Palin Channels Al Sharpton

Reading Gov. Sarah Palin’s comments to Katie Couric about the financial crisis reminded me very much of Al Sharpton’s incoherent meanderings on selecting a chairman of the Federal Reserve Board during the 2004 elections.

Palin’s unblinking certitude gave way at other times in the interview to a striking imprecision, as when she struggled to respond to Couric’s suggestion that the $700-billion bailout might be better funneled through middle-class families instead of Wall Street firms.

“That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in . . .” Palin began, before meandering off in fruitless pursuit of coherence.

But I’ll let the governor speak for herself:

” . . . where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh — it’s got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare 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, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.”

Uhhhmmmm, Whisky Tango Foxtrot? Let me see we are talking about a financial crisis that has the potential to bring on substantial credit crunch and we get some nonsense about health care, jobs, reducing taxes, reining in spending (government spending presumably) and trade. Nothing about the actual crisis or whether or not the $700 billion dollar bailout is necessary, wrong, too much, too little. Kind of a shotgun approach here hoping that one of the buzz words will hit the bullseye…and shockingly none of them do.

I’m begining to wonder…is she just an attractive dimbulb? After all, how hard can it be to do a 30 to 45 minute run down on the financial crisis?

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2008, Economics and Business, Government, Humor, US Politics
Steve Verdon
About Steve Verdon
Steve has a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles and attended graduate school at The George Washington University, leaving school shortly before staring work on his dissertation when his first child was born. He works in the energy industry and prior to that worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Division of Price Index and Number Research. He joined the staff at OTB in November 2004.

Comments

  1. Triumph says:

    Let me see we are talking about a financial crisis that has the potential to bring on substantial credit crunch and we get some nonsense about health care, jobs, reducing taxes, reining in spending (government spending presumably) and trade. Nothing about the actual crisis or whether or not the $700 billion dollar bailout is necessary, wrong, too much, too little. Kind of a shotgun approach here hoping that one of the buzz words will hit the bullseye…and shockingly none of them do.

    I’m begining to wonder…is she just an attractive dimbulb? After all, how hard can it be to do a 30 to 45 minute run down on the financial crisis?

    I am not sure why you are underestimating her. It is pretty clear she’s running the ship-a la Cheney

    Remember, in her interview with Hannity earlier in the week she was the first person on the ticket to come out against the Paulson plan.

    McCain’s campaign actually issued a statement backing away from her remarks–however, once he got to DC he followed her lead and objected to the proposals on the table.

    In the Couric interview, we see why–She wanted it to be more than a market bailout. She is advocating for a bill that includes health care reform and job creation and all of the other things she mentioned.

    McCain’s opposition to the bill isn’t that its too expensive or goes to far. We see through the statements of his partner that the problem is that the bill doesn’t go far enough.

  2. armchairpunter says:

    Not the most coherent response. Still, to hear many Dems tell it, this is all about nice folks struggling to pay the mortgage and avoid foreclosure. There’s plenty of incoherence to go around.

  3. tom p says:

    Steve, for once we are in absolute agreement. (OK, OK. it has happened many times before).

  4. Michael says:

    Not the most coherent response. Still, to hear many Dems tell it, this is all about nice folks struggling to pay the mortgage and avoid foreclosure. There’s plenty of incoherence to go around.

    That’s called being wrong, an all together different problem than being incoherent.

  5. RWB says:

    HEARTBEAT
    ——-*——-
    HEARTBEAT AWAY

  6. Michael says:

    HEARTBEAT
    ——-*——-
    HEARTBEAT AWAY

    Can we please, please drop this ridiculous meme?

  7. davod says:

    Steve: There you go again!

  8. DL says:

    If she’s a dim bulb, she’s the old fashion kind, that gives off bright light, without the poison hiding inside!

  9. Michael says:

    If she’s a dim bulb, she’s the old fashion kind, that gives off bright light, without the poison hiding inside!

    Dim bulbs don’t give off bright light, that’s why they’re called “dim”.

  10. Steve Plunk says:

    Kind of harsh to criticize her for not being able to explain something in a few minutes, with cameras rolling, what legions of economists can’t fully agree upon or explain.

    This is a complex issue that should be handled by sitting down with experts, not in front of Katie Couric. Like the debates the cameras are there not to capture the essence of the candidates but rather catch any minor mistakes and provide ammunition for the opponents campaign. TV is all about playing gotcha.

  11. anjin-san says:

    Kind of harsh to criticize her for not being able to explain something in a few minutes, with cameras rolling, what legions of economists can’t fully agree upon or explain.

    Its more the fact that she can’t string three coherent sentences together…

  12. tom p says:

    In the Couric interview, we see why–She wanted it to be more than a market bailout. She is advocating for a bill that includes health care reform and job creation and all of the other things she mentioned.

    Triumph, what she said was:

    ” . . . where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh — it’s got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare 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, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.”

    Huh?

    This is the most schizophrenic GOP ticket of all time (or at least in my experience) You are giving DEMOCRATIC talking points.

    I say again, “HUH?”

  13. rodney dill says:

    Seems like another overblown response on the part of the Democrat Party. I guess they’re depending on telling the lies often enough that people will believe them instead of reading the transcript and viewing the video themselves. Mostly she did give just the same type of empty political responses that Biden, Obama, and McCain all doing. As far as coherence, I had an easier time following her than anything Obama said during the debate. The only thing I felt she flubbed was in trying to pull a second example of McCain pushing increased regulation out of thin air.

    She probably is not that familiar with McCain’s entire record, at this point, certainly not to be able to pull examples out of thin air. Her own record I would expect her to able to defend. Also its the wrong question to answer, what McCain brings to the table is that he has done things in Washington, not specifically just pushing for more regulation. In all honesty more of his work has likely been in pushing for deregulation. (my opinion).

    Palin, should’ve questioned whether this was the right question or not, and then answered what she wanted to, after all thats what Obama would’ve done.

    The is hardly her ‘potatoe’ moment, not even as bad Obama’s saying he’d be able to rely on ‘his muslim faith’ before Stephanopolis fell over himself correcting Obumble.