Today on Blogcritics
Home » Palin vs Gibson

Palin vs Gibson

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As my title makes clear, I’m not going to pretend Gibson wasn’t out to get Sarah Palin in her recent ABC interview. The questions he asked were aggressive and probing. He had clearly done his research on her and tried to dig up as much dirt as possible. And he even intentionally tried to trick her once or twice.

In my analysis of the interview, I have decided to use the full transcript provided by ABC in order to avoid accusations of unfair editing. If anyone finds an incompleteness in the transcript, please specifically address the passage.

So here it goes:

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.
Gibson asked her for national security credentials beyond her reform record, command of the Alaska National Guard, and proximity to Russia. She answered by arguing her reform record and her role in increasing oil production are national security credentials.

First of all, she only commands the Alaska National Guard when deployed within Alaska and even then, with a few exceptions, it follows protocol independent of the governor. When it is deployed outside of Alaska, it falls under federal command. Furthermore, neither her reform record nor her role in developing Alaskan energy resources involves relationships between states. And finally, we cannot achieve energy security by pumping more oil because the U.S. Department of the Interior estimates proven reserves of 21 billion barrels and unproven reserves of 134 billion barrels. The U.S. currently consumes 20.73 million barrels/day, or 7.5 billion barrels/year. We only have a 3 -18 year supply of domestic oil.

Gibson: 1 Palin: 0

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.

PALIN: Right.

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.

She initially dodges the question and then answers no but claims the same was true of many other vice presidents. However, this is dead wrong as every VP in the last 32 years has met a head of state as this Huffington Post article makes clear. It also has an amusing video in which Palin states she does not even know what the VP does.

Gibson: 2 Palin: 0

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.

At first, she questions the accuracy of Gibson’s quote, as has much of internet which notes ABC edited out this objection. Her full remark is as follows:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

So Gibson used a partial quote. Her actual statement tells us to pray that we are fulfilling God’s plan. I’ll give this one to her, but I still think religious inspiration for war is a very dangerous concept even if she doesn’t presume to know God’s will.

Gibson: 2 Palin: 1

PALIN: …And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors. We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Gibson asks her what insight she gets from proximity to Russia and she avoids the question by stating you can see Russia from an island I’m sure she has never been to. She then answers the question by saying she understands the need to be on good terms with Russia. I understand the need to be on good terms with Russia from all the way over here on the east coast. Does that make me qualified? The fact that she ever advanced this as a policy credential is embarrassing.

Gibson: 3 Palin: 1

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: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

Since when did we subjugate our judgment to that of Israel? The security of Israel is in our national interest and we should do everything we can to maintain their security. However, there is an important distinction between defending Israel and allowing Israel to control the decision making process. When Gibson repeated the question twice, clearly surprised she would surrender our military judgment to that of Israel’s, she had the opportunity to clarify this. In failing to grasp this distinction, Palin reveals her simplistic understanding of our national security interests. No doubt her eagerness to attract Jewish voters and other supporters of Israel got the best of her.

Gibson: 4 Palin: 1

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

She avoids the question. He repeats the question twice (not quoted) and she does not answer. I am convinced the reason she avoided so many questions during the interview is that she does not actually know the correct answer. Yes, there are simply situations were it is better not to answer. But she could have given a reasonable answer here along the lines of ‘We have the right to make cross-border attacks only if our national security is imminently threatened.’ Now I’m not quite sure when, if ever, we can cross the Pakistani border.

Gibson: 5 Palin: 1

GIBSON: … Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?

PALIN: I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change…Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet — the warming and the cooling trends — regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution.

GIBSON: But it's a critical point as to whether or not this is man-made. He says it is. You have said in the past it's not.

PALIN: The debate on that even, really has evolved into, OK, here's where we are now: scientists do show us that there are changes in climate. Things are getting warmer. Now what do we do about it. And John McCain and I are gonna be working on what we do about it.

GIBSON: Yes, but isn't it critical as to whether or not it's man-made, because what you do about it depends on whether it’s man-made.

PALIN: That is why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.

GIBSON: But I, color me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there. When you say, yes, now you're beginning to say it is man-made…

PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.

First, she avoids the question by saying it doesn’t matter whether or not man is causing it because she is going to fight it anyways. I cannot trust someone to do something about climate change if they claim they have a solution without acknowledging the cause. Even if I didn’t believe climate change is man-made, I would not trust her because her answer is obviously illogical and essentially a lie.  When pressed on the point, she admits global warming may be partially caused by humans. Gibson asks if this a change from her previous stance and she says no.

Her previous statements include:

“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location…. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”

“I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity.”

First of all, she has created a false dichotomy by saying the only other position besides believing global warming may be caused by humans is to believe that “there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.” You may not believe global warming is caused by humans, but that doesn’t mean you believe that there is absolute proof against any human affect. As you can see, the first quote does not fall into either end of the dichotomy and is a change from the position she gave Gibson, although her final claim to Gibson is still true.*

Second, her second comment about Al Gore all but implies the changes in our climate are not caused by humans, which is a change of position.

Either way, she clearly HAS changed positions.

Gibson: 6 Palin: 1

GIBSON: You mentioned in the three principles that you'll change spending. You also talked about taxes. Why do you both keep saying that Obama is going to raise people's taxes? It's been pretty clear what he intends. He's talked about middle-class tax cuts, extending Bush tax cuts on everything but people who own or earn more than $250,000 a year — cuts taxes on over 91 percent of the country. Why do you keep saying he's going to raise people's taxes?

PALIN: Well, I would argue with the whole premise of that, that his mission is to not increase taxes. He's had 94 opportunities to either vote for a tax cut or not support tax increases. And 94 times, he's been on the other side of what I believe the majority of Americans want.

She doesn’t answer the convention. Obama gave a read my lips promise in the debates not to raise taxes on those making less than 250,000. That makes any threat that Obama will raise your taxes a lie.

Furthermore, the figure Palin cites about Obama raising taxes is intentionally misleading, according to FactCheck.org. 11 of the votes were to increase taxes on those making more than 1 million. 17 of the votes were for only 7 separate measures (re-votes). 53 of them were for budget measures, not tax bills, which did not have any direct effect on taxes. 4 of them were advice to senate committees. 7 of them were actually broad tax cuts which increased taxes on a small wealthy group. I cannot find one of the 94 which would have raised taxes on anyone except those making more than 250,000. So it completely fails to prove Obama will or has taxed people making less than 250,000.

Gibson: 7 Palin: 1

GIBSON: But it's now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a T-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.

PALIN: I was wearing a T-shirt with the Zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.

GIBSON: But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks?

PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form — earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought. And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment. And, as I've said over and over, if Alaska wants that bridge, $300 million, $400 million dollars, over to that island with an airport, we'll find a way to build it ourselves. The rest of the country doesn't have to build that for us.

GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time… until Congress pulled the plug.

PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.

GIBSON: But you didn't say no to Congress, well build it ourselves until after they pulled the plug. Correct?

PALIN: No, because Congress still allowed those dollars to come into Alaska. They did.

GIBSON: Well, but …

PALIN: Transportation fund dollars still came into Alaska. It was our choice, Charlie, whether we were going to spend it on a bridge or not. And I said, thanks, but no thanks. We're not going to spend it on the bridge.

First she claims she opposed it, inspiring Gibson’s first question. Then she tries to pretend the shirt with the zip code was not a shirt in support of the bridge. However, the bridge also had the word ‘nowhere’ in large capital letters across the front. It is clearly a shirt in support of the bridge, and further demonstrates her awareness that many consider an earmarked bridge to nowhere. And despite this she supported it.

Further proof of her support for the Bridge to Nowhere can be found at FactCheck.org. She argues in support of the bridge that people have misunderstood its purpose and states that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.’ She answered yes to a questionnaire asking if she would continue to support state funding for the bridge. She clearly intentionally lied to Gibson and this nation.

Then she claims she would not accept money to build a bridge. But she chose to keep the money which was originally allocated for the bridge, showing she does not have any qualms about accepting money from federal earmarks.

Most disturbing of all, she says governors should work with their congressmen to try and ‘plug into the federal budget.’ This is the definition of an earmark (earmarks refer to congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects). She is, in effect, advocating for the earmark process. The ‘transportation funds’ which ‘came into Alaska’ were outside of the normally allotted federal transportation funds distributed on an even basis to all states.

Palin lied. Gibson: 8 Palin: 1

GIBSON: The state of Alaska, under OMB figures in 2008, got $155 million in earmarks for a population of 670,000. That's $231 per person in Alaska. The state of Illinois, Obama's state, got $22 per person. You got 10 times per person as much. How does that square with your reforms?

Score one for Gibson. Palin brought home the dough as governor. She certainly worked with her congressmen to "plug into the federal budget," as she put it.

Gibson: 9 Palin: 1

GIBSON: There's a lot on the Internet about a conversation you did or did not have with a librarian about banning books. Want to clear up what's on the Internet?

PALIN: I never banned a book, never desired to ban a book. When I became mayor in our town, it was the issue of: what if a parent came into our local public library and asked for a book to be taken off the shelf, wha's the policy? …It kind of cracked me up seeing the list of books that I supposedly banned…one of them was 'Harry Potter!' It wasn't even written or published then.

Ok so she didn’t ban that list of books. What she did do is ask the librarian if she could ban books, and when the librarian refused, she was fired.

Palin fails to explain why she fired the librarian shortly following a conversation about banning books. Gibson: 10 Palin: 1

GIBSON: What you said to me at the beginning I don't think anybody in the Bush administration would disagree with. What do you change in the Bush economic plans?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that we reform the oversight, also, of the agencies, including the quasi-government agencies, like Freddie and Fannie, those things that have created an atmosphere here in America where people are fearful of losing their homes. People are looking at job loss. People are looking at unaffordable health care for their families. We have got to reform the oversight of these agencies that have such control over Americans' pocketbooks.

GIBSON: So let me summarize the three things that you'd change in the Bush economic plans. One, two, three.

PALIN: Reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight and the overseeing agencies and committees to make sure that America's dollars and investments are protected.

Remind you of anybody? Bush said the exact same thing. Obama’s tax cuts are larger for most Americans. Tax cuts for the wealthy, as McCain has proposed, are not an economic plan. Bush tried it and now we have 6.1% unemployment, the collapse of large financial institutions, and greater economic inequality than ever.

Gibson: 11 Palin: 1

I have tried to be as fair as possible in this evaluation. Palin successfully answered many questions during this interview. But this is expected of a Vice Presidential candidate and I have not given her credit here. The above 12 points highlight her ability to blatantly lie to the American people, her naiveté, and the falsity of her self-created public image.

 *Editor's Note:  In this section of the transcript, the word "affect" has been used incorrectly in place of "effect." Research confirms that the error is ABC's, in their original transcript.  In the interest of accuracy, it has been left in the article.

Powered by

About Pleasexcusetheinterruption

  • Joanne Huspek

    So, are you going to do the same in-depth analysis of Sean Hannity’s interview with Palin?

    Just asking… I’m not a Republican or a Democrat, but it was apparent to me that Gibson didn’t like Palin at all. Like I said, just an observation.

  • Baronius

    Funny, I ran through the questions as you did, and got a Palin victory, 7-3-2. I don’t know anything about the book-banning, and I thought her global warming answer was wishy-washy, so I scored them as ties.

    The three wins I gave Gibson were on Palin’s experience. I forget which numbers exactly, but they were all near the beginning. Palin doesn’t have appropriate experience, and there’s no way she could answer such questions well.

    But a good many of the things you scored against Palin are matters of ideology. What’s wrong with “reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight”? To me, that sounds great. I don’t see how Obama’s tax numbers add up. Governors don’t have much say about the earmarks that a state gets, so you can’t score that against her. The answers about Israel and Pakistan were pure State Department, which is frankly better than I’d expect from a governor.

  • Cindy D

    end of italics

  • Baronius

    Cindy’s right. Down with italics!

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    So, are you going to do the same in-depth analysis of Sean Hannity’s interview with Palin?

    Just asking… I’m not a Republican or a Democrat, but it was apparent to me that Gibson didn’t like Palin at all. Like I said, just an observation.

    That was the first thing I said in the article, if you read it. Whether or not he liked her doesn’t have anything to do with the answers she gave to his questions, which is what I have dealt with here. And no I’m not going to do an analysis of her interview with Hannity, although I’m sure she gave brilliant answers. If you have any nuggets of her wisdom from the Hannity interview, which would shed light on what was written here, please do share.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Baronius,

    I don’t know anything about the book-banning, and I thought her global warming answer was wishy-washy, so I scored them as ties.

    The book-banning is exactly what I said it was, and what the link provided says. She had a discussion about banning books and then fired the librarian shortly after. Not the biggest deal ever, but it reflects negatively on her. Have you ever heard of a librarian being fired because of a change in mayor, especially a librarian who had been there for 20 years doing by all accounts a great job. I don’t know where you’re from, but where I’m from we don’t fire our librarians every time a new politician enters office. Not the biggest deal in the world, but then again that’s one of the wonders of picking someone with mayoral experience and 2 years as governor for VP, not much of a record to sift through! Other than the past 2 years of her life, everything else in her record, positive or negative, is fairly trivial.

    And the global warming point isn’t wishy-washy. SHE LIED. Flat out. She has previously said AGW is FALSE now she says it ‘might’ be true. That’s a FLIP FLOP. And then she said she didn’t change positions and has always believed in AGW. That’s a lie. Flat out.

    But a good many of the things you scored against Palin are matters of ideology. What’s wrong with “reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight”? To me, that sounds great.

    True. Some of it is ideology. 2-3 points might be interpreted differently depending on ideology. But that would require believing we should allow Israel to do whatever it wants to defend itself etc. etc. which I do not. If you really believe we should support Israel in doing whatever it wants to defend itself, go for it. I think that’s a dangerous idea, more extreme than the Bush administration. And no that’s not state department policy either. Our state department has done a number of significant things to limit the range of action available to Israel. Read Ruvy’s recent thread for evidence. Our national security interest cannot, by definition, exactly coincide with the security interests of Israel. It’s absurd. But if that’s really what you think… give the point to Palin.

    On her answer about what she would change with the Bush economic plan (‘Reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight’) it’s not just a matter of ideology. You can believe low taxes, small efficient government are good things, but it doesn’t answer the question. Those are all things Bush professes to believe in as well. Gibson asked what she would change. If she could point to a specific flaw and how she would correct it, or how Bush has failed to implement those policies correctly, I would have given her the point. Gibson asked her where she expects to reform, and where she expects to trim. She answered “I’m sure we will find things.” I am not impressed. Even Bush could have given a more substantive answer.

    I am suspicious of any ‘small government’ Republican that can’t actually list the things they will change. To me that’s code for cutting spending on the things they don’t like, and increasing it on the things they like. You really want a small government politician, vote Libertarian. Palin couldn’t name one substantive thing she would do that Bush didn’t do. She just said she would do more of what Bush has done. So really she’s just even MORE of the failed Bush policies. You cannot vote for Palin/McCain and pretend to be opposed to Bush.

    Governors don’t have much say about the earmarks that a state gets, so you can’t score that against her.

    Did you even read the passage? She said, “Governors should work with their congressmen to try to plug into the Federal budget.”

    DIRECT QUOTE. She was advocating/approving of the earmark process.

    And Governor’s can send lobbyists to help out their congressmen, which she did do as Mayor of Wassilla where she managed to bring in over 25 million in earmarks for a town of less than 6,000 at the time.

    Nothing you have said is a convincing argument against any of the points I made.

    -PETI

  • Condor

    Gibson was ineffective…. with the employment history of wishy-washy “The Today Show” experience, it’s not hard to understand why. So, he covered his lack of experience by trying to go tough. If only Russert was around to handle the chores.

  • Condor

    BTW, energy needs are strategic in nature, and not only necessary for the gas log fireplace. So in that sense, Palin was correct.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Gibson was ineffective…. with the employment history of wishy-washy “The Today Show” experience, it’s not hard to understand why. So, he covered his lack of experience by trying to go tough. If only Russert was around to handle the chores.

    That’s it attack the questions. Don’t even pay attention to her pathetic answers.

    BTW, energy needs are strategic in nature, and not only necessary for the gas log fireplace. So in that sense, Palin was correct.

    Yeah. I suppose energy is strategic. But involvement with our DOMESTIC oil supply does not prepare you to deal with FOREIGN nations.

    The fact is Gibson asked for foreign policy credentials besides being able to see Russia. She answered nothing substantive.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    I didn’t say Palin was wrong for claiming domestic oil is ‘strategic’ in nature. It is strategic. But it’s not unless her experience in oil is going to give us energy independence (which she can’t), it’s not a qualification. There are dozens of oil CEOs out there. And if that’s the only ‘foreign policy’ experience she can come up with when Gibson asked for some, she fails. Miserably.

  • Clavos

    The book-banning is exactly what I said it was, and what the link provided says.

    Actually, Factcheck disagrees with you

  • Condor

    “That’s it attack the questions. Don’t even pay attention to her pathetic answers” – pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Pathetic questions garner pathetic answers. The whole “program” was pathetic. Neither Gibson or Palin nailed it. I would rate it as antithesis in both breadth and scope.

  • Baronius

    Peti – It also looks like Palin was trying to merge the town library and museum.

  • Condor

    “Yeah. I suppose energy is strategic. But involvement with our DOMESTIC oil supply does not prepare you to deal with FOREIGN nations”

    Isn’t that was we pay the State Department to do? Advise and foster… when was the the last time you saw a VP go toe to toe with Foreign nations? They work congress. Also, involvement with domestic oil is really a matter of jumping through U.S. Code and working out details with CONGRESS and the EPA (amoung others). Perhaps the VP has some effect in Congress, but only by pushing presidential agenda. I would agree that Biden would stack up at about the same height on that chore.

    “The fact is Gibson asked for foreign policy credentials besides being able to see Russia. She answered nothing substantive”

    That, was a taunt, not a question. Palin is a Governor after all. Who works a state that shares substantial Fisheries and those confines with many other nations. Check out NMFS and you will discover the regulators live there, not in Juneau. You want a foreign policy expert? Go with Biden.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    [The book-banning is exactly what I said it was, and what the link provided says.]

    Actually, Factcheck disagrees with you…

    From the link you gave me Clavos:

    “It’s true that Palin did raise the issue [banning books] with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time.”

    “The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her.”

    “Sarah said to Mary Ellen, ‘What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?'”

    Palin’s letter informing Emmons she was fired: “I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment …”

    Clavos, how can a mayor fail to support the Librarian in governing a town? What could the town librarian of 20 years possibly have done to warrant firing? And if there was some honest reason besides Emmons’ refusal to censure books, why did Palin not say what it was?

    Palin asked about banning books and inappropriately fired the Librarian. There’s nothing in that link which contradicts what I said in the article.

  • Condor

    Factcheck is a wonderful tool. And… for those bent on “fair and balanced” you can’t beat the Annenburg Foundation. Paramount organization which pushes the journalistic validity. A concept that seems to be slowly fading into obscurity.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Pathetic questions garner pathetic answers. The whole “program” was pathetic. Neither Gibson or Palin nailed it. I would rate it as antithesis in both breadth and scope.

    Yeah bad questions caused her to repeatedly lie, avoid the question, fail to answer, flip flop on her past positions.. etc. etc. etc.

    Refute (at least) one of the very substantive points in the article if you want to make an argument.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Factcheck is a wonderful tool. And… for those bent on “fair and balanced” you can’t beat the Annenburg Foundation. Paramount organization which pushes the journalistic validity. A concept that seems to be slowly fading into obscurity.

    Yeah except it verifies exactly what I said in the article.

  • Condor

    “Yeah except it verifies exactly what I said in the article.”

    The references are dubious.

    “Yeah bad questions caused her to repeatedly lie, avoid the question, fail to answer, flip flop on her past positions.. etc. etc. etc.”

    PETI — kill your television. It was gamesmanship and nothing more.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    “The fact is Gibson asked for foreign policy credentials besides being able to see Russia. She answered nothing substantive”

    That, was a taunt, not a question. Palin is a Governor after all. Who works a state that shares substantial Fisheries and those confines with many other nations. Check out NMFS and you will discover the regulators live there, not in Juneau. You want a foreign policy expert? Go with Biden.

    Fine it was a taunt. She had no comeback. Gibson won. She has no foreign policy experience. Let’s remember, it is very possible this woman could become President with virtually NO foreign policy experience. The VP also advises the President, and is present at Cabinet meetings. The thought that this woman could become President scares the shit out of me.

  • Condor

    Furthermore PETI, the first sentence in your article rings the bell dead on. And that observation alone speaks volumns.

    Bill Buckley would have torn her and Gibson to shreds, and Russert, who thrived on getting close to the bone. Gibson is trying to fill the vacuum of their absence. And he doesn’t measure up. I would have rather watched George Stephonopolous conduct the interview, which isn’t saying much either.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    The references are dubious.

    What are you talking about? Point out where FactCheck says something different from me.

    PETI — kill your television. It was gamesmanship and nothing more.

    I never watched it on TV. They are substantive questions, and her answers were flip flops, lies, or not answers at all.

    Again, point to one of the points in the article and show how it either lacks substance or falsely portrays Palin.

  • Clavos

    PETI, you said (in the article):

    Ok so she didn’t ban that list of books. What she did do is ask the librarian if she could ban books, and when the librarian refused, she was fired. (emphasis added)

    Factcheck says:

    She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term…

    …As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian’s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.

    (emphasis added)

    According to the above, your assertion that Palin fired Emmons when she refused to ban books is incorrect on two counts: she was never asked by Palin to ban books, and there is no evidence that her firing was based on her refusal of the non-request.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Furthermore PETI, the first sentence in your article rings the bell dead on. And that observation alone speaks volumns.

    Bill Buckley would have torn her and Gibson to shreds, and Russert, who thrived on getting close to the bone. Gibson is trying to fill the vacuum of their absence. And he doesn’t measure up. I would have rather watched George Stephonopolous conduct the interview, which isn’t saying much either.

    Fine you don’t like Gibson!

    I on the other hand learned several things from this interview:

    1) She has no foreign policy experience and it scares me she could become President. One of the VPs main responsibilities is to serve as President if the President is incapacitated. That’s what she’s running for. Back up President. She cannot be President, and should therefore not be VP. This is the biggest point for me.
    a) Her answer about Pakistan
    b) Her answer to the question about what is your FP experience
    c) Her answer to the question about Israel.
    d) Her answer about how being Russia has enhanced her FP experience.
    e) She had never met with a foreign head of state.

    2) She has no problem directly and intentionally lying to the camera. She did support the bridge and did deny AGW. She is lying about both now.

    3) She advocates for the earmark process in the interview. She brought home hugely disproportionate earmarks as Governor and as Mayor. She supported the bridge to nowhere. I cannot take a person who did this and is now running on a reform platform seriously.

    4) She lacks any distinct idea of what she would reform.

    5) She does not have an economic plan different from what Bush’s.

    6) She is willing to lie and accuse Obama of proposing tax increases when he is proposing tax decreases which will be larger for most Americans. For example, FactCheck estimates those making between 33k and 67k will save 1,118 on taxes, while McCain would only save them 325. Obama’s tax cut for the middle class is 3 times larger.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    According to the above, your assertion that Palin fired Emmons when she refused to ban books is incorrect on two counts: she was never asked by Palin to ban books, and there is no evidence that her firing was based on her refusal of the non-request.

    First count of the indictment: I never said she asked Emmons to ban books. False accusation. I said she asked the Librarian if she could ban books. As FactCheck says, Palin asked Emmons hypothetical questions about banning books.

    Dismissed.

    Second count: I never said the firing was based on a refusal to ban books. I said she was subsequently fired. False accusation. The only thing I have ever contended was it was an unjustified firing, which was subsequently reversed due to public outcry, and that it was politically motivated. As I said before, who fires a small town librarian who has been around forever, for ‘failing to support the mayor?’

    Dismissed.

    FactCheck verifies everything I said.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    It’s interesting you have all taken issue (falsely) with what is probably the least significant issue in the article and the one I clearly put the least effort into. And you were the ones accusing Gibson of asking unsubstantial questions!

  • Clavos

    Great quibble on the second “indictment,” PETI, but, like some of the boats I unload on the unwary, it doesn’t float.

    “and when the librarian refused, she was fired.” doesn’t say the librarian was fired for refusing to ban books, but it damn sure implies it.

    You’re good. Want a job selling boats? :>)

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    “and when the librarian refused, she was fired.” doesn’t say the librarian was fired for refusing to ban books, but it damn sure implies it.

    You’re good. Want a job selling boats? :>)

    Only because Palin’s actions imply the same thing.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    By stating the facts as I did I could not have implied anything about Palin’s intent which her actions do not themselves already imply.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The book-banning is exactly what I said it was, and what the link provided says. She had a discussion about banning books and then fired the librarian shortly after. Not the biggest deal ever, but it reflects negatively on her.

    Except that this is not true. The situation is much more complex than you suggest. She actually requested the resignation of all department heads including the librarian and then rehired almost all of them including the librarian. She then fired the librarian for other reasons more than a year later, but changed her mind and let Eammons keep her job. The librarian continued to work for the libary for another 2 years after that and then voluntarily quit her job. So in fact, the librarian was never actually fully terminated by Palin at all, and her departure from the job wasn’t ‘shortly after’ but more than 3 years later and entirely voluntary.

    Thought you’d used factcheck.org? This is all on there.

    Dave

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Dave,


    Except that this is not true. The situation is much more complex than you suggest. She actually requested the resignation of all department heads including the librarian and then rehired almost all of them including the librarian. She then fired the librarian for other reasons more than a year later, but changed her mind and let Eammons keep her job. The librarian continued to work for the libary for another 2 years after that and then voluntarily quit her job. So in fact, the librarian was never actually fully terminated by Palin at all, and her departure from the job wasn’t ‘shortly after’ but more than 3 years later and entirely voluntary.

    Thought you’d used factcheck.org? This is all on there.

    Dave

    While, my short summary did not contain all the complexities of the situation, the link I provided does.

    From the first few sentences of the link I provided in the article:

    WASILLA, Alaska — Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

    According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing.

    So right there in the link I provided it addresses the two key issues you, Clavos, and Condor have raised questions about 1) the timing of the firing relative to the discussion of book banning and 2) the fact that Emmons’ refusal to ban books was not listed as a reason for the firing.

    My account is factually correct and does not imply anything which is not implied by Palin’s actions.

    Your account, on the other hand, is factually incorrect. Palin did not fire the Librarian a year after the book banning discussion. There were at least two discussion, one in early October and another on October 28th followed by another discussion on book banning in late December. Emmons was fired in January less than a month later.

    So Emmons WAS ‘fired shortly after’ the discussions of book banning. She was fired within a month of the last discussion, and within 3 months of the first. The resignation request occurred even earlier, in October.

    I don’t know where you’re getting your information but everything I’ve just said comes from FactCheck, or the link provided to the Frontiersman by FactCheck.

    What you said is factually incorrect. What I said in the article is factually correct. What I have said since is factually correct. The link I provided in the article is factually correct and contains the complete story, with all the complexities, and is consistent with FactCheck.

    And besides, what’s important here is Palin

    1) discussed banning books prompting Emmons to say this:

    ““She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied ‘Yup’,” Emmons recounted Saturday. “And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved, too.””

    How does that fit with Libertarianism Dave?

    2) Inappropriately fired the librarian shortly after.

    3) The 10+ other points I raised against Palin in the article.

    Again, you’re all seizing on the most trivial point, which I provided factually correct information about, and gave a link with the complete story. Doesn’t anyone want to defend this woman on the other 10+ points? Or if not, isn’t anyone else scared that a woman with such a record could potentially become the President of the United States and the most powerful woman in the world?

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    I mean honestly this is absurd, the three of you are citing factually incorrect information to argue against a factually correct short summary which provided a link to the complete story. No one has even bothered to defend Palin through all this. And it’s the most trivial point in the article. And I thought the point of commentary is to actually discuss the relevance of the information presented.

  • bliffle

    Sarah who?

    As I predicted this piece of fluff is disappearing from sight. McCain used her for his moment of sensation and now he’s done with her. The handlers will barely let her out in public anymore.

    Katy Couric asked her for an example of finance regulatory legislation that McCain had supported (after Sarah Who said that he had a record of supporting regulations) and Sarah was struck dumb, finally answering something like: “well, John Mccain has a reputation as THE maverick in Washington!”.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    While, my short summary did not contain all the complexities of the situation, the link I provided does.

    Yes, but your summary substantially misrepresents the details of the case.

    Your account, on the other hand, is factually incorrect. Palin did not fire the Librarian a year after the book banning discussion. There were at least two discussion, one in early October and another on October 28th followed by another discussion on book banning in late December. Emmons was fired in January less than a month later.

    So Emmons WAS ‘fired shortly after’ the discussions of book banning. She was fired within a month of the last discussion, and within 3 months of the first. The resignation request occurred even earlier, in October.

    Except that she DID NOT lose her job. Palin initially fired her but then changed her mind and kept her on. So she did not lose her job and certainly not shortly after the discussion or as a result of it. That’s the key fact you leave out. She ultimately left the job voluntarily a couple of years later, another fact you omit.

    I only saw year dates not month dates on factcheck.org so I assumed that about a year had passed since the discussions were in one year and her ‘firing’ was in the next’. Three months isn’t a year, but it also isn’t any kind of immediate cause and effect firing.

    I don’t know where you’re getting your information but everything I’ve just said comes from FactCheck, or the link provided to the Frontiersman by FactCheck.

    That’s where I’m getting my info from too.

    What you said is factually incorrect. What I said in the article is factually correct. What I have said since is factually correct. The link I provided in the article is factually correct and contains the complete story, with all the complexities, and is consistent with FactCheck.

    Incomplete is not factually correct, especially when you omit the fact that she didn’t lose her job and ultimately left years later voluntarily.

    “”She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied ‘Yup’,” Emmons recounted Saturday. “And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved, too.””

    How does that fit with Libertarianism Dave?

    I’m all for the ACLU and protecting free speech. Palin claims she is as well. She claims she was asking a hypothetical and Emmons doesn’t actually dispute that.

    2) Inappropriately fired the librarian shortly after.

    This is your interpretation. No one has suggested that the firing three months later which was immediately rescinded was inappropriate.

    3) The 10+ other points I raised against Palin in the article.

    They’re on later pages. You know no one reads anything but the first page of an article.

    Dave

  • http:://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    She initially dodges the question and then answers no but claims the same was true of many other vice presidents. However, this is dead wrong as every VP in the last 32 years has met a head of state as this Huffington Post article makes clear. It also has an amusing video in which Palin states she does not even know what the VP does.

    I wrote a whole article about Palin’s comment on the VP job. Do you want me to repeat it here? At least she didn’t say the job wasn’t worth ‘a warm bucket of piss’ like VP John Nance Garner. Her opinion of the meaninglessness of the job has been shared by most who’ve held it.

    BTW, anything from HuffPo should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s becaome an absolute haterag. I wouldn’t believe anything they posted.

    As to VPs meeting foreign heads of state, wow, they went back a whole 32 years. Go back a few more years and not only can you find VPs who never met a foreign head of state, you can find presidents who had never met one. It’s a totally meaningless statistic. I’ve met 4 or 5 heads of state. Does that mean I should be VP? Makes no sense at all.

    There, I’ve responded to another of your points.

    Dave

  • bliffle

    HuffPo is very partisan, but it’s a stretch to call it a ‘haterag’, as dave does, in that customary hyperbole of his.

    HuffPo becomes hysterical sometimes, but it’s wrath seems to be directed even more at Obama, for not following their directions, than at McCain and whoz’at.

  • Baronius

    Dave vs Peti: 1-0

    Peti, I said in passing that I didn’t know anything about the book-banning. Then you responded at length. The rest of us are just replying to you. It’s clearly not as important as, say, Russia, but since it’s on the table let’s resolve it.

    Palin was trying to cut back on staff. That’s what you want out of a maverick budget-hawk. The fact that Wasilla still has a library and a museum is what bothers me. But as much as Gibson was out to get Palin, a further look at the book-banning story makes me realize that Peti’s also out to get her. Fine. Feel free. She’s unqualified for the office, so it should be easy. Just don’t twist non-stories into stories, and don’t pretend to be a neutral scorekeeper.

  • http:://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    HuffPo is very partisan, but it’s a stretch to call it a ‘haterag’, as dave does, in that customary hyperbole of his.

    You must not have been reading it in the first few days after Palin was selected. They were running every lie ever told about her in 120pt type with no fact checking whatsoever. The writers ARE full of hate, and their editorial oversight is minimal.

    Dave

  • Heloise

    Shoutout to Katie Couric–great job! Palin’s interview on foreign policy, can now be juxtaposed with Charlie’s interview and the verdict is the same folks: an idiot babbling idiocy! I felt sorry for her because she had no idea what the hell she was saying and could not even back up her own statement about Alaskan foreign policy cred due to its proximity to Russia.

    She said she exchanged not ideas, but what moose burgers? She never said what they exchanged. It sounded like trade but my guess is moose meat.

    Heloise

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    Yes, but your summary substantially misrepresents the details of the case.

    No it doesn’t. I said she asked if she could fire books, the librarian said no. She was then fired. Those are the basic facts of the case. The complexities are all available in the link I provided. Stop twisting an honest, well-cited report on the facts into a lie.


    Except that she DID NOT lose her job. Palin initially fired her but then changed her mind and kept her on. So she did not lose her job and certainly not shortly after the discussion or as a result of it. That’s the key fact you leave out. She ultimately left the job voluntarily a couple of years later, another fact you omit.

    I didn’t say lose her job. I said fired. The fact that Palin rehired her only makes Palin look worse. You’re like that Fox News reporter that put words into Michelle Obama’s mouth. As Colbert or Stewart put it, if you substitute ‘molesting children’ for ‘America’ in the sentence ‘I like America’ it sounds pretty bad.

    I only saw year dates not month dates on factcheck.org so I assumed that about a year had passed since the discussions were in one year and her ‘firing’ was in the next’. Three months isn’t a year, but it also isn’t any kind of immediate cause and effect firing.

    It was less than a month from the final conversation about book banning – just over the holiday break in fact. And you should have checked. And don’t correct my (factually correct, well cited) account of events if you’re going to assume ‘1997’ means ‘DECEMBER 31 1997.’

    Incomplete is not factually correct, especially when you omit the fact that she didn’t lose her job and ultimately left years later voluntarily.

    Actually, incomplete is factually correct. I could break out the dictionary but we both know that’s not necessary. And it wasn’t even incomplete because the rest of the story was provided in a link. I just chose to put it in a link than explain the entire ordeal (which FactCheck took several pages to do). Should I have included her hair color too? She asked about banning books and then fired the librarian after the holiday break less than a month later.

    I’m all for the ACLU and protecting free speech. Palin claims she is as well. She claims she was asking a hypothetical and Emmons doesn’t actually dispute that.

    Oh come on we both know why a mayor would ask a LIBRARIAN ‘hypothetical’ questions about banning books causing the librarian to respond with ‘hypothetical’ threats about the ACLU.

    Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt may be a standard of our criminal justice system but I certainly don’t use it when judging politicians.

    This is your interpretation. No one has suggested that the firing three months later which was immediately rescinded was inappropriate.

    It was less than a month, just after the holiday break. Actually lots of people are suggesting it was an inappropriate firing. Resident of the town, Anne Kilkenny for one. Just as requesting the resignation of all city employees as a ‘test of loyalty’ is inappropriate in a small town.

    They’re on later pages. You know no one reads anything but the first page of an article.

    The thing about the librarian was on the last page :D

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption

    I wrote a whole article about Palin’s comment on the VP job. Do you want me to repeat it here? At least she didn’t say the job wasn’t worth ‘a warm bucket of piss’ like VP John Nance Garner. Her opinion of the meaninglessness of the job has been shared by most who’ve held it.

    There have been 9 presidents that have succeeded to the Presidency, and 2 others that have temporarily become President. That means that approximately 1/5 Presidents is replaced by the Vice President during their term in office. Historically, there is a 20% chance Palin will succeed to the Presidency. Arguably some of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in U.S. history have been made by inexperienced Vice Presidents who have succeeded to the Presidency. It is not a meaningless job. So what if other VPs have thought little of the job, that doesn’t excuse her. And at least they had the sense to express their frustration after they were elected.

    As to VPs meeting foreign heads of state, wow, they went back a whole 32 years. Go back a few more years and not only can you find VPs who never met a foreign head of state, you can find presidents who had never met one. It’s a totally meaningless statistic. I’ve met 4 or 5 heads of state. Does that mean I should be VP? Makes no sense at all.

    There is a good reason that the last 8 VP selections have had significant experience beyond mayor and 2 year governor of Alaska. There is a 20% chance they will become President. And I would criticize those VP selections more than 32 years ago which did not have experience. Sure, Palin might not become President, and sure, she might do an OK job if she did, but nothing you or she has said has convinced me otherwise.

    And don’t get too full of yourself when I say this Dave, but I would vote for you long before I would vote for Sarah Palin. You have better reform credentials than she does, and certainly know more about foreign policy.

    And don’t worry Dave, I haven’t read the HuffPo a day of my life, it was just the first thing that came up on Google. I figured they could get a simple number like that correct. I presume you’re not questioning the fact that VPs for the past 32 years have met heads of states prior to nomination?

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption


    Palin was trying to cut back on staff. That’s what you want out of a maverick budget-hawk.

    If she was trying to cut back on staff, why does Wasilla still have a library and a museum? And why was that never cited by her at any point, even in her letter to Emmons, as a reason for her firing? The budget of Wasilla dramatically increased during Palin’s administration and she left it with dozens of millions in debt. Remind you of any so called budget cutter?

    Peti’s also out to get her. Fine. Feel free. She’s unqualified for the office, so it should be easy. Just don’t twist non-stories into stories, and don’t pretend to be a neutral scorekeeper.

    I’m not out to get her. I approached the interview as openly minded as I could. What I found disgusted me. And the one point I did give her I certainly didn’t do trying to seem fair, but because it really was the only point I found where she was unfairly attacked. I really am incredibly disappointed McCain picked her. Prior to the pick I could genuinely say neither Obama or McCain would be that bad. I even vaguely considered voting for him and have defended him on numerous occasions. That still might be true, but only as long as McCain makes it through his term and limits Palin’s influence in office.

    This woman becoming President would be a travesty for America and the entire world.

  • bliffle

    Sarah Whoozit as president would be rather like Bush: an unlearned oaf easily manipulated neo-republican opportunists.

    Four more years. Hell, maybe 8 more years.

  • http:://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Oh come on we both know why a mayor would ask a LIBRARIAN ‘hypothetical’ questions about banning books causing the librarian to respond with ‘hypothetical’ threats about the ACLU.

    If I were a mayor I’d ask that question to see if the librarian could handle that kind of pressure and wasn’t going to give in to pressure groups and start censoring library contents. Palin has suggested that was her intention as well.

    It was less than a month, just after the holiday break.

    Earlier on didn’t you say the discussions were in October and the firing was in January? That’s 3 months.

    Actually lots of people are suggesting it was an inappropriate firing. Resident of the town, Anne Kilkenny for one.

    Anne Kilkenny seems to be a crank with an axe to grind.

    Just as requesting the resignation of all city employees as a ‘test of loyalty’ is inappropriate in a small town.

    But hardly uncommon.

    The thing about the librarian was on the last page :D

    Another truism is that most of us – myself included – are just commenting on the comments.Arguably some of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in U.S. history have been made by inexperienced Vice Presidents who have succeeded to the Presidency.

    You’re suggesting that LBJ and Truman were not qualified for their jobs?

    It is not a meaningless job. So what if other VPs have thought little of the job, that doesn’t excuse her. And at least they had the sense to express their frustration after they were elected.

    Actually, most of them were disparaging of the job while seeking it.

    There is a good reason that the last 8 VP selections have had significant experience beyond mayor and 2 year governor of Alaska. There is a 20% chance they will become President. And I would criticize those VP selections more than 32 years ago which did not have experience. Sure, Palin might not become President, and sure, she might do an OK job if she did, but nothing you or she has said has convinced me otherwise.

    But does experience come just from meeting foreign heads of state? I mean come on. I’ve probably met more heads of state than anyone on here, and most of those meetings were for a matter of minutes and to exchange small talk with the exception of King Abdullah who I met when we were both kids, which is equally worthless. I didn’t gain anything meaningful from those experiences. You can learn more about foreign policy just from reading Churchill than you can from meeting a doszen prime ministers.

    And don’t get too full of yourself when I say this Dave, but I would vote for you long before I would vote for Sarah Palin. You have better reform credentials than she does, and certainly know more about foreign policy.

    Perhaps, but her experience as an elected official and a government executive are just more relevant.

    And don’t worry Dave, I haven’t read the HuffPo a day of my life,

    Consider yourself lucky.

    it was just the first thing that came up on Google. I figured they could get a simple number like that correct. I presume you’re not questioning the fact that VPs for the past 32 years have met heads of states prior to nomination?

    Well, I do wonder about Dan Quayle. I also wonder why they only mentioned VPs? I have a suspicion that Jimmy Carter never met a foreign head of state before he ran for President. And who keeps track of these things anyway? And how much is running into the Sultan of Brunei at a fundraiser when you’re a junior congressman actually worth in the world of foreign policy experience?

    Dave

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption


    Earlier on didn’t you say the discussions were in October and the firing was in January? That’s 3 months.

    There were 3 discussions, 2 in Oct. 1 in late December. That makes it less than one month.

    If I were a mayor I’d ask that question to see if the librarian could handle that kind of pressure and wasn’t going to give in to pressure groups and start censoring library contents. Palin has suggested that was her intention as well.

    Where has Palin suggested that? I have read nothing to that effect..

    The point I made in the article was she failed to clear up what appears from all the evidence to be a politically motivated firing..


    You’re suggesting that LBJ and Truman were not qualified for their jobs?

    Truman made some pretty critical mistakes coming into office such as incorrectly applying NSC-68 among other things. He broadened the conflict much farther than was necessary. A lot of his mistakes come from the rough transition which occurred between Presidencies.. Truman had been kept entirely out of the loop by FDR. I think we will see McCain do the same thing to Palin if they are elected. Not what you want your VP to be doing.


    But does experience come just from meeting foreign heads of state? I mean come on. I’ve probably met more heads of state than anyone on here, and most of those meetings were for a matter of minutes and to exchange small talk with the exception of King Abdullah who I met when we were both kids, which is equally worthless. I didn’t gain anything meaningful from those experiences. You can learn more about foreign policy just from reading Churchill than you can from meeting a doszen prime ministers.

    Well if she actually had met one, and the meeting was casual, I wouldn’t count it, just like I don’t count her stopover in Ireland as being outside the U.S. I mean obviously the number of heads of state you have met is not like a measuring stick. But if she had had serious meetings with heads of state prior to coming into office that would be something. Joe Biden has. She has not. And that’s only one of many things she lacks.. I’m not basing the whole argument for inexperience off of this one measurement. Her prior experience has hardly even required her to think about foreign policy. Never mind execute or advocate or vote for a particular policy.

  • Mooja

    Here’s a nice snippet of what to expect from Obama, who is not running for Vice President, on foreign policy. Nothing like stirring up one of the most volatile hornets nests on the planet with his incompetence.

    When a politician comes into office on a mandate for reform you should expect some of the entrenched folks to get fired.