What? No mainstream media covering this? Shocking!

[Chesspiece_face]

The obvious answer is "Which one of Bush's doctrines?"

Small nit: The Bush Doctrine is actually fairly well defined albeit rather broad. The correct political answer would be "Which part of the Bush Doctrine?" I would also disagree that this question is anywhere close to a gotcha moment question other than the fact that she painted herself into it by pretending she knew what she was talking about.

[Jester]

Jester,
I grabbed just the beginning of your post here because I wanted to be sure I understood you. I'm concerned that you're giving someone a pass for having a private conversation about a charged issue and expressing a personal opinion.

Perhaps I'll wait for you to finish your thought before going too deep into a response.

I believe we should use the information we have. I also believe context is critical in interpreting that information. I don't believe in "gotcha," I don't believe in scalp-taking or witch-hunting on the basis of snippets of evidence. I also don't believe that people are obligated to be saints, especially when they can expect privacy.

Racism is over the line. But saying one was once racist, once upon a time, is not the same thing, especially not in the context of an anecdote about how one learned that race is not the fundamental issue, but rather discrimination and powerlessness generally. People can change for the better, and honestly discussing that change should not be a career-ending mistake.

-Jester

[Jester]

The umbrella of 'tea party' is gigantic, and yes, even [in]famous people do stupid things, and the movement excises them and moves on.

Or, by the same uncharitable interpretation you seem to be applying elsewhere, the substratum of racism occasionally boils over into something politically embarrassing, forcing the movement to throw the offender under the bus - not because they didn't like what was being said, but because it was becoming a public liability.

For example, I like Victoria Jackson as a comedian, but she is not the best representative of the tea party movement.

Hey, I like UHF. If only Victoria Jackson wasn't a loon. Then again, I think the segment she represents are also pretty unhinged, so maybe that's appropriate.

I think even Sarah Palin has some admirable qualities, in that home spun, ranchers wife moxie sort of way. I don't know many women who'd be comfortable skinning a moose. I'm hoping she'll get more comfortable in public and shed the "fantastic plastic super smiley persona" she wears on camera, and learns to reveal her inner human.

You don't see it, do you? The "fantastic plastic super smiley persona" is the real Sarah Palin. She's an image-concious, career-minded, well-networked political animal. She's been in politics for her entire career. The moose skinnin' hockey mom rancher's wife rootin'-tootin' good 'ol gal is the public image. It's exactly the same as Bush was - the ranch-and-country-twang bit was the mask. The reality was something else, a pampered Yalie frat boy with daddy issues.

But people are so eager to believe the Great American Myth, that the frontier is alive and well, populated by the physically strong, the commonsensical, the morally pure, that the image sells instantly. If you want to succeed at American politics, you want to pretend you're from rural Nebraska, not Martha's Vineyard.

-Jester

[Jester]

Had I known that Obama didn't care for sports, I'd have voted for him twice.

See? Obama supporters even overtly *admit* to being willing to perpetrate electoral fraud. Why isn't the MSM all over this?

Don't these liberals understand the constitution? One person one vote?

(Heh indeedy.)

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Had I known that Obama didn't care for sports, I'd have voted for him twice.

Don't these liberals understand the constitution? One person one vote?

I learned civics on the Lower East Side. The rule, since Tammany days, was "Vote early and vote often."

--Pete

PS "Liberal"? A pro-gun, pro-death penalty, anti-direct senatorial elections liberal, I guess. First cousin to a jackalope and part unicorn on my grandma's side.

[Jester]

For the interested: the full video has now surfaced. You may judge for yourself - I'm watching it now.

Thoughts: Quite the story. Very different times she grew up in.

I just got to the part where Breitbart's video starts. Immediately preceding the comments shown in the video, she says this, referring to the night that she made the decision to stay in the South after her Father's unpunished murder, to try and change things for the better.

"When I made that commitment, I made that commitment to black people only. But, you know, God will show you things, and he will put things in your path, so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people."

My hats off to Breitbart. That is a remarkable selective edit.

Choice quote:

"You know, back in the late 17th and 18th century, there were black indentured servants, and white indentured servants. And they all would work for the seven years, and get their freedom. And they didn't see any difference in each other. Nobody worried about skin colour, they married each other, you know. These were poor whites and poor blacks in the same boat."

Wow, I'm glad this woman was fired. Obviously a racist terror.

Another:

"What we have to do is get that [racism] out of our heads: there is no difference between us."

Alright, I can't keep up. It's ridiculous. The *entire message* of the speech is that the divisions between the races are artificial - that everyone needs to work together to help the poor, to make society a better place. She says this, over and over and over.

Breitbart should be ashamed - if he is capable of shame, something I've long since ceased to believe.

-Jester

To paint the lily: They even have the friggin' farmer himself - far from being aggrieved, he rushes to her defense, saying that she saved his farm, treated him as a friend, no hint of racism...

All this, and it's still a win for Breitbart. He gets what he wants. She got fired. It's embarrassing for the administration. The news cycle about the Tea Party having to deal with its internal racism gets derailed. Now it's about the other guys. The truth of the matter is irrelevant; the noise machine has done its job.

[Vandiablo]

(not a reply to Jester, but placed here because it expands the idea of "what you didn't see")

More, from here

Sherrod said she and the white farmer she referred to in the video, Roger Spooner, became friends. Spooner's wife, Eloise, confirmed to CNN that she and her husband considered Sherrod a friend.

"She helped us save our farm by getting in there and doing everything she could do," Eloise Spooner said. "They haven't treated her right."

Roger Spooner, who also spoke with CNN, said, "They don't know what they are talking about. I was never treated no nicer." He said Sherrod rode with him and his wife to see a lawyer and helped him save his farm. She had "no racist attitude. Heck no," Spooner said.

Once yet again, the answer to "why isn't the MSM covering this?" is "because it's an absurd falsehood concocted by unscrupulous partisans."

Hmm, too many syllables?? Make it simpler: because the tea party fanners are lying. FTS. Learn to read and think for yourselves, read both or all sides for everything and figure out who's lying (the usual case) or who has a better argument (rare these days).

There are millions of hypocrites who denounced (and rightly so) a former president for lying under oath, claiming to worship at the altar of Truth, and yet accept all the BS cooked up by Beck and his ilk.

BTW, after decades of having slime thrown at you, it is a valid question whether it is better to throw slime back or to pride yourself as being better than that.

-V

"Join us, because no one's really going to be free until nerd persecution ends."

[--Pete]

Hi,

BTW, after decades of having slime thrown at you, it is a valid question whether it is better to throw slime back or to pride yourself as being better than that.

It's a lose-lose situation. If you join them in the slim pit, you lose the high ground. Besides, you're fighting in their style and they'll use experience to beat you. If you try to hold the high ground, you're in the position of constantly denying fraudulent accusations. The six point agate retraction on page 12 of section D2 of the late Sunday edition is hardly noticeable.

I'd suggest pistols at daybreak, but they've got the pistols. And are probably better at using them. Especially on duck hunts.

We could try educating the American public so they will not be fooled in the future. OK, that was just a joke.

Best strategy, get them all drunk and then take pictures of them with ladies of ill repute. Post said pictures on the Internet. Wait for the inevitable.

Or just Photoshop it, works as well.

All's fair when god's on your side.

Now, I feel kinda slimy, so I'm off to take a shower.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hmm, too many syllables?? Make it simpler: because the tea party fanners are lying. FTS. Learn to read and think for yourselves, read both or all sides for everything and figure out who's lying (the usual case) or who has a better argument (rare these days).

How can you attribute this to the any Tea Party? It was outed by Breitbart on BigGovernment.com, I believe. Which, as far as I know, is a conservative 'Reagan Republican' blogger. He is as bad as Micheal Moore, and one of the worst in the cesspool of media distortion, and I would put him in the same category of propagandist. In reading his bio, it is not a surprise to me that he helped put together "The Huffingtion Post" as well. Then, I think Hannity had it on his show (another Reagan Republican). Currently, the Republican party is attempting to assimilate the "tea party", since their entire platform is anti-progressive (power to the people, small government, lower taxes). Bush Jr. (and even Reagan) represented a version of progressive Republican, which is what most of the Tea party (many of which are former Republicans) find distasteful. So, yes, you have people like Hannity, Breitbart, etc. who may speak at rallies, or defend the Tea Party movement, but it is doubtful that they (or FOX) represent the goals of the Tea Party. Of all the FOC talking heads, Beck probably (through the 912 project) inspired the Tea Party movement. 912 is essentially a mechanism for people with similar conservative interests to meet up at a local grass roots level. I've been meaning to make it to one of these meetings some day.

There are millions of hypocrites who denounced (and rightly so) a former president for lying under oath, claiming to worship at the altar of Truth, and yet accept all the BS cooked up by Beck and his ilk.

I actually happened to watch Beck last night to see how he would cover this. Guess what, he came down on Ms. Sherrod's side. I know, it's a mixed up world when Glenn Beck is the voice of reason. He's was questioning why everyone (NAACP, Whitehouse) was so quick to act without gathering all the facts, again. He called for her to be re-instated. In fact, he suggested that her position is consistent with most of the Administration (in viewing the issues as ones of class, or haves, vs have nots), and that she'd be an excellent choice for some higher level position in the administration.

Alright, I can't keep up. It's ridiculous. The *entire message* of the speech is that the divisions between the races are artificial - that everyone needs to work together to help the poor, to make society a better place. She says this, over and over and over.

Breitbart should be ashamed - if he is capable of shame, something I've long since ceased to believe.

Yes, and whomever dishonestly edited the film, and then also him and anyone else for spreading the lie. This is the deceit practiced by Micheal Moore (and others) which makes me insane.

To paint the lily: They even have the friggin' farmer himself - far from being aggrieved, he rushes to her defense, saying that she saved his farm, treated him as a friend, no hint of racism...

All this, and it's still a win for Breitbart. He gets what he wants. She got fired. It's embarrassing for the administration. The news cycle about the Tea Party having to deal with its internal racism gets derailed. Now it's about the other guys. The truth of the matter is irrelevant; the noise machine has done its job.

Personally, I agree that she should not have resigned for her confession, taken out of context, of her racial epiphany 24 years ago. But, I'm interested in the story on how she was selected for a policy making role in the agency she sued, and won a billion dollar lawsuit against, and that she's was, until yesterday, working for the very same guy whom she filed the lawsuit against. She seems overtly qualified for her role at USDA. If there is nothing henky in her hiring, then I definitely think everyone owes her an apology, and Obama and Biden should have her over to the Whitehouse for a beer.

[kandrathe]

Like her claim to knowledge of foreign relations because she could see Russia from Alaska? Yeah, once she'd exposed her ignorance, they did have fun at her expense.

Did you know that she was filmed for that interview for almost an entire day in Alaska, and that this "sound bite" was taken extremely out of context. They were talking about a small island (which is territorially Russian), which she could see from her house the Alaskan coast.

Had I known that Obama didn't care for sports, I'd have voted for him twice. An American political figure who doesn't believe that baseball, football, basketball, and ice hockey are the be all and end all? What next, Unicorns?

He would have been more honest to have said, "You know, I went to some baseball games when I was working in Chicago, but I was far more focused on my work helping the people on the South Side." He still fumbled around the question, trying to figure out how to answer it since he obviously couldn't remember the name of any actual player.

Edit: Jester straightened me out on the whole "from her house" misquote.

[Jester]

Did you know that she was filmed for almost an entire day, and that this "sound bite" was taken extremely out of context. They were talking about a small island (which is territorially Russian), which she could see from her house.

I think you are confused.

As far as I know, Sarah Palin's claims were that you can see Russia from a part of Alaska, which is strictly speaking true, and that the proximity of Russia somehow gave her foreign policy cred, which is absurd.

The line about seeing it from her house, is Tina Fey. (Misquoted by Walters asking about it as "from her backyard.") This is an obvious parody - seeing Russia from Wasilla or Anchorage, or even seeing the island from which you can see Russia, would be like seeing San Francisco from San Diego, or Scotland from France.

-Jester

---

It's a lose-lose situation. If you join them in the slim pit, you lose the high ground. Besides, you're fighting in their style and they'll use experience to beat you. If you try to hold the high ground, you're in the position of constantly denying fraudulent accusations. The six point agate retraction on page 12 of section D2 of the late Sunday edition is hardly noticeable.

It's prisoner's dilemma. Everyone would be better served by a media where those who favour each side honestly reported the facts and debated the issues without mudslingling. But, in that world, there would be a large incentive to sling mud, because only the other guy gets hit. And so, the worse-for-everyone Nash equilibrium evolves, because even if both sides agree it would be better to play fair, each side would lose from unilateral disarmament, and any truce would be inherently unstable.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think you are confused.

Probably.

As far as I know, Sarah Palin's claims were that you can see Russia from a part of Alaska, which is strictly speaking true, and that the proximity of Russia somehow gave her foreign policy cred, which is absurd.

I think she was pointing out that Russia borders Alaska, and Canada... Meaning that Alaska is unlike the lower 48, in that they don't really have "easy borders". Border states, especially our southern ones, have many more issues to deal with, and more federal interactions. And, that, yes... The Alaskan government would be a part of negotiations for exploitation of resources in border areas, with Canada, and Russia. From that point of view, as a governor, she may have had more time negotiating with foreign countries than Obama did. It's a hard point to make, and you are correct that she failed in making that point, if that was her point (I've never seen the extended 3 days on film). The Katy Couric 3 days of filming interview was distilled down to her worst moments, and edited to show her in a very negative light. It was a hatchet job, and it worked. They came at her sideways, smiling (Katy was a good friend of one of Sarah's press advisers), and she fell for it, shame on her for her naiveté in dealing with snakes.

The line about seeing it from her backyard, is Tina Fey. This is an obvious parody - seeing Russia from Wasilla or Anchorage, or even seeing the island from which you can see Russia, would be like seeing San Francisco from San Diego, or Scotland from France.

Yes, this is probably where I developed the bias. I clearly remember the line "I can see Russia from my house". So, SNL's media role in smearing Sarah worked, even on me.

[Jester]

The Katy Couric 3 days of filming interview was distilled down to her worst moments, and edited to show her in a very negative light. It was a hatchet job, and it worked. They came at her sideways, smiling (Katy was a good friend of one of Sarah's press advisers), and she fell for it, shame on her for her naiveté in dealing with snakes.

I'm not sure what it is about Sarah Palin that makes you such an eager apologist for her. Normally you layer on your cynicism for politicians so thick you can't get it off with a sandblaster.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think she was pointing out that Russia borders Alaska, and Canada... Meaning that Alaska is unlike the lower 48, in that they don't really have "easy borders". Border states, especially our southern ones, have many more issues to deal with, and more federal interactions. And, that, yes...

Huh?

Never mind. If people swimming the Bering Straight to illegally enter Alaska is a problem, it's a problem that hasn't received much if any press. And Alaska does not border Russia any more than Main borders Greenland or Florida Cuba. At least not recently.

Sorry, any way you look at it, she's brain dead. Sure, she can govern a state that's obscenely wealthy. If the USA were the world's greatest producer of petroleum rather than the greatest user, she might be able to 'run' it without running it into the ground. Then again, so might a banana slug.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure what it is about Sarah Palin that makes you such an eager apologist for her. Normally you layer on your cynicism for politicians so thick you can't get it off with a sandblaster.

She reminds me of my mother. So, don't you be talking trash about my momma...

Seriously... She has some down sides, but I don't buy into the whole dismissive, "she's an idiot" argument. Often, men will choose this tactic against women in general, and so I (as a liberated male, raised by a liberated woman) just will not go there. I don't find her particularly brilliant, but then again, Joe Biden seems to enjoy the taste of shoe leather as well. No one mentions, for example, that Joe Biden graduated from the U of Delaware ranked 506th of 688 in his class. If we wanted academics to lead us, then we'd require an IQ test and a doctoral degree.

Ok, so my serious take on her; 1) her bubbly smiley plastic demeanor -- everyone has pain in their lives, and the last thing you want is someone who seems unsympathetic to that pain. People who drop their guard seem more accessible, and they reveal that they too are human, and have been hurt like you have been hurt. We can relate to that better. What we like about Obama in his speeches is not his vague promises of hope, or general vague notions of policy, but that he seems to have lived and grown from his experiences. She doesn't reveal that, and it makes her appear to be more inexperienced than she really is. 2) she was about 2 years of service shy of being qualified for the job she was offered. She needed to spend some time in Washington DC, in even a minor administrative capacity to learn how, and when to keep her mouth closed, and how to deal with the piranha, 3) like the current administration, I see her as a bit too reactionary. There is an art to choosing how long to pause (at least giving people the appearance that you are considering all the facts) before you act. Of course, it is best to actually determine how long the pause should be, and then to let people know how long it will be and what you will be doing in that time to inform your judgment, and then follow through. Doing this properly instills confidence in a leader, in that they make informed decisions, act appropriately (fairly), and follow through. 4) her naiveté is both an asset (untainted) and a detractor, but more of a detractor. I think she needs to travel the world a bit more, and see the good, the bad, and the horrible things happening for herself. She should volunteer to spend some time helping out at NGO's (three weeks minimum) in Africa, SE Asia, Eastern Europe, India, and the Middle East. She needs to develop an informed international opinion.

So, assuming she is qualified, then we judge her based on her political positions. Reading the resume' is a respect I'd give any person seeking to be employed by me as my public servant. You might find her resume' lacking, which it is, compared to many who deserve the position. I found Obama's resume' also lacking experience, and I disagree with many of his spoken policies, and most of his unspoken ones. The McCain/Palin ticket had essentially a seasoned RINO and an unqualified neophyte, while the Obama/Biden ticket was an unqualified neophyte, and a seasoned buffoon playing second fiddle. Neither was a good choice, so I tossed my protest vote at the 3rd unviable option, but at least that individual seems to walk his talk.

[kandrathe]

I think she was pointing out that Russia borders Alaska, and Canada... Meaning that Alaska is unlike the lower 48, in that they don't really have "easy borders". Border states, especially our southern ones, have many more issues to deal with, and more federal interactions. And, that, yes...

If people swimming the Bering Straight to illegally enter Alaska is a problem, it's a problem that hasn't received much if any press. And Alaska does not border Russia any more than Main borders Greenland or Florida Cuba. At least not recently.

I wasn't thinking of only border integrity. There are territorial issues surrounding resources as well.

Sorry, any way you look at it, she's brain dead. Sure, she can govern a state that's obscenely wealthy. If the USA were the world's greatest producer of petroleum rather than the greatest user, she might be able to 'run' it without running it into the ground. Then again, so might a banana slug.

You are really stuck on the stupid thing. She's not brilliant, and probably some what average. No one is asking her to solve our problems with cold fusion. As far as I know, the only meter we have for leadership is experience. Our current President fails (has failed) in that area as well.

[kandrathe]

The obvious answer is "Which one of Bush's doctrines?"

Small nit: The Bush Doctrine is actually fairly well defined albeit rather broad. The correct political answer would be "Which part of the Bush Doctrine?" I would also disagree that this question is anywhere close to a gotcha moment question other than the fact that she painted herself into it by pretending she knew what she was talking about.

I don't see it as so interconnected, covering;

1) unilateral withdrawals from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Protocol,
2) the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups,
3) 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,
4) and, spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism.

If you think Charley saw them as connected, then, yes, I would modify the right answer to be, "Which part of the Bush doctrine?" And, if Charley would have said, "All of it." Then I believe the correct response should have been, "Do you have 20 minutes for my full analysis, or do you just want a pithy sound bite for your highlights reel?" He obviously either didn't mean all of it, or she called him on the trap. He clarified by citing a particular date the term was coined. Objection your honor! leading the witness! She answered as if he had asked, "What do you think of Bush's foreign policies?", which is actually pretty much what 1-4 are above. After his disdainful, pained and disappointed reply, he indicated that he meant #3, preemptive war. But, perhaps, being called out on the "vagueness trap", he quickly had to redirect the question toward one that could be answered. If you want a pointed answer, you should give a pointed question.

I have only one question for Mr. Melon... in 27 parts. Discuss the foundations of modern global business systems. Part one: Define and differentiate... the three economic philosophies... of capitalism, socialism and communism... as pertains to: A... management fundamentals; B... organizing and staffing; C... labor management; and D... production and operations.

To quote Charles Krauthammer, who coined the term "Bush Doctrine" in an article he wrote on that date given by Gibson, in the Washington Post, Sept 2008, "Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain... In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to {Palin}"

It seemed to me that Professor Gibson took it upon himself to give an impromptu oral exam to little Sarah Palin. How would we do on it?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Seriously... She has some down sides, but I don't buy into the whole dismissive, "she's an idiot" argument. Often, men will choose this tactic against women in general, and so I (as a liberated male, raised by a liberated woman) just will not go there.

Cheap argument, bordering on ad hominem, and insulting on this forum. Neither Jester nor I, I think, fit the male chauvinist pig model. I supported Clinton over Obama and have called more than one male an idiot, including Shrub and Nader. I base my opinion on brains, not plumbing.

I don't find her particularly brilliant, but then again, Joe Biden seems to enjoy the taste of shoe leather as well. No one mentions, for example, that Joe Biden graduated from the U of Delaware ranked 506th of 688 in his class. If we wanted academics to lead us, then we'd require an IQ test and a doctoral degree.

Irrelevant. However many people might be ignorant or stupid does not matter in the question of whether she's ignorant and stupid. Are there other politicians who are ignorant? Yes. Are there others who are stupid? Yes. Does that make her any more ignorant or stupid? Not in my brand of logic.

So, if we are willing to take her seriously, then we judge her based on her political positions.

"
During a debate for governor of Alaska in 2006, Palin said she was a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in the Alaska public schools.

She also declared the week of November 18–25, 2007 as Bible Week in Alaska, stating that "the Bible has profoundly influenced art, literature, music, and codes of law."

She had attended a Pentecostal church for 26 years which practiced laying on of hands and speaking in tongues during church services. She was quoted as saying that she had grown up in the Pentecostal Assembly of God church and that nothing about the service disturbed her.

She said the Iraq War was task from God and that it was God's will that the Alaska gas pipeline be completed.

Palin opposes the construction of Cordoba House, a proposed Islamic cultural center and 13-story mosque planned to be built in New York City on Park Place between West Broadway and Church Street, two blocks away from Ground Zero. She first explained, via Twitter: "Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real"

Palin stated in 2006 that because she believes embryonic stem cell research causes the destruction of life, this research is inconsistent with her pro-life position and she does not support it.

While campaigning for election as Governor of Alaska in 2006, Palin declared that she supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment that proposed adding "...a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman" to the Alaskan constitution.

During her June 12, 2010 appearance on Freedom Watch, Palin elaborated on her stance that even though marijuana should not be legalized, enforcement of marijuana prohibition laws should be made a lower priority: “Well, if we’re talking about pot, I’m not for the legalization of pot because I think that that would just encourage, especially, our young people to think that it was O.K. to go ahead and use it. And I’m not an advocate for that. However, I think that we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts. And if somebody’s gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things that our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society that are appropriate for law enforcement to do and not concentrate on such a, relatively speaking, minimal problem that we have in the country.”

On the July 9, 2010 episode of The O'Reilly Factor, Palin again indicated support for a path to citizenship but clarified that illegal aliens should not be "rewarded for bad behaviour": “We won’t complicate it any more. Let’s keep it simple, and let’s say, ‘No, if you are here illegally and you don’t follow the steps that at some point through immigration reform we’re going to be able to provide, and that is to somehow allow you to work. If you’re not going to do that, then you will be deported. You will be gone.” Palin emphasised that more border enforcement should come first and said that current attempts at reform should "learn from history", with reference to the amnesty granted by Ronald Reagan, which she believed was "botched".

Palin told the media through her spokesperson and three posts to her Facebook page that statements about Ezekiel Emanuel were reasons for her death panel comments. These statements were first made by Betsy McCaughey, and were described by TIME as lacking context, and by PolitiFact and FactCheck as false euthanasia claims.

In an interview with Time in 2008, Palin argued that energy independence through ANWR drilling was essential to reducing American dependence on hostile foreign regimes. "We need to drill, drill, drill," she told the Wall Street Journal; she argues that "ANWR is only the size of the Los Angeles airport, and drilling there isn't environmentally destructive." In order to assuage a fear that oil and gas development would be hampered by the listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Palin tried to sue the US government.

In 2007, Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing Alaska the hunting of wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose and caribou populations, a practice which has been banned since 1972. The Program has come under criticism and legal actions from wildlife activists stating the purpose of the program is to increase the numbers of prey species to unsustainable levels for sport hunters, residents and non residents of Alaska.

In May 2007 Palin introduced Bill 256 to streamline the Predator Program and make it more difficult for conservation groups to sue the State. Critics of the Bill claimed it removed scientific standards and claimed the programs are expensive and not effective.

In December 2007, Palin wrote an opinion column in which she described her opposition to the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. In it she also stated that the polar bear population is more numerous now than 40 years ago and "there is insufficient evidence of polar bears becoming extinct in the foreseeable future". After Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior listed the bear as threatened on May 14, 2008, Palin (representing the state of Alaska) sued the federal government, claiming that the listing would adversely affect energy development in the bears' habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts, while again questioning the scientific basis for the listing.

Palin claimed that scientists found no ill effects of global warming on the polar bear, a claim disputed by Alaskan state scientists and environmental groups.

Cook Inlet stretches 180 miles (290 km) from the Gulf of Alaska to Anchorage in south-central Alaska. Palin opposed strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet. She cited state scientists who claimed that hunting was the only factor causing the whales' decline and that the hunting had been effectively controlled through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations. Recent research states that hunting controls have halted the decline of beluga whales in Cook's Inlet but that the population remains severely depleted and at high risk of extinction. The Palin administration allowed Chevron to triple the amount of toxic waste it pours into the waters of Cook Inlet. Federal scientists do not attribute the decline in the Cook Inlet beluga population to human pollution. The Cook Inlet Beluga Whale was declared an endangered species by the Bush Administration on October 17, 2008.

Palin believes that "We can win in Afghanistan" and "we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high." She urged Obama to "devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan" and pledged to support him if he made the "right" decision.

Palin supported the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but was concerned that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place".

In the September 2008 CBS interview, Palin criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions. Reminded by the interviewer that Henry Kissinger, whom Palin had recently met, supports direct diplomacy with both countries, Palin responded: "I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, 'Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.' " Five days earlier Kissinger had made a televised statement of his position regarding Iran: "I am in favor of negotiating with Iran...[and] I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations." However, Kissinger does not advocate negotiations at the presidential level.
"

Res ipsa loquitur.

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,

Seriously... She has some down sides, but I don't buy into the whole dismissive, "she's an idiot" argument. Often, men will choose this tactic against women in general, and so I (as a liberated male, raised by a liberated woman) just will not go there.

Cheap argument, bordering on ad hominem, and insulting on this forum. Neither Jester nor I, I think, fit the male chauvinist pig model. I supported Clinton over Obama and have called more than one male an idiot, including Shrub and Nader. I base my opinion on brains, not plumbing.

--Pete

Especially cheap when one could easily make the argument that, if not the only reason, the main reason she was even picked to run as Vice President was that she was a woman. Her very nomination appears as a statement that women are so stupid they will just vote for the one that has breasts.

[kandrathe]

Cheap argument, bordering on ad hominem, and insulting on this forum. Neither Jester nor I, I think, fit the male chauvinist pig model. I supported Clinton over Obama and have called more than one male an idiot, including Shrub and Nader. I base my opinion on brains, not plumbing.

I'm explaining my rationale, my predilections and sensitivities, and not criticizing yours. I have no evidence to doubt your opinion's basis. I'm not a chauvinist either, and I try to prove that by relying on the irrefutable details rather than generalities. Btw, Clinton would have been at least twice the President this one is, and had far more executive experience.

Irrelevant. However many people might be ignorant or stupid does not matter in the question of whether she's ignorant and stupid. Are there other politicians who are ignorant? Yes. Are there others who are stupid? Yes. Does that make her any more ignorant or stupid? Not in my brand of logic.

But... we are comparing a Vice Presidential candidate against another Vice Presidential candidate. If she is disqualified due to her poor scholastic performance, then what about him? If she is disqualified because she says stupid things, then what about him? There appears to be a double standard.

"During a debate for governor of Alaska in 2006, Palin said she was a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in the Alaska public schools.

...

Yeah? What's your point here? I disagree with a lot of the unreasonable stuff too, but there are some things there that are reasonable. You know... I didn't vote for her either... I don't expect to turn you into a Palin supporter, just maybe you could drop some of the hatred and vitriol. Her positions resonate with a large portion of the electorate, but they are not the same as yours. She didn't win, and now she's just another book writing talking head, like Laura Ingraham or Rachel Maddow. If she again tosses her hat in the ring, say to run for President... then, I would, as I'm sure you would, be against it. Not because she's stupid, but because she's not liberal (in the old sense of the word) enough.