Faux News Scrubs Palin Article from Website

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this Thursday's VP Debate between Sen. Joe Biden & Gov. Sarah Palin is going to be a massacre, a smackdown of epic proportions. If not, then it would be only because the McCain campaign would have so lowered the bar for her that simply showing up and looking at the camera will mark an impressive debate performance. Has anyone actually been able to watch any of Palin's national network interviews

without laughing themselves to death? It has nothing with her being a Republican--her performances have been pathetic for anyone who has graduated from college, or become a town mayor, or made Governor of a state, let alone someone who the Republican party has chosen to be next in line or in charge in the absence or incapacitation of the President.

Had Bill Clinton, or John Kerry, or certainly Barack Obama chosen such a
(non)intellectual lightweight, that ticket would have been mocked with derision and subsequently laughed out of town by the same folks in the media and at Fox News that are propping Palin up now. That the McCain campaign would foist such a fraud upon us who is clearly not ready to do anything besides recognize that Canada is a "foreign country", is an insult to anyone possessing a modicum of common sense. But then again, what would you expect from the same party that has brought us such mental stalwarts as Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, John McCain himself & now the simply awesome Parah Salin? I would argue that it has been a deliberate tactic by the GOP to continuously inundate us with such incredibly stupid candidates that literally anyone they put in front of the country has a legitimate chance of being elected President. Don't believe me? then fine, prove me wrong. As long as those candidates tout the Republican talking points of anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-guns & pro-business they appeal to the Republican base just fine.

Now to the issue at hand, which is that "Sly Fox" News deliberately erased, removed, or "scrubbed" an anti-Palin article from their web site which says the same things that I have thus far said in this post. (See my screen capture above of the page where the article "Conservatives Begin Questioning Palin’s Heft" once existed). Top Republican strategists, political pundits and other notables are reported to be in disbelief that John McCain would be so reckless as to present a vapid character as Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential choice, especially following the disastrous media appearances of the handful of interviews, most notably with ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric, that the campaign has graciously "allowed" in the 30 days following her nomination and confirmation as VP choice during the 2008 RNC in Minnesota. Thank goodness, the good folks at German website, DerKeiler.com found and posted the original article, "Conservatives Begin Questioning Palin’s Heft". However, the closest article to this original post on Fox News' website is actually titled "Analysis: Pressure Builds on Palin Ahead of VP Debate", which if you compare both articles, you'll see the latter is a seriously dumbed down version of the former. The Brad Blog also re-posted the article. As my final bits of evidence, I will leave you excerpts from some of Palin's most memorable recent interviews which I'm sure you will find as incomprehensible, unintelligible, and ridiculous as I did. Dear Lord! No wonder Rick Davis and the McCain campaign have been hiding Palin from the media!

From Charlie Gibson's ABC interview with Sarah Palin, 9/11/08

Sarah Palin on 'the Bush Doctrine':

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

From Katie Couric's CBS Interview w/Sarah Palin, 9/24/08

Palin Can't Cite Any Examples of McCain Taking a Stand on Regulation:

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.