Yet more hay being made on the airwaves of late about Governor Palin. Her inteview last week was interesting. After watching it I came away with a couple of serious questions.

Number one...how the hell can you not have at least some idea what the Bush Doctorine is?

And number two, just how much of that interview was edited out?

The whole thing just sounds stilted and canned. It's certain it was edited...it took them a week to air it after they actually interviewed her. And it's to be expected that they'd trim some of it for time, but how much they trimmed it is the question. It seems extremely odd that anyone who is even marginally interested in government would be so short sighted on some of the answers to the questions posed. And it just really didn't flow very well either.

Well it turns out that the interview was fairly heavily edited. Apparently the original tape has been obtained and there are transcripts available in various places. I saw one that I've posted part of here.

For example...Gibson asked her about Georgia being admitted into NATO. What was played in the interview was:

 

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

What they edited out is what followed that sentence:

PALIN Continues:

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

This type of thing happened quite a bit throughout the interview, and it's pretty evident that what was cut substantially changes the tone, pacing and the content of the interview. There's more you can read here.

What it looks like is that they tried to get a gotcha by making her look less knowledgeable than she is...which is a helluva thing for one of the major networks to do.

We certainly need to have a few more interviews with Palin to really get to know her, but quite frankly I think that everyone is missing the boat here.

The fact of the matter is, she's not running for President. She's running for Vice President...and all the press and all the invective is centered on her...which is stupid. The discussion should be centered on the candidates for President. And what's more, half the people centered on Palin are going after personal bullshit that has nothing to do with her candidacy. Insinuations about her children and about her fitness to be in office as a mother are alienating women at an alarming rate. Constant cracks about her small town roots and about all things rural by the east cost big city elite are alienating a large portion of the electorate who also come from the same humble stock.

And of all the issues that could be questioned, they're going after ones that democrats themselves are guilty of. The same people who defended the Kerry "i voted for it before I voted against it" are now pounding Palin for the bridge to nowhere. The same people who defend Obama for listing "community leader" as leadership experience are now deriding Palin for being the mayor a small city.

Get off the bullshit express kids. McCain is the target. Palin is just a distraction...and you're buying it, hook line and sinker. Get back on the bus and turn it around before you drive your candidate right off the cliff with you.

peace,
Aielman

S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate " whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion."

 

Now that's an interesting strategy for getting votes. I hope Obama thanks her for her contribution to his campaign.

Maybe he can get Corrine Brown to say all white republicans look alike to her like hispanic republicans do.

 

peace,
Aielman

From Shacknews...

Ever watch the same disaster movie twice and find yourself trying to warn off the actors?

 

 

Some gamers might be doing the same after checking out this photograph  which appears to show an unwitting Gordon Freeman standing in the CERN test

 

peace,
Aielman

Many of my liberal blogger friends, when, ironically, they're not overly concerned with Sarah Palin's personal life, like to point out, over and over...and over...that Sarah Palin is for abstinence only education, while snickering about her daughter's pregancy.

Here's the thing. I don't think they understand what abstinence only education means.

Abstinence only means you don't have an explicit sex education program. It doesn't mean you don't explain what birth control is. It means you don't give explicit instuctions about sexuality.

Palin, in point of fact, disagrees with McCain who not only wants abstinence only, but doesn't think birth control should be discussed either. She said as much during her Gubernatorial run, which was written about in the LA Times yesterday.

In her own words, Palin said:

 "Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

Mind you, this was in 2006...2 years before her daughter got pregnant, so it's not something they just whipped up for teh campaign.

McCain, stupidly in my opinion, thinks that message is too confusing to teens, but seeing as it's been 54 years since he was 19, maybe he doesn't remember how smart kids can be.

peace,
Aielman

Commentary: Last thing we need now is a great leader

Obama and McCain both promise a government that will watch over us ... "I don't like that," says Penn Jillette.

(CNN) -- Everyone I talk to seems to think the president of the United States right now is stupid.

The Bush presidency is stupid speeches, stupid high gas prices, stupid bad economy, stupid war on terrorism, stupid war on drugs, stupid hurricane fixing, stupid global warming, stupid war -- stupid, stupid, stupid.

They all seem to think we need to get a smarter guy in the White House fast, and Bush is so stupid, that task shouldn't be too hard.

Not me.

I'd like to say that I believe every president in United States history, including the stupid one we have now, is smarter than me. My alma mater is Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Greatest Show on Earth Clown College, so I'm damning with faint praise, but I'm stupider than this here stupid president.

Maybe I'm less stupider than Bush than I'm stupider than Jefferson. But I'm stupider than all the stupid in both of them put together.

The idea, especially from the Democrats that I know, is, we just get a smarter guy in the White House, and all the problems will go away. We'll have smart speeches, smart high gas prices, smart bad economy, smart war on terrorism, smart war on drugs, smart hurricanes, smart global warming, smart war in Georgia -- smart, smart, smart.

Barack Obama is way smarter than Bush -- so way, way smarter than me. Obama is way more charismatic than me. He did his big speech for about 80,000 people; I'll do my show tonight in Vegas for about 1,000 people. He's more ambitious than I; he's going to be the next president of the United States, and I couldn't even get to week three of "Dancing with the Stars."

Obama is a great leader. He can fire people up and get them to do what he wants. He does smart speeches that promise everyone everything they need and make us feel good about our country and how much greater our government could be.

But I don't think our next president being a great leader is a good thing.

I'm worried about someone smarter than Bush taking over that tremendous power. Charisma and ambition increase my fear exponentially, and a great leader scares me to death.

We need someone stupid enough to understand that the president of the United States can't solve many problems without taking away freedom and therefore shouldn't try. The only reason John McCain scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win. They both promise a government that will watch over us, and I don't like that.

I don't want anyone as president who promises to take care of me. I may be stupid, but I want a chance to try to be a grown-up and take care of my family. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, and that's what I want. I don't want anyone to feel my pain or tell me to ask what we can do for our country, or give us all money and take care of us.

Gene Healy at the Cato Institute explains that the Founding Fathers wanted the president "to faithfully execute the laws, defend the country from attack and check Congress with the veto power whenever it exceeded its constitutional bounds."

That sounds like plenty to me. You gotta be smarter than me to do all that, but you don't have to be as smart as Obama, and you sure don't have to be a great leader.

Our first seven presidents averaged a bit more than three public speeches a year, and they didn't promise jobs for everyone, day care, dental exams and free stuff.

It's really hard to find someone who trusts Americans to take care of themselves and each other without government force. It's hard to find someone running for president who would be content to be what George Washington humbly called the "chief magistrate."

I think Ron Paul and Bob Barr mean it when they say they want much smaller government. But the government is already big enough, powerful enough and bipartisan enough (and "bi" means exactly two and no more) that Ron and/or Bob won't even be in the debates. People won't even hear someone suggesting that our president should do less and individual citizens should do more for themselves.

The choice shouldn't be which lesser of two evils should have the enormous power of our modern presidents. The question should be, who would do less as president? Who would leave us alone?

If we could find a lazier, less charismatic, stupider person than me to be president, I'd be all for it. But, it's not going to be easy; stupider than me is rare breed.

So remember, the only way to waste your vote is to vote!

You know...for a stupid guy, he sure sounds pretty smart to me. I wonder if it's too late to get Penn on the national ballot...hmmm.

peace,
Aielman

Ok...so let me get this right. Accusations about Dr Wright and Reverend Pfleger, and Obama's relationship with those men or the Trinity church were pointless and ridiculous. There was no link either men's beliefs or their churches, and that of Obama. It was just smoke and mirrors personal attacks, and after 20 years of attending the church and praising the pastor as his personal mentor, none of Wright's behavior tainted Obama. Nor did the large earmarks and donations that Obama arranged for Pfleger. This is the position of the left after much broohaha during the primaries, is it not?

So if that's true, then how hypocritical is it for the Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan to do an articles about Palin's church and it's influence on her? I know, I know...as my friend E would say, "but they're not mainstream media!"

Ok...you got me...they're not. They're more like the off broadway of mainstream media. Quasi mainstream. They are both featured in mainstream stories and quoted often enough to qualify.

And granted...as Sullivan says, there's some karmic turnabout going on here. But what else would you call it if you do the very same thing that your enemy does, after you cry foul when he does it?

I guess I could dig out the thesaurus and look up a word...but what's the point. It will still mean the same thing as Hypocrisy.

Gotta love the smell of Hypocrisy in the morning.

A good many of my friends are pretty liberal, and they spend a good deal of time ranting on their various blogs or on forums about the GOP smear machine, and the evil Rove.

I don't disagree that it's there, but I do find it ironic that they fail to see that same efficacy in smear tactics on the liberal side of the page as well. This is becoming increasingly evident with the attacks directed at the GOP VP candidate.

On the one hand, you have the pundits that dismiss her as being irrelevant because of her lack of experience, which seems pretty ironic considering the total lack of experience of the latest liberal messiah. But then on the other hand, you have an incredible volume of attacks on every aspect of this woman's existence.

All those little trivial personal items that were so ridiculous when it was Obama under the microscope? Well they all seem to be of massive import for the VP candidate, who for all intents and purposes should never have to make a decision while she holds that office, unless it's as a tiebreaker in the Senate.

Indeed...the left this week has already started to hammer her daughter...something that is already beginning to really piss of people that would have voted for Obama...and is sure to cause a greater backlash then they realize.

A good example of this can be found here on Pajamas Media.

"Let me make it clear: there are many things I don’t like about Sarah Palin. We are ideologically opposed on numerous issues.  Her stance on creationism and her pro-life zealousness are just two examples.  Two big ones. There’s the fact that McCain chose Palin for VP after meeting her only once; I’d like to think that more thought goes into the process than the need to find a conservative woman for your ticket.  I’m naive like that.    But the last two days of mudslinging against Palin have been so extreme; they have transformed her into an almost sympathetic figure in my eyes.  More important, the barbs thrown at her have made me look upon liberals with a level of contempt I have not felt since, well, 2004.

If I’m rushing to the defense of a woman whose core ideologies I oppose, then something pretty bad must be going on. And that something smells like a pungent mixture of hypocrisy and desperation."

Ouch...that stings. She's not the only one. Even my hippy mom, who's deeply disappointed in the political leanings of her three libertarian/conservative gun toting, meat eating former military sons, is flat out pissed at the invective being directed at Palin, and called to chew me out for what her party was doing to a woman I don't plan to vote for, lol.

The left better beware. They're harshly attacking a female candidate, which femism bedamned, is not a good idea in politics. They're attacking things that they lauded about Hillary, and eventually the comparisons will be made in the big media, and it's going to bite them on the ass in a big way. Not to mention, this is not the candidate...this is the running mate. No good comes of making too much of a stink about that position.

 

peace,
Aielman

 

Police arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures, on a public sidewalk, of senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

 

Earlier, Police used pepper spray and batons on peaceful protestors.

 

Those bastard jackbooted republican thugs.

This kind of thing would never happen at the DNC. All those peace loving democrats, who are going to change the world with Obama at the helm, would never seek to encroach on freedom of speach or freedom of the press right? I mean, this kind of thing only happens at Republican events, surely. 

 

peace,
Aielman 

Holy Shit! Look at the size of that manhole cover.

 

 

Hope like hell that was grey water and not black water, heh.

 

peace,

Aielman

From a Meet the Press transcript for August 24, 2008...Tom Brokaw with Nancy Pelosi.

REP. PELOSI: No, no, it was between 50 and $100,000, and it's part of an, you know, entrepreneurial package. This is the package we sign up for, this is what they invest in. But that's not the point. I'm, I'm, I'm investing in something I believe in. I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.

Now maybe it's just me, but isn't it a bit disconcerting that, arguably, the most powerful woman in Washington...the Speaker of the House, doesn't know that natural gas is a fossil fuel?

Proof positive that Bush isn't the only idiot in Washington.

Peace,
Aielman