CM - 15 September 2008 12:01 AM

Saying the Iraq war is ‘God’s will

She didn’t.  Classic misrepresentation of a larger statement.  Talk about proof as to why she should have been hesitant to an interview.  There may be more to the whole “‘blame the media’ roadshow” than you apparently think.

CM - 14 September 2008 10:47 PM

Sethery - 14 September 2008 10:19 PM

Of course we on the right are interested in policy issues.  We’re just willing to give some time for everybody (e.g., media) to come around to it.  In the meantime, it is very relevant how fairly the media treats her.  Her policy positions may affect my vote, but the media portrayal may affect everybody else’s!

This ain’t a brain teaser.

It just seems that if this whole ‘blame the media’ roadshow might keep on trucking right through until election day and nobody will know anything about who they’ve voting for/against. Considering people are upset that they don’t know enough about Obama, I can only assume they must be beside themselves seething with anger that in only 7 weeks they could have someone so unknown at VP.

Where was this cynicism when Obama was running for POTUS for months and months on Hope and Change?  What has Biden said that you can really chew on?

Exactly how have the media treated her unfairly?

Not only is it already being pointed out here, but this:

CM - 15 September 2008 12:01 AM

Saying the Iraq war is ‘God’s will…

shows me that you’re not even treating her fairly!

While we are at it, newsbusters has the section of the Palin interview with Gibson regarding Russia and NATO up with the edited out for TV sections bolded. Apparently she did the required hand-wringing-to-suggest-nuance… that I suspect CM requires of people… but they edited it all out. CM doesn’t like how Palin came across after the editing. Their work was done right then. :) No bias though, thats just silly.

sl0re - 15 September 2008 01:15 AM

CM - 15 September 2008 12:01 AM

Saying the Iraq war is ‘God’s will, robotic chanting of ancient Bush propaganda lines, and casually saying there might be a war with Europe - the codes Palin is offering are sufficient to over-ride any desire to know whether she’s actually up to it? Ideology trumps ability? It’s more important that any alarm that she’s so clearly reciting from cheat sheets (again)?

You lost me after this paragraph…
That’s based an intentional misquote spread by democrats (and their MSM pals like the AP and Gibson) regarding God and the Iraq war.. a few words at the start are always left out. With the extra words it shows she prayed / hoped we were on God’s side / doing the right thing… rather than affirming it as fact that we were. Which all things considered, it shows a lot humility and wisdom to say that.... A lot of people have been hurt by the war and we all hope we were right vs. just knowing we are / were. Your trying to slam her for saying that.

Causally saying Nato is treaty bound to aid allies… trying to make something of that too. Duh, Nato helps allies when attacked. Everyone in the race supports allowing Nato expansion to the states considered provocative to Russia… So unless O! and Biden don’t support aiding Nato allies under attack… this is a non point.

Obviously you’ve heard the code too CM as she is driving you nuts too and or the message is the dems can only hope to win over Americas with spin, misdirection, and misrepresentations.... which tracks with my point… if they really heard their positions they’d side with her. The dems know it too.

Sure looks like I got fooled on the ‘God’s will’ one. A case of not doing enough research. My bad.
You’re right, she phrased it well.

They’d side with her objection to abortion after rape? Or is that false as well?

Xetrov - 15 September 2008 10:00 AM

CM - 15 September 2008 12:01 AM

Saying the Iraq war is ‘God’s will

She didn’t.  Classic misrepresentation of a larger statement.  Talk about proof as to why she should have been hesitant to an interview.  There may be more to the whole “‘blame the media’ roadshow” than you apparently think.

I didn’t get that from any mainstream source, and clearly I was tricked into thinking it was accurate.
(Hey, now you can admit that you engaged in the same ‘classic misrepresentation of a larger statement’ in terms of Obama and the surge!)

That’s no reason why people standing for high office shouldn’t be interviewed. That would be ridiculous.

CM - 15 September 2008 05:11 PM

(Hey, now you can admit that you engaged in the same ‘classic misrepresentation of a larger statement’ in terms of Obama and the surge!)

You’re going to have to spell that one out for me in the relevant thread.  The entire statement is quoted and in the link.

Sethery - 15 September 2008 10:08 AM

Where was this cynicism when Obama was running for POTUS for months and months on Hope and Change?  What has Biden said that you can really chew on?

There is a substantial amount of interviews and voting records on all manner of topics.
Obama has had all his positions and policies spelled out over pages and pages on his website.
How is that even remotely similar to someone who nobody had even heard of, and who has no public record in areas of importance like foreign affairs?

sl0re - 15 September 2008 05:06 PM

While we are at it, newsbusters has the section of the Palin interview with Gibson regarding Russia and NATO up with the edited out for TV sections bolded. Apparently she did the required hand-wringing-to-suggest-nuance… that I suspect CM requires of people… but they edited it all out. CM doesn’t like how Palin came across after the editing. Their work was done right then. :) No bias though, thats just silly.

If that is what happened then that is terrible. I’ll have a look at that.

CM - 15 September 2008 05:08 PM

Sure looks like I got fooled on the ‘God will’ one. A case of not doing enough research. My bad.
You’re right, she phrased it well.

They’d side with her objection to abortion after rape? Or is that false as well?

I believe (but do not know) it is false because I can not find her objection to abortion after rape. As a result, I believe they take the general objection to abortion and they decided that means she is also opposed for rape (and/or decided to tell you that)… without actually asking her.

I can’t prove the negative and say it is false… but I can’t find her saying she is opposed. If she is not opposed, then this whole argument is classic spin (against abortion =’s against abortion after rape, incest, et cetera). If it is right (but no previous record exists of this opinion) then they guessed right. Last of all, if someone has her words from an old interview saying she is opposed, ok… then they’re right (but after the phony library list of banned books, I’d check any citations).

CM - 15 September 2008 05:11 PM

That’s no reason why people standing for high office shouldn’t be interviewed. That would be ridiculous.

That’s about as non sequitur as it gets.

sl0re - 15 September 2008 05:25 PM

CM - 15 September 2008 05:08 PM

Sure looks like I got fooled on the ‘God will’ one. A case of not doing enough research. My bad.
You’re right, she phrased it well.

They’d side with her objection to abortion after rape? Or is that false as well?

I believe (but do not know) it is false because I can not find her objection to abortion after rape. As a result, I believe they take the general objection to abortion and they decided that means she is also opposed for rape (and/or decided to tell you that)… without actually asking her.

I can’t prove the negative and say it is false… but I can’t find her saying she is opposed. If she is not opposed, then this whole argument is classic spin (against abortion =’s against abortion after rape, incest, et cetera). If it is right (but no previous record exists of this opinion) then they guessed right. Last of all, if someone has her words from an old interview saying she is opposed, ok… then they’re right (but after the phony library list of banned books, I’d check any citations).

This seems to be the report on a debate held between the contenders for Governor:

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother’s life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, “I would choose life.”

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

McCain’s wife seems to confirm it:

MCCAIN: I’m pro-life, I’m on the record as being pro-life, like my husband.

COURIC: So, do you oppose it even in the cases of rape and incest?

MCCAIN: No.

COURIC: No? So, that’s where you two differ--

MCCAIN: Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/cindy-mccain-says-she-dis_n_123545.html

Sethery - 15 September 2008 06:04 PM

CM - 15 September 2008 05:11 PM

That’s no reason why people standing for high office shouldn’t be interviewed. That would be ridiculous.

That’s about as non sequitur as it gets.

He suggested it shows why she’s right be be hesitant to be interviewed.
Well maybe, but this is no time for kid-gloves.

CM - 15 September 2008 06:05 PM

Makes some sense but I do not consider it a good apples to apples statement. Own daughter is a family / personal issue. What does she think about public policy? Another view of the same thing, in most cases you can’t force your daughter to have a baby. Appeals / arguments that they don’t have an abortion are not the use of [government] coercion / force to make sure they don’t. Palin is perfectly free to make appeals to rape victims to not have abortions. They are perfectly free to ignore her or even tell her to STFU… until she says she supports taking away the choice to have one in these cases.

CM - 15 September 2008 05:13 PM

Sethery - 15 September 2008 10:08 AM

Where was this cynicism when Obama was running for POTUS for months and months on Hope and Change?  What has Biden said that you can really chew on?

There is a substantial amount of interviews and voting records on all manner of topics.

Which was the first hard-hitting Obama interview that impressed you?  How soon was it after he announced he was running for POTUS?

Obama has had all his positions and policies spelled out over pages and pages on his website.

So how do you think Obama would have handled the Georgia/Russia situation?  Should the VP candidate have a separate policy/issue page than their upper runningmate?  Does Biden?

How is that even remotely similar to someone who nobody had even heard of, and who has no public record in areas of importance like foreign affairs?

How much foreign policy experience did Obama have before his European tour a few months ago?

If you haven’t noticed, my point isn’t actually a direct comparison between Obama and Palin.  It’s a contrast of your treatments of each.  You seem willing to do any research necessary to defend Obama from various allegations, but you bought the “God’s task” line without seemingly a second thought.  That was an error in judgement not too far from the “Obama is a Muslim” believers.  At least you admitted the bad and took the hit.  But I also hope you’re more critical about the things you hear and read.  You said you didn’t get the idea from the MSM, but you might as well have.  The interview was edited to make it sound so.

sl0re - 15 September 2008 06:30 PM

CM - 15 September 2008 06:05 PM

Makes some sense but I do not consider it a good apples to apples statement. Own daughter is a family / personal issue. What does she think about public policy? Another view of the same thing, in most cases you can’t force your daughter to have a baby. Appeals / arguments that they don’t have an abortion are not the use of [government] coercion / force to make sure they don’t. Palin is perfectly free to make appeals to rape victims to not have abortions. They are perfectly free to ignore her or even tell her to STFU… until she says she supports taking away the choice to have one in these cases.

Isn’t this the ‘judgment’ thing though? Presumably we won’t know what her public policy position is until she’s already elected. So all people can use to make an assessment of her is her personal opinion. I’m sure there are many people out there that are astounded at that extreme position, regardless of whether it’s personal or a public policy position. If she can justify that kind of thing to herself, she might very well be able to justify it as a public position.

CM - 15 September 2008 07:11 PM

sl0re - 15 September 2008 06:30 PM

CM - 15 September 2008 06:05 PM

Makes some sense but I do not consider it a good apples to apples statement. Own daughter is a family / personal issue. What does she think about public policy? Another view of the same thing, in most cases you can’t force your daughter to have a baby. Appeals / arguments that they don’t have an abortion are not the use of [government] coercion / force to make sure they don’t. Palin is perfectly free to make appeals to rape victims to not have abortions. They are perfectly free to ignore her or even tell her to STFU… until she says she supports taking away the choice to have one in these cases.

Isn’t this the ‘judgment’ thing though? Presumably we won’t know what her public policy position is until she’s already elected. So all people can use to make an assessment of her is her personal opinion. I’m sure there are many people out there that are astounded at that extreme position, regardless of whether it’s personal or a public policy position. If she can justify that kind of thing to herself, she might very well be able to justify it as a public position.

I’d rather work on getting the question answered by her than ponder speculation / spin from partisans.

She’s already said a few things about abortion policy in general and not thinking she has a right to push her personal opinions on people (a good western conservative - libertarian view IMO rather than a dodge… its the way people think where I grew up). This should be the follow up to those kinds of questions. I think she might say she wouldn’t want it for her family but she’ll follow the law… and she doesn’t make law on this subject (this is an exec position, not legislative). Supreme court justices? No litmus tests and even if Roe were overturned (which it should be since it was the court creating law), it would not prevent the states from keeping abortion legal.

Sethery - 15 September 2008 06:42 PM

Which was the first hard-hitting Obama interview that impressed you?  How soon was it after he announced he was running for POTUS?

I’m not aware that there have been any. But then we have to work a lot harder over here to find out what is going on. Which is kinda why it’s important to find out what you guys are looking at, finding objectionable etc.
Obama’s positions on these things should be obvious and he should be grilled as well. I’ve never said there should be different treatment. All politicians standing for top positions should be put through the wringer by the press.
But Obama has had to make numerous policy statements on all manner of topics. He hasn’t been able to answer ‘hope and change’ all the time. Pick a topic and there is bound to be some public statement or published position in relation to it.

Should the VP candidate have a separate policy/issue page than their upper runningmate?  Does Biden?

Biden’s long history is on record. Palin doesn’t have a record that voters can rely on in terms of knowing whether she is knowledgeable enough or up to the task in any manner of areas. The clock is counting down for her build one. Early voting begins in 14 days.
She’s also much more likely to be President than Biden.

How much foreign policy experience did Obama have before his European tour a few months ago?

He’s been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a start. He partnered with GOP Senator Richard Lugar in efforts to fight proliferation of nuclear weapons. He advocated a regional conference involving Syria and Iran as one part of an ultimate Iraq solution. He seeks significant changes in U.S.-Cuba policy.
He’s also had 2 years of being asked (in public) his opinion on whatever was happening in the world at the time. People have been able to judge for themselves whether he sounded like he knew what he was talking about and whether his approach sounded like a good one.

Here are a few published positions from 2005-2007:

Renewing American Leadership, Obama’s article from Foreign Affairs magazine, July/August 2007
Remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, April 2007
A Way Forward in Iraq, November 2006
Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet , April 2006
America’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy , May 2005

http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/2008presidentialrace/p/bobama.htm

He’s also lived in a foreign country, which is a minor thing in terms of this (especially as he was only 10), but I believe it does add another dimension.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1695803,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

Are you seriously suggesting there isn’t a rather large gap between that and having NO public record of ANY positions on any world affair?

If you haven’t noticed, my point isn’t actually a direct comparison between Obama and Palin.  It’s a contrast of your treatments of each. 

Same. If the Dems had put up someone like Palin the posters on this forum would be laughing and ripping her to shreds (’We can see Russia from here!’ - pleeeease!). I’m questioning the complete lack of cynicism over Palin being a good candidate for VP and being defended at every step.

You seem willing to do any research necessary to defend Obama from various allegations

Mostly because when an allegation is made, I look it up. And I find pretty quickly and easily it’s usually a little different to how it’s being portrayed.

but you bought the “God’s task” line without seemingly a second thought.

True, that was a mistake on my part. I was pretty rushed yesterday and didn’t look into it deeply enough - so it was without a second thought indeed. I’m glad I was wrong.

That was an error in judgement not too far from the “Obama is a Muslim” believers.

It’s not something I was hanging my hat on. I’m also not American, or going around actively trying to mislead people that don’t know any better.
Also, I’m fully aware that anything remotely innaccurate in relation an ‘attack’ on Palin or ‘defence’ of Obama will get immediately corrected on this forum.
I wonder whether (or how quickly) I would be corrected here if I made an inaccurate claim about Obama?

At least you admitted the bad and took the hit.  But I also hope you’re more critical about the things you hear and read.

Although it’s a poor excuse, I was rushed for time and didn’t do enough research on that one. I shouldn’t have said it without doing the necessary spade work.

You said you didn’t get the idea from the MSM, but you might as well have.  The interview was edited to make it sound so.

Sounds like it, yeah. No doubt about it - that is a shocker. I’m join you all in opposing that way of doing things.

sl0re - 15 September 2008 07:20 PM

I’d rather work on getting the question answered by her than ponder speculation / spin from partisans.

Sounds good to me. Do you think she’ll get asked the question by Hannity? Do you think she’ll provide an unequivacle answer?

She’s already said a few things about abortion policy in general and not thinking she has a right to push her personal opinions on people (a good western conservative - libertarian view IMO rather than a dodge… its the way people think where I grew up).

Sounds good to me again.

This should be the follow up to those kinds of questions. I think she might say she wouldn’t want it for her family but she’ll follow the law… and she doesn’t make law on this subject (this is an exec position, not legislative). Supreme court justices? No litmus tests and even if Roe were overturned (which it should be since it was the court creating law), it would not prevent the states from keeping abortion legal.

Surely this is the public discussion that is needed to clear this up and make it go away? Or would it offend those she’s trying to appeal to?

CM - 15 September 2008 07:42 PM

sl0re - 15 September 2008 07:20 PM

I’d rather work on getting the question answered by her than ponder speculation / spin from partisans.

Sounds good to me. Do you think she’ll get asked the question by Hannity? Do you think she’ll provide an unequivacle answer?

She’s already said a few things about abortion policy in general and not thinking she has a right to push her personal opinions on people (a good western conservative - libertarian view IMO rather than a dodge… its the way people think where I grew up).

Sounds good to me again.

This should be the follow up to those kinds of questions. I think she might say she wouldn’t want it for her family but she’ll follow the law… and she doesn’t make law on this subject (this is an exec position, not legislative). Supreme court justices? No litmus tests and even if Roe were overturned (which it should be since it was the court creating law), it would not prevent the states from keeping abortion legal.

Surely this is the public discussion that is needed to clear this up and make it go away? Or would it offend those she’s trying to appeal to?

Hannity won’t ask it but I wouldn’t mind someone asking it. She can turn it around on O! since he is abortion extremist in his own ways… I think she would answer it much I like suggested up above. Thats simply expanding a bit on what I’ve heard her say before… plus I actually buy it (the ‘I may not like it but I’ll follow the law… and I don’t make law’)… its along how I think so I know it is a honest and valid opinion…

sl0re - 16 September 2008 01:14 AM

Hannity won’t ask it but I wouldn’t mind someone asking it. She can turn it around on O! since he is abortion extremist in his own ways… I think she would answer it much I like suggested up above. Thats simply expanding a bit on what I’ve heard her say before… plus I actually buy it (the ‘I may not like it but I’ll follow the law… and I don’t make law’)… its along how I think so I know it is a honest and valid opinion…

I hadn’t heard about Obama’s extreme views on abortion - will have to look that up.

CM - 15 September 2008 07:11 PM

sl0re - 15 September 2008 06:30 PM

CM - 15 September 2008 06:05 PM

Makes some sense but I do not consider it a good apples to apples statement. Own daughter is a family / personal issue. What does she think about public policy? Another view of the same thing, in most cases you can’t force your daughter to have a baby. Appeals / arguments that they don’t have an abortion are not the use of [government] coercion / force to make sure they don’t. Palin is perfectly free to make appeals to rape victims to not have abortions. They are perfectly free to ignore her or even tell her to STFU… until she says she supports taking away the choice to have one in these cases.

Isn’t this the ‘judgment’ thing though? Presumably we won’t know what her public policy position is until she’s already elected. So all people can use to make an assessment of her is her personal opinion. I’m sure there are many people out there that are astounded at that extreme position, regardless of whether it’s personal or a public policy position. If she can justify that kind of thing to herself, she might very well be able to justify it as a public position.

Here’s the thing that I don’t understand:
Obama is heavily criticised for ‘associations’ he’s had in his past. As far as I know, there is no evidence he shares any of the objectional opinions of the relevant people, let alone advocates that any of their opinions/positions would be his public policy positions. However his judgement is apparently under serious question (to the point where he is simply unfit to be POTUS) simply because of the ‘association’. No matter what his opinion on any relevant matter might be.
There is evidence (and none to the contrary) that Palin holds a very exteme view on abortion. But that apparently doesn’t have any bearing on ‘judgment’ because it’s a legitimate personal opinion. And yet Obama is able to be judged (heavily) solely on his ‘associations’, despite no indication that he’s ever taken on a personal opinion in common with those ‘associates’.
Can someone explain to me how that works?