CNN Interview with Palin

[Corbett]

Surprised nobody has posted this yet, but I'd like to see what everyone thinks of CNNs blatant twisting of what Byron York said in National Review about Palin. What York was obviously referring to was how Palin has been called every name in the book by the media. York and the National Review were NOT calling Palin these things like CNN suggests.

VIDEO HERE : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVK0qXVJKmM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGY5ODU3N2VkNDY4OGIzYWYyYjVlYWFhZDViZmU2OWI=

A bit more on CNN's "quote" from National Review in its story on Sarah Palin. In the CNN interview with Palin, aired today, reporter Drew Griffin said to Palin:

GRIFFIN: Governor, you've been mocked in the press, the press has been pretty hard on you, the Democrats have been pretty hard on you, but also some conservatives have been pretty hard on you as well. The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can't tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above.

PALIN: Who wrote that one?

GRIFFIN: That was in the National Review. I don't have the author.

PALIN: I'd like to talk to that person.

GRIFFIN: But they were talking about the fact that your experience as governor is not getting out. Do you feel trapped in this campaign, that your message is not getting out, and if so who do you blame?

Actually, no one wrote the "quote" that Griffin read to Palin. But I began a recent magazine piece (unfortunately not available on the web, but hopefully coming soon) on Palin this way:

Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it's sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or ? or, well, all of the above. Palin, the governor of Alaska, has faced more criticism than any vice-presidential candidate since 1988, when Democrats and the press tore into Dan Quayle. In fact, Palin may have it even worse than Quayle, since she's taking flak not only from Democrats and the press but from some conservative opinion leaders as well.

After John McCain unexpectedly chose Palin as his running mate, reporters raced to Alaska to look into her family life, including her teenage daughter's pregnancy; into her per diem expense requests; into her controversial firing of the state's public-safety commissioner; into her husband's role as informal adviser; into the gifts she received; and into much more. Those investigations have yielded hundreds of stories. But Palin's time in the governor's office hasn't been all, or even mostly, family drama and minor controversy. She was also, lest we forget, the state's chief executive. So, what did she do every day? How deeply involved was she in the workings of government? What were her priorities?

And also: Before Palin moved into the governor's office, she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 7,028. How did she adjust to a big new job? Was she up to it? What was her learning curve? Discovering how she made that transition could tell us how she might handle becoming vice president.

Yes, there are legitimate concerns about Palin's lack of experience. Who wouldn't, at the very least, wish that she had more time in the governor's office on her résumé? But a look at Palin's 20 months in power, along with interviews with people who worked with her, shows her to be a serious executive, a governor who picked important things to do and got them done ? and who didn't just stumble into an 80 percent job-approval rating.

So my question to Griffin, and perhaps to his producer, is: Do you think you accurately portrayed the story you cited in National Review?

 

[Butterbean]

I heard that interview. Basic media scum-baggery. This is why they are dying off.

 

[Rainsford]

I didn't get "blatant twisting" at all from that article. Griffin goes on to say EXACTLY what the National Review article was getting at (that her "experience" isn't getting out), and the thing from the story is an almost perfect quote of the Review piece. Griffin might have made it a little clearer that the author didn't mean those things literally, but was paraphrasing the press in general, but then again, it's not all obvious when reading the article either until you get nearer to the end.

You're REALLY stretching here...

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I didn't get "blatant twisting" at all from that article. Griffin goes on to say EXACTLY what the National Review article was getting at (that her "experience" isn't getting out), and the thing from the story is an almost perfect quote of the Review piece. Griffin might have made it a little clearer that the author didn't mean those things literally, but was paraphrasing the press in general, but then again, it's not all obvious when reading the article either until you get nearer to the end.

You're REALLY stretching here...

Not at all. Of course, you missed the point Griffin was trying to make in that he was suggesting many conservatives are bashing Palin, and used National Review as an example of that. He was wrong, and its no stretch.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
I heard that interview. Basic media scum-baggery. This is why they are dying off.

They are?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I didn't get "blatant twisting" at all from that article. Griffin goes on to say EXACTLY what the National Review article was getting at (that her "experience" isn't getting out), and the thing from the story is an almost perfect quote of the Review piece. Griffin might have made it a little clearer that the author didn't mean those things literally, but was paraphrasing the press in general, but then again, it's not all obvious when reading the article either until you get nearer to the end.

You're REALLY stretching here...

Not at all. Of course, you missed the point Griffin was trying to make in that he was suggesting many conservatives are bashing Palin, and used National Review as an example of that. He was wrong, and its no stretch.

The National Review piece itself suggests many conservatives are bashing Palin, how is Griffin being inaccurate in quoting the piece to make his point? Especially since, as I said before, he goes on to make the exact point the National Review story was trying to make...

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I didn't get "blatant twisting" at all from that article. Griffin goes on to say EXACTLY what the National Review article was getting at (that her "experience" isn't getting out), and the thing from the story is an almost perfect quote of the Review piece. Griffin might have made it a little clearer that the author didn't mean those things literally, but was paraphrasing the press in general, but then again, it's not all obvious when reading the article either until you get nearer to the end.

You're REALLY stretching here...

Not at all. Of course, you missed the point Griffin was trying to make in that he was suggesting many conservatives are bashing Palin, and used National Review as an example of that. He was wrong, and its no stretch.

The National Review piece itself suggests many conservatives are bashing Palin, how is Griffin being inaccurate in quoting the piece to make his point? Especially since, as I said before, he goes on to make the exact point the National Review story was trying to make...

Can you bold that part of the article for me?

 

[Farang]

The National Review has been critical of Palin, with one columnist calling for her removal from the ticket. So while the CNN's question may have been unnecessarily harsh because he skewed this quote, the main point of his question still stands.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Can you bold that part of the article for me?

Actually, no one wrote the "quote" that Griffin read to Palin. But I began a recent magazine piece (unfortunately not available on the web, but hopefully coming soon) on Palin this way:

Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it's sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or ? or, well, all of the above. Palin, the governor of Alaska, has faced more criticism than any vice-presidential candidate since 1988, when Democrats and the press tore into Dan Quayle. In fact, Palin may have it even worse than Quayle, since she's taking flak not only from Democrats and the press but from some conservative opinion leaders as well.

After John McCain unexpectedly chose Palin as his running mate, reporters raced to Alaska to look into her family life, including her teenage daughter's pregnancy; into her per diem expense requests; into her controversial firing of the state's public-safety commissioner; into her husband's role as informal adviser; into the gifts she received; and into much more. Those investigations have yielded hundreds of stories. But Palin's time in the governor's office hasn't been all, or even mostly, family drama and minor controversy. She was also, lest we forget, the state's chief executive. So, what did she do every day? How deeply involved was she in the workings of government? What were her priorities?

And also: Before Palin moved into the governor's office, she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 7,028. How did she adjust to a big new job? Was she up to it? What was her learning curve? Discovering how she made that transition could tell us how she might handle becoming vice president.

Yes, there are legitimate concerns about Palin's lack of experience. Who wouldn't, at the very least, wish that she had more time in the governor's office on her résumé? But a look at Palin's 20 months in power, along with interviews with people who worked with her, shows her to be a serious executive, a governor who picked important things to do and got them done ? and who didn't just stumble into an 80 percent job-approval rating.

So my question to Griffin, and perhaps to his producer, is: Do you think you accurately portrayed the story you cited in National Review?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Corbett

Can you bold that part of the article for me?

Actually, no one wrote the "quote" that Griffin read to Palin. But I began a recent magazine piece (unfortunately not available on the web, but hopefully coming soon) on Palin this way:

Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it's sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or ? or, well, all of the above. Palin, the governor of Alaska, has faced more criticism than any vice-presidential candidate since 1988, when Democrats and the press tore into Dan Quayle. In fact, Palin may have it even worse than Quayle, since she's taking flak not only from Democrats and the press but from some conservative opinion leaders as well.

After John McCain unexpectedly chose Palin as his running mate, reporters raced to Alaska to look into her family life, including her teenage daughter's pregnancy; into her per diem expense requests; into her controversial firing of the state's public-safety commissioner; into her husband's role as informal adviser; into the gifts she received; and into much more. Those investigations have yielded hundreds of stories. But Palin's time in the governor's office hasn't been all, or even mostly, family drama and minor controversy. She was also, lest we forget, the state's chief executive. So, what did she do every day? How deeply involved was she in the workings of government? What were her priorities?

And also: Before Palin moved into the governor's office, she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 7,028. How did she adjust to a big new job? Was she up to it? What was her learning curve? Discovering how she made that transition could tell us how she might handle becoming vice president.

Yes, there are legitimate concerns about Palin's lack of experience. Who wouldn't, at the very least, wish that she had more time in the governor's office on her résumé? But a look at Palin's 20 months in power, along with interviews with people who worked with her, shows her to be a serious executive, a governor who picked important things to do and got them done ? and who didn't just stumble into an 80 percent job-approval rating.

So my question to Griffin, and perhaps to his producer, is: Do you think you accurately portrayed the story you cited in National Review?

Thanks, so like the article says its "some". Not "many" like Rainsford suggests.

Moving on, back to the original point of the thread. Griffin suggested in the interview that National Review was saying these things about Palin, which they clearly were NOT.

 

[Red Dawn]

The fact is she's not intellectually qualified for the position and McCain put himself before the country by choosing her as his running mate.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Thanks, so like the article says its "some". Not "many" like Rainsford suggests.

Moving on, back to the original point of the thread. Griffin suggested in the interview that National Review was saying these things about Palin, which they clearly were NOT.

That kind of semantic nonsense will do nothing for McCain's ticket on Nov. 4th

Clearly the Griffin captured the spirit of the article despite bungling the quote itself. The upshot is that no-one cares, especially since the right has been weeping about the press for 30 years.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The fact is she's not intellectually qualified for the position and McCain put himself before the country by choosing her as his running mate.

And the fact is neither is BHO and you libs(or "independents" as some of you claim you are) put him ahead of the country.

But enough with the diversion...


OP, are you surprised that cnn or other media outlets would do such a thing?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The fact is she's not intellectually qualified for the position and McCain put himself before the country by choosing her as his running mate.

And the fact is neither is BHO and you libs(or "independents" as some of you claim you are) put him ahead of the country.

But enough with the diversion...


OP, are you surprised that cnn or other media outlets would do such a thing?

Yes he is, in fact more so that that old crank McCain.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I didn't get "blatant twisting" at all from that article. Griffin goes on to say EXACTLY what the National Review article was getting at (that her "experience" isn't getting out), and the thing from the story is an almost perfect quote of the Review piece. Griffin might have made it a little clearer that the author didn't mean those things literally, but was paraphrasing the press in general, but then again, it's not all obvious when reading the article either until you get nearer to the end.

You're REALLY stretching here...

I used to think you were the most rational person here... but if you honestly believe what you just wrong, I guess I was somewhat off in my opinion. I'm no fan of Palin, but that quote is taken completely out of context, and the interviewer makes absolutely no attempt to represent it as it was intended to be received. And contrary to what you think, the sarcasm is detectable from the get-go.

 

[sandorski]

People who read between the lines, usually don't bother reading the lines. Another Reach of Fail.

 

[Harvey]

Corbett -- Save all your sham outrage and bogus bluster. Palin's own words do more to prove she's a really is a loser than any of the pounding she's getting from conservatives in the National Review, the public and elsewhere in the news media.

Serious, high profile conservatives, including George Will, Kathleen Parker, David Frum, David Brooks, Lincoln Chafee, Charles Krauthammer and National Review founder, William F. Buckley's own son, Christopher Buckley, not to mention others like Colin Powell, have questioned Palin's qualifications and McCain's judgment for choosing her as his running mate.

Kathleen Parker said, in the National Review:

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

Buckley published his criticism of Palin on another site because of all the hate mail Parker received.

This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget ?by the end of my first term.? Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

Colin Powell said:

And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

The polls show the public and a remarkable number of Republican oriented newspapers see the same problems:

Palin Pick The Real Reason McCain Trails in Polls?

By Greg Mitchell

Published: October 22, 2008 3:05 PM ET

NEW YORK It may yet turn out differently, but at this stage in the campaign for the White House it appears that if John McCain loses in November the turning point will not be the financial crisis hitting in late September but his choice of Sarah Palin as his veep in late August.

Two new national polls show that voters cite that choice as the main reason they have turned from McCain. Indeed, his slippage in the poll began in September after his convention bounce, and before the financial crisis truly hit, as media vetting on Palin began and she ventured out for her first TV interview. But here is another measure: the brutal criticism of that pick in newspaper editorial endorsements of his opponent -- from GOP-leaning papers that endorsed George W. Bush.

Many of them cited his Palin pick as a key reason for switching sides this time around. As the Chicago Tribune, which backed a Democrat for president for the first time in its history, frankly declared,
?McCain failed in his most important executive decision."

Yet McCain said today, referring to Palin, "I think she is the most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president.?

Here is a gallery of some of these comments, all from Bush-backing papers in 2004.
*
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
?McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.?


ASBURY PARK PRESS (NJ)
?If McCain, who is 72 and has a history of cancer, should die in the presidency, he would be succeeded by Sarah Palin, whose selection as the vice presidential candidate calls McCain's judgment into serious question. She is not qualified to lead a nation facing its toughest challenges in decades.?

SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (UTAH)
?Then, out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously underequipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency.?

HOUSTON CHRONICLE
?Perhaps the worst mistake McCain made in his campaign for the White House was the choice of the inexperienced and inflammatory Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Had he selected a moderate, experienced Republican lawmaker such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison with a strong appeal to independents, the Chronicle's choice for an endorsement would have been far more difficult.?

STOCKTON (Ca.) RECORD
?If elected, at 72, [McCain] would be the oldest incoming president in U.S. history. He's in good health now, we're told, although he has withheld most of his medical records. That means Gov. Sarah Palin could very well become president.

And that brings us to McCain's most troubling trait: his judgment.

While praiseworthy for putting the first woman on a major-party presidential ticket since Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, his selection of Palin as a running mate was appalling. The first-term governor is clearly not experienced enough to serve as vice president or president if required."

PASADENA STAR-NEWS (CALIF.)
?His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate, a move intended to energize the ticket and galvanize the Republican party, has rallied some supporters, but left others, including some in his own party, wondering whether McCain had put politics ahead of prudence.?

MASON CITY GLOBE GAZETTE (IOWA)
?McCain?s choice of Sarah Palin as running mate rang of desperation; an attempt to appeal to Democratic female voters upset that Hillary Clinton is not their party?s nominee and to make the Republican ticket seem more change-oriented by having someone that?s about as far removed from Washington as possible. Palin is talented in many ways, and we admire her regular-gal persona. But is she the person we want as president if something happens to the person we elect Nov. 4? Absolutely not. Although she plays well to the Republican conservative base, she leaves others gasping incredulously at McCain?s choice.?

HAMILTON JOURNAL NEWS (OHIO)
?As much as we respect the loyal and courageous service of Sen. McCain in the military and in Congress, his record of supporting the Bush administration's policies, particularly his support for the costly and unnecessary war in Iraq; his impulsive and improvident selection of an ill-prepared running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin; and his negative, conflicted and uneven campaign lead us to believe that he is not the man to lead the nation at a time when extraordinary change is needed.?

THE COLUMBIAN (WASH.)
?As for judgment, Obama chose a running mate who neither hurt him in the polls nor diverted the spotlight from the main man on the ticket. McCain?s choice has done both. McCain tries to masquerade this recklessness as the virtue of a maverick. Would he use that same recklessness in appointing Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members??

YAKIMA HERALD (WASH.)
?Sarah Palin. The governor of Alaska took the national political scene by storm, and by surprise, when McCain picked her as his running mate. Palin has obvious appeal to the conservative wing of the Republican party, and her outspoken, folksy ways brought her a lot of attention for a while. But her 15 minutes of fame in the national spotlight are over. On the campaign trail, we're not seeing the kind of substance, depth and breadth of experience that's necessary in someone a heartbeat away from the presidency.?

Blow all the smoke you want about the CNN interview. It doesn't change the fact that Palin really is a Lipstick Dipstick who is unfit to be Vice President of the United States of America.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: sandorski
People who read between the lines, usually don't bother reading the lines. Another Reach of Fail.

QFT

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Blow all the smoke you want about the CNN interview. It doesn't change the fact that Palin really is a Lipstick Dipstick who is unfit to be Vice President of the United States of America.

And if I had as much time as you apparently do, I'd make a list of all those in the democrat party who have said Obama was not ready to be president either.

Your list still does not make my OP any less relevant.

 

[Farang]

Corbett - without mentioning Obama, do you think Palin is ready to be President of the United States?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Farang
Corbett - without mentioning Obama, do you think Palin is ready to be President of the United States?

I think Palin is ready to be Vice President of the United States.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
Blow all the smoke you want about the CNN interview. It doesn't change the fact that Palin really is a Lipstick Dipstick who is unfit to be Vice President of the United States of America.

And if I had as much time as you apparently do, I'd make a list of all those in the democrat party who have said Obama was not ready to be president either.

Your list still does not make my OP any less relevant.

Your lack of reading comprehension makes the OP irrelevant.

As Palin might say: "You are part of the (wannabe) Gotcha Media." That is, part of those who see a string of words that looks like a conspiracy, then repeat those words while ignoring all the words before and after those words(taking out of context).

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Farang
Corbett - without mentioning Obama, do you think Palin is ready to be President of the United States?

I think Palin is ready to be Vice President of the United States.

That's not what he asked. The Vice President should be ready to be President of the United States at a moment's notice.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
Blow all the smoke you want about the CNN interview. It doesn't change the fact that Palin really is a Lipstick Dipstick who is unfit to be Vice President of the United States of America.

And if I had as much time as you apparently do, I'd make a list of all those in the democrat party who have said Obama was not ready to be president either.

Your list still does not make my OP any less relevant.

Your lack of reading comprehension makes the OP irrelevant.

As Palin might say: "You are part of the (wannabe) Gotcha Media." That is, part of those who see a string of words that looks like a conspiracy, then repeat those words while ignoring all the words before and after those words(taking out of context).

Again, you are wrong. You are obviously the one who needs to brush up on your reading comprehension. I suggest you re-read the OP.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Farang
Corbett - without mentioning Obama, do you think Palin is ready to be President of the United States?

I think Palin is ready to be Vice President of the United States.

That's not what he asked. The Vice President should be ready to be President of the United States at a moment's notice.

So should the President.