Bloomberg: Palin Clueless

Discussion in 'Politics' started by walter4, Sep 12, 2008.

  1. Clueless Palin Peddles Cliches Under Gibson's Glare: Commentary
    Commentary by Jeremy Gerard

    Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The question of experience came up again last night: Was the man of the moment prepared for the difficult task at hand? Did he have the chops?

    ABC News anchor Charles Gibson got the get, the first mano- a-womano sit down with the Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. He had the chops.

    Palin may not have blinked when John McCain asked her to be his running mate. Last night, however, found her frozen in the Klieg lights as the dogged interlocutor set his sights on his visitor.

    Peering down at Palin through reading glasses set at the tip of his nose, foot circling over knee ever more impatiently, Gibson, 65, wouldn't let her coast. Yes, she had mastered the pronunciation of Georgia president Mikhail Saakashvili's name, not to mention that of Iran's Mahmud Ahmadinejad. And maybe that would have been good enough on ``Good Morning America.''

    But no-one had coached her in something called the Bush Doctrine. Doctrine? What doctrine would that be, Charlie?

    Palin, 44, apparently never heard of the Bush Doctrine until yesterday. She flashed a smile nearly as frozen as her running- mate's and did that tenth-grader thing of tap-dancing around the question, skittishly ad libbing her way with gibberish about Bush's ``global vision.''

    Gibson was having none of it, pressing her for specifics she didn't have at her command and finally -- his glare set to iceberg blue, foot circling like a lasso -- he impatiently explained what the doctrine is, when it was introduced, and gave her another chance to answer.

    Few Overseas Trips

    My sympathy for Palin lasted only as long as it took me to remember that it was Palin who had insisted, at the top of the interview, that she's ready to lead the country on a moment's notice. Asked whether she had ever been outside the U.S. before her recent trip to the Middle East, she answered, ``Canada. Mexico.'' Asked what heads of state she had dealt with, she referenced all those trade delegations that came to Alaska looking to do some business.

    When the interview turned to Iraq and Iran, Palin's innocence of diplomatic nuance, not to mention global politics, was something she couldn't dance around. We're America, she said, we don't have to put up with those uppity Eye-ranians.

    Does she believe we are doing God's will in Iraq? ``I wouldn't presume to know God's will, Charlie,'' she answered gamely. Gibson was ready with a clip of her sermonizing not long ago in church and she danced around that one, too.

    Gibson didn't ask the candidate if she has any clue about the principle of separation of church and state on which her beloved United States was founded. I wish he had.

    (Jeremy Gerard is an editor for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

    To contact the writer on this story: Jeremy Gerard in New York at

    Last Updated: September 12, 2008 12:03 EDT

    Email this article

    Printer friendly format
    New York Post

    By Kristan Powers

    ..........Plus, her answers last night are already being misrepresented. She said - quite correctly - that, if Georgia and Ukraine are admitted to NATO, the United States may be obliged to defend them. This has been morphed into an assertion that we might invade Russia. And ABC News bears much of the blame: It actually sent out a pre-broadcast alert to that effect.

    So now we can play this stupid game, pretending she wants to invade Russia instead of debating real issues.

    ABC's errors didn't end there. The interview seemed to show a lack of good faith, with the blatant misrepresentation of comments she's made about the Iraq war.

    Gibson - probably relying on a sloppy Associated Press report - told Palin she has said that, "Our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God."

    In a part of the interview that was edited out (but is available on ABC's Web site), Palin says, "You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote."

    Gibson snaps: "Exact words."

    Sorry, Charlie - let's go to the tape.

    In the video of her remarks, Palin says "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God." She is clearly praying for wisdom for our national leaders - praying that they are following God's will.

    This is Christianity 101, not some fundamentalist plot to wage a holy war. Presumably, Obama, as a Christian, utters similar prayers for our country as well.

    There's more: Gibson also accused her of saying of Iraq, "There is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

    Here's what she really said: "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

    Despite Gibson's insistance that she'd said things that she clearly hadn't, Palin was polite and seemed unrattled.

    We need to get beyond the stereotypes. Palin has been cast as a right-wing nut job in the media, yet her actual record suggests something more complex. She is a Republican who made herself the enemy of oil companies in Alaska. She raised funding for pregnant teens and learning-disabled children. She has expressed concern that we don't have a clear strategy in Iraq.

    But she also was mayor of Wasilla at a time when women were charged for rape kits - we need an explanation why. And what of her opposition to abortion even in the case of rape or incest? Is that a personal position, or does she seek to impose it on all Americans? And, even if no books were banned in the Wasilla library, why did she inquire as to how the librarian would react if they were?

    There are real questions that Americans need to hear Palin answer. But they're ill-served by the game the media has played so far. Rather than real insights into this woman, we get exchanges that will lead to arguments about whether she's a religious fanatic - arguments based on a comment she never made.

    This is completely destructive to the public debate. As Barack Obama says: Enough.
  3. Except that it wasn't a question, Pabst, what she said was a statement.

    Nothing wrong with praying that we're on God's side, but we should have a plan and a foreign policy that isn't God-sent.

    More God-sent foreign policy. Here's an idea -- and I propose this as a Lutheran, let's keep religion out of politics and keep a wall between church and state.

    Well that's reassuring that she didn't get rattled when she didn't have a clue what the Bush doctrine was.

    Well, she did use her line item veto the cut the shit out of funding for teenaged moms, but sure, give her credit for the increase.

    ...she has also expressed the idea that water is wet and fire is hot.

    Really? Of all the issues she left there, leaving them $20 million in debt, various ethics investigations, firings and threatened firings of employees who crossed her (even librarians) -- the first thing you can think of to ask is why they charged for rape kits? Okay, you've made me laugh.

    Well, as she said about her daughter, it is private and her daughters decision (as John Stewart said, the same private decision she would disallow every other American from making.)

    :) How about why she fired the librarian, then had to rehire her? That would probably be a much stronger question. Stop throwing out these softballs, they're insulting to the reader.

    Those are joke, softball, over the plate questions for people whose cranial soft spots have never hardened.

    Then she could have answered "You have misinterpreted my comment, here's what I said and what I meant." That is, if she was competent.
  4. Palin says, "You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote."

    Duuuh, is the McBush disease of memory failure influencing this poor woman that she can't even remember what she said?

    Palin has been cast as a right-wing nut job in the media, yet her actual record suggests something more complex.

    So right-wing nut jobs aren't complex.

    Gee, thanks for explaining that. Who would have thought that they weren't deep thinkers.

    "Rather than real insights into this woman..."

    Oh I can hardly wait to hear the real insights of a soccer mom.

    Maybe she will start speaking in tongues for us at the debates, that would sure show her real insight.


  5. clacy


  6. Even with softball questions, it is possible to strike out, which she did.

    It is quite obvious why she had been avoiding the media. Before then, she appeared intelligent, until she opened her mouth, after which the illusion disappeared.
  7. From Obama's representative here, bigdave:

    "More God-sent foreign policy. Here's an idea -- and I propose this as a Lutheran, let's keep religion out of politics and keep a wall between church and state."

    So Obama is wrong to say we have a moral duty as Christians to help the poor? You must be pretty steamed that he doesn't understand the separation of church and state.
  8. Obama sadly has to appeal to the Christian conservative base.

    The right thing to have said was:

    "We have a moral duty as Americans to help the poor."

    However, he is pandering just like McSame is.

    The sad truth is that if you don't pander, you don't get elected.

  9. I agree with you -- he's trying to appeal to the Christian base of the Republicans, and that is not a healthy direction for the country.
  10. Where's Rev. Wright when you need him....
    #10     Sep 13, 2008