OK, it's only wishful thinking -- but there's something of a drumbeat building up on this one. Here's Kathleen Parker in the National Review -- the National Review! -- on the question, and Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek and the Washington Post.
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Right after Palin was nominated, I called her grotesquely underqualified to be President, and I was right. She's not underqualified because she is inexperienced, she's underqualified because she is a knucklehead. Here's her exchange with Katie Couric on the bailout, surely one of the major, if not the major, domestic issue of our time:
COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
John McCain is going to be 72 years old -- and he has had two bouts of melanoma. We face a situation quite possibly as dire as the one we faced in 1932, and it is both terrifying and absurd to suggest putting Gov. Palin that close to the Oval Office. Here's how Zakaria put it:
Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. The next administration is going to face a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory. There is an ongoing military operation in Iraq that still costs $10 billion a month, a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is not going well and is not easily fixed. Iran, Russia and Venezuela present tough strategic challenges.
Here's how I put it, the day after she was nominated:
Absolutely nothing suggests that Sarah Palin would be credible as President of the United States. I do NOT think this is just a matter of adding up the number of years spent doing this or doing that. Sarah Palin has been in public life, basically, for two years. to my knowledge, she has never articulated (because she was never called upon to articulate) any views whatsoever on:military strategy in the Persian Gulf; the proper response to Iranian nuclear weapons; the Russian invasion of Georgia; the United Nations; US immigration policy; the Federal Reserve Bank; the effectiveness of international aid programs; Israeli-Palestinian relations; federal support for basic research; European Union integration; the US Constitution; the optimal means of protecting US borders from terrorists; Guantanamo, and the proper scope of interrogation techniques; Deficit financing; Keynesian economics; the Supreme Court.
Should I go on? I could, of course. But hopefully you get the idea. How anyone could say that knowing what they know now they'd be comfortable with her as President is entirely beyond me.
I know I promised, a while back, to desist from further comments on Gov. Palin because it was becoming a "distraction." But it's not a distraction anymore - the call for her to resign is part of the main event. In John McCain's first "presidential" act, he most emphatically did not put his country first, he put his flagging campaign first. He should correct that, now.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Palin Problems:
- Palin to Withdraw!
And Fareed Zakaria - what qualifies him to be the leader of a "drumbeat" on what the Republicans can do? Is he even a Republican of any kind?
Take a look back at Obama's grasp of issues when he began his campaign...he had no grasp. His unscripted answers were an embarassment. He has more grasp now. He's been campaigning for over a year. Like Palin, he was (and is in my opinion....but I understand some may disagree) completely "unqualified" to be President. Certainly Senator Clinton agreed (and it appears that Bill Clinton still does agree).
And do you think anyone in the House or Senate really understands this bailout, and isn't just doing what the scary banker men are telling them to do?
As Colbert said: "The Republican party has this McCain-Palin ticket upside. Palin-McCain. Oh, I like that. President Palin. That sounds right. John McCain would make a great Vice President. You need someone to take over on day one if anything should happen to President Palin. Then again, given how much Palin's evangelical supporters dislike John McCain, it could drag down the ticket. Plus, with all that executive experience, I'm sure Governor Palin wouldn't do something rash like pick a running without executive experience she only meant one. No, Sarah Palin needs to choose someone someone with the credibility and executive leadership that John McCain just doesn't have. Palin-Romney: That's the ticket!"
What did Bill Clinton truly know about these types of issues in 1992? My guess would be, little or nothing. Yet he got a pass on foreign policy issues.
Frankly I'm not convinced The Messiah knows anything real about these things, either. He can read the prepackaged answer from a teleprompter, but what does he actually know?
I know, I know, it's different when it's a Democrat whose qualifications are in question...
The base would screech like a banshee, and the independents would go, "what the hell kinda ship are you running?"
As it is, McCain's best shot is to continue with his two-track plan: pretend to be a moderate himself, with Palin there to wink at the base, assuring them not to believe what McCain says.
Max, if you knew anything about 1992, then you would recall that the Soviet collapse and the troubled economy created a window for Clinton in which the public did not care very much about foreign-policy experience.
As it was, Clinton paid a price for his lack of skill in his first term -- Somalia? Haiti?
"I'd like to remind them that as a trusted legal academic, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil for the greater good."
Palin basically says that ("it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track"). Granted, she threw in a lot of extra words and tagged a bunch of talking points ("tax relief! Health care reform!"). But running off at the mouth isn't a disqualifier, nor is turning every question into your strength (as a former POW/son of mill worker. . . ).
The problem is that most reasonably educated people could give better answers to those Couric questions than she did. They just required a rudimentary understanding about national and international issues (or even about her own record!), they did not require policy wonk details.
Funny how intrade still has pretty much the same odds for Palin being withdrawn as they do for Biden.
Cf. Obama/Biden. (Though some might argue that Biden is a knucklehead, too -- he's certainly a knucklemouth -- his record of error is so consistent as to contraindicate that diagnosis.)
I rest my case.
Has Palin devoted deep thought to foreign policy? No, obviously not. She hasn't previously been required to in her jobs. But we don't elect Presidents primarily because of expertise in particular areas, but because of their ability to exercise good judgment and principled decision making. No President can be, going in, an actual expert in ANY specific area of foreign policy. That's why they hire people like Condoleeza Rice to advise them.
Sure, Palin's not been her best in the Couric interviews, but frankly that seems to me to come most likely from WAY too much "handling", way too much coaching in the "proper" answers.
But hey, if you think Obama is so greatly qualified to be President, be my guest, keep complaining about the GOP pick, add to the Quayle-like ganging up on her, just a month out from the election. Just as its fairly irrelevant to argue about whether we should have gone to war in Iraq, it's irrelevant whether McCain should have picked somebody else (and, as with the Iraq war, the burden is on the complainers to identify a BETTER choice which was obviously better based on the information available at the time the decision was made). He picked Palin, she's the GOP candidate for Vice President. It's McCain-Palin versus Obama-Biden. That's the decision we all must make in 30 days. Anything else is just completely irrelevant. If your point is that the Palin pick was so bad, it justifies a vote against McCain, fine. Otherwise, what's the point?
Yes, and I always get the Jeoporady questions faster than the contestants on TV - of course I am at home, comforatable in my living room.
You try taking on a hostile inteview with Gibson or Couric with millions of people watching and we'll see how brilliant you sound.
OK, it's only wishful thinking -- but the Volokh blog would be much better off.
Yeah, that will work.
Srsly? Gibson and Couric give hostile interviews? Hopefully Palin doesn't have to face the Regis and Kathy Lee gauntlet.
To be fair, Obama doesn't look too great either when he gets pressed for specifics in interviews (e.g., with Bill O'Reilly). But if you ask Obama to give a "pat" statement on a given topic, he projects confidence and is able to say something intelligible (if extremely vague and platitude-filled).
Good luck Sarah.
Unfortunately, I don’t think she’s going to resign. But I think she should do so, for the sake of the country.
This is a Meier’s moment – and Romney is waiting.
http://volokh.com/posts/1220046212.shtml#423278
http://volokh.com/posts/1220046212.shtml#423305
The reason her answers may sound like those of someone who isn't "reasonably educated" is that she's trying to answer beyond what she knows. That's the mistake she's making. Not acknowledging what she doesn't know (and really shouldn't or couldn't know at this point.) If she answered just what she knew, she'd sound like the reasonably educated person that she is.
It's like getting any business person (or politician) ready for a deposition....getting them to realize and acknowledge that "I don't know" is sometimes the only truthful answer to deposition questions. Palin is an unprepared witness.
But acknowledging that does not require McCain supporters to also defend Palin's capabilities in the face of all reason. And A.S., this isn't sexism, unless all the Dan Quayle haters were proof of sexism too.
Palin is, as it was so aptly stated, a knucklehead. The thought of her in the White House makes me cringe in embarrassment -- but also fear. Even most Obama voters don't harbor doubts about McCain's ability to lead the country, they just dislike the direction he'd take it in. But Palin? Dear lord, we're all sunk if she's ever president. Here's to wishing McCain a long, /long/, and healthy life.
If Palin is unprepared for the vice-presidency because she's not yet mastered the technique of sounding strong and forceful while saying absolutely nothing, well, that's the kind of "unprepared" I'd love to have in office.
Lately, it has added new contributors who are definately far left; tilting VC beyond the middle and into the "left zone."
Which would tend to show that he's simply an eloquent mouthpiece to deliver "pat" answers about things he really doesn't understand at all... Probing questions are easy if you really understand the topic. They are incredibly hard if all you have to fall back on are pat answers.
So Obama is better at this point (he's been on the trail for over a year and planning to run for four. Palin has been on the job for 3 weeks) than Palin at mouthing the words he/she is given. Big deal.
The call for Palin to "resign" is not the "main event." It was, and will always be, the provice of liberals who want to weaken the McCain ticket and ultimately hopes that he lose.
Post is merely reiterating his initial prejudice against Palin by finding people he can parrot. The same criticisms of Palin would apply to Bill Clinton in 1992, or any other governor. His main criticism that Palin is a "knuclehead" can't be refuted, because it's mere name calling. And he thinks all of you are idiots because he's posting this as some sort of intellectual criticism on this blog when it reality it's nothing more than childish behavior.
You can't be serious? I had to make sure if the statement was double-indented and quoting from the Democracy for America and Brave New PAC commerical or if this was Mr. Post's thoughts.
And what of Senator Biden's resignation? On September 10th, Senator Biden questioned Senator Obama's judgment in choosing him over Senator Clinton, apparently suggesting that she was more qualified to be Vice President. If Biden is unsure of his qualifications as Vice-President, how will he fare as President? That is a scary senario.
I think Palin was a bad choice for V.P., but I wouldn't judge her strengths and weaknesses based primarily on extemperaneous responses to broad questions. Not coming up with a smooth answer under the circumstances doesn't add confidence, but it's far from a sign that someone is a "knucklehead."
You may not like her personally, you may think her too inexperienced or "knuckleheaded". (Please...you've already lost the argument when you must resort to name-calling.) But it is inescapable that she would support a smaller, less-intrusive government than the Democrats.
Yes, you "told us so", David. You were wrong then, and wrong now.
You’re sounding very odd.
Part of a politician’s task is to competently deflect questions (about which they know little or nothing), or, as you suggest, to say “I don’t know.”
Politicians who go off the rails during questioning look foolish in the eyes of the public and lose credibility in eyes of heads of state. Contrary to your suggestion, politicians who are ready for prime time should not have to be coached like an average Joe prior to an interview, which, as you say, is partly analogous to a deposition.
I find the argument about Palin’s competence to be bizarre – from a conservative perspective. Conservatives (think Murray), more than liberals, generally agree that people differ in intelligence and their ability to reason on the spot about novel issues (something called fluid intelligence), and that such differences influence political competence.
McCain’s campaign seems to go out of its way to protect Palin from questions from the press. Such behavior reinforces the view that Palin is not ready or competent enough to face hard questions from hostile groups – a competence that is central to politicians who want to seem credible.
A.S.: Enough of the Idaho-Harvard meme. If Palin were from Harvard, she still would have looked like a nitwit.
On this basis, we are supposed to conclude that a) she is overcoached, or b) that she is over handled, or c) that the media just won't let Palin be Palin, or d) that she is overly stressed, or e) that who cares, she can learn about foriegn policy when she's in the White House, or f) so what Obama knows even less.
None of these justify such a moronic statement, and nothing certainly can justify her insistence upon it.
On this basis, we are supposed to conclude that a) she is overcoached, or b) that she is over handled, or c) that the media just won't let Palin be Palin, or d) that she is overly stressed, or e) that who cares, she can learn about foriegn policy when she's in the White House, or f) so what Obama knows even less.
None of these justify such a moronic statement, and nothing certainly can justify her insistence upon it.
I would be willing to bet that their answer, while sounding more intelligent, would have no more substance than Palin's.
Has anyone articulated an intelligent justification of the bailout?
Sarah Palin knows how to speak deliberately and grammatically. She does when she slows down. But when she tries to speak fast or cover a lot of ground quickly she reverts to her sportscaster speaking style, which most political junkies are not used to hearing from a candidate for public office. She just needs to resist the impulse to do that.
Many of them could write better answers. Few could speak them, especially while trying to stay honest. Didn't everyone watch Friday's debate? Palin's answer was honest and stupid--both McCain's and Obama's answers were deflecting at best, dishonest at worst. Cutting $18B of earmarks has anything to do with a $700B bailout? The Bush tax cuts had anything to do with the housing crisis? None of these jokers are qualified to run the economy (and we haven't even seen what howler Biden will come up with.) That's why, instead of kicking Palin off the ticket, McCain should announce a high profile SecTreasury pick--Bloomberg or Romney, probably. That would be the most effective way to score political points off the crisis.
> I called her grotesquely underqualified to be President
As opposed to Obama who during the financial crisis has repeatedly voted “present.”
> She's not underqualified because she is inexperienced, she's underqualified because she is a knucklehead.
Riiight. How fast we fall into the old tropes. Remember there are only two types of republicans: stupid ones, and evil ones. And if you went to a state school, you are a stupid one.
And there is nothing stupid about her answer. Obama himself has said that if the economy goes south, he can’t do much of what he proposes. How does that differ from what she said?
> But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue
Um, besides oil and gas, right?
Or abortion.
Or terrorism.
Or good government.
Just to name 4.
> she has never articulated (because she was never called upon to articulate) any views whatsoever on:
And yet she has spoken out on those issues. Really, is it your position that governors make lousy presidents?
Of course, but my point was that Clinton wasn't any more "prepared" then than Palin is now - and he was running for the top slot, not #2.
The thought of her in the White House makes me cringe in embarrassment -- but also fear.
I, uh, have this exact same set of emotions about Obambi...
she dug in and insists that being close to Russia gives her foriegn policy experience.
Kinda like Bill Clinton in 1992 insisting that being commander of the Arkansas National Guard gave him the experience needed to be commander in chief of the US armed forces?
2 people. One of whom is an
Obama supportermedia member?"knucklehead"
Takes one to know one, I guess.
As one of these younger people, I have no idea what in the world you're talking about.
THAT is what you get from David Post, A.S.? That he just hates women in general?
Name-calling is really the only fit response to such a ridiculous, hateful, irrelevant comment, and that's not permitted on this blog.
Is she likely to do worse than FDR did? Or Barry would?
She's unlikely to raise taxes or expand social programs by $0.5 trillion/year.
She would certainly bomb anyone who needed bombing.
All four of the national candidates could benefit from practice giving shorter answers. Sarah makes fewer verbal mistakes than fighting Joe Biden.
Her instincts are better than Carter, Clinton, W, or Barry. That's more important than verbal delivery. She'll have lots of help.
Instincts are the one thing that outsiders can't give a politician. She has to have them herself.
A friend of mine (who will vote for Obama) says Obama is white enough not to scare the White folk, but Black enough to assuage White guilt.
She says that Russian planes flying over Alaskan waters gives her credible foreign policy experience. That her instincts don't prevent her from saying this with a straight face leaves me unimpressed by her gut.
I have never believed that a McCain win would be a Bush 3rd term. I find myself increasingly worried that a Palin administration would be.
Palin's inability to spot the distinction means she has no idea how the bailout is even intended to work, which means she is not only incoherent, but either uninformed or unwilling to correct the fearsome Couric.
Remind me, what is it that Obambi cites as his credible foreign policy experience? His European Vanity Tour?
I think that arguments about foreign policy experience will help McCain, not Obama.
I have no idea. I'm not advocating for Obama.
It also means that Couric and most of the press have no idea how the bailout is intended to work, doesn't it?
So is Couric a "knucklehead?"
He lived in Indonesia as a child and backpacked through Pakistan in College (no kidding - this has actually been cited as experience)
I don't think so. Palin wasn't as psychologically prepared to pick apart the details of the assumptions behind Couric's questions as she should have been, maybe, but that doesn't mean she can't do it. Post didn't immediately point out the misleading nature of the question either. I don't think that means he has no idea how the bailout is intended to work.
Have you ever heard of Ronald Reagan?
At the time, many considered him a dolt, and I think it can be well conceded that he was no intellectual.
Yet many consider him to be among our greatest Presidents, whose achievements included bringing down the Soviet Union. The qualities that made him such did not include academic achievement.
(Which is not to say that Palin is the next Reagan, that has yet to be proven by a long shot, at least in my book.)
If I don't like Couric's level of competence, I can avoid CBS News (and generally do). I don't have that option with a President Palin. Anyway, Couric's job is to elicit information. Palin's job is to convey it. Palin conveyed information she would rather not have.
I have not used that term in any context. However to the extent you may be asking if I think Couric is stupid, the answer is: I believe Couric is unqualified to be the 2nd-string President of the United States, and I am really, really close to writing Palin off similarly.
"Psychologically prepared?" This was a national interview that was destined to discuss the bailout proposal since it's the biggest news on Planet Earth at the moment. Palin should have been prepared to thoroughly educate Couric on, at a minimum, what Paulson's initial proposal was, and what non-controversial objections she had to it (oversight, etc), and why.
I can forgive Palin for not being able to discuss the Byzantine causes of the crisis or whether she thinks the Paulson Plan would work. I cannot forgive her for not being able to discuss the *content* (nevermind the merits) of the proposal on the table.
-tell your many advisors to get stuffed, we're doing it Obama/Palin style!
-tell entertaining stories to visiting foreign dignitaries
-help your kid's geography homework
-totally helps in the election!
Remember everyone, it's the knowledge that matters, not the judgment, cause the President never encounters anything new.
OK, it's only wishful thinking -- but there's something of a drumbeat building up on this one. Here's Eliezer's DC:
A.S. writes, "I would expect that this misogyny runs stronger among older people like Prof Post. Hopefully at some point we, as a country, will be able to break the glass ceiling and truly treat women and men as equals. Sadly, as this campaign shows, we are not yet at this point in time."
What is more, Gadxukes wonders if DP is six years old . . . an old person who sounds like a child . . . second childhood . . . Alzheimers?
Cromartie points out "Yes, you "told us so", David. You were wrong then, and wrong now."
The drumbeat is getting louder, and more (and more credible)
commentators are calling for DP's withdrawl than Palin's.
I can't wait to say "I told you so" when DP withdraws from the VC.
I agree. That would've required being a lot nastier than she was prepared to be, though. And Couric question wasn't about the content of the proposal; it merely made a false presupposition. Playing along in a language game frequently means taking interlocutors' presuppositions at face value. Questioning them has an element of rudeness. I think such rudeness was probably called for here, but being overly polite is different from being a knucklehead.
Of course, the defintion of sexism is where a person accuses the woman in the race with some characteristic that applies equally as much to one of the men in the race, but fails to make the same accusation against the man.
Since the charge applies to both the woman and the man, and the person is choosing to only attack the woman, the only possible conclusion is that the basis for that decision is sexism.
But I'm not going to engage in the same type of intellectual dishonesty. Palin's interviews were, by any objective measure, awful. Not "medicore," not "could have been better," just plain awful. If Republicans want to be taken seriously, they need to start putting up serious candidates. Palin is Bush. Conservative without really understanding "why" she's conservative. That's fine. That's true of plenty of liberals and conservatives. But you can't sell conservative positions unless you understand them. She doesn't.
Blast Reagan all you want, the guy understood conservatism. He articulated it because he believed it. He believed in lower taxes for everyone -- which, yes, includes people who make more than $50,000 -- because he thought it was simply immoral to pay more than a certain share of your income to the government. He started from the premise that it wasn't the government's money to begin with, so there had to be a good justification for taking more of it for the benefit of others. I realize a lot of the egalitarian crowd around here doesn't subscribe to that philosophy, and I'm not trying to persuade you. But when you have politicans like Bush in office, they can't persuade ANYONE because they are constantly reciting talking points, not expressing their own deeply held beliefs.
Losing this election is a necessary transition for Republicans. They need to do some soul-searcing and stop putting up mediocre candidates. We need someone who can actually call Obama on some of claims about deregulation and the effect of tax cuts in this decade. But McCain can't, and Palin can't, because they don't care about those issues. Those issues are only important to them in terms of winning votes, and that's why they recite catch phrases so that they please those constituencies. But they need to win over independent voters, and that's hard to do when it's readily apparent that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Obama on the campaign with his stutters and "just hold on" makes Bush II look like an absolute master of the English language.
This is in no way sample bias based on a few videos cherry picked from many impromptu appearences! Honest, Obama's super dumb! Don't vote for him!
If only there were some way to have both parties lose and quit nominating awful candidates...
yes, post, you are brilliant. have you caught the compliment you are fishing for yet?
Or, perhaps, you missed the *relevant* distinctions:
1) Palin is running on my team's ticket, and Obama is not, and her potential incompetence makes me very disappointed in my candidate; and
2) Obama's credentials (or lack of same) have been debated for over a year. Palin is entering only her second month on the national stage.
Sen. Obama, the stimulus package Congress passed earlier this year does not seem to have had its desired effect. Please explain to me why?
or
Sen. Obama, the Europeans have been pressing Iran to stop its nuclear program for the last 6 years, but Iran hasn't budged. Why would Iran listen to the U.S. but not the Europeans?
or
Sen. Obama, the press has picked on Ms. Palin's education. Can you please release your SAT scores, your college transcripts, your LSAT scores and your law school transcripts.
The Democratic Congress voted in in 2006?
Plus a copy of any paper you wrote at any time during your long academic career.
Maybe he just hates veep candidates.
Not unless Teh Fred! replaces her.
You weren't going to vote for McCain, so wanting her to withdraw must mean that you have a problem with the chance of her actually becoming VP.
As far as I can tell, the vitriol and hatred started almost instantly.
Do you have a problem with women who don't "conform" to your notion of what a woman should be? Sure seems that way to me.
Palin doesn't have an academic and legal career that should be associated with profuse written work and unaccountably isn't, so the question would not apply to her.
Biden... heh, if we asked to see something that Biden wrote during his career, the first question would be, "who actually wrote this?"
Intrade has Palin at 9 and Biden at 5.3. If those numbers strike you as "pretty much the same," I have some terrific investment opportunities to discuss with you.
=====================================
Really? 14% of independents say they are "not at all" comfortable with Biden becoming president. The same figure for Palin: 35% (pdf).
=====================================
With all due respect, I'd like to point out that it's possible to correct someone without being even slightly rude. See? I'm doing that right now.
It's hard to believe Palin doesn't know how to do this. Then again, a lot of things about Palin are hard to believe.
=====================================
When you level that criticism against me without making even a pretense of offering an example or any kind of proof, you're being "grossly over the top and hypocritical."
=====================================
You apparently read so many posts by nieporent and others boldly proclaiming that Obama never published anything that you actually came to believe that Obama never published anything. Trouble is, he did.
=====================================
Exactly. It will be fun on Thursday to watch Palin do her impression of Tina Fey. Fey does such a good Palin that it's hard to tell them apart.
Here's Fey doing Palin with Couric: link.
Here's Palin doing Palin with Couric: link, link.
============================
Some people have the wacky idea that writing two successful books qualifies as a significant achievement in the area of "written work." And unlike McCain, Obama's books were actually written by just him.
Sponsoring a bill in any legislature usually means introducing something that was barely read, if at all, and which almost surely wasn't drafted by the legislator himself. That's not an indictment of Obama but the legislative process. Stop overselling things.
And seriously, what is your Palin obsession? Do you have a thing for her? It's pretty clear from the amount of stuff you've accumulated that you don't get out much, which is all the more laughable since you, who have probably never had a date in your life, were giving parenting lessons to her and others a few weeks ago.
Tell us again what happened in band camp?
No, but that reminds me of something funny I read at Power Line forum, of all places. Someone said he wanted to do to her what the GOP's been doing to the country.
nieporent, why aren't you using your regular name? I have a strong hunch it's you, because once before you made a very similar remark. And it takes a very special kind of person to say something so puerile.
What's band camp?
They taught me the first year of law school that that's a sign of contempt.
But Palin never went anywhere near a law school, so she wouldn't be burdened by this knowledge you carry.
By the way, a couple of smart people have told me that it's not a good idea to believe everything they teach you in law school. At least one dictionary says that what you learned in law school is wrong.
Maybe they meant to tell you that it's a sign of contempt when lawyers say it (so it's not a problem, because Palin isn't a lawyer). Then again, isn't everything a lawyer says a sign of contempt?
The bottom line is that it's obviously possible to disagree with someone, and correct someone, without being rude. So your defense of Palin is lame.
Well, I don't think any of us actually believed you, so I guess there's no surprise you can't keep your own word. And your pathetic attempt at rationalizing it pretty much locks it up.
There are good shrinks in your area. I really think you should see one. If McCain wins you may need a suicide watch :)
My point was that you were being rude.
The literal meaning is, of course, an expression of respect. But frequently, stressing it suggests it's not true.
Which means that Palin was perfectly free to use the expression ("with all due respect"). Which means your original point ("questioning them has an element of rudeness") makes no sense. Thanks for clearing that up.