The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

What to Expect from Palin in the VP Debate
by Kagro X
Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM PDT

By now most of us are familiar with the pre-debate expectations game. We've become familiar with the idea of campaign operatives sowing seeds of doubt about their candidate's debating skills, lowering the bar in such a way that it virtually guarantees that anyone who doesn't actually vomit or fall off the stage has an arguable claim to having "won," by virtue of having exceeded "expectations."

Sarah Palin, of course, presents a curious case. We've never seen anything quite like her, in that she's crashed and burned so spectacularly in the few nationally televised interviews we've seen that it's hard to believe either of the normal expectations for her debate performance could possibly be true. It's just as difficult to believe that that she's really that outrageously awful when not working from a script as it is that there's any possibility that she'll break out somehow and prove us all wrong. Well, perhaps you can't rule anything out entirely. But, seriously.

The thing is, Palin's not completely empty-headed. She's actually a trained GOPAC protégé.

Back in the heyday of GOPAC, when it was Newt Gingrich's operation, one of the chief functions of the organization was to equip the Republican "farm team" with the kind of rhetoric Newt was well-known for. Attention grabbing, bombastic, and most importantly, focus-group tested for resonance. Right down to the molecular level. They actually used to distribute a list of words they wanted you to use to describe Republicans and Republican policies, and those they wanted used to describe Democrats and Democratic policies.

For most Republicans, that rudimentary training is usually enough to get you through most situations. They rarely, if ever, face the national press corps for a full and wide-ranging examination of the breadth of their policy positions, instead perhaps occasionally doing national interviews on specific topics of expertise. Only the top leaders from each party tend to find themselves in a position like Palin will be facing on Thursday, and even then only for perhaps ten minutes at a time. It's highly unusual for such an untested politician to find themselves in this bright a spotlight, and it's only due to the fact that a vice presidential nominee can literally be picked out of the blue and thrust into the spotlight with no special prerequisites that this can even happen. Ordinarily, people choose their running mates with, you know, a little care and forethought. And that usually produces a selection who's actually ready for the job.

Not this time. This time, we're being given a chance to watch one of the GOPAC spawn in the larval stage, not yet fully developed, and we'll have a chance to see the limitations of trying to teach someone to talk and argue like Newt Gingrich before they're ready.

So perhaps that's the reason the media has been able to really key in on what she's doing. Doubtless there was already some sense that they'd be able to see cracks in the armor just because she was being tested nationally for the first time. But the cracks turned out to be bigger than expected, given her sterling performance at her RNC debut. And what is she doing? Nothing different than most GOPAC-trained Republicans do. At least not on paper. She's rhetorically shifting the ground underneath so that the discussion ends up being about the talking points she's been trained to deliver, rather than what the question was actually about. Gingrich himself could do it so seamlessly that most people never noticed, unless or until they went back and read a transcript, and noticed that the question he answered bore hardly any relation to the one asked. Whether it's nerves or just incomplete training, though, Palin isn't clicking on all cylinders. That may work with smaller audiences or local press who have some vested interest in not calling out hometown powerbrokers, but it doesn't seem to be cutting it for Palin on the national scene.

She hasn't helped herself by executing her training poorly of late, but there's only so much you can do once your questioners realize that you have only one set play for when you get in trouble: 1) repeat back some of the words in the question to establish that you're "answering" it; 2) parry by steering the frame of your answer toward a talking point that bears some relation to the subect of the question; 3) spray some transitional buzzwords that help you segue from what you were asked to what you have prepared to say, and; 4) deliver the focus group-tested answer you originally planned, even if it's kind of a non-sequitur.

By whatever stroke of luck, Palin's media questioners are seeing this for what it is this time. It may have something to do with the fact that so many of her ready answers have to do with attacking back at the media who are asking the questions (and, importantly, shaping the reporting of her answers). Or it may have something to do with the fact that her answers have, for the most part, been embarrassing, garbled messes.

Whatever the reason, the narrative that Palin often answers questions -- even easy ones -- with a word spray that she hopes will function like squid ink is gelling with the media and the public. And it's not something they're having to pull out of their hats, either. This is something that's been dogging her for years, but the media themselves have only recently been willing to admit they see. Just as we're all coming to realize that Palin's preferred method of dealing with the press and the public rely chiefly ducking contact whenever possible, and evading questions when hiding entirely becomes impossible, so it turns out, has it always been. Palin's record of cartoonish, barely coherent answers is longer than we thought:

    Is Sarah Palin ready to be governor?

    The former Wasilla mayor says yes. But with three weeks until the Nov. 7 election, her opponents are increasingly questioning how well she knows her stuff and how prepared she is for the job.

    A string of new commercials from Democrat Tony Knowles call Palin "the untested mayor of a small town." Knowles, a former two-term governor, says it's too chancy for her to lead negotiations to build the proposed natural gas pipeline.

    The Knowles campaign and independent candidate Andrew Halcro both criticized Palin in recent days for not appearing at some candidate forums. When she is there, they say, she's often vague on the issues.

    One of the sharper exchanges of the campaign happened last week in a debate on health care at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Halcro, a former state representative from Anchorage, told Palin her response to a question about the state budget was "gibberish."

Gibberish.

Well, a lot of people's debate answers really are gibberish, only the media doesn't usually admit it, which leads you to wonder whether they actually noticed or not. The debate format is different from the format of most interviews. It's the prospect of pointed follow-ups that seem to trip Palin up most, and in the format selected for the debate, we know Biden will be precluded from posing them. We can't be as certain about what prerogatives the moderator has, but in general, moderators have a vested interest in moving the program along in the interest of touching on as wide a range of issue areas as possible, rather than bringing the train to a halt to reexamine answers that seem less than satisfactory. Palin will have to count on the moderator's inclination to let her answers stand to survive the debate. And hope that she can toss out the right stream of buzzwords to give the impression that she was on topic -- something she's been unable to do so far in interviews, as she tries to anticipate the next question. In the debate format, the next question will be for her opponent, giving her time to collect herself in between.

So in the end, it's not all that likely that we'll see the knockout punch delivered in the debate. Biden will be largely penned in. The moderator won't want to "bias" the proceedings by pointing out the blindingly obvious. And the media, usually persuadable that an answer that doesn't end in spontaneous combustion is a passable one, might still be willing to play the standard expectations game and give her a bye if she doesn't burst into flames.

I'd encourage them, though, in watching and reviewing the debate, to hold her performance up to those we've seen in the past few weeks, and keep in mind that they've been quite right to notice -- as even prominent conservative opinion journalists like NRO's Kathleen Parker have, that:

    Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there.

To me, it's not about raising expectations. That's simply not plausible with Palin. It's about changing expectations. If she's merely expected to survive, well, she'll meet and exceed those expectations. But if she's expected to actually answer the questions posed and not simply respond to them verbally, well, that's a different story. And one the media is already comfortable telling.

The word is out. The narrative is set. All the traditional media have to do is see the same thing they've been seeing.

If the moderator were Glenn Beck, what would you think about that?

I don't know what to expect when the moderator has a book about Obama scheduled to be released on Inaguration Day. Especially considering the fact that if Obama loses, her book won't sell. Think she'll be fair and balanced? I don't. But, I think Palin will do fine anyway.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76645

And before you tell me that I'm just trying to cover for a bad performance by Palin, just ask yourself this: If the moderator were Glenn Beck, what would you think about that?

If you aren't going to READ the post that you quoted, I'm not going to bother answering you. But since you only like to scan messages, I'll put it right in its own line.

I said:
I THINK SHE'LL DO FINE ANYWAY!!!

And, if you want to focus on a bad interview (which I still haven't seen) and bash her based on that, I could return the favor and post a whole bunch of gaffes by the Messiah and Joe Biden. You also love to overlook the fact that probably more people are less convinced that Obama is qualified than Palin.

The "fact" that "probably"?

I'm going to start calling you Mr. Palin from now on.

If you aren't going to READ the post that you quoted, I'm not going to bother answering you. But since you only like to scan messages, I'll put it right in its own line.

I said:
I THINK SHE'LL DO FINE ANYWAY!!!

And, if you want to focus on a bad interview (which I still haven't seen) and bash her based on that, I could return the favor and post a whole bunch of gaffes by the Messiah and Joe Biden.

You also love to overlook the fact that probably more people are less convinced that Obama is qualified than Palin.

God damnit you people frustrate the absolute fuck out of me sometimes.  I don't know why I even bother.

God damnit you people frustrate the absolute fuck out of me sometimes.  I don't know why I even bother.

You don't need to answer me.  Either you are interested enough in your own candidate to watch the interview or not; but don't expect me to take anything you say seriously if you stick your head in the sand and keep spouting the talking points you are fed. 

Can you defend Palin in any way other than attacking Obama/Biden?  I would love to see someone actually address the issue of Palin's competence directly. 

Fact?  Bullshit.  B U L L S H I T.  Current polls give Obama an average favorable rating of 55.2% (even Fox has him at 57).  The latest Palin approval rating is 32%.  What are you basing your statement on?  Wanting something to be true doesn't make it a fact.

God damnit you people frustrate the absolute fuck out of me sometimes.  I don't know why I even bother.

McCain's campaign should ask for a different moderator.  These things are all agreed to way ahead of time.  If he's unhappy, speak up now, if there's a conflict of interest.