I try to be unbiased. I don't try very hard, but I like to think I give people the benefit of the doubt. For the most part.
I watched the Gibson/Palin interviews and what struck me is that Sarah seemed to be repeating what she had been coached/prepped to say in response to questions without actually offering a single original thought. She never got mad because perhaps she was repeating what someone told her to say in answer to the questions and how could she get mad at that?. "If they bring up the bridge, just say that once congress pulled the plug you had to decide that it was time to let that project go."
Okay, if this wasn't the case, why did Gibson have to ask her three times about changing from the Bush economy and another three times on the bridge to nowhere? She had nothing to offer except Republican rhetoric. Her answers to the Bridge to Nowhere show that she doesn't even understand the question.
Offering up "I believe every woman should have the right to choose" and then saying she wants to create a "culture of life" suggests that she believes what's good for her is good for all. And explain how a culture of life includes guns. She is pro-gun/pro-NRA. I have an issue with being pro-gun (do guns kill or do people kill?) and wanting a culture of life.
Obviously, her stance on wildlife and the environment demonstrates that her culture of life only extends to humans and possibly, maybe to animals so long as they aren't in her way or on her dinner menu.
It might be apparent at this point that I will not be voting for the Republicans. If they ever stood for something I agreed with, I'd consider it. But under the circumstances of McCain wanting to continue four more years of Bush doctrine, there's no way I'm going to.
Have you gone to www.ontheissues.org? Go there and read up to see what ol' Johnny really wants.
Have a blessed day.