We now join ABC News' Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin, accompanied by round 7 of my commentary (check out round 1, round 2, round 3, round 4, round 5 and round 6!), already in progress:

Sarah Palin on Economic Policy:


PUH-LEASE! What journalism school did you go to, Charlie?

Cracker Jack University?

Is your degree very small and does it transfer to your skin when you apply water to the back of it? :P

The economy is only the most important issue we face right now!

GIBSON: Governor, John McCain and you are now talking about the GOP as a party of change. We've got a very sick economy. Tell me the three principal things you would do to change the Bush economic policies.

PALIN: And you're right, our economy is weak right now and we've got to strengthen it, and government can play an appropriate role in helping to strengthen the economy.

Wow, these two are the brightest bulbs on TV!

The economy IS weak right now! And the government CAN play a role in helping to strengthen it! WOW!!

I may vote Palin, after all!


PALIN: Our 6.1 percent unemployment rate is unacceptable, also, across our nation.

Can't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps? I don't get it!

We need to put government back on the side of the people and make sure that it is not government solely looked at for all the solutions, for one.

Where else do solutions come from? Should we expect the Coca-Cola Company to rebuild our homes after a hurricane destroys them?

Or are we supposed to be SO self-reliant that we work extra hours at our jobs to pay for enough insurance to pay for our homes if/when they get destroyed in a natural disaster or fire or something?

Government has got to get out of the way, in some respects, of the private sector, being able to create the jobs that we need, jobs that are going to allow for the families to be able to afford health care, to be able to afford their mortgages, to be able to afford college tuition for their kids.

Yeah, because it's government getting in the way that allowed Enron to fail. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Bear Sterns and so on and so on and so on all failed because of...

Come on you idiot! It's a LACK of regulation that allowed banks to make bad loans and companies to make bad choices.

Once again, I think John Edwards was right--there are two Americas. Bizarro America and... and... well, that's the only America I see--where Republicans say less regulation is needed to stop companies from breaking the law and screwing people out of billions.

That's got to be the principal here, reform government, recognize that it's not government to be looked at to solve all the problems.

Again, Bizarro-logic.

Taxes, of course, I think is one of the most important things that government can obviously control and to help with this issue.

Taxes? What do taxes have to do with the fact the dollar is worth crap and that another bank just went belly-up?

GIBSON: What you said to me at the beginning I don't think anybody in the Bush administration would disagree with. What do you change in the Bush economic plans?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that we reform the oversight, also, of the agencies, including the quasi-government agencies, like Freddie and Fannie, those things that have created an atmosphere here in America where people are fearful of losing their homes.

Yeah, it's much better to not let them have homes in the first place.

How about we work out why the dollar is worth a pittance and then fix that problem so we can all afford to buy houses and not even have to take loans out to buy 'em?

People are looking at job loss. People are looking at unaffordable health care for their families. We have got to reform the oversight of these agencies that have such control over Americans' pocketbooks.

Job loss has an agency?

Health care has an agency?

If so, what the hell do these agencies have to do with our pocketbooks?

How does a government agency control whether corporations create jobs or not? How does a government agency determine whether health insurance companies cover certain procedures and medicines or not?


GIBSON: So let me summarize the three things that you'd change in the Bush economic plans. One, two, three.

PALIN: Reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight and the overseeing agencies and committees to make sure that America's dollars and investments are protected.

Wow, sounds like the number one target for said reforms would be unnecessary military incursions and occupations in and of foreign countries. Hell, we spend more on "defense" than anything else. Curb your spending? Start with the military.

I'm all for defending our borders, but that's not what we're doing in the middle east.

As for the other two, seems like the agencies and committees are only an imagined problem (since there IS no oversight of ANYthing it would seem) and cutting back on defense spending just might invigorate the economy in that we're not borrowing BILLIONS every month anymore to keep the wars going.

GIBSON: So let me break some of those down. You talk about spending. How much smaller would a McCain budget be? Where would you cut?

PALIN: We're going to find efficiencies in every department.

Doesn't she mean "inefficiencies"?

We have got to. There are some things that I think should be off the table. Veterans' programs, off the table.

Yeah, we already spend too little on veterans, we shouldn't cut their funding any more.

You know, we owe it to our veterans and that's the greatest manifestation that we can show in terms of support for our military, those who are in public service fighting for America. ...It's to make sure that our veterans are taken care of and the promises that we've made to them are fulfilled.

So, no cutting VA bennies. How sweet.

GIBSON: So you'd take military off the table, the veterans' benefits. That's 20 percent of the budget. & Do you talk about entitlement reform? Is there money you can save in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

Wait! Charlie, why did you take "military" off the table?? WTF! Dude, that's what we spend too much on!!

PALIN: I am sure that there are efficiencies that are going to be found in all of these agencies. I'm confident in that.

I don't know what she means--he keeps asking about what to cut and she's talking about "efficiencies". You cut "inefficiencies" not "efficiencies." I thought efficiencies were good.

GIBSON: The agencies are not involved in entitlements. Basically, discretionary spending is 18 percent of the budget.

PALIN: We have certainly seen excess in agencies, though, and in -- when bureaucrats, when bureaucracy just gets kind of comfortable, going with the status-quo and not being challenged to find efficiencies and spend other people's money wisely ... then that's where we get into the situation that we are into today, and that is a tremendous growth of government, a huge debt, trillions of dollars of debt that we're passing on to my kids and your kids and your grandkids ... It's unacceptable.

I'm down with that! The thing is, no politician is willing to say the military is what we overspend the most on.

And I'm definitely thinking I'm missing something on using the word "efficiencies" the way she is. Either that or she's a moron.

Could go either way.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

There you have it! WHEW! It's been a long time coming, hasn't it? Just wait until the debates. Actually, I think I'll quip to them live. This took a long-ass time to finish...