me of a debate we had a few years ago about the so-called media whores (no pun intended) at basketball games. The argument went that they appeared to seek attention through face paint, talking with the GU basketball gliterrati and journalist community. Then, there were complaints from them when people accused them of seeking attention. It was a trivial debate and one without end.
In the case of the Palins, so long as they promote events about subjects that are already controversial and discuss same and other things in the press, they will always complain that the coverage is not entirely favorable.
On the lighter note, I would like to suggest the following for her bumper stickers should she run for President:
Palin 2012-2014 1/2
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 6, 2009 15:01:32 GMT -5
She may be a punchline on the coasts, but she is far from that in many parts of America, even blue parts. If you think there aren't Republicans all over the country, especially in the South and Midwest, who wouldn't love to have her working for them, you're crazy. Despite the fact that Dallas County turns bluer by the minute, I don't think the guy who brought up the "punchline" comment lives on either coast. The statistics indicate that like/dislike of Palin is not coastal, but based on socioeconomic status and education. In fact, there's a column in the NYT today about just that: www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinion/06ross.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 6, 2009 15:47:40 GMT -5
As to the attacks on the Palin daughters, while they are not appropriate generally, Palin should not be surprised or outraged. After all, it was her campaign that had the entire family and pseudo-family (Levi Johnston) on stage at the RNC. They helped to organize and promote interviews, photo shoots, and so forth. Some of the Palin daughters have even appeared on magazine covers. Some have sponsored town halls about promiscuity education. While you make some good points overall in your post, this one really bugs the ever-living out of me, because it is 100% hypocritical and selective and everyone says it. My hyperbolic comparison to this type of statement is that its like saying that the rape victim asked for it because she was wearing slutty clothes and was drinking. But, hyperbole aside, the reason it really bugs me because we seem to apply it ONLY to Sarah Palin's family. Palin had her kids at the RNC, and this makes them fair game? Ummmm, maybe we've all chosen to forget, but Barack Obama had his kids at the DNC, and Biden did too. And in Biden's case, yes, that included in-laws as well. Her kids and family gave interviews, appeared on magazine covers, etc.? Excuse me, but I think Barack Obama had his family on his Christmas commercial, they gave many, MANY magazine interviews, they gave television interviews and on and on and on. When you say "organized and promoted," I really don't understand what that means. Were interviews with the Obama family not "organized and promoted" as well, if not by the family themselves then by the campaign and their staffs? Now, Michelle Obama has taken some criticism, mainly from the right, almost never from the MSM, for saying some fairly ugly things. She corrected those things and moved on and she hasn't gotten a word of bad press since then. None. It's been 100% fluff. Personally, I am fine with that (unless Michelle is serious about getting involved in policy issues and then I think the fluff has to stop). Fluff is what the spouses and children of politicians are for. And of course, I would berate anyone who thought that the Obama daughters were fair game to be subject to the kind of sniping, snarky vile gutter attacks that the Palin family has endured, no matter how often I've seen them on TV. Leave. The. Family. Out. Of. It. It's that simple. I don't care if they appear with her on stage and in commercials. That's what political families are SUPPOSED to do. That is what Barack Obama's family has done. But for some reason, we maintain the family is "off limits" rule with the Obamas, but not with the Palins.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 6, 2009 16:46:52 GMT -5
As to the attacks on the Palin daughters, while they are not appropriate generally, Palin should not be surprised or outraged. After all, it was her campaign that had the entire family and pseudo-family (Levi Johnston) on stage at the RNC. They helped to organize and promote interviews, photo shoots, and so forth. Some of the Palin daughters have even appeared on magazine covers. Some have sponsored town halls about promiscuity education. While you make some good points overall in your post, this one really bugs the ever-living Edited out of me, because it is 100% hypocritical and selective and everyone says it. My hyperbolic comparison to this type of statement is that its like saying that the rape victim asked for it because she was wearing slutty clothes and was drinking. But, hyperbole aside, the reason it really bugs me because we seem to apply it ONLY to Sarah Palin's family. Palin had her kids at the RNC, and this makes them fair game? Ummmm, maybe we've all chosen to forget, but Barack Obama had his kids at the DNC, and Biden did too. And in Biden's case, yes, that included in-laws as well. Her kids and family gave interviews, appeared on magazine covers, etc.? Excuse me, but I think Barack Obama had his family on his Christmas commercial, they gave many, MANY magazine interviews, they gave television interviews and on and on and on. When you say "organized and promoted," I really don't understand what that means. Were interviews with the Obama family not "organized and promoted" as well, if not by the family themselves then by the campaign and their staffs? Now, Michelle Obama has taken some criticism, mainly from the right, almost never from the MSM, for saying some fairly ugly things. She corrected those things and moved on and she hasn't gotten a word of bad press since then. None. It's been 100% fluff. Personally, I am fine with that (unless Michelle is serious about getting involved in policy issues and then I think the fluff has to stop). Fluff is what the spouses and children of politicians are for. And of course, I would berate anyone who thought that the Obama daughters were fair game to be subject to the kind of sniping, snarky vile gutter attacks that the Palin family has endured, no matter how often I've seen them on TV. Leave. The. Family. Out. Of. It. It's that simple. I don't care if they appear with her on stage and in commercials. That's what political families are SUPPOSED to do. That is what Barack Obama's family has done. But for some reason, we maintain the family is "off limits" rule with the Obamas, but not with the Palins. Interesting post. I guess it presumes that there is as much to find and criticize with the Obamas as with the Palins. I would suggest that it is an almost impossible standard. First of all, what could Sasha and Malia do that would rank up with what Palin's teenagers could do in terms of rank stupidity? Steal someone's juice box? Fart loudly in class? One thing the Obama campaign did not do, except in one situation, was make Sasha and Malia available for interviews. The one exception was a Hardball interview during the primaries, and Obama said a day or two later that it would be their last interview until a (much) later date. The Palins, however, have been on the cover of people and have commented as to all manner of nonsense, including the child out of wedlock, sex education, and the like. This kind of stuff speaks directly to the "family values" agenda, whereas almost anything that Sasha and Malia would volunteer to say would not have any substantive significance in the context of the Obama/Biden political agenda. There is virtually nothing out there in their past that is directly relevant, pro or con. What the Obama campaign did not do is run Sasha and Malia out for substantive interviews and then criticize the press for running negative stuff. It did not have the issue both ways. Michelle took some serious lumps on the "proud of America" thing. I saw coverage of it all over the place, including during the general election on networks. It was damaging, but it could have been more damaging. It is unfair, I think, to point to this as evidence of the point, however, simply because it happened during the primary season. If Michelle said it at the time of the conventions, I think you would be kidding yourself if you thought the damage would not have been more significant. Now, I do think the idea that the level of scrutiny of the Obamas has not reached the level of the Palins is almost laughable. The journalists figured out the family tree enough to find the half-sister of Barack Obama's father and put out articles on the eve of the election concerning her immigration status. They tracked down his old schools in Indonesia to feed the madrassa angle. They dug for Michelle Obama's senior thesis and dissected it for "black anger." Heck, Obama even put out there that his grandmother (Toot in Hawaii) was a racist. It would not surprise me if Palin used "like family" to describe the relationships between Obama and Wright/Ayers. I recall distinctly the line about starting one's career in Bill Ayers' living room. In the case of the Bidens, you may have read a Newsweek reporter's story of how the current VP attempted to confront Sen. McCain about his campaign's attacks on one of Biden's daughters. It should be noted that you do not find this daughter running around on the interview circuit or gracing the cover of People magazine and so forth. It was a blatant attempt for an equivalence of damage without equivalent sought-after exposure. (I leave Beau Biden out of this, since again, the hope for a damaging vetting process is a foolhardy wish. What would the RNC do to score some points to offset the Palin vetting? Demand scrutiny of every last dot on his National Guard papers in a time of war? Veterans of the 43 presidency might sense the irony. Also left out are the people who died in the car accident. I don't think anyone, including the most stubborn dead ender at the RNC, would have wanted to seek equivalence on those grounds.) In another sense, this attempt for equivalence is a fool's errand. Much of the Obama vetting got out during the primaries - Wright, Ayers, "proud of America." He took his hits. It cost him states late in the game. The problem is that it did not cost him much ostensibly in the general election since he basically won all blue states and battlegrounds because all of these issues were simply built in to the game come November. Biden had been vetted twice by way of presidential primaries and at least once by a rigorous VP vetting operation.* Sarah Palin was vetted over the course of hours by a poor campaign operation, and it just so happened to be when any damage, let alone significant damage, would be just short of a disaster in consequences even though the extent of this scrutiny is not qualitatively or quantitatively distinguishable from the Obama and Biden vetting. All told, I agree with you. This stuff is dumb and largely irrelevant to what we need to look at in political candidates. The problem is that it is so central to the Palin political persona, in part because of her strange claim of victimhood. *It should be noted that the Biden plagiarism scandals were damaging and also discussed in 2008. Again, most people knew about it, so the damage was built in to the game. But, there is simply no question that Biden paid a higher price for his errors than Sarah Palin has to date for her errors. The Biden scandals rank up there with those of Gary Hart and the Dean scream speech. The Palin coverage simply damaged the #2 on a national ticket and called into question the judgment of the #1, so the damage was indirect.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 6, 2009 17:59:47 GMT -5
Jersey, I think the one area where you are muddling up what I was trying to say is in "personal" stuff and "family" stuff. You seem to be using a lot of examples in your post of things that Barack Obama was criticized for and what Joe Biden was criticized for and then you move back to things like Biden's kids and Sascha and Malia.
I want to be perfectly clear. I am not saying all personal stuff has to be avoided. What the media wants to say about SARAH Palin is up for debate. I think a lot fo what she gets is unfair, but SHE is the politician, she is the elected official and candidate. She is going to have to get some of that. Same as Obama should, same as Biden should, etc.
But there is some selective historical editing going on if you think that the media wasn't in a frenzy over her family. And what exactly did her family do wrong? Her daughter got pregnant. Is there really anything else all that controversial about the Palin family? I submit there there is nothing scandalous about them at all. Not nearly as much anyway, IMO, as Biden's family.
And I also think many people mistake "articles" for "interviews." Yes, her family gave some interviews. But those constituted about 1/100th of the stories that were actually written about them, most of which they were never involved in at all.
Anyway, since we're mostly in agreement, I'll just leave it at that. I just wanted to clear up that I am not upset at any personal stories about the candidates, irrelevant though many of them may be, but about the families. I think you'll find I've been pretty consistent on that, no matter what the political party involved.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Jul 6, 2009 18:17:31 GMT -5
I just wanted to clear up that I am not upset at any personal stories about the candidates, irrelevant though many of them may be, but about the families. I think you'll find I've been pretty consistent on that, no matter what the political party involved. I have been thinking about this a lot over the past few years actually, the involvement of families in campaigns, specifically the criticism/personal stories etc about children and spouses. Specifically, is there anything that can be done to stop it or somehow make it less of an embarrassing occurrence in American politics? Is the answer that candidates should stop trying to cast themselves as a wonderful parent and spouse? I see this as unlikely. Is the answer that when a candidate bases his/her campaign on that ideal, that it cannot or should not be questioned by the opposition? Also unlikely to occur. Anyways, despite thinking about this a lot I have no answers. I just keep coming back to the idea that campaigns shouldn't care about the families of opposition candidates. Maybe it really is just the idea that is far too common on many campaigns, namely the following notion: "I will be a far better (insert office here), and therefore I am justified in doing just about whatever I need to do to win." At the same time, should it be a legitimate political tactic to make a lot of claims about having a perfect family, and want people to vote for you based on being a great spouse/parent, when you generally stretching/imagining that truth, and then turn around and call foul when your picture perfect story is questioned/exposed?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 6, 2009 18:49:49 GMT -5
I just wanted to clear up that I am not upset at any personal stories about the candidates, irrelevant though many of them may be, but about the families. I think you'll find I've been pretty consistent on that, no matter what the political party involved. I have been thinking about this a lot over the past few years actually, the involvement of families in campaigns, specifically the criticism/personal stories etc about children and spouses. Specifically, is there anything that can be done to stop it or somehow make it less of an embarrassing occurrence in American politics? Is the answer that candidates should stop trying to cast themselves as a wonderful parent and spouse? I see this as unlikely. Is the answer that when a candidate bases his/her campaign on that ideal, that it cannot or should not be questioned by the opposition? Also unlikely to occur. Anyways, despite thinking about this a lot I have no answers. I just keep coming back to the idea that campaigns shouldn't care about the families of opposition candidates. Maybe it really is just the idea that is far too common on many campaigns, namely the following notion: "I will be a far better (insert office here), and therefore I am justified in doing just about whatever I need to do to win." At the same time, should it be a legitimate political tactic to make a lot of claims about having a perfect family, and want people to vote for you based on being a great spouse/parent, when you generally stretching/imagining that truth, and then turn around and call foul when your picture perfect story is questioned/exposed? Questioning abstinence-only education in the wake of her own daughter's pregnancy is fair. It relates to the topic at hand and a policy stance. Oh and just as a note to the media, the first 900 times this gets pointed out is enough. The next 9000 times AFTER she loses the election is a bit of overkill. Biden's son ties to the credit card industry are on the table as well because it is a real political issue of Joe bankruptcy bill Biden being in the pockets of the credit card companies in Delaware. So yeah, that's a real thing too. There's some political reason for bringing it up. But interviewing Levi Hockeyhair and trying to find out how much he sees the newborn is gossip. And it's bad all the way around; unfair to her daughter and lazy, stupid tabloid journalism. And it doesn't matter if he shows up at a photo-op or not. It has nothing to do with any issue and it doesn't even have to do with Sarah Palin in any way. Unless she's force breeding her daughters with redneck hockey players in her basement, there's nothing here but small-town nonsense. That's when it crosses over. The media always tries to paint these as "closer examinations of the candidate's character" but really they just need to kill anotheer 23 1/2 hours with crap.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 6, 2009 18:55:37 GMT -5
She may be a punchline on the coasts, but she is far from that in many parts of America, even blue parts. If you think there aren't Republicans all over the country, especially in the South and Midwest, who wouldn't love to have her working for them, you're crazy. Despite the fact that Dallas County turns bluer by the minute, I don't think the guy who brought up the "punchline" comment lives on either coast. The statistics indicate that like/dislike of Palin is not coastal, but based on socioeconomic status and education. In fact, there's a column in the NYT today about just that: www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinion/06ross.html?_r=1&ref=opinionAustin, the New York Times opinion piece you quoted included a reference to a Pew poll and gave a link. I'd like to quote its Favorability/Unfavorability/No Opinion of REPUBLICANS. Palin 73/17/10 Romney 57/18/24 Gingrich 55/22/23 Steele 28/14/58 And, some of you think Palin is finished?
|
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 376
|
Post by mchoya on Jul 7, 2009 8:26:03 GMT -5
Austin, the New York Times opinion piece you quoted included a reference to a Pew poll and gave a link. I'd like to quote its Favorability/Unfavorability/No Opinion of REPUBLICANS. Palin 73/17/10 Romney 57/18/24 Gingrich 55/22/23 Steele 28/14/58 And, some of you think Palin is finished? One must ask how many times the Republicans can shoot themselves in the foot before they have nothing to stand on. Even if Palin's favorable rating among Republicans was higher than Jesus', it still doesn't matter because nationally her favorable/unfavorable split is at 45%/44% with only 12% undecided. Most people have their minds made up with regard to Palin. The 2008 election ensured that Palin really has no room to change people's mindsets. Romney, on the other hand, has a 40%/28% favorable rating with 32% undecided. One-third of the electorate has yet to form an opinion about Romney. He can use this fact to his advantage and parlay his business acumen and moderate tendencies to curry favor with the electorate. Plus, he has been trending upward with Republicans since the election. I don't know about you ed, but I'll take the person who is more favorable than unfavorable with business experience in a recession than arguably the person who is most divisive figure in American politics today.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 7, 2009 8:44:18 GMT -5
Romney has to win the Republican nomination for president first. Even if Democrats and Independents supported him by a 99-1 margin, if he finishes fourth in the Republican primary, then he doesn't win.
Ed makes the clear point that, after her decision to resign, Palin is still a potential kingmaker in the Republican party, if she doesn't become king herself. She brings a lot of money and a decided conservative wing of the Republican party (Huckabee's sort of doomed here, as Palin's taking all his air). She also energizes the base at speaking engagements. If Romney is smart, he'll start courting her.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 7, 2009 8:55:06 GMT -5
I think one mistake everyone, myself included, might be making is that we are assuming that if Palin wants to run for President, she wants or has to do it in 2012.
What is she, about 45? She'd still be a pretty young candidate if she wanted to run in 2016. (Obviously, that would upset me greatly because that would probably mean a second term of Obama, which is looking to be untenable unless we find a lot of leprechauns with a lot of gold sometime soon -- I can't wait to see the House health care bill to find out how much I'm "not" going to be taxed as an under-$250K citizen).
Of course, if a Republican defeats Obama in 2012, she'd most likely be precluded from running until 2020. But even then, she'd still be under 60 years old.
That gives a person a lot of time to re-cast themselves in the public eye. Maybe not to all, but certainly to many, and I think these poll numbers would be pretty meaningless that far into the future. As many have mentioned on TV recently, it worked for Richard Nixon.
(Of course, as many also mentioned recently, this country hasn't elected a losing VP candidate for President since FDR).
Take a look at Newt Gingrich, for example. Now, obviously, his numbers aren't great in the general electorate. But, setting that aside for a moment, if you compare him now to when he left power a decade ago, the undecideds on him have nearly tripled, which would seem to indicate that there are a lot of people who are or would be willing to give him a second look.
(Not that I think Newt Gingrich is running for anything. Just using it as an example of how things can change. As much as I like him, he's too much red meat and I think he knows it. He's doing much better as a policy crafter within his own organization.)
Of course, that would mean quite a long time out of public office. But as I mentioned yesterday, I think the game is not what it used to be and someone running from outside a position of elected office is (or will be) nowhere near the handicap we might traditionally consider it to be.
Or, of course, she may not be planning on running for anything again. Certainly this has been reported, but you'll understand if I'm skeptical about the accuracy of reporting when it comes to this particular public figure.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Jul 7, 2009 9:00:33 GMT -5
I like the two-party system (although I would love to see a strong thirs party emerge). Unfortunately, it looks to me that we are heading for a one-party system if Palin is the best that the Republicans can do. I find very little redeeming about her as a leader of our government, or of a political party, for that matter.
She may not be finished, but it would be in the best interests of the Republican party if she faded to the background. Sure, let her play the role of energizer (dare I say 'cheerleader,' or will I get lambasted for perpetuating stereotypes?).
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 7, 2009 9:09:50 GMT -5
I like the two-party system (although I would love to see a strong thirs party emerge). Unfortunately, it looks to me that we are heading for a one-party system if Palin is the best that the Republicans can do. I find very little redeeming about her as a leader of our government, or of a political party, for that matter. She may not be finished, but it would be in the best interests of the Republican party if she faded to the background. Sure, let her play the role of energizer (dare I say 'cheerleader,' or will I get lambasted for perpetuating stereotypes?). The Democrats nominated Kerry in 2004 and the Post did a year of articles on the perpetual Republican majority.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2009 10:08:25 GMT -5
It's still amazing it's mostly (but not all) liberals in general, liberal on this board, and liberals in the press who insist Sarah Palin should go away. They say she's not well informed. Same thing they said about Ronald Reagan.
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Jul 7, 2009 10:13:04 GMT -5
If she was so well informed, she would know that just because she can see Russia from her house (which she can't) that does not qualify her to deal with Putin and foreign policy.
She hasn't said or done anything that proves she is either well educated or informed about anything other the snow machines.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 7, 2009 10:21:12 GMT -5
If she was so well informed, she would know that just because she can see Russia from her house (which she can't) that does not qualify her to deal with Putin and foreign policy. She hasn't said or done anything that proves she is either well educated or informed about anything other the snow machines. You're aware that Sarah Palin never actually said this, right? But you do have a point. Obama never visited anywhere south of America before he became President. We were assured that this would not be a problem with our foreign relations with that part of the world. At this point, I might beg to differ. [/return snark]
|
|