Any Palin supporters still out there?

[Median]

Interview:

Sarah Palin: My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I was - I would hope that's not the case.

Katie Couric: But he still has a stake in the company so isn't that a conflict of interest?

Palin: Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there. And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made.


Palin: I'm all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. And as Sen. McCain has said unless this nearly trillion dollar bailout is what it may end up to be, unless there are amendments in Paulson's proposal, really I don't believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They're not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind's blowing? They're waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson's proposal.

Couric: Why do you say that? Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama?

Palin: He's got the track record of the leadership qualities and the pragmatism that's needed at a crisis time like this.

Couric: But polls have shown that Sen. Obama has actually gotten a boost as a result of this latest crisis, with more people feeling that he can handle the situation better than John McCain.

Palin: I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?

Couric: If this doesn't pass, do you think there's a risk of another Great Depression?

Palin: Unfortunately, that is the road that America may find itself on. Not necessarily this, as it's been proposed, has to pass or we're going to find ourselves in another Great Depression. But, there has got to be action - bipartisan effort - Congress not pointing fingers at one another but finding the solution to this, taking action, and being serious about the reforms on Wall Street that are needed.

Couric: Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?

Palin: That's something that John McCain and I have both been discussing - whether that ... is part of the solution or not. You know, it's going to be a multi-faceted solution that has to be found here.

Couric: So you haven't decided whether you'll support it or not?

Palin: I have not.

Couric: What are the pros and cons of it do you think?

Palin: Oh, well, some decisions that have been made poorly should not be rewarded, of course.

Couric: By consumers, you're saying?

Palin: Consumers - and those who were predator lenders also. That's, you know, that has to be considered also. But again, it's got to be a comprehensive, long-term solution found ... for this problem that America is facing today. As I say, we are getting into crisis mode here.


Part 2 next post.

[Median]

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

Katie Couric: As we stand before this august building and institution, what do you see as the role of the United States in the world?

Sarah Palin: I see the United States as being a force for good in the world. And as Ronald Reagan used to talk about, America being the beacon of light and hope for those who are seeking democratic values and tolerance and freedom. I see our country being able to represent those things that can be looked to … as that leadership, that light needed across the world.

Couric: In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world.

Palin: I'm not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world.

No, I've worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world.

Couric: Gov. Palin, you've had a very busy week. And you're meeting with many world leaders. You met with President Karzai of Afghanistan. I know the McCain campaign has called for a surge in Afghanistan. But that country is, as you know, dramatically different than Iraq. Why do you believe additional troops, U.S. troops, will solve the problem there?

Palin: Because we can't afford to lose in Afghanistan, as we cannot afford to lose in Iraq, either, these central fronts on the war on terror. And I asked President Karzai, "Is that what you are seeking, also? That strategy that has worked in Iraq that John McCain had pushed for, more troops? A counterinsurgency strategy?" And he said, "yes." And he also showed great appreciation for what America and American troops are providing in his country.

Couric: The United States is deeply unpopular in Pakistan. Do you think the Pakistani government is protecting al Qaeda within its borders?

Palin: I don't believe that new President Zardari has that mission at all. But no, the Pakistani people also, they want freedom. They want democratic values to be allowed in their country, also. They understand the dangers of terrorists having a stronghold in regions of their country, also. And I believe that they, too, want to rid not only their country, but the world, of violent Islamic terrorists.

Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

Couric: When President Bush ran for office, he opposed nation-building. But he has spent, as you know, much of his presidency promoting democracy around the world. What lessons have you learned from Iraq? And how specifically will you try to spread democracy throughout the world?

Palin: Specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, tolerance, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism also. It's not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic values and ideals around this, around the world.

Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?

Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment.

Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …

Palin: It's dangerous.

Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?

Palin: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met." Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren't gonna go right. That's part of diplomacy.

Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, "second guess" Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?

Palin: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.

Couric: You don't think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?

Palin: No, abso … we need to express our rights and our concerns and …

Couric: But you said never second guess them.

Palin: We don't have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.



Shes a joke, she not only doesn't know Putin is no longer the president of Russia, she flat out says they may attack through Alaska........

She says the US should blindly support Israel if it attacked Iran.

What do you all think?

Joke or viable VP candidate?

[Aussie]

Wow, people would actually vote for this person? I dont care what party she's from! Talk about out of your depth!

[Okieslims]

I actually feel sorry for her.. she is clearly struggling in the deep end now. The cute little one liners aren't going to hold her on the surface for long. You can hear a constant tention in her voice for the entire interview...as if she is struggling with each word.

[Matt W]

There's an Election sub-forum. Use it.

Edit: And source this, please. Re-read the rules. Copying and pasting full articles is against them.

[Median]

Quote by: Matt W There's an Election sub-forum. Use it. Edit: And source this, please. Re-read the rules. Copying and pasting full articles is against them.

This is from: Exclusive: Palin On Foreign Policy, Katie Couric Interviews The Candidate About Watching Russia, Her New Passport, And Her Opinion Of Obama - CBS News

My mistake.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Median Shes a joke, she not only doesn't know Putin is no longer the president of Russia, she flat out says they may attack through Alaska........

I missed it...where did she say Putin was president? If you don't understand who still holds the power in Russia, well...might want to look in to that.

Quote by: Median She says the US should blindly support Israel if it attacked Iran.

So what do you suggest? Ignore Israel and hope Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons?

[Median]

Quote by: Dieval I missed it...where did she say Putin was president? If you don't understand who still holds the power in Russia, well...might want to look in to that. So what do you suggest? Ignore Israel and hope Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons?

Lol, since when does " not blindly support " mean "ignore iran's nuke plans"?

Its not black or white like republicans think..........

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Aussie Wow, people would actually vote for this person? I dont care what party she's from! Talk about out of your depth!

I don't know about Palin but Couric is out of her depth here. She seems to be making the same mistake that Obama made last night in the debates about whether Kissinger thought the US president should enter into direct negotiations with Ahmadinejad. Kissinger came out today and said that he never said that the president should talk directly to A-jad.

Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran and Ali Hoseyni Khamenei is the Supreme Leader. For those who may not know, here is wiki's defintiton of "Supreme Leader"

The post of Supreme Leader (Persian: رهبر انقلاب, Rahbare Enqelab,[1] lit. Leader of the Revolution, or مقام رهبری, Maghame Rahbari,[2] lit. Leadership Authority) was created in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation

If you missed the election of President Ahmadinejad you're not the only one. Couric is trying to sound like she knows something here.If only that were the case.

[Median]

Quote by: maximdewinter I don't know about Palin but Couric is certainly out of her depth. When she said: Couric was making the same factual error that Obama made in the debate last night. Thank Goodness that Henry is still alive and is able to point out the people who are clearly challenged about what he has written. Kissinger debunked Couric and Obama today: Scoring the Debate "Senator McCain is right," said Kissinger. "I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level." I would say to leave the in-depth interviews to someone who has a little more knowledge over there a CBS.

wouldnt that mean that Couric's source for the info on Kissinger was flawed not herself? Nice try to shift attention from the subject of the interview to the interviewer. Fail.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Median wouldnt that mean that Couric's source for the info on Kissinger was flawed not herself? Nice try to shift attention from the subject of the interview to the interviewer. Fail.

I'm sorry, I forgot we were in ridicule Sarah Palin mode. It won't happen again. Now when Sarah Palin is wrong about something should we say it is her "source for info" too?

[Median]

Quote by: maximdewinter I'm sorry, I forgot we were in ridicule Sarah Palin mode. It won't happen again. Now when Sarah Palin is wrong about something should we say it is her "source for info" too?

She is trying to be your VP not Katie Couric.

[another day]

Hhahaha. She is hilarious. I also feel quite bad for her... it really is like a bad disney movie to see this hapless, clueless hockey mom suddenly dragged out into the spotlight and placed in a presidential election. She is in so far over her head it's ridiculous.

The debate with Biden is going to be hilarious!

[Median]

Quote by: another day Hhahaha. She is hilarious. I also feel quite bad for her... it really is like a bad disney movie to see this hapless, clueless hockey mom suddenly dragged out into the spotlight and placed in a presidential election. She is in so far over her head it's ridiculous. The debate with Biden is going to be hilarious!

I can imagine what her party is telling her about the debate:

" Dont say anything about russia! "
" Dont bring up Bush "
" Dont bring up Gods Will "
" just bring up irans intent to wipe Israel off the map as often as you can! "

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Median She is trying to be your VP not Katie Couric.

So there is a double standard? We should not point it out when news readers like Couric have made a mistake? Who exactly does that benefit? Certainly not voters.

A perfect case in point would be the Charlie Gibson question to Palin about the "Bush Doctrine." Would it not be of interest to voters to know that the question was invalid and stupid to ask because there really never has been a stated policy called the Bush Doctrine by the Bush Administration?

It seems to me that for reasons unknown the press is very anxious to have a "gotcha moment" with Palin and it is working against them in public opinion. If they want gotcha moments why not pursue the exquisite stupidity of Biden's statement about President Roosevelt going on TV after the stock market crash of 1929? As an mental exercise try to imagine the Armageddon in the MSM had Palin made that comment.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter I don't know about Palin but Couric is out of her depth here. She seems to be making the same mistake that Obama made last night in the debates about whether Kissinger thought the US president should enter into direct negotiations with Ahmadinejad. Kissinger came out today and said that he never said that the president should talk directly to A-jad.

Except that's not what Couric said, Maxim.

Couric: "You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?"

Nothing about the President talking directly to anyone. Get your facts straight, okay?

Palin: "I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met."

Excluding himself or the President, that's pretty much exactly what Kissinger said, "without preconditions".

Besides, it's unclear that Obama specifically meant that HE HIMSELF would be speaking directly to those leaders - despite the wording of the question in the debate - since in the same response he referred to Reagan and other Presidents who "constantly spoke" to the Soviet Union without talking directly to them. Even in his response, Obama states that he would "send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria".

Clearly he's suggesting that, unlike the failed Bush doctrine, we would benefit from diplomatic discussions, notwithstanding the carefully nuanced wording of Ed Bradley's question.

Who's playing "gotcha" here?

Quote by: maximdewinter A perfect case in point would be the Charlie Gibson question to Palin about the "Bush Doctrine." Would it not be of interest to voters to know that the question was invalid and stupid to ask because there really never has been a stated policy called the Bush Doctrine by the Bush Administration?

A red herring. Because it was never written or stated directly as 'The Bush Doctrine' doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it isn't commonly understood.

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq); a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

If you prefer it in writing, there's always the NeoCon manifesto, Project for a New American Century.

Simply because the Bush Doctrine has been completely discredited, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quote by: maximdewinter It seems to me that for reasons unknown the press is very anxious to have a "gotcha moment" with Palin and it is working against them in public opinion.

Oh waaaaah. The press lives for gotcha moments with ALL politicians, or have you forgotten Gibson's interview with Bill Clinton a while back.

Welcome to the major leagues, Sarah.

.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . Except that's not what Couric said, Maxim.

I suppose it won't do any good to point out to you that I said 'She SEEMS to be making the same mistake..... " and not " she IS making the same mistake" that Obama made about Kissinger's position on negotiations with Iran. That was editorializing on my part. The reason for that editorializing is that it isn't the first time that Obama has misstated Kissinger's stance on negotiations with Iran. And the reason that it's so important for Obama to misstate this is that he knows he made a huge mistake way back when he said he would talk to all the thugs of the world without pre-condition. He can't say he made a mistake so he has been back pedaling for months about what he "actually meant."

Couric obviously is desperate to shoe horn Palin into a position that she falsely thinks is Kisssinger's later on in the exchange. How wonderfully ironic that Kissinger has arisen to tell everybody they are all full of it:

: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment. Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger … Palin: It's dangerous. Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?

One thing about this exchange is noteworthy. Palin has made an intelligent statement about Iran that trumps Obama, Biden and MCCAIN

Quote by: Sarah Palin I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with

Sarah is correct. Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran he's a flunky who serves at the will of the mullahs. She should have told Katie that because it obviously wasn't on her teleprompter

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . A red herring. Because it was never written or stated directly as 'The Bush Doctrine' doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it isn't commonly understood. The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq); a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

Charles Krauthammer originally coined the phrase "The Bush Doctrine. " Like Henry Kissinger he had something to say about the Charlie Gibson moment:

Charles Krauthammer - Charlie Gibson's Gaffe - washingtonpost.com

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Now Mr. Sonart if you actually go back and read the wiki entry you yourself posted you will see that Krauthammer is right. The Bush Doctrine ( what others said it was, certainly nothing George Bush ever said it was) morphed 4 times over the years into expanded meanings the wiki piece includes. So unfortunately for the Palin hounders, her response to the question, "In what respect, Charlie?" is actually the proper thing to ask about this nebulous thing called "The Bush Doctrine"

[barts]

Quote by: maximdewinter I don't know about Palin but Couric is out of her depth here.

Perhaps we saw different interviews. Which Palin / Couric interview are you referring to? In the one I saw, Palin was incoherent, an opinion shared most observers.

Here's Sarah Palin on Russia:

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that? PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters-- COURIC: Mock? PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah. COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials. PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia-- COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians? PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

Of course the "trade mission" comment was a lie, but apart from that is that the interview you are talking about? Where Couric was out of her depth?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter Charles Krauthammer originally coined the phrase "The Bush Doctrine. " Like Henry Kissinger he had something to say about the Charlie Gibson moment:

LOL My, that's convenient.. Charles Krauthammer gets to coin the phrase and then dismiss it when it's inconvenient for Sarah Palin.

Sorry, Charley. Too late.

America's Age of Empire: The Bush Doctrine -- "On September 20, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto overturning the established order. Not because it commits the United States to global intervention: We've been there before. Not because it targets terrorism and rogue states: Nothing new there either. No, what's new in this document is that it makes a long-building imperial tendency explicit and permanent. The policy paper, titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" -- call it the Bush doctrine -- is a romantic justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses."

The Bush Doctrine: War without anyone's permission.

Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Sept. 2002

"And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists — because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases."

"And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed."

"Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world."

Quote by: maximdewinter The Bush Doctrine ( what others said it was, certainly nothing George Bush ever said it was) morphed 4 times over the years into expanded meanings the wiki piece includes.

No doubt it's morphed ... having decisively failed time and time again.

.