Tonights Gibson/Palin rematch...

[headscratcher4]

From Tonight's portion of the interview....

Friday, Sept. 12, 2008 17:00 EDT
Palin vs. Gibson, the rematch
ABC News has just released excerpts from the second major segment of Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin. Looks from these excerpts, which you can read below, that much of the interview will focus on spending, and of course Palin's campaign trail claims about her record in that area.

Given Palin's recent lies about the Bridge to Nowhere, and the attempts to evade shown in these sections, it seems like this part of the interview will definitely be worth watching. (It airs at 6:30 pm EDT.)

Update: ABC has just released another little snippet. Gibson asks Palin whether she thinks Barack Obama should have chosen Hillary Clinton as his running mate. She responds, "I think he's regretting not picking her now, I do. What, what determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way, she handled those well."

Sarah Palin on 'Bridge to Nowhere':

CHARLES GIBSON: You have said continually, since he chose you as his vice-presidential nominee, that I said to Congress, thanks but not thanks. If we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves.

SARAH PALIN: Right.

CHARLES GIBSON: But it's now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a t-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.

SARAH PALIN: I was wearing a t-shirt with the zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.

CHARLES GIBSON: But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks.

SARAH PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought. And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment.

CHARLES GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...

SARAH PALIN: I was...

CHARLES GIBSON: ... until Congress pulled the plug.

SARAH PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.

CHARLES GIBSON: Right.

SARAH PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.

Sarah Palin on Congressional Spending:

GIBSON: The state of Alaska, under OMB figures in 2008, got $155 million in earmarks for a population of 670,000. That's $231 per person in Alaska. The state of Illinois, Obama's state, got $22 per person. You got ten times per person as much. How does that square with your reforms?

PALIN: We have drastically, drastically reduced our earmark request since I came into office.

GIBSON: But you still have multiple of any other state.

PALIN: We sure are -- and this is what -- you go out and you ask any Alaskan this. This is what I've been telling Alaskans for these years that I've been in office, is no more.

GIBSON: Governor, this year, requested $3.2 million for researching the genetics of harbor seals, money to study the mating habits of crabs. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that John McCain is objecting to?

PALIN: Those requests, through our research divisions and fish and game and our wildlife departments and our universities, those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar. That's the abuse that we're going to stop. That's what John McCain has promised over and over for these years and that's what I'm joining him, also, saying, you're right, the abuse of earmarks, it's un-American, it's undemocratic, and it's not going to be accepted in a McCain-Palin administration. Earmark abuse will stop.

[headscratcher4]

So...it isn't earmarks, per se, it is earmarks from behind closed doors...clearly, all of Alaska's earmark requests were transparent....

Transparently political, that is.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wasn't for the bridge to nowhere. "I was for infrastructure being built in the state." I didn't support a project that became a national scandal (and then hop on the bandwagon afterward). "What I supported was the link between a community and its airport."


That sounds like something from a Doonesbury strip. It really sounds like a satire of herself.

[DavidJames]

What she lacks in honest answers she makes up for with incoherence.

[Oxigen]

What she lacks in honest answers she makes up for with incoherence.

Yeah, must agree. Reread that comment three times and still didn't have a clue what exactly she was trying to say.

[boloboffin]

Posted this in another thread, but I'll repost here. Sarah Palin is currently both for earmarks and against them.

On the one hand: "It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress."

So earmark process BAD.

On the other hand: "...it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget..."

So earmark process GOOD.

It's not inappropriate, but it's an embarrassment.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND, GOVERNOR PALIN.

[Nogbad]

This bridge to nowhere - am I right in thinking it was between a town and a small island. The island being where the town's airport is?

While it may well have been too expensive which destination was the nowhere aimed at - the airport or the town?

[XBoxWarrior]

She is clearly a moron, not unlike Bush, from an oil rich state, that can be manipulated from behind the curtains........

Will the 51% of stupid Americans buy this "pig with lipstick"?

Sadly, I believe the racists might win again.

It's that bad.

"What's the matter with Kansas"?

[Oxigen]

Have a horrible sneaking suspicion that Caribou Barbie or the Pentecostal Huntress is not interested in the citizen's thoughts. It is becoming very apparent that it is me, me, me. Very obvious at this stage that she has forsaken her family. J~~~~s, this woman has a 4 month old Down's son, I gave up a good job when my 10 mth old daughter refused to be weaned. I don't see any "family" concerns here.

[boloboffin]

The town, Ketchikan (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&q=juneau+alaska&ie=UTF8&ll=55.334222,-131.600418&spn=0.235504,0.63858&z=11), is itself on an island. Most of Southeast Alaska is on an island or simply inaccessible from the mainland. Juneau is on the mainland technically, but the mountains prevent any real road to get to it, and all goods shipped to Juneau go through the airport or by ship.

Ketchikan is in the same predicament, only anything coming into its airport must then be loaded onto a ferry to get to the city. A bridge would not only improve the airport, it would open the second island to much more development. Switch that Google Map I linked to above to satellite view.

So the Bridge to Nowhere isn't technically to nowhere, and it would quickly be a bridge to somewhere if built. It's just freaking expensive to build.

Now if Palin had ever explained this, it's possible that she could have turned the stigma on the bridge around. She could have tied into Obama's "neighborly" theme, and explained the good reasons to have and support the bridge, and the ultimate reasons why the bridge failed to be built. But that's not the tactic they went after. They want to "reform Washington." So the Bridge to Nowhere becomes a stick to beat Washington with (Ted Stevens must be enjoying that), and no matter that she burns her bridges with the good people of Ketchikan -- she's got a ticket to Washington now.

[Nogbad]

She could be anti-airport. Big carbon footprint airports.

:)

[ProbeX]

It's hard to believe that all the double speak, vague answers and obvious fumbling can be so bad. She seemed downright nervous in the first interview. How will she hold up in debate, I wonder?

[Whiplash]

It's hard to believe that all the double speak, vague answers and obvious fumbling can be so bad. She seemed downright nervous in the first interview. How will she hold up in debate, I wonder?

This is exactly the kind of thing that also drives me crazy. How can we have such completely differing opinions on how she did? I saw her as confident, fairly strong and sure of herself, and giving the right answers to everything. You see her as nervous, using double speak and vague answers and fumbling.

One (or both) of us must be letting our bias alter our opinion.

[Policenaut]

Of course it's bias. Like when O'Reilly reads emails and people are both saying that he was too soft in one interview or too hard in the same interview. It's all your personal bias that clouds your judgment of everything. It's painfully obvious the biases on these boards. Hardly anyone is trying to go about things in an objective way. Not that they have to but it is noted and taken into account when any particular person posts something that it is going to be predictable and biased. You aren't going to see a post by X detracting from McCain and you aren't going to see a post by Y criticizing Obama and you aren't going to see a post by Z say anything positive about the US.

[not_so_new]

This is exactly the kind of thing that also drives me crazy. How can we have such completely differing opinions on how she did? I saw her as confident, fairly strong and sure of herself, and giving the right answers to everything. You see her as nervous, using double speak and vague answers and fumbling.

One (or both) of us must be letting our bias alter our opinion.

Well I would agree to that bias plays a part for sure. But, I do think that she is nothing like the speaker that the other 3 folks are in this race. She looks bush league against McCain, Obama and Biden. And her voice is very grating, it reminds me of Fran Dresser.

That said, I didn't see the interview (or the first one). Going off just her words (and they are her words after all) I think this sounds a little shaky to me.

Boloboffin summed it up best.


Sarah Palin is currently both for earmarks and against them.

On the one hand: "It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress."

So earmark process BAD.

On the other hand: "...it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget..."

So earmark process GOOD.

It's not inappropriate, but it's an embarrassment.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND, GOVERNOR PALIN.

[PitPat]

Pretty weak responses on economic policy. She agrees that the economy is in poor shape right now. Gibson asked her 3 times what three things she would change about Bush's economic policy. After trying to evade the question twice, she finally gave up these changes:

1. Reduce taxes
2. Control spending
3. Reform oversight agencies (sounded like a knock at the Dem controlled Congress)

Yep, real big changes there. Reformer, sure.

She was sorta cowardly on the abortion issue too. When asked directly if she opposed abortion in the cases of rape and incest, she only reiterated her previous position of only when the mother's life is in danger. If she's so strong, resolute and confident, why not just say "Yes, Charles, I oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest." (And yes, it's wrong when Obama and Biden use that evasion tactic too.)

[FaisonMars]

3. Reform oversight agencies (sounded like a knock at the Dem controlled Congress)


Maybe she's talking about the deregulation of derivatives, which led to bundling of sub-prime mortgages and eventually to the foreclosure crisis we are in right now.

That deregulation was spearheaded by Phil Gramm (http://www.democrats.org/page/content/wiki/gramm/), who was until recently the economic policy advisor for John McCain, a notorious, long-term Washington insider who was involved in the Keating Five scandal and is good friends with Ralph Reed, who has been implicated in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

That must be what she's talking about. Watch out, John McCain, Sarah Palin is coming for you.

[varwoche]

This interview only reinforces my view that Palin as VP pick, and the Palin phenomenon in general, is a joke like none I can recall Quayle included. I feel like I'm watching some sort of twisted reality show.
SOkQO5BtYnA (Peter Sellers in Being There)

[mhaze]

She could be anti-airport. ...

:)In a place where people and goods move by boat or airplane instead of by road?

[maxfrost]

Look for the McCain-Palin campaign to find a way not to participate in a vice-presidential debate and to find a way to blame it on the liberal media.

[gdnp]

Yeah, must agree. Reread that comment three times and still didn't have a clue what exactly she was trying to say.

She was trying to say "please drop it and go on to another question".

[Meadmaker]

Look for the McCain-Palin campaign to find a way not to participate in a vice-presidential debate and to find a way to blame it on the liberal media.

Where do people get these cockamamie ideas? There's no way in heck she's backing out, and I'm willing to bet the Republicans are looking forward to it.

I'm hoping that Biden wipes the floor with her, but I'm having really bad flashbacks. The first election I voted in was 1980, and there during the debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, Carter was in control of the facts, pointed out everything that was wrong with Reagan's answers, and to anyone paying attention, made Reagan look like a buffoon.

It was widely perceived that Reagan's performance in the debate was what pushed him over the top and put a lock on the election.

[BenBurch]

What she lacks in honest answers she makes up for with incoherence.

And she sounds just like a spoiled teen.

[BenBurch]

This is exactly the kind of thing that also drives me crazy. How can we have such completely differing opinions on how she did? I saw her as confident, fairly strong and sure of herself, and giving the right answers to everything. You see her as nervous, using double speak and vague answers and fumbling.

One (or both) of us must be letting our bias alter our opinion.

I suspect both, though, honestly, I think you have less reason to think she did well than he has to think she did poorly.

I try hard to put on the frame of mind I had when I was an Ayn-Rand-quoting Libertarian (which I was until George Bush made me realize that was foolish) and I can see I would have liked her then, but also that I would have found her to be a real lightweight even then.

[leftysergeant]

Anybody know if that has hit the YT yet? I had to work during the circus.

On the way home, i caught some of a repeat of the Rushblob getting all gooey over Palin's first appearance. He praised her for "not letting Gibson put words in her mouth."

I didn't get Gibson trying to put words IN her mouth. He seemed to me to be trying to get some words that made sense OUT of her mouth. All we seem to get out of her is RNC talking points.

[BenBurch]

nD4zd-kqqJE
2EPLTgNK9zQ
h3lM6EhwZqU

[DavidJames]

Where do people get these cockamamie ideas? There's no way in heck she's backing out, and I'm willing to bet the Republicans are looking forward to it.

I'm hoping that Biden wipes the floor with her, but I'm having really bad flashbacks. The first election I voted in was 1980, and there during the debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, Carter was in control of the facts, pointed out everything that was wrong with Reagan's answers, and to anyone paying attention, made Reagan look like a buffoon.

It was widely perceived that Reagan's performance in the debate was what pushed him over the top and put a lock on the election.You young whipper snapper :D

It sounds like your memory is much like mine. I've commented on those debates many times. Reagan won the debates due to exceeding the low (unbelievably low) expectations the (damn liberal) media set. Basically, he was able to answer with complete sentences which knocked everyones socks off to the point they never bothered to actually analyze what he said (damn liberal media).

I've long forgotten who the commentators were, but I do remember they almost wet their pants with amazement when Reagan knew what MAD stood for.

The point is the (damn liberal) media is setting up Palin with the same low expectations and regardless of what she actually says, if it doesn't involve drooling or to much giggling, the (damn liberal) media will again, wet there collective pants in amazement.

[Meadmaker]

Reagan won the debates due to exceeding the low (unbelievably low) expectations the (damn liberal) media set. Basically, he was able to answer with complete sentences which knocked everyones socks off to the point they never bothered to actually analyze what he said (damn liberal media).

I don't think that's exactly right. In fact, I think it misses the point. For better or for worse, the real issue is that facts don't matter as much as many people think they should. Reagan did not have a command of the facts. Indeed, Reagan frequently got them wrong. Nevertheless, he seemed to know what was important to himself, and the things that were important to him were the same things that were important to the voters.

I think Palin might be cut from the same cloth. For all I know, she wouldn't be able to find Burma on a map. She might not know that Burma has major problems right now. She probably doesn't know that Burma isn't called Burma any more. If she is President, she might be surprised when her advisors came to her to deal with some future crisis in Burma. What would she do? She would ask if one side were communists and/or Muslim fundamentalists, and she would support the other side.

Personally, I would prefer a Vice President and President with a little bit more knowledge, but if you had to choose between a knowledgable person, or an ignorant person who shares your values, who would you choose? If you are like most people, you'll take the latter.

[FaisonMars]

Personally, I would prefer a Vice President and President with a little bit more knowledge, but if you had to choose between a knowledgable person, or an ignorant person who shares your values, who would you choose? If you are like most people, you'll take the latter.

It wasn't always like this-- we used to want our leaders to be smart.

[Puppycow]

The town, Ketchikan (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&q=juneau+alaska&ie=UTF8&ll=55.334222,-131.600418&spn=0.235504,0.63858&z=11), is itself on an island. Most of Southeast Alaska is on an island or simply inaccessible from the mainland. Juneau is on the mainland technically, but the mountains prevent any real road to get to it, and all goods shipped to Juneau go through the airport or by ship.

Ketchikan is in the same predicament, only anything coming into its airport must then be loaded onto a ferry to get to the city. A bridge would not only improve the airport, it would open the second island to much more development. Switch that Google Map I linked to above to satellite view.

So the Bridge to Nowhere isn't technically to nowhere, and it would quickly be a bridge to somewhere if built. It's just freaking expensive to build.

Now if Palin had ever explained this, it's possible that she could have turned the stigma on the bridge around. She could have tied into Obama's "neighborly" theme, and explained the good reasons to have and support the bridge, and the ultimate reasons why the bridge failed to be built. But that's not the tactic they went after. They want to "reform Washington." So the Bridge to Nowhere becomes a stick to beat Washington with (Ted Stevens must be enjoying that), and no matter that she burns her bridges with the good people of Ketchikan -- she's got a ticket to Washington now.

If you are explaining, you are losing. Never explain, only attack, attack, attack! (or something like that).

[DavidJames]

I don't think that's exactly right. In fact, I think it misses the point. For better or for worse, the real issue is that facts don't matter as much as many people think they should. Reagan did not have a command of the facts. Indeed, Reagan frequently got them wrong. Nevertheless, he seemed to know what was important to himself, and the things that were important to him were the same things that were important to the voters.Well I guess I did a poor job of explaining my point as I thought we were in violent agreement.

[Meadmaker]

Well I guess I did a poor job of explaining my point as I thought we were in violent agreement.

We were in agreement on the facts.;)


Seriously, that's not quite right. You thought it was about "exceeding the low expectations." I don't think so. It was more about "meeting a low minimum." Reagan, and Palin, did well enough to meet the minimum standard on facts. Beyond that, a lot of people don't care. People were more concerned about whether they shared values than some command of the facts.

Democrats in general often feel that command of the "facts" is very important. Carter left the stage thinking he had won the debate, because Reagan had made many factual errors. In fact, Carter lost, and lost badly. In 2000, a moderator asked George Bush to name some foreign leaders, and Bush couldn't. Those who opposed him thought that was a big knock against him, but he won (sort of) the election anyway. This year, Gibson seemed to think it was very important Palin didn't know exactly what he meant by the phrase "Bush Doctrine." If anyone thinks that's going to sway some votes, they are going to be angry when they read the polls.

If Joe Biden and Sarah Palin meet on Jeopardy, Biden will win in a landslide. In a debate, I'm not so sure.

[gdnp]

If Joe Biden and Sarah Palin meet on Jeopardy, Biden will win in a landslide. In a debate, I'm not so sure.

Especially since mostly the political junkies watch the debates. The undecideds will watch the sound bites in the commercials and on the news, and the repubs usually win the sound bite game.

[boloboffin]

Oh, no. Palin hasn't killed a bridge to Ketchikan's airport at all (http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-administration-still-pursuing-nowhere-project-913/).

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has portrayed herself as a foe of pork-barrel spending, pointing in particular to her role in killing the $398 million "Bridge to Nowhere” between Ketchikan (pop. 7,400) and its airport on Gravina Island (pop. 50). I "told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,'" she said in her speech (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/20080903_PALIN_SPEECH.html) accepting the Republican vice presidential nomination. "If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves."

But Gov. Palin’s administration acknowledges that it is still pursuing a project that would link Ketchikan to its airport -- with the help of as much as $73 million in federal funds earmarked by Congress for the original project.

"What the media isn't reporting is that the project isn't dead," Roger Wetherell, spokesman for Alaska’s Department of Transportation, said. In a process begun this past winter, the state’s DOT is currently considering (http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/projectinfo/ser/Gravina/images/alternative_11x17_v4.pdf) (PDF) a number of alternative solutions (five other possible bridges or three different ferry routes) to link Ketchikan and Gravina Island.

Wow. Just wow. Emphasis mine.

[Ryan O'Dine]

...snip...
Personally, I would prefer a Vice President and President with a little bit more knowledge, but if you had to choose between a knowledgable person, or an ignorant person who shares your values, who would you choose? If you are like most people, you'll take the latter.

I'm not convinced it's even about "values." I think many voters want someone they can understand at first glance. Someone who, if they walked onto a sitcom in a cameo, people would immediately "get" the character.

"Values" makes it sound profound and meaningful. I think it's much shallower than that.

Plus, I'm ridiculously cynical.

[headscratcher4]

She could be anti-airport. Big carbon footprint airports.

:)

Can't be anti-airport...where else would you get the planes and helicopters so you can hunt wolves from the air?

[not_so_new]

Can't be anti-airport...where else would you get the planes and helicopters so you can hunt wolves from the air?

Well, she is partly against planes and helicopters because you can see more of the ice melting from up there than you can from the ground, in much the same way that you can tell the earth is actually round better from the air.

If they close their eyes tight enough anyone can easily see that this science stuff is all baloney.

:rolleyes: