@okie,
Okie,
I was ging to post this on Bi-Polar Bear's thread on the Palin interview but since he not voting anyway I thought it would be a better if I posted to this thread.
I found Palin’s overall performance in the interview quite promising. Her answer to the question implyng she had no experience and whether she could govern at the national executive level given the opportunity: ”Yes” was forceful and, just as important, immediate " no hesitating whatsoever. Her come back on the Bush Doctrine question hinted that perhaps she was unfamiliar with the concepts but her comeback question to Charlie was nimble: “What particular aspects of the doctrine are you referring to Charlie?”. Gibson’s response seemed to reveal that he thought he had reached a” gotcha moment” and he did not refine his question until a little later. He seemed to briefly revel in the moment then, patrician like, he asked about that part of the doctrine that would call for premptive strikes given cases of clear and present danger. Given there are other policies than the premptive strike, Palin’s response of asking for a further refining of Gibson 's question was proper. At that point Gibson could have said “Well, the whole thing”. Given this and Palin’s subsequent answer we could have properly determined not only her knowledge of the doctrine but her opinion of it. Seems Gibson preferred the appearance of the “Gotcha” rather than having his audience properly informed. But then I was kind of rooting for her and I am biased.
The Pakistan answer essentially said all options are on the table. Gibson tried to get her to say that she would jump across the Afghan/Pakistan border and Palin did tell him so but not in the context that her political enemies could easily extract a simple sound bite like “Cross Pakistan’s border? Well, hell yes Charlie! In a heart beat!” Gibson, after mumbling something about “a blizzard of words” then tries again for the sound bite but Palin rebuffs him with the same answer that: her administration would do what it took to protect American citizens. I wonder what part of “we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink” Charlie didn’t understand?
In a later part of the interview Gibson tried to get Palin to admit that she differed on McCain on global warming where McCain feels there is global warming and she doesn’t. She merely explained that she would gladly work to decrease global warming (like McCain) but that she was yet convinced human activity was a major factor, if a factor at all. Seems Gibson made the mighty discovery of a difference without a distinction. What impressed me the most about this part of the interview is that she told Americans outright her beliefs on global warming which are not PC to wit: The planet does seem to be warming up and this is more noticeable in the upper latitudes of Alaska, but she has yet to see any scientific evidence that human activity is the major cause (Just think of the ways the left can twist this perceived heresy! They will rail that the “debate is over” and that everybody accepts global warming as a fact but Palin is right in pointing out the scientific weakness of their case. Remember, in the 1990’s they were all concerned about global cooling!). Here there is an important distinction that affects economies all over the world. If the warming we see is due mainly to geological reasons and not human activity then curtailing that human activity will not only be insignificant (towards decreasing global warming) it will economically harm many economies on earth. This is a good point, especially since many on the left have a problem with the U.S. unilaterally crossing rogue state borders to prevent the deaths of American and International citizens but, given a perceived global warming, have absolutely no problem telling developing nations like Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, or India, to name a few, how to conduct the development of their economies so that their people can live better lives.
JM
