We now join ABC News' Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin, accompanied by round 4 of my commentary (check out round 1, round 2 and round 3!), already in progress:

The following excerpts are from ABC News' second of three exclusive interviews with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, conducted by "World News" anchor Charlie Gibson on September 11, 2008, along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, outside of Fairbanks.
Ooo, ON LOCATION is SEXY.

Sarah Palin on Climate Change:

GIBSON: Let me talk a little bit about environmental policy, because this interfaces with energy policy and you have some significant differences with John McCain. Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?

PALIN: I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting.


I'm so glad she isn't one of those people who says "I don't believe in Global Warming." like it's "evolution" or something.

I mean, puhlease! Evolution is just a theory! Global Warming is like REAL. I saw it on the news!!

Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet -- the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution.


Wow, surprisingly progressive words from a Christian fundy who is a robot for the Republican cause. I guess the rest of us have simply given them no choice but to accept this as fact.

Amazing.

GIBSON: But it's a critical point as to whether or not this is man-made. He says it is. You have said in the past it's not.


Why is it a critical point, Charlie?

Who gives a crap why it's happening? Just make the changes required to help the environment!

Ultimately, she can think what she wants, so long as she agrees that things are happening and that they need to be dealt with.

It seems like you're just baiting her with this question.

PALIN: The debate on that even, really has evolved into, OK, here's where we are now: scientists do show us that there are changes in climate. Things are getting warmer. Now what do we do about it. And John McCain and I are gonna be working on what we do about it.


Sure you are.

GIBSON: Yes, but isn't it critical as to whether or not it's man-made, because what you do about it depends on whether its man-made.


No, it really isn't. We need to curb our use of fossil fuels and foreign oil across the board for a thousand other reasons aside from whether it's causing Climate Change. Let the naysayers deny Global Warming all together if they want. It still won't change the fact that our dependence on fossil fuels is dangerous politically and it's bad for the environment long before it is a cause of GW.

Mind you, I, ThePete, am not disagreeing that Global Warming is caused by humans. I'm just trying to get around a lot of the standard arguments.

PALIN: That is why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.

GIBSON: But I, color me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there. When you say, yes, now you're beginning to say it is man-made. It sounds to me like you're adapting your position to Sen. McCain's.

PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.


Ohhh, Charlie! Follow up with an exact quote! Or at least follow up!

You let a girl nail you, Charlie!!

Actually, I can think of a few guys that might enjoy getting nailed by Palin...

Ohhh, I kid!

Sarah Palin on Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

GIBSON: ANWR. You favor drilling in the Arctic National Refuge. He does not.

PALIN: I sure do.


Yes, but McCain DOESN'T! Perhaps you'd like to talk about why you do and how you're going to deal with McCain disagreeing with you?

Enough with the short, useless answers!

GIBSON: You changed him on that? He changing you?


GIBSON: Me reporter, you Sarah. Me make big bucks off making you seem dumb. Me no understand why last sentence be so grammatically wrong.

PALIN: I'm going to keep working on that one with him. ANWR, of course, is a 2,000-acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million-acre swath of land. Two-thousand acres that we're asking the feds to unlock so that there can be exploration and development.


Oooo, now that money is involved, Palin brings the deets! Sheesh, if Gibson had known that, maybe he'd have started to ask about money from the start!

Hey, that reminds me, here we are in "part two" of ABC's interview and Charlie has yet to ask about the economy.

GIBSON: So, you'll agree to disagree on ANWR?

PALIN: That's exactly right. We'll agree to disagree, but I'm gonna keep pushing that, and I think, eventually, we're all gonna come together on that one.


Why don't you ask God to show McCain the light on drilling in ANWR?

The following excerpts are from ABC News' third and final interview with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, conducted by "World News" anchor Charlie Gibson on September 12, 2008, at the Palin home in Wasilla, Alaska.


Wow, part two was short and not very substantive.

Sarah Palin on Reform:

GIBSON: Didn't George Bush come to Washington eight years ago talking about reforming Washington in the same kind of language? Ran as something of a maverick actually; came to Washington. Eight years, hasn't changed the ethos in Washington particularly. Why are you any different?


She isn't. :P

Nor is Obama--all politicians will say anything to get in office. Once they're in, that's when we can really find out if we want(ed) to vote for them or not.

:(

PALIN: Well, we're promising the reform.


Uh, huh.

WAIT, I mean: uh-uh!

What you guys are doing is claiming the same old thing is reform.

I remember Fred Thompson at the RNC this year saying that conservatives need to get back in control in Washington. That's who has been controlling Washington all these years! Well, self-named conservatives, anyway. The point is, that's not change, that's more of the same. (Biden said that at the DNC, btw--I don't want to "Biden" a Biden speech!)

And we are mavericks.


PALIN:... AND WE'RE READY TO ROCK!

There's no doubt in anybody's mind now across America, who's paying attention to the presidential race here, that I am a Washington outsider. I mean, look at where you are. I'm a Washington outsider. I do not have those allegiances to the power brokers, to the lobbyists.


You do NOW, BITCH! Guess what happens when you join ticket!

We need someone like that in Washington, someone committed to the American people and implementing their will, not the power brokers' will.


Uhhh, the people in Washington ARE the power brokers.

Do you understand how government works, Palin?

GIBSON: You mentioned in the three principles that you'll change spending.


The "three principles"??? What are those?

You also talked about taxes. Why do you both keep saying that Obama is going to raise people's taxes? It's been pretty clear what he intends. He's talked about middle-class tax cuts, extending Bush tax cuts on everything but people who own or earn more than $250,000 a year -- cuts taxes on over 91 percent of the country. Why do you keep saying he's going to raise people's taxes?


Because she's a politician.

Duh.

PALIN: Well, I would argue with the whole premise of that, that his mission is to not increase taxes. He's had 94 opportunities to either vote for a tax cut or not support tax increases. And 94 times, he's been on the other side of what I believe the majority of Americans want.


So, a Republibot is arguing that Charlie has set up a false premise.

Tee-hee! That's adorable! It's like she's forgotten all of the straw man arguments she and the other Republicans set up at their convention!

Ugh--and another failure of Charlie Gibson to follow up. She counter-acted your accusation of lying about Obama by lying about Obama!

You should have asked her: "So, you are saying because Obama has voted down tax cuts that he is for tax hikes?"

Because that's what it seems like she said and that seems to conflict with what Obama has said. Seeing as he's said that he'll cut taxes.

See for mature adults, it's OK to be for something before you were against it. It's called "changing your mind" and can be done for very good reasons!

Of course, Obama is a politician just like Palin, so I'll believe those tax cuts when I see them.

Sarah Palin on Congressional Spending and the ''Bridge to Nowhere':


Speaking of being for something before you were against it... :P

GIBSON: One of John McCain's central campaign arguments, tenets of his campaign, is eliminating earmarks, getting rid of them. Are you with John McCain on that?


I've heard Sarah Palin is anything but anti-pork barrel politics.

PALIN: I certainly am. And of course the poster child for the earmarks was Alaska's, what people in the lower 48 refer to as the bridge to nowhere. First it was a bridge to community with an airport in southeast Alaska. But that was excessive. And an earmark -- an earmark like that, not even supported necessarily by the majority of Alaskans. We killed that earmark. We killed that project...


But who thought it was OK before it started to look like a bad idea?

I heard it was you, Governor Palin.

GIBSON: You have said continually, since he chose you as his vice presidential nominee, that I said to Congress, thanks but not thanks. If we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves.

PALIN: Right.


Surprise! A follow-up from Charlie! I seriously thought he wouldn't do it!

GIBSON: But it's now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it.


Of course, we mature adults know that it's OK to change your mind, but let's watch the fun as Pain squirms under a microscope of her own party's design!

You were wearing a T-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bidge to nowhere.

PALIN: I was wearing a T-shirt with the Zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.


DUCK!

GIBSON: But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks?

PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought.


DUCK!

And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment.


DUCK!

And, as I've said over and over, if Alaska wants that bridge, $300 million, $400 million dollars, over to that island with an airport, we'll find a way to build it ourselves. The rest of the country doesn't have to build that for us.


DUCK!

But isn't that sweet? She doesn't want the rest of the country to pay for her stupid little bridge that no one wanted! How thoughtful of her!!

So, why did she want it in the first place if she was going to make the rest of the country pay for it?

GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...


GOOSE!

PALIN: I was ...

GIBSON: ... until Congress pulled the plug.

PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.


QUACK!

GIBSON: Right.

PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.


QUACK!

GIBSON: But you didn't say no to Congress, well build it ourselves until after they pulled the plug. Correct?

PALIN: No, because Congress still allowed those dollars to come into Alaska. They did.


And where did those dollars go?

GIBSON: Well, but ...


Aw, COME ON, CHARLIE! Don't drop the ball on this one!! It's an easy pitch!

PALIN: Transportation fund dollars still came into Alaska. It was our choice, Charlie, whether we were going to spend it on a bridge or not. And I said, thanks, but no thanks. We're not going to spend it on the bridge.


So, she kept all that money for the bridge she no longer wanted that she had previously wanted.

You might almost wonder if the whole bridge thing was horseshit and she just wanted to get her state more money.

PALIN: And now obviously, Charlie, with the federal government saying, no, the rest of the nation does not want to fund that project. You have a choice. You either read the writing on the wall and understand okay, yes, that, that project's going nowhere. And the state isn't willing to fund that project. So what good does it do to continue to support something that circumstances have so drastically changed? You call an audible, and you deal in reality, and you move on. And, Charlie, we killed the bridge to nowhere and that's the bottom line.


Tee-hee, but you kept the money...

GIBSON: The state of Alaska, under OMB figures in 2008, got $155 million in earmarks for a population of 670,000. That's $231 per person in Alaska. The state of Illinois, Obama's state, got $22 per person. You got 10 times per person as much. How does that square with your reforms?


All right, Gibson, you should have followed up with the "but you kept the money" question, but comparing state earmarks is a good one, too. I'll give you this one...

PALIN: We have drastically, drastically reduced our earmark request since I came into office.


OK. But you can say anything you want. Are you done reducing earmarks, orrrr?

GIBSON: But you still have multiple of any other state.

PALIN: We sure are -- and this is what -- you go out and you ask any Alaskan this. This is what I've been telling Alaskans for these years that I've been in office, is no more.


Uh, I don't think Palin understood what you meant, Charlie. I'll paraphrase:

GIBSON: "Alaska still gets way more money from earmarks than any other state."

PALIN: "You betcha! And for 2 whole years I've been tellin' Alaskans no more!"

Uh-huh. You wanna tell us how you've cut down earmarks even more? Like which ones and such?

GIBSON: Governor, this year, requested $3.2 million for researching the genetics of harbor seals, money to study the mating habits of crabs. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that John McCain is objecting to?


DUDE--mating habits of CRABS???

That's so awesome! I LOVE CRAB SEX!

I know how to solve all of this debate!

How about we stop invading other countries and spend some of that $1 trillion we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan on Crab Sex Research?

Surely, crab sex is part of God's plan, right?

PALIN: Those requests, through our research divisions and fish and game and our wildlife departments and our universities, those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar. That's the abuse that we're going to stop. That's what John McCain has promised over and over for these years and that's what I'm joining him, also, saying, you're right, the abuse of earmarks, it's un-American, it's undemocratic, and it's not going to be accepted in a McCain-Palin administration. Earmark abuse will stop.


So, what? Are you going to fire the governor of Alaska or something?

Sarah Palin on Hillary Clinton:


We'll save this for part 5! That'll be posted tomorrow. Thanks for reading!