Katie Couric didn’t call him on it.
So, was she a) being polite, b) in the tank for the Dems and didn’t want to point it out or c) didn’t even see a problem with anything he said, being as historically ignorant as he is?
I think it’s either (b) or (c), which are pretty much mutually exclusive, and I’m not sure which is worse. And I think that (c) is the most likely.
I think (c) is most likely too, but the ironic thing is that if it wasn’t (c), I wonder if it was
1. Genuinely (a)
2. Consciously (b), or
3. Subconsciously (b) but with (a) as the pretext she even believes herself.
Some people are in the tank and know it, others are just in the tank.
d) all of the above.
There is a fourth possibility. Consider the joke that goes “A plane crashes precisely on the border of Arizona and California, where do they bury the survivors?” and the listener gets hung up on the details of border protocol and doesn’t notice the problem. It could have been like that. Couric may have been paying attention to Biden’s point and didn’t notice the problem. The lesson here may involve how cognition works, rather than whether Couric is ignorant of history.
Well, let’s stipulate that it’s how Katie Couric’s cognition (to be generous enough to state that such a thing exists) works.
Because other folks noticed it pretty much right away. I certainly would have…
I loved the steam powered tv comment.
In any topic of debate you eventually encounter the smart-alec who is the perfect expert on every twig of every tree but doesn’t know the forest. He’ll ridicule the history teacher who mistakenly says that the Civil War ended in 1965, when he meant 1865: “Ha ha ha, does he think that Lyndon Johnson won the Civil war? Everyone knows that Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9th, 1865 at the Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia, 37
Bob,
I agree with the essence of your “…bury the survivors” scenario.
But if Katie Cutiepie was asking questions of a VP Candidate, shouldn’t she be listening to the answers?
Jim,
has it occurred to you that Palin’s answers seem wrong or fluff, because you disagree with her politics? Plenty that comes out of the blathering I hear from both sides seems odd to me. But for me it’s Biden and Obama that seem fluff or wrong.
I know it to be a function of disagreement. You seem, as always, to take anything said from the right personally.
According to the one who created the term “Bush Doctrine” (Charles Krauthammer) Palin got it exactly right and Gibson was wrong.
I’m betting you already knew that Mr Harris.
has it occurred to you that Palin’s answers seem wrong or fluff, because you disagree with her politics?
Okay, Steve, I’ll do the experiment. I do not mind thinking like a conservative and it isn’t entirely wrong by any means. Here we go.
—-
Communism is a scourge of world history that has led to untold misery and butchery for hundreds of millions of people. Capitalism is a superior economic system that essentially buried communism in the last century, but we must be on the look-out for neo-Communist resurgence in the guise of populism or crony capitalism. In particular in Russia, which is run by a dangerous neo-Communist strongman named Vladimir Putin. Russia is right now raping Georgia and bullying its other neighbors, but given Russia’s oil and its nuclear weapons, it won’t be easy to contain its aggression. But we have to try.
—-
There, happy? I can not only write this material, I also believe it. Now I’ll turn to Gibson’s interview with Palin:
—-
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They�re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they�re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I�m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation[s] with all of these countries, especially Russia.
—-
Even with my anti-Communist hat on, Palin’s answer is still stupid. Read it carefully. Behind her loyalty to the right, her real world view is based on codependence. All she knows about foreign policy is that it’s a small world and we all have to work together. Did she learned it from Disneyland? “It’s a small world after all, it’s a small world after all, it’s a small, small world…”
Even with my anti-Communist hat on, Palin’s answer is still stupid.
It’s easy to make someone look “stupid” in an interview when you leave most of what they said on the cutting-room floor.
It’s easy to make someone look “stupid” in an interview when you leave most of what they said on the cutting-room floor.
No, that was the uncut version. ABC aired Palin’s first dumb answer about seeing Russia from Alaska. Palin’s second dumb answer, the “small world” codependence theory of foreign relations, was supposed to be the good performance that they left on the cutting room floor.
In the cut section, she also repeated three times that we will not repeat a Cold War. Well the Wizard of Oz was not Disney, but it may as well have been. Palin is free to ask God not to repeat a Cold War, she can even click her ruby slippers and repeat it three times, but it won’t be enough. If Putin wants another Cold War, there will be one.
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
Sure, if all you care about is “gaffes”, Biden is a great source of them. When he said that FDR spoke on television, he should have said radio. BFD.
I guess you missed the part about FDR not being president at the time. FDR was Governor of New York when the stock market crashed in 1929
I guess you missed the part about FDR not being president at the time. FDR was Governor of New York when the stock market crashed in 1929
@Jim, he was wrong on the details but his intuition wasn’t so far off? Fake but accurate?
“Fake but accurate” has always been good enough for democrats, but Republicans must get every detail and every nuance correct at all times. Right Jim?
Jim, he was wrong on the details but his intuition wasn’t so far off? Fake but accurate?
This isn’t a printed news report, Robin. If you speak off the cuff, you certainly can get details wrong when making a valid point. For instance if someone says that Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9th, 1965 at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia, then you can suppose that he just had a verbal slip that can be fixed. Biden’s gaffe was more embarrassing than that, but it was still an off-the-cuff timeline mistake. He described FDR correctly, as someone who often explained the financial system at length to the voters.
Whereas what was Palin’s real point in saying that she understands Russia because she lives next to it? Sure, you can see the tip of Siberia from an Alaskan island in the Bering Straight. So? Palin repeated an inane talking point that had already been run up the flag pole by Fox News, and had already been shot down. She had crammed for a test and didn’t know that she was answering completely the wrong question. It was anything but a gaffe.
He described FDR correctly, as someone who often explained the financial system at length to the voters.
How could he “explain” something that he had little understanding of himself? FDR is the guy who made the Depression “Great.”
FDR is the guy who made the Depression “Great.”
Right. From 1929 to 1933, the Depression just wasn’t all that big of a deal. In fact, when FDR gave his first fireside chat, “On the Bank Crisis”, after 8 days in office in 1933, there really wasn’t any bank crisis — yet.
In fact, history is repeating itself. We’ve got a booming economy, and the fundamentals are strong, but the mainstream media is blowing that foreclosure kerfuffle all out of proportion. If Obama is elected, then there will be a meltdown.
> If you speak off the cuff, you certainly can get details wrong when making a valid point.
Like Palin did wrt “the” Bush Doctrine….
Except that Palin’s only mistake was in clarifying what Gibson meant by “the” doctrine (there being at least 4 “Bush Doctrines”). Once she knew what he meant, notice that the critics don’t have much of a beef with her discussion.
From 1929 to 1933, the Depression just wasn’t all that big of a deal.
No, it was a very big deal. Hoover’s policies were disastrous and made a bad situation worse. But FDR’s extended it for almost another decade. If the war hadn’t come along, there’s no telling how long he would have continued it. Perhaps until his eventual death. The notion that he understood financial markets, or economics in general, is laughable (as in one has to laugh so one doesn’t cry).
Once she knew what he meant
Once she knew what he meant, she stated falsely that the Bush Doctrine was about reacting to an imminent threat. Bush’s whole point was that we could not afford to wait until the threat from Iraq is imminent. His supporters angrily denounced claims that he had ever said that the threat was imminent.
When Hannity asked Palin “what do you view as the Bush Doctrine” the next week, she didn’t improve her answer. In fact, she didn’t define it at all. Her view of the Bush Doctrine in a friendly interview is that she doesn’t know and doesn’t care what it is. All that matters is that she’s an optimist and America is a force for good.
It’s fine to be an optimist and think that America is a force for good. Both points are usually correct. But it is not a foreign policy and it also isn’t the Bush Doctrine.
—-
HANNITY: What do you view
Hoover’s policies were disastrous and made a bad situation worse. But FDR’s extended it for almost another decade.
Actually, the United States GDP returned to its 1929 value in 1936, after FDR had served for three years. Is three years what you mean by “almost another decade”? If so, then it’s certainly time for a change after having George W. Bush for almost two decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp20-40.jpg
Actually, the United States GDP returned to its 1929 value in 1936, after FDR had served for three years. Is three years what you mean by “almost another decade”?
No.
I’m sure those millions of unemployed were thrilled to learn that the GDP had returned to 1929 levels. The unemployment rate never dropped below the teens (and was twenty percent in some years) until the war. That’s what I mean by “almost another decade.”
I’m sure those millions of unemployed were thrilled to learn that the GDP had returned to 1929 levels. The unemployment rate never dropped below the teens (and was twenty percent in some years) until the war. That’s what I mean by “almost another decade.”
In that case, you’re lumping together two related but very different things, the unemployment rate and economic depression. Numerical employment had mostly recovered by 1937. If you adjust for an expanding population, it had not fully recovered, but it had still mostly recovered. By any definition, what the US had then was an economic recovery, not an extended depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Citing the unemployment rate specifically is chasing a moving target, because it depends on the number of people who don’t mind staying at home. The economy was clearly restructuring while FDR was president; it moved to a phase in which more adults wanted to work. You’re trying to argue that even though 24 million Americans worked in 1932 and 31 million Americans worked in 1937, the economy went nowhere. That just doesn’t make sense.
Besides, let’s say that you were right and employment had flatlined until December 7, 1941. It was nothing like that, but let’s say that it was. Then it would not mean that FDR failed to explain economics to the voters in his fireside chats, which was the original topic. It may or may not have meant that his policies were bad, but that’s a different matter from his explanations. You’re exhibiting blame drift. Your thread is that if we can’t knock the fireside chats, let’s slam FDR for economic depression; and if that was actually a recovery that did not cure all ills, let’s blast him for the unemployment rate.
Sorry, Jim. Maybe those millions who were involuntarily unemployed throughout Roosevelt’s first two terms would buy your latest pathetic attempt at sophistry, but I don’t. And I’ll bet that they didn’t really think that the Depression had ended just because the economy was growing anemically, and nowhere near fast enough to create jobs for them.
I’ll bet that they didn’t really think that the Depression had ended just because the economy was growing anemically, and nowhere near fast enough to create jobs for them.
You’re sort-of right except for the word “anemically”. In the three years after FDR’s inauguration, that is from 1933 to 1936, the economy expanded at 11% per year. After adjusting for inflation, at almost 10% per year. If that’s “anemic” growth, what’s flush growth? 50% per year? And you were saying that the economy has been “booming” under Bush, but the fastest expansion that we had was in 2004, which was 3.6%. If 10% is “anemic”, then 3.6% is a deathly pale “boom”.
What is true is that the voters weren’t satisfied with 10% per year expansion, and even that the unemployment rate could stay high in such an expansion, because of how far the economy fell under Hoover.
My advice is to think/research before parroting what you read somewhere else.
Granted Biden slipped up and said ‘television’ instead of radio, but there was no indication that he was referring to the 1929 crash in particular. He was most likely referring to FDR’s speeches such as this one about the 1933 Bank Crisis: http://www.mhric.org/fdr/chat1.html
F. Must try harder.