Saturday, September 13, 2008

No Apologist...

I, for Sarah Palin. I have figured out, though, why accurate information about her matters to me so much. After seeing what Obama,the MSM, and the DNC did to Hillary Clinton for 18 months, I cannot stand to watch another woman be vilified and smeared by these kinds of hatchet jobs. In this case, it is a number of Democrats spreading around false information on Palin, as well as the MSM. Wow, does This feel familiar! Obama continuing to compete against the VICE PRESIDENTIAL nominee instead of the presidential nominee is mighty telling, too. I think he is very threatened by her - especially since she has way more executive experience than he does. Well, because he has none. But I digress. This is really about the MSM, and how they are dealing with Gov. Palin.

As just about everyone knows by now, Charlie Gibson of ABC News had the first interview with Gov. Sarah Palin since her acceptance of the VP nomination. If you think that there is no double standard in the media, just compare the questions Obama was asked by Gibson to the ones Gibson asked Palin, courtesy of Nancy Kallitechnis:

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to "win"?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

I'd say those are pretty striking differences. Gee, he didn't ask PALIN about breaking any glass ceilings. I guess because he'd already asked Obama...Ahem. IO mean, really - he may as well have asked Obama, "What's your favorite ice cream flavor?" "Where do you plan to put your basketball court?" while asking Sarah Palin, "Well, just what IS your solution to world hunger, Gov. Palin? I asked you a question: what is your ANSWER???" Great job, there, Charlie.

I have gotten so many comments about the Palin interview, particularly what they SHOWED her saying about Russia, and about Iraq being a "holy war." They made her look as if she is a mindless twit. She is NOTHING of the kind. She actually has a well-thought out concept of Russia, its importance to the US, and the importance of Russia in terms of allies. For that to be reduced to people thinking she's sitting there going, "hey, Russia is right over thar! Yuck, yuck!" is just ridiculous. With that in mind, thanks to Newsbusters and Anon in the Comment section at NQ, below is the actual transcript, with what was removed from Sarah Palin's remarks in bold:
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

It is at this point that Gibson asked Gov. Palin if she believed Iraq was a holy war:

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. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

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.”

That was quite some cut and paste job by ABC News. Now, I know all news agencies have to edit SOME, but what they did was INCREDIBLY misleading about what Palin actually said on a number of issues. She is not some Cold War-monger, doesn't want to start a war with Russia, doesn't believe Iraq is a "holy war" - none of that. Even the NY Times had an editorial today that included a lot of these false impressions. It concluded with this,
"In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation."

And if one actually read the whole transcript, it would seem Governor Palin is well aware of that.

And one other thing about this interview and some of the comments about Palin, is her religious beliefs, and that includes a stab by the NY Times in the editorial mentioned above. First, I cannot BELIEVE that anyone in the Obama camp would be trashing ANYone else for their beliefs given the church in which Obama sat for TWENTY years. And in which he would be sitting STILL had the videos of Jeremiah Wright not surfaced (do I REALLY need to include the videos of his minister, Jeremiah Wright, going on one of his tirades? No, I didn't think so.). He had NO plans to leave that church until Jeremiah Wright stuck his foot in his mouth again. Otherwise, Obama would still be sitting his butt in those pews along with Michelle and his two girls. Second, and this is the main thing: Sarah Palin shares the same beliefs as MANY Evangelicals (Larry Johnson had a great piece on this at NoQuarter). Let me say that while this type of theology is diametrically opposed to my own, and I mean, really different, there are a NUMBER of Evangelical churches in this country, including Megachurches. I know - my brother (another one) goes to one. I am talking about churches that have THOUSANDS of people attending their services regularly. Seriously - some over 10,000 a Sunday, I kid you not. And these are the kind of people who, you know, might just take offense at being called "crazy," or "whacky," or "nuts" for their beliefs. I'm just sayin' - they might not like it. Oh, and they vote, too. So, for the Democrats to be attacking Sarah Palin's religion is just stupid. If Obama gets praise from Speaker Pelosi for going to church every Sunday (H/T to EightBelles for the comment at NQ for reminding me of this), then why shouldn't Palin? I think I would win a bet that her church is more mainstream than Obama's, after all, for what THAT'S worth! And yes, I know that Palin's church supported a conference to "cure" the homosexuals. Hell, for all I know, Obama's buddy, Donnie McClurkin is the keynote speaker. Or maybe it is IL State Senator, the Rev. James Meeks. Both are actively anti-gay, and McClurkin claims he was "CURED" of his homosexuality, Praise the wee bambino in the manger. Whatever. My point is that as despicable as this is to ME, and to many others, there is very little difference between Obama's associates and Palin's on that level. And, if you recall, Palin was quite clear in her interview with Charlie that it is not up to her to judge - she said it several times. She does not judge people on their lives.

Sarah Palin apologist I am not. But as long as the Media, Obama, and Democrats in general keep spreading vicious lies and rumors about another powerful woman in politics, I feel compelled to shout them down. All of the above ignored us over Hillary already, and GLEEFULLY attacked her in as sexist a manner as I have seen in my entire life*. She is STILL the best choice bar none, but here we are. Anyway, I'll be damned if they do it to another woman this year, Democrat, Republican, or Independent. I won't stand for it. Judge her on her MERITS, not all of this rumor mongering, smearing, and manipulation of her words. If you dare. Because that means that maybe, just MAYBE, you will be held accountable for yours, too, Obanma. And YOUR associates. If there is any justice in this world...

* If a review is needed, once again, I recommend GeekLove's outstanding video. Click HERE.

No comments: