41 posts tagged “2008”

I'm rapidly running out of ways to criticize Barack Obama.  Over the past two years, I've been lamenting at various times (and in no particular order): Obama's inexperience, questionable associations, stated policy goals, inept assessments of world events, pandering to abortion extremists, Chicago-style thug politics, indiscriminate acceptance of donations, effete inability to relate to rural voters, hypocritical vice-presidential pick, nebulous and disingenuous center-left talk and finally his irritatingly frequent mental pauses when off the prompter.

At first, I went with inexperience.  Up until the Democrat primaries, I remained convinced that Clinton would get the nomination.  This was primarily because I had faith in the commitment to reason of my Democrat countrymen.  Quite frankly I believe that a Clinton ticket might have taken on Obama as VP and sailed to victory, while still acknowledging the political realities of our current situation (this isn't to say that I would have supported such a ticket, rather I think it would have simply been less awful).  Despite a late comeback from Clinton, Obama walked away with the nod.  Despite the same dirty politicking which gave him his Senate seat, and one very memorable use of the race card (Bill Clinton is a racist now?) the Democrat constituency decided to give Obama the opportunity to lead this country.

I thought then, foolishly, that we'd begin to see the press digging through his record in the Senate.  They'd form their narrative of his rise to prominence and fill in the gaping holes left by his campaign narrative.  Nope.  This is a separate issue, but the press has championed this man's candidacy from the start, downplaying serious concerns and trumpeting the story that Obama's people want told.  In a year that favors Democrats, with a candidate like John McCain agonizing over how honorable he must be instead of trying to win, and the race being within 4-7 points...imagine today's headlines if the so-called journalists in our news media had deigned to investigate Obama with half as much energy as they devoted to Sarah Palin...or Joe the Plumber.  Within days of daring to ask Obama a hard question in which the candidate revealed his socialist leanings, Joe's garbage had been thorougly rifled through.  They can't do that to a candidate for President?  They won't, and they didn't.

Over the next few months I would identify an issue, follow its progression through the mainstream news and through the blogs, and inevitably watch it die a limping, somewhat befuddled death.  So many times, I saw what I thought could not be ignored.  I thought each of these issues would finally begin the process of seriously investigating this man who wants to lead a federal government that I know he intends to grow dramatically.

Each issue was glossed over, roundly ignored, outright denied or rationalized.  I swear I saw Obama change his position and contradict himself, yet his supporters barely noticed. 

The cult of personality which has developed around this man is nothing short of alarming.  Do you remember the fainting?  The Berlin rally?  Try criticizing this man in front of people who have cheered themselves hoarse for a vision they can't even articulate.  They're roaring their approval for a cloud, a man who changes shape to become what people want to see. 

Nothing, no issue has stuck to him for more than a few days.  Not Jeremiah Wright, not his socialism, not the corrupt donation process on his site, not the voter fraud perpetrated on his behalf, not his idiotic foreign policy declarations...nothing.  And he is poised to assume the Presidency in what will be an historic, and historically bad, moment. 

This election may see a permanent leftward shift in our country.  Permanent.  You understand, of course, that the more power you give to government the less you have yourself?  And what it is given it rarely if ever gives back willingly?  This means that if universal healthcare doesn't work, we're stuck with it.  This means that if you work hard and become rich, you'll be taxed and your money given to those who don't work or who simply aren't as successful.  And you'll be stuck with that. 

I believe there has already been a shift in this country.  We used to be a nation of independent spirits, distrustful of the government and anyone telling us what to do with our property.  We've become, over the past 50 years, a nation of people asking "where's mine?" with an outstretched hand.  We've voluntarily sewn ourselves up in red tape.  We've seen our taxes increase to our detriment and decrease to our prosperity, yet we've learned nothing.

Maybe Obama really is the president this country wants.  Maybe he is the President this country deserves. 

So, today the big focus is on how you can make fake donations to the Obama site that still take money from your account.  As in:

So I went to the Obama website this afternoon and clicked on the "Donate" button.
 
I used my real MasterCard number (but was not asked for the 3 digit security code).

Used the following information and it was accepted...
 
First name: Fake
Last Name: Donor
Address: 1 Dollar To Prove A Point
City: Fraudulent
State: AL
Zip / Post: 33333
Email Address: allmyinfoismadeup@mediabias.com
Phone Number: 2125551212
Employer: Mainstream Media
Occupation: Being in the Tank
 
And incredibly, my $5 donation was ACCEPTED!!!
 
I then went to the McCain site and used the exact same information (and WAS asked for the 3 digit security code for my MasterCard).  There, my contribution was rejected with the following message: "Your transaction was not approved for the following reason(s): Invalid data", and then: "We have found errors in the information that you have submitted.  Please review the information below and try again."

Well, my reaction is that Obama is from Chicago...why are we surprised?  The man has built up his political career by relying on the efforts of crooked politicians and leaders.  He is at his best a dissembling shit, and at his worst a deceitful political thug.  I know such talk offends, but John McCain and his supporters have endured a worse sort of casual contempt from followers of Obama.  One side of the political debate seems to always be guardedly assessing the other's stupidity.  Guardedly, I say, for when they see the first sign of an intelligent critique of Obama the guardians of PC drop in to accuse the critic of abject racism or bigotry.

Then there is this:

Turning the Page from Campaign Finance Fraud . . .   [Andy McCarthy]

What is the deal with Obama's birth certificate and citizenship status?

Pamela Gellers at Atlas Shrugs raises some apparent shenanigans with the birth certificate the Obama campaign previously produced. Meanwhile, Philip J. Berg, a former Deputy AG of Pennsylvania and a professed Hillary supporter, filed a lawsuit claiming Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president; instead of simply clearing up any questions — which you would think would take about five minutes — Obama's lawyers moved to dismiss the suit and failed to file a timely answer, meaning that, under the applicable rules (according to Berg), Obama is legally deemed to have admitted Berg's allegations that he is constitutionally ineligible to be president.

Admittedly, I've ignored this issue up until now on the theory that if there was anything here worth looking at, surely the Hillary and McCain campaigns would have raised it. But this all seems very strange. It's not just a matter of whether Obama was born in Hawaii — Berg claims he wasn't, but most others seem to agree he was (though the publicly available proof seems shaky at this point). There is also the question whether he was also a citizen of one or more other countries (Kenya? Indonesia?) and whether that means, as a matter of law, that he could not be a "natural born" citizen as required by the Constitution.

Has anyone around here looked into this? Is it a serious issue, and why does Obama seem to be so squirmy about it?

I'm not sure if this smells of desperation or if this issue really has legs.  I actually hope it does.  Our Constitution is pretty clear that you must be a natural born citizen to be President.  If Obama is in fact not eligible for the Presidency, expect a whole lot of talk about how the Constitution is a living document and it evolves over time...apparently enough to mean the opposite of what it says.  Well, now's definitely not the time to be polite.  The best opportunity to bring up this question happened to be 2 years ago.  But there's no time like the present.

"No person except a natural born Citizen(Obama's status now in doubt), or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution(these people are all dead), shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years(Sign of the times, huh?  Barely out of college these days), and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States(again, these are all dead)."

I am not going to spend much time on this, since tomorrow morning I leave for Asheville NC and a celebration of our 1st anniversary.  I will say that I feel these debates were inconclusive in terms of moving the race forward.
What I will say quite firmly, and I hope that my liberal readers will concede this point, is that Sarah Palin exceeded expectations tonight.  She did a much better job of connecting with the audience than Biden, even if Biden was the more collected speaker.  Palin did well to play to conservative fears about Obama, and to hammer the ticket on their flawed Iraq stance. 
Essentially, Biden had the most to lose tonight and Palin the most to gain.  He made no gaffes or sexist remarks and so broke even.  I tend to think of Biden as the guy who Obama needs to convince people that Obama's not a completely liberal Ivy-league socialist monster.  If Biden's spin is effective then they gained some points. 
Palin demonstrated that she does indeed possess competency and ideological clarity if not the polished rhetoric of her Senatorial opponents.  Her areas of expertise are energy and government oversight, and those are critical topics right now.  She did well to remind people that she has more on her resume than just Mayor, Governor, VP pick.  Palin made up the ground lost because of her bad interviews, and showed the American people more of who she is. 
I liked her very much.  And here's the kicker, I still kind of like Joe Biden.  I said it before in this blog, but Biden is likeable.  I may hate his policies and his support of Obama's policies, but he's just a personable man who has in his life showed integrity and honor.  Worst sort of person, the kind you hate to disagree with...
Good thing I like Palin better.
So, my final thought is that interpretation of this debate will break down along partisan lines...just like everything in this damned race.  But I would hope to see a number of liberals reconsidering Palin, and even perhaps acknowledging/admitting that she did well tonight.
See, conservatives believe in hope too!

Victor Davis Hanson:

Journalists continue to ask, “What was John McCain thinking in selecting the gaffe-prone Gov. Sarah Palin?”
In what has now become a disturbing pattern, the Alaska governor seems either unable or unwilling to avoid embarrassing statements that are often as untrue as they are outrageous. Recently, for example, in an exclusive interview with news anchor Katie Couric, Palin gushed, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’ ” Apparently the former Alaskan beauty queen failed to realize that in 1929 there was neither widespread television nor was Franklin Roosevelt even President.

Get the point?

And it is a problem in this country.

The Left Finally Accepts Religion in Government... So Long As You Worship Obama

Thinking about the Smith College op-ed where a student declares Obama to be her "Personal Jesus," I'm reminded of something I wrote on the off-duty blog:

This [children singing about Obama] video illustrates a phenomenon that I’ve periodically underestimated in assessing politics this cycle.

A large number of Americans, like the poster on Mulder’s wall, Want To Believe.

They want to believe in a political leader who they can describe in Messianic terms. They want to touch hands that have touched him. They want the face of their leader staring down on them on posters in public places.

They want to indoctrinate their children about his greatness before they can think for themselves, as we saw in the “children singing” video.

They want to sing songs about him, and credit him for “healing people’s souls.” They want to get together in groups of tens of thousands and chant their leader’s name. They want to make that silly “O” salute.

Cam, you and I have talked offline about the Founding Fathers and their vision of what a citizen of the new nation would be: fiercely independent, largely self-reliant, skeptical of government power, fearful of the passions of the public at large, and modest in his national ambitions. A large swath of the public is the exact opposite of this.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” It’s tough to keep it if enough of the citizenry wants to see the chief executive as a Xersian God-King.

We can argue if Obama's tax plan is good or bad, or whether unconditional face-to-face summits with Iran's leaders is a good idea, or whether McCain or Obama have the managerial skills to be an effective president. But it's impossible to refute someone who believes that Obama is healing people's souls. You can't dissuade someone whose criteria for a president is whether or not he can make that "mythical voice boom out over the mountaintops." It's fascinating that the press that screamed bloody murder over John Ashcroft holding prayer meetings with some staffers before work is now shrugging its shoulders at the fact that a portion of the national conversation includes, "In the Name of Obama, Amen."

This issue is perhaps the most troubling aspect of a troubling presidential race.  At some point I think all conservatives have hit "the wall" in debate with liberals about Obama and his policies.  Rational point after rational point can be made against the man, and acknowledged by our opponents as a shortcoming...but it never actually makes a difference to anyone. 

For too many people, support for Obama is based on irrational hopes and vague promises of change.  What bothers me the most about the other side is how uncritical they are of this untried man who wants to be our nation's top bureaucrat.  But the office of POTUS has somehow been conflated with the idea of a visionary and epochal leader.  That's worse for the country than any recession.

Ask any conservative today about John McCain and I doubt you'd find the same kind of unblinking acceptance of the candidate.  I feel like we have our eyes wide open about McCain's shortcomings, and have decided that despite those he remains the better candidate in this race.  Rest assured that if McCain breaks with conservatism too often he will be roundly and forcefully criticized.  I believe in my heart that if Obama breaks with liberalism then it will be liberals who modify their stance on the issues. 

Props to Geraghty for referencing Xerxes and all the attendant imagery that name evokes. 

This is the second part of my analysis on the Gibson-Palin interview.  In the first part, I focused on what I felt were the substantive issues regarding Palin’s selection and her qualifications to be Vice-President.  I attempted to fairly gauge those areas in which she needs improvement while also mentioning areas in which she showed strength.  My conclusion was that shortfalls in actual knowledge are not disqualifiers for the job of Vice-President - understanding that the quality of leadership is more important to the average person while philosophical adherence to certain political principles (and a willingness to apply those principles in the practice of government) is enough to win over those who seek consistency in their candidate.

In this section I will focus on the quality of Gibson’s journalism, hopefully demonstrating that much more could have been learned about Sarah Palin had he showed less of an agenda in his questioning.  Additionally, I will explore the transcripts of the unedited interview, contrasting that with the aired version.  Lastly, I will attempt to put Barack Obama in the hotseat, and share how I think he would have performed in a similar interview.  No, I will not ask him if he is tired.

The Style

Observing Charlie Gibson interview Sarah Palin is, I will freely admit, a frustrating experience for me.  I carry a lot of baggage from the primaries, most of it related to what I feel was grossly unfair media coverage of Obama.  Most conservatives feel that he was actively promoted by the people who are supposed to simply present the happenings of the day and let us make the decisions.  Too many editorialists in the newsroom is a bad thing for any network, conservative or Republican.

Gibson, unfortunately, allowed too much of himself to infect this interview process.  My initial impression that he was affecting a tough posture as a nod to the left’s extreme reaction to Palin’s selection has only been reinforced.  Sadly, it is also pretty clear to me how Charlie Gibson is planning to vote in November.

Perhaps what Gibson said wouldn’t have been so bad if he hadn’t come across as viscerally disapproving of Palin.  Everything in his posture and body language said to me that he knew what he was doing, which makes it worse.  He seemed to glare at her, in some shots.  And linguistically, he was making some pretty poor choices.

For an example, should an expository journalist ever ask a candidate:

GIBSON: Doesn’t that take some hubris?

Isn't there a Presidential candidate who could rightly be asked that question?

The key word here is expository.  Gibson’s task was to question Palin about her views on foreign policy, social issues, the role of government and perhaps a bit of personal information to give a more complete picture of how she views herself.  Instead, suggesting that because she didn’t turn down a request from the Presidential nominee because she could possibly have a tragic amount of pride is a blatant dig and an even more blatant departure from unbiased reporting. 

Readers of this page know that I tend to use words that are exact whenever I can, so know that when I say “blatant” I intend to say that there is no rational way to argue that Gibson is applying a neutral standard here.

Gibson wasted no opportunity to challenge Palin’s answers to his questions, as in this exchange:

PALIN: I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness. And knowing that you can’t blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country, and victory in the war. You can’t blink. So, I didn’t blink then, when asked to run as his running mate.

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 you have command of the Alaskan National Guard and 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 Conversation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas developments in our state, to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: National security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is. But - 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.

Was Gibson presuming to actually lecture the governor of Alaska on the fact that reform isn’t the sole objective of leading a government?  And when Palin brought up one of her major strengths, energy policy and experience, Gibson almost cavalierly brushed aside the notion that energy independence is foundational for national security.

It’s that editorializing that turns me off.

Another prime example, and the one that got the most traction when it came to criticism of Palin, was the question on the Bush Doctrine.  Following is the exchange, as aired:

 

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.

Most of the critics I’ve read seem to equate Palin’s initial request for clarification as somehow indicative of her intelligence and preparedness to assume office.  But put yourself in her shoes for half a second, and attempt to seriously answer Gibson’s question - without speaking for longer than two minutes.  Had Gibson rolled this question into his condescending explanation of what he was referring to, I doubt there would have been any confusion for the viewer or for Palin.  But let’s examine the unedited transcript for half a second:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

The bolded section was edited out of the program that went to air.  I’m not claiming that Palin did well on this question, but to simply state “yes we have the right to attack our enemies if we think they’ll attack us” is something that requires a fair bit of contextualizing.  Gibson wanted a straight answer to a delicate question, and didn’t see fit to frame that question in order to get a useful response.

You can compare for yourself the difference between the unaired transcripts and the final interview cut.  In fact I'd encourage you to do so, because no words I write should convince you of anything.  You need to read both sources with an open mind and decide for yourself what you think about her. 

What I took away from this interview and Gibson’s treatment of Palin is primarily that she has shaken things up in a huge way.  You can hate her guts, despise her policies, and heap scorn upon her children, but nobody can deny that she changed the dynamics of this race completely.  What I think is most upsetting to the media is that they never saw it coming.  Her name was hardly mentioned at all in the lead up to the pick, and I think there was a general assumption that it would be a perfunctory candidate and McCain would graciously lose in November.  The narrative has changed, and I am fairly certain that pissed off a few of our celebreporters. 

Charlie Gibson didn’t do his best on this one, and it shows.  But this interview is indicative of the spirit of those who are criticizing Palin for her “provincial” tastes and experiences.  Yes, I heard the word, and no, it wasn’t in the Gibson interview.

Answer me this:  Can anyone who uses the word “provincial” to describe another human being ever really be counted as an impartial observer?

The WASTE OF TIME

Now I’m going to have some fun and use my very partial imagination. Let’s explore for a moment how Barack Obama would have answered some of Sarah Palin’s questions, and how Sarah might have answered some of the questions Charlie asked Barry.

GIBSON:  Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

 

OBAMA:  What aspect of it? 

 

GIBSON: You tell me.

 

OBAMA:  The Bush Doctrine is a series of failed policies that have made our country weaker, lost the respect of our allies, and cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Uh, also, our own soldiers.  I mean look at the situation in Iraq…sectarian violence, uh, uh, daily attacks against our troops, the Iraqis making no political progress…

 

GIBSON:  The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

 

OBAMA:  Uh, uh, I, I do not…that is I do not feel…that this country should do that.

 

GIBSON:  What about the surge?  Do you agree that the surge was effective?

 

OBAMA:  How do you mean?

 

GIBSON:  The surge, as I understand it, was the rapid buildup of troops to counter growing threats against Iraq and our own soldiers.  Because of this surge violence is down that has been judged a success by General David Petraeus, who stepped aside this week and turned over command to his successor.

 

OBAMA:  I don’t think anyone can deny the heroism of our troops. 

See what I did there…this is fun.  Now let’s do Sarah Palin following her VP speech.

GIBSON:  Governor, I’m curious about your feelings last night.  It was an historic moment.  How does it feel?

 

PALIN:  Charlie, it felt just great.  I’ve been workin’ hard for Alaska and I’m honored to be given a chance to work for the whole country with John McCain.

 

GIBSON:  When John McCain called you, did you truly, in your gut, think that a woman would ever have been chosen as the Republican VP?

 

PALIN:  You know, Charlie, I didn’t really think about that.  All my life I’ve been blessed with the knowledge that a woman can succeed at whatever she sets her mind to, be it sports, motherhood, or even a career in politics. 

 

GIBSON:  You won’t get much time to enjoy this before people immediately start talking about the rest of the campaign.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

GIBSON:  How do you think you’ll be an asset to John McCain on the trail?

 

PALIN:  First, I’ll be able to spread his message with my own emphasis.  I think that I bring some pretty good experience on energy, which is on everyone’s mind right now Charlie.  This is a ticket that means real change, change you can count on.

 

GIBSON:  Do you worry that this race could turn on your gender?  Are you concerned about sexism?

 

PALIN:  Well no, Charlie I’m not.  Like I said, I’m not a big believer in playing the victim.  Never have been. 

 

GIBSON:  I watched closely your countenance last night, your mien, as you spoke to the crowd. 

 

PALIN:  Don’t look too hard, Charlie.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

GIBSON:  But seriously…you seemed at once humbled and happy to be selected.  Do you take joy from it?

 

PALIN:  I sure gosh do, Charlie, and you better believe that with John McCain leading the way I’m ready to get working to help the American people.

I think I like my reality better.

Essentially, the Palin interview needs to be evaluated on two fronts.  First, and most important, is Palin’s performance as an untried national candidate.  The ABC piece was not a first impression, but a substantive discussion after the first impression…an impression which, I don’t think anyone can argue, was pretty forceful. 

The second and only slightly less important rubric for evaluating this interview is the quality of the reporting.  I am sad to say that I would judge the journalism involved in this exposition of a relative unknown to be less than stellar.  Charles Gibson is generally a decent sort, but his style in this interview bordered on contemptuous.

Since I haven't been able to find a place to view the whole interview all at once, I'm making one here.  I'm still not entirely certain this is a comprehensive collection.  And the thing that is now confusing me is that the first clip I've loaded there seems to contain footage that I was told was edited out of the interview.  So...in essence I'm not sure what is going on with this interview and why it's so hard to find the whole thing online, but I'm confident that in its original airing it was in fact edited to hell.  I shall be running with that knowledge.

Apparently I was too high to notice that Sarah Palin had her first big solo interview with ABC and Charles Gibson.  Wisdom teeth.  But I found it online, so you won't be denied my impressions. 
I have rather mixed feelings.  While the questions being asked were certainly, certainly pertinent (earmarks, the economy, etc.) Charlie Gibson seemed to verge towards outright partisanship in this interview.  "Holy Cow.  Are you scared?  Are you overwhelmed?"  Please Charlie, I know you solicited questions online but really...
It is difficult to tow the line between being tough and inquisitorial, and I think Gibson came of as a bit hostile rather than expository.  Among conservatives, as I'm sure you know, there is a perception that Barack Obama has gotten a bit of a free ride in the media until now.  So we may just be more sensitive to it.

Part I
The Economic question was slightly loaded, or it seemed that way to me.  What would you change about the Bush economic policy?  Please, tell me you'd withdraw your support for the tax cuts!  But she handled it well, despite the choppy edit to the question.  Less taxes, less spending, more oversight.  These principles, when applied, are a sure way to aid a struggling economy.  From a conservative standpoint, any time you can put the people's daily business in the people's control and get the government to butt out is a great thing.
It sounds like she is calling for a real overhaul of our agencies, to look for ways to reduce waste.  Can't argue with that.  It's something a small government would do, and what they do every year. 
The Wasilla question was enlightening.  True, the town was in debt when she left office, but because of responsible government the people asked for it, agreed on how to pay for it and got it.  It will be paid off in time, by the way.

Part II
Gibson brought up a good point about earmarks and Alaska.  There is no denying that Alaska was and remains a major consumer of government pork.  However, I think the thing to keep in mind is that Palin is a reformer, not a dictator.  She has made efforts to reduce government waste and has been successful.  Ted Stevens, the embattled Alaska Senator, has been around for longer than Palin's been alive.  He's had plenty of time to establish corruption and a "good ol' boy" network.  Palin may not have dismantled it entirely, but she's begun the effort.  For doing that against her own party, I think her credentials as a maverick and reformer are unimpeachable. 
Now, trying to turn the Bridge to Nowhere on her adds nothing to Gibson's credibility as a journalist.  Let me explain.  To some, this may seem like a perfectly fair comparison to John Kerry's flip-flop on Iraq.  Palin worked for the money for that bridge.  She "supported" the bridge before she opposed it.  Gibson is just parroting a Democrat talking point here, rather than asking the better question.  The better question is, "why did you decide to oppose the Bridge to Nowhere, after having worked for that money?"
John Kerry's vote in Congress is a bit different.  First, he voted to authorize the war.  But the essential thing is that he then voted to cut off funding for that same war.  This is not the same as recognizing an inefficient spending habit and working to stop it.  Kerry's flip-flop came off as a calculated posture, a betrayal of our soldiers...in the eyes of conservatives.  Palin answered the question well, I think, making it clear that:
1.  Congress approved the funds
2.  Those funds were marked as infrastructure dollars
3.  Her discretion as governor told her that those infrastructure dollars could be better spent
Here's a fundamental point:  It is the job of the executive to oversee the government and help it to run better.  All too often, our leaders sit back and work within the established system, even if that system is handicapped.  Palin showed resolve and decisiveness when she chose to spend those infrastructure dollars where she and other citizens of Alaska thought they'd do more good.

Part III
The third part of the interview dealt with social issues.  First, Abortion.  Palin gives what I believe to be the only workable, American solution to the problem of abortion in this country.  That is:  leave it to the states to decide.  As a Catholic, I oppose abortion.  I don't make an exception for rape and incest, believing it only creates one more victim.  I do believe, as Palin seems to intimate, that we need to promote a culture of life in which the perceived "need" for abortion is eliminated.  Support for women, emphasis on responsible fatherhood...perhaps less taxes from the government so it's easier to raise children.  Bear in mind that child tax credits are a pretty recent development in our history!  And they were raised under our current President.
Embryonic stem cell research is also a problem, because if you believe in life at conception then you believe that this practice is nothing short of ghoulish.  Recent scientific developments have shown that we can regress adult skin cells to an embryonic stage...an instance in which President Bush deserves recognition for a bit of wisdom.  Palin again makes a commonsense point that her opinion is her opinion, and policy may or may not reflect that.  Why are her personal feelings such an issue?  I think it has a lot to do with the expanded powers of the Executive branch in the past few decades.  For some reason we've gotten it into our heads that a President should be proposing legislation based on his or her own agenda, rather than in a limited form to serve the people.  Palin likely thinks that social issues boil down to individuals being allowed to vote on the matter.  That's what we are debating here, anyway...if the federal government will give this or that effort money. 
Homosexuality is always a touchy subject.  Many are concerned that Palin's religious beliefs might make her an outright enemy of homosexuals, coming to sequester them at Straight Camps and beat a desire for the opposite sex into their heads with faux leather bibles.  From her answer, she doesn't seem to think it's her place to tell them what to do.  It would be nice if the sentiment were reciprocated, but I don't want to get into all that "forced to accept your lifestyle and keep hidden my own beliefs on its sinfulness from the public" thing.
On guns, Palin had the NRA answer, with which I heartily agree.  I also like the way she says NRA...ENN-er-ay?  Love her voice, as I've said.  If you put laws on the books banning guns, then only law-breakers will have them.  It's as simple as that.  A man who will steal my car, or break into my house, or rob a convenience store will only view it as one more law to break...and he won't be deterred in the slightest. 

Ah, the baby question.  To her credit, Palin did not say that questions about her time management skills regarding her job and her children were sexist.  I liked her answer, saying instead that they were irrelevant and that she'd do it the same way other people in her position had done it.  With a supportive spouse and a certain amount of accountability and independence instilled in the children.  I read over on NRO that the sexism charge, while technically correct, undercuts the Republican brand.  Republicans run on the notion that a culture of victimhood leads to less success and less happiness...and more government, incidentally.
I think that part of this disbelief about Palin's abilities stems from the fact that more than 50% of marriages end in divorce.  Divorce, I believe, is a consequence of a lot of different issues, but in large part I think that lack of commitment to the ideals of marriage and the promises you make is central.  Todd Palin seems to be a supportive, helpful father who has not stood in the way of his wife's goals in life.   And he isn't a stay at home dad either, he's a hard working fella.  Having a real partnership in marriage is crucial to the success of both spouses.
Now granted, not everyone is as well off as the Palins.  Do they hire babysitters?  A nurse?  They may, and in that respect they'd be no different than just about anyone with consequential work to do.  Not everyone has Sarah Palin's responsibility.  Suffice it to say that she isn't going to play the victim.  She's everything the feminists have been agitating for, lo these many decades, and if they want to deny her accomplishments then it is to their own discredit.

On to more interesting topics.  Actually, the last one I'm going to write about, since I am fading fast here. 
National Security: the most substantive issue regarding Palin's selection.  As with most governors, Sarah Palin has had little foreign policy experience.  In their role governing the states they will sometimes meet with foreign representatives, especially when it comes to trade and that sort of thing.  But they are not policy wonks by any means.  So the question can rightly be asked of Palin, "What do you bring to the table?"  Gibson did manage to lose his smirk for this question, and I appreciated it. 
Gov. Palin cited her knowledge of the energy industry as one of the main things to add to McCain's extensive knowledge of foreign relations.  She is the governor of a resource rich state and an understanding of energy policy is a necessary requirement for her. 
Let alone the fact that energy demands are both a foreign and domestic concern.  We may be putting money into the hands of Russian and Middle Eastern business men, some of whom don't like us, but we're also feeling the pinch ourselves.  It's not like when Budweiser was bought by InBev.  I can still get a crappy beer for the same price.  I don't believe there is an oil equivalent to Miller High Life.  We need more energy independence and we need it yesterday.  That issue will resonate and McCain would be wise to push it.

Okay, one last thing:  The fact that Gibson is bringing up the Internet rumors is a bit lame.  As fast as these things came up they were debunked.  Just because the media reported on them without doing an...ahem...proper vetting is no reason to pretend they are actually newsworthy.  Even "Troopergate" is overblown and symptomatic of the partisan fury of our country today.  We just need to get over it...focus on real issues, like her foreign policy experience, and leave the Daily Kos to stew in their own excrement.  But at least he is giving her a chance to give her side on national television.  I always think of rumors like this:  Everyone remembers the first headline, not the retraction.

So, apparently there are more of these on the way, to be shown on Good Morning America and 20/20.  I will hopefully be able to put together a more coherent analysis when I don't have to cover so much ground while so high on prescribed drugs.  But it looks as if she is most comfortable on the important energy questions and hewing pretty close to the campaign's rhetoric on the foreign policy. 

Is she ready?  More on that later.

Sarah Palin was accused of many things over the week.  One of the less obscene was the notion that she, a prolifer openly opposed to abortion, had hypocritically cut funding for pregnant teens. 

As it turns out, that was true!  Sort of.  As always, a partial truth is more damaging than a total lie.  For you see:

In the Washington Post, a respected reporter noted disapprovingly that Palin had “slashed” funds for a program benefiting pregnant teens. He failed to mention the relevant fact that she was using her line-item veto power to quadruple funds for the program instead of quintupling them.

Above quote lifted without permission or reservation from David Freddoso on NRO.  Emphasis mine.

I doubt the blogger who brought that accusation to my attention (a polite way of saying "vomited it gleefully into the ether") will find this post, but my fellow conservatives:

Arm yourselves with it. 

As our ideological opponents recover from their shock, they will come up with more substantive arguments against our next Vice President.  It is an accepted rhetorical tactic to exploit the ignorance of your opponent, and if these baseless accusations can still find any traction it will be a wearying two months. 

Don't underestimate your opponent's duplicity.  Palin riles the Obama supporter, because she gives needed energy and vitality to McCain.  Some of them will mix fact and falsehood with desperate purpose, to protect their investment in Barack Obama.

Educate yourselves.

And I offer my thoughts upon it. 

Well, Cindy first.  She needs some practice with the teleprompter.  She'll have plenty of it, I'm sure.  She's a good wife, though.  And here's the negative part of my brain, but if I were Team McCain I'd only talk about marriage very briefly.  Unfortunate end to the first one and all.  But to McCain's credit, he publicly lists that failure as his greatest.

Nobody can accuse McCain of not having a personal stake in the ongoing conflict.  And Cindy is a proud mother to all her children.

Bridget McCain is a testament to John and Cindy's pro-life views.  McCain is from the old school, though, and doesn't make loud proclamations about his religious beliefs.  So, it would be easy to ignore the very compelling story of Bridget.  Easy and stupid.

I hope McCain can keep this crowd energized.

****

Here he comes. 

The video is good so far.  McCain's mom...funny.

Yes, this video is making its point.

Darkness.  A light, and he is here.  The convention stage is set up in town hall format, allowing him to be more comfortable with this very big speech.

Crowd is enthused.  I think they are ready for a real humdinger of a speech.

You can't let the crowd have its way with you. 

Damn camera keeps going to the protester up in the balcony.  Whatever, bro.  You look like Ed Norton from American History X.

"Much more unites us than divides us"...that's hard to keep in mind sometimes.  I hear genuine emotion coming from him.

Fracking Code Pinkers.  Good on you, McCain.  Play 'em off.

McCain really takes corruption personally.  Hopefully he'll run out of Veto ink and have to spend $1.50 of our tax money on a new Veto pen.  I'd gladly allow that gov't expenditure.

I remember when I wrote John McCain off in the primaries.  I'm not as smart as I thought. 

John McCain's message on domestic issues hasn't been really addressed this week, until now.  He needs to stick with this theme.

"Culture of Life" wot wot!

He needs to talk more about his health insurance plans.  Specifics will come, hopefully soon.

Education:  Big issue.  Help bad teachers find another line of work!  Word up.

Gotta stop making Russian billionaires and Middle Eastern Sultans.

DRILL BABY DRILL!

We need to use nuclear power.  It's safe, it's clean, and it's efficient.  Let's use all the tools at our disposal to help ourselves.

On to Russia...Call them out, McCain. 

Wise to not keep Obama at the forefront, but to mention him.  This is about McCain, but it's about how he's more suited than Obama.

I can't imagine this man's experience in Vietnam.  I can only admire it. 

He is right on about service.  Humanity needs a cause bigger than itself to serve, individuals need a cause.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT.  We make history.  Damn right.  Hell to the yes. 

Aw sh%t.  Not that Raising McCain song again.  Who thought that was a good idea?

Ok, but that's ok.  Here comes Sarah Palin and some instrumental music.  And confetti!!  Whee!

They're playing Barracuda.  Nice.

So overall, this was a positive speech.  I think it did a lot to solidify his positions, and it's got me feeling assured that we'll make a good go of it in the next two months.