I wonder if Team Maverick neglected to brief her on the Bush Doctrine on the assumption that she surely must have picked it up sometime over the past six years and therefore could handle a question on that herself. Imagine their horror tonight in realizing they assumed wrong, and that there may be other basic knowledge gaps that need filling — fast.

Andy McCarthy, whose opinion I greatly respect, seems to be okay with how Sarah Palin handled the whole Bush Doctrine question:

The Bush Doctrine, technically, is not asserting a right of preemptive attack. It is saying that if Country A facilitates terror, it is responsible for that terrorist organization’s strikes, and therefore we can attack Country A. That is not preemptive; it is retributive.

It was utterly reasonable for Gov. Palin to press Charlie Gibson on what Gibson meant by the Bush Doctrine. Everyone does not mean the same thing by the term, there is lots of good faith argument about what it means, and — because the administration itself has only half-heartedly adhered to it — there is also the confusion between theory and practice.

That said, campaigns are not won and lost based on how experts understand issues, but based on how the average American voter understands issues. So what matters is if the average voter thought she did okay, not knowledgeable people like Andy McCarthy.

From my discussions with family, friends and coworkers, they all have a general assumption of the Bush Doctrine to be “pre-emptive war” and always allude to the “with us or with the terrorists” remark. My understanding of the Bush Doctrine is that it is simply that any nation which harbors terrorists or helps terrorists is on our sh*t list and we could therefore hold them to account for aiding terrorism.

As you stated AllahPundit, people have been talking about the Bush Doctrine, or at least their understanding of what it is, for years now, after the “with us or with the terrorists” and the ‘if you harbor or aid terrorists, you are with the terrorists’ warning given by Bush years ago. I would expect anyone asked about the Bush Doctrine to talk about these basic principles. Unfortunately, all politicians, including Sarah Palin, are not going to give a straight answer to a question, for fear of having the answer being twisted. Considering that is all that has been happening the last couple weeks since Sarah Palin has been on the campaign trail – mass media lying, twisting, distorting, smearing anything she says – it’s not surprising for her to try to carefully frame her answers so as not to have anything distorted.

Michael in MI on September 11, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Considering that is all that has been happening the last couple weeks since Sarah Palin has been on the campaign trail – mass media lying, twisting, distorting, smearing anything she says – it’s not surprising for her to try to carefully frame her answers so as not to have anything distorted.

Michael in MI on September 11, 2008 at 10:10 PM

That said, this could be a sign that the mass media smears are getting to her and the McCain campaign, as they are now getting careful about how she responds to questions. She probably should have been ready for the media distortions of her “God’s plan” remark about the war effort and had a comeback prepared, including putting Gibson in his place and showing him up by providing him her exact quote, saying she was praying that we were doing God’s work, not that the war effort was a holy war. That would have changed the entire mood of the interview in her favor and exposed yet another smear attempt. But apparently, she was not ready for it and couldn’t remember her exact words to throw in his face. Missed opportunity.

Michael in MI on September 11, 2008 at 10:16 PM