Sarah Palin at a lost for words in interview with ABC Charles Gibson

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
So is it the Iraq War a "task from God" or not?

So after saying first that it was a "task from God" now she doesn't know if it is a "task from God".

Its sad to see a person that after denouncing the media for introducing her family to the race, now is using her son (forsaking OPSEC for crying out loud) to score political and sympathy points with voters.

Not impress at all.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


I fail to see where the loss of words is. I may not agree at all with any of her views. But it seems apparent in that interview that she was able to answer Charlie Gbison's questions right away.

This video shows nothing.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Of course she believes that just as much as Bush does and always have. She makes no excuse for her blatant pursuit of establishing a theocracy, one law and one war at a time.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Ohhh wow!!! This was like a job interview for some middle class position! Gibson walked on her.

She did not come off as she needed to: as a national relevant politician. She came off as someone in the hot seat during a job interview where the boss rakes you over the coals. Her answers were mediocre, and she did not command the interview as McCain, Obama, Clinton, etc, would have done.

Watch the poll numbers folks! This interview hurt McCain/Palin!



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Two minutes into the video when she is press again by Gibson she clearly states that she dont know if it is a task from God. And then goes to talk about his son as deflection and more embarrassing to score political and sympathy points.

Well maybe you are right she did answer the question.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
It should be taken down now... the title has zero reflection to what happened in the interview and she was clear and direct and never for a second at a loss for words.

Stick to the policies that are presented in regards to these kinds of threads please Mods



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I fail to see the great revelation here.. She answered his questions in a reasonable and intelligible manner, without any pauses or prolonged bouts of stutterings. did I miss something?



[edit on 11-9-2008 by LLoyd45]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I want to know why this thread has been allowed to survive. But my thread that attacks Sen McCains new TV ad with FACTS BEHIND IT, is deleted almost immediately with no explanation by SO.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LLoyd45
 


No she didn't! She answered his questions like a novice politician! Come on! Be fair! Call a spade a spade! She did not have control over that interview and, by the way, not studdering or being at a loss for words is no worse than answering calmly and slowly bu not saying anything!



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LLoyd45
 


For a person to be at a loss for words it dont neccessarly need to be stumbling or making long pauses. A person that is at loss for words would also use deflection and spin in order to skew the relevant topic, she did it TWICE but Gibson didnt let her of the hook, when ask for a third time the she gave the answer: "I dont know"

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
Of course she believes that just as much as Bush does and always have. She makes no excuse for her blatant pursuit of establishing a theocracy, one law and one war at a time.


How does this exactly relate to the topic at hand? Please point out Palin's "blatent" pursuit of establishing a theocracy? I would like specifics please.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


How should she respond? The fact is, Gibson wasn't being entirely truthful himself. Those were her exact words, but not even a complete sentence or in proper context.

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

This was the one aspect of the interview that was unfair, IMO, because it did not place her quotes (he did it twice) in the proper context on this. Upon reading her actual quote, her explanation rings true to me. I believe it was a prayer for guidance, asking to pray that our leaders would make the right decisions according to God's will, not a declaration that they were doing God's will.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


All respect to a good debator who is willing to keep things fair bknapple



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tommy_boy
 


Call a spade a spade? Im not familiar with that....


She answered all of Gibsons questions. You dont have to like them. I dont, but by no means was it a bad interview.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


Well I wasnt kidding when I said I would help try and raise the level of discourse. This thread certainly seems like it goes against the new policies of ATS.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


The term means, call it like it is, don't spin it...

Buddy, it was a BAD interview for her. Watch it again. Gibson schooled her. She flinched on the "Bush Doctrine" question. She did not come off presidential, and she needed to.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by LLoyd45
 


For a person to be at a loss for words it sont neccessarly need to be stumbling or making long pauses. A person that is at loss for words would also use deflection and spin in order to skew the relevant topic, she did it TWICE but Gibson didnt let her of the hook, when ask for a third time the she gave the answer: "I dont know"

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Bunch]

I prefer people that can think on their feet, and don't have to ruminant on their answers. In a crisis situation time is of the essence, and there's no room for lengthy contemplation. I think she did just fine, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by LLoyd45]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I think the thread (albeit a bit specific) is valid, although it should generally deal with how she did overall.

She bombed: I'd say the same thing if Clinton had this interview, McCain had this interview, or Obama had this interview. She came off weak.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommy_boy
Buddy, it was a BAD interview for her. Watch it again. Gibson schooled her. She flinched on the "Bush Doctrine" question. She did not come off presidential, and she needed to.

She's not running for President, she's running for the VP slot. McCain will be making all the executive decisions, not her.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join