Comments on: A Palin flip-flop so big, you can’t even SEE it if you read it carefully

By: Vinman

Vinman — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:32:25 +0000

Yes, she said it! But it’s a cheap text-search gotcha that illustrates only a single facet of her attitude towards the issue. It says nothing about how she would govern. And it doesn’t fully satisfy Tapper’s implication; yes, it positions her as a skeptic, but the quote is nowhere near as strong as her request of proof in the Gibson interview.

By: zac

zac — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:25:05 +0000

It would be one thing to cite NewsMax commentary or reporting but it is altogether different to quote Palin’s very own words from a NewsMax interview. I followed the link; what more context is there? She clearly states without nuance: “I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made. “

By: Vinman

Vinman — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:58:13 +0000

(zac) So, let me get this straight: Pre-Charlie Gibson interview-Palin does not attribute climate change to being man-made but never asserted that there�s absolute proof of said claim. agreed. Isn�t anyone who denies the role that humans play in climate change in that position? Perhaps, but that’s a different argument than proving she actually said something on the public record. . . which is the gist of the thread.

That was what I was pointing out. It came from NewsMax(!), a source that would otherwise be scoffed at by the Jake Tapper types. The quote seems direct and sufficient for the John Stewart crowd, but means nothing without more context. It baffles me how the left tries to define itself as the more nuanced thinkers, always seeking additional (and often contradictory) information in order to form the most ‘balanced position’–and then without any irony at all bases WHOLE attacks on very short snippets of dialog lacking any substantive context, which evaporate after couple of hours in the newscycle.

By: zac

zac — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:36:25 +0000

So, let me get this straight: Pre-Charlie Gibson interview-Palin does not attribute climate change to being man-made but never asserted that there’s absolute proof of said claim. Isn’t anyone who denies the role that humans play in climate change in that position?

And I think you focused on “absolute” (I know, I know, it was Jake’s fault) and missed the real flip-flop:

Palin now: “I�m not going to disagree with the point that they make that man�s activities can be attributed to changes.�

Palin then: “I�m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.�