As ABC's Charlie Gibson started interviewing Governor Sarah Palin (R-AL), asking her this series of questions:
"Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?""
and
"…didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?""
and
"Didn't that take some hubris? [to run for VP]"
and
"When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?"
and
"I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy".
and
"Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?"
and
"Have you ever met a foreign head of state?"
I found myself wondering why no reporter EVER sat down with Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and asked him these same questions during the 19 months of Obama's presidential campaign, when here they are asking Palin within 2 weeks of her VP nomination. Obama, with no executive experience, no governing experience, no management experience, no foreign policy experience prior to running for the presidency, no experience running any type of military outfit, indeed, no military experience of any kind, and none of the energy experience that Palin has either. Why didn't they ever ask him if HE had hubris, if he had the experience, if he had the qualifications, not just to be Vice President, but to be the leader of the free world, the Commander-In-Chief, the President of the United States ??? Even during 21 Democratic primary debates, I don't remember any reporter ever questioning Obama's credentials, not for one second. Hillary Clinton did question Obama's credentials, and the media castigated her for it. They called her mean-spirited. What incredible double standards we have in this country. Charles Gibson's first EIGHT questions all implied that Sarah Palin is not qualififed for the job.
When Gibson got done impugning Palin's experience, he tried to cast her as a religious kook, with these questions and statements:
"You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?"
and
"I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
and
"…are you sending your son [to Iraq] on a task that is from God?"
Again, Obama, who is a Christian, has never been asked any questions of this kind that I can recall. Apparently, "God's plan" is only important if you're running for Vice President. The only questions asked regarding Obama's church had nothing much to do with theology, they had to do with Obama's spiritual mentor of 20 years being an anti-american racist.
So, Gibson tried to establish right up front that Sarah Palin is a provincial holy roller who has never set foot outside the igloo. All in the spirit of fairness, I'm sure.
That being said, I thought the interview was tedious and repetitive (how could it not be, with Gibson asking the same question over and over and over ?), and I thought Palin looked nervous, and at times confused. She made some errors. She referred to Russia's aggression toward Georgia as "unprovoked", but that is an oversimplification. It was reported that way in the American media, but Russia's actions weren't unprovoked. Russia's response wasn't proportional, however, and was a clear act of aggression. In the later part of the interview that was broadcast on Nightline, Palin said we should do something about global warming whether it is man-made or merely the result of natural weather cycles. Uh, no. If global warming is the result of natural weather changes (i.e. solar activity), there isn't anything we can do about it. The last I heard, we don't have any control over the sun.
Gibson asked Palin over and over whether the USA should support Israel if Israel decided to act to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and Palin repeatedly gave the same answer, that Israel is an ally and we shouldn't second guess Israel regarding it's own national security. Gibson tried real hard to get Palin to say Israel should destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, and I applaud her for not saying that.
Gibson asked Palin over and over whether we should cross into Pakistan without Musharraf's permission to take out Al Qaeda, and Palin repeatedly gave the same answer, that we must do what is necessary to defeat Al Qaeda and shouldn't take any options off the table. Gibson tried real hard to get Palin to say we should invade Pakistan, and I applaud her for not saying that. Gibson tried to get Palin to say we'd have to go to war with Russia if we let Georgia into NATO, and Palin took the bait on that one a little bit, indicating that was perhaps a possibility according to the terms of the NATO alliance, which, of course, it is.
Are y'all getting the drift of all these 'will you take military action ?' questions from Gibson ? The more times he can get Palin to answer in the affirmative to military action, or even acknowledge the possibility of military conflict, the more the media can portray her, and Republicans in general, as warmongers. Or maybe I'm just being paranoid from watching this same sort of thing happen my entire lifetime. When Obama says we should invade Pakistan, well, that's just sensible, because that's where Bin Laden is. When a Republican says the same thing, they are unilateral fascist warmongers.
I heard some response from the left. I heard Alan Colmes allege that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, but that was specious. Palin only asked for clarification on that question from Gibson, for specifics. I heard Clinton supporter Lanny Davis say he was shocked by Palin's declaration that we would go to war with Russia, but that was a severe misrepresentation of what she said.
I'm sure the furious spin will start today, as every word Palin spoke will be parsed, dissected, and recast.
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
One interview is all it takes to see she has little understanding of international situations.
For a GOP vice-presidential nominee to not know what the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption is….I mean wow.
She doesn't understand the Russian-Georgian deal..at all. Maybe it's because the neo-con loser Joe Lieberman has been her tutor in her undisclosed location of the last week.
When a candidate for office a heartbeat away from the presidency has to be secluded and sheltered from questions and then only answers questions from one news person and on her terms…..AND doesn't do very well at that….then you know for sure she's not ready nor able to hold that office.
I agree that I couldn't understand why Gibson asked only same question again and again. What did he intended to get answer from Palin? It wasn't real interview, just like prosecuter's questions on trial. He didn't want to know who is real Palin, but pushing her to get arguable answer. I was waiting all day Gibson for Palin's interview to know Palin's opinion, but from the begining, I was very disappointed. Can we have fare, repectible and sharp interview?
Funny about Charlie Gibson's interview: He seemed like a completely different person from the guy who interviewed Barack Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzecb7Qe6vo . Is it too much to ask for some sense of balance.
For posters criticizing Palin on the Bush doctrine, try looking it up.
The Bush doctrine is actually complex and multi-faceted. Palin showed understanding, not ignorance, by asking for clarification for such an open-ended question.
Another open-ended question about NATO was reported to mean she was some sort of war monger. Article 5 of the NATO charter is a mutual defense pact. Obama and Biden are both for Georgia and Ukraine's inclusion into NATO, so they should be asked the same question.
People using this exchange as a reason to attack Palin's understanding of the Bush doctine or Russia instead show their own ignorance of the issues involved.
"People using this exchange as a reason to attack Palin's understanding of the Bush doctine or Russia instead show their own ignorance of the issues involved."
That's your cue, Reverend.
She did well, considering, how this was not an interview but an interrogation, love how Charlie asked if it was "hubris" of her to think she believed she was qualified to be VP. Love, the condescending look with the glasses at the bottom of his nose! Obama was never grilled like this, and wasn't it hubris of him to want to give his speech to adoring Germans at the Brandenburg Gate before he was even President, and bypassed visiting our troops over there, because he couldn't go by himself and leave his campaign behind. Why did it take this long for him to visit Iraq during his whirlwind Middle-East European Campaign Tour?
“Over the last week, Barack Obama made time in his busy schedule to hold a rally with 200,000 Germans in Berlin, hold a press conference with French President Nicholas Sarkozy in Paris, and hold a solo press conference in front of 10 Downing Street in London. The Obama campaign had also scheduled a visit with wounded U.S. troops at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, but this stop was canceled after it became clear that campaign staff, and the traveling press corps, would not be allowed to accompany Senator Obama.
How come no journalist has asked him if he feels ready to be Commander in Chief when he said the that we need more troops in Afghanistan so that
"we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians" I guess he questions the ability of our commanders on the field and right now they are just air-raiding and killing civilians over there.
Reverend Wright? Is that you?
I thought Palin handled herself very well in that "interview". She seemed more like a seasoned politician the way she kept her cool through the whole thing. I, also, was apalled at the way the cameras were used to make Gibson look like something he sure isn't.
It is now Obama's turn to be interrogated the same way if he is indeed to continue to run for the office of President.
I am saying this as a man who has a signature line on a national forum that reads, "I'd rather have Sarah Palin one heart beat from the Presidency than Barack Obama BE the heartbeat of the Presidency."
Unlike Rev Red, I want to see Obama finally get a chance to be questioned for the number one job at least as thoroughly as Sarah Palin was by Gibson. I think she weathered that little media event very well and came away from it more convinced than before that she can handle the job of VP. Now I would like to see Obama sit through the same interrogation to see how well he handles it for the top job.
Cueing it up….
"People using this exchange as a reason to attack Palin's understanding of the Bush doctine or Russia instead show their own ignorance of the issues involved."
Sorry, you challenged the wrong Reverend.
The Project for the New American Century. Know all about that group, do ya' Peter? Know all about the imperialistic policy of pre-emptive wars to expand the American empire, do ya' Peter? And Peter, do you know all about Georgia's pre-emptive attack on two northern separatist regions there, which provoked Putin to defend his own Russian peacemakers in those regions?
Neither does Palin.
McCain's Palin stunt has produced some of the results he intended. Palin has injected a little wingnut-heroin into the far-right theocons' bloodstream. But, "the Sarah Palin is being picked on by the those dirty journalists", victimization fantasy is the wingnuttiest of the wingnut-world.
Imagine for a moment, if you even can, a potential president of the U.S. not answering questions from the press…..until the press pays her "deference."
She's hiding from Americans because she's not ready to lead America…and she knows it.
I came here looking for analysis, but Da King immediately launches the defense: "Oh yeah, why didn't the press ask Obama all those tough questions already?".
Oh well, whatever, nevermind.
She paused and said 'in what respect' only because she knew Charley was referring to the term "Bush Doctrine" as it's used as a nutty leftwing talking point–see the Reverend's post above for an example.
It was a little patronizing and didn't come off well on TV, but I think Charley was a little flustered that he'd been caught asking a question in partisan terms.
Of course Charley doesn't know of the complexities Peter points out, as Charley as much as admitted in the interview.
***Imagine for a moment, if you even can, a potential president of the U.S. not answering questions from the press***
Ok, Rev, here are your words turned 180 degrees and now applied to the man who wants to hold the number one job. You think they are such good ones for one who wants to serve as the Number Two in the job so lets think about them being applied to the Scary One who wants to be Number One.
Rev, can you point out one time that the Scary One has been questioned like this? If so, I would certainly like to see your example. A link, a posted comment about it, whatever you can conjur up.
I think that to apply this kind of thing to this woman when Scary Barry has had a complete pass from the media all along just makes no sense at all. He has never been subjected to anything even a bit like this and yet is supposedly within just over 50 days of being elected to the top job.
What is the media afraid of? Are they really afraid of having the race card thrown at them? Are they a part of a gigantic plot that is about to be foisted off on us? I don't know, but all his experience has been in less than executive type and yet he is never questioned about his experience and readiness to lead. What is it all?
"For a GOP vice-presidential nominee to not know what the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption is….I mean wow."
Gibson never said pre-emption. I have a PhD and I'm a political junkie yet his question had me going 'huh?!?' It was a vague, gotcha-type question that deserved the correct answer Palin gave, to clarify. He needed to be more specific and yet he was deliberately vague because he was intending to pounce if her interpretation was off of his.
Fact is, Bush never articulated any such 'doctrine' that's a label others have given to his policy and the definition of such doctrine is different. Palin's answer was in keeping with what Bush's intentions have been all along and her correct view that the President's role is to defend US national security against terrorist threats.
I was shocked at how biased, curt and condescending Gibson was. I expected a tough grilling but this went beyond tough into patronizing and condescending in tone, words and body language. It was so obvious that Gibson was trying not to interview her to elicit her positions, but give her some quiz as if he were a professor quizzing a student seeing if she would 'pass the test'. Yet, despite the ABC News best efforts to trip her, Governor Palin gave a good account on the questions.
And Palin gets extra bonus points for taking the very unfair question Gibson asked about "Gods will" and correctly pointing out that it is from Abraham Lincoln.
Attempts to twist her words out of context are ongoing, but nothing that she said about Pakistan, Israel or Georgia is different from the stated McCain or even Obama policies. Of *course* we will defend fellow NATO allies should Georgia join NATO, that's the point of why Georgia and Ukraine want in!
I've visited over 24 countries in my life and I found his questions about going overseas bizarre and also condescending. Apparently because she has normal and humble roots and has only visited Canada and Mexico prior to her visit to the troops in Iraq last year, she's not 'cosmopolitan enough' to be VP. The best VP in our history was Harry Truman, and he went overseas only once – in service to our country in WWI. Somehow Truman was able to finish up WWII and face the USSR okay despite his lack of global travel. Fact is, most Americans who are not rich and have global business dealings travel overseas rarely. Palin knows enough about the world to be a fine VP and potentially should the time come a good President.
The most important statement of the interview was when Palin, correctly rebutting Gibson's flawed question about God's will and plan, talked of her sons decision to enlist. She spoke as a proud mother of a man who made his own decision to serve the country. Palin and her family are like a lot of American families and many of us identify with her life story and experiences. To see the liberal media go bonkers in their disdain for HER is exposing their own disdain for US.
I dont think we will forget that.
It's funny when asked about Obama's foreign experience his campaign manager cites: the photo op with Englands PM, the press conference where he met France's President and the rock concert where he was the guest speaker in between acts. Does that qualify him as an expert on foreign affairs or policy?
What kills me is the way women are taking this slaying of her character. If we can agree on one thing it's this, if she isn't more qualified she is at least equally qualified for her position. The difference, she is running for VP. He wants to run the country. If the press were questioning and treating Obama like they were treating Palen there would be a huge uprising of groups headed by folks like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. (especially when gibson said "can you look into the camera and actually tell the US public that you are qualified to be VP". How degrading. He should have just put some lipstick on her and called her pig.) Yet not one Womans Group or Civil Rights group has come to her side. My grandmother, a huge fighter of Women's Rights must be rolling over in her grave. I guess John Lennon and Yoko Ono were right when they wrote and recorded the song "Woman is the…of the World. Don't know it. Google it and read the words because the way women are letting her be treated is pushing back their cause by 70 years. I guess if she was built like a fireplug, had stringy hair and a mullet, and had a small pencil thin moustache and had her "Abortions Are Good"(is this the biggest thing women have accomplished in 70 years?) patch, things would be different.
As far as with Gibson, she did very good. The press is of course taking and spinning their sound bites and twisting things to make her look like a stupid woman that should be at home with her kids washing the clothes and dishes and taking care of her husband(…hmmmm I should be so lucky) Many of Gibsons questions were misleading and she did answer them correctly knowing she had to answer in a 30 to 60 second soundbite. She did well.
Mr. King,
The argument over what has been asked of Obama vis-a-vis what's been asked of Palin is specious. We have less than 60 days to try to get a handle on how Palin would act in certain situations. We've had a couple of years to judge Obama similarly. Gibson actually gave her an opportunity to allay fears that she lacks experience and judgement.
She did fine……Gibson tried to lay traps and she wouldn't fall for it.
One of these days the media, Obama, and The Reverend are going to be looking at the polls and wonder why they spent all this time going after Palin and not McCain.
Gibson forgot to ask her feelings being part of a historic ticket. He asked that of Obama in his recent interview.
Seriously. She rocked. She didn't fall into the land mines he laid. She performed adequately under pressure.
She'll make a helluva Vice President.
Gibson interogates Sarah:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09…with-abc-news/
Gibson coddles Barack, pt. 2 (June '08):
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5000184
Gibson coddles Barack, pt. 1 (Nov. '07)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/12/2007-interview-abc-s-gibson-greeted-obama-softballs
Despicable.
Really great comments from most of you. After the way Palin has been treated so very poorly since her VP nomination was announced, Charles Gibson's interview just put the icing on the biased media cake.
I agree particularly with the posters who said Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine was too vague, and Palin was correct to ask for clarification. What constitutes the Bush Doctrine could mean a number of things, and Gibson was definitely trying to play gotcha more than elicit a true response. Palin's response was right on the money.
Nicole, great links to provide the contrast in treatment by Gibson between Obama and Palin. The double standard doesn't get much clearer than that.
Do you seriously think Obama hasn't been asked about his lack of experience? That is probably the single biggest hurdle he has to overcome. A lot of people will write him off on that alone.
It would be preferable that she has seen more of the world.
Bottom line, if she were a man or looked like Barbara Bush, she'd be back in Alaska trying to get her ex-brother-in-law canned by the Alaska State Police.
Gibson had to go after her hard or his MSM pals would have shunned him.
Then it's agreed:
Gibson's a twerp. Like Obama.
No, it's not. Agreed that is. Gibson is an arrogant and pompous asshole. No argument from me on that.
But good gawd you folks. I don't give one crap who has what degrees or has traveled to what countries. I mean WTF?
The point is this: Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war was. She didn't. That is that. Spin like a top if necessary, she didn't know what it was.
The reason she didn't has already been pointed out by certain reality based people. Some humans have certain interests and curiosities, other humans have other interests and curiosities. I know what the Bush Docrtine is because I am curious enough to keep up. Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is because she is either not interested enough or curious enough.
And that's the person the GOP picked to be a heartbeat away.
Honestly, you guys must be putting us on. I mean, right?
And please roy….you're still my Kansas buddy, but you know as well as I do that Obama has been put through the press wringer. Look at what he had to do in responding to Wright. Look at what he had to go through with all the racial insinuations, some from his own party.
Obama has answered ALL the questions. If you disagree, what hasn't he answered?
Everyone,
Gibson could have been a little easier I do agree. However his interrogation went full steam ahead when she didn’t answer the first question in a confident assuring manner. Obama did. Leaders know that their may not be a right answer for complex situations, answer yes or no and do not compromise once its answered. She tapped dance around most of the questions. No one cares about five hundred dollar double talk words. She is not ready. I am not saying that because I am leaning towards a vote for Obama, but it could be Smuck Romney or Judy Fooliani during the interview. The Republicans has made a mess of everything. If your kids or employees do the same thing, you too would scrutinize them a little harder.
We needed to see how she reacted under pressure. Many of the questions like the Bush Doctrine question had many facets and answers. There is more than one pont to that piece of legislation. What was her answer? She wanted him to be more specific. The media took that as not knowing the answer.
Same thing with the question about Al'kaida. Everyone agrees that they weren't a part of the intial Iraq problem, even Bush agrees that the intelligence report was skewed in that regard. However, it has been proven that Al'Kaida has supported and been involved in the Iraq conflict.
This is different but on the View today they asked McCain about her asking for earmarks. As a governor her job is to ask for earmark projects for her state. Her job is to get as much of the pie as she can for the citizens of her state. If anyone should be chastized it should be McCain, Obama and Biden for approving her earmarks.
They hate her because she is a strong woman that doesn't fit the typical feminist model. She is qualified to lead our country. However she is not Hillary and many people thought she deserved the first woman Pres/VP role.
Also Barrack hasn't really answered the qualifications questions. They adore him because he is African/American. The media knows they have to tip toe around him to avoid the race issue, so to appease him they will elect him president of the US?
His experience equates to the McDonalds business model where he now has the experience to make fries pretty good so we will promote him to company president next week in the name of affirmative action and so the company looks good and not racist. I can hear it now. "Should we order more ketchup for the company?"……(Not wanting to take responsibility barrack says) "Present"
Anybody get to those 74 [or is it 75 ] reversals by the straight talker maverick yet? They're very easy to find,just go to Steve Benen or thewashingtonmonthly.com…this is journalism not the crap you get from Rush 'the junkie' or Fox. Please feel free to point out any fabrications or distortions[hint; you won't find any because Pigboy Rove[he does look like a member of the swine family no?]was not involved.
Folks, I have a son who has not voted yet and is nearly 24. Let me guarantee you he is voting this time and it is because of the way the MSM and the Democrats have treated the little lady from Alaska. He sometimes is so mad that he can't even talk about it. I am very proud that he is a rebel and is joining the rest of the family this year. I am even more proud of the fact that he drives 40 miles to work and can't get home in time to vote so will just get up a bit earlier to vote that day.
Hey, guys, he is supposed to be a member of the Obama cult from his age but he sure isn't and works with an Obama lover. I think listening to that fool has done a lot to swing him, also.
I think that the words of yiu may come the closest to getting to what most of us saw in that interrogation. Yiu said that Gibson's tactic in repeating questions to obviously confuse Palin were so sad and did sound much like a prosecutor in a court trial. Actually this brief post was the closest to real truth about this whole thing.
Average Joe,
That was a hit below the waste.. That was uncalled for. Bush is caucasion and had very lucrative positions. However he failed at everyone of them including President of the United States. So if Obama makes a good fry Bush and the rest of the rebublicpukes make better fries. tell me when and where has bush had success? Since when has the media, tip toed around issues concerning any black person? Even BET dismantles Black legends. So dont give me that. I cant believe you said this man hasnt answered a qualified question. Hes answering millions. I think the republicans is just shock because Obama doesnt fit the mold as other politicians. All of his dirt was out in the open since day one.
Rev says, "Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war was."
I'm wondering how you reach that conclusion. First of all, Gibson didn't ask her what the 'Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war' was at first. I wish he had. Then we might have gotten a more responsive answer from Palin. But no, Gibson asked her what the 'Bush Doctrine' was. That could mean many things, and the so-called Bush Doctrine of 2002 was reformed in 2006 (and Gibson didn't even state it correctly. It's not simply "pre-emptive war"), so Palin rightly asked for clarification. Gibson referred to the Bush Doctrine as that enunciated in september 2002. Then Palin responded with this:
"I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."
The aim of the real Bush Doctrine (not the Doctrine as the left would have us believe, that is nothing but invading any country we want pre-emptively) is to deal with the new threat of terrorism, where our enemies may not be only nation states, but also unaffiliated groups like Al Qaeda as well. The changes brought by the Bush Doctrine ARE about dealing with terrorism, just as Palin stated.
If there are criticisms of Palin's response, they shouldn't be that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, her response indicated that she does. The criticism should be that she didn't really answer the question. She didn't say if she supports the Bush view. She was too vague. She pointed out the intent of the Bush Doctrine accurately, then said mistakes were made, but she didn't say what those mistakes were. I wish Gibson had asked her what those mistakes were, but he didn't.
If you really care what the Bush Doctrine of 2002 was (more appropriately called the National Security Strategy), you can find it here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html
If you really care what the current Bush Doctrine is, as stated in 2006, you can find it here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
It helps if people actually understand issues. Anyone disagree?
Example: "There is more than one pont to that piece of legislation."
This is in response to the Bush Doctrine issue. The Bush Doctrine is not a piece of legislation. The Bush Doctrine, as all close observers understand, is the NEW foreign/military policy (as of 2002) of America stating that the U.S. has the right to start wars, even if we are not threatened or attacked. That Doctrine was the windowdressing given to the Bush-Cheney illegal war of choice in Iraq.
No one disagrees about what the "aim" of Bush's recklessness has been. Sure, we have to get those Islamofascists.
Just analyze Palin's inclusion of the words in response to Gibson…."There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made."
That response IS like pulling a string on a Chatty Cathy doll. The "mistakes made" phrase is GOP boilerplate for the illegal Iraq invasion and occupation.
She crammed for a few days with Lieberman and Steve Schmidt and she remembered to throw that "mistakes made" phrase in when she could….even though it was completely out of context.
Totally unqualified and unprepared.
Let's imagine that Dr. Condoleezza Rice was the V-P candidate instead of Palin. Do you think for one minute that Gibson's questions would have thrown her like they threw "the little lady from Alaska?" Not on your life!! Dr. Rice would have asked the right clarification questions (e.g. "to which Bush Doctrine" do you refer, Charlie?") and then proceeded to give substantive answers based on hard evidence. She is just one example of a Republican female candidate (if being female was the big qualification this time around) who was far, far, far more suitable to be V-P than Palin. Cindy McCain has far better economic credentials based on her vast business experience, and has done humanitarian work overseas; quite frankly, she's a more qualified candidate than Palin and even her own husband!! These are just two quick examples… there are many, many more.
McCain picked on looks and perceived "star quality," not on verifiable talent and ability. Prove me wrong.
King, I spent 45 minutes last night watching the last part of the Bill Maher liberal crap exhibition and find that Rev Red should have been on that show. His continual attempts to make his words fit into the far left attack would have been so right in place on that one. I wonder if he might be Janeane Garofalo just the way he sounds.
Not one soul among the 4 libs on that show felt Palin did a good job and the token barely right leaner, John Fund, disagreed with them. It could almost make a sane person cry just to listen to that bunch attack anyone who isn't liberal enough to suit them. Actually they usually complete the circle and get around to tearing into themselves about so many things. Maher actually talked about elitism of the Republicans and ended up comparing the Founding Fathers to McCain and Palin as east coast people and westerners of the old West days. Somehow he didn't really see any elitism in what he was saying. I doubt that he even knew that nearly every one of those Fathers lived in states that border on the Atlantic Ocean. Easterners, my butt, they were from the United States of America and all the states were "east". He even alluded to elitism among Republicans naming names and Garofalo got around to saying things that make Scary Barry sound as elitist as we think he is.
I think we should recommend Rev for one of Maher's exhibitions. Huh?
Roy,
Why do you call it attacks. Jeez shes running for Vice President, In a time like this, with all of this global hatred towards the USA, asking for clarity on the Bush Doctorine is like asking someone to be more specific on the what happened on 9/11. It would be odd I asked someone who is old enough to remember " What happened on 9/11" , what would you think about the person if they responded "what year. uhhh can you please be specific. Come on lay off the Rev he got a good point
Annie you make a good point. Dont think for one minute that Senator "Mcsame as Bush" had his eye on her the whle time. It was a stretegy if Obama didnt put Hillary, heres our chance to persuade the women voters. Thats not smart, thats desparation.
Annie gets it.
In addition to McCain's reasons for picking Palin, "looks and perceived star quality", insightfully pointed out by Annie…..I would include the fact that Palin is simply adored as a darling by the religious far-right.
McCain once considered leaders of the religious far-right to be agents of intolerance. Now he wants to place one of the true believers of far-right religiosity a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world.
I hear Biden said at a rally today that Palin was probably the better vp pick.
Rev,
You either didn't read ther links I provided that describe a couple actual Bush Doctrines, or you just don't care what they say. For someone professing knowledge of the Bush Doctrine, your caricature of it is far more out of bounds than anything Palin said.
And when did Palin say "There is more than one point to that piece of legislation" about the Bush Doctrine during the Gibson interview ? I had to go back and look at the transcript again, and I couldn't find that.
But let me take another crack at informing you. Here is the first paragraph from Wikipedia that describes the Bush Doctrine:
"The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy, increased unilateralism in foreign policy and an expanded view of American national security interests. Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine," and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive "Bush Doctrines" in his book The Bush Tragedy,[1] while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.[2] Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush's doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."
Perhaps you'll note the part that says even foreign policy experts disagree on the meaning of the Bush Doctrine. Rev, maybe you should call them all up and enlighten them, since you have it figured out and the experts don't. Perhaps, you'll also note there are a minimum of six different Bush Doctrines, and that it refers to a number of foreign policy issues, not merely 'hey, let's throw a dart at a map and then invade that country.'
Roy,
You deserve a medal for sitting through 45 minutes of Bill Maher. I usually start yelling at the tv set within 5-10 minutes. I almost watched his latest spew latest last night, but my girlfriend talked me out of it (thanks, honey).
But Maher has a point about those Republicans being elitists – like Sarah Palin from the elitist town of Wasilla, Alaska, who graduated from the elitist University of Idaho. What a snob. Poor Barry had to scrape by at Harvard.
This was always the Bush Doctrine, no ifs, ands, or buts…
"Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush's doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent. This policy was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003."
….until Sarah Palin had to be interviewed and didn't know what it was.
Then, suddenly, the Bush Doctrine lost it's definition because Palin didn't know what it was.
This whole Palin thing is embarassing and ridiculous. It makes us look like a nation who doesn't take anything seriously anymore. Certainly not GOP vice presidential picks.
Always impressed by how you completely ignore any set of facts that you don't want to acknowledge, Rev. It is your defining trait.
Speaking of embarassing, ridiculous, and serious VP picks, you voted for Kerry/Edwards in 2004 didn't you ?
What experience did Edwards bring to the table, other than hardly any ? And for that matter, weren't you an early supporter of Edwards for president in 2008, prior to jumping on the inexperienced Obama bandwagon after Edwards fell out of the race ?
With every word, you condemn yourself.
King Said:
"I'm wondering how you reach that conclusion. First of all, Gibson didn't ask her what the 'Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war' was at first. I wish he had. Then we might have gotten a more responsive answer from Palin. But no, Gibson asked her what the 'Bush Doctrine' was."
Flase. He did not ask her what the Bush doctrine was. You are attempting to make it look like he was quizzing her. He was asking her if she agreed with the doctrine, only to discovers she had no idea what he was talking about. Then she tried to BS her way out of it:
King, below is transcript of the interview from Fox News:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/raw-data-palins-interview-with-abc-news/
Jimmy, am I wrong in thinking that Democrats spend much more time talking about the "Bush Doctrine" concerning foreign policy to be much more one of the favorite talking points of Democrats than anything else? In case I am not wrong would you think that Palin would be thinking Democrat talking points as important?
Somehow I find that one piece of that rather long interview (interrogation) as about the only thing you people can find wrong and if you look at Gibson's hesitation at the first response by Palin maybe you might find Gibson being taken aback at not getting his "Gotcha" answer. I think she answered very well whether she knew what he meant or not. As King keeps telling you there are more Bush policies referred to as his "Doctrine" than just that one item outside Democrat talking points.
You guys are grasping at straws and you know it.
Jimmy,
The essential part of the Gibson-Palin exchange came here (and I already posted the exchange myself):
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
So, what part of her response to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war did Palin get wrong ? The only thing I can say is, she didn't really answer the question Gibson asked, about whether she agreed with the Doctrine or not (as I've also stated before). But her response indicates she does have an understanding of what the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war was all about, because that's what she was addressing with her response.
The liberal media — that is, the media — will do anything to elect B. Hussein Obama as president. These liberals so loath America that they'll do anything to degrade her, including putting an empty suit like BO in the White House.
Defeat Obama in November and you also defeat the media elites — a nice twoforer
Vince,
Did you see the Rasmussen poll that showed Americans believe by a 5-1 margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama ? And by a 10-1 margin they believe the media is trying to smear Palin ?
America is watching and paying attention. Let them sling all the mud they want. Let them spout all the hateful crap they can think of. It's helping McCain.
Yeppur….that was those liberal media elites running those Wright clips a million times…you know, just so we "got" it.
And King…
"PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."
There's no mention of pre-emptive war in her answer. None. Yet you say….
"But her response indicates she does have an understanding of what the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war was all about, because that's what she was addressing with her response."
How would we know that from her answer? You're simply making stuff up here.
So Palin didnt make any huge mistakes in the first debate, I wonder if she had someone talking in her ear to coach her
i was obese a few years ago but now i have reduced my weight by diet and exercise.