Here's Katie Couric with both VP candidates about their thoughts on the Supreme Court:
This is a hell of a choice. On the one hand there's an unstoppable gasbag who makes every question all about him. And on the other hand there's an idiot with no understanding of constitutional law beyond the 3X5 index card placed in front of her. Neither of them have met a sentence that they can't extend for another two minutes with their run-on syntax.
The debate tomorrow night might be the most painful two hours of television I have watched since Temptation Island.
UPDATE: Ross Douthat makes an excellent point:
there's a sense in which the apologists for her performance are getting something right: In the process of performing very, very badly on national television, Palin is holding up a mirror to the rest of the political world, and revealing how the mix of talking points, bluster, obfuscation and BS that nearly all national politicians traffic in as a matter of course sounds when it's filtered through someone who isn't practiced in it, and isn't ready for the spotlight. Her performances reflect badly on her readiness for the vice presidency, no question - but they reflect badly on our whole compromised, spin-happy political class as well.
Your post, sir, reminds me of the famous exchange that took place during Heifetz's American debut: ''Don't you think it's warm in here?'' a violinist in the audience grumbled. ''Not for pianists,'' his companion replied. A "hell of a choice"? Not for Democrats. Nor, for that matter, in this particular instance, for democrats.
I think you're unfair to Biden--he's a windbag but he talks in complete sentences. The summary of Roe sounds like a professor lecturing.
Palin sounds fine on Roe, but I can't believe she didn't reach back at least to something like Plessy v. Ferguson, it would be OK to criticize the court there.
Champagne should be the tipple of choice during this debate. Perhaps the cheapo NY State variety. Shampers (champers is for the real stuff). This will induce fits of uncontrollable , which seems the appropriate soundtrack for these two.
Three bottles should be enough to take you through the debate or into merciful unconciousness (whichever comes first).
And #2? Biden speaks in complete paragraphs - not quite the same thing as in complete sentences.
Their responses are hardly equivalent. Biden's is thoughtful, informed and intelligent. Palin's is not. If this is the contrast that we see in Thursday's debate, it will be cringe inducing, with or without alcohol.
Even if she couldn't name a case with which she disagreed, she could have turned the question to talk about decisions she thought were brilliant. You know, just to show she knows something about the court.
Biden tends to run on. I have the feeling he has been coached to shut up a lot in the debate, and hopefully he listens to his coaches.
Both can be effective when they are "on", but Palin's effect is like eating junk food (tasty but useless) while Biden's is a bit more like a college dorm meal (sometimes tasteless but at least some nutrients).
I'm thinking just the opposite; there's guaranteed to be something of entertainment value. Most of these debates are boring as hell.
As far as the SCOTUS decisions, Biden did go to law school (although he had to do an extra year because he was caught plagiarizing) and Palin didn't, so it's not surprising he sounds more informed. Personally, I think they're both idiots. And thinking that makes me feel better about myself.
That was so painful to watch towards the end that I had to squint. I appreciate your comments but disagree with the comparison. To even compare the two is a disgrace to Biden. I agree that he came off as a "windbag," but then again, what politician doesn't? It is a politician's job to glorify him/herself whenever possible. Palin does it as well, even when she has no basis to do so.
As for credentials, there is no comparison. But more importantly, as far as IQ goes she should be disqualified ASAP. One of the reasons this country is great is because of the intelligence that has lead this country. The US attracts the best from all over the world and has a history of cultivating intellectuals to lead for the future. The founding fathers were among these intellectuals.
The past 8 years goes to show what happens when we don't live up to our history and Palin makes Bush look like an intellectual.
Intelligence should not be looked at as synonomous to "elitism." We need the Obamas, Clintons, Eisenhowers, and Kennedys of the world to lead, not cowboys, hunters, and other rednecks. If the founding fathers were alive today, they would be ashamed.
well this is why Dan you don't get Palin - this is gonna be great TV, wouldn't be surprised if ratings are through the roof - she's either gonna flop horribly, which will be fascinating to watch, or she's gonna appear entirely capable and engaging, which will put Biden in a corner and force him into saying something really stupid - and potentially the whole race changes - can't miss TV. That you don't get that is a bit shocking - guess that's why they call it an Ivory Tower. Your unadulterated hatred for her may not be misplaced, but she's gotten to this rarefied ground by means of some skill or talent and tonight will almost certainly reveal what that something is and likewise something fundamental about our culture and political system will also be revealed. What's revealed may prove to be quite unpleasant, but either way it's gonna be fascinating.
Before her pick as Veep, she was on Glenn Beck specifically to talk about the Exxon supreme court case. You can find the video on Youtube.
It's impossible that she's forgotten that. It's also disingenuous to pretend that she would have forgotten that. The most likely explanation for her not mentioning it is that Palin had a particularly bad day with Couric; or that Couric rattled her somehow (afraid of another Gotcha), or both.
Spreading the release of clips from the same relatively poor interview throughout an entire week gives the false impression that she's constantly off her game. Perhaps Dan can play parts of her Fox interview? Or her Hewitt interview? Ah, but those would be 'friendly' interviews, right? So what makes that Couric? Neutral? Puhleaze. You pay attention to the hostile interviews and ignore the friendly interviews. You also ignore her excellent performance in debates and interviews before she became the Veep pick.
Here's a good take on Palin: http://tinyurl.com/4ryf82
If it's painful, why watch? I sure do not intend to. Everthing we need to know about the debate will be on Saturday Night Live.
Quick guess. Palin will be somewhat less than adequate, but will get off a one-liner that deflates a particularly obnoxious Biden gaseous emination. Press will react like it's the GOP convention all over again.
Palin has to makes sense only for five minutes or so, and not say anything really really stupid. Biden has to keep his ego in check for the whole debate. Who has the harder job? I'm not sure.
Maybe we can fantisize about what the 1920 VP debate would have been. Calvin Coolidge vs. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Now that would have been interesting.
Who's trolling? I asked a question out of genuine curiosity: could you please give one example of a hostile or unreasonable question that Couric asked? If it's so obvious that she's not "neutral," this should be an easy question to answer, no?
Is there a politician in America stupider, more unprepared for the Presidency, than Joe Biden? I can't think of any.
He says Roe is "as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours." Huh? This is about the most moronic thing that I've heard the entire political season.
In any case, we can be sure of one thing, no what what Palin says tonight, there will be a post here on danieldrezner.com attempting to making fun of her - no matter how strained that attempt is.
The hilarious thing is, Palin gave the same answer re the right to privacy that Roberts and Alito gave in their Judiciary Committee testimony. Yet, here we have Drezner claim that she has "no understanding of constitutional law beyond the 3X5 index card placed in front of her".
Remember, to Drezner, Palin has no understanding of Constitutional law even though she gives the same answers as our two most recent Supreme Court justices. That doesn't say anything about Palin, but it speaks volumes about Drezner.
Biden held 1000 hours (about half of one whole work year) to establish a relationship between domestic violence and interstate commerce?
Let us assume his assertion is true (a significant assumption, since U.S. v. Morrison did not mention 1000 hours of hearings, but, in fairness, the Senate report is referenced). Is that a particularly good use of a Senator's time? Now, maybe having a senator enveloped in show hearings is a good thing...
"Remember, to Drezner, Palin has no understanding of Constitutional law even though she gives the same answers as our two most recent Supreme Court justices. That doesn’t say anything about Palin, but it speaks volumes about Drezner."
Right. Just like Palin, Roberts and Alito had no ability to talk about any SCOTUS decisions beyond Roe. I mean, are you serious? The lengths to which desperate people (and campaigns) will go. . .
"In what way has Palin demonstrated her readiness for the Presidency in the (admittedly limited) opportunities afforded to her?"
She's been a good and popular governor. I weigh that far more highly than an interview with Katie Couric. I guess others feel differently. In any case, she has certainly not demonstrated any less readiness for the Presidency that Barack Obama has, yet for some reason (*cough*sexism*cough*) some people are obsessed with Palin.
Ok. She's a good governor. What makes you think that? (I'll stipulate there is some stuff in her record that initially impressed me. I'm just curious whether you are ablse to share them with us at this point.)
Well, she fought the semi-corrupt Alaskan Republican establishment, including the Republican party chairman (far more impressive than Obama's cavorting with Tony Rezko). She advocates developing our energy resources, but negotiated extremely toughly with the big energy companies to get the new gas pipeline (in fact, she dismantled the closed-door process the prior governor created and implemented an open process that lead to a favorable deal for Alaskans). And she successfully revised the tax structure for oil and gas to increase revenues, but without a windfall profits tax. That's three pretty impressive actions she's successfully completed over 2 years. Which is three more things than Barack Obama has done in his 4 years in the Senate.
Let me start by saying that I am not one to defend Palin, as I believe McCain threw away the election by choosing her, while at the same time insulting women. However, Katie Couric phrased the question about naming a case with which she disagreed, as a "gotcha" question. Why ask in such broad, unspecific terms, and make it a point to take the one case she certainly disagrees with (Roe v. Wade) off the table? If she was journalistically curious about her views and wanted to get into her head, why not actually name a significant case in the question, and then ask her opinion? It would help us learn more about her views, and perhaps the type of people she would appoint to the Supreme Court, should the unfortunate happen. I was talking to a judge who is an Obama supporter about this last week. Even he conceded that he would've been stumped by that question, and he's a judge! As a student who reads Supreme Court cases on a daily basis, I couldn't name one I disagreed with off the cuff. I do, however, remember recent cases I do agree with, such as Heller v. DC, because I have a strong opinion about it. But again, Couric specifically excluded Roe v. Wade, a case that is important to Palin. Katie Couric clearly constructed the question as a "gotcha" question.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(29)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE