Another Palin video, but more leeway this time
Another excerpt from Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin, with Joe Biden thrown in for good measure.
This time, a lot of people aren’t playing fair. The way it’s been talked about on the Interwebs the last few days has been, “Palin can’t even name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade!!!” But that’s not what Katie Couric asked her. What she asked was, “What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?” That’s a much tougher question than just, “Can you name any other Supreme Court cases?”
That being said, Palin’s answer is, as usual, vague, floundering, unsubstantial, ungrammatical, and practically incoherent. What she should have said was, “None come to mind specifically, off the top of my head. Any decision that takes power away from the individual states and gives it to the federal government, the way Roe v. Wade did, is wrong, in my view.” Instead, she did what she usually does: tried to make it sound like she had an answer when she didn’t.
(And, not for nothin’, but she’s on the record as disagreeing with the very recent Supreme Court decision that reduced Exxon’s liability for the Valdez oil spill in Alaska. She could have named that one. But I’m willing to give her a pass for not thinking of it, since the conversation went very quickly from Roe v. Wade and right-to-privacy specifically to Supreme Court cases in general.)
I’m glad someone put this video together of Biden and Palin responding to the same set of questions. The difference between them is considerable. Tonight’s debate should be interesting, and probably as cringe-inducing as the episode of “The Office” that it’s preempting.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I’m going with “Plessy v. Fergusson.”
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Nice one, PLW. I’m going with Dred Scott.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
What, no Office tonight?
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Dred Scott. That would have been great. And so non-controversial to disagree with in 2008. Amp’s comment made me try to think of how I would respond to that question (without looking anything up, like if I was in a live interview or something). I would not have come up with Dred Scott. The best I came up with was “that one a couple of years ago where the Supreme Court decided that it was OK for the government (federal or local) to forcibly take land from one private entity and give it to another private entity, as long as the transition would result in some non-defined increase in overall public good, like higher tax revenues for the government entity which originally stole – I mean, acquired the land.”
But that’s not really naming a court case so much as summarizing the majority opinion, with a little of my own bias thrown in.
My answer is not nearly as good as Eric’s, though. Palin seems to think that if she doesn’t appear to have a ready answer for every question, it will make her look bad. In her defense, this is a game where every possible advantage is pressed by the opposition (on both sides), so her fear is not entirely unfounded. But I really hope that someone tells her before tonight that she should believe what she said in her acceptance speech at the RNC – that the American people prefer a straightforward politician to one who always tries to say what they think their audience wants to hear.
Oh, and “cringe-inducing” is the most accurate description of “The Office” that I have ever heard. But I still laugh.
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I’d just like to refer everyone to Ann Althouse’s observations on this exchange. Couric gave Biden free reign to say what he wanted and did not ask any follow-up questions or interrupt him as she did Palin. That doesn’t make Palin’s answer any better, but it does show Couric’s bias as a reporter.
I’d also point out that Joe Biden is a lawyer, and this was a question pertaining to constitutional law. Of course he was going to do better on it than Sarah Palin. If those two were asked a question about energy policy, does anyone deny that Palin would have the stronger answer?
Anyways, standing by for the debate indeed.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
The Couric interview wasn’t her best obviously, but how come the media doesn’t say anything about Biden thinking FDR was on television in the 1930′s. Not to mention, he wasn’t even president at that time. Also, he’s made many other mistakes that if Palin had made, the media would be all over them.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Rob D,
This has been covered before, but Biden has a proven track record as a mature politician. His mistakes are seen as just that – mistakes. Deviations from the norm. Palin is largely unknown, so people are watching her more closely and rather large percentage of what is presented publicly has so far been unflattering.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Rob D.
John Stewart did a bit on a couple of Biden’s gaffs a week or so ago, including that one, and a stump speech in which he seemingly threatened to shoot Obama if he (Obama) ever came to take his (Biden’s) shotguns, which he called Berettas. Pretty funny, if you ask me.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Koramatsu, defintely
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 am
Rob: “Biden thinking FDR was on television in the 1930’s. Not to mention, he wasn’t even president at that time.”
I don’t understand your point. FDR was president from March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945. TV was commerically available in the 30s, but wasn’t widely used in the US until the 40s. We’ve all seen the grainy video of the “date that will live in infamy” speech. Harry S. Truman gave his state of the union address on TV in 1947.
So Biden was off by a couple years, and mixed up a video that was probably shown in news reals with one that was shown on TV. That’s not even in the same league as being unable to name a supreme court decision you disagree with or claiming to have read all the newspapers.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
She referred to herself as a Federalist, and then proceeded to describe that as being pro-states rights. Let’s review history for a moment: George Washington was a Federalist and he was for a stronger “federal” government–hence the term Federalist. Jefferson was for the states and he opposed a stronger federal government. He was an anti-federalist.
(I realize I’ve just completely nerdified myself in this forum.)
But really!! Come on people! Federalist–for federal government. You don’t have to be a historian to make that leap!
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Eve: So what’s up with the Federalist Society? Aren’t they pro-States rights? They’re libertarian/conservative, anyway. I know it doesn’t make any sense now that I think about it, but based on the Federalist Society members I’ve know, I would’ve said they’re a pretty pro-States rights group.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 am
Eve: In defense of Sarah Palin (heaven help me), she was probably talking about what’s known as New Federalism (here’s Wikipedia on the history of “Federalism” in the U.S.), which was begun by Reagan and continued by Clinton and Bush. In the new sense, Federalism does indeed mean favoring states’ rights … which, yeah, is kind of the opposite of what Federalism used to mean.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
In the new sense, Federalism does indeed mean favoring states’ rights … which, yeah, is kind of the opposite of what Federalism used to mean.
Kind of the way the term “liberal” now means a belief that government should intervene to whatever degree is necessary to make sure that everyone is doing OK every day, when it used to mean kind of the same thing that “libertarian” means today. Srange that the terms “liberal” and “libertarian” could mean almost the opposite thing, but there you go.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
oh poo! Well, I’ve learned something. Thanks for the lesson. I was wrong. But good grief! Keep the terms straight. Why call something Federalism if the goal is to take power away from the Federal Government.
I’m sufficiently humbled.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Sarah Palin, FTW last night! HAH! Her explanation for not responding to couric’s questions can be seen here. I think it makes a lot of sense.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
From that video:
“In those Katie Couric interviews, I did fill [I think she meant "feel"] that there were a lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which will lead to killing jobs, I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars, some of the comments he’s made about the war….”
So she really wished Katie Couric would have let her talk about what a VP candidate stands for, and what her ticket’s values are. For example? Well, here’s a list of things that are wrong with Barack Obama.
Sarah, telling us what’s wrong with the other guy is NOT the same thing as telling us what you stand for and what your ticket’s values are. It’s good to do some of both, but please don’t pretend they’re the same thing.
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Ugh, I’m actually at the point where I hope Obama and Biden win, as well as democrats winning both houses. I’m a staunch free market conservative, but I’m so tired of listening to the constant carping, endless pieces from the media, endless blah blah blah. I used to love politics, but it’s just not fun anymore, it’s just constant negativity. I’d love to have dems in office just to stop hearing about how awful everything is. I can’t stand either party, and I’m tired of hearing about it.
I’m gonna go beat up some puppies now, it’s what we conservatives do…
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Another word mystery:
Conservative
Conservationist.
Very different things.
October 4th, 2008 at 2:33 am
I think that perhaps we’ve become really accustomed to politicians who are very good at thinking on their feet. Some people just can’t do that very well. I was very into speech and debate in high school, and did pretty well. Except for impromptu speaking. Never could do it. I still can’t. You should see me at a job interview. Or maybe you shouldn’t. Its pretty pathetic. I’m amazed that I’ve ever been hired.
It seems to me that we should do a lot less listening to these kind of things, and a lot more looking at records and other evidence of what a candidate really stands for.