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.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - 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.
2 - 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.
3 - Cindy D
end of italics
4 - Baronius
Cindy's right. Down with italics!
5 - 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.
6 - 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
7 - 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.
8 - Condor
BTW, energy needs are strategic in nature, and not only necessary for the gas log fireplace. So in that sense, Palin was correct.
9 - 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.
10 - 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.
11 - Clavos
The book-banning is exactly what I said it was, and what the link provided says.
Actually, Factcheck disagrees with you...
12 - 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.
13 - Baronius
Peti - It also looks like Palin was trying to merge the town library and museum.
14 - 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.
15 - 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.
16 - 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.
17 - 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.
18 - 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.
19 - 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.
20 - 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.
21 - 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.
22 - 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.
23 - Clavos
PETI, you said (in the article):
(emphasis added)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:
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.
24 - 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.
25 - 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.