September 14, 2008

The complete Palin interview with Gibson

Donald B. Hawthorne

Here is the complete transcript of the Palin interview with Gibson.

Now everyone can see what was edited out. NewBusters comments:

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context...

we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview...

We also see from Palin's...remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be...

Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia...That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out.

Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country...

Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out...Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor...

H/T Power Line.

And, after a performance like that, the MSM is upset over how IT is being treated. LOL.

You would think at some point these people would catch on that their behaviors and words make them come across like a bunch of partisan imbeciles.


The contrast is stark:

Sending lots of people into Alaska to investigate Palin's history is fine. Aggressively questioning Palin is fine.

But it is the double standard which is appalling. Not sending anybody into Chicago to do a similar investigation of PRESIDENTIAL candidate Obama doesn't cut it. What about Wright, Ayers, Woods Foundation, Rezko? There you have specific and explicitly known questionnable behaviors and affiliations by Obama and the MSM has no interest. Combining that with a lack of aggressive questioning of Obama about these dubious affiliations only magnifies the contrast, magnifies the bias. In addition, the MSM also don't even have any interest in digging into Obama's missing years earlier in his life.

But the MSM has spent months publishing glowing, uncritical stories about Obama, ignoring all the strange and seedy relationships in his past. Or his lack of experience and how easily rattled he has gotten. And then publish stories about Palin which contain either thin gruel or outright falsehoods. Flagrant contrast.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Ah, she can see Russia from her home in Alaska. Now I feel better about her diplomatic skills. After all, why bother with someone who has experienced the world outside of the United States or who has a "big, fat" resume as Palin so handily put it?

Oh, and to address just one item out of this thoroughly disturbing interview. Russia was "unprovoked" when it invaded Georgia. No one other than Ms. Palin believes that. The Russian response was surely disproportionate, but it certainly was not entirely unprovoked. Oh well, one can't expect her to remember of all the last-minute cramming she has done lately. After all, you can't make up for a lifetime of ignorance of the world in a few weeks.

Posted by: Pragmatist at September 14, 2008 2:58 PM

Gibson's questions and tone, while confrontational, were not particularly objectionable and were to be expected at some point during some interview. The problem with his questions and tone is a larger one reflective of the msm. Has anyone asked Senator Obama similarly challenging questions in the same tone? If not, why not?

The edited previews were unacceptable, however, because they conveyed false information about Palin. If they wanted to preview the interview to boost viewership, they needed to either show a complete question and answer or just air a shot from the interview of the two of them without audio, with a hyped up announcement, "Tonight, exclusively on ABC!!! Watch the BIG BIG BIG Sarah Palin interview!!! Don't miss it!!! ONLY on ABC!!! This is gonna be GREAT!!! (Did we mention exclusively???)" etc.

Posted by: Monique at September 14, 2008 4:32 PM

Lightweight is as lightweight does, and Palin is a lightweight. There's a Spanish proverb that fits her very well: "Pygmies stuffed and placed on the Alps, are pygmies still"


Posted by: OldTimeLefty at September 14, 2008 4:47 PM

And Obamessiah is a giant among men,right?
He's running for President by the way.
I heard him spout off about the "veteran's corps",and the "clean energy corps",and the "homeland security corps",blah,blah,etc.
how will this feelgood crap be paid for,and who will be hired to fill the jobs?Only those approved by people like Billy Ayers?I'm not joking about this.
In the Johnson era a large Chicago street gang,the Blackstone Rangers grabbed a huge chunk of poverty funds under the guise of "community leadership".A bunch of them went to the can,but not before the money disappeared into their pockets.

Posted by: joe bernstein at September 14, 2008 5:46 PM

"how will this feelgood crap be paid for"


Plus, Senator Obama would cut taxes for 91% of all Americans. Quite a trick considering that 40% of all Americans do not even pay taxes.

Posted by: Monique at September 14, 2008 10:04 PM

Monique said, "40% of all Americans do not even pay taxes."

Monique, with all due respect, there is no way that this can be even close to true. What is your source for this statement?

Posted by: Thomas Schmeling at September 14, 2008 11:28 PM

Mr.Schmeling-it really doesn't matter what exact percentage of Americans pay taxes-I know I certainly do,and as a taxpayer I don't want to hear this amateurish nonsense about various "corps"-is Obama planning on "organizing" the country?He seldom sounds grounded in reality.His idea of college tuition for "service" is BS.There already is such a program called the GI Bill.I used it to complete my education.Many thousands of others did also.The payment was in advance,my friend.

Posted by: joe bernstein at September 14, 2008 11:49 PM


"-it really doesn't matter what exact percentage of Americans pay taxes-"

Monique thinks it does, and that's enough for me. I was addressing her comment, not yours.

But, let me spare Monique the trouble, as I was only offering a friendly tweak, rather than an argument. What she meant to say (I hope!) was "40% of all Americans don't even pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES".

Whether or not that's true, Federal Income Tax is about 30% of the total taxes paid by Americans. FICA, SSI, Property taxes, excise taxes (gas, cigarettes, etc) together amount to a greater proportion of the total tax burden, and there is obviously no way that only 60% of Americans pay these. All of the above are also obviously more regressive than the income tax.

I was unaware that Obama had been claiming that his proposals would cut the income taxes for 91% of taxpayers, and I'd agree that's an odd claim. Of course, his proposals would clearly benefit a greater benefit to a much larger number of Americans than would McCain's.

Posted by: Thomas Schmeling at September 15, 2008 12:46 AM


This is from Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech...

I will -- listen now -- I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.

Posted by: Andrew at September 15, 2008 2:39 AM
Of course, his proposals would clearly benefit a greater benefit to a much larger number of Americans than would McCain's.

Well, at least until the economy begins to see the effects of wealthy folks' reaction. Less investment. Foreign shelters. Lower spending.

Posted by: Justin Katz at September 15, 2008 5:36 AM

"working families" 95% of all working families

I'm sure that we all share your concern about the patriotic reaction of the wealthy if the tax policies were to change to reflect a more equitable treatment of a majority of our citizens.

Mulitple Monique
One of you should be able to answer Thomas Schmeling.

Donald Hawthorne
Have you lost your appetite. Does a picture of Sarah cause your heart to thump? Oh how the staid republicans have lost their collective heads over this lady from the frozen north. So pure and white like the beautiful but terrible terrain your love inhabits. Never mind the fact that she would have been a hit had she had a speech for the convention much like Obama's in 2004. But Vice President? Really?

Posted by: Phil at September 15, 2008 8:04 AM

Maybe the people need to see what "progressive" economics does to a country. 20% interest rates and inflation, gas rationing. After 4 years of "Carter's Second Term" we'll see another quarter century of Republican presidents.

Posted by: Mike at September 15, 2008 8:08 AM

So Justin you admit the reality of Obama's Tax proposal, i.e. it would "benefit a much larger number of Americans than would McCain's" then attempt to counter with fear tactics. Fear and paranoia is where the Republicans live and all they have to offer is a noun, a verb and 9/11.

I see no reason to listen to a bunch of scare mongers who have fugged up this economy while a few of their cohorts pocket enormous personal wealth. In case you haven't looked were in a hell of a lot of financial trouble and the Republicans have been at the wheel for driving for the first six years and have been preventing steering adjustments for the last two. Face up and back off!

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at September 15, 2008 8:10 AM

Hey Phil:

When someone already has a Messiah, they don't need to go looking for one - be it Obama or Palin. LOL.

Besides, you are wandering off-topic - The subject of this post is the overt, in-your-face bias of the MSM, not some made-up adoration of Palin.

Unlike many on the Left, some of us set aside adoration practices for religious gods, not secular political "gods" from any political party!

Posted by: Donald B. Hawthorne at September 15, 2008 8:21 AM

Thomas-I know you were addressing Monique,but since this is an open forum and not a political science class,where one has to raise their hand,I just thought I would put my 2 cents in.
I don't think either party can necessarily cure the problems of the global economy we are entangled with,but on other issues there will be a world of difference.The MSM is generally left-leaning and it looks like they've been waiting for a chance to go in the tank for a left wing politician like Obama.The MSM leans left because journalism schools are run by academics who turned left in the Sixties and never looked back.

Posted by: joe bernstein at September 15, 2008 8:40 AM


Doesn't pointing out the "working families" caveat make Obama's position even less believable, as it implies he's going to pay for all of the government expansion he wants to do by raising taxes on less than 5% of all families?

Posted by: Andrew at September 15, 2008 10:44 AM

Buy a slide rule or learn some basic economics and you'll find out how much tax can equitably, and I mean equitably, be obtained by raising the Fab Five's taxes. It won't be much hardship on them since they'll only have to return one or two yachts to keep their mansions, private jets, and ice sculpture parties going.

"Observe how easily a crowd turns mob
Through ignorance of its wise rulers' job.
Work for and trust the powerful few.
What's best for them is best for you."

The powerful few have had their hands on the steering wheel of the economy. Your beloved saint, Ronald Ray-gun began the deregularization process which led us down this ruinous path that we are embarked upon, and you want more of the same couched in the borrowed phrase "Change". By "change" McCain means change Republican style which consists of polishing the edges while the body lies rotting inside.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at September 15, 2008 12:54 PM


Humor me: draw one link between Reagan deregulation and the state of the U.S. Economy today. Please.

Posted by: George at September 15, 2008 4:19 PM


You said Thomas-I know you were addressing Monique,but since this is an open forum and not a political science class,where one has to raise their hand,I just thought I would put my 2 cents in.

I would never suggest that you shouldn't say what you think on this forum; I was puzzled that you addressed a comment to me, personally, regarding a subject on which I had expressed no opinion at all.

On the flip side, in my classes I feel obliged to attempt to answer any question posed to me, as long as he is at least marginally related to the topic I'm talking about. Here, thankfully, I have no such obligation.

Posted by: Thomas Schmeling at September 15, 2008 6:07 PM

Thomas-I must've taken it the wrong way.It's not like you can hear a tone of voice on a blog.No biggie.

Posted by: joe bernstein at September 15, 2008 9:06 PM

Goodness, it's nice to be clamored for. Thanks, Phil.

Wait a minute. 95% of working families get a tax break? So working individuals like myself will see our taxes go the other way?? Forget it. I'm not voting for Obama.

As for candidates who have made speeches at party conventions. Phil. Are you saying the only substantive basis for Senator Obama's candidacy is that speech he made a couple of years ago? And conversely, if Gov Palin had made a similar speech in a similar circumstance, you would have supported her for President?

Posted by: Monique at September 15, 2008 9:45 PM

10 chickens in every pot. Paid for by CUTTING taxes for 95%? Anyone remember what happened to those kids who followed the Pied Piper?

Posted by: Mike at September 16, 2008 8:23 AM

All of this talk about taxes is a farce. John McCain has lost credibility in my eyes for a number of reasons, but the main one is that he said "I will not raise your taxes". I'm not for bigger government by any stretch, but can you tell me how we will pay for what we have promised our baby boomer generation in terms of Social Security? Does the GAO lie when they say it will go bankrupt in a short 22 years? Our problem is not the addition of new programs (although that is a problem), it is that we can't pay for what we have already promised. Why should I continue to pay into SS when I know that I will likely not see a dime of it? Neither candidate has presented a plan that will cut spending enough (or at all, with specifics, as far as I can tell) to bring these obligations under control. I guess we'll just print money when the day comes. The printers will be going full speed already to pay for Cost Of Living adjusted State and Federal pensions and Medicare.

In the clip, the man who could have been the best candidate rips into the practice of earmarks and rightfully so. But then he (or was it Rove) selects a VP candidate who hired lobbyists to bring the Pork home? Can we simply discard that? Enough about Palin. Our beloved Carcieri is more qualified. If it had to be a woman, why not Fiorentina who stumps so eloquently for the cause and who has international experience? Oh right, she doesn't have a gun license.

The RNC has once again made this election about single issues that may be important in our hearts but don't really effect the viability of our economy or the future of our broader society. The heartland has been skillfully convinced to vote against their financial interests. What percent of the 95% of working families (or working individuals) out there would an increased capital gains tax have? How many people do you know that the so called Death Tax effect? (I know it is all principle.) Are we OK with leaving the status quo where income inequality is greater than ever?

If only either party would address the real issues. All of this pandering, all of this back and forth about non-issues is sickening. Ron Paul would not have made a good President, but we should listen to much of what he had to say.

Posted by: Voter Abroad at September 16, 2008 10:27 AM

Geo. In the future, please refer to me as OTL or OldTimeLefty and keep your insouciance to yourself. Now to answer your question; you can read Thomas Friedman's "The Earth Is Flat". If that's too much try digesting this:

The raids on American companies started in the 1980's under Ronald Reagan. Remember the S&L debacle - I'm sure any supporter of McCain would want to forget Keating. Companies were acquired by hostiles with junk bonds, pensions were stolen, benefits were cut, money was borrowed using the company as collateral and then sold. Many companies were hard pressed just to survive--some did not. Then the Raiders did the same thing to cities, counties, and even state governments.

Are you humored yet?

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at September 16, 2008 10:36 AM

A tanning bed in every basement!

Posted by: rhody at September 16, 2008 12:01 PM

"Are we OK with leaving the status quo where income inequality is greater than ever?

... Ron Paul would not have made a good President, but we should listen to much of what he had to say."

Do these two statements belong together, Voter Abroad? If elected President, would Ron Paul try to close income inequities?

Moreover, should we try to close income inequities? If so, how?

Posted by: Monique at September 16, 2008 3:21 PM


Did you actually read Thomas Friedman’s novel? He attributes his economic thesis primarily to globalization and new technology in addition to the lowering of trade and political barriers. Also the lowering of trade barriers and globalization started well before the Reagan years but even so, blaming him is false because it’s Congress that makes those laws and which party controlled both houses of Congress from 1980-1988?

And the S&L debacle, another stain on capitalism, right? That’s a powerful argument only assuming that there are no examples of economic harms occurring under socialism. Not at all. That’s why there are so many examples of prosperous socialist economies throughout the world.

Posted by: msteven at September 16, 2008 4:30 PM

My point with Ron Paul is that at least he realizes that we are on the brink. For the fiscally conservative party to ignore this is mind boggling. For the Democrats who are supposed to champion these social programs, it is incompetence. Heck, Harry Reid says Social Security is sound and just needs a few tweaks!

Why won't McCain make fixing Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid a priority? Did I miss this in the speeches at the Republican Convention? I suspect he knows, that should he win, he won't be able to do much of anything with a Democratic Congress. Our politicians on either side aren't mature enough to work together to make our country work, so Democratic obstinacy could possibly be the excuse for the next four years. They will blame each other, point fingers, and try to win control by the slimmest of margins in the NEXT election so they can ram decisions down the other sides throat.

Just as likely, McCain knows that to make these programs sustainable in the long run he either needs to cut benefits significantly now, telling the neo-boomers that the Social Security check they were counting on for a meager subsistence is going to be much smaller than expected, or he needs to RAISE YOUR TAXES.

The alternative to these (which becomes a more likely scenario as the days pass) is that they will just pass the buck, and the government, whoever is in control in 2030, will just say "Sorry guys, it was a pyramid scheme, you should have saved more." Passing the buck is the only way that McCain's "I will not raise your taxes" is not a lie. I am sick of my President lying to me. I am sick that we will be passing this burden on to our children. At least Obama is honest (on this point).

To Big to Fail. If we do reach the brink and have to start printing money to make good on our promises, the TreasuryNotes, Bonds, and Bills we currently view as Risk Free will be worth the equivalent of today's Credit Default Swaps and CDOs. No one will buy them, our interest rates will sky-rocket. Which of the Sovereign Wealth Funds will bail us out?

Regarding income inequality, I think it is undisputed that our economic system is set up so that that the rich get richer, the middle class get taken advantage of, and the poor just get left behind. From education to job opportunities, the prosperity of the upper middle class and wealthy is a given; hopelessness in the lowest classes is perpetual. There are instances where people break out, and they should be commended. I believe in personal responsibility and accountability and that those who work hard will be rewarded. But overall the social status you are born in to in this country to a very high degree determines where you will be as an adult. Is the opportunity equal for all? It is not. I guess as a society we just can't afford it.

I'm not advocating that those on the lower rung should just be given more tax payer sponsored hand-outs, but I do say we have to look at the highest earners and ask ourselves if they are really worth it. Are the outgoing CEOs of Fannie and Freddy really worth a guaranteed Golden Parachute of $25 Million combined? Did all those poor bankers on Wall Street, even those that have lost their jobs, that just cleared $450K bonuses at a minimum, (most middle execs more than $1.5Mn with salaries above $300K or so) really earn that? Why do we let our fund managers skim a percentage of assets? Do they work harder with more money under management? For that matter, why do we pay our real estate agents 6% of the price, regardless of how much the house is worth or how much work was actually done? We need to re-evaluate what we pay people at the top and hope that that money can either find its way back to share holders or return to the economy through higher wages to the workers. This is not an answer to the disparities between the high and low, but it would be a start.

Missing the Maverick McCain. The one I believed could get things done.

Posted by: Voter Abroad at September 16, 2008 5:30 PM