I was watching the Saturday Night Live skit lampooning the Sarah
Palin interview with Katie Couric of CBS News on YouTube yesterday
afternoon (what a world we live in!), and I was very impressed at
how flawlessly Fey portrayed the Republican vice presidential candidate.
She deftly mastered Palin’s mannerisms and speech patterns, from the
constant winking and blinking, to her meandering and mystifying answers
to straight forward questions. Palin’s sentences are packed with unrelated
nouns and wacky adjectives, lacking the essential verbs needed to string
a coherent thought together. At one point, Fey actually quotes Palin word
for word, taking a segment from the Alaska governor’s interview with Katie
Couric.
The result was a comic triumph for SNL, but a splash of cold water in the
face of the U.S. electorate. It’s really shocking to see a candidate for the
second highest post in the land desperately smashing random talking points
and clichés together in a vain attempt to answer serious policy questions.
I then wondered if Democrats, Independents and comedy writers are the
only ones who see a problem with McCain’s choice to fill the VP slot. I did
a search after watching the Tina Fey skit to see if I could detect a whiff of
skepticism about Palin’s qualifications from inside the Republican ranks. It
seems that the writers at SNL, the Daily Show, The Colbert Report,
Letterman, and The Tonight Show-to name just a few- are not the only ones
who see something amiss with Palin’s bizarre performance on the national
stage.
I found an article in the Washington Post called “Conservative Columnist
Turns on Palin”. The Post is a paper that uber-conservatives consider to be
at the core of the “liberal media”, but this article is about conservative
columnist Kathleen Parker’s sharp critique of Sarah Palin’s performance in
recent TV interviews. Parker, who writes for the National Review Online,
basically describes Palin as a candidate who is earnest and attractive, but
way, way out of her league. For the good of the Republican Party, and the
nation, Parker is calling for the half-baked Alaskan to bow out of the race.
I’ve seen the video and transcripts of Palin’s interviews and I read articles
about her tenure as mayor of Walisa and her brief stint as CEO of Alaska.
I think that she is quite a skilled political operative, and she’s much smarter
and more capable than many of her critics seem to think.
What scares me is not just her lack of knowledge concerning almost all
domestic and global issues, but more importantly, her inability to grasp
the significance of events like the financial train wreck that’s playing out as
I write. She seems capable of little more than regurgitating the same crazy,
spoon-fed responses- while smiling warmly- as she bounces form one highly-
managed interview to another (there have only been three, and one was in
the lap of Sean Hannity). This tactic is starting to wear thin among conser-
vatives who are concerned with issues outside the narrow valley of
morality.
Although the McCain campaign would like everyone to think that this
election is about moral values, most voters know that the U.S. is facing a
financial meltdown that will test the best and brightest minds.
These nasty economic developments will demand mental flexibility and
the desire and ability to seek advice from all quarters. Although Sarah
Palin may have been a competent local and state executive, she has
exhibited none of the characteristics needed for the presidency. If McCain
won the election, Palin would be one frail heartbeat away from occupying
the Oval Office. As a growing number of Americans are discovering, she
is just not up to the job.
This is NOT an issue of her gender or even an indictment of the moral
values she holds dear. There are many qualified conservative women out
there who could meet the demands of the presidency. I suggest that Senator
McCain put the country first and find a suitable replacement for the affable
governor from Alaska. (I know that ice skating pigs will be seen frolicking
on the moon before this happens- but one can still hope for the best.)
Must see vid about Sarah….LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY
This is the kind of material that I see on Michelle Malkin’s site- only it’s catchier because it’s in video form. To say that it was solely the CRA that created the housing bubble and bust ignores the fact that the Fed kept rates too low for too long, mortgage securitization went bonkers, and overall lending standards in the finance industry went out the window. Sure, there were a ton of subprime abuses, but what about Alt-A loans and Option ARMs peddled to the middle class? Fannie and Freddie were complicit in pushing subprime loans as well, but they also bought and guaranteed a ton of the risky loans I just mentioned.
The push for CRA loan expansion IS what started this mess. The Democrats have been pumping this all along as they take money from Barbara Streisand and fellow billionaires. (They also took tons of money from Fannie and Freddie lobbyists.)