CANADIEN Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) But she doesn't STARE BLANKLY.I went back and looked at the clip. (Thanks American Woman for providing it.)Palin moves her body and legs after Gibson asks the questions. She appears to be saying "OK, so that's the kind of interview you want... " Even Gibson then flubs the follow up as if to say, "Well, I didn't really mean to play hardball... " There's no blank stare. This woman is no fool and if the Dems take that approach, they'll lose for sure. She appears to say "uh?". And Gibson flubs the follow up as if saying "you don't know what I am talking about?" But hey, feel free to portray her as the target of a vicious left-wing attack in the form of... a question that has been asked to other people at both end of the spectrum before. I do not think Palin is a fool, but either she is in over her head, or the campaign staff didn't prepare her that well. Edited September 12, 2008 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I do not think Palin is a fool, but either she is in over her head, or the campaign staff didn't prepare her that well. I think the opposite.....they should have told her to avoid "Bush Doctrine" like the Plague. Just kill terrorists with God's blessing / plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Fine....do you think you have witnessed the end of Gov. Palin's political chances based on your analysis / opinion? Is that all you got? I don't think I have seen the end of her. But she's better getting more prepared, and fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I don't think I have seen the end of her. But she's better getting more prepared, and fast. Nope...she'll be fine just as is. A very unpolished George Bush handed the more "prepared" Senators Gore and Kerry losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) She appears to say "uh?". And Gibson flubs the follow up as if saying "you don't know what I am talking about?" But hey, feel free to portray her as the target of a vicious left-wing attack in the form of... a question that has been asked to other people at both end of the spectrum before.I do not think Palin is a fool, but either she is in over her head, or the campaign staff didn't prepare her that well. She's obviously in over her head, and if this interview is any indication of how the Biden-Palin debate will go, it's not going to go well for her. There are entire books written about the Bush Doctrine, with "Bush Doctrine" part of the title. It's been discussed, debated, criticized, supported, you name it. She could have pointed out the parts she agreed with, or the parts she disagreed with if she doesn't want to be tied to Bush policies. She could have said there's no such 'set policy,' she could have said that it's too vague to comment on. Instead, she made it totally clear that she had no idea what he was talking about. I don't' think her ignorance is going to be seen as "change" from Bush policies. If that were the case she should have, as I pointed out, discussed why she disagreed with it and what she would do differently. But when you've got McCain proudly proclaiming that he voted with Bush 90% of the time, her ignorance on the Bush Doctrine isn't going to be portrayed as a separation from the Bush policy by anyone using any level of critical thought. In fact, it shows that she could have the same policy as Bush, but just doesn't know it. But now we've got "interview questions" being an attack; "asking her exam questions." How dare people treat her the same as the other candidates! I guess we should just let this woman smile for the camera and let the chips fall where they may. The fact that people want her treated with kid gloves shows how unsure of her qualifications they really are. Edited September 12, 2008 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Nope...she'll be fine just as is. A very unpolished George Bush handed the more "prepared" Senators Gore and Kerry losses. Bush was well prepared enough to win the election. It's the actual doing of the job that's his undoing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Best Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 By asking what do you interpret it to be, she responded the right way. The Bush Doctrine is not something that was enunciated or enacted nor does it exist except as a collective term to describe Bush policies. Pundits use the term pretty liberally, thus....... The fact is, jefferiah, no one who was qualified to be the Vice President of the United States would not fully understand what was meant by "the Bush Doctrine". She did not respond "the right way." She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. That was obvious. Isn't it ironic that on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks the vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party and John McCain--the party and candidate who claim they will keep America safe--demonstrates a total lack of knowledge of the very foreign policy that came out of the September 11 attacks. Says much about McCain's and the Republicans' claims about putting country before winning elections, don't you think? The most astute and incisive political commentary I've heard to date about Sarah Palin came from that great Canadian thinker, Pam Anderson, who said "I can't stand her. She can suck it!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) The fact is, jefferiah, no one who was qualified to be the Vice President of the United States would not fully understand what was meant by "the Bush Doctrine". She did not respond "the right way." She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. That was obvious. Once again, the Bush Doctrine is nothing. Who says that one needs to know what you or someone else means by the Bush Doctrine in order to be Vice President? It is not a policy, it not something which was enacted, it is a political buzz word. In office, no one is going to say "Sarah should we employ the Bush Doctrine?" They will ask "Should we strike this nation which harbors terrorists?" (one definition) "Should we wage preventative war against a nation planning to acquire nuclear weapons?" (another) Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Bush was well prepared enough to win the election. It's the actual doing of the job that's his undoing. He was prepared enough to be the puppet of those with more influence. No one can convince me that Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld weren't having a huge say in what was taking place. They even left Bush reading to grade schoolers while the nation was being attacked. Perhaps that's what McCain was looking for in a VP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Best Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Once again, the Bush Doctrine is nothing. Who says that one needs to know what you or someone else means by the Bush Doctrine in order to be Vice President? It is not a policy, it not something which was enacted, it is a political buzz word.In office, no one is going to say "Sarah should we employ the Bush Doctrine?" They will ask "Should we strike this nation which harbors terrorists?" (one definition) "Should we wage preventative war against a nation planning to acquire nuclear weapons?" (another) Yes, jefferiah, a fundamental ignorance of the foundation of the Bush regime's much discussed foreign policy should be viewed as a qualification to be the next Vice President or President of the United States. In your and the Rabid Right's Topsy Turvey, Black is White world, ignorance of the basics is now evidence of competence. I cannot imagine a more nonsensical--and dangerous--view. Moreover, it is insidiously hypocritical. If Joe Biden or Barack Obama went blank on a question so basic as their views of the Bush Doctrine, the Rabid Right would be howling to the ramparts about their competence to lead and keep America safe. Limbaugh would be frothing. I know you hate all things Left, and worship all things Right, but is your hate and love so all consuming and blinding that you would defer to them rather than the security and prosperity of your country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 And either way, it's enough to show how unprepared Palin is to discuss some of the major issues of the campaign. I thought the Palin-Biden debate would be fun... If she is not better prepared than that, it will be as boring as a Red Wings-Maple Leafs game. Give it up. I don't support Palin but I don't consider her lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctine to be particularly important. As for poor answer to the media, if you can find it, go back and watch Belinda Stronach's first media interview. It was painful, embarrassing. She not only knew nothing about most major issues but had no idea how to cover her ignorance. And yet, lots of people supported her and continue to do so. She seemed like a fresh face on the political spectrum and people were willing to ignore her lack of knowledge and experience - in much the same way they are going to ignore Palin's. I think the Democrats should stop worrying about her and point to the backwardness of Mccain's policies. He's thrown in his lot with the religious right, and that's scary to a lot of middle of the road americans who don't think doctors should be put in prison for performing abortions, or that teachers should be fired for teaching sex education. More importantly, their handling of the economy has been disastrous. They have a half trillion dollar annual deficit McCain has no plans for - except to cut taxes - doh, and increase military spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) Yes, jefferiah, a fundamental ignorance of the foundation of the Bush regime's much discussed foreign policy should be viewed as a qualification to be the next Vice President or President of the United States. In your and the Rabid Right's Topsy Turvey, Black is White world, ignorance of the basics is now evidence of competence. I cannot imagine a more nonsensical--and dangerous--view. Moreover, it is insidiously hypocritical. If Joe Biden or Barack Obama went blank on a question so basic as their views of the Bush Doctrine, the Rabid Right would be howling to the ramparts about their competence to lead and keep America safe. Limbaugh would be frothing.I know you hate all things Left, and worship all things Right, but is your hate and love so all consuming and blinding that you would defer to them rather than the security and prosperity of your country? I don't think the Bush Doctrine matters. It is a collective term used popularly to describe any number of Bush foreign policies. I don't think it matters. As for the security of the country I would look at things like Obama's proposed amendments to the Patriot Act before it was extended in 2005. The original Patriot Act allowed the government to do a secret investigation on a suspected terrorist without notifying him/her for 180 days. When it was extended in 2005 it was amended so that the period was reduced to 30 days, but with the option that that time period could be extended given an apt reason. But Obama's proposal was to have it reduced to 7 days. Why does he want to let terrorists know they are being investigated so soon? The original Patriot Act allowed national intelligence to subpeona companies for business documents and phone records etc of a suspected terrorist. The company had to comply and was placed on a gag order, the reason being that otherwise it could allow the terrorists to know they were being surveyed. When it was extended, an amendment was made to allow that a company could hire an attorney, but Obama wanted to completely remove the gag order. Why does he want to let a terrorist know he is being investigated? Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I don't think the Bush Doctrine matters. It is a collective term used popularly to describe any number of Bush foreign policies. I don't think it matters. Funnier still, the very same people who compared President Bush to a "moron" or "shrub" now rise to defend the intricacies and paramount place in history for his "Doctrine", and that any suitable candidate surely would know of such things. They needed to get something out of the interview to hang on Governor Palin....OK...but is that all they have? Partisanship is a two way street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Best Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I don't think the Bush Doctrine matters. I understand that you don't think an understanding of the Bush Doctrine matters. What matters is Sarah Palin's demonstrated ignorance of fundamental foreign policy issues, including the Bush Doctrine, and what that ignorance says about her, and McCain's decision to choose her, someone so ill-prepared. If you want to change the subject to Obama and his security bona fides, start another thread. It's truly annoying when someone unable to refute an argument takes the specious route and hides behind another issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) I understand that you don't think an understanding of the Bush Doctrine matters. What matters is Sarah Palin's demonstrated ignorance of fundamental foreign policy issues, including the Bush Doctrine, and what that ignorance says about her, and McCain's decision to choose her, someone so ill-prepared.If you want to change the subject to Obama and his security bona fides, start another thread. It's truly annoying when someone unable to refute an argument takes the specious route and hides behind another issue. I did refute it. I said it does not matter, and it does not say anything about her. You do not agree. OK. And then I addressed your comment about me being so biased that I do not care about the security of the nation by pointing out that Obama (that's the guy at the top of the democratic ticket, in case you didn't know) may not be the best choice when it comes to security. For me, Bush Doctrine takes a back seat to the deliberate crippling of the ability of national intelligence to do its job. Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Bush was well prepared enough to win the election. It's the actual doing of the job that's his undoing. Oh great..so now President Bush was a frickin foreign policy genius before the election, just to highlight Palin's inexperience? Go Bush! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) I understand that you don't think an understanding of the Bush Doctrine matters. What matters is Sarah Palin's demonstrated ignorance of fundamental foreign policy issues, including the Bush Doctrine, and what that ignorance says about her, and McCain's decision to choose her, someone so ill-prepared.If you want to change the subject to Obama and his security bona fides, start another thread. It's truly annoying when someone unable to refute an argument takes the specious route and hides behind another issue. Well said. It's her first interview, and what it shows is a decided lack of knowledge regarding foreign issues. Questions about Palin's knowledge of foreign policy dominated the interview with ABC's Charles Gibson. Palin repeated her earlier assertions that she's ready to be president if called upon, yet she sidestepped questions on whether she had the national security credentials needed to be commander in chief. Asked three times what her position would be if Israel felt threatened enough to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, Palin repeatedly said the United States shouldn't "second guess" Israel's steps to secure itself. What is that supposed to mean? What is her position? Seems as unclear now as it was before she answered the question. Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin told Gibson, "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." I've "seen" Russia, too. Guess that makes me quite insightful on Russia's recent actions. And by the same token, I guess someone from Key West would be really insightful regarding Cuba and Gitmo. Furthermore, her statement saying she thinks "man's activities certainly can be contributing to ... climate change" is at odds with her past statements that she doesn't believe man is responsible. It's been said that it seems pretty apparent that she was reciting what she was coached to say, at times repeating the same answers. I think it's going to become clearer to people that she isn't qualified for the position as time goes by and she has to answer more questions on her own -- and face Biden in the debates. Edited September 12, 2008 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maldon_road Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I sent a friend of mine in Nashville a copy of the Mallick commentary, being discussed on another thread. My friend is a Hillaryite who thinks Obama is more sizzle than substance. Her response to the Mallick column was this: Thanks for this article. There is some truth within, however, I think Palin has come across to a broader base (quiet female Republicans and all NRA folks, as well as families of special needs kids) than the author thinks. I personally think McCain has struck gold, which will propel him to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 ....It's been said that it seems pretty apparent that she was reciting what she was coached to say, at times repeating the same answers. I think it's going to become clearer to people that she isn't qualified for the position as time goes by and she has to answer more questions on her own -- and face Biden in the debates. Of course...and "people" will still vote any way they please. When Senator Biden steps on his crank as he has in the past, shall we "disqualify" him too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Best Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 Funnier still, the very same people who compared President Bush to a "moron" or "shrub" now rise to defend the intricacies and paramount place in history for his "Doctrine", and that any suitable candidate surely would know of such things. They needed to get something out of the interview to hang on Governor Palin....OK...but is that all they have? Partisanship is a two way street. I believe the name "Shrub" was coined by the late Molly Ivins, the Texas writer. At any rate, the Bush Doctrine, notwithstanding if someone approves or disapproves of it, has, in case you didn't notice, a "paramount place in history". A candidate who was suitable for the VP slot would not only be aware of the Bush Doctrine, but also of its intricacies. Why? Because other world leaders, their ministers, and diplomats with whom the VP will engage are acutely aware of the doctrine. It is infinitely beyond ludicrous to suggest that ignorance is a qualification for high office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Best Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I personally think McCain has struck gold, which will propel him to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. You may well be right. For many Americans, willful ignorance and stunning stupidity is viewed as an asset in a Presidential candidate. It make them feel he's more like them. Which is probably true. Would I was making a joke rather than an observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 I believe the name "Shrub" was coined by the late Molly Ivins, the Texas writer. Good...she was irritating anyway. At any rate, the Bush Doctrine, notwithstanding if someone approves or disapproves of it, has, in case you didn't notice, a "paramount place in history". A candidate who was suitable for the VP slot would not only be aware of the Bush Doctrine, but also of its intricacies. Why? Because other world leaders, their ministers, and diplomats with whom the VP will engage are acutely aware of the doctrine. You have no idea what all the "world's leaders" and diplomats are aware of WRT the "Bush Doctrine"....that's a gross generalization. It is infinitely beyond ludicrous to suggest that ignorance is a qualification for high office. Ignorance may not be a qualification, but it also is not a disqualification. This is politics...not neurosurgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 You may well be right. For many Americans, willful ignorance and stunning stupidity is viewed as an asset in a Presidential candidate. It make them feel he's more like them. Which is probably true. Would I was making a joke rather than an observation. Don't know about "many Americans," as most who are defending her here are Canadians. Time will tell if her initial popularity, when she had a 'clean slate,' will wane as she is pressed more on the issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 You may well be right. For many Americans, willful ignorance and stunning stupidity is viewed as an asset in a Presidential candidate. It make them feel he's more like them. Which is probably true. Would I was making a joke rather than an observation. Yes, of course, we understand that your smug foundation depends on willfull American stupidity. It's a fair trade for being the most powerful nation on the planet....a remarkable achievement for stupid Americans from all over the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Best Posted September 12, 2008 Report Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) Good...she was irritating anyway.You have no idea what all the "world's leaders" and diplomats are aware of WRT the "Bush Doctrine"....that's a gross generalization. Ignorance may not be a qualification, but it also is not a disqualification. This is politics...not neurosurgery. It says volumes about the character of someone who thinks the untimely death of person like Molly Ivins is a "good" thing--whether you agree with her politics or not. You can be assured that all world leaders know exactly what the Bush Doctrine is, and its implications for their nations--getting attacked by the US without provocation. It is foolish in the extreme, even delusional, to suggest otherwise. As for "Ignorance may not be a qualification, but it also is not a disqualification" even John McCain when he was seeking the Republican nomination implied that experiences as a mayor or a governor were insufficient for high office. McCain said, "I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism. I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time." He was speaking about Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Here's the clip. If Romney and Giuliani weren't ready for high office, how is it possible that Palin is? Of course, the answer is she's not. McCain could have chosen someone who was ready for high office. But, he chose not to--putting his country at risk to win an election. Edited September 12, 2008 by Stephen Best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.