*
Sarah Palin talked -- or at least tried to talk -- about immigration on Friday's "Factor" program on Fox News. Trouble is, host Bill O'Reilly, who is a pompous, self-absorbed jerk, wouldn't shut up long enough for her to get even a few complete sentences out. He kept interrupting:
- JP
I just watched this segment. O'Reilly is a pompous ass! He's been steadily pushing me away from his audience - I think he's finally done it! He offers nothing of real value. I wouldn't blame Mrs. Palin if she refused to go on his program ever again. The only plus is that she raises his ratings...
ReplyDeleteJosh, I absolutely detest O'Reilly for all of the above reasons you noted: pompous; vain; contrived-to-the-hilt; and rife with false humility. I was annoyed because he kept interrupting Palin beyond all call of duty because ~he~ (The 'Great' O'Reilly) wants to deliberately show that he shows no special favor to Palin, and in doing so, goes overboard and treats her with disrespect, which defeats and negates his whole smug point. I truly would love to see the man move to CNN, or perhaps do a one-man Broadway cabaret act. With O'Reilly, it's not about conservatism, it's about O'REILLY.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, I must admit that I was very disappointed in Sarah's answer to the direct "What would you do after the border was secure?" query. A concrete response would have shut the interrupting O'Reilly up. I champion Sarah's every move, because she's making good ones, but when it's obvious that she is going to be asked an obvious question, she needs to stop dancing around with vague replies and, frankly, evading a direct answer to a big question. If she is to present herself as presidential (which I totally believe she is), then she needs to start letting America know that she is READY to respond hypothetically, and in concrete, direct, unapologetic fashion to these questions.
For example, I wondered why she could not simply have said something along these lines:
"Bill, this is just one idea, but it's my idea and I'm going to throw it out there just for now. Americans want a less intrusive federal government, so we'll give it to them on the immigration issue, too. After our federal gov does its job under my hypothetical administration and borders are secure, let our wonderful states decide how they want to handle the processing and deportation of illegals as each state sees fit, at least until some major reform is reached on a federal level. If some states and cities want to be "sanctuary" states, let them go for it. But let's allow states who want to enforce proper immigration law to create jobs and manpower to either send illegals back to their point of origin or send them off to one of these sanctuary states, and if states like California want to keep throwing billions and billions of dollars into the sewer on behalf of even greater numbers of illegals, be our guest."
Of course, it's all more complicated, and we all know that, but Sarah (bless her amazing, awesome heart), needs to start thinking about policy, even if she isn't going to run as POTUS. If she isn't going to run, then she has nothing to lose by taking a strong stand, and if she is going to run, she has much to lose by ~not~ starting to hint at some hardline specific policy.
What do you think? Again, O'Reilly is a turd.
Whatever it takes. I feel that as President she could order an exponential increase in the number of Border Patrol agents, as they can carry weapons to defend themselves and the troops should not. There will be a strong response from the drug cartels, and a show of strength will even the odds. To secure the southern border of the United States we have to be prepared for a war with the criminals who are even now invading our country.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't disagree with Ian Ramsom more. She said exactly what I was hoping she would say, that those who arrived here illegally will not be just handed a free path to citizenship. She did state that some work opportunities may be provided to them, but they will still need to go through the legal process. Thank you Gov Palin for taking this strong stand.
ReplyDeleteSome over at C4P are beside themselves over this interview, calling it a trainwreck, and spouting gloom and doom.
ReplyDeleteI heard her say, secure the border with as many troops as needed, require illegals to register, no amnesty, don't provide jobs to illegals when Americans are unemployed, don't reward illegal activity. The interview was way too short, only about 5 or 6 minutes, and half of that was BOR asking a question, and then talking over her. If you want to have a sensible interview about illegal immigration, you have to first have a sensable interviewer. Sometimes BOR is right to badger people who don't address the question, but Palin WAS addressing the question,she should have been allowed to talk without him talking over her.
How I understood her rudely interrupted answer:
ReplyDeleteStep one first. As many as needed, and just DO it and stop talking about it.
Then assess. Then decide and DO step two.
If he’s truly “Fair and Balanced” then he’ll ask Presidential hypotheticals of the other possible Presidential candidates.
Ian, I usually very much appreciate your commentary, but to suggest that Sarah Palin must "begin" to think about "policy" does her a tremendous injustice, in my view. I found "Going Rogue" loaded with "policy", most of her Facebook comments reflect her policy views and this "interview" with BOR expressed her policy views on immigration.
ReplyDeleteAs Greg has stated above, I, too, heard her say;
1. Secure the border with as many troops as needed,
2. Require illegals to register (no amnesty),
3. Don't provide jobs to illegals when Americans are unemployed, and
4. Don't reward illegal activity.
These are clear statements of policy. Perhaps what you are looking for is the implementation plan.
I believe Bill is doing her a favor by being tough on her as she has to handle tough interviews, Bill can be very tough, and she did great.
ReplyDeleteBeing tough is one thing. Asking her questions and rudely interrupting her every time she tries to answer is quite another.
ReplyDeleteO'Reilly talked more (longer) than Gov. Palin did during the segment. He's a lousy interviewer who is too self-absorbed to allow his guests to speak.
- JP
I very much see everyone's point on this one; I was gnashing my teeth at O'Reilly's over-the-top crap, but I ~did~ indeed think: "Hey, she needs to be able to battle, and the best way to battle is through saying something strong and direct."
ReplyDeleteBeg to differ, but Sarah was anything but strong strong and direct against O'Reilly. Maybe she didn't expect her Fox cohort to rough-her-up, but she needs to start thinking like that. Moreover, once it became apparent that he was treating her like crap, why didn't she simply say, "Shut your mouth for a minute, Bill! Here's what I would do ..."
I love Sarah's Facebook missives, but she needs to project that sort of clarity in a tough interview scramble, at the drop of a hat. Her reply to the pesky O'Reilly was meek and, frankly, pedestrian. How do I know? Because I practically worship Sarah and I thought it her response was poor, and I watched the show with a left-ish libertarian friend who genuinely likes Sarah in probably the most "fair and balanced" manner possible (neither too smitten with her nor too quick to critique her) and she said, "Sarah needed to put a clear idea out against him. She was either cowering or unwilling to interrupt the ass and say, this is my point one, this is my point two..."
I agreed with my friend. I agree also that O'Reilly was a boob, but if Sarah can't say:
"HEY, Bill! Shut up. Here's my direct answer. Point one. Boom. Point two. Pow."
The fact is that she didn't have a direct answer. Next time, I imagine she'll perhaps think of something. No, that was a really paltry show by our wonderful Sarah (no matter how annoying O'Reilly is). Luckily, this interview was not carried out by someone on CNN (where, ironically, they would probably have given her more room to wiggle on the answer).
But if she had been on CNN, what would she have said, specifically? We don't know.
"No free pass!"
"Jobs for legal immigrants first!"
And O'Reilly practically put even those words in her mouth. She came across as weak and non-specific. Think about how Jan Brewer would have answered, i.e. "I know that our state is going to do what the federal government won't do and they can sue themselves and save everybody the trouble." Or: "Once the border is secure, we are going to fact-check employers everywhere for their hiring practices, then we are going to hire as many Arizonans as possible to clean up our state and facilitate the swift deportation of illegals whenever and wherever we can do so."
I love Sarah and want to see her prepared to make a run in 2012. O'Reilly NEEDS to be rough on her, because it is not going to get easier if she is thinking of a run.
I want the best for her and, far more importantly, I want the best for us.
Much love and respect to our amazing Sarah and to Josh and everyone who is part of this excellent blog.
Sarah did fine.
ReplyDeleteWhat was to disagree with in what Sarah said?
Gov. Palin said her first priority would be to secure the border.
She would require illegal immigrants already here to register with the federal government. Those who did not comply would be deported if caught. and that American citizens should be given first priority for job hiring.
Clear enough for one and a half minutes?
How much more specific can one be in a four minute interview, especially if the host wants to argue constantly.
Sarah got her point across in the few sentences she could get out in a four minute interview for which Oreilly spoke for two and a half minutes
He didn't let her finish giving more specifics .
Had O’Reilly stopped interrupting and yelling at her and allowed her to answer his question we would actually have heard more what she had to say.
True points, but I still think he would have shut up if she had come out of the box with a stronger, more direct and concrete reply to the "what would you ~after securing the border?" no-brainer. That was the whole point--anyone can say "I would secure the border" but everyone is dancing around the "what about after the border is secure" issue. People want to hear some hard-core ideas about that.
ReplyDeleteShe's getting better at this stuff, though.