For someone who doesn't know something as obvious as the fact that—given her upcoming book—Gwen Ifill has a financial stake in an Obama win, Maggie Rodriguez has an awfully high opinion of the knowledge level of ordinary Americans. Rodriguez interviewed a feisty Fred Thompson on today's Early Show. During the course of the contentious exchange:
- Questioning Thompson on Sarah Palin's inability to name a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade with which she disagreed, Rodriguez claimed that “everybody” and “ordinary Americans” can cite Supreme Court cases.
- When Thompson stated that Palin would be dealing tonight with a moderator with a financial interest in an Obama win, Rodriguez retorted “I don’t know about that.”
View video here.
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I’d like to ask you first about that clip that we just saw from the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin . Is it acceptable that she could not name a single Supreme Court ruling other than Roe v. Wade?
FRED THOMPSON: You know, I think you got the answer there of probably almost 100% of non-lawyer candidates, if they had not been given a list of cases, to say they might ask you about this one, they might ask you about that one.
RODRIGUEZ: But everybody knows other Supreme Court rulings.
THOMPSON: No they don’t.
RODRIGUEZ: Ordinary Americans would know Supreme Court rulings.
THOMPSON: Some do and some don’t.
And a bit later.
FRED THOMPSON: Then she comes here and finds that the moderator apparently has got a financial interest in Barack Obama being elected president. So if I were in her shoes, I would come in --
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Well I don't know about that. We'll let Gwen Ifill answer that for herself. But right now, we have to leave it there.
THOMPSON: Does she not have a book coming out on Obama?
RODRIGUEZ: We have to leave it there.
THOMPSON: Do you not think that there'll be more book sales if Obama's president?
RODRIGUEZ: I think Sarah Palin’s performance will speak for itself tonight and that's all the time we have.
Let's first examine Rodriguez's claim to ignorance of the Ifill financial interest in an Obama victory. Ifill's book is entitled "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race In the Age of Obama." And it's scheduled to be released on . . . Inauguration Day. If Obama loses, there is no ultimate breakthrough or Age of Obama. So it's right to the remainder rack for Ifill's book. But an Obama win means sales and a big leg up for Ifill with friendly sources in the Obama administration.
As to Rodriguez's assertion that "everybody" and "ordinary Americans" can cite Supreme Court cases, let's note that the CBS host mischaracterized Couric's question to Palin. It wasn't "can you name any Supreme Court case other than Roe?" It was "what other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?" It would take a mighty biased MSMer, seeking to pounce on Palin, to claim "everybody" could answer such a question. Oh, wait . . .
Note: Something's occurred to me. Rodriguez claims to know what's in the mind of every American . . . with one exception: Gwen Ifill. Isn't that convenient?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I wish Thompson had turned
October 2, 2008 - 07:57 ET by motherbeltI wish Thompson had turned around and asked a random person in the audience (or 2 or 3) to name one Supreme Court ruling besides Roe v. Wade. Just to prove how stupid Rodriguez' statement was.
mb, THERE is a question I
October 2, 2008 - 08:10 ET by FastEdREALLY would have like to have asked - but, we must remember, the dopes who talk their heads off on tv, can be very stupid when they want to be - unfortuneately for us, that is most of the time.
Remember, their agenda is to get Barry elected - I'm wondering if it is all part of a movement to become the "Department of Meida Information", where ALL info (read news) would come from them. humm,
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Harry Reid Can't Either
October 2, 2008 - 08:43 ET by allanfHarry Reid displayed astounding ignorance and partisanship when he criticized Clarence Thomas's writings, although he wasn't well informed enough to discuss a single opinion. One may not agree with Justice Thomas, but all of his opinions are well reasoned and technically sound.
Another gotcha game by Couric. As I recall the tape, she barely new who was running in the New Hampsire primaries. Most people don't follow Supreme Court decisions all that closely.
For future reference Boumedine vs Bush is an example of a poorly crafted decision. It turns years of legal tradition on its head by strangely allowing habeus corpus petetions to be considered in District Court before Military Tribunal trials have completed.
And "We have to leave it there"....
October 2, 2008 - 07:59 ET by Prester John...(because I can't refute what you're saying and if this goes any longer it's only going to get worse for me)". Sigh.
»→ Thompson, you magnificent b@stard!
October 2, 2008 - 08:08 ET by Cool ArrowGreat morning to quote George Patton, don't you think.
So funny that Ms. Rodriguez tucks tail and runs when faced with the same questions Main Street America is asking.
"I've got a bracelet too" - Barack Obama
Actually, Palin did answer
October 2, 2008 - 08:11 ET by general companyActually, Palin did answer the question, very well I thought. Just wasn't the answer Curric wanted. Palin to her credit did not mention particulars, (they would had ridiculed her for them anyway, and she knew it) but she did emphatically state that she thought the State's should have more control over many decisions made by the SC
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Go Fred! I love it when
October 2, 2008 - 08:19 ET by HockeyKidGo Fred! I love it when these self-important "journalist" gasbags get bitch-slapped with their own tactics.
I would've liked to see Fred ask Mizz Rodriguez which decisions she disagrees with, and then press her on what grounds. She'd fold like a flophouse mattress.
I can name five SCOTUS
October 2, 2008 - 08:23 ET by oilcanI can name five SCOTUS cases off the top of my head, hang on a sec . . . dammit, Google is down!
Who is Gwen Ifill?
Now then, it would have been primo if Thompson had turned to the background audience and picked one, two or three of them and asked if they can cite any SCOTUS cases.
Five that come to mind for me...
October 2, 2008 - 08:32 ET by mikefiskBaker v. Carr
Mapp v. Ohio
Grutter v. Bollinger
Kennedy v. Louisiana
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Granted, I'm not the average citizen on the street (having a Bachelor's Degree in Public Law), but still... those are pretty easily determined.
You are smarter than Biden - he couldn't name one
October 2, 2008 - 08:43 ET by Dee Bunkand he's a Lawyer. He didn't even cite the case he was talking about. He gave the law that he created
I didn't see it but did
October 2, 2008 - 09:31 ET by SeashellI didn't see it but did Katie press him on it? Probably not.
Good guess Seashell
October 2, 2008 - 09:50 ET by Dee Bunkthe MSM are so predictable. She should have said - is that the most significant one you can think of? Do you think that case is of grave concern to the American people?
Mapp?
October 4, 2008 - 08:18 ET by allanfI'm not sure I agree with you on Mapp. I don't want the police searching trunks in my basement without a warrant and finding "Tropic of Cancer" and calling it pornography. All it did was extend a federal rule to the state level. That was after the courts searched for years for other remedies. Mapp really imposed an obligation on the Courts themselves, not on other branches of government.
The Court just yesterday refused to review Kennedy v Louisiana. So child rapists are safe from execution.
But I think the classic bad Anthony Kennedy decision is Boumedine v Bush. That is so muddled, it will take years to sort out.
"We have to leave it there..."
October 2, 2008 - 08:22 ET by retroconWhen Biden's answers are smooth, well rehearsed...
When Palin gets the first crack at the most partisan questions, leaving her with no time to think...
When we find out, shortly after the election, that Ifill fed the questions to the Obama camp ahead of time...
Then we'll hear from the MSM, it's water under the bridge, "We have to leave it there..."
that's nothing
October 2, 2008 - 08:31 ET by candanceLet me tell you all about an enlightening conversation I had with an Obamatron recently. While discussing Roe V Wade, this person said McCain would never get anywhere on the issue because....of the 12 sitting judges on SCOTUS only 4 of them were pro-life.
I'm not even kidding. Her list included everyone from Harriet Miers to Sandra Day O'Connor.
Yes, but I believe Judge
October 2, 2008 - 08:33 ET by Mark FinkelsteinYes, but I believe Judge Judy could provide the crucial 7th swing vote ;-)
That made me think...
October 2, 2008 - 08:42 ET by retroconof a line of questioning you can expect from Ifill...
Ifill to Biden: "Senator, how many laws were passed during the time of your tenure in the Senate?"
After Biden answers, Ifill turns to Palin: "Governer, please name them."
Thanks, Fred!
October 2, 2008 - 08:39 ET by XJ.JonKudos to Fred for calling her out. She should have known the kind of intelligence she was dealing with.....oh wait, she's liberal media.....
If the average person on the street can't tell you who was president during World War 2, Civil War, and other major events in American History, then I doubt they have a mental record of SCOTUS cases.
God Bless America, please?
"Nobama, please God, Nobama." -me
it's on another network, but
October 2, 2008 - 10:35 ET by mom_roxThis would make a great Jaywalking segment if only to prove Maggie wrong about the intelligence of the "Average American".
If there were no response, the followup question would be "Can you name any Supreme Court decision you agree with?"
regarding Barack Obama's tax plan - I never received a job from a poor person.
Exactly!!!
October 2, 2008 - 10:39 ET by connorinBiden gets away with FDR being on TV when he was president during the stock market crash of 1929, but Palin gets tarred for not knowing the names of cases she disagrees with from the Supreme Court?
Heck, I have a Masters degree and follow the news closely, but I can't generally tell you the NAMES of the cases where I disagree with the decision. However, I know the decisions they made that I disagree with.
Honestly, I think most americans at best know Roe v. Wade, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. the Board of Education as the TITLES of SCOTUS cases.
Oh, one more thing...
October 2, 2008 - 08:36 ET by retroconI'm pretty well versed with a few of the reasonably important SCOTUS cases, Heller, Kelo, a couple of others, but when i saw the Couric segment, for the first few seconds (longer than the clip lasted), I couldn't think of a one, then I started thinking, second amendment, eminent domain random thoughts.
I was in my living room relaxing, not facing an agressive interviewer under lights and cameras.
Sarah did just fine, but should be a bit more pitbullish. I would have liked to see her say "Cat-y, listen, I'm running for VPOTUS, not SCOTUS, I don't even get to appoint Justices. But if I did, my choices would be based on constitutional/conservative credentials, not any one case I agree or disagree with."
She's got to have that stuff in her pocket.
Go Thompson/Palin... oops, McCain/Palin
Nice
October 2, 2008 - 08:42 ET by XJ.JonGo Thompson/Palin... oops, McCain/Palin
Nice touch.
Nobama 08
Biden the Lawyer couldn't even name a court case
October 2, 2008 - 08:39 ET by Dee Bunkhe gave a lame example that was about a law he wrote and he didn't even cite the case! He thinks federalizing violence against woman is the only thing the Supreme court got wrong? So he agrees with all those 5-4 decisions that liberals are so upset about from the Roberts court? He must not want Obama to become President because he'll screw it up.
Palin's answer was more reasonable. There are many she disagrees with but most people can't cite them off the top of their head unless they are lawyers. Well, not all lawyers because Biden couldn't. Couric obviously was trying a gotcha because she thought Biden the Lawyer would have an easy time with the question. She was wrong. He flubbed it big time, but all the attention is on Palin's answer.
I hesitated
October 2, 2008 - 08:43 ET by KC MulvilleI could remember the names of the cases, but only after having to think for a second. And I'm kind of a fanatic. If I had a biased MSM ask me a generalized "any other" question, I'd have probably frozen myself.
The second thing is that as soon as you're asked to name the cases, you have to anticipate explaining each case in detail. It isn't just being asked to name cases, it's not being prepared to explain them in detail at a moment's notice. This is why you don't throw Palin to the lions - you're encouraging unfair treatment.
You want an equally unfair question? Pop Obama with this one: "Explain the concept of substantive due process, and whether you agree with it, and why?" The law professor would stammer and hem and haw for a few minutes before he'd be ready to address that question - hell, Scalia would have to take a step back and take a few seconds. (Scalia would be much more articulate in his answer, but even he would have to regroup.)
The media is supposed to be
October 2, 2008 - 08:51 ET by play21cwThe media is supposed to be an institution that reports the facts in a non bias fashion. When did it go from “We report, you decide” (using the phrase from FNC, I am not talking about them here) to “we’ve decided, you listen”.
I’m starting to wonder if BHO has paid off these bias media networks to talk favorably about him, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least bit.
That second exchange above,
October 2, 2008 - 08:56 ET by Ruths husband BenThat second exchange above, where Thompson talks about Ifill being in the tank for Obama is a great example of the blinders that the MSM is wearing with regard to Obama, their new mantra should be "Obama - No bad news none of the time." She might as well have stuck her fingers in her ears and shouted "na-na-na-na" until Thompson got through talking.
“But maybe you obviously have a better memory about that."- Wolf Blitzer
Most people know there are
October 2, 2008 - 09:01 ET by mattmMost people know there are not 57 states...or that Kentucky borders his home state of Illinois...
Or that Roe V wade isn't above the Presidents pay grade
October 2, 2008 - 09:12 ET by Dee Bunkunlike Obama who apparently doesn't know the President appoints the judges that decide it. Unlike Obama, Most people also know that Russia has veto power at the U.N security council.
Unlike Biden, most Americans know that Hoover was President during the depression and that that era had radio not T.V.
Oh sure, just the other
October 2, 2008 - 09:08 ET by zhombreOh sure, just the other night during our poker game bunch of us guys were discussing the Marama decision, about the absolute right of a Chapter 7 debtor to convert to another chapter in bankruptcy. My pal Georgie is the middle of a messy divorce and trying to conceal assets from his wife's lawyers so this is a particurly relevant case to him. I argued Marama was another example of an activist court rewriting the law but Georgie is more interested in offshore accounts so the conversation didn't really go anywhere, but hell we tried.
Gov. Palin should've
October 2, 2008 - 09:31 ET by HockeyKidGov. Palin should've replied to Perky Katie, "I probably disagree with most of the decisions with which you agree. Why don't you name one you support, and why, and we'll see if I'm right?"
Um, um, uh, um, um... health care!
October 2, 2008 - 10:19 ET by retroconRegarding MSM coverage: Obama has stumbled so many times, no press. Gotten things wrong, no press.
And, i'll bet that he's had some stumbling during every MSM interview he's done, and they've edited it out or fed him the questions in advance to make sure he looks good.
This is getting stupid.
»→ Barry umm Enigma
October 2, 2008 - 10:22 ET by Cool ArrowAnd head of the Harvard Law Review, no less.
Kill Bill II - Stop the bailout
Without having written a
October 2, 2008 - 11:14 ET by celatorWithout having written a single article for the Review beforehand. Whatta country!
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
Not ready to anchor
October 2, 2008 - 11:02 ET by nkviking75Since Palin is getting raked over the coals for her supposed ignorance, why doesn't a major network news anchor know about one of the bigger controversies of the previous day's news? Would she be ready to anchor the evening news if something happened to Katie Couric?
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I can't
October 2, 2008 - 11:10 ET by PurdueMattI have a degree in business and would consider myself more informed on current events than the average American.......and I can't name another Supreme Court decision without looking it up.
Palin tonight:Good evening Gwen
October 2, 2008 - 11:16 ET by Gary HallPalin tonight:
Good evening Gwen. So, ya got a book coming out; something about the Age of Obama? Isn't that special? And, it's going to be released on inauguration day? Oh, perfect. Gwen, I bet that you've already come to realize that your book just ain't going to do very well, if it's McCain/Palin up there with their hand on the Bible on Jan. 21st. So, how do you want to play this?
Here's an idea
October 2, 2008 - 13:55 ET by TeddyHow about CNN and MSNBC cut the 'we're objective' bullshit, drop their logos and theme music, and just replace them with the Obama logo, a mega pic of Obama pasted in their studios, and Neville & Rondstadt's 'I Don't Know Much' piped in as they break for commercials.
Ps. Add our national news networks and their local affiliates to the list too.
I can only name one
October 2, 2008 - 17:39 ET by usbeefLike Sarah Palin, I can only name one and that of course is Roe Vs. Wade. I just can't think of any others. What a pathetic attempt to downplay her. Rodriguez was very quick to ignore the Ifill scandal and by all means this is a scandal. This has the potencial to be a scandal of epic porportions if it turns out she ends up asking loaded or trick questions to Palin. Rodriguez wanted to shove that aside because most americans who watch the propaganda on these morning shows will never know about it. My mom had no idea until I told her and she would have watched the debate tonight in the dark if it wasn't for me. The MSM will think twice before they interview Fred Thompson again because he will say what needs to be said and he won't back down in front of these phony reporters. I wish Fred Thompson was on the ticket instead of McCain.
"Push back the liberal hordes!!" - Mark Levin