If it is true that campaign staff learned that Sarah Palin a) believed that Africa was a country, not a continent OR b) that South Africa was a region of Africa rather than a country, OR c) that she could not identify the parties to NAFTA, did they not have a responsibility to the people of this country to replace her on the ticket? Was it OK for them to view this as simply an adversarial process where they had the right to try to win with her?
I say they had a duty to replace her.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I heard this subject discussed today on a rightie radio program. Their answer was, of course, no they did not have a duty to replace her. Here was the reasoning:
If you (McCain) felt that you were better for the country as President than Obama, then you say nothing because if you do, you lose. If you win and by some chance Palin becomes President, the WH has people that can and will tell her that Africa is a continent; who is a part of NAFTA; etc.
Not quite sure I followed that logic, but they are grasping at anything try and not blame Shopper Sarah.
You guys won. Give it a rest.
Jindal and Palin in 12!
I'm going to be a gloating m-f'er for a damn long time. I don't have to worry about teaching anyone about how to be a good loser or a humble winner.
Rush, Hannity and all the other preachers of hate and exclusion deserve all the ridicule they get. And so do all the hate-mongers that drink that Kool-Aide and follow them like sheep.
Not that I'm a prayerful person, but if I were, I would pray to whomever that Shopper Sarah runs in 2012. If she is the best the righties can come up with, THAT is the ultimate clue to show how far the Republican party has fallen. Talking about scraping the bottom of the barrel.
And what I'm trying to ask shouldn't be a partisan question. Does a party have a smidgeon of a fiduciary duty to provide candidates with a basic (really, really basic) knowledge about the country and the world? (And, btw, I would not be surprised if her ignorance began at our borders.) I suspect we haven't thought about it before because the parties have never submitted someone so thoroughly ignorant and unqualified.
I was going to let up on your guy, but if you keep slandering Palin I'm not.
I didn't slander Palin; your party did. I'm asking an earnest question: did your party have a fiduciary duty to remove her when they learned she didn't know anything, presuming the stories are true?
Can we agrre you need to post a retraction?
He says there’s no way she didn’t know Africa was a continent, and whoever is saying she didn’t must be distorting “a fumble of words.” He talked to her about all manner of issues relating to Africa, from failed states to the Sudan. She was aware from the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, which is followed closely in evangelical churches, and was aware of Clinton’s AIDS initiative. That basically makes it impossible that she thought all of Africa was a country.
On not knowing what countries are in NAFTA, Biegun was part of the conversation that led to that accusation and it convinces him “somebody is acting with a high degree of maliciousness.” He was briefing Palin before a Univision interview, and talking to her about trade issues. He rolled through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Colombia FTA. As he talked, people were coming in and out of the room, handing Palin things, etc. She was distracted from what Biegun was saying, and said, roughly, “Ok, who’s in NAFTA, what the deal with CAFTA, what’s up the FTA?”—her way, Biegun says, of saying “rack them and stack them,” begin again from the start. “Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously,” he says.
The post starts in bold with "If it is true". Answer the hypothetical.
Post a Comment