Hearing What We Want To Hear

During Thursday night's debate, I wasn't sure of what I heard. I turned to a couple of folks who were sitting with me in one of the local pubs; the big debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin had drawn a decent crowd (for these parts). I asked whether I had misheard Sarah Palin. "Did she just say 'Taliban?'" I inquired. One man, Bob, who operates a NH political website where I "work" as a blogger, corrected me. "She said, 'Talabani,'" he replied.

Apparently, well, not everyone who opines for a living asks rather simple questions. Perhaps since I do not opine for a living, I am in the habit of making sure I have the simplest things right. At least I try.

E.J. Dionne Jr., that esteemed but always left-leaning columnist from the Washington Post, got caught playing the charlatan on Friday's "The Diane Rehm Show," broadcast on National Public Radio. The ever-attentive James Taranto gives us an example of people hearing what isn't there, and of people unwilling to look anything less than omniscient. Read Taranto:

A hilarious example of press bias against Palin occurred last Friday on "The Diane Rehm Show," a production of Washington's WAMU-FM. The exchange between hostess Rehm, caller Tom of Norwich, Vt., and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne begins at about 46:10 of the "10:00 News Roundup":

Tom: I just wonder why not more has been made of the statement by Palin during the debate last night that "Maliki and the Talabani"--this is a quote from the transcript--"also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to the point of victory." The Talibani obviously are our absolute enemy and have been since 9/11; Maliki, our central ally in Iraq. This to me is a tremendous blunder, revealing a very superficial familiarity with these sorts of terms.

Rehm: Thanks for calling, Tom. . . . E.J.?

Dionne: I think that "superficial" is absolutely the right word for the knowledge or the lack of knowledge Palin showed yesterday. I'm glad the caller raised that one, and I suspect there is going to be a scouring of that transcript for exactly that sort of gaffe. That has echoes of some of the stuff she said to Katie Couric.

If you look at the debate transcript, however, you will see that the reference is not to "the Talabani" but to Talabani--as in Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq.

Indeed, it is quite clear Gov. Palin was talking about Talabani, and not the Taliban; because I was in the back of the pub while watching the debate I can excuse myself for mishearing her. But I at least asked someone who did not mishear -- someone who did not strike a pose but rather got things right. And I recall wondering whether what Gov. Palin said -- or DIDN'T say -- would be leapt on by the extremist blogosphere. Who would've thought that E.J. Dionne and his interlocutor TOM would have spoken with authority, or some semblance of it, on something never said?

(I do find it interesting that in the above quote Taliban is spelled both Talabani and Talibani; I have no idea why but it does strike me as a curiosity.)

Regardless. The fact is that there is an a priori assumption out there that Gov. Palin is a dope -- a lot like the dope in the White House. She's Bush with lipstick while McCain possesses Cheney's age and pugnacity, and very little else. The McCain/Palin ticket is merely a pastiche, even an inversion of the Bush/Cheney ticket. Palin HAD to have meant the Taliban precisely because TOM had never heard of Talabani AND because she is, as we all know, just plain stupid (and TOM is not).

Good thing that E.J. Dionne Jr., who is often on Ms. Rehm's show on Fridays for the "News Roundup," has instilled confidence in his readers.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.