ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson interviewed (website to access videos) Sarah Palin last Thursday and Friday: Part I = 6:18 + II = 5:27 + III = 10:11 = 21:56 total--labeled "Full Interview" (after the first segment it continues with two more fresh video loads, so stay tuned). A separate segment, labeled "Does Gov. Palin Agree With the Bush Doctrine?" (7:21--making for 29:17 in all) contains some foreign policy stuff--some of what was aired on Russia, though not the part on Georgia, Ukraine & NATO, plus some on Israel & Iran.
Omitted are four key segments: (1) There is nothing posted of the much-criticized exchange on the Bush Doctrine: (2) nor is the part on Georgia, Ukraine & NATO posted; (3) nor is the exchange on Pakistan included, which has received little notice but on which Palin was right, as noted below; (4) nor is the exchange on the Iraq War, God & Abraham Lincoln posted. Based upon my original 9:35 & 3:00 clips for Thursday night, no longer available in that form, I estimate that 2 to 3 minutes was deleted. What follows includes discussion of those segments ABC deleted from its "Full Interview" and "Bush Doctrine" video clips online. James Taranto of WSJ's "Best of the Web Today" posted a partial transcript that includes omitted excerpts of the Thursday night interview, that ABC later sub silento deleted.
ABC also posted a "True? False? The Palin Fact Check" video (2;36) featuring online reporter Jake Tapper. Tapper's points: (1) Palin would be the first VP in 32 years not to have met a foreign leader; Yet Tapper blew it, too. He cites Dick Cheney, George Bush Sr., Dan Quayle & Walter Mondale as examples. Mondale became VP in 1977. So actually one has to go further back. I have not time to check, but perhaps Spiro Agnew (VP 1969 - 1973) had not met any before becoming VP. Ironically, JT's error made Palin look less unusual in that respect. What Tapper omits is that governors frequently have not met heads of state. And governors are more typically elected presidents than senators. (2) Tapper says Palin's "You can see Russia from Alaska" statement is true, and shows the picture. (3) He marks her false on her statement that she has not modified her climate change position, with regard to man-made causes, and cites an Fairbanks, Alaska paper's quotation from 2007 as proof. Assuming the paper got it right--in other words, was more careful than Gibson & Tapper--award a point to ABC here.
Palin, while shaky at times, showed a better understanding of security
matters than did Charlie Gibson Thursday night. She did better than
Barack Obama could have done, given a comparably aggressive interview
just a fortnight into his own candidacy. Let's start with ABC's performance, then go to Palin's.
More on ABC and Other Media Matters. Chris Wallace criticized ABC's editing, and noted that Charlie Gibson, with his glasses perched on the bridge of his nose, acted like teacher grilling a student in an examination. Apparently, Team McCain fumbled, not insisting on a live interview, with full transcript aired--a mistake Team Obama did not make with Bill O'Reilly. Kirsten Powers, a moderate pro-Democratic pundit and an honest one, exposes more ABC sins, in misrepresenting several matters by cropping context. Gibson made other glaring errors re "facts" he cited, noted below in the appropriate section.
Bill Kristol tallies MSM misses and concludes, in essence, per the Greeks, that those whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad. Tod Lindberg recounts an oldie to expose media hypocrisy: when a son of Al Gore's was busted with dope at his high school, Gore called around and asked that the papers leave the kid alone; they complied, a courtesy that Bristol Palin did not get for becoming pregnant. Michelle Malkin skewers "media moms" for attacking Palin's super-mom role.
Highlights:
National Security. Gibson pressed Palin on the Bush Doctrine, a term Palin did not clearly associate with pre-emption, which Gibson dated to Sept. 2002 and said that is the Doctrine's holding. But that Doctrine is broader, being in fact quadripartite. Palin's initial response, "In what respect, Charlie," was thus absolutely on point. It includes democracy promotion, from a June 2002 speech. It includes chasing those who harbor terrorists, from Bush's Sept. 2001 post-9/11 speech to Congress. Gibson himself is misinformed on this, as Palin may be also. And Charlie, listen up! Charles Krauthammer, perhaps first to use the label--in 2001, not 2002--adds
a fourth pillar: unilateralism: the Bush administration's rejection of
the Kyoto Treaty on climate change, and the ABM Treaty on arms
control. More accurately, the fourth pillar might be called conditional unilateralism:
America prefers to act in concert with allies, but is prepared to go it
alone if need be. In the event, Professor Charlie needs to study up
before he gives his next foreign policy history lecture.
N.B., Doctrines are never proclaimed formally as such by presidents; they are named by journalists and/or pundits, and then picked up by historians. The important point is does a candidate know the underlying concepts: Plain surely grasps the four pillars noted above. Palin set "legitimate and enough" intelligence as the predicate for a pre-emptive strike.
Palin sidestepped saying that she would "support" an Israeli strike on Iran. Such a direct answer would have caused a hornet's nest overseas--especially, in Israel, where the governing party holds a primary election Wednesday, to select its new Prime Minister. Palin properly, each time she was pressed by Gibson, answered that Israel as a sovereign nation is entitled to decide what best serves its needs for self-defense. That is always the answer any candidate or elected leader should give to any hypothetical question. Endorsement comes, if at all, after Israel takes a given action.
Gibson asked three times point blank whether Palin would go into Pakistan after terrorists, without Pakistan's consent. Palin wisely danced around this. Obama got into hot water in summer 2007 when he said that he would, if necessary, invade Pakistan to go after bin Laden; the statement caused a furor in Pakistan. Palin could not say "no" either, as such would contradict the covert policy that the Bush administration is conducting now, which no doubt has McCain's support. ("Covert" doesn't always mean truly secret--a covert policy may be known to all who
follow the issue in the press--but rather means that there is no official
acknowledgment of the policy.) A candidate cannot prudently advocate openly going into the territory of a country nominally allied with us, without that country's consent--especially a nuclear-armed Muslim nation. Not unless, that is, you wish to see riots in Pakistan and surging anti-Americanism. As to Georgia & Ukraine, in saying that they should join NATO, and that we would thus have to be prepared to go to war if they are attacked, Palin follows McCain's policy. (NATO signatories must go to war to help a member who is attacked.)
Palin stressed that energy is integral to national security. Asked if she had ever met a head of state, she indicated no, but noted that governors rarely do. Asked about travel, she added Canada & Mexico to her travel list (Kuwait & Germany). Gibson challenged her re Russia. Palin responded that Russia wrongly invaded a small democratic Georgia.
Asked about her 2007 statement re not focusing the surge in Iraq, Palin noted that she was focused on governing her state; the query came from a reporter for a state business publication. Her answer was reasonable. Asked about sanctions against Iran not working, she said we should continue them.
God--and Saddam--re the Iraq War. Gibson tried to nail Palin on having claimed that the Iraq War is one in which God is on our side, pursuant to God's plan. Their exchange:
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.
Sound familiar? Think of Obama's "God's, guns..." crack in San Francisco, that torpedoed his Pennsylvania primary chances. MSM types like Gibson think the same way, and the mask drops from time to time.
Re Saddam, Laurie Mylroie notes Sarah's comment about fighting in Iraq enemies who killed thousands on 9/11, and cites evidence that connections between Saddam and 9/11 may have been indirect: clandestine assistance. Millions of documents seized in Iraq may offer further clues, as time passes.
Biden. Palin on the election and experience: "It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume, maybe, that shows decades & decades in that Washington Establishment where yeah, they've had opportunity to meet heads of state." Point to Sarah.
Environment. Gibson pressed Palin about changing her position on whether global warming is man-made, Palin having answered partly so, when before, apparently, she said it was not man-made. Voters do not care much about this one, and Gibson can commiserate with Al Gore. She answered perfectly on her pro-drilling stance in Alaska, that she intends to persuade McCain to reconsider his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Palin noted the cyclical warming and cooling trends on our planet--"an inconvenient truth" Greens often elide. She attributed "some" climate change to "some" human activities.
Earmarks: "Bridge to Nowhere". Gibson pushed the "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy. Palin had initially supported it, then changed her mind. She explained that state officials often, in effect, play by the rules that exist, and apply for federal aid, but that the bridge became too much--a bridge too far, if the reader will excuse a pun. Gibson archly asked if Palin wanted to "revise and extend her remarks." That phrase is familiar to those who know how Members of Congress amend or add remarks never made or made awkwardly on the floor ("My opponent, a prize putzhead if ever there was one...." becomes, with editing, "My distinguished, honorable opponent...."). It is Beltway Lifer-speak only political junkies with Hill experience know. But it no doubt played well as inside baseball to media pals of Charlie. Palin explained that the $223 million Congress sent anyway (an extra $223 million was buried in the Federal Highway Trust Fund allocation for Alaska, rather than sent as a visible earmark) was applied to other purposes. Gibson pursued the matter, stating that Palin had not simply returned the extra FHTF dollars; Palin replied that she had accepted the money, as locals do, but put it to better use. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), chief opponent of the B-to-N, praised Palin for killing it back home.
Gibson asked Palin about the 2008 earmark for her state, of $155 million, $231 per capita for the state's 670,000 residents; he noted that Barack Obama's state, Illinois, got only $22 per capita in earmarks. With 12.8 million people, it got $282 million. At Alaska's level it would have gotten just shy of $2 billion. But this is always the case in Washington; small states have equal suffrage in the Senate, and can band together to veto any allocation they dislike. This is garden-variety federalism. Federal spending reform, if it comes, will be in sending fewer earmarked dollars back to the States, and/or in collecting fewer tax dollars in the first place, not in how those dollars are apportioned.
In all, Palin used her state's line-item veto (the power of the chief executive to veto specific line items in a bill, without vetoing the entire bill) to cut 10 percent of the spending proposed by the state legislature. There is no Federal line-item veto, so McCain would have to kill entire bills, a costly tactic if earmarks are attached as "riders" on a bill McCain might otherwise wish to sign. (Re earmarks, Obama has gotten a total of $936 million during his 4-year Senate tenure.)
Social Issues. Abortion, stem cells, guns, raising kids and holding high public office, were all covered. Palin's strongest answer came on why she opposes a semi-automatic (rapid single-shots) assault weapons ban. She ignored issues of defining such weapons for purposes of a useful law, or the improbability of keeping AK-47s out of the hands of anyone nastier than Grandma. Instead she explained how guns and their use, for protection and sport, are woven into the fabric of Alaskan life. An elegant answer elegantly given.
Economy. Asked the three Bush administration things to be changed: (1) reduce taxes; (2) control spending; (3) reform agencies. OFF THE TABLE FOR CUTS: Veterans; efficiencies only re entitlements. Fred Barnes points out that Palin has governed--like Reagan--as a pragmatic, not doctrinaire, conservative, even raising taxes (in her case, on oil companies). Gibson pressed Palin on becoming mayor of a debt-free Wasilla and departing with millions in red ink. Palin countered that she had put the $13 million bond issue for a new stadium on the ballot and voters approved it. Asked about what she would change in the Bush program, Palin said more oversight, as with Fannie & Freddie. Gibson challenged Palin on taxes, asserting that Obama's plan would cut taxes for 91 percent of taxpayers (Obama says it's 95), so how can the McCain - Palin ticket plausibly poses as tax cutters? Palin replied that given 94 votes to either cut taxes or oppose raising them, Obama voted every time with the higher-tax side.
"Troopergate" & Other "Gates." Plain was asked about the allegation that she improperly pressured the state to fire her former brother-in-law, a state trooper who had tasered her nephew (10 or 11 years old, not sure) and threatened her father. Palin said she welcomed the investigation. Voters will not penalize her if she leaned a bit, so long as no law was broken. And who, in a position of power, would not bring every lever to bear against someone who committed violence against a child nephew, and, owning a gun, threatened to kill her father? Let anyone who would be without sin in such a situation cast the first stone....
Gibson also asked her about the state paying a lobbyist $30k to represent Alaska's interests; Palin answered that it would be more expensive to fly across the continent. $30k? Sounds dirt cheap by Beltway standards: There are lobbyists who make that much in a week. The New York Times examines Todd Palin's role in Alaska politics and governance.
The Times also examines examples of cronyism in Palin's Alaska career. Of the first article, nothing jumps out as unusual for a political couple; of the second, even reformers have cronies. Cronies are OK if they are qualified. In political real-life, even unqualified cronies are often rewarded for years of loyal service; while not a good thing, if they are put in positions of little importance the damage can be limited. In truth, no one, in or out of politics, can meet a standard of perfect fairness as between friends and outsiders.
Spoofing Sarah. You knew it would happen: Saturday Night Live spoofed (5:10--link in middle of article) Palin. SNL pairs Amy Poehler reprising her dead-on Hillary with ex-SNL head writer Tina Fey playing Palin. It is quite funny, and spoofs Hillary equally as much as Palin. Enjoy dead-on mimicry by two real talents. The article includes, as well, a hilarious one-liner by Poehler, that recent polls show McCain--yes, McCain!--"only 6 points behind Sarah Palin."
"Palin Power" Politics. Gallup shows the generic gap between the parties, 55-40 in February, after Tsunami Tuesday, and 51-40 after the Denver Convention, to now be 48-45, a fortnight after St. Paul. Tod Lindberg cites a CNN poll showing Palin up 53-44 over Biden. Equally indicative may be the progress that GOP Senator John Sununu (NH) has made in his bid for re-election: Down under 40 percent a few months ago and labeled "the most endangered man in the Senate," Sununu is now running just two points--yes, only 2!--behind Gov. Jane Shaheen, whom he beat in 2002; Big Mac is running two points behind Obama in NH, but is popular in the state. Here is more evidence of Democratic panic. Here is added anecdotal evidence of Palin's galvanizing impact upon women. Dick Morris & Eileen McGann cite more evidence of Palin Power: on empathy with problems of average voters, it's Palin 33, Obama 32, Mac 17 & Biden 10, a 50-42 GOP ticket edge; moreover, 45% of voters think Palin has been hit with sexist attacks, versus 33% who think Obama has been racially attacked. Here is more material on lefty-feminist assaults on Palin. Michael Barone concludes that Palin has, to borrow fighter-jock parlance, gotten "inside the loop" of the Obama campaign.
Palin communicates well on television, with a plain-spoken clarity whose genuine flavor will make for mellifluous music in the ears of many ordinary voters. Given that the GOP stands accused--with some justification, to be sure--of having lost touch with ordinary Americans, and also given that Big Mac is a fighter-jock whose verbal formulations are scatter-shot, Palin adds much to the GOP ticket. She is a fresh face, a kind one, and yet there is a solid core. She'd probably give Mac a match in a marksmanship contest.
Back to Gibson Nights: Palin seemed ill at ease, understandable given the high stakes, on the first night, for the foreign policy session, issues largely new to her. But she was poised and chipper the second night. Her goal was not to hit a home-run, as at the convention last week; it was to avoid hitting into a double-play. In that, she succeeded the first night, having passed the first part of a far tougher
test than Barack Obama, at a comparable stage of his own candidacy, had
been subjected to. The second night, she hit a double.
Will Big Mac Sink Palin?. There is a video clip (not online, to my knowledge) from one of the GOP primary season debates that has McCain denigrating the credentials of those who have been mayors or governors for a short time. Which goes to show that in the age of universal recording, no one is likely to look pristine in the end. Then again, no one ever looked pristine to contemporaries in earlier times. Perfection is for the Next World.
Return of the Dragon? In the primary's Michelle Obama won from reporters the nickname of "the Closer"--she spoke effectively to undecided women. But she also spoke resentment-speak, and has been hidden in cold storage since the primaries, trotted out only for the Denver Convention scripted speech and Cosby-family shtik. Could the 1972 film "Return of the Dragon" foretell a titanic Palin-Michelle clash?
A Pre-October Surprise. Politico.com sees the weekend's Wall Street calamities--which Alan Greenspan calls the worst financial crisis in perhaps a century, a span that encompasses the Great Depression of the 1930s--upending both campaigns. An epic financial meltdown likely helps Democrats, although there is much reason to blame it on their protection of Fannie & Freddie, plus pushing subprime lending on lenient terms on reluctant financial institutions. This is the kind of tectonic event that could rapidly eclipse Sarah Palin's Meteor Moment.
The Ultimate October Surprise? As we enter the 2008 campaign season's final 50 days, every season Republicans worry about an October Surprise that shakes up the race. A faithful and perspicacious LFTC reader suggests one for 2008: Democrats, trailing badly after Biden gets creamed by Sarah come the Oct. 2 debate, decide to pull "a Bob Torricelli" and dump Biden in favor of Hillary, to reclaim defecting female voters. The scenario collapses if Biden wins the debate big, but he seems as likely to commit a mega-gaffe as does she. Why, though, would Hill take the spot if offered? Because, my sharp-witted LFTC reader says, Hillary would rather try to rescue a losing ticket in 2008, than face first-ever female Veep Palin from scratch in 2012 or 2016, when a victorious Palin likely will have supplanted Hill as the national female political icon. So Hill tries gamely to save the ticket. If Hill succeeds, she is the iconic Comeback Kid(ette); if she loses, it's Barack's fault, and thus Hill emerges with her standing intact. And thus would be set up 2012 or 2016's "Penthiselia Election," per Virgil's epic (lost to me since high school, 'til today), as the post-Big Mac presidential winner would then become America's
Penthisilea there, with haughty grace,
Leads to the wars an Amazonian race:
In their right hands a pointed dart they wield;
The left, for ward, sustains the lunar shield.
Athwart her breast a golden belt she throws,
Amidst the press alone provokes a thousand foes,
And dares her maiden arms to manly force oppose.
