In an editorial billed as “The Cold Hard Truth about Sarah Palin,” Memphis Liar circus barker Marty Aussenberg assails what he considers protective, fawning treatment of John McCain’s “mean” running mate by Republicans, and tepid criticism or indulgence from Democrats and the media. What he fails to offer, however, is even one “cold hard truth” about the Alaskan Governor. Once again, the “Gadfly” offers little more than innuendo, supposition, personal insults and conjecture.
Aussenberg preemptively attacks what he assumes will be a “kid gloves” conversation with “journalist” Charlie Gibson (scare quotes included in the original), followed only by other sycophantic interviews and superficial investigations:
If the press and the public (and especially the Democrats) don’t do the job of seriously examining who this flash in the pan the Republicans are trying to foist over on us really is, then we’ll deserve having her be a “heartbeat from the presidency.”
Of course, we should note that such an examination of the “cold hard truth” appears to be above Aussenberg’s pay grade, not to mention his apparent lack of interest in the “flash in the pan” the Democrats “are trying to foist over on us” as President.
Aussenberg also submits the size of Palin’s family as evidence of her lack of judgment:
[W]hy it isn’t fair game to ask Palin herself why, in a world of diminishing resources, four children weren’t enough, and why, at the age of 44, she subjected her child to the known risks of a pregnancy with a substantially increased incidence of genetic defects? Isn’t judgment always an issue for a candidate?
Finally (and, yes, that’s basically all the editorial says), Aussenberg predicts that Palin will be dropped from the Republican ticket and mocks religious prayer:
While I don’t think “Flailin’ Palin” will even survive on the ticket to election day, I am implementing a contingency plan of praying (something I am really not used to doing). I do earnestly entreat any and all deities that, should the GOP succeed in fooling the American public (or worse, stealing this election), like it has so many times before, her sponsor should turn out to be neither as senile nor as sickly as he… seems… right… now.
Failing to include any “cold hard truths” in the editorial, Aussenberg makes a follow-up attempt in the comments:
Now that they’ve removed the muzzle from the pit bull (i.e., the first part of the Charlie Gibson interview) what did she do? Bite herself on the butt, of course. She lied about Alaska being responsible for 20% of the country’s energy production, she didn’t have a clue about the policy that her mentors (Bush and McCain) have implemented (the “Bush doctrine”), she actually repeated the pathetic rationale for her foreign policy experience (i.e., she lives next to Russia—I was fully expecting her to say next that she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one night), and, worst of all, she’s apparently ready and willing to start a war with Russia. Can you imagine this woman with her finger on the nuclear button? It’s a scene straight out of “Dr. Strangelove.” Someone, please save us from being “imPalined.”
Taking this “cold hard truth” line by line:
1. “She lied about Alaska being responsible for 20% of the country’s energy production…”
To be exact, Gov. Palin said her state, “produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy…”
The Huffington Post, in criticizing John McCain for flubbing the same line, supports the truth of Palin’s statement, which means Marty Aussenberg is the liar.
2. “She didn’t have a clue about the policy that her mentors (Bush and McCain) have implemented (the “Bush doctrine”)”
Actually, what Palin did was attempt to clarify the question, saying “In what respect, Charlie?” This clarification was necessary because the “Bush doctrine” can and does refer to multiple concepts: the policy of pre-emption, the policy of treating harboring states as enemies, the policy of spreading freedom in the Middle East as a means to defeat terrorism, the policy of facing terrorism on the battlefield rather than the courtroom, and the policy of staying on offense against Islamic terrorism until it is defeated.
Once again, the person who doesn’t “have a clue” is Marty Aussenberg.
3. “She actually repeated the pathetic rationale for her foreign policy experience (i.e., she lives next to Russia—I was fully expecting her to say next that she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one night)”
I’m confident Sarah Palin wasn’t selected for her foreign policy experience, as was the rationale for picking Joe Biden, given the vast disparity of foreign policy experience between the two respective Presidential candidates. But there’s no reason to deny her what little experience she does have. One would expect Alaskan leaders to be far more attuned to Russian activities than politicians from Illinois.
4. “She’s apparently ready and willing to start a war with Russia. Can you imagine this woman with her finger on the nuclear button? It’s a scene straight out of ‘Dr. Strangelove.’”
All Palin did was answer a hypothetical question about an attack on a NATO ally. In response, she simply referenced Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
5. “Someone, please save us from being “imPalined.”
That’s the radical Left for you, still treating BRCK BM as a savior.
SEE ALSO: Fore Left!, Tennesseefree, Bill Hobbs, Byron York, Glenn Reynolds
As has already been reported, Charlie Gibson got her quote wrong! He mis-stated her words and then doubled-down when she tried to question *him* on it. Her answer was correct.
“ImPalined?” Someone has a bizarre homophobic / misogynist fear-fantasy he just took out of the closet….
Seems to me that McCain took the presidential campaign’s momentum from Obama. And now the Democrats are just freaking out. I encourage them to continue this freakout — as loudly and as causticly as they can. If they can just keep it up, they might win!
Aussenberg’s piece is certainly a flimsily argued rant in many spots, but I do think his point regarding her foreign policy know-how is valid, though worded flippantly. You said, “One would expect Alaskan leaders to be far more attuned to Russian activities than politicians from Illinois.” Perhaps. But if that’s the case, then why doesn’t she offer some compelling examples of her knowledge of Russia rather than noting only her geographical proximity to the country?
I agree. Either way, though, I would reiterate that Palin was not selected on the basis of her foreign policy experience. The Democratic ticket needed it; the Republican ticket did not.
Oddly enough, she did, Jason. Her remarks were heavily edited by ABC before the interview went to air. You can see her complete comments about Russia in this partial transcript.
ABC keeps looking worse and worse in this one….
Good grief, they cut out some very significant statements, particularly about Russia. No wonder Aussenberg dusted off the “Dr. Strangelove” — though I’m confident he would have pulled out the warmonger card regardless.
Well, after reading your post, Mick, I’m afraid to even think about what Aussenberg might have pulled out.
The portions that got edited out don’t give me the impression she’s any sort of whiz on Russian activities, but they do show she doesn’t harbor bellicose intentions toward Russia.
I do take issue with this quote:
“I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.”
First, I believe who have to go back over thirty-five years to find a vice president who hadn’t met a foreign head of state before running for VP. But her transitioning into people being tired of “old politics.” Meeting foreign heads of state and having an interest and knowledge in foreign policy isn’t tantamount to a Washington elite, insider mindset.
I meant “you,” not “who” in the last paragraph. I notice I also didn’t finish the second sentence of that paragraph. I think sinus pressure is impacting my ability to convey a clear thought.
Nato is part of the UN. We need to pull out!
The NATO question is moot.
Clarification – under NATO’s charter, a nation must have firm and recognized borders in order for membership to be considered. Georgia does not have such borders. (The status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has long been in dispute.)
Of course I wouldn’t expect Palin to know any of this. She probably hadn’t heard of Georgia before last month.
Excellent article on Palin in Salon. Some of it focuses on the perspective of a Baptsit minister from Palin’s home valley.