- How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
- How does it feel to “win”?
- How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
- Who will be your VP?
- Should you choose [insert name of potential running mate] as VP?
- Will you accept public finance?
- What issues is your campaign about?
- Will you visit Iraq?
- Will you debate [Insert some other person's name] at a town hall?
- What did you think of your competitor’s speech?
- Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
- Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
- Questions about foreign policy
- -territorial integrity of Georgia
- -allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
- -NATO treaty
- -Iranian nuclear threat
- -what to do if Israel attacks Iran
- -Al Qaeda motivations
- -the Bush Doctrine
- -attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
- Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted inteerviewee]
Now, I'm not saying one should have gotten the easy list while the other should have gotten the harder (though the person with the easy list was vying for the harder job) but I think it does an injustice on a number of different levels.
It gives the person with the easy questions limited room to provide for substance and platform defining while it gives the second all the opportunity to do so.
It shows ole Charlie for the even handed, unbiased, hardcore journalist he really.... (insert screeching record sound here to symbolize an abrupt stop)
Your credibility has long since been washed up Charlie. The fact that people turn to these fawning mainstream media types has turned into a farce. If you put a few weeks in between interviews, people are blind to the bias. Put the two lists up back to back...
Ok, here's where we stand now. Palin has been untouched by journalists for a while with them yelling and yelling, "GIVE US AN INTERVIEW!!" She did. Putting aside the fact that Charlie finally decided to ask real questions this time...
Portions of the interview... not just silly Sarah and Charlie giggling sessions... but real pertinent portions of the interview were cut. For whatever reason, portions were cut. [Bold portions were cut from the aired version and the entire transcript can be found HERE. You can scroll down past this if you want to continue with my line of thought.]
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.
GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
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’ve 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, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?
PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that 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 and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with 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: 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 other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
Ok... this post is getting long... for those of you who hung on this long, thanks.
I'm not saying to play softball with these people. You want to throw a zinger, do it. Ask the tough questions... Get the answers... AIR THE ANSWERS...
PLEASE do your research people. Don't take mistake the news for unbiased, unfiltered truth. Do your homework. If you still come away with your hypothesis intact, then at least you'll have done it the right way and you'll be better off for it.
Look, I'm pissed with the Republican'ts and their bum promises for the years and years of screaming smaller government out of one side of their mouths while yelling for more money out of the other side. They had both houses and the Presidency and DID NOTHING. How much was government downsized? Democrats? Don't even get me started. They're now talking about adding Gas Stamps to the growing list of govvie handouts. Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. Get the government involved, the man will have nothing left to himself except for the endless stream of fish handed to him by his welfare office.
Both sides of the aisle have thrown away the Constitution. *I have a few by the way, just in case you can't find yours. I've even downloaded one for the ole iPod so I can have an indexed one with me.) and I can point you to places where you can get one for yourself. Sometimes these places will give you one for free and even pay for the postage themselves just so you'll have one.
Both sides have moved for a bigger more intrusive federal government which tells you every day that you are too stupid to live, to work, to exist on your own. They tell you you're too rich, you must be incapable of personal charity. They tell you when you're too poor and that you must be incapable of work. They take things which are not theirs to take and threaten to take more. They threaten to seize the time and skill of doctors with nationalized healthcare. They threaten to take your young with selective service forms... try to vote without having filled out one of those, boys. They take your money and outright give it to someone else simply because it is the FAIR thing to do. They're even trying to define marriage. I thought that was a personal/religious matter. Why's the government getting involved?
Here's my beef...
The Presidential election should not be this important. We should not have to worry about our lives being turned upside down or our pockets being fleeced just because somebody else moved into the white house. The federal government was never intended to be like this. Most of these powers we fret over were to be reserved to the States to decide for themselves.
While I'm at it, I think we should get rid of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Did you know that Guam has representation in Congress but Vermont does not? Did you know Puerto Rico Does? Virginia, Alabama, California? Nope, nope, nope.
States used to pick and choose their Senators to represent the State... NOT THE PEOPLE... but the State in federal affairs. The House of representatives was the place to represent people. The Senate was a designated body of individuals specifically chosen by the elected body of government from the State they represent.
They even messed that one up.
I've gone way off topic. I'm up way too late. I'm supposed to start CPR Instructor classes tomorrow and I'm probably fall asleep on my test dummy.
If you can tolerate more of my ramblings, I'll probably update tomorrow when I re-read this mess and need to elaborate on something... blah blah blah...
Hey, I'd really like to thank all of you commenting people. I really enjoy getting feedback. Let me know exactly how much of a moron you think I am... and how much of this you think will follow me should I ever follow this bug growing in me to run for political office myself.