Are we going to see a gratuitous name-dropping of SCOTUS cases and periodicals from Palin on Thurs.?

[jpgray]

Likely with little basic sentence structure or coherent thought to hold them together? This is going to be the popcorn debate, folks. Unless this is some vast right-wing conspiracy, we've reached so far below the bottom of the barrel in terms of competence that we're now amongst the bilge-water and the rats.

The worst thing about this? All those early beauty pageant comparisons now seem more -charitable- than sexist. And that's so fucking sad for any female candidate that I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

[mitchum]

"Kramer Vs Kramer!"

[Bicoastal]

3. Dats where all dose black people sued Michael Richards, right?

[BlooInBloo]

1. It's unlikely she can hold more than 3 in her head with a 66% chance of not screwing them up.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

2. She's going to mix them all up.

Miranda v. Loving, Roe v. Madison, Griswold v. Board of Education...

[cottonseed]

8. I vote for this happening.

And we all know it will!

[Solomon]

19. If it does it will really prove she's an idiot.

I predict a staredown from the Stuntster in his next debate with Obama.

[Fenris]

4. Conway v. Twitty.

[jpgray]

5. Gamera v. Guiron

[Fenris]

11. Used as precedent in the case of Alien v. Predator!

[jpgray]

22. Eugene V Debs! No wait...

:rofl:

[frogcycle]

9. Beam vs Daniels

[jpgray]

12. Molly v Denum.

[mitchum]

6. "Ali Vs Frazier!"

[jpgray]

10. Health care reform and--Oh! It's all about the Judge Dredd case

(and no, I have never seen this movie)

[Fenris]

13. I have seen it many times, and it is every bit as awful as the poster implies.

[jpgray]

15. We can't blink. We can't be seen--our country--as not having a jaw... you don't blink

An apt distillation of the case/movie in question? :D

[Fenris]

20. Disturbingly apt.

:D

[frogcycle]

7. it is too risky, but I love the idea of

Joe setting her up. Make up some story - a fictitious SCOTUS decision, or maybe a non-existent small country in the Balkans, and take a stand on it that sounds "liberal." Let her come back attacking him on it:
"My fellow Americans, I remember well when Senator Biden voted to let Canuckistan into NATO. I was in fourth grade, and I knew THEN that he would take this country in the wrong direction!"



Then Joe comes back with "of course Gwen, you know there is no Canuckistan. I made that part up. And gives that big grin, not once glancing to see what Spiro Igloo is doing.

:rofl:

[mitchum]

18. Should we preemptively attack Freedonia?

[jpgray]

21. Remember, we're fighting for this woman's honour, which is probably more than she ever did.

[mitchum]

23. Nicely done

:)

[jpgray]

24. That movie rules. We're being very unfair to Margaret Dumont however

:P

[blondeatlast]

14. TimeNewsweek then tantamount to BrownvBoardofEducation--doncha know...

Of course we'll hear a lot of that but it won't make a lick of sense.

[Buck Rabbit]

16. yes, name dropping and factoids

It will sound like a game of Trival Pursuit including lots of snark and trash talking.

[jpgray]

17. How juvenile, just absolutely puerile was the "Yeah I think I heard thyat guy...

"...IN THE SECOND GRADE!" with reference to Biden?

(insert confused yet supremely confident applause from her stump speech audience)

[mitchum]

25. The fact that she is merely a half ass smart ass is one of the many things...

that really pisses me off about the woman.
They even over inflate her snark abilities. She is utterly incompetent.

[blondeatlast]

33. "Half assed smart ass." Suits her perfectly! nt

[torbird]

26. Good idea, but too risky

She will screw up, and that would be way worse.

I think they have to just let her go with whatever she has. Really, whatever it is. I honestly don't think anyone knows what it is.

The strategy seems clear enough -- get her to talk about Alaska, maybe be defensive like she was tonight, it makes it look like she's sticking up for her home state and that she knows something about it.

Above all, I predict that (like refusing to name a court case or a newspaper) Palin will avoid specifics at all costs. As long as she limits herself to generalities and vague statements, she cannot be fact-checked.

(The reason she didn't name a newspaper tonight is because she has learned that anything specific she says will be turned against her)

[frogcycle]

27. yes, she's as frozen as the credit markets

She knows that whatever she says will backfire


She could have tossed out the names of a couple of magazines and newspapers, but the right would have savaged her if she said Time or Newsweek or the NYT, and if she said the Wasila Watchdog or whatever it is, she'd look like a yokel.

Not the least bit sorry for her, because she walked into this position with eyes wide open, but she is truly now in a no-win situation. Her best hope is to just zip her lip, tread water until the election, then go back to Alaska and try to be forgotten.

[Marsala]

29. No, it was because she DOESN'T READ

and apparently doesn't think on her feet well enough to lie effectively. She could have just said that she uses the Internet to keep up with news. How 21st century! How "with it"! But she didn't.

[no_hypocrisy]

30. Bad idea.

Gwen Ifel will develop Palin's answer by asking about particular reporters and/or columnists and their themes and then the holdings of particular Supreme Court cases, if not their dissents.

I've tried "fudging" in law school and you only look foolish and ignorant unless you are prepared.

[terrya]

28. Rocky Balboa vs...that other guy!

She's a fighter, remember. Lipstick on the pitbull or pig or what fucking ever.

I agree completely with your comments. We really are venturing into "Idiocracy" territory now with this woman. And it is a sad, sad commentary on female candidates. Competent, very smart women such as a Madeline Albright...that they are eclipsed by the likes of this former beauty queen.

[Monk06]

31. America needs more maps

[Raineyb]

32. Probably not. This woman is the Kelly Bundy of politics

If you cram too much into her head and it gets full for each new fact introduced after the threshold an old fact falls out.

Regards