The Couric Fallout

brianthebard

The Insider wrote: »

I actually thought she came across very well in the last interview compared to the first interview. I also though Couric overstepped the line in a couple of questions, can't see her asking Obhama or McCain if they agree with the morning after pill.

Is the last interview the one about the newspapers? I don't see why asking her about the morning after pill is a problem (unless you are assuming it was a gender issue :rolleyes: ) Palin is very very anti choice, and the morning after pill in that context is an important issue. She might ask McCain, since he is also very anti-choice (now anyways) although not as much as Palin, who wants to deny women the right to abortion even in the case of incest and rape.
She's a lovely woman really though.

The Insider

Apart from the newspapers bit she came across very well IMO. Just thought the morning after pill question was a bit out of line. In relation to her pro-choice stance whatever you agree with or not is irrelevant, alot of Americans will agree with her and relate to her answer so in that context she did very well.

Kama

Yeh, she was thrown a poison pill wedge issue, abortion in rape and incest, and she managed to sound moderate, played well to own support, and kept it sounding like an individual human 'choice'. Interviewer came off looking worse than she did.

Hobbes

The Insider wrote: »

can't see her asking Obama or McCain if they agree with the morning after pill.

I don't see why not. It is a perfectly valid question.

The reason she got asked about the Morning after pill is because of the Rape Kits she nixed.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/09/30/wasilla_made_rape_victims_pay_1222822915/

The Insider

Yeah but she asked her on a personal level, not a policy level, that's why I thought it was out of line.

bonkey

Kama wrote: »

Yeh, she was thrown a poison pill wedge issue, abortion in rape and incest, and she managed to sound moderate, played well to own support, and kept it sounding like an individual human 'choice'.

She was thrown the issue because its an issue that she's made her views public on in the past....when it came up as a question for all three candidates in the Alaskan Governer election in 2006.

Back then, she said that she would only support abortion if the mother's life were in danger. She said that if it were here daughter, she would choose life. Of her two opponents, one said that he believed the government should not be involved in such decisions, and the other said that he would let his daughter make the decision.

Maybe Palin just fielded the answer badly back then, but its why its coming back now...and why she will perhaps be faced with more questions about exactly where she draws the line than other candidates. She's taken a hard stance once before, and she's going to be called on it.

bonkey

The Insider wrote: »

Yeah but she asked her on a personal level, not a policy level, that's why I thought it was out of line.

Do you believe that politicians don't allow personal opinions to influence their politics?

Issues like Roe vs Wade in the US are outside the remit of the President. They are questions for SCOTUS...so there is no policy level at play. Its all just a subtext rephrase the question "if you could elect - or influence the election of - members to the Supreme Court, would you pick those who support RvW, those who would seek to overturn it, or would you not let that be an issue in your decision at all".

Its all just variations of not asking that question....because none of what they're really asking about would be relevant for a VP with respect to policy-making, nor relevant to a President either.

raven136

having watched the obama/maccain debate it doesnt even matter if palin gets in because im more worries that these other two had nothing to offer on the economic crisis at all.

Hobbes

The Insider wrote: »

Yeah but she asked her on a personal level, not a policy level, that's why I thought it was out of line.

If you read the story I linked they showed by Palin dropping the rape kits it cost the state more money. So the dropping of them did appear to be on a personal level not a policy level.

javaboy

Inquitus wrote: »

Aye, they will either have her mic'ed up (remember the Bush rumours) or they will have taught her word for word answers to all likely questions.

That said she does seem to wilt under pressure and she may well garble the responses if they have tried to cram here head, thats what seemed to happen on that comedy gold what do you think about the bailout question.

+1. You would have thought that if they could only prepare her for one question, it would have been about the bailout, but she just came across as completely ignorant. She doesn't have to be an economic whiz kid but as a possible president, she should be able to answer a very non-specific question on the most pressing issue of the day.

The Insider wrote: »

Apart from the newspapers bit she came across very well IMO. Just thought the morning after pill question was a bit out of line. In relation to her pro-choice stance whatever you agree with or not is irrelevant, alot of Americans will agree with her and relate to her answer so in that context she did very well.

I don't see why the morning after pill should be an off-topic question. She has already axed rape kits, is strongly religious and holds a creationist view. Her personal beliefs will influence her policies. So it's not an off-topic question. I mean she's running for VP. She has to expect to get asked awkward questions.

norbert64

lol, the VP debate may have hit a slight bump in the road
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/30/a-debate-“moderator”-in-the-tank-for-obama/

metrovelvet

The Insider wrote: »

I actually thought she came across very well in the last interview compared to the first interview. I also though Couric overstepped the line in a couple of questions, can't see her asking Obhama or McCain if they agree with the morning after pill.

She isn't going to ask them that question because democrats have made it very clear where they stand on all forms of birth control and abortion.

Inquitus

My she's objective, also this isn't going to make one jot of a difference.

Sept 5, 2008
Why Obama's "Community Organizer" Days Are a Joke

Feb 20, 2008
Michelle Obama's America -- and Mine

Jan 9, 2008
The Clintons in Crisis

Aug 27, 2008
What I Saw At the Discombobulation

May 21, 2008
Barack Obama: Gaffe Machine

July 9, 2008
15 Things You Should Know About "The Race"

Aug 6, 2008
What America's Daughters Need To Know About Nancy Pelosi

May 28, 2008
Rachael Ray, Dunkin' Donuts and the Keffiyeh Kerfuffle

Aug 29, 2008
Barack "The Silencer" Obama's Gangland Assault on Free Speech

Sept 3, 2008
The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse

Aug 13, 2008
Pelosi and the Big Wind Boone-doggle

May 7, 2008
Barack Obama's Bitter Half

javaboy

metrovelvet wrote: »

She isn't going to ask them that question because democrats have made it very clear where they stand on all forms of birth control and abortion.

McCain's not a Democrat.

Inquitus

The I know nothing about any Supreme Court Decisions bar Roe v Wade Palin Special goes out tonight, insider sources say its perhaps the worst yet.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/16/eveningnews/main4453216.shtml

norbert64

Inquitus wrote: »

My she's objective, also this isn't going to make one jot of a difference.

Sept 5, 2008
Why Obama's "Community Organizer" Days Are a Joke

Feb 20, 2008
Michelle Oba.......<snip>

aye, Ms Malkin is somewhat outspoken

Lets put aside the source and just focus on the substance of the claim though. Don't mean to cast aspersions on the moderator of the debate, but surely there is a clear conflict of interest here, right?

cooker3

Inquitus wrote: »

The I know nothing about any Supreme Court Decisions bar Roe v Wade Palin Special goes out tonight, insider sources say its perhaps the worst yet.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/16/eveningnews/main4453216.shtml

and here it is.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4493093n

Honestly It's pretty cringeworthy
(especially in comparison to Biden)

metrovelvet

javaboy wrote: »

McCain's not a Democrat.

Ha ha. Before he chose Palin people weren't really sure about that. Some even called him the democrat most democrats would vote for.

axer

Oh my god. She is f'ucking unbelieveable. You could tell she didnt have a clue and then went on her ramble again.

I think it is too late for her to drop out to give McCain a chance.

Hobbes

I see the latest one that came out she has no fricken clue at all as to who Hamas are. If you take her ramblings at face value she appears to be endorsing Hamas.


http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sarah_palins_terrifying_ignora.php

Couric: "What happens if the goal of democracy doesn't produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections and Hamas won."

Palin: "Yeah, well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we're seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel ... and we're hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will."

McCain camp are claiming libel for anyone who thinks she actually said that. I guess they should ask Palin first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y1oYThKts

Hobbes

Inquitus wrote: »

The I know nothing about any Supreme Court Decisions bar Roe v Wade Palin Special goes out tonight, insider sources say its perhaps the worst yet.

OMG.. I thought the hamas one was bad. How can anyone watch that and seriously say she is more qualified then anyone to run for VP.

Ciaran500

These are all a shame ful display for a Vp, but does America care?

jmayo

Hey look at the bright side.
She has heard of Hamas, ok she is not sure who they are because that is to be covered in her "introduction to the world lesson 20" class next week.

The scary thing is that to a lot of Americans it will not matter that she is as thick as pigsh**.
Actually it is a plus to them.
They see a good old gal who hates those foreigners, who would not hesitate to nuke them if push comes to shove, who hates those liberal know it alls that are in the big cities and out there in California, who believes in good old US values of God created Adam and Eve, that they all have the right to drive a 5 litre V8 godammit and own and carry the same weaponry as an SAS soldier.

And before any US citizens have a go at me, I do know that there are smart educated liberal ones.
I just didn't find many of you in samll town middle American that's all I am saying.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, loads of smart liberal voters who want a government so large and powerful they'll have to get written permission before they flush their toilet.

axer

She says that the right to privacy is inherent in the constitution but yet disagrees with the verdict. huh? Is her brain conflicted?

There is such a contrast between her answer and bidens.

This woman is clueless. I think she keeps surprising Couric with how much more stupid each answer is getting.

sink

Mordeth wrote: »

yeah, loads of smart liberal voters who want a government so large and powerful they'll have to get written permission before they flush their toilet.

Liberalism as implied by it's very etymology is the pursuit of maximum freedom. Don't try to use a hyperbolic argument founded in ignorance.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

jmayo wrote: »

The scary thing is that to a lot of Americans it will not matter that she is as thick as pigsh**.
Actually it is a plus to them.
They see a good old gal who hates those foreigners, who would not hesitate to nuke them if push comes to shove, who hates those liberal know it alls that are in the big cities and out there in California, who believes in good old US values of God created Adam and Eve, that they all have the right to drive a 5 litre V8 godammit and own and carry the same weaponry as an SAS soldier.

And before any US citizens have a go at me, I do know that there are smart educated liberal ones.
I just didn't find many of you in samll town middle American that's all I am saying.

"Don't try to use a hyperbolic argument founded in ignorance. " Indeed.

the definition of liberal is very different in the states, and you know it. There are still classical Liberals (big L), libertarians, constitutionalists and the very occasional republican but liberal over there means big government. It means social welfare, free public healthcare, public roads, public schools.. hardly the maximum freedom.

sink

Mordeth wrote: »

"Don't try to use a hyperbolic argument founded in ignorance. " Indeed.

the definition of liberal is very different in the states, and you know it. There are still classical Liberals (big L), libertarians, constitutionalists and the very occasional republican but liberal over there means big government. It means social welfare, free public healthcare, public roads, public schools.. hardly the maximum freedom.

Aka social liberalism. The tenets of social liberalism are that people should not only be free of unnecessary state intervention but should also be free of abject poverty and free to receive adequate medical care and be afforded equal opportunity to the maximum extent possible. Poverty is another form of incarceration imposed by the invisible hand of unfettered capitalism. Social liberals believe that the visible hand of the state is required to adjust the free market to account for these oversights in freedom. Permission to flush toilets is bs and you know it. It's perfectly reasonable to rebut jmayo with a clear truthful argument but you choose to attack ignorance with ignorance. I am a social liberal so that is why I am defending my core beliefs with truth I suggest you do the same.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i suggest you remove the word liberal from 'social liberalism' and see what you are left with.

axer

Mordeth wrote: »

i suggest you remove the word liberal from 'social liberalism' and see what you are left with.

'social'? What is wrong with social? Should we close down the public hospitals? the libraries? the fire stations? Should it be every man, woman and child for themselves? WTF has this got to do with the couric interviews anyway?