Can Sarah Palin Tell the Truth?

[rdowns]

It seems that virtually everything that comes out of her mouth is either a lie or an exaggeration. Now many of them are small, inconsequential things but some are big and the pattern can't be ignored.

The latest (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Palin_asked_daughters_on_veep_vote_after_they_were_already_in_OH_for_announcement.html?) is the lie about whether she accepted the VP nomination immediately, as she told Charlie Gibson or the oh so quaint story she told Sean Hannity.

Appearing on Fox last night, Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity a heartwarming story of how she asked her teenage daughters for their opinion before accepting the vp offer.

"So ask the girls what they thought and they’re like, ‘Absolutely, let’s do this, Mom,’” Palin recounted of her daughters, Bristol and Willow.

Yet, according to the campaign-provided timeline of how Palin's selection came about, her kids only found out the big news after they were spirited from Alaska to Ohio for the announcement.

"While there, Governor Palin's children, who had been told they were going to Ohio to celebrate their parents' wedding anniversary, were told for the first time that their mother would be a nominee for Vice President of the United States of America," said the official timeline, as released by McCain's campaign last month.

Todd Palin, in a separate interview with Fox this week, also said the kids were not told about the decision until after they left Alaska.

Asked about the discrepancy, Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said: "She asked the girls to vote once they arrived in Ohio."

When it was noted that, that would have been after the decision had already been made, Schmitt said Palin was still in Arizona at the time.

This, of course, doesn't change the fact that the children were already in Ohio for the express purpose of announcing he news.

[Rodimus Prime]

A better question is can any politition tell the truth.

You know as well as I do everything out of there mouth is just lies, exaggerations and BS.

Yes this includes Obama.

[scotthayes]

I agree with you rdowns she doesn't seem able to tell the truth about anything.


This seems a perfect description of her. Is this the real palin? (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar)

[mactastic]

A better question is can any politition tell the truth.

You know as well as I do everything out of there mouth is just lies, exaggerations and BS.

Yes this includes Obama.
Ah yes... excusing Palin's lies by saying "well everyone does it".

So it's ok to lie now because "they all do it"?

Isn't that moral relativism?

[skunk]

Isn't this the answer to her famous question: "What is it exactly that a VP does?" Looking at Cheney, the only reasonable answer seems to be "The VP lies through his or her teeth". You can't blame Palin for getting the wrong idea.

[Rodimus Prime]

Ah yes... excusing Palin's lies by saying "well everyone does it".

So it's ok to lie now because "they all do it"?

Isn't that moral relativism?

no what I mean by that is that is it all canidates are scum untrustworthy UNFIT to lead piles of crap who care only about getting power.

I am getting annoyed how everyone is on Palin case here but let Obama get away with doing the same type of stuff. Every little thing Palin does is blown up yet Obama can do larger things and it complete passed over.

It more just everyone turning a blind eye to just focus on one. It would be nice to see an honest campaign for once but they all lie.

[PowerFullMac]

I wouldnt trust anyone with an inconsistent story and who has bypassed a rule that government e-mails have to be in the government account (thanks for that one, Anon ;))

[IJ Reilly]

Does anyone remember when Al Gore was painted as a "serial exaggerator" by Republicans? It seemed at the time to be a serious charge, leveled with such ernest. I mean, how could you trust anyone who had trouble telling a story totally straight? The same standards don't seem to apply to Palin. How shocking.

[Ntombi]

no what I mean by that is that is it all canidates are scum untrustworthy UNFIT to lead piles of crap who care only about getting power.Tell us how you really feel.

I am getting annoyed how everyone is on Palin case here but let Obama get away with doing the same type of stuff. Every little thing Palin does is blown up yet Obama can do larger things and it complete passed over.

It more just everyone turning a blind eye to just focus on one. It would be nice to see an honest campaign for once but they all lie.
Can you give some examples of how Obama has lied on anywhere near the same scale as Palin. Heck, let's add McCain too, just to give you a fighting chance. ;)

I'm not saying that Obama is squeaky clean, but I'm wondering how you can seriously compare the two? Or maybe my answer is in the fact that you're calling every lie of Palin's "little."

[leekohler]

It's when Palin is honest that I really get scared.

[it5five]

no what I mean by that is that is it all canidates are scum untrustworthy UNFIT to lead piles of crap who care only about getting power.

I am getting annoyed how everyone is on Palin case here but let Obama get away with doing the same type of stuff. Every little thing Palin does is blown up yet Obama can do larger things and it complete passed over.

It more just everyone turning a blind eye to just focus on one. It would be nice to see an honest campaign for once but they all lie.

Please, start a thread on all of these constant lies coming from the Obama camp, if you think he is doing the same thing as McCain/Palin. I think you'll soon find out that McCain/Palin have taken their lies to a whole new level, doing it every single interview and in every single TV advertisement.

[Much Ado]

Every little thing Palin does is blown up yet Obama can do larger things and it complete passed over.

Sources please.

[aethelbert]

Appearing on Fox last night, Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity a heartwarming story of how she asked her teenage daughters for their opinion before accepting the vp offer.

"So ask the girls what they thought and they’re like, ‘Absolutely, let’s do this, Mom,’” Palin recounted of her daughters, Bristol and Willow.
The question had nothing to do with the location in which they were asked... Why would the answer need to address it? How does this come out as a lie? It's sure a good thing that the members of one party in America manage to walk around with little halos over their heads.

[spork183]

The question had nothing to do with the location in which they were asked... Why would the answer need to address it? How does this come out as a lie? It's sure a good thing that the members of one party in America manage to walk around with little halos over their heads.

Her response gave the very explicit implication that her daughters were consulted BEFORE she accepted. That is clearly not the case based on Campaign spin. She had already accepted before her daughters knew, so to paint this as a tender mommy moment where her children had input is quite a stretch.

As to the halo's, we all know only one party is capable of the high moral fiber that the evangelical right aspires to perpetuate in our country. WWJD indeed...

[Rodimus Prime]

Sources please.

let me refese that.

All the news cares about is Palin and most of which about issues that have little to do with things. The only reason she is a big deal is no one knew who she was before the VP nomination so now they are digging for any dirt that in the past would of already played out and been rather worthless.

I rather see more information on Obama and McCain than over a worthless little more than a figure head spot. Lets face it the VP spot per our constitution is where the LOOSER got after the election. So its power is very limited. Minus really past few years the VP did little of anything.

Yet all the news cares about is Palin and not focusing on the real issues. Of which as I have said before both the candidates are worthless unfit to lead pile of crap. We have awful candidates this year. Both are better than Bush but not by much.

[MacNut]

Of course she can't she is a politician, why not just insert any name and ask if they can tell the truth.

[it5five]

Of course she can't she is a politician, why not just insert any name and ask if they can tell the truth.

I've found that it's mostly Republicans who trot out this excuse every time their politicians are exposed as some of the worst liars holding office.

Yes, all politicians lie to some extent, but some people take it to an extreme. Look at the whole McCain campaign. Almost everything that has been coming out of his mouth for the last week is a lie.

[MacNut]

Honestly I don't care who wins anymore, I have been so turned off by this whole election it won't matter who gets elected nothing will change. We might as well just set up a big mud pit so both sides can just fling. It is to the point where if something is talked about the election I turn the channel.

[it5five]

I agree with part of your statement. Nothing will change regardless of which corporate candidate is elected. The only difference is that if Obama is elected, things might stop getting worse, and if McCain is elected, the country will continue along the destructive path it's been going.

But the second part of your statement is just another excuse, trying to paint both sides as equally dirty. Wrong, again. Look no further than the McCain campaign for some of the most dishonest and dishonorable campaigning this country has seen. All of his television ads completely lie and misrepresent Obama's positions, whereas Obamas ads are all somewhat based in reality and fact.

[MacNut]

But neither side is discussing anything in detail. It is just talking points.

Here is a theory I had about Palin. Did McCain choose her knowing she would hurt his campaign in the long run just to shut up the base and than hope that Obama really blows it for 4 years giving it back to a younger Republican to run in 2012. Let Obama win, take the heat of the Repubs and throw the blame on the Dems if things get worse.

[iJohnHenry]

Taking one for the team??

That is so prison-of-war'ish. ;)

[aethelbert]

Her response gave the very explicit implication that her daughters were consulted BEFORE she accepted. That is clearly not the case based on Campaign spin. She had already accepted before her daughters knew, so to paint this as a tender mommy moment where her children had input is quite a stretch.

As to the halo's, we all know only one party is capable of the high moral fiber that the evangelical right aspires to perpetuate in our country. WWJD indeed...
She didn't step off the plane in Ohio and suddenly become the nominee. Who says that she didn't discuss it with them on the plane, before she was nominated, on the way there, etc? And why does it matter, anyway? It has nothing to do with holding office.

I'm glad to know that the media in the US is making the analyzing of her family relations more important than covering economic issues or actual political developments.

[decksnap]

I'm glad to know that the media in the US is making the analyzing of her family relations more important than covering economic issues or actual political developments.

You miss the point that the story she told itself is politics on her part - building the Palin brand.

She doesn't have any economic insight or she'd be focusing on that. :rolleyes:

[jplan2008]

The question had nothing to do with the location in which they were asked... Why would the answer need to address it? How does this come out as a lie? It's sure a good thing that the members of one party in America manage to walk around with little halos over their heads.

let me refese that.

All the news cares about is Palin and most of which about issues that have little to do with things. The only reason she is a big deal is no one knew who she was before the VP nomination so now they are digging for any dirt that in the past would of already played out and been rather worthless.

I rather see more information on Obama and McCain than over a worthless little more than a figure head spot. Lets face it the VP spot per our constitution is where the LOOSER got after the election. So its power is very limited. Minus really past few years the VP did little of anything.

Yet all the news cares about is Palin and not focusing on the real issues. Of which as I have said before both the candidates are worthless unfit to lead pile of crap. We have awful candidates this year. Both are better than Bush but not by much.

Except that McCain is saying he's a lot more experienced than Obama. With an intelligent person, with experience comes wisdom and good judgment. This selection does not seem to show either.

McCain has had four bouts of cancer, at least two of those were the serious, fatal kind. He campaigns in the sun without a hat at midday from the Middle East to Florida to Arizona (more bad judgment and sheer recklessness -- his health could affect all of us -- so he won't seem "weak").

He's 71, has high blood pressure, and various other problems "normal" for his age. He set a three-hour time limit for a select group of reporters to review 1,500 pages of medical records. His selection of VP says a lot (all bad, IMO) about him, and he hasn't provided the information for me to be sure that he has the normal life expectancy for a 71 year-old.

He says he's a "Maverick," but he selected someone to strengthen the support of his party's "base," rather than the person he would have preferred to serve with, or even, someone with the minimum qualifications to fill in if he's incapacitated even for a day. Sarah Palin, and her selection, are more important, IMO, than the typical running mate.

The reason commentary about her in the press doesn't go into her record and her stand on the issues is she has almost no record (accounts are that she hasn't done much of anything as Governor, and there are no previous national press clips to look at), and she won't speak to the press about her stand on the issues. So we have very few words to go by, and most of them are lies. She even lies about a "fluff" question about "the call."

One of the only substance-related questions she has answered is that she can imagine having to attack Russia if we follow her instincts about allowing Georgia into NATO. So, she can calmly discuss nuclear war "without blinking." Great. Also, Drill, baby, drill. Because she's an expert on energy and 20% of US energy comes from Alaska (well, no, 2-4%, but really, how can you "pick on every little thing she says?"), and according to McCain she knows more about energy than ANYONE in the U.S, even though oil production in Alaska has gone down while she's been Governor (yes, picky picky picky), and several other states, with their own governors, produce more.

[decksnap]

That's a good point. The Republican camp KNOWS she doesn't know s^%, so they are keeping her from actually discussing politics at the level the rest of the adults are called to discuss. They are literally teaching her all this stuff as we speak.

If that's not one of the scariest things you've ever heard, you voted for Bush.

[aethelbert]

You miss the point that the story she told itself is politics on her part - building the Palin brand.
huh? Her "story" doesn't really contradict anything, unless you decide to twist words from different sources to make them conflict with one another.

She doesn't have any economic insight or she'd be focusing on that. :rolleyes:
Sorry, I think that you missed my point. Why does the media need to follow her arround and question things like this, which have nothing to do with holding office, instead of focusing on our economic downturn or maybe some politics that is actually based on true political issues?

[skunk]

Lets face it the VP spot per our constitution is where the LOOSER got after the election. So its power is very limited. Minus really past few years the VP did little of anything.You think Cheney did little of anything? Nonsense, you clearly have been paying no attention at all. Cheney has had a greater hand than anyone in perverting and subverting the US Constitution, lying to the American people in pursuance of a criminal war, distorting intelligence, drumming up support for further wars, securing no-bid contracts for his paymasters in KBR/Halliburton, sweetening Big Oil, running a shadow administration within the White House, encouraging breaches of the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and making foreign policy commitments independently of the President. Thanks to him, the VP spot has changed from a figurehead position to one where an unelected incumbent can wield real and dangerous power.

[jplan2008]

Yeah, let's just talk about the issues in an open debate.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=567185

[Ntombi]

Okay, let's take the family discussion off the table; it's just one example anyway.

Her claim: "I told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' for that bridge to nowhere."

The truth: she went after the money for the bridge, and when Congress killed the bridge, she took the money anyway.

Her claim: she has slashed budgets, cut pork, and cut taxes as both mayor and governor.

The truth: as mayor, she hired Wassila's first lobbyist to get money from Washington, she raised taxes in Wassila to pay for a rec center that went over budget, she and the chief of police in Wassila charged women for the cost of processing their own rape kits, her budget spending as governor increased over the previous governors. The only reason she didn't have to raise taxes on all of Alaska is that oil prices went up.

Her claim: she welcomed the (bipartisan yet republican majority) investigation into troopergate, would cooperate fully, as would all of her staff.

The truth: she wouldn't answer questions, wouldn't release thousands of official emails, wouldn't release thousands of work-related emails that were sent from personal accounts, told her staff to stop cooperating entirely, encouraged them and her husband to ignore subpoenas that were, once again, voted on by the bipartisan committee. Yet claimed partisan motives for an investigation that started in Alaska before she was a national figure.

That was all off the top of my head, as I'm on my iPhone and away from a computer. I'm sure there are more, but please, tell me: what has Obama lied about in his record that is similar?

Oh, and please note that I haven't included semantic misstatements, claims about her record by others, or anything about her family or religion, I've only included policy claims they can be looked at objectively.

[paddy]

Of course, just not to the general public.

[Ntombi]

huh? Her "story" doesn't really contradict anything, unless you decide to twist words from different sources to make them conflict with one another.


Sorry, I think that you missed my point. Why does the media need to follow her arround and question things like this, which have nothing to do with holding office, instead of focusing on our economic downturn or maybe some politics that is actually based on true political issues?

If you don't think that a politician's past and record is important in knowing how they'd govern, you know nothing about politics.

Of course the issues are the most important, but we have to know how they'd address those issues, not just how they say they would. That means looking at what they've done in the past.

[aethelbert]

Okay, let's take the family discussion off the table; it's just one example anyway.
That's the problem. The article presented in the thread's first post isn't even a lie. I don't really have any problem with people attacking her over things that actually hold relevance to her political history and political actions. Problem is, she didn't lie in the interview (at least not in the provided snippet here that the arguing is over:

"So ask the girls what they thought and they’re like, ‘Absolutely, let’s do this, Mom,’”

≠

"We told them before we left Alaska."

Her statement could be true if she told them in Ohio, Juneau, Munich, or Micronesia. Yet somehow people that have nothing better to do than go to irrelevant and even inaccurate means to try to derail her when we're in an economic crisis, watching foreign policy issues explode with Russia, et al.
If you don't think that a politician's past and record is important in knowing how they'd govern, you know nothing about politics.
Too bad this really has nothing to do with her political record. Also too bad that I never said anything of the sort.

Of course the issues are the most important, but we have to know how they'd address those issues, not just how they say they would. That means looking at what they've done in the past.
No, that means looking at what they've done in the past in politics. I really don't give a poo about who hit who at the age of four in preschool, thank you.

What a nice world it would be if people could run for office without both parties having at each other over random crap like a game of Russian roulette. Oh well, it's an imperfect world. Flame her away.

[decksnap]

Sorry, I think that you missed my point. Why does the media need to follow her arround and question things like this, which have nothing to do with holding office, instead of focusing on our economic downturn or maybe some politics that is actually based on true political issues?

Just maybe because the election is the biggest game in media town, and Palin has ^&$ all to say about anything important. So this is what she talks about.

[aethelbert]

Just maybe because the election is the biggest game in media town, and Palin has ^&$ all to say about anything important. So this is what she talks about.
They can talk about the election however much they want. But unless it involves politics, the discussion is almost always irrelevant in such a situation. If she doesn't say anything regarding politics, why bother following her around? She's not even running for president. What she said in the article presented here doesn't have anything to do with politics nor is it really attackable unless you change what she is saying. Don't act like she's never once talked in a political manner just so that you can try to take cheap shots which don't even make sense.

[decksnap]

They can talk about the election however much they want. But unless it involves politics, the discussion is almost always irrelevant in such a situation..

I agree. Let's just label Sarah Palin as irrelevant and move on.

[aethelbert]

I agree. Let's just label Sarah Palin as irrelevant and move on.
Or we could just sit here and say that a little statement which contains almost no information, and which is confirmed by other provided sources, is a lie which makes her unfit for office instead of actually looking at political aspects that would actually help determine why or why not she should be chosen for her position. The former obviously seems the best choice.

[Iscariot]

Sounds like a great new gameshow, akin to Win Ben Stein's Money. Contestants compete to win the grand prize -- a bridge to anywhere they want!

[decksnap]

Or we could just sit here and say that a little statement which contains almost no information, and which is confirmed by other provided sources, is a lie which makes her unfit for office instead of actually looking at political aspects that would actually help determine why or why not she should be chosen for her position. The former obviously seems the best choice.

I guess I'll say it again. She is a politician in training. The public isn't going to hear any real 'politickin' out of her until after she is taught it by McCain's people. For now we get to talk about lipstick and red-necking around Alaska.

[jplan2008]

Sounds like a great new gameshow, akin to Win Ben Stein's Money. Contestants compete to win the grand prize -- a bridge to anywhere they want!

Well, she offered to play "stump the candidate," but won't let the press ask her questions, and now won't let Biden ask her questions, so I guess she won't win the game. Except it's not a game.

[abijnk]

They can talk about the election however much they want. But unless it involves politics, the discussion is almost always irrelevant in such a situation. If she doesn't say anything regarding politics, why bother following her around? She's not even running for president. What she said in the article presented here doesn't have anything to do with politics nor is it really attackable unless you change what she is saying. Don't act like she's never once talked in a political manner just so that you can try to take cheap shots which don't even make sense.

Just to clear up why this was brought up; I think you missed something along the way.

In Palin's first major interview (the one with Charlie Gibson, it's on ABC's website if you haven't seen it) she said (and yes, I am paraphrasing, you can watch it for yourself) that when asked to be McCain's running mate she immediately said yes, that she "didn't blink" and that that is the kind of judgment necessary in a president and/or vice presidential candidate. She then said in another interview (the one mentioned in the original post) that she took the time out to consult her daughters. Well, which is it? Did she blink or didn't she? It's not a HUGE issue or anything like that, but if you are going to flat out state that the "don't blink" reflex is necessary in a candidate and then not even hold true to that somewhat minor detail then what is the public supposed to think?

Also, for those of you who think the vice president is irrelevant I have 9 words for you: Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, Ford. Yep, that's right 9 out of the 43 presidents were vice-presidents who succeeded to the presidency because of the death or resignation of the president. For those of you lacking in basic arithmetic, that's one fifth of the presidents of the USA. That, IMHO, is what makes this whole thing so scary.

[miloblithe]

You think Cheney did little of anything? Nonsense, you clearly have been paying no attention at all. Cheney has had a greater hand than anyone in perverting and subverting the US Constitution, lying to the American people in pursuance of a criminal war, distorting intelligence, drumming up support for further wars, securing no-bid contracts for his paymasters in KBR/Halliburton, sweetening Big Oil, running a shadow administration within the White House, encouraging breaches of the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and making foreign policy commitments independently of the President. Thanks to him, the VP spot has changed from a figurehead position to one where an unelected incumbent can wield real and dangerous power.

Skunk, I think you need to re-read what he wrote. "Minus really past few years the VP did little of anything." He was referring to VPs pre-Gore, most likely, who really didn't do that much.

[Rodimus Prime]

Skunk, I think you need to re-read what he wrote. "Minus really past few years the VP did little of anything." He was referring to VPs pre-Gore, most likely, who really didn't do that much.

exactly. And even Gore did relatively little. Cheney been a very big exception. Lets face it they have very little power

[aethelbert]

I guess I'll say it again. She is a politician in training. The public isn't going to hear any real 'politickin' out of her until after she is taught it by McCain's people. For now we get to talk about lipstick and red-necking around Alaska.
Sorry, but if you're gonna pull out the experience card, two years in the senate (much of which have been spent campaigning), isn't much experience either. Just because she doesn't have anything to say doesn't make a bunch of otherwise random and out-of-place junk somehow pertinent. Frankly, I've heard as much "policy" garbage out of her as I have any of the other three.

Just to clear up why this was brought up; I think you missed something along the way.

In Palin's first major interview (the one with Charlie Gibson, it's on ABC's website if you haven't seen it) she said (and yes, I am paraphrasing, you can watch it for yourself) that when asked to be McCain's running mate she immediately said yes, that she "didn't blink" and that that is the kind of judgment necessary in a president and/or vice presidential candidate. She then said in another interview (the one mentioned in the original post) that she took the time out to consult her daughters. Well, which is it? Did she blink or didn't she? It's not a HUGE issue or anything like that, but if you are going to flat out state that the "don't blink" reflex is necessary in a candidate and then not even hold true to that somewhat minor detail then what is the public supposed to think?
I did see the ABC interview although I'll admit that I don't remember it too well. Anyhoo, from the provided snippet, she said that she asked her daughters their thoughts, not that she was seeking their approval. Seeing the entire interview (the fox one) in context might change my mind about the lying part, but not the validity.

The problem I see is this: She's being attacked for a bunch of random garbage. Ntombi posted a nice list of some things which actually relate to her political history, yet the media (and some on this board) seems to be focusing on things that don't have to do with holding office.

[skunk]

exactly. And even Gore did relatively little. Cheney been a very big exception. Lets face it they have very little powerI'm sorry, I misread your post. :o

[IJ Reilly]

He says he's a "Maverick,"

If John McCain is a "Maverick" I'd say he's closest to this model:

http://media.motortopia.com/files/11212/vehicle/47d31aa5b18f0/New_Nova_pictures_004.jpg

[jplan2008]

Also, for those of you who think the vice president is irrelevant I have 9 words for you: Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, Ford. Yep, that's right 9 out of the 43 presidents were vice-presidents who succeeded to the presidency because of the death or resignation of the president. For those of you lacking in basic arithmetic, that's one fifth of the presidents of the USA. That, IMHO, is what makes this whole thing so scary.

Yes. (I wish I hadn't heard those numbers, though.) The VP also takes over if the President is incapacitated -- like, invasive treatment for skin cancer. Is she really qualified to fill in even for a week?

I've thought quite a few Presidents in my lifetime haven't had the knowledge and intelligence to serve in that post, but her lack of experience and intelligence AND the lack of thought and attention she's given to the most basic national issues, and the fact that I'm not sure she doesn't think God is telling her what to do, are really terrifying.

Aside from all the many crises that could come up, if the chances are one in five or one in a million, I don't want that possibility that someone who KNOWS that she will see Armageddon in her lifetime with her hand on the trigger for even one day.

I don't know why many people have a problem with the idea that a President and VP should be MORE intelligent and knowledgeable and thoughtful than the rest of us. Why do we want a "regular" person to make decisions that literally affect over 6,600,000,000 people? I can't think of any drinking buddies I want to be President. What's the connection?

[skunk]

If John McCain is a "Maverick" I'd say he's closest to this model:But probably in red...

[jplan2008]

Sorry, but if you're gonna pull out the experience card, two years in the senate (much of which have been spent campaigning), isn't much experience either. Just because she doesn't have anything to say doesn't make a bunch of otherwise random and out-of-place junk somehow pertinent. Frankly, I've heard as much "policy" garbage out of her as I have any of the other three.


I did see the ABC interview although I'll admit that I don't remember it too well. Anyhoo, from the provided snippet, she said that she asked her daughters their thoughts, not that she was seeking their approval. Seeing the entire interview (the fox one) in context might change my mind about the lying part, but not the validity.

The problem I see is this: She's being attacked for a bunch of random garbage. Ntombi posted a nice list of some things which actually relate to her political history, yet the media (and some on this board) seems to be focusing on things that don't have to do with holding office.

She knows nothing about national and international affairs, as far as I can tell. She had to prep for two weeks before her first interview. A community organizer, that she belittles, actually thinks about and learns about national affairs. She thought about abortion and book banning and a hockey rink. Obama studied law, and taught constitutional law. (uphold and defend the constitution?). He has lived in various diverse places in the U.S. and abroad, and traveled personally as a citizen and as a Senator She's lived in Alaska and Idaho. (and can see Alaska from an Island of Alaska), and got her first passport in 2007. She said, as Governor she "hadn't given much thought" to the Iraq War. We're talking about being a heartbeat away from Presidency.

I don't think a President, and definitely a VP has to have tons of POLITICAL experience. But they have to have to have given thought to the issues, studied them, articulated their positions on them, had exposure to diversity of opinions, and have intelligence. And in the Senate, Obama was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Veterans' Affairs; Health, Ed. Labor and Pensions; and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. To compare the two and say he doesn't have much more experience is unfathomable to me.. And yes, she's second on the ticket, but how is she going to be "ready on day one," if on day -110, she can't even debate in a "free" format against a fellow American? How exactly is she going to "stand up to Iran" if she can't stand up to a U.S. Senator? If 20 days earlier, she couldn't "stand up" to the most whimpy media person the McCain Camp could find?

The candidates all speak in soundbites for the press. But the other three ALSO speak off-the-cuff, without prep. and have to occasionally defend their positions. (and, yes, Biden puts his foot in his mouth, which the press calls him on, but usually it's for saying what he's thinking, which is preferable to lying about issues AND fluff.)

The media always goes off on tangents that we don't care about. They talk about "character" when their own polls show the public wants to hear about issues. But they also throw in some coverage on issues in the midst of the meaningless stuff. There's not a lot of "there" there for them to cover with Palin, though. What are they supposed to do? Make up her policy positions? (and, as I said previously, they are NOT attacking her -- they're going lightly so as not to be accused of being sexist, and to not give up chances for interviews with the Palin-McCain ticket)

[yg17]

Sorry, but if you're gonna pull out the experience card, two years in the senate (much of which have been spent campaigning)
Correction: 4 years in the US senate and 8 years in the IL senate

[aethelbert]

Correction: 4 years in the US senate and 8 years in the IL senate
Sorry about the 3,5 years, that's what I meant to type (doh). But still, not much. Having lived in Illinois for a good chunk of my life, though, I can tell you that they hardly do anything in state congress (as it is in many states). I got out of there in 2001, but I can't really imagine much changing in the few years beyond that he still would have held that office. There's probably not anything in that office that really qualifies you to be president any more than being governor. That doesn't help the case of foreign affairs, either. I wouldn't really call either one of them to be experienced, but time-wise, he obviously wins. Then again, he's not running against Sarah Palin in which case he loses to John McCain on that ground. I wouldn't really consider history in any state's senate in my choice for president (political history isn't a huge deciding factor for me, either), but that's pretty subjective and others probably would look at that history.

[abijnk]

Sorry about the 3,5 years, that's what I meant to type (doh). But still, not much. Having lived in Illinois for a good chunk of my life, though, I can tell you that they hardly do anything in state congress (as it is in many states). I got out of there in 2001, but I can't really imagine much changing in the few years beyond that he still would have held that office. There's probably not anything in that office that really qualifies you to be president any more than being governor. That doesn't help the case of foreign affairs, either. I wouldn't really call either one of them to be experienced, but time-wise, he obviously wins. Then again, he's not running against Sarah Palin in which case he loses to John McCain on that ground. I wouldn't really consider history in any state's senate in my choice for president (political history isn't a huge deciding factor for me, either), but that's pretty subjective and others probably would look at that history.

I've lived in Illinois my whole life and completely disagree with your statement about the state legislature doing nothing and that experience being irrelevant. Actually, I find it startling that you claimed to live there at all and hold that viewpoint. Ryan, Ryan, Moratorium, Children's Healthcare, Pre-school, any of this ringing a bell??? :confused: Being in the state legislature is most certainly relevant to running for president, as is being a governor.

[Thomas Veil]

Aide to Sarah Palin had approved trip for official she fired (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trooper20-2008sep20,0,3535582.story)

ANCHORAGE -- Gov. Sarah Palin's chief of staff authorized former Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan to travel to Washington, although the governor has cited that trip as a primary example of the insubordination that led to his firing.Add it to the list.

[aethelbert]

I've lived in Illinois my whole life and completely disagree with your statement about the state legislature doing nothing and that experience being irrelevant. Actually, I find it startling that you claimed to live there at all and hold that viewpoint. Ryan, Ryan, Moratorium, Children's Healthcare, Pre-school, any of this ringing a bell??? :confused: Being in the state legislature is most certainly relevant to running for president, as is being a governor.
Well, that's the thing. I know that people hold different views hence my labeling of the matter as subjective. Compared to the other states that I've lived in, I can't really say that the IL state government accomplished much while I lived there. However, I can't imagine that living in Peoria, a city with countless unsolved problems that are matters of both the city and the state, really helped my view of the state government. As for the Moratorium in 2000, I wasn't a huge fan of that (save it for another thread, macrumors). While the other two things that you mentioned were certainly good, they didn't really affect me in any way whatsoever. There were many problems that we dealt with there that were never addressed by anyone on any level of government, probably because we didn't receive a great deal of political attention. So I can't really say that the IL state government did much for me, but it may have made a more positive impact elsewhere (cough, cough Chicago).

Random thing here: if you've lived in Illinois your whole life, why is your location set to California?

[abijnk]

Random thing here: if you've lived in Illinois your whole life, why is your location set to California?

I'm on a 6 month internship :o

[jplan2008]

Here's an article with a bunch of links to Palin's record with Alaska Natives, including not protecting substinence fishing and hunting, having to be ordered by a federal judge to provide ballots in native languages, etc. http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=20010

There's also a link to an http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=610513a481df6069ddfc7fc88ba43bc6article about Palin and diversity/civil rights. Another example, for me, that it's not only that her viewpoints that she's expressed are so troubling, there seem to be a lot of important issues she hasn't expressed ANY views on.

...Palin’s record on race and diversity has been the blankest of blank sheets. The probes into Palin’s record on diversity and civil rights have almost exclusively focused on her views on gay rights, gay marriage and equal pay. These are crucial civil rights issues. But so are racial diversity and civil rights. The Web site OntheIssues.org gives a comprehensive look at the positions of elected officials on the major issues based on their statements, speeches, campaign materials and policy position papers. Palin has taken no position on immigration, affirmative action, job and housing discrimination, school re-segregation, police-minority community relations, and racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

During the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, she told the Eagle Forum that she opposed expanded hate crime legislation. She branded all heinous crimes as hate crimes.

Palin made no mention of Alaska's affirmative action plan. It's been in place since 1998 and mandates that the state make special efforts to ensure that veterans, especially disabled veterans, have equal access to state jobs.

If elected, her views will carry much weight when it comes to making and enforcing legal and public policies that affect minorities and women.

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, his VP running mate Joe Biden, and Palin's Republican running mate John McCain come from states that have diverse populations. In the Senate they have spoken out on, taken positions on, and haggled over legislation on immigration, hate crimes, affirmative action, job discrimination and education disparities. They are keenly sensitive to the importance of civil rights and diversity issues.

The same has been true even with Bush. Before his election in 2000, he promised to make cultural diversity the watchword in the GOP. That year, and in his reelection bid in 2004, he courted black conservatives and independents. He promised to boost minority business, HIV/AIDS funding, and programs for failing inner city public schools; praised the Voting Rights Act; and on occasion spoke out against racially motivated violence.

During her tenure as Alaska governor, Palin didn't have to say or do much about civil rights. She does now. And we shouldn't have to wait for her to get to the White House before she does. That's too great a risk for the country.

[IJ Reilly]

But probably in red...

I don't remember ever seeing one in that color. You'd have no reason to know this but the main distinction for the Ford Maverick was that it was introduced in 1969 at a base price of $1,995. It was almost worth that much. Every time I hear McCain described as a "maverick" I can't help thinking of that cheap and cheerless car.

[IJ Reilly]

Meanwhile, back on the home front...

Alaskans angered that Palin is off-limits

Queries are directed through the McCain campaign machine. Her political capital at home is eroding.

ANCHORAGE — Jerry McCutcheon went to Sarah Palin's office here last week to request information about the firing of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, the scandal that for weeks has threatened to overshadow the governor's role as Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate.

McCutcheon was given a phone number in Virginia to call: the national headquarters of the McCain-Palin campaign.

Why, he wanted to know, did he have to call a campaign office 4,300 miles away to find out what was going on in Alaska government? The longtime civic activist phoned his local state representative, Les Gara, who quickly filed a protest.

These days, many such queries about Monegan -- or anything else involving Palin's record as governor -- get diverted to McCain staffers. A former Justice Department prosecutor from New York flew in recently to advise the governor's lawyer and field reporters' calls about Monegan. Soon after, Palin's willingness to cooperate in the Legislature's probe of the affair ended.

A recent call to John Cramer, the head of the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs -- who clashed with Palin during her years as mayor of Wasilla -- was returned by a McCain campaign operative who had just arrived from Washington, D.C. "John who?" she asked.

In stubbornly independent Alaska, the sudden intrusion of a political campaign into so many corners of state government -- not to mention Wasilla, where a dozen or more campaign researchers and lawyers have also begun overseeing the release of any information about Palin's years as mayor -- has touched a raw nerve. McCain staffers have even been assigned to answer calls for Palin's family members, who have been instructed not to talk.

"Why did the McCain campaign take over the governor's office?" the Anchorage Daily News demanded in an editorial Saturday. "Is it too much to ask that Alaska's governor speak for herself, directly to Alaskans, about her actions as Alaska's governor?"

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-troopergate21-2008sep21,0,829160.story

[chris200x9]

I agree with you rdowns she doesn't seem able to tell the truth about anything.


This seems a perfect description of her. Is this the real palin? (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_you_tell_if_someone_is_a_pathological_liar)

****!..........that's me :eek:

[leekohler]

Well, that's the thing. I know that people hold different views hence my labeling of the matter as subjective. Compared to the other states that I've lived in, I can't really say that the IL state government accomplished much while I lived there. However, I can't imagine that living in Peoria, a city with countless unsolved problems that are matters of both the city and the state, really helped my view of the state government. As for the Moratorium in 2000, I wasn't a huge fan of that (save it for another thread, macrumors). While the other two things that you mentioned were certainly good, they didn't really affect me in any way whatsoever. There were many problems that we dealt with there that were never addressed by anyone on any level of government, probably because we didn't receive a great deal of political attention. So I can't really say that the IL state government did much for me, but it may have made a more positive impact elsewhere (cough, cough Chicago).

If Illinois didn't have Chicago, it would be about as relevant as Montana. While we Chicagoans have our problems, I wouldn't give up living here for any other place in the country. It's a fantastic, beautiful city. It's the best in the country as far as I'm concerned. The rest of Illinois should be extremely glad this city exists, it drives tons of business in the state.

[aethelbert]

If Illinois didn't have Chicago, it would be about as relevant as Montana. While we Chicagoans have our problems, I wouldn't give up living here for any other place in the country. It's a fantastic, beautiful city. It's the best in the country as far as I'm concerned. The rest of Illinois should be extremely glad this city exists, it drives tons of business in the state.
So I should've been happy to know that my tax dollars were going to fix problems in the big city instead of to help the 150.000 suffering from a horrible public school system lacking state funding, terrible roads, et al? When my city tax dollars went to planting hundreds of palm trees which died within three months, I would've at least appreciated a fair share of the state tax dollars to come help us out with the problems that Springfield holds the power to fix.

[Eric Piercey]

She didn't step off the plane in Ohio and suddenly become the nominee. Who says that she didn't discuss it with them on the plane, before she was nominated, on the way there, etc? And why does it matter, anyway? It has nothing to do with holding office.

I'm glad to know that the media in the US is making the analyzing of her family relations more important than covering economic issues or actual political developments.

First off, if she only "discussed" this with the kids after they were airborn it would be pretty obvious she wasn't turning the plane around.

Second, I agree the focus should be on the issues and developments. If this were the case the polls wouldn't even be close. Palin Palin Palin... she's a big neon distraction from the issues. Joe sixpack talks about how he wants to see her naked and the politically erudite speak of how clever a strategy picking her was while the issues are ignored for the most part.

[chrmjenkins]

So I should've been happy to know that my tax dollars were going to fix problems in the big city instead of to help the 150.000 suffering from a horrible public school system lacking state funding, terrible roads, et al? When my city tax dollars went to planting hundreds of palm trees which died within three months, I would've at least appreciated a fair share of the state tax dollars to come help us out with the problems that Springfield holds the power to fix.

I echo that. Coming from Williamson county, arguably one of the best in Southern Illinois, I know how much help the area could use. Chicago makes for such a drastic population difference that it is difficult for tax dollars and legislation to be relevant to both parts.

[abijnk]

I was reading stuff online and stumbled across this: LINK (http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/295464.html)


The governor's appearance on KWHL's "The Bob and Mark Show" last week is plain and simple one of the most unprofessional, childish and inexcusable performances I've ever seen from a politician.

Anchorage DJ Bob Lester unleashed a vicious, mean-spirited, poisonous attack on Senate President Lyda Green last week while our governor was live on the air with him.

When we played the tape on my show the day after it happened, we received 130 calls. Even some Palinbots were disgusted.

The Daily News posted the recording on its Web site and it fired up bloggers.

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner editorial writers demanded the governor apologize. The Juneau and Ketchikan papers also ran the editorial.

The Daily News opinion page addressed the governor's gaffe. They wrote "She came off looking immature herself, almost high-schoolish. It was conduct unbecoming a governor."

It was conduct unbecoming a human being, never mind a governor.

...


And a link to the recording from youtube: LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_23HhsKOQQ). This was the most complete recording I could find, I didn't have anything to do with the words that are shown or anything.

I guess this is her bipartisanship? Oh, no, wait, this lady is the republican senate president leader in her state. Oops...

[jplan2008]

I guess this is her bipartisanship? Oh, no, wait, this lady is the republican senate president leader in her state. Oops...

No, this is proof that she didn't lie about one thing, so maybe she CAN tell the truth. She "took on her own party." She "took on" a Republican State Senator who is a cancer survivor from her own town of Wasilla by encouraging and laughing at an AM talk-show host calling said Republican "a cancer" (beautiful) and "a b**ch. (and questioning whether she's a good mother) What a reformer to "take on" Washington. That's the heartbeat away we need for our crises. Apparently her staff excused this away at the time as "showing poor judgment."

Here's an article about her time as Mayor. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302596_pf.html

(also, there seems to be another "-Gate," which is "dairygate" if anyone is interested in googling it. I can't find a coherent source explaining it, so you have to look at different articles and blogs)

[solvs]

I am getting annoyed how everyone is on Palin case here but let Obama get away with doing the same type of stuff. Every little thing Palin does is blown up yet Obama can do larger things and it complete passed over.
Of course Obama isn't great, but Palin is much much worse. If you see any issues with Obama, post a thread. If it's valid, like the FISA thing, you won't get many defending it.

Palin's Project List Totals $453 Million (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143893857134389.html)
Did Palin's Pay As Wasilla Mayor Really Get Cut? (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/did_palin_really_take_a_pay_cu.php) (No BTW)
Sarah, stop the slander (http://alaskareal.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-stop-slander.html)

She's a real winner that one. :rolleyes: