Here are excerpts from the first TV interview with Sarah Palin on ABC. She was interviewed on ABC’s World News Tonight on last night by Charlie Gibson. It is the first substantial interview Palin has given since she was nominated as vp. I took this from the ABC website:
‘Sarah Palin on Experience:
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.
GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”
PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?
PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.
So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.
GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.
GIBSON: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant.
GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.
GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
Sarah Palin on God:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.
Sarah Palin on National Security:
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
Sarah Palin on Russia:
We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?
PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
Sarah Palin on ‘the Bush Doctrine’:
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we’re able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
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.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.’
The interview was, if anything, biased towards Palin. It showed the McCain camp is cynically clever in protecting Palin from general interviews. Most politicians are expected to be accountable, and that means being asked questions by most of the media. It includes being put on the spot, and certainly all politicians are put on the spot when the press can do so.
Palin did well for a normal citizen, but badly as a politician. She didn’t have the background, and she tried to “wing it”. That isn’t acceptable in a political representative, and is far less acceptable in a VP candidate.
Palin’s views are perfectly acceptable, as a citizen, but not as a representative of the people. Her attempts to impose her faith on others is exactly what other fundamentalists do. The US is a secular state, with freedom of religion, and that freedom is violated when someone attempts to subvert government to impose their religious views on others.
Palin is dangerous, a loose cannon. There are a number of tensions between NATO and Russia, exacerbated by the US attempt to build a “missile shield” over Europe, something seen as a threat. In consequence, the US and NATO are talking down confrontation with Russia. Palin’s remarks showed an ignorance (or that she ignored) this, and if she had been VP, would have been seen as inflammatory.
The Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes is a justification for aggression. It says we will strike first. To say there was a risk denies that anyone would see our “preparedness” as a readiness to strike.
Palin’s record is far from squeaky clean. One of the indisputable facts is that she cares little about nature (except to shoot it) and doesn’t believe in global warming.
People talk about Palin being “a heartbeat away” from the presidency. They should consider that McCain may become unable to fill his role through serious illness, as well as death. This is not a stretch for someone of his age in a position of extreme and continual stress.
Many people point to Palin’s candidacy as a clever political move. It is certainly that, but she is a poor choice, ignorant and a loose cannon that needs “minding” rather than a “maverick”. McCain needs to be accountable for picking someone so unsuitable to potential Presidency.
The reason most Americans are turning toward McCain/Palin is even with the media liberal bias as proven by Obama never having to answer the questions they threw at Palin is we are waking up to the fact that socialism doesn’t work. We are also tired of the liberals preaching how we need to be more enlightened like Europe. We fought that war 250 years ago to not be like Europeans but to lead in democracy. Just as Obama would surrender in Iraq and Afganistan, we will not surrender to Europe. Ever wonder why he is so popular over there. Enough Said.
Would someone enlighten me as to exactly how is Obama qualified to be our President. The media has never explained that. What decisions, what bills, what laws, what has he done for America.
She put herself in that situation. Obama had 18 mos of scrutiny. This is her FIRST interview. Do you honestly think that being VP in the U.S. is suppose to be a walk in the park. Well, hell, I should run in that case. I’m a Football/Baseball Mom, I was President of the PTA two years at my son’s school. I have degree from a Florida University. Cuba is a stone’s throw from South Florida (This means I have Foreign Policy experience cuz we’re neighbors). I have three children. I’m a registered Republican. My husband served 20 years Marine Corps. I’ve been to to 5 countries. And I placed 1st runner up in a beauty pageant, and I placed 1st place in a District Track meet. OMG. I could run for VP!!!! Give me a freakin’ break.
First, in response to shute’s comment on Bush preventing attacks by terrorists on the US since 9/11-Bush had absolutely nothing to do w/preventing any attacks-you think he was out searching for terrorists 24/7? Right! Read Bob Woodward’s (reporter who broke Watergate Story) new book “The War Within” which shows after Bush started the surge he didn’t even meet w/his military advisers to check its progress, so he’s so involved in security & keeping on top of things, huh? It was the diligence of gov. offices already in place before 9/11 occured that prevented further attacks & baby, it ain’t over yet, they’re undoubtedly still making plans. There was more than enough information out there before the terrorist attack that it should have be obvious it was coming but Bush & his cabinet chose to ignore it. Brush up on your history-invading Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm by the other Bush is what led to the terrorist attacks. The Bush’s are ‘war lovers’ & their only concern has been, not the country, not the people, not the economy but spreading democracy to the Middle East. Now, Palin. The comments tauting her responses in the interview as so excellent have challenged IQ’s. She did not give ONE STRAIGHT ANSWER, even when Charlie Rose asked the question three times, she couldn’t give a simple yes or no. After listening to the interview, I didn’t learn anything new or get any answers as to what she believes or how she would solve or handle cricial issues facing this country and the world. Her arrogance about being ready to step into the VP office is incredible to behold. Only a total fool would ever say they were ready to handle any situation which comes up (for pete’s sake, she even had to ask what a VP does!) It was obvious that even after 5 yrs. in office, Bush did not know how to handle the aftermath of Katrina. This woman is even less experienced. And when are you people going to realize that, unless you’re making over $250,000 Obama is NOT going to raise your taxes. You’ll get a break! However, with McCain, the ones who get the breaks are the BIG money makers. Those making $160,973 to $226,981 will get a tax cut from McCain of 3%; $226,982 to $603,402 = 3.1% tax cut; $603,403 to $2.87 million 3.4% tax cut & above $2.87 million a 4.4 tax cut. However w/McCain if you’re making up to $18,981 you get a measly 0.2% tax cut; $18,982 to $37,595 = 0.5%; $37,596 to $66,354 = 0.7%; $66.355 to $111,l45 = 1.4 tax cut. Like those figures? Obama will raise taxes by 8.7% for those making $603,403 to $2.87 million & by 11.5% for those making $2.87 million & up. All other wage levels will be cut, starting @$160,973-$226,981 – 1.9% cut; $111,646-$160,962 – 2.1% cut; $66,355-$111,645 – 1.8% cut; $37,596-$66,354 – 2.4% cut; $18,982-$37,595 – 3.6% cut & up to $18,982 – 5.5% cut. So go whine about how Obama’s going to raise your taxes, yeah if you make if you make over $603,403! Wish I made 1/2 that much. If you don’t believe me, you’ll find it on Google & youtube. Well, pitbull lovers, and I don’t mean Michael Vicks, I’m sure all of this went in one ear & out the other. I’ll be waiting to hear you crying along with the rest of us if she becomes VP or even worse, President!
I think it’s funny the people that say that she doesn’t have enough experience to be VP. McCain has plenty of experience, and chances of him kicking the bucket while getting sworn in are pretty small. She’ll have time to learn from McCain, and IF he doensn’t make it through office, then she’ll have had some training. Obama on the other hand, will have no chance to learn while on the job, no mentor to guide him. He’s starting out as top dog, not number two. What people forget is while Palin may be inexperienced to be a president, she’s only running for VP. Obama, who arguably has the same level of experience, is running for the presidency. Would you rather have a super-experienced president with a not-so experienced VP that can learn through time, or have the inexperienced one as president? You choose.
Pam why haven’t those questions been asked of Obama, clearly he is the least experienced one running on both tickets and he is the top of his! Why does he get the free pass? Glad to see you are pro life!
Taking money from one group of people and giving it to others is socialism. Mary, what about that do you not understand? The next question is how much of your money does the govt have a right to? I make way less than $100,000 per year and yet I don’t think it is fair that the govt must take over half of people’s money. Making alot of money is not evil. Helping those in need is morally right. Forcing people to help others is morally wrong! Without people making alot of money most people in the US would not have jobs since we seem to forget that this is the sector that creates jobs, not the government. This is the real difference in the two parties. I believe in the people of America while others believe only in the government. Ultimately that becomes the decision we make. The rest gets lost in the details. We can do better but not if we depend on govt to do it. Name one govt program that works and is not in financial trouble. Good luck with your candidate. I for one hope for better things.
Mary I think it is way more arrogant that Obama thinks he has enough experience to be president! Funny when you make 18,000 and less how do you get a tax cut when you don’t pay hardly any? I am sure everything on you tube is the truth! NOT! Funny when Clinton was running he said he was gonna give the middle class a tax cut too, but darn after three weeks in office he found it was so bad he had to raise them! Obama is campaigning on the same lies of hopes and dreams the Dems have been using for the last 30 years! Always doom and gloom with the economy and never anything good to say about our troops!
Charlie Gibson looked liked a school disciplinarian with a student. The glasses low on his nose, very condescending. Sarah Palin is an answer to many prayers for our nation. Who really has ALL the experience necessary until your there. At least she has run a town and a state, not so Obama!
I got this from a friend. Does it make sense to anyone? James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal notes that while Democrats are
complaining about putting “the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero
foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” Obama, the
community organizer, will be “no heartbeats away.” And Taranto still isn’t
sure what a “community organizer” does. He asks, “Are we supposed to cast
our eyes on the slums of Chicago, behold how well organized they are, and
exclaim in wonder, ‘Wow, Barack Obama did that!’?”
What a terrible thing to have Charlie Gibson give those interviews of both John McCain and Sarah Palin. He is so much a Democrat that I thought his face would burst with trying to outwit both of the Republicans. A journalist is supposed to be fair and unbiased. Is he ever not that!! You have two daughters, Charlie, and would you like to have them insulted the way you insulted Sarah Palin? Sarah is a great person or she would not be the governor of one of our states. She and McCain want to REFORM our ou country, and it really needs it!! Obama wants to be a “Social” president. Look at his spending record in Congress and then look at Palin’s spending record for Alaska. He has never governed anything. Don’t question her religion. At least she has not gone to a church that downed the USA and the president. He attended that church for twenty years and did not say a word against its policy. Todd loves our country; Michele Obama was never proud of her country until she wanted something from it.Wake up Americans and put the facts side by side. You will see that Obama doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He’s all wrong for the country.
And Good Morning America, that I’ve watched for many, many years, is off my list for watching. They don’t need to run a train across America to try to get Obama elected. Shame on ABC!!
Excerpt from the National Review, Dec 2007:
“Carter’s signal failures were in foreign affairs. So much of foreign policy is judgment and execution, there’s no way to know in advance how Obama would perform. But he seems to have Carter’s foreign-policy DNA. Carter saw hostility directed at the United States around the world–even by our sworn enemies–as the result of our own actions, and thought he could lure the Soviet Union out of its aggression through self-abasing gestures and reassuring diplomatic patter. On Iran, Obama has all the same instincts, blaming its aggression around the Middle East on our bullying behavior, forswearing the use of our troops in Iraq to try to check Iranian ambitions within that country, and promising unconditional talks from which the Iranians would surely grab ever more “carrots” because none of Obama’s “sticks” would be plausible. Carter complained of our “inordinate fear of Communism”; does Obama believe we have an inordinate fear of Islamofascism?
“If Hillary Clinton has her way, we’ll never need to find out. Unlike Carter, Obama has an establishment frontrunner standing in his way. Vanquishing her will be hard, but if he does, Obama will believe all the more in the world-shaking newness of his candidacy. The example of Jimmy Carter says, to the contrary, we’ve been here before, and it wasn’t a happy experience.”
Read more at http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms.....cloth.html
The interveiw conducted by Charlie Gibson was disgraceful! I also would like to see Charlie ask the same questions of Obama or Biden. Of course, that will not happen. He and ABC news showed America their bias and their fangs.
Dr Ron & Ralph
“The two parties should be
almost identical, so that
the American people can
‘throw the rascals out’
at any election without
leading to any profound or
extensive shifts in policy.”
- Carol Quigley
Cynthia Mike Dennis Jesse Ross Jimmy
And the men* who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality
Closer to the heart
Well. The writing is on the wall. Sarah Palin has is no more qualified to run America than she really is the State of Alaska. I’m not afraid of her or think her scary, but realize that she and McCain can continue to talk themselves right into a corner when giving enough time (which we see took only two questions to reveal). They (McCain and Palin) have difficulty answering questions when queried – even when the interviewer – in this case Charles Gibson – asks them calmy and repeatedly. Were the interview to be with Obama or Biden, we WOULD have some really intelligent, thoughtful, informed, deep conversation and something as Americans to ponder and reflect on. Sarah Palin’s comments? Pathetic and robotical, showing what great loyalty she is giving her new man – John McCain. What great, yet uncomfortable entertainment!
Jim, Obama has been giving interviews for 18 months, and I’m pretty sure they’ve had the chance to ask him anything they wanted, so why is it suddenly Obama’s fault that Palin bombed her interview?? I’ll tell you why…because all you Republicans KNOW she bombed it. He answers questions asked of him instead of skirting issues and spewing talking points. Bring on the debates and we’ll see who’s ready to run this country. (Hint: It won’t be McSame!)
i am not an American but have been following the trends in the elections. i have consistently watched Foxnews and have come to the fact based conclusion that Fox is a republican Station. i was also opportuned to watch the O’rielly interview of Obama and i am amazed to see people say he has not been grilled. if Americans feel that the Palin interview by Gibson was insulting and biased please tell me how the same people will classify the Obama interview on Fox with O’reilly.
i watched a program for the first time on NBC called meet the press and saw arguements from both sides of the divide and still wonder why people question the motives of the media when they don’t pander to their own interest. if you feel as a republican that ABC or anyother news organisation is anti republican then what do you expect a democrat to think when all he/she hears on FOXNEWS is anti Obama/to an extent Biden.
if you want a public position then you should expect to be scrutinised and scrutinised again. there should be no substandard. Mccain/Obama/Biden have been exposed to this and i personally believe that Palin should also be exposed to this. if you want to be seen as having an opinion and views on issues that will affect the lives of your fellow country men then you should be ready to have does views questioned.
no special treatment for Palin because if thats what you all are asking for then you all wont really know what she is made off until after the elctions and then the next republican candidate will start distancing himself/herself if a Mccain/Palin team get into the oval office and don’t deliver, just like they are doing right now GWB.
America wake up and smell the roses!!!
non americans dont count, go back to where you came from.
that’s half the problem with this country as it is, people who arent americans who get a voice. people who are bought off by the friggin left. who for a vote get to stay here illegally. can i say ACORN??????? anyone? liberals disgust me in every way. you people have no sense of morals, think government should bail you out everytime you ask for it. go against everything that this country was founded on, the world would be better off if you all left and went to france! oh yea, i’m an american, a veteran at that. oh yea, an iraqi vet!
I’ve watched a lot of US coverage of the election, and I think I’m more frightened by Mc Cain than Palin.. or perhaps its the concept of millions of Americans voting for him that is most scary. The guy is only a few braincells shy of senile dementia, so obviously another puppet for the military industrial complex, just slightly less mentally handicapped than George.
Policies aside, even on the most basic functional level, Obama is so obviously more qualified to do this job.
Whats also scary is the amount of South African comments I’m seeing here which are based in ignorance and negativity. There are too many to call them all out.
Come on people, you’d think that a bit of distance would offer some clarity as to what is going on here. If the US is going to anoint their president leader of the free world, then it should fall to the free world to properly assess the options and offer an informed and internationalist point of view.
I watched a news special on the Fox News channel last night. One fact that is extremely disturbing to me is that Obama is in TOTAL agreement with the Supreme Court that the suspected terrorists being held at the US Navy base in Cuba are entitled to all of the rights of US citizens while they are in our care, custody, & control??? What???? The report showed that 4 prior inmates that were released returned to their prior terroristic activities against the USA!!! These people ARE NOT US citizens…they want to KILL US citizens!! Do you really want someone who wants to give them the RIGHT to kill you as your next president?????
Your comment is pretty incoherent.. you say Obama wants to afford terrorists the right to kill US citizens? The mind boggles.
A US citizen’s very identity depends upon the constitution. Guantanamo Bay is unconstitutional in its refusal to afford basic human rights to prisoners. Surely you must understand that the Supreme Court exists to uphold the constitution?
Is it really surprising that inmates who survive these barbaric camps leave to pursue action against the country that imprisoned them there? Guilty or otherwise upon arrival, I’m sure a lengthy stay in these joints is enough to galvanise anyone into terrorist activities.