And with the final installment tonight we get one more answer for the road:

 

COURIC: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

 

PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.

 

COURIC: the cornerstone of Roe v Wade

 

PALIN: I do. And I believe that --individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.

 

COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

 

PALIN: Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are--those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know--going through the history of America, there would be others but--

 

COURIC: Can you think of any?

 

PALIN: Well, I could think of--of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

And with the final installment tonight we get one more answer for the road:

 

COURIC: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

 

PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.

 

COURIC: the cornerstone of Roe v Wade

 

PALIN: I do. And I believe that --individual states can handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that.

 

COURIC: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

 

PALIN: Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are--those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know--going through the history of America, there would be others but--

 

COURIC: Can you think of any?

 

PALIN: Well, I could think of--of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

That was hard to read.

:lol: Well, now, here's un unbiased opinion.

 

Although biased, my opinion is based on looking at all angles of all the candidates. Obama is so far left, he's fouled all the way out of the park.

That was hard to read.

 

Yes it was...I'm starting to get the feeling Palin knows more about the issues than some are giving her credit for, but just has a hard time articulating them....Kinda like the current guy in the White House. :lol:

That was hard to read.

 

I cringed and felt sorry for her.

She just doesn't have it. There are any number of folks here on this board, on both sides of the fence, that could articulate an issue a thousand times better. Even sitting in ths hot seat.

Yes it was...I'm starting to get the feeling Palin knows more about the issues than some are giving her credit for, but just has a hard time articulating them....Kinda like the current guy in the White House. :lol:

 

:laugh:

 

I felt sorry for her as well. Here is a Governor of a state who is asked are there any other Supreme Court decisions she thinks she would disagree with and she can't mention the "Immenent domain" Ruling of a couple of years ago or the more recent Exxon Ruling that cost Alaska millions of dollars they would have received from a lower court ruling.

 

That's not an articulation problem, that's an "I don't know problem."

Would it not insult anyone on this board if the person that picked you to be his running mate had such little confidence in you he would come sit beside you while you did an interview?

Did I hear Palin correctly when she said:

 

"I am a Federalist in this sense that the states should have more say in the laws . . ."

 

 

(about the 2:15 mark or so)

 

Now can someone help me here but isn't the term "Federalist" often associated with strong, centralized government (such as the Federalist Papers debate in the forming of the government) that supercedes the states' rights? If that is the case then that is striking to me that she can't convey the real definition of the issues involved in the question.

 

I have come to really have a problem with the American Politic in the last couple of years. People on both sides of the aisle seem to have lost the ability to speak intelligently, thoughtfully and with substance on issues they believe. I've seen Obama commit gaffes that make me wonder if he really knows what he is trying to convey and the same with a Bush or in this case Palin.