Friday, October 24, 2008

Can Palin Answer A Question Without Talking Points?


Video from Daily Kos


Brian Williams asked Gov. Palin a simple yes or no question: "Back to the notion of terrorists and terrorism, this word has come up in relation to Mr. Ayers -- hanging out with terrorist – domestic terrorists. It is said that it gives it a vaguely post uh 9-11 hint, using that word, that we don’t normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the ‘60’s terrorists, under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under the definition?". See Oxdone Gazette

Palin went all around the question and brought up Bill Ayers...is there some type of talking point that includes Bill Ayers with every answer?

Why don't she talk about the fact that her husband Todd Palin, who was registered in October 1995 to the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States...what would she categorize Todd as?

There is something about the McCain ticket that rubs a lot of Americans the wrong way and for McCain to pick Palin as his running mate, tell some Americans that he is not handling his campaign in a logical way...what say you?

Let me say that if you have not seen it already, you've got to check out Robert Rouse, That’s My Take #12

22 comments:

JollyRoger said...

It's like I said. Caribou
Barbie and Johnny have BOTH proven their complete and utter contempt for women. They don't even try to hide it.

LET'S TALK said...

Jolly, that was just outstanding writing and wit. Thanks for showing me how it's done.

ThomasLB said...

I think labels are a red herring. One man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist."

I think it boils down to the question, "Is it okay to kill people to get your own way, or isn't it?"

LET'S TALK said...

The point here Thomaslb, is that Palin is quick to call Ayers a terrorist but cannot seem to recognize if those that bomb Abortion clinics could be put in the same category.
That also includes her husband who wanted to separate from America and call Alaska it's own little country.

I agree with your statement " labels are a red herring. One man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist." Palin just seems to be at a level where nothing about what or whom she agrees with fit in that group.

Distributorcap said...

palin is a moron - she is savvy and quick - but a moron - and a narcissist --- right now she is being the good barbie doll and following the schmidt talking points -- but after the election - watch out....

you aint seen nothing yet

Tom Harper said...

To answer your question, no. She answers all questions by either 1) reciting a talking point; or 2) staring blankly ahead like a deer caught in the headlights.

It's only terrorism when Democrats criticize the government. If a Republican belongs to an anti-American secessionist group, that's perfectly OK.

LET'S TALK said...

I have a feeling that you just might be right Distributorcap. The world belongs to her after this election and I can't understand it. Has Americans lost their minds?

LET'S TALK said...

Tom Harper, you have just described Palin as best as can be done.

Alberto said...

Did McCain REALLY need Palin to rile up the Republican base? Couldn't that have been just as easily done with another candidate? Oh wait, I suppose he wanted to gain some Hillary supporters. He got none.

LET'S TALK said...

Alberto, I think you just answered your own question.

I'm adding you to my blog link, I hope that's OK with you.

S.W. Anderson said...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that Alaska secessionist group fits the definition of terrorists. Extremist and crackpot fit, but everything I've read about it has said it's a few hotheads pushing hot air around.

Remember, terrorism isn't an attitude or a threat; it's a tactic.

As far as the Palins' involvement/connection with the secessionists, it's amazing how little journalists have asked them about that.

S.W. Anderson said...

Re: Palin being good for little more than talking points. I suspect she's got all kinds of opinions about various subjects — ones her handlers have politely told her to keep to herself, at least for now.

When it comes to knowledge and insight on issues more complex than, say, what to order for lunch, I'm sure they really want her to stick to the script.

This doesn't necessarily mean she's a dunce, in the sense of being incapable of learning about complex issues. It's probably more a matter of whether Palin has the native curiosity and discipline to dig in and do the homework. Just as important, does she have the good sense, once she's on top of the basics of an issue, to then sample a variety of opinions about it?

I think Palin could do these things well enough but rarely, if ever, bothers to.

Snave said...

As Tom says, to give a quick answer to the question, "No. She can't!"


S.W. said "Remember, terrorism isn't an attitude or a threat; it's a tactic." I'd have to say that for a while there, the Bush administration was pretty hot on the idea of using an attitude or a threat to constitute terrorism. I'd imagine Palin subscribes to that line of thinking. But S.W. is correct; Bush and Palin are definitely not!

J.Marquis has posted a good article at his blog Major Conflict about an opinion Palin has that her handlers have probably asked her not to talk about at length in the media. You can check it out here:

http://majorconflict.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palins-absolute-truth.html

I don't begrudge Palin her religious beliefs. What I would be inclincd to begrudge her on would be if she tried to force those beliefs on the rest of the world throught the power of the presidency. Evangelicals who want to be raptured must be salivated over the prospect of getting Palin into being leader of the free world.

LET'S TALK said...

In some ways we take a look at how Bush has intervened in the Ohio registration by asking
"Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate whether hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters in the battleground state of Ohio would have to verify the information on their voter registration forms or be given provisional ballots, an issue the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on last week."

Then we look at how they have tried a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

So we cannot count out anything with the Republican party.

With Palin we must look at what she has done for the sake of becoming VP, and dividing this country anyway she can.

She is what is known as a gold digger and she is very dangerous.

LET'S TALK said...

SW I can refer you to secessionist and like you I sure would like to hear that question asked to Palin, but she would just go around such a question and talk about Ayers and Obama.

LET'S TALK said...

Thanks for the link Snave, I just don't know what to think of this Palin and the Evangelical thinking about the end of days and how Alaska will be a holding ground to flee to once this time comes.

We are dealing with a person in Sarah Palin, who has some strange thoughts about this country, God and the end of days.

1138 said...

Palin is a mental midget but that makes her no less dangerous.

The Alaskan Independence Party fits the definition through it's connections to the IRANIAN government in denouncing the government of the United States at the United Nations and it's own announces stance in it's willingness to use force if needed to win Independence from the occupation of the United States.

Alaska actually put one of there people into the Governors office in 1990 and now again with the false Republican Palin and then the Manchurian candidate McCain picked her for VP.

1138 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BGc-B67MSY

1138 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3BCajchD8

Vogler was murdered in 1993 during an illegal sale of plastic explosives that went bad. Before he was to make a public statement against the United States at the United Nations on behalf of the the Islamic Republic of Iran.

1138 said...

By current State Department definitions concerning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and this organizations statements, actions, and associations with a sponsor of an identified terrorist organization... calling the AIP a terrorist organization is not out of line.

LET'S TALK said...

1138, great links you've come up with in reference to Palin and the AIP.

Don't this just makes you wonder...if this was Obama or Biden associated with the AIP. What would Hannity, McCain and the Conservatives be saying about them at this point during the elections.

I think Obama and Biden would be called terrorist and associates of terrorist.

What if Vogler had been a friend of Obama or Biden, what would the party on the right call them?

Anonymous said...

blogtalkingpoints.blogspot.com; You saved my day again.