Of the many awkward moments in last night's airing of ABC's Sarah Palin interview, perhaps the most awkward came when Charlie Gibson questioned McCain's would-Veep about the Bush doctrine. (Besides, that is, the moments when Palin pronounced "nuclear" as "nukular"—which, just, noooooooooooo...)
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.
Palin's circuitous, stilted, sound-bite-laden answers to Gibson's Bush doctrine-related questions would, at first blush, seem to betoken the governor's unfamiliarity with recent world events. Which, if so, and to state the obvious, would be a massive liability in a vice presidential candidate who, under a very imaginable combination of very imaginable circumstances, could become president of the U.S., Commander-in-Chief of its armed forces, the de facto leader of the free world, et cetera.
And, of course, the pundits pounced. "Sarah Palin: 'Bush Doctrine?'" scoffed the headline of the Tribune's The Swamp blog. "Why Palin's "Bush Doctrine" Gaffe Matters: Does She Know What Foreign Policy Doctrine Is?" asked TPM's Greg Sargent. The self-satisfied schadenfreude in all this is nearly palpable. Gawker even named its every-Friday shout-out-to-its-advertisers post "Our Advertisers Know What the Bush Doctrine Is."
But let's be fair here. As others—mostly conservative analysts—have noted, the Bush doctrine is, to some extent, like beauty and mirrors and President Bush himself, in the eye of the beholder. Yes, the doctrine has come to be associated with the strategy of preemptive war, or, as Gibson rightly noted, "the right of anticipatory self-defense," as laid out in the administration's September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States. Fair enough. But the doctrine, as The Corner's Jay Nordlinger points out, also "got murky—acquired many branches and penumbra" in the years since that document was first released. The Bush doctrine now concerns much more than preemptive war.
No better proof of that than in The New York Times itself, which, in a September 2002 editorial, published five days after the National Security Strategy document was released, defined the Bush doctrine thusly:
American military power will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from ever trying to challenge the military supremacy of the United States. Washington is free to take pre-emptive action against hostile states that are developing weapons of mass destruction. The successful strategies of the cold war, which relied on the threat of overwhelming American retaliation to deter foreign aggression, are largely obsolete. Forceful measures to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons are more effective than treaties.
These ideas are all connected, to be sure, and all part of the Bush doctrine. But they're not easily confinable to a single sound bite. The doctrine, particularly as a specimen of living history, is more complicated than Gibson suggested last night—and more complicated than pundits are suggesting today. Which isn't to justify Palin's responses to Gibson's questions—clearly, she was simply unfamiliar with "Bush doctrine" as a term, which doesn't bode well for her overall knowledge of recent political history—but it is to say that perhaps all the smugness in today's assessment of her responses is just a tad out of place. And that perhaps all the schadenfreude is just a tad unfair.
Instead, the pundits could have focused on the overarching revelations of the "Bush doctrine" line of questioning in the first place. The Gibson interview, after all, wasn't just a test of Palin's knowledge of current events—"20th Century Realpolitik" next to "Existential Threats," "Potent Potables," and "Rhymes with Brainy" on the Jeopardy! board of presidential politics. It was a test of how Palin handles herself under fire, of how she comports herself when facing a modicum of the pressure that will be exerted on the occupant of the Oval Office.
In this respect, Palin failed. Rather than simply admit that she didn't know the answer to Gibson's question—or rather than explain her own understanding of what the Bush doctrine may be, if you subscribe to the "nuanced definition" line of logic—Palin simply steered the conversation back to her talking points. This wasn't dialogue; it was—though Gibson tried his hardest to move everything in another direction—line-coaching.
I don’t care if the Alaska governor has been too busy governing Alaska in the last few years to bone up on recent political history; that's fair enough. I do care if she's unwilling to admit when she doesn't know something. I do care if her impulse is to gloss over her ignorance, rather than face it head-on. I appreciate the pressure she was facing. Still, no president or would-be president knows everything (even, yes, Obama, he of the Ivy League Education and Intellectual Elitism), and no one, really, expects them to. What we've learned through trial and much, much, much error, rather, is that chief executives have to have enough confidence in their own intelligence, and their own education, to admit when there's been a gap in that education. The only thing worse than ignorance is the attempt to ignore that ignorance.
"On television, tone matters as much as content," Alessandra Stanley notes in her assessment of the Palin interview. That may be true. But content still counts—whether one knows it or not.
Good analysis. The reason the conservative talking points don't jibe right now is Gibson's question, "What do you interpret it to be?". If Palin knew what he was asking, that was her chance to wow us with her knowledge of that really "awesome" doctrine.
Palin was the perfect VP choice.
She talks in a straightforward manner that makes her appear genuine and earnest, despite Charlie Gibson's best attempts to sandbag her with refernces to distorted quotes and made-up "doctrines".
Until and unless the MSM can find a real skeleton in Palin's closet, the McCain/Palin ticket is a shoe-in. Obama and Biden might as well start writing their concession speeches now.
And that's all conservatives seem to care about: speech delivery. I consistently look at lgf, redstate, newsbusters. And what I'm seeing right now is the exact thing you're enamored with, Padi: "Can my candidate/surrogate deliver the talking points without stumbling. Can they sound like they're telling the truth?"
And where is Palin on the Sunday talk shows tomorrow, Padi? MIA. Republicans lower the bar. People like you accept it.
It’s a sad commentary on the state of the media that the only challenging interviews of the campaign – Palin’s by Gibson and Obama’s by O’Reilly – surfaced just weeks before the final polling.
Do yourself a favor and look back at Gibson’s interview of John Edwards fours years ago. Nothing but softballs.
Despite your rather snarky commentary, Palin has now been subjected to much higher scrutiny than any other candidate, at either end of the ticket.
Funny, I don't see Obama or Biden on the talk show lineups either...
I'd like to see Obama questioned in a similar manner about his religious beliefs and his stance on Russia and Iran. I'd like to see him fed loaded and distorted questions about about comments he's made or listened to in his church. I'd like to hear about whether or not he turned his former coke dealer to the police as he should have.
But the MSM isn't about that, when it comes to interviewing Democrats.
Palin sailed through Gibson's hit-job with flying colors even after it was edited to make her look bad (as the transcript clearly shows).
Nobody sitting on the fence is going to hold it against Palin that she tried to get her abusive ex-brother in law in trouble. Indeed the opposite is true- a ton of people are going to admire her for it. Nobody's going to care that her kid who's headed to Iraq had a drug problem or that her daughter is pregnant. The only people who think such muck means anything are the moonbats who would vote for Satan himself if he got the Democratic nomination.
McCain choice was pure genius. The election is his, unless something a whole lot worse than this nonsense comes to light.
Where have you been the last year and a half, Padi? The media chased Obama until the skeletons ran dry. Hell, where the hell have you been last week? Biden was on MTP. Obama went on O'Reilly, and he survived.That's like Palin going on Olbermann. She's as accessible as John Edwards these days.
I find you "my candidate, right or wrong" types to be utterly fascinating.
If you're looking for a "my candidate, right or wrong" type, don't look at me. I'm not voting for McCain/Palin. Try looking in the mirror, instead.
I'm just saying that:
1. Palin did extremely well in her interview, despite being sandbagged by Charlie Gibson and despite the selective editing deliberately employed to make her appear to be bloodthirsty and uninformed.
2. Unless some skeleton a whole worse than anything the MSM has been able thus far to dredge from the muck pops out of the closet, McCain's decision to bring her on will buy him the election.
McCain's up 10 points in general and even higher than that among fence sitters, with less than two months to go.
From what I've seen of Palin, she's going to cream Biden in a televised debate.
Look at the stories here. How many stories on Biden? A couple. How many on Palin, or her family? Twelve zillion.
There is a very good reason for the terror pulsing in the hearts of liberals over Palin's nomination. Obama's toast.
Don't be so hasty. Palin's a new brand they're rolling out. I abhor the Sambo rumor and the personal attacks on her family, but make no mistake about it: it won't be media bias that fells her and McCain.
I really think when the rape kit story gets traction, or is mentioned in any debate, McCain's toast. And that's only what we know so far.
If the best the MSM can do is find out that the police chief in Wasilla was once billing victim's insurance companies for rape kits (before being forbidden by law from doing so), then I think your hope of dethroning Palin on the basis of this new bit of muck is misguided.
My town routinely bills sexual assault victims not only the cost of the rape kit, but also the cost for the ambulance ride. These kits are expensive, however, the town is only looking for reimbursement from insurance or Medicaid and has never tried to collect directly from the victims themselves.
Sounds like the same thing was going on in Wasilla to me. Apparently the former police chief is on record as saying that he thought the perpetrators should ultimately bear the cost of the kits.
However, even if victims were directly billed, it doesn't look like anyone has a shred of evidence to indicate that Palin had anything to do with it.
A profeesional politician, running for vice president, should know at least as much about politics as I do. I'm familiar with the Bush Doctrine, because I'm interested in politics. Too bad this substance-free GOP hack isn't as interested as I am.
Well, you may not know this, Padi, but the election doesn't revolve around you. As hard as you fight for the candidates you aren't voting for (wink wink), it will play differently across America.
There is no particular "Bush doctrine".. Well, to be accurate, there are at least four different policies which are referred to by the name "Bush doctine".
Palin was absolutely right to ask Charlie Gibson for clarification, as Charles Krauthammer, the man who coined the term "Bush doctrine" aptly notes:
"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."
But why let the truth spoil a moonbat parade. rioght?
One amusing result of this whole affair is seeing big bad Charles Krauthammer stepping in to clarify that there is no coherent Bush doctrine, and that, unlike other noteworthy presidential doctrines, it has changed at the whim of an incurious, superficially minded president to suit whatever rash new development in judgment he has had over his two terms in office. That it tripped Palin up seems perfectly indicative of the philosophical briar patch Bush and Co have led the rest of the GOP into.
I'll certainly agree that it was a poorly worded question, but the transcript clearly shows that Gibson offers her an opportunity to pick whichever definition she prefers. Her response was to stall, then offer a generic, seemingly canned response. The debate over the evolving definition of the Bush doctrine is certainly healthy here and elsewhere, but to suggest that Palin had this nuance in mind when answering the question is simply to invent something that is not there.
I'm not voting for her, but it is funny to see the extent to which Palin is driving the liberals nuts.
After commenting here this afternoon, I spent a couple of hours trudging through the blogs and it seems that Palinphobia is running amuck in Liberalville.
Obama swears he won't be "bullied" by this hockey mom, but my money is on her giving him an ass-whooping. I can't see Obama/Biden recovering from her nomination.
I personally know five women who have changed their minds about voting for Obama because Palin's on the GOP ticket.
Padi, it strikes me as ridiculous that when caring Americans, once called traitors or liberals, share their concern about a vice-presidential candidate's fitness to hold office, both in experience and actual knowledge, conservatives resort to implying there is a mental illness involved. Why would this be? When every aspect of Obama's candidacy has been discussed, from his former preacher, to casual friends that were criminals 30 years ago and are now respected professors, to secret religious leanings, to covert black aggression are merely interesting questions, anyone wondering if Palin is suited for the job and if McCain showed good judgment choosing her suffers from "Palin-Phobia" or "Palin Derangement".
Frankly, McCain's serial lying about Obama and Palin's past indiscretions while in office from trooper gate, to trying to ban library books, to crony ism to her lack of knowledge about NATO, to her flippant belief that the US would got to war with Russia is more important than the Bush Doctrine.
Given what the country has become under an incurious and ignorant Bush I personally find support for the McCain ticket almost treasonous, putting party support before the country. I might find it completely treasonous if I thought many didn't actually believe McCain is a better choice. As it is, I am fairly sure a great many supporting McCain over Obama are doing so because of race, once more implying the country has problems with its overall intelligence.
b8 wrote:
"When every aspect of Obama's candidacy has been discussed, from his former preacher, to casual friends that were criminals 30 years ago and are now respected professors..."
padikiller responds:
"Respected" by liberals, you mean. Rational people don't respect terrorists who have been allowed to escape justice by fleeing to asylum in the ivory towers of academia.
Obama has never been confronted with loaded and distorted questions, in the way that Palin was (and Obama is the presidential candidate).
When Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" in a recent interview, Stephanopoulos was tripping over himself to provide cover. When Obama called on the UN Security Council to denounce Russia's invasion of Georgia, nobody in the MSM bothered to ask him how he believed such a sanction could occur, given Russia's veto power in the Council.
Obama has zero experience running anything. He went from private school in Hawaii to Ivy League schools to government jobs to state legislature to his present half-stint as a Senator. He's never supervised a staff of any significant size, never had to make any significant executive decisions, and never had to manage a budget. Yet we see no hard-hitting questions regard his utter lack of experience.
Palin's purported "past indiscretions" amount to nothing substantially harmful to her, at least so far. The fact, if turns out to be true, that she did everything she could to can her ex-brother-in-law after he tased a 10-year old kid will NOT hurt her a bit - indeed, among fence-sitters, it will help. It appears that she never attempted to ban a single library book in her life, at least according to factcheck.org. She knew exactly how NATO worked (stating her belief that Ukraine needed to be admitted and stating correctly that an attack upon a NATO ally would demand a military response from all NATO members) and she articulated a policy that Obama and Biden would parrot, if asked the same distorted question.
What about Obama, who if elected, will have his finger on the button immediately?
What do we know about Obama's cocaine use, other than he turned to cocaine to relieve stress? When did he last use cocaine? If stress drove him to use drugs, then how will he handle the most stressful job on the planet with sobriety? Did he turn his drug dealer in to the police so that other kids might not have drigs pushed upone them? Why aren't these questions (and other similar tough questions) being asked?
The media is swarming all over Alaska digging up dirt on a VP candidate's family, while one of Obama's brothers lives in a welfare house in London and another lives in squalor in a hut on a mud street in Kenya.
Liberals who've partaken of the Obama Kool-Aid aren't going to change their minds, but Palin's nomination was a master stroke of pure political genius that is going to make the difference, unless something a whole lot worse than the silliness the MSM has raked from the muck thus far turns up.
Of course it is possible to sum up the so called Bush Doctrine in a "single sound bite": All final decisions regarding the national security of the United States resides with the Executive Branch.
Wow, to little information so late in the game. I still wonder why people say they think Palin a a great choice, but also say they don't know a thing about her. We cannot afford to be sheep. I still cannot understand why no one ever mentioned the interview with Katie Couric, inwhich she asked McCain..since we know that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, why do you think we should have gotten into Iraq? His reply was, Because Osama Bin Laden said so, to go to the two rivers...advice from THE TERRORIST he now wants to hunt down? And to say this campaign is not about issues? Wow..how can the donators to this not be upset..we have alot of issues! This sounds so Bush like, its just crazy. My jaw is still on the floor with just those two comments alone! I have long petitioned against Palin as an activist for wildlife and her in league with special interest groups such as the safari club that kills illegally and globally endangered species. Why is she wearing a polar bear pin? Why is she hellbent on ariel slaughter? Why did someone that I know just move from Alaska because..he said he personally knew Palin and went to school with Bristol..he said..Trig is Bristols baby and its not just downs, its a drug baby. He said Sarah was jogging when supposedly 6 months preg..with a flat stomach and he asked her why are you running so hard while preg? She told him that she just loves the way it wrenches her gut..ho says that with child? Not prolife for animals, not prolife for the environment..although I believe him about what he told me, That means we would have to soon hear about Bristols now supposed pregnacy..that may be fake, may announce a miscarriage..cuz the timeline doesn't fit. All I know is anyone that can slaughter our dogs ancestors and getspecial interest groups to back her to allow countrywide pratice of this on bears and others is not someone I trust. Yea, call me an animal rights activist, a tree hugger, but I really do not like her.I have some respect for McCain, but I think he is already showing senility, scary all the way around..can we have more choices please.I don't want either one...and I don't know enough about the independents to vote there either. What a delema.
Padi, On the one hand you wish to negate every negative story published about Palin and on the other you exult every negative story about Obama to absolute truth, than blame the liberals for drinking the kool aid. I don't want to waste space answering all your criticisms and accusations so I 'll just ask you two questions: How does a country become a member of NATO and do they do so immediately? Secondly, Can you cite the entire context in which Obama said, "My muslim faith..."?
As far as experience goes, Ms. Palin was the governor of the smallest state per capita in the U.S. for half a term, and the staff she headed was made up of childhood friends. She was known in the state as being absent from government. Obama was the editor of the Harvard law review, has experience working in Washington D.C. and organizing local groups. Ms. Palin went to six different schools to get a journalism degree while Mr. Obama studied Constitutional law at the most prestigious law school in the country. Mr. Obama has written two books about his life and his political philosophy, enough to know that he has an intelligent view about the issues. Ms. Palin is unknown.
The idea that there is an army of lawyers in Alaska as written in the Wall Street Journal has been discredited.
You failed to answer why my concerns for McCain and Palin are considered a disease while your reservations of Obama, based on heresay and discredited reports are supposed to be seriously considered. But I suppose I have to assume you do take them seriously and must agree to disagree with you. I do not, however, consider your stance one that considers the good of the country.
b8 wrote: How does a country become a member of NATO and do they do so immediately? Secondly, Can you cite the entire context in which Obama said, "My muslim faith..."?
padikiller responds: What relevance do these questions have to Palin. She answered Gibson's questions regarding NATO. as for the "my Muslim faith" gaffe- the answer is yes, it is possible to provide context because, unlike Palin's interview, Obama's complete interview was televised.
b8 wrote: "As far as experience goes, Ms. Palin was the governor of the smallest state per capita in the U.S. for half a term"
padikiller notes: This is not true- Alska is not the least populous state.
b8 wrote: Obama was the editor of the Harvard law review
padikiller: A position he received through affirmative action. He contributed not a single article to the review. He got into Harvard only with the muscle of Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansou, a radical Black Muslim pal of his.
b8 wrote: Mr. Obama has written two books about his life and his political philosophy, enough to know that he has an intelligent view about the issues
padikiller responds: Too bad he couldn't find time to author any "changeful" bills while the taxpayers were paying him to write his books instead of acting as their senator.
I'm not a McCain/Palin fan. I too am concerned about both of them and I am not voting for them. However, I'm also not drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. Obama is unqualified, inexperienced and too wishy-washy to handle the job.
So who are you voting for Padi? It seems to me
...that all other candidates are to the left of McCain/Palin. Why the fuss?