Palin offers first television interview to ABC

Hey Ronald - i guess you dont believe in global warming, human rights, civil rights or basically anything that isn’t arch-radical conservative.

I would ask why she claims to be against earmarks and that she turned down the “Bridge to Nowhere.” When she was running for governor of Alaska she supported that bridge and accepted over two million dollars which was not returned when the project was scrapped.

As mayor of Wasilla, a city of under 10,000 she received 8 million dollars in earmarks.

Just a little info on the Bridge issue (to further support Dixie’s comment). This is from the nonpartisan website, factcheck.org.

Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.
Palin: I told the Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.
This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.
When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.
Palin, 2006: “People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”
Palin also answered “yes” to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. “The window is now,” she wrote, “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.
The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.
And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.

Soul Divia - Excellent post. I too am a working mother of two girls, both of whom graduated from college and are now married and still do not have children. I owned my own company, and even went to college at night for awhile. However, I knew where my girls were every minute of every day and never let my career interfere with parenting. If you cannot do it all, you choose being a parent. That poor 17-year old girl needed her mother and she was not there, or at least was not approachable. Jacqueline Kennedy said “If you bungle raising your children, I don’t think whatever else you do well matters very much.”
I am really worried now about that beautiful 14 year old, Willow. Who will be there for her while her mother continues on this quest to be vice president.

Everyone is making a huge deal out of Sarah Palin’s speech. The fact of the matter is, she did not write her RNC speech, she only read from a teleprompter what was written for her. Matthew Scully had written Palin’s speech long before Palin was even a considered. The RNC could have put Mickey Mouse on the podieum to read that speech and Repulicans would have been just as excited.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html

It’s almost appalliing that people will be fooled by the Mccain/Palin rhetoric.
Mccain is talking about he’s a maverick who has been fighting against his party to “change” the way Washington works. Well that is oxymoronic. If he’s for “change” and he’s been fighting his party and Washington for 26 years, what change is he proposing. He’s not changing anything if he’s already been fighting Washington and his party. His claim of “change” is nothing more than usurping Obama’s message and clouding the judgment of some voters who, undoubtedly are voting along racial lines only. If they think Mccain/Palin is possible of change when the republicans have been in the White House all this time, they ARE stupid.Some people sound ridiculous by saying Obama/Biden is in trouble. Believe me, he’s already factored in the “racists” votes. His plan goes beyond the conventional map and the race-based voters. But if people thiink Palin is a “savior” for the Mccain campaign you’re dillusional. My BIGGEST CONCERN is the way Mccain made his VP pick. I don’t care whether Palin is qualified or not. The VP pick is the most UNDEMOCRATIC process in our country. And to have Palin standing at the front of the line to become VP DOES SCARE ME!! There’s a possibility that she could become president WITHOUT EVEN BEING SCRUTINIZED OR ELECTED. That’s scary no matter how you look at it because it’s taking OUR MOST BASIC RIGHT TO VOTE and casting it into the wind. All because Mccain wants to win this election at any cost. EVEN IF IT COST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEIR VOICE IN THE PROCESS!!
Most importantly, its not Obama who’s in trouble, its the American people. $hit, Obama has $70million dollars and he’s a US Senator. If he loses the election he’s not going to suffer from it. But the American people will.
What I don’t understand is this: After the 2000 elections, there were massive floods and tornados in the Ohio, Indiana, Iowa region. When the people there needed and wanted Federal assistance to recover, Bush refused to provide them with any disaster relief. Afterwards those people there were complaining because they had voted for Bush but he refused to help them when they needed it most. Mccain won’t be any different. All these folks thinking Mccain is for them will wake up terrorized after its too late. I will sit back and baske in the glow of watching them suffer. Of course Mccain’s policies won’t matter if you’re someone with $5million dollars in net worth. You’ll be happy to keep getting more and more tax cuts. But in the end, if you’re not $5million dollars in the black, you’ll be FIGHTING THE POWERS THAT BE after you wake from you stupor.

I am not quite sure it matter what questions we want answered. She is not answering anything on the campaign trail and her interviewer was handpicked. I am sure they will screen the questions she is asked and put their spin on them. The only time we have a chance at this woman is in the debates…. assuming she agrees to them.