Chris Wallace on Palin Interview: First Time I Ever Thought ‘This Women Is A Serious Candidate’

MediaIte ^ | 6.5.11 | Matt Schneider

[rface]

After interviewing Sarah Palin, Chris Wallace talked about her with his panel of guests and revealed that he was very impressed with her appearance. Unlike previous times when he interviewed her, Wallace noticed “this wasn’t just ‘you betcha’ – she was pretty sharp on the issues.”

Wallace was eager to see if anyone else agreed with his review of Palin’s interview:

“I thought she was a boffo performance today. It was the first time that I ever saw her and thought ‘this woman is a serious – if she decides to run – candidate for President. And a serious possibility to be President.’”

.

CLICK for the link to the FOX video towards middle of page and watch Mara Liason and others comment

[libbylu]

lolol.

[Bigg Red]

She “sounded” different.

&&&
I noticed that, too. I think that she has made an effort to slow down. Sometimes, she has a tendency to talk fast, and I guess that bothers some people. I imagine that it is hard on TV or radio to strike a balance. I know that I have seen people that talk to slowly and some who speak to quickly.

[OregonTide]

libbylu..having some fun. Alot of time until election day. Let’s have an open mind. People wonder why her negatives are so high. Maybe because alot of us are fatigued with the nightly appearances on FOX, the book tours, the reality shows, the bus tours. Hey Sarah, get off the bus, get off Fox and RUN for office, or let the other candidates have the spotlight. That simple.

[Bigg Red]

Good grief!

...talk to slowly and some who speak to quickly. =

...talk too slowly and some who speak too quickly.

[PA Engineer]

It worries me because Palin has been a bit gaffe-prone in the past and the media pounces on it

How so? Your "concern" is noted.

[Two Kids' Dad]

Fox has alienated me. I haven’t watched or DVRed any of their shows in a while. I got tired of being frustrated by the RINOs and lefties spouting their talking points. Like a previous poster mentioned, they come into the studio with a script of what they want to say and nothing will jar them from their script. That’s not a discussion panel worth watching. I’d rather get on the internet and surf through various stories and discussion boards where I get a variety of perspectives and some actual thought instead of reading from tired talking points.

[Bigg Red]

Can we wedge Cain in there somewhere...?

***
Treasury

[Bigg Red]

Bill Kristol is just a smug elite who’s all of 5’4”.

&&&
Yep, short man sydrome.

[P-Marlowe]

So paul revere was warning the British troops? Hardly. Warning shots? Bells? No...Sarah Palin screwed up and can’t admit it. At the end of the day, she’s just another politician.

Would you be so kind as the research this event and then ping me when you are ready to admit that you screwed up and got it wrong.

Paul Revere DID warn the British.

Look it up.

Read your history.

Admit when YOU are wrong.

Be a man.

[newfreep]

Actually, Paul Revere’s personal, handwritten journal supports Palin’s comments. So that’s straight from the horse’s...well, pen!

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

yes, i have hoped that Sarah for some time would see the flaws in our neo-cons interventionist arguments. Maybe she is seeing we do not have the money for them but i would add i hate seeing american blood shed to have nation-building 8000 miles from here. Long wars are LOSERS for politicians not to mention the young men who die so a bunch of nutty muslims can set up an Islamic republic (sic).

A George Washington foreign policy suits me fine. I believe the biggest threat to the country is by Libturd control of scotus. More damage has been done to this country by Libturd scotus than has been done nutty muslims, 9/11 included. Political capital can not be wasted on ground wars 6000 miles from our own home!!! Talk about diversionary tactics by Libs. The hawks on this forum need to see this.

[radioone]

“I have never understood what her negatives are.”

The Journolist was in full swing at the time and getting their collective DNC talking points published daily.

Tina Fey does the “I can see Russia” skit which the media manipulates the public into believing Sarah said.

This is a textbook example of the same type of propaganda run in Germany prior to and during WW2. This time, however, it’s run by the DNC/Soros/Media complex.

[yellowroses]

I have a question for you. What does ““boffo” mean?

[Carling]

The same thing happened to George W. Bush because he said “Nuke-U-lar”.

Meanwhile, people like me from Montana (live in Oregon, though) think it sounds moronic to say “I-DEER” for idea, which is what John Kerry said repeatedly in the campaign. But, since that was an East coast dialect, the media didn't think twice about how silly it sounds to those of us with a flat dialect.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

“Killer trees” you’re wrong. How old are you? (rhetorical ?)

Reagan, imho, was a very good speaker but off the cuff he said some things that were not exactly according to Hollywood script and he did take media bashing for it. That is my recollection from the 1980s, my very first adult presidential race. I never thought RR was perfect off the cuff.

[Bigtigermike]

The following is an excerpt of Governor Palin’s remarks at Colorado Christian University (CCU) on May 2, 2011, for the Tribute to the Troops benefit in support of Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) -

"There’s a lesson here then for the effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity. See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision. I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points."

"First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period."

"Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world. But with strength and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re going to prove that free and healthy countries don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries. The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example. Some of these principles may sound familiar. A few of them were first expressed back in 1984 in President Reagan’s cabinet. They were designed to help us sharply define when and how we should use force, and they served us well in the Reagan years. Times are much different now, but I believe that by updating these time-tested principles to address the unique and changing circumstances and threats that we face today, they will serve us well now and into the future. Remember, Reagan liked to keep it simple, yet profound. Remember what he would say to the enemy? He’d say, “we win, you lose.”

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

i thought it was derisionary at first but then it is obvious from reading the transcript CW thought she did great. So boffo means “she hit it out of the park”, i guess.

[EveningStar]

I seriously doubt that Saint Sarah really knew about what Paul Revere said to the British. I’ve watched the clip several times and it’s clear that she was just talking off the top of her head.