Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

On Social Policy Questions, Palin Sticks to Personal Views

By Alec MacGillis
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin stood by her opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest and her skepticism that global warming is caused by human activity, but she stepped back from her past position favoring the teaching of creationism in public schools.

The comments came in Tuesday's installment of her interviews with CBS News anchor Katie Couric. Several times in the interview, Palin answered questions about her stance on social issues by offering her personal views, and how she approaches those issues in her own life, instead of describing her views on them as a matter of public policy.

Asked whether her opposition to abortion rights extends even to a 15-year-old who has been raped by her father, Palin said that she would "counsel [her] to choose life." On this point Palin differs with Sen. John McCain.

"I'm saying that personally I would counsel that person to choose life despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in," Palin said.

Asked about the morning-after pill, Palin again cast her answer in personal terms, appearing to argue that the pill is wrong because it takes effect after conception, while not stating that it should be banned as a matter of policy. "Well, I'm all for contraception and I'm all for any preventative measures that are legal and safe and should be. But, Katie, again, I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception," Palin said. She added that that "isn't a McCain-Palin policy."

Palin, who recently gave birth to her fifth child, even seemed to open the door to discussing her own contraceptive choices, saying of the morning-after pill, "Personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception."

And asked about reports that one of the churches she attends has encouraged gays to become straight, Palin referred again to her own life. "I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships," she said. "I have ... one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years who happens to be gay. And I love her dearly. And she is not my gay friend, she is one of my best friends who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made."

Palin reiterated, with an unintentional word reversal, her position that global warming is not necessarily being caused by carbon dioxide emissions, as most scientists believe. "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical and over history we have seen changes there," she said. "But kind of doesn't matter at this point in the debate what caused it. The point is it's real, we need do something about it."

Palin proposed teaching creationism alongside evolution during her campaign for governor, but has not pressed on that front while in office, a shift she seemed to adhere to in the interview. Evolution "should be taught in our schools. I won't ever deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is earth," she said. "But that is not part of a policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught in science class."

Asked what magazines she reads, Palin said, "I've read most of them," and pressed for examples, Palin declined. "Any of them that have been in front of me over all these years," she said. "I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news to.... Alaska isn't a foreign country where it's kind of suggested it seems like, wow, how could you keep in touch with the rest of Washington, D.C. ... Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America."

By Post Editor  |  September 30, 2008; 8:53 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Sarah Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Spending Plans Little Changed by Wall Street Crisis
Next: Veterans Group Hits Obama on Afghanistan and Iraq

Comments

To JakeD who said "For the record, my "sick party" is Independent. I did stay up until Leno started. I can do crazy things like that ever since I retired. I haven't had to punch a clock for a while now."
YOU ARE ABOUT AS INDEPENDENT AS MCCAIN. WHICH IS WERAING THIN RIGHT ABOUT NOW....
SCINCE WHEN DO STANFORD LAWYERS "PUNCH A CLOCK"? ONLY UNEDUCATED BLUE COLLAR FOLKS DO THAT. HMMMMM...

Posted by: gregp1 | October 2, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Message to Sarah Palincomparison - "thanks but no thanks" to your invitation to vote for a delusional imitation of a qualified VP candidate. You would make an adorable first lady, great fodder for Tina Fey, as long as you can not reach the nuke button. You are amusing now, but scary as hell if a heartbeat away from becoming leader of the free world. Putting your Bimboness into the power of the presidency would be like hiring Peewee Herman to fly a Boeing 747 full of school children into a hurricane. Yikes!!

Posted by: gregp1 | October 2, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin and Todd Palin are supporters of the Alaskan Independence Party. Todd Palin was a member for over seven years.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/74508

But AIG isn´t an extremist group is it? In a 1991 interview, AIG founder, Joe Volger, said:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag,"

After denouncing Federal regulation of land use, he added:

"And then you get mad. And you say the hell with them. And you renounce allegiance, and you pledge your efforts, your effects, your honor, your life to Alaska."

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Palin gave the choice to her daughter Bristol but would deny it to a raped 15 year old girl. God please protect us from this woman.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Do you really want to belittle comments made by Sarah Palin when the Dems have someone like Joe Biden on their ticket? Isn't that a bit like making the illogical argument that Palin doesn't have enough experience to be a VP while shoving a greenhorn like Obama out as the actual Presidential nominee...lol...oops, that IS your arguement. My bad. Anyway, in the name of fairness, I thought I'd use up a lot of pixels (like you did) and print transcripts from interviews that the brilliant Dem VP candidate has given. Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Biden. Enjoy.

http://www.gop.com/obamasvp/
Biden Said Obama Is Not Ready To Serve As President. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked is he ready. You said 'I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'" Sen. Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement." (ABC's, "This Week," 8/19/07)

Biden: "If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistake…" (Sen. Joe Biden, "The Diane Rehm Show," 8/2/07)
Biden: "Having Talking Points On Foreign Policy Doesn't Get You There." ("Biden Lashes Out At Obama," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/2/07)
Biden Attacked Obama For Voting Against Funding U.S. Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan, Accusing Him Of "Cutting Off Support That Will Save The Lives Of Thousands Of American Troops." Biden: "And, look, Tim, if you tell me I've got to take away this protection for these kids in order to win the election, some things aren't worth it. Some things are worth losing over. That would be worth losing over. Hundreds of lives are being saved and will be saved by us sending these vehicles over which we are funding with this supplemental legislation. And I want to ask any of my other colleagues, would they, in fact, vote to cut off the money for those troops to protect them? That's the right question. This isn't cutting off the war. This is cutting off support that will save the lives of thousands of American troops." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/9/07)

Biden On Obama's Leadership On Iraq: "I Don't Recall Hearing A Word From Barack About A Plan Or A Tactic." (Jason Horowitz, "Biden Unbound: Lays Into Clinton, Obama, Edwards," The New York Observer, 2/4/07)

Biden On Whether He Would Meet Unconditionally With The Leaders Of Rogue States As Obama Said He Would: "Absolutely Positively No." Biden: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely positively no." (Sen. Joe Biden, Remarks At The National Press Club, Washington, DC, 8/1/07)

Biden Attacked Obama's Public Pronouncement That He Would Unilaterally Attack Pakistan, Saying "The Last Thing You Want To Do Is Telegraph To The Folks In Pakistan That We're About To Violate Quote 'Their Sovereignty.'" Biden: "[A]nd I'm told, Senator Obama announced today. Senator Lantos (sic) and I wrote into law, the requirement that the aid to Pakistan be conditioned upon their support of us going after Al Qaeda in their Western province. It already is a law. The question, the way to deal with it is not to announce it, is to do it. The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we're about to violate quote 'their sovereignty,' putting Musharraf in a position that makes it virtually impossible for him to do anything other than what he's done. Basically cut a deal with the warlords along that border to our great detriment. So it's not something you talk about." (Sen. Joe Biden, Remarks At The National Press Club, Washington, DC, 8/1/07)

Biden Criticized Obama's "Johnny-Come-Lately Position" On Afghanistan. "The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden's long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Much of what Senator Obama has proposed Senator Biden has already initiated or accomplished." (Sen. Joe Biden, "Biden Campaign Congratulates Sen. Obama For Johnny-Come-Lately Position," Press Release, 8/1/07
_______________________________________
And from my "Just for Laughs File"

From the Dem Nat. Convention-
(CBS)From CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic:

(SPRINGFIELD, IL.)- Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s first appearance together as running mates did not go off without a hitch as both made noticeable gaffes, which turned into fodder for Republican jabs. It was an obscenely hot day and they could have been nervous, but there wasn’t much room for error at the debut of the Obama-Biden ticket.

For most of his speech, Obama played it safe – sticking to his prepared remarks so much so that he often sounded a bit scripted.

“Today, I have come back to Springfield to tell you that I’ve found that leader, a man with a distinguished record and a fundamental decency,” he said rigidly.

But at the end of his speech, Obama made the very blunder that his opponents were seeking.

“So let me introduce you to the next President,” he said, quickly catching and correcting the mistake, “Vice President of the United States of America...”

Just moments later McCain spokesman Ben Porritt, responded: “Barack Obama sounded as though he turned over the top spot on the ticket today to his new mentor....the reality is that nothing has changed since Joe Biden first made his assessment that Barack Obama is not ready to lead.”

Biden, who made up for some of Obama’s stiffness, made his own quirky comments and gaffes.

“My wife Jill, who you’ll meet soon, is drop dead gorgeous,” Biden said and then joked, “My wife Jill, who you’ll meet soon, she also has her doctorate degree, which is a problem.”

The crowd appeared a bit confused, some laughing but most just watched with some confusion.

Biden’s ultimate gaffe came near the end of his speech, when he called Obama, “Barack Amer..” It wasn’t clear whether he intentionally wanted to call his running mate, Barack America, or if he forgot his last name. Had he called him “Barack America”, Biden could have had a new campaign slogan on his hands. The crowd seemed to pick up on the mistake, quickly chanting “Obama, Obama.”

The RNC, who already a running list of Obama’s gaffes, has now cheekily started a Biden “gaffe” clock on its website, counting the time before Biden's next "gaffe."

Posted by: Heartwing | October 1, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Palin would counsel the unfortunate girl to 'choose' life but at the same time wants to remove her ability to choose. Palin wants credit for taking the moral 'high ground' by choosing to keep her Down's Syndrome baby but wants to take away any other womens ability to choose. She say's that she wants Roe v. Wade overturned. What does she think that means? It means someone else, besides the mother, makes the choice. That's no choice at all.

Stop the madness.
Bush/McCain. No More Years!

Posted by: thebobbob | October 1, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

THE REAL SARAH PALIN I HOPE WILL APPEAR TO THE VOTERS AT THE DEBATE OF WHAT AND WHY OF WHAT SHE THINKS, NOT THE SMOKE SCREEN COMMENTS AND CUTE BODY. VOTERS, PAY ATTENTION OF WHAT SHE SAYS AND ASK YOUR SELF WHY. SARAH PALIN WAS PICKED BY A 72 YEAR OLD ONLY. SARAH PALIN IS NOT READDY TO LEAD THE U.S.A. WHAT SO EVER IF McCAIN DOES NOT FINISH HIS TEARM IF HE BECAME PRESIDENT. WE WHOULD FOLLOW THE PATH OF ROME.

Posted by: usapdx | October 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

We are NOT talking about taking people to jail? Also, maybe she canceled her newspaper subscriptions, just like I have, but still gets info? For instance, here online at WaPo. It's just another example of silly "gotcha" questions.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I am thankful that we're at least getting SOME interviews with Palin.

Honestly observing, although she answered the questions, that is simply not enough for me; that she just answered them. With her responses, I don't feel like she's giving me much information. I would like her to answer and go into specifics or explain more. I'm not confident with her on the ticket. McCain chose her, so I expect her to be at McCain's standard in responding to questions even if I disagree. I don't feel as though I'm receiving that from Palin, and it has only to do with her actions alone, not that she's a woman. The same way all else had to face the media, I do feel she needs to have her fair share so we can see how she handles it.

I anxiously await the veep debates. Perhaps we may get more information from her. I am interested in seeing Biden as well, and I expect him to be him answering questions.

These are smaller issues, which I'm not voting based on but they are of concern:
1) She couldn't name 1 or 2 magazines or newspapers she reads. How basic of a question is that?

2) When asked about her position on abortion and about whether she thinks her stance should be Legal, she only talked about understanding multiple positions. I want a Yes or a No. We're not talking about taking people to jail. I wanted to hear her say and boldly, "Yes I believe it my pro-life stance should be enforced through Law."

I feel like she gives answers, but dodges from making concrete points just about in all of the interviews I have seen her give. I want to see some more leadership, on McCain's ticket. I want straight answers, with explanation, and what she doesn't know...I want to her to say it but tell us how she's going about finding out what she doesn't. That's all.

Posted by: Obama2008 | October 1, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

For the record, my "sick party" is Independent. I did stay up until Leno started. I can do crazy things like that ever since I retired. I haven't had to punch a clock for a while now.

If anyone else has questions (who will return the courtesy of answering mine) please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

peeeuuu Palin is a complete waste and joke of any type of candidate and is outright pathetic....

Looking foolish when she does not know the Bush Doctrine, or other Supreme Court cases, or talking non-sensical gibberish about "Putins' head" going over Russia...et cetera.....

Let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin...WHAT???

Will it be heard at John McCaint's ranch near Sedona, Ariz.?

peeeuuu is cloistered there with the senator's chief wordsmith and strategist getting prepped for Thursday night's debate, with Joe the Shark....

Unleashing peeeuuu Palin would create yet another chance to shake up the race, after McCaint's return-to-Washington stupidity her performance on Thursday could be mind numbingly awful...

McCaint may be looking at the last time she spoke freely, in Juneau to a New Yorker reporter a few days before being tapped as running mate.

The subject was Alaska's program to gun down wolves from airplanes.

Wolves kill moose and elk. If wolf populations are diminished, there will be more elk and moose for Alaskans to kill.

Palin approved paying a $150 bounty to hunters who blow away wolves from planes in certain parts of the state.

They would need to chop off the left foreleg and supply it as proof.

A judge halted the bounty program, but not the hunt.

"It's not aerial hunting," Palin insisted. "It's predator control."

Uh.....WHAT???

A lot of people would call it barbarism. And a lot of people are beginning to worry about peeeuuu Palin's vendetta-filled record, as well as her ability to take over if the 72-year-old McCain should die or become incapacitated..

Although carefully scripted, peeeuuu Palin had a rousing entrance to the national stage at the GOP Convention.

The huffy reaction of feminist pundits seemed only to fortify favorable ratings for the "pit bull with lipstick"

An ABC News/Washington Post poll, on Sept. 7, found 58 percent of voters surveyed had a favorable view of peeeuuu Palin, compared to just 28 percent who reacted unfavorably.

Two weeks later, in the same poll, upbeat opinions had fallen to 52 percent, while negative impressions were up to 38 percent.

Favorable opinions among women had fallen to 43 percent.

peeeuuu Palin has been shut off from local news interviews and pulled off of fundraisers, including a lavish Hunts Point event a week ago.

Questions were verboten when Dr. Henry Kissinger tutored her in foreign policy. Even Fox News complained....WHAT??

The result was peeeuuu Palin's deer-caught-in-the-headlights performance under the eye of CBS.

Try to decipher the response from peeeuuu Palin after Couric asked how she felt about the $700 billion Wall Street rescue passage:

"But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the -- oh, it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track.

"So health care 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 one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is part of that."

Absolute gibberish coming from this pathetic vp candidate of McCaint and his laughable campaign...

Does this answer give confidence in, as the vice presidential nominee called it, a "peeeuuu Palin-McCaint administration?"

Obviously, peeeuuu Palin has been overmatched and over coached.

She gave an almost unintelligible answer about Russia and muddled through the Middle East.

Delivering bromides about democracy, Palin was obviously unaware that the militant Hamas won the Palestinian election.

The history of debates shows there is danger in assuming you know more than your foe.

Al Gore, in 2000, sighed during George Bush's answers and made a lumbering physical approach to his opponent.

The verdict across America, and in the Snohomish home where I watched, had Gore winning but Bush the more likable person.

And last Friday, McCaint behaved with condescension toward Obama, preceded his answers with demeaning remarks about the Democrat and refused to look at him.

Post-debate polls showed Obama the clear winner.

So if peeeuuu Palin looks good but sounds stupid, Biden had better not laugh or he'll be made to look insensitive.....to her stupidity....

"Thanks but no thanks to the lies that bridge America to nowhere..."

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 1, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Goodnight JakeD, I have to turn in. Please keep embarrassing yourself in your repugnant blogs so we can turn even more people off to your sick party and help the dems take back this country on November 4th...

Posted by: gregp1 | October 1, 2008 3:18 AM | Report abuse

JakeD - Are you not up a bit late for a Stanford Lawyer? Dont you have to get up early and create justice? What type of law do you practice, sir? I would like to hire you to defend my opponent.

Posted by: gregp1 | October 1, 2008 3:03 AM | Report abuse

As always, you are under no obligation to answer my questions, even though I answered all of yours.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

I have made a simple and logical argument. I mentioned high school because YOU asked about high school. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

JakeD - "thanks but no thanks" to your invitation to join you in your delusional world.

Posted by: gregp1 | October 1, 2008 2:33 AM | Report abuse

SARAH PALIN AND SECESSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I have a **HUGE** problem with the fact that Palin and her husband Todd ("first dude") were associated with the Alaskan Independence Party (AIG).

THE GOAL OF THE ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY

According to their website, the AIG wants to "Become a separate and Independent Nation"

REPUBLICAN HISTORY 101

The Civil War was fought because Southern States were attempting to secede from the United States of America. Over 700,000 people died in that conflict. President Abraham Lincoln brought true Republican values to end the attempted rebellion and keep our country united. There was much blood spilled and sacrifices made to keep our great country united.

Maybe the folks up in Alaska who want to secede from the USA think its "cool" or "fun" to stockpile arms and talk of leaving this great country, but I think that they are unaware of the sacrifices that have been made to keep our country together.

HOW THE MIGHTY PARTY HAS FALLEN!

In 1860 the True Republican Party under Abraham Lincoln's direction stopped the United States from being divided into separate countries. Now, in 2008, the Sarah Palin and her husband, who have been members of the Alaskan Independence Party and are sympathetic to the goals of the Alaskan Independence Party want to become Vice-President and "first dude" of the USA?

QUESTION SARAH PALIN'S ALLEGIANCE

Q: Does Sarah Palin truly "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation Under God, INDIVISIBLE, with Liberty and Justice for all." I do not believe that the Palin's care at all for our country!!!

Anybody who attempts secession from this great country of ours should be arrested and put on trial, not promoted to the highest office in the land!!!

Sarah Palin is **NOT** representative of the Republican Party that I know, I disagree strongly with her secessionist "values" and am going to vote against her in the upcoming election.

Here's a video that she made speaking to her "Party"
http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article5871-sarah-palin-addresses-alaskan-independence-party.aspx

Posted by: dmmgba | October 1, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

To Jake D who said "I did graduate from high school and top of my class at Stanford Law School."
ANSWER: IF YOU GRADUATED FROM STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, WHY CAN YOU NOT MAKE A SIMPLE ARGUMENT THAT IS LOGICAL? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN MENTION HIGH SCHOOL? TOP OF YOUR CLASS? IT ALL ADDS UP TO ONE THING - B.S. !!! YOU AREN'T FOOLING ANYONE EXCEPT YOURSELF

Posted by: gregp1 | October 1, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

My mother passed away several years ago. I did graduate from high school and top of my class at Stanford Law School. I am an adult. You?

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

JakeD - Does your mom know you are blogging? Did you graduate from high school yet? Surely, you are not an adult. Please confirm.

Posted by: gregp1 | October 1, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

WILL GWEN IFILL ASK VP CANDIDATES ABOUT THIS...

THE FIRST-EVER ACTIVE DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. ARMY TROOPS INSIDE THE U.S. -- WHAT HAPPENED TO "POSSE COMITATUS?"

(From Democracynow.org, 9/22:)

Beginning in October, the Army plans to station an active unit inside the United States for the first time to serve as an on-call federal response in times of emergency.

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent thirty-five of the last sixty months in Iraq, but now the unit is training for domestic operations.

The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command.

The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command.

The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The soldiers are learning to use so-called nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds.

*****

Do the candidates believe the President has the authority to use the armed forces for active duty in domestic deployment, what appears to be a violation of the 130-year-old "Posse Comitatus Act"?

Is it true that Biden, appearing on Fox News, endorsed that concept?

Is Sarah Palin familiar with the term "posse comitatus" and the principle for which it stands? Could she explain the concept and why it's important to the preservation of American democracy and civil liberties?

What the Army speaks of "non-lethal weapons," are they referring to "directed energy weapons" that emit silent bursts of various forms of radiation, such as microwaves -- energy that can induce illness, causes injury, and even death?

And what do Barack Obama and John McCain have to say about this?

Are they concerned that silent, dangerous "directed energy weapons", which have been imprecisely described as "non-lethal," could be used as a weapon against perceived POLITICAL "enemies?"

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 1, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

To JakeD who said -

1) "I was obviously referring to deaths/resignation of their predecessors, not themselves. Maybe someone else can explain my logical "fallacy"?
ANSWER: YOU ARE SATING THE OBVIOUS. THE FALLACY IS THAT YOU ARE PURPOSELY CONFUSING THE ISSUE. THAT SHOWS YOUR WEAKNESS.

2) gregp1:Perhaps you should re-read the comment about "VP pick". If McCain-Palin don't even win, the PICK is actually unimportant.
ANSWER: AGAIN YOU PURPOSELY CONFUSE THE ISSUE WITH IRRELEVANT BANTER. IT IS THE RISK MCCAIN IMPOSES ON US ALL BY THE PICK OF PALIN THAT IS OF CONCERN. THE RISK THAT PALIN COULD REPLACE HIM AS PRESIDENT. THAT RISK IS THE REASON MCCAIN PALIN NEED TO LOSE. IT APPEARS YOU AGREE. THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

Posted by: gregp1 | October 1, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

I was obviously referring to deaths/resignation of their predecessors, not themselves. Maybe someone else can explain my logical "fallacy"?

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

gregp1:

Perhaps you should re-read the comment about "VP pick". If McCain-Palin don't even win, the PICK is actually unimportant.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Wouldn't all those Vice Presidents who actually became President after deaths/resignation be slightly more important?

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 12:41 AM

JakeD

Was this you impression of what Sarah Palin would have answered?

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 1, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

To JakeD whoi said - Wouldn't all those Vice Presidents who actually became President after deaths/resignation be slightly more important?

YOU WIN THE PRIZE FOR ILLOGICAL ARGUMENTS. THE FUTURE POTENTIAL FOR PALIN IS EXACTLY AS YOU STATED. SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO POST AN ARGUMENT ON THIS SITE, NUCH LESS RUN THE COUNTRY. KIND OF LIKE YOU.

Posted by: gregp1 | October 1, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

mka2:

Wouldn't all those Vice Presidents who actually became President after deaths/resignation be slightly more important?

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

As could be expected from the WaPo, Alec MacGillis seems to be distorting Palin's position.

He says: "Palin proposed teaching creationism alongside evolution during her campaign for governor".

The quote I've seen has her suggesting that both could be taught together, but also saying that she won't take steps to make creationism taught in schools. That's a subtle but important distinction.

At least Alec MacGillis isn't being quite as misleading as some of his colleagues:

http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007978.html

In less than a month, the WaPo has really changed. Before they were just throwing out lies and smears about Palin willy-nilly, trying to make something stick. Now they're being more subtle about it.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | October 1, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

CBS Distorts Palin Interview
Monday, September 29, 2008 10:20 AM
By: James Hirsen Article

It is a tale of two con jobs.

As outlined in my previous column, ABC’s Charles Gibson interview of Sarah Palin was questionably edited. Now CBS has followed suit with the Katie Couric interview of the GOP vice presidential candidate.

A pattern of distortion has emerged. Both ABC and CBS cut answers by Palin; answers that would have indicated a more nuanced approach to foreign policy when it comes to the issue of multilateral diplomacy.

In the Couric interview, Palin answered a question that dealt with what the U.S. should do to convince Pakistan to take a harder line against terrorists.

“At a time when new leadership comes in, that is the opportunity to forge better, tighter, more productive relationships and that’s what we’ll take advantage of with new leadership in the U.S. and in Pakistan. And I’m sure that President Zardari, too, will agree with us as we commit to the support that Pakistan needs, that other nations in the region need, in order to win this war on terrorism,” Palin responded.

This question and answer were edited out.

Could it be that Palin’s response did not serve CBS’ desired post-interview spin?

When Couric inquired about the implementation of democracy in other parts of the world, Palin answered, “Well, one is that America cannot be counted on to do this solely, to be the savior of every other nation, but we need friends and we need allies, and we need this nation-building effort and we need to forge new alliances, and that is what a new election will provide opportunity to do.”

This response, too, was withheld from the public.

Could it be once again that CBS did not find the response to be consistent with the hawkish image of Palin that mainstream media are trying to cloak her with?

Similarly, Couric asked about instances when a democracy does not produce the desired outcome, such as in the election of Hamas.

“Especially in that region, though, we have got to protect those and support those who do seek democracy and do seek protections for the people who live there. And you know, we’re seeing today, in the last couple of days here in New York, a speaker, a president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends — Israel — and we’re hearing the evil that he speaks. And if hearing him doesn’t allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will,” Palin responded.

“If Americans are not waking up to understand what it is that he represents, then nothing is going to wake us up and we will be lulled into some kind of false sense of security that perhaps Americans were a part of before 9/11,” she added.

Again CBS editors snipped away.

ABC News cut similar content from the Gibson interview. Intelligent, thoughtful, reasoned responses edited out? Beyond shameful, this represents the utter corruption of the Fourth Estate.

The New Media thankfully ride to the rescue.

In other media missteps, CBS, Katie Couric, and Barack Obama had to be corrected by famed diplomat Henry Kissinger.

Kissinger released a short statement that was intended to clear up some false representations made about something he had allegedly said.

During the Couric-Palin interviews, Couric asked the following question of Sarah Palin: “You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?”

Palin answered, with respect to Ahmadinejad, “You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met.”

Couric claimed that negotiating with Iran without preconditions was Kissinger’s position.

When the interview ended, Couric told her audience, “Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview.” She repeated that Kissinger supports talks “without preconditions.”

Is it possible that CBS and the Obama campaign are communicating?

During the first presidential debate, Obama claimed that Kissinger “along with five recent secretaries of state just said we should meet with Iran, guess what, without preconditions.”

John McCain shot back, “Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve a face-to-face meeting [with Ahmadinejad]. He did say there could be secretary and lower level meetings.”

Kissinger later weighed in, saying, “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend, Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”

I think that, without preconditions, CBS, Couric, and Obama should engage in talks with a make-up artist on how to get the egg off their faces.


James Hirsen, J.D., M.A. in Media Psychology, is a media analyst, teacher of mass media and entertainment law at Biola University and professor at Trinity Law School.



Posted by: ca67klein | September 30, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

If B.S. were money, the Cocky and Bullwinkle Show could bail out wall street all by themselves.

Posted by: schmuckduck | September 30, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

While the research on homosexuality definitely points to a biological basis for same-sex attraction, we all do have a choice as to the behaviors we engage in.

Some heterosexuals make the choice to not engage in sexual behavior, or to engage in sexual behavior contrary to their orientation, and homosexuals can make those same choices. So there is choice involved in living as a gay man or woman, vs. being celibate or living a "straight" lifestyle.

While we can only assume that Palin's friend is homosexual, we do know that she has chosen to identify as gay. Likewise, we can't know for certain that Palin is heterosexual, but she has made it clear that she has chosen to identify as straight, and, though it's a choice I would never make, we should respect that choice.

Posted by: GregoryOR | September 30, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

According to Halcro, if Biden goes on the attack Palin will end up as a sympathy winner.
Hopefully, Gwen Ifill will stick it to Palin and cause her to stumble a bit.
It should be interesting to hear how many times she says maverick and reform. I'm betting 25.

Posted by: schmuckduck | September 30, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

McCain's VP pick is one of the most important than any other in the history due to his age and health issues. He has shown one of the poorest judgments ever in his VP pick. After listening to Gibson's and Couric's interview with Palin it is clear that she has not polished her skills at all since her announcement. Either she is a very slow learner or does not believe in learning at all. She is not worthy of becoming even a mayor of Wasilla let alone president. McCain has only picked her for excitement and surprise factors. If McCain thinks she is worthy of becoming a president he has put the presidency first before the country.

Posted by: mka2 | September 30, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Halrro debated Palin. Some of his comments.

When he faces off against Sarah Palin Thursday night, Joe Biden will have his hands full.

I should know. I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do.

Palin once told Halcro, "Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' "

Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.

In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn't like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn't name a bill.

And when she does answer the actual question asked, she has a canny ability to connect with the audience on a personal level. For example, asked to name a major issue that had been ignored during the campaign, I discussed the health of local communities, Mr. Knowles talked about affordable healthcare, and Palin talked about ... the need to protect hunting and fishing rights.

So what does that mean for Biden? With shorter question-and-answer times and limited interaction between the two, he should simply ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone. Any attempt to flex his public-policy knowledge and show Palin is not ready for prime time will inevitably cast him in the role of the bully.

Doesn't look good for Joe.

I think this Couric interview was a set up for this debate.


Posted by: schmuckduck | September 30, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

whutzit2ya wrote:
How ironic. I've always wanted a leader who didn't go to Ivy League schools and who isn't a million/billionaire. Now we get offered one and everyone is flipping out cause the lady isn't a typical politician?
----------------------------
No, we are flipping out because the world is extremely dangerous, and this woman is an utter right-wing nutjob.

But thanks for attempting to equate naivete with leadership. And thanks for making those who actually use their brain when picking a leader seem somehow out of touch.

Maybe this Sunday at church you can pray for Jesus to open my eyes.

I do not want somebody who embraces Armageddon given even the slightest chance of being near 'the button.'

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 30, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Jack Cafferty has swung the hatchet at Sarah Palin for a second time. This time he takes aim at comments she made to Couric while sitting beside her mentor, John McCain.

Cafferty easily hits his mark.

If you want to see that video, along with the earlier video, where Cafferty referred to Palin as "pathetic," both are posted at:
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/jack-cafferty-rips-palin-again-on-2nd.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 30, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Y'know, I don't see anything wrong with what Gov. Palin said. She is telling you honestly what she herself believes; and she follows that -- or clarifies-- that her personal views do not reflect McCain-Palin policy. What is wrong with a person saying honestly who they are and what they believe?

Are we so used to the political proverbial wool being pulled over our eyes that we freak out when a politician is a real person?

How ironic. I've always wanted a leader who didn't go to Ivy League schools and who isn't a million/billionaire. Now we get offered one and everyone is flipping out cause the lady isn't a typical politician? She errs. She is human. But she is honest, real and as opinionated as any blogger.

I take that back-- the lady has manners. And class.

I like her. I hope she doesn't change, doesn't become a polished political talking head, and that she doesn't stop standing up for her right to believe as her conscience dictates.

More power to you, Govn'r.

Posted by: Whutzit2ya | September 30, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This partial transcript and recap of the interview does not convey the true nature of their dialog. Please watch the interview for yourself--it's important.

While not as comically alarming as the previous segments, Palin's performance (that's what these exchanges are) again reveals that she is NOT qualified to hold high national office.

She lacks the education, intellectual curiosity, and integrity to serve the nation well. I'm not saying she's stupid; I'm saying she's ignorant. Coupled with her arrogance (she actually thinks she can bluff her way through this), she bears an uncanny similarity to G. W. Bush, down to their shared mispronunciation of new-kyu-lar.

Guys and gals: thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: None-so-blind | September 30, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

It has become clear that having a president from the bottom of his or her class is not as risk free as we may have thought. The special interest lobby group who take advantage of us with their undo influence are represented by those from the top of their class. Our country needs to put in a president from the top of his class, one who can handle complex issues as well as simplistic attitudes and slogans.

Posted by: mickeysteib | September 30, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Understanding and explaining her own personal views is fine if her most public role is that of a hockey mom. As a candidate for high office this falls far short of what she needs to explain as to how her views inform her positions on public policy!

Posted by: danlbell | September 30, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"And asked about reports that one of the churches she attends has encouraged gays to become straight, Palin referred again to her own life. "I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships," she said."

Most gays do not choose to be gay any more than most heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual. They are what they are. The misguided notion that being gay is a lifestyle choice encourages rampant homophobia and leads to bigotry, hate crimes, and laws depriving gays of privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals. It's just as much a disgrace as racial bigotry.

Posted by: dmbraddy | September 30, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

If I were a Hillary supporter, I'd TOTALLY be impressed that McCain picked this woman.

Posted by: light_bearer | September 30, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse


From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-couric-on-gotcha-journalism.html

Tuesday, September 30, 2008
McCain and Couric Spar on Gotcha Journalism

COURIC: Over the weekend, Gov. Palin, you said the U.S. should absolutely launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan to, quote, "stop the terrorists from coming any further in." Now, that's almost the exact position that Barack Obama has taken and that you, Sen. McCain, have criticized as something you do not say out loud. So, Gov. Palin, are you two on the same page on this?

MCCAIN: Now, just a minute, Katie. I have to step in here. That's another example of the media's "Gotcha journalism"...

COURIC: But, it was a question from a citizen. How is a citizen asking a candidate a question an example of what you call "Gotcha Journalism?"

MCCAIN: Because it was hard, Katie.

We don't want Gov. Palin to be asked questions, unless she is prepared for them. When she is prepared, as she will be before the debate, she sounds intelligent, knowledgeable and feisty. But when she has not been prepared, she sounds lost and incoherent.

We can't have people asking her questions when she has not had time to be prepared with an answer.

COURIC: But, Sen. McCain, I have to say, you are 72-years old. Actuarial preditions show that if you were to be elected, Gov. Palin would have a 1 in 5 chance of actually becoming President. These are perilous times--unprecedented crises in financial markets, tensions across a wide range of critical foreign policy arenas. Shouldn't we have a Vice President, and a potential President, who actually understands these issues, beyond the preparation necessary for a debate?

MCCAIN: Gov. Palin understands these areas very well, Katie.

COURIC: Here is her response to a question on the economy:

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were 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 health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care 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, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

COURIC: That answer, Sen. McCain, as noted by Fareed Zakaria, is incoherent.

MCCAIN: Yes.

COURIC: Well, isn't it actually important that a potential President actually comprehend issues? That is, beyond debate preparation?

MCCAIN: No, Katie. That's what I mean by "gotcha journalism". It's obvious from these prior interviews that Palin has little to no comprehension of fiscal policy and economics. For heaven's sake, she received a "D" in macroeconomics in college! And, as I've I said in the past, I have little understanding of economic issues myself.

No, what's important, Katie, is that she *sound* like she understands the issues. In the debate. If she is sufficiently prepared, she can give an illusion of understanding the issues--even if she is giving answers with the prepared and practiced spontaneity and content necessary to give that illusion force.

Given that the bar is set at the lowest standard imaginable, Katie, if she accompanies that performance with sufficient charm, we believe that media will follow, into focusing on the change from that low standard, and on those superficial entertainment values--you know, Katie, (McCain smiles through tight lips and squinting eyes and moves his hands up and down)--"She certainly appears to be more confident tonight; she appears more poised, coherent, humorous"--rather than her readiness to be President from an objective standard. Here, using the more important standard of Presdidential capability, she has already demonstrated that she is unprepared to be President.

So, Katie, we want them to focus on that difference, on her debate preparation, rather than on her actual well-demonstrated Presidential unreadiness. And that's what I mean by "gotcha journalism."

KATIE: But if I understand you correctly, Sen. McCain, you actually believe that it's not important that she understand the issues actually facing the nation...

MCCAIN: Right.

COURIC: On which many people's very jobs, health and life will rely at this critical time...

MCCAIN: Yes.

COURIC: All that really matters creating a standard so low that she actually is rewarded for her widely seen and repeatedly demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding. That we would be using what is essentially a remedial standard for Presidential capability.

And, it seems you are saying, Sen. McCain, that, as a result, we would actually decide that she is ready for the Presidency, simply because, after preparation, she has improved. Even though days earlier, time after time, she was unable to give coherent answers on these subjects.

No one gains Presidential understanding in days. And in the office of the Presidency, with its intense crises and unforseeable events, she will not be prepared for each unpredictable day, as she was for the debate.

Yet you expect media to focus on these values, rather than actual readiness to be President. That's what you mean by "gotcha journalism"?

MCCAIN: Exactly. Once again, Katie, we "gotcha."

COURIC: How can you expect the media to fall for that?

MCCAIN: It worked for Bush.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-couric-on-gotcha-journalism.html

Posted by: caraprado1 | September 30, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company