ABC Sarah Palin Interview-- The Unedited Version

Originally posted by ludaChris
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.

This sounds like a strong states' rights position. I am on-board, as long as the court cases on the books now can be undone. Many of the social issues (abortion, marriage, property rights) should go to the states, as they were designed to be. This is Palin's view.

But you are right, she is only a VP choice. But at least there is someone on the ticket that I can support.

Originally posted by buds84
Did anyone notice how badly she screwed up when asked about the Bush Doctrine? Also contradicts McCain on Pakistan.

Which Bush doctrine?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Which Bush doctrine?

The one about preemptive war I think. She seems to strongly support some kind of action against those dangerous 'terrorists' in Iran. You know the ones who can't refine their own gasoline. I still don't see how that position can be the least bit appealing to anyone.

Originally posted by ludaChris

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Which Bush doctrine?

The one about preemptive war I think. She seems to strongly support some kind of action against those dangerous 'terrorists' in Iran. You know the ones who can't refine their own gasoline. I still don't see how that position can be the least bit appealing to anyone.

Thank you for the reply. And yes, and that is my point. Preemptive war, I think. The Bush administration has authored a lot of "doctrine" and yet no "doctrine." Because in political science, "doctrine" is defined as policy that stands the test of time, and the Bush Administration isn't even over yet; but she didn't handle this curveball well.

Most politicians couldn't answer such a stupid question because it was ambiguous. But in the end, Gibson will get away with it just like Dan Rather did for years, and people like Connie Chung and Jayson Blair get career boosts or book deals. This media machine is such a sham it isn't even funny!

It was nothing more than a biased media gotcha moment to make Palin look stupid.

I take back everything I said about her not being a bubble-head. This woman is scary unqualified.

Looks like other women get the same spidey-sense tingle as I do:

commenter on huffington post:

As we watched Palin stumble her way through the interview again last night, my wife said, "she sounds like a beauty pageant contestant trying to fudge her way through a question." Putin comes into the air space? Holy cow - phone the neighbors and wake the kids on November 4th and make sure this dolt boards a plane on November 5th for Alaska and not D.C.

But this nonsensical rambling response to the proposed 700 billion dollar bail-out is what nails her coffin shut for me:

That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh -- it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

WTF...I'm assuming the handlers had to go DC with McCain. They need to not let this doink out by herself anymore...the world's a big place for such a little mind to be left unattended.

reply to post by Valhall


What did you think of her before this?

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Valhall

 

What did you think of her before this?

I went through these phases:

1. Not impressed
2. She's not qualified
3. She's a bubble-head and a parrot
4. Okay, I might be too hard on her...maybe she's not a bubble-head and parrot.
5. Then she opened her mouth again and I reverted back to 2 and 3.

I'm committed to 3 at this point.

I think the only way McCain can pull this off is if he dresses her in a show-girl costume, tells her to keep her mouth shut, and has her strike that 'TADA!!!' pose every time he gives a response to a question....yeah, like a magician's assistant or something. Because it's going to take strong voodoo to turn this sow into a silk purse as long as she's talking.

reply to post by Valhall


I'm moving into that category myself. Not because I believe she actually is a bubble head, but because there's little disputing that she's *acting* that way. Moreover, I think if you slap a dress on McCain, you can level the same argument against him. In fact, I think I actually watch him do a "tada" move or two in the last few days.

I recently read this criticism on dvorak.com and I think it's dead on for both McCain and Palin:

McCain is Surrounded by Idiots

Last night I witnessed one of the biggest screw-ups I have ever seen in a Presidential campaign in my entire life. And this may cost me a lot of bets and it may cost john McCain the election. The culprits, though, are the apparent dummies handling the McCain schedule and strategy. These people should all be fired tomorrow. They are out-and-out idiots and I actually wonder who they really work for.

...

The over management crises is also apparent with Sarah Palin and her obvious repeating of talking points without explanation. She did it with both Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. With Gibson he reworded the exact same question about Israel bombing Iran where she repeated the “I don’t think we should second-guess Israel.” She repeated her response word for word each time Gibson rephrased. She should have called out Gibson and said, “Charlie you are simply asking me the same question over and over and I’ve told you once already what I think. Why do you insist that I repeat myself?” But no, she acted like a robot instead, apparently afraid of someone behind the curtain. Afraid of some “expert” who knows better.

She was also stiff and unnatural with Couric. Palin is an obvious victim of over-coaching by someone in the campaign responsible for presentation, talking points and all the on-message baloney that takes the humanity out of the candidates.

He continues:

Years ago, I remember seeing Democrat Walter Mondale on the Johnny Carson show after his defeat in the 1984 elections. The guy was incredibly funny, sharp and easily kept pace with Carson in a lively and amusing conversation. I wondered where was THIS guy during the election. He could have won. Instead the public got served an Al Gore-like stiff, obviously over-coached to not make mistakes. In football they call it “playing not to lose.” It usually results in a loss and it did for Mondale.

I really think he has that right.

Incidentally, did you happen to catch the conspiratorial comment?

Did anyone notice that this line from Palin was edited out?

"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."

Will someone tell me how a bubble head runs Alaska, and does a good job?

I don't jump ship that easy.

I will wait and watch,

[edit on 103131p://bThursday2008 by Stormdancer777]

So you're sure she's doing a good job?

I'm not.

But I do find something very curious and rather hypocritical looking of her. In her VP acceptance speech she managed to muttle out one alternative energy source - "clean coal" - in a feeble attempt to show herself "green". The statement standing alone was a failure in showing any real concept toward "green alternatives" as far as I'm concerned, and I have a thread on that subject elsewhere.

But let's look at what Sarah believes is "pork" in her gubernatorial decisions. She touted more than once last night in her debate that her claim to fame as Alaska's governor was to slash spending and "live within their means". Here's what's pork to ol' mean-green Sarah:

One of the major line item vetoes was $75-million in cuts to the rail belt energy fund, that breaks down to: axing $20-million for a wind farm on Fire Island, 12.5-million for transmission in Mat-u and the same goes for Kenai.

Another $12.5-million for the state owned Healy Clean Coal Project.

www.aksuperstation.com...

hmmm...