The Palin Interview

Sarah Palin (finally) sat down for an interview with ABC's Charles Gibson, to discuss domestic and foreign issues that the next administration will or will probably need to deal with. her reaction has been accurately described by pundits as "a moose in headlights."

Let's start with a critique of what she calls "foreign policy experience." Charlie Gibson told Palin that when he asked McCain about her foreign policy credentials, McCain cited Palin's experience with the Alaskan National Guard, and Alaska's geographic proximity to Russia. He asked Palin if she thought that was sufficient, and she attempted to dodge the question. Gibson put his foot down on the question, asking "What insight into Russian actions does the proximity of the State [of Alaska] give you?" Her response: "They're our next door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." She went on to admit that she's never met a foreign Head of State, after a failed attempt to dodge the question.

My attention was truly captivated when the conversation turned toward the economy. As my last article pointed out, Palin's two terms as the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska left the town with $22 million in debt, regardless of a massive 38% tax increase (including 0.5% sales tax to cover the cost of a $14 million sports complex, the biggest expendature on the budget), and also in spite of $27 million in earmarks that she secured through the use of a lobbying firm. So I was naturally captivated when Gibson started asking questions about the economy.

Gibson asked Palin to name three principal things she would do to change Bush's failed economic policies. Palin tried to dodge the question, saying they need to put government on the side of the people, get out of the way of the private sector, create jobs, and make stuff affordable. Gibson pointed out that the Bush Administration would agree with those points, and asked her to specifically name three things they'd do differently. Her answer: reduce taxes (she's failed to do this while in public office), control spending (she can't do this either), and reform oversight to find efficiencies (but NOT in Defense spending, which makes up 20% of our budget). She also danced around Gibson pointing out that she originally supported the "bridge to nowhere," and resembled Patrick Swayze when Gibson commented that Alaska has gotten ten times as much money as Obama's state, and multiples of any other state... she essentially replied with comments insisting that it wasn't her fault, even though there are mounds of evidence that show that Palin has repeatedly gone after and otherwise supported massive earmarks.

On social and environmental topics, Palin again proves that she isn't capable of telling the truth, let alone leading anyone. On the topic of homosexuality, Palin claims that she's "not one to judge." Pretty ironic, since she fully supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan Constitutional amendment that would deny state health benefits for same-sex couples. She says she wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but then goes on to say that she wants to "reach out and work with people on the other side" of the debate. Reach out how exactly? If you overturn Roe v. Wade, what's left to debate?

On the topic of climate change, she argues "Show me where I have ever said that there is absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change," a pretty dodgy response when you consider her interview with the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner on December 4th, 2007. She said, and I quote, "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." Of course, you only have to look at her 0% score with the League of Conservation Voters regarding her voting on environmental issues, or her plethora of supportive arguements for drilling in ANWR and other topics that back oil companies, to ascertain where she stands on global warming. She even commented that "ANWR is a 2,000 acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million acre swath of land; 2,000 acres that we're asking the 'Feds' to unlock so that there can be exploration and development." She makes no effort to establish that ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, is a small portion of land devoted to preserving the region's wildlife. Palin clearly believes that none of the species in the refuge are worth as much as a few barrels of oil. ANWR was made possible largely in part by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

And now for the real topping on the cake... Gibson turned the interview toward foreign policies and relations, and this is where Palin quite clearly lost her footing on several occasions. The most notable instance came when Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect Charlie?

GIBSON: What do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

Republicans argue that this was a "trick question," and that no one knows what the Bush Doctrine is unless it's given to them in context. They also claim that the Bush Doctrine means multiple things, and that there isn't one singe definitive meaning of the phrase. That's pretty hilarious and ironic, because I knew precisely what he was talking about when he asked that question, as did millions of other Americans watching the interview at home. It's pretty shocking that Republicans argue to support Palin despite her failure to understand the President's self-motives for going to war. And when asked if we have the right to a preemptive strike if we sense a threat from a foreign nation, she responded "If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against [the] American people, we have every right to protect our country." I guess this is why she's sending her son to fight in Iraq, despite the fact that we now know fully that the supposed intelligence supporting our invasion of Iraq was faulty to say the very least.

Throughout the course of the full interview, Palin skirted around every question thrown her way. Gibson is a fantastic interviewer, never letting her escape an important question, and the Republicans are now claiming that Gibson was a bully, with condescending questions. To that, I need to reply with questions. If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, would you think Gibson was being unfair? If Palin were Obama's running mate, would you consider her qualified for the Vice Presidency of the United States of America? Would you support her when she argues that Alaska's proximity to Russia and her experience running the Alaska National Guard count as foreign policy experience?

With every election, I always take a few moments to look at things from the angle of the opposition. I sat down and considered if I would vote for Obama if I weren't a Democrat, or if he were running against my party, and the answer was a firm "yes." I was opposed to Hillary Clinton's potential nomination from day one, even though I'm an avid Democrat and a hardcore supporter of the Bill Clinton administration... I was even opposed to her coming to the Senate for New York State, long before this campaign began. But I sat down to look at Palin, and consider her from the perspective that a Republican might take. With every ounce of seriousness that I can possibly project in written word... laughter, shame, and pessimism were the only results of my consideration.

Back To Top

	Palin says Obama regrets bypassing Clinton	Associated Press	Fri Sep 12	445
	Video - Palin, Gibson Talk Climate and Energy on 'Nightline'	Truthdig	Fri Sep 12	5
	In '04, Peter Jennings Told Mrs. Edwards 'How Real...How Refreshing' She Was in Politics | NewsBusters.org	newsbusters.org	Fri Sep 12	0
	Hometown sees change with Palin's new role	Associated Press	Sat Sep 13	14
	Fact Check: McCain misstates Palin earmarks record	Associated Press	Fri Sep 12	7