Breitbart: Media Ask Palin and Bachmann Gotcha Questions to Make Them Look Stupid on YouTube
Conservative publisher Andrew Breitbart was on Saturday's "Fox & Friends" to discuss the double standard concerning how President Obama's gaffes are reported compared to the miscues of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
In Breitbart's view, "Life for [Palin and Bachmann] is a permanent game of Jeopardy where the George Stephanopouloses of the world, he of the Clinton war room, are there to try to make them look stupid on YouTube" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MOLLY LINE, CO-HOST: Does the mainstream media have a bias against conservative women? Our next guest, Andrew Breitbart from BigGovernment.com joining us.
DAVE BRIGGS, CO-HOST: Andrew, good morning to you, sir. No, he's not one of the Founding Fathers, but I think the questioning here, these very questions being asked of Michele Bachmann, would you hear those posed to Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, etc.?
ANDREW BREITBART: No, well, you wouldn’t hear this against Barbara Boxer or Loretta Sanchez. The thing is that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann represent an existential threat to the Democratic Party the way that 20 years ago Clarence Thomas as a black man represented to liberals and the Democrat Party. The Democratic Party likes to think of itself as the party of minorities, and when in the Republican Party so many women and attractive women and accomplished women rise to the top, it's going to take the media to destroy them because at the end of the day, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, you go by the polls, represent what the American people represent on the issues.
LINE: You know, our lawmakers and the candidates themselves, they're not infallible. They do make mistakes. And we have a little clip here together of some of the mistakes, the gaffes that President Obama has made.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. I've now been in 57 states. I don't know what the term is in Austrian. Wheeling and dealing. Navy corpsman Christian Bouchard. Corpsman Bouchard. Corpsman Bouchard. Malia’s thirteen, Sasha’s ten. They're thirteen and ten.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LINE: Now, you know, everybody does make mistakes out there, but do you feel like the media is treating President Obama differently from how they’re treating Michele Bachmann as she gains steam on the campaign trail?
BREITBART: Well, what you just saw with President Obama they call in tennis an unforced error. What they try and do with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann is to force errors, to ask gotcha questions. Life for them is a permanent game of Jeopardy where the George Stephanopouloses of the world, he of the Clinton war room, are there to try to make them look stupid on YouTube.
Indeed. We saw this in 2008 with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson's interviews of Palin where it was clear that she was being quizzed like a game show contestant by an arrogant moderator doing his or her best to make the former Alaska governor look foolish.
Now Bachmann is being subjected to the same treatment.
As this isn't how male presidential candidates are questioned, and wasn't the way the press handled Hillary Clinton in 2008, one has to conclude that attractive, conservative women are flat out treated differently by America's so-called journalists.
Pretty pathetic.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Amen! The perfect analogy, too with tennis and forced
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:24am.
vs unforced errors.........................and when one thinks of Quayle's potato comment vs Owebama's june blooper fest = amazing! ATM's inhibit job growth, is the MOH winner living or dead?, cant even get his two kids' age correct, etc...................our beloved President IS a fine family man, but he is also in way, way over his head on the job as POTUS.
"Forced and unforced errors"?
Submitted by Indie Dude on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:24am.
Better start serving some ACES. GO GOP!
Saw this interview...
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:30am.
It was shamefully short.
Andrew Breitbart should be designated a National Treasure. He gets it right 99.99 percent of the time, he is a fabulous off-the-cuff speaker, and he has a way with words that people tend to remember.
He is the perfect attack machine on the bias of the left-wing media. I saw his CPAC speech, which was supposed to have been about Pigford, but he got started on the left wing lunatics and their "protests". I laughed until I had tears in my eyes.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I luz Andrew too!
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:18pm.
He don't play! Put's it out there, media be damned! He would be the perfect press secretary! Liberal heads would be exploding everywhere, and that would be a good thing. ; )
What is an example of a "gotcha" question?
Submitted by SLUGGO on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:49am.
Which of the Gibson/Couric questions were inappropriate in the context of the interviews?
Sluggo
the" Bush Doctrine"
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:57am.
Obviously, there was no formal, written Bush doctrine so totally a gotcha question.
Does that help?
Dont forget the selective editing. Even crybaby jon stewart was bemoaning his treatment via "editing" on Fox.
The rare interview the snarky hosts give, and they are whining like 1yo's. Makes me wonder how real politicians stand this incessant process from talking heads who usually the dumbest person in the room, ie Couric is a total failure at her job, but still wins "awards."
And speaking of Selective
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:01pm.
And speaking of Selective editing, has anyone noticed that the full Couric/Palin interview is never available? It was briefly on youtube but was removed. Why is this being hidden?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Do you need even ask?
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:04pm.
.
Don't forget the Professor glasses too. Atmospherics.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:33pm.
Gotta have those glasses 1/2 way down the nose when asking conservatives questions.
Like this?
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:14pm.
I are so smart. NOT!
Bingo!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 11:24am.
Yes. a picture is worth....
Oh okay.
Submitted by SLUGGO on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:45pm.
Thank you for clarifying.
Did Gibson have any "gotcha" questions? The Bush Doctrine, while unofficial, defined Bush's foreign policy during the tenure of his presidency. While coined by conservatives and used by Cheney in a 2003 speech, I wouldn't have suspected the topic to be off limits. In that event, thank you for clarifying.
Did Gibson have "gotchas" too?
Sluggo
Gibson had those glasses down the nose too.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:12pm.
Never needs glasses unless having an in depth interview with a conservative. The glasses must symbolically stand for putting an interviewee under the magnifying glass. Seriousness.
I've never heard of the "Bush
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:45pm.
I've never heard of the "Bush doctrine." What is it?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Don't even try buddy
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:15pm.
SLUGGO (Ted) is just wanting attention, as usual. Ignore him. Cheers! : )
"The Bush Doctrine."?
Submitted by needle on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 8:15am.
It turns out there was no "the Bush Doctrine." Charles Krauthammer was able to identify about four candidates for "the Bush Doctrine."
Another theory is that Charles Gibson, not knowing what it was himself, wanted to find out from Palin what is was. Heh.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
There were seven versions
Submitted by Samshile on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:55pm.
of the Bush Doctrine. It was an abstract question. Motive, Slug, Motive. Underneath these are rude attempts to be Prosecutors. Without Google, Tell me which political party pushed for the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments? How many Indians died on the trail of tears and why don’t Democrats apologize for it? Why in 2004 was it only Democrats who were asked to apologize, pending the Supreme Court outcome?
Never heard of " Bush
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:07pm.
Never heard of " Bush doctrine" either but in navy parlance a slug or sluggo is someone with the intelligence of a rock.
'Sluggo" is also---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 5:41pm.
Ron White's bulldog.
MD
Really?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:57am.
Bush doctrine?
Here's one
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:37pm.
Here's a perfect example of a "gottcha" question in the Couric interview with Palin (and it's the first question!):
"In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world. "
What does a lack of a passport have to do with a "lack of interest and curiosity in the world?" That's an implication that Palin isn't interested in the world. That's a "gotcha" question, if ever there was one. After all, how many times did Couric , or any one else for that matter, ask Obama, or any other politician for that matter, about their lack of a passport prior their run for office? The answer, of course, is none. And that is because, unlike with the implication that a lack of a passport indicates a lack of curiosity in the world, an implication that was made by Couric through the very question itself when interviewing Palin, no one actually considers a lack of a passport as an indication of a lack of interest or curiosity in the world. Palin, of course, handled it beautifully.
I suppose that you could argue that it wasn't really a question but merely a statement, but that would actually make it extremely inappropriate as statements aren't meant to be answered, are they?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Nailed it as usual.
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:19pm.
.
The liberal media has an agenda -- to damage conservatives
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:57pm.
Why is the Main Street Media more interested in a minor slip by a primary candidate for the GOP nomination to run for Presdient (regarding a man born over 200 years ago) and, for instance....
What the ACTUAL President of the United States said two years ago and what he is doing know to destroy the US economy and institutionalize an even bigger Euro-Nanny-State.
Actually that's a rhetorical question so don't bother boring us with a fatuous comment, we all know why given that Obama's grasp of history is hardly stellar.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Good point JB
Submitted by Samshile on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:10pm.
THat needs to be pinted every day. Why are the expectations of the POTUS lower than (insert name). Why are the standards for Oblamer lower than (insert name).
Really? "What do you read?"
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:00pm.
Really? "What do you read?" and "Why are you here and what have you learned" (that was the question that made Palin think of her new version of Paul Revere) are not gotcha questions, I'm sorry. Just because the person being asked can't make a coherent answer is not the fault of the person asking...
Straight out of Goebels 101 .
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:07pm.
Straight out of Goebels 101 . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Yep
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:20pm.
.
New version?
Submitted by ebayer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:13pm.
It wasn't a new version.
You just need to stop getting your history from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem.
Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim
and Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
You need to stop being a hater.
Longfellow's poem... or the
Submitted by PeskyDane on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:33pm.
Longfellow's poem... or the Daily Show
While it's true that he was
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:55pm.
While it's true that he was detained by the British and was questioned, that doesn't quite match up to what Palin said:
“He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and by making sure that as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.”
And I would further argue that even his detention is a relatively obscure fact of which most "average/ every-day" citizens are aware - and since Sarah clearly wants to be seen as average and every-day (as opposed to the elitist snobs that make up most historians), I don't think she was referencing his detention. In fact, I live in MA, I've been on the tours, and they don't mention it either.
So what. Memo to you: while
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:54pm.
So what.
Memo to you: while you clearly have a high opinion of your opinions of what Sarah Palin said, no one actual cares what you think.
But just to get your statement.
If Sarah Palin doesn't know a historical fact, which you claim is common knowledge, then she's stupid. But if she does know a historical fact that you claim is not common knowledge, then she's elitist.
I guess that means no matter what Palin says or does, it's not good enough for you. Correct?
In other words, you're a fanatical hater of Palin.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Oh I know no one cares. In
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:23pm.
Oh I know no one cares. In fact, I don't think this is a huge issue either. What I do find interesting is the lengths to which people will go to defend it. I mean, look, if she had said "I said 'British'? I meant 'colonist'" I think the problem wouldn't have been as big. Same thing with Obama and 57 states - I would argue he was thinking "forty seven" but came out as "fifty-seven". These things happen a lot.
But she, and the rest of the conservative movement, dug their heels in and fought it. They've tried to change what she said and whatever historical record we have to make them match. And I'm not arguing the Midnight Ride is an uncommon fact, but his detention is.
Demolished twice
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:04pm.
The point is you will find a way to sneer at Palin (a point I proved in my post above) no matter what she says.
You don't even try to deny it, because I GOTCHA.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
How about asking her how many states
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:20pm.
we have? 57 right. Or ask her how old each of her children is? Or perhaps how to pronounce Corpsman? You know, the questions that your Messiah can't get right.
hbno
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:34pm.
I'm probably the last one to arrive at the party but I just listened again to obama's "57 states" blunder, and actually it's even worse than that. This time I listened a little more carefully and heard him say:
"I've now been in 57 states, I think, one left to go. Uh, one left to go, Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
So in truth the boy-who-would-be-king believed (still believes?) there are SIXTY states. He "visited" 57, plus 1 left to go (58), and there were two his staff wouldn't "justify" his visiting even though he wanted to go to them (60).
He's even dumber than I originally thought.
Note: Edited to add link to obama's statement, for completeness.
"What do you read?" Is NEVER
Submitted by PeskyDane on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:31pm.
"What do you read?" Is NEVER asked of Big Government types. When the governor responded that she got her information for a number of sources, that would have been the end of it had Couric been able to get in touch with the last shred of decency in her coal-black heart.
You need to be better informed, but then I guess that's why I'm here. When asked what she had learned, Palin reflected on the presentation she had just recieved from historical scholars where she was told about Paul Revere's interrogation by the British. That's when he "warned" the British that they were on the loosing end of the confrontation.
In normal politcal parlance,
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:02pm.
In normal politcal parlance, that's called a "softball"; it turned into a "gotcha" when nonsense fell out of Sarah's face. In fact, what you wrote seems to be a bit more coherent than what she said. Hence, it's now a "gotcha" because her answer made her look bad.
As for Revere, see above: he wasn't warning the British, he was detained and questioned, and even that doesn't match up to what she said.
What, the Biritsh didn't have ears?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:03pm.
Do you know why bells were chosen as a means of alarm as opposed to, say, quietly informing th Militia commanders? It's a psychological ploy, one that used to inform both sides that something is about to occur. The British, after hearing those bells ringing, knew that they were about to face strong opposition. You can't deny the psychological effect the sound of those bells had on the British soldiers who understood that they were going to face armed opposition. So, yes, the bells were used as a warning, both to the citizens as a warning that they were about to be attacked and to the British soldiers that they were about to be denied control, just as Revere told them after he was captured. So, guess what, Sarah was right! She may not be very eloquent, to your standards anyways, in how she framed her response, but her response was, at least, accurate.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
But that's just pop
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:14pm.
But that's just pop psychology now. I could argue that the British probably didn't give a crap about the bells. They were the British Empire. They were well armed. Well staffed. Well trained. And probably saw us as a rag-tag collection of farmers.
Really?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:29pm.
"Pop psychology", really? Do you actually believe that? This may come as a surprise to you, but sound has been used as a psychological ploy in combat for thousands of years. And, guess what? It works! It even worked in Paul Revere's time, when those warning bells caused the British troops to stop their advances and prepare for armed resistance, a process that took time, time which the colonists used to organize their resistance.
Don't take the colonists as fools. They were, by far and large, much better educated than today's population. And the Militia was well versed in militarily tactics and strategies. They, after all, understood what was at stake and they drilled and prepared for years prior to the actual Revolution. That's WHY the British were intent on disarming them. That's WHY they used the cover of darkness in which to maneuver troops. They didn't want any organized, armed resistance to their movements and their objectives. They weren't fools, you see.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I could argue that the
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:49pm.
I could argue that the British probably didn't give a crap about the bells.
I could argue you're wrong. And you could not be more wrong, and you're having a go at Palin? What a laugh.
General Gage (you've heard of him, right?) had warned London for months that they should not take the colonists lightly. He consistently informed Lord North, and his superiors, that American colonies would field an army of 50,000 and that any rebellion could only be supressed with a "respectable force of regulars."
Many in England estimated the yanks could put out 100,000 in the field easily, and that the huge American coastline was impossible for the Royal Navy to blockade.
And seeing Gage's plan was to capture Adams and Hancock by surprise, and to destroy the arsenal at Concord before the colonists knew what hit them... he gave a full crap at the "warnings" by Revere and the other riders, being somewhat miffed that his plans were thwarted.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Look, I think we're getting
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:58pm.
Look, I think we're getting past the point here. Case in point: why did she fold? Why did she, a week later, declare it a gotcha question? In fact, when Chris Wallace allowed her to make that claim, how is that she didn't make the same point that conservative bloggers have been trying so hard to make? Why didn't she say "Hey, it's a little known fact that he was detained by the British..." Instead, she rambled on about how the British have been there for a while and Revere was clearly intending to warn the militia...":
"You know what, I didn't mess up about Paul Revere," Palin replied. "Here is what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming and they were going to try to take our arms and we have to make sure we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all of our ammunitions and our firearms so they couldn't take it."
She went from warning the British to warning the colonists. If she was right all along, why change?
The point is you wrote
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:01pm.
The point is you wrote something historically dumb which I just demolished. And you're having a go at Palin. Laughable.
Go back to sleep now.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Look at your own response to her statements.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:05pm.
"Case in point: why did she fold? Why did she, a week later, declare it a gotcha question? "
Look at your own response to her statement. YOU turned it into a "gotcha" moment, a "gotcha" question, just as did a lot of other people. But, after you turned that into a "gotcha" question , who do you blame when Sarah points this out? You blame HER!
By the way, she didn't fold. She still insisted that she was correct, which, of course, she was.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So lemme get this straight: I
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:13pm.
So lemme get this straight: I ask you "Hey, when was the Declaration of Independence signed?" and you say "1780!", it's now my fault for your answer? Makes perfect sense. So when Obama came up with his 57 states line, it clearly wasn't his fault, we should all blame the person for asking such a stupid question.
You really don;t have an argument, do you?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:20pm.
You really don't have an argument, do you? Hay, get THIS straight, the only one arguing that her answer is wrong is YOU. But, when others point out that your arguments are wrong, that, yes, Sarah was correct in her answer, something that even historians agree is true, you resort to claiming that Sarah is, somehow, at fault for giving what is widely recognized as a correct answer? That's just stupid!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
To be more accurate: I'm the
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:34pm.
To be more accurate: I'm the only here arguing that she is not correct. You go anywhere outside of the conservative bubble, and you'll see that. And I guess that's the way things are now: conservatives are always right and people who aren't conservative will always be wrong. If you want to argue that Revere was really warning the British, be my guest.
That's not what you were originally arguing.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 5:51pm.
That's not what you were arguing, although it's hard to tell just what your original argument was when you keep adding more and more arguments to the discussion (complaints, actually, but why quibble?). You were arguing that Palin reversed her original statement, something we know isn't true. You also complained, opps, sorry, argued, that Sarah was playing the victim card because she, supposedly , realized the errors of her statement, even though you admit that, yes, she has become a victim by people such as yourself and she actually supported her earlier statements with additional statements.. Now your arguing that Sarah isn't accurate in her historical depictions contained within those statement, even though you have no real basis in which to make that determination other than "I never read that," and you do BECAUSE those statements directly disprove your contention that she reversed her original statement. In other words, your fishing for complaints. As each complaint, each argument, is shot down, some even by your own "evidence" and/or admissions, you create another one. Why is that?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Why is that?---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:12pm.
Cuz cathartic is a liberal, doesn't care for Sarah Palin, and rather than admit defeat, will yammer on and on and on and on and on and---
MD
cathartic is just "content"
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:31pm.
cathartic is just more comfortable giving contentions as opposed to arguments. cathartic's contention is that Sarah Palin was wrong. The argument for that contention was that Sarah knew she was wrong because she "folded," that she, supposedly reversed her position. When that was proven to be a false argument, just like the "victim card" argument, cathartic suddenly decided that, no, arguments don't work, so let's just stick to contentions.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yeah, well, CobraMan---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 6:36pm.
I was just trying to be nice (for a change) by avoiding saying that cathartic had his ass roundly stomped upon.
MD
She was correct and you can't accept it
Submitted by frank14 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 7:49pm.
Just like every other fanatic in your liberal bubble. "By any means" is your life motto, facts just get in the way of your mission.
"Why are you here?"
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:43pm.
"Why are you here and what have you learned" may not be a "gotcha" question, but it is a very STUPID one! It's the kind of question a teacher asks of a gradeschooler during a field trip.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I agree that it's a stupid
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:52pm.
I agree that it's a stupid question. Just like "What do you read". But Palin has now characterized it as a gotcha question "thrown out by the lamestream/ mainstream media" - that is, it's now a tactic to be used for any problems caused by her reaction to a stupid question. And obviously, conservatives will allow her to use it.
She has, really?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:56pm.
"but Palin has now characterized it as a gotcha question "thrown out by the lamestream/ mainstream media" "
She has, really? And where is her actual quote making that "characterization?" All you've provided is a partial quote.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
There's also a transcript:
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:06pm.
There's also a transcript:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/palin-i-didnt-mess-about-paul-revere
So, this is the quote you're refering to?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:33pm.
"In a shout out, gotcha question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. I know my American history," she added."
So, this is the quote you were referring to? Hay, wow, that doesn't have any resemblance to the partial quote you provided previously. But thank you for providing it, nonetheless.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
That's because the quote I
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:39pm.
That's because the quote I pulled was her answer to the so-called gotcha question, and the link is her response to how it was portrayed. Once she realized what she had said and the reaction that was made of it, she's now called it a gotcha question.
Her response is understandable.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:56pm.
Her response, her "gotcha' claim is understandable, considering how so many people, much like yourself, has used her answer to that question as a "gotcha" moment, correct? It is people just like yourself who turned that question into a "gotcha" question, not Palin. So, guess who you should be chastising? I've you a clue, it isn't Palin!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
But a response shouldn't be a
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:06pm.
But a response shouldn't be a reflection of the question. As I had mentioned, had she nailed it, had she quoted the poem verbatim from memory (which would be an impressive feat by anyone), there would just be something else to complain about.
Or had she sucked it up and said "Yeah, I flubbed it", yes, she would've taken flack for that too. You and I would agree on that. But not only did she flub it, she tried to stick to her guns which, in my opinion, makes it worse. There were a few ways to handle this one - quite frankly, none of them would make her look good, but I think she (and Breitbart in this article) are making it worse by blaming everyone else. "It's not MY fault I have no idea what I'm talking about...." is what they seem to be saying.
It's a clarification.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:22pm.
You don't seem to understand the sequence of events here. Sarah was asked a question, and she gave an answer. A week later, she was asked to clarify her statement, her answer, which she did. How is that her fault? How is that an example of her retracting her earlier statement? She never retracted her earlier statement, she clarified it when asked. That's not proof that she reversed her original statement. That is not proof that she thinks she goofed. That's proof that others didn't fully understand her original statement. And I happen to agree with her about it being a "gotcha" question. It definitely turned into a "gotcha" question by people like yourself.
Now you're even trying to turn her classifications into a "gotcha" moment, correct?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Honestly I think we're
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:23pm.
Honestly I think we're arguing the same points into the ground: I think we're both saying that these have turned into gotcha questions by the response. I'm arguing that Sarah is now playing the victim because she answered it in a bizarre; you and Sarah are arguing that because of the response surrounding her answer, the question itself was designed to elicit that answer.
When you look at the question itself - "Why are here and what have you learned?" - she could have said anything. Anything. "We're here to learn about history". If she had said that, then the question itself wouldn't have been labeled a gotcha question.
It sure has
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:33pm.
It sure has turned into a gotchya question. So, please, tell me again how Sarah was wrong, how Sarah has someone revered her original position by pointing this out in an interview?
Do you see what you're doing here? You're trying to blame Sarah for the actions of others, simply because she pointed out those actions. You're taking two completely different situations and combining them, fruitlessly, in an attempt to smear and demand Sarah. You even go as far as, after admitting that the question has been turned into a "gotcha" question by a lot of people, and, hypocritically, trying to use that as an argument that Sarah is, somehow, wrong for making the same claim, coming to the same conclusion as yourself! Guess, what? Outside of your own little world, you're attempts to portrayal Sarah's original answer and her subsequent statements about that answer and the response to it is not working.
Here's what you've done, you've turn Sarah into a victim and then blame HER for that! That blame should fall squarely onto YOUR shoulders, not hers.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Sigh. Her original
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:41pm.
Sigh. Her original answer:
"He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells ..."
"Clarified" answer one week later:
"You know what, I didn't mess up about Paul Revere," Palin replied. "Here is what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming and they were going to try to take our arms..."
Please note the change from "warned the British" to "warned the Americans". One could argue that's a "clarification", others would argue that it's a "correction".
He did warn the British. He did warn the Colonists.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:03pm.
Here's what you are refusing to admit, Revere DID warn the British. Sarah was correct in this. He also warned the Colonists. Sarah was also correct in this. Her later clarification wasn't about his capture, and his subsequent warnings, it was a generalization about his ride. Those are two completely different situations. Why should it surprise you that Sarah gave two different accounts for those different situations?
It should be noted that, in both statements, Sarah was absolutely correct in what transpired. I think THAT'S what bothers you so much. You can't refute those statements, so you try to twist them into something they are not, a contradiction of each other, all because of your bias against Sarah Palin.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I'm arguing that Sarah Palin
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:05pm.
I'm arguing that Sarah Palin had and has no idea that Revere was detained by the British. If she did, I would argue it would have been part of her "clarified" response. It would have made perfect sense to have done that; instead, she blamed the media and played the victim. She probably doesn't spend her time sifting through conservative blogs that have tried to make her right; she probably doesn't have time to.
You're arguing that Sarah reversed herself, when she didn't.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:10pm.
You're arguing that Sarah reversed herself when she didn't. Your argument is false. You're own link shows us that your argument is false.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
As for your assertion...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:12pm.
As for your assertion that Sarah didn't know about his capture, that's just your opinion. You have absolutely no way of knowing just what Sarah did or did not know of that particular part of our American history.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No no. Well, you probably
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:32pm.
No no. Well, you probably don't know this, but I can read minds. True story.
Also, I did notice...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:08pm.
Also I did notice that you tend to, shall we say, cherrypick just those parts of the statements that would, if that's all we had to go by, support you theories. WHY do you refuse to give the complete quotes?
"You know what, I didn't mess up about Paul Revere," Palin replied. "Here is what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming and they were going to try to take our arms and we have to make sure we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all of our ammunitions and our firearms so they couldn't take it."
She continued: "Remember, the British had been there, many soldiers for seven years in that area. Part of Paul Revere's ride -- it wasn't just one ride -- he was a courier, a messenger. Part of the ride was to warn British that we're already there. You are not going to succeed. You are not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual private militia we have. He did warn the British."
Humm, when take in complete context, it seems that Sarah didn't actually reverse herself. Wow, I can't image why you omitted that?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yes, I did omit that. But it
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:22pm.
Yes, I did omit that. But it doesnt mean that her version of history is accurate. He was detained. He answered questions about his name his occupation. They let him go. He got detained again. He answered the same questions. At no point - in any review of this I've seen, even his own words, did he mention that "You are not going to succeed. You are not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual private militia we have". There is no record of him doing anything like that, even by his own account. It was much more subtle, much more realistic to answer only what was asked.
How is it inaccurate?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 5:37pm.
How is it inaccurate? Even you admit that you don't know what was said. Palin could be 100 percent accurate in her portrayal of what transpired, you can't tell one way or another. But, hay, don't let that distract you for finding fault with someone's portrayal of an historical event. After all, no one ever paraphrased, say, Churchill, did they? No one ever summarized historical event in their own fashion, correct? No, not in your world anyways.
Do you even recognize the ridiculousness of your statements, and how your complaints keep changing over time? What, exactly is your complaint? You've complained that Sarah has switched her position, which, by even the very evidence that you provided, is shown to be an invalid complaint. You've complained that Sarah is playing the victim card, even after admitting that, yes, she has become the victim of a "gotcha" situation. Then you complain that Sarah didn't know something about history, even though you have absolute know way of knowing that. Now you're complaining that Sarah's portrayal of historical events are not "accurate" enough for you, even though you, yourself, have never supplied us with any historically accurate portrayals of what actually transpired, which makes you a hypocrite. Hay, make it easy for us, pick a single complaint and stick to it, ok? Otherwise, the only thing you're proving is your bias against Sarah Palin.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
cathartic1
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:45pm.
When I was in the Army because I was from a rural state people ask stupid questions like Couric's.Generally I responded with language that would make a Drill Sgt blush.Sarah has class I don't.If it had been a man that had said that I would be right in his frelling face.We have indoor plumbing,electricity, and them boxes with moving pictures.
Palin's Revere comments were
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:49pm.
Palin's Revere comments were verified as correct by many noted historians. If try to deny that you're just a liar.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Right. So far it's been one
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:00pm.
Right. So far it's been one professor from BU. That certainly qualifies as "many".
Wrong. Palin was clearly
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:18pm.
Wrong. Palin was clearly correct, and it seems that people who are most afflicted with Palin-hate are also ignorant of the fact that "warn" does nor simply mean "alert."
Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”
I guess he means you Paralytic.
Or how about this chap:
Rev. Stephen T. Ayres, the vicar of the Old North Church, agrees with Palin that her critics are playing “gotcha” with her statements about Revere. Ayres admits:
“I knew where all the factoids she cited came from and take responsibility for putting them in her head . . . I will not take the blame for the odd order those factoids came out.”
Yet even if they were a bit out of order, Ayres argues Palin’s understanding was correct. He not only instructed Palin on the “one if by land, two if by sea” lesson, but also taught Palin how Revere warned the British that the Americans already were alerted to the fact that the British were coming.
Ayres thinks Palin is “an easy target” and doesn’t like the fact that this incident is used by some to suggest Palin is not intelligent.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
I luz me the Brits!
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:27pm.
I hope y'all know that barry don't rep most of us? We love y'all, bunches!
"Why are you here and what have you learned"
Submitted by Fredy on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:49pm.
This is a perfect example of a gottcha question.
If palin had mentioned the usual references, they would have made fun of her for having just learned of Revere.
Palin mentioned more obscure details and the media pretends she didn't know the basic story. Brian Williams, and NBC News, spent at least 3 shows making this absurd and unfounded claim.
And of course, unmentioned by the crack team of media experts is that Palin had just left a museum that featured Revere and EVERYTHING she said was in that museum. Which is why the historians backed up her points.
But anything could be
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:10pm.
But anything could be considered a gotcha question. Her describing it as such only when she provided her answer afterwards is a bit... suspect. Had she just gone on with the usual MIdnight Ride stuff, none of this would have happened, and conservatives would just sit and wait for something else to complain about.
Tell me this troll-boy
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:30pm.
Once she was proven correct why did it go away? Huh? That's what I thought!
Okay, so now we have two
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:50pm.
Okay, so now we have two historians - one of which posts on a conservative blog, so according to NB, he MUST be biased! - and a vicar sho says "Well, I can tell what she's saying and she got it mostly right if not in the right order." I could go ahead and pull the actual account from Revere himself (which details his detention) and we can go back and forther about what Sarah said and how that lines up with history. I know you guys really want a "detention" to be seen as a "warning", but they are not the same thing. If it really were, history would be a lot different.
What it boils down to, quite frankly, is intent. If Revere really was making his famous ride to warn the British, why would he? Why would he give advance notice to the British about how we were really gonna smoke em this time (which is what a warning is)? Some accounts have actually stated that he gave false information during this detention as well - which makes it even further from a warning.
The only one I see complaining around here is you.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 3:49pm.
I take it that you didn't like her answer. But how does that make her answer incorrect? Or that your version of the night's events are any more accurate than hers? You're going by the schoolhouse version of history, a condensed version that only briefly scratches the surface of what occurred that faithful night. Your complaint seems to be that Sarah didn't repeat back the "lessons" that you learned in school, lessons that even you must admit were incomplete. In other words, you're complaining that Sarah has a different view of history than you do.
Hay, people have different views of history. They arrive at different conclusions based upon acquired knowledge,a process that is different for each individual. Some of those conclusions may be radically different than yous. But what's the big deal, what's the big controversy? What makes you right and her wrong, other than your own subjective opinions of history?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
rubber typewriter
Submitted by Samshile on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:14pm.
Man you have to have a rubber typewriter to strech that senario in to yours. Yikes I dont know one moron who would trust anything you say after that post!
Sunday, October 26, 2008 Joe
Submitted by ebayer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:03pm.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Joe Biden Grilled By ABC Reporter, Gets Angry
Finally, a member of the press, outside of FOX News, asks a member of the Obama campaign real questions on the issues. The other day Florida WFTV Channel 9's Barbara West put Joe Biden on the hot seat over ACORN, voter fraud, Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comments and even asks if Obama is a "Marxist".
The result? Best. Interview. Ever:
http://www.politikditto.com/2008/10/joe-biden-grilled-by-abc-reporter-ge...
This is the only time I've seen Biden or Obama asked a hard question and they don't like it.
This is how the MSM SHOULD be questioning this administration.
The Gestapo has come.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:27pm.
That link on UTUBE showing Biden the moron has been removed. Ah we live in such a free society, don't we?! I hope someone captured the video before the Nazis came and we can propagate the video all over the net to keep it alive.
Yep. Youtube is 2nd to only
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:31pm.
Yep. Youtube is 2nd to only wikipedia in Liberal selective editing. Its imposible to cite the Daily Mail report of 1 Million Tea Partiers attending the Sep 12 2009 DC TEA party. Imposible because there are several liberals who monitor that wikipedia entry and remove any reference to large numbers at the rally.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Let's start an anti-wiki
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:33pm.
We can call it WikiSux. Are ya with me, I need the cash, lol!
How do ya start a new site anyways? I have no clue...
Pleas
Submitted by grammajane on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:18pm.
Please keep us informed if you find it else-where..........Thank you
Here
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:00pm.
Try here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6nguDZBUgo
I got 2 minutes in...
Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:36pm.
Then my head exploded. What a mess, gonna take hours to clean up...
Which questions were inappropriate?
Submitted by Bobbygn on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:20pm.
"What do you read?" What newspapers etc, what magazines etc. If you list the ones you read you are also turning off the ones you dont list and may need. That would have been the "gotcha" the next day with a big intellectual list that Sarah doesnt read. Even when it became apparent Sarah did not want to answer the question Couric badgered her over and over until Sarah said " I will get back to you on that" which can be taken as Alaskan for "GET LOST."
Now does anyone in the Liberal media really believe the Governor of Alaska could not give the name of a newspaper she reads or a magazine she reads? Or was she telling them it was none of your business after a half hour of silly dumb questions.
Even better would be to get
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:26pm.
Obummer to list his library favorites. You know literature by Marx, Stalin, Mao. All his heroes.
Media Boards of Directors
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 12:35pm.
If, as the leftists claim, Wall Street is dominated by right-wing conservatives, why do the members of the boards of directors of media organizations put up with left-wing journalistic tactics? As representatives of ownership, they are the ones who have control over the hiring and firing of the top corporate officers.
The answer has to be that the left controls Wall Street and/or owns a majority of the stock in media organzations.
______________________________________________________________________________
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
70% of the wall street $$ in 2008
Submitted by Samshile on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 4:19pm.
went to the Democrats. Goldman Sachs is 80% Dems
Wall Street in 2010, 60% went to Dem cronyism.
Don't Forget
Submitted by Greg Toombs on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:01pm.
One of Obama's most illuminating comments:
"Profit and Earnings Ratio"
demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of business and the economy.
My personal favorite example
Submitted by robert108 on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 1:54pm.
My personal favorite example of obama's dismal economic ignorance is: "Spending in the tax code."
These are not gotcha
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 9:27am.
These are not gotcha questions, but Palin has done a great job of portraying herself as the victim in these scenarios.
Those of you who deny media bias in Palin interviews are BLIND
Submitted by cbeyer on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 12:40pm.
Or worse...stupid.
Did you ever watch Charles Gibson's and other major media figures interviews of Obama leading up to the election? After the election? He was never vetted by the media. He has gotten softball interviews all along from a compliant media.
I saw a Gibson interview of His Highness Obama and it was disgraceful non jounalism. One softball after another.
Okay, I'm late as usual...
Submitted by m4ster chief on Mon, 07/04/2011 - 4:14pm.
...but I'm going to write this anyway:
What makes me look at Palin or Bachmann a little strangely is why they expose themselves to the booby traps in the first place. If Bachmann, for instance, were to accept an invitation to appear on Chris Matthew's show, and then if Matthews skewers her with one of those gotcha questions...it's HER fault for appearing. I mean, Matthews, acting like an a$$hole, is only being Matthews. But Bachmann's willingness to appear is, to me, utter stupidity.
If I were advising either lady, I would have her memorize the following line:
"Are you asking me that question because you really want to know the answer, or are you asking that because you think that you might be able to use my answer in a YouTube comedy skit? I'll answer it if you really want me to, but then I'd like to ask you a question on the same subject and see if you can answer it...would you be willing to do that for the viewers?"