9/30/2008 6:25:11 PM

9/30/2008 7:23:36 PM

^ Obama looks too black in the picture (no homo)

9/30/2008 8:00:02 PM

According to Hannity, asking about Supreme Court cases is a "gotcha" question.

9/30/2008 8:47:38 PM

didn't you hear? that's the new shit. They're going to talk ad nauseam about "gotcha" questions until you begin to believe that is the only kind of questions asked of Sarah Palin.

9/30/2008 9:04:45 PM

^ how do you define a "gotcha" question anyway?

I've seen this term being thrown around, and I don't really get it... how is it not-bad to not know what you're talking about?

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 9:07 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 9:06:47 PM

it's their new talking point

absolutely ridiculous

9/30/2008 9:10:28 PM

Funny article from Cracked.com on brainwashing techniques used in elections, and elsewhere.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html

9/30/2008 9:16:27 PM

A gotcha question would be saying something like "You said yesterday that you support X. However, in 1998 you said you support Y. What is your stance on the issue?"

It's a question where you drop a fact or bit of trivia that the politician normally would not want to address into the question to say, "A-ha, gotcha!"

This is a brilliant example of a gotcha question by Tim Russert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs

He could have simply asked "What is your stance on the Iraq war," but instead he framed the question to make it more difficult for McCain to answer.

Russert is (was ) famous for doing this, by the way.

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 9:25 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 9:24:19 PM

Quote :

"I won several formal debates in college using my patented technique of simply repeating my opponent's argument in a high-pitched, mocking tone while wiggling my fingers in the air. There really is no defense. They call this the appeal to rididcule fallacy. To which I would simply rebut, "Oooooh, appeal to ridicule fallacy! Well I've got a 'phallus' you can 'see' right here, college boy.""

well damn, there's actually a technical name to socks`` posting technique.

^ that's not that bad though. I think most people would realize that 1993 is a LONG ways from 2007 (when that video was made), and I personally wouldn't hold that against McCain. It's absurd to do so. But if I said something last month that's different from now, or even last year, i'm either a panderer, or something changed my mind, and it could only help me to explain what changed my mind.




[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 9:28 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 9:24:59 PM

A bad example would be anytime Bill O'Reilly interviews someone.

It's not a "gotcha" to ask someone a complex question and then demand they give a simple answer. When O'Reilly asked Obama if he supported the surge, it went like this:

O'Reilly: "Do you support the surge?"

Obama: "Well, Bill, it's not as simp--"

O'Reilly: "DO YOU OR DON'T YOU?!"

9/30/2008 9:27:47 PM

^ that's just being a dick though, and people usually know when they're doing that.

9/30/2008 9:29:29 PM

True. And gotcha questions, if framed appropriately, are usually good because they don't allow the politician to dodge or lie.

I'm betting the gotcha question McCain is going to get come the economic debate will look something like this:

"Senator McCain, you suspended your campaign at the end of September to, as you stated, 'save the economy.' After going to Washington, you claimed responsibility for assisting on a bill which was then killed overwhelmingly by a Republican majority. Do you still claim responsibility for this bill and the events that occurred afterwards?"

9/30/2008 9:33:49 PM

^^^And Obama responded that while the surge has been better than he expected at reducing violence, it is still a failure in terms of not achieving its goal of getting the Iraqi's to take up the burden for themselves in the breathing space the surge was meant to provide.

McCain took that and in the debate said Obama was against the surge, then supported it by admitting it worked super great, and then went back to being against it trying to paint him as a flip flopper by lying about what Obama said. Then McCain tried to look confused at how Obama could support such ridiculously opposing ideas when the only ridiculousness was McCain's lies and strawman argument. There are few moments in which I've disliked McCain as much as I did during that moment faux-confusion.

9/30/2008 9:44:21 PM

^^ I do see more clearly now thanks to you what people mean by "gotcha" questions though. Thanks God!

9/30/2008 9:59:37 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

fucking lol.

9/30/2008 10:01:58 PM

"all of 'em, any of 'em"

w.t.f....
just fucking say the Wall Street Journal or the Anchorage Times or whatever. Or The National Review, just acknowledge that you know the name of at least one newspaper or magazine even if you don't read it regularly!!


she got really defensive at that question.... Couric was trying to get an idea of what sources frame her world view, and she went off about how people think that Alaskans are ignorant

9/30/2008 10:09:16 PM

^^oh my fucking god

wow

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 10:11 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2008 10:11:00 PM

^^^ They should have their next interview in a tub of pudding.

9/30/2008 10:12:34 PM

q: what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read to stay informed?

a: i read most of them with a great appreciation for the press

q: like what specifically?

a: um, all of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me

q: can you name a few?

a: i have a vast variety of sources that i get our news. ALASKA ISNT A FOREIGN COUNTRY, omg lol!!

9/30/2008 10:17:08 PM

^ Giving Palin the benefit of the doubt... maybe she just thought it was such a stupid question, she didn't want to give Couric the satisfaction of answering her dumb question by giving her a dumb answer. I know that's kind of how I would feel in that situation.

I don't think Palin is as dumb as she's being made out to be, she's just clearly extremely inexperienced with dealing with the media, and IMO, Couric is kind of being a littly douchey (no sexism intended) with some of those questions.

9/30/2008 10:20:48 PM

The easy answer would be "major Alaskan newspaper."

9/30/2008 10:25:32 PM

^^ some of that may be true (i don't think so, but anyway)....
she needs to play the game if she doesn't want to look like an idiot. She gets a stupid question? Answer it and nobody will pay any attention. Go off about how Alaskans are not retarded, and get put up on youtube

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2008 10:25:54 PM

^,^^

I think the part that threw her for a loop was the "to understand the world" aspect of the question. If she would have said <local alaskan newspaper> people would have said "haha, who reads <local paper> to understand the world?" or even "haha who reads <any paper> to understand the world?"

It's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

9/30/2008 10:31:16 PM

I don't think it was a "stupid" question, it was a patronizing as hell question, like she's a 5 year old or something

Whether she's ready to be vice president or not, anybody could fucking name a newspaper, what exactly was Couric trying to find out? If Palin could read or not? Where was it going to go from there if she answered with the WSJ or the NY Times? Was Couric going to ask her what columnist she likes and then which of their op-ed pieces she liked the best? Has there ever been an interview with a potential vice president, hell, ANY politician EVER where they asked them what newspapers they read to get their information about the political happenings? Ask her real damn questions and laugh at the answers if appropriate, not stupid questions about which newspapers she reads, this is getting pretty ridiculous. And no, I'm not of the opinion that she should be allowed to hide behind McCain and the campaign advisors; regardless of the media bombardment on her (which anybody can fucking admit has been a little too much) she still needs to be out there and held accountable for her opinions that are actually relevant to the election, but definitely not this shit.

9/30/2008 10:36:40 PM

I love it when people get angry because their candidate can't answer the softest fucking balls ever lobbed.

Would you rather she answer her position on the delicate situation in Warizistan?

9/30/2008 10:39:18 PM

^ Palin is likely fairly incompetent, and is a pathetic pick for VP, but that video clip barely demonstrates that.

9/30/2008 10:43:26 PM

I could post a whole page's worth of video clips that demonstrate that she's nothing but a pageant queen moron.

9/30/2008 10:44:59 PM

Quote :

"I love it when people get angry because their candidate can't answer the softest fucking balls ever lobbed."

Yeah, damnit, Katie Couric caught her. Brilliant journalism, her investigative reporting led to the discovery that Palin has NEVER READ A NEWSPAPER!! She couldn't answer! Not only does she not read any newspapers, she couldn't even think of a single name of one when asked.



The fact the "softball," if you want to call it that, was even thrown was an insult and it caught her off guard especially since Couric kept pressing her like it was the most important thing in the world. Look, I haven't been a Palin defender-at-all-costs type of person. She has said some outright stupid things the last couple of days and I'm obviously worried about how bad she'll look in the debate and leading up to the election because of that. But this is just stupid.

9/30/2008 10:45:00 PM

Quote :

"Look, I haven't been a Palin defender-at-all-costs type of person. She has said some outright stupid things the last couple of days and I'm obviously worried about how bad she'll look in the debate and leading up to the election because of that. But this is just stupid."

I agree, and i've been a vocal palin detractor.

9/30/2008 10:46:52 PM

Um...

When it's a question that any one of us could answer on the spot, that's a problem.

It's a question that you KNOW McCain, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Giuliani fuck... anyone who was in the primaries could answer.

Same with the Supreme Court case question.

But, she can't.

What does that tell you?

9/30/2008 10:50:48 PM

^ I will post this again...

I think the part that threw her for a loop was the "to understand the world" aspect of the question. If she would have said <local alaskan newspaper> people would have said "haha, who reads <local paper> to understand the world?" or even "haha who reads <any paper> to understand the world?"

It's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

And something I posted elsewhere...

Quote :

" but to me it seemed like Couric asked it in a confrontational way, and Couric has been somewhat condescending and confrontational in many parts of the interview, and it could have started to wear on Palin. I could easily see how in the full context of their interviews, that by the time they got to this point, Palin was maybe getting a little irritated by some of the questions. Look at how Couric asked the questions... "what newspapers and magazines do you read to understand the world" in the context of foreign affairs... I personally don't know anyone who specifically sets down and says "hmm... I need to understand the world today, let me turn to these newspapers," people generally read newspapers in the course of their day, for varying reasons. It's kind of like asking "when did you stop beating your wife" or even "how come you never started beating your wife" they are both easy enough questions to respond to, but are phrased in a way to throw you off slightly. Why not ask "what are some of your favorite newspapers" or "what sources of news do you like to turn to"? "

As we've seen countless times throughout this election season, context and intent makes a huge difference.

The McCain camp has kind of brought this on themselves though, because they've antagonized the media in several situations, and by being so particular with Palin's interviews, it just makes the ones she DOES do get scrutinized even more.

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 10:57 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 10:52:34 PM

Quote :

"When it's a question that any one of us could answer on the spot, that's a problem."

Yeah, that's exactly the problem. A major network exclusive interview with one of the possible world leaders and they're asking her what newspapers she reads to understand the world? How about questions on issues they'll be facing and what policy decisions they would possibly make or ANYTHING that is remotely relevant to being vice president?

Quote :

"but to me it seemed like Couric asked it in a confrontational way, and Couric has been somewhat condescending and confrontational in many parts of the interview"

It was clearly an insult to Palin, she knew it and refused to answer. Whatever answer she gave would've have been spun by Couric into something that would also make her look stupid.

I do agree with ^ moron though about this...

Quote :

"The McCain camp has kind of brought this on themselves though, because they've antagonized the media in several situations, and by being so particular with Palin's interviews, it just makes the ones she DOES do get scrutinized even more."

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM. Reason : ^]

9/30/2008 10:58:08 PM

Quote :

"I do agree with ^ moron though about this... "

sweet

I can add you to the list of TWW right-wingnuts i've made peace with:

1) Treetwista
2) hooksaw (uneasy truce)
3) aimorris

9/30/2008 11:10:29 PM

I don't understand why people are defending Palin in these disastrous interviews. Even if she finds the questions insulting or whatever, she should be thinking about how she is coming off to the public. Shouldn't someone that has a degree in journalism know that?

9/30/2008 11:50:08 PM

^ it's not so much about defending Palin, than projecting the perception that us "leftwingers" aren't as bad as the right.

The right has jumped on a LOT of dumb stuff over the years, and continue to do so, and us elitist lefters have always said we were better than them, and I think we are* (as Obama's campaign has shown, IMO, if only by a slight margin). Everything doesn't have to be black/white like the Bush administration has made it seem. Palin is a douche, yes, but there are more clear, less "gotcha" ( ) things to point this out, than this clear attempt to smear her.

*I realize how this sounds, but I don't feel like elaborating

9/30/2008 11:55:28 PM

none of it matters any more.

10/1/2008 12:21:00 AM

^ none of what matters?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

McCain is no where near his lowest, and had a slight uptick, Obama is slightly above his average, but still not at his highest, and the delta between the 2 is about the average.

There's still plenty of game left in this.

10/1/2008 12:26:10 AM

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

It's a split

10/1/2008 12:45:13 AM

moron
the election no longer matters to me. We elect these people and they don't do fuck-all when it counts. See failure of Bailout yesterday. 40% of Democrats did not vote for the bailout package. WTF? They have a strong majority so this should have passed easily. And the fact that only 65 Repubs voted for it is kinda sad (even though i guess that's kinda good since most opposed it from the beginning).

Plus, I've been watching the debates on-line today and it isn't what I hoped. It was depressing. McCain just didn't get after Obama with the force he should have.

At the beginning of the debate, when Obama was blamming the current crisis on McCain's "economic philosophy" he should of reminded him that he was calling for tighter regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when Obama was doing nothing. He should have went even further to explain that this was not even a problem of "deregulation" as Obama contends.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_wallison&sid=a6M1QA55PB9Y

He should have brought the debate to the big issues. Obama is clearly skeptical (despite occasional lipservice) of markets having the power to improve living standards of the majority of Americans. McCain thinks other wise. McCain thinks that freedom is the precursor to prosperity. Or at least that's what I thought he thought. Why didn't he say any of that???

Where's the fucking passion for the big ideas driving the real debate here? And why is his campaign behaving so erratically? Is this the way he would run the White House? I don't really really think so, but I wonder. And it depresses me. And it makes me think I won't even vote for President this fall. It all so fucking sucks.

None of it matters anymore.

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 12:53 AM. Reason : fuck everything.]

10/1/2008 12:50:04 AM

Socks you're owned as shit, buddy.

10/1/2008 1:17:02 AM

^ If you're not ashamed of our current crop of politicans you simply are not paying attn.

Obama's performance during the debate was at least as bad as McCain's for exactly the same reasons. He spewed off meaningless soundbytes (what the fuck does he mean by "economic philosophy") and stayed clear of any big-issue discussions that may have revealed that he understands what's really at stake in this election.

And House Democrats failed the American people when they couldn't even muster the votes to pass this bail out, dspite the fact they are in the majority (40% of Democrats voted NO!? Wtf?).

This has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the pitiful crop of people running this country. If you really think either party or either candidate is doing a good job, you can consider yourself a hack.

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 1:37 AM. Reason : ``]

10/1/2008 1:34:06 AM

Quote :

"This has nothing to do with me."

I'm making it about you. Look at how owned you are.

In regards to your block of text I have no idea why you typed it. I'm specifically talking about the level of subjective ownage you're experiencing, and the level of objective ownage that exists on your face right now.

10/1/2008 1:36:32 AM

^ Then why should I even talk to you????!?!? You're the type of person that makes me skeptical of democracy as an engine for generating desirable policy outcomes. consider yourself owned!!! game-set-match, loosssaahhh!!

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 1:45 AM. Reason : ]

10/1/2008 1:38:24 AM

Notice how I'm not engaging any of the issues. Notice how you probably know nothing about my voting preferences or the structure of justification behind them.

Notice how if anybody's demonstrating a lack of ability to reason and an intellectually irresponsible lack of parsimony in one's presumptions it's you.

Notice how fucking owned you are.

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 1:41 AM. Reason : .]

10/1/2008 1:40:51 AM

Quote :

"Notice how I'm not engaging any of the issues."

Then talk to me when you do. PWNT!


[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 1:43 AM. Reason : ``]

10/1/2008 1:41:48 AM

You haven't "pwned" shit you clueless noob.

Look at you. You supported Edwards. Then you supported Clinton. Now you support McCain.

Other than white > white > white, I can't think of a larger maximally consistent set between the three.

Oh wait, yes I can. Fail > fail > fail.

It's hilarious how you're always picking the loser, even when you swap parties to avoid picking a black. I mean damn.

10/1/2008 1:44:38 AM

haha

Quote :

"I can't think "

that's your problem right there, friend. OWNED again!!! Go spend $5 on ANOTHER screen name. I'm out!!

10/1/2008 1:49:41 AM

Aww, Socks is coming to the realization that he's been supporting a shitty candidate.

10/1/2008 1:49:43 AM

Socks you're hilariously full of shit.

Seriously let me re-iterate: you went from Edwards, to Clinton, to McCain.

Do you not realize how big of a departure that is in terms of social and economic policy? The fact that you sold out your values out of sheer spite, only to realize that you sold them to your worst enemies in exchange for defeat is delicious to me.

You've got egg in your neckbeard, bro.

10/1/2008 1:52:34 AM