Sarah Palin was in New Delhi, India March 19 for the annual India Today conclave, where she gave a speech on “My Vision for America.” The theme for this years conclave was “The Changing Balance of Power.” After her speech, Palin sat down for a Q and A session with India Today Editor-in-Chief and Session Chairman Aroon Purie, during which she blamed McCain for losing 2008, among other mildly amusing indications that she is running for President in 2012. When asked why she lost 2008, Palin snapped, “I wasn’t the top of the ticket!”
Palin’s speech, by the way, was nothing new: Palin bashed green energy, called for more oil drilling, and made sure to blame Obama again for high gas prices (I suspect they know about the global market in India and might not be as prone to buying this jingle as Americans are). I have no idea how they translated her word salad; I couldn’t follow it in English.
Now to the Q and A, a most exciting event as Palin doesn’t allow our media to ask her questions. We will finally get to meet the real Sarah, the one who will be unfiltered by the evil liberal elite. Expect to fall in love, people. Palin was being interviewed by India Today Editor-in-Chief and Session Chairman Aroon Purie. I took these notes while watching the live stream, and there’s no video yet, so what you’re getting here is the raw Palin experience:
I seemed to tune in at the perfect moment, as Palin was saying, “I don’t play the victim card, and when they do, in a campaign, call out a opponent, to call out their record….” Sounds like she’s saying she’s not playing the victim card when she defends herself, which is good, because that’s all she ever does. I am awarding points to her for listening to her advisers on this issue and attempting to soften her image. This is her second media appearance wherein she pulled back on the hate, rage and self-pity.
I’m not sure America is going to buy it, but hey, it’s an effort. I must, however, deduct points for the Republican belief that if one repeats a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Palin is the victim card. She’s been playing it all her life, which is why it disturbs me that the GOP is coming after her so hard. They must know that she won her 2006 campaign by running against the establishment Republicans, right?
Purie asked Palin, “Why do you think you lost the election?”
“The media…” Palin said pointedly, and then self-consciously softened it with a laugh. Attempting to pretend she has not taken pot shots at Obama on foreign soil before (see Hong Kong), she strangled this out through gritted teeth, “Candidate Obama had a strong campaign. Though he was inexperienced, he was change.” This is as nice as she can be, folks. Live it up. She had to get the dig in about him being “inexperienced.” As if she were somehow…oh well.
I don’t know why she couldn’t use his proper title, but Palin seems in many ways stuck back in 2008, constantly re-litigating her grievances and sure that if she just tells us that “candidate Obama” is inexperienced, we will believe her. It’s as if she doesn’t quite grasp that while she was doing reality TV shows, he’s been in the White House.
Purie didn’t buy this excuse and pushed her, “You could have been change.”
Palin was quick to fire back with just a tad of that infamous venom, snapping, “I wasn’t the top of the ticket!”
Ah, so that was the problem.
She was clearly attempting to pull back from her clipped, angry delivery, but that effort only made her voice shrill. Palin remarked that she thinks it’s time “for a woman to become President of America.” Palin claims to believe in equal rights for women. (Before or after the dinosaurs?) She has modulated her voice again, back to nice girl mode. Well done. Who’s coaching her? She must really want this Presidency thing for her to be willing to listen to advisers.
He asks her what she would do about nuclear weapons and terrorism if she were president. Yes, this really happened. Palin jumped in saying, “There are a lot of economic steps that can be taken, military would be last step of course, but sanctions that are not being taken…we would not stand for harm they would desire to invoke on innocent people….being bold enough to tell them that what is still on the table is military options. I am a believer of, like Ronald Reagan was, of peace through strength.”
So, she would send the military after nuclear weapons?
Note that Palin, like all Republicans, invokes the war on “terror” as if you can be at war with a feeling. You can’t. The only reason Republicans use this term is because it allows them to wage war wherever they feel like it. Spy some terrorism? Invade! After all, we’re at “war” with terrorism!
And her only solution is that she wouldn’t stand for nuclear weapons and terrorism. So, there you go, George and Barack! Stop puttin’ up with that terrorism! Put your foot down, boys! She claims that she would tell them the military option is still on the table, as if that would stop terrorism and deployment of nuclear weapons. Does she know we are at war right now and it’s not stopping the terrorists? In fact, many argue that it has made terrorist cells stronger.
So, now that Palin has suggested using the military against even more terrorists, Purie naturally followed up by asking her about the defense budget, “Would you increase your defense budget?”
I’m not sure she understood why he asked that question, because Palin responded with a contradictory jingle about waste and fraud in the defense budget but then said there was no choice, the military has to come first, “The waste and fraud there, things that need to be cut, but again, so many other areas where cuts need to be made. Any choice there, no? It would first be our national defense.” In case you fell asleep, this is Palin’s particular talent. She said two different things in one sentence. She would cut the waste and fraud of the defense budget, but she wouldn’t cut it at all. These are the tough stances of a “common sense conservative.”
When asked about her role models in the Republican Party, Palin cited Lincoln and Reagan and claimed to be a Republican because of Lincoln. I don’t know about you, but when I think Lincoln and what he stood for, I think Palin and blood libel. Or Palin and “pallin’ around with terrorists.” I wonder if she knows yet that that was a lie?
Purie asked her about the Indo-US relationship. Palin suggested, with a school mistress’ scolding tone inferring that President Obama had best get it together, that America “had better recognize India’s rising.” I hope the President took time out from monitoring the nuclear disaster in Japan and the Libyan crisis to listen to Palin on the live stream this morning! These are pearls, baby. Bow down, boy. The white woman with a rumored college degree in “communications” is speaking. Oh, did I say that out loud?
Here comes my favorite part. It’s so obvious that someone is coaching Her Royal Self for 2012, because the war hawk who insisted that we go to war with Russia during the 2008 campaign (remember that? They got it wrong, but what do you expect from knee jerk responders?) who is also on Youtube saying the war in Iraq is a Holy War actually uttered these words, “I want peace on Earth.”
It’s like the beauty contestant who finally learned the right answer. Yes, Sarah, this is what Americans want to hear. They don’t want to hear about your Dominionist End Days scenario; it frightens them and it appears irrational. People don’t like irrational presidents, though, of course, we did elect W. Does Palin also, too, want goodwill toward man?
Purie asks her what she would do with India in regards to Pakistan. “We can’t go back to that hyphenated days of, no we need to and can work together in working with Pakistan, and we have our issues there, too, and in a sense we do, but we need to work with Pakistan, but that’s one of those issues that we need to work on, as we strengthen our allies, there…”
I guess Purie gave up, because he interrupted her from repeating herself again and asked her specifically about terrorists crossing into India, to which Palin appeared again dismayed with and seemingly superior to the present leadership the way a child thinks they know better than their parents, “I hear that condemnation of India for terrorists crossing border…but we will not put up with innocent people being harmed by terrorist, so that you have more confidence in America’s commitment to defeating terrorism.”
I’m not sure that was his point, but he moves on to ask her about her issues with the Republican Party, which allows Palin to wax charming and throw in her spin about her husband not being a secessionist. She said, “Todd isn’t even registered in Republican Party, he’s an independent, being so independent there, not having time to play games, allowing government to get out of the way….” Todd Palin was in fact a registered AIP member — that’s secessionist party for those who don’t know – aka, “independence” in Palin speak.
Palin may be serious about 2012, because in 2008, Palin was very focused on the press reporting that her husband Todd had been an AIP member. She demanded that McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt tell the press this wasn’t true, but Schmidt refused, reminding Palin in emails that were later revealed that it was in fact true, and secession was the AIP’s main stated purpose. Schmidt advised Palin to drop it. She was steaming mad about his refusal to lie for her. She must still be hung up on it, though the press never ran with the whole secessionist theme.
Purie asks Palin what she would do as President. Palin claims she would cut government as President, which would be interesting since she grew government as governor of Alaska. Purie has some fun with Palin, asking, “Would your husband be called first man if you were President?”
I was screaming, please don’t egg her on, as Palin threw her charm into full throttle mode with “First Dude” winks. It’s as if he heard me, because he closed with, “We hope your political future is as bright as you see it.”
The inference that she was delusional hung thickly in the air. Thank you, India.
Update: 4:57PM Oh, my. The Palin bots are up in arms, people! All over the interwebs claiming evil Sarah Jones lied because Palin also said, “I’m not saying I should have been. Just sayin’.” No, she’s not saying she “should have been” – she’s saying if she HAD been, she would have won. There. Is that better?
Also, I promise not to bring up the hat that Palin wore for TMZ way back when with McCain’s name sharpied out, just in case the Palinbots think I took this out of context. Feel better, now, bots. K?