First you need to watch this video.
For me, the answers given in this interview are completely and totally inadequate. I do not care what her personal position on the subject of abortion is, I do not care what she would advise someone in that situation to do. What I care about is what legislation she would endorse and advocate. This is what will affect people's lives, and on this matter she was silent and evasive.
The question was not about how she would advise someone in that situation, it was what sort of legislation she would pursue as vice-president. This sort of question is not complicated. It could be simply answered as a yes or no question. Not answering the question shows either a lack of comprehension or deception about the real answer, neither of which is a desirable trait in anyone running for office.
And while this may seem like me joining in on the Palin bashing, the fact is that this type of crap is spouted by most politicians. Palin just seems to be the most egregious case right now.
End Post
Writing time: longer than you would expect
Time since last post: bleh
Current media: None
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I've been watching Yes Minister lately. You ever seen it? I wonder how realistic it is.
I believe Yes Minister to be the most accurate representation of British politics of the early eighties known to man.
Hehe, I agree with you about 'Yes Minister', that's for sure, a brilliant series, that's for sure:) RE: Sarah Palin, I completely agree that she should have answered the questions and that dodging them is not the best way to encourage my vote (personally). But on the other hand, isn't that what all politicians do? What makes her worse than the rest?
It is indeed a common problem with politicians, but Sarah Palin is a significant escalation in this tendency. There's also the fact that it increasingly seems she does this to try and cover her inadequacies than to pander to more people.
having finally able to watch that properly, i agree that she wasn't direct about the way she answered the questions, but I still was able to deduce what she was saying. I just got the impression she was choosing her words carefully as she has been trained to do in case someone twists them or uses them to come back and bite her. With regards to her opinions, well, we all know how she feels, and that's what she was asked for in the second question, with regards to policy, well, the example was pretty drastic and if she had answered that question directly as she believed, she would have been villified by the media for sure; it's such a touchy subject. I agree with your principle that she should answer quesions properly, but I think in terms of using examples, it would be easier to get a direct questions out of her if the journalist wasn't using such a controversial and dramatic example.
I haven't got much experience in her other interviews or videos sorry, so I can't comment about her pattern in answering questions.
Cheers
~S
Post a Comment