13 Sep 08
Originally posted by randolphShe would first need enough understanding to comprehend that there is a "Bush Doctrine." That would put her ahead of 72% of American voters. Her stumble was insignificant and criticisms of her ignorance will more than likely help the McCain campaign.
Did anybody see her struggling to come up with an answer to the Bush Doctrine question? Priceless.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by randolphThe Vice President is just a vehicle to get the President elected. It doesn't matter how much of
Did anybody see her struggling to come up with an answer to the Bush Doctrine question? Priceless.
an idiot/genius s/he is -- just look at Dan Quayle.
She can fumble around like a 16-year old boy detaching the clasp on the bra of his girlfriend in
the back seat of his darkened Volkswagen, it doesn't make a damn's worth of difference. She
will help shore up some of the far right's vote for 'The Maverick,' and maybe pick up a few of
those swing women who are ticked off at Obama for not picking Clinton.
Nemesio
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by randolphHere is a little different perspective on the idea of the "Bush Doctrine".
Did anybody see her struggling to come up with an answer to the Bush Doctrine question? Priceless.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Really, who gets to decide which of Bush's doctrines is actually "the Bush Doctrine"? Anyone with half a brain would have been puzzled by the question. I just wish that Palin had gone on the offensive and called Charlie Gibson on his gaffe.
13 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarCharles Krauthammer? If he coined the term, he doesn't know when or where. See http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/03/05/doctrine.html. The title was probably written by some hack or student intern, but it stands at the top of Krauthammer's CNN editorial five weeks into the Bush administration.
Here is a little different perspective on the idea of the "Bush Doctrine".
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He aske wish that Palin had gone on the offensive and called Charlie Gibson on his gaffe.
In any case, the question was open enough to elicit a prepared response if she had one, or a coherent response if she has a strong grasp of foreign affairs. Neither was in evidence. It is the job of journalists to find out what and how politicians think. This question did that.
Right-wing pundits can spin it however they like. Palin botched the question. Sheesh, in 2005 I wrote in these very forums about the unfortunate consequences of the Bush doctrine. It's hardly a novelty, and it was the focus of the first Kerry-Bush debate. See Thread 26303.
Nor was that the only question she botched. Inasmuch as Alaska was colonized by the Russians, and controlled by that nation for two centuries, one would think that someone who had grown up in that state might have handled those questions better too, but journalists are leaving that one alone because they're not much better informed than she is. We're doomed.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by EladarSo when Palin comes across as clueless it's not because she is bright as a brick - It's because Bush have been flip-flopping all over the place with out any idea of direction.
Here is a little different perspective on the idea of the "Bush Doctrine".
[b]There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by ScheelBush has not been flip flopping. He's been doing things that earlier adminstrations have not. Since he was the first to do it, any number of his actions could be classified as a "Bush Doctrine".
So when Palin comes across as clueless it's not because she is bright as a brick - It's because Bush have been flip-flopping all over the place with out any idea of direction.
But leftists don't really want to look at what's really going on, they just want to point fingers and attempt to belittle. As long as there are enough of them (like at this site) they can have fun "high fiving" each other in a big circle jerk.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by randolphI thought she reacted quite well to the question. It was an obvious trap set out to nail her in some way.
Did anybody see her struggling to come up with an answer to the Bush Doctrine question? Priceless.
I have the impression that Americans ... and not just Americans ... lost their ability to look at things objectively when it comes to the candidates for the Presidency and the vice-Presidency. They applaude and laude their own candidates and trash and bash the candidates of the other side. There is nothing in between ...... fairness and objectivity have disappeared totally ... also and especially in the media .... and everybody thinks of themselves as being the fair and objective side.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by Eladarshifting ground again because you received an informed response
Bush has not been flip flopping. He's been doing things that earlier adminstrations have not. Since he was the first to do it, any number of his actions could be classified as a "Bush Doctrine".
But leftists don't really want to look at what's really going on, they just want to point fingers and attempt to belittle. As long as there are enough of them (like at this site) they can have fun "high fiving" each other in a big circle jerk.
How is the term "Bush Doctrine" used in Foreign Affairs, a leading public policy journal? How well did Sarah Palin reveal her knowledge of any issue ever presented in Foreign Affairs?
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeShe didn't even know what the hell he was talking about, that is what the "In what regard..." response was about. Standard high school debate team tactic.
I thought she reacted quite well to the question. It was an obvious trap set out to nail her in some way.
I have the impression that Americans ... and not just Americans ... lost their ability to look at things objectively when it comes to the candidates for the Presidency and the vice-Presidency. They applaude and laude their own candidates and trash an ...[text shortened]... ially in the media .... and everybody thinks of themselves as being the fair and objective side.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by randolphWell, considered Charlie Gibson himself didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and refused to tell Palin which version he was talking about, we can hardly expect anyone to hit that one out of the park.
Did anybody see her struggling to come up with an answer to the Bush Doctrine question? Priceless.
However, someone better prepared would have pointed out to Charlie that there is no singular 'Bush Doctrine'. That's a construct of the political left. Putting it back in his face and making him look like the moron would have been a far better answer.