Jump to content


Couric interviews Palin


Hotcorner
 Share

Recommended Posts

video

 

some highlights:

 

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

 

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land -- boundary that we have with -- Canada. [...]

 

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

 

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our -- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia --

 

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

 

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We -- we do -- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where -- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is -- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to -- to our state.

 

Apologies, so much depressing news lately I needed a little pick-me-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


She's an idiot and doesn't know what the hell she believes. She's no Ron Paul.

 

Democrats need to be careful trying out the tired old idiot charge on Palin, whatever she is, she is not an idiot. And calling her an idiot is going to ruin Biden when she fillets him like a fish during the debate.

 

I like her a lot and hope you're right but I doubt it. I think it's idiotic to call her an idiot but I don't think she's well versed on many of the issues. I'm pretty sure if she had being running for two years, as Obama has, she would be fine but she hasn't. Watching her interviews is a painful experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Sarah supporter, and I'm worried about the debate.

 

I think the campaign is not doing a good job with her, she has lost her confidence. Let Sarah be Sarah, if she isn't strong in Foreign Policy just say so. They are playing into the Dems strategy of portraying McCain as a walking corpse.

 

With that said, Biden has been a Gaffe Machine since he was picked as the VP candidate. People are just not focusing on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's an idiot and doesn't know what the hell she believes. She's no Ron Paul.

 

Democrats need to be careful trying out the tired old idiot charge on Palin, whatever she is, she is not an idiot. And calling her an idiot is going to ruin Biden when she fillets him like a fish during the debate.

 

I like her a lot and hope you're right but I doubt it. I think it's idiotic to call her an idiot but I don't think she's well versed on many of the issues. I'm pretty sure if she had being running for two years, as Obama has, she would be fine but she hasn't. Watching her interviews is a painful experience.

 

Nobody is going to edit her to look as bad as possible in a debate, and Biden has the worst case of foot in mouth disease in the nation. Underestimating her is a fatal mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, I would say that without a doubt that Biden is the worst of the entire lot. A scummy politician who represents everything wrong with this country.

 

I lost much respect for Obama after that selection. That's not to say that I support Palin, but Biden is nothing more than a zionist war-monger used to 'balance' the ticket.

I'm sorry, but Biden is no 'war-monger'. I have listened to him speak almost a hundred times over the years, and he is a very educated and reasoned person. I think he will make a great vice president, although he does have foot in mouth disease a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, I would say that without a doubt that Biden is the worst of the entire lot. A scummy politician who represents everything wrong with this country.

 

I lost much respect for Obama after that selection. That's not to say that I support Palin, but Biden is nothing more than a zionist war-monger used to 'balance' the ticket.

I'm sorry, but Biden is no 'war-monger'. I have listened to him speak almost a hundred times over the years, and he is a very educated and reasoned person. I think he will make a great vice president, although he does have foot in mouth disease a lot.

I thought Palin was chosen to "balance" the ticket as well because obviously she is not even fit to be governor of a deserted island, let alone be vice president (and *gasp, president).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, I would say that without a doubt that Biden is the worst of the entire lot. A scummy politician who represents everything wrong with this country.

 

I lost much respect for Obama after that selection. That's not to say that I support Palin, but Biden is nothing more than a zionist war-monger used to 'balance' the ticket.

I'm sorry, but Biden is no 'war-monger'. I have listened to him speak almost a hundred times over the years, and he is a very educated and reasoned person. I think he will make a great vice president, although he does have foot in mouth disease a lot.

I thought Palin was chosen to "balance" the ticket as well because obviously she is not even fit to be governor of a deserted island, let alone be vice president (and *gasp, president).

It was a purely political decision. Every analyst on TV agreed very quickly that this was the nod to the Religious Right, who until then had no reason to go to the polls for the GOP in November. I just read a long, scathing article by Carl Bernstein, who covered McCain's campaign in 2000, about how he believed that McCain had totally done a 180 from that campaign. He questioned the judgment of someone who would use his first major presidential decision (selecting a running mate) to select a completely unqualified and inexperienced partner, especially when McCain's health is a big question. He notes that McCain was about to go with either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge (both pro-choice), until this became public and the Religious Right cried foul. Bernstein recalls that in 2000, McCain railed against GWB's courtship of the evangelical community, believing that a president shouldn't be beholden to special groups such as themselves. He decries McCain's slanderous tactics in political advertising, noting (as others have) that McCain was employing the same tactics against Obama that George W. Bush and Karl Rove used against himself in 2000 in South Carolina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, I would say that without a doubt that Biden is the worst of the entire lot. A scummy politician who represents everything wrong with this country.

 

I lost much respect for Obama after that selection. That's not to say that I support Palin, but Biden is nothing more than a zionist war-monger used to 'balance' the ticket.

I'm sorry, but Biden is no 'war-monger'. I have listened to him speak almost a hundred times over the years, and he is a very educated and reasoned person. I think he will make a great vice president, although he does have foot in mouth disease a lot.

He has supported military intervention in most of the controversial regions around the globe and wants to expand the influence of entities such as the UN and NATO. He supports our current intervention in the Middle East, supported our efforts in Bosnia, wants to send troops into the Sudan, and has decided to hold Russian solely accountable for the 'invasion' of Georgia.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than saying simply that you liked what you heard him say on television. Be more specific.

I don't see anything wrong with supporting intervention in either Bosnia or Darfur, since those are/were humanitarian situations.

 

Also, you called him 'scummy'. Not sure what you are referring to in his record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin at least has some executive accomplishments while McCain is nothing more than a lame-duck Senator. He's clueless on the issues.

 

If you want to measure the intelligence of the two I would probably say that it's a tossup but perhaps giving the slight edge to Palin.

 

McCain with all of his self-proclaimed knowledge on foreign policy is completely clueless. Even more so on the economy.

 

Palin would be better in the White House. She isn't a politician to the bone like Obama, one must first realize that.

 

However, to make myself clear, I am still by no means a Palin supporter. She is merely the lesser of two evils.

 

You're being extremely general. Almost like you're thinking off the top of your head. You don't know enough about her to know if she is or isn't a politician to the bone. Staunchly supporting the bridge to nowhere, wearing t-shirts in favor of it, and then flipping on it after it became unpopular but keeping the money suggests otherwise.

 

And her foreign policy views are probably more hawkish than McCain, let alone the "scummy" Biden. So if you dislike him for his views, equating that with knowledge or dislike for Biden, then she is just as bad if not worse.

 

I think you're really just being disagreeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to emphasize the point of Obama being a politician to the bone. As I've said endlessly in the past, I take exception with his narcissistic desire to in effect begin running for president before holding one day in office in the US Senate. This is in conjunction with him never winning a contested election until he defeated Hillary in the primary. On top of this, Obama has reversed his positions and his been flat out dishonest in several areas where it has been politically expedient for him to do so, such as FISA, public financing, and issues of foreign policy.

 

While while I do not support her or would ever vote for her (or do I recognize the appeal some libertarians have for her) evokes a somewhat positive response from me for being called onto the ticket spontaneously at the last minute, barring us from the disgusting pandering and cut-throat politicking we've had to endure from Obama. This is not to say the hasty selection of Palin makes McCain look anymore competent.

 

Wait. She is woefully inadequate and has limited experience on the national and international stage, and has put herself one heartbeat of a very unhealthy 73 year old man from becoming president, yet she is somehow the herion for undertaking the call of duty?

 

She accepted that nomination because it would further her own career whether or not she is actually prepared for the job. She has the same narcisstic desire as everyone else.

 

It seems to me that you want this to be a conversation in a vacuum. If politics, public perception, and media influence did not exist, I would concur with you that Obama has crossed lines.

 

But you're in denial if you think this environment doesn't exist. Democrats lose elections when they don't act politically expedient. Dukakis tried to defend his own anti-death penalty views and one questions from Bernard Shaw pushed his already faltering campaign over the edge. He was defamed for a furlough program he didn't create.

 

You sit there and criticize democrats for running pragmatic campaigns without acknowleding that everyone who has ever been elected president, at least in the last 100 years, has done the same. Feel free to stand on the island of principle and rail against democrats, but when you start saying Palin is not one of them, I laught really hard. Wait for 4 years from now. She'll be running the gamit too.

 

Finally, in regards to Biden, I have criticized Biden's hawkish foreign policy views repeatedly on this forum and I have explained the exception I take to his suspicious positions held on the Iraq war that often fluctuate between his personally held views or what is politically expedient in the Democrats playing the opposition party.

 

Obama is no more experienced than Palin is. Biden has foreign policy experience but it is detrimental experience and he is likely to lead us down a path of wreckless intervention. Say what you want about Palin's embarrassing interviews (you won't see much disagreement from me), but Obama's decision in the debate the other night to divert his own foreign policy expertise to Biden is completely unacceptable. Under a Biden manipulated foreign policy, I expect a longer than necessary stay in Iraq with higher residual forces, escalation of the Afghanistan conflict, possible military action in Pakistan, possible military action in the Balkans, and strife with the Sudanese if our military still has men standing. According to Biden this is all more or less on the table if he had his way.

What seperates Palin from this "hawkish" foreign policy. She wants to become VP so that she can learn under McCain, then run for president with those viewpoints. What makes Biden's foreign policy "worse" that McCain-Palin?

 

And I'm loving this. Democrats are similtaeously accused of not being hawkish enough while also being way too hawkish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, I would say that without a doubt that Biden is the worst of the entire lot. A scummy politician who represents everything wrong with this country.

 

I lost much respect for Obama after that selection. That's not to say that I support Palin, but Biden is nothing more than a zionist war-monger used to 'balance' the ticket.

I'm sorry, but Biden is no 'war-monger'. I have listened to him speak almost a hundred times over the years, and he is a very educated and reasoned person. I think he will make a great vice president, although he does have foot in mouth disease a lot.

I thought Palin was chosen to "balance" the ticket as well because obviously she is not even fit to be governor of a deserted island, let alone be vice president (and *gasp, president).

It was a purely political decision. Every analyst on TV agreed very quickly that this was the nod to the Religious Right, who until then had no reason to go to the polls for the GOP in November. I just read a long, scathing article by Carl Bernstein, who covered McCain's campaign in 2000, about how he believed that McCain had totally done a 180 from that campaign. He questioned the judgment of someone who would use his first major presidential decision (selecting a running mate) to select a completely unqualified and inexperienced partner, especially when McCain's health is a big question. He notes that McCain was about to go with either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge (both pro-choice), until this became public and the Religious Right cried foul. Bernstein recalls that in 2000, McCain railed against GWB's courtship of the evangelical community, believing that a president shouldn't be beholden to special groups such as themselves. He decries McCain's slanderous tactics in political advertising, noting (as others have) that McCain was employing the same tactics against Obama that George W. Bush and Karl Rove used against himself in 2000 in South Carolina.

Oh I know man, I was taking a slight jab at the comment that Biden was merely picked to balance the ticket when Palin was not only picked to balance the republican ticket, but to asure votes that should be republican no matter what (i.e. ultra conservatives like you just noted).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I label her as a heroine? I said that I don't see McCain has a better president, how is that a confident endorsement of Palin. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

McCain is equally if not more inadequate. His age does not make him anymore wise or intelligent. When asked spontaneous questions on the economy he has fell on his face. His perceived adequacy is fallacious and is entirely contingent upon the failure of the public to see beyond his spoon-fed, scripted responses as we witnessed firsthand in the debate the other night. He has demonstrated very little free-thinking ability and he is certainly no maverick. His experience in his Senate, despite at the federal level, is not terribly significant as he has never been held accountable for executive affairs.

 

I was referring more to your discreditting Obama while framing Palin in a different light.

 

Absolutely, but I give more credit to someone who moves on the spontaneous opportunity rather than deliberately planning every single action since college toward a single absolute goal.

 

A lot of things have to fall into place in order for someone to being planning everything since college. You take advantage of the opportunities put before you. Which goes back to the above point. Palin is no better or worse than Obama on this front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean here? In terms of the issues, I certainly find McCain and Obama equally disagreeable. I look at Obama's deliberate refrain from publishing academic papers while a law teacher, his failure to attain his state and US Senate seats through a contended election, the de facto initiation of his campaign at the 2004 Democratic Convention and see nothing more than a dangerous politician. This is on top of him calling for change when I see no instances of change whatsoever. I see only deception being present at multiple levels. That is a call for disaster. The media perceptions and public opinions only become to importance when they indicate that all of that nonsense is actually working, but it hardly affects my opinion of his character or his ability to be president.

 

This is getting very mixed up, so Im not sure what the best way to approach it is. First off, I was referring to your taking issue with Obama's clear movement to the center on FISA and his strategic decision to not take public financing. It's fair enough that you're critical of McCain for the same thing, but Im not sure why you're critical of both. Campaigns are like game theory in a way(Im not always able to nail the prisoners dilemna, but I think it works here). If either of them take more absolutist principled, less pragmatic approaches towards the issues, ie stand firm on an issue, or towards strategy, ie not use the strategic advantage in front of them, they risk losing the election outright. Democrats historically have been the party to approach the prisoners dilemna irraitonally by allowing principle, ie Dukakis NOT moving to the center and not going as negative of Bush, to get in their way.

 

So the thrust of it being that your criticism of Obama as a politician is amazing to me. Of course he has to be a politician. But that does not preclude him from ushering in change once in office. One has to be a shrewed politician when campaigning, but can be more of change agent once in office. Not always, but I believe Obama will do much more.

 

If you think he has the same positions on FISA and foreign policy as McCain merely because he is moving to the center, I don't think you're looking at the whole picture.

 

Second, as for the additional criticisms, the 2004 Senate election became less competitive after his initial competitor dropped out because of marital scandals. Not sure why that reflects on Obama.

 

Why does Obama claim to fight against politicians who sacrifice their viewpoints for lobbyist money when he is essentially committing an equally offensive crime by sacrificing his viewpoints for votes at the ballot box. When does integrity have any importance?

 

Apples and oranges. Public perception is much more fluid than lobbyist demands and not as directly understood. If Obama reforms FISA, he can sell it the American people as president if other aspects of his presidency are going well.. He can't sell major reforms to lobbyists as they understand the issues.

 

"Feel free to stand on the island of principle and rail against democrats, but when you start saying Palin is not one of them, I laught really hard. Wait for 4 years from now. She'll be running the gamit too."

 

Where have I the least bit insinuated this? Where have I the least bit given any form of endorsement other than saying that I'd rather have her as commander in chief over McCain?

 

If you are going to make such claims about my commentary, provide evidence.

 

Palin would be better in the White House. She isn't a politician to the bone like Obama, one must first realize that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...