PDA

View Full Version : Fox News: Palin didn't know Africa is a continent



KristiB
11-06-2008, 04:21 AM
I'm glad reporters-especially Fox is reporting all this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

Now that the 2008 election is over, reporters are spilling all the juiciest, and previously off the record, gossip from the campaign trail. Much of it is about the infighting between Palin and McCain's staff, as Newsweek's treasure trove of post-election gossip reveals. However, perhaps one of the most astounding and previously unknown tidbits about Sarah Palin has to do with her already dubious grasp of geography. According to Fox News Chief White House Correspondent Carl Cameron, there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked "a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency," in part because she didn't know which countries were in NAFTA, and she "didn't understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself."

Jazzmatazz49
11-06-2008, 04:54 AM
Fox? I didn't know anyone on this board watched Fox News...;)

KristiB
11-06-2008, 04:58 AM
Republican BF likes it although I've turned him on to BBCA:)

Melman
11-06-2008, 05:21 AM
I've seen links to the Fox/Palin report on HuffingtonPost and a couple of other political blogs. No need to watch Fox. :D

Jazzmatazz49
11-06-2008, 05:23 AM
I do watch Fox. I switch between Fox and CNN. Fox was doing a pretty hardcore expose of the shenanigans in McCain's campaign last night, as KristiB posted. It sounded worse than the teacher's lounge at my school!

blazedog
11-06-2008, 05:33 AM
Fox as always has a hidden agenda.

Based on what I saw VERY briefly this morning it appears that they are now using it to prove the dysfunctionality of McCain's campaign and spinning it as McCain operatives trying to point the finger at Palin.

I was pretty shocked when I saw the video of O'Reilly last night who brushed her lack of knowledge aside by stating that she could be tutored. Does someone actually want a leader who is so devoid of knowledge that she/he has to be taught rudiments so that he/she can have the APPEARANCE of knowledge.

If one doesn't know Africa is a continent or what countries are in North America, what other broad swaths of knowledge are lacking -- and without knowledge, how does one form a coherent world view -- and opinions.

Jazzmatazz49
11-06-2008, 05:35 AM
Fox as always has a hidden agenda.


As do all of the networks.

blazedog
11-06-2008, 05:41 AM
As do all of the networks.

Sorry but most major news networks do NOT bias their news in the same way that Fox does. Fox has doctored photos, put inflammatory chyrons on screen (to cite the most blatant examples).

SDMomChef
11-06-2008, 08:26 AM
Sorry but most major news networks do NOT bias their news in the same way that Fox does. Fox has doctored photos, put inflammatory chyrons on screen (to cite the most blatant examples).


I agree - I don't think CNN or the other major networks has a bias. MSNB does have a bias, but the difference is that I don't believe that Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow try to present their shows as "news" - it is clearly commentary.

stefania4
11-06-2008, 08:30 AM
If Palin's going to run for higher office again, she's going to need Faux News on her side.

blazedog
11-06-2008, 08:33 AM
I agree - I don't think CNN or the other major networks has a bias. MSNB does have a bias, but the difference is that I don't believe that Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow try to present their shows as "news" - it is clearly commentary.

Another example by Hannity

From the October 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Let me say one thing as we close out the segment here. You know what, if you don't -- if you're not honest with the American people -- I, for example, I don't think -- it's impossible for him [Obama] to follow through on spending a trillion new dollars as he's promised, and give welfare payments to 40 percent of the population that doesn't pay taxes, and to nationalize our health care. It's -- these are false promises --


These are outright lies - they aren't even opinions based on accurate information -- to me that is a HUGE difference.

And the use of the term welfare (aside from being accurate) is a clear example of what is called "dog whistle" politics.

And again stressing the complete misrepresentation of the substantive issues.

blazedog
11-06-2008, 08:39 AM
And putting it in perspective -- doesn't this put all of McCain's malarkey about country first into the trash. He knew this woman didn't have a clue and yet he repeatedly said how qualified she was to take over the Presidency.

It was obvious that she was out of her depth (at least to blazedog and the other 60% of the Americans as indicated by polls:p) but the utter cynicism of McCain and his campaign operatives to continue to LIE to the American public regarding their OWN opinion of her is astounding.

misskitty100
11-06-2008, 09:41 AM
***Test****

(just ignore this post)

Gumbeaux
11-06-2008, 09:45 AM
.....there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked "a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency," in part because she didn't know which countries were in NAFTA.......

It is astonishing that she doesn't know at least two. She lives in one of the countries and Alaska shares a border with Canada that is double the size of any other state.

blazedog
11-06-2008, 10:08 AM
It is astonishing that she doesn't know at least two. She lives in one of the countries and Alaska shares a border with Canada that is double the size of any other state.

And for which you claimed her foreign policy expertise :)

From the Couric interview

Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

And one last time - the Boris and Vlad video. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9V_aOCga0

newcook
11-06-2008, 10:26 AM
One thing that concerns me is that the conservative right for the most part does not believe women should be in leadership. So what was the motive behind choosing her? Is there hypocrisy here?

testkitchen45
11-06-2008, 10:41 AM
One thing that concerns me is that the conservative right for the most part does not believe women should be in leadership. So what was the motive behind choosing her? Is there hypocrisy here?

FWIW, even living in a very conservative area, I have never heard this view with regard to the wide world outside a very narrow religious application (you will rarely see a conservative church with women in a position to teach men, for example). In the big world of politics, corporate ownership/leadership, community involvement (even organizing ;)), and many other fields, I've never heard that women can't or shouldn't hold equal resposibility to men or leadership over men; in fact, I've instead heard very positive and supportive views of treating women as intellectually equal. :) So, no hypocrisy.

blazedog
11-06-2008, 10:50 AM
It appears that evangelicals are split in terms of whether a woman (especially one with children) should be a "leader" outside the world.

It does seem odd that one can reconcile an inability to be equal in the sphere of religion or the home and yet have that person lead others -- especially in terms of politics. If a woman is supposed to "submit", does that mean that the First Dude's (for example) stance on issues would be dispositive.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-evangelical1-2008oct01,0,7023768.story

Some say that biblical restrictions on women's leadership apply to church and home, not the secular world -- clearing the way for a woman to run the nation but not a congregation. And so long as Palin's husband, Todd, approves, they say, her career conforms with teachings on wifely duties.

But to others, this view contradicts biblical teaching.

"The Palin selection is the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least," said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based ministry. "The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities -- of moms being at home with young children, of moms being helpers to their husbands, the priority of being keepers of the home."

Voddie Baucham, a Texas pastor who has criticized the Palin selection as anti-family in a series of blogs, said that the overwhelming evangelical support demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice biblical principles for politics. "Evangelicalism has lost its biblical perspective and its prophetic voice," Baucham wrote. "Men who should be standing guard as the conscience of the country are instead falling in line with the feminist agenda and calling a family tragedy . . . a shining example of family values."

In an interview, Baucham said the hundreds of responses he's received are running 20 to 1 in his favor. But he said he has also been castigated for "breaking ranks" by some, who argue the election is too important to raise divisive issues.

He and other like-minded pastors disagree. "It's more important for us to truthfully represent the priorities of Scripture than it is for us to win an election," Phillips said.

Palin may have taken center stage at the moment, but the evangelical Christian world has been buffeted for years by growing tensions between those who support egalitarian roles for men and women and those who promote "complementarianism." That's the view that God values men and women equally but granted them distinctly different roles.

Some of the debate centers on whether the Bible allows women to serve as civil leaders. Vision Forum leaders argue that it does not. They cite passages in Genesis, Isaiah, Ephesians and elsewhere that they say establishes male headship over women and are critical of female leadership.