Still not Ready for Prime Time
Sarah Palin talks to Glenn Beck:
This clip, which is remarkably similar to many others of Palin, made me think of the following quip from John Cole:
This is like one of those awkward moments in school when a student is giving a presentation they are completely unprepared for, and the teacher knows it, the student knows it, and everyone watching knows it, yet you sit there and go through the charade.
Here’s the partial transcript:
Beck asked: "Who’s your favorite Founder?"
"You know, well, all of them, because they came collectively together with so much–" Palin began, in a manner much like her non-answers to Katie Couric’s questions about which newspapers she’s read ("All of them.") and which Supreme Court decisions she’s disagreed with (which brought a similarly broad answer about how there are a lot of decisions).
"Bullcrap," Beck interrupted. "Who’s your favorite."
"–so much diverse and so much diversity in terms of belief, but collectively they came together — and they were led by, of course George Washington, so he’s got to rise to the top."
Give credit to Beck for at least calling “bullcrap” (a timid one, especially for Beck, though it was) on the response.
For the record, mine is James Madison.
h/t: TPM Livewire (and also the source for the partial transcript)
Cross-posted from PoliBlog. Follow PoliBlog on Facebook.
21 Responses to “Still not Ready for Prime Time”
When Faux yearned to have Palin on their commentary staff the phrase “be careful what you wish for” popped right into my mind.
Thinking helps.
Whiffing at tee-ball?
Raising George Washington to the top must be her answer.
LOL
Palin will be given all questions 48 hours in advance so she can prepare.
With Rupert spending millions on her book deal and now a contract with Fox, he needs to be sure his million dollar baby doesn't come off the fool and embarrass him like she would if she appeared on “Face the Nation” or “Meet the Press” answering questions without an advanced script..
Wow. I'm not a big fan of Glenn Beck, but I was pleasantly surprised at quick at how quickly he pounced on Palin for giving a non-answer to his question.
Palin's answer certainly didn't rise to the level of being a gaffe. On the other hand, this is no way to answer the question being posed. Certainly every single politician who is considering running for political office at the federal level has got to be considering that–sooner or later–they're going to be asked “Who's your favorite president?” or “Who's your favorite founding father?” It's certainly all right not to be able to narrow the answer down to a single one. But to reply “All of them”–that's the kind of generic answer that anyone could give, and it shows very little thoughtfulness.
Palin is right in one respect. The founding fathers did have a diversity of opinion. They were not all on the same page in terms of separation of church and state (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were very strong proponents while Patrick Henry was more open to having individual states sanction a particular religion). They were not all on the same page in terms of slavery (with southerners obviously more sympathetic to the institution, though acceptance of slavery was by no means limited to the South). And they weren't even on the same page in terms of the size and scope of government (Thomas Jefferson favored a minimalist state with a very weak federal government and no federal bank while Alexander Hamilton favored a much stronger federal government as well as a federal bank).
However, it is these very differences that ought to be the reason that any politician or political academic ought to have a clear answer to the question that was posed to Palin. This was Palin's opportunity to showcase her knowledge of the similarities and differences of opinions between the founding fathers. But instead of giving an inciteful answer, she gave a rather bland, generic response. Not exactly the type of response from a politician hoping to court Tea Party members and Constitutionalists.
This, I'm afraid, demonstrates the difference between conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives talk ad nauseum about the U.S. Constitution and the founding fathers while libertarians understand the U.S. Constitution and the founding fathers. The same could be said regarding the Tea Party movement that Palin and other conservatives are attempting to court. The Tea Party is split between libertarians who genuinely support the idea of limited government and a Constitutional republic and conservative pretenders who simply jumped aboard the Tea Party bandwagon the instant their beloved Republican president no longer held office.
“This, I'm afraid, demonstrates the difference between conservatives and libertarians.”
Libertarian individuals tend more frequently and better to understand the Constitution and constitutional federalism, but you discredit conservatives as a class (or as a whole) in your haste to bash Palin and those like her (or conservatives as a class, perhaps).
And I would submit those who believe they are so much smarter than Palin show evidence to the contrary when they continue to cast her in the light of someone seeking national elected office.
DLS,
I'm afraid that you are right and that your criticism of my statement is just. My statement that “conservatives talk ad nauseum about the U.S. Constitution and the founding fathers while libertarians actually understand the U.S. Constitution and the founding fathers” was an overgeneralization, and overgenerzations, by their very nature, are not 100% accurate.
I would clarfy my previous statement by arguing, as a general rule, libertarians understand the U.S. Constitution and the ideas of the founding fathers better than conservatives do.
In fact, if you were to poll 100 libertarians, 100 conservatives, and 100 liberals (all at random) on a set of ten questions regarding the U.S. Constitution and the beliefs of the founding fathers, I would bet a hundred dollars that the libertarians would score better than both the conservatives and liberals.
Jefferson and Franklin.
Beck is scoring points off Palin. He's got his own brand to worry about.
I expect O'Reilly would do the same.
“I would clarfy my previous statement by arguing, as a general rule, libertarians understand the U.S. Constitution and the ideas of the founding fathers better than conservatives do.”
OK. US libertarianism has an ideological emphasis on constitutional federalism (the “Founders' Design” as one legal scholar put it) in part because of our libertarian heritage in this country (which comes from the time of the Founders and the Enlightenment that motivated them and their desire for constraints on authority in power, not pricipally because they were elitist wealthy property-owning white males, either).
“I would bet a hundred dollars that libertarians would score better than both conservatives and liberals.”
I wouldn't bet against that!
Palin was correct.
First she made the point that a very diverse group of people with markedly differing opinions were still able to work together sufficiently to found a nation. They all get credit for this because they all had to give something up in return.
Second, she agrees with many but not all scholars about Washington being the central figure, at least in part because he turned away from being made a king (which many urged on him) and when his term was over, left office and returned home.
Who can take issue with that as a reasonable and insightful point of view? I guess if you think there are 57 states you can disdain her answer.
I could be totally wrong, but my personal feeling was that Palin didn't know who the “Founders” were, except for Washington, and—when pressed—that was her “default.” Just a hunch.
I guess the difference is, when Obama said 57 states I didn't really try to pretend I could read his mind and decide he was an idiot, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured he just made a mistake. When Obama talked about “my Muslim faith”, I laughed but decided he had just misspoken and anyone who gives a lot of speeches is bound to do that from time to time. When he debated Palin, Biden claimed that Article 1 delineated the powers of VP. I figured he just made a mental error.
But when Sarah Palin gives a perfectly reasonable answer, you manage to ignore her words and use supernatural powers to read her mind and presume she didn't really mean what she said. Impressive prejudice.
Who can take issue with that as a reasonable and insightful point of view? I guess if you think there are 57 states you can disdain her answer.
Two points:
1. It was clear from Palin's tone of voice, facial expression, and other non-verbal cues that she was thrown by the question and did not have an immediate answer. Now, it's theoretically possible that she might have never thought before about who was her favorite and did not know who to pick. But that possibility is greatly diminished by number 2.
2. Palin had given the same answer — literally, exactly the same answer — to Katie Couric's question about which publications she likes to read, and a similar answer to Couric's question about what, in her opinion, was the worst Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade. So if, after receiving the scorn, mockery, and opprobrium that she did receive for that verbal formulation in that infamous interview, one would naturally tend to be skeptical that she would use precisely the same formulation in any other interview, ever again. If she did, and really meant it in the way that you hypothesize, then at the very least one has to surmise that she is pretty dumb for not knowing she should avoid using that phrase.
My impression was either: a) that she struggled for an answer until she thought of George Washington (the most likely guy among all of them that anybody is likely to recall); or b) that she said all that she said, intentionally, as a prepared response to questions or cues about the Founders.
I completely agree. Beck is trying to knock the edge off of his new competition. He is trying to walk a fine line between keeping his master happy while hurting his master's new toy.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, DJ. DJ said: Sarah Palin makes deal with devil, sells her brain to be on TV : http://bit.ly/6CL8be [...]
Gosh, you folks are masterminds of subtle facial gestures, mind reading, and profiling of prior events. I saw someone taking a question and delivering a good answer. Many historians have commented on the unusual conflux of unusual and highly talented people who marked the birth of our country, and many choose Washington as one of the best. Apparently Palin has to jump extra hurdles to prove that her answer is actually her answer.
Doesn't she get extra points for not using a teleprompter?
“Gosh, you folks are masterminds of …”
I was just making a best guess, based on common sense. It's not like I'm one of the Professional Victimizers who demonizes her.
This is from an independent moderate atheist who voted for all of the Democratic Presidential nominees since Watergate. Now I am disgusted with the Democratic Party undemocratically nominating Obama, someone who is a long time associate of terrorist Bill Ayers and other far leftists. Hillary would be the best person on the planet to be President. Even though Palin has her faults she would be billions of times better than Obama who bows down to kings and emperors, and will not win the fight against Islamic terrorists. The mainstream media attacks on Palin are lies. She fought corruption while Obama did nothing. In the debate with Biden she had the facts right and Biden had them wrong. Her mistakes are magnified while Obama's mistakes are ignored by the mainstream media. Fox is not fair and balanced, but they are more so than the other networks. Obama is going down and Palin is going up.