How Come the Media Never Asks Sarah Palin About Her Accomplishments?

Would seem a rather obvious question, and one they ask Obama. Sure, dig into her beliefs and try to "get" her on specific questions, but, um, shouldn't the candidate also be afforded the chance to speak of her accomplishments?

They deliberately avoid this subject -- Katie Couric, for example, demanded to know if Palin had met with Russian officials or interacted with them in a serious way. (Actually, Palin kinda-sorta had, through trade missions, but whatever.)

What didn't Katie ask? If Palin had conducted negotiations with Canadian officials on a $40 billion international deal to build a pipeline. Why didn't Katie ask? Because she knew the answer was "Yes," and didn't want to afford Palin the chance to say so.

As Beldar notes in this excellent post, Palin may have been in office only 22 months, but in that time she's gotten more done that Joe Biden has in 26 years.

What exactly has Biden done? The only thing I hear people call attention to is getting a violence-against-women act passed. Let's assume that's a good bill.

That's what this guy has? In 26 fucking years he was able to persuade his fellow senators that violence against women is a bad thing?

Not 26 Years: 36 years.

In thirty six years he got a violence against women bill passed, substantial portions of which were declared unconstitutional.

(Which parts? I don't know and I'm not going to bother looking it up. If I had to guess, Biden probably proposed that female victims of violence be allowed to testify against their abusers via closed circuit TV, as has been allowed in child abuse cases.... but not without strong constitutional objections, as such measures arguably violate the Confrontation Clause, giving the defendant the right to confront -- face -- his accuser in open court, not transmitted over a tv cable from another room. Again, just a guess. As applied to children, such measures just barely got past the court, with constitutional purists like Scalia arguing forcefully against the measure's permissibility.

Which is why I love Scalia. He's a law and order guy. He, unlike Anthony Kennedy, thinks the Constitution allows child rapists to be put to death, because, um, it does. But he goes where the Constitution takes him, not where his personal policy instincts might take him.

I thought that issue -- CCTV for child victims of rape -- was a very tough one. And I can't imagine Scalia was happy the Constitution required defendants be afforded the right to try to intimidate their victims by eyefucking them as they testify. But it does seem to be what the words of the Constitution actually require.)

Nope: It was about allowing victims of violence to sue their attackers in federal court.

This is what I don't understand about me. Check it out: My guess, which was intended to avoid work, actually cost me more time as I fleshed out my guess. And now I have to revisit the guess, and note I was wrong.

So how much time did I save? None at all. I cost myself time. Instead of guessing, I could have done a minute-long google search.

But I didn't.

And here's thing: I will continue doing this. Because I'm a fucking moron.

Thanks to cincyc.

posted by Ace at 02:43 PM

| Access Comments