Politico: She “held her own”
posted at 9:42 pm on September 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Okay, then. If this is the CW the media’s settled on, ain’t going to be me who objects. Whew!
Today was a pretty low-key day, politically, so neither candidate gained or lost too much ground. But Sarah Palin confronted a major obstacle in her interview with Charlie Gibson – her first one-on-one as a vice presidential candidate – and appears to have held her own. It remains to be seen whether her opponents will find useful fodder in this interview [Errrr. -- ed.], but at the very least she didn’t deviate from the campaign message. McCain also held a successful event this morning in Pennsylvania – in a largely non-political news cycle, he didn’t need to do much else.
Actually, the left thinks she did deviate from it, but if so, she only ended up in the same place as Bush and Obama. Whew again!
Maybe we should stop focusing on interviews with news anchors and start focusing on interviews with people who can swing votes. Exit question one: Could/should have McCain’s handlers prepared her better? The path to ruin runs through too much rote memorization, warns TNR. 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. Exit question two: Having stumped the band with that one, will Gibson turn around tomorrow and go for the throat by quizzing her about other basic stuff? The risk is that his time is limited and if she’s prepared it’ll turn into a softball game. The reward is that if she isn’t prepared, look out.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I have to say, I think we over-wonk this stuff, because a lot of us are politics/news junkies.
I tend to get very nervous about things like this, so I just looked at a clip with the sound down and noted how almost hostile Charlie Gibson looked. It really did look like the professor/student scene others described. I don’t know who that hurts more, but my own feeling is that it hurt ABC more than it hurt her – at least with women.
Then, I was driving, and I heard a Fox News break with a sound byte, and in it, she sounded GREAT. I mean GREAT. (I wasn’t expecting it…the best I was hoping for was just all right.) Her voice was commanding and confident, and she sounded absolutely ready for this job. Now, I’d bet my house that the ABC News break on the other conservative station in Seattle wasn’t nearly as flattering, because they never are to ANY conservative, but the piece Fox News produced was very strong.
I was also told that some people on the liberal blogs were unhappy because she did far better than they thought she would. A lot of them thought she sucked, but they would have thought so no matter what. They also thought her convention speech stunk.
Maybe we over-think this sometimes.
capitalist piglet on September 11, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I really dislike whiners and excuse makers but I was offended watching this interview.
Gibson would not have asked a man those questions and surely not in the same manner.
Elizabetty on September 11, 2008 at 10:25 PM
You assume that because she asked a clarifying question that she didn’t know what the doctrine was…She just didn’t know what HE meant by it, especially since he was asking it in a “I can’t believe you would find anything remotely agreeable that comes from Bush” tone.
Conservative Voice on September 11, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I wouldn’t do any MSM interviews unless I had my own camera man their recording an unedited version of the same interview.
jp on September 11, 2008 at 10:26 PM
We don’t really need to dissect every single line and every answer. That’s what the libtards are for.
I think she did great. I know and you know that the Bush Doctrine was a gotcha. And asking for a clarification was NOT an amateur trick. It’s asking for clarification. if you want me to answer, I have to know the question.
She came off as honest and competent. Good enough for me and the 99% club.
Tennman on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
the Bush Doctrine question was designed to get a yes answer and if she had given it it would have been all you heard for days…. McSame.
She did a fantastic job by asking what part of the Bush doctrine and when Gibson wouldn’t specify he tried to accuse her of not knowing what it was by specifying a piece of it. Sarah won she drew him out, did not give in to the easy answer would 0B0mba been this sharp NO WAY!
dhunter on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Speaking of Carter, McCain was just compared to Carter. I’m actually surprised AllahPundit did not link to it to provide a little objectivity. Jim Manzi compares and contrasts Obama, McCain, Reagan and Carter.
Michael in MI on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
If anyone thinks it’s not a big deal that Palin doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, you deserve her as your Vice President.
The Bush Doctrine is the official foreign policy of the U.S. government (or at least major parts of it are) and represented the foreign policy change in 50 years. It’s very controversial and is at the heart of the debate about the Iraq war… which Palin admitted last year she didn’t pay much attention to.
this isn’t a gaffe, it’s an exposure.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Do ‘em live in the future.
Spirit of 1776 on September 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Just a guess, but there are probably more people familiar with the Monroe Doctrine than the Bush Doctrine. I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
Mr. D on September 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I remember that Al Gore was supposed to wipe the floor with GWB, and the word was all that GWB had to do was to come out of it not looking like an idiot. He did that.
I haven’t seen it all yet, but I’m thinking she did the same.
capitalist piglet on September 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Didn’t need Politico or any other “media” to convince me that she did fine.
Allah, however, need their reassurance.
RMR on September 11, 2008 at 10:30 PM
And if anyone wants to come here and read nitwit trolls day-after-day along with main posts that could just as easily have originated on any Lefty blog, they deserve it.
TheBigOldDog on September 11, 2008 at 10:30 PM
That’s totally BS. She just dismissed the question, so as to not interject herself into foreign policy discussion. There is no way a son of hers would join the army without being in an atmosphere of awareness about iraq/afgan/etc
Spirit of 1776 on September 11, 2008 at 10:30 PM
capitalist piglet
I think you have a good point. I have been feeling like a father waiting for his kid to be born. I just want things to go smooth!
gator70 on September 11, 2008 at 10:31 PM
conventional wisdom is important. if cw said she sucked; it’ll run on the front of all the papers that way. if she did pretty good, it”ll slant the coverage the way.
Palin want to see her and see her succeed. Hopefully the next one will be in more familiar territory.
lorien1973 on September 11, 2008 at 10:31 PM
this isn’t a gaffe, it’s an exposure.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
So go vote your obviously challenged and addled conscious and send some more money to Barry. Parse this shit to death if you want. Barry would run this country into a hole it would take a decade or more to dig out of , ala Jimmy Carter.
allahallahoxenfree on September 11, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Hell yeah! speaking from the heart with true conviction.
The libtards wont know what to make of it.
TheSitRep on September 11, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Amen. I’ve spent the last 5 minutes trying to figure out how I was going to express that without getting myself banned and yet getting my point across. In short,
You know you’ve got a problem if:
1) Your more negative that the Left
2) You need the Left to validate your opinions
TheBigOldDog on September 11, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Seemed to me she did a pretty fair job considering she is a Governor and was concerned with the state and it’s people. Now that she is in the national spotlight I believe she will come up to speed very quickly. As far as her answers, to me it seemed she was very consistent, no matter how he rephrased them. If she wasn’t tutored, I’d have to say she did very well. She will do just fine.
N4646W on September 11, 2008 at 10:33 PM
From TalkLeft (a lefty blog): This is seriously nuts. Palin asked Gibson to define what HE meant by it. (NOTE: Stellaa points out that Gibson tried the same game with Obama and Media Matters ripped Gibson for it then. Guess Sargent is ok with it when it is done to a Republican.) Indeed, her eventual answer to the question is extremely sensible … and smart politics. She did not accept the premise of Gibson’s question and then gave a sensible answer to the question. This type of stuff is what is killing the Left blogs right now. They look like fools when they act this way.
bnelson44 on September 11, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Both my younger brothers joined the military within the last 3 years (one Army ROTC and now Army about to be deployed to Iraq and the other enlisted in the Air Force after college) and my mom could best be said to be of the same opinion on Bush and the war effort as Cindy Sheehan. So having relatives in the military does not necessarily mean much about the awareness or the opinion of their parents on the war effort. I’ve tried to have discussions about the war effort with my mom to no avail. She suffers from extreme BDS and there’s nothing good she sees in the war effort at all.
Michael in MI on September 11, 2008 at 10:33 PM
[shutter]
Spirit of 1776 on September 11, 2008 at 10:33 PM
If you think Barry O’bama’s “Civillian National Defense Force” is not a scary thing you deserve to go to Cuba and Venezuala where such things are the norm…..
*wow Tom that was easy*
sven10077 on September 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM
For all you nervous nellies, this from “TalkLeft”:
“Indeed, her eventual answer to the question is extremely sensible (unlike Bush and McCain’s actual policies) and smart politics. She did not accept the premise of Gibson’s question and then gave a sensible answer to the question.”
Sane people will accept that Palin didn’t need to be a reincarnation of Reagan.
Bishop on September 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM
this isn’t a gaffe, it’s an exposure.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
So don’t vote for McCain! I will! I will encourage everyone I know to vote for McCain. I will donate to the RNC victory fund again and again in hope that I can watch all the libs in this country be miserable again for the next four years! Muhahahahahah!
gator70 on September 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM
perhaps a better way to do things is town hall where you by pass the bias press and talk to the people who actually mean something .
Gibson botched it by asking and saying yes that is the quote when it shortly after was shown to not be the whole quote .
seems cherry picking is ok for the MSM .
and when will people ask the chosen one some hard questions ???
Mojack420 on September 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM
You miss the point. She’s aware. She has an opinion, she just didn’t interject herself and her opinion into the debate. I have no prob with that whatsoever. Wasn’t her job at that junction.
She deployed NG, etc. She’s not “unaware”.
Spirit of 1776 on September 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM
If anyone thinks it’s not a big deal that Palin doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, you deserve her as your Vice President.
Wouldn’t Palin be your VP too, or do plan on leaving us?
-sobbing-
Bishop on September 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Agreed. But Reagan was running for President and Palin is running for VEEP. And, I am not suggesting she exclude the MSM, but limit their access.
The more I compare this interview to others by Gibson of Obama, the more it seems he has been very soft & easy with their Presidential candidate and very tough with our VEEP candidate. I think others will see the same and wonder why. This can only benefit Palin and further boost the already majority perception that the MSM is pulling for Obama and trying to hurt McCain & Palin.
Loxodonta on September 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I posted the Obama camp’s definition of the Bush Doctrine upthread. It was, in their definition, what Palin answered. If that makes Palin unsuitable as VP, how much more unsuitable would it make Obama?
Sue on September 11, 2008 at 10:36 PM
I think you’re aiding the enemy with making too much of the whole “Bush Doctrine” thing. When the question was raised out of nowhere, is it any surprise she didn’t know what he meant? Even Juan Williams on Fox said something like “if you called me in the middle of the night and ask me what the Bush doctrine was..” and then he made a confused face. And that’s exactly what happened here. You don’t really hear “The Bush Doctrine” much outside of the media and the left, it’s a term they like to use as a negative.
But the point is it’s a very vague question, open to interpretation, and I wouldn’t be surprised if McCain himself would reply the same way, to such a strange out of the blue question, that doesn’t nail down exactly what the interviewer means. Hell, someone could accuse Gibson of not knowing what it is either, because he left out the part about “with us or with the terrorists”, axis of evil, no nuclear weapons for those that are part of the axis, etc.
RightWinged on September 11, 2008 at 10:37 PM
So Charlie was good for asking Obama a tough question but is bad for asking Sarah a tough question?
Where do we find such logic?
aengus on September 11, 2008 at 10:37 PM
this isn’t a gaffe, it’s an exposure.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
I bet your boy Barry Sotero knows the communist manifesto better than the bush doctrine!! He’s been exposed as a Marxist on many occasions!!
shamik on September 11, 2008 at 10:37 PM
I’m sure this post will get lost in hundreds of comments, but at Dirty Harry’s Place, Harry says:
And I ain’t messin’ with Harry.
Mr_Magoo on September 11, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I agree with both paragraphs.
Spirit of 1776 on September 11, 2008 at 10:38 PM
By your own admission, the doctrine has “major parts,” so a simple “yes/no” answer might not suffice. It’s fair for Sarah to ask him to be more specific. Not great, but fair.
shazbat on September 11, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
it is not a change in US foreign policy posture. read some history before you make ridiculous assertions.
Reagan – Grenada 1983 – Preemptive War
Bush Sr. – Panama 1989 – Preemptive War
Johnson – Dominican Republic 1965 – Preemptive War
I can go on to citing example after example of preemptive war in our history all the way back to the founding of the republic but you said it was a change of the last 50 years.
get an education before you try to spout off your leftist propaganda.
elduende on September 11, 2008 at 10:39 PM
If you think Barry O’bama’s “Civillian National Defense Force” is not a scary thing you deserve to go to Cuba and Venezuala where such things are the norm…..
*wow Tom that was easy*
sven10077 on September 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM
You think he’s thinking more of Mao or the Hitler Youth? Probably doesnt matter as long as they promise to adore him.
allahallahoxenfree on September 11, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Right. She was being a typical politician and not expressing her opinion when it was not politically expedient to do so. I understand that point. However, you did not use this justification at first. You stated that she was aware because her son was deploying. I refuted that. Your argument that she is aware because she needs to be based on being Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard is a much better justification that she is aware. Granted, it still does not mean that she is aware of all the ins and outs of the war effort or what is the Bush Doctrine. She may just understand that she has to follow orders and deploy the National Guard when she is ordered to do so.
In the end though, we don’t know of what she is aware or of what she is not aware unless she actually expresses some opinions about the war effort. Just as we don’t know what is her stance on immigration, since she hasn’t stated anything. You say she has an opinion and I agree. We simply do not know what is that opinion, since she hasn’t expressed it.
Michael in MI on September 11, 2008 at 10:39 PM
I bet your boy Barry Sotero knows the communist manifesto better than the bush doctrine!! He’s been exposed as a Marxist on many occasions!!
shamik on September 11, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Amen to that
allahallahoxenfree on September 11, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Well, what about the ‘McSame’ crap you zipperheads are always throwing around???
Zipperheads…did I spell that right???
BigWyo on September 11, 2008 at 10:42 PM
BTW,this is still ABC NEWS,and I wouldn’t trust
Charles Gibson,period!
canopfor on September 11, 2008 at 10:42 PM
By the way, did you guys know that terrorists are hell-bent on destroying our country???
Watching more of this… she was bad.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Michael in MI –
What! You are now debating yourself? You give a well reasoned, thought out comment at 10:10 PM then you argue with yourself at 10:16?! Man aren’t we all a little too pompous here?
Vince on September 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM
best and most generous interpretation of Barry is he is Il Duce junior/FDR II and wants massive bloated civil defense style federal spending wastefully applied with a touch of political indoc…..
worst case is he wants Komosols and HY brigades of political thugs.
I ain’t too fond of either….
sven10077 on September 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Possibly one of the most astute observations that I’ve seen. Excellent job, econavenger. I am now relieved.
Sakaki on September 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Fine. But despite your protestations :) my point remains. A mother has an opinion when her son goes to war, unless they are estranged or something, which is not the case here. Your mom does, his does. Everyone does. It’s not like this is a topic that never came up in Alaska.
She been over there in the sandbox.
The quote people are using to make her look ignorant is silly.
Precisely. So the left wants you to jump to the conclusion of ignorance on her part, when it’s ignorance on ours.
Spirit of 1776 on September 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM
It’s common practice for politicians to have their aides tape (usually audio) interviews. I doubt Team McCain, which has assigned a small army of aides to her, wouldn’t have recorded this.
CanadianGuy on September 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Mikihail is so skilled he must debate both sides of one side of the issue.
sven10077 on September 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Watching more of this… she was bad.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Go bite your pillow. Isn’t it your turn to catch??
allahallahoxenfree on September 11, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Sarah’s shattering all the records.
Campaign contributions, rally attendance & now troll participation.
Never seen so many trolls here.
Dorvillian on September 11, 2008 at 10:44 PM
take away: you can’t blink.
Palin wins this round pretty easily.
james23 on September 11, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Official foreign policy? Really? So you can point to the place where this vague concept was formally adopted by the State Department? Please provide the link to that event.
In the meantime, let me point out that the President is responsible for dictating foreign policy, the Bush Doctrine applies more to Afghanistan than Iraq, and you are a complete idiot.
highhopes on September 11, 2008 at 10:45 PM
yeah about as bad as Barry admitting there is a terrorist threat out there on Bill-O….
man that *was* pretty fricking Earth shattering…..he sorta buzz-killed it by implying there is a huge schism we must respect between Shia and Sunni terrs though….
of course he’d be an expert on Islam eh Tom?
sven10077 on September 11, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Okay, so it’s not just me. It does seem odd that suddenly everybody knows what “the Bush Doctrine” is. Did Gibson know what it was before he was fed that question?
Jim Treacher on September 11, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Allah, are you taking your understanding of the Bush Doctrine from Charlie? This is it spelled out and there’s a heck of a lot more to it than PREEMPTIVE WAR!!!eleventy!!!
“In what respect?” is a perfectly reasonable counterquestion, especially if you have a better understanding of the Bush Doctrine than Charlie Gibson does. I’m not saying that that’s the case here, but as gotchas go, Charlie muffed this one.
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Ever heard of us referred to as the Great Satan?
Leftard.
Tennman on September 11, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Ok, I am as much (almost) of a pessimist as Allah.
I tuned in late, and had to go on line to watch the interview.
I thought she was not merely good, but very good, and sometimes magnificent. She won. This is a great day. Here’s why:
1. First and foremost, the Sarah Palin you saw in Denver is the same Sarah Palin you saw with Charles (“Charlie” — reminded me of African Queen) Gibson. Our favorite detective from Fargo. Sincere, of the people, tough, smart.
2. There were no gaffes. After reading early remarks from Allah (whom I respect and bow down to), I fully expected the Bush Doctrine questions to have flustered her. Not in the least. She was splendid.
3. The most widely played part of the interview is likely to be the part where she talks about being on God’s side. This will be helpful for us. She was misquoted, despite the fact that Gibson said, “Exact words.” Don’t be down on Gibson — that’s what he believed, and I expect he will admit he was wrong. Regardless, her answer was magnificent. This woman knows her Lincoln.
4. And after the most intense 10 days in the history of American politics I have ever experienced, most of America has already made up its mind about Sarah Palin. It’s like a jury trial. After 10 days of testimony, the jurors have already decided, whether they admit it or not, which way they come out. They have decided that the verdict is in favor of Sarah Palin.
5. Finally, please do remember, my lovely friends at Hot Air, that Sarah Palin is the candidate for . . . Vice President. Barack Obama has acted as if she is running for president, and the Gibson interview gives more juice to that misconception, and it’s a beautiful thing. Obama will wwake up in late October and realize he needed to be running against McCain, and it will be much too late.
JudetheFossil on September 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Well, that is the risk a politician makes when not expressing their opinions on issues. It leaves them open for people to attribute opinions to them which they may or may not hold. Sarah Palin may be like my mom, who claims to “support the troops, but not the war”. Sarah Palin may not agree with the war effort, but may support its execution to victory, as my mom does. We simply don’t know. And, because of that, people are going to start making things up about what she thinks until she provides her opinion.
Michael in MI on September 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Jim, per my last comment, I’m finding that nobody knows what the Bush Doctrine is save for the sliver of it that drives the proggs wild.
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 10:49 PM
You know, I’m rather stunned. I think we all expected you to give Governor Palin her due, but here you are, being uncharacteristically critical of her performance.
/sarcasmsothickyoucouldcutitwithaknife
capitalist piglet on September 11, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Oh, and let me add that I love how the camera angle always shows Gibson looking down on her. He might as well have posted a sticker on his forehead reading, “Welcome, PUMAs, to the world of Sarah Palin.”
And, when he emphasized how close she was to being President, he was reminding them that we may actually have our first female president and that her name shall be Sarah.
JudetheFossil on September 11, 2008 at 10:50 PM
A liberal says:
Please. Has the Bush administration even been following the “Bush Doctrine?” With Iran, Syria, North Korea, the Palestinians? So then what is the Bush Doctrine? The Bush Doctrine has changed. Is it still about deposing regimes that pose a future threat? Is it about promoting democracy all around the world, including places such as Pakistan that elect anti-American leaders? So Sarah Palin is 100% correct in asking, “In what respect?” If you asked John Bolton the same question as Sarah Palin was asked, I bet he would ask for clarification as well.
Gabe on September 11, 2008 at 10:50 PM
JudetheFossil on September 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM
I’ll buy ALL of that. Good job
allahallahoxenfree on September 11, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I don’t believe it is appropriate for elected officials to second guess the policy of the CnC without access to the data he has, especially ones outside of Washington. Remember at the time of this oft-used quote, she wasn’t running for any national office.
I have no problems with the position she took, to me it shows discretion.
A strategy that has backfired on the left so far wrt to Palin. She has plenty of time to define exactly what she thinks.
Spirit of 1776 on September 11, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Jim Treacher on September 11, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Jim for President.
Bishop on September 11, 2008 at 10:51 PM
I must admit that I’ve never once heard the term “Bush Doctrine.” I’m afraid I wouldn’t do too well answering the question.
Log on September 11, 2008 at 10:51 PM
By your own admission, the doctrine has “major parts,” so a simple “yes/no” answer might not suffice. It’s fair for Sarah to ask him to be more specific. Not great, but fair.
Anyone who knows what the Bush Doctrine is, knows that its main thrust is that it says the U.S. will pursue preemptive war to protect its interests. In 2002, Bush changed the policy of containment that had been the foreign policy of the US for 50 years and replaced it with the Bush Doctrine.
If she knew what the Bush Doctrine is, she wouldn’t have been caught like a deer in headlights, ask “in what respect,” then spew some babble about Bush going after terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying us after he Gibson clarified it was a specific policy that Bush implemented.
I just find it insulting that, when in doubt — and she was in DEEP doubt at this point — she just fell back on the “terrorists are out to get us and we’ll get them” line. Really, we should take this woman seriously?
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Chris Matthews of all people thought she was smart to ask Charlie Gibson what he was referring to w/r/t the Bush Doctrine. He also thought her answer was more nuanced than Bush is.
MayBee on September 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM
I imagine most Kos kids have this quizzical look on their faces about now: “Bushitler has a doctrine?”
Tennman on September 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Did anyone get from the interview what I got?
That we conservatives are completely stupid.
Rightwingsparkle on September 11, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Decent review here, and Gibson’s demeanor did not go unnoticed:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/12/america/12watch.php
Dudley Smith on September 11, 2008 at 10:54 PM
I must admit that I’ve never once heard the term “Bush Doctrine.” I’m afraid I wouldn’t do too well answering the question.
Log on September 11, 2008 at 10:51 PM
The girls on The View would EAT you alive. Oh never mind, I just remembered Rosie is gone.
allahallahoxenfree on September 11, 2008 at 10:55 PM
another day, another Leftard troll
it’s like…Whack-a-Troll. One pops up for a while, gets smacked and goes away, only to have another replace it
Janos Hunyadi on September 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM
The Bush Doctrine has changed. Is it still about deposing regimes that pose a future threat?
Boy, I love the mental gymnastics you guys are going through here. No, the Bush Doctrine has not changed. The Bush Doctrine is the Bush Doctrine and it’s the idea that the US has the right to invade a country they perceive to be a future threat to us.
That’s the Bush Doctrine. It hasn’t changed. Bush hasn’t used it since Iraq because that went so well! But, again, it hasn’t changed in meaning.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM
They watched the same interview I did. Good.
Spirit of 1776 on September 11, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Go back to your echo chamber at the Kos douchebag
allahallahoxenfree on September 11, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Which is exactly what I meant when I said
Thanks for the probative object lesson, tom.
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Gibson can go blow a goat. When that idiot asks Onutjob similar questions, I’ll have respect for him. Otherwise, he remains a socialist media assclown.
Metro on September 11, 2008 at 11:00 PM
She did fine. She was a little nervous, but who wouldn’t be.
Maybe she’s playing it real low key to set up Biden… you know, underestimation.
stenwin77 on September 11, 2008 at 11:00 PM
I agree. Not perfect for her, not perfect for him. These are the prelims where everybody has their own talking points. The questions are quizzes, the answers preformed. I’m waiting for a little more interaction. Hope we get it.
Tennman on September 11, 2008 at 11:01 PM
You obviously have no idea what the Bush Doctrine is.
And Gibson’s “preemptive” definition shows he is just as clueless.
186k on September 11, 2008 at 11:02 PM
No, Tom. This is the Bush Doctrine.
Wiki actually does a nice summary, if you stick to the factual statements about it and avoid the opinion:
Are you for it or against it, Tom?
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Chris Matthews of all people thought she was smart to ask Charlie Gibson what he was referring to w/r/t the Bush Doctrine. He also thought her answer was more nuanced than Bush is.
MayBee on September 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM
I had to check to make sure the planets hadn’t collided or something; Matthews?
Bishop on September 11, 2008 at 11:03 PM
FP is a non-starter. If any voter felt she was a war-hawk to begin with, we would have not seen the Palin swing.
She’s all Domestic issues. And that’s why people like her. She’s not trying to break that “CiC” threshold. The Obama-Left is playing to their own misogyny by trying to shout “the WOMAN should talk WAR! We know people think women can’t!”
Nothing but a pile of sawdust. Americans are interested in Palin on domestic issues. She’s not running as CiC, and McCain should own that.
lansing quaker on September 11, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Pablo, as I said before, yes there are other aspects to the Bush Doctrine (any country harboring terrorists will be treated as a terrorist state), but the most significant part of it is the preemptive war aspect. It replaced containment and led the Iraq war.
Palin didn’t have a clue about ANY of this.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 11:04 PM
That’s not the Bush Doctrine. That’s just fscking common sense, and anyone who objects to it needs their nuts cut off. Then again, it seems like Tom Shipley got them cut off already, so we don’t have to worry.
Sakaki on September 11, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Charlie came off so condescending, it’ll just fire up women to support her more.
jp on September 11, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Are you for it or against it, Tom?
Not the preemptive part, no.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Let me help you out here,
“Preemptive war” is to “The Bush Doctrine” as the Supreme Court is to The Constitution.
Your Welcome
186k on September 11, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Andy McCarthy is pointing out the JFK was for a ‘pre-emptive’ foreign policy, and threatened to use it in the Cuban Missle Crisis.
jp on September 11, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Stop lying about preemptive war.
Containment was a policy of encirclement of the Soviet Union.
there were at least 3 cases of military Preemption during the Cold War.
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:27 PM
it is not a change in US foreign policy posture. read some history before you make ridiculous assertions.
Reagan – Grenada 1983 – Preemptive War
Bush Sr. – Panama 1989 – Preemptive War
Johnson – Dominican Republic 1965 – Preemptive War
I can go on to citing example after example of preemptive war in our history all the way back to the founding of the republic but you said it was a change of the last 50 years.
get an education before you try to spout off your leftist propaganda.
elduende on September 11, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Get a clue about US foreign policy before you spout off your propaganda.
elduende on September 11, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Tom, if your children were going to be murdered in four hours, and I had evidence of that and could in fact kill the killers in two hours, what would you ask me to do?
Patrick S on September 11, 2008 at 11:10 PM
The liberal Tom Shipley pretends to know what the Bush Doctrine is and states ignorantly:
Wikipedia doesn’t even know what the Bush Doctrine is. It is several different foreign policy principles:
So which of these four is the Bush Doctrine? All of them? So when you ask someone, “Do you believe in the Bush Doctrine?” there needs to be clarification. “In what respect?” is the smartest answer to that question.
If you are for preemption and NOT the spread of democracy that elects Hugo Chavez and Hamas, are you still for the Bush Doctrine?
Gabe on September 11, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Maybe, but I think the “Bush Doctrine” question was a bit passe. Who has been talking about that for the past 6 years? The Bush administration certainly hasn’t been following it since the Iraq war started unravelling. My guess is that the average view won’t notice that she flubbed the reference. The wonks, of course, will try to highlight it but Team McCain can push back with the fact that her answer was essentially identical to the portion of the doctrine that Gibson quoted. For bonus points, they can point out that Gibson missed the other half of the Bush Doctrine: that any state that harbors terrorists may be viewed as a terrorist state, itself. Not sure how — or if — Team McCain wants to deal with that, but it at least proves that the Doctrine in question has been off the table long enough for even the media to forget what it was.
Maybe, but it will be a bad idea if they do. First for the reason you mention, but also because everyone remembers the gotcha “who is the president of X” questions from Bush’s 2000 run. And at least Bush was running for president. Can the media really afford to have that table turned on Obama by, say, Fox News?
JackOfClubs on September 11, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Most significant to who, Tom? Saddam Hussein, sure, But who else, and why doesn’t the rest of it matter to them?
I think Charlie didn’t have a clue about it, given that what he said it was missed 7/8 of it.
Pablo on September 11, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Well I have a news flash for you . . . it is no big deal and no amount of leftist babble is going to change that fact. Palin held her own and did just fine.
rplat on September 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Well, I don’t necessarily agree with politicians not second guessing the Commander-in-Chief. Afterall, the GOP just nominated for President a man who has made his mark the last 4 years second guessing pretty much everything President Bush has been doing with regards to the war effort… from GTMO to torture to the war effort itself. Hasn’t hurt him much.
And one of the knocks against Obama is that he has been very careful not to leave a paper trail of opinions during his political career. I don’t like that about Obama… or any other politician. When asked a question, I want the politician to answer with their honest opinion, not blow it off, because it’s politically expedient for them to do so.
Now, that said, I think you are correct that it is the McCain campaign’s strategy to not have Sarah Palin say much, have the Left and the mass media continue with their smears, and thus embarrassing themselves, and then having Sarah Palin come out later, after getting proper tutoring, and providing her more informed positions. Good strategy, I think, set up by the ridiculousness of the Left and the mass media with all their smears the last couple weeks.
Michael in MI on September 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Obama has balked on questions that don’t carry nearly as much weight with answers such as “that’s above my pay grade” concerning when life begins, and “what can I say” when asked about past friendships with questionable – criminal characters by OReilly.
First time out of the gate, and she didn’t trip over her own tounge. Obama has been tripping over his tounge for 19 months, and Biden for all of his life.
I’d call it a double in baseball parlance, if she hadn’t been concentrating so hard and allowed her natural sunny personality and smile to show through, it would have been nearly a triple. The woman was under tremendous pressure, knowing every syllable was going to be run through to be used to hammer her over the head with by the MSM/Pundits. Obama has never had to face that, the MSM covers for Obama, refuses to ask hard questions, and has not investigated his background other than to prop him up as “qualified”.
Hog Wild on September 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »