The Ignorance of . . . Katie Couric!

Conlawprof Ann Althouse wants to know why Katie Couric didn't challenge Joe Biden on his confident-sounding but completely wrong -- as wrong as Sarah Palin, wronger, because she only said nothing, while what he said was WRONG -- answers to questions about Roe v. Wade, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court.  Ann wants to know whether Biden was lying, or whether he's ignorant.

Ann implies that Katie Couric wouldn't challenge him because she's biased towards the Democrats.  Could be.  Could also be that she couldn't challenge him because her ignorance of the history of major Supreme Court decisions is as profound as Sarah Palin's.  (Disclaimer:  the person writing these words admits to also being quite profoundly ignorant on these matters.)  The questions she asked Palin, which were probably concocted by committee, were about as deep as questions on "Jeopardy!"  (There I am not ignorant; I've been on "Jeopardy!" and despite the intimidating, faux-intellectual aura of the show and the anxiety about being quick enough to press the goddamn button, the questions, while very broad, are about one inch deep.)

I think Ann's post could be THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE YOU WILL READ THIS ELECTION SEASON.  DO NOT CONFUSE THE APPEARANCE OF KNOWLEDGE WITH KNOWLEDGE!  Palin is unstudied.  Biden is a bullshitter.  Let a cruelly neutral constitutional law professor question Biden and penetrate his authoritative aura.  See if Joe Biden dares to be interviewed by Ann Althouse.

Again:  just because someone acts knowledgeable, don't assume they are knowledgeable.  Hold that thought during tonight's debate.

Comments

[michael Reynolds]

Althouse's post is silly. She's whining because Biden wasn't asked advanced level questions while Palin couldn't answer questions any bright high schooler should have been able to answer.

Once again, it's Ann showing off how smart she is on law, and how ignorant on politics. She really thinks Biden should have given a dissertation on Roe? As often as he's been warned not to prattle on in Biden-ese? If he'd answered the questions in his usual endless detail Althouse and the rest of the GOP noise machine would have howled that Biden's a a pointy-headed elitist.

Palin's an ignoramus. Deal with it. I remember laughing when Simon and Pat and others warned that she would cause Democrats to flee before her mighty world-conquering power. I was right, they were wrong, she's a drag on the ticket with a huge net negative number, and a national laughingstock. She's a punchline. And no, I don't think she can repair the damage tonight. Not unless she has a cure for cancer in her purse.

The McCain campaign has kept Palin locked away, terrified of letting her out any more than necessary. They obviously are not locking her in the attic because she's such a huge asset to the campaign.

McCain is pulling out of Michigan. His polls are falling through the floor in battleground states. He's 17 points behind with women -- much further back than he was pre-Palin.

She's a woman out of her depth, and a stupid, reckless choice. You don't want to believe me? Fine. Read the exit polls in a month.

[amba]

any bright high schooler should have been able to answer "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?" LOL.

[Donna B.]

Having had several bright high-schoolers around some years ago, I can tell you that even the one who eventually became a lawyer couldn't have named a single Supreme Court case.

Not even Roe v Wade.

I just decided to call one of those bright high-schoolers that didn't go to law school (but does have an advanced degree in another field) and ask her to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade - any case.

Here's her answer: "umm... welllll.... um. (pause) Oh, I know - Marbury v Madison!

so yeah, LOL!!

Personally, I would have brought up Plessy v Ferguson.

[RW Rogers]

Althouse has a point. As Couric planned to ask the questions, Couric had a responsibility to be well-informed enough to understand the answers. She probably wasn't. As well, I imagine she didn't challenge his answer on Roe v Wade because it fit nicely with her personal opinion. Qualified or not, Palin never stood a chance. People like Michael Reynolds have done a fine job with their vituperative rumor-mongering of lies, smears, innuendo, and distortions. They need not have done so, but as Michael's behavior these past few weeks demonstrates, people like Michael revel in it and are unwilling to miss any opportunity to take the politics of personal destruction to new lows of depravity and slander. Here's hoping that the adage, "Those who live by the sword die by one," is true.

[karen]

RW-
i don't believe that at all. She is not done-- she's just getting started.

What kind of a fool picks a running mate from the field he has already defeated? Maybe i'm too green, here- but, Palin is handing Biden his own words right back at him-- so he can whipe his sorry rear.

[michael Reynolds]

That's right, Randy, it's my fault Palin can't answer questions. It's my fault she thinks proximity to Siberia is foreign policy experience. It's me and my mean, mean liberal friends who used our secret brain ray to leave her gaping like a landed trout when asked basic questions.

My liberal friends George Will, David Frum, Mike Murphy, Kathleen Parker and David Brooks and I all got together and conspired to make Palin look "unready."

You all told me she would kick ass. So far she has: McCain's. He has dropped with women since picking Palin. I gather she did well in the debate. That will put a brake on the slide. But the Palin damage has already been done and it won't be undone.

When they do the autopsy on this campaign they'll find Palin a minor net negative.

[Meade]

What has happened to Michael Reynolds? He used to be humorously disagreeable.

Bush v. Gore

[RW Rogers]

Michael, you are are an example of the problem with politics today: just one more shameless liar busy engaging in the vilest forms of the politics of personal destruction.

[michael Reynolds]

Randy:
Supporting evidence?

[Nick]

What kind of a fool picks a running mate from the field he has already defeated?

Ronald Reagan, for one.

[RW Rogers]

Michael, all the supporting evidence is here and on your own blogs.

[karen]

Yeah, Nick. I knew after i'd posted i'd probably said something quite ridiculous, but to me-- it seems that it was a foolish thing to do: pick a dude you'd debated for over a yr w/and tried to differentiate yourself from.

Palin picked up on it:0).

[amba]

Karen: that point's been raised before, and it was surely a prepared talking point.

[Nick]

There's definitely a trade-off involved in picking a primary opponent for the ticket; you hope that the gains from promoting party unity outweigh the negative effects of having to retract statements from the primary season. This year, the personality differences of Clinton and Obama excepted, the Democratic field as a whole was incredibly cohesive and far more similar than different. What little they had to say against each other can be easily brushed aside. I don't think Palin's attempt at raising this criticism was effective, for exactly that reason.

In the Reagan/Bush case, I think there was an even greater potential for backlash ("voodoo economics?") but Carter was so weak that Reagan pulled it off in spite of the risk.

(Besides, every candidate says things in the primary season that he/she later backs away from during the general election. By now, I think most people just see that as par for the course.)

[amba]

By now, I think most people just see that as par for the course.

I think so too. In fact, most things said in a campaign can be dismissed as part of a fight, just as heavyweight boxers don't run into each other on the street one day and say aggrievedly, "Hey, man, you hit me!" I was always pretty amazed at McCain being able to get over those smears about his Bangladeshi daughter and even hire the guy who came up with it. But it's understood among combatants: all's fair in war, and then the war is over. It's like opposing lawyers on a case having lunch.

[karen]

ok- if that's their reality. For me, it would be different. Yet, i know people who can get over much worse and they share the same family.

Nothing is real in politics, to me. To much head game. I take way to much to heart and i get confused easily. ~Say what you mean, don't mean what you say~.

Maybe that's why i like Palin. She seems straight up. Sure, she has her shtick and her talking points, but her intent and her words ring true. I trust her not to bullshit beyond my vision, y'know?