LevStrauss on January 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Perhaps you would enjoy this one:
“Now, we can’t buy into the notion that for government to serve better, it must always spend more. Reductions we support are a chance to show the true measure in public policy. Simply increasing budgets every year, a common government practice, is no guarantee of success. More often, it’s an incentive to failure. Good public policy is accountable for results, and focused on critical priorities.” Governor Palin, 2009.

No? Didn’t think so. How about using some of the doctored stuff from Gibson, too. Still a hard sell.

littleguy on January 23, 2009 at 3:01 PM

funky chicken on January 23, 2009 at 3:12 PM

I agree, she didn’t need anything else to look fine, but I think McCain’s people weren’t used to mingling with small town folk. They probably wanted to “urbanize” her. Now I’m still amused thinking about the temporary tattoos that Obama spent big bucks on so his crowd could slap them on their butt cheeks. Gotta love that!

littleguy on January 23, 2009 at 3:18 PM

LevStrauss on January 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Lev, my point is this: I’m pretty sure I can find some Jindal snippets that could make him sound like a simpleton, but why do that? If she wants to run again, she can face all comers and we will see what we will see. I like her for her many reasons, including what she’s done, the positions she takes, and even her manner of speaking. She was just playing a role in the campaign. If Jindal or anyone else is better, that will play out in the long run.

littleguy on January 23, 2009 at 3:59 PM

“Lev, my point is this: I’m pretty sure I can find some Jindal snippets that could make him sound like a simpleton, but why do that?”

What I posted were not just snippets, that was her chance in primetime, the big leagues, not some obscure moment that nobody remembers. And more importantly the Supreme Court question wasn’t so much what people will think about her, but what are her conservative roots, too many charlatans since 1994 saying the same old empty talking points and produced nothing but Dem majorities and larger government, if she doesn’t know why she would be appointing strict constructionist judges then that really draws flags from many conservatives, and the comment at the end of her answer is downright scary, reminds me of Bush’s response to eminent domain.

LevStrauss on January 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Perhaps when Jindal or whoever you admire gets their Couric love-fest we’ll see how they fare. Personally, my candidate doesn’t have to be perfect. I look at their body of work and I learn something about them. I don’t decide on a few moments of video, and Katie doesn’t think for me. As I said, she was playing a role in the campaign and whatever happened during her time with Katie she wasn’t feeling “welcome”, to say the least. If you’re interested, though here’s her take on what was going on:

“… today in an interview with FNC’s Carl Cameron, Palin aimed to clear up that worry and said she was “flippant” during the previous interview because she was “annoyed” at the line of questioning. She did apologize several times during the interview and said that she should have named what Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with because it was an “important” question. She named three Supreme Court verdicts she does oppose:

“Kennedy versus Louisiana, where the Supreme Court will tell a state that they can’t impose the death penalty, even on heinous crime of repeat child rapists. That a state, its rights are taken away by the Supreme Court and we would not be able to decide for ourselves whether the death penalty in a case like that should be implemented or not.” Palin said, “The Kelo case also, with eminent domain. That affects me, as a governor. It affected me as a mayor, also. Part that property rights are so precious in this nation and for the Supreme Court to have sided with government, instead of the people, the property owners on that. That was frustrating. And then another one personally affected me, also. The Exxon Valdez oil spill. Siding with the oil company, as they decimated Alaska’s coastline and much of our fisheries and much of our coastal communities livelihoods — the people who live there. And they sided with Exxon on the punishment, the punitive damage that was to be awarded.”

She also said that she “reads the same things that other people across the country read” including the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and the New York Times—despite it often being bashed by the McCain campaign.

She said she didn’t answer what periodicals she reads because she was “taken aback” by the question and saw it as Couric accusing Alaskans of not being “in tune with the rest of the world.”

Please note she also addresses the ridiculous assertion that she “couldn’t” name a periodical she reads, just in case you’re inclined to bring that up, too. If you decide you just simply can forgive these horrible transgressions, then I guess that’s just the way it is. Meanwhile, she still has my admiration and good will.

littleguy on January 23, 2009 at 6:27 PM