I’m sure Charlie Gibson will clear all of this up.
You know what the difference is between a pit bull and Charlie Gibson?
She didn’t clarify anything. There are two facts to take out of her statement:
(1) Creationism should be taught in school
(2) She won’t push for it to be on the curriculum.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive facts. All politicians have certain positions they hold but they realize that they are politically infeasible. The smart ones know that it’s not expedient to expend political capital on a no win position. However, it’s clear from Palin’s statements that if she were elected dictator, she would teach creationism in school.
I disagree. I think she’s very much of a coercive mindset, but has made politically expedient choices to avoid pushing issues that would be unpopular in Alaska. Maybe she will make the same calculation if she were president but, again, if she were elected dictator, I’m reasonably certain we would see abortion banned in every case except where the life of the mother is in ddanger.
There is a lot about Palin we don’t know. If she “clarifies” all these troubling issues, I’ll feel that I’ll have a much better knowledge base to judge her on. She asks twice about banning books, but didn’t ban any. She wants creationism discussed in school, but not as part of the curriculum. She wants sex education in schools, but not “explicit”. She’s been playing both sides for awhile now, it’ll be nice to actually get an answer to these questions from her. That is if the Republicans actually let her be interviewed.
Of course it is completely possible she’ll deceive us now. Like Bush and that whole “nation building” thing.
Just to further expand on the matter, it’s an even less consistent explanation (the one magellan01 offered), when considering that she did not return the money for the access road, and in fact had a $24 million access road to a non-existent bridge build.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/08/palin-bridge-access-road/
Palin has a talent for talking out of both sides of her mouth that allows people to see whatever they want to see in her. Evangelicals see a tough and dedicated culture warrior; non-theocons like Sam Stone see a libertarian-leaning reformer; moderate soccer moms see a kindred spirit.
That’s going to be hard to keep up once the press starts asking questions, and I’m sure her media boot camp is all about finding a solution to that problem.
Yet our worthy opposition on the right claims that Obama is a “Rohrshach blot”. It would make a great story if it weren’t true.
She’s the Michael Jordan of politics. Like the Jordan rules of old, we now have the Palin rules. You can’t question anything about her because it’s sexist. You can’t talk about the promiscuous daughter, you can only talk about the Iraq hero son. You can’t show videos of her saying in church that the war is in accordance with God’s will, you can only show videos of Obama’s crackpot preacher. The press can’t ask her hard questions, they have to be “respectful and deferential”. There’s even a special set of rules for her debate with Senator Biden — he has to be gentle with her lest he offend the masses. Unfortunately, the Taliban, Russia, China, and others will not give a shit about her special rules if McCain wins and then croaks.
To be fair, Obama encourages that perception, or at least acknowledges it. He’s said many times that he is siezed on as a solution by many and sundry, a thing he respects in Reagan, and something, to this point, which is true of Palin as well.
I don’t buy all of the “Palin unqualified” talk. I think she’s sufficiently qualified, ie, 35 years old and a citizen. My feelings on Palin have consolidated into a nagging fear that she will be successful at attracting votes, and worse, successful at implementing the theocon agenda in a way that Bush was never very committed to. The more I learn about her the more I disagree with her.
Therefore, the real Palin problem begins in 2012 or 2016. I imagine this is what many conservatives feel when they look at Obama- a person who could potentially be a real champion, who can be persuasive, who has ideas that they do not want to see implemented.
Except it isn’t a valid subject for debate. So she’s wrong there.
Science class should be for science. If the parents and the preachers want to contradict the science teachers nobody is stopping them. What would a debate consist off? The fact that there is no scientific evidence supporting creationism and in fact evidence indicates it’s completely false. Do you think that’s the debate she had in mind? yah! Me neither.
Prehensile rectum?
Some pit bulls still have their balls.
Sam,
So the list of books that she allegedly wanted banned is a fake. The fact that she, twice, tested the waters for what sort of resistence there would or would not be to her banning books is verified. If you want to conclude that she was testing the librarian’s resolve to make sure that she was a staunch defender of intellectual freedoms and worthy of the post, then you are entitled to your conclusion. And when someone on a dark street late at night comes up to you holding a gun asks you what you would do if they asked for your wallet, then you are entitlede to conclude that he is just curious as well. In both cases the rest of us will conclude the obvious.
She never made a serious effort to have Creationism taught in schools but thinks that it should be.
Whatever.
She and her surrogates and the radio mouthpieces are consistently lieing about her record on pork. She has consistently been queen of pork, as mayor, as a candidate, and as governor. That’s actually important.
The claims of the AIP secretary that she was a member turn out to be untrue. She was only loosely affiliated and sympathetic to them in various venues. She attended meetings but never officially joined up. Probably that tells us something about her thoughts and inclinations but not worth pursuing.
Sam seriously, what do you like about her and the direction that her choice shows the McCain administration would take our country or even just the GOP? She represents the hard RR taking the reins with a generous helping of a worldview that is some odd hybrid of neocon with Christian Crusades. And she has excelled in earmarks in a state infamous for them. Are you really happy about all that?
Noted. Indictment pending.
I don’t know. If I were a science teacher in a place where I knew that children were taught creationism at home, I would be cautious about dismissing their questions out of hand. If somebody asked about it, I would probably ask them to explain to me what their scientific evidence is for it, and then I would debate/refute such evidence in whatever way I thought was appropriate for the age I was teaching, but without scoffing at it. Not because I don’t want them to learn scientific truth, but because I don’t think it would be useful not to address what they are learning elsewhere.
I don’t know if it’s so much playing both sides, as much as wanting somewhat frightening policy, but being unable to implement it. She didn’t ban books, or force creationism into schools, or eliminate same-sex benefits, or ban abortions, because it wasn’t in her power to do so.
What do you think will happen if it ever became within her power to do these things?
First, she’ll ask us what we’d say if they were implemented. You know, as a loyalty test.
http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.html
A letter from an old friend an Alaskan that doesn’t drink the kool aid.
I think they all do that. We tend to notice it more in the ones whose position we oppose, but don’t notice it so much in the politicians we support. It’s all about how you frame your answers to suit the audience.
Personal? Quoting Sarah 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."
I’ll let everyone make up their own mind on this one.
I think the actual video of her saying she’d like both creationism and evolution taught in school trumps what factcheck says on the matter. In fact the actual quote is:
. That seems pretty clear to me.