The Second Half of the Gibson/Palin Interview
I just watched the second half of the Gibson/Palin interview on 20/20 and, I've got to say, I thought she did even worse on the domestic issues than she did on the foreign policy ones. She was surprising inarticulate and unresponsive. She responded to most of Gibson's questions by filibustering with nonsense. She was saying lots words but there wasn't really any logic to them. It reminded me of Adam Sander at the end of Billy Madison. If I were Charlie Gibson, I would have been tempted to respond this way:
In particular, her response to Gibson calling her out on the Bridge to Nowhere lie made no sense. Ditto on the issue of earmarks. When asked where she differed from President Bush on the economy, her response not only made no sense, it betrayed a total lack of understanding of how the federal government spends its money.
Without a transcript I can't really be more specific, but once I find one I'll post a link.
UPDATE: Jonathan Martin at The Politico captures this back-and-forth re: cutting spending:
That's just platitudinous nonsense. She clearly has no idea 1) how they would cut spending, or 2) what the government actually spends its money on.
In particular, her response to Gibson calling her out on the Bridge to Nowhere lie made no sense. Ditto on the issue of earmarks. When asked where she differed from President Bush on the economy, her response not only made no sense, it betrayed a total lack of understanding of how the federal government spends its money.
Without a transcript I can't really be more specific, but once I find one I'll post a link.
UPDATE: Jonathan Martin at The Politico captures this back-and-forth re: cutting spending:
GIBSON: So let me break some of those down. You talk about spending. How much smaller would a McCain budget be? Where would you cut?
PALIN: We're going to find efficiencies in every department. We have got to. There are some things that I think should be off the table. Veterans' programs, off the table. You know, we owe it to our veterans and that's the greatest manifestation that we can show in terms of support for our military, those who are in public service fighting for America. It's to make sure that our veterans are taken care of and the promises that we've made to them are fulfilled.
GIBSON: So you'd take military off the table, the veterans' benefits. That's 20 percent of the budget. &Do you talk about entitlement reform? Is there money you can save in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
PALIN: I am sure that there are efficiencies that are going to be found in all of these agencies. I'm confident in that.
GIBSON: The agencies are not involved in entitlements. Basically, discretionary spending is 18 percent of the budget.
PALIN: We have certainly seen excess in agencies, though, and in -- when bureaucrats, when bureaucracy just gets kind of comfortable, going with the status-quo and not being challenged to find efficiencies and spend other people's money wisely, then that's where we get into the situation that we are into today, and that is a tremendous growth of government, a huge debt, trillions of dollars of debt that we're passing on to my kids and your kids and your grandkids ... It's unacceptable.
That's just platitudinous nonsense. She clearly has no idea 1) how they would cut spending, or 2) what the government actually spends its money on.
posted by A.L. at 9:55 PM
13 Comments:
You should post this video too: Daily Kos Video
Aye, she's not the sharpest tool, but unfortunately I don't think it will make a jot of a difference. It will be spun in some way or another that will reflect well on Palin and make the base and party faithful holler with approval. I'm reminded of a famous quote by I think it may have been Disraeli, who said of Gladstone's supporters that if he was to stand up in the British Parliament and say "Cock-a-doodle-doo is the greatest wisdom!", then his acolytes would be out in full force the next day, proudly saying that Cock-a-doodle-doo is the greatest wisdom. That's effectively the modern Republican Party in a nutshell. Heck, just look at what some of the wingnuts are writing on your very comment pages. There's not an original or independent thought anywhere, just faithful reiterations of the party line.
But you really have to wonder how much worse it can possibly get. Eight years ago, we thought GWB was the absolute nadir - a guy who had no discernible intellectual curiosity and couldn't name the leader of Pakistan. We thought that's the worst it could possibly get, didn't we. And now? Christ on a bike. At this rate, eight or twelve years from now the Republicans will present us with a candidate who, everytime they're asked a specific policy-related question, will respond with a grin, yell "Yabbadabbadoo!", burp, and then drool into the mic. And the media and the public will lap it up and simply LOVE their "common touch" while America goes even further down the drain.
Let's give this a few weeks to play itself out before we panic. Palin is a quick study but she has no ideas of her own. When one is repeating an argument rather than advocating one's own beliefs, it is much more difficult to seem sincere.
Ultimately, I don't think Americans will penalize her for being clueless and incurious. I'm not even sure that swing voters will notice. They might, however, latch onto the idea that she is a liar and an opportunist.
Obama and Biden can't come out and say it because the Republicans will play the media to make them look like bullies. They (Biden particularly during his debate) need to make it clear that she doesn't really care what about what she's discussing. They need to do this without saying this, and this will take much art. Obama and Biden should go all out trying to seem sympathetic to voters and then explain their answers. By showing voters that they care and they have ideas, while Palin keeps repeating the party line, they can win.
In the mean time, call McCain a liar every single day.
I would like to add that I hope the Obama campaign is about to unleash Hillary Clinton.
Hillary could rip Palin to shreds.
"John McCain wants you to believe that the Democrats and sexist and disrespectful to women. McCain thinks that by ripping Barack's and Joe Biden's quotes out of context, that he can convince the women of America to vote against our interests. He thinks that the women of America aren't smart enough to see through such an obvious ploy. Well, as someone who has experiences real sexism all too closely, I just need to say: Get Real."
Hillary can get in the trenches and fight with McCain. This will help to control the news cycle and allow Obama to stay on message while McCain goes on the defensive.
That first video at the top is hilarious. I can't tell if it's well done propaganda or a satire of propaganda, but it's funny. What movie is that from?
Here is a good application of humor:
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU&NR=1
Here is a good application of video clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&NR=1
This goes beyond irony into hypocrisy: take away earmarks, and government spending then is controlled totally by the federal bureaucracy (subject to some rules that have been, under Bush, routinely ignored).
Take away earmarks and the federal bureaucracy, which has legendary skills in figuring out to get around congressional limits and controls on spending, would be totally in control.
Not only do these people not understand how government spending works, they've got it exactly backwards. A McCain presidency (in which Palin, whose ignorance would make her a bit player) would be a fitting denouement to the 8-year train wreck that Bush and Cheney has given us.
Think of it this way: like the Bush administration, but without even an evil mastermind to give it guidance. In short, a feast of lobbyists and the rich, who would simply bypass Congress to extract money through the agencies, and bureaus, which are already staffed with their friends (and, in more cases than you imagine, lovers).
This from Fox Noise:
but is it accurate and complete?
The following is a transcript of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s interview with ABC News’ Charles Gibson:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/raw-data-palins-interview-with-abc-news/
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 20th, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, we’ll be ready. I’m ready.
GIBSON: When McCain asked you to take the spot on the ticket, for a moment, did you think no?
PALIN: I did not. I thought yes, right off the bat. When he offered me the position, as his running mate, the first thing I said to him was, if you really think that I can help the ticket, if you really think that I can help this country, absolutely, I want to do this with you.
GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, am I experienced enough? Am I ready?
PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Doesn’t that take some hubris?
PALIN: 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, 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 you have command of the Alaskan National Guard and 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 Conversation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas developments in our state, to produce more for the United States.
GIBSON: National security is a whole lot more than energy.
PALIN: It is. But - 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, that trip that was a trip of a lifetime, to visit troops in Kuwait and stop and visit injured soldiers in Germany. That was a trip of a lifetime. And it changed my life.
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
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 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, yeah, they’ve had opportunity to meet heads of state.
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 the other day and giving my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we have to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have asserted 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 to keep our eyes on Russia. Under the leadership there.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple 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.
GIBSON: You favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine definitely yes. Yes. And Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.
GIBSON: Under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. That is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.
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?
PALIN: We have got to make sure 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.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and need to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends of 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 didn’t second guess it and if they decided they needed to do it, because Iran was an existential threat, we would be 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 are able to commit to never again. 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 and we are a free, we’re a free-thinking society.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated 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 country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.
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: 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 and military strike a last option.
GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do 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.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GIBSON: You said recently in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: 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 them out on a task that is from God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GIBSON: Are we fighting a Holy War?
PALIN: That’s 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.
Today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son, oversees with his Stryker brigade. Four thousand other wonderful American men and women to fight for our country, to fight for our freedoms.
GIBSON: 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 within inalienable rights, that I believe are God-given, Charlie. And I believe those are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That in my worldview is the grand plan.
GIBSON: Then, are you sending your son on a task 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. What he decided to do, in serving for the right reasons in serving something greater than self, and not choosing a real easy path, where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.
I was just livid through the whole thing. She sounds like an idiot. Oh yeah, that's good for WOMEN!!!!! At this rate, our first female veep will make Dan Quayle look like a Rhodes scholar.
What a softball "interview"...a whole lotta bullshit is what it was!!!!!
Thanks for the transcript, confirming it was even worse than I initially thought.
Great post. I also like your approach to the lies that's posted at Crooks and Liars. I think you're really on to something. It keeps the anger element out and hits McCain where it hurts. For anyone that hasn't read the post, you really should give it a look.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/13/how-to-brand-mccain-and-palin-as-liars/
"...that's where we get into the situation that we are into today, and that is a tremendous growth of government, a huge debt, trillions of dollars of debt that we're passing on to my kids and your kids and your grandkids ... It's unacceptable."
It's also attributable to a REPUBLICAN government. Which is what you people claim to be.
LOL!
That should be running on loop at the bottom of every newscast.
AL,
Let me repeat here what I posted on C&L about your recommending Obama go satirical.
"I see the need to get back but disagree with you. Sarcasm looks too weak. Here's my Rx.
"Mike Dukakis on Air America today told Mike Papantonio that if he'd been advising John Kerry he'd have told him to hit the swiftboat smear head on by saying that the White House had just two days to get those ads off the air and that if they didn't, the candidates' military records would be an issue in the campaign.
"That was damn good advice from Dukakis, and he offered it admitting he learned it the hard way.
"The parallel move for Obama is to play James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause," play chicken with the Straight Talk Express. Get in your cars and see who goes off the cliff. He should dare **McCain to go head to head with him on who's telling the truth and who's lying if McCain doesn't cut it out. But I'd give them one day, so they have no time to regroup.
"One thing the Mavericks never did is play with a crooked deck. They exposed the sharks who did. (Has anyone actually watched the show?) But honesty is the other myth McCain still has working for him. It's about ready to send him over the cliff, however. His other reckless move, apart from Palin, was to bring in Schmidt (a.k.a. Rove a.k.a. Atwater). It's an IED he's been sitting on for a week now. You can see him squirming over it on shows like "The View." He'll never hold up to such a challenge. If he stops, he'll admit he backed down. If he goes head to head, the media will be in a frenzy keeping score and he'll self-destruct even given their slant because Obama's got the goods on him."
I highly recommend the film "Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story" as a source of lessons learned from the likes of Mike Dukakis's first hand.
No debate on McCain/Palin's unsound budgetary approach. Whitting away at 10% of federal spending is virtually meaningless, especially when coupled with massive tax cuts funded with borrowed money. But I'm reticent to believe that the knowledgeable and adroit Obama team is a Mecca of fiscal responsibility. Revenues raised by taxing the richest 1% will be counterveiled by middle class tax cuts. Only the stealth social security tax (when shifted to general revenue funding) will raise new net revenues- something the campaign rarely mentions. On the spending side, Obama will attack bloated defense spending- but we're asked to believe that new BO spending programs won't easily outrun defense cuts. I'm just not buying Obama will replicate Clinton's road to sound fiscal policiy.
What am I missing?
Good lord, what a bozo. What is the deal with the word "efficiencies"? Doesn't anyone get the idea that what she's really trying to say is "DEficiencies"? If not, maybe we need to add "efficiency" to the long list of used-to-be-universally-considered-good-things like "intelligence" and "science" and "competence" that conservatives find so mock-worthy.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home