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 that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that 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 Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, 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.

Really, the whole interview is pretty much awesome.

Wow this is an outright lie; when she said that the troops were on a “Task from God” she was directly contradicting Lincoln, not “quoting” him. Saying the Iraq war is endorsed by God IS presuming to know God’s will. Idiot.

Every time I do this I end up kicking myself later, but I didn’t think her response to Gibson’s question about the statement she made at the church was bad at all. She didn’t actually say she thought this was God’s plan, just that He has a plan (which is what most Christians believe and is well inside the mainstream) and she hopes we’re following it. She tied the inalienable rights statement to God which, while it may not be intended in the same Deist sense the Founders put forth, isn’t that odd either. While she may think countries around the world should have the same rights she didn’t actually say we should fight wars over it.

I’m not saying I don’t find Palin a really serious bit of bad news and lousy work but I’m trying, very hard, to keep a level head. Jumping on Jeff the other day for something he didn’t actually say has got me trying to be fair and level headed despite how unspeakably angry I am about this campaign and what the Republicans are up to.

Last week, I watched a friend of mine fill his car with gas. Based on those qualifications, I’m sending in my application to join the Parliament’s National Security Committee.

And I’ll vote for you! Hey, I can do that, right? I’m pretty sure as an American that I can vote in any country’s elections.

She said that the troops were being sent on a task from God, sounds to me like she thinks that’s god’s plan.

Couple that with statements she has made about doing God’s will in the Alaskan Government and her displayed ignornance of important issues, I get the strong impression that she is the female version of Geroge Bush.

Her response in the interview last night was fine, but it also completely contradicts her earlier statement, which is a pattern that both she and Sen. McCain have been demonstrating recently.

You know, after what McCain had to suffer through with the whole ‘black baby’ smear, I expected better from him. I respected Sen. McCain in the past for standing up for what he thought was right. When it turned out to be him vs. Obama, I thought ‘well, either way we get a good leader’, but now he’s morphed into a yes man for the RNC with the mind-twin of george w bush in the vp slot. He couldn’t even stand up to the RNC and get Lieberman as his VP. McCain is no longer a maverick, he’s a tool.

Duh, that’s why suddenly the Republican establishment is falling all over itself. It wants to set her up as their candidate in '12 (or '16, if McCain wins and decides to be ornery and doesn’t go quietly) so we Americans can keep enjoying our slide into third-world status that George Jr. has brought us.

New McCain ad says, “Obama said Sara Palin is lying … how disrespectful.”

The ad doesn’t actually claim that Obama is making a false claim.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html

[ul]
[li]The ad says "they said she was doing ‘what she was told.’ " But the Obama adviser who’s being quoted didn’t accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama’s legislative record and added, “maybe that’s what she was told.”[/li]> [li]It says "they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as ‘good looking,’ " But “they” didn’t lash out at all. Obama – who is the one pictured – didn’t say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama’s running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the “obvious” difference between Palin and himself is “she’s good looking.”[/li]> [li]The ad says Obama was “disrespectful” when he accused Palin of “lying” about her record. But the truth is Palin’s claim to have “said no” to the “bridge to nowhere” is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.[/ul][/li]

I will say this in her defense:

  • Her answer on the question of going to war with Russia was not what I saw in the headlines initially: she said, of course, if Russia attacks a NATO ally we are obligated to come to their defense.

  • When Charlie asked her about the Bush Doctrine, I thought to myself, what in the hell is the Bush Doctrine? Surround yourself with corrupt and inept advisers? I think the best answer would have been, Charlie, please elaborate on what you are referring to when you say “The Bush Doctrine”, as this administration has numerous doctrines regarding various aspects of policy.

Outside of that - she still sounded like a beauty pageant contestant. Although I doubt the interview hurt her with people who want to like her or help her with people who want to dislike her. As someone who was trying to remain neutral on her, it significantly lowered my opinion of her capabilities for this role.

It’s a common and specific term used to refer to Bush foreign policy with special emphasis placed on the war on terror.

I’m still not completely sure what it is as a succinct policy - sounds like a combination of things.

I would be willing to bet that, if they’re honest, most people on this board would not have been able to say (before this came up) - without looking it up - here in a couple of sentences is “The Bush Policy.”

Of course - and this has been mentioned before - we’re not running for the second-highest elected office in America.

I dunno, I suspect most people here given the endless arguments on Iraq would clearly be able to say “Bush Doctrine = pre-emptive strikes as ‘self defense’”.

You are probably right, but most people on this board aren’t running for vice president either. If she doesn’t know something, she would do better to say ‘i don’t know enough about that to comment’ and then do some homework.

Alright, first of all, who gives a shit what “most people” would be able to define. Thats not the issue, this woman may be vice president. Secondly, the Bush Doctrine is an important piece of modern history and anybody going anywhere near the government should know damn well what it means. It’s not a board reference to all of Bush’s policies.

Sarah Palin doesn’t hire black people. Also, she doesn’t attend Juneteenth events.

Angie - really? Do you really believe this: While meeting with black leaders concerning the absence of any African-Americans on her staff, Gov. Palin responded that she doesn’t have to hire any blacks and was not intending to hire any.

I mean, OK, she’s a dunderhead when it comes to foreign policy, etc. but for me, I’d need a lot more to start labeling her a racist.

EDIT: Especially when the source is a vague undocumented “she said” from a web site who’s “About” comments are that they exist to let people know how bad McCain is.