Mocking Biden
(Am I spending too much time on Palin? Maybe. But it’s important for voters to keep in mind not just what a joke she is but what it says about McCain that he picked such as joke as his running mate. Plus, you know, there’s the debate tomorrow.)
My “Painful Palin” series — for the first two installments, see here and here — looks at the Palin-Couric interview, parts of which are still being aired on CBS.
Here’s the deal with Part 3 (transcript and video here): In her stump speech, Palin mocks Biden for being in Washington for so long. Needless to say, she doesn’t mention his accomplishments, nor his expertise. But she does claim that she’s been “hearing about his Senate speeches since [she] was in, like, second grade,” which was, like, 1972.
This is ridiculously stupid on so many levels:
1) Was Palin really paying attention to Biden in second grade? If so, what does that say about her? — that she was some sort of crazed political junkie even at a young age. This seems unlikely. More likely, she’s lying.
2) How can someone with next to no experience or expertise, someone who is so utterly unprepared for national politics and so appallingly unqualified for the vice presidency, mock someone like Biden, who has not just expertise in areas like foreign policy and national security but an impressive legislative record and a long career of engaging with the issues that matter to Americans? Well, obviously Palin can, and does, but does so without even a hint of irony or self-awareness.
3) Biden has been in Washington a long time — while living the whole time in Delaware, remember — but so has, of course, McCain. Shouldn’t Palin be mocking McCain? If she was listening to Biden’s speeches in 1972, surely she was listening to McCain’s speeches from as early as 1982, when he was elected to the House? No, because she’s clearly lying.
4) Keep in mind that Biden was elected in 1972. Which means that he didn’t actually enter the Senate until 1973. Was she really paying attention to Biden’s candidacy for the Senate in 1972? No, because she’s clearly lying.
5) Thankfully, Katie Couric asked her about this — actually, challenged her on this. Given that she has a 72-year old running mate, is it not “a risky thing to say”? In response, Palin denies her comment was meant as a joke, that, in fact, she meant it as a compliment, referring to Biden’s “lot of experience,” “tremendous amount of experience.” “Oh, no,” she claims, “it’s nothing negative at all.” But of course it was. Watch the clip. Listen to the tone, the final inflection. She’s obviously making, or trying to make, a joke. And Cindy McCain, right behind her, laughs, like it’s funny to mock Biden’s Senate career. (She’s apparently as un-ironic and un-self-aware as Palin is.)
6) She claims that, in contrast to Biden, she’s “the new energy, the new face, the new ideas” (and that “voters are going to have a choice”). She has some energy, I’ll give her that, but it’s hardly any more energy than Biden has. I give her her new face, too. But new ideas? What new ideas? Other than spewing empty promises of cleaning up Washington — like she knows anything about Washington — she just repeats Republican talking points, including, in her one and only Q&A with the press, agreeing with Bush’s approach to terrorism, supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while tying the Iraq War to 9/11, and buying into, obviously without understanding, the warped agenda and worldview of the neocons. She may present herself as an outsider and reformer, but there’s actually nothing new about her “ideas” at all.
Once again, though, she’s clearly lying — right to Couric’s face, right to the American people, right to all of us.
And so it’s just more of the same from Sarah Palin.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Mocking Biden”
Am I spending too much time on Stickings? Maybe. But it’s important for readers to keep in mind not just what a joke he is but what it says about Gandelman that he picked such as joke as his assistant editor. Plus, you know, there’s the possibility that he will make subsequent posts making arguments based solely on his own opinions rather than objective facts.
@PWT
What is so wrong about Stickings' opinions? Should he suppress them simply because you disagree with them?
This is the problem with political discourse today. As Kathleen Parker has discovered, people no longer attack a person's position on an issue — they attack the person who holds the opinion.
Instead of calling Michael Stickings a 'joke', you should argue why you feel that he is wrong.
http://thepajamapundit.com/
Oh PWT, you and your oh-so-clever rhetoric — I think you used that same little “switch-the-subject” trick yesterday. Charming. You should be proud. *headdesk*
Isn't there a comment policy on attacking the poster instead of his opinions? Can we make this guy go away, please? I'd kind of like to talk politics or something…
A clear case of PDS.
I am looking forward to your reaction to the clear win Palin will have over Biden (gaffe-o-matic) in the debate.
LOL. PajamaPundit seems a bit irony challenged, missing the fact that his critique of PWT's comment applies to the author who was being quoted (with name substitution, of course.)
No, I'm not 'irony challenged' CStanley, just hoping for a more substantive dialogue. That's why I frequent sites like TMV… because there is usually a good debate to be had.
If you would like to have a substantive dialogue, you should have ignored my comment and simply commented on the posting by Mr. Stickings. I find it hard to have a substantive discussion with a person who refers to another as “a joke” and to her actions as “ridiculously stupid”.
Furthur, Mr. Stickings failed even in his attempt to paint Palin, or her statement regarding Biden, as “ridiculously stupid”. If he had stated that it is ridiculously stupid of her to mock Biden because it will alienate independents costing McCain the election, that would be a valid argument. To simply write, “this is ridiculously stupid on so many levels” without the because clause, is merely a rant, in my opinion.
If Mr. Stickings isn't going to take the time to make an argument, as I believe that he hasn't, he should be mocked, which is what I attempted to do using his own words. If he wont' make the effort, why should I. If he is not going to make the effort, he should not be posting. If he continues posting his 'rants', commentors should continue to mock his postings.
You see — now we are having a dialogue.
Granted, it is a dialogue about having a… dialogue – but nonetheless we aren't attacking people, we are debating opinions.
And I do see your point PWT — I probably should have ignored your comment. However, I felt that Stickings post could result in a good debate over whether Palin is a good veep pick or not.
I happen to think that she was a horrendous pick on the part of McCain. If he loses the election next month, historians will likely point to Palin-as-v.p. choice as the beginning of the end of the McCain campaign.
While I have no doubt that Gov. Palin is an intelligent woman, she sure has not proven that — particularly of late. Her interview with Katie Couric has been a complete disaster for the McCain/Palin ticket. In retrospect, the McCain camp should probably have 'rolled her out' earlier and in a more general fashion (town hall meetings, press conferences, etc). Her interview with Gibson and Hannity were mediocre at best. Her interview with Couric has given Democrats truckloads of ammunition to fire at Republicans. And for good reason. She sounded sophomoric — and I'm tempering my rhetoric.
I will concede that Stickings may be going a little bit overboard by saying things like
But I have to say that it really does appear that McCain (or his campaign) didn't put a lot of thought into the choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate.
However, I try to not mock any author — no matter how much I disagree with them or how much they tempt me.
Except for Bill O'Reilly. I mock the sh*t out of him.
I think that all four candidates are horrendous but I like to stir up trouble. Tocqueville's prediction is coming true and we will be stuck with the most mediocre of people leading our country unless something is done to entice the truly bright and talented into government.
PWT — obviously there is no quality control on this site and Stickings is a routine tantrum-thrower (when not choosing to be vile, such as toward Huckabee and other religious righties) in his playpan, and the easiest thing to do is not to respond to his and other playpen-types' threads. Note that a few of them of them (leftist play-pen garbage) get few and even no responses at all, especially from more intelligent users of this site.