Opinion: Gov. Sarah Palin: Won’t commit to 2010 reelection bid

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

While much of the recent attention on Alaska’s Republican Gov. Sarah Palin has centered on her parental-political outrage with a CBS comedian over a sexual joke about her 14-year-old daughter, Palin does answer questions about other things, as she did today with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

As The Ticket often does to provide readers with complete context, we have added below the full transcript of Palin’s wide-ranging satellite conversation on ‘Situation Room.’

She’s asked about the massive new gas pipeline project she’s pushed, David Letterman, of course (she forgives him or hymn), but also her views on President Obama so far -- he’s growing spending and debt far too fast. But she likes his drive for federal government efficiencies and wishes he’d show more ‘passion’ in support of Israel while speaking to the Muslim world.

And she was asked about her own political future. Palin’s not prepared to announce her 2010 reelection campaign intentions yet, which would provide a key clue to her possible presidential intentions. Although Palin has formed SarahPac to finance her political travels, to announce either way now would make her a premature target and feed charges that every move is politically tinged.

But as one result, other Alaskan politicians are positioning themselves for a governor’s bid should she drop out. Another Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, recently announced he would not seek reelection next year, widely believed to give him time to start a GOP presidential campaign for 2012.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Speaking of political tickets, you can get Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item by clicking here. Or follow us @latimestot

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And joining us now, the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. Governor, thanks very much for coming in.

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-ALASKA): Thank you so much, Wolf.

BLITZER: You have a big energy deal that’s in the works right now, and you announced it with a lot of fanfare. A $26-billion natural gas pipeline which would bring natural gas from Alaska through Canada down to the Lower 48. Not everyone is enthused, including the Wall Street Journal.

They say this: ‘Among the most serious questions it faces is whether the Alaskan gas is even needed. North America is in the midst of a natural gas glut, driving down prices, and observers believe....

...liquefied natural gas imports are set to grow as overseas producers seek to unload their gas in the United States.’
Why do you disagree with the Wall Street Journal?

PALIN: Well, I think very shortsighted, whomever wrote that for the Wall Street Journal, assuming that market conditions are going to stay as they are today. Demand for natural gas is increasing. In fact, by probably 2030, we’ll see about a 40% increase in demand for natural gas.

Domestically, we have the supply. The resources are up there in Alaska, and it’s time that we build this infrastructure and flow that very valuable resource into hungry markets throughout the U.S.

This is going to be the largest energy project in the world by the private sector. It’s a great venue that we have, a vehicle called AGIA, the Alaska Gas Line Inducement Act, and believe me, Exxon, the largest company in the world, and TransCanada, the best pipeline-building company in the world, I’m sure they would not have aligned and committed to building this project had they not crunched the numbers and figured out that for their bottom line.

And for our nation’s security and for our environment, for our economy, this project is right. It is time. Shortsighted to assume that there won’t be growing demand for energy sources.

BLITZER: It’s more energy independence as well. Instead of importing this kind of energy, it’s here. It’s homegrown in the United States. That’s a significant development potentially. But it’s not cheap. Who’s going to pay for all of this?

PALIN: The private sector, thank goodness. I mean, this isn’t a government program. It’s not a government service. And heaven forbid anybody think that this infrastructure project needs to be nationalized. We have to keep our eyes and ears open to make sure that nobody thinks that the federal government should ever come in and take control over an energy project like this. There is a need for it.

The economy is asking for such a stimulus package as this to create the jobs. Thousands and thousands of jobs will be created with the construction and the operation, then, of this pipeline. It’s time. It’s ready to do it, and it’s a private-sector project, as well it should be.

BLITZER: How long is it going to take to build it?

PALIN: It should be about a decade before that energy flows. These are long-lead-time-type projects. I mean, we’ve been talking about it and planning for it in Alaska for decades. But it took this alignment that was announced yesterday to really see the path forward made much clearer. The project will come to fruition.

BLITZER: And the grumbling you’re hearing from some politicians in Alaska, in your home state, how do you react to those complaints that they’re saying, you know what, this is not necessarily such a great idea?

PALIN: Well, a couple of the politicians who are up for reelection, and they’re trying to position themselves, you know, they have to kind of distance themselves from some of the positions that the administration has taken, for political reasons, I believe. But the numbers speak for themselves.

Largest companies in the world aligning to get the project built for national security reasons and for our environment and for our economy. Even those politicians up in Alaska. And really, Wolf, I think they do support it. They voted for it. I think there’s just some political wrangling going on right now to position themselves.

BLITZER: On the economic stimulus package, and I want to just clarify this, originally, you were supposed to get Alaska $288 million in stimulus money that you didn’t want. You said the state didn’t need it, didn’t want it, didn’t like the strings that were attached to it. In the end, you’re going to get everything but about $28 million and maybe even that you’ll have to take as well. What happened here? The original reluctance on your part to accept the money from the federal government, but now you’re going to accept it.

PALIN: You know, legislators across the country, including in Alaska, many resolved to take the money anyway, to go around governors and via resolution said, well, we’re going to apply for the money anyway. Look at what happened in South Carolina, where the governor said, no, I’m not going to take the money. And they ended up in court. And the judiciary told the administrative branch, which is an odd mingling there of branches of government, the judiciary told that governor, you’re going to take the money anyway.

There are fat strings attached to these federal dollars, not the least of which is an attachment to contributing to the dizzying debt of our nation and borrowed money to supply the funds to grow this government that the stimulus package is all about. I’ve had great hesitancy in embracing such a thing, and I did veto some of the money.

Our lawmakers are discussing now whether they’ll override that veto. More power to them in that debate whether they should override or not. That’s the beauty of our democracy, the checks and balances that are in place. That protects the people whom we’re serving.

So, discussion on whether they’ll override my action, again hesitant to accept some of these energy funds because they’re tied to energy building codes, universal building codes that for the most part, communities in Alaska have opted out of.

We don’t want the federal government mandating to a local community or a business or a family how they can build and develop opportunities for more progress in an individual’s life. We don’t necessarily think that it’s the right way to go is to allow the federal government to mandate more universal codes on how we’ll develop.

BLITZER: How do you think President Obama’s doing now in these early months as president?

PALIN: I think he’s growing government way too quickly, and he’s digging that hole of debt for our country that we’re going to pass on to our children and our grandchildren, expecting them to pay off debt for us. It’s a selfish thing that we’re doing right now if we think that is OK.

So, I do like some of the talk that he’s giving Americans right now, though, about eventually here getting to the point of reining in spending and finding efficiencies within government. I encourage him to follow through on that. We have to follow through on that because it is unfair to our kids and grandkids to expect that we grow government today to such largess.

BLITZER: You think they’ll be able to do it?

PALIN: Yes. He’s got to be able to do it. He’s promised that he would do it, that he would consider some of these actions and take action to slow down the growth of government. Now, having said that, we have to recognize what’s already happened. Trillions of dollars more in spending.

Trillion-dollar stimulus package -- we don’t have that money. We’re borrowing it from China, so, you know, we become indebted to another country that essentially can control some of the things that go in our country, because of that debt. That’s a very scary place for America to be, for our economy and for our national security.

BLITZER: You recently said that -- I want you to clarify what you meant -- you said that the Obama administration is trying to bail out some of the debt-ridden states so they can, quote, ‘control the people.’ Explain what you meant by that.

PALIN: Here’s -- here’s -- sure. Here’s what I said. These stimulus package dollars, they’re very enticing, and some states were made to look unethical or incompetent for not accepting all this debt-ridden, largess package of federal funds.

And, my belief has been, look what’s happened in the private sector with these bailout funds. Government was able to get in there and control some of those businesses then that had accepted those stimulus bailout dollars. What’s to say same thing won’t happen with the state?

If a state has not made wise decisions, gotten itself in a heck of a lot of debt, and then they be enticed by federal dollars to come in and bail them out. Who’s to say that the same principle wouldn’t apply to there, then? That government would be able to get in there and control some of the decisions that a state government is making? That -- that’s not a safe place to be.

Local control is the best form of government. The most responsive, responsible level of government is local government, not big, centralized federal government.

BLITZER: Let’s move on to some other issues that are out there, including the president’s speech in Cairo to the Muslim world. What do you think of it?

PALIN: Well, I would certainly like our president to stand very, very strong and bold in his statements about our protection of Israel that so many of us believe in, and our strongest ally in the Middle East being Israel, deserve our protections.

I would have liked to see a little bit more passion in that arena.

BLITZER: Are you suggesting he’s not pro-Israel enough? Is that what I’m hearing?

PALIN: I’m sure he is pro-Israel. I would have liked to have seen more passion in the talk he gave regarding our friends in Israel, our strongest ally, making sure they know that we are here for them. We’re going to stand by their side; we’re going to help them.

BLITZER: You recently criticized him for showing weakness by having some Pentagon cuts in terms of missile defense that clearly affects Alaska. Is the country safer now that Barack Obama is president of the United States?

PALIN: I think it’s a sign of weakness to cut defense spending right now, especially when particular projects and services like missile defense systems. There in Alaska, we’re strategically located where we could intercept a missile coming from North Korea.

See what Kim Jong-Il is up to right now, having launched the six -- small missiles, and now deciding that by June 16, he [is] saying, to launch a large missile. Alaska has the position and the equipment, if it’s funded correctly, to intercept a missile.

And to see then, that there is talk of cutting that system -- I think it’s nonsense. I think it’s a sign of weakness. We need to be showing signs of strength with our national defense. Especially when you consider, Wolf, our young men and women abroad fight for us and our safety, our security. We need to do all that we can with our military to show that we are strong on offense, not just defense.

BLITZER: In recent days, there’s been a huge brouhaha over David Letterman’s jokes involving your family and your daughter. He said he made a mistake. He says, yeah, it was probably in bad taste. He -- he shouldn’t have done it. Are you willing to forgive and forget?

PALIN: I will always forgive whomever is asking for forgiveness. It goes beyond, though, David Letterman’s crude, sexist, perverted joke about a 14-year-old girl being, quote-unquote, ‘knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.’ I think he’s like 30-some years old. I think that that’s, you know, pretty perverted.

But it goes beyond that. Not just that joke, but this insinuation that it’s OK, it’s acceptable to talk like that, and then that it’s acceptable for the media to not provide the American public, the listeners, the readers, the full context of that joke. Letterman says, now, hey, I wasn’t talking about her 14-year old. David, my 14-year-old was there with me at the game. She was the only one there with me. It wasn’t my older daughter, who’s in college and taking care of her young family. It was my 14-year-old.

So, for the American public to not be given the full context of what that joke was all about, I think that’s quite unfortunate. And also, it is that sad commentary on what Americans are fed in terms of full news.

BLITZER: Because he says -- now says he was talking about your 18-year-old daughter, not the 14-year-old daughter.

PALIN: Yes, weak, convenient excuse, no. And you know what? Regardless of which daughter, inappropriate. I think it contributes to some low self-esteem of many of the young girls in the country. Very unfortunate. I’m so glad to see women standing up and saying, enough is enough. Talk about a 14-year-old being -- statutory rape is what this is. Because a 14-year-old would not consent to be ‘knocked up,’ quote-unquote. By [AUDIO GAP] gentleman, in this [AUDIO GAP] A-Rod.

I think it’s degrading. I think it contributes to so many problems. It’s not acceptable. And I’m very, very glad to hear you say that even David Letterman has recognized that it was inappropriate.

BLITZER: All right. Let’s move on, talk a little bit about politics, a subject close to your heart. 2012. Before there’s 2012 there [is] 2010. Are you definitely going to seek reelection?

PALIN: I’m not definitely going to do anything yet. What I’m trying to get done for Alaska right now is to get that Alaska gas line built. We need those energy sources flowing through North America. That’s what my focus is. That and raising my family, doing those good things that we need done up there in Alaska. That’s my focus.

BLITZER: So, no decision yet on either 2010 or let alone 2012, is that right?

PALIN: No decision that I’d want to announce today.

BLITZER: All right. Well, you’ll let us know when you’re ready to make that announcement, is that right?

PALIN: I’ll let you know, Wolf.

BLITZER: Hey, governor, thanks very much for joining us. Good luck out there.

PALIN: Thank you so much. I appreciate you. ####