A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
In many respects, Sarah Palin is a lot like John McCain. Where McCain will get all "mavericky" and be against his party with one breath and then be very status-quo with the other ( dependant on who's holding the camera at the time ) Sarah Palin will apparently speak truth to power until she sees a moment where she can try and grab the spotlight from someone - facts be damned.
In Palin's* op-ed published in the Washington Post, she took the opportunity to go after Al Gore simply because he's Al Gore. The problem with that is that Palin's* piece was pretty much free of facts. And when called on these specious claims by Al Gore, she took to her safe zone at Facebook to retort.
However, he’s wrong in calling me a ‘denier.’ As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.
But her statements both in the op-ed and on Facebook were patently false. You may remember this:
It's almost a certainty that conservatives will see this clip and immediately respond that this was some form of "gotcha" question from Charlie Gibson. Even though this interview was done last year and Palin's piece just appeared in the Washington Post, it has to be some elabortate plot between the evil liberal media, climate change scientists, Al Gore, AND the Washington Post. Facebook might even be in on it. No one can be trusted Sarah ----- NO ONE!
----------------------------------------------
* there is no proof that Palin actually writes these things.
I'm certain that there are plenty of people lined up to get the first "post-Obama-inauguration" interview with George W. Bush. However, how many people - aside from those that followed his lead without question these past 8 years - are going to actually care what he has to say?
Perhaps I should put it this way - how many people are going to believe what he says?
Here's a statement from W's chat with Charlie Gibson:
"I think I was unprepared for war," Bush told ABC News' Charlie Gibson in an interview airing today on "World News."
"In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack,'" he said. "In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen."
Naturally, Bush is going to defend what many consider to be indefensible. He's going to offer glittering generalities that will go over splendidly with the Sarah Palin fans, and he's going to have a chorus of conservatives claiming that Iraq is a success.
Bush states in the interview that he "didn't compromise his principles".
What does that even mean?
Never before in my lifetime have I seen a "President" so disconnected with the vast majority of Americans, I shudder to think what his "principles" are.
Most conservatives can't stand to have their own words, their own language, thrown back at them. They hate it.
They hate having to face the fact that they may have said something wrong, something stupid, or even something they don't really believe in but said just to look good.
Enter Sarah Palin, again......
Enter part of her cheerleading crew, the folks at Michelle Malkin's website.
According to their own particular brand of logic, Charlie Gibson "blew it".
I will freely and readily admit that I had - and still kind of do have - my reservations reguarding the remainder of the interview, as I have only seen a few select clips - and it's divided into three parts over three different shows for maximum demographic exposure.
Aw, Michelle Malkin, poor little lamb. She's so upset that Charlie could be so mean:
Charlie Gibson had a chance to show that he could be fair, balanced, and P.D.S.-free with Sarah Palin’s first major MSM interview.
Looks like he blew it.
For those operating in this stream of reality, P.D.S. stands for "Palin Derangement Syndrome". It really doesn't mean anything at all. It's just a pseudo-clever title that Malkin has used in relation to George W. Bush and would have used with whomever McCain had chosen for his VP selection.
Sarah Palin is the conservative flavor-of-the-moment, so Malkin is all in and ready to show her hand.
But, the fun continues when she uses the old-stand-by of conservative weapons, the word "context", as it relates to Palin's statements at her old church:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
Then, Michelle goes on:
What she actually said:
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan
Just for a little backgroud, so everyone will know what the word means, here is the dictionary definition of "context":
–noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
It's pretty easy to see that, using the definition of "context", Palin thinks that God's plan was/is sending our military to Iraq.
So, is Palin all of a sudden "comfortable" with Charlie Gibson?
Seriously, her comfort shouldn't be an issue with anyone in the media wanting to talk to her.
She is the VP pick of the Republican party and should be able to answer questions put to her.
Well, that's not how Team McCain sees it apparently.
She didn't even do what would have been an interview a five-year-old could shine in with Fox"News". Why all of a sudden Charlie Gibson and ABC?
Would it have anything to do with the fact that Gibson scored the only interview with McCain during the convention? Perhaps.
And what's with the "multiple sit downs spread out over 2 days on their home turf" crap? You would almost expect that to be the case with some overly sensative and egotistical celebrity or agoraphobic, but this woman should be ready to talk now.
Josh Marshall @ TPM see it this way too but mentions something I hadn't thought of:
Political interviews are never done like this. Because it makes the questioning entirely at the discretion of the person being interviewed and their handlers. The interviewer has to be on their best behavior, at least until the last of the 'multiple interviews' because otherwise the subsequent sittings just won't happen. For a political journalist to agree to such terms amounts to a form of self-gelding. The only interviews that are done this way are lifestyle and celebrity interviews. And it's pretty clear that that is what this will be.
Those of us that can see Palin's selection for what it is, pure political theatre, know that this interview is going to be just like a childs game of tee-ball - Palin going to hit every question on target.
Naturally, the Republicans are going to enjoy this. They are getting what they want, more time on a mainstream network that is only interested in ratings and has no consideration for what the American voting public need - honesty.
