Friday, September 12, 2008

Sarah W Bush interview

I am happy with this interview. It tells me what I needed to know about Sarah Palin. She is not a redux of Reagan, Goldwater or even McCain. She is the second coming of our illustrious president, George W Bush. This is very helpful to know.

So, if you:


then you will most definitely


.... said...

i like the part where he asks her about the Bush Doctrine. She gets the deer in the headlights look. Try's to fake it. He asks again. She answers "His World View" He defines it for her.

Clearly she had no F****in clue what he was talking about. Completely unqualified to lead the country. So she will be a perfect replacement for Bush.

Even better is how the GOP is trying to spin it. I can't believe this isn't getting more news coverage.

I really hope she ends up as president, because the GOP base clearly hasn't learned it can't pick good leaders.

Anonymous said...








g13 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
g13 said...

for someone who doesn't blink she sure does blink a lot.

ralph, i can see that you're hell-bent on refuting the democrats' assumption of republican anti-intellectualism. keep up the good work.

.... said...

holy crap. you all have to check out Ralph's blog, esp his most recent post and the comments.

it has to be a parody. or he is a giant retard.

Anonymous said...

Rick, I really think you're making a stretch here based on one selectively-edited interview. To be honest, your posts on political matters sound much more like simple hatred for Bush and festering bitterness over the unhealthy connection/association of the Republican party with the "Christian right" (which I agree is a major problem) than they do of an independent thinker and follower of Christ who truly cares about the direction of the church. This, like others, read like Huffington Post material or Keith Olberman's notes. This belief from one interview?? Or is it more because she's been crowned by Christians as their political savior. At least there are some like Steve Cohen who see through it all and so eloquently reminded us that "Jesus was a community organizer" while "Pontius Pilate was a governor".

"I hope I have stayed true to my aims to declare the lack of clothing worn by the emperors and not become a partisan hack declaring my affinity and loyalty to a particular brand of political partydom". Hard to tell if you have.

Rick said...

I may think you have a few valid points and I may think that you are reading something into my analysis based upon your own bias. I would like to address them. However, I will not discuss this until I know who I am talking to. It is a philosophical principle I hold to.

Are you the same nameless entity that has commented on my wife's blog?

Anonymous said...

I'm an acquaintance of yours through mutual friends in the Tampa area. I fully understand if you don't reply, but I would just prefer to remain anonymous at this time. I have a great deal of respect for you, your passion for God and your compassion for people, which hasn't changed at all and I wouldn't want you to think otherwise. You are certainly right about the possibility (or rather probability) of me reading too much into your thoughts because of my own bias. I consider myself to be conservative in my political views, but do not equate that with being a card-carrying Republican. I'm sure there was some degree of defensiveness in my reply, which is something I would hope not to do, but have failed to avoid at times.

My concern is this: As much of the church begins to wake up and see the idolatry of worshiping political power "in the name of Jesus", it seems much of the response has simply been backlash against the face of the problem (namely, Republicans) while not addressing the source of the problem. The same lust for power, relevance, need for justification, rush to judgment and the selfish pride in just being part of a good cause simply shifts to the opposite side of the political spectrum. The pendulum doesn't settle, but rather takes a full swing.

It was wrong and embarrassing the way that Republicans and many Christians talked about and treated Clinton when he was in office. At the same time, some of his choices and actions while in office brought a certain amount of this on himself. I believe it's wrong and embarrassing the way that Democrats and a relatively small (but growing) number of Christians talk about and treat Bush. At the same time, some of his choices and actions have brought this on. The war in Iraq is certainly front and center in this discussion. But do we forget about Clinton and Kosovo? I know I've seemingly strayed way off topic here, but I believe it's all related. The problem of Christians dwelling only (or at best, primarily) on all that is wrong with little respect for the authority God has placed over us is still the same. There's just a little more division in the ranks now. We should be careful not to move from one bad position (not necessarily politically, but spiritually) to another.

I almost forgot. No, I've never commented on your wife's blog or even visited it, although I'm sure it's interesting and a good read.

kidpositive said...

that interview was very telling. for people who don't care about policy, etc., they'll come away thinking that Palin did a good job (that she was trying to "fend off" the "harsh" questioning of Charlie Gibson).

For those who actually DO pay attention to how the country is run (and not just politics and personalities), the gaping hole in Palin's grasp of all issues, both foreign and domestic, is utterly frightening. It was almost embarrassing to watch her attempt to convey a sense of authority during that interview...I'm just glad Gibson didn't ask her a truly "tough" question, such as explaining the financial underpinnings of the subprime mortgage crisis. Her lack of knowledge wouldn't be such a big issue...if she weren't running for second in command of the free world.

Anyway, people should watch this interview with the Fmr. Associate Director of the Alaska Governor's office:
"Sarah Palin underestimated exponentially how much more complex state government is than the city of Wasilla."
-Larry Persily, Fmr. Associate Director of Alaska Governor's Office

btw, i did not blink while writing this comment. not once.

kidpositive said...

here's what the "liberal" NYTimes had to say about the Palin interview:

"But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home."

Rick said...


or, should I call you John?

I do appreciate your comments and honesty (lack of name notwithstanding:)

My feelings regarding Bush are not particularly political. I am not a Liberal. I am borderline PBR (preBush Republican). I feel that unlike Clinton (whom I voted against 2X), he is leaving the country in a very bad place. I don't hate him, but I feel like many Liberals, Conservatives and Moderates about what he is doing to the country (and Christians have supported it).

I should say that I supported McCain in 2000 and would not blog about other VP candidates. If McCain had picked Huckabee I would have been excited (not enough to vote for him).

That said, I make no illusions about Obama. I feel he is a breath of fresh air our nation needs. I could go on, but it seems typical. However, I do not see him as the Left's Bush (in fact I have blogged about that at times).

But, after watching all of Palin's interview footage, i came to the conclusion that she offers the same thing Bush did. She came across as arrogant, uninterested in the complexities of the world, ruled by certainty, not blinking, etc. It scared me (unlike McCain of old or many older Republicans) and I think it should remind people that she is potentially a younger version of the worst president I have ever seen. But, that is only my opinion.

I agree with you regarding the church and political power. 100%. Hopefully my blog has shared that. Hopefully my responses have conveyed that the past few years.

I seem partisan because of my anger at what the leaders of this nation have done to it and us, all in the name of Christ. I don't want that to happen ever again, from either side. However, my anger will lash out at those in power, because those out of power are inconsequential. I will probably do the same thing, no matter who is in power.

We may agree more than you think, even if I am less conservative in some ways. Radically Moderate Independence is my alignment politically, because I think it is the best thing for a Christian choosing to be involved int he political process.

Go Noles:)

kidpositive said...

sorry i keep littering here but i just can't help myself. everyone should read this story in tomorrow's NYTimes:

"Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials."

what a maverick...

james said...

KP's article is great for anyone looking for more of a background story on Palin.

To add to Rick's comparison of Palin to Bush, notice the way her interviews are done. Taped and conducted by someone who typically won't press her as hard as other journalists might (although i was impressed with Charlie this time around.)

kidpositive said...

i just remembered from this interview something else that *really* scared me:


she's such a maverick that she doesn't even listen to the dictionary!!! stupid liberal dictionaries...

Anonymous said...

Sure, you can call me John. Some of the recent comments just further illustrate what I was talking about - that dislike, disdain and possibly hatred interfere with objectivity. Take the quotation marks around the "liberal" description of the New York Times. I may be wrong (and I apologize if I am), but I would guess that was an attempt to mock the charge. What's interesting is if you click on the link to the story you'll see 6 of their top 10 most popular stories are highly negative op-ed pieces about Palin. What about the Times' thoughts on Biden? We get this very complimentary piece ( from David Brooks. In spite of this and a similar history, people (mostly conservative, Republican types) are called absurd for thinking there's a social/political bias at the NYT. What would you think if I said Fox News was completely objective in its reporting? Equally humorous were the assumptions that Charlie Gibson would give or was a "soft" interview for Palin. This seemed to be said as if Obama is continually grilled like a POW in his interviews. I know this wasn't brought up, but I can't help thinking about Obama's public speaking. Bush is not good at this - never has, never will be - and he has taken much heat for this during his presidency. But have you listened to Obama when he's not giving a written speech with a teleprompter?? It's not impressive, to put it mildly. He stutters more than I did my first day of Speech class, but we read or hear nothing of this. That's good. This should not be nearly as much of an issue as it has recently been made out to be, but disdain for an individual has a way of making mountains out of molehills.

I have to admit that I am wondering what qualifies Obama as the "breath of fresh air our nation needs". It must be more than just the social significance his election would would mean for the country because Palin offers a great deal of that as well. Would we be able to say one is greather than the other? I definitely agree that there is much more agreement than disagreement between us. Hope you don't mind me sticking my nose and not-very-articulate opinions in your blog, which I do enjoy reading.

Yes, go Noles! Big week after the warm-up wins and a chance to take early control of a very winnable ACC.

kidpositive said...

sorry to keep dragging this on...

look what "liberal" David Brooks (your favorite, Rick!) had to say about Palin yesterday in his column in the NYTimes:

"Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."

read the rest here:

that liberal media is *so* unfair to Palin... how dare they!!!