The Times summarized Charlie Gibson's role in last night's Round 1 of the Sarah Palin interview thusly: "The interview was hardly gentle, as Mr. Gibson pressed Ms. Palin for direct answers to some of the complicated foreign policy and national security issues facing the next administration."
Now, here's Howard Kurtz: "Anyone who said that Charlie Gibson might go easy on Sarah Palin might want to quickly delete those comments."
AND
"What the ABC newsman conducted yesterday was a serious, professional interview that went right at the heart of what we want and need to know about the governor: Could she be president? Does she understand the nuances of international affairs? Does she have a world view?"
AND
"He was all business, respectful but persistent."
AND
"No fancy footwork, no long-winded setups, no gotchas. Just a solid, straight-ahead interview."
Sarah Palin showed last night that she is completely, thoroughly incompetent to be president. Most particularly she showed she is incredibly naive and dangerous in reference to international affairs. She maybe a smart political creature but in everything else she is incredibly stupid. There is simply no other way to express it. I didn't think it was possible for someone stupider than Bush to attain high office but if McCain/Palin win in November that assessment will have to be revisited.
Deployments to Iraq, remembrances of 9/11, strolls alongside oil pipelines....this was as schmaltzy a charade as you can get in America today. As for the interview, I did find Gibson to be sobering and serious, but there were moments where you could see him reacting incredulously and deciding to withdraw, such when she couldn't answer his question about the Bush Doctrine. His option then was simply to destroy her with a follow up, or let the charade continue. Unsurprisingly he chose to lighten up.
We have reached the level of surreal farce here. This woman spent 2 weeks cramming and still didn't show up with a lick of policy understanding, nuance or specific knowledge. She repeated slogans. Electing this woman will be a supreme failure.
such when she couldn't answer his question about the Bush Doctrine.
Evan the term is a media creation with several similar but different definitions. Palin did well for not falling into Gibson’s trap and forcing him to be more specific.
Please. I'm aware that the term has slight variations in meaning, but I seem to remember the Krauthammer, Kristol and the AEI promoting its definition as it is understood today for years, and I don't recall any major attempts to redefine it coming from the right before last night. It's clear from her reaction that she hasn't the slightest idea what he's referring to in the question.
And how, exactly, is it "understood today"? Certainly not the way Gibson described it ... that sounded more like the description from MoveOn or Code Pink, without the gratuitous baby killing of course.
It's understood as the idea that America preserve its status as the sole superpower by promoting democracy where it is in her strategic interest, and by utilizing preemptive strikes to do so, if necessary. This has been discussed, edified and defined by scholars across the political spectrum since the National Security Strategy was announced in 2002. To suggest that it has no fixed definition is disingenuous.
I agree that Gibson misrepresented the definition. That's not too surprising. The issue here is PALIN. She had no idea what he was talking about. Even if she disputed the notion, she would have mentioned that in some way. Instead her reaction was sarcastic, as if Gibson was asking her some kind of gotcha question designed to link her to Bush, and not a simple, straightforward question inviting her to spell out her personal political philosophy as it relates to the one that currently sets our agenda. She is a Republican, her would-be administration would have endless ties to experts and analysts promoting some version of said doctrine. The idea that she has no idea what it is is simply hilarious.
This has been discussed, edified and defined by scholars across the political spectrum since the National Security Strategy was announced in 2002. To suggest that it has no fixed definition is disingenuous.
Unfortunately for you Evan, no one agrees with that interpretation, because as we see Gibson wasn’t on board with the “fixed definition”. Its cute to see you run these rhetorical circles though.
Palin was smart enough to see Gibson’s questions for what it was, an attempted cheap shot on her ... a GOTCHA moment that journalists thrive on. Had she answered before asking him to define exactly what the “Bush Doctrine” was, or his interpretation of it, he would have launched into an attack on here because her explanation would not have fit his preconceived, and by your own admission, misleading interpretation.
But don’t take my word for it Evan, even Bush hater extraordinaire Dan Froomkin makes the same point
But as it happens, I'm not sure anyone is entirely clear on what the Bush Doctrine is at this particular moment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/12/BL2008091201471.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Kudos to Palin. She can kill a moose and PWN a stupid reporter. Definitely tough enough for the job.
Froomkin also points to her "evident cluelessness" in answering the question. Anyone who's been in a classroom knows what someone looks like when answering a question they don't understand.
I don't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is, and I did a thesis on it.
One of the more interesting, and scary, facts about the Bush administration's foreign policy arm is that from 2000-2004 it was populated by factions. One of which was--if not a cabal--a small but influential group of center-right thinkers (call 'em neocons if you must) who for a time were able to monopolize the President's attention.
But even the NSS of 2002, the one real statement we have of the "Bush Doctrine", is not a monolith, and bears the markings of not only the "cabal", but also the classical realists like Rice and even of Colin Powell and his allies.
Not to mention that, rhetoric aside, the muscular parts of the Bush Doctrine have had very little to do with the foreign policy of Bush's second term. Powell was shown the door, but so too were Wolfowitz, Perle, Cohen et. al. A lot of folks also think Cheney hasn't played as much of a role in the second administration.
Nota bene, the one thing that bugs me about the media's misunderstanding of the Bush Doctrine/Neocon phenomenon is their lumping Donald Rumsfeld into the camp. Rumsfeld is a technocrat whose chief interest at the Pentagon was to build an all-robot armed forces. Iraq was by all accounts a distraction. If he was guilty of any crime regarding Iraq, it was of not taking the neocon argument seriously enough.
Froomkin also points to her "evident cluelessness" in answering the question. Anyone who's been in a classroom knows what someone looks like when answering a question they don't understand.
Two things: color me shocked that Froomkin would call a republican, or anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich “clueless”, secondly Froomkin, like the broken watch he is, was spot on that there is no definition of the “Bush doctrine”.
I leave your classroom analogies for another day.