Palin Interview

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
Well McCain let Palin off her leash for just a little bit. I watched the interviews and I was a bit surprized by Charlie Gibson. He has a reputation as a bit of a conservative partisan so I expected one soft ball question after the other. He started out serving a few softballs but then actually asked her quite a few hard questions.

To her credit Palin was well prepared for the interview. I think partisans of both stripes will see what they want. Partisans on the left will think she did a horrible job and partisans on the right will think she did fantastic.

Objectively, she looked a bit uncomfortable and nervous and I can't really blame her for that as she's pretty new to the national stage.

As for the content of the questions she answered. Most of her responses were canned answers, not impressive but not unexpected.

On the national defense questions she was asked she did terribly. She obviously did not know what the Bush doctrine was and she never did answer Charlie's question about invading Pakistan even though he asked her 3 times.

On questions on energy she did well as she did when asked about abortion. She took a surprisingly moderate approach on abortion where she recognized her extreme views but agreed both sides could work together to reduce the number of abortions. I don't think the Republican base appreciated that answer but it was obviously a hand towards main stream views.

Other than that most of her answers to questions were canned responses and lacked substance.

In all, I gave her performance a B.
 
Thank you for that unbiased and objective analysis. I am sure the McCain campaign was nervously awaiting your 'grade' of her performance. Maybe now that she passed, McCain will let her off her leash more, if her husbands lets her out of the kitchen. I just hope Biden doesn't ask her to spell 'potato' or something at the debates, I am nervous about that.

Hey Mott? In your profound expert political opinion, do you think McCain and Palin have any chance at all, of maybe stealing a few southern states from Obama? I know they have no chance of beating Obama, but if they could pick up a state or two in the south, maybe they could make a respectable showing? Is that out of the question, or is there hope they might be able to sway dumb voters in Mississippi? Your opinion and analysis are so important to me, you know what I mean???
 
Dixie said:
Thank you for that unbiased and objective analysis. I am sure the McCain campaign was nervously awaiting your 'grade' of her performance. Maybe now that she passed, McCain will let her off her leash more, if her husbands lets her out of the kitchen. I just hope Biden doesn't ask her to spell 'potato' or something at the debates, I am nervous about that.

Hey Mott? In your profound expert political opinion, do you think McCain and Palin have any chance at all, of maybe stealing a few southern states from Obama? I know they have no chance of beating Obama, but if they could pick up a state or two in the south, maybe they could make a respectable showing? Is that out of the question, or is there hope they might be able to sway dumb voters in Mississippi? Your opinion and analysis are so important to me, you know what I mean???
Click to expand...

Dixie, the man posted a fair and balanced opinion. He recognized both sides of the issue.

Your attacks of him show you have no interest in the facts, but choose to be a dick instead.
 
Solitary said:
Dixie, the man posted a fair and balanced opinion. He recognized both sides of the issue.

Your attacks of him show you have no interest in the facts, but choose to be a dick instead.
Click to expand...


The fact you think he gave a "fair and balanced" opinion, is a testament to what a hack you are for Democrats. Very little about his little rant was even honest, much less, fair or balanced. Let's run down the fucking list of misconceptions...

1. Palin is not on McCain's leash.
2. Charlie Gibson is anything BUT conservative.
3. Every question was custom designed to give Team Obama ammo.
4. Palin looked completely comfortable and confident.
5. Palin answered every question with complete clarity.
6. Nothing she said was "canned."
7. She didn't "obviously not know" anything.
8. She answered the question about Pakistan... three times!
9. She confidently expressed her personal opinion on abortion.
10. All of her answers were full of substance.

He did tell the truth on a few things...

1. She knows Energy policy.
2. She was prepared.
3. Lefties hated it, Righties loved it.

I give Motts evaluation a D- and yours a F+ :lmao:
 
Dixie said:
The fact you think he gave a "fair and balanced" opinion, is a testament to what a hack you are for Democrats. Very little about his little rant was even honest, much less, fair or balanced. Let's run down the fucking list of misconceptions...

1. Palin is not on McCain's leash.
2. Charlie Gibson is anything BUT conservative.
3. Every question was custom designed to give Team Obama ammo.
4. Palin looked completely comfortable and confident.
5. Palin answered every question with complete clarity.
6. Nothing she said was "canned."
7. She didn't "obviously not know" anything.
8. She answered the question about Pakistan... three times!
9. She confidently expressed her personal opinion on abortion.
10. All of her answers were full of substance.

He did tell the truth on a few things...

1. She knows Energy policy.
2. She was prepared.
3. Lefties hated it, Righties loved it.

I give Motts evaluation a D- and yours a F+ :lmao:
Click to expand...

If you think Palin is not on a leash you are too naive to be real.

Of course she is on a leash. Every step she takes is choreographed by the McCain machine. Its the same with any campaign.
 
Seems ABC did a little bit of editing - and not neutrally either.
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

And the part about Palin being confused about what Gibson meant by the Bush Doctrine could POSSIBLY be because the media has, over the years, labeled 4 different Bush policies as "the Bush Doctrine" So asking him "In what respect, Charlie?" was perfectly reasonable. ie: which "Bush doctrine" you asking about, Chuck? Is it the "Bush Doctrine", as labeled in 2001 referring to Bush's unilateral withdrawal from Kyoto and ABM treaties?

Or is it the policy labeled "Bush Doctrine" by the media and political opponents, in which Bush told foreign countries "From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."?

Or was it the CURRENT definition of "Bush Doctrine", again labeled by the media, when Bush made the claim that the fundamental mission of U.S. foreign policy is to spread democracy?

No, Gibson was referring to the 2002 definition of Bush Doctrine, in which Bush pushed the policy that the U.S. has the right preemptive war against a nation perceived as a threat.

So Palin was not, as critics are now claiming "clueless" about the "Bush Doctrine". Gibson simply did not make it clear when he first asked the question which one of 4 policies labeled as "Bush Doctrine" he was asking about.

From the point Gobson did clarify his question, she answered clearly and concisely that if we have intelligence showing the U.S. to be under imminent threat of attack, then the president not only has the right, but the duty to attack first. On that, I agree.

To make things clear, I STRONGLY disagree that Iraq can possibly be justified under that doctrine. They posed zero threat to us. Our invasion of Iraq was not and cannot be justified under any "doctrine". But the PRINCIPLE of preemptive strike against a REAL threat is, IMO, sound policy.
 
To make things clear, I STRONGLY disagree that Iraq can possibly be justified under that doctrine. They posed zero threat to us. Our invasion of Iraq was not and cannot be justified under any "doctrine". But the PRINCIPLE of preemptive strike against a REAL threat is, IMO, sound policy.
Click to expand...

GL, I appreciate your input on Palin, and I agree with you there. On Iraq, we have a fundamental disagreement, and I think you misunderstand the policy principles.

The only two countries who are logistically capable of launching a traditional military assault on America, are Russia and China. I think you will agree, it would be stupid beyond belief for us to 'preemptively' attack either one first, threats or not. Iraq was never stated to have a "direct threat" to the US. Prior to 9/11, not many would have thought a bunch of third-world cave dwellers in Afghanistan, posed much of a "real" threat to America. Many on the left, still don't believe they do!

In short, the Bush Doctrine (of 2002) effectively means, look... you got two choices, either you can choose to side with radical Islamic Fundamentalists, or you can choose to side with us against them. IF you make the wrong choice, we may just take you out, without further notice. It has little to do with a real direct traditional military threat to the shores of the United States.
 
Dixie said:
GL, I appreciate your input on Palin, and I agree with you there. On Iraq, we have a fundamental disagreement, and I think you misunderstand the policy principles.

The only two countries who are logistically capable of launching a traditional military assault on America, are Russia and China. I think you will agree, it would be stupid beyond belief for us to 'preemptively' attack either one first, threats or not. Iraq was never stated to have a "direct threat" to the US. Prior to 9/11, not many would have thought a bunch of third-world cave dwellers in Afghanistan, posed much of a "real" threat to America. Many on the left, still don't believe they do!

In short, the Bush Doctrine (of 2002) effectively means, look... you got two choices, either you can choose to side with radical Islamic Fundamentalists, or you can choose to side with us against them. IF you make the wrong choice, we may just take you out, without further notice. It has little to do with a real direct traditional military threat to the shores of the United States.
Click to expand...

Wait, let me see if I get this straight.

First the reason was "They have WMDs, and we have to strike before they hit us".

Then it was "Saddam is a monster, we have to take him out".

After that is was "We are bringing democracy to the world".

And now its "Either you are against radical muslims or we will take you out".





Thats a lotta reasons for one invasion.
 
Dixie said:
GL, I appreciate your input on Palin, and I agree with you there. On Iraq, we have a fundamental disagreement, and I think you misunderstand the policy principles.

The only two countries who are logistically capable of launching a traditional military assault on America, are Russia and China. I think you will agree, it would be stupid beyond belief for us to 'preemptively' attack either one first, threats or not. Iraq was never stated to have a "direct threat" to the US. Prior to 9/11, not many would have thought a bunch of third-world cave dwellers in Afghanistan, posed much of a "real" threat to America. Many on the left, still don't believe they do!

In short, the Bush Doctrine (of 2002) effectively means, look... you got two choices, either you can choose to side with radical Islamic Fundamentalists, or you can choose to side with us against them. IF you make the wrong choice, we may just take you out, without further notice. It has little to do with a real direct traditional military threat to the shores of the United States.
Click to expand...
I understand all 4 policies labeled "Bush Doctrine" over the years. The only one I agree with is the one that stated the U.S. has the right to make preemptive war in the case of genuine imminent threat.

I do not believe you have an adequate grasp on what is meant by imminent threat. Imminent threat does not require that a nation have the capability to invade U.S. soil with ground troops. A nation with a single ICBM, with a conventional warhead, is an imminent threat if they target us with that missile under circumstances we are reasonably certain they intend to use it. Imminent threat is when a nation state is in direct support of a terrorist attack on the U.S. (assuming we find out in time). Iraq did NOT meet the standards of imminent threat.

The "you're with us or against us" policy is a load of hogwash. It is not a good policy to begin with, and definitely does not justify making a preemptive strike against a country whose only fault is they did not kiss your ass.

With respect to terrorism, Afghanistan actively and openly supported the terrorist faction which attacked us. That made Afghanistan an enemy. They were definitely AGAINST us.

Iraq did not support those who attacked us. Their support of anti-Israel terrorists did not make them a threat to the U.S., and Israel can handle terrorists without our military. The fact that Saddam did not cow to our will did not make him an imminent threat. We could have, and should have, controlled the Iraq situation without invading.

IMO it would have taken more than simply continuing the sanctions we had in place, as I have seen some claim. But invasion and occupation was NOT the right answer to Saddam. When he started playing games with the second set of UN inspectors, we simply should have bombed every area the inspectors were refused access to, and done so within hours of the refusal. (ie: have the UN inspection team schedule on file, and a wing of fighter-bombers on the ready. The minute the inspectors report they are not allowed to go to a target as scheduled, the planes are launched.) It would not have taken many such missions before Saddam got the message that if he WAS hiding anything, it would be destroyed, and if he was NOT hiding anything, best prove it before the area he was protecting got destroyed anyway.

And sorry, but it is NOT our job to forcefully "bring democracy" anywhere. We forcefully DEFEND our democracy, and that of our democratic allies. And that is the extent of how our military should be used.
 
Solitary said:
Wait, let me see if I get this straight.

First the reason was "They have WMDs, and we have to strike before they hit us".

Then it was "Saddam is a monster, we have to take him out".

After that is was "We are bringing democracy to the world".

And now its "Either you are against radical muslims or we will take you out".





Thats a lotta reasons for one invasion.
Click to expand...

See now, that is the fundamental problem with Liberals, you think one-dimensionally. You just can't wrap your little pinheaded minds around more than one 'reason' for war. I have said before, if I were not able to comprehend 'multiple reasons' for war, I would be just as anti-war as the left! I don't think there is EVER a single reason which justifies going to war. I think something as serious as a war, requires MANY reasons, which can't be resolved otherwise, and Iraq was certainly not an exception.
 
Dixie said:
See now, that is the fundamental problem with Liberals, you think one-dimensionally. You just can't wrap your little pinheaded minds around more than one 'reason' for war. I have said before, if I were not able to comprehend 'multiple reasons' for war, I would be just as anti-war as the left! I don't think there is EVER a single reason which justifies going to war. I think something as serious as a war, requires MANY reasons, which can't be resolved otherwise, and Iraq was certainly not an exception.
Click to expand...
The problem is the last excuse ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") is not a justifiable cause no matter what. It is a bull shit policy and a bullshit statement.

As far as the other three reasons, even in combination they are not enough to justify a war involving preemptory invasion and occupation. Economic and political sanctions, yes. Military force, yes. Bombing the crap out of suspected chemical munitions and manufacturing sites, yes. But invasion and occupation, absolutely not. It has been way too costly in men, and way too costly economically, way too costly politically. There were several better options available OTHER than the "wait and see if sanctions do any good" proposed by the democrats at the time. Shit, we could have leveled every damned one of his castles for a start. Simultaneously. T.O.T'd them into smoking holes. Targeted a smart bomb right between the eyes of that big statue of his. Then sent the weapons inspectors back in to see if Saddam still wanted to play silly games. There were LOTS of things still available to us, both political and military. Invasion was plain assed stupid.
 
That's where the left is wrong, 9/11 had EVERYTHING to do with Iraq.

We have no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11, but taking action in Iraq had everything to do with 9/11. Saddam made the choice to be on the wrong side of the two options defined in the 2002 Bush Doctrine, and had we not acted, we would be the biggest joke and laghing stock of the 'alQaeda' world. We would also be in no position to combat the radical Islamic fundies in their own back yard, we would be relegated to 'swatting flies' within our own.

This is a huge chess game, not some silly simplistic notion. Anti-war proponents simply fail to understand the complexities and nuances involved. We had no other choice in Iraq, and we will ultimately have no other choice in Iran, than to take action. We can't defeat this enemy with daisies, as much as I wish we could... ain't gonna happen.
 
Dixie said:
That's where the left is wrong, 9/11 had EVERYTHING to do with Iraq.

We have no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11, but taking action in Iraq had everything to do with 9/11. Saddam made the choice to be on the wrong side of the two options defined in the 2002 Bush Doctrine, and had we not acted, we would be the biggest joke and laghing stock of the 'alQaeda' world. We would also be in no position to combat the radical Islamic fundies in their own back yard, we would be relegated to 'swatting flies' within our own.

This is a huge chess game, not some silly simplistic notion. Anti-war proponents simply fail to understand the complexities and nuances involved. We had no other choice in Iraq, and we will ultimately have no other choice in Iran, than to take action. We can't defeat this enemy with daisies, as much as I wish we could... ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...
Ok Really fucking stupid people believe it had anything to do with Iraq. Even stupid people are this stupid. Fighting the people responsible for supporting the terror organization that pulled it off would have been a hard fight, one not even Bush had the stomach for. So he invaded an easy country that was going to throw roses at us and we would be out in a couple of years, except it didn't work that way.
 
Dixie said:
GL, I've got one thing to say....

9/11/2001
Click to expand...
Yea, and we took out the Taliban, which was a good thing to do. They were the fuckers supporting Al Queda. Saddam had nothing to do with it. Using 9/11 rhetoric is fucking stupid.

Not only were we not justified in invading Iraq, but the action caused us to split our effort. The end result is we have not been able to keep both Afghanistan AND Iraq contained. We have not been able to keep Al Queda contained. We concentrate on one, the other breaks loose. And we don't have the resources to hit both hard simultaneously. Hitting Iraq with a ground war is threatening our mission in both areas, and definitely made our mission in both areas much more difficult than they needed to be. Iraq should have remained a remote target. We should have saved the ground forces for Afghanistan.

Iraq was NOT NECESSARY for a ground war. It has been a cluster from day one. The so-called justifications used by Bush were shit. There were better alternatives, both military and politically.
 
Good Luck said:
Yea, and we took out the Taliban, which was a good thing to do. They were the fuckers supporting Al Queda. Saddam had nothing to do with it. Using 9/11 rhetoric is fucking stupid.

Not only were we not justified in invading Iraq, but the action caused us to split our effort. The end result is we have not been able to keep both Afghanistan AND Iraq contained. We have not been able to keep Al Queda contained. We concentrate on one, the other breaks loose. And we don't have the resources to hit both hard simultaneously. Hitting Iraq with a ground war is threatening our mission in both areas, and definitely made our mission in both areas much more difficult than they needed to be. Iraq should have remained a remote target. We should have saved the ground forces for Afghanistan.

Iraq was NOT NECESSARY for a ground war. It has been a cluster from day one. The so-called justifications used by Bush were shit. There were better alternatives, both military and politically.
Click to expand...


This.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top