My response: I disagree.

I knew you would. But my mind belongs to me, and I know my own thoughts. Your “translations” are nothing like my thoughts. So you are wrong.

The commentor’s mind, thankfully, belongs to him alone. His thoughts are his thoughts, too, but if he wants his thoughts unobserved then he should keep his thoughts to himself. On the other hand his comments are public. After his thoughts are keyed into the comments they belong in a certain sense to any reader.

I believe my paraphrases are accurate and I stand by every one of them. The commentor would be better off pointing out to the readers where and how he believes I am paraphrasing inaccurately instead of offering cryptic, unexplained remarks that I am somehow “wrong.”

Here’s the url for the video, so the readers who haven’t seen it can see how sharply edited it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Y8FKAsxmk

The video opens with this question posed to Palin: “When you look at the coverage, when you listen to the conversations, what do you see?”

But Newsweek does not let us see the interview BEFORE the question. That’s a pretty “sharp” edit, alright. Anyone can be made to look bad by this type of selective editing. What specifics were discussed, what issues were interpreted, what examples of coverage were cited, all this is known only to the editors of Newsweek – who I do not trust at all.

So when the commentor quotes from Palin’s reply it is impossible to know just what Sarah Palin thinks is “inevitable” because the quote, “sharper microscope,” is taken from an abruptly edited video. We don’t know whether the subject was the treatment by the media of Ms. Clinton’s appearance, her opinions, her daughter, the man in the moon or anything else, because ALL that was conveniently edited out by Newsweek.

With this type of misleading edit it gives Newsweek(and the commentor) the excuse to imply that since Palin (apparently)thought that (apparently)unfair treatment was ok for Hillary it ought to be ok for Palin also. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; Palin is hoisted on her own petard – except of course that most of the petard is purposefully hidden by Newsweek.

And the subject Palin was speaking about was the treatment of candidates during campaigns and the advisable response by candidates to unfair treatment during campaigns. The subject of speaking out against unfair treatment after campaigns are over was not covered. So … the implied premise itself is false.

And to repeat, I agree with what Palin says in the clip.

Myself, I wouldn’t know whether to agree or disagree since we cannot know what was discussed before Palin’s response because Newsweek edited it out. Or after Palin’s answer, for that matter. Really, I would have to view the entire interview before making any kind of assessment. It would be like critiquing a movie from a trailer.

And unlike grackle, I think it does extend beyond the campaign, and I think it extends beyond women.

Actually my point was that since the campaign is over, and that since Palin was discussing advisable behavior for candidates during campaigns, that Palin’s response was in no way inconsistent with fighting back against unfair coverage after the campaign is over. And I also believe that what Palin said applies equally well to men – I never said it didn’t. Straw men are popping up all over.

Just to nail it down, clearly the subject was advisable response from candidates during campaigns. The header for the video:

At a NEWSWEEK forum on Women in Leadership last March, Alaska governor Sarah Palin was asked if she thought Hillary Clinton was being treated unfairly in the press.

March, 2008, was smack dab in the middle of the Democratic primary campaigns.

Grackle will no doubt “translate” this into something completely different than what I wrote.

That’s for the readers to judge.

Chekote, I know we disagree on Palin so I’ll put those arguments aside, but if you believe she hasn’t been treated any worse than any other candidate, no amount of links I supply will convince you otherwise. I do not believe you’re being objective about this. Do you honestly believe the MSM treated Joe Biden’s gaffes in the same manner as Palin’s mis-steps? Or even her background and governing credientals in the same manner as Obama’s?

If you really want to research it, I suggest you start with Matthew Continetti’s book on the media’s treatment of her, or Joe Ziegler’s documentary. Obama joked at the correspondents dinner that most of them voted for him anyway. McCain also stated he was taken aback by the press treatment of her and haven’t seen anything like this before.

Here’s a link to a poll that shows >60% of voters to include the majority of independents do not believe the press treated Palin fairly: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091122094739.aspx

This is a recipe to keep the GOP in the minority forever–you can’t say you support a Big Tent when you field your own ideological litmus test against socons. I’m sure you don’t like socons trying to remake the GOP to be a mirror image of themselves on the national stage, but you shouldn’t expect them to conform to your ideas on what the party should look like, either. It’s just as sanctimonious coming from a secular angle as it is from a religious one. NY republicans are a different brand than those in South Carolina–let the differences be. You’re using their same tactics to drum them out of the party. Do you not see any irony or hypocrisy in that? What is politics if not a forum for debate on morality?

Yes, the GOP needs moderates and independents to effectively govern–the math shows Dems have always outnumbered Republicans. It’s just not for expediency–to have a diversity of opinion in the party is a good thing. Who wants stifling conformity? But besides getting moderates and independents, the GOP has to be somewhat united to win. Drumming the socons out will just cause them stay home and the Repubs will be permanently out of power. Better to co-opt them by showing most Americans are sympathetic to traditional views, but laissez faire on the federal govt’s role in this arena. Better to appeal to their sense of American exceptionalism and originalist interpretations of the Constitution where the founders envisioned the localities and states deciding for themselves these issues. Here is where they will have more likely success in making progress on their social agenda.

Just to be clear, I do not support the recent 10-point litmus test that came out of some on the right to fund GOP candidates, either. Conservatives are split on this. Many do not want any ideological test whatsoever–we want more of a conservative philosophical outlook vs an ideological one, as Peggy Noonan once wrote about.

You think something that is not the case.

I disagree.

I knew you would. But my mind belongs to me, and I know my own thoughts. Your “translations” are nothing like my thoughts. So you are wrong.

Here’s the url for the video, so the readers who haven’t seen it can see how sharply edited it is. It starts with a question for Palin, pans over and zooms in on her head and torso, then remains there until she completes her answer, when it fades out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Y8FKAsxmk

And to repeat, I agree with what Palin says in the clip. And unlike grackle, I think it does extend beyond the campaign, and I think it extends beyond women. I think it’s perfectly valid to point out how much in greenhouse gases Al Gore (who hasn’t run for any office in nine years) contributes to our planet as he travels around warning about global warming.

Anyway, my work week is starting, so I’m done with this thread. Grackle will no doubt “translate” this into something completely different than what I wrote.

I agree that objecting to paraphrases for no other reason than that paraphrases were used IS somewhat of a “straw man.” The better tactic, if it was within the commentor’s abilities, would be to attempt to convince the readers that the paraphrases were incorrect. Lacking that, I suppose the only thing left is to attack the USE of paraphrase itself.

I believe I have accurately rendered the commentor’s thoughts as expressed in his comment.

You think something that is not the case.

I disagree.

Me, earlier: And yes, I’m always “eager” to counter unfairness, a trait for which I seldom feel obliged to apologize.

So am I[“eager” to counter unfairness]. I haven’t accused Palin of anything other than making a statement (comment #24) that I happen to agree with.

I have not asserted that the commentor has “accused Palin of anything.” To imply that I have is to erect a straw man. The commentor’s unfairness was contained within the statements that I paraphrased.

I think it’s fair to treat any public figure, especially one who promotes a cause, with that “sharper microscope” that Palin says is inevitable.

Yes, we all saw the commentor’s earlier explanation:

This isn’t about Palin as much as it’s about Celebrity. I don’t hold her to a different standard than I do(here’s the point where you’ll stop reading if you … think it’s all about Palin) Al Gore, Lindsay Lohan, Hillary Clinton, the balloon boy family, the White House party crashers, or Tiger Woods. Even Ted Kennedy.

To paraphrase: Palin is just another celebrity and after all, aren’t celebrities fair game? Why insist on fairness and accuracy in regards to celebrities? Isn’t it always open season on celebrities? Palin’s politics are of no significance whatsoever in the commentor’s treatment of her. Nothing could be further from his mind. Sweet.

Also, readers, it is impossible to know just what Sarah Palin thinks is “inevitable” because the quote, “sharper microscope,” is taken from an abruptly edited video from Newsweek. We don’t know whether the subject was the treatment by the media of Ms. Clinton’s appearance, her opinions, her daughter, the man in the moon or anything else, because ALL that was conveniently edited out by Newsweek.

With this type of misleading edit it gives Newsweek(and the commentor) the excuse to imply that since Palin (apparently)thought that (apparently)unfair treatment was ok for Hillary it ought to be ok for Palin also. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; Palin is hoisted on her own petard – except of course that most of the petard is purposefully hidden by Newsweek. Yet the commentor would have us believe that “context” is important to him. Gall comes in many forms.

And let us not forget that the subject Palin was speaking about was the treatment of candidates during campaigns and the advisable response by candidates to unfair treatment during campaigns. The subject of speaking out against unfair treatment after campaigns are over was not covered. So … the implied premise itself is false.

Why do you have “eager” in quotes, as though you were using it in context? I asked why you were eager to make assumptions about me.

For the commentor: When I quote the words of others I use quotes. “Eager” was used in context. The context was (1)your question, and(2) my answer. Look it up.

I think I have accurately rendered(another puzzling word for the commentor) the commentor’s thoughts as expressed in his comment.

You think something that is not the case.

And yes, I’m always “eager” to counter unfairness, a trait for which I seldom feel obliged to apologize.

So am I. I haven’t accused Palin of anything other than making a statement (comment #24) that I happen to agree with. I think it’s fair to treat any public figure, especially one who promotes a cause, with that “sharper microscope” that Palin says is inevitable.

Why do you have “eager” in quotes, as though you were using it in context? I asked why you were eager to make assumptions about me.

Once again, you have “paraphrased” my words into something I did not say, and then replied to that straw man.

Yes, “translating,” or “paraphrasing,” – the commentor doesn’t seem to realize that as used in my comment they possess identical meanings – is the thing I did. I think I have accurately rendered(another puzzling word for the commentor) the commentor’s thoughts as expressed in his comment.

My “vigorous and often expressed disapproval” looks pretty mild and paltry compared to your strong and profuse rhetoric on this page. You seem pretty absorbed in all of this. Who here is deranged?

In regards to the commentor’s opinion on Palin, “mild” is off the mark but “paltry” is very accurate. One person is determined to unfairly castigate a public figure, another to defend her when the accuser gets it wrong. I would much rather be the latter than the former.

I don’t spend much time tearing down Kennedy. You did that (comment #37). I just don’t think there’s any reason he should be exempt. Do you?

To remind the readers – I only alluded to Kennedy after the commentor had offered the jewel of a statement reiterated below about hypothetical hypocrisy which BEGGED for an example of not hypothetical hypocrisy but REAL hypocrisy, as exhibited by Liberals’ benign forgiveness for one of their own and Kennedy’s free pass from the MSM.

If she came out tomorrow and admitted she was a bigamist, cheated on her husband, or stole from Alaskan coffers, her fans will find a reason to forgive her. That is why this is all rank hypocrisy and has nothing whatever to do with her actual abilities that most Americans’ want to see and hear from a would-be President.

The commentor prattled speculatively about hypothetical “rank hypocrisy.” I gave him an example of REAL hypocrisy to illustrate the difference. Always glad to be of service.

Why are you so eager to make assumptions about me? I write one thing. You read something completely different, and then you make up a persona to fit your misreading. I’m “the commentor,” which is how you refer to everyone, so I guess it’s a composite persona you’ve built.

Now the commentor finds fault with my debate technique. I’ll leave it to the readers to speculate why … All the “assumptions” were by the commentor and firmly embedded within his comment. If I was mistaken, let the commentor be specific and point my mistakes out to the readers, instead of this vague mish-mash.

As for a “composite persona,” and making “up a persona,” let the commentor be assured that I am always aware of the particular commentor to which I respond. If I have made some mistake in that area, why then let the commentor point it out directly and plainly instead of using oblique implication in an awkward attempt to disguise his lack of debate skills.

And yes, I’m always “eager” to counter unfairness, a trait for which I seldom feel obliged to apologize.

Palin, as far as I know, is NOT in favor of an “overturn of Roe vs Wade.”

She has said she would prefer ‘life’ even if her daughter had been raped.

Oh? Where and when did Palin say this? The commentor is very inaccurate about Palin’s position on abortion, hence I simply MUST question the commentor’s accuracy on this as well. Not, mind you, that such a statement would be particularly damning in my opinion. `

That is a noble opinion. But only if you view life through rose-colored glasses. Had she ever visited any inner cities in this country and talked to some of these pathetic women. Life is cruel. It does not dole out neat wholesome winsome lovely loving families with equal parity. “There but for the grace of God go I.”

Yes, I agree with the commentor that “life is cruel”(or at least CAN be) and that life “does not dole out neat wholesome winsome lovely loving families with equal parity.” Where the commentor and I diverge is her opinion that Palin is somehow responsible those situations.

The vast majority of women who go for abortions go because they are in desperate straits….feeling they have no other recourse.

Yes … agreed …. BUT what in the world does this have to do with Sarah Palin?

There is a percentage however, small thankfully, that use abortion as a mean for birth control. This is immoral.

Agreed.

That is why the only sane intelligent and *moral* answer for abortion is not to outlaw it but to encourage better education in the schools and in the media, and a responsibility in sex. That means adults have start acting responsibly and not just teenagers. They get their impressions from adults.

I heartily agree with ALL of the above. It seems on the face of it to above reproach. BUT … what does any of it have to do with Sarah Palin?

Is this a sweeping answer to all the ills of society? Of course not. There will always be irresponsible people. But this gloss of moral superiority which she embraces is exactly what exasperates the people that dislike her.

Ah, here we go again. Palin has the gall to possess OPINIONS on issues, opinions with which the commentor evidently disagrees. For the commentor this amounts to a “gloss of moral superiority.”

And especially women…. because they know better. They understand all too well that women are the ones left to pick up pieces, work two jobs, put kids in daycare, or end up neglecting them, or…worse… the men? Pack up and leave.

As a man who didn’t “pack up and leave,” I resent this casual characterization of men. I raised two children, a boy and a girl, and a substantial part of the time as a single parent. Furthermore, I did more than my share of changing diapers, middle of the night feedings, daycare deliveries and pickups, parent-teacher conferences and all the other myriad chores of raising children while the mother was around. They are now both grown, married, degreed and successful in their careers. Don’t stereotype the male sex.

Palin assumes too much. She assumes that fathers will be there, that mothers will have the financial and emotional resources. She does not live in the real world.

Gee, Palin has a Down Syndrome-afflicted child, a teenager who became pregnant before marriage and who is divorced from the father; Palin is vilified for possessing opinions she doesn’t possess, abused for the arrogance of attempting to earn a good living, castigated for being a celebrity, denounced for having her children by her side during part of her campaign(which is normal political behavior indulged in by Obama among many others), unfairly called a “caricature” and a “joke.” I could go on but will desist for brevity’s sake. I beg the commentor’s pardon but it all seems VERY “real world” to me.

Grackle: You mentioned Edward Kennedy. Or alluded to him. I too found that situation abominable and I too agree with you that anyone else would have been thrown out – and yes, his “Kennedyness’ saved him.

What “saved” Kennedy was the fact that all the Kennedys were adored by the MSM and were allowed ANY transgression. Screwing everything in sight? Fine. Manslaughter, covering up a crime(drunk driving), buying off a judge to receive special treatment by the judicial system in Massachusetts? Fine and dandy. Boys will be boys, especially if they are a Kennedy.

But to remind the readers – I only alluded to Kennedy after a commentor had offered this jewel of a statement about hypocrisy which BEGGED for an example of not hypothetical hypocrisy but REAL hypocrisy, as exhibited by Liberals’ benign forgiveness for one of their own and Kennedy’s free pass from the MSM.

If she came out tomorrow and admitted she was a bigamist, cheated on her husband, or stole from Alaskan coffers, her fans will find a reason to forgive her. That is why this is all rank hypocrisy and has nothing whatever to do with her actual abilities that most Americans’ want to see and hear from a would-be President.

You want to prate speculatively about hypothetical “rank hypocrisy”? Fine, so be it – I’ll give you actual “rank hypocrisy.”

But you are right in that there are people who have more ability to rise up than others after they fall.

Yeah, especially if they are on the same side of the political spectrum as the MSM. Then they get a pass. Nice.

grackle: Sarah Palin on sex education in the schools; she basically does not believe in it:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html

In the link Palin is quoted as writing in a 2006 questionnaire that “… explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”

Here is the question that Palin answered:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

From this we know that:

(1) Sarah Palin was against distribution of contraceptives in schools – a position with which I agree.
(2) Sarah Palin was against explicit sex-education programs but not sex education programs per se – another position with which I agree.
(3) Sarah Palin was for abstinence-until-marriage sex education – still another position with which I agree.

From this we also know that the commentor is again mistaken about Palin’s opinion on an important issue. Sarah Palin was not, as the commentor contends, against sex education per se – just the type of sex education that condones sex among immature teenagers.

BTW, the article the commentor linked to and other articles in liberal organs that I researched NEVER quoted the question itself – which is typical of liberal and MSM coverage of Palin. I had to go to the blog of the organization that composed the questionnaire to find it out. The entire questionnaire with all of Palin’s responses is at the link below. Read it and find out Palin’s real opinion on a host of issues circa 2006:

http://tinyurl.com/yjdfewu

My “vigorous and often expressed disapproval” looks pretty mild and paltry compared to your strong and profuse rhetoric on this page. You seem pretty absorbed in all of this. Who here is deranged?

I don’t spend much time tearing down Kennedy. You did that (comment #37). I just don’t think there’s any reason he should be exempt. Do you?

Why are you so eager to make assumptions about me? I write one thing. You read something completely different, and then you make up a persona to fit your misreading. I’m “the commentor,” which is how you refer to everyone, so I guess it’s a composite persona you’ve built.

I want to see more women in politics overall, but not Palin. N.P.