The queen and her courtier
Palin meets a Fox News fawner
The queen and her courtier
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Rick Davis, the veteran lobbyist who runs the John McCain campaign, warned not long ago that members of the press generally will be barred from questioning Sarah Palin unless they agree to treat her with "deference" - a curious provision, suggesting that a freshman governor only 20 months removed from a small-town mayoralty somehow warrants the kind of obeisance that is typically reserved for the queen of England.
But Davis got his wish last night, when Palin summoned Sean Hannity to her side, and the Fox News host responded by virtually falling to bended knee. And so it went, in this interview, for the better part of 30 minutes. Granted, it's surely a waste of time to assail Fox News for being a propaganda arm of the GOP, just as it's wasteful to complain about urban traffic. Some things simply are as they are. Nevertheless, given the high stakes in the current campaign, it can be argued that the four candidates seeking our highest offices should at least be held to some minimal standard of scrutiny, with at least some passing interest in the craft of cross-examination.
Such was not the case last night, of course...although, for sheer entertainment value, this obsequious spectacle easily trumped the Palin sendup on Saturday Night Live.
For instance, Hannity gave her free reign to recite her handlers' latest lines, about how McCain is planning to clean up the mess on Wall Street and bring in the feds to police it. As she put it, "We've got to cure this...Through reform, absolutely. Look at the oversight that has been lax, I believe, here it's a 1930s type of regulatory regime overseeing some of these corporations. And we've got to get a more coordinated and a much more stringent oversight regime."
That would have been an opportune moment for Hannity to ask Palin, in a civil way, whether she knew what the heck she was talking about. What "1930s regulatory regime" is she criticizing? Is she referring to Republican Herbert Hoover's laissez-faire approach of the early '30s? Or is she referring to Democrat Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal federal policing of Wall Street in the late '30s? Is she sufficiently versed in history to differentiate between the two?
And, with respect to McCain, how can she square her candidate's current promise of "a much more stringent oversight regime" with the fact that he has repeatedly voted in the Senate to loosen regulation of the financial community, and that he has repeatedly told the press (the St. Petersburg Times in 2003, PBS and the Wall Street Journal in 2008) that he is opposed to federal regulation? And how about these McCain comments from 1996, when he articulated his anti-regulation philosophy: "There is very little doubt in my mind that world events, as well as national events, indicate very clearly and very strongly that the free enterprise system, unfettered by government interference and regulation, not only prospers best but provides the best services for the citizens of any nation, including this one. These regulatory shackles do little to benefit the public.”
If Hannity had brought up any of that, he could have determined for us whether Palin has been sufficiently programmed to reconcile old McCain with new McCain.
But he was too busy paying deference. He allowed Palin to stump for new McCain, with nary a question. Then he moved on, lobbing Palin a softball about the Democratic presidential candidate: "Is Senator Obama then using what happened on Wall Street this week? Is he using it for political gain? Is there a danger of a presidential candidate saying to the world that America's situation of economic crisis is the worst that we've seen in decades — which was words that he was using yesterday — is there a danger in terms of the world hearing that?" (Translation: Obama is again betraying his country for personal ambition, just as McCain routinely claims. I'd argue, however, that global creditors and investors hardly need to take their cues from Obama. They don't need him to tell them what's happening over here.)
Anyway, want to guess how Palin tackled that tough "danger" question? She said that Hannity was absolutely right about Obama.
In her inimitable words, "Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today," whereas, by contrast, McCain "can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed." (Just wondering. Did she take elocution lessons from George W. Bush?)
Not long after that exchange, Hannity indulged Palin's argument that Obama is really a stealth tax raiser. She offered this as evidence: "Barack Obama has had 94 opportunities to be on the side of the American taxpayer and 94 times he has chosen to be on the opposite. He could have either voted for tax cuts or at least not for tax increases. And 94 times he has chosen I believe the wrong position on those."
This "94 times" theme is an old lie that has been dusted off by the McCain ventriloquists and recycled via Palin. As nonpartisan fact-checkers reported in detail months ago, and as I have noted in this space, the number is meaningless. Fifty-three of the 94 "times" concerned votes on budget measures, not tax bills; by definition, budget measures don't raise or reduce anyone's taxes. Seven of the votes were for measures that would have lowered taxes for most Americans, while raising them for corporations and the affluent. Eleven of the votes were for measures that would have hiked taxes on people who earn more than $1 million, with the revenue targeted for Head Start, child nutrition, and veterans' care.
Hannity, naturally, did not mention such factual nuances, if indeed he knew of them. Instead, he waited until Palin finished reciting the lie, then signed off on it: "And that will be a key issue in the campaign."
But I'm saving the best for last. Anxious to burnish her executive credentials, he waxed lyrical about the miracles she has seemingly wrought in Alaska - a veritable fiscal paradise, as he described it: "The average citizen — if I was a resident of Alaska, you would write me a check every year for $2,069?...And then you also gave recently an extra check for $1,200?...I have to move to Alaska! New York taxes are calling me!"
The role of courtier apparently requires that no complicating information be presented. Hannity somehow omitted the fact that the residents of oil-rich Alaska enjoy a unique arrangement by which they collect dividends from the state's lavish oil royalties...and that Palin has been fortunate to reign at a time when record-high oil prices are yielding record-high oil dividend payments. The same record-high oil prices that are hurting average Americans almost everywhere else.
Hannity, in fact, was so remiss that Palin felt compelled to set him straight. She had to remind him that "the price of a barrel of oil is so high right now that state coffers are growing." Hannity was too busy geneflucting to acknowledge what she was saying. Even Palin apparently felt that she was being let off too easy, which says a lot about the servility overload at Fox News.
No doubt she'd again be greeted with deference inside the friendly confines; indeed, she said that she would love to talk "for hours" about all she hopes to accomplish as vice president. Hannity's eyes lit up at the prospect of lapsing at length into listening mode. After all, he said, "I have nothing to do."
True that.
Bon, Tom, Anyone? What no post about how unfair Polman's being? No post about what a tool Fox News is? It's my contention that there is no "liberal" media. When most of the major outlets are owned by conglomerates (GE, Viacom, et al) there is no true independent reporting going on.- Obama has returned as the front runner in the polls. The bumplet of the GOP convention has vanished as the Palin media phenom has evaporated as all emphera do. Now we are back to real issues, namely the economy (rather than faux outrage at non-insults) which McCain seems to change his stance on daily and tries to convince us that he will regulate Wall Street despite the fact that he has championed de-regulation for his 26 years as a Beltway insider.— djoseph
- It was an embarrassment. I suppose that's the kind of due dilligence he displays when researching and forming his opinions. How can anyone take him seriously?— gee1971
- Did anyone see her answer to her first unplanned question from the audience yesterday? Scary. After completely failing to answer the question (about foreign policy experience) John McCain had to step in and answer it for her. At least neither of them said she was close to Russia.— cottsie
- I think there is a real danger to the Palin/McCain ticket in keeping the queen so cloistered...Eventually, she is going to have to face a real interrogation on the Sunday morning news shows, and if this is all the preparation she is doing for it, she is going to make many, many major mistakes in the spotlight, given her demonstrated fact-challenged, reality-challenged, English-challenged performances in the friendliest of environments.— yoda
- Blah blah blah what is the point of this? Hannity is a political hack just like this author. So what. When has this author ever asked a hard question of the Thin Man? These democrats do nothing but complain. No answers just complaints. Blah blah blah. Name one thing thin man has ever accomplished?— jwad56
Comment removed.- She's had 21-point Approval rating drop in only 8 days! Unprecedented fall form grace. What people are seeing is the fact that Palin is a patholigical liar with theocratic tendencies, exhibits an intellect that makes Bush look like a genius, and practices Cheney-style abuses of power. And that's not even the worst of it. She's only half the ticket - the other half matches her repulsive qualites, ten fold, plus cannot even coherently answer questions about foreign policy - his supposed area of expertise ... How could the GOP even allow these two to get this far???!! As a Dem, I couldn't be more pleased. A November win looks to be more of a lock for Obama than it did a few weeks ago (but then again, the Repugs always create a distraction issue/event when they're about to be sunk).— rallyrally
- Does anyone really think Palin is not a joke? And that McCain didn't show his judgment and experience for what it is by picking her?— Djoko Pritza
- I knew Hannity would be a pushover for her in an interview. I was less interested in watching that than I was what the Phillies were doing. His interview with Palin was reminiscent of how the AP described Olberman's latest interview with Obama. While saying Obama had to strain to be overheard from O'Reilly shouting at him, Obama had to strain to keep a straight face while with Olberman...laughing at the softballs that were being thrown his way. Fox has its partisans toward the Republicans, MSNBC has its partisans towards the Democrats. So, as Chris Matthews says at the end of his Sunday show, "tell me something I don't know".— tom - wilmington, de
- Ya know, it really gets under my skin when the GOP bash FDR. Although Polman is being objective in not assuming Palin was referencing FDR's administration, we all know she was not criticizing a fellow Republican, even one from 75 years ago. The GOP at times seem hell-bent on destroying the various safety nets put in place decades ago. All this talk of lax oversight is simply addressing the symptoms of the economic sickness, not the cause. Palin was definitely channeling Phil Gramm and company with that line. It was a revealing look into how she views history, and why she is completely unprepared to run anything, let alone our country.— Logathis
- Well, she accepted the spot when McCain/Rove selected her knowing what her record is, and she wasn't vetted by the campaign. The media had to do the vetting and then the campaign tried a "blame the media/hide her away" tactic that only created more research/fact-checking that exposed the record of lies, and corruption and extremist views and policies. They avoided campaigning on the issues bcause they have nothing to offer - no plans, no solutions, just LIES on top of LIES. America is tired of the last 8 years of failed policies and they're going to elect Obama - dare I predict, overwhelmingly. If you think otherwise, then you have no idea how the McCain reaction to the Wall Street crisis this week has basically pulled the plug on his electability. And the distrubing behavior just keeps on going (Tues, Wed, today) - I get the feeling he has given up any real notion of being able to win the election.— eddie_spaghetti
- I am surprised at the liberals on this site posting that Palin abused her power to settle a personal score before the final report on "troopergate" is issued. Shouldn't we wait for all the facts to come out before passing judgement? In this country, isn't a person innocent until proven guilty? Where is the liberal open mindedness?— tom - wilmington, de
- It seems the Palin luster is wearing thin on the moderates and independant voters. Imagine stating that her foreign policy credentials is that she lives next to Russia !!!! That's asinine junk that anyone with 1/2 a brain should be embarressed to utter. Now tell me again - was she vetted and what the hell are her qualifications for the Vice Presidency ???— ModerateMarge
- Once again McCain's genius is showing. How many weeks is everyone going to talk about this? No one is going to vote for or against McCain because of Palin? It's pretty sad when your own candidate is so weak you have to incessantly attack the other side's #2.— jwad56
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
