Skip to main content

Sarah Among the Lions

The gaffe meter is running, said one reporter for a state-wide newspaper.

Gaffs there will be, sure as shooting, in the debate, so called, between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, the Republican and Democrat nominees for vice president. And writers for the late night comics will be watching eagerly, pen in hand, to record every misstep. The show must go on; material must be fed into the comic machine; attention must be paid.

The experience vs inexperience topic still resonates among commentators and reporters. Of course, the most experienced political player in the political game right now is current all-time gaffer champ President George Bush, the Yogi Berra of presidential gaffers, and those people who have been accustomed to beating Palin over the head with their “lack of experience” comic blatters don’t like him at all. Apparently, there are two kinds of presidential experience: the good kind and the bad kind.

No less an authority on things political than Woopie Goldberg has pointed out on The View, a program well received by liberal women and late night comics, that none of the current presidential or vice presidential candidates have any presidential experience.

So there, as Barbera Walters might say.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has more and wider experience in foreign policy issues than does Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama; Biden is more experienced, foreign policy wise, than Palin. For those who think that inexperience on both sides is evenly balanced in the scales, it should be pointed out that McCain, not Palin, is running for president.

On the other hand, Palin, whose duties as vice president will be largely ceremonial, will be, as the phrase has it, but “a heart-beat away” from the presidency. This is most often said by people who imagine, when they are not hoping, that a newly elected President McCain will kick the bucket about two seconds after he has been sworn into office.

There are two views on the upcoming vice presidential debate: 1) Biden, who can be acerbic at times, will crush Palin beneath his hobnailed boots; 2) Palin will make a gaff that will confirm the worst suspicions of Woopie Goldberg, and the Republican ship will go down in flames.

Neither scenario is likely.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Palin will do much better in a debate format than with the reporters. Her interviews were not normal interviews by any means. She was not being questioned about any real issues, but about her very soul by people who had no qualms about spreading the most vile rumors about her and her family.

How anyone could sit still and think calmly during this is beyond me. If Gov. Palin had to negotiate with the Iranians, she would be under no obligation to be civil with them.
Don Pesci said…
That’s pretty much it. Do you remember the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: “First the verdict, then the trial.”

Unfriendly Palin commentators are the Queen. They’ve already written the script for their columns and have only to plug in the atmospherics: Sarah the idiot commits another unforgivable gaffe. That is how I read the pre-debate commentary in the Courant and most other liberal newspapers. You cannot believe how frustrated these people get when the facts on the ground do not support their prepared narratives. First the commentary, then the debate.

Personally, I hope Sarah disappoints them all. Because in that case, they will have to think before they write. So, I have my fingers crossed.

She’s probably a better debater that she has been given credit for by, among others, Bill Curry, Courant funny guy Shea, Colin McEnroe, Bessy Reyna and the whole gang-banging crew.

I won’t be able to see the debate because my wife wants to see a production of
A Man for All Seasons,” reputed to be ex-Governor and Senator Lowell Weicker’s favorite drama. In his political career, Weicker often mistook himself for Thomas More.

In any case, I’m sure I’ll learn more from the play than from the so called debate. And there is always tomorrow.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p