Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Oct
15
Okay – that’s my interpretation. But CNN commentator, Obama supporter and columnist Roland Martin says it throughout this commentary.
Martin says, “…what is truly pathetic is that Palin talks tough, but is really scared of facing her own issues,” and then enumerates them exactly:
- she portrays Barack Obama “as a shady figure who might occupy the White House,” but, Martin says, “…the American people deserve to hear Palin answer if her husband, Todd, a former member of the Alaska Independence Party, agreed with its founder, who wanted to secede from the union.”
-Palin refuses to answer questions about her, “…disagreements with John McCain’s criticism of the Bush administration’s decision to remove North Korea from the terrorist nation list…”. Martin wants Palin to address this disagreement.
-Martin wants to know why Palin, “…didn’t say a word to rebuke the hateful, pathetic and degrading comments made at rallies featuring her, such as when someone in the crowd called Obama a terrorist, someone else shouted, “Off with his head” and others suggested he is a traitor.”
But, as Jake Tapper pointed out earlier this week, the biggest flaunting of a failure to shoot straight relates to Palin’s revisionary version of the Troopergate report:
Lastly, don’t you think the self-described maverick needs to own up to what really happened with the firing of the commissioner in Alaska? She was declared by a special investigator to have been within her rights in firing the commissioner, but she was blasted for abuse of power and violating the state’s ethics act.
So what did she say in a conference call with Alaska reporters — who were not allowed by the McCain camp to ask follow-up questions? That she was cleared of all wrongdoing, legally and ethically.
That’s right. She repeated over and over and over an absolute lie, and we are supposed to say, “Hey, it’s all fine. She winks at us. We love her hockey mom schtick. Don’t worry about that abuse of power thing.”
Martin concludes with this:
…McCain, Sen. Joe Biden, Barack and Michelle Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Cindy McCain and even McCain’s 95-year-old momma and Palin’s daddy have all done interviews with CNN, sharing their thoughts on the campaign. But Palin? Not a whisper.
It’s clear that Palin really isn’t a true frontier woman. See, when you tote a gun, carry a big stick and spit fire, you aren’t afraid to take on all comers.
So, Sarah, if you want to talk big on the campaign trail to those audiences that don’t talk back, go right ahead. But if you truly are the maverick politician you say you are, come on and talk to us soft, coddled, elitist journalists. Surely we aren’t as tough as the moose you like to take down with your Second Amendment-protected hunting rifle.
Just to repeat, I have to start believing that Palin does not even know what it means when someone tells her that she’s answering in a conclusory way, given the extent to which she does it. Because the alternatives are just so much worse: she’s not listening to anyone or she has no conscience that would keep her from behaving so egregiously hypocritically.
UPDATED: Washington Monthly‘s Political Animal writer Steve Benen thinks the same thing at the end of his piece about Palin’s refusal to accept or acknowledge Troopergate findings:
So, Republicans, which is it? Is Sarah Palin shockingly dishonest or is she functionally illiterate? Inquiring minds want to know.
Nuts. Just nuts.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:59 am October 15th, 2008 in Media, Politics, Sarah Palin, WH2008
Comments
5 Responses to “[updated] Roland Martin to Palin: Cut the conclusory crap”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
To be fair, I don’t entirely understand the term “conclusory”; I’m an engineer, not a lawyer. But when it’s defined and described, I can say, “Ah, ok, gotcha” and rephrase.
I can’t shoot a moose, though. Gotta choose your priorities.
Erica, I apologize, I’m smiling. I know – I’ve really been hammering this point in posts for the last few weeks because yeah, when I was in law school, I really paid for not understanding it either. lol And I promised myself, never again.
lol So yeah – I get a bit stuck on this point.
But also – it’s about just giving evidence for that which someone claims to be the case. She never does that – she just gives us the conclusion she wants us to reach, without the back-up.
Ok – I’m going off again, aren’t I?
Sorry!
The best description of Palin I heard recently is that she is an iPod, full of republican talking points, stuck in shuffle mode. The listener is always surprised by the next song.
I understand the frustration — the engineer version is basically, “without data, conclusions are garbage.” It’s annoying when somebody refuses to follow that logic.
Aside from the specific term, this isn’t something that one should need a law (or engineering) degree to comprehend. Using evidence to explain a conclusion is taught in a number of classes in middle and high school. It’s common sense: if you say something you’ll need to be able to back it up.
@Valdis — I like that analogy!
I, too, attended law school, and Sarah Palin reminds me of the late William Rhenquist, who often wrote opinions based upon the conclusion he had already reached. However, Rhenquist (or, more likely, his clerks) at least bothered to offer SOME explanation.
Not only does she just say things, but, when pressed, she just repeats them. No creative thought, just the notion that if she keeps repeating herself, the questioner will eventually give up.
Scary.