If Sarah Palin’s nomination kindled a certain skepticism among the talking heads last week, this week’s rousing St. Paul speech cast a spell.
As everyone must know, Palin electrified the 98.5 percent Caucasian delegate crowd Wednesday night, and the jolts detonated a chain reaction across the airwaves. As the headline to Michael Calderone’s piece on Politico read, “Media swoon over Palin's fiery speech.” Most of Calderone’s examples were overtly right wing. Fred Barnes: “She’s a natural. You can’t teach this.” Hugh Hewitt: “terrific.” Chris Wallace: a “star was born tonight.” There being a cliché shortage, Wolf Blitzer, for his part, chipped in: "Clearly, a star has been born here in the United States." What was born was a myth. A visitor from another planet would be relieved to know there nothing’s really at stake in this election.
On Sunday, Palin’s mythic debut got a considerable rise out of jaded bloviators who couldn’t be much troubled to evaluate the factual claims in her speech. They preferred a live myth to stodgy old truth. How tedious it would be—how awfully blah and, well, journalistic—to take her speech to have any propositional content at all. It was not evaluated; it was judged—highly—for its feel, resonance, stimulus value. What mattered, evidently, was that the woman crackled.
Palin said in St. Paul: “I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good ol' boys network.” Was it true? On what issues? With what outcomes? No such questions were raised on ABC.
The governor’s “luxury jet was over the top,” Palin gloated. “I put it on eBay.” Her implication was seized by John McCain himself on Friday, saying straight out that she “sold it on eBay, and made a profit!” You didn’t learn on ABC’s This Week that it didn’t sell on eBay at all. Rather, Alaska sold the plane to a Palin political ally, Larry Reynolds, for $2.1 million, $600,000 less than it cost the state in the first place.
“To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas,” Palin said Wednesday. “And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both.” How much is “lots,” round tablers? When might said oil arrive? Nobody asked.
When the governor raves about “war memorials in small towns” (small towns are to Sarah Palin as 9/11 is to a certain former mayor of a certain big town), might it be worthwhile to ask how many Americans actually live in small towns? Would it graze too perilously close to journalism if anyone broached the subject?
Stand back, effete snobs. Palin is anointed this cycle’s “Reformer with Results,” and, gosh, she sounds as though she…means…it. That is the story line. If George Stephanopoulos alone among the round tablers demurred at times, and David Brooks was relatively balanced, George Will was visibly excited at the new girl heading to town promising “change” and “reform.” Martha Raddatz, who can throw a serious question when she puts her mind to it, did not put her mind to it. She gushed about Palin’s manner and neglected Palin’s claims. Palin can bring a carnivorous Republican crowd to its feet with a line like, “Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... [Obama’s] worried that someone won't read them their rights?” So is there any more to be said on the subject? Is there half an eyebrow to be raised in the house?
It fell to Chris Wallace on Fox News to elicit from sneering McCain campaign manager Rick Davis the declaration that Palin would meet with the news media when they “treat her with some level of respect and deference.” When the hockey mom makes her hockey momness a vice-presidential (meaning presidential) qualification, and consequently mom-related phenomena become news fodder, it is evidently a collapse of “respect and deference.” Thus are the nation’s watchdogs to be brushed back.
Later came ABC’s bulletin: Gov. Sarah Palin has deigned to grant a news interview later this week. (This qualifies as news on the woman-bites-dog principle.) The grantee is Charles Gibson. He might ask where she stands on tax cuts for the rich and on social security privatization. He is obliged to be prepared, of course, on earmarks she gathered-a minute of Googling will do. He should quiz her on her Alaska secession connections—isn’t that story at least as interesting as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, or Tony Rezko? Does she propose to arrest women who abort? With what, precisely, in George W. Bush’s nearly eight-year-long record does she disagree? Why did she support Pat Buchanan during the 2000 campaign? Does she have an opinion on the reasons why the nearby icecap is melting? And about Alaska’s much-touted proximity to, and vigilance toward, Russia—has she ever visited that all-important neighbor? What is her analysis of Russia’s place in the world?
Gibson can toss underhand, or he can throw hard. We’re not voting for hockey mom of the year. We’re voting for one of the most powerful people in the history of the world. Rise from bedazzlement and the soft bigotry of low expectations. Treat her the way you would treat Joe Biden. Treat her the way you treated Hillary Clinton. Surely a possible vice-president of the United States can take it.
This is the single most depressing moment in the campaign so far. This is nothing but an intimidation program designed to capitalize on the public's cynicism towards the press. If they succeed in making the media's concern with Palin appear to be solely about her family, they win. I don't have much faith in Gibson to look out for anyone beyond himself.
Treat her the way you would Barack Obama.
Oh wait, no... that wouldn't do at all...
this makes me recall Spiro Agnew. Wouldn't he have made a good president?
Seriously, this has to be one of the most mean-spirited, wrong headed and (bluntly) dishonest pieces I’ve read. You criticize the press for not being tough enough on Palin? What planet do you live on?
To take just one example, Governor Palin has never been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. Most likely you got this lie from the original page one Times’ article, not their subsequent correction buried inside. She was not a supporter of Buchanan, but wore his button to welcome him to her hometown (and so what if she was?). Yes, she did put the plane on Ebay. And describing someone as “sneering” is hardly an indication of journalistic impartiality.
Why not go after the Democratic ticket, for once? Obama is selling himself as a reformer and non-partisan, but he has no track record of either. He has authored no significant piece of legislation, and never once crossed the aisle, much less challenged his own party. But the press sat meekly through the DNC convention, swallowing his story whole.
Correction: the press didn’t sit meekly; they were too busy cheering him on.
JLD, I think Gitlin now begins each morning with the chant Obama is good, Obama is great. I surrender my will, to him on this date, and lets this daily affirmation guide his writings.
Amazing. I hardly think getting a few small details wrong consists of a larger "smear campaign" against Palin. Gitlin points to her sweeping claims of reform, her apparent opposition to "special interests" and battles against "the old boys network", none of which appear with any such gusto in her actual biography. Yes, she does seem to have run a reform-minded governorship, but only in the sense that she took down a few (male) competitors on ethics complaints. As a mayor, she seems to have operated as any other small-town mayor would, doing what she could to secure funding for various projects and development. And as for the plane on ebay thing, you dont find that the slightest bit disingenuous? And in McCain's case, the fact that he spouted that she sold it "at a profit" when he had no idea whether or not that was actually true, seems to point to the general inefficiency of the maverick's selection process.
The point is, the McCain campaign is clearly attempting to write Palin's story for the press; streamlining her brief political resume into a digestible nugget of pure "reformist". The press role is merely to push back against this. Suggesting that they have not done so with Obama is true in so far as the media has barely ventured into the policy realm at all with any of the candidates. The fact is that he HAS written, sponsored, or endorsed several pieces of reform legislation, one with Tom Coburn, a Republican. You can brush them off as "insignificant" all you want, but they exist on the record. Furthermore, Obama is not running on a record of pure reform like Palin/McCain is. The press should only hold the candidates to the standards they set for themselves in their rhetoric.
The point is, the McCain campaign is clearly attempting to write Palin's story for the press; streamlining her brief political resume into a digestible nugget of pure "reformist"
As opposed to “The Audacity of Hope”, come now.
The press role is merely to push back against this.
Like they have done with Obama? That was good for a larf.
Suggesting that they have not done so with Obama is true in so far as the media has barely ventured into the policy realm at all with any of the candidates.
That’s good for Obama, as he has not presented any policy except “hope and change”
Now we're in fantasy land. Sure, Obama's campaign has a narrative; all campaigns do. You can't claim that he hasn't presented any policy. He talks about policy in every speech, his website articulates many positions and plans. Has the media glossed over these particulars in favor of the glitz of his biography? Sure. But there are several instances of intrepid reporting that have cut to the core of his rise to prominence, what he stands for and hopes to accomplish. We simply do not have any of this about Palin, yet. She could very easily become president of the US in the coming years, and Americans know next to nothing about her stances on nearly every one of their major concerns. To people who actually care about the future of this country, that is a scandal.
The rhetorical tactics of folks like TDC and JLD are pretty amusing. "Obama has not presented any policy", "Obama has never once crossed the aisle": standard empty Rovian politics of repeating a falsehood until it rings true.
So, JLD, without referring to Obama, are you afraid to have the press ask Palin the questions Gitlin proposed? Are they unfair, or irrelevant, and why?
We're not *all* in fantasy land. JLD is making things up. I didn't say that Palin was a "member" of the Alaska Independence Party, I said that questions should be asked about her *connections* with a party whose leadership has trashed the United States. She has spoken to the group, greeted it, welcomed it. Somebody who wears a Buchanan button is a supporter--if only when she is wearing the button The eBay remark is transparent evasion.
People who throw up abusive distortions should not hide behind initials. What are you afraid of, JLD?
I didn't say that Palin was a "member" of the Alaska Independence Party, I said that questions should be asked about her *connections* with a party whose leadership has trashed the United States.
Are you serious? I remember not that long ago your were franticly tripping over yourself in skewering anyone who dare questions Obama’s relationship with the Reverend ”GOD DAMN AMERICA Wright.
She has spoken to the group, greeted it, welcomed it.
I hear the Nation of Islam creeping in here …
Somebody who wears a Buchanan button is a supporter
Are you now or have you ever been a supporter of Patrick Buchanan? Seriously, what does it matter if she was a Buchanan supporter? You shouldn’t be throwing stones, after all aren’t you a DSA member?
Mr Gitlin, Annenberg’s Factcheck.org has weighed in on quite a few of these issues that you have brought up and it turns out that they are mostly bull
When the information is this readily available form a non-partisan source like Factcheck, and you continue to peddle your own special brand “truthiness” your public image does nothing but tumble down to the level of apparatchik.
Little advice for you, unless it’s a metaphysical certainty that Obama will win or unless you plan on retiring after the November election, you need to get a grip on reality. Whatever shred of credibility you have in this profession is evaporating away.
It's laughable that Obama has not been scrutinized and subject to challenge in the media. You can scarcely think of a time in the last 18 months when he wasn't beleagured by some charge or other. The problem is, the American people just didn't care what his pastor said, chose not to misconstrue his wife's views, determined it was ok with them if he referred to his white grandmother as white, and so on and so on. They read it, they consider it, they apparently don't feel terribly moved by it, and they carry on. You just don't like the fact that what outrages you doesn't actually seem like a titanic issues to the rest of us ("Hussein" - OMG!!!)...
The problem is, the American people just didn't care what his pastor said, chose not to misconstrue his wife's views, determined it was ok with them if he referred to his white grandmother as white, and so on and so on.
Oh they most certainly did care. You see, outside of Boston, Chicago, New York, LA, Seattle, Frisco, etcetera lies millions of square miles that I like to call "America". Out here in "America" people did take notice, and even after it was explained to people in “America” why things like black liberation theology and the Nation of Islam really aren’t all that band and have a real concrete foundation in logic and … lots of people from “America” still didn’t buy it.
And yet, the media still didn't give him the same hard scrutiny Palin has been subjected to... Pick a story and stick with it!
Reading through that Factcheck.org page you link (which is a thorough and proper line of investigation left unfollowed by the pundits Gitlin calls out in this column), I don't see that "quite a few of the issues" Todd brought up are addressed. Her connections to Buchanan and the secessionist party are investigated, and I agree that neither of these are issues that should imperil her nomination. However, you seem to ignore the bulk of the rest of the questions he raises: what is her true stance on abortion policy, what exactly is her foreign policy expertise, what is her stance on global warming, and what Bush policies does she stand in opposition to? These are major questions, far from the piddling quibbles about secession parties and whatnot.
And the fact remains that she continues to stake the bulk of her campaign strategies on actions that have been proven to be demonstrably false: she didn't reject the Bridge to Nowhere, she didn't turn down or combat earmarks, and she didn't sell the state plane on eBay! Luckily, her brazenness in brandishing these falsehoods in front of a supposedly cowed press day after day appears to be backfiring.
Palin's husband belonged the A.I.P - was a registered member.
A reminder for you lower 48ers who may have been meditating the last week and a half and missed the news, the "I" is not for "Independent," but for "Independence."
That's right - the central belief, party platform item, goal, raison d'etre of the A.I.P. is that Alaskans should be able to vote on whether or not they want to remain part of the U.S.
You might remember a little ol' thing called the Civil War that happened when a similar vote took place a few years back....
Alaska has huge strategic importance to America, both because of our petroleum reserves and our geographic location.
With Alaska having such a small population, any sort of secessionist movement has to be seen as a serious threat to national security.
Pravda writes about the AIP and Russia monitors its place within Alaskan society and might be a covert funder: After all, Russia would take great interest in the state of Alaska becoming independent, from both a strategic and military perspective.
Can you imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama belonged to a political party that advocated that Illinois be allowed to vote on whether or not it wants to be part of the Union and whose founder said "I'm an Illinois native, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."?
Palin gave this party a personal address and well-wishes and her husband is a card-carrying member. Do you think the G.O.P. would consider this unfair to raise, or unfair for the press to talk about if the shoe was on the other foot?
Getting back to the original subject…
Yes, by all means Governor Palin should be subjected to scrutiny and asked questions that help us understand her politics, character and objectives. The media seems to be having a collective hangover (or an unfamiliar tinge of conscience?) after gleefully plastering her family affairs across every newspaper and cable outlet.
But ask real questions, don’t just play “gotcha.” The queries your diatribe suggests are along the lines of “When did you stop beating your wife?”
And Todd, you should check your facts first – in places other than the Daily Kos.
The column does suggest real questions:
Does she propose to arrest women who abort? With what, precisely, in George W. Bush’s nearly eight-year-long record does she disagree? Why did she support Pat Buchanan during the 2000 campaign? Does she have an opinion on the reasons why the nearby icecap is melting? And about Alaska’s much-touted proximity to, and vigilance toward, Russia—has she ever visited that all-important neighbor? What is her analysis of Russia’s place in the world?
None of these strike me as the "when did you stop beating your wife?" type of question, aside from the Buchanan one. Palin's defenders seem to ignore her continued silence on these issues completely. You claim that Gitlin gets his facts from Daily Kos. Where did you get the "fact" that Obama has never authored a single significant piece of legislation? This works both ways, you know.
Hey trolls, what is your answer on this:
Can you imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama belonged to a political party that advocated that Illinois be allowed to vote on whether or not it wants to be part of the Union and whose founder said "I'm an Illinois native, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."?
Why is it a horror for Obama to attend a church whose pastor preached "God Damn America," but acceptable for us to have a Vice President whose husband was for at least a decade and a half, a member of a party advocating a state vital to national security be allowed to vote on secession?
How in hell do you let this pass? This is not some guy Mrs. Palin sits and listens to once a week for a couple of hours. This is her own husband, her partner in life. And she is on tape beaming when addressing this party.
Will you demand she refute and condemn this party and everything it believes in, or conclude that would be a waste of time, that her very association makes her candidacy and character questionable, as you did with Obama?
I never thought I'd say this, but no one says it better than
Mike Gravel
Talk about Lambs to the freaking slaughter!
Can you imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama belonged to a political party that advocated that Illinois be allowed to vote on whether or not it wants to be part of the Union and whose founder said "I'm an Illinois native, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."?
I always though this was what Black Liberation Theology was all about? GOD DAMN AMERICA THAT GIVETH THE BROWN AND THE YELLOW MAN THE HIV
Q: “Does she propose to arrest women who abort?” A: Would her opponents prefer to see her infant child aborted? (Sorry, you asked for that) Q: “With what, precisely, in George W. Bush’s nearly eight-year-long record does she disagree?” A: Earmarks. Q: “Why did she support Pat Buchanan during the 2000 campaign?” A: She didn’t. And so what if she did? Q” “Does she have an opinion on the reasons why the nearby icecap is melting?” A: Is it? Prove it. And do you want to bet your and your neighbor's jobs on it? Q: “And about Alaska’s much-touted proximity to, and vigilance toward, Russia—has she ever visited that all-important neighbor? What is her analysis of Russia’s place in the world?” A: We all know she hasn’t been to Russia (and let’s leave aside who else among the front-runners has gone). But Russia’s ascendance is all about oil power politics, which she knows better than any candidate. I’d be interested in her opinion, too.
I'm afraid I don't find many of those answers too convincing, especially were they to come from the mouth of a potential vice president. This is what truly baffles me about unreconstructed Republicans. You look at the past eight years of the Bush administration, with its failed or fumbled wars, economic neglect, rising inequality, embarassing reactions to domestic disasters, and assaults upon the Constitution, and the issue that bothers you the most is earmarks? Earmarks? I simply can't take this stuff seriously. Leave aside that Gov. Palin gave no inclination prior to two weeks ago that she had a single problem with earmarks, it just seems like such a minor issue compared to the other problems facing this country. John McCain's crusade against waste in government has surely been a noble one winning him few friends, but the fact is its the only record he has to work with, and its forcing him to inflate it into the largest problem facing the US when it patently isn't.