Free Sarah Palin: McCain Camp Called Out by CNN Reporter

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/24/2008 6:36:58 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 9/24/2008 6:12:35 PM

Author: SarahLovesJS


Sorry, it's not..and she's here to stay.

Does Palin's answer (above) truly satisfy you? Truly?

Yes it does, I see it as a truly from the heart answer that agrees with my thoughts on the matter.
My next question would be about border security and illegal immigration.
Ever since ww1 the policy and outlook of the US has been to be strong diplomatically backed by a strong military.
I believe that is the right thing for the times we live in.
I do not agree however with how that strength has been used at times by both political parties.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/24/2008 6:49:05 PM
Author: thumbelina

Date: 9/24/2008 6:20:26 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/24/2008 6:13:56 PM

Author: thumbelina

Date: 9/24/2008 5:57:50 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/24/2008 5:38:22 PM


Author: risingsun


When interviewed by Charley Gibson, Palin stated that she never hesitated when she accepted the VP bid. If she was so confident in herself, her position on the issues and her capacity to lead this country--if need be--she should be ready to express and discuss these topics with the American public. I''ve said before that I think she''s a loose cannon and cannot imagine her having the credentials to be taken seriously by foreign leaders, much less this country.

The American public is *not* the media, though.

how will she do this if not through the media? i haven''t actually tried, but i doubt she''d be willing to have coffee with me any time soon.

Not through the media; the media tells the American public what it wants to tell them. I wouldn''t call 90% of the stuff they put out discussions, either. I think the debates are a great way for them to convey their message to the American public. I don''t think there is a way for candidates to discuss issues with the real American public; the media has gotten that bad. Every article that comes out has to have about ten articles refuting it and then more articles are written about those ones. I just rely on my own research to make an informed decision. I guess we''ll see in November how seriously people take her credentials.

Media covers more than just those reporters, writers, spin doctors, etc. Media is all the tools used to deliver and store data and information. All the research that you do to make your decisions is through the media. These are the vehicles through which we receive information about Palin. By refusing to take questions, speak to the press, etc., she''s essentially making it very difficult to get to know her.

Okay, well I was talking about the news media; I think that''s who everyone is talking about & those are the people who are so outraged about not being able to question her. I think we already know more about her than any other candidate in the very short amount of time she''s been the VP nominee.

 

[iheartscience]

Thank you TGAL for being the Republican voice of reason. Palin not talking to the press is ridiculous and unprecedented. No other candidate has ever been shielded from the media like this.

It''s blowing my mind that other Republicans don''t feel the same way. What are the McCain camp and other Republicans afraid of? That she''ll sound unprepared and unknowledgeable? That''s what happens when you choose someone with no experience, I suppose.

People seriously need to WAKE UP. Justifying Palin not talking to the press is just bipartisan nonsense. People need to use their heads to think, not their voter registration cards!

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 9/24/2008 10:27:41 PM
Author: thing2of2
Thank you TGAL for being the Republican voice of reason. Palin not talking to the press is ridiculous and unprecedented. No other candidate has ever been shielded from the media like this.

It''s blowing my mind that other Republicans don''t feel the same way. What are the McCain camp and other Republicans afraid of? That she''ll sound unprepared and unknowledgeable? That''s what happens when you choose someone with no experience, I suppose.

People seriously need to WAKE UP. Justifying Palin not talking to the press is just bipartisan nonsense. People need to use their heads to think, not their voter registration cards!

Now now, you''ll just start the mudslinging again.

I try to look at it from the other side...if this were a democratic vp candidate that being shielded this way, I''d think it was ridiculous too. I think quite a few republicans would have an issue with it if it weren''t for our party - but on the other hand, since a lot of us are anti mainstream media, maybe not.

And come on Dems...admit it...you want her in the media so she can balance out some of the Biden gaffes.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/24/2008 10:44:29 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 9/24/2008 10:27:41 PM

Author: thing2of2

Thank you TGAL for being the Republican voice of reason. Palin not talking to the press is ridiculous and unprecedented. No other candidate has ever been shielded from the media like this.


It''s blowing my mind that other Republicans don''t feel the same way. What are the McCain camp and other Republicans afraid of? That she''ll sound unprepared and unknowledgeable? That''s what happens when you choose someone with no experience, I suppose.


People seriously need to WAKE UP. Justifying Palin not talking to the press is just bipartisan nonsense. People need to use their heads to think, not their voter registration cards!

Now now, you''ll just start the mudslinging again.

I try to look at it from the other side...if this were a democratic vp candidate that being shielded this way, I''d think it was ridiculous too. I think quite a few republicans would have an issue with it if it weren''t for our party - but on the other hand, since a lot of us are anti mainstream media, maybe not.


And come on Dems...admit it...you want her in the media so she can balance out some of the Biden gaffes.

See, that''s exactly how I see it. I would be PISSED if "my" candidate wouldn''t speak to the press. Although I realize I can come across as a crazy liberal around these parts, I''m actually quite rational in that way.

And of course I would love a gaffe or two (not to mention more material for Jon Stewart and Tina Fey), but it''s really the principle that bothers me more than anything!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 9/24/2008 1:21:36 PM
Author: FrekeChild
If everyone is already slanted against liking her (darn liberals!) then why don't they let her do interviews with Fox News?

(Perhaps this has already been done, I've been buried in schoolwork lately...)

She did. Sean Hannity. Now she needs to give the more liberal press some equal time. Time to suck it up and be the Veep candidate instead of a 'right-wing darling'. And I say that as someone who wants her to succeed.

She did talk to Charles Gibson, didn't she? He certainly didn't pull any punches with her.

 

[luckystar112]

Well I never said it wasn''t weird. I do think it''s a little weird.
At the same time, she has interviewed with Gibson and Hannity. I understand that some people don''t think that''s good enough, but it is something. She has also been out on the campaign trail with McCain. It''s not like she''s in a cave somewhere. Then again, I guess I''m just more patient than the average person.

The media is driving me crazy. It''s obvious who they endorse. Dems want to pretend that there isn''t a bias--that''s fine. I think if they were on the other side it''d be different though. The media, to me, is barely a step above paparazzi when it comes to Palin. She''s not britney. Stop salivating at the thought of her next f%^& up.

 

[HollyS]

d

Date: 9/24/2008 2:01:48 PM
Author: strmrdr
What is missing from today''s media is hard hitting investigative reporting.
I am all for the media hitting the candidates hard on the issues with tough and fair questions that are presented truthfully to the people.
What I am against is sound bite media of today.
It is useless and a waste of time and energy.
It is also disrespectful and disgraceful.

Amen to that.

FDR was, by most people''s standards, a good (possibly great) president. The media did not reveal to the general public that he was dallying around on the side, or that his wife was having more than a ''friendship'' with another woman. The public had no need to know; and embarrasing our country''s leader was just not done. Contrast that with today''s media with it''s ridiculous ''celebrity'', tell-all, the more salacious the better, style of journalism. There is no comparison. We live in the age of mediocrity. We have no manners, few ethics, and little substance. And we are NOT better informed. We just aren''t.

 

[diamondfan]

Today nothing is sacred. Say something and it is on line instantly. Youtube means always worrying someone is out there with a camera ready to nail you. I cannot imagine what it is like to be in the public eye nowadays.

Kennedy also was treated in a hands off manner by many, the press would not have dreamed of compromising him.

I still think accountability is important but would any of us stand up to the scrutiny these people withstand?

 

[luckystar112]

She also interviewed with Katie Couric today.
She's being ripped to shreds.

ETA: Her not being a "Washington Insider" is very apparent. It's backfiring. They are using it against her.

 

[E B]

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

Source: One-On-One with Sarah Palin (CBS)

 

[SarahLovesJS]

So because he picked her as his VP she''s supposed to have memorized his 26 years in Washington?

 

[E B]

Date: 9/25/2008 12:01:41 AM
Author: SarahLovesJS
So because he picked her as his VP she''s supposed to have memorized his 26 years in Washington?

Memorize his 26 years in Washington? No. Answer a simple question about McCain''s record? A question she and her "handlers" knew she''d face given the current media focus? Abso-friggin-lutely.

 

[risingsun]

For those who have said that the debates are a good way to reach the public, two men on the news this evening tend to disagree with you. Past presidents Clinton and Bush were interviewed by Charley Gibson and discussed their own experiences with that process. Being a good debater, does not mean you are either a good or poor leader. As far as Palin's knowledge base is concerned, if you have high political aspirations, you should be doing your homework. She had the hubris to say that she was ready for this position. One of the things that frightens me about her is that she's well out of her depth and doesn't seem to realize it. Her responses to the mainstream media are uniformed and simplistic. She wants world peace, a strong economy and for this country to play a global leadership role. So do I, but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to be VP. I expect more than sound bytes from Palin.

 

[luckystar112]

My favorite part is that there is a whole other part of the interview, and that is the ONLY part that CBS chose to transcribe.

 

[VRBeauty]

Date: 9/25/2008 12:01:41 AM
Author: SarahLovesJS
So because he picked her as his VP she's supposed to have memorized his 26 years in Washington?

He's been touting his own record for the past year -- just as the other presidential candidates touted theirs. As a Republican governor, I think she would have been paying some attention to her own party's primary race.

The media response to her convention speech was measured and generally positive... actually, I think many reporters seemed to be somewhat awestruck. She's had the opportunity to show that there was some substance behind the hype, and so far she's blowing it. I'm no suggesting that she has to be an expert on national security, foreign policy, or even the economy. I dont think it's realistic to expect that of any VP candidate, especially one who hasn't spent a long time in Washington. Even the President -- any president, probably -- is stronger in some areas than others, and relies on input from a cadre of specialists and advisors. I do, however, expect candidates to have more knowledge of those topics than I have, and to show some evidence of good thought processes!

 

[decodelighted]

I *love* that the print media is doing snarky headlines like "Palin smiles in the vicinity of world leaders" because they''re not allowed to HEAR ANYTHING THAT GOES ON. Probably because a whole lotta nothing is being said ... because her UN Tour is a big ol'' photo op & nothing more. They''ve probably forbidden her from saying anything substantive to "world leaders".

Agree that its RIDICULOUS to hide-her-in-plain-sight & shield her from any DISCOURSE on, um, THE JOB she''s applying for, or even BASIC knowledge about the 98.8% of the country outside of Alaska.

But, gosh, looks like McCain HIMSELF is hiding from the debates. Ditching? Really? To single handedly save the economy? Puh-leeze. Congress is making fine progress without you old blow-hard.

And his CAMPAIGN MANAGER''s company was taking 15K PER MONTH from Freddie Mac for *nothing* .. no work **NADA** up ''til ONE MONTH AGO (exposed in Newsweek today) ... this revealed AFTER McCain did the circuit poo-pooing the idea of his guy being in bed with Freddie Mac. So what if he doesn''t take a salary from the company anymore. The company is IN HIS NAME. He OWNS it. He''s GOING BACK when he''s done w/McCain. Money for nothing? What''s scarier, what''s more inside-the-beltway-old-croneyism that THAT?

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 9/25/2008 1:01:07 AM
Author: decodelighted

Congress is making fine progress without you old blow-hard.

Well, that was necessary.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/25/2008 1:01:07 AM
Author: decodelighted
I *love* that the print media is doing snarky headlines like ''Palin smiles in the vicinity of world leaders'' because they''re not allowed to HEAR ANYTHING THAT GOES ON. Probably because a whole lotta nothing is being said ... because her UN Tour is a big ol'' photo op & nothing more. They''ve probably forbidden her from saying anything substantive to ''world leaders''.


Agree that its RIDICULOUS to hide-her-in-plain-sight & shield her from any DISCOURSE on, um, THE JOB she''s applying for, or even BASIC knowledge about the 98.8% of the country outside of Alaska.

But, gosh, looks like McCain HIMSELF is hiding from the debates. Ditching? Really? To single handedly save the economy? Puh-leeze. Congress is making fine progress without you old blow-hard.


And his CAMPAIGN MANAGER''s company was taking 15K PER MONTH from Freddie Mac for *nothing* .. no work **NADA** up ''til ONE MONTH AGO (exposed in Newsweek today) ... this revealed AFTER McCain did the circuit poo-pooing the idea of his guy being in bed with Freddie Mac. So what if he doesn''t take a salary from the company anymore. The company is IN HIS NAME. He OWNS it. He''s GOING BACK when he''s done w/McCain. Money for nothing? What''s scarier, what''s more inside-the-beltway-old-croneyism that THAT?

Love ya deco! Ditto x 100 million!

 

[strmrdr]

more news that everyone just has to know!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_el_pr/palin_witchcraft_blessing

not....
Why would anyone even want to talk to people who report stuff like that like it is news?

 

[Anna0499]

Just to be clear, I said that those who are waiting oh so impatiently to hear words come out of Palin's mouth will be able to do so on the debates. I always listen to the debates rather than watch them so I can actualy focus on their words and not their appearance. I don't think being a great debater makes you a great leader; just like being a great orator doesn't make you a great leader and just like getting good grades in school sometimes just means that you are good at going to school.

That being said, I don't think that anything new or shocking will come out at *any* of the debates and I think I've done enough research on each of the candidates to the point where whatever topics they stumble/succeed on will not affect my vote (as long as they don't 180 on their views). We've learned so many trivial things about Palin that at this point I think many people have been saturated to the point of boredom. If the media had not exposed every single little insignificant thing about her life perhaps there would be more outrage now. I mean is anyone around here still *truly* undecided at this point?

ETA: There is a difference between "defending" and "rationalizing" - I think a lot of people around here are rationalizing McCain's STRATEGY vs. defending it. It's his campaign so he can choose to run it however he wants. He makes his bed and he'll lie in it. If you all are correct then you'll be very happy in November.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/25/2008 1:33:35 AM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 9/25/2008 1:01:07 AM
Author: decodelighted

Congress is making fine progress without you old blow-hard.

Well, that was necessary.

LOL yeah...obviously Congress is *not* making fine progress or they would have a clearcut plan already. Anyway, I thought we were talking about Palin and the press; perhaps a new thread needs to be started over that rant...

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 9/24/2008 10:57:13 AM
Author: starsapphire
I submit that they don''t want her to become a gaffe machine like Joe Biden is. He has been saying some pretty interesting things lately......

agreed, but it''s entertaining! Let her make some fun gaffes too!


I''m sure she will just crinkle her nose and get out of them. That may be her foreign policy plan, too, since all I have heard about the talks she had with international leaders is how pretty they said she was.

When the press asked how it went she said "It was great"

So she knows how to take a compliment. Fantastic.

Can we please get to the real vetting????????????

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 9/24/2008 11:43:39 AM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 9/24/2008 11:02:46 AM

Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/24/2008 10:40:55 AM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 9/24/2008 8:44:32 AM

Author: SarahLovesJS

Definitely not because she''s a woman in my opinion, my guess is they''re trying to prevent her from becoming a gaffe-machine if that''s possible at all.


ETA: Not to mention a bunch of pundits were literally throwing fits on the MSM shows yesterday because she met with foreign leaders, got good photo ops, and then dared not to take questions from reporters. Gasp!

Yes, because it''s customary to answer questions from the press. The McCain camp wanted good press (photo-ops) but didn''t want to open themselves up to bad press (she says something stupid because she has zero foreign policy experience). That''s not really how journalism and a free press work.

There''s actually plenty of times when political candidates refuse to answer questions from the press and/or only answer questions they have received prior to the actual interview, in particular whenever they are engaging in photo-ops. I definitely don''t think it has anything to do with her gender, it''s just strategy because they know that everyone is waiting to pounce on her (which is fair enough); I don''t see anything wrong with her not answering questions right now. I highly doubt there has been ONE VP candidate who had all the knowledge they needed to be asked any question from the media (including Biden). They ALL undergo crash courses on what to say (or not to say). Obviously someone with two failed presidential runs will perform better, however. With other VP candidate making the huge mistakes he is, I frankly don''t blame them. It''s a good strategy because anything she says will most likely be misconstrued and criticized as the media has already built up an image of her they won''t soon be tearing down. Politics are a game; they''re just playing it...of course the media will be upset so I take it with a grain of salt. I will just continue to research her stances on issues and look forward to the debate. It should be a massacre if she''s as bad as everyone says she is. I assume anyone has the right not to answer questions, just as journalists have the right to ask them.

Not only are they waiting to pounce on her, but they''ve already decided they don''t like her. The media is in a race to see who can make her look stupid first. They could care less about her.

I think the press just wants a story. No one was complaining when she knocked it out of the park at the convention. They want stories. It''s their job. Sink or swim, they don''t care, though sink is a better story. The media is not being allowed to do their job, and they are mad. They should just boycott her events if they aren''t going to be allowed to cover them. No photo ops without press conferences. She has a right not to speak, and they have a right to withhold full coverage.

I am a voter. I want to be as informed as humanly possible. Shielding a candidate from the press denies my right to information to make an informed decision, and that upsets me as an American living in a democracy.

 

[trillionaire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ&eurl=http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php

I just wanted to note at 4:04, she says that decisions that were made poorly [by consumers] should not be rewarded. (RE: a bailout)

READ: If you have lost your home, or are facing the loss of your home to foreclosure, Sarah Palin says "Thanks, but No Thanks!" to helping consumers.

I was under the impression that both McCain and Obama wanted provisions for homeowners in their package. Not that the Prez/Veep candidates can''t have different opinions, but I think it is an interesting take on the matter. Banks gave people bad loans. Most of the bad loans weren''t because the people were just irrationally irresponsible, but they trusted that the banks would not give them loans that the couldn''t sustain. (No one benefits from defaults, after all) Sarah appears to want to penalize the victims.

Personally, I think THAT is the much bigger takeaway from the conversation.

I appreciate that she said "I''ll get back to you," rather than lying about something she didn''t know.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/25/2008 5:59:21 AM
Author: trillionaire

I think the press just wants a story. No one was complaining when she knocked it out of the park at the convention. They want stories. It''s their job. Sink or swim, they don''t care, though sink is a better story. The media is not being allowed to do their job, and they are mad. They should just boycott her events if they aren''t going to be allowed to cover them. No photo ops without press conferences. She has a right not to speak, and they have a right to withhold full coverage.

I am a voter. I want to be as informed as humanly possible. Shielding a candidate from the press denies my right to information to make an informed decision, and that upsets me as an American living in a democracy.

I agree that everyone wants stories, but it''s no lie that the press goes out of their way to put forth a "product" of their own agenda (and that goes for ALL candidates). I agree with the bolded part, but I did read several negative articles about her RNC speech and the positive articles about her were soon eliminated for more negative ones. "Shielding" her from the press has not kept the media from finding out the most trivial things about her, so perhaps that is one of the reasons the McCain campaign think it''s an okay gamble. No one is researching Biden''s clothing or the sex lives of his children simply because it''s not interesting to most people (and rightly so). If anyone has taken a political science class they have learned about photo ops and the important role they play in every campaign (and during a term) - everyone does it but I won''t say they do at this juncture of an election year. Do people have a right to be mad? Absolutely, but it is a choice the campaign has made for now and it might end up coming back to bite them. Her lack of soundbytes and off-the-cuff interviews have not damaged my personal research concerning her views. I''ll ask again; is anyone around here *truly* undecided enough about McCain/Obama to where these things would even matter?

 

[risingsun]

I think that the media is going after what is available on Palin. Her political contributions, such as they are, were highlighted, initially, but came up rather thin. Her opinions and perspectives on national and international government lack the knowledge that we should expect from a VP candiate. Force-feeding her facts to use in a debate does not qualify her to be a leader. She was chosen to pander to the far right and she is fulfilling this role. Unfortunately, this position comes with a backlash. I am angry because it is so transparent. I cannot force myself to believe there was any legitimate reason for Palin to have been chosen as a candidate. It takes away a choice that I considered about voting for McCain. If he had a strong, skilled VP pick, I might have done so. Our ecomony is in free fall, our stature in the world has fallen, we are in a war that we should have never started. I wish we could clean the presidential slate and start again. We need leaders, not politicians. The VP position has become increasingly important when we look the the past presidents who have attempts made on their lives, faced impeachment or illness. It should not be used as bargaining chip.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 9/25/2008 6:13:24 AM
Author: trillionaire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ&eurl=http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php

I just wanted to note at 4:04, she says that decisions that were made poorly [by consumers] should not be rewarded. (RE: a bailout)

READ: If you have lost your home, or are facing the loss of your home to foreclosure, Sarah Palin says ''Thanks, but No Thanks!'' to helping consumers.

Whoa there. That''s a big jump you made there.
We obviously disagree, but it appears you assume that Sarah believes believes that every consumer fits in that category. I didn''t take it that way at all. To me, she was not lumping everyone under one umbrella.
In any case, I agree with her. Why should I have to pay for your dumb decision (consumer or lender)?

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 9/25/2008 2:35:14 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/25/2008 1:33:35 AM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 9/25/2008 1:01:07 AM
Author: decodelighted
Congress is making fine progress without you old blow-hard.

Well, that was necessary.

LOL yeah...obviously Congress is *not* making fine progress or they would have a clearcut plan already. Anyway, I thought we were talking about Palin and the press; perhaps a new thread needs to be started over that rant...

DING DING DING ... they *did* come to an agreement w/o McCain''s grand campaign-snuffing sacrifice.

And, according to the thread *title* this is also about the "McCain Camp".

*shrug*

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 9/25/2008 10:27:40 AM
Author: luckystar112
Why should I have to pay for your dumb decision (consumer or lender)?

Will you be joining the "I *heart* The Great Depression 2.0" Facebook group? ''Cause that''s what''s Bush is claiming will happen w/o The Great Bail-out. What a mess.