From the Right’s National Review about Sarah Palin’s interveiw with propgandist John Ziegler for his much antiipated boquet of revsionism “How Obama Got Elected” , “She Doesn’t Have a Well-Informed Worldview.”
Danielle may have a different point of view, but I think the correct answer to O’Reilly’s question is an emphatic “No.” However nastily and treacherously Palin’s media handlers may have behaved after the election, their only error during the election was to offer too much access to Palin, not too little. Those handlers faced a daunting problem: Their party’s nominee for vice president could not respond to questions without embarrassing herself. The handlers who kept Pain under wraps knew what they were doing. THad Palin refused all interviews during the campaign, there would have been some criticism, but it would have been forgotten by now.
Frum must be kidding. A candidate for vice-president of the U.S., and in this case, a candidate who would have been statistically more likely to become president because of McCain’s age, would have been better off never answering question from the press. That historically unprecedented move would not have been forgotten by now whether McCain and Palin would have been elected or not. One could argue that keeping Palin from the press or only giving interviews to Sean Hannity would have made Obama/Biden margin of victory even greater. Most Americans would have a very difficult time voting for someone that is afraid of answering questions. Sure once you get into office, you can pull a Bush and have the lowest number of press conferences of any president, but you can’t close off a candidate running for office in a democracy. Though kudos to Frum for noticing the obvious,
She tells us she was a victim of sexism. She tells us she was a victim of class prejudice. She complains about her media treatment – then insists she never watched any of it. She deplores the unpleasant personal comments directed against herself, while offering up some equally unpleasant personal comments of her own. She repeatedly shades the truth in order to escape blame for her own mistakes. (She won’t for example let go of our claim that there was some insult to Alaska embedded in Katie Couric’s simple question: “What do you read?”)
This is from the Couric interview,
Couric: But he’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He’s also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he’s been talking about – the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you’ve said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I’m just going to ask you one more time – not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to you.
A Republican that ran against Palin recalled,
Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she’s met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.
In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn’t like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn’t name a bill.
And she is still doing it. Partly because the non-answer works for her base, but mostly because that is all she’s got. The press is cruel? How is asking Palin for one example of how McCain was a maverick cruel. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and believe she really does think Couric’s question was mean and unfair. The kind of non-answers that worked in getting her the governors mansion of state with a small population and a relatively easy budget to manage, didn’t work on the national stage. What does that say about how she perceives the world and reacts to events. Palin does know something about meanness, being a practitioner herself, Palin Laughs As Opponent Is Called “Bitch,” “Cancer,” Mocked For Her Weight (AUDIO). Palin and her defenders never mention the press that gave her soft questions and a free ride. Palin makes a good case study is how people get conned and how they keep getting the inept government they say they’re tired of. Professor Stephen Greenspan writes in this piece about how even very bright well educated people can fall for a con, How Bernard Madoff Made Off with My Money
While social feedback loops are an obvious contributor to understanding the success of Ponzi and other mass financial manias, one needs to also look at factors located in the dupes themselves that might help to explain why they fell prey to the social pressure while others did not. There are four factors in my explanatory model, which can be used to understand acts of gullibility but also other forms of what I term “foolish action.” A foolish (or stupid) act is one where someone goes ahead with a socially or physically risky behavior in spite of danger signs, or unresolved questions, which should have been a source of concern for the actor. Gullibility is a sub-type of foolish action, which might be termed “induced-social.” It is induced because it always occurs in the presence of pressure or deception by one or more other people. Social foolishness can also take a non-induced form, as when someone tells a very inappropriate joke that causes a job interview or sales meeting to end unsuccessfully. Foolishness can also take a “practical” (physical) form, as when someone lights up a cigarette in a closed car with a gas can in the back seat and ends up incinerating himself. As noted, the same four factors can be used to explain all foolish acts, but in the remainder of this paper I shall use them to explain Ponzi schemes, particularly the Madoff debacle.
The four factors are situation, cognition, personality and emotion. Obviously, individuals differ in the weights affecting any given gullible act. While I believe that all four factors contributed to most decisions to invest in the Madoff scheme, in some cases personality should be given more weight while in other cases emotion should be given more weight, and so on. As mentioned, I was a participant — and victim — of the Madoff scam, and have a pretty good understanding of the factors that caused me to behave foolishly. So I shall use myself as a case study to illustrate how even a well-educated (I’m a college professor) and relatively intelligent person, and an expert on gullibility and financial scams to boot, could fall prey to a hustler such as Madoff.
Invest with Bernie, vote for Sarah.
William A. Jacobson is not dumb, per his web blog – Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY. That doesn’t mean that he’s not capable of having dumb thoughts, Support Sanjay Gupta Since Michael Moore Hates Him
I don’t know much about Gupta, other than that he makes a good appearance on television. But if Michael Moore hates him, Gupta must be an honest person and is worthy of consideration.
Gupta wouldn’t be my first choice, but if selected will probably do a commendable job as Surgeon General. Routing for Gupta because you don’t like someone that doesn’t like him is something I’d expect from a seven year old.