The Republican Party

Originally posted by inimalist
in what way is this different from what I have said?

Did I misinterpret what you said?

Sure, her response was not the best, but the reasons the media gave and the reasons she gave paints quite a different picture. That was the point: the media was unfair to Palin...and a bit mean spirited.

Originally posted by inimalist
either she gets too pissed at tough/unfair questioning or she is dumb, both are terrible qualities in an elected leader, and both are worthy of criticism, though possibly not the specific criticism "Palin can't read", which afaik, even most comedians didn't go to.

No, that was what was done to her. "Can't read" or "refused to read" were commonly insinuated or even directly stated in the media and by comedy shows.

Kouric even commented on it when she was interviewed on Letterman.

This does not mean I disagree that Palin is a good leader. Not at all. I think she's one of the shittiest politicians to have come along in a while. I just didn't like how crappy the media was. I want fair and balanced coverage especially with politics.

Originally posted by inimalist
not being able to come with an answer to an easy question, for whatever reason, is negative.

The question wasn't easy. No matter how she answered, it was a trap UNLESS she answered the way I suggested.

If she named mostly liberal publications (which is what she was directly afraid of doing), they would have run with it and called her a hypocrite (Sarah Palin's answers to this were much more articulate and made sense. I'm not doing her justification even remotely good justice). If she named too many conservative publications, she would have been painted closed minded. Palin talked about this in the interview in the documentary I am referring to.

Regardless, is my answer really that good of an answer?

Can you name 3 American magazines/papers that liberal and then name 3 American magazines/papers that are oppositely conservative?

I can't. I would not have been able to in a situation where someone was being irritating. I would have been much more direct and said, "Could you come off it, please? Surely there's a trillion other questions you could ask other than trying to bring it back to the abortion topic?"

Originally posted by inimalist
Journalists are allowed to ask questions that deliberately try to make the politician look bad, a good measure of how a candidate will react under fire is how they can deal with such situations. I would say the "sound bite" media landscape makes it harder, and explains why so many politicians just fall back on phrases and memes when they get in trouble, but Palin's inability to do anything other than look like a yammering fool, imho, really takes some historical revisionism to look anything but unbecoming of a politician.

Palin is an idiot, plain and simple.

However, she's not the idiot the media tried to portray and they were not fair with her.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: I also hardly believe her justification, but that is irrelevant

Her justification makes sense and with her perspective, you can see exactly what Kouric was doing.

I still would take Kouric over Palin any day. flirt

please, the woman is a moron. how did she explain these?

YouTube video

YouTube video

0rXmuhWrlj4&feature=relmfu

she's tripped over her own tongue again and again because she doesn't know a ****ing thing and it's obvious that she is just stalling without actually saying anything. and how does russia being visible from alaska compliment her foreign relations background exactly? it's every bit as dumb as the tina fey skit that mocked her and worse, she was serious. the main **** ups over which she got mauled by the media are inexcusable. she has no business being in politics.

regardless of the intent, "what magazines do you read?" is not a hard question

an honest answer that fell into the trap would have looked better

Originally posted by inimalist
an honest answer that fell into the trap would have looked better

I somewhat agree, but I can't fully agree.

We don't know how the media would have treated the hypocrite answer or the close-minded answer. Palin feared both those sides. She tried to play it cool by using the "less is more" mentality but she SUCKS so bad that it back fired.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I somewhat agree, but I can't fully agree.

We don't know how the media would have treated the hypocrite answer or the close-minded answer. Palin feared both those sides. She tried to play it cool by using the "less is more" mentality but she SUCKS so bad that it back fired.

well, first, I would take issue with the idea that this is an unfair question at all. The way the term "gotcha question" is used, it could also be described as "a question to which the true answer makes the person look bad". It is not unfair to ask Palin what magazines she reads, even if there is a gotcha afterward. Palin being put in a position where she wants to lie more than she wants to tell the truth is not a bad thing. If the true answer to the question makes Palin look hypocritical, the problem isn't with the question, dig? That isn't a gotcha, that isn't unfair, it is checking if what a politician expresses at time A is the same as what they express at time B. If Palin had said she didn't read liberal news, and actually reads liberal news, the point might be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (in fact, I would argue it is positive for people to read their opponents take on events), but it isn't unfair. Maybe if Kouric was misrepresenting something Palin had said in the past?

but no, I don't see what political damage would have been done had Palin said she read extreme leftist magazines. If she can't spin "I read a wide base of sources" into something positive, then her entire political team is full of ****ing idiots. What is Kouric going to say? "oh look, you read liberal media, you *****! how stupid are you?". Like, is stuff so bad in America that even simply knowing what your opponents are saying is negative politically?

Originally posted by inimalist
well, first, I would take issue with the idea that this is an unfair question at all. The way the term "gotcha question" is used, it could also be described as "a question to which the true answer makes the person look bad". It is not unfair to ask Palin what magazines she reads, even if there is a gotcha afterward. Palin being put in a position where she wants to lie more than she wants to tell the truth is not a bad thing. If the true answer to the question makes Palin look hypocritical, the problem isn't with the question, dig? That isn't a gotcha, that isn't unfair, it is checking if what a politician expresses at time A is the same as what they express at time B. If Palin had said she didn't read liberal news, and actually reads liberal news, the point might be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (in fact, I would argue it is positive for people to read their opponents take on events), but it isn't unfair. Maybe if Kouric was misrepresenting something Palin had said in the past?

but no, I don't see what political damage would have been done had Palin said she read extreme leftist magazines. If she can't spin "I read a wide base of sources" into something positive, then her entire political team is full of ****ing idiots. What is Kouric going to say? "oh look, you read liberal media, you *****! how stupid are you?". Like, is stuff so bad in America that even simply knowing what your opponents are saying is negative politically?

I don't: Kouric was assigned a job and that job was to try and trap Palin with "gotcha" questions. Success. However, that success was easier with Palin than other politicians.

And, yes, the question steamed from their virtually arguing over the abortion topic which Palin had already expressed a disinterest in discussion because that was also a "gotcha" topic. Palin was coached NOT to fall into the abortion trap and she saw where Kouric was going with her "publications" questioning.

What does that mean? She had the foresight to see how her answer on the magazines could get her in trouble...she just royally ****ed up her chance to deal with it properly. As I pointed out, we wouldn't have done any better in an already heated interview ESPECIALLY if you were at the center of media attention.

And, if she read liberal media, then they could have gotten her on the previous statements of pushing "positive" conservative media consumption. It would have illustrated a very big state of hypocrisy on Palin's part if she pushed "read wholesome shit, dudes!" versus, "I read liberal media on a regular basis to educate myself on current events, dude!"

Surely you see why that makes her a hypocrite.

The other side, which Palin also feared, is the close-minded fool. Obviously, if she only read conservative publications, she's definitely a bit one sided. Granted, it would not have been as bad of a gotcha moment as the hypocrite one.

Here were her options:

1. Hypocrite.
2. I don't want to give an answer.
3. Close-minded.
...

...

..
4. Know a bunch of publications that balance out on the right and left.

She went with option 2 which was probably the worst case scenario for her. 4 wasn't an option as she probably didn't know enough to actually give a very crafty answer. And like I said, neither one of us could have done so under pressure like that. 3 would have been the best case option for her because 4 wasn't something she could have pulled off. 2 was the worst case scenario followed closely by 1.

Another side point: do you know why 1 would make her a hypocrite? Remember that library gaffe? 😄 Yeah, this is why Sarah is such an idiot.

edit - You know, her real problem is how inarticulate she is. She could have pulled off the 2 response much more smoothly. She just lacks political speaking prowess...and brains.

it seems like you are saying "Because Palin is a bold face liar, and because she says things that actually don't reflect the reality of her life, it is unfair to ask about those things"... I can't imagine that is how you feel, but if you are blaming Kouric because Palin's answer would have been hypocritical, I can't really see any other conclusion.

To be frank, I would have answered the question much better. I would have said, "I don't get my news from magazines" and would proceed to list where I do get my news from. Because I have faith in my sources of news, I also have faith that I can defend them as sources of news, and no, I don't buy the crap that she should have listed an equal number of conservative and liberal magazines, because that is equally disingenuous, and really, the question is of so little value in the first place. I don't see why it would be important if Palin read exclusively conservative or a mix. It is important that she can answer questions in a reasonable way, even if the person asking the questions is "hostile" [sic: ever been to a political debate].

and no, I don't actually know why it would have made her a hypocrite. If anything, that would probably be what her mistake was. If she said something about not reading liberal media, when she actually reads liberal media, that is the problem, not Kouric.

Originally posted by dadudemon
edit - You know, her real problem is how inarticulate she is. She could have pulled off the 2 response much more smoothly. She just lacks political speaking prowess...and brains.

idk, did you see the recent interview with chrissy o'donnel and piers morgan? she walked out of it because she said it wasn't fair (piers had the audacity to ask her about her book) and looked like a total spoiled idiot. I really think the solution is, you know, not being a liar in the first place, not condemning reporters who have the ability to expose those lies.

Originally posted by inimalist
it seems like you are saying "Because Palin is a bold face liar, and because she says things that actually don't reflect the reality of her life, it is unfair to ask about those things"...

Odd. I don't even remotely understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion when I've explicitly stated what I thought her problem was.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can't imagine that is how you feel, but if you are blaming Kouric because Palin's answer would have been hypocritical, I can't really see any other conclusion.

Kouric is an example, only. Kouric and Gibson are just two large examples for the agenda the media clearly had against Palin.

Originally posted by inimalist
To be frank, I would have answered the question much better. I would have said, "I don't get my news from magazines" and would proceed to list where I do get my news from. Because I have faith in my sources of news, I also have faith that I can defend them as sources of news, and no, I don't buy the crap that she should have listed an equal number of conservative and liberal magazines, because that is equally disingenuous, and really, the question is of so little value in the first place. I don't see why it would be important if Palin read exclusively conservative or a mix. It is important that she can answer questions in a reasonable way, even if the person asking the questions is "hostile" [sic: ever been to a political debate].

Sure, a cool calm collected answer is what you would like to give. I don't think that either of us would be able to give the optimal answers.

Additionally, you don't have the virtual "Nazi book burning" story to worry about, as well with your answer.

If I'm honest, I can B.S. with the best of them. I knock interviews out of the park almost 100% of the time. However, I don't think would have been able to give the optimal answer in that same interview with Kouric. Sure, I would have named 2 from each side (for a total of 4), but not 3 or 4. I think 3 or 4 would have been optimal and 3 is bare minimum. Arbitrary, know. But you're supposed to be going for a "wow" factor to really knock the question of the park. Remember the wit and intellectualism factors I talked about? 😄

Originally posted by inimalist
and no, I don't actually know why it would have made her a hypocrite. If anything, that would probably be what her mistake was. If she said something about not reading liberal media, when she actually reads liberal media, that is the problem, not Kouric.

I explained why, though.

One answer I got for why the media was so biased against Palin: she would have been the first female vice president (and possibly president because of how old and decrepit McCain was) and since she was such a strong right-wing politician, this would have been an a sacrilege against an optimal situation of a female in the white house. The first female in the white house (VP or P) would need to be a democrat or other left-wing politician. They didn't want her to be a role-model for feminism because she would really be the last person you would want to represent something like feminism.

Here's a nice article on Palin and the bias against her:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/30/does-media-love-pick-palin/

The North Korea comment, alone, is ridiculous.

For instance, during the '08 election, Joe Biden said in an interview that FDR's policies during the stock market crash helped bring us back from disaster. There's so much stupidly WRONG with that statement that it makes my brain hurt. Had Palin said something like that, the Media would have shit themselves over it.

With her North Korea comment? She corrected herself the very next sentence, yet the media still went ape shit over it.Where were the 800+ stories about Biden's painfully stupid comment about FDR and the stock market crash of 1929?

Do you see what I mean now?

I'm actually not arguing against you with the media bias against Palin.

I think the Kouric interview, however, is an example of people fairly criticizing Palin for poor performance, rather than some exaggeration, like the "Palin pretended to have her daughter's baby" or some of the things said about her stance on the mentally handicapped early in the election.

I already agreed that not only did Obama receive more and more positive attention, world news was chomping at the bit to make Palin look bad.

However, I think accusing them of starting this, or of just being inherently anti-palin, puts the cart before the horse. She was selected as an entirely unqualified VP candidate, had a dubious record in her home state, and was elevated above a list of people who were much less contentious than she would have been. Her performance in her opening address at the RNC was dismal. her media performances were dismal. Sure, I'll agree that the public's love of "watching car-crashes" added to the medias desire to "stoke the flames", but to a large extent, most media coverage of Palin was fair in saying she was not a very good selection for VP. Was there disproportionately more emphasis on this, than say, Biden's disastrous stance on Israel? yes. Is Palin actually the idiot people think she is? yes.

as to the feminist issue, sure, there might be some truth to the fact that ultra-feminists/ultra-leftists would have felt "their turf" threatened, but there is another side to that argument entirely. Palin represents everything that is wrong with gender discrimination. I wont even go so far as to suggest she was picked because she was a woman [though...], and just put it like this: Palin was not qualified for the job. There are more appropriate women in the Republican party itself, who would have been far better. Palin was a cynical choice that attempted to say, "look, we don't hate minorities", or "look, we can have a history defining presidential ticket too". She wasn't picked because she deserved the position.

I'd say nearly identical things about the Hilary/Obama primary as well, as much more qualified and less minority status politicians were swept up in an election that literally became "vagina" versus "african"

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm actually not arguing against you with the media bias against Palin.

I think the Kouric interview, however, is an example of people fairly criticizing Palin for poor performance, rather than some exaggeration, like the "Palin pretended to have her daughter's baby" or some of the things said about her stance on the mentally handicapped early in the election.

I already agreed that not only did Obama receive more and more positive attention, world news was chomping at the bit to make Palin look bad.

However, I think accusing them of starting this, or of just being inherently anti-palin, puts the cart before the horse. She was selected as an entirely unqualified VP candidate, had a dubious record in her home state, and was elevated above a list of people who were much less contentious than she would have been. Her performance in her opening address at the RNC was dismal. her media performances were dismal. Sure, I'll agree that the public's love of "watching car-crashes" added to the medias desire to "stoke the flames", but to a large extent, most media coverage of Palin was fair in saying she was not a very good selection for VP. Was there disproportionately more emphasis on this, than say, Biden's disastrous stance on Israel? yes. Is Palin actually the idiot people think she is? yes.

as to the feminist issue, sure, there might be some truth to the fact that ultra-feminists/ultra-leftists would have felt "their turf" threatened, but there is another side to that argument entirely. Palin represents everything that is wrong with gender discrimination. I wont even go so far as to suggest she was picked because she was a woman [though...], and just put it like this: Palin was not qualified for the job. There are more appropriate women in the Republican party itself, who would have been far better. Palin was a cynical choice that attempted to say, "look, we don't hate minorities", or "look, we can have a history defining presidential ticket too". She wasn't picked because she deserved the position.

I'd say nearly identical things about the Hilary/Obama primary as well, as much more qualified and less minority status politicians were swept up in an election that literally became "vagina" versus "african"

I think the GOP selected Palin because she was seen as the "answer" to the Obama-Hilary ticket.

Palin IS well-spoken to a crowd. The GOP saw that. They just didin't count on her idiocy affecting the outcome so much.

Also, we could make a better case for Biden being an idiot than Palin, imo. He's just much more articulate and well-spoken in one-on-one interviews. I kind of hit on this point, earlier.

Biden was a terrible selection, but balanced out against the impression that Obama didn't have enough of a military background

he is an idiot

Palin slaughtered the Couric interview - abused by the media or not - on a far deeper and more disturbing level than failing to name her news sources or claiming to see Russia from her backyard.

Originally posted by Quark_666
They've been represented by Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and Michelle Bachman. They've embraced Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. They regularly draw parallels between fascism and national health care. They regularly attribute all the nation's economic success to the upper class. For three years after Barack Obama was elected, they maintained that he forged his birth certificate. What makes them a relevant political force? Why are they still one of the two largest parties in the United States?

well he has.He cant produce a valid one according to forgery experts.and yes,all those candidates you have mentioned are all corrupt.they have embraced those facists O'Reily,Hannity,and Beck.The only republican candidate that is not in league with them is Ron Paul.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
fox news, churches, wallstreat, racism, poverty, the american edjucation system.

in other words, propaganda, relegion, money, racism, depseration due to poverty, and general ignorance of the populace.

exactly.well said.

Hey, the Republicans may strike a blow for freedom and liberty after all. Isn't the tea party/libertarian plan for healthcare and job creation to decriminalize suicide?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
well he has.He cant produce a valid one according to forgery experts.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hey, the Republicans may strike a blow for freedom and liberty after all. Isn't the tea party/libertarian plan for healthcare and job creation to decriminalize suicide?

suicide is illegal where you live?

Originally posted by inimalist
suicide is illegal where you live?

A capital crime.

Ok, I just read the first like 5 or 6 posts here. And I cannot believe that people blindly believe that republicans are just idiots, or racists, or whatever.

The reason republicans, (and remember, not all republicans are the same, just as not every democrat, or person in general is the same) is that they actually provide plans, they don't always work, but they are at least thinking, rather than just taxing everyone, and throwing money at the problem until something happens.

Now the reason the Democratic party is still around is they are more sly about things, rather than actually trying to fix the problem, they try and make themselves sound like saints, and their opponents like the devil.

You pay attention, listen to a republican's plan, they tell you where they need to cut back, or whatever so it will work. And you listen to a democrats respons, it is almost always "What he wants is to kill elderly, sick, and homeless people" instead of actually pointing out what they don't like about their plan, because they know that they don't have a better plan, so the only thing they can do is demonize whoever they are arguing against.

Saying this, I should let you know, I don't believe that most "republicans" are actually republican, they are just "conservative democrats". Also, it is unfair to lump everyone into one category just because they claim the name Republican, or Democrat, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone who doesn't look at things the way I just said, I know it doesn't apply to everyone.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hey, the Republicans may strike a blow for freedom and liberty after all. Isn't the tea party/libertarian plan for healthcare and job creation to decriminalize suicide?

You have a problem with decriminalizing suicide and assisted suicide?