Free Republic

They cut short her full response about war with Russia. Very poor form.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Excerpts from Palin's interview with Charles Gibson. She talked experience, God, national security, Russia, Iran and Israel, and "the Bush doctrine". I could have done without the musings of war with Russia, but Sarah handled herself very well.

When did you make your prediction about Obama’s demise? Before or after the Palin pick?

This election is like no other in our history. With 4 debates and 2 months left to go... perceptions can and will still change dramatically.

Still, he would never switch to the Democrats “in this life, and definitely not in my next life, or the life after that.”

I don’t see why not. Hasn’t he already switched his name to Schwarzenkennedy?

Don’t go calling the election in early September. Overnight is an eternity in politics. The McCain/Palin momentum needs to carry into November and complacency is going to help that be accomplished.

McCain/Palin will win NV and CO putting them at 274.

Voters know that McCain is not a party loyalist, and are far more concerned about the differences between McCain and Obama, as they should be. The informed voters also know not to buy into the silly 90% talking point because a high percentage of votes are on procedural issues that have nothing to do with policy. And on policy, there are vast differences. For starters... McCain has a long standing record of managing deficit spending through responsiblility and making sure tax cuts are accompanied by spending cuts. Bush does not. We know McCain will veto many pork bills. Bush rarely saw a bill he didn’t sign. McCain will drill for oil offshore, and with Palin’s influence, perhaps in ANWR. Bush has not. McCain is against torture and Bush is not. McCain supports campaign finance reform. Bush did not. McCain has a long history of bipartisanship in reaching across the aisle and sponsoring legislation with prominent members of the Democratic party: Feingold, Kennedy. Bush has not worked well with Democrats. McCain wants to shake up Washington and chose an outsider maverick governor to be his VP. Bush brought Washington’s dinosaurs back into the picture: Cheney, James Baker, etc. McCain unfortunately supports a temporary worker program. Bush does not. But McCain does want to secure the borders. Bush has not. McCain unfortunately supports measures to reduce climate change that Bush does not. Etc. The list goes on and on.

In 2001 the social security tax cap was $80,400 and indexed to change annually with the average growth in wages. Well, either wages have grown 26% since 2001 or this cap has grown excessively in the last 7 years, and I think everyone knows which is the case. So what Obama is proposing isn't anything we couldn't have reasonably expected to happen anyhow, as I see it. And of course, this doesn't mean I'm happy about it one bit.