You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / FINALLY Watched the Palin Interview

FINALLY Watched the Palin Interview

By Sarg - Posted on 12 September 2008

It took me this long to actually get myself to watch Sarah Palin's interview on ABC.  It's hard for me to become speechless, but I literally don't know where to start in responding to it.  It will take a moment for me to get my bearings.

But as a result of watching, I am confidentally lowering the McCain Deathwatch from 45% to 40%.

What are your thoughts on the interview (sorry if you've already posted your opinion on this speech and I missed it)?



Sarg, the interview made me very sad for all the qualified female politicians who were watching, knowing they were passed over in favor of Palin.

Imagine being Kay Bailey Hutchinson and having to listen to something like that?

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of women I would rather have as McCain's running mate.

Since you hope McCain loses, I'm sure you do! A-lot from your side feel that way.

Well, I for one personally think McCain shot himself in the foot by choosing Palin.  Her trainwreck of an interview does not bode well for McCain.  She will get eaten up in a debate with Biden (or anyone, really LOL).  


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.
Only time will tell but I can't wait until the debate, I think they will be in touch with more people than what you think, and also McCain will have an easy time with Obama, McCain has repeatedly asked for a debate, in which has been denied, when the script is not written I believe the real Obama will show, and in your mind if Palin was bad, well we will be continued

Well yeah, we'll just have to wait.  Hopefully McCain won't have memory issues or think that Putin is the President of Germany, again.  But to be fair, hopefully Biden won't stick his foot in his mouth and say something tastelessly insulting.  Obama needs to keep his answers shorter, terse. 

Palin is just a trainwreck and I already feel sorry for her.  In the interview w Charlie, she looked like she knew she was way over her head.

Now also to be fair, there are plenty of twits out there who won't notice her obvious incompetence during the VP debates, so I concede it's possible a really bad performance in debate by her will still yield praise from low-information voters.  Some of them anyway.

Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

I couldn't agree more.  There really are some terrific, qualified females.  One can't help suspecting that this lady is just a "token woman" to McCain  (thus the horrible term "Random Va... " in my signature). 

Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

I think people should read the following.  ?It is the parts of the interview edited out.  Some I am sure for time constraint purposes; others I am sure because her answers would make people feel more comfortable in general with Palin.


EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (September 11, 2008)



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.

PALIN: Right.

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.


GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

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.

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.


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.

All that is missing are the "KR" initials wherever the edits were made - after the interview.

And General Petraeus - not exactly the darling of the "left" - said there is no "victory" in Iraq. You can't have victory in an occupation. TruthDig: "John McCain has repeatedly promised “victory” in Iraq, but his personal hero and the outgoing commander of that war says he’ll probably never use the word. In a conversation with the BBC, a relatively upbeat Gen. David Petraeus foretells of a “long struggle.” ..."

me, please do not copy and paste long articles, instead copy a part of them, give your source and provide a link so that we may read the rest.  Copying so much of an article puts us at risk of violating copyright laws.  Please read the Terms of Service concerning this.

Thank you.

Suzi, Forums moderator

There's no way I have the patience to read all that.  Anyhow, she made some silly comments that seem to be pretty edit-proof to me.  Showed some real naivety on her part.  And did I truly hear Palin count the fact that she can see Russia from Alaska as "foreign experience"??   McCain blundered in his choice of VP.


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.
Sarg,  If you can't read all of the interview, you don't understand the MSM vs. Palin.  Take a moment and read it, you are truly ignorant until you do.

Nah, not so much.   It's not that I can't read it, and I'm sure I'll eventually get around to it ...  It's that there are some fairly edit-proof statements she made that are alarming in and of themselves.  And her demeanor spoke volumes as well.  


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

Read all of the edited comments!  Thank you for posting the truth.  I am so sick of the slander that the media continues to print.  Republicans for Obama are insane.  Stop drinking the crazy KoolAid.

Obammy is for higher taxes, losing a war, abortion at any stage for any reason, teaching 4 year-olds sex education, open borders, man-made global warming hoax, naminating activist judges, etc...

For you people that are ok with all of these issues, lets be clear,  YOU ARE NOT REPUBLICANS!  Be honest for one second!  Trolls or insane you are.

I see you're a shill for the MSM.  You actually believe that lie about sex ed, as presented in a campaign ad?  

And much of your claims above are erroneous.  As you urge people to read the full ABC interview transcript, take time to brush up on the entirety of Obama's policies and turn down Hannity once in a while.  You know, de-program yourself.


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

Honestly, she was straining to give a good interview. It was painful to watch. I found her more personable on the walk-n-talk segment of the interview - but still woefully inadequate in her responses. She simply confirmed that she was a "shoot from the hip" decision on McCain's part. I stated from day-one that there were many more qualified women that could have been chosen. I agree with both Barbara and John... that interview has to be hard for those women to watch!

BTW: Is it me, or does she seem to talk A LOT about Alaska in her responses? The more I hear her talk the more I wonder just how much she's "not now or ever was" a part of the AIP. Her "welcome home" speech two days ago in Fairbanks was very heavy "this is good for Alaska" and not so much "good for the country."

I am going to watch it again and take a shot of Hennessey everytime she says " charlie's" name.

Barack won the day.....I am going to get hammered.

Indforobama, perhaps your drinking problem is the root cause of your ignorance.  If you think Barry has won anything in the past 2 weeks, you're a true alcoholic... living a lie.

Hey Indforobama,  yeah, she totally bit it.  I like the alcohol joke   ;)


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

It actually took some of the scariness away from her. She's like nothing. Just an incredibly "average" woman of my generation. And, as someone else said, "if I want to hear what an average woman has to say, I'll go out and talk to my next door neighbor, not a candidate for VP".


"A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise."

- Niccolo Machiavelli

Yep, she'll be a good puppet...

"she's like nothing" "average woman of my generation"

 Let's see Sarah Palin was elected to the city council of her hometown twice.

Served two terms as mayor of her hometown.

She was then appointed by the governor to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission where she resigned after a year to protest what she called "the lack of ethics" of fellow Republican members.

She then took on the Republican Party in Alaska by filing a formal complaint against the chair of the state Republican Party, who was forced to resign and pay a $12,000 fine.

She then ran against the governor in the Republican primary, won the primary and then defeated a former governor in the general election becoming Alaska's first woman governor and the youngest in history.

She has one of the highest approval ratings in the United States.

Does all this make her qualified to be Vice President, NO, but to say she's "nothing" or "an average woman" is nonsense.



No, she doesn't qualify as average but rather inept just like W.  She was an inept mayor and she thinks she's ready to step into the presidency of the United States if necessary.  Sorry, but when a small town has poor infrastructure, she should have been paving roads, building sewers, etc. not throwing good money after bad on a boondoggle sports complex - especially one built on land that the town didn't own.

I'd prefer average over inept.  

She is so average she has the highest approval ratings of any Governor in the country. 
Give me $1200 and I'll like my governor better too.  How's that for being a fiscal conservative? 

Exactly.   And Alaskan taxes are the highest rate in the country, but see, the oil they sell to the rest of us doesn't leave Alaska until there are four separate taxes placed on it.  So the rest of us get gouged. 


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

September 7

Milk hit $11 a gallon in some areas of rural Alaska, villages like Kokhanok on Lake Iliamna, the price of gasoline is $8.83 a gallon with heating oil in Lime village topping out at $9.50 a gallon.

September 11

A state investigation has found that Alaska's gasoline prices are falling more slowly than elsewhere in the nation because the two refineries here are struggling to turn a profit.

This has always been the complaint for not building more refineries, even within the Lower 48. If we drill for more oil, what then? Who is going to build non-profit refineries?

Obama/Biden 2008



Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.
With a total population of 670,000 in the state of Alaska Palin was elected with 115,000 votes cast for her. WOW that is less than the population of my county.

WELL, BRANDON, in the circles in which I travel that is "average" - sorry. Those of who who run with the "to whom much is given, much is expected" crowd - see her type - and her betters every day. My friend the (female) State Rep would have been a better candidate. So that dog don't hunt.

Oh, and, wouldn't you consder 20 months to be within the first months of her Governorship? CT's own Jodi Rell, another, female Republican Governor "In her first months in office, Rell had high approval ratings, with a December 2004 Quinnipiac University poll showing her at 80 percent, the highest rating ever measured by the Quinnipiac University poll for a governor in Connecticut.[1] - and she hasn't given us all $1,200 in oil money to buy us off.

Klaf, are you honestly saying that being a council member, mayor, governor and taking on the corrupt good old boy network in your own party is considered average among your crowd.

Palin is younger than Obama yet she has executive accomplishments in the areas of ethics, energy and tax policy.  She governs the largest land area of any U.S. state with more public land than any other and a state that borders two foreign countries.  Last year she implemented a $40 billion natural gas project to bring alternative energy sources to the United States.  Obama's record on actually accomplishing anything doesn't even come close.

So, the problem you have in saying things like Palin is "average" and "is a nothing" is that it just focuses attention on the top of your ticket and reminds people that Obama is the least accomplished  candidate for president in over 100 years.  

Just to begin with,  there is no such thing as an objective accomplishment in "ethics".  That's silly and you know it LOL. And if you call tax gouging the rest of the US for oil "energy and tax" accomplishment, then congratulations, you've been Hannitized. 

As for the comparison w Obama (which is absolutely laughable):  Obama has a total of 11 years as State/ US Senator, which means he's been responsible for leadership in populations vastly bigger than Alaska, practically a ghost town in comparison. Since when does "ruling over" a large land mass with few people trump ruling over a moderate land mass with a very large human population?  What a twitty argument.

Also, while Palin was busy struggling to make it through 6 marginal schools in 5 years just to get a journalism degree,  Senator Obama completed law school (in a timely, responsible manner), graduating from the top US Ivy League Magna Cum Laude  (that means the top 10% of his class),  became a community organizer, which takes more organizational smarts and know-how than governing over a relatively vacant ice mass for a year and change.  

Also, while Sarah Palin ditzed out and told us that it's up to us to tell her what a VP does (!!),  it reminded me that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. 

Come on now.  Don't insult our collective intelligence. She is an absolute lightweight.  What's interesting is that scared look she had in her eyes during much of the interview.  I think this lady knows all this "VP stuff" (as she calls it) is way over her head. 

PS  She actually said that she hasn't been following the news on Iraq.  If that isn't a red flag I don't know what is.


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

Of course there are objective accomplishment in "ethics."

If I write and sponsor a bill in the legislature on ethics reforms and it passes and becomes law, are you telling me I've accomplished nothing?

Alright, I'll bite:  What "ethics accomplishment", specifically are you speaking of? It will interesting to see how that answer balances out with several of her alarming political behaviors that many might call unethical and deceitful to boot.  

Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

More importantly, how do you refute the facts I offered above, showing Palin is in the sandbox when compared to Obama's experience?   Please respond to the specific argument above. Thanks.


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

I guess the experience question is subjective view of what experience is greater.  Quite frankly I don't know why you are arguing Palin versus Obama.  Experience at the top of the ticket is far more important.  The heartbeat theory is of little consequence b/c Palin would have the benefit of the McCain administration should it be necessary.  Didn't seem to hurt Truman all that much.

As far as ethics, well Obama can't really touch that one in comparison even with the 'allegations'.

"In contrast, Obama’s record as a state senator in Illinois hardly represents reform. He spent eight years cozying up to the Chicago machine and failed to challenge status quo politics there.

Emil Jones, president of the Illinois senate and Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s enforcer, was Obama’s mentor. Obama often points to an ethics bill he “sponsored” in 1998 to bolster his reform and bipartisan credentials. The ethics bill allows Jones to retire next year and convert $578,000 (the amount he had in his account in 1998 minus income taxes) to his personal bank account. That’s not change you can believe in, it’s change Jones can bank on.

Obama’s bill barred fundraising on state property and blocked lobbyists from giving gifts to legislators. It did not, however, end the pay-to-play system of patronage championed by another Obama associate — Tony Rezko. Don’t blame Obama, though. He didn’t actually write the law, as reported by author David Freddoso:" link



 I asked another poster about his claim to Palin and a claim of "accomplishment in ethics".  Your post does nothing to support or undermine that specific claim. 

"Quite frankly I don't know why you are arguing Palin versus Obama."

You still have a chance to take back this silly question before you're made to feel foolish. 


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

The funny thing is: "Quite frankly I don't know why you are arguing Palin versus Obama." - is not a question.  

On Palin's efforts for ethics reform since you couldn't be bothered to read the article:

"Palin has branded herself a crusader against corruption in the GOP establishment in Alaska. In 2006, Palin crushed corrupt GOP governor Frank Murkowski 51 to 19 percent in a three-way primary. One of her first acts as governor was to sell the state jet on eBay for $2.7 million. She also made waves by passing ethics reform legislation.

“In her short time in state office, she has repeatedly thwarted [Sen. Ted] Stevens’s and [Rep. Don] Young’s interests and, at times, challenged their candidates — including their children,” The Washington Post noted.

In 2004, she joined a Democratic representative in filing an ethics complaint against Republican Attorney General Gregg Renkes over a trade deal. Renkes resigned.

As a Murkowski-appointee to the Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Palin went after fellow commissioner Randy Ruedrich, also chairman of the state GOP, charging him with doing political business on state time. That investigation led to his resignation and a $12,000 fine. Quick: name one member of Chicago’s Democratic machine that Barack Obama took down along his rapid ascent to the U.S. Senate.

Palin also endorsed Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell to challenge Young, who is under investigation for secretly steering a $10 million earmark to a campaign contributor in Florida, in this year’s GOP primary (Young leads by about 150 votes, with thousands of ballots yet to be counted).

Parnell visited Young’s D.C. office in October 2006. Parnell said Young erupted with a ten-minute tirade about Palin, calling her a “crystal figure” and said he was “going to crush her,” according to a New Republic story."


Has she addressed the multiple college thing? Did she release transcipts? Just curious.
Izzy, I would assume you are also demanding that Obama release his Columbia transcript something that he has so far refused.
If you read my post, I am not demanding anything. Have a happy day!
THANK YOU Sarge! Great points, all. And, Brandon, you appear to be an intellectual conservative in the style of Wm F Buckley .... so, please, you can not seriously be defending someone who you would not give the time of day to if she wasn't the standard bearer of your cockamamie Presidential ticket.

Thanks Klaf.  The flimsy, transparent, laughable argument that Palin has experience equal to or beyond that of Obama is ...  well ... just that. 


Cheney/Random Vajayjay  2008

McCain/Palin Deathwatch, September 12 '08:  McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 40% chance of winning the election.

Let's do a very brief and to the point comparison on the experience issue:

Community Organizer vs PTA

State legislator vs small town mayor

Junior United States Senator vs short term governor of a state with a very small population. 

Yeah Sarg, but Brandon has to pay his bills somehow. Maintaining that air of superiority can be expensive.
I am honestly saying I will see your Sarah Palin and raise you  a Jodi Rell, R Gov. CT: from On The Issues (so, from my point of view, Palin is still nothing special):

Ban on campaign cash from special interests

Ethics reform - first on the agenda. In her very first State of the State Address, Governor Rell proposed a sweeping package of ethics reforms called "Fairness Over Favoritism." From restructuring the State Ethics Commission to reforming the state's contracting process, loopholes have been closed, disclosure requirements increased and gift restrictions tightened.

Toughest in the nation campaign finance reform: Governor Rell demanded that the General Assembly pass tough, real reforms of our campaign finance system - including bans on campaign cash from special interests. The changes are considered a national model.

Living those reforms--now. Although many of the campaign finance reforms won't take effect for statewide offices until 2010, Governor Rell is already living by standards that are stricter than required by the law. Governor Rell's campaign is not accepting contributions from lobbyists, political action committees or anyone who negotiates, develops or signs a state contract.

Maybe someday we can work together on the Bobby Jindal/Jodi Rell ticket for president.


Cold day in hell Brandon, after the way you've acted toward me on some of the threads here. Keep it up and drive more of us farther away from the GOP.

I don't blame Sarah Palin for any aspect of this travesty. Heck, if someone had asked me to be John McCain's VP candidate, I would have said "Sure, none of my kids is pregnant... let's rock, big guy." For someone with no background in national or international current events with one week's cramming for a televised oral exam, she did ok for her campaign. (I wish she had bombed totally, but I did not expect that to happen.)

"Bush Doctrine" was a deliciously bad moment. Lying about her "global warming" and "bridge to nowhere" positions simply means she is on board with her boss' campaign. (Nothing she said on TV was as patently dense as Biden's public remark this week that maybe Barack should have picked Hillary instead of him.)

As the ABC interview demonstrated, the Palin candidacy is a conscious, party-level dumbing down of the Presidency (not that the incumbent president hasn't done a splendid job of that on his own). I have yet to see the public responses that I am looking for:

a) high profile women -- Barack supporters or not -- screaming at how low the bar is being set for women's leadership. Some women writers and bloggers are pressing this point, but the political and civic big timers are oddly muted or compromised. Maybe it's a sisterhood issue, but they're just not out there.

b) moderate Republican leaders -- who are going to be toast anyway if Palin ever gets within ten feet of the White House -- need to "pull a Lieberman" and openly fight the GOP's surrender (yet again) to the far right nuthouse. But with big money now rolling into the GOP and so much of the media owned or cowed by conservatives, I doubt that will happen. Moderate Republican leaders -- my Peeps -- are  sunk either way.

So, Barack and his campaign are left to figure out for themselves how to get some air time and regain some momentum...and maybe that is how it should be.

The Sarah Palin nomination has certainly energized me. I have upped my donations to Barack and will join my first ever inter-state (NY and Ohio) registration  and campaign event scheduled for the first week in October. I am, to coin a phrase, "fired up and ready to go."



You are obviously not paying attention to the world if you believe the GOP gets the bulk of media attention.  On TV Fox News leans to the right, but all major networks plus CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN, and all the rest lean far left and are almost openly rooting for Obama.  All print media with a few exceptions are far left.  I do not understand how this flows with your point that media is supporting the GOP.


She also clearly stated if any one was listening that when it came clear that Washington was not going to fund the Bridge to Nowhere that the state wasn't going to pay for it and she backed off.  That is called listening to the people.


Bush dumbing down America is laughable.  I have seen posts on this site about where Palin Graduated and why should University of Idaho qualify someone to be VP.  Bush is an Ivy league graduate with a higher GPA than the inventor of the internet and fabricator of all things "Global Warming" Al Gore.


Again; someone ont his website needs to point me to the written"Bush Doctrine" and what part of that Charlie Gibson an obvious "right wing wacko" lol was referring to when he asked her if she supported it. 


Still not sure how I can understand any of you guys on here are Republicans and how electing him brings back the party to anywhere you claim you want it to be.

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.