Palin's first interview

At least he wasn't totally softballing her.

She avoided/nonsensed most of the questions anyway, but that's politics I guess. Still with the "Russia is close to Alaska" shit.
 
I can't view it right now but did she actually say Russian is close to Alaska?

I wrote that off as Cindy being a dumbass, which is okay -- the wife/husband can be a dumbass and the S.O. can be a good leader. But did Palin actually use it?
 
[quote name='Koggit']I can't view it right now but did she actually say Russian is close to Alaska?

I wrote that off as Cindy being a dumbass, which is okay -- the wife/husband can be a dumbass and the S.O. can be a good leader. But did Palin actually use it?[/quote]

Well, to be fair, she did try to elevate it to some kind of metaphor rather than actually saying Russia is close to Alaska therefore I'm qualified. Here's where it came up (responding to a question about Russia/Georgia):

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.
Click to expand...
 
She wanted the credit that being close to Russia might give her (at least in some people's eyes) without outright saying it, because even she must recognize it is a ridiculous point.
 
[quote name='sgs89']She wanted the credit that being close to Russia might give her (at least in some people's eyes) without outright saying it, because even she must recognize it is a ridiculous point.[/quote]

Yeah that's what I was thinking. The fact that they're close must resonate with some potential voters. They like to repeat it, but in a way that isn't stupid enough to call them on.

Overall Charlie Gibson did a pretty good job of trying to keep her from getting out of the questions, but he wasn't going to ask the same question like 20 times to get a better answer, so in the end she really didn't say much of anything.
 
[quote name='Koggit']It's awesome that she had no idea what the bush doctrine is.... just awesome... this bitch is gonna be president and we're all fucked[/QUOTE]


This is why all liberals (or the sane Americans) need to move to Canada and take it back before the Busies destroy another country too.

sgs89, what exactly is news there? A drug and drinking problem from a teen?! Shocking! The guy who knocked the daughter up is being forced to get married?! Shocking! The whole family is a bunch of crazy ass hypocrites? REALLY SHOCKING!!!
 
So...let's play media here for a bit. Why on Earth would you have a vice presidential candidate's first tv interview be on a Friday night? Also, how smart are your viewers to know what the Bush Doctrine is?

Answers: You wouldn't since Friday night TV ratings are worse than any other night of the week and not very smart at all. And once attack ads go after her on it, people will still think you're calling her a stupid bitch at the most basic level of understanding, thus hurting your campaign in the process.
 
Nah, Broly's onto something. News that politicians need to release but want buried are often let out around 4-5PM on Fridays - much of the time, it's old hat by Monday and folks aren't talking about it.
 
As expected, she was a complete mess during the interview. Still, I wonder how much her incompetence will actually affect public opinion...
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']As expected, she was a complete mess during the interview. [/QUOTE]

Guess most people see what they want to see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']As expected, she was a complete mess during the interview. Still, I wonder how much her incompetence will actually affect public opinion...[/QUOTE]

As you can see by thrustbucket's response, her hemming, hawing, and thorough, unadulterated nonanswer on whether preemptive war was ok was just peachy to him.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']As you can see by thrustbucket's response, her hemming, hawing, and thorough, unadulterated nonanswer on whether preemptive war was ok was just peachy to him.[/QUOTE]

No.
As you can see by my response, her hemming, hawing, and thorough string of canned answers and nonanswers were par for the course of any candidates interview at this stage in the election. Failing to recognize that in one party but not the other only proves bias.

Take off the cheap donkey shaped party favor goggles for once.

There is no possible set of answers she could have provided, in any possible way, that would have impressed some of you, unless they were democratic party line answers. That's my point.

When Obama is asked questions about exact time frames for his plan of withdrawl or specifics on his plans for illegal immigration, you'll see very similar responses, but perhaps in a little better presentation, as one would expect from a demigod.
 
[quote name='SpazX']At least he wasn't totally softballing her.[/quote]

How dare he treat a woman like that!

I was expecting a Jane Austen novel :cry:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']No.
As you can see by my response, her hemming, hawing, and thorough string of canned answers and nonanswers were par for the course of any candidates interview at this stage in the election. Failing to recognize that in one party but not the other only proves bias.

Take off the cheap donkey shaped party favor goggles for once.

There is no possible set of answers she could have provided, in any possible way, that would have impressed some of you, unless they were democratic party line answers. That's my point.

When Obama is asked questions about exact time frames for his plan of withdrawl or specifics on his plans for illegal immigration, you'll see very similar responses, but perhaps in a little better presentation, as one would expect from a demigod.[/QUOTE]

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
Click to expand...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#phased-withdrawal

Real fuckin' ambiguous time frame. A real fuzzy concept like "the summer of 2010." He may as well have said "when they stand up, we'll stand down."

:roll:

Can you do me a favor: download this file and do a simple search from now on before making claims you can't back up? It'll save me the time and you the gin blossoms.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
 
Ok, I give you that he would have something substantial to say if he gave an interview today. But contrary to his claim of "never wavering on 16 months" it all depends on when he gave an interview, as to what answer you would have heard, right?

April 04 - No withdrawal
June 07 - Troops out by March 31, 2008
Sept 07 - Can't say if troops out by 2013
Jul 08 - Troops out in 16 months

Or hear the change in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YE9cJ1zyI

So taken all together, whatever your thoughts on Iraq withdrawl are, Obama has agreed with you at one point or another.

How about you do us a favor, and update his stance and fluid time table's weekly in this thread for us, since he is your guy.
 
Russert's (*snif*) question specified if there would be "no troops" in Iraq by 2013. Obama's current plan mentions a residual force remaining in Iraq. Like we have in Korea still. Hell, like we have on Okinawa still.

So, while what he said in 2004 doesn't jive with the other points he's made, the variation you're claiming in his points is vastly overstated.
 
I actually like when peoples ideas change like that because it shows they have continually put time and thought into it and their opinions and what they think is best have evolved.

Like when they attacked Kerry for flip flopping. I remember thinking "It's sort of a compliment that he changes his mind and sees things from different views." I'd rather have a president that thinks.

Not to mention the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically from April of 2004. That was over 4 years ago. It is now 2008 almost 2009. I would hope his opinion would change as the situation changes. If he continued to repeat the same robotic thing he did since 2004 that would mean trouble.
 
[quote name='HowStern']I actually like when peoples ideas change like that because it shows they have continually put time and thought into it and their opinions and what they think is best have evolved.

Like when they attacked Kerry for flip flopping. I remember thinking "It's sort of a compliment that he changes his mind and sees things from different views." I'd rather have a president that thinks.

Not to mention the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically from April of 2004. That was over 4 years ago. It is now 2008 almost 2009. I would hope his opinion would change as the situation changes. If he continued to repeat the same robotic thing he did since 2004 that would mean trouble.[/QUOTE]

Too bad more voters don't think like you do. One of the tragedies of the Bush reign is that somehow it became popular to "believe in your gut" that something was right and then it had to always be right from then on. No changing views because that signifies weakness, dammit!

Iraq. Axis of evil. Putin's eyes. Either with me or against me.

Hopefully, we can usher in an age of more thoughtful reflection.
 
[quote name='HowStern']I actually like when peoples ideas change like that because it shows they have continually put time and thought into it and their opinions and what they think is best have evolved.

Like when they attacked Kerry for flip flopping. I remember thinking "It's sort of a compliment that he changes his mind and sees things from different views." I'd rather have a president that thinks.
[/QUOTE]

What if who you voted for decided to change their mind on all the the reasons you voted for them and became more like the people you didn't want to vote for to begin with?

Would you still be glad to have a thoughtful and reflective president able to change?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What if who you voted for decided to change their mind on all the the reasons you voted for them and became more like the people you didn't want to vote for to begin with?

Would you still be glad to have a thoughtful and reflective president able to change?[/QUOTE]

Not that this was directed at me, but, for my part, that would be ok if it was based on a review of the evidence and a sincere change of heart.

It isn't particularly realistic that someone would change their view on "all of the reasons you voted for them" though -- he/she would be a manchurian candidate if that happened. But on a select issue (say, Iraq), it would be OK -- I am voting more for someone who I believe has good judgment than for someone who has an intractable position on a few issues.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Not that this was directed at me, but, for my part, that would be ok if it was based on a review of the evidence and a sincere change of heart.

It isn't particularly realistic that someone would change their view on "all of the reasons you voted for them" though -- he/she would be a manchurian candidate if that happened. But on a select issue (say, Iraq), it would be OK -- I am voting more for someone who I believe has good judgment than for someone who has an intractable position on a few issues.[/QUOTE]

That's a fairly intelligent way of looking at it. Makes sense.

I can think of about a dozen people off the top of my head that feel super duped by Bush. Their biggest issues when deciding a candidate were cutting government spending and immigration reform, and they bought what Bush was selling.

It can be argued that 9/11 changed everything and he had to grow the government in order to protect us, in which case he did just as you say, used judgement to change his goals. But few people today liked that "change" in his policy.

Immigration, on the other hand, was completely ignored.

Either way, they aren't too happy with his judgement and mind-changing, obviously.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Not that this was directed at me, but, for my part, that would be ok if it was based on a review of the evidence and a sincere change of heart.

It isn't particularly realistic that someone would change their view on "all of the reasons you voted for them" though -- he/she would be a manchurian candidate if that happened. But on a select issue (say, Iraq), it would be OK -- I am voting more for someone who I believe has good judgment than for someone who has an intractable position on a few issues.[/quote]


Exactly how I feel. Which is why I said what I did before. :)
 
Aww. Guess who gets the next interview?

Guess?

Really, guess.

It's fuckin' cute.

mittens-patterns-500w.jpg


She'll need these to protect herself against the questions.
 
Palin wants ANWR unlocked. Her argument is that it's only 2,000 acres, out of 20,000,000 acres.

What the fuck?!?!

How is that her rationale? How the hell is she dumb enough to actually say that?

If it's such an insignificantly small area then STFU and leave it alone, tell all your oil buddies to use the remaining 99.99% of the land you dumb, venomous bitch.




Man, the supposed "liberal media" is really not drawing enough attention to Palin's ties to the oil industry. Nearly everything she's done and everything she stands for benefits the oil industry. Her resume is that of someone who'd make a great oil lobbyist, not VP. Her "stance" on global warming, McCain calling her the most knowledgeable person on energy in America, her close ties (both business & personal) to British Petroleum, giving state funds to oil companies while asking for federal funds for state expenses, refusing to collect from Exxon for environmental settlements, etc, etc.

Her lack of experience? Her religious zeal? Refusing media access to her? Her asking librarians about banning books? Her firing librarians that said they wouldn't? Yeah, all important issues, but it's all just a drop in the enormous bucket full of oil corruption. This bitch is so in the pocket of big oil, every single policy and action of hers screams it.

I know a lot of people say this around election time, but I absolutely cannot respect anyone who even pretends to support Palin.
 
She should be, like Biden, speaking off the cuff at least 3 - 4 times a week... hell, that'd be if she were well known like Biden -- as an unknown we should be seeing much more of her. Not once a week, and definitely not on bullshit like Hannity that might as well be another McCain ad. I can see Hannity's line of questioning now...

"Which of the following would best describe the democratic nominee Barack Hussein Obama: terrorist, or islamic extremist?"

"You've said that you and McCain will solve our energy crisis by opening ANWR, allowing off-shore drilling, and kicking ass in the middle east. How are you guys both so incredibly awesome?"

"This is gonna be a tough one. People have been comparing your resume to that of Barack Hussein Obama. Tell me, why do they do that when he's never even held an executive position, as you have?"
 
Some more questions from the Hannity-Palin interview:

When did God make Bristol pregnant?

If you had to say one bad thing about the Bush administration, what would it be? Trick question, there are no bad things about the Bush administration!

Can I brush your luxurious hair?
 
You act as if every reporter on Fox News if the spawn of the devil ready to suck everyone's blood out at night or something, sheesh.
 
I listened video Frogurt put up there. (Thanks for the embed, sir.) That answer was almost as bad as a Miss America answer to simple arithmetic.

He should have asked if she supports the Monroe Doctrine.

Palin: You mean, that guy on the Simpsons?
 
Hannity: "Tell us about the bridge to nowhere, Sarah. Some accuse you of flip-flopping on the issue, that you kept the money and Congress canceled the project, leaving you in no position to sustain the bridge on your own, let alone the fact that the project had become the laughingstock of wasted taxpayer money, culminating in your hand being forced to stop a project that had by and large been already stopped. Your response."

*Palin lies her ass off*

Hannity: "Next question..."

Why they gotta trash the 'Nati by filming this interview there?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You act as if every reporter on Fox News if the spawn of the devil ready to suck everyone's blood out at night or something, sheesh.[/QUOTE]



Me? I don't.

Hannity definitely is.


I've said many, many times on this forum that I don't mind Fox News, and even like many of their reporters, with the exceptions of Hannity and Coulter, who are just absolute trash. I was the only one defending O'Reilly in the recent CAG attacks on him...

But it's pretty awesome how you automatically assume criticism you dislike must be baseless, partisan disdain. And by awesome I mean pathetic.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You act as if every reporter on Fox News if the spawn of the devil ready to suck everyone's blood out at night or something, sheesh.[/quote]

Christ, you know damn well Hellspawn don't drink blood. Sacrifices are made to curry their favor. Speaking of sacrifices, does anybody remember when O'Reilly sacrificed that virgin? What was her name? Aww, yes, it was Credibility.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You act as if every reporter on Fox News if the spawn of the devil ready to suck everyone's blood out at night or something, sheesh.[/quote]

C'mon. We wouldn't see you saying "you act as if every reporter on MSNBC is the spawn of the devil" if somebody complained about Olbermann interviewing her.
 
Olbermann vs. Palin.

That would be awesome.

She would get him in the "mount" position and start taking off her shirt.

Ratings would skyrocket because people love Skinemax and long for the sluttiness of the Clinton years.

Then, she would whip out her baby seal club and start beating him with it while screaming, "Who's the worst person ever NOW!"
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Olbermann vs. Palin.

That would be awesome.

She would get him in the "mount" position and start taking off her shirt.

Ratings would skyrocket because people love Skinemax and long for the sluttiness of the Clinton years.

Then, she would whip out her baby seal club and start beating him with it while screaming, "Who's the worst person ever NOW!"[/quote]

I like this idea a lot. All presidential elections should be decided in a cage fight. Barrack VS McCain, I bet no one would forget that one anytime soon.
 
So she gets asked about her being all for the bridge to nowhere until the plug got pulled.

Her response? She was for infrastructure for her state...

fuck me...
 
The Charlie Gibson interview is being shown on 20/20 tonight for those of you that are interested.

I'm TIVO'ing it so I can revel in its glory several times between now and Nov. 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top