Saturday, April 18, 2009

A Palin Radio Interview on W.A.R. from Indiana

From Conservatives4Palin. I don't know what radio station recorded this, but it appears to be one in Alaska (According to Kelly, the interview was done by Mike Ross, from KTUU TV):


Anonymous said...

She is the last one who should be talking about "open" anything or the letter of the law. What about those emails? What a liar.

Kelly said...

That telephone interview is with Mike Ross at KTUU.

Philip Munger said...

Thanks, Kelly - Ill update. It sort of sounded like him, but there was no indication on the C4P site.

Cany said...

clueless and a liar.

Steve said...

This is a good tape to study how Palin evades the questions so that future interviewers can get more skilled on pinning her down. If you don't listen to the words carefully, her tone sounds very reasonable. Having just listened to this once I have a few reactions.

1. He asked about the legislature's rejection of Ross and she just said how he was the best candidate she could think of and the things he stood for and three times repeated that the legislators gave him an honor last year. The interviewer didn't say something like, "We can find good things to say about anyone, but the legislators expressed concerns about his gay bashing and his comments about women like, "If you can't rape your wife, who can you rape?" Are you saying these are the values of Alaskans?

He asked about the appointment of Sen. Elton's replacement and she said she did her process out in the open and the Dems did theirs secretly, that she was following the Constitution and the law.

He might have said that "I didn't realize you had open meetings with your advisers on why you should reject Kertulla and what names to send the legislature. Can you send me a dvd of those open transparent decisions?" He didn't point out that the Democrats followed the letter of the law as has been the practice since it was passed. And that she was relying on a legal opinion by one Commissioner which is hardly equal in the law to a statue passed by the legislature.

When he asked her a second time about public reaction to her being out of state instead of in Juneau, she asked him how that wasn't being a good governor for Alaskans and he didn't respond at all. I would also have asked her about her figures on how often other governors were out of state during the session. Maybe Murkowski, but I think it was way off for others. In any case when she throws out a figure like that the interviewer isn't prepared for, he can just ask for how that was calculated and could he get a copy of data.

Andrew Halcro told us last year how Palin got through the debates when she ran for Governor by saying nothing of substance. It was harder for her to get away with that with a national audience and more skilled interviewers. But this should be a challenge to Alaska reporters to be better prepared to not let her slip out of their questions so easily. They may even have to do mock interviews to get the hang of it. It would help to watch this sort of interview and learn how to counter her moves so they can pin her down. Watching this and then watching Katie Couric.

One last point. There is a way to be respectful, without being deferential. Couric demonstrates that too.

Anonymous said...

Steve wrote: "When he asked her a second time about public reaction to her being out of state instead of in Juneau, she asked him how that wasn't being a good governor for Alaskans and he didn't respond at all."

ahem, "public reaction" is a reflection of your constituents, Governor, those you serve. So yes, it does have something to do with your job.

She just re-routed his question to her's back on him, lol.

Besides, if they don't play nice she won't give them interviews.

Anonymous said...

the interviewer also should have asked her why her previous appointments were made using the same procedures.

Instead he lets her say, Ross only trying to say there was a new sheriff in town to enforce the letter of the law so therefore the legislature was afraid of him.

Well.....ah yeah, BIG red flags! If she and he think they can interpret the law as she sees fit under her administration. Of course they are going to have cause for concern. It was obvious where this was going.

Not to forget the very real racist issues.

Anonymous said...

did she say she had a meeting with TransCanada about the gas pipeline on this trip?

@ 6:30 she says she just got out of a great meeting with them.