Palin Record on Reform (an example)

In the case that you missed it, this article outlines Palin's efforts to inspire and enact reform on key issues in Alaska.

Wallstreet Journal reports on Palin and Oil Reform for Alaska

I have noticed that in interviews with Katie C. of CBS she is working hard to confound and confuse Federal political outsider Vice Presidential candidate, Governor Palin, by asking her to answer questions as if an insider on topics that no other candidate is being ask to bring answers to (compare the kinds of questions Katie brought to Gov. Palin and compare that question list with the questions and compliments Katie brought to her interview with Sen. Biden... oh wait, you didn't even know about that fluffy pup-piece interview with Democrat Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden?) There will obviously be downsides to employing federal outsiders, but between her experiences in achieving reform, working with industries and other political leaders, I would rather see this outside become VP and do what she says, rather than have a president that says one thing and does another (an unchasable ubber-list of flipflops and political reinventions of his own political agenda by shifty re-word-smithing of his goals.)

Side-note:

Recently, a few new friends confided in me that they considered McCain to be truthful about what he wanted to do for the nation, but they didn't like what he wants to do so they are not voting for him. On the flipside, they said that the more recent military / economic flipflopping of Obama was likely Obama just "pandering" to look "tough" and they believe he will go back and do what he said at the beginning, so they will vote for him. When I showed them some new facts that outlined Obamas involvement with receiving benefits and seek advice from folks who are under investigation and have been conficted of shifty dealings (not unlike Enron) with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I was told that they were "all politicians and all liar." When I asked if they thought the press was being biased when they were reporting badly on McCain but not reporting on shifty Obama facts, they replied that the sentiment in the country is very anti-Bush and so it is understandable that they would want to get people to vote on a candidate that doesn't like Bush.

On the first point, I think that I can respect the notion that people might not want to vote for McCain because they don't agree with him. I don't know why they don't agree with him, but if they don't like what he stands for, I can at least see their reasoning behind not wanting to support him. Seems pretty straight forward to me. What I don't understand is why McCain and Palin are getting sifted like sand and Obama and Biden get a pass, no matter the public opinion of President Bush. Anything less than even-handedness is bias, in my opinion. If they are suppressing the Obama / Biden stories by not reporting them then they are influencing through omission.

A perfect example of this would be two interviews that Katie Curric Recently did with (1) Senator Biden and later with (2) McCain and Palin.

Check this out: Video of Katie, McCain and Palin on the issue of the press non-contextually parsing and nitpicking over words, calling it "Gotcha Journalism".

Later CBS News published an article asking if "Gotcha Journalism" was just Republican candidates wanting a double-standard.

Now, check this out: Video of Katie and Biden talking about Biden not wanting to be held to the same standard of contextually parsing and nitpicking over his words ( same as Gotcha Journalism, but without calling it Gotcha Journalism.) (it starts about one minute into the interview)

No difference! Same issue! CBS had interviewed Biden a week before they interviewed McCain and Palin. Why didn't they object to what Biden suggested in the form of an article a week earlier?

The timeline goes like this:

1. Katie Couric interviews Biden who says people (Republicans) shouldn't nitpick his words. He claims that he isn't going to parse his words or censor himself. -9/21/2008
2. (No articles from CBS News claiming that this is a ploy for a double-standard.)
3. Katie Couric interviews McCain and Palin claiming that Palins statement about not letting Al Qaeda get a foothold in Pakistan is as much a military statement in poor diplomatic form as Obama saying that he would drop bombs on Pakistan to attack Al Qaeda with or without the support of Pakistan. McCain said in reply that you don't say stuff like that and that these soundbyte grabs where there are issues with non-contextual parsing of words is in fact a lower form of journalism he is calling "Gotcha Journalism." Note that Palin's words said nothing about doing such a thing with or without the support of Pakistan like what was said by Obama. - 9/29/2008
   
4. NOW CBS News suddenly calls this non-contextual nitpicking a plee for a double-standard by publishing an article accusing the McCain campaign of nitpicking over Senator Biden's claim that the Obama camp doesn't support "clean coal technology." - 9/29/2008
   

Obviously, outside of the issues, this non-contextual nitpicking needs to stop. If Biden was nitpicked on a policy statement in a non-contextual manner, then that is wrong. If Palin was, it was wrong too. Anything else is in fact CBS wielding the news with a double-standard. Consider the facts of the issue now. Which looks like nitpicking to you?

• Palin says she would definitely support cross-border attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan (CBS news leaves out that she said nothing about having or not having the support of Pakistan... this is called a lack of context, in my mind, and was in fact the very point McCain was making when he took exception with Obama's "with or without" the support of Pakistan statement.)
• Biden was questioned on video, asking if he supported clean coal technology and he said that they did not support clean coal technology (do we know the rest of that context? How is this non-contextual nitpicking?)

Final thought:

Even if I were to assume that Palin was making a naive statement about cross-border attacks on a country without the support of that country, the one common denominator between what she said and what Obama said is one thing: limited experience. At best, if the first were true, then the second is that much more true. The facts seem to be, however, it is a stretch to say that she said that. How do we know it is a stretch? Because even the CBS news article has to conceed that at best the similarity between what Palin said and what Obama said requires deduction, interpretation and inference stating that it was "implied."

Finally, during the coming Vice Presidential debate tonight I would like to hear what Palin and Biden think for themselves. I am less interested in what these candidates think of their running mates platform or more importantly what details they can recall on demand by the interviewer. What I would like to see happen is an honest set of questions about the key issues in America and what these candidates would personally want to see happen as a result of being elected. They were both just selected to be running mates and I expect them to be filled with personal opinions but possibly still working to find their place within the priorities of the inside view of their respective campaigns. In my opinion, this is why Biden said he didn't support "clean coal technology." He may not personally support it. My guess would be that he would be compatible with what Palin recently said about her views, that she is willing to share her views and perspective, even if that perspective ended up not being the goals of that administration. I think Biden will not agree with Obama on all points, but he will likely let Obamas goals run the administration be it elected in November. Having said that, I still want to hear what they think.