Gibson expected to fluster.

Sorry Charlie.

Palin, meanwhile, could continue to tweak back at Obama’s insults by saying that his latest jibes sound second hand and maybe he needs to stop dining off tv tables and take-out and mingle more.

The wider he tries to explain himself, the emptier his suit appears.

There is no official Bush Administration document entitled “The Bush Doctrine”. It is a collection of statements by President Bush that various media have cobbled together and called “The Bush Doctrine”, whose content varies depending on who defines it. So Palin’s answer was spot on: “In what respect?”, meaning “what specifically are you asking me about?”

McCain supports victory in Iraq, and victory in the War on Terror in general, so Palin, as his VP candidate, will support SOME aspects of the “Bush Doctrine”, but not others. Bush was in favor of “pre-emptive strikes” which were employed against Saddam’s Iraq, but Palin (and McCain) don’t want to be led into the trap of advocating generalized pre-emptive strikes, which would imply (in today’s climate) pre-emptive strikes against Iran, Pakistan, and/or Syria, which too many voters would perceive as war-mongering.

By asking for specifics on the Bush Doctrine, Palin was avoiding the trap of blanket agreement to an undefined premise, and also framing the debate into accepting PART of the Bush policy with which McCain/Palin agree, and differentiating themselves from other parts of the Bush record. After all, it was McCain’s DISAGREEMENT with Bush about Iraq strategy that led to the troop surge, which has proved successful, after the failure of the previous Bush strategy.

Doesnt change the fact that Obama and Curley Joe are still sinking in the polls.

William Amos on September 11, 2008 at 11:48 PM

That’s a low blow William. Curly Joe Derita wasn’t near as stupid as Biden. I’ll give you Besser, but not Curly Joe.

In decades to come, students in junior high school will be able to easily summarize the 2008 campaign as the result of the decision of each candidate for thier running mate.

Waterboy on September 12, 2008 at 4:25 AM

Excellent point.

The dems pushed him too far too fast and now the hype is fading. He broght nothing to the democratic ticket and his fast rise will bring about a faster fall. William Amos on September 12, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Bingo. He climaxed prematurely.

As we know here at HA, Ferraro had it right. Barry was selected, not elected, by the democrats because he was black. The dems are so obsessed with race that they didn’t bother noticing that he’s a hopelessly flawed candidate that shouldn’t even be elected dog-catcher. The dems own racism is what did them in this time out.

That’s all we need to know.

philwynk on September 12, 2008 at 5:51 AM

Amen, brother!

I don’t think she can survive many more interviews of this type. The MSM will smell blood in the water and abandon their nonsense, Snopes.com smears and begin focusing like a laser on wonk-specific questions.

I imagine the debates will go like this:

“Senator McCain, will you continue to send Americans to die in foreign wars for oil?”

“Senator Obama, do you love kittens?”

That oughta drive the Obamatons absolutely batshit bonkers.

Of course, these numbers change during the day, but people who are putting their money where their mouths are are betting McCain to win the Presidency.

The truth is, Palin is a pragmatic governor who, so far, has learned what she needed to know in order to do whatever she needed to do. So far as we can tell, she’s never done any job poorly in her entire life. That includes international relations, as it happens, because that $24 billion pipeline she negotiated for Alaska involved the Canadian government and Canadian businesses. So she’ll learn how to deal with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Azerbaijan just fine. But she’s never had to think about those things yet, so she doesn’t have ready answers for them yet.

She’s the right person to make Vice President. She’s not ready to be President, but so what? If she had to step in she’d make solid decisions with informational help from advisors until she got enough knowledge under her belt. That’s what new Presidents always do; her learning curve would be steeper, but that’s a temporary problem.

The more important question is, can the President make decisions at all? Obviously, Palin can, and good ones. The same cannot be said of Barack Obama. I can’t see any serious decision the man has EVER made, other than the one to run for President, which he apparently made sometime in the 1990s. He’s an academic, so he has nicely formed answers for academic questions. The answers cost him nothing; they’re like Monopoly money, or poker chips. None of his answers required him to pull any cash from his bank account. I have no reason to believe he’s even capable of making a hard choice — EVER. Palin has made such choices, and certainly can.

I’ll let some others of you figure out how to say that in a pithy sound bite. She’s more ready to be President than Obama; she’s a remarkably good choice for VICE President. But she had no idea what the “Bush Doctrine” was. That’s a fact. Deal with it.

The supreme irony is that the Media itself made Palin almost gaff-proof by body slamming her from the minute she was announced. They unleashed a deepseated anger among voters about how the media plays games for one candidate or another (”The American People Are Not Stuck On Stupid” – that quote should be carved into the Washington Monument!).

Even if she does make a gaff and the media/DNC make a huge deal out of it, the first reaction of the electorate will be to give her the benefit of the doubt.

John McCain, in coming back from nothing a year ago, made probably his best decision by far in nominating Palin…there are so many pros to count that the cons pale in comparison.

Barack Obama, as formidable and as able a politician as he is, made his worst decision by far in nominating Biden.

In decades to come, students in junior high school will be able to easily summarize the 2008 campaign as the result of the decision of each candidate for thier running mate.

Palin was “Picked” to run for VP. She has been at this for how long?

I wonder which one would be better prepared to give an answer on National Policies?

Guess all this is above my pay grade

https://secure.donationreport.com/donation.html?key=NPM2A9KUXS0J

Hell, Barack Obama thinks he is going to be POTUS for, oh, ya know, 8 to 10 years. Yup, 8-10 years as POTUS of these here 57 states. Talk about a gaffe.

Montana on September 12, 2008 at 1:41 AM

I guarantee you’ll never hear Governor Palin say anything that stupid. (Not to mention a host of other gaffes.)

It’s just a shame that it doesn’t matter.

Sarah: Well we are not the Bush Administration so the Bush Doctrine is not really material to the McCain/Palin administration. When John McCain is sworn in as President of the U.S.A., we will be operating under the McCain Doctrine and it is this: (ie whatever McCain says it is)

Each administation sets its own doctrine/policy whether formally or informally.

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.
….
Tom_Shipley on September 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM

I see others have pointed out the error of your statements. I’ll just add that I was paying attention the first time a new policy was described as the Bush Doctrine, and it had nothing to do with preemptive war. It was in a speech not long after 9/11. I believe it was the State of the Union address in 2002. At this point, Bush famously said that nations that harbor terrorists will be treated as guilty of terrorism, a position usually summarized as, “you’re either with us or against us.” This was described as the Bush Doctrine.

If preemptive war is also part of the Bush Doctrine, then it was added to the original Bush Doctrine. That gives the lie to the claim that it is the central part of the Bush Doctrine.

That Charlie Gibson said the Bush Doctrine only referred to preemptive war showed he didn’t understand it all. Never good to appear arrogant about your knowledge if your knowledge is lacking. Of course, liberals are notorious for being sure of things that happen not to be true…

Given that, why would anyone just say, “Yes” or “No” when asked if they agree with the Bush Doctrine? Sure, if you agree with every part of it, you can say, “Yes,” and if you disagree with every part of it, you can say, “No.” But if you agree with some parts but not others, then you can’t just give a yes or no answer. In such a case, the only good answer is to request clarification before trying to answer the question.

And hell, Chuckie Gibson probably boned up on the doctrine before the interview because he KNEW he was asking about it.

You would assume that he would ask about HER views on foreign policy instead of playing the Bush-game again.

And Chuckie’s sneering, scoffing and looking-down-his-nose at Sarah Palin is NOT going to sit well with voters–especially women.

Hell, Barack Obama thinks he is going to be POTUS for, oh, ya know, 8 to 10 years. Yup, 8-10 years as POTUS of these here 57 states. Talk about a gaffe.