Video: Couric makes fun of Palin while taping before 2008 convention

posted at 2:15 pm on August 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Via C4P and The College Press, the video of the day on the right shows Katie Couric taping some promo spots for CBS News coverage of the Republican convention in 2008 on the day that John McCain announced his selection of Sarah Palin as running mate.  The tape appears genuine, although it’s difficult to know when the YouTube version was taken; the camera was pointed at a monitor during the playback (which is why the black bars appear, as refresh rates differ between the monitor and the camera).  Did a CBS News employee shoot this while watching the satellite feed, or did a C-band satellite owner get a now-rare unencrypted feed from CBS at the time?  Why did it take two years for this to come out?  I assume these questions will eventually get answered, but for now, Couric’s snobbish reaction to Palin, the names of her children, and mooseburgers is pretty instructive:

Couric was hardly the only person to make a snide comment about the tradition of names in Palin’s family, and Sarah Palin herself talked about their efforts to find unique names for their children during the campaign. Couric may have been first, however, even if it was in a presumably off-air moment. People make similar comments about Hollywood celebrities and the names they select for their children, but that usually doesn’t extend to major network news anchors. The comments themselves aren’t an indictment as much as they are a window into the first biases that formed in Couric’s mind, to such an extent that she felt it necessary to share them with her co-workers — and why the McCain campaign bet badly on having Palin give her first major interview to CBS News.

In the wake of the Sherrod disaster, it’s also worth pointing out that this is an edited clip; there is at least one cut in this video, and quite obviously we don’t have everything Couric said off air for context.  It’s entirely possible that Couric also made approving comments about Palin at other moments on that day, which either didn’t get captured or were cut out.  Likely?  Well

We have contacted both CBS and Governor Palin’s staff for comment on this tape, and will update if we receive any statements.

Update: CBS has an official non-statement statement on the clip through a CBS News spokesperson:  “It must be a slow news day for this video to be getting so much attention.”  We’re hearing from other sourcing that CBS isn’t disputing that this is Couric in an off-air setting, and that they won’t pursue how it got out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Perky “AMBUSH” Couric,I’m not surprised!

canopfor on August 5, 2010 at 9:49 AM

What are the odds that most people who voluntarily live in Alaska can really be all that smart given the crappy weather nine months of the year? Maybe that’s why it has so few people on a relative basis. (Sorry, upinak). It’s the same story about how smart can most people be to continue living in the Dakotas given the overwhelmingly rural areas and distance between towns(sorry, Badger, but my guess is that most teenagers leave North and South Dakota after graduating from high school and don’t come back because they want to go to a big city) or continue living in Michigan if they lost their jobs and can afford to move.

Jimbo3 on August 4, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Wow, that’s intelligence for you. One can only be intelligent if one lives in or near a huge City. Jimbo, you are a clown with no intelligence, so it is no surprise that you have no idea where intelligent people may or may not live. Did you know that farmers can be intelligent, even educated? My god, the founders lived in rural areas and on farms, they must have been complete idiots!! What an ass.

Monkeytoe on August 5, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Looks like Texas ain’t so smart, ND, and SD actually are very average, where Texas, specifically Dallas is the 7th worst in the U.S.

right2bright on August 4, 2010 at 5:44 PM

So by Jimbo’s OWN STANDARDS, he’s stupid. Remember, he is the one who defined stupidity as living in a place with that exact kind of defect. He lives there. And he’s a lawyer. I rest my case.

Jimbo, you went off the rails in this thread. Admit your bigotry, promise to work on it, and all is forgiven. You insisted that anyone who lives in places you don’t like (and have never visited) are stupid. That is clear-cut bigotry. Not even a good lawyer (which you are not) could argue their way out of that fact.

Oh, and yes, I did show my own bigotry against lawyers in this comment. I admit it, and have been working on it for decades. Progress has been slow.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Wow, that’s intelligence for you. One can only be intelligent if one lives in or near a huge City. Jimbo, you are a clown with no intelligence, so it is no surprise that you have no idea where intelligent people may or may not live. Did you know that farmers can be intelligent, even educated? My god, the founders lived in rural areas and on farms, they must have been complete idiots!! What an ass.

Monkeytoe on August 5, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Where did I say that you can only be intelligent living near a big city? Michigan has several of them, or haven’t you heard of Detroit, Grand Rapids and Lansing?

So by Jimbo’s OWN STANDARDS, he’s stupid. Remember, he is the one who defined stupidity as living in a place with that exact kind of defect. He lives there. And he’s a lawyer. I rest my case.

Jimbo, you went off the rails in this thread. Admit your bigotry, promise to work on it, and all is forgiven. You insisted that anyone who lives in places you don’t like (and have never visited) are stupid. That is clear-cut bigotry. Not even a good lawyer (which you are not) could argue their way out of that fact.

Oh, and yes, I did show my own bigotry against lawyers in this comment. I admit it, and have been working on it for decades. Progress has been slow.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Here’s the definition of bigotry:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion in modern English usage.

What I said was not bigotry. It was my own opinion, which I’ll continue to hold. And I did live in Michigan for over ten years and I have visited North and South Dakota.

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I am wowed you keep with the conversation. Jimbo is stunning me with the personification of the really intellectually void and vacuous fly-over state bigotry seen by progressives. It’s truly making me shake my head in wonder that someone is that breathlessly stupid.

Noelie on August 5, 2010 at 7:06 AM

I’ve lived in fly over country all of my life (if you count anything not on the east and west coast as fly over country). And I’m not impressed by your refusal to recognize facts and patterns for reasons of political correctness.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/maps/migration/

During the 2005-2007 period, Alaska lost 9% of its population as a result of migration out of the state. Michigan lost about 2%. The Dakotas together gained .4%. What do you think accounts for that?

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 10:47 AM

What I said was not bigotry. It was my own opinion, which I’ll continue to hold. And I did live in Michigan for over ten years and I have visited North and South Dakota.

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 10:37 AM

So my point was completely valid for Alaska, which is of course the subject of this thread and the subject of your initial bigotry. I agree it is your opinion, I’m simply stating that your opinion is bigoted. Again, by your OWN definition:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

By telling us you think Alaskans are stupid for the crime of living in Alaska, you show intolerance devoted to your own prejudice (people in Alaska must be stupid cuz it’s cold there). This is intolerant, irrational, and shows great animosity towards those who choose to live in Alaska, smart or otherwise. You can continue to disagree with me all you like, but you’ve now TWICE (at least) defined exactly what you meant, and both times have clearly met the definition (that YOU provided) of a bigot.

You’re a lousy lawyer. Just saying.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 10:52 AM

During the 2005-2007 period, Alaska lost 9% of its population as a result of migration out of the state. Michigan lost about 2%. The Dakotas together gained .4%. What do you think accounts for that?

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Note how the lousy lawyer has now taken his original talking point about population shift, which he originally showed as taking around a century, and shrunk it to a mere 2 years. This is what we call “moving the goalposts”, which is an accepted practice amongst lawyers. The problem is, no decent lawyer would ever do it this transparently, none would ever make it this easy to spot. I sure hope you’re in some corporate basement going over invoices, because any greater amount of responsibility would be malpractice on your part.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 10:57 AM

By telling us you think Alaskans are stupid for the crime of living in Alaska, you show intolerance devoted to your own prejudice (people in Alaska must be stupid cuz it’s cold there). This is

intolerant

, irrational, and shows great animosity towards those who choose to live in Alaska, smart or otherwise. You can continue to disagree with me all you like, but you’ve now TWICE (at least) defined exactly what you meant, and both times have clearly met the definition (that YOU provided) of a bigot.

You’re a lousy lawyer. Just saying.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Uhh, can you explain how it is rational to want to live in a state with crappy weather ten months of the year unless you have family there or work with oil?

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Note how the lousy lawyer has now taken his original talking point about population shift, which he originally showed as taking around a century, and shrunk it to a mere 2 years. This is what we call “moving the goalposts”, which is an accepted practice amongst lawyers. The problem is, no decent lawyer would ever do it this transparently, none would ever make it this easy to spot. I sure hope you’re in some corporate basement going over invoices, because any greater amount of responsibility would be malpractice on your part.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 10:57 AM

My point on the larger shift was valid as well. I could only quickly get migration statistics for the period I showed.

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Uhh, can you explain how it is rational to want to live in a state with crappy weather ten months of the year unless you have family there or work with oil?

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM

I can. You assume that your opinion of what constitutes crappy weather is the standard by which everyone should judge. In that you reveal your arrogant ignorance.

Some people like snow. Some people like mountains.

Some people like beautiful wilderness filled with snow and mountains. Leave those people alone, you do not know what is best for them, they do.

You are just like Obama in that regard, trying to save people from themselves regardless of their own judgment about what they would like to surround themselves with.

Who are you to declare what constitutes unacceptable climate for everyone? You speak for yourself, not all Americans. If you don’t like the climate in Alaska, you don’t have to go there, do ya?

Now STFU about it.

Brian1972 on August 5, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Who are you to declare what constitutes unacceptable climate for everyone? You speak for yourself, not all Americans. If you don’t like the climate in Alaska, you don’t have to go there, do ya?

Now STFU about it.

Brian1972 on August 5, 2010 at 11:48 AM

And America has voted, because Alaska has only 700,000 residents.

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Uhh, can you explain how it is rational to want to live in a state with crappy weather ten months of the year unless you have family there or work with oil?

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Uhh, can you explain how it is rational to call people who choose to do so stupid? Without that, you are a bigot. By your own definition. Remember, I’m not calling you anything you haven’t already called yourself.

It has nothing to do with your opinion of the weather, it has to do with your opinion of their intelligence (which, so far, you should not be commenting on dummy).

If I called you stupid for living in Texas, you and others here would rightly call me a bigot. Why do you think you should get a pass for the same thing? YOU defined what a bigot is, and YOU met the definition. Stop complaining about me merely pointing it out.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM

And America has voted, because Alaska has only 700,000 residents.

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Alaska has 700,000 Americans who deserve respect, not some jerkoff lawyer sitting in Dallas slandering them as if they are all idiots because they live where they chose to live.

Give it up, you have lost this one.

No one cares about the irrelevant point you are trying to establish in such an arrogant, ignorant way.

Those are your two key takeaway words from this exchange:

Ignorant
Arrogant

That is all you have proven about yourself.

Brian1972 on August 5, 2010 at 12:05 PM

New Sarah Smackdown:

Fact-checking the Fact-checkers on the $3.8 Trillion Obama Tax Hike
Today at 8:02am

Yesterday, PolitiFact.com fact-checked my statement about the coming $3.8 trillion Obama tax hike – the largest tax increase in history. They did such a bad job of it, however, that I feel compelled to fact-check the fact-checkers.

First of all, they claim that there are Democrat proposals which would “keep the tax cuts for individuals who make less than $200,000 and couples who make less than $250,000.”

Unfortunately for PolitiFact, no such proposal exists. They admit as much, by the way, when they state that “There are no formal congressional proposals yet to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, so we don’t have precise estimates from official sources like the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.” That doesn’t stop them, though, from claiming I “confuse the issue” by “using numbers that assume all the tax cuts are going away. That is not the Democratic plan nor is it President Obama’s plan.”

Plan? What plan? There is no plan. All we have is smoke and mirrors based on an old Obama campaign pledge that if elected, he would exempt families making less than $250,000 a year from “any form of tax increases.” But this pledge was already watered down before he was even elected. First vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden lowered it to $150,000. Then campaign surrogate Gov. Bill Richardson lowered it even further to $120,000.

A few months after the inauguration, even that last promise disappeared in a puff of smoke. When asked to reaffirm the White House’s commitment to the campaign promise of no tax increases for families earning less than $250,000, Obama’s spin doctor David Axelrod declared the President had “no interest in drawing lines in the sand.”

The truth is that as of today, Democrats haven’t taken any action to extend any part of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for any income group – and in this case doing nothing equals hitting American taxpayers with a massive $3.8 trillion tax increase.

What we do know for certain is that the White House is more than willing to raise taxes on families with incomes of less than $250,000. Democrat Senator Max Baucus admitted as much during the debate about Obamacare when he stated that “One other point that I think it’s very important to make is that it is true that in certain cases, the taxes will go up for some Americans who might be making less than $200,000.”

PolitiFact doesn’t dispute the $3.8 trillion estimate of the cost of repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. It admits that “Palin’s estimate of $3.8 trillion over 10 years is within a reasonable range, if you’re talking about all taxpayers.” And yet somehow it continues to argue that I’m wrong, based on a proposal it admits doesn’t exist which in turn is based on a phantom campaign pledge which Democrats have already broken anyway. I call that a “Pants on Fire” statement.

To prevent PolitiFact from making similar mistakes in future, it would be helpful if the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership finally mustered the courage to table their plans to let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. Mr. President, publish your proposals, and we’ll duke it out. You can argue in favor of a multi-trillion dollar tax hike in an age of economic uncertainty and mass unemployment, and we’ll argue for fiscal sanity combined with serious spending cuts. I for one look forward to such a debate.

In the meantime I suggest the St. Petersburg Times hires a few extra staff to fact-check its fact-checkers. It might help it prevent being caught with its “pants on fire” again in the future.

- Sarah Palin

That is good stuff. She even lives in a defective climate like Alaska, and is smarter about tax policy and economics than our vaunted genius President. Go figure.

Brian1972 on August 5, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Uhh, can you explain how it is rational to call people who choose to do so stupid? Without that, you are a bigot. By your own definition. Remember, I’m not calling you anything you haven’t already called yourself.

It has nothing to do with your opinion of the weather, it has to do with your opinion of their intelligence (which, so far, you should not be commenting on dummy).

If I called you stupid for living in Texas, you and others here would rightly call me a bigot. Why do you think you should get a pass for the same thing? YOU defined what a bigot is, and YOU met the definition. Stop complaining about me merely pointing it out.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Cause it has crappy weather ten months of the year (including times of total darkness and where you are generally stuck in the house), 24 hour days some of the remaining time, a cost of living higher than the national average, has had no cities in the top 100 best places to live for the last five years, is now losing jobs, etc. It does not have a state income tax, which is a plus. But even if you lived in Alaska because you liked to hunt or fish, you can’t do those things as much as you could in most of the other states.

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I have seen a lot of Palin coverage but I have yet to see Palin’s colon

Some years ago, to my eternal regret, I absent mindedly turned on my television to see Katie Couric recieve a thorough examination of her colon while she smiled for the camera

I will never feel clean again

Palin has spared me the savagery of the backdoor handshake, and for that, I fell only gratitude

entagor on August 5, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Palin has spared me the savagery of the backdoor handshake, and for that, I fell only gratitude

entagor on August 5, 2010 at 1:03 PM

lol, grizzlies have claws, my friend.

Brian1972 on August 5, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Cause it has crappy weather ten months of the year (including times of total darkness and where you are generally stuck in the house), 24 hour days some of the remaining time, a cost of living higher than the national average, has had no cities in the top 100 best places to live for the last five years, is now losing jobs, etc. It does not have a state income tax, which is a plus. But even if you lived in Alaska because you liked to hunt or fish, you can’t do those things as much as you could in most of the other states.

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 12:17 PM

None of which makes any Alaskan stupid except in your bigoted mind. Look, you have the right to think whatever you like about the fine people of Alaska, but your opinion is based solely on bigotry, by the very definition you posted here. Own it. I don’t care if you’re a bigot, you’ll never represent me or anyone I know legally, but your idiotic denials of your obvious bigotry just make you look dumber than I could ever hope to make you look (and that’s REALLY saying something).

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Refudiate O’bummer’s 57 states, while the Corpsemen cling to their guns and their bibles!

lukespapa on August 4, 2010 at 3:09 PM

fify!!

Sweet_Thang on August 5, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Katy, you ignorant slut!”

Sweet_Thang on August 5, 2010 at 2:28 PM

I have seen a lot of Palin coverage but I have yet to see Palin’s colon

Some years ago, to my eternal regret, I absent mindedly turned on my television to see Katie Couric recieve a thorough examination of her colon while she smiled for the camera

I will never feel clean again

Palin has spared me the savagery of the backdoor handshake, and for that, I fell only gratitude

entagor on August 5, 2010 at 1:03 PM

That post is a “big fu*king deal!!!”

ROTFLMAO!!!

Sweet_Thang on August 5, 2010 at 2:41 PM

None of which makes any Alaskan stupid except in your bigoted mind. Look, you have the right to think whatever you like about the fine people of Alaska, but your opinion is based solely on bigotry, by the very definition you posted here. Own it. I don’t care if you’re a bigot, you’ll never represent me or anyone I know legally, but your idiotic denials of your obvious bigotry just make you look dumber than I could ever hope to make you look (and that’s REALLY saying something).

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 2:09 PM

So do you think you’re a bigot against Democrats?

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM

So do you think you’re a bigot against Democrats?

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM

It isn’t bigotry when every dawning day news comes out of the halls of power that gives you a new reason to loathe them.

It is a reasoned response.

Inanemergencydial on August 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM

So do you think you’re a bigot against Democrats?

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM
It isn’t bigotry when every dawning day news comes out of the halls of power that gives you a new reason to loathe them.

It is a reasoned response.

Inanemergencydial on August 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM

And it’s just as much of a reasoned response to question the sanity of most people who live in Alaska.

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 4:00 PM

So do you think you’re a bigot against Democrats?

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM

This is a shining example of the idiot leftist lawyer trying to both change the subject and turn the tables on someone who has clearly established the facts of the idiot leftist lawyer’s own bigotry.

There is nothing reasonable in questioning the intellect of people who live in perfectly habitable regions of our planet. People have been living in places less hospitable than Alaska for thousands of years, but because the idiot leftist lawyer doesn’t like people who have proven themselves so much tougher (and smarter) than him he has to denigrate them through foolish bigotry, then try to defend that blatant bigotry by hurling insults at the person who pointed it out.

Like I said, you have shown who you are. You have that right. But this is a public forum, and I have the right (so far) to make sure everyone who reads this understands exactly what you are, you bigoted POS.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 4:22 PM

And I would like to point out that you were calling them stupid, not insane. You can’t even keep up with your own arguments.

I seriously doubt you are a lawyer. More like a legal clerk who is only allowed to go out for coffee.

runawayyyy on August 5, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I still see you’re dodging my question about the intelligence of people who live in cities with the conditions I listed. Very cowardly. Impressive.

MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 4:49 PM

And I did live in Michigan for over ten years

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Thanks for leaving and improving the average IQ here.

BTW, anyone living in Texas in the summer that cites “crappy weather” in Michigan or Alaska as evidence of the stupidity of Alaskans and Michiganders has just demonstrated their own measly intelligence. Dallas heat is bad enough. Add the humidity of the Gulf and it’s easy to see that without air conditioning Houston would still be a one horse hick town.

Frankly I’ll take a sunny 20 degree day in February to 100 degrees and 100 percent humidity.

So Jimbo, where did you go to college and law school?

rokemronnie on August 5, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Thanks for leaving and improving the average IQ here.

BTW, anyone living in Texas in the summer that cites “crappy weather” in Michigan or Alaska as evidence of the stupidity of Alaskans and Michiganders has just demonstrated their own measly intelligence. Dallas heat is bad enough. Add the humidity of the Gulf and it’s easy to see that without air conditioning Houston would still be a one horse hick town.

Frankly I’ll take a sunny 20 degree day in February to 100 degrees and 100 percent humidity.

So Jimbo, where did you go to college and law school?

rokemronnie on August 5, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I’ll take Dallas heat in the summer any day to Michigan grey, snow and cold in the late fall, winter and early spring. We can get around for twelve months of the year and generally have a lot more sunny days than Michigan. (I agree that I would not want to live in Houston in the summer). And I didn’t cite Michigan weather as the issue. I cited the lack of jobs in Michigan for anyone who lost theirs.

I went to law school in A squared.

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Hey Lil Miss Perky ! GO F** * YOURSELF !!!

cableguy615 on August 5, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 10:37 AM
I still see you’re dodging my question about the intelligence of people who live in cities with the conditions I listed. Very cowardly. Impressive.

MadisonConservative on August 5, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Post it on another thread at some point and I’ll respond. Didn’t get to it (I will point out that Anchorage has more than its fair share of crime).

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Post it on another thread at some point and I’ll respond. Didn’t get to it (I will point out that Anchorage has more than its fair share of crime).

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM

You are not winning this argument.

You are obtuse and tedious, not to mention off topic and annoying.

No wonder normal people hate lawyers.

Brian1972 on August 6, 2010 at 8:22 AM

(I will point out that Anchorage has more than its fair share of crime).

Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM

My god, are you still at it? Give it up, you’re a bigot. You should be proud of your bigotry, considering how much time you’re spending on this thread defending it.

Oh, and if you consider the crime in Dallas to be a better reflection on Texas than the crime in Anchorage is on Alaska, you’re a moron too.

runawayyyy on August 6, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Jimbo3 is defending the indefensible. Because as a partisan liberal, he cannot admit to an obvious liberal bias by a reporter, so he has to (wheter in his own mind or outwardly) rationalize the clear evidence of bias that Courid showed here as a “reasonable” thought.

So he posits that it is reasonable to think that everyone is Alaska is of sub-par intelligence b/c, after all, who would live in such a remote location? God forbid there are people who enjoy wilderness, the outdoors, hunting and fishing etc. God forbid there are people who were born there and have family there and so chose to stay there. God forbid that people have businesses and jobs there and so remain in Alaska. You can only be intelligent if you live near a big-city (which, let’s face it, is what most liberals actually believe).

then he comes up with an argument that Fairbanks has crime. therefore anyone living there is an idiot.

what about people who live in NY state. I despire NY. It has atrociuos policies, atrocious politics because the idiots who live in this populous state keep voting for idiot democrats who do nothing but tax and spend. I would move by I want to live near my family, particularly my 68 year old parents, so that my children get to know their grandparents. My wife’s family is also all here. So we stay, even though I despise it and believe the majority of people in NY are idiots. And the crime is terrible where I live, and the taxes are crushing, and the beauracracy is idiotic. Anyone even considering electing another Cuomo cannot, by definition, have a rational brain cell in their head.

So, it seems to me, that people who live in freer, but less populated states are actually much more intelligent than people living in places like NJ, or NY, or MA, or CA.

Urban areas, where there is dense population – so by the geniuous jimbo’s definition is full of the “intellgent people” are all full of decay, lousy schools, and high crime. And yet, that apparently is where the real smarts are.

It is amazing what kinds of contortions such people as Jimbo will go through not to admit the obvious, Couric was biased against Palin before knowing anything about her b/c Couric is a liberal. Why is that so difficult to admit?

Monkeytoe on August 6, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Monkeytoe on August 6, 2010 at 10:28 AM

If you go back and read what I wrote, I excluded people who have family and friends in Alaska and those who work in the oil field.

And don’t think all of NY is NYC. There are tons of other places in NY, especially upstate NY. But I guess it’s bigotry for me to think that people in Alaska who don’t have a good reason to stay aren’t particularly bright, but not bigotry for you to think that people who stay in NY aren’t particularly bright. Hmmm.

Jimbo3 on August 6, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3