I hate to call her moronic, although she certainly appears to be. I feel bad for her and even worse for the right-wing hacks who feel compelled to root for her since she plays for their team…just an absolute embarassment.
With all the extraordinarily talented people in this country, why do we end up with these four bozos? How does this happen? Anyone have any guesses about that?
Here’s the question…if she folded like this at the hands of Katie Couric, imagine what would have happened if Tim Russert were still around to grill her on “Meet The Press”.
At least she knows who the pres was in 1929 and that there was no tv then. More than I can say for Joe Biden.
What regulatory measures did McCain push in his 26 yrs??? What kind of stupid question is that?
You think Al Gore could have answered that question about Bill Clinton and what regulatory measures he pushed in Arkansas?
Give me a break.
What regulatory measures did Opie take in Illinois to prevent slumlords like Rezko from milking the system?
Right, it’s a stupid question on many levels.
However, given that she must have known she’d be asked about this, why the fuck didn’t she have an answer ready??
At the very least she should have had the presence of mind to hammer away at the underlying premise of the question: that we are in this problem because the market isn’t regulated enough, etc.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Right, it’s a stupid question on many levels.
However, given that she must have known she’d be asked about this, why the fuck didn’t she have an answer ready??
At the very least she should have had the presence of mind to hammer away at the underlying premise of the question: that we are in this problem because the market isn’t regulated enough, etc. [/quote]
Well I am supporting McCain and Palin but I disagree with the premise that we need more regulation. The underlying problem was the gov pushing all these loans to under qualified people to get them into a house.
Fannie and Freddie would just guarantee these loans.
I think they are getting caught up to some extent with this call for more regs because the American people perceive a lack of regs on Wall Street as the problem.
The problem was the fed gov being in the mortgage business from the get go.
If these quasi gov institutions had not been encouraging and backing these loans I don’t think the free market would have taken these risks.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Well I am supporting McCain and Palin but I disagree with the premise that we need more regulation. [/quote]
You might want to read my post again - I agree completely. It rather annoys me that Palin didn’t use this opportunity to make the argument that you do above. Instead she just yammered away about nothing.
[quote]lixy wrote:
She did seem clueless. I don’t think that’s much of a scoop. It’s not like anyone thought she was a Nobel Prize laureate or anything of the sort.
What surprised me, is this supposedly die-hard conservative defending up to a trillion from the taxpayers’ pockets to bailout the rich and powerful. Can anyone explain that to me please?[/quote]
That is a great question for which I wish I had a satisfactory answer. Apparently she’s not the conservative some of us hoped for. However, President Obama cannot happen. Just seeing him at the Whitehouse today gave me horrifying visions of the fate of the courts. NO WAY!
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Hey I wonder when Obama is going to sit down with someone in the mainstream liberal media and have a tough interview…Oh wait…I forgot they love him so that won’t happen.
Oh please. Compared to the kind of shit Hillary routinely dealt with, that was a ridiculous softball question. You really expect ANY reporter to not address the assertion that proximity to Russia qualifies as foreign policy experience?
Katie was nice to not press further and let it go when she failed to answer whether she had any negotiations or interaction with Russia whatsoever. Please try to achieve some semblance of credibility.
Did I mention Hillary? NO. Now answer the question. WHEN IS OBAMA EVER GOING TO FACE A TOUGH INTERVIEW FROM THE MAINSTREAM LIBERAL MEDIA?
He won’t huh? HUH?[/quote]
The extremely liberal Bill O’Reily, not only giving somewhat difficult questions, but leading the interviewee, Barack Obama.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Hey I wonder when Obama is going to sit down with someone in the mainstream liberal media and have a tough interview…Oh wait…I forgot they love him so that won’t happen.
Oh please. Compared to the kind of shit Hillary routinely dealt with, that was a ridiculous softball question. You really expect ANY reporter to not address the assertion that proximity to Russia qualifies as foreign policy experience?
Katie was nice to not press further and let it go when she failed to answer whether she had any negotiations or interaction with Russia whatsoever. Please try to achieve some semblance of credibility.
Did I mention Hillary? NO. Now answer the question. WHEN IS OBAMA EVER GOING TO FACE A TOUGH INTERVIEW FROM THE MAINSTREAM LIBERAL MEDIA?
He won’t huh? HUH?[/quote]
When is Sarah Palin going to face a tough interview? Cause she sure as hell hasn’t yet. All the questions she’s been asked are softball questions and entirely appropriate to ask a VP hopeful.
It’s not the MEDIA that’s making her look stupid. It’s not the media that’s making her look bad. The media should do a better job of grilling ALL the VP and presidential candidates. That includes Obama.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Hey I wonder when Obama is going to sit down with someone in the mainstream liberal media and have a tough interview…Oh wait…I forgot they love him so that won’t happen.
Oh please. Compared to the kind of shit Hillary routinely dealt with, that was a ridiculous softball question. You really expect ANY reporter to not address the assertion that proximity to Russia qualifies as foreign policy experience?
Katie was nice to not press further and let it go when she failed to answer whether she had any negotiations or interaction with Russia whatsoever. Please try to achieve some semblance of credibility.
Did I mention Hillary? NO. Now answer the question. WHEN IS OBAMA EVER GOING TO FACE A TOUGH INTERVIEW FROM THE MAINSTREAM LIBERAL MEDIA?
He won’t huh? HUH?[/quote]
Incidentally, the media was pretty fixated on Obama during the whole Reverend Wright scandal. Some of the focus and questions were warranted. Many were bullshit. If Obama was claiming foreign policy experience based on love of French films and a honeymoon in the Carribean, maybe the media should press him on that.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
lixy wrote:
She did seem clueless. I don’t think that’s much of a scoop. It’s not like anyone thought she was a Nobel Prize laureate or anything of the sort.
What surprised me, is this supposedly die-hard conservative defending up to a trillion from the taxpayers’ pockets to bailout the rich and powerful. Can anyone explain that to me please?
That is a great question for which I wish I had a satisfactory answer. Apparently she’s not the conservative some of us hoped for. However, President Obama cannot happen. Just seeing him at the Whitehouse today gave me horrifying visions of the fate of the courts. NO WAY![/quote]
“Horrifying visions and NO WAY!,” that argument offically suaded me over to the dark side.
But, just so you know, the Supreme Court Judges have to step down before new judges are appointed (I am assuming you are specifically talking about the Supreme Court). I highly doubt that any Reagan or Bush nominees are willing to step down during a Obama presidency unless seriously ill, or deceased.
I just say this to try to convince you that you can feel safe that no more spooky judges are going to legislate from the bench (because we all know the founding fathers were infallible just like God).
Could you expand on the horrifying visions? Mad Max like world?
[quote]hokiehess wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Hey I wonder when Obama is going to sit down with someone in the mainstream liberal media and have a tough interview…Oh wait…I forgot they love him so that won’t happen.
Oh please. Compared to the kind of shit Hillary routinely dealt with, that was a ridiculous softball question. You really expect ANY reporter to not address the assertion that proximity to Russia qualifies as foreign policy experience?
Katie was nice to not press further and let it go when she failed to answer whether she had any negotiations or interaction with Russia whatsoever. Please try to achieve some semblance of credibility.
Did I mention Hillary? NO. Now answer the question. WHEN IS OBAMA EVER GOING TO FACE A TOUGH INTERVIEW FROM THE MAINSTREAM LIBERAL MEDIA?
He won’t huh? HUH?
The extremely liberal Bill O’Reily, not only giving somewhat difficult questions, but leading the interviewee, Barack Obama.
Also recall the “21st Democratic debate” hosted by ABC. It was one big series of questions designed to embarrass or put Obama on the defensive. Of course, Obama handled himself far better than Palin did here.
[quote]hokiehess wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
lixy wrote:
She did seem clueless. I don’t think that’s much of a scoop. It’s not like anyone thought she was a Nobel Prize laureate or anything of the sort.
What surprised me, is this supposedly die-hard conservative defending up to a trillion from the taxpayers’ pockets to bailout the rich and powerful. Can anyone explain that to me please?
That is a great question for which I wish I had a satisfactory answer. Apparently she’s not the conservative some of us hoped for. However, President Obama cannot happen. Just seeing him at the Whitehouse today gave me horrifying visions of the fate of the courts. NO WAY!
“Horrifying visions and NO WAY!,” that argument offically suaded me over to the dark side.
But, just so you know, the Supreme Court Judges have to step down before new judges are appointed (I am assuming you are specifically talking about the Supreme Court). I highly doubt that any Reagan or Bush nominees are willing to step down during a Obama presidency unless seriously ill, or deceased.
I just say this to try to convince you that you can feel safe that no more spooky judges are going to legislate from the bench (because we all know the founding fathers were infallible just like God).
Could you expand on the horrifying visions? Mad Max like world? [/quote]
You’ve got 13 posts here pal.
If you really care what I think look around. I’m not going over everything again here for you.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
lixy wrote:
She did seem clueless. I don’t think that’s much of a scoop. It’s not like anyone thought she was a Nobel Prize laureate or anything of the sort.
What surprised me, is this supposedly die-hard conservative defending up to a trillion from the taxpayers’ pockets to bailout the rich and powerful. Can anyone explain that to me please?
Because we are in a financial crisis. And many financial experts feel it is unfortunately necessary to avoid a depression. It’s one thing to support deregulation in the first place.
It’s another to cling to a hands-off position at all costs when the damage has already been done. And it’s not a true bailout. Many financial experts, including Warren Buffet, believe the government is likely to reap a profit from the arrangement in the longrun.[/quote]
There’s other ways to do this, like cutting corporate taxes, but the Dems would never go for it since they need their hands in everything. Bush is just pushing this because he wants to feel important unlike the lame duck he is supposed to be.
…And you’re right. Most likely, Buffett and the Government will make a killing when values go up if they print off this $700 billion. And if Obama wins, he can use this money to fund all of his socialist programs! (and we can get right back into this mess again).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
hokiehess wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
lixy wrote:
She did seem clueless. I don’t think that’s much of a scoop. It’s not like anyone thought she was a Nobel Prize laureate or anything of the sort.
What surprised me, is this supposedly die-hard conservative defending up to a trillion from the taxpayers’ pockets to bailout the rich and powerful. Can anyone explain that to me please?
That is a great question for which I wish I had a satisfactory answer. Apparently she’s not the conservative some of us hoped for. However, President Obama cannot happen. Just seeing him at the Whitehouse today gave me horrifying visions of the fate of the courts. NO WAY!
“Horrifying visions and NO WAY!,” that argument offically suaded me over to the dark side.
But, just so you know, the Supreme Court Judges have to step down before new judges are appointed (I am assuming you are specifically talking about the Supreme Court). I highly doubt that any Reagan or Bush nominees are willing to step down during a Obama presidency unless seriously ill, or deceased.
I just say this to try to convince you that you can feel safe that no more spooky judges are going to legislate from the bench (because we all know the founding fathers were infallible just like God).
Could you expand on the horrifying visions? Mad Max like world?
You’ve got 13 posts here pal.
If you really care what I think look around. I’m not going over everything again here for you.[/quote]
Horrifying visions are not everything, or are they?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
lixy wrote:
She did seem clueless. I don’t think that’s much of a scoop. It’s not like anyone thought she was a Nobel Prize laureate or anything of the sort.
What surprised me, is this supposedly die-hard conservative defending up to a trillion from the taxpayers’ pockets to bailout the rich and powerful. Can anyone explain that to me please?
That is a great question for which I wish I had a satisfactory answer. Apparently she’s not the conservative some of us hoped for. However, President Obama cannot happen. Just seeing him at the Whitehouse today gave me horrifying visions of the fate of the courts. NO WAY![/quote]
You know, I would tend to chalk that answer up to inexperience in economics and a desire to take what she might see as a ‘safe’ stance on it rather than a non-conservative fiscal bent. Also, at the point she was on there, McCain hadn’t taken any stance on the issue (pro or con) and for that matter still hasn’t taken a definitive stance, even though he seems to be leaning more and more against the Paulson proposal and for an alternative. Further, it was not necessarily likely that she would have been briefed on McCain’s stance when he was busy and undecided himself.
It will be interesting to see how the campaign tries to cushion that if McCain comes out against the original bailout plan.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Right, it’s a stupid question on many levels.
However, given that she must have known she’d be asked about this, why the fuck didn’t she have an answer ready??[/quote]
I’m not sure it was one of those “for sure” prep questions really
agree.