Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric last week made me … happy. But the McCain-Palin campaign appears nonplussed with the post-interview spin.
Maybe the campaign feels pressured by the latest “global electoral college poll.”
Regardless, the campaign is set to “re-introduce” Sarah Palin. Palin, and McCain this time, sat down with Katie Couric again. (I guess Mel B was unavailable.) The new interview that will air sometime after the debate.
The McCain-Palin ticket is apparently pumped about how the new interview went. They want CBS to air the full interview, unedited. But the campaign is mad that CBS leaked a snippet of last week’s Couric interview that did not air:
Of concern to McCain’s campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin’s interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.
The Palin aide, after first noting how “infuriating” it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.
I’ll pause for criticisms about the liberal media, northeastern elites, and my mother.
More after the jump.
Okay. But to speak plainly, is it really too much to ask that the person within a heartbeat of naming the next Supreme Court Justice (alright, two heartbeats) be able to name at least a few important decisions? Even Bush the Younger was able to do better than that. Remember the 2004 Presidential debate, in which Bush said:
I wouldn’t pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn’t be said in a school because it had the words “under God” in it. I think that’s an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we’re all — you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America.
Come on. Turning Dred Scott into an example of an overactive liberal Court is the highest form of legal sophistry!
At the very least, shouldn’t Palin have the legal knowledge of George W. Bush? We’ll have to wait and see if she gets a word in this Thursday, or if she just sits back while Biden threatens to kill Barack Obama.
The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate [The Commission On Presidential Debates]