Slamming Palin at WHRO’s “What Matters” with Cathy Lewis
|
|
Some of the best parts of TV shows aren’t on camera (like Charlie Gibson’s edited interview of Sarah Palin). Roundtable time on WHRO Channel 15 tonight at 8:30 pm including me, Dem blogger Vivian Paige, Kimball Payne of the Daily Press and Don Luzzato, slightly older than 14, from the Virginian-Pilot.
But the best part was in the last minute when host Cathy Lewis took Sarah Palin to task (pile on) and hoped her first interview with the press won’t be her last. Cathy looked at me and commented she’d hear something from me about that.
Camera’s off, and I said “I just wanted you to know that Sarah’s already booked an interview with Katie Couric on the Today show. Wanna do that again?”
Believe me, lots more fun stuff when the cameras were on. Tune in.
on 
Now that’s “two blocks” funny!
I’ll definitely tune in. I guess it was pretty embarassing? I guess i’ll find out, thanks for the information. Should be a good watch.
Hey Brian, I saw the show and after reading your bit here, with all due respect, I believe you missed the point.
She wasn’t commenting on just the few times Palin’s been interviewed (does Hannity even count?), her comment was on the way the McCain campaign has tried to put up a protective force field between Palin and the “evil” press.
So… this lady who may very well be President of the United States one day, is somehow supposed to be protected from the press but we expect her to stand up to terrorism, the financial crisis, illegal immigration, Russia, and Iran’s nukes? Really? That makes sense how?
Cathy was saying Palin needs to get out there and be heard and the fact the American people are being prevented from this access is troubling. Palin’s a smart enough person, a liar, but still smart enough, and she should be making herself heard on real issues. The whole “I said thanks but no thanks” is fluff and doesn’t count.
So the fact she may be appearing on Today is great, but that’s only a start and there’s very little time left for us.
Cathy’s exact words were that she hoped her first interview wouldn’t be her last. Well, Cathy didn’t know that other interviews were already planned, so I let her know.
But, nice to see you call Sarah names in your comment. You folks are so easy to flush out.
Glad to see you caught that. Glad to see you also didn’t disagree. =)
Shane, just because I ignore you doesn’t mean you’re right.
Wow! Testy a bit? And actually you’re right.. you ignoring me doesn’t make me right. It’s really the fact I am right that makes me right. And I’ll point out you still haven’t denied it.
And what’s with the “you people” comment anyway? You… people who don’t like Palin? So.. me, Mike Murphy, Peggy Noonan… or were you referring to some other political philosophy you were assuming about me?
and excuse me, to be fair it was “you folks” not “you people”
yeah, you’re so right, you can’t even quote me correctly from reading on the same thread.
What’s really troubling here is that Shane was watching Brian Kirwin and Cathy Lewis on a Friday night.
As for the comments at hand…
1) I love how folks are throwing around the “could be president” thing as if she’s the one running. It’s almost as if there’s a McCain death watch. Pretty morbid.
2) She is doing interviews. There is also a traveling press contingent with her. I’m not sure where this “insular” meme is coming from.
3) She’s making public appearances every day. We’re hearing plenty about her philosophy on government.
4) Did I mention she’s doing interviews? We’ve seen her on ABC, she’s going to CBS, she’s been on FOX. I’m sure over the course of the next 40+ days we’ll see plenty of Sarah Palin.
My guess is Shane is not really all that concerned, but is looking for some excuse to nitpick/diminish the ticket.
Not only did I correct myself, I’ll also point out that I’m using a Treo 750p to do this correspondence, so I don’t have your posts in front of me when I reply.
But come on, is that really the only defense you can muster? And it’s not like the meaning was wrong.. is “you folks” any different than “you people”? That’s semantics.
Come on man I know you have the ability to offer at least a somewhat decent defense here.. or am I presuming too much? Do you actually agree that she has indeed lied in her campaign and you just can’t wage a defense?
I mean I can offer non-partisan evidence to support my arguement.. it doesn’t sound like you’d care to hear it though.
Alright here’s a softball for you then.. clarify this for me.. what do you call someone who makes a statement with the full intention of having you believe something that isn’t true? I am willing to believe you can offer more than petty personal attacks and actually deliver a response of substance. I invite you to not disappoint.
JR bear with me man it’s rough doing these responses on a QWERTY that’s the size of a packet of sweetner.
No believe me my goal is not to nit pick the ticket. I believe the media allows itself to revel in issues that don’t matter. Lipstick? Doesn’t matter. Potential book banning? Kinda interesting but doesn’t matter (gonna have to duck the wife after saying that). Troopergate? Doesn’t matter.
Our soldiers dying overseas? That matters big time.
The economy… same thing. So far from her specifically I’ve heard precious little of substance. I do not necessarily fault her for this.. for all I know she probably wants to get on the tallest building and shout her opinion for all to hear… but it seems likely the campaign is preventing it. It is that I take issue with.
I’d love to go on but frankly it really bites being grammatically correct and spelling correctly on a PDA… especially when I’m being called on the carpet for a minor misquote that wasn’t even wrong with meaning, just wording. I promise I’ll do more later.. and about the watching PBS on a Friday night.. it’s called a DVR my good man. It’s pure tv geek goodness galore.
I watched this - I felt it was everyone versus Brian Kirwin. I found the VP and DP reporters clueless in regard to understanding their obvious bias in support of the Democratic Party. I was also surprised that while even Vivian agreed that the MSM was on a witchhunt to trash Gov. palin, Kathy Lewis and the two print media reporters tried to claim that there wasn’t any effort to attack Gov. Palin, it was just that no one knew here and they would have treated anyone that way.
Really?
That is not how I recall the way the MSM “investigated” Barack Obama - I recall a MSM falling all over themselves to create a “fairy tale” image for their big “O”.
Brian correctly pointed out that the dirt was run front page - while any “balance” (such as it was) was buried somewhere else in the “news”paper.
None the less, the show was fun to watch.
Can you really expect otherwise? I’d wager you put 19 other folks in a room with Brian, and after an hour you’d prob see the same phenomenon
BTW, Shane’s right, Gov. Palin is a liar. So are almost all politicians, not to mention people in general. It just so happens that she is both more prolific and less proficient at it than most, and the spotlight only seems to exacerbate those tendencies.
“what do you call someone who makes a statement with the full intention of having you believe something that isn’t true?”
A Clinton
Jeremy, 4 to 1, 19 to 1. Doesn’t bother me. It’s PBS, for crying out loud. That a Republican was on there at all is a surprise.
Think of it. 4 to 1 talking about balance in the media. It’s funny just thinking about it.
Ah, Jeremy has given us the new Democrat talking point of the week.
Now, instead of tearing down Palin because she’s a working mom with a child with disabilities, defended her sister from an abusive husband, turned down money for a pork project even while Biden and Obama were voting for it, this week, she’s a LIAR!
BURN THE WITCH!
JR, you flatter me
Besides, that’s been a talking point for a while now, its nothing new.
By the way, what “turned down money for a pork project” were you referring to? Just curious.
Quick fact check… Palin never “turned down” money. She kept the money and spent it. She did not use it on the “bridge to nowhere” that much is true and that’s where the end of the truth goes I’m afraid.
For reference:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
Quoting from that page:
“Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.”
Believe me, it’d be a lot better if she could say she didn’t accept the money or at least gave it back… if she had done that then I would agree there’s some validity to her “maverick” claim. The fact she didn’t even return a portion shows Palin’s a blazing hypocrite and liar.
It’s disappointing because I think she could’ve made a good case for why Alaska needed the cash.. but that potential gets flushed so she can instead act as though she was some saving grace of the American taxpayer.
I’ll give John McCain his due, I don’t agree with him on many things, but when it comes to pork he’s about as clean as one can get. The fact that the McCain campaign tries to compare Palin to McCain in that regard I find insulting to McCain.
I agree…Jeremy’s attacks on Sarah are nothing new for Democrats.
Quoting from Shane McNulty quoting from Factcheck.org:
“Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.”
So she did not spend the money on the bridge. She could have, but she did not. Look McNulty, according to that website (and I quote) ” Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere.”
So they admit that she did not use the money that Congress appropriated to build the bridge. Let me ask you if she did not kill the bridge, who did?
Congress?
No. Congress gave Alaska the money without the earmark specifying that it needed to be spent for that purpose.
Biden or Obama?
No. They voted for both the earmarked bill and the non-earmarked bill.
So, Shane, who was the decider that the bridge was not a good way to spend the money that Congress gave Alaska? You?
Who’s the liar Shane?
A last point for Shane McNulty and others like him. Earmarks are a congressional problem. It’s Congress that puts earmarks in bills, not governors. It’s Congress that passes pork barrel spending bills to take your money to build monuments to themselves. Governors and majors are glad to get some money sent to their states for public works projects, education and a whole host of public services that Liberals are always claiming are underfunded.
And the “factcheck” snark about “not standing up to congress” as if standing up to congress is turning away non-earmarked money. I call bulls**t on that. That is a cheap shot from the so-called fact checkers at “factcheck.” Making the statement that a governor turning away un-earmarked funds from congress is “standing up” doesn’t pass the laugh test.
I have never used factcheck.org for any purpose and if this is what passes for fact checking, it needs its own ”factcheck that factchecks.org”.
Sort of reminds me of that Washington Post writer who wrote an attack on the McCain ad when he used a Washington Post article tying Obama to disgraced Fannie Mae head Raines. They said, in effect, you can’t trust us when we say there’s a connection. We lie. And they even got their own “fact check” wrong.
http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2008/09/washington-post-attacks-washington-post.html
Dearest Moneyrunner,
I’m just curious… do you think all news that is reported is automatically wrong or biased if you do not agree with it?
Sounds like a crock to me, but hey let me know how that works out for ya.
I mean I can understand if you want to question the validity of news reported off Keith Olbermann’s blog… I don’t think anyone could challenge you on that one. But Fact Check.org? Are you serious?
To your question “who was the decider that the bridge was not a good way to spend the money that Congress gave Alaska?”
The court of public opinion killed it, she just made it official. Should she really take credit for that? When after supporting the bridge so strongly she only decides to nix it AFTER the American public voices strong dissent? That’s being a “maverick”? Sounds like she was following our collective lead on that one.
Her own words I think are the most convicting:
“The abuse of earmarks, it’s un-American, it’s undemocratic, and it’s not going to be accepted in a McCain-Palin administration. Earmark abuse will stop.” That’s direct from her interview with ABC News.
(for reference:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143893857134389.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop)
So… is the WSJ somehow slanted AGAINST the McCain/Palin ticket? I find that very hard to believe and I’m sure you would agree.
In case there’s any doubt, absolutely a governor can turn away money from the federal government. So too could have Palin, she didn’t. But she’s certainly presenting a case as though she did.
I’m not saying I fault any mayor or Governor who is being offered free loot and taking it… hey if they wanted to offer me free money I’d take it too, but then I’m not going to describe myself as being somehow against the method in which I received funding.
And regarding Fact Check, they have been known as one of the most impartial, down-the-middle political fact checking organizations for years, and utilized by both Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann. So I question your claim that somehow Fact Check’s information is irrelevant, especially since every claim they make they can offer proof to back it up with… Now if you have proof that proves the contrary by all means please share it. But simply saying “they’re wrong” is bs.