Palin Won't Say Whether She Backs Scandal-Plagued Stevens And Young
Here's that awkward moment from today when Sarah Palin refused to answer a reporter's question about whether she supports the re-election of Alaska's indicted Sen. Ted Stevens or the scandal-plagued Rep. Don Young:
"Ted Stevens' trial started a couple days ago. We'll see where that goes," Palin said. When she was asked again whether she would vote for Stevens and Young, Palin simply turned away and took another reporter's question.
Palin is in a real bind here. She can't say she doesn't support the re-election of her state's GOP members of Congress -- she's the Republican nominee for vice president. On the other hand, saying she does support these mucky pork-dealers would really damage the brand that the McCain campaign has manufactured for her as a supposed anti-pork ethics crusader.
I feel, as though, like with the US Americans, Stevens and Young should be, like, such as with the voters, who will decide, that, such as, when we know more, so that they may, like in the Iraq, and the South Africa, make a good decision.
September 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
damn...what a tricky question for her. it was a complex and difficult question to comprehend. No wonder she crafted such a fantastic reply....and well thought out answer...She is amazing and folks thought she was a little dim!
DUH!!!
September 25, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG!! Just taking a little diversion. I always loved Letterman, I think he is a TV legend, may one of the very few remaining. After Stewart, I'm a Letterman regular.
But The Man is my new hero. Have you seen him from last night? He was better than a million "experts" put together on cable news shows.
You got to watch him cream McLame and Pukin, together and legitimately as well. Here is a link via Huffpo. SNL, Letterman- all the classics are rising to the occassion in making an impact this election.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/john-mccain-cancels-lette_n_128998.html
September 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
O Letterman was larger than life last night. It was really something. He never let up on either one of them.
September 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the most bizzare and entertaining election ever? Barring the fact we're fucked by two wars, the crippling economy and a million other things.
September 25, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it really is; really puts the "interesting" in these interesting times.
September 25, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answering your question: Yes!
After Letterman, Craig Fergurson of the Late Late Show, took a pretty good slap to McCain too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DT3Dest47U&
September 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone remember the David Lynch sitcom he put on ABC around 1993? Where the humor was just odd, surreal, cringe-making? This election is kind of like that.
September 25, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twin Peaks.
September 25, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a sitcom?
September 25, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not "Twin Peaks." This was after. An actual sitcom.
Aww... you made me google it. On the Air it was. Check the link to see the first episode. You'll see what I mean.
September 25, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, golly. Palin is Betty.
September 25, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was brilliant television.
September 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's safe to say that Letterman was a little "unhappy" with Senator McCain.....especially since McCain personally told Letterman that he had to catch a plane to DC.
September 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very much so. It was another unbelievably stupid thing to do and McLame keeps topping himself in that regard.
It throws a show in chaos to have a guest bail and he bailed to go sit with Katie, which is exceedingly rude. As is lying to Dave's face on the phone, which McLame did.
September 25, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tucker Bounds interviewed by Andrea Mitchell earlier today -
They're running with it. McCain saved the economy!!
September 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well fortunately, and probably because he suspect McLame would steal his shit again, Obama appended his 5 ideas to their public statement. So if McLame wants to pretend those were his ideas - well, (smile), I wouldn't if I were him.
September 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonze, I'm glad you do the worrying for all of us.
September 25, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Yeah McCain showed leadership when he didn't even read the original Paulson Plan. He's going to get hammered if tries to take credit for it.
September 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either you quoted him wrong or I know who's been writing Palin's talking points because that made no sense.
September 25, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The shocking thing is that her handlers actually permitted her to respond to a reporter's questions.
September 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
*from under a blanket* LEAVE SARAH PALIN ALONE!!!
September 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was her best interview yet.
September 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha. So true.
September 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if she'll ever do another interview after Katie Couric and then this. The next interviewer would most likely ask her about Young and Stevens, and whether she would vote for them. And could McCain risk letting her actually respond to the questions?
September 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the follow-up:
"Governor Palin, yesterday you suggested that you would withhold support for Ted Stevens pending the outcome of his current trial. Do you think that voters should likewise withhold support from you until the outcome of your own ethics investigation?"
September 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit. I don't think I've heard a better question concerning Palin yet. Damn, dude, that's intense. Kudos!
September 25, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
+1
September 25, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
After listening of Palin & Couric - I can see why the McCain campaign thinks that it's better to straight-up cancel the VP debate.
Better to bullshit later as to why - then essentialy end their chances completely.
Lets face it - if she has to debate - to answer questions - it's over.
September 25, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually she said the perfect thing.
Translation: I'm not going to support him if he's convicted. And is exactly the position a party leader should take.
September 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
yawn
September 25, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation?
Are you kidding?
That be some lewd fogu2-tude
September 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought she was all "mavericky". Hedging your bets doesn't sounds all that "mavericky" to me.
September 25, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really think McCain is flaming out because he sees the disaster coming for Palin in next weeks debate. He is pouting, flailing his arms, crying, suspending his campaign, in hopes of getting her excused. He sees the days counting down to explosion for his campaign. Next Thursday is D-Day for McCain, believe it!
McCain seems to have found himself a stage 5 clinger.
September 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I so agree with this. I think he's melting down because he is scared shitless of her - he has the worst case of buyer's remorse evah!
September 25, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read somewhere there is a view that McShame has played this scenario for a major.."maverick"..move of voting against the bailout...maintaining the crisis and skipping out of the debates because of the failure to pass the bill...Anybody else see this as his move?
September 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible. Even CNN reports that,
I think it's a real fear. The problem with that is that CNN also has the top news story headline, "Congress has bailout plan" -- the plan came before McCain had any way to change it or influence it. They didn't need his help. What they need is his vote.
September 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tucker Bounds apparently is already trying to take credit on behalf of McCain (on Huffington Post or Jed Report). Pretty sad really since McCain was nowhere near the negotiations.
September 25, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all know about Tucker Bounds, though, don't we? His legitimacy has dwindled since that interview with Campbell Brown. What a douchebag.
September 25, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't you be in Algebra right now?
September 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Serious question...why can't she say she doesn't support their re-election? Wouldn't her turning against them be proof of her "maverick" credentials? (Which we all know are bogus anyway, but you get the point.)
I know, that could lead to even bigger Democratic majorities in Congress. But from McCain's standpoint, what's more important?
September 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Stevens, along with Murkowski, politically made her in Alaska. She's already bitten one hand that fed her (murkowski), I don't think she's prepared to bite Big Ted Stevens until he's under lock and key with no appeals pending.
September 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. But the point is that she's not a "maverick" for doing that. If she was a true "maverick", she would denounce them now. It's just that simple.
September 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a bottom-dweller.
She's a flat-earther.
She's all boobs and no cattle
...Not that there's anything wrong with that.
September 25, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love you for that: "all boobs and no cattle..."
There's nothing wrong with that - you're right - as long you don't try to run my country with those boobs, they're fine by me.
September 25, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would require rational thought in a context where one is not the center of creation.
Sarahcuda possesses neither.
September 25, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is TPMTV going to give us a mashup of clips of Sarah Palin evading questions?
September 25, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
News is coming out of the WH...
1. Many economists say Paulson's deal is bunk;
2. Many question the veracity of the "crisis";
3. Pricetag may come down to $250 billion now, and later we'll see;
4. No agreement is close.
September 25, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say that Stevens and Young are a non-issue. So a couple members of her party got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. That doesn't necessarily reflect on her any more than Tony Rezko reflects on Obama. If we're going to call BS on the Rezko stuff, let's be consistent.
September 25, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too true! The quicksand is deep enough!
September 25, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think anyone is trying to tie her to their scandals...but instead is asking if she is planning on supporting them for re-election. I believe that's a legitimate question.
September 25, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I don't know - "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
;)
September 25, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin ran Stevens' 527 from 2002-2005...
September 25, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. There's a lot more there there than there is or ever will be with Rezco and Obama.
September 25, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But so what? How does that imply that she's dishonest? It's guilt by association.
September 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No - it's not about guilt.
It's about that mavericky reform thing. She's The Reformer. Well, why didn't she start closer to home?
September 25, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're implying that she knew about Stevens and Young being dirty. Maybe she did, but if so, let's see the evidence. Otherwise, it's just guilt by association. It might be fun to see her squirm, but otherwise, I don't see the point to the question.
It's not as if there is any shortage of things to be critical over. This is possibly the most unqualified person ever to be nominated for such a high office. She's up to her neck in Troopergate, the Bridge to Nowhere thing and who knows what else. We have a target-rich environment. Why waste your bullets on Mickey Mouse stuff? It just dilutes the real reasons she shouldn't get anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
September 25, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
O whatever - it's the topic of the thread, dude.
You want to talk about something else?
September 25, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's lots to talk about. I was just commenting that I didn't see the point of asking her whether she was going to support/vote for these guys. Seems too much like the guilt by association we've decried over and over again.
September 25, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smart people are so much fun to be around! Thanks, allsberg!
September 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just always think, WWFSMD?
September 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink