"I think you are a cynic," Palin said, "because show me where I've said there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that.Tapper had a Fairbanks news story locked and loaded:
Show me? Ok, Gov. Palin: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, December 4, 2007: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity, but I'm not going to put my head in the sand and pretend there aren't changes."That's hardly a gotcha. The difference here is believing that 1) climate changes by defintion and man may have some hard to quantify effects on it, or 2) man causes climate change. She clearly believes in number one. Good--it's the most reasonable position based on the state of the science.
Hopefully the political tides don't drift her more towards the man-made position because flip-flopping wouldn't really represent putting a new fresh face on politics in DC. Stated plainly--if either McCain or Obama truly think mankind is 100 percent responsible for all the warming seen since 1980 they are far too arrogant and dangerous to be allowed anywhere near the White House. Period. It's akin to believing they can shine a flashlight at the moon and alter its orbit.
Thankfully it's likely both are just posturing; McCain is no scientist and likely decided awhile back he was better positioned by taking the touchy feely side of this issue, along with illegal immigration. He's savvy. He's a politician. He knows Republicans can more easily get rolled on such things in today's media climate. But Palin needs to stay put, since she's not the decider.
Perhaps more interesting was that she followed the science debate by outwardly disagreeing with the boss on ANWR, saying she'll try to change his mind on drilling there. That's something she has intimate knowledge of and can reasonably engage in discussion without needing an advanced degree in atmosphere science like Al Learjet Gore. Oh wait, his degree was only honorary.
2 comments:
In this and in your previous post, what stands out for me is the tendency politicians have to “talk too much.” For example, “Does the United States have the right of cross-border invasions into Pakistan?” Preferred answer: The United States, as a sovereign power, has the absolute right to do whatever is necessary to protect its people. Stop.
“Do you think Al Gore is correct in his assertions that global warming and climate change issues require Congressional action?” Preferred answer: Mr. Gore bases his propositions on questionable science; show me hard science, and I’ll show you a definitive and an appropriate government response. Stop.
The tendency Palin appears to have to “convince” Gibson (and others) that she’s on the right track can actually dismantle her “executive” bona fides. Last night, Diane Sawyer asked McCain a question, and I loved his response. “First, I disagree with your premises that ….” This demonstrates two things. (1) McCain was listening, and (2) Sawyer is an idiot.
I have to say my initial fears that she was somewhat of a lightweight were not pacified much by this interview.
Cheney was a critical force on 9/11 when Bush was out of pocket. Unless the debates convince me otherwise, I'm thinking Palin was just a desperation pick by a man who knew he'd lose if he picked anybody else. That's not really 'country first'.
Maybe she can change some minds during the debates, which brings up an interesting thought. Obama could almost lock up a victory if he somehow gets Biden to bow out before the first debate and replaces him with Hillary. The MSM would surely not punish him for that error in judgment (he saw the light, etc) unlike they would if McCain did the same. And Hillary would be a tough match for Miss Sarah.
Post a Comment