I think she handled herself quite well. It was obviously set up to try to get her to say something that could be made into a negative headline. Like What do you think of the Bush Doctrine? Trying to get her to say she didn't know what it was.
Then the condescending telling her of what it was. She did say we should go to war with Russia if Georgia was in NATO since that is what NATO members pledge to do for each other. Though Georgia is of course not in NATO. so they got what they wanted an alarming headline. Still she has to learn how to deal with those jackals. She was understandabally upset and kept sayingCharlie before saying anything and understandabally. It dosen't matter what she would of said they would of turned it around some way.

While I am very biased for Obama, I am also pretty honest in my assessment of these kinds of things. For instance, I was very upset the other day about Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment. I also thought Sarah Palin did a stellar job with her RNC speech.

That said, anyone who thinks Sarah Palin did a good job with this interview, besides with the radical right base, is sorely mistaken. Palin looked like a hockey mom who was trying to remember her talking points. The comments she made about Georgia and Russia are going to help alienate the independents and soccer moms she has been trying to attract. She came off as someone out of her depth. And while I will agree that Gibson did come off a bit condescending in a couple of instances, I think overall he took the correct, non-combative tone.

Sarah Palin is not ready to be VP. She won't be ready by Nov. 4th. A few more performances like this, and most fair-minded Americans will draw the same conclusion.

This is not a VP of the United States of America...



...I hate Dick Cheney, but I would prefer to have him as VP over Palin. "You can see Russia from Alaska." THAT is what passes for foreign policy experience? Hell, I have neighbors from El Salvador. Can I be Secretary of State?

Dumbled Rumsfeld.

She looks like a scared child who just caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

She's barely talked to people outside of Alaska and she is going to travel around the World deciding US policies?

McCain were you smoking crack?

What about Rudy Giuliani & Mike Huckabee?

Her answers were republikan text book answers...and yes Charlie did test her on the Bush doctrine. How many of us didnt know what he was referring to...yet she didnt. She failed his test.

Her answers regarding Russia do show the provactive nature of our relationships with the former Soviet Union satellite states. When the Cold War ended James Baker (GW's Sec of State) assured the Russians that prior satellites would not be allowed into NATO. This policy was followed during the Clinton administration. Of course the genious Bush Jr Administration broke our word. In order to secure former satellite nations support for Iraq....missle defense systems...secret CIA prisons they have had to support their entry into NATO....a big mistake. Imagine if the tables had turned and Mexico..Canada entered the Wawsaw Pact? The world would be coming to an end.

Both candidates need to discuss this issue before we get ourselves into a war with Russia. Of course if I was Russia...I'd invade these countries before they even had a chance to enter NATO! Oh yeah...they have...Thanks Mr Bush!

I agree that some things are more in Russia's sphere of influence then the US. It may be good though to establish a firm tone with the Russians. In the final analysis though all she said was our treaty obligations in NATO.

It very much seems ones opinion of the interview is subject to one's prior opinion of Sarah Palin and who you listen to. I wasn't changed and I dought if any of the critics on this thread changed.

It's this ability to think and change that facinates me. Have any thought and changed recently?

I thought and can concede that it's really not to our advantage to get in a war with Russia over Georgia.

Ya think?


Rod Wrote:
> I thought and can concede that it's really not to
> our advantage to get in a war with Russia over
> Georgia.

She is a fucking idiot.

war with Russia?

she is nuts?

US can barely control small ass iraq.

Been there 5 years, and its still a mess.

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree that some things are more in Russia's
> sphere of influence then the US. It may be good
> though to establish a firm tone with the Russians.
> In the final analysis though all she said was our
> treaty obligations in NATO.
>
> It very much seems ones opinion of the interview
> is subject to one's prior opinion of Sarah Palin
> and who you listen to. I wasn't changed and I
> dought if any of the critics on this thread
> changed.
>
> It's this ability to think and change that
> facinates me. Have any thought and changed
> recently?
>
> I thought and can concede that it's really not to
> our advantage to get in a war with Russia over
> Georgia.


And why doesnt that have you rethinking your vote? What issue does drive you into the republikan camp?

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree that some things are more in Russia's
> sphere of influence then the US. It may be good
> though to establish a firm tone with the Russians.
> In the final analysis though all she said was our
> treaty obligations in NATO.
>
> It very much seems ones opinion of the interview
> is subject to one's prior opinion of Sarah Palin
> and who you listen to. I wasn't changed and I
> dought if any of the critics on this thread
> changed.
>
> It's this ability to think and change that
> facinates me. Have any thought and changed
> recently?
>
> I thought and can concede that it's really not to
> our advantage to get in a war with Russia over
> Georgia.

While I don't care for McCain/Palin, I seriously thought she would be able to come off as capable and prepared in an interview like this. She didn't. It won't impact my opinion of her, but for the independents and soccer moms the RNC are trying to appeal to, it might.

She is just like another soccer mom you see at Target at 11:30AM on a tuesday afternoon.

god help us all.

I thought McCain said the lipstick on a pig quote first when referring to Hilary before the nomination. If anything, Obama was probably playing his hand at humor.

McCain disses Palin's experience....

vince(1) wrote: And why doesn't that have you rethinking your vote? What issue does drive you into the republican camp?

I like her. I like spunky Americans. I don't like the attack of the elitist. There aren't many spunky Americans. I started out for Ron Paul who I thought had guts but he's not running. Bar is just not very interesting.


Obama just dosen't seem to have guts but instead is surrounded by an adoring press. Very little is known about Obama's community work. Is there something to hide? Why no investigation of him? I tend to get a dim view of him listening to WMAL all day. But so to do others get a dim view of Palin from listening to thier media. Someone suggested that there are professionals from the Clinton machine making posts. I don't think so. We just read our various media and puppet what we hear.

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vince(1) wrote: And why doesn't that have you
> rethinking your vote? What issue does drive you
> into the republican camp?
>
> I like her. I like spunky Americans. I don't like
> the attack of the elitist. There aren't many
> spunky Americans. I started out for Ron Paul who I
> thought had guts but he's not running. Bar is just
> not very interesting.
>
>
> Obama just dosen't seem to have guts but instead
> is surrounded by an adoring press. Very little is
> known about Obama's community work. Is there
> something to hide? Why no investigation of him? I
> tend to get a dim view of him listening to WMAL
> all day. But so to do others get a dim view of
> Palin from listening to thier media. Someone
> suggested that there are professionals from the
> Clinton machine making posts. I don't think so. We
> just read our various media and puppet what we
> hear.

It's idiots like you that put GW into the history books. I'll take sissy smart over spunky idiot any day.

Joe Klein from TIME may be on to something.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1840388,00.html

__________________________________________________________________________

But Palin's embrace of small-town values is where her hold on the national imagination begins. She embodies the most basic American myth — Jefferson's yeoman farmer, the fantasia of rural righteousness — updated in a crucial way: now Mom works too. Palin's story stands with one foot squarely in the nostalgia for small-town America and the other in the new middle-class reality. She brings home the bacon, raises the kids — with a significant assist from Mr. Mom — hunts moose and looks great in the process. I can't imagine a more powerful, or current, American Dream.

So Obama decides to attack McCain on not being able to use a computer:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9359KL80&show_article=1

Ah yes, let's watch as they run smack into reality:

http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml

(it is a ways down in the article but):

Quote

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

I suppose he could use a voice device or something, but that is not an easy skill to learn even for avid PC users...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2008 07:37PM by Registered Voter.

the man's a regular saint...sounds like more of his whining...the fact is there are people with more serious handicaps then his and use a computer...hell even Hawkins uses a computer.

but despite that...I agree...McSame wins the hit below the belt strategy straight out...no comparison. If the election is decided on negativity...McSame wins!

So..you think the press...the republikan party have gone light on Obama the last 18 months? Do me a favor...for an hour a day..turn off WMAL...listen to CNN radio or PBS..for one hour.

While I think the Obama computer ad is incredibly weak and pointless, I think any outrage about it is strictly manufactured. So some old people don't use e-mail. BFD. Maybe the Bush Administration should have thought of that when they put most of the Medicare D processing online.

So..you think the press...the republikan party have gone light on Obama the last 18 months? Do me a favor...for an hour a day..turn off WMAL...listen to CNN radio or PBS..for one hour.

____________

I am often listening to 88.5 and Dian Rehm

And I used to listen to the Greesman before he went off the air.

I used to like to listen to Harden and Weaver. WMAL remains my home town radio. Do any remember the evening sound or I think the best talk radio, Bary Farber?

I think the press left a lot out of the background of Obama, trying to keep secret the Reverend Right. Who know what else is burried in his past I worry.

Rod Wrote:

>
> I am often listening to 88.5 and Dian Rehm
>
> And I used to listen to the Greesman before he
> went off the air.
>
> I used to like to listen to Harden and Weaver.
> WMAL remains my home town radio. Do any remember
> the evening sound or I think the best talk radio,
> Bary Farber?
>
> I think the press left a lot out of the background
> of Obama, trying to keep secret the Reverend
> Right. Who know what else is burried in his past I
> worry.

Yes, I am sorry, but Obama has not been vetted nearly as much as folks want to intimate here. Much like the UN Oil for Food scandal (MSM covered this where?), the only place I have ever seen serious questions asked of Obama's past were on Fox News. The other networks seem to have some aversion to challenging him on anything for fear that they were going to be labeled racist or something. Even the late night show guys rarely crack jokes about him. Hillary was correct when he stated that Obama was getting a pass by the media - here she had been in the public spotlight for years, and yet you saw her getting pounded most of the time in any of the debates and other public events. As a matter of fact, the hardest questions it appeared Obama fielded were the ones that she threw at him in the debates and other forums. You all should be asking yourself where she and Bill have been lately. Only today we finally hear that Bill is going to start campaigning for Obama, and Hillary has made it clear she will not do campaigning to attack Sarah Palin. Actions speak louder than words in my book.

Lately the MSM cable channel news has been almost rabid in their attempts to tear Sarah Palin down, and they continue to try and paint what McCain is saying as a lie almost every time I turn the channel on. They are doing their damnedest now to make Palin into Bush's second coming, since they didn't seem to be able to tie that mantle to McCain. It is amazing. I sit and flip between the cable news and try to figure out where all this heat was when Obama and Hillary were running against each other - again I saw a lot directed at Hillary.

Whatever happened to a press that actually "reported" on issues and put up more than one side of an issue for folks to decide on? It seems like we have entered a new era of yellow journalism (http://www.answers.com/topic/yellow-journalism) to try and "get the story" or spin it in some way that makes them look like they have figured it out. If you look at the audiences that Rush and Fox News pulls on a regular basis, and the fact that the obviously liberal bias media outlets are having serious financial issues, I think it is pretty clear how a lot of America really thinks.

One of the reasons I really think Palin is getting hammered so hard by the folks at MSNBC and CNN - they got away with it with Hillary, so they felt they could go after Palin in a similar fashion (I guess going after women are easier then a black candidate). The problem is, before they were doing it to one of their own, and it was sort of a laugh to the Republican side to see how they were tearing up on Hillary so much - honestly most of us couldn't understand it either since all we had been hearing about for the last 2 or 3 years was Hillary for President.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------
> Whatever happened to a press that actually
> "reported" on issues and put up more than one side
> of an issue for folks to decide on? It seems like
> we have entered a new era of yellow journalism
> (http://www.answers.com/topic/yellow-journalism)
> to try and "get the story" or spin it in some way
> that makes them look like they have figured it
> out. If you look at the audiences that Rush and
> Fox News pulls on a regular basis, and the fact
> that the obviously liberal bias media outlets are
> having serious financial issues, I think it is
> pretty clear how a lot of America really thinks.

Occams Razor -- They're tired of clowns running the country.

Bill Clinton is a very smart man - and yet the folks he surrounded himself with in his administration were a bunch of "yes men" (and women). To that end he came across as someone who was really in touch with all the issues, but you never heard anyone in his administration say much of anything other than the party line. This became a liability later in his administration when he evidently lied to all his advisors and had them go out in front of the public and repeat those same lies. Many of those advisors are not the Clinton's friends today strangely enough.

When faced with Al Gore and George Bush, the country chose a "manager" over a "know-it-all" because they had seen that with Clinton, just being able to talk in front of a microphone didn't mean anything about the character of the person. They elected Bush (and folks will say the Supreme Court did it - whatever), and then re-elected Bush with a popular vote clear Majority in 2004 (unlike Clinton who never got more than 50% of the vote). So for all of Bush's issues, it seems most people made the decision to stay with him since he had the conviction of his beliefs, versus Kerry who seemed to be all over the place, and had clearly shown his penchant for lying in the past.

McCain is not a "clown" and has a proven record. You can either agree with his record or not, but he has made it clear in the past and recently that he is willing to work with folks on all sides of an issue to come up with some sort of plan rather than just have folks sit on their ass and do nothing (majority of Congress). He is smart, but also has access to folks on both sides of the aisle, and has made it clear he would appoint the best advisers regardless of party, not just the ones that agree with him. Obama has not made that same pledge, and many of his backers (and funding) are from very far left organizations - the likelihood that he would put in anyone except folks from the far left in advisory positions would be hard to believe. So do we really want to go from what many people perceive as a "far right" administration and swing totally to a "far left" administration? We are going to get enough of that from a Pelosi/Reid controlled Congress. It seems in everyone's best interests to have a middle of the road President in the Whitehouse to ensure things don't go too far.

Bush was a "manager?" The guy managed to bankrupt every company and country he ran. He was a "manager" in name only.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------.
>
> When faced with Al Gore and George Bush, the
> country chose a "manager" over a "know-it-all"
> because they had seen that with Clinton, just
> being able to talk in front of a microphone didn't
> mean anything about the character of the person.
> They elected Bush (and folks will say the Supreme
> Court did it - whatever), and then re-elected Bush
> with a popular vote clear Majority in 2004 (unlike
> Clinton who never got more than 50% of the vote).
> So for all of Bush's issues, it seems most people
> made the decision to stay with him since he had
> the conviction of his beliefs, versus Kerry who
> seemed to be all over the place, and had clearly
> shown his penchant for lying in the past.

Bill Clinton was frail in human morality and the Christian Right shook their finger at him with one hand while surfing porn and molesting children with the other. This is the same "Christians" that likes to label all Muslims as Terrorists. Nevertheless, the country was doing much better (by most measures) under Clinton.

Bush got re-elected because Bin Laden released a tape right before the election and played this country like a flute. The Administration had already Pavlov'ed this country in fear and so it was natural for people to swallow it hook line and sinker. Bush needs to send Bin Laden a Diamond Studded Rolex for that favor, though I'm sure OBL was paid back in spades watching GW stumble at every turn (it really was a brilliant move on his part).

>
> McCain is not a "clown" and has a proven record.
> You can either agree with his record or not, but
> he has made it clear in the past and recently that
> he is willing to work with folks on all sides of
> an issue to come up with some sort of plan rather
> than just have folks sit on their ass and do
> nothing (majority of Congress). He is smart, but
> also has access to folks on both sides of the
> aisle, and has made it clear he would appoint the
> best advisers regardless of party, not just the
> ones that agree with him. Obama has not made that
> same pledge, and many of his backers (and funding)
> are from very far left organizations - the
> likelihood that he would put in anyone except
> folks from the far left in advisory positions
> would be hard to believe. So do we really want to
> go from what many people perceive as a "far right"
> administration and swing totally to a "far left"
> administration? We are going to get enough of that
> from a Pelosi/Reid controlled Congress. It seems
> in everyone's best interests to have a middle of
> the road President in the Whitehouse to ensure
> things don't go too far.

I was referring to GW as the clown but this Palin pick is putting him in the running. McCain is not that bright (5th from the bottom of his graduating class remember?) and has morality issues of his own (which is why the Christian Right is such a damn bunch of hypocrites). Voting 90% of the time with GW and bragging about it isn't being bright. Your Obama statement is a bunch of hogwash w/o any facts to support it. But what else is new..

I have posted many links supporting what I have said in other threads. I try not to post from obviously partisan sites (from either aisle).

McCain wasn't 5th from the bottom because he was stupid.

Also it is hard to post anything supporting my points about Obama and the MSM since they obviously didn't do it - and I don't want to post a link to anything you will cry foul on.

Your argument about the Christian Right is typical. You know, I was always taught that if you aim high and fail, you will still have accomplished something pretty significant. If you aim low, like say at the gutter, then if you fail you are still in the gutter. The Christian Right has never said they were perfect, although there have definitely been some folks in their camp that have made too much of a holier than thou argument which leads to some of your comments. People who talk about racism tend to be much the same - there are folks on that side of the argument that push how we should all sing happy songs together, and then they are the ones that hold people of other races farther from them than anyone else. Hypocrites abound on both sides of any argument - just being a hypocrite doesn't disqualify the message.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McCain wasn't 5th from the bottom because he was
> stupid.

Let me guess.. It was because he was too smart and felt "unchallenged". By all accounts, this guy was a total slacker and partied way too much as was GW. Fortunately, we know how well that approach works.

>
> Also it is hard to post anything supporting my
> points about Obama and the MSM since they
> obviously didn't do it - and I don't want to post
> a link to anything you will cry foul on.
>

Your excuses are beginning to sound very McCainian (I was POW for 5 years and therefore I'm allowed to ...)

> Your argument about the Christian Right is
> typical. You know, I was always taught that if you
> aim high and fail, you will still have
> accomplished something pretty significant. If you
> aim low, like say at the gutter, then if you fail
> you are still in the gutter. The Christian Right
> has never said they were perfect, although there
> have definitely been some folks in their camp that
> have made too much of a holier than thou argument
> which leads to some of your comments. People who
> talk about racism tend to be much the same - there
> are folks on that side of the argument that push
> how we should all sing happy songs together, and
> then they are the ones that hold people of other
> races farther from them than anyone else.
> Hypocrites abound on both sides of any argument -
> just being a hypocrite doesn't disqualify the
> message.

Indeed, but the left didn't put a total incompetant into the presidency for the last 8 years.

euro-trash Wrote:

>
> Indeed, but the left didn't put a total
> incompetant into the presidency for the last 8
> years.

Been reading too many of those internet messages pointing out that Bush had the lowest IQ of any President and Bill Clinton number 2?

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/smarter.asp

euro-trash Wrote:

>
> Your excuses are beginning to sound very McCainian
> (I was POW for 5 years and therefore I'm allowed
> to ...)
>

I don't have any excuses to make. You have stated you don't agree with me and then challenge me to post things to refute your disagreement. Show me Obama was grilled on these issues in MSM and then you will make your point and refute mine.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> euro-trash Wrote:
>
> >
> > Indeed, but the left didn't put a total
> > incompetant into the presidency for the last 8
> > years.
>
> Been reading too many of those internet messages
> pointing out that Bush had the lowest IQ of any
> President and Bill Clinton number 2?
>
> http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.asp
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bush.asp
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/smarter.asp


I was saying he was incompetent and you retort by saying he wasn't as dumb as the rumors. Not sure I follow that line of reasoning.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't have any excuses to make. You have stated
> you don't agree with me and then challenge me to
> post things to refute your disagreement. Show me
> Obama was grilled on these issues in MSM and then
> you will make your point and refute mine.


Which issues? Whether he's traveled beyond Canada and Mexico? Whether he's met a head of state?

That Gibson sounded so "smug" asking these rudimentary questions was because it was just that! Pedantic and embarrassingly pedestrian to have to ask of a VP candidate since you would think the answers would be YES YES YES.. It's like asking them if they know their own cell number or birth date.

Likewise, I don't think Obama ever said you could see Canada from Illinois.

You replied to this:

Quote

>
> Also it is hard to post anything supporting my
> points about Obama and the MSM since they
> obviously didn't do it - and I don't want to post
> a link to anything you will cry foul on.
>

Your excuses are beginning to sound very McCainian (I was POW for 5 years and therefore I'm allowed to ...)

I was making a point about Obama being grilled and you then say that I am making excuses. I never did, I said Obama wasn't. Show me how I am wrong on that. Don't keep changing the subject since you obviously can't or won't answer that. Granted I did not ask for proof, but since you want to refute it, do so.

Regarding competence or not - that has been a Democratic talking point for the last 4 years. I am pretty amazed at how many democratic law makers are quick to say Bush lied to everyone and never offer any proof that he told a lie. As one of those old German guys said (Goebels, Rommel? one of them), if you state something often enough as truth then people will come to believe it. (paraphrasing). At least when Bush made his case, he put up evidence (of a sort) and while folks may want to try and discredit the sources, I am sure they were as good as some of the ones that told Clinton that pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was a WMD facility.

What exactly do you base your claim of incompetence on that has been shown to be true? I hear the media repeating these claims all the time, and yet they never offer any proof either, other than pointing at Iraq which is their favorite talking point. What, pointing out that YOU feel 51% of the voters in the last election who voted for Bush (who you believe is incompetent) means that disqualifies them or their opinion? Wah.

Here's the thing, we are electing McCain or Obama - McCain is not Bush - although again, that is the democratic talking point/plan. Palin is running for VP, not President. You want to keep focusing on her and Bush - which would be great if they were running for President. So keep trying to take the focus off Obama's past - it will only work or so long.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2008 01:30PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I was making a point about Obama being grilled and
> you then say that I am making excuses. I never
> did, I said Obama wasn't. Show me how I am wrong
> on that. Don't keep changing the subject since you
> obviously can't or won't answer that. Granted I
> did not ask for proof, but since you want to
> refute it, do so.

Check youtube for any of the democratic debates as well as Rev Rick Warren. You make it sound like he got a free pass the last 18mo. Talk about (right-wing) media talking points.


>
> What exactly do you base your claim of
> incompetence on that has been shown to be true? I
> hear the media repeating these claims all the
> time, and yet they never offer any proof either,
> other than pointing at Iraq which is their
> favorite talking point. What, pointing out that
> YOU feel 51% of the voters in the last election
> who voted for Bush (who you believe is
> incompetent) means that disqualifies them or their
> opinion? Wah.

Iraq -- How'd we get the intelligence so wrong?
OBL is still running around last I knew.
Putting Rumsfeld in charge and keeping him there for so long, then kicking him out ONLY after the Republicans lost seats during congressional race.. nice timing huh?
Economy -- Where do I start?
Outing of Valerie Plame -- Commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby???wtf
Gas prices -- Nice his big oil buddies make 15B profit/quarter don't you think? Hell of a coincidence.
Hurricane Katrina debacle
Lowest rating of any President (22%)

That's just shit off the top of my head...

>
> Here's the thing, we are electing McCain or Obama
> - McCain is not Bush - although again, that is the
> democratic talking point/plan. Palin is running
> for VP, not President. You want to keep focusing
> on her and Bush - which would be great if they
> were running for President. So keep trying to take
> the focus off Obama's past - it will only work or
> so long.

You guys are a riot. Palin is CARRYING McCain at this point. Think all hub-bub would be occuring if Lieberman or Romney were on the ticket? The reason I bring up GW is because I'm amazed anyone would give the Right another shot at it for awhile.

I have a feeling Republicans rate Gibson's "smugness" in relation to how badly Palin did on an answer. For instance, Palin gave a pretty good answer on the working mother question. In that case, Gibson wasn't "smug" at all. But when Palin not only didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, but apparently doesn't even understand the concept of a "Doctrine" (aka The Truman Doctrine, The Powell Doctrine, The Monroe Doctrine), Gibson is suddenly "smug."

I love how the Republicans try to spin these things. Krauthammer has a column out today noting that there have been several versions of the "Bush Doctrine" so it was only natural that Palin would be confused and need to ask for clarification. Nice try, but here's the deal: Palin had never heard of it. It isn't that she was confused about which particular incarnation of it he was referring to. Today, there is more evidence that Palin has been less than truthful about pretty much everything. Turns out she hasn't been to Iraq afterall.

It wasn't that Palin hadn't heard of the "Bush Doctrine." Palin didn't understand the concept of a political doctrine (You mean his world view?). Anybody who spent any time paying attention in elementary school history should know what the Monroe Doctrine is. And there was tons of coverage of the Powell Doctrine leading up to the Iraq war. She simply doesn't know the entire concept.

Do you think she'd never heard of the Monroe doctrine through some lapse of attention in elementary school? If so was it momentary lapse or a permanent deficiency that should forever disqualify her for vice president?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2008 09:46AM by Rod.

The Bush Doctrine (Wiki):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

This is supposedly the original Bush Doctrine - not the one Gibson quoted...

Quote

Bush stated his resolution of the issue by declaring that "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

Here is another outline of the Bush Doctrine is - it seems to consist of three different pillars:
http://www.peace.ca/bushdoctrine.htm

The Clinton Doctrine (Wiki):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Doctrine
(I wasn't aware there was a Clinton doctrine...)

The Monroe Doctrine (Wiki):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
(The only one that had any true clear-cut definition...)

Not that the Monroe Doctrine was part of the discussion.

Dear RV....whichever "pillar" you want to highlight...her response didnt address any of them.

She obviously didn't know what the Bush Doctrine entailed. Those who believe otherwise are kidding themselves.

If very few people refer to something as a "doctrine", and all you know of it as is policy, why would you know it?

I have been in my field for over 20 years, and I can run rings around folks who are new to my field. But now they refer to many of the things I do with different names - it got kind of funny in the past when I would go on an interview and they would ask me how I felt about this or that acronym shortened reference to something I used every day. Half the time i had no clue what they were talking about until we had a couple of back and forth questions, established what the real question entailed, and I answered it. Did it ever stop me from getting a job? No. If none of you have ever had that experience, more power to you.

Editing a video tape to show how many times you can ask the same question over and over, as if you expect some different answer (take the defense of Israel question) shows how much Gibson and ABC wanted to emphasize anything they could to make it look like a gotcha moment. So, am I worried that if he had phrased the question so that she understood which aspect of the "Bush Doctrine" he was talking about she could have given a better answer - sure. Am I worried that she didn't know what he was talking about at first? No - because it is likely that no matter what answer she gave, Gibson would have then pounced with some other aspect of the "doctrine" to say that she didn't understand it. Since in the Israel instance, she articulated what is currently the policy of our government, and the same stance advocated by both Obama and Biden - I am not sure what Gibson was looking for other than some tacit acknowledgment that she might "allow" them to fly through Iraqi airspace or something. Maybe she should have asked what Gibson's opinion was on it since he obviously seemed to be looking for something. Same thing with the "doctrine" question.

She did fine. You all still can't stand that she has taken the luster of the Obama phenomenon. Again - McCain is the issue Obama needs to focus on, so all of this is just a bunch of distraction which seems to be working quite well - look at how you all are tied up knots about it.

EDIT - as a note, probably the worst answer she gave was when she said that she could see Russia from Alaska - as now parodied by SNL :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2008 05:39PM by Registered Voter.

Swim Forest Swim!!!!!!!!! LMAO

maurice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She obviously didn't know what the Bush Doctrine
> entailed. Those who believe otherwise are kidding
> themselves.


She didn't just know the Bush Doctrine. She didn't know what "a Doctrine" is!

The worst answer she gave was perhaps we will need to go to war with Russia. That was just idiotic.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The worst answer she gave was perhaps we will need
> to go to war with Russia. That was just idiotic.

So you think if a country is a signatory to NATO that it means nothing? Her answer was if they were in NATO. Obama/Biden, Bush, McCain all have that as part of current foreign policy and all have advocated for Ukraine and Georgia to be admitted.

It is more idiotic to suggest that countries will not support their treaty obligations.

Is this the Obama Doctrine?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

Def: For political expediency it is OK to advocate for something you believe is illegal if it gives you politcal currency.

I guess Sarah Palin didn't even bother to watch the debates earlier this year. Here are some excerpts:


GIBSON: Congressman Paul, let me ask you, do you agree with the Bush doctrine, or would you change it?

CONG. RON PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change; this is huge. This is the first time we, as a nation, accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this.

Earlier in the debate, Gibson had this exchange with John McCain:
GIBSON: Let me just ratchet up the question slightly and ask you if you believe in the Bush doctrine.

Because in September 2002 -- up for years, our foreign policy has been based on the idea that we form alliances, international consensus. We attack -- retaliate if we're attacked.

But in 2002, the president said we have a right to a pre-emptive attack; that we can attack if this country feels threatened. . . . Do you agree with the doctrine, Senator McCain, if you were president, or would you change it?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN,(R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I agree with the doctrine. And I'd also like to give President Bush a little credit, as we have this discussion. Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the United States of America. There hasn't been.

The same night, Gibson hosted the Democratic candidates in a debate, and after Obama explained his belief that the U.S. should bomb locations in Pakistan if we know where Al Qaeda elements are and the Pakistani Government won't act against them, this exchange occurred:
GIBSON: I'm going to go the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. . . .

Let me just pick up on a couple of things that have been said. And I think people are in broad agreement here. But I think one of the things that's been left out is Iraq. And part of the reason that we neglected Afghanistan, part of the reason that we didn't go after bin Laden as aggressively as we should have is we were distracted by a war of choice. And that's the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn't that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn't.

I think these exchanges demonstrate that Gibson wasn't trying to pull off a "gotcha" question. He was asking her the same question that he asked of other candidates during the primary season. I don't recall any whining that Gibson was being unfair to those candidates or that his question was too vague.

From your own post:

Quote

Earlier in the debate, Gibson had this exchange with John McCain:
GIBSON: Let me just ratchet up the question slightly and ask you if you believe in the Bush doctrine.

Because in September 2002 -- up for years, our foreign policy has been based on the idea that we form alliances, international consensus. We attack -- retaliate if we're attacked.

But in 2002, the president said we have a right to a pre-emptive attack; that we can attack if this country feels threatened. . . . Do you agree with the doctrine, Senator McCain, if you were president, or would you change it?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN,(R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I agree with the doctrine. And I'd also like to give President Bush a little credit, as we have this discussion. Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the United States of America. There hasn't been.

Note in the earlier response, Gibson DEFINED what he was referring to - thus when he asked Ron Paul, the framework of the question had already been established.

Did any of the candidates disagree with the definition? Did they say, 'That's interesting, I hadn't heard that' (to quote Shrub)? Did they say, 'You know, I thought the Bush doctrine referred to x?' NO! The point is, the 'Bush doctrine' has been defined in the public debate and Palin should certainly have heard of it. She was not confused by the ambiguity of the term--she simply hadn't heard of it. Why is that so difficult to admit?

Is it really that hard to believe that a hockey-mom from hicktown Alaska isn't too familiar with national politics?

I mean seriously.

Well was a governor from a small state like Arkansas? There was great acceptance of Clinton when he burst on the national scene. Why not the same acceptance for Sarah Palin?

The tern has been said to have several meanings by experts in the Post Sunday so it was right for Sarah to ask what Charlie had in mind.

You idiot. Have you not read a fucking word that has been posted about this? Again, SHE HAD NOT HEARD THE TERM! She was not confused by the multiple meanings. Can people really be this stupid?


Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The tern has been said to have several meanings by
> experts in the Post Sunday so it was right for
> Sarah to ask what Charlie had in mind.

It doesn't really matter does it? We are just arguing a nit-picking point. I am relatively certain that the only people who really cared she had an issue on that particular question are the liberal pundits and a few over-wrought libs. They wouldn't have voted for her in the first place, now they are just trying to convince everyone else that we should all be as outraged (see: afraid of her derailing the Obamessiah) as they are.

No, it doesn't really matter. Clearly, people pre-disposed to like Palin are going to like her no matter what, and vice-versa. But, it's like the Seinfeld episode where the dry cleaner shrinks his shirt. He knows they shrunk it, they know they shrunk it, but he just wants them to admit it. I know she didn't know what it meant, you know she didn't know it, George Will knows it, William Kristol knows it, John Fund knows it, I'd just like somebody to admit it.

OK - she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was when Gibson asked her the question.

That still doesn't make it clear that she had never heard of it, was truly not familiar with the term (not necessarily that she didn't know the policy itself, just that she may not have referred to it in that manner so had no clue what he was asking), just had a "deer in the headlights" moment, or that she might be a total idiot.

Happy now? :) - I think I covered all the bases.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2008 02:53PM by Registered Voter.

Here we go - it is good to know that Lindsay Lohan still has enough of a brain left to type coherently:

http://www.showbizspy.com/showbiz/09142008/Lindsay-Lohan-Lashes-Out-at-Sarah-Palin

Truly a ringing endorsement... we are supposed to trust her judgment...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2008 03:00PM by Registered Voter.

Thank you. I'll agree that in that very stressful environment a person could have a 'deer in the headlights moment' and give a bad answer that they might have improved on in a different setting. I know I would come off as a complete idiot in that situation. And for the record, I don't think Palin is an idiot. By all accounts she is a smart woman. I just don't think she has thought about national issues enough to be even remotely qualified to run as vice president--setting aside the fact that I don't agree with her on much.

I have no idea whether Clinton would have been able to answer the "doctrine" question or not. My guess is that he would have.


>> Why not the same acceptance for Sarah Palin?

Because she appeals to the idiot religious right and the vote-with-your-dick republicans. Embarrasing people who have no business representing our country.

Well, given that "the Bush doctrine" wouldn't exist for another decade, it's safe to assume that Clinton wouldn't have been able to answer questions about it.


TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no idea whether Clinton would have been
> able to answer the "doctrine" question or not. My
> guess is that he would have.
>

No I had not read some of what you had previously written, out of the loop for a while. I may be somewhat stupid if I'm brutally honest.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you. I'll agree that in that very stressful
> environment a person could have a 'deer in the
> headlights moment' and give a bad answer that they
> might have improved on in a different setting. I
> know I would come off as a complete idiot in that
> situation. And for the record, I don't think
> Palin is an idiot. By all accounts she is a smart
> woman. I just don't think she has thought about
> national issues enough to be even remotely
> qualified to run as vice president--setting aside
> the fact that I don't agree with her on much.


Do you agree with the Democratic Vice President that they have chosen the wrong person to run for vice president on the Democratic Ticket by his own assessment? And shoulf have chose Hillery. This is also what Vice President Palin said in the interview.

I was addressing a hypothetical question, of course I know that Clinton was in office before the Bush doctrine; in fact, I actually knew what it was off the top of my ahead, unlike what's-her-name.


Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, given that "the Bush doctrine" wouldn't
> exist for another decade, it's safe to assume that
> Clinton wouldn't have been able to answer
> questions about it.
>
>
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have no idea whether Clinton would have been
> > able to answer the "doctrine" question or not.
> My
> > guess is that he would have.
> >

There generally was a very exalted opinion of Clinton
> >
> > TheMeeper Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I have no idea whether Clinton would have
> been
> > > able to answer the "doctrine" question or not.
>
> > My
> > > guess is that he would have.
> > >

No, I don't agree. I also don't think it's fair to ascribe that view to Biden. He was being gallant and, of course, trying to win over Clinton supporters.

>
>
> Do you agree with the Democratic Vice President
> that they have chosen the wrong person to run for
> vice president on the Democratic Ticket by his own
> assessment? And shoulf have chose Hillery. This is
> also what Vice President Palin said in the
> interview.

Yeah, yeah--I know. That was more for the benefit of right-wingers...


TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was addressing a hypothetical question, of
> course I know that Clinton was in office before
> the Bush doctrine; in fact, I actually knew what
> it was off the top of my ahead, unlike
> what's-her-name.
>

Well we are right wingers or Ron Paul crossovers. Frankly I think your going to see a lot of crossing over in this election and it's going to be for McCain/Palin

Rod Wrote:
>>> There generally was a very exalted opinion of Clinton


Clinton had been a rising star within the party for years and was chairman of the National Governors Association, which gave him recognition from outside of his state. He also appealed to swing voters (unlike what's her name), and arrived on the scene during a time when people were fed up with Bush.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2008 03:55PM by TheMeeper.

Speaking of stupid, would you agree with me that the adds have been a little stupid from both campaigns lately? I think it was stupid to attack McCain that he couldn't send a email when it turns out it's because of war injuries he can't type. And stupid of McCain to attack Obama for teaching kindergarten kids about sex when it was to avoid sexual predators?

How long is McCain going to keep relying on that POW thing? As someone pointed out in another thread, even Stephen Hawking manages to use a computer. If McCain wanted to learn about it, he would figure out a way. My 91 year old grandfather, who was injured in WWII, who suffers from Parkinson disease, who cut his finger off with a table saw, and whose hands shake so badly he can't eat dinner without spilling it all over himself has learned how to send e-mail.


Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of stupid, would you agree with me that
> the adds have been a little stupid from both
> campaigns lately? I think it was stupid to attack
> McCain that he couldn't send a email when it turns
> out it's because of war injuries he can't type.
> And stupid of McCain to attack Obama for teaching
> kindergarten kids about sex when it was to avoid
> sexual predators?

It's still a stupid add. As President he will not need as a job requirement to send and receive email. Bush dose not use email because he dose not want them subpoenaed. It's like saying he dose not know how to use a lawn mower so therefore is unsuited to be president.

I disagree. Technology is a key component of our economy and one of the biggest national security concerns. If McCain doesn't even know how to send an e-mail, how can he possibly understand how to implement policies that will promote effective use of technology and safeguard it from threats?


Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's still a stupid add. As President he will not
> need as a job requirement to send and receive
> email. Bush dose not use email because he dose not
> want them subpoenaed. It's like saying he dose not
> know how to use a lawn mower so therefore is
> unsuited to be president.

The thing with Palin and McCain is you know what you get. With Obama you don't really know nothing because the news organizations have put a clamp on it. the one thing I don't like about McCain is the war.

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thing with Palin and McCain is you know what
> you get. With Obama you don't really know nothing
> because the news organizations have put a clamp on
> it. the one thing I don't like about McCain is the
> war.

Oh god. Not again. This was the exact argument GW made when he ran. "I'm decisive; you always know where I stand." (as opposed to flip flopper Kerry). Sounds great on paper, until you realize being decisive and consistently wrong is a really bad thing.

Yeah, and the thing about going to prison is that you are going to be fucked up the ass by big, smelly, bald men and repeatedly subjected to body cavity searches. But at least you know what you get. If you don't go to prison who knows what will happen to you. Give me the sure thing anytime.


Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thing with Palin and McCain is you know what
> you get. With Obama you don't really know nothing
> because the news organizations have put a clamp on
> it. the one thing I don't like about McCain is the
> war.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this the Obama Doctrine?
>
> http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/o
> pedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdr
> awal_129150.htm
>
> Def: For political expediency it is OK to advocate
> for something you believe is illegal if it gives
> you politcal currency.


The Bush administration is in a frantic effort to limit the options the next president has on many issues. A withdrawal schedule negotiated by the Bush administration would have so many loop holes and provisions open for interpreatation we could be there for 100 years just trying to interpret them. I agree....no negotiations with Bush administration..let the next prsient do it...whomever he or she may be.

Since the Obama thing came up again...

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/its-appearance-of-impropriety-thats.html

Check out the YouTube clip from 2004...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kFrFIFizkU&eurl=http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/its-appearance-of-impropriety-thats.html

This sounds like nothing you hear from Obama today... what is this "long term strategy" he speaks of?...