For the first time in my life I watched the clips of the news programs on Sunday morning. (I usually watch European soccer.) I scanned between channels, so I didn’t see everything, but I was disappointed in what I saw from Obama’s surrogates. My God, Sarah Palin as a viable candidate? How hard can it be to shoot that down in a debate. A debate I can’t believe we are having, incidentally. The best surrogate, by far, was Wasserman from Florida, she seemed to get it. Other than that, I’m not so sure. Attack Palin and McCain for their lies, period. Examples of how to say it are:
- She claims to have rejected the Bridge to Nowhere. Fact: She couldn‘t have scuttled the Bridge to Nowhere because it was scuttled before she was Governor. Alaska still got the money and $73,000,000.00 of the cash has been allocated to pay for the Bridge. Beat this point into the ground. The argument is migrating to the fact she reduced Alaskan earmarks from 2006 to 2007, which is true. The debate, however, should be that she still asked for more earmarks per capita of any other state and she still lied about the Bridge to Nowhere at her initial introduction to the American public, i.e. she lied on her resume. Her most popular line "I told Congress thanks but no thanks" is bullshit. She couldn't have said "thanks but no thanks" because she was not the Governor when the project was scuttled. Call her on it. How hard is that?
- Her foreign policy experience?
A. SHE COULD NOT DEFINE THE BUSH DOCTRINE. Wasserman got it out immediately; Feinstein allowed herself to be cut off just as she was about to say it. Quit being nice. Dominate the debate, even if it becomes overbearing. Let it turn into a scream fest with the parties talking over each other, the moderator will cut in and let each side say their piece. Don’t get cut off from your main point.
B. She claims 20% of America’s energy comes from Alaska and hence she has foreign policy experience. Forgetting for a moment she is wrong by a factor of more than 5 and doesn’t know basic facts about the number one industry of her own state, it makes no sense. The logic is silly. I am a Senator from Iowa, we grow a lot of corn that is used as fuel and food, hence I have foreign policy experience. What a silly argument.
C. She has foreign relations experience because she can see Russia from her state and she traveled to Kuwait and Germany. (Ireland and Iraq don’t count because she wasn’t there.) Please. An 8th grader should be able to handle that one.
- Ask the interviewer - George S. (I can’t spell his name, sorry), Tom Browkaw, Wolf Blitzer, etc. - whether they have asked to interview Ms. Palin. And then, ask "Why hasn’t she come on? Because she is afraid of America finding out that she doesn’t know anything about the issues that matter to Americans."
- McCain’s choice of Ms. Palin exhibits bad judgment.
- If you are a surrogate, go into the interview with the idea of getting two points out. If I had been Feinstein, I’d have gotten out that Ms. Palin didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was and she lied about the Bridge to Nowhere. Simple, direct, true, and devastating.
My God, the Democrats have been handed a gift but have fallen back on their heels with woe as me. Please, please, open up the gift of Sarah Palin, it will pay dividends, big time. Make it about Sarah Palin ignorance of basic facts, John McCain’s bad judgment, and their dishonesty and recklessness. Come on. If you can't win this argument with the American people, then Democrats don't deserve to win the election.