Who Really Lost the Debate Between Palin and Biden?


By: Jim Byrd

The Joe Biden and Sarah Palin debate, when completed, presented a mathematical anomaly–there were two debaters, yet innumerable losers.

During the debate on Thursday evening, two people had to be languishing in a state of bewilderment as to who this woman is debating Biden. The two hapless malefactors were Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. Two counterfeit journalists, who had the opportunity to not only learn who Sarah Palin is, but to present Sarah Palin’s relevant views to America. They both failed, spectacularly.

Gibson, being the smarter of the two, is a liberal hack masquerading as a journalist, as his inane questions and his statement after his interview with Palin, attests: “We’re not going to make it absolutely equal because she’s new on the scene, so simply … it’s important to expose her, more so than Joe Biden.”

The Katie Couric interview was a study of intellectual incompetence guided by bankrupt ideology. Unfortunately, this is the format that contemporary journalism has evolved into. How well could anyone be expected to perform in an interview, with opposing principles, while flailing against the vortex of ignorance that Katie Couric has wielded since ascending to the mantle of a journalist’s position at CBS? Palin has taken much criticism since the Couric interview for coming across as unintelligent and glaringly unprepared to assume the role of Vice President. It would be a challenge of monumental proportions for anyone with a world renowned intellect in a certain field, to sit in front of Katie Couric, while being belabored with questions of absolute irrelevancy, and fundamental sectarian bias, in regard to the intellect’s expertise, and not appear to be in a disoriented stupor. At this sport, Couric is a fortuitous genius.

A sampling of Couric’s queries:
In regard to the 700 billion dollar bailout, “If this doesn’t pass, do you think there’s a risk of another Great Depression?” Palin cannot, nor should she be able to answer this question because neither Couric, McCain, Obama, Biden, the entire Congress–who caused it no less, can answer this question with any legitimacy. Another series of questions on the same subject: “Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes? So you haven’t decided whether you will support it or not? What are the pros and cons of it do you think?” The irony presented by this question concerning the Great Depression, is raw stupidity. In an earlier interview Couric conducted with Joe Biden, he said in reference to the current Wall Street situation: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened’.” Not only did the inept Couric not realize who the president was during the stock market crash of 1929 (it was Hoover and FDR was governor of New York), she failed to realize the fact that there were no televisions in 1929–an industry where she has spent her entire career.

Couric brought up the Supreme Court and the Roe v. Wade decision. Part of the exchange:

COURIC: Do you think there’s an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.

COURIC: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

PALIN: I do. And I believe that –individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.

Couric at this point was traveling a road best left untraveled with her limited intellect. Couric pressed Palin for other decisions that she disagreed with, and Palin came up justifiably blank. Palin is not formally educated in the law, she is the Governor of Alaska, she has been in national politics for 5 weeks- why would anyone expect her to be familiar with Supreme Court decisions? What would be her motivation to study cases if they did not directly affect the state of Alaska? Couric, with this gotcha moment, failed to connect the dots of Supreme Court decisions, and an individual’s ideology and capacity for the vice-presidency. She failed to connect the dots because there is no connection. A person’s understanding of the Constitution will be the deciding factor of whether or not they agree with a Supreme Court decision. Period! Perhaps the relevancy of that question concerning the capacity of an individual serving as Vice President, or the President, would best be tested if hypothetically applied to the first couple of presidents of the United States.

Couric headed in another direction of irrelevancy concerning Palin and the office of the Vice President: While pressing Palin for specific examples of McCain’s congressional record: “He’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.” After not receiving a specific answer from Palin, Couric pressed on with: “I’m just going to ask you one more time – not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.” Palin has been on the national political scene for five weeks. One should hope that in that duration, she was not immersed in the history of John McCain, but rather a more substantial diet of pertinent intelligence concerning the office of the Vice President, and the Presidency if the occasion arose.

Another perspective on Palin’s poor performance with the Gibson and Couric interview would be purely anecdotal, but nonetheless accurate. A sporting event will suffice as analogical evidence as to how one’s performance can either be elevated or depressed by one’s opponent. Compete against an opponent of greater skill, and one’s performance will rise to the occasion, compete against an opponent of lesser skill, and one’s performance will generally depress to an equating performance. It is not the fact that Palin’s performance was poor, she never elevated past the performance of Gibson or Couric.

The preceding was a small sampling of the multi-hour, mindless abyss to which Couric subjected the American people to, that left more people wondering who Sarah Palin is than before the interview.

An assorted list of other losers from the debate:
Gwen Ifill, for going into the debate with less than zero credibility for not disclosing she has a pro-Obama book being released on inauguration day, and for her ridiculous remarks after the debate saying that Palin blew her off during the debate by not heeding her directions to answer the questions. To think that Palin, at some point, would not resort to circumventing the bias of another left wing sycophant, such as Ifill, after being subjected to Couric and Gibson, is pretty naive of Ifill.

The John McCain campaign, for facilitating and allowing Palin to be interviewed by the likes of Gibson and Couric. There are other journalists who are in the employment of the main stream media that, while being liberal, are still professional journalists and would have conducted themselves accordingly with a legitimate line of questions during a Palin interview.

Joe Biden, for committing 14 lies (verified by Fact Check and the Center for American Studies), in rebuttal to Palin’s statements in regard to either himself or Obama.

The Main Stream Media, and the comically dimwitted and inept left wing blogosphere for creating such a toxic, and hostile environment for Palin to operate in, and their continued spreading of debunked lies about her only because they do not agree with her politics.

So who actually won the debate? If an individual knew absolutely nothing of Sarah Palin or Joe Biden, were apolitical and completely unbiased, after watching the debate, their unbiased observation would more than likely have been to determine it was an evenly matched contest with no absolute clear winner. Taking that into consideration, with Sarah Palin laden with the burden of two nationally televised, faux interviews, a certifiably biased moderator, the persistent bombardment of lies, hate, and manipulation by the major news media, Joe Biden’s rebuttals being verifiable lies, and his 30 years in the national political arena compared to her 5 weeks, Palin won by a landslide.

About The Author Jim Byrd:
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.
Website:http://www.jimbyrd.com

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.