Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Sarah Palin Interviews on O’Reilly: Are They Finally Over?

Reported by Julie - November 24, 2009 -

Oh my, I’m about to enter the “No Spin” Zone -- and the long ordeal of O’Reilly-Palin interviews – I think this is part one million -- has, I believe, finally come to a close . . . sigh. Never has the word “final” meant so much. Let’s see, during the course of these interviews, O’Reilly gave Palin a forum to parrot meaningless right-wing talking points and criticize President Obama’s policies (she wants tax cuts, of course, and we’re also on the road to socialism – wow, that’s a novel right-wing concept), international relationships (her attitude is sort of “just say no”), Iran and Iraq (although, as I previously posted, I’m pretty sure she doesn’t know which is which), the “gotcha” mainstream media (represented, as always, by Katie Couric’s “gotcha” question about what she reads), and oh, gosh, I can’t condense all her wisdom in one post – let’s just say we were treated to all sorts of Palinanities. And last night (11/23/09) – drum roll, please – O’Reilly gave Palin a forum to modestly and sincerely talk about how she doesn’t have to be the “top dog” but she’s “willing to assist” in leading a populist movement. Oh, and by the way – since her speech is like a verbal chop-shop, I decided to count the number of, um, pauses throughout this interview that served to chop up her sentences into, like, three parts each. It was 17 . . . we’ll cover the grammar later. With video.

Okay, no, I can’t wait ‘til later to get to the grammar. In this less-than-five-minute interview, here are a few of the verbal masturbations which have become Palin trademarks:

“That obviously they wanting so much control over our lives;”
“I do not necessarily be the one to lead it;”
“. . . The experiences that I have gone through I believe that kind of what’s all been (pause) put together in my life . . .;”
“. . . And then if they still think that I’m controversial, and whoever that dude is, Brooks . . . .”

She’s a train wreck . . . but hey – I report, you decide.

O’Reilly came right out of the gate with a stroke-fest, saying, “You, I think, have been hammered by the media, more than any other politician except I think Richard Nixon, in my lifetime. What is it about Sarah Palin that makes some Americans – primarily on the left, but you’ve been hammered on the right too; I’m sure you’ve heard David Brooks of the New York Times say . . . roll the clip of Brooks saying, “She’s a joke. I mean, I just can’t take her seriously . . . .”

“What is it about you that brings out these strong, negative emotions?” O’Reilly asked sympathetically.

Palin chose modesty, responding, “If there is a threat at all that perhaps I represent it is that (pause) the average, everyday hard-working American, their voice is gonna be heard and their, (pause) what our voice is saying right now, is we’re telling the federal government, we’re telling the (pause) elites who think that they are, can, should, call all the shots for all the rest of us, trust us (pause) and that we know what our federal government’s role is supposed to be in our lives, it’s supposed to be minimal . . . It’s perplexing as to why, um, I would be . . . clobbered . . . .”

“You don’t know why?” O’Reilly wondered.

“Only if it is because I’m representing a normal American . . . ,” Palin responded. Which normal American would that be? Tea party protesters, perhaps, who are convinced President Obama is not US-born? Book-signing rally-goers, like “Jackie”, who, even when confronted by the fact that Sarah Palin backed the bailout, refused to believe it – and became the right’s new “Joe the Plumber?”

“Why don’t they like normal Americans,” O’Reilly asked, demonstrating the antithesis of “fair and balanced.” “Why don’t the NY Times like normal Americans or NBC News – why should they have disdain for the regular folks?”

“Because I think,” Palin responded, “That obviously they wanting so much control over (pause) our lives I think perhaps that there is a little bit of (pause) threat there that the average American is gonna rise up and our voice is gonna be (pause) louder and louder and we’re gonna tell our government, no, we expect you to work for us . . . we expect things to turn around here quite quickly even if that means that the elites are not gonna be in control any more, I’m talking about the media, I’m talking about those (pause) in bureaucracy that are calling the shots for us (pause) . . . that’s why the Tea Party movement I think is beautiful . . . perhaps that is threatening to some who (pause) don’t want to accede any control.” Accede? My, did Palin learn a new word? Oh, wait, false alarm - she used it wrong. Again. “Accede,” as defined by Dictionary.com, means “to give consent, approval, or adherence; agree; assent; to accede to a request; to accede to the terms of a contract . . . .” It doesn’t mean to “give up”, which is how she used it. SMH.

And let’s talk about the “beautiful” tea party movement – so much beauty evidenced by the signs displayed on Huffington Post (you can view them here), such as “Obama’s Plan - White Slavery,” and, “The American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama’s Ovens.” Yessir, witnessing those tea party protesters in action is a thing of beauty.

O’Reilly got down to brass tacks: “What I get from talking to you is that you, Sarah Palin, want to lead that movement, you want to lead it.”

Palin, demurely, with false modesty, said, “I (pause) do not need a title and I do not necessarily be the one to lead it . . . .” I do not necessarily be? WTF?

“No spin,” O’Reilly said gravely, “You want to lead that populist movement, I can see it in your eyes . . . .”

“I’m (pause) willing to assist,” Palin asserted. “I (pause) know in my heart and soul that the experiences (pause) that I have gone through (pause) I believe that kind of what’s all been (pause) put together in my life (pause) can benefit the average, everyday hard-working American because I have been (pause) where they are, I’m experiencing what they’re experiencing . . . I don’t have to be the top dog.”

O’Reilly asked her whether she was happier as a “regular” mayor of Wasila, where she was able to go out at night, have fun, with “no controversy.”

Palin answered with such sincerity, such modesty: “I’m a very happy person now because I’m doing what I want to do and I am as normal now as I was back then when I was the mayor of Wasila, I’m still raising my kids . . . I’m the same person today as I was then, minus, I guess, a little bit of the spotlight.” First of all, I’ve been meaning to ask: Who is, by the way, raising your kids? You’re on a book tour, lady. It might be Todd, it might be Bristol, but one person it appears not to be is you. And second – this “normal” thing you talk about “back then” . . . wasn’t that when you, as reported by the Huffington Post, “painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord?” Was that “normal” period also when you were, as reported by the Huffington Post, under the tutelage of “Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999 . . . Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war ‘contending for your faith;’ and said that Jesus ‘operated from that position of war mode.’" This is normal? Yikes.

“Well, I appreciate you coming in, Governor, and taking the fire,” O’Reilly said . . . [come on, plug the book], “And I’ve read the book and I recommend it . . . How a person like you, normal person, everyday American, can rise up . . . it’s a great American story.” Yes, it is, reads just like a fairy tale. And, like a fairy tale, it was devoid of opposing facts, such as the Anchorage residents who rallied against Palin, and the Indiana residents who recently booed Palin on her book-signing tour because she left “normal Americans” standing for hours in the rain and cold for a signed book, only to get stiffed in the end as Palin drove away in her luxury tour bus. That’s Palin, pretty much doing what she does best – quitting in the middle.

I watched avidly as Palin wrapped it up, as the interminable interview came to an end: “I want people to read my book, and, um, see my record, know what it is that I stand for and judge me on that . . . .” Oh, can we? Can we judge you on your pro-life stance, even in the case of rape or incest? Can we judge you on the fact that you tried to charge Wasila rape victims for their own rape kits? Can we judge you on the fact that you gleefully stirred up animosity during the campaign – much of it racist in nature -- and deliberately attempted to paint President Obama as some kind of alien? Can we judge you on the fact that you rarely shake hands with the truth (as documented by Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic) – and when confronted, reverse, dissemble, or apply the spin? Can we, now, judge you on the fact that your book is full of distortions and lies, and you’ll continue to knowingly throw those lies out there as truth as long as there are willing suckers – like “Jackie” – who believe you?

Palin continued, “. . . It’s about a record in local office and then statewide office that was built upon common sense solutions plugged in for the people that I was serving and never forgetting that it was a very honored position [would that be the position you quit, mid-term?] that I was given as an elected official . . . and then if they still think that I’m controversial, and whoever that dude is, Brooks . . . Read in my own words who I am, what I stand for, don’t believe the things that are made up.” We’re seeing the legendary Palin ability to distort and lie right here, live, on O’Reilly -- without a whimper of objection from Bill. Hey Palin – Brooks, as well as others, didn’t say you were controversial – he said you’re a joke and he can’t take you seriously.

Palin supporters seem to have a really hard time explaining why they’re Palin supporters – and O’Reilly did a disservice, as usual, to the viewers when he failed, in umpteen segments of his interview with Palin, to hold her feet to the fire on anything specific she would do if she were the chosen leader of the populist movement. O’Reilly failed to ask Palin how she, herself, would turn things around “quite quickly,” what specifically she means when she says the “elites” are not going to be in control (and, by the way, while O’Reilly questioned why the media had disdain for “regular folks,” he failed to ask Palin what she has against those who are educated, or, in her words, “elite”). O’Reilly failed to ask Palin why she considers herself a “normal American” who is “experiencing what they’re experiencing” when, as Governor of Alaska, she had over $2 million in assets and has made over a million dollars from her book.

I think the mystery is solved, and we saw it in the form of “Jackie.” Jackie is a 17-year-old Palin wannabe. She can’t articulate policies she believes in or doesn’t believe in. She won’t be confused with facts when her mind’s made up. In fact, as reported on the Huffington Post, “Chase Whitestead and Erick Stroll of ‘New Left Media’ set out to determine just what was it about Sarah Palin that impelled her supporters to stand in massive lines for hours for the chance to meet her at book signings. They interviewed several of her supporters who were waiting in line at a Borders bookstore in Columbus, Ohio. These fans expressed very strong support for Palin, but it was generally couched in vague generalities about her being ‘real’ and ‘strong’ and ‘fair.’ When pressed to cite specific policies that they favored or thought qualified her for the presidency, most of her fans struggled to come up with anything other than generic lines about cutting taxes and spending and the Palin staple: ‘drill, baby, drill.’ On the other hand, they were all worried that President Obama has been doing enormous damage to the country. However, again, specifics eluded them.”

So does intelligence – and, in that, they follow their leader.