McCain picks woman for VP slot

[jefferiah]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Charlie Gibson is not running for VP of the United States. Sarah Palin is. the term "Bush doctrine" has been used often and should be known well enough by at least the Republican campaign handlers briefing her on issues that she should have at least managed something more than a bland stare.

As for the "she wasn't running one month ago" argument.. the Democratic VP candidate wasn't either.

Once again, the Bush Doctrine has no one meaning, and it was not enunciated in 2002. People have used it to describe the policy of attacking nations that harbor terrorists, preventative war, etc. There is no Bush Doctrine.

Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah

[bush_cheney2004]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Charlie Gibson is not running for VP of the United States. Sarah Palin is. the term "Bush doctrine" has been used often and should be known well enough by at least the Republican campaign handlers briefing her on issues that she should have at least managed something more than a bland stare.

Even so, it may work in her favor. So much for McCain-Palin being President Bush's third term.

The term "Bush Doctrine" is not definitive, and has morphed over time, from a discrete response to 9/11 attacks to full blown "neocon" global dominance (e.g. PNAC ).

The Democratic VP candidate has been running since 1988.

[Guest American Woman]

So much for McCain-Palin being President Bush's third term.

Clip of McCain saying he's voted with Bush 90% of the time.

There's a huge difference between ignorance-- ie: not being aware of Bush's policies -- and not following Bush's policies.

Edited September 12, 2008 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

There is no Bush Doctrine.

If you do a word search for "Bush doctrine" at whitehouse.gov, they lead you to this document, which everyone calls "the Bush doctrine" in the world where it actually exists.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

Edited September 12, 2008 by BubberMiley

[jefferiah]

If you do a word search for "Bush doctrine" at whitehouse.gov, they lead you to this document, which everyone calls "the Bush doctrine" in the world where it actually exists.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

That works two ways Bubber. If it is not called the Bush Doctrine itself, then it merely becomes yet another of the list of definitions. Sorry.

Edited September 12, 2008 by jefferiah

[bush_cheney2004]

That works too ways Bubber. If it is not called the Bush Doctrine itself, then it merely become yet another of the definitions. Sorry.

Correct...same as the "Carter Doctrine" or the "Clinton Doctrine".

Edited September 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

If you do a word search for "Bush doctrine" at whitehouse.gov, they lead you to this document, which everyone calls "the Bush doctrine" in the world where it actually exists.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

I've read several media outlet's reports on this interview, and they all say the same thing-- that Palin was stumped. And she was. If she had any knowledge of it at all, she would have been able to say something intelligent and/or pertinent about it. When people on a web board know more about it than she does it's just sad.

[jefferiah]

"Clinton Doctrine".

Is that Clinton's policy on interns?

[jefferiah]

When people on a web board know more about it than she does it's just sad.

But if there is no actual one definitive meaning for Bush Doctrine, then people on a web board do not know more than she does, and she did well to steer clear of it!

[bush_cheney2004]

Is that Clinton's policy on interns?

No, it was the guilt over what happened in Rwanda leading to Bosnia/Kosovo. The policy for interns and other female staff goes back to Arkansas Governor.

[August1991]

If you do a word search for "Bush doctrine" at whitehouse.gov, they lead you to this document, which everyone calls "the Bush doctrine" in the world where it actually exists

Bubbler, are you smoking dope or something?

That text includes the word "doctrine" twice. In neither instance, can this be construed as an official doctrine of the president. If you do a word search on whitehouse.gov for Bush doctrine, I'm not surprised that this document comes up as a hit.

In degrees of increasing obscurity, there was a Monroe Doctrine, a Nixon Doctrine, a Carter Doctrine and I think a Clinton Doctrine. Every president needs a doctrine.

This was a sneaky exam-style question designed to catch Palin.

-----

I seems to me that the Dems (and particularly Obama) just don't know how to deal with Palin. Asking pointy-headed questions and then smirking when she doesn't know the answer will not help the Dems win the election. It will just remind voters that the Dems are the pointy-headed people who have no experience of practical affairs.

I read this insightful comment on another forum (babble) and I'll quote it here:

That's how a lot of working class people think of progressive politicians’ and activists’ views about working class people—as pointed-headed intellectuals staring at “some bizarre pathogen through a microscope”. Many who claim to be champions of the working class don’t know bumpkiss about working class culture (not so much the economic matters but the social views). Barack Obama is a good example of such a progressive. He’s totally out of his element with Palin—doesn’t understand her or the millions of working class people who identify with her. It’s also the reason he may lose this race.

Link Edited September 12, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

But if there is no actual one definitive meaning for Bush Doctrine, then people on a web board do not know more than she does, and she did well to steer clear of it!

Or, she might have gone with the prevailing definition that everyone except right-wing Internet posters with their fingers in their ears agrees is the fundamental tenet of the doctrine: pre-emptive strikes against rogue nations are justified. But, judging from the panicked, vacant look in her eyes, she was stumped on that elementary question.

[loginname]

deleted

Edited September 12, 2008 by loginname

[August1991]

Or, she might have gone with the prevailing definition that everyone except right-wing Internet posters with their fingers in their ears agrees is the fundamental tenet of the doctrine: pre-emptive strikes against rogue nations are justified. But, judging from the panicked, vacant look in her eyes, she was stumped on that elementary question.

If that were the precise definition of the Bush Doctrine, then it's hardly original. Both McKinley and Kennedy invaded Cuba before it did anything. Reagan invaded Grenada.

---

But look, Obama has a serious problem on his hands. People are showing up at rallies with signs saying "Read my lipstick". If Palin apparently doesn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is, polisci grad students can condescendingly chuckle but it will have no effect on potential Republican voters. People aren't going to show up at rallies with signs saying "Palin Bush Doctrine Ignoramus".

[Shady]

Even so, it may work in her favor. So much for McCain-Palin being President Bush's third term.

You're exactly right. It's hard to paint someone as just another Bush/Cheney, when the so-called "Bush Doctrine" isn't supremely evident to them. I'm not sure what Charles Gibson meant by it either. Is referring to pre-emptive military action? Is he referring to the supporting and spreading of democracy within the middle-east and elswhere? Is he referring to both? He definitely should have been more specific.

This reminds me of Al Gore asking George W Bush if he supports the Dingle/Norwood legislation during the 2000 Presidential debates, and is about as significant of a soundbite.

[CANADIEN]

The degree of non-sense people will came with when defending their candidate...

"There is no document titled Bush doctrine". "Therefore there may be many definitions of what it is." "As a result, the question was a trap, and Palin was right to stay away from it."

Yeah right. There is a difference between saying "there was no Bush doctrine" or "there are so many way you can define what it is, people don't agree on that the term means", and STARING BLANKLY. Ask the same question to John McCain, and he won't stare, because he'll know that he's being asked about US foreign policy, whether or not he thinks there is anything that could be described as a doctrine. Same with Obama, same with Biden. Ask the same question to Giuliani, Huckabee, Paul, Romney or Thompson, Clinton or Kuninich. Ask it to Rice, Powell, Albright or Kissinger. Ask it to Limbaugh, Coulter or Maher. Ask it to political analysts, commentators, journalists covering US and international issues. Ask it to members of the US Congress. Ask it to Chirac, Blair, Putin or Ahmadinejad. Many of these people may think there is no such thing as a Bush Doctrine, but almost all of them will know the question is about US foreign policy.

They will not state blankly, like if not knowing if the journalist is talking about foreign policy or other aspects of Bush 's policies or something else.

Mind you, I'll admit that Gibson was not the most clear or even convincing in his reaction to Palin's response, but most journalist would have been taken aback by her answer...

Edited September 12, 2008 by CANADIEN

[bush_cheney2004]

This reminds me of Al Gore asking George W Bush if he supports the Dingle/Norwood legislation during the 2000 Presidential debates, and is about as significant of a soundbite.

Right.....I can only imagine that if Gov Palin had responded with detailed Bush Doctrine by chapter and verse what the fallout would have been. Her critics desperately need to score some points, but like you indicate, this isn't it. I think she may need some seasoning on some issues, but she kept her poise and was very confident in her convictions. This lady has balls.

[CANADIEN]

Right.....I can only imagine that if Gov Palin had responded with detailed Bush Doctrine by chapter and verse what the fallout would have been. Her critics desperately need to score some points, but like you indicate, this isn't it. I think she may need some seasoning on some issues, but she kept her poise and was very confident in her convictions. This lady has balls.

Staring blankly is not poise. It is... staring blankly.

Edited September 12, 2008 by CANADIEN

[bush_cheney2004]

Staring blankly is not poise. It is... staring blandly.

Make up your mind...is it blandly or blankly? Either way, is that all you got?

Edited September 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[CANADIEN]

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.

Being able to see one of the most remote area of Russia from the extreme west Alaska coast gives Palin an insight into Russian actions? Frankly...

[CANADIEN]

Make up your mind...is it blandly or blankly? Either way, is that all you got?

So... the best you can come with is pointing out to my typos :lol:

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

Being able to see one of the most remote area of Russia from the extreme west Alaska coast gives Palin an insight into Russian actions? Frankly...

Yes, frankly you are being petty. She was speaking metaphorically while also being technically correct. I've been to the area courtesy of the US Navy, and Russia was always on our mind for an entirely different reason.

How many times are Americans asked to swallow the same sentiments about north & south "neighbours"?

Edited September 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Yeah right. There is a difference between saying "there was no Bush doctrine" or "there are so many way you can define what it is, people don't agree on that the term means", and STARING BLANKLY.

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 question. 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.

Edited September 12, 2008 by August1991

[CANADIEN]

Yes, frankly you are being petty. She was speaking metaphoically while also being technically correct. I've been to the area courtesy of the US Navy, and Russia was always on our mind for an entirely different reason.

Less we forget. Staring is poise,and meaningless statements are metaphor.

[bush_cheney2004]

Less we forget. Staring is poise,and meaningless statements are metaphor.

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?