ABC Sarah Palin Interview-- The Unedited Version

May I ask you people why you are gleefully playing into the game presented to you?

What is the game you ask? Why, the delivery of Palin as a distraction for those who may be distracted. How much time and energy from both "sides" of the political fence have been spent discussing this woman and the merits of her so called "experience"? You have fallen into the trap with both feet happily planted firmly into the morass of unproductive, illogical, and utterly pointless debate.

There is only one issue that should be discussed and analyzed as it relates to this woman -- how her selection reflects upon the person who made the selection. Period. Anything else is a waist of time when the more important factors -- the presidential candidates and their positions -- are being ignored either through limited attention spans or devious strategic maneuverings.

Please. Don't play their game for them. There is too much at risk.

See, that's the way to discuss varying opinions. Note that loam centered only on my words - he didn't distort them. He offered his counter opinion to the same information that we both received. We all receive information, process it differently, and draw our own conclusions and opinions.

I will take loam's point into consideration as part of the information I am receiving - and I'm always open to change of opinion...because I'm not a close-minded person. However, I will not accept in as information in formulating my opinion disingenuous attempts to manipulate my position and then try to diminish my opinion by ridicule of the contrived position that was never mine!

loam,

Points taken. But I don't agree. But keep throwing stuff at me - you may get me to see something I currently can't.

reply to post by Valhall






Let's hope I remain level headed.

Originally posted by Valhall
keep throwing stuff at me - you may get me to see something I currently can't.

(I added more to my previous post, because I didn't think you would respond so quickly. I'll repost here. )

Originally posted by Valhall
She is what WE WOMEN in professional careers call "a parrot". She guides her answers off of what she can glean from other people's statements and then attempts an answer that is ambiguous, yet frought with words she believes will paint her to "be in the know".
...

YAY! A tremendous slap in the face of all women who are actually working toward sincere recognition of their accomplishments, experience and expertise; and a tremendous slap in the face of all men who have worked toward the same.

And yet, how many women are elected as a mayor (twice) and then governor of a state? This super secret parroting technique you women are hiding must be some pretty powerful mojo.

Generally, in terms of accomplishments made by women, why do you so easily dismiss hers? I mean, it's not like McCain selected a woman whose sole experience was attending local PTA meetings. If Obama can't be a token because people voted for him, then I assume you don't think she was a token at least in her mayoral and gubernatorial races. Right?


[edit on 18-9-2008 by loam]

Oh! No, I don't dismiss her accomplishments. Please don't take my "issues" with her track record as dismissing her accomplishments.

I actually believe that her reaction to the accusations being leveled against her (i.e. trooper-gate) are making her look worse in my eyes. She is now rejecting the power of subpoena, and obviously advising her entire staff to do so. So not only has she been accused of abusing her powers in an executive function, she's now in the process of taking a big dump on the enforcement side of things.

This compounds my "issues" with her in that not only does she appear to either lack ethics or be totally ignorant of what is acceptable behavior in her elected position, but now she is acting as if she is above the law.

I think she has uber-parrot skills as well. While I'm sure what's his mug will twist this into something I don't mean, I'm going to go ahead and say it. I believe her uber-parrot skills come from beauty pageant training for those "hard-hitting" question segments of the competition. I'm sorry, but that's exactly how she comes off in the interviews I have seen. I keep waiting for her to smile real big at the judge's table after one of her responses. That's about how much "meat" I get out of her answers. I can't help the beauty pageant analogy - it's the most accurate one I can come up with.

[edit on 9-18-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by mister.old.school

There is only one issue that should be discussed and analyzed as it relates to this woman -- how her selection reflects upon the person who made the selection. Period. Anything else is a waist of time when the more important factors -- the presidential candidates and their positions -- are being ignored either through limited attention spans or devious strategic maneuverings.

I would like you to know that this very important point has, in fact, been noted by me. As I stated in an earlier post, I believe this terribly severe fumble on his first important decision has thrown the election for McCain. It's too bad that creating a sound leadership ticket didn't come first for the Republican party. Instead they went with a plug-nickel. It's going to cost them dearly....IMHO.

reply to post by Valhall

Originally posted by Valhall
I think she has uber-parrot skills as well.

I don't know, Val.

Look at her during the gubernatorial race and as Governor.

























I could keep going...

While I don't agree with all of her views, she hardly sounds like a 'bubble head'.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by loam]

loam,

I can't access youtube during the day, but when I get home this evening I will look at all those videos. Thanks for the links!

The most interesting comment edited from the interview in my opinion was this little bit here;

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

Whats funny about it is the last part, about the top priority being protecting the American people and not the Constitution, which is truly the only thing they need to protect. As the Constitution is what protects us. You don't hear too many politicians these days reference the Constitution, attention is routinely shifted away from liberty to security to the point where I don't think enough people even think about it anymore. The work of the mainstream media.



[edit on 9/18/2008 by ludaChris]

Originally posted by ludaChris
Whats funny about it is the last part, about the top priority being protecting the American people and not the Constitution, which is truly the only thing they need to protect. As the Constitution is what protects us.

And at this point in time, perhaps Judicial appointments are the among the most critical parts of this, to make sure that the Constitution still has meaning. Because if activist judges can make it say pretty much whatever they want to, then what does the Constitution really matter anyway?

Needless to say, the interviews with Palin in the past give me confidence that she would select good nominees for the Judiciary, if she got the opportunity. Because whether one looks at the recent travesties in the Supreme Court with property rights, or the BS that was the 2000 election appeal... or the travesty that was Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton, there are some huge problems with the Supreme Court. The circuit courts of appeal are even worse.

Even with violations of foreigners "rights" and the USA PATRIOT act, these things are not even new. Look at the Alien and Sedition acts, the Smith Act, or the Internal Security Act of 1950; there are precedents throughout American history for such actions during times of crisis (not that I agree with the Bush administration on these things). But there are orders of magnitude differences, and the issue of the generation is Abortion. If the most innocent in this society cannot even have their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness protected, then our Constitution is a farce and the "Consitutional" arguments boil down to just a mess of double-standards. After all, it is most pathetic when it is so much more dangerous to live in a mother's womb than it is to be in Iraq or even *Chicago* for that matter.

reply to post by ScienceDada


"Activist" is a code word for "liberal", and thus is not a constructive term.

There are basically two schools of thought about the Constitution, one is termed as being strict Constructionist and believes that the Constitution should be read as the Founders originally intended.

The other is a Progressive group that feels that it is a dynamic, living document that was intended to grow and change with the times and the beliefs of the people of the US.

Strict Constructionists are basically dinosaurs that would take us back 200+ years to where Blacks were slaves and women couldn't vote, cause "that is what the Founders intended", cause that is what they wrote!! They want no change, and prefer to keep old white guys in charge.

Progressives understand that the Founders really did want the document to be a living, expanding, flexible one that is able to grow and stretch with the times and the Peoples' changing beliefs. There is plenty of evidence to support this in contemporary writings. If they hadn't wanted it to change, there wouldn't be a provision for Amendments!

Sorry it's taking so long for me to get back with you, loam.

The first 3-6: She's not a Republican. She doesn't even understand what falls within the constitution and without it. She contradicts herself...she thinks that saying she won't pass legislation that restricts actions of citizens is the equivalent of promoting the action. That's seriously disturbing to a true Republican.

7 - LMFAO - 4 stars to the sports caster. He's asking hard-hitting questions and calling a game all at the same time. He never misses a beat on either. I almost laughed up my left kidney when his last question to Palin was about her "sexuality" being referenced in the political arena. She finishes her response to him and he immediately calls the next play "NO BALLS, TWO STRIKES!"

OMG - I'm having flashbacks on the gut-laugh.

I'll view the rest later. I will admit I must not call her a "bubble-head" anymore...I don't feel any better about her, yet.


[edit on 9-18-2008 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall

Originally posted by Valhall
She's not a Republican.

Well, please understand that I didn't post those as evidence she had a coherent conservative (I haven't been enamored with the term "Republican" for about eight years ) philosophy. I really wanted to just point out that she isn't quite the 'parrot' you accused her of being. She has brains, even if her views are seriously flawed.

In fact, that is sort of the point behind this thread. The Gibson edits were an unacceptable manipulation of the audience. It wasn't about the substance (or lack thereof) of Palin's responses. The edits materially changed some of her answers and I believe impacted one's overall sense about her in the interview.

The conclusions you might draw about Palin may not change, but I think how you get there is just as important as the destination. Make sense?

I'm sick of the organized deceit by our media. I expect most candidates to lie to me. (Frankly, it's the natural consequence of a fickle electorate too easily duped into outrage or grave concern over the most inane crap.) But having the media lie makes the entire damn democracy thing pretty unworkable. (Yeah, I'm complainin' )

I laughed too when I saw how well the sports caster did that. Now that guy is a pro.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by Valhall


Here ya go,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I keep waiting for her to allude to "world peace" like all bubble-headed beauty pageant contestants do.

Followed up by

www.abovetopsecret.com...

She's clearly - I said CLEARLY - a bubble-head. The "beauty pageant" referral is to THAT...not her looks, but her bubble-headedness.

These are the only reasons in your posts that I have seen that explain why you think Palin is a bubble head. You refer to what she said in the interview, but offer no specific statements BY Palin that make you think she is a complete buddle head, and the reasons why you think these are bubble headed/infantile statements.

I even offered and example. I referred to a specific statement by Obama that many have discussed, and I explained what I didn't like about it. If this statement by Obama was a topic of the thread, I would have given even more detail.

That is what I would like to see. A well defined and articulated opinion based on the topic at hand.

Example

Gibson asked Palin .....
Palin responded.....
her response was completely inadequate because....

Then someone could respond,

I disagree because.....

Calling Palin a bubble head and infantile without specific reasons is just ranting.

I am actually looking for an intelligent discussion of the interview. I have offered a specific example of why I think Palin did so well, and got no responses. I guess no one has an argument to show that Palin did not show a great command of the issue that I pointed out.

Politicians and interviewers all play this game where the interviewer tries to trap the pol into stating a position based on imaginary circunstances that will later be aired without any reference to the hypothitical situation. The pol is then tied to a position that is only a reaction to an extreme situation, and not the pol's overall positions.

This is why pol's often talk around or dodge questions. The key is what degree they refuse to answer the questions. When pol's start dodging any and all questions, then they are not to be trusted. All pol's are rehearsed in these talking points, to avoid being trapped.

Palin did a good job of avoiding being trapped into some disasterous statement, and that was her job one, and she did excellent. Palin's opponents tried to claim she didn't understand the Bush doctrine, but that smear campaign failed completely. In fact, I think her statement about keeping all options of the table was her strongest moment in the interview. She clearly demonstrated her ability to think on her feet.

Palin's comment about Russia being close to Alaska, and how small this world is, and the importance of working with our allies was an excellent point. This statement clearly showed her understanding of a world view. It was an excellent glimpse into her view of the world. The young girl who grew up obsessed with reading newpapers from cover to cover is hardly the airhead that the liberal elites want to portray her to be.

Editing out this statement really takes an important statement by Palin out of the interview. Supposedly, the main purpose of such an interview is to reveal the candidate to the public, not paint the candidate in a way preferred by the media.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by poet1b]

reply to post by Valhall


Where are the examples of Palin parrotting?

By the way, from my observation, the ability to recognize the strong points that others have made, and to put them together to from a single policy is not parroting, it is leadership when it is done properly. The difference is being able to grab other peoples point and put togehter a coherent policy, rather than just muddying the waters.

Obviously, Palim must have succeeded at some level in working in this type of leadership to become governor of Alaska.

By the way, do you understand that Palin's beauty pagent skills only extend to her home town, and that was to pay for college. It was also a one time event for her, not a ever a major part of her life. She was a jock in high school, state basketball champion, not a chearleader. Mainly, she enrolled in the beauty pagent to pay for college. Hardly something to knock.

Originally posted by rahrens
reply to post by ScienceDada
"Activist" is a code word for "liberal", and thus is not a constructive term.

There are basically two schools of thought about the Constitution, one is termed as being strict Constructionist and believes that the Constitution should be read as the Founders originally intended... If they hadn't wanted it to change, there wouldn't be a provision for Amendments!

It is a constructive term. I am sorry, but you do not get to control the English language, nor do you have any authority to "correct" me. Either liberal or conservative, an activist judge is one that oversteps their bounds and legislates from the bench.

And, as you pointed out... that is what amendments are for (changing the Constitution). That is not what the Judiciary is for. The Judicial branch does not make laws my "making it up as they go along" nor by legislating. The Judiciary was designed to be "conservative" since they deal with precedent and according to legislation that has already been passed by the other branches. If it were the other way, then states entering the Union was just a bait-and-switch because the Constitution is worthless (since its meaning can be changed by 9 people in Washington).

So, Palin from her interviews would likely choose judges who are not activist (my comment stands as I made it).


[edit on 2008-9-19 by ScienceDada]

reply to post by Dronetek


Who is editing now? The Obama transcript doesn't match your editorial decisions at all! lol

Originally posted by poet1b
Obviously, Palim must have succeeded at some level in working in this type of leadership to become governor of Alaska.

Hopefully not in the same fashion that Bush succeeded in the type of leadership that allowed him to become President

Hmm...

Originally posted by ScienceDada
And at this point in time, perhaps Judicial appointments are the among the most critical parts of this, to make sure that the Constitution still has meaning. Because if activist judges can make it say pretty much whatever they want to, then what does the Constitution really matter anyway?

Needless to say, the interviews with Palin in the past give me confidence that she would select good nominees for the Judiciary, if she got the opportunity. Because whether one looks at the recent travesties in the Supreme Court with property rights, or the BS that was the 2000 election appeal... or the travesty that was Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton, there are some huge problems with the Supreme Court. The circuit courts of appeal are even worse.

Even with violations of foreigners "rights" and the USA PATRIOT act, these things are not even new. Look at the Alien and Sedition acts, the Smith Act, or the Internal Security Act of 1950; there are precedents throughout American history for such actions during times of crisis (not that I agree with the Bush administration on these things). But there are orders of magnitude differences, and the issue of the generation is Abortion. If the most innocent in this society cannot even have their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness protected, then our Constitution is a farce and the "Consitutional" arguments boil down to just a mess of double-standards. After all, it is most pathetic when it is so much more dangerous to live in a mother's womb than it is to be in Iraq or even *Chicago* for that matter.

Well, be that as it may, why do we allow 9 judge's in Washington to settle all of our great social issues when we should be correcting them in our own states, counties, and communities? I myself am against abortion, pro second amendment, anti-gay marriage, but I have come to a point that I have realized it isn't up to me or you to decide what other people can or can't do, so long as they don't infringe upon anyone else's right to live their lives as they see fit. Why can't we just live our lives as we want to, and extend to others the same courtesy? So as to Palin's judicial picks, if she gets any, the president does that, I would be against them. The same for Obama. I can't bring myself to vote for any of these diatribes of politicians.

Did anyone notice how badly she screwed up when asked about the Bush Doctrine? Also contradicts McCain on Pakistan.

LOOK!:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

She doesn't have a clue what the Bush Doctrine is.
Don't vote for these failures.

If you vote for someone to be VP that doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is, your lost.

Lets hope McBush dies of old age soon so we don't have to hear about more wars on Bin Ladin.

Also since this interview the wiki version of Bush Doctrine has been modified a lot online.
Not sure why.