Good answer, with supports.
I would agree that a president, especially a conservative one, should know the constitution. But the Couric interview is not sufficient to know, accurately, what Palin knows. In fact it’s vastly insufficient. If you depend on the interview for information about Palin’s mind, you are letting Couric and her editors manipulate you.
We can be certain, based on her political actions and her language that Palin has true conservative instincts, a love for the rational method and a courageous spirit that rises to the top maybe once a century.
I have heard Palin directly criticize politicians for using the neo-Orwellian style of language that so infects our society, that way of talking around a subject, usually in order to avoid accountability. It was once only used by lawyers and politicians but today can be heard spoken commonly in the streets. I think this style of communication illustrates a symptom of moral downfall, and for Palin to take a stand against it demonstrates a mixture of wisdom and common sense rarely or never seen in politicians.
Good comment to Huck. Thanks reason is faith.
That's a fair enough point. I don't think the two questions I am referring to were edited. I don't think they clipped out the part where she knew what she was talking about. She gave complete answers, they were simply horrendous answers.
But let's say you are correct, it's not sufficient. That's fine with me. That's why I suggested the other day that a conservative group host a series of debates on the Constitution, and invite Sarah. Let's see her on our turf, on our terms, demonstrate her knowledge of the Constitution, and of republican government. Put her up against a liberal heavyweight, Larry Tribe or someone, and see how she does.
My problem is that OUR side is unable or unwilling to cast a critical eye towards her, and I think that's a problem.