Sarah Palin: The Dream Interview
The Nation's Katha Pollitt writes a scathing review of Sarah Palin's "qualifications" for the job of vice president, and then she issues 10 simple yet deadly questions the Alaskan Governor needs to be asked by someone, anyone. Read the whole article here or just the questions below:
§ Suppose your 14-year-old daughter Willow is brutally raped in her bedroom by an intruder. She becomes pregnant and wants an abortion. Could you tell the parents of America why you think your child and their children should be forced by law to have their rapists' babies? § You say you don't believe global warming is man-made. Could you tell us what scientists you've spoken with or read who have led you to that conclusion? What do you think the 2,500 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are getting wrong?
§ If you didn't try to fire Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Baker over her refusal to consider censoring books, why did you try to fire her?
§ What is the European Union, and how does it function?
§ Forty-seven million Americans lack health insurance. John Goodman, who has advised McCain on healthcare, has proposed redefining them as covered because, he says, anyone can get care at an ER. Do you agree with him?
§ What is the function of the Federal Reserve?
§ Cindy and John McCain say you have experience in foreign affairs because Alaska is next to Russia. When did you last speak with Prime Minister Putin, and what did you talk about?
§ Approximately how old is the earth? Five thousand years? 10,000? 5 billion?
§ You are a big fan of President Bush, so why didn't you mention him even once in your convention speech?
§ McCain says cutting earmarks and waste will make up for revenues lost by making the tax cuts permanent. Experts say that won't wash. Balancing the Bush tax cuts plus new ones proposed by McCain would most likely mean cutting Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Which would you cut?
§ You're suing the federal government to have polar bears removed from the endangered species list, even as Alaska's northern coastal ice is melting and falling into the sea. Can you explain the science behind your decision?
§ You've suggested that God approves of the Iraq War and the Alaska pipeline. How do you know?
Labels: politics
posted by Zak at
4:52 PM
9 Comments:
I'll play the role of Sarah Palin and answer two these for you. They're easy.
On the 14-year-old daughter being raped: Go ahead and have the baby and give it up for adoption. Is it the baby's fault its father is a rapist? Remember, in many people's minds, life begins at conception. You don't have to agree with this to understand, without being inflamatory, that abortion is tantamount to murder. I know my views on this issue have certainly been challenged since I became a parent.
(An aside: One of my close friends was the product of a rape, and he *was* put up for adoption. And he's a great guy.)
On God and the Iraq war: This one's ridiculous. Has anyone on the left actually read or listened to the full quote? Or are you all just ignoring it?
For the sake of an informed discussion, here is the full quote from Palin:
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's will."
So what did she actually say? "Let's all pray that we're doing the right thing." Not as controversial when you use the facts.
9:21 AM
Clarification: This should read, "Remember, in many people's minds, life begins at conception. You don't have to agree with this to understand, without being inflamatory, that abortion is tantamount to murder [in these people's minds]."
9:22 AM
Thanks for the comments, Chapter11. I must say that I'm actually much closer to being pro-life since having had a kid, too. I appreciate the position that women should make up their own minds about their own bodies, but I'm not totally convinced of its morality anymore. It's a toughie. As for the God quote, I will grant you that it's been distorted. I still don't think Palin is remotely qualified for the job. Call me an elitist, but I want someone way smarter than I am to run the country. I haven't seen any evidence that she has the brains (quite apart from her political positions) to do that.
10:19 AM
Setting aside the "experience" argument (which only diminishes the argument for Obama whenever it's brought up), what evidence have you seen that she doesn't have the intelligence to be vice president?
10:56 AM
Perhaps "intelligence" is not the right word—she could be amazing at chess or memorization—maybe "knowledge" is more fitting. This is a woman who apparently rejects basic science on evolution and global warming and whose cluelessness about world affairs makes her essentially George W. Bush "with lipstick."
1:00 PM
On Creationism: Palin says, "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," also according to the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.
On Global Warming: I defy you to read this book and tell me, unequivocally, that one could not at least make the case that we don't know everything there is to know about man's contribution to global warming.
Now, I think that there's something to it, but neither you nor I are scientists, and the issue has become so highly politicized that it's hard to know who's telling the truth or, more significantly, who's being motivated by what. Usually in science doubters are encouraged; since Al Gore got ahold of the issue, those who challenge the accepted position are dismissed as kooks.
On the Bush Doctrine: Palin got it right, as a matter of fact.
"There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today."
3:57 PM
I think this is where I get off the train. One of my first impulses was to go find a book that refutes what The Deniers asserts, but it doesn't seem worthwhile anymore. I'm sure any well-written science book would seem believable to either of us, regardless of its politics, since we aren't experts in the topic. But it seems I am just not cut out for politics, because even this two-man debate has gotten me completely stressed out. I believe all we're doing here is trying to one-up each other by finding whatever source seems to make our side's arguments stronger. Ironically, I don't think either of us is even that comfortable with some of the people or positions we're defending. But the point of the debate seems to be scoring points, rather than changing the other person's way of thinking or—perish the thought—making any difference in the real world. Basically, what I'm saying is that our debate mirrors politics perfectly—a lot of rancor and hot air, but not much in terms of results. I'm not sure where to go from here, but I'll keep posting, though I'll likely steer clear of political subjects for awhile.
1:01 PM
Actually, I don't particularly like Sarah Palin. I respect what she's done with her life, and I think she's awfully charismatic, but I disagree with many of her positions. I like to think that where I differ from the left (as represented in those faux interview questions you reprinted) is that I don't harbor contempt for her just because I disagree with her. Those interview questions are inflamatory and ignorant, the political equivolent of "When did you stop beating your wife?" They're not helpful.
In many ways, this whole conversation goes back to a point I was trying to make in my comments on one of your media bias posts. As Americans, where we get our news, and whose interpretation of it we accept, seems to be more and more aligned with the media outlets that reinforce our world view than challenge it.
I read the DailyKos and Huffington Post and, for that matter, CNN and the NYT -- and I'm pretty well disgusted by them. Same goes for the mud being slung about on Limbaugh's radio program and TownHall.com, among others. How many people only get one side of an argument, and a horribly partisan side, before making up their minds? Once that happens, it's a long road back to open-mindedness.
The point I was going for in replying to your points tit for tat is that there is another side. I didn't like the tone of that faux interview at all because it treated Palin like she's just a country bumpkin too stupid to know what she's doing. You kind of echoed those sentiments yourself.
Palin actually has a pretty impressive resume -- certainly a better one than mine, and I'd wager (sight unseen) a better one than the partisan who came up with those questions, too. That's entirely separate from the notion that she's qualified to be VP. When someone poses questions meant to trap, demean, and impose their own views on the interviewee, they (meaning the theoretical interviewer) are not helping.
Now, just a little on the topic of the causes behind global warming. I used to buy the argument hook, line, and sinker that it is entirely due to industrial activity, and that we're all basically doomed. After all, "2500 scientists can't be wrong," right? And whenever one of the critics would pop up and say, "Whoa, hold on, you've got some of this stuff wrong" I'd dutifully do just what you talked about doing: I'd go to Google and try to find out just who's pocket the skeptic was in. Because the scientific evidence is indisputable, right?
That book, The Deniers, opened my mind to the notion that the science on it actually isn't settled. And it was written by an environmentalist who began the project believing it was settled, too.
There is a politicized wing of the environmental movement that wants to shut off the debate before it's over, and that's not helpful, either. What I think *is* helpful is to ocasionally allow our world view to be challenged. To think critically on the issues, and to consider the view points of those who disagree. The worst that can happen is that we end up with a better grasp of the entire scope of any issue.
That's all I'm saying.
8:14 AM
Thanks for the post, Josh. I appreciate your desire to hear both sides of all these issues before making up your mind. I think it's a great impulse. Please send me any conservative sources of information you think are reasonable. I will try to evaluate them with an open mind.
1:30 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home