Meticulously prepped, as always, by her sparkling campaign staff, bored socialite Sue Lowden went on TV and demonstrated yet again those qualities -- the command of issues, the ability to think quickly on her feet, the empathy -- that have done so much to define her Senate bid.
Appearing on Jon Ralston's show, Lowden was asked if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shouldn't apply to bidness, like Ayn Rand Paul suggests. Lowden refused to answer, characterizing Ralston's line of inquiry as a "gotcha" question.
Then, shortly after the program, Lowden's brilliant campaign staff wrote some words that Lowden should have said, pretended they were hers and sent them to Ralston. In that statement, "Lowden" clarified that she "strongly supports" the Civil Rights Act, including the parts of it that extend "to my private business and all others."
Now, before you start with the snarky snickering and wondering why she couldn't have just said that on the TV -- after all, as the statement makes clear, Lowden is an incredibly competent and important industry titan with first-hand knowledge of the Civil Rights Act! -- relax. It is perfectly understandable that her advisers hadn't prepared her for the question.
After all, it was only the second time this week that she had been asked about it. The first time, Lowden deftly handled the question by flat out hanging up on the reporter. So her crack campaign staff must have felt awfully confident that the candidate needed no more coaching on the subject. Seriously, why bother? Lowden clearly had the issue down cold.
But even the most articulate, thoughtful and policy-savvy candidates can occasionally get thrown off their game by an unexpected question on an obscure or peripheral issue of the sort that hasn't received much attention.
For instance, who would ever expect that a candidate for the United States Senate might be asked a question about global warming?
Alas, Ralston brought it up anyway. Specifically, he noted that Sharron Angle called global warming "fraudulent science" in the New York Times this week, and asked Lowden if she agreed with the woman who threatens to rob her of the GOP Senate nomination. (In that NYT story, Lowden reportedly "did not answer a question about whether she believes climate change is occurring.")
Here, then, unedited and in its entirety, is Sue Lowden's carefully considered opinion on global warming:
Lowden: I believe that it's exaggerated.
Ralston: Why do you say that? What's your evidence for it being exaggerated?
Lowden (nose aloft): Well what's your evidence for it happening?
Ralston: There's plenty of things -- you have the National Academy of Sciences, you have all kinds of people who say that...
Lowden: If you wanted me to have that debate with you I would have brought all the backup for it.
Ralston: You need the backup to answer that simple question?
Lowden (as if she were 10 years old): Well I answered the question. I answered the question.
Ralston: So you think it's exaggerated...
Lowden: I do.
Ralston: But you're not going to give me any evidence that it's exaggerated.
Lowden: Well, you know, give me time to prepare. I, I'll be happy to prepare. You know, you catch me off guard, you have all your notes. I'd be happy to prepare that answer.
Ralston: OK. So you're just going to say it's exaggerated right now. (Mercifully moves on).
So, to recap: In the crowded Republican Senate primary, Sue Lowden's main argument is that she's the electable one.
Ralston made his point - it wasn't to get actual answers, it was to give the opposition "gotcha" moments...just as Lowden said on air!
Of course Lowden isn't against civil rights! The question had to do with Kentucky politics and Rand Paul.
Lowden believes Global warming is exaggerated. A completely acceptable answer. If Ralston wants her to spit numbers and figures, then she respectfully asked for time to research. Finally, an honest candidate, who speaks her mind, and is willing to do the work to find the RIGHT answer.
Posted by: Adam | 05/27/2010 at 10:29 AM
"Lowden refused to answer, characterizing Ralston's line of inquiry as a 'gotcha' question."
I just wanted to point out a few things that recently keep popping up whenever this "gotcha" excuse thing.
The ones that come to mind that have uttered this "gotcha" excuse are John Ensign, Sara Palin and Rand Paul. And need I remind everyone that all of these people said things they shouldn't probably have said, expressed an opinion/viewpoint that only they seem to understand based upon totally warped reasoning, spoke their minds when they shouldn't have, and/or done something they shouldn't have done, whether it was inappropriate and/or downright criminal. Or some combination of the above thereof.
This "gotcha" excuse is so pervasive that I've even seen on Fox PORNO (Political Organization-Republican News Only) News, the pundits have used this to basically wave off criticism of some Republican somewhere. So basically, this "gotcha" thing can only be used against President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and any Democrat that wanders in their gunsights, but it's not permissible when it's a Republican. So, according to Fox News, this "gotcha" thing is bipartisan.
Talking about bipartisan, this "gotcha" thing I have only seen uttered by Republicans. Which basically tells me that, because they have no clearcut idea on how to govern, they just spout out anything to get back into power. But when they get ridiculed, then all of a sudden, it's a "gotcha" thing. And it seems like they place so much emphasis on stepping on their own....ummm....foot, they seem to rely upon this "gotcha" excuse.
And lastly, the use of this "gotcha" phrase is basically misused. In the above cases with the above people I mentioned, it wasn't "gotcha" when they said something stupid, narrow minded, archaic or simply out of touch with what sane Americans think, it's usually a "gotcher own damn self" thing. No one else to blame. When a person says something, and not tricked into saying it, it's usually a sign of idiocy..."gotcher own damn self"...your own fault...don't point no damn fingers at who asked the question...just makes the person who used that dumb ass excuse look even more stupid.
Sue Lowden enters the ranks of the creepy ass Republicans who use the "gotcha" thing now.
Nice article though. I don't have any opinion about what Sue Lowden said there, but I get the impression she has this stupid imperial air about her when answering questions and dealing with people. I get the impression she's used to snapping her fingers, pointing and casino workers just leap into action. One thing I know, we don't need someone with that arrogant creepiness as a Senator. I pass on the Chicken Lady. Gotcha!
Posted by: ColinFromLasVegas | 05/27/2010 at 12:26 PM
Jeez, Adam, your standard for competence in a senate candidate is amazingly low. Any challenger should be prepared to discuss the issues of our time--global climate change, energy independence, education, health care, civil rights and immigration reform, to name a few. No one says she has to spout facts and figures, just understand the basic science of climate change. Lowden's handlers once again prove they aren't earning their pay.
Posted by: Tailspinterry | 05/27/2010 at 12:45 PM
Lowden is mediocraty incarnate. We don't need another f*^cked vote in the Senate. Lowden BAD for Nevada!
Posted by: Rich | 05/27/2010 at 01:03 PM
You missed a few truly interesting uses of gotcha: a championship barbershop quartet from California, an FBI archive, a 1985 film and those oh-so-colorful fishing lures. Agree the word is overused.
So can we stay on point regarding serious issues? Seems that whenever a candidate doesn't answer a question to your liking, you attribute an opinion to them which they haven't expressed ...or a quality they've not demonstrated. I believe you are confusing dignity with imperial air.
Sue Lowden answers questions honestly, has not supported a person or policy that is anti-civil rights, and has taken the right stand on several issues: reducing federal spending, tax relief, health care, protecting our borders and education.
As far as snapping her fingers, perhaps you should contact some of the organizations she has supported, such as Nevada Child Seekers and the Myscular Dystrophy Association. Or perhaps you believe that Humanitarian Award was also politically motivated.
Posted by: Priscilla | 05/27/2010 at 01:26 PM
Priscilla: Thanks for shilling for Lowden; you can pick up your check now and go home.
Posted by: Happygirl | 05/27/2010 at 01:59 PM
Oh puh-leeze. If Obama tried to pull this kind of "give me time to research" nonsense you GOPs would be all over it & calling him a phony and all the other mindless names you trot out on a dime. If you are running for office you should have some basic policy issue answers lined up -- that's candidacy 101.
When oh when will the hypocrisy end??
Posted by: Susan | 05/27/2010 at 01:59 PM
Harry Reid is so dang senile Ralston has no choice but to give him all the questions and THE ANSWERS TOO.
Posted by: GleanerRocks | 05/27/2010 at 02:02 PM
On the topic of the Tea Party...
Out in Albuquerque, New Mexico, one brave soul visited a Tea Party event, and found David Horowitz as the main event.
Check it out!
http://www.counterpunch.org/ward05272010.html
Posted by: Observer | 05/27/2010 at 03:08 PM
Priscilla said:
"Sue Lowden answers questions honestly, has not supported a person or policy that is anti-civil rights, and has taken the right stand on several issues: reducing federal spending, tax relief, health care, protecting our borders and education."
The right stand? Is there a right stand? She will not tell us WHERE she stands on Civil Rights, Climate Change, etc. It is up to each voter to decide for themselves if she is on the right side of her opinions.
Frankly I do not believe that she has any clear convictions. She has laid off hundreds of people in her casinos, she has offered the minimum of benefits to employees and has suggested that us little people barter with livestock for medical care.
Since Sue can't offer her opinions on matters that are so important to the US without someone crafting it for her, she needs to load up that illegal campaign bus and head to Alaska.
Posted by: judy | 05/27/2010 at 04:01 PM
On a side note - has anyone elsed noticed just how quiet our tin foil hat Governor has been?
Posted by: judy | 05/27/2010 at 04:01 PM
.
..
...Captain's Log...17:50..27 may..2010
...Looks like Sue Low Down is becoming a Keith Oberman favorite subject..
...Drinks a slug of Jamaican Rum...
..
.
Posted by: temujin... khan of the yakka mongols | 05/27/2010 at 05:54 PM
I'm sorry, Gleanster, but this is a bit off topic from your post here, but I gotta chime in.
Recently, it appears that both Las Vegas Review Journal and the Las Vegas Sun have changed on the internet.
And this change somehow requires stricter requirements on posting and making comments to articles they have.
Which is no problem. I can go with it.
But the lame excuse is that it provides for freedoms that restrict other people who are exercising their freedom that are trying to exercise their freedom to free speech. Ad infinitum.
So they changed to some FaceBook alternative.
And I refuse to change to their version of FaceBook.
Because I am still operating under the very first version of FaceBook still. In that I buy a book, stick my face in it and read it.
THAT'S the extent of my FaceBook.
So, basically, screw them assholes. I'm not participating in their stupid ass requirements to make comments where I have to bend over backwards and comply to some jerky ass requirement. And even if I comply, they STILL have the right to just erase the crap out of my comment. As far as I'm concerned...they lose. Like John Stewart said about Fox News: "Go @%$# yourself!"
Okay. I'm through with my rant. Sorry. I'm a retired Sailor and my vocabulary at times seems to stretch the bounds of political correctness. Work with me.....
Posted by: ColinFromLasVegas | 05/27/2010 at 06:54 PM
.
..
...Pours a daily portion of Rum for Colin from Las Vegas, a fellow Jack.
...
..
.
Posted by: temujin... khan of the yakka mongols | 05/27/2010 at 06:59 PM
Thanks for your understanding, temujinm... khan of the yakka mongols.
And @*&% Sue Lowden and eight chickens for a CAT scan too!
Oops. I may have went too far. I better lay low. Gleanster might slap me silly....
Posted by: ColinFromLasVegas | 05/27/2010 at 07:51 PM
I think Lowden was kind of stupid about the global warming hoax. If she hasn't read up on the subject, say in the past 5 years and read about the different sides of the subject, then she isn't that bright. My guess is she didn't want to tick off any moderates that believe in the hoax.
And to Colin, I agree with you about the LVRJ and Sun. The quotes in the LVRJ were really getting bad and not being censored for racist comments or other nasty comments. As far as the Sun, I think they wanted to reduce the number of political comments. Why, I have no idea, except it seems that the liberal canidates with the exception of Gibbons and Ensign, were getting creamed in the comment sections.
Posted by: Dan | 05/27/2010 at 09:26 PM
@ Colin,
Agree. Actually, there is hardly any reasonable or intellectual discourse anymore so there is no point in posting to either publications anymore. Larrytard over on the Sun keeps parroting Fox news with the 'I know you are but what am I' meme. The RJ Teatards are a big self-hate group....God bless those who still counter the stupid on both sites but to my way of thinking both publications can just keep on with the wormy-as in data collection and mining-Facebook protocol. The ignorant banter just bores the merde outta me.
@ Temujin,
Dude...Where have you been brother from another mother? And where the hell has Penguin gotten to?.....as she sips her Guinness Stout.
Posted by: scorpiogal | 05/27/2010 at 10:35 PM
@ Observer,
Re: Horowitz. Interesting...talk about teh crazies. That type of vitrol makes Angle look moderate. Horowitz needs mental help. It never ceases to amaze me how teh crazies always hide behind rigid or fervent religious/political belief systems vs. obtaining help for their mental instability. Scary :-o
Posted by: scorpiogal | 05/27/2010 at 11:05 PM
@scorpiogal:
I don't think Horowitz or the teabaggers are clinically crazy. They're just cranks, that's all.
And as the article says, there are LOTS of grounds for distrusting the govt, so they're actually right, in their own way.
Posted by: Observer | 05/27/2010 at 11:14 PM
@ Observer
...." But for Horowitz the evil of the Democrats lies much deeper. Forget liberals, he said, waving his arms, these guys are communists. Communists!"
No. That quote *is* full on bat-shit crazy.
Posted by: scorpiogal | 05/28/2010 at 07:21 PM
Lowden's "Space for Rent" sign on the back of her head fits well.
The old beauty queenie is getting long in the tooth. The Christian TV evangelist racket is ripe for the bikini babes who stroll the carpet.
Pat Robertson is alway's looking to hire a has been.
Posted by: W.L. Barton | 06/02/2010 at 08:50 AM