Fox News graphic falsely claimed "Obama campaign disse[d] Palin for small town origins"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Purporting to describe the response by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign to Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, a Fox News graphic stated: "Obama Campaign Disses Palin for Small Town Origins." In fact, the Obama campaign challenged Palin's experience, not her "small town origins."
A Fox News on-screen graphic purporting to describe the response by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign to Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate falsely stated: "Obama Campaign Disses Palin for Small Town Origins." The graphic appeared on the August 29 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, just as Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron stated that "the McCain campaign is suggesting" that the Obama campaign's response to the Palin pick "appear[ed] to sound dismissive of middle-American, small-town voters." In fact, responding to McCain's selection of Palin, the Obama campaign challenged Palin's experience, not her "small town origins." According to MSNBC blog First Read, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said: "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."
Earlier on Happening Now, Fox News contributor Karl Rove cited Palin's experience as mayor of an "admittedly ... small town" in asserting that the Obama campaign's statement was "petty, and small, and foolish":
JON SCOTT (co-anchor): Let's check in with Fox News contributor Karl Rove, the man who helped put President Bush in the White House two times. Karl, let me read you that statement again from the Obama campaign -- let me get my campaigns straight here. Let me read you part of that statement and ask you how you would try to counteract what they are saying. The Obama campaign says, "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." How does the McCain campaign react to that, or respond to that, Karl?
ROVE: I think they ignore it. That is petty, and small, and foolish on the part of the Obama campaign. They're better than that. You know, look, that's like saying, "They picked a former actor to be president," or "picked a former peanut farmer who was a state senator from rural southwestern Georgia." I mean, she's the governor of Alaska. She has had executive experience. She's been a mayor, admittedly of a small town, but active in her state's affairs as chairman of an important commission. This is small. They ought to just let the stage be hers today, and not smart on the Obama campaign's part.
Yet Rove said something very different when discussing Obama's potential vice-presidential choices on the August 10 edition of CBS' Face the Nation. As purported evidence that Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine isn't "capable of being president of the United States," Rove asserted: "He [Kaine] was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. ... It's not a big town."
From the August 10 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
BOB SCHIEFFER (host): You have said yourself in the past that Obama probably should pick a Red State governor, somebody just like Tim Kaine that we just heard just a minute ago from Virginia. Governor Kaine seems to thint that Democrats really can carry Virginia this time. Do you think --
ROVE: Yeah.
SCHIEFFER: -- that state's going to be in play?
ROVE: I think it's going to be in play, but let me clarify. I didn't say that I thought he ought to. I said that I thought he probably would pick a Red State Democrat, because I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice. He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president. That is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will, on the margin, help him in a state like Indiana, or Missouri, or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities as president. With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years. He's been able, but undistinguished.
I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; North Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town. So, if you were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, "You know what? I'm really not first and foremost concerned with, 'Is this person capable of being president of the United States?' What I'm concerned about is 'Can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia?' "
From the August 29 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
SCOTT: Let's check in with Fox News contributor Karl Rove, the man who helped put President Bush in the White House two times. Karl, let me read you that statement again from the Obama campaign -- let me get my campaigns straight here. Let me read you part of that statement and ask you how you would try to counteract what they are saying. The Obama campaign says, "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." How does the McCain campaign react to that, or respond to that, Karl?
ROVE: I think they ignore it. That is petty, and small, and foolish on the part of the Obama campaign. They're better than that. You know, look, that's like saying, "They picked a former actor to be president," or "picked a former peanut farmer who was a state senator from rural southwestern Georgia." I mean, she's the governor of Alaska. She has had executive experience. She's been a mayor, admittedly of a small town, but active in her state's affairs as chairman of an important commission. This is small. They ought to just let the stage be hers today, and not smart on the Obama campaign's part.
[...]
SCOTT: Perhaps you can see, Karl, why the Obama campaign is kind of putting down the choice of Sarah Palin. You heard that statement that they've released? You must have it on your BlackBerry, I'm guessing.
CAMERON: Oh, yes. Oh, absolutely. And one of the things that the McCain -- the McCain campaign is suggesting is that, in their reaction -- so negative and dismissive of Sarah Palin -- that the Obama campaign may have made a tactical error, in part, downplaying and appearing to sound dismissive of middle-American, small-town voters.
Sarah Palin comes to the ticket with a very, very expressed intention by the McCainiacs of bolstering his appeal in the battleground swing states, particularly with women, obviously, and blue collar voters. Sarah Palin is known as a solid conservative, but she keeps her religion, she keeps some of the social politics fairly suppressed.
Tommy
We simply disagree on this one. I believe it was in part an attack using the small town angle. How anyone in BO camp could use in-experience as an argument is beyond me. He gives a great speech...but what has he done?
Now that's classic. What has Barack done? Right after saying they shouldn't attack her on coming from a small town (even though thinking people know the issue was experience)? You really are two faced. But hey, here's an issue worthy of discussion:
Friday, August 29, 2008Sarah Palin on teaching Creationism:
From this (via this via this):
Snoopy said "Simple. Creationism isn't science. The world is more than 10,000 years old, and contrary to creationist teachings God didn't plant dinosaur bones to throw off the scientists."
Snoopy.
If you really think it all come down to dinosaur bones, then your knowledge of the bible is very limited. If you want only "fact" taught, then evolution is out. it is a threory. A theory with many holes and gaps that can not be filled. If the purpose of school is learning, then there is no reason to to teach or discuss creationism.
You were right the first time.
There is no reason to teach creationism.
I have no problem with kids in religious schools being taught whatever their religion wants to teach but it is not science.
Let"s teach astrology along with astronomy. A healthy debate is good right. How about lectures from the flat earth society. Maybe a course in ghostbusting could be part of the career education curiculum. The number of electives could be endless. We might need to reduce the hours spent on reality based course work. But as has been stated before "reality has a liberal bias" so it would be a good opportunity to get these liberals out of the schools.
Ah, another strawman. I never said anything about the bible, I specifically said creationism. Creationism has one goal which is to debunk evolution by among other things claiming the earth is 10,000 years old and that God planted bones on purpose. The creationist museum has man and dinosaurs co-existing. This isn't about scientific debate, it's about sowing seeds of discontent by making far fetched claims without proof. Putting out thoughts that can never be proved or disproved are not science or theory, it's just an ultimate strawman argument.
But no suprise coming from someone who thinks a former beauty queen become mayor of a town of 5,000 people has more experience than a sitting US senator.
If the purpose of school is learning, then there is no reason to to teach or discuss creationism.
At least you got that part right...
A theory is what makes it science.
A theory is not a "guess." A theory is not "speculation."
A theory is a model based on observed facts.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you. Have you graduated high school?
You are kididng right? A theory is an explanation of something. It is an attempt to understand what we see. it is not fact.
A theory is an explanation of something? Really?
A requirement of a theory is it has to be coherent. There is no coherent argument you can present that says the world is 10,000 years old and that man and dinosaur co-existed.
Really
A theory must have scope, parsimony, and logical consistency.
Scope refers to how much the theory covers, parsimony refers to simplicity, and logical consistency means does the theory make sence. Evolution has to many gaps to make sence.
a good theory must also have validity. Can it be proven. Evolution can not be proven.
You don't understand how science works. Scientists fill in gaps as new facts emerge and that's all they can do. They won't accept creationism because there are no facts behind it. One wonders how it emerged with no facts to support it.
Evolution has to many gaps to make sence.
And Creationism is a fairytale.
"A requirement of a theory is it has to be coherent. "
Actually, that isn't a requirement of a scientific theory - though it helps! A scientific theory is based on observable phenomenon, can be used to make testable predictions, and is subject to alteration based on new observations and/or the results of testing it's predictions. The more the tests and new observations agree with a theory the closer it becomes to being accepted as scientific fact.
That does, of course, conflict with...and cause a misunderstanding about...the differences between ordinary theory, which is basically a piece of guesswork, and substantially correlated SCIENTIFIC theory.
"Intelligent Design" actually meets the criteria of being coherent. What it LACKS is usability for making testable predictions and being changeable based on new observations.
Under that, we should teach in Physics that we were all sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. I mean, that explains so much.
The reason that we're tethered to the earth is not because of the universal theory of gravitation. It's because of invisible snot, that we have to work hard to overcome. Teach that in science class!
Here you go. Evolution is every bit as much a fact as gravity.
Creationism, on the other hand, is specutlative, and has no business being taught in a science class.
First, it wasn't a spelling contest, it was the brain fart of the century.
Second, theory has the ability to be proven or disproven. Creationism doesn't.
Third, what kind of idiot thinks the creationist museum passes for theory?
wrong again
Theories are supported or not supported. A hypothesis can not be proven or dis-proven
Damn those scientific theories.
You're absolutely correct. I refuse to believe any of them until they're fact.
Not even that one about gravity!
BTW, we have way more, but to date your sad little pissing contest has yet to move beyond kindergarten. Why waste time in a serious discussion when the level of retort is "the earth is 10,000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs! You can't prove that wrong because God made up carbon dating to prove your theories wrong!"?
Let us know when you get to the "my pet dinosaur" primer.
Admit it Snoop, wouldn't you love to saddle up?
What's Mel Gibson going to do to that lamb?
I don't like the way he's looking at it.
Here's a badass Jesus riding it on his T-Rex.
Love the coloring hints at the bottom.
Bang a gong indeed!
what an easy debate...- pointofview
I hope you didn't work too hard at that.You should try one sometime where you don't get your ass kicked, that's a lot harder.
There's a big difference.
Scientific Theory must have certain elements.
Creationism meets none of these requirements. Tell me, exactly how do you test Creationism scientifically?
Creationism isn't science. It's religion.
I've got no objections to teaching all of the scientific evidence supporting creationism. And once those two seconds have passed teachers can move on to teaching the scientifice evidence supporting evolutionary theory. The only problem is that the vast and varied amounts of scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory requires years and years of study, especially because it's continuing to accumulate at an accelerating rate.
Reality: Biological evolution is fact. Common descent is fact. The EXACT biological and environmental mechanisms are scientific theories, which DOES NOT mean hypothesis, guess or supposition.
POV, you gotta get off the KoolAid. This is the same BS I heard Rush throwing agaiinst the wall this morning, "It's the bitter-clinging-flyover country-elitist-blah blah blah", and it's custom made for you, ya sucker.
If a candidate used his experience in running a large corporation as a positive in his campaign, would you take that as an insult to people who work at small companies?
Maybe they plan to pull an Eagleton on her, and Newt Gingrich will step in and save the party.
"DISSES"?
A professional "news" organization uses the slang "disses" in regard to the Obama camp?
WTF kind of moronic crap are we going to have to put up with for the next 2 months?
In fact, the Obama campaign challenged Palin's experience,
Pot: "Hi kettle!"
Kettle: "Hi pot!"
... well, you know the rest.
But she does keep her more controversial views supressed. For instance:
*Drinks EIB Kool-Aid*
*Opens the can of sarcasm*
*Cracks open a few wingnuts*
... b-but-but Palin's had to deal with illegal immigrants from Canada and Russia!
Are you being sexist again by implying that her favorite place is in the kitchen serving food?
Bad Snoopy. Baaaaaaad Snoopy.
... well, you know the rest.
There's no comparison between Obama and Palin, none that could ever exist in a sentient world.
My god, if the desperation of this graphic is just a pointer for what is to come in the next two months things are not going to be pretty!! This has to be, in political terms, the greatest attempt at a hail mary pass ever seen! Even seasoned republican commentators are shocked by this move.
For over two months the McCain camp has been pushing it's media sources to say that Obama's inexperience is a hinderence to him being POTUS then they go and choose someone who has done the job for less than half of Obama's time as VP? And the thing that l have to say staggers me in the exreme is this:
In looking for the so called 18 million Hillary "undecideds" you choose a deeply ebedded, big oil backed,scandel linked, anti-abortion, CREATIONIST!?!?!?
Wow!! Republicans really don't have any repect for the intelligence of the American people do they!!!
Yes, you pegged it ... "desperation".
That's how the Palin pick is coming across on rightie-hatie-radio today, too. Hannity has been spewing incoherently and Rush ... well, he's just been drooling (more than usual - but he did sound sober today). Clinging to the Palin straw, they both betray how desperate they've been all along.
This is fun. Pass the popcorn?
If I didn't know any better, I'd think Rush had some sort of high school-esque crush on soon-to-be-former Gov. Palin. The two photos on his website say it all.
Nice how the anti-woman party has sent a woman to the frontlines to divert the media flak from McCain. She's a DIVERSION, people. Ignore her like McCain will if elected.
Randy