pageok
pageok
pageok
Gibson Interviews Palin:
Read excerpts from the transcript here.
Asher (mail):
Let's be honest. That was brutal. I'm not sure I can vote for McCain anymore.
9.11.2008 8:36pm
Sarcastro (www):
Republicans: Magnificent! I'm in love with the Saracuda!

Democrats: Wow, that was awful! She's so dumb, I'm never voting for McCain now!
9.11.2008 8:39pm
Adam K:
[Deleted by OK. Adam K, if you do not like this blog, I recommend you not read it.]
9.11.2008 8:41pm
Lily (mail):
Why is Charlie Gibson behaving like such as ass?

He took a different approach when interviewing Obama, who, by the way, doesn't have any Foreign Policy Experience either.

How I wish that the media would just approach both sides evenly - evenly hard or evenly soft, but evenly. Why is that too much to ask?
9.11.2008 8:41pm
Wheat Free Terrier (mail):
I must admit, having only read the transcript, this is a lot better than I expected. Asher, was this really more painful to watch than to read?
9.11.2008 8:41pm
DCH (www):
I think the first two pages were the result of really bad coaching. The second two seemed like authentic position statements.

The "in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again" reminds me of a book by Robert Meister concerning the Politics of "Never Again".
9.11.2008 8:41pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.


Wow, that's a bad idea. Other than the above part, seemed about normal. Still the idea of Georgia in NATO is scary as hell because Georgia has already provoked Russia (not that Russia's response was justified) when they weren't in NATO. If we let them in NATO its either a very horrible outcome or egg on America's face.
9.11.2008 8:42pm
DangerMouse:
This is the grand interview the MSM has been hyping? So much for the press tearing her a new one. At least Gibson didn't ask to see Trig's birth certificate or something...
9.11.2008 8:44pm
Mike Keenan:
She really fumbled the Bush Doctrine question didn't she. Not too impressed.
9.11.2008 8:44pm
Adam K:

Wow, that's a bad idea. Other than the above part, seemed about normal. Still the idea of Georgia in NATO is scary as hell because Georgia has already provoked Russia (not that Russia's response was justified) when they weren't in NATO. If we let them in NATO its either a very horrible outcome or egg on America's face.


If only some former president, general and statesman had cautioned against such long-term foreign military alliances...
9.11.2008 8:44pm
Lily (mail):
The more I think about it, the madder I get.

Charlie Gibson never asked these questions of Obama.

Where is the balance?

The media does such a disservice to this country.
9.11.2008 8:47pm
Crunchy Frog:
At some point it's a wonder she didn't flat out tell Gibson, "Asked and answered, Douchebag. Next?"
9.11.2008 8:48pm
Lily (mail):
The "Bush Doctrine" question was a gotcha question. It means different things to different people.
9.11.2008 8:49pm
DangerMouse:
She really fumbled the Bush Doctrine question didn't she. Not too impressed.

I don't think so. To me it sounded like a trick question, asking someone if they believe in X without defining exactly what X is. The "Bush Doctrine" can mean anything to the MSM - from full on support of all of Bush's foreign policy actions, to only just preventative strikes, etc. It's entirely open-ended. She did good to get Gibson to clarify.
9.11.2008 8:49pm
NickW:
Llamasex:

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. [emphasis mine]

Clearly, that should make us all feel better about Georgia being in NATO.
9.11.2008 8:49pm
taney71:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

Well, not really Gibson. You got that from the AP and the AP took her quote out of context. Liberal media at its best.
9.11.2008 8:50pm
DangerMouse:
Well, not really Gibson. You got that from the AP and the AP took her quote out of context. Liberal media at its best.

I know. ABC and Gibson are already getting hammered on lying about the "exact words." Do they really think they can get away with this anymore?
9.11.2008 8:52pm
Forgotten Password (mail):

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?



What a shameless set up!!! If she answers no (as she did), she's arrogant; if she answers yes, and says she did pause to think about it, then the follow up is that she's timid and indecisive.

I am truly supprized that 'The One' and his handlers can fumble this badly, and still don't see how poorly this 'lack of experience' attack plays when the Dems have their lack of experience on the top of the ticket.
9.11.2008 8:55pm
Dan M.:
McCain has already pledged his support to Georgia. I didn't expect her to be different in that regard.

This exchange was bullshit:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

How disingenuous was that? Hasn't it been pointed out repeatedly that those words were taken completely out of context? I think she countered extremely well, though.
9.11.2008 8:55pm
Milhouse (www):
Has Gibson never heard of the term "Dowdify"? Now Dowd omitted words from the middle of a quote, but at least she replaced them by ldots, so there was at least some indication that something was missing, and it might occur to someone that the missing words changed the whole quote. Gibson went one better, by omitting crucial words before the quote, thus completely changing the meaning without any indication that this wasn't the complete quote.
9.11.2008 8:56pm
taney71:
This interview should not only anger conservatives for its injustice but also women. Why Gibson and the media in general haven't you gone after Obama in the same way?
9.11.2008 8:56pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
I guess she did worse than I thought because no one is defending her everyone is attacking the questions.
9.11.2008 8:59pm
taney71:
For those who don't know what Palin actually said:


"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”


You see Gibson's quote (more like the AP's) is missing the part in bold which is very important.
9.11.2008 8:59pm
barney the liberal purple dinosaur:
I'm sorry did you see the awesome job Chuckles did during the Philly Dem debate? He totally took Obama apart on important issues like flag pins.
9.11.2008 9:01pm
Oren:

The "Bush Doctrine" question was a gotcha question. It means different things to different people.

I get asked those questions all the time. You define it, then you answer it, making clear that you are only talking about that definition. If someone wants you answer to a different definition, have them define it, and then make it clear you are only addressing that definition.
9.11.2008 9:01pm
taney71:

I guess she did worse than I thought because no one is defending her everyone is attacking the questions.


She did nothing bad. The reason people are attacking Gibson is for the lie in saying "exact words." Calling BS when it occurs needs to be done. Also, these questions were fair. I just wonder other than Fox News where Obama would get such questions.
9.11.2008 9:02pm
subpatre (mail):
Llamasex said "NATO is scary as hell"

What's up with that? Almost half a century of stability in Europe, one of the longest stretches Europe has been stable --without major wars-- since the Roman Empire.

Oh, but those are Llamasex' exact words. Exact words.

[Irony/sarcasm in using Gibson's version of 'exact words' --which Llamasex unreservedly quoted-- applied in the exact same way to Llamasex's own comment. Gibson did use 'exact words', just removed from the context and removed from the complete sentence. Llamasex continues this innovative use.]
9.11.2008 9:02pm
mogden (mail):
Can anyone honestly read that and not think that Palin is a vapid clown?
9.11.2008 9:02pm
Lily (mail):
llamasex (llamasex?):

I think She did great, and more to her credit since Mr. Gibson took the approach he did (seemed determined to trip her up.) I'd like to see how you'd do under these circumstances. .... or more importantly, I like to see how Sen Obama would do under the same conditions. My guess is that he would not fair as well, and I base this on his performances in other, unscripted talks.
9.11.2008 9:04pm
Dan M.:
She doesn't really need defending, I don't think. She did reasonably well. But Gibson asked her some stupid "gotcha" questions and also lied to her about things that she said and then had the gall to contradict her when she rightly denied saying it that way.

For instance, she deftly countered his out of context quotation about God, and then he said:

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

When her actual quote was:

“That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
9.11.2008 9:04pm
Norman Bates (mail):
It's worth remembering that Palin's sole responsibility now is backing McCain's and the party platform's positions all the way. Judged purely from that perspective she did a damn good job.

Even without allowing her that slack she did pretty well for a newbie dealing for the first with some pretty tough foreign policy questions.

As others have noted, Senator Obama has very seldom been asked questions that are similarly probing of some of his less reasonable policy stands, e.g., raising taxes when the country appears to be on the verge of recession and unconditionally withdrawing from Iraq on a very tight time schedule..
9.11.2008 9:04pm
paul lukasiak (mail):
well, if nothing else, Palin is a quick study -- she did an excellent job of parroting McCain's national security approach, which is all that she is supposed to do.

I too was appalled by Gibson's deliberate out of context quote about God and Iraq. The guy is a complete hack.

What bugs me about these kinds of interviews is that Gibson and his ilk insist upon trying to get answers to questions that are better left unanswered.... the whole 'what if Israel" thing really bugs me, but I think that Palin's response (keep repeating the same "no second guessing" response) was the right one.
9.11.2008 9:06pm
Milhouse (www):
llamasex, you are mistaken, Georgia did not provoke Russia. Georgia defended itself against naked aggression. Should we go to war to defend Georgia from another Russian invasion? I think that if we can then we should. Because it's the right thing to do. And for the same reason that the West should have gone to war to prevent Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia.
9.11.2008 9:10pm
Carolina:
It seems pretty clear to me, reading these comments, that the interview changed no one's mind about Palin. Those excited by her still are, and those who think she is a "vapid clown" (in the words of one commenter) still do.

Status quo in her first unscripted debate has got to be a win for McCain. She's going to get better, and if this is her worst, the Dems are not going to have many gaffes to chew on.
9.11.2008 9:11pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
subpatre, I like that.

Lily, If you want to see, I would suggest watching Bill-O's interview of Obama.


I think people might not realize the media did do the exact same thing to Obama. the media repeated Obama said "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

"His entire point of that riff was that the campaign IS NOT about him. The Post left out the important first half of the sentence, which was something along the lines of: 'It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol ... ."

Here is a collection of clips http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20080731

The media isn't biased they are just horrible. I agree its sad what they are doing with the Palin quote, taking it out of context, but they aren't doing it to get her, they are doing it because they suck
9.11.2008 9:11pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
Mike Keenan:

She really fumbled the Bush Doctrine question didn't she.

No, that was the one that best demonstrated her ability to handle gotcha questions from the MSM. She didn't fall for it. The term "Bush doctrine" is not an official term. It is a term usually used by critics of the Bush Administration, incorrectly, because it is not a new doctrine. It has been established doctrine for most of our history, and arises from the law of nations theory discussed in such works as those of Vattel. Palin patiently waited for Gibson to define what he meant, then gave the same answer that would have been made by a professional like Condi Rice.

Indeed, I was struck by how smoothe and articuate she was. I await more such encounters, but I see her handling herself better than any public official but one -- Condi Rice -- with a speaking style similar to Rice's.

So much for the concerns she might not be able to handle herself without a teleprompter. One might disagree with the positions she takes, but it is clear she can handle questioning as well as anyone in government, and with a lot less preparation.

Voters are going to come away with her answer to one question:
"I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready."
She had a steel in her eyes and voice that left no doubt of her absolute self-confidence, or that she has a command personality that we studied in Officer Training School. None of the other candidates has it. Indeed, none of our presidents since Eisenhower and perhaps Kennedy had it, and Kennedy's style was more statesman than commander-in-chief.
9.11.2008 9:11pm
cboldt (mail):
-- But Gibson asked her some stupid "gotcha" questions and also lied --
.
I find it encouraging that the majority of posts in this comment section recognize Gibson's lie, and can cite to evidence to back up the fact that Gibson is a liar. It means that media credibility sinks another notch. Way to go, media! Here's another bullet, and there's your other foot.
9.11.2008 9:13pm
DCH (www):
I thought her asking for clarification on that question was very smart, him asking it was immature at best.

I really think that strategically, Palin was an amazing choice, and that this race has been much more interesting because of it. I am not sure if this marks the end of the Palin honeymoon period (Obamas ended with Wright), but if not, it will likely end before the end of Sept.
9.11.2008 9:13pm
paul lukasiak (mail):

"His entire point of that riff was that the campaign IS NOT about him. The Post left out the important first half of the sentence, which was something along the lines of: 'It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol ... ."


I fail to see the distinction. Obama sees himself as a symbol. So when he talks about the crowds being about "the symbol" he's still talking about himself.
9.11.2008 9:14pm
Mike Keenan:

No, that was the one that best demonstrated her ability to handle gotcha questions from the MSM. She didn't fall for it. The term "Bush doctrine" is not an official term. It is a term usually used by critics of the Bush Administration, incorrectly, because it is not a new doctrine. It has been established doctrine for most of our history, and arises from the law of nations theory discussed in such works as those of Vattel. Palin patiently waited for Gibson to define what he meant, then gave the same answer that would have been made by a professional like Condi Rice.

I think we will have to disagree about this. I don't think she gave nearly as good an answer as you did!
9.11.2008 9:24pm
Lily (mail):
llamasex:

Have you seen Gibson's interview of Obama - you should go watch it - its on YouTube.

Completely different approach
9.11.2008 9:26pm
Smokey:
Well, not really, Gibson. You got that from the AP and the AP took her quote out of context. Liberal media at its best.
AKA: "Fake but accurate"?

Dan Rather would be proud of Charles Gibson. If Rather was still around, that is... anyone seen him lately? Yoo-hoo! D-A-a-a-a-n-e-e-eee...
9.11.2008 9:26pm
SKardner (mail):
9.11.2008 9:27pm
PC:
The term "Bush doctrine" is not an official term. It is a term usually used by critics of the Bush Administration, incorrectly, because it is not a new doctrine.


This is approaching SNL's unfrozen caveman lawyer sketches. Here's the Bush Doctrine. Here's a search that has a scant 890,000 hits on the Bush Doctrine. Here's an article from the leftist, think tank AEI about this mythical "Bush doctrine."

I fell into some ice and your scientists thawed me!
Your Truman Doctrine frightens and confuses me!


The Bush Doctrine has been the philosophical underpinning of the administration's foreign policy since 9/11/2001. Go over to the National Review and ask them if anyone is confused about the Bush Doctrine. Let me help.

Just because the majority of Americans are fed up with this administration doesn't mean you can start redefining things.
9.11.2008 9:27pm
Milhouse (www):
I agree that a lot of those answers could have been better. But they could have been a lot worse.
9.11.2008 9:29pm
OrinKerr:
She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

Um, can I ask, what is the Bush Doctrine? To be candid, I don't think I've heard of it before.
9.11.2008 9:29pm
Bill McGonigle (www):
I clicked on the video link and the interview was sponsored by Hugo Chavez's Citgo oil company.

Ouch, stop, it hurts!
9.11.2008 9:30pm
byomtov (mail):
Anyone who watches that and doesn't realize that Palin is an utter dingbat is delusional.
9.11.2008 9:31pm
Bored Lawyer:
I think she dealt with Gibson's out-of-context quote quite deftly:


GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side


Good to see someone not backing down to this nonsense.
9.11.2008 9:31pm
Big E:
Let's be honest, this was painful. The absolute worst part was that 90% of these questions were easily forseeable so the handlers should have prepped her better.
9.11.2008 9:31pm
Asher (mail):
I must admit, having only read the transcript, this is a lot better than I expected. Asher, was this really more painful to watch than to read?

You better believe it was. I'd compare it to watching your child deliver a commencement speech - while high on crack. But even the transcript is pretty awful. For instance:

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War.

So she's saying that living near Russia has taught her that the world is small and that we must not repeat a Cold War. I suppose the logic is that if the planet were much, much larger, we could risk hostilities with nuclear powers since their missiles wouldn't be able to reach us. Thanks to her experience living in Alaska, she's discerned that that's not the case. Moving on:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated 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.

So she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. Ah well, that's the beauty of American elections, of course. Then she got totally lost on the preemptive strike questions.
9.11.2008 9:32pm
Sarcastro (www):
Bad Orin! No Veep for you!

[These comments are much better than the interview would have been.]
9.11.2008 9:33pm
Carolina:
PC:

I had to bite my tongue to prevent writing a really nasty response, littered with expletives, to your post.

You snidely link National Review's explanation of the "Bush Doctrine" - apparently without even reading the article you linked to. Here is the quote from that article:


That doctrine, highlighted with great moral clarity a year later in “The National Security Strategy of the United States,” asserts that: “The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.”


As you will note, that bears absolutely no resemblance to the definition provided in the interview by Gibson. In other words, Jon Roland was exactly right when he posted that "Bush Doctrine" means different things to different people. In other words, Gov. Palin was exactly right to ask for clarification.
9.11.2008 9:34pm
taney71:
There is NO Bush Doctrine people. WTF is it? Google it and you get 500,000 answers.
9.11.2008 9:34pm
SecurityGeek:
This is approaching SNL's unfrozen caveman lawyer sketches.

PC wins.

BTW, Gibson was much softer in this interviewer than during that incredible debate, where every stupid Fox News framing device was thrown out (Flag Pins???).

Prediction: you won't see another real press interview of Palin for quite a while. The Republicans will use the existence of this multi-day ABC-interview-palooza as cover to send her back into the bunker between fund raisers and rallies. The issue is not that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine is, the cringe inducing pause before she baits him to use it in a sentence speaks volumes. She needs more gotcha training.
9.11.2008 9:35pm
Milhouse (www):
"Here's the Bush Doctrine." No, that's a Wikipedia article.

"Here's a search that has a scant 890,000 hits on the Bush Doctrine." And yet nobody seems completely sure of what it is.

"Here's an article from the leftist, think tank AEI about this mythical 'Bush doctrine'". And is their definition the same as Gibson's?

"The Bush Doctrine has been the philosophical underpinning of the administration's foreign policy since 9/11/2001." And yet there is no one definition of it. She was smart to make Gibson define it for her before answering.
9.11.2008 9:35pm
OrinKerr:
Anyone who watches that and doesn't realize that Palin is an utter dingbat is delusional.

Well, I guess I am delusional, at least based on the transcript and the clips I saw. Byomtov, can you articulate for me why I am delusional?
9.11.2008 9:35pm
Bored Lawyer:
Let me ask a side question. Gibson defined the "bush Doctrine" to mean anticipatory self-defense -- that we have the right to strike a country that we believe is about to strike us.

Does Gibson really believe that Bush invented that? No precedents in history or international law before George W Bush came on the scense?

For that matter, is it at all controversial?
9.11.2008 9:37pm
PC:
Um, can I ask, what is the Bush Doctrine? To be candid, I don't think I've heard of it before.


That is actually a bit surprising. Besides the links in my previous post, you can check on AEI's site. The White House's website has some resources too.

I had no idea that so many people were unfamiliar with or confused about the Bush Doctrine. It has been a common term in discussing the Bush administration's foreign policy approach since at least mid-2003.
9.11.2008 9:38pm
Smokey:
For those questioning why we should support the Georgians, this book review from last month's Economist magazine might be worth reading:



Chained ghosts

Aug 7th 2008

The Economist



The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia

By Tim Tzouliadis


[Long excerpt deleted by OK. Smokey, if you want us to read an article, just link to it or tell us the URL; don't cut and paste it here.]



I like Governor Palin's willingness to take a moral stand. It contrasts well with 0's wishy-washy refusal to take a stand on anything, except a nebulous, undefined "change."
9.11.2008 9:38pm
SMatthewStolte (mail):
The interview felt awkward. She didn't answer the experience question well. Why didn't she mention that the Alaska state budget is about $2.9 billion, and that she had to work against an entrenched, corrupt bureaucracy to push through major ethics reforms and a major natural gas pipeline? Why, when asked about meeting with foreign leaders, didn't she figure out a way to note that her experience demonstrates a courage that Barack Obama, who has never even stood up against his own party, has never shown? Obviously, she couldn't use those exact words, but still …

And she seemed bellicose.

The editing on that interview was a bad distraction, as well. They kept cutting things off sharply, making me wonder what happened in between. Did she try to answer correctly and then start over?

damn.
9.11.2008 9:38pm
taney71:

Let me ask a side question. Gibson defined the "bush Doctrine" to mean anticipatory self-defense -- that we have the right to strike a country that we believe is about to strike us.

Does Gibson really believe that Bush invented that? No precedents in history or international law before George W Bush came on the scense?

For that matter, is it at all controversial?


No, but what is the truth to the media who wants Obama to win?
9.11.2008 9:39pm
taney71:

The editing on that interview was a bad distraction, as well. They kept cutting things off sharply, making me wonder what happened in between. Did she try to answer correctly and then start over?


Do you really think ABC, CBS, or NBC would make a friendly edit for a Republican?
9.11.2008 9:40pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
Mike Keenan:

I think we will have to disagree about this. I don't think she gave nearly as good an answer as you did!

Thanks, but that is not what I would said in a similar interview situation to a lay audience. I have been in many interview situations, most notably by Stone Phillips for Dateline NBC airing April 25, 1995. Stone hit me with several gotcha questions, too, and a producer later commended me as being "well spoken", which I learned meant "You handled all the gotcha questions and never once said anything that could be used to discredit you taken out of context." Aristotle didn't mention that as a part of Rhetoric.

It is unreasonable to expect Palin to be a constitutional scholar and quote Vattel. I don't know many constitutional law professors who can do that. :)
9.11.2008 9:45pm
Anderson (mail):
Um, can I ask, what is the Bush Doctrine? To be candid, I don't think I've heard of it before.

Prof. Kerr just lost *my* vote.

Seriously, people. If you keep up with foreign policy at all, you know what this is.

Palin is a bright woman. Had she known what Gibson was talking about, she could've gone with the aspect she liked.

Or she could've shown off: "Well, Charlie, are you talking about preemptive war, or are you talking about democracy promotion?"

She is a good enough debater to have done that, had she known WTF he was talking about.

She just didn't know. No one in McCainland probably thought they had to explain THAT to her. Oops.

And it's not a gotcha question. Gibson didn't expect her not to know WHAT THE TERM MEANT. Read the transcript. He's startled, and then actually has to correct her ("No, it's ....")

Gibson is NOT A "GOTCHA" INTERVIEWER. That's why McCain's people went with him.

(Leaving aside Palin's quaint notion that NATO is about declaring economic sanctions on those who attack your fellow NATO members. Lovely. Just the security that Poland et al. were looking for. There are going to be some sober faces in eastern European capitals tomorrow.)
9.11.2008 9:46pm
PC:
Yes, yes. This amorphous "Bush doctrine" that no one has ever really heard of before. It's all so confusing!
After 9/11, President Bush decided that the artificial distinction between the terrorists and their sponsors could no longer be allowed to stand. The Bush doctrine makes clear that states supporting terrorists or providing sanctuary for terrorists will be deemed just as guilty as the terrorists themselves of the acts they commit. If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
-- Vice President Dick Cheney, June 16, 2003
The Bush Doctrine asserts that states supporting terrorists, or providing sanctuary for terrorists, will be deemed just as guilty of crimes as the terrorists themselves. If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
-- Vice President Dick Cheney, May 31, 2003
Anyone need more cites?
9.11.2008 9:46pm
Smokey:
Well, folks, the choice is clear:

Governor Sarah Palin, or Senator Obama.
9.11.2008 9:47pm
c.f.w. (mail):
The "god's plan" quote was not lied about, in my view. She meant to say what we do in Iraq is per her god's plan. Listening to the video, in a church, it does not jump out as all that remarkable. But she is not using the Lincoln approach - that we are hoping we are acting per her god's will. That is not the SP "pit bull with lipstick" or "I am an OCS-trained commander" approach. She is not always right, but never in doubt.

The stuff about going to war with Russia over Georgia is batshit crazy. The fact that it is McCain who is the lead nut there is not any excuse for SP taking that approach. She adds nothing to the dim bulb that is McCain on foreign policy. Blind leading the blind.

Bush Doctrine is not vague or ambiguous - a bit obscure. Like the Monroe doctrine, only probably more discredited. She did alright in saying fill me in on what doctrine we are discussing here. Then did right in not clearly defending it as a good idea.

Claiming Georgia was victim of an unprovoked attack is SP highlighting the prevaricator in SP. Fine for campaigning, maybe, in this day and age. Not ok for managing money or acting as a VP.

By the way, did anyone ever ask her when she found out what a VP does? I thought she admitted she had no idea a few months ago. Maybe Gibson will ask later in the interview.

She deserves tough questions, having been sequestered for 7-10 days. BO has faced lots of as-tough stuff, such as from O'R.

Truman may have been pretty clueless when he was made VP but at least he did not try to claim foreign policy experience based on Russia being 50 miles from an Aleutian island. Sheesh. Talk about shameless puffing of the resume....

Count me unconvinced.
9.11.2008 9:48pm
Syd Henderson (mail):

GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.


Sounds like the desire of the nation is to not elect John McCain.
9.11.2008 9:49pm
Anderson (mail):
N.b. the connection here. If you support terrorists, you're guilty of terrorism -- even if you haven't actually sponsored any terrorist attacks vs. the U.S.

That's how what Cheney describes above morphs into preventive war (Gibson said "preemptive" but that's not really right -- it's a common confusion however.)

Saddam's ties to terrorists were trivial compared to Syria's or Iran's, but he MIGHT have built WMD's and then he MIGHT have given those to terrorists. Hence, we had to invade Iraq.
9.11.2008 9:51pm
OrinKerr:
PC,

It seems that Cheney gave those speeches over five years ago: I don't remember the phrase from back then, and just don't recall hearing it.

I do remember the idea that those who harbor terrorists are just as guilty as the terrorists; that is, if you're not with us, you're against us. Is that what the Bush Doctrine means? (I'm not trying to be argumentative: I genuinely don't recall the phrase, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.)
9.11.2008 9:52pm
cboldt (mail):
-- Gibson is NOT A "GOTCHA" INTERVIEWER. --
.
He is when he misrepresents the interviewee's own statements by omitting relevant context.
.
If his subject isn't answering the question he wants answered (e.g., the Bush Doctrine question) then he can be quick enough on his feet to clarify or restate the question.
9.11.2008 9:52pm
Anderson (mail):
The stuff about going to war with Russia over Georgia is batshit crazy.

Well said. Except she backed down to "economic sanctions." Which have always deterred Russia from aggression before, obviously. Remember how they turned &fled from Afghanistan once we imposed those?

McCain's plan evidently is to water down NATO to a prize you get for becoming a democracy. Kind of like a toaster.
9.11.2008 9:53pm
Anderson (mail):
I don't remember the phrase from back then, and just don't recall hearing it.

You're also not running for vice-president.

Why do people have this notion of "well, shoot, if *I* haven't heard of it, then how important can it be, really"?

Human nature, I guess.
9.11.2008 9:55pm
Randy R. (mail):
"GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

When her actual quote was:

“That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

No it wasn't. Her actual quote is this:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

So what, exactly, did Gibson say that was different from Palin's actual quote? That the original is conditional (that she HOPES there is a plan by God and that we are following it), and the Gibson quote, in which she assumes that there is a plan from God.

Well, both actually do assume that there is a God, and that God usually has plans for these sorts of things, and our task is to find out what that plan is so that we are following it, not contradicting it.

I find that rather scary, since we have already had eight years of a president who thinks along the same lines.

And by the way, her wish was of course wrong. As we now know, there in fact was no plan for our soldeirs.
9.11.2008 9:55pm
jamminy:
A link to the national security strategy of 2002. It's about as close to an official Bush Doctrine as you can get...
9.11.2008 9:55pm
dr:
Maybe this is just feeding my own acknowledged preconceived notions, but I'd agree that she didn't come off well, based on what I've read/seen. I don't think she seemed like a "dingbat," she just seemed way out of her comfort zone -- she looked to me like someone who's interviewing for a job she's not qualified for, frantically scrambling for the "right" answer. She comes off as having told us everything she knows about each subject, and then some. Which is to say, she comes off as someone who spent two weeks cramming hard for the bar, but never actually went to law school.

I want the people in that position to know way, way more than they can tell me in an interview like that. I do not get that sense from her. At all.

I do agree that the clipping of her "task from God" quote is unfair. I also agree that the clipping of Obama's "I am a symbol" quote is unfair. And I think that anyone who doesn't see that parallel, plain as day, is unfair.
9.11.2008 9:56pm
Bored Lawyer:
PC:

Unfortunately, it seems that Charley Gibson, the questioner himself, has a different understanding of what the "Bush Doctrine" means than your quotes from Cheney:


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 other country that we think is going to attack us.


So it seems that there are at least two working definitions out there.

And I am still astounded that Gibson believes that there is anything controversial about that definition.

How about we ask this of Barack Obama:

Do you agree or disagree with the following idea:
"we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us?"

Does anyone in his right mind believe that any politician would say no?
9.11.2008 9:57pm
Anderson (mail):
Matt Yglesias on "preemptive" vs. "preventive":

Interestingly, Sarah Palin seems to have outlined a sensible “imminent threat” standard for preemptive military action. It would have been nice for Charlie Gibson to point out that George W. Bush and John McCain agree that this is the wrong standard and we have the right to use military force unilaterally even where there isn’t an imminent threat. I think Palin’s view is sensible, so it would be interesting to learn her opinion of her running mate’s much less sensible view.

Dream of the Yglesias-Palin interview, my friends. Dream of it.
9.11.2008 9:57pm
OrinKerr:
Prof. Kerr just lost *my* vote. Seriously, people. If you keep up with foreign policy at all, you know what this is.

Anderson,

I admit I haven't read Foreign Policy in a while. By coincidence, I almost bought the latest issue on the newstand today when I was out for dinner (provocative cover of the latest issue grabbed my attention) but I didn't.
9.11.2008 9:58pm
Carolina:
PC, are you even reading what you are posting?

This is what Gibson said:


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 other country that we think is going to attack us.


This is what Cheney said, in your quote:


After 9/11, President Bush decided that the artificial distinction between the terrorists and their sponsors could no longer be allowed to stand. The Bush doctrine makes clear that states supporting terrorists or providing sanctuary for terrorists will be deemed just as guilty as the terrorists themselves of the acts they commit. If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.



These are not the same thing.


What Gibson describes is a first-strike policy. Get them before they get us. What Cheney is describing is countries that support terrorists are terrorists themselves.

If you cannot see that these are two different concepts, I don't know how else to explain it.
9.11.2008 9:59pm
Anderson (mail):
So it seems that there are at least two working definitions out there.

Sure. But had she known what Gibson was talking about, she could've scored points: "Well, Charlie, are you talking about treating sponsors of terrorists as terrorists themselves, or do you have in mind preventive war against nations that pose a threat to our children's very lives?"

And she would've looked really smart, and impressed people &stuff like that.

Except she didn't have a clue what he was talking about. "His worldview." Damn.
9.11.2008 10:00pm
cboldt (mail):
-- did Gibson say that was different from Palin's actual quote? --
.
Gibson implied that Palin's exhortation was founded on an assumption that the US military is on a mission from God. She clarified it by referencing the distinction that Lincoln made, and stating that she doesn't speak for God, or know His will.
9.11.2008 10:00pm
OrinKerr:
Anderson,

Re: your 8:55 comment, there's really no need to imagine I said something I didn't say, and then wonder how I could say it. Your snippiness is "human nature, I guess."
9.11.2008 10:01pm
Simon P:
[Deleted by OK on civility grounds]
9.11.2008 10:01pm
Anderson (mail):
If you cannot see that these are two different concepts, I don't know how else to explain it.

You and Sarah Palin both, evidently.

It's not like she gently took Gibson to task, "now Charlie, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the Bush Doctrine."

She had never heard of it.
9.11.2008 10:01pm
Jmaie (mail):
AEI is leftist?
9.11.2008 10:02pm
taney71:
What is crazy about not having on the table the choice of attacking every country? Of course, we are probably not going to war with England or France or Russia but I think the next president cannot rule it out.
9.11.2008 10:02pm
Cornellian (mail):

I like Governor Palin's willingness to take a moral stand [re Georgia].


I liked it better when the Republican party said the American military was not the world's 911 number. Then at some point the ghost of Woodrow Wilson took over the party and somehow we're now obliged to put our soldiers on the line to oppose tyranny wherever it occurs.
9.11.2008 10:04pm
Bored Lawyer:
Anderson, except you are assuming that the words "Bush Doctrine" have some significant meaning, like "the Monroe Doctrine" or the "Brezhnev Doctrine." They don't. I am not a professor of politics or foreign relations, but I am fairly well read on the subject. I have rarely heard or read that phrase. Had you asked me about the Bush Doctrine, I might have guessed at one of a few possibilities related to terrorism, but I certainly would not have been able to give all the working definitions given here.
9.11.2008 10:04pm
Anderson (mail):
Your snippiness is "human nature, I guess."

Human, all-too-human: guilty as charged!

But I apologize -- I really had various commenters above in mind, &should have quoted them instead of acting like readers could telepathically tell what I meant. Blog commenting is an imprecise means of communication.
9.11.2008 10:04pm
PC:
Prof. Kerr:
I do remember the idea that those who harbor terrorists are just as guilty as the terrorists; that is, if you're not with us, you're against us. Is that what the Bush Doctrine means?


Going after states that harbor terrorists is certainly one aspect of the Bush Doctrine. Here's a good article explaining the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, Spread of Democracy.

I wouldn't expect Gov. Palin to be able to know all aspects of the Bush Doctrine (no blue book in the interviews), but I'm surprised that so many people are unfamiliar with the doctrine that has been driving US foreign policy since 9/11.
9.11.2008 10:05pm
Anderson (mail):
but I am fairly well read on the subject. I have rarely heard or read that phrase

I don't know what you've been reading, but as other comments above make clear, it is a *very* common term in discussing the rationale (or rationalization) of Bush's foreign policy. Really.

-- Okay, must study medical records now. I don't want to look like Sarah Palin at the depositions tomorrow.
9.11.2008 10:06pm
OrinKerr:
Thanks, PC. I'm familiar with the concepts: Just not the label "Bush Doctrine."
9.11.2008 10:07pm
trad and anon:
Now we can all breathe a sigh of relief. After the posts about 18 U.S.C. § 242, the militia, blogging about minor misconduct, the arrest of an Iranian legal scholar, assertion of constitutional rights as cause for suspicion, how an Obama administration would select federal judges, political donations by lawyers, Supreme Court opinions borrowing from the briefs, and the politics of abortion, I was beginning to worry that Sarah Palin was going to disappear from this blog.
9.11.2008 10:07pm
Justin (mail):
Orin, the Bush doctrine has been mentioned 18 times on this blog, including several times by commenters in comment threads you were active in, and by Eugene Volokh, Bernstein, Somin, and Adler. I'm honestly surprised you don't know what it is.
9.11.2008 10:07pm
OrinKerr:
Justin,

Maybe I should pretend I know what it is to be with the cool kids, but I was just being honest: I know the policies but didn't realize that these were common labels (or at least somewhat common labels) for those policies. I knew I should have spent more time on VC comment threads in the past few years..... ;-)
9.11.2008 10:12pm
Smokey:
Gibson demands an 'interpretation' of a vague phrase:
GIBSON: ...Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No. The Bush doctrine...
So here we have an interviewer personally arguing with someone's interpretation of a vague phrase, which has been defined countless different ways, like the exact definition of 'neocon.'

Someone call the MSM BIAS police!! We found the perp. His name's Gibson.
9.11.2008 10:12pm
Asher (mail):

GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.



Sounds like the desire of the nation is to not elect John McCain.


Yeah, that was very odd. Doesn't she get that the whole message of her campaign is that McCain has a big, fat resume and Obama has a tiny, thin one?

I should say, I agree that her comments about God's will or whatever were taken out of context, and she actually gave a sensible, articulate answer on that point. But besides that, she didn't have a clue. No matter how committed a Republican you are, her choice has to give you pause.
9.11.2008 10:13pm
SKardner (mail):
Um, can I ask, what is the Bush Doctrine? To be candid, I don't think I've heard of it before.





Wikipedia has the answer. The Bush loyalists who prepped Sarah Palin had the answer, too, but apparently they didn't tell it to her.
9.11.2008 10:13pm
trad and anon:
Incidentally, I still love Orin Kerr's suggestions for questions:

What is the European Union, and how does it function?

What is the function of the Federal Reserve?

What they really ought to do is sequester the candidates simultaneously and ask them a bunch of questions like those.
9.11.2008 10:13pm
10ksnooker (mail):
Wouldn't it be nice if someone would ask Obama half these direct questions?

Sarah did fine, a little nervous but OK ... Surly above the low expectations that Obamanauts had hoped for.
9.11.2008 10:14pm
JosephSlater (mail):
I can imagine a Republican/conservative reasonably deciding to vote for McCain because s/he thinks that McCain will work for Republican/conservative policies (whatever that means these days). I honestly have trouble imagining anybody comfortable or confident with the prospect of Palin becoming president or even being an influential VP.
9.11.2008 10:14pm
trad and anon:
I thought the Bush Doctrine was that the United States is entitled to wage a preemptive war in the absence of an imminent threat and without the support of international institutions like NATO or the UN Security Council, in order to disarm our enemies, overthrow tyrants, and prevent threats from developing in the possibly near but non-imminent future.
9.11.2008 10:16pm
Arkady:
I think, though, that we'll all agree that if Ukraine and Georgia were inducted into Nato, and if the Russians showed their ass, as my grandmother would have put it, we would need a helluva lot bigger army than we have now.
9.11.2008 10:17pm
trad and anon:
Incidentally, I still love Orin Kerr's suggestions for questions:

Correction: Tyler Cowen's suggestions.
9.11.2008 10:17pm
Hoosier:
"Adam K:

Wow, that's a bad idea. Other than the above part, seemed about normal. Still the idea of Georgia in NATO is scary as hell because Georgia has already provoked Russia (not that Russia's response was justified) when they weren't in NATO. If we let them in NATO its either a very horrible outcome or egg on America's face.


If only some former president, general and statesman had cautioned against such long-term foreign military alliances..."

Washington's Farewell Address: Cited by many, read by almost none. That's not what he said.

"Anderson
Um, can I ask, what is the Bush Doctrine? To be candid, I don't think I've heard of it before.

Prof. Kerr just lost *my* vote.

Seriously, people. If you keep up with foreign policy at all, you know what this is. "

I was surprised by her answer. But I don't agree that people who keep up with foreign policy know "what it means." There has been a significant shift in the approach of the administration toward grand strategy planning. Naturally, since the Iraq invasion showed what can happen when you adopt these sorts of a priori "doctrines" without regard to the different circumstances you find among countries, even those within the same region.

The Bush Doctrine was, initially, a reworking of the Carter Doctrine to include a rather Wilsonian view of the sort of world that America would like to see emerge. Oops.

*Is there* a "Bush Doctrine" now? It's not clear to me that there is.

I have read the interview, but not watched it. I'll want to see her response before trying to guess whether she had actually not heard of the Bush Doctrine, or whether she was trying to avoid the trap of rejecting it--and sounding anti-Bush-- or accepting it--and sounding like Bush.
9.11.2008 10:18pm
paul lukasiak (mail):
I always thought that the Bush Doctrine was "I'm Commander in Chief, so I'll do whatever I damn well please".

The simple fact is that the "Bush Doctrine" is uncodified and as such, does not exist. Its more a creation of the media and the foreign policy establishment that was desperately trying to create a rational framework for Bush's egomaniacal foreign policy. I mean, its not like Bush understands all the implications of national security, foreign policy and military doctrine that is necessary for the formulation of a new "Doctrine". Bush did what he felt like doing, and other people tried to find a way to make sense of it.
9.11.2008 10:19pm
Simon P:
I think Palin did well. She played to her strengths -- strong on foreign policy, strong on what this next presidency needs to be about. To the extent that Gibson focused on her lack of experience (and unfairly so, I might add), I think that she made her case well (at least as well as Obama, a former state senator for a land-locked state, would have).

The interview doesn't go so well when Gibson becomes an Obama shill -- I mean, the quizzing on the Bush Doctrine? The heavy emphasis on the "mission from God"? I mean, anyone with any sense knows what she meant when she led that prayer, and I think she explained it well in the interview, but still, couldn't Gibson have done better than to just parrot the liberal media line?

I'd love to see Obama face similar scrutiny. I don't think we've ever gotten a straight answer for why he stayed in Wright's church, or what happened to that CAC money, or what his relationship with Ayers really is. I suppose that might be because it would amount to a very lengthy interview!

Anyway, I thought it was a good interview. We have to remember that this is about the top of the ticket, and I don't mind that Palin may have to apprentice a bit under McCain. She's bright; she'll pick it up as she goes, and she'll improvise along the way -- maybe in the process bringing something genuinely new to the table!
9.11.2008 10:20pm
trad and anon:
I can imagine a Republican/conservative reasonably deciding to vote for McCain because s/he thinks that McCain will work for Republican/conservative policies (whatever that means these days).
Well, after McCain is elected, McCain's policies will be the Republican Party's policies. Whether he'll work for conservative policies depends on how you define "conservative," but he'll definitely work for more generally right-wing policies than Obama will, unless you're the sort who thinks Bush is a liberal because he's jacked up spending.
9.11.2008 10:20pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Trad and anon:

Oh yeah, I agree. My main point was about Palin.
9.11.2008 10:24pm
Hoosier:
//trad and anon:
Incidentally, I still love Orin Kerr's suggestions for questions:

What is the European Union, and how does it function? //

Well, that one isn't fair, since the EU doesn't seem to know.

I wrote their communications office because I couldn't figure out how the role of EU Commissioner of foreign relations differed from the role of EU foreign minister. The first response I got just indicated that they worked for different organs of the EU.

I responded thanking them, but saying that I had already figured out that they had offices in separate buildings (I was more tactful, naturally). My question was how do I figure out who does what?

The next reply was a real keeper: Yes, it is difficult to understand these complicated procedures. This has een the cause of much discussion in Brussells. This is why they will e abolishing the office of Commisioner for Foreign Relations. This will simplify things. Etc.

Thus, the answer from Brussells: WE don't know either, so we are going to fire Chris Patten.

I didn't find this reassuring. But I don't think Biden or McCain would know, so Obama and Palin might want to dodge such questions as well.
9.11.2008 10:25pm
Nate in Alice:
I thought she did terrible. The Bush doctrine question was the weakest part, at least to me, because she seemed condescending at the same time that she was out of her league, and it was really quite unattractive.

On a side note: Charlie gibson is a conservative. Stop slandering him by calling him a liberal. He wasn't half as tough on Palin as he was on Obama in Philadelphia, and who here is still under the impression that Obama never gets tough questions?

He's answered ridiculous "gotcha" questions about the views of every other prominent African-American in debates and interviews for 2 years.
9.11.2008 10:31pm
WilliamWallace:
Sarah Palin knocked another one out of the park! Her interview was outstanding, despite the fact that Gibson was behaving as a condescending weasel. She was poignant, direct, clear and unflappable.

She is an amazing woman, and Gibson was clearly upset that he couldn't shake her.

Way to go PALIN!!
9.11.2008 10:32pm
J. Aldridge:
Pretty obvious Gibson had no idea what the Bush doctrine was either - bet he has no idea what the Washington doctrine was either.
9.11.2008 10:33pm
PC:
The simple fact is that the "Bush Doctrine" is uncodified and as such, does not exist. Its more a creation of the media and the foreign policy establishment that was desperately trying to create a rational framework for Bush's egomaniacal foreign policy.


The Bush Doctrine has been around as an approach to foreign policy since at least 1997, but it wasn't labeled as the Bush Doctrine until President Bush adopted it as his own. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have used the term "Bush Doctrine" to describe the administration's foreign policy.
9.11.2008 10:33pm
SKardner (mail):
She was poignant, direct, clear and unflappable.

Easy to do when you aren't saying anything.
9.11.2008 10:33pm
taney71:

She was poignant, direct, clear and unflappable.

Easy to do when you aren't saying anything.


If you didn't say "she" I would have thought you were talking about Obama.

Change, change, change. He says a lot without saying anything.
9.11.2008 10:35pm
Obvious (mail):
Orin asks byomtov:

Anyone who watches that and doesn't realize that Palin is an utter dingbat is delusional.

Well, I guess I am delusional, at least based on the transcript and the clips I saw. Byomtov, can you articulate for me why I am delusional?
----
Well, to be fair, Orin, that IS a challenge when talking to someone who IS delusional...

:-)
9.11.2008 10:35pm
Smokey:
trad and anon:
I thought the Bush Doctrine was that the United States is entitled to wage a preemptive war in the absence of an imminent threat and without the support of international institutions like NATO or the UN Security Council, in order to disarm our enemies, overthrow tyrants, and prevent threats from developing in the possibly near but non-imminent future.
That's as good as any definition floating around.

Governor Palin answered Gibson perfectly: the Bush doctrine is Bush's world view. The fact that Gibson argued with her, after requesting her interpretation, reveals his failed ambition as "Charlie Gotcha." Nice try there, Charlie, but you were outmaneuvered.

paul lukasiak is correct:
I always thought that the Bush Doctrine was "I'm Commander in Chief, so I'll do whatever I damn well please".

The simple fact is that the "Bush Doctrine" is uncodified and as such, does not exist.
Gibson came across as a heavily partisan fool who was easily outwitted by a lady who is a lot sharper than he is.
9.11.2008 10:36pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
PC:

The Bush Doctrine asserts that states supporting terrorists, or providing sanctuary for terrorists, will be deemed just as guilty of crimes as the terrorists themselves.
-- Vice President Dick Cheney, May 31, 2003

And that is not the definition Gibson provided, that it asserts a right of pre-emptive attack.

The ancient doctrine of the law of nations includes the position that a state is to be responsible for the actions of people operating from its territory, and the position that a nation may act in self-defense, not just against attack, but a credible threat. See Grotius, Bynkershoek, and Burlamaqui. These principles were codified by, among other things, the Peace of Westphalia.

The importance of asserting this principle, long accepted by Western nations, is that is not accepted by many non-
Western nations. A nation like Pakistan claims the privileges and obligations of nationhood, but refuses to take full responsibility for the actions of people operating from its territory, or if it is unable to control warlike activities in its "Federally Administered Tribal Areas" or other territories, its obligation to allow foreign forces to act there. It is not a violation of their sovereignty if they aren't sovereign there.

I have maintained for some time that a nation that can't control its claimed territory should divest itself of the claim and allow international intervention into the divested rogue state without a functioning government. Pakistan needs to just recognize Waziristan and the FATA as a new state and let it fend for itself.
9.11.2008 10:36pm
Nate in Alice:
Please, can we all just admit Sarah Palin doesn't read Foreign Policy magazine.

Here's a "fun" quote from someone who may one day be the leader of the free world:

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
9.11.2008 10:38pm
Nate in Alice:
Please, can we all just admit Sarah Palin doesn't read Foreign Policy magazine.

Here's a "fun" quote from someone who may one day be the leader of the free world:

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
9.11.2008 10:38pm
Nate in Alice:
Please, can we all just admit Sarah Palin doesn't read Foreign Policy magazine.

Here's a "fun" quote from someone who may one day be the leader of the free world:

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
9.11.2008 10:38pm
byomtov (mail):
can you articulate for me why I am delusional?

No. Explaining to delusional people why they are delusional is not something I know how to do. Ask a psychiatrist.

Look, Orin. I know you're a McCain supporter, though I can't imagine why, and hence you have an interest in defending Palin. But look at the interview. This woman doesn't even understand the questions she's being asked. She's got a few slogans and talking points in her head and that's it.

As I've said before, the GOP myth-making machine is working at full force here, with zero regard for the facts. If you want to buy it do so. But don't expect to be taken seriously.

She sold the jet at a profit on eBay. She was against the bridge. She fought Stevens. She never meant to censor the library. She knows all about Russia because of the Bering Strait. She knows all about the military because of the Alaska National Guard, etc. Swallow it all, Orin. Go ahead. Like I said, I lack the expertise to understand why people believe this BS.
9.11.2008 10:41pm
David Warner:
Overall I think it was fine, especially with the media (again) shooting itself in the foot with the misquoting. When will they learn that internet != Kos?

She did miss the Bush Doctrine though, then followed it up by missing the "Imminent Threat" argument. Which is fine. She has plenty of time to get up to speed on that stuff. Her ability to focus on the interests of her state speaks well of her ability to focus on the interests of our country when called upon.
9.11.2008 10:43pm
Nate in Alice:
I wouldn't be so sure Orin is a McCain supporter. Somewhere, there is a see-saw, and the civil liberties side is getting rather light, so much so that the delicate libertarian balance is being thrown off-whack.

He'll vote for Obama.
9.11.2008 10:45pm
Smokey:
"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
And what's wrong with that? She certainly didn't say she wasn't paying any attention to anything else.

Newsflash for Nate: Governor Palin is doing exactly what she was elected to do. And it's a lot more relevant to the job of VP than 0bama's pathetic stint in the senate is to being president.
9.11.2008 10:47pm
Jane (mail):

Count me unconvinced.


I am unimpressed when people who don't want to be convinced tell me they are unconvinced.
9.11.2008 10:48pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
c.f.w. (mail):

foreign policy experience based on Russia being 50 miles from an Aleutian island.

Little Diomede Island (Alaska) is 2.4 miles from Big Diomede Island (Russia). It can be seen on the horizon. There is regular air service between Alaska and Russia, and their fishing boats regularly put in to one another's ports, get help if they get in trouble, etc. Russian military aircraft often overfly Alaska and have U.S. jets, including Alaskan Air National Guard planes, scramble to intercept them. Native Inuit proples, related to one another, regularly visit one another across national boundaries. There are issues involving oil exploration in the territorial claims of the two countries in the Arctic.
9.11.2008 10:49pm
PC:
Governor Palin answered Gibson perfectly: the Bush doctrine is Bush's world view.


No it is not. Unless Gov. George W. Bush was formulating foreign policy back in 1997, President Bush adopted the Bush Doctrine as the policy his administration was going to follow after the 9/11 attacks.
9.11.2008 10:50pm
OrinKerr:
byomtov,

You seem to come into these questions with a sense that there is only one right answer, and it's obviously yours (so much that one who disagrees with you is an "utter dingbat.") Perhaps it is better for us to agree to disagree.
9.11.2008 10:51pm
Nate in Alice:
Smokey:

If she doesn't have the intellectual rigor to run the 48th Least populated state AND read the papers on a regular basis....then we're in deep trouble.

If she's just not that interested in a war her son will soon be fighting in....then we're in deep trouble.

Either way you slice it, she's a LIGHT WEIGHT.
9.11.2008 10:52pm
Orson Buggeigh:
An adequate interview. Northing that I saw reading the transcript made me feel that she has said anything that will radically change opinions. The people who strongly object to her views are not likely to come away from this interview with a changed perspective, and those who strongly support her aren't going to see any reasons to change their opinion.

I think she proved to be competent for the job. The claim that she is not qualified to be Vice President or President seems out of line - unless one considers the Democratic candidate to be equally unqualified to serve in the post he has been nominated for. The interview struck me as being much less sympathetic to her than the one Gibson did with Obama, but I am not comparing the transcripts side by side, and am functioning from memory only in the case of the Obama interview.

Short comment - nothing great, nothing devastating. She performed well, but the interview probably won't change minds. The next six weeks will be more of the same.
9.11.2008 10:53pm
taney71:
Well, Politico just came out saying Palin held her own. Will be interesting to see what the other media outlets say.
9.11.2008 10:58pm
MQuinn:
Sarcasto said:


Republicans: Magnificent! I'm in love with the Saracuda!

Democrats: Wow, that was awful! She's so dumb, I'm never voting for McCain now!

This is both the funniest and most enlightening comment on this thread. I recognize 90% of the names on this thread; before I read the text of a comment, I can accurately predict the conclusion reached in the comment by only reading the commenter's name (and I am sure many can do that with respect to my comments as well).

This leads to an interesting question: what purpose do these arguments have (besides serving as great entertainment)?
9.11.2008 11:00pm
Wow... just wow:
She did horrible. I mean... just horrible. I'm just in shock. I was a fence sitter before, but this has made it clear that McCain has made a tremendous mistake.

Even giving her the benefit of the doubt on the God quote (which for all the comments doesn't really seem THAT out of context-she did say it and she chose to respond) and for the multiple interpretations of the Bush Doctrine (she didn't pick really either proffered here), she came across horribly.

Angry and assertive doesn't get you far when you have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, she obviously a quick study of the McCain talking points, but it wasn't genuine. Ugh.

Anyone trying to defend her have much more tolerance for incompetence than I do. We're only like 4 months away from the next presidency and she needs to cook for about another 4 years--at least.
9.11.2008 11:00pm
SeaLawyer:

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

Wow, that's a bad idea. Other than the above part, seemed about normal. Still the idea of Georgia in NATO is scary as hell because Georgia has already provoked Russia (not that Russia's response was justified) when they weren't in NATO. If we let them in NATO its either a very horrible outcome or egg on America's face.


What is so bad about standing up to the Russians? We (Americans) have been doing that my entire lifetime. If a bully wants your lunch money you punch him the face.
9.11.2008 11:00pm
Michael Edward McNeil (mail) (www):
Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy advocate NATO membership for not only Georgia but Ukraine as well. As Sarkozy put it earlier this year: “On Georgia and Ukraine, we don’t accept any veto by anyone. These two countries are destined to join NATO.” And as Merkel said, speaking just three weeks ago: “Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to — and it does want to.”

So, golly gee, I guess Sarah Palin is just as “scary” as the leaders of France and Germany.

Meanwhile, the naivete of folks who are still embracing wholesale the Neo-Russian Empire's version of events is perhaps touching, but (useful) foolish. People might like to check out this recent article by Michael Totten, reporting on the ground in Georgia, for insights in this regard.

However, even without those on-the-ground facts, it's still quite clear that it wasn't merely a matter of Georgia “provoking” the Russian response, because it's frankly militarily impossible for Russia to have responded to a “provocation” with an overwhelming force of thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks in a matter of a few hours unless those forces were already in place ready to go on a hair trigger with orders in hand, if not already in motion. In other words, the Georgians could easily see the Russian invasion force gathering as an imminent threat (which, oddly enough, has been already mentioned as a legitimate casus belli up above).
9.11.2008 11:02pm
MQuinn:

byomtov,

You seem to come into these questions with a sense that there is only one right answer, and it's obviously yours (so much that one who disagrees with you is an "utter dingbat.")

This is hardly a unique attitude.
9.11.2008 11:04pm
Milhouse (www):
Nate, since when is the difficulty of running a state proportional to its population? I'm guessing that your name tells us where you live; do you really think running the NT is less than half as complicated as running Tasmania, and 30 times less complicated than running NSW?
9.11.2008 11:05pm
trad and anon:
This is both the funniest and most enlightening comment on this thread. I recognize 90% of the names on this thread; before I read the text of a comment, I can accurately predict the conclusion reached in the comment by only reading the commenter's name (and I am sure many can do that with respect to my comments as well).
The Palin-Biden debate will be the same way. Obama supporters will claim that Biden trounced Palin and proved her to be an ignorant lightweight, and McCain supporters will claim that Palin proved herself by defeating Biden, vastly exceeding expectations in the process.

This leads to an interesting question: what purpose do these arguments have (besides serving as great entertainment)?
They have another purpose?
9.11.2008 11:07pm
Brian K (mail):
where were all of you guys complaining about taking palin's quote out of context the last time lindgren or bernstein* took one of obama's quotes out of context? i guess it's too much to expect consistency from a political hack.



*it saddens me to lump these two together. lindgren started out on this blog as a fairly nonpartisan blogger like EV or OK but fairly quickly devolved into a partisan shrill like DB.
9.11.2008 11:07pm
Nate in Alice:
Milhouse,

Cute, but totally missing my point. I don't think any state in the U.S. is so difficult to run that the governor can't keep up with at least the major news events pertaining to Iraq.
9.11.2008 11:09pm
Milhouse (www):
BrianK, S'pose you give us a f'rinstance.
9.11.2008 11:10pm
taney71:
Wow... just wow:

I doubt you were undecided before you watched Palin's interview.
9.11.2008 11:11pm
Roger Schlafly (www):
Gibson misstated the Bush Doctrine. Palin did well not to fall for the trap.
9.11.2008 11:11pm
Ex-Fed (mail) (www):
Same interview. 100 commenters,100 perspectives.

Rashomom.
9.11.2008 11:12pm
MQuinn:
trad and anon:

well said! It is quite entertaining, though!
9.11.2008 11:12pm
Milhouse (www):
And who says she hasn't kept up with the major news events, as much as one can by reading the papers? I don't think Gibson was looking for that level of knowledge. She said she hadn't focused on the story, because she had her own knitting to tend to, and so she had. That doesn't mean she couldn't find Iraq on a map, or tell you roughly who the various sides were, as well as most people could. But it does mean she can't be expected to know every detail, or to have the sort of familiarity that someone (like Biden) who gets regular briefings on it would have.
9.11.2008 11:13pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
It is quite disconcerting that many thought she demonstrated sufficient awareness ( after schooling) to not be able to answer better. For example
1. To demonstrate awareness that Georgia had (contrary to the wishes and warnings of Bush Administration) attacked Russian troops in South Osetia. Even in the context of saying that the Russian response was unjustifiable.

2. To suggest that knowledge of domestic energy policy is significant portion of national security policy.

3. To suggest that being neighbour to Russia has given her any insight into Russia ( I don't think Siberia has the same power in Russian govt that Alaska does in US)

4. To not know or allude to the fact that Bush has just authorized strikes into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission. Her talk about new allies made it sound as if she was really grasping at straws and wasn't at all clear why US might be going into Pakistan., and why this had been an issue between Obama and McCain.

etc.
9.11.2008 11:14pm
David H (mail) (www):
Nate, I do not think that your comment is fair.

Population is not the only challenge in Governance -- Alaska is a highly unusual territory to Govern. It is isolated from the United States by land, it is positioned between Russia and Canada, it has Oil and Wildlife, and extreme variation of weather. The terrain is messy and pockets of Alaska are isolated.

So, I would say that governing Alaska is probably not easy.
9.11.2008 11:15pm
byomtov (mail):
You seem to come into these questions with a sense that there is only one right answer, and it's obviously yours (so much that one who disagrees with you is an "utter dingbat.")

Sometimes there's only one right answer. Sometimes there's room for more than one. In the latter case I think it's fair to expect those who differ to demonstrate that they understand the issue and have arrived at their conclusion thoughtfully. I wouldn't call someone like that a dingbat.

You are overgeneralizing. I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is a dingbat. I not only disagreed with Palin's positions, I got the impression that she really didn't grasp what was involved. Gee, put Georgia in NATO and have a war with Russia? OK.

As for the other stuff I threw out, well, yes. I do think that way too many people are swallowing a bunch of hogwash with respect to Palin's background. I do think facts are facts, and they don't support the GOP portrait. So in that respect there is only one "right answer," as you put it. Of course, if you're the sort of intellectual who doesn't much believe in facts then you have a point, I guess, but somehow I didn't think you were. My mistake.
9.11.2008 11:15pm
Nate in Alice:
Oh, Orin et. al. Here's a video of John McCain explaining the Bush Doctrine.

Everyone, my comment above was just pointing out that she's admittedly not well versed on Iraq. You can go about making excuses for her, but I prefer not to.
9.11.2008 11:17pm
trad and anon:
Gibson misstated the Bush Doctrine. Palin did well not to fall for the trap.
What do you think the Bush Doctrine is? Gibson said the BD is that "we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us." In what respect do you think that statement is inaccurate?

I can't say I care for Palin's unresponsive answer.
9.11.2008 11:19pm
AKD:

Here's a good article explaining the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, Spread of Democracy.


So...Bush's worldview.
9.11.2008 11:19pm
theculturedredneck (mail):
wow.

sharp, aggressive journalism from gibson. he followed up on all his questions, each relevant to a major election issue.

what bothers me most isn't palin's mediocre responses. it's that gibson is once again capable of grilling a politician and yet only seems to show it when a conservative sits opposite.
9.11.2008 11:21pm
Yikes:
Orin, the Bush doctrine has been mentioned 18 times on this blog, including several times by commenters in comment threads you were active in, and by Eugene Volokh, Bernstein, Somin, and Adler. I'm honestly surprised you don't know what it is.

God I hope Justin didn't spend too much time on this one.
9.11.2008 11:26pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
Isn't what makes Alaska easy to govern is oil revenue.
You don't need a state income tax when you can raise revenue by imposing an "excess" profits tax on oil production.
And when Washington will provide incredible high degree of subsidization through earmarks?

Don't many politicians have a honeymoon period before the consequences of their popular but bad policies come to light?

Palin is still in her honeymoon period. If you can cut taxes, it usually takes longer for people to recognize the shortcomings of a politician. Sometimes until the bridges start falling down, or Hurricane Katrina hits.
9.11.2008 11:26pm
Brian K (mail):
Milhouse,

how bout this one? you certainly didn't have a problem with it then since you commented on the post. wow...it's never been so easy to prove a commenters hypocrisy on this site before. i doubt it will change much of anything though, you don't seem to be guided by reason or logic.
9.11.2008 11:26pm
Cold Warrior:
Overall assessment: she did o.k.

Big mistake: saying, unequivocally, that we should extend NATO membership to Georgia, and saying, unequivocally, that the Russian military action in Georgia was unprovoked. Charlie Gibson (no doubt in reaction to his expected role as Softie Charlie) hit her with his only difficult follow-up question: doesn't that imply that we'd go to war with Russia if there's another South Ossetia military incursion? Palin said yes.

Now, I'm no fan of Russia (hey, my name is Cold Warrior), but we've got to distinguish between these border disputes and, say, a Russian incursion into Poland. The correct answer -- and there is only one correct answer -- is this: "The possibility of a Russian threat to the sovereignty of Georgia makes it essential that we keep all options on the table, including closer military ties with Georgia." Or something like that. Russia will correctly see this as a transparent bluff, and that's how you lose credibility. Fast.

Charlie did get in one half-hearted dig: the question about to what extent Alaska's proximity to Russia informs Palin's knowledge of international affairs. She gave a dumb answer about being able to see Russian land from parts of Alaska, but Charlie immediately let her off the hook on that. She'd do well to simply laugh off any similar comment in the future. This "on a clear day I can see across the Bering Strait" thing is perhaps the most idiotic thing Team McCain has dreamed up. Drop it. Now.

Overall, she had studied the likely questions, and she tried to go out of her way to add details (the President of Georgia's name) to prove it. Charlie kind of let her control the show. We knew she's a quick enough study to have answers to the expected questions. Some more open-ended questions would have allowed him to dig deeper into her knowledge base and to get at the kind of thought processes she uses to analyze complex issues. He didn't allow that to happen.

So it was an o.k. performance, unlikely to sway anyone one way or the other. And I guess that's what she wanted.
9.11.2008 11:27pm
trad and anon:
I can't say I care for Palin's unresponsive answer.

I should add that if there's anything about political interviews and debates I hate, it's the fact that the politicians never answer the damn question, and instead spew their standard talking points about the general subject. Palin's interview seems to follow this trend, except for the softball questions at the beginning.
9.11.2008 11:28pm
OrinKerr:
byomtov writes:
Of course, if you're the sort of intellectual who doesn't much believe in facts then you have a point, I guess, but somehow I didn't think you were. My mistake.
Byomtov, I think you forgot the "your mama" joke that's supposed to go at the end.
9.11.2008 11:30pm
LM (mail):
All the attitude on both sides is totally justified. Palin proved she isn't qualified to walk my dog, and Charlie Gibson is a shameless left-wing misogynist hack.

I may have more to add after I read or see the interview.
9.11.2008 11:30pm
Josh E.:
The Bush Doctrine ought to be considered in tandem with Cheney's One Percent Doctrine.

I'm a fan of the Carter Doctrine. That one is brutally honest.
9.11.2008 11:32pm
Bob Van Burkleo (mail):
raising taxes when the country appears to be on the verge of recession and unconditionally withdrawing from Iraq on a very tight time schedule..

And saying things like that makes complains about inaccurate questions moot - his tax plan decreases taxes both overall and for 95% of taxpayers, and he has always said the withdrawal would be dependent on conditions at the time.
9.11.2008 11:34pm
Hoosier:
//LM :
All the attitude on both sides is totally justified. Palin proved she isn't qualified to walk my dog, and Charlie Gibson is a shameless left-wing misogynist hack.

I may have more to add after I read or see the interview.//

Well, played LM. Well played. You are indeed a worthy opponent.
9.11.2008 11:35pm
TerrencePhilip:
Cold Warrior wrote: So it was an o.k. performance, unlikely to sway anyone one way or the other. And I guess that's what she wanted.

I did not see the interview, but if this is an accurate assessment, it's a win for Palin. Clearly, she has been riding high in the polls and simply needed to avoid a mistake.
9.11.2008 11:37pm
Anderson (mail):
governing Alaska is probably not easy

Fine. You've persuaded me that she's probably not qualified for that, either.
9.11.2008 11:38pm
Dan Quayle:
I like Sarah Palin. She's a Governor... of a state. A state that resides in the United Sates, well, not IN the United States, as in the fifty states, but somewhere North of here!


People that are really weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history. — Dan Quayle


More HERE.

Maybe we should ask Sarah Palin to spell potatoe... ehhh, sorry, my bad... potato.

Sarah, she's Palin in compassion to Joe Biden!
9.11.2008 11:39pm
Dan M.:
I don't know how anyone expects her to elaborate how proximity to Russia gives her national security experience. It was a stupid talking point and a Gotcha question that has as its only real answer "None, really. Next question."

I don't see why a candidate should be punished with inane questions just because other people have said stupid things in interviews. If Cindy McCain brought up the Russia thing, challenge her on it. If John McCain brought it up, challenge him. But if Sarah Palin never claims that being close to Russia makes her a foreign policy expert, I don't see a reason to ask it. It would be like asking Obama how being half-white makes him a foreign policy expert just because some one else made a stupid comment trying to assert that connection.
9.11.2008 11:39pm
maddie (mail):
Complaining about Gibson's interview techniques? PLEASE! Thsi was the man who, along with George S. spend 45 minuets of a 90 minute primary debate asking about a preacher!

Look, this is national polictics. No kid gloves here. This is the land of the big boys and Hillary. Palin (and her supporters) should quit whining like little girls. This is tough. Its obviously she was coached and just didnt know the answer. I cannot WAIT for October 2nd.
9.11.2008 11:40pm
Hoosier:
//Milhouse:
"Here's the Bush Doctrine." No, that's a Wikipedia article. //

No essential connection between signifier and signified?

AHA! Just as I long suspected! "Milhouse" is actually *Jacques Derrida*! Aka "Jacques the Ripper! (Hide your literature, before it's too late!)
9.11.2008 11:42pm
Cold Warrior:

But if Sarah Palin never claims that being close to Russia makes her a foreign policy expert, I don't see a reason to ask it. It would be like asking Obama how being half-white makes him a foreign policy expert just because some one else made a stupid comment trying to assert that connection.


Right. Which is why you're also right that she should just brush it aside with a smile. I'm not sure why she has to remind us that on a clear day you can see Russia. She's going to slide into her overprogrammed/gaffe-avoidance mode for a while now, and (again) I have to imagine that Team McCain is more than happy with that.

I, for one, hope for a more free-wheeling, open-ended session. I'd even take a 1-hour Charlie Rose right now. I don't think I'm gonna get it.
9.11.2008 11:45pm
js5 (mail):
For all the time she's been kept hiding from reporters and studying with McCain's aids about what to say, she surely got to second base but didn't hit a grand slam like most republican mouth-pieces on here assert. Again, as a conservative, Palin was an irresponsible choice; that she spent the last two weeks being coached what to say and screwing up some of the most important bits in this interview is totally concerning. I'm not even convinced she understands the depth of the concepts and views she is restating. Some parts were good and they sold well, but so what?

Really Sarah? Georgia is worth going to defcon 1 with Russia???

To all the neocons and republicans who will continue to defend her and not even objectively address her: There You Go Again.
9.11.2008 11:46pm
benintn (mail):
I'm a Republican, who voted for Bush. Palin is a dangerous idiot. Period. End of story. What the hell was McCain thinking? She's an embarrassment. I'm done. This is not the Republican party I supported for years. I'm voting Obama in 2008 because I want a president who has a clue, who will maintain fiscal discipline, who will promote competent government for a change.
9.11.2008 11:46pm
Hoosier:
"On a side note: Charlie gibson is a conservative."

Sure is. He and I always get together at the biennial meetings of the Michael Oakeshott Association to chug a few Mickey's Wide Mouths while discussing Montaigne.

He's a mean drunk, though. Called Scruton "Roger Scrotum" two years ago. That did NOT go over well with the contingent from the Evelyn Waugh Society, let me tell you.
9.11.2008 11:48pm
Cold Warrior:
I voted for Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004.

And I live in an ultra-critical swing state.

In other words, the 4 candidates really ought to be trying like hell to convince me. So far, they're not. We've descended into pure "playing to our base" mode.
9.11.2008 11:49pm
fullerene:

Population is not the only challenge in Governance -- Alaska is a highly unusual territory to Govern. It is isolated from the United States by land, it is positioned between Russia and Canada, it has Oil and Wildlife, and extreme variation of weather.


Roman Abramovich governed Chukotka, the autonomous region across from Alaska, from the Chelsea owner's box in West London. As he was doing it, I seriously doubt he ever gave Palin, a Russian invasion of Alaska, or firing the librarian of Uelen any thought. Can we stop pretending that Alaska being near a strategically irrelevant and barely populated part of Russia somehow complicates Palin's job? She has never been to Russia and she never met Abramovich, not even in London.

[Yeah, and if you think this Palin stuff is funny, you should read the BS that gets written about Abramovich's tenure]
9.11.2008 11:53pm
trad and anon:
I don't see why a candidate should be punished with inane questions just because other people have said stupid things in interviews. If Cindy McCain brought up the Russia thing, challenge her on it. If John McCain brought it up, challenge him. But if Sarah Palin never claims that being close to Russia makes her a foreign policy expert, I don't see a reason to ask it.
It seems eminently reasonable to me, if it was John McCain or a campaign spokesperson. If the McCain campaign has made claims about her, it's fair to ask if she agrees with them. It's different if it's some random blog commenter or something.
9.11.2008 11:56pm
byomtov (mail):
Byomtov, I think you forgot the "your mama" joke that's supposed to go at the end.

I confess to not understanding your point. I said that, quite apart from the interview, the GOP, and Palin, are telling an awful lot of lies about her.

It's not clear to me whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with that.
9.11.2008 11:57pm
Billy Bobson (mail):
Let's admit it: She was a disaster. Embarrasing for McCain and all conservatives. How can I defend McCain's choice? She is not the best choice for this country. Romney would have been a better choice.
9.11.2008 11:59pm
Nifonged:
"I'm a Republican, who voted for Bush. Palin is a dangerous idiot. Period. End of story. What the hell was McCain thinking? She's an embarrassment. I'm done. This is not the Republican party I supported for years. I'm voting Obama in 2008 because I want a president who has a clue, who will maintain fiscal discipline, who will promote competent government for a change."

And I'm the Lord Jesus Christ, I think I'll go get drunk and beat up some midgets, how about you, Diane?
9.12.2008 12:00am
Bob from Ohio (mail):
Do these interviews ever change votes? In the absence of a huge, huge blunder, of course. Which did not happen here even accepting the CW from the anti-Palin people. Little blunders at best that won't matter. (Like Obama's "my Muslim faith", for example)

Wonks may know what the "Bush Doctrine" is but how many regular voters?

Since Obama and Biden agree with McCain and Biden on Georgia NATO membership, she can be effectively attacked how?

Use of a truncated quote on the "Irag is God's plan" thing makes the editing the story. Plays into the GOP theme that the media is out to get Palin. Plus, people here may hate God talk but actually most Americans like it in moderation.

How can Biden and Obama attack the "We do not second guess Israel" line without exposing themselves to "soft on Israel" attacks? Support of Israel is about the only thing both parties agree on. Obama can't risk any attacks on this issue, too much boomerang effect risk.

I think in all Orson Buggeigh and ColdWarrior are right. She did ok, not great and not horrible. Like most rookies in the Show.

No minds or votes changed.
9.12.2008 12:03am
James R. (mail):
Well there goes my vote. She really seemed like an amateur. All that coaching didn't work too well. I can't get myself to vote for such obvious inexperience. I'll be staying home come election day.
9.12.2008 12:05am
Hoosier:
"However, even without those on-the-ground facts, it's still quite clear that it wasn't merely a matter of Georgia “provoking” the Russian response, because it's frankly militarily impossible for Russia to have responded to a “provocation” with an overwhelming force of thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks in a matter of a few hours unless those forces were already in place ready to go on a hair trigger with orders in hand, if not already in motion."


You got it. Why this isn't more widely reported and understood is beyond me. I do think the MSM has a wide partisan streak, but I've never noticed that it was anti-Georgian.

Whatever the cause, the reports of Saakashvili's "provocations" missed the essential point that Moscow was looking for a pretext to launch a significant invasion of Georgia, as a step toward dismembering that state. The game is played by these rules: (1) Encourage Ossetians to act like they consider themselves independent; (2) Tblisi acts to assert its sovereignty over its territory; (3) Proclaim that Tblisi has been unduly provocative; (4) Collect underpants; (5) Invade.

Nice work if you can get it.
9.12.2008 12:06am
CherryGhost:
If either McCain or Obama can seriously "maintain fiscal discipline," I might just believe that Nifonged is, in fact, as he claims, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
9.12.2008 12:07am
Jose Battillos:
God, why couldn't he have picked Romney, or Palenty. I know allot of people like her, but this was an embarrassment. At least with Romney we knew what we were getting. This lady just has too much stuff for the liberal media to digg through, and take out of context.
9.12.2008 12:08am
DJR:
I'm twice surprised today. First OK acknowledges that in some circumstances a search can violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law (I didn't previously think he believed such a thing was possible); and then in these comments shows what appears to be a heretofore hidden propensity to deny the existence of objective reality.* Sometimes the OK giveth, sometimes the OK taketh away.



*Perhaps OK simply didn't want to engage, but byomtov's list is pretty fair. At the very minimum Palin's "Bridge to Nowhere" line is a lie. And being close to Russia doesn't tell you anything about foreign policy.
9.12.2008 12:09am
theobromophile (www):
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

Are you kidding me?!? Who asks Obama that? Who asks one-term Senator John Edwards that, when his main skill seemed to be channeling dead babies to win junk science medical malpractise verdicts?

Did anyone ask Bill Clinton, governor of that foreign-policy-ridden state, Arkansas, what his foreign policy experience was? Did anyone say, "Gee, Billy, are you ready to lead this country, or will you just abuse your position so you can get sexual favours from the interns?"

Maybe I forgot that part of the primaries, but I didn't see Mitt Romney having to mention running the Olympics as some lame way of getting over the foreign policy hurdle. Huckabee certainly wasn't getting hammered in that department. Ron Paul didn't have to talk about Mexico being right next door.

Oh, wait, sorry, we only ask girls if they are full of hubris. Men are presumed to be competent.
9.12.2008 12:09am
Nifonged:
"God, why couldn't he have picked Romney, or Palenty. I know allot of people like her, but this was an embarrassment. At least with Romney we knew what we were getting. This lady just has too much stuff for the liberal media to digg through, and take out of context."

Yo Kossite, spellcheck/grammar much? And its Pawlenty.
9.12.2008 12:10am
Milhouse (www):
Brian K, I addressed that at least three times in that thread. Taken on its own there is nothing wrong with the pig reference; it's a common saying. But Obama said it in the context of Palin having famously compared herself to a pit bull in lipstick; in that context what Obama was really saying was "you're not a pit bull, you're a pig". You can claim all you like that he wasn't referring to Palin; I don't believe it, and I don't believe that you really believe it.


As for Georgia, it had every right to defend itself, whether the Bush administration liked it or not. Russia and its South Ossetian stooges launched an attack on Georgia, and Georgia defended itself. Palin was also right that NATO membership would not automatically mean we would go to war to defend Georgia; if you think it does mean that, read the NATO charter. But if push came to shove, I do think that if we can defend Georgia then we should, because it's the right thing to do. And if Russia has suddenly embraced the "Kosovo precedent", and thinks that bits of a country with a different ethnic mix are entitled to expel everyone not of the local majority ethnicity and declare independence, then they should start with Chechnya.
9.12.2008 12:15am
Red State Hero (mail):
Let's face it, we're screwed now.
9.12.2008 12:20am
Johnny Canuck (mail):
Hoosier

Whatever the cause, the reports of Saakashvili's "provocations" missed the essential point that Moscow was looking for a pretext to launch a significant invasion of Georgia, as a step toward dismembering that state. The game is played by these rules: (1) Encourage Ossetians to act like they consider themselves independent; (2) Tblisi acts to assert its sovereignty over its territory; (3) Proclaim that Tblisi has been unduly provocative; (4) Collect underpants; (5) Invade.


Isn't the essential additional point that the US knew Russia was waiting for pretext, had warned the Georgian President not to provoke the Russians, and he with a stunning degree of bravado/miscalculation launched an attack against Russian "peacekeepers". What did he expect would be the response?
Maybe he thought his blitzkreig would succeed.
Do you really want to make a commitment to go to war with Russia which may be initiated by someone like the Georgian president who doesn't listen to the advice of US?

Also What seems scary to me is that the firm of McCain's foreign policy expert has received $700K over the years to lobby for Georgia. Do you really want a President whose advisors are or have been paid by foreign governments?
9.12.2008 12:20am
metro1 (mail) (www):
More Charlie Gibson dishonesty:

Charlie Gibson was dishonest about "The Bush Doctrine." See here.
9.12.2008 12:20am
Michael B (mail):
The Bush Doctrine is neither amorphous nor an unchanging, immutable doctrine. Bruce Thornton evaluates the most prominent aspects of it in a review of N. Podhoretz's World War IV: The Long Struggle against Islamofascism.

The National Security Strategy of the U.S. is likely the best single reference to better comprehend the most basic ideas shaping the strategy that has been applied by the U.S.
9.12.2008 12:28am
Milhouse (www):
Johnny Canuck, Saakashvili didn't provoke the Russians, he defended his country against an invasion. Had he sat on his bum and not defended it, just to please the USA, he'd have been a traitor. Read Totten's report, that's been linked here at least twice, including by me.
9.12.2008 12:29am
Nate in Alice:
Actually both George Bush and Bill Clinton were hammered on lack of "foreign policy experience" in their elections.
9.12.2008 12:30am
metro1 (mail) (www):
And George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were both Governors - like Sarah Palin ... and Ronald Reagan and FDR and Teddy Roosevelt.
9.12.2008 12:35am
FRED:
Lily said: "The more I think about it, the madder I get.
Charlie Gibson never asked these questions of Obama."

You're absolutely right. Instead ABC asked Obama "Do you love your country?" and about his flag pin and people that he did not know from 40 years ago. :rolleyes:

Republicans cannot win on issues. They ignored intelligence and allowed the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history. Then they got us into two wars, and have failed to get the guys who did it. They have weakened the military so much that Russia could waltz into the U.S. at any point. They have doubled the national debt and enslaved us to China and oil producing nations. They doubled the amount of oil that we are importing from terrorist-supporting states. They have nursed the largest financial scandal since the great depression and just recently socialized the losses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
9.12.2008 12:37am
OrinKerr:
DJR,

Such are the dangers of independent thought: Instead of picking a conclusion and reasoning to it, you start with the evidence as you see it and you work your way to a conclusion. I highly recommend it, as it makes the journey much more interesting. Plus, you get to alternate between being called an unthinking hack for the right and an unthinking hack for the left, which is fun, too.
9.12.2008 12:39am
Dan M.:
I find it amusing that attacks in previous years by Republicans against Democrats are used as justification for the media to parrot the same attacks against Republicans.
9.12.2008 12:41am
theobromophile (www):
Nate in Alice,

But Clinton's bid for the presidency certainly wasn't "hubris," now was it?

FRED,
Republicans cannot win on issues. They ignored intelligence and allowed the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history. Then they got us into two wars, and have failed to get the guys who did it.

Um, the Taliban was here for three years under the Clinton administration, planning 9/11. During the Clinton administration, they also bombed the WTC and the USS Cole. Somehow, though, it is the Republican's problem, because Bush was in office when the attacks happened?

Failed to get the guys who did it? The guys who did it died in a fiery plane wreck. If you mean the other guys, you should use singular - Osama bin Laden. We've gotten a bunch of his operatives.

As for the other war, we hung Saddam Hussein, who had rape rooms, mass graves, and put kids in prison.
9.12.2008 12:43am
Dave N (mail):
I find it interesting that a number of commenters whose noms de blog I completely do not recognize come on here and give the "I used to be a Republican but Sarah Palin is a moron so now I will vote for Obama" line. Are we supposed to believe these strangers? Honestly. Are we? Because I don't.

Nifonged got that completely right.
9.12.2008 12:43am
AKD:

Do you really want to make a commitment to go to war with Russia which may be initiated by someone like the Georgian president who doesn't listen to the advice of US?



NATO is not obligated to go to war for a member state if that states starts a war. It is a defensive alliance. Her answer was the only correct answer, and in line with US policy, McCain's policy, Obama's policy and NATO policy.

NATO would be meaningless if US leaders were to go around stating that maybe we wouldn't go to war if Russia attacked a member state. The promise to take action if a member state is attacked without provocation is what keeps Russia from attacking in the first place.
9.12.2008 12:45am
Nate in Alice:
The Obromophile:

You just changed the topic of my comment. I pointed out that other governors DID, in direct contradiction to your assertion, get grilled over their lack of foreign policy cred.

As far as the "hubris" stuff goes, after watching the campaign (and the press) question Obama's hubris, I find it now laughable that you take such offense to it being put to Palin--a woman who is clearly Obama's inferior.
9.12.2008 12:45am
Dave N (mail):
I also find it interesting that Palin is blasted for not knowing the Bush Doctrine and asking for clarification when there have been various definitions of "the Bush Doctrine" put forth on this very thread.
9.12.2008 12:45am
Nate in Alice:
The Obromophile:

You just changed the topic of my comment. I pointed out that other governors DID, in direct contradiction to your assertion, get grilled over their lack of foreign policy cred.

As far as the "hubris" stuff goes, after watching the campaign (and the press) question Obama's hubris, I find it now laughable that you take such offense to it being put to Palin--a woman who is clearly Obama's inferior.
9.12.2008 12:45am
Rumpel Stilskin (mail):
McCain blew it big time--Palin is just a snowballing disaster. Does she even know what ICBMs are? Too busy shooting Alaskan wildlife and begging for more Federal Welfare to learn much else, I guess...

No way will I EVER vote for her to be ANYWHERE near the launch codes.
9.12.2008 12:46am
taney71:
Rumpel Stilskin:

How many trolls are on this site tonight?
9.12.2008 12:50am
jasonk:
I'm an Independent and it's funny to watch each side go at it in favor of their candidate while missing the central point of the issue.

THE ISSUE IS: WITH LESS THAN 60 DAYS NOTICE, IS ANY GOVERNOR OF A SMALL CONSTITUENCY, ONLY TWO YEARS INTO HER FIRST TERM; HAVING RARELY BEEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY, RARELY FOCUSED ON IRAQ (HER WORDS); AND UNTIL RECENTLY NOT EVEN SURE WHAT A VICE PRESIDENT DOES (HER WORDS), HONESTLY QUALIFIED TO LEAD THIS NATION'S FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA?

That demands tough questions!

I don't care about her family, her lipstick or her moose stories.
I don't care if she's the kind of person you could have dinner with.
This is not a race for homecoming court! This is about the very dire future
this nation faces without real answers to questions that could determine the
life or death of our nation's world dominance.

Rome is burning and you guys are pissing over who gets easier questions?
STEP AWAY FROM TEH KOOLAID!!!!

Quit whining about who gets more favor in the press and start demanding more truth from everyone! We're wasting the life our country and our future when this kind of partisan silliness dominates the agenda.

It's not us against them. It's us FOR us!!! Stay focused people! PLEEEEEAASEE!
9.12.2008 12:50am
Hoosier:
"This is not a race for homecoming court! "

(Do they choose those by racing these days?)
9.12.2008 12:52am
fullerene:
It all seems a little too orchestrated. On the internets, I am pretty much predisposed to doubt any statement any person makes about himself. This is especially so when that person leads off a post with "I am X, but..."
9.12.2008 12:54am
Hoosier:
Rumpel Stilskin(sic)

Psst! You misspelled your name.
9.12.2008 12:54am
subpatre (mail):
Cold Warrior said "She gave a dumb answer about being able to see Russian land from parts of Alaska"

Disagree. From Kennedy to Bush, many presidents have misjudged foreign relations and --certainly those two-- fumbled Russia horribly. Unlike those two who had no experience whatsoever (who would except a diplomat?) the Governor of Alaska gets some real insight into Russia.

Not on the grand-theater scale (and you may poohpooh these small potatos) but Palin deals with the day-to-day issues of trespass and overflight, fishing rights and boundaries, rescue versus seizure, and the visa-less (and unauthorized) cross-strait visits. Mostly it's timeless boyfriend-girlfriend, family, hunting or fishing issues; but sometimes a 'training flight' is lost.

Whatever the reason, Alaska's governor gets an insight into Russia and Russian operations that few other leaders get. It doesn't guarantee that Palin is foreign-service qualified for the Presidency; but then nothing --except a prior presidency-- guarantees presidential qualification. No-one wants to go there.

Palin's not a "seasoned veteran" on foreign policy, but she has a background on Russia that none of the others have, or will ever have.
9.12.2008 12:56am
Dan M.:
I'm not worried if Sarah Palin isn't prepared to be president in 2 months. She wouldn't even become VICE president until January, and would have until, um, McCain freaking dies to brush up on foreign policy. I'm more interested in her priorities than I am in how well she'd do on Jeopardy.
9.12.2008 1:00am
Michael B (mail):
I read the transcript and thought Sarah Palin did well, especially so for her first major sit-down with a Charlie Gibson MSM type.

Am decidedly more hesitant about Ukraine and especially Georgia heading into NATO within any near-term future, but it's not in the least clear a near-term view of that is held by McCain/Palin and Palin's response was little more than a general reply, not a detailed timeline or agenda.

Power Line has a decidedly favorable review, one that rings true.
9.12.2008 1:05am
Dave N (mail):
fullerene,

That was my exact point. You have expressed some misgivings about Governor Palin on other threads and have posted many well-argued comments (even when I disagree with them).

Tonight, I skimmed all of the comments and saw at least 20 names completely foreign to me on this thread.
9.12.2008 1:07am
Hoosier:
Canuck:
"Do you really want to make a commitment to go to war with Russia which may be initiated by someone like the Georgian president who doesn't listen to the advice of US? "

Read Artile V of the North Atlantic Treaty. If he "initiates" war, we are off the hook. (And, by the way, I don't support Georgia entering NATO. But that's a rather different question from the one you raised.) You really need to look at a treaty before pronouncing upon its obligations.

"Also What seems scary to me is that the firm of McCain's foreign policy expert has received $700K over the years to lobby for Georgia. Do you really want a President whose advisors are or have been paid by foreign governments?"

I don't know how things work in Canada. But do you need me to go through a long list of major foreign policy "players" in recent years who spent some years making their bread-and-butter money off of foreign governments? The fact that this idea is "scary" to you indicates to me that perhaps you do need a refresher on this. You can let me know. But let's just leave it at this for now: A recent national security advisor had spent significant time in his law practive representing *China* in international commercial law prior to entering upon his government position. (No names--my point is not partisan. Both parties appoint people with private sector expoerience in international relations. Such people sometimes do work for other governments.)

Now, which nation--Georgia or China--do you think is more of a challenge to American securty goals in the world? I bet if you asked Obama, he'd have the same answer as does McCain. So would I. How 'bout you?
9.12.2008 1:07am
metro1 (mail) (www):
Canuck:

Gov. Palin just re-stated the policy of Bush and McCain that we want Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. This is nothing new.
9.12.2008 1:09am
karl newman:
I'm not sure that Gibson was dishonest about the Bush Doctrine, if it is a definition that changed slightly over time. This does not discount the fact that she should have known something about it. She did study for this midterm exam. I guess most will grade her on a curve since she is new to this, maybe a B. If McCain responded as she did, he would have gotten an F. I'm just not sure we should grade on a curve.

I was also surprised she so easily flipped on global warming too.
9.12.2008 1:10am
Hoosier:
FRED
"They have weakened the military so much that Russia could waltz into the U.S. at any point. "

Well, then! Thank GOD for the Alaskan National Guard! This puts Palin's service as their CINC in a whole new light. That really WAS important national security experience, wasn't it?

Thanks for opening my eyes.
9.12.2008 1:19am
Waldensian (mail):

First OK acknowledges that in some circumstances a search can violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law (I didn't previously think he believed such a thing was possible)

That's just a really dumb thing for you to say.

I suspect OK and I would disagree about the color of an orange. But he's an entirely legitimate and extremely thought-provoking scholar of the 4th Amendment.
9.12.2008 1:21am
Sylvester J. Pussycat (mail) (www):
Trust me, I'm a Republican. Trust me, I only care about the truth.

Therefore and henceforth and forthwith my fellow citizens ... blah - that woman! - blah - golly gee wiz - blah, burp - that woman! - burp, blah ...

And Charlie Gibson only cares about the truth. Trust me.

So, it's plain, vote for Barack Obama/Neil Kinnock, the truth ticker.

And did I mention I only care about the truth and therefore am a completely unbiased person, one whom you can trust?
9.12.2008 1:28am
AKD:

I was also surprised she so easily flipped on global warming too.


She didn't. Actually, I was pleasantly surprised that she didn't truly cave and pander. The view she expressed is perfectly in line with many mainstream scientists that have questioned the IPCC's impending man-made catastrophe view.

While these scientists question the "consensus" that global warming is man-made rather than a product of natural variation, they recognize that there is no definitive proof that there are no man-made effects. It is certainly possible that CO2 added to the atmosphere could have an effect on climate, in that the basic mechanism is there. The question is 1.) if the effect is significant in comparison to natural processes, and 2.)if the effect justifies the potential harm that could come from policies designed to counter it.

I thought her answer was excellent, but then I think for myself on this issue.
9.12.2008 1:30am
Michael Edward McNeil (mail) (www):
Folks might like to peruse the thread “Palin Derangement Syndrome” by Big Tent Democrat on TalkLeft in response to the Palin interview. It's clear that many more people thought Sarah Palin did a decent job there than just rabid Republican Palin-McCain fans.
9.12.2008 1:34am
Johnny Canuck (mail):
Hoosier:

"Do you really want to make a commitment to go to war with Russia which may be initiated by someone like the Georgian president who doesn't listen to the advice of US? "

Read Artile V of the North Atlantic Treaty. If he "initiates" war, we are off the hook.


The problem is often who initiated something is completely unclear. eg. Millhouse is convinced that Russia initiated the problem in Georgia last month. Or remember Gulf of Tonkin?

"

I don't know how things work in Canada. But do you need me to go through a long list of major foreign policy "players" in recent years who spent some years making their bread-and-butter money off of foreign governments? The fact that this idea is "scary" to you indicates to me that perhaps you do need a refresher on this. You can let me know. But let's just leave it at this for now: A recent national security advisor had spent significant time in his law practive representing *China* in international commercial law prior to entering upon his government position. (No names--my point is not partisan. Both parties appoint people with private sector expoerience in international relations. Such people sometimes do work for other governments.)

Now, which nation--Georgia or China--do you think is more of a challenge to American securty goals in the world? I bet if you asked Obama, he'd have the same answer as does McCain. So would I. How 'bout you?


I believe Canada has little movement of people into our foreign service from the private sector. Certainly people go from govt posts into lobbying but not back. One of those little differences in our political cultures.

Actually, I'd be more concerned about the lobbyist for Georgia because i think there is much greater probability they might confuse what is Georgian interest and what is American. Much less likely to happen with China, which is clearly the bigger and more significant problem in the coming decades.
9.12.2008 1:34am
Asher (mail):
I find it interesting that a number of commenters whose noms de blog I completely do not recognize come on here and give the "I used to be a Republican but Sarah Palin is a moron so now I will vote for Obama" line. Are we supposed to believe these strangers? Honestly. Are we? Because I don't.

That's right, we're all lying to you so as to dampen enthusiasm for the Republican cause. No, I sincerely would have voted for McCain, mostly because I'm terrified over what the Court will look like once Obama's done with it. But at this point voting for McCain seems irresponsible. Maybe if McCain were younger, but he's not, and actuarial tables say if you elect him there's a one in three chance that this woman who can barely recite the inane foreign policy talking points she was asked to memorize will be President. I'd be decidedly more comfortable with a third term of Bush.
9.12.2008 1:35am
Michael Edward McNeil (mail) (www):
By the way, I agree it's a relatively unimportant consideration, but Russia and Alaska are way closer to each other than merely dimly visible on the other's horizon (see the first image at the link).
9.12.2008 1:39am
Dave N (mail):
Asher,

I did not call you out by name--and yours was not one of the 20 or so unfamiliar names I mentioned in my subsequent thread. I will acknowledge you seem sincere. I will not acknowledge that about other posters tonight.
9.12.2008 1:42am
Michael B (mail):
PDS: 5 hours, 230 comments
9.12.2008 1:49am
Soronel Haetir (mail):
I don't see the plane on eBay story as any sort of winner for the anti-Palin folks. I've never seen her claim that it actually sold on eBay, only that it was listed. It is forgivable for McCain to miss the distinction given that the plane was in fact sold, just not on eBay.
9.12.2008 1:55am
LM (mail):
Now that I've read the interview, I have to say I didn't stop squirming, I was so embarrassed for her. It left me feeling that the only person who ran for President this cycle I'd find as frightening to be as close as Palin is the Presidency right now is Mike Gravel. If I take the McCain-Palin supporters' on this thread at their word that they believe she actually performed well, I can only conclude that this interview is a Rorschach test. And a fascinating demonstration of the power of bias, at that. Whether either of our sides is significantly more deluded than the other (and if so which one) I guess we'll never know unless God comes down and gives us his report card on all these battles over our mutually exclusive perceptions of reality.

I hope we can at least all agree that Charlie Gibson is a tool.
9.12.2008 1:55am
Good Ole Boy (mail):
The "Bush Doctrine" question was not a "gotcha" question. It is a legitimate and well-recognized term in U.S. foreign policy and military affairs - much like the Powell Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine. I would also prefer a V.P. who was a little more certain of the way in which NATO works and who did not say "perhaps" when speaking about whether or not we would honor our commitments to our allies. As for the question on whether or not to strike at targets within Pakistan, she refused to be pinned down - refusing thrice to answer "yes" or "no". Obama has stated that he would target the terrorist if we had actionable intelligence; a bold statement and not one without risk, but a solid stance.

In other Sarah Palin news, when she gave a speech at her son's sending off to Iraq, she mentioned on this day of Sept. 11th that he was (and I'm paraphrasing here) going to fight the terrorist who attacked us. Fighting the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11th is good, just, and even righteous. Fighting in Iraq, who did NOT attack us, is foolish.

She is not ready to be Commander in Chief. McCain's choice was irresponsible.
9.12.2008 1:56am
Asher (mail):
Dave N, the Internet's a strange place, but I don't know why people would pretend to be Republicans. Then again, you're probably right.
9.12.2008 2:00am
theobromophile (www):
Nate in Alice,

I, being nothing but a lowly chocolate-lover, do not know who "The Ombrophile" is, or even what an "obromophile" is to begin with. Nevertheless... my initial comment was about hubris. You responded to it. I then mentioned hubris again. Now you're upset that I'm changing the discussion. What gives?

No, I sincerely would have voted for McCain, mostly because I'm terrified over what the Court will look like once Obama's done with it. But at this point voting for McCain seems irresponsible. Maybe if McCain were younger, but he's not, and actuarial tables say if you elect him there's a one in three chance that this woman who can barely recite the inane foreign policy talking points she was asked to memorize will be President. I'd be decidedly more comfortable with a third term of Bush.

Asher,

Even if your statements, and similar statement above, were true, they are not something worthy of our time. As one of my friends likes to say, "Whomever gets irrational first, wins." If the entire political process caters to those most inclined to vote on a whim, with no articulated principles nor standards, and no desire to do anything save change one's vote like a dog wanting to be outside when it just came inside, campaigning and elections will be senseless.

By the way, actuarial tables do NOT give McCain a 1 in 3 chance of dying. Purely by the numbers of men, it's about 1 in 8, but his own personal risk is much lower. He's white, he has excellent health care, a living wife (a lot of people die within a year of their spouse's death, because of the grief and associated problems of not taking care of themselves), and great family.
9.12.2008 2:01am
An Admirable Woman:
Afraid I didn't not find Mrs. Palin very fluid in her responses. He sentence structure and choice of words seemed rigid. She didn't draw on synonyms or make allusions to other circumstances that would illustrate her point well. There were too many grammatical errors in her speech as well. Most importantly, I had the sense that when she answered a question, that was all that was there. There did not seen to be a desire to expound on a point or to take a different approach when her viewpoint was questioned.

For example, her answer regarding Israel ""Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security."

There is no attempt put the statement into context. No attempt to characterize the friendship with Israel, or to set out why Israel is an important ally, or whether Israel is different in this regard than say Great Britain. It is just a short curt statement, not well-said and totally unexplained.

When Gibson pressed the question, she responded bluntly clearly giving the message that she did not want to go there. There were many different ways she could have responded that would have given her a chance to look diplomatic and in control, but in my estimate she chose the most confrontational and probably most base response. That can be an effective strategy in confrontational situations, but this was Charlie Gibson. He would have given her the floor. It left me with the doubt that she has the capability to handle this situation in any other way.
9.12.2008 2:04am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"He's white, he has excellent health care, a living wife"

Are you sure? Sometimes she strikes me as a bit stilted.
9.12.2008 2:06am
David Warner:
"Let's admit it"

Who is the "us" in "Let's"? Sockpuppets on parade?

Let's face facts. Milton Friedman was a fascist tool and libertarianism is a naive pipe dream. The Constitution is a farce and the Bill of Wrongs a sick joke. We should all join together and start a commune in Greenland.

Who's with me?
9.12.2008 2:09am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Yes, Power Line did write an article about the Bush "DOCTINE." Maybe they just wanted to see if anyone would notice.
9.12.2008 2:12am
FLORIDA VOTER (mail):
She is not ready. It was a train wreck. I doubt she'll be doing anymore interviews for awhile. I can't vote for Mccain knowing she could potentially be president.
9.12.2008 2:12am
Michael Edward McNeil (mail) (www):
“Good Ole Boy” sez:
In other Sarah Palin news, when she gave a speech at her son's sending off to Iraq, she mentioned on this day of Sept. 11th that he was (and I'm paraphrasing here) going to fight the terrorist who attacked us. Fighting the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11th is good, just, and even righteous. Fighting in Iraq, who did NOT attack us, is foolish.

Ever hear of “Al Qaeda in Iraq”? Many thousands of the ”terrorists who attacked us” have been killed in Iraq (in what Al Qaeda declared was the principal front in their jihadist war against the West) by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Now they're on the run. Your statement is simply ignorant, or perhaps even consciously deceptive.
9.12.2008 2:31am
An Admirable Woman:
If the definition of the Bush Doctrine was ambiguous, she should have arrived at a mutual definition with Charlie before voicing policy. As a statesman, she absolutely cannot speak so impetuously.
9.12.2008 2:33am
An Admirable Woman:
“Al Qaeda in Iraq” is not Al Qaeda. Entirely different group of people.
9.12.2008 2:35am
Beej (mail):
Oh my, oh my, here we go again. It was all the fault of the nasty "liberal" media, was it? Do you even know where the "blame the liberal media" strategy originated? With Richard Nixon. In the mid to late 60's a poll of intended voting patterns showed that more media figures intended to vote Democratic than Republican and that the gap was larger than in the electorate at large. And thus was born the "liberal" media canard. Well, it's nearly 40 years later, most of those media figures (Kronkite, Sevaried, Rather, Donaldson, Brinkley, etc.) are long gone. How long has it been since you've seen a poll about the voting choices of media figures? Gotta say I haven't seen one in at least 30 years. All of the media is now corporate owned, and we all know how much giant corporations love those Democrats. (That last sentence was snark, in case you didn't catch it.) The media today is conservative, not liberal. Hasn't been liberal since Reagan. And I remember Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous spending nearly an hour quizzing Obama about flag pins and putting his hand over his heart, and other such critically significant issues when they moderated the debate with Clinton. Charlie Gibson is no liberal. So if the questions he asked put Palin on the hot seat, maybe it's because she's been getting away with a whole lot of prevaricating and he called her on it. Hate to break this to you, but that it what journalists are supposed to do. Glad to hear Gibson finally found some cojones.
9.12.2008 2:49am
Nate in Alice:
Dear the Obromophile:

You still have not fessed up to being factually incorrect. I pointed it out, you shifted the topic back to your main topic, and rest your laurels on that. Fine, you're disingenuous, and that's okay. We do all make mistakes, as I did in misspelling your screenname.
9.12.2008 2:54am
Asher (mail):
Asher,

Even if your statements, and similar statement above, were true, they are not something worthy of our time. As one of my friends likes to say, "Whomever gets irrational first, wins." If the entire political process caters to those most inclined to vote on a whim, with no articulated principles nor standards, and no desire to do anything save change one's vote like a dog wanting to be outside when it just came inside, campaigning and elections will be senseless.


Couple points:

The political process already does cater to those most inclined to vote on a whim. They're called undecideds, and most of the messaging is aimed at them. And the campaign has been pretty senseless.

That said, I'm not such a voter. I really would've stuck with McCain over practically anything. This isn't a whim at all. There's a significant chance that this completely unqualified woman could become President. Moreover, this is the biggest decision that McCain's had to make as a candidate - in a sense, the only decision that he's had to make as would-be President - and he blew it horribly, picking this uninformed person whom he hardly knew for wholly political reasons. It doesn't speak very well to his decision-making abilities. I was okay with the Palin pick - even, I thought, though she wasn't knowledgeable about many policy matters, she seemed bright enough to learn, which is what really counts. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Take the answer on global warming. She said that, whatever the causes of global warming are, man-made or natural, what matters is that we "do" something about it. She's really so dumb that it didn't occur to her that what the causes are determine what it is that we must do. If it's natural, if our emissions have nothing to do with global warming, then curtailing them is pointless. This didn't occur to her; all she knew was that she'd been told to say that she's now reconsidered and thinks we might be causing climate change. And the whole interview was like that, just repeating the daft lines she'd been given to read.
9.12.2008 3:13am
Sam Draper (mail):
It was kind of painful to watch. I feel the same way when I watch Obama, Biden or McCain. None of them can talk without a script very well.
9.12.2008 3:14am
An Admirable Woman (mail):
On 7/23/08, Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama the very same question on Israel and what would Obama's position be if Israel needed to bomb Iran. His response was "It is not my job as a candidate for President to tell the Israelis what their defense posture should be. I have said I would not take military options off the table when it comes to Iran and dealing with their nuclear capacity. Beyond that I think that we have to do everything we can to avoid having to make that choice."

Palin's answer was "Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security." Aside from the lack of statesmanship and the opportunity lost to present herself in a better light which I addressed above, Palin gave a bad policy answer. Often in more recent years, Israel has been perceived as responding excessively to Palestinian aggression and the United States, the United Nations and other countries have stepped in and said so. Saying you will not second-guess Israel is giving carte blanche authority to Israel to do as it deems necessary. The United States would never consent to that. It has been longstanding policy that Israel consult with the United States prior to taking actions such as that Charlie described. Palin's approach would negate that policy.
9.12.2008 3:17am
Michael B (mail):
"“Al Qaeda in Iraq” is not Al Qaeda. Entirely different group of people."

Do you get your "news" from Charlie Gibson and ABC? Sounds as though that's the case.

Letters from Al Qaeda Leaders Show Iraqi Effort is in Disarray. It begins:

"Al Qaeda's senior leadership has lost confidence in its commander in Iraq and views the situation in the country as dire, according to a series of letters intercepted by Multinational Forces Iraq earlier this year."
9.12.2008 3:28am
StumbledUpon (mail):
I couldn't watch the interview, as I had to work late - thus, looking around for "both sides of the story." I find it interesting as I read this thread that the few folks who seem to have an honest review of the interview are labasted by those who have "proof" of how the MSM is biased (no sources given), and that following posts assume this proof as given, and extrapolate.

By the time I got to the end of this page, people are swearing upon opinions as fact and denouncing facts as opinions.

The oddeest take-away I've gotten from the interview is how she answered the question about being ready/wanting the VPOTUS, and how she knew right away without blinking. I think twice before buying a car...or an anniversary gift...but she didn't even "blink" when offered the VPOTUS? Come on -- she's either lying, marketing herself, or has some inate contemplation gene missing. (I would have at LEAST stopped to consider how it might impact my family! -- and blinked)
9.12.2008 3:42am
OrinKerr:
How long has it been since you've seen a poll about the voting choices of media figures? Gotta say I haven't seen one in at least 30 years.

Maybe a month or two? There are actually lots of polls on this, including very recent ones. See, e.g., this summary.
9.12.2008 3:43am
Johnnybgood (mail):
I'm a lifelong republican, diehard conservative. But after watching this interview, I cannot vote for McCain. He's old, has had health problems, there is a decent chance if he won, this woman would have to become president. She may be a nice lady, but she is not ready to be the leader of the free world.
9.12.2008 4:24am
Beej (mail):
Interesting poll. Hadn't seen it. I am presuming it contains data from all the media including newspapers, magazines, broadcast media, etc. It would be interesting to see a poll of just the broadcast media. I'm betting that their statistics are somewhat different. Not saying that it still wouldn't be majority Democratic, but I'd guess (and it's just a guess) that the majority might not be quite so large.

I will stand by the idea, however, that it is ludicrous to contend that media outlets run by the likes of Disney (ABC), Time Warner (CBS), and General Electric (NBC) are going to be predominately liberal in their coverage. Try googling the executives of these outlets and see what they have to say about their party preferences.

My other complaint about the MSM is their tendency to play the equivalence game. Barack Obama said". . . ." and John McCain said". . . ." and so long as they dutifully report statements from each, they are somehow being balanced even if one statement is demonstrably fact and the other is a blatant falsehood. Expose the blinking falsehood, for crying out loud!
9.12.2008 4:32am
sorreo:
Palin's body language was the big give away in her response to the bush doctrine question. You could almost feel the panic oozing out of her, and you could clearly tell she was making things up as she went along.

What would have made her more credible, ironically, is if she just said she didn't know what Gibson meant by the term and asked him to clarify. But, of course, that would have also destroyed the illusion of competence.
9.12.2008 4:35am
Gibson1:
Guys, she had no clue about the Bush Doctrine...and never explained why she had said that she was not following the Iraq war closely. In fact, Gibson gave her the opportunity to define what the Bush Doctrine meant to her and she did not even bother to do anything except give the canned response for "Fightin' Terror in I-raq!" In fact, almost all her answers except her position on drilling in Alaska seemed generalized, coached, and very strain. She knew her position on drilling in her state, but it was very apparent that she knew nothing else.
9.12.2008 4:36am
timothy moriarty1 (mail) (www):
I was okay with the Palin pick - even, I thought, though she wasn't knowledgeable about many policy matters, she seemed bright enough to learn, which is what really counts. But that doesn't appear to be the case


Sub: Election tools for your state
Message:
Your state is going to play a key role in the upcoming Presidential Election and our tools will help you in making registration to vote easy and obtaining an absentee ballot.
Please check www.StateDemocracy.org for more information
9.12.2008 5:35am
sorreo:
For the poster who thinks Obama would do poorly under tough questioning, you might want to check out Obama's interview with Bill O'Reilly.

So, while Obama has been doing the interview circuit with O'Reilly, Meet the Press, This Week with George Steph, Keith Olbermann, Palin has done one interview.

What about McCain? He appeared on a local Maine news station and was interviewed by some guy who regularly hosts a cooking show. Looking for a softball interview, McCain ran into a buzz saw, as he was asked hard questions about his Palin pick for VP.

Next up for McCain - appearances on the View and the Rachel Ray Show. Not Cindy, but John McCain will be appearing on the View and Rachel Ray Show tomorrow.
9.12.2008 5:35am
NickReeves (mail):
Let's get real people. That was gut wrenching. She didn't know about the Bush doctrine? If I'm a mechainic I know about hydraulic engines. If I'm a beautician I know about henna rinse. I think people expect the future VP to know about the Bush Doctrine even if they don't. This is no trick question. Have you watched the debates. There were like 25 of them a few weeks ago. It is nothing I haven't heard before. Preemptive strikes.
9.12.2008 6:51am
NickReeves (mail):
I've seen 25 debates with the other candidates including Biden and McCain. This is not new stuff. They all have the experience of being on the national stage in Washington. But I even suspect most other Governors know their way around this stuff. It was not that deep. Position on invading Pakistan has been in the news for a year now. She is clearly not qualified. You can't cram for this kind of thing. Not even if she were bright. Which she does not seem to be. Sorry. But it is scary and sad. Let's hope the media downplays it like they normally do. We have got Fox and all the others in the tank for Rove and McCain.
9.12.2008 6:59am
Angus:

Johnny Canuck, Saakashvili didn't provoke the Russians, he defended his country against an invasion. Had he sat on his bum and not defended it, just to please the USA, he'd have been a traitor. Read Totten's report, that's been linked here at least twice, including by me.
You can cite Totten's piece all you want, but that doesn't improve it's quality. It's some of the worst journalism I've seen. 90% of the text is block quotes from the Georgia government spokesman.

Totten's research for the piece? Fly to Georgia. Interview Georgia government spokesman along with regional "expert" provided by the spokesman. Go to a Georgia hospital, interview two Georgian soldiers and one Georgian civilian. Fly home. Write article concluding that Georgia was 100% innocent.

Doesn't pass the laugh test.
9.12.2008 7:32am
rightsaid (mail):
Her ignorance would be hilarious if it weren't so scary. Her as the leader of the free world?

Where is the McCain I knew and loved in 2000? Now it is all lies kowtowing to the extreme right, exemplified by his dangerous and disrespectful choice for VP.

This Independent is voting Obama-Biden.
9.12.2008 7:51am
Hoosier:
I have been voting for Republicans since John Fremont, and have always thought that the Democrats were the party of rum, Romanism, and rebellion. But after seeing Sarah Palin's awful performance last night, together with her manifest desire to eat raw babies, this is one Republican who is voting for Obama, who is really the best-prepared commander-in-chief candidate since Eisenhower, and one of the greatest leaders since Cincinnatus. I really really really WAS going to vote for McCain but now I'm not because of this interview because she was so bad and scary and I can't vote for McCain now even though as I just said I was going to.
9.12.2008 8:04am
Hoosier:
David Warner:
["Let's admit it"

Who is the "us" in "Let's"? Sockpuppets on parade?

Let's face facts. Milton Friedman was a fascist tool and libertarianism is a naive pipe dream. The Constitution is a farce and the Bill of Wrongs a sick joke. We should all join together and start a commune in Greenland.

Who's with me?]

I'm afraid of walrusses. Can we make it someplace warmer?
9.12.2008 8:07am
subpatre (mail):
Beej burbbled "Interesting poll. Hadn't seen it ... it is ludicrous to contend that media outlets ... are going to be predominately liberal"

LOL. You didn't bother to read it or even click the link. It wasn't "a poll". It was a half-dozen studies, self reports and polls covering a forty year period.

It negates anything you want to 'contend', and shows you as a talking bobble-head repeating its lines.
9.12.2008 8:10am
Arkady:
I suppose she did alright, not great, but ok. She was obviously pretty well prepped. But as I was thinking about the interview, I had this thought: Suppose Sarah Palin had entered the race for president. How long do you think she would have lasted in the GOP presidential debates?
9.12.2008 8:18am
An Admirable Woman (mail):
i The oddeest take-away I've gotten from the interview is how she answered the question about being ready/wanting the VPOTUS, and how she knew right away without blinking. I think twice before buying a car...or an anniversary gift...but she didn't even "blink" when offered the VPOTUS? Come on -- she's either lying, marketing herself, or has some inate contemplation gene missing. (I would have at LEAST stopped to consider how it might impact my family! -- and blinked)

The statement "I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink." is seriously deranged. As Charlie quickly pointed out, governing is more than reforming the government (not "this country" as Palin misspeaks).

If McCain/Palin were really into reform then they should start speaking out about the no bid contracts associated with Iraq and Katrinna. Let's hear some specific abuses that are going to end. Earwigs account for a mere 1/2 cent out of every dollar in the budget and the vast majority of them are for worthy projects.
9.12.2008 9:05am
An Admirable Woman (mail):
She also said she had never met a head of state and added: "If you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you."

Cheney - We know for a fact he'd met Sadam Hussein.
Al Gore - Sure he met many in his tenure in Congress
Dan Quayle - Even Dan Quayle must have met heads of state in his 8 years in the Senate
George HW Bush - Certainly as Ambassador.
Mondale - As a Senator, he must have.
Rockefeller - ditto
Ford - ditto
Agnew - Perhaps Agnew the only VP to resign due to a criminal investigation.

She's right!
9.12.2008 9:43am
karl newman:
vkd: "I thought her answer was excellent, but then I think for myself on this issue."

I think for myself as well. Sara Palin also used to think for herself as she is on record as "thinking" that global warming is not man made. If she believes that, there should be no reason to act on climate. Now, with McCain holding the opposite view, she clearly waffled and now is willing to say it is at least partially man made. Then she states that her earlier belief doesn't matter and we have to act to prevent global climate change.

She said: "John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution"

Why would you agree to that if you think it is a natural cycle? You would burden us with regulation that has no chance of working?
9.12.2008 9:57am
Virginia:
AAW, I wouldn't be so sure about that list. Do you have anything other than your assumptions to go on?
9.12.2008 9:59am
Johnny Canuck (mail):
Orin Kerr:

Isn't it dangerous to rely on an organization whose very purpose is to find the liberal bias?


Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).


The whole Canadian spectrum is of course very much to the left of the American, so that many Canadians who would self-identify as conservative, would be seen as flaming liberals in an American context, so that when I look at American MSM it appears very conservative to me. But the far bigger problem is how shallow it seems.

Palin didn't have a clue what the Bush doctrine was, and in the gotcha world of American politics knew she couldn't admit it, but I suspect Gibson was only slightly less clueless: someone had handed him the question. Gibson read from his notes what he had been told the Bush Doctrine was. Far more interesting would have been a question framed in terms of whether she favoured a preemptive war or preventative war approach in light of no WMD being found in Iraq.

I thought Palin was quite bright, but clearly only recently learning the subject matter. The fact that she appears not to have had an ongoing intellectual curiosity about foreign affairs should be troubling. Isn't the lesson of Bush II that an unintellectually curious President who delegates decision-making isn't a good idea for the US?
9.12.2008 10:20am
taney71:

I have been voting for Republicans since John Fremont, and have always thought that the Democrats were the party of rum, Romanism, and rebellion. But after seeing Sarah Palin's awful performance last night, together with her manifest desire to eat raw babies, this is one Republican who is voting for Obama, who is really the best-prepared commander-in-chief candidate since Eisenhower, and one of the greatest leaders since Cincinnatus. I really really really WAS going to vote for McCain but now I'm not because of this interview because she was so bad and scary and I can't vote for McCain now even though as I just said I was going to.


Hoosier:

That was a good wake up read for the morning. I think I read about 5 or 6 posts with the same formula:

1) I'm a Republican who was either on the fence or a McCain supporter

2) After watching the interview where Palin declared [insert horrible policy stance here] and showed herself to be totally unprepared for office ....

3) I will never vote for McCain but will support the great Obama who only just now do I realize is the best thing for this country.

Very old trollish posting formula. I wish it would stop.
9.12.2008 10:38am
BFields (mail):
I thought she came off as disingenuous and too rehearsed. I didn't like her stance on the issues at all. I hope she gets better.
9.12.2008 10:48am
AKD:

But at this point voting for McCain seems irresponsible. Maybe if McCain were younger, but he's not, and actuarial tables say if you elect him there's a one in three chance that this woman who can barely recite the inane foreign policy talking points she was asked to memorize will be President.


Repeating talking points from...Matt Damon. Now that is sad.
9.12.2008 11:18am
Sam Draper (mail):
I have to be honest that I was a little confused about the "Bush Doctrine" question. I have heard the term bandied about for years, and it seemed to me to mean different things to different people. I googled the term this morning, and the Wikipedia entry states includes a bunch of concepts - the right to attack countries that harbor terrorists (the original meaning), the theory of preventative war, the policy of supporting democracy in every third world dump and US unilateralism - all eventually embodied in the September 20, 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States. I must say this is consistent with I have read over time - the term involves a bunch of concepts.

Given this, I think Palin was completely correct to ask "In what respect, Charlie?" When Gibson stated that "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 other country that we think is going to attack us," Gibson was only about 1/4 right, and this interpretation is actually at variance with the original meaning.

Heck, it looks like the term was first used by Krauthammer in reference to Bush's ABM policy. "Bush Doctrine" is not a term that has one meaning.

So it looks like Palin was right to answer the way she did and Gibson didn't know exactly what he was talking about. Either that or my memory of the term is wrong and Karl Rove and his evil minions changed the Wikipedia entry overnight. ;)

I was disapointed with her answer. Not because it showed a lack of knowledge on her part, but because I was hoping the McCain administration would have a less idealistic (and expensive) foreign policy. Oh well, it still beats having another Carter administration.
9.12.2008 11:22am
Dave N (mail):
Hoosier,

Perhaps when you are channeling Sarcastro you should do the opposite of what he does: put brackets around your sarcastic posts and leave your serious ones unbracketed.

That said, you are learning well from a Master.
9.12.2008 11:39am
David Warner:
"The oddeest take-away I've gotten from the interview is how she answered the question about being ready/wanting the VPOTUS, and how she knew right away without blinking. I think twice before buying a car...or an anniversary gift...but she didn't even "blink" when offered the VPOTUS? Come on -- she's either lying, marketing herself, or has some inate contemplation gene missing. (I would have at LEAST stopped to consider how it might impact my family! -- and blinked)"

Um, she'd been on the short list for months. You don't think she had enough time to contemplate then? Some people are capable of making decisions and commitments!

This is assuming that the above post was not just part of the Get Out the Spam effort.
9.12.2008 11:49am
Hoosier:
An Admirable Woman

Palin's comment about Veeps and world leaders is correct if one interprest "go back in history" to mean "before All in the Family made its network debut." Counting Veeps since then, you are correct. But what stands out is that there are only two gevernors on that list. Agnew may or may not have met with a "world leader" prior to 1968, but I have no evidence that he did. The other is Rockefeller, who was, by definition, a Rockefeller; The family that brought the UN to NYC. So the question of what one would expect from a veep candidate remains open.
9.12.2008 12:11pm
Hoosier:
Dave N

Are you suggesting that I am not afraid of walrusses?
9.12.2008 12:12pm
byomtov (mail):
Orin Kerr,

You say,

Such are the dangers of independent thought: Instead of picking a conclusion and reasoning to it, you start with the evidence as you see it and you work your way to a conclusion. I highly recommend it, as it makes the journey much more interesting.

I agree, even though you don't think so.

But then you cite the Media Research Center, which says:

On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene.

Isn't this exactly what you're criticizing - conclusion first, evidence later - not to mention that the business about "undermines traditional American values" is a purely subjective opinion, not amenable to their "sound scientific research."
9.12.2008 12:36pm
OrinKerr:
Byomtov,

I didn't even know what the "media research center" was; it was just the first thing that popped up with poll numbers when I googled something along the lines of "how reporters vote." You are being remarkably silly here.
9.12.2008 12:57pm
An Admirable Woman (mail):
I have to be honest that I was a little confused about the "Bush Doctrine" question. I have heard the term bandied about for years, and it seemed to me to mean different things to different people.

One thing is clear, the Bush Doctrine is not Bush's world view.
9.12.2008 1:12pm
subpatre (mail):
byomtov says: "Isn't this exactly what you're criticizing - conclusion first, evidence later ...

It is not a valid criticism of the factual, scientific research proving liberal bias in the media. Evolutionary theory --and all its permutations-- is wholely derived from theory first, evidence later. Much of our knowledge of science is formed this way.

But that's not what Orin Kerr said; he criticized your lack of reasoning. Period. Where 'Byomtov' announced that any conclusion except his is "delusional". Anyone. Any other conclusion. What a waste of electrons.
9.12.2008 1:27pm
Jane (mail):

I can't vote for Mccain knowing she could potentially be president.

I'd wager that was your view before the interview too.
9.12.2008 1:32pm
Johnny Canuck (mail):
Subpatre

You say:

Evolutionary theory --and all its permutations-- is wholely derived from theory first, evidence later.


I know nothing about biology, but had always thought Darwin's theory was developed as a result of his observations. THe following quote is from darwin-online.org.uk:

His theory reconciled a host of diverse kinds of evidence such as the succession of fossil forms in the geological record, the geographical distribution of species, recapitulative appearances in embryology, homologous structures, vestigial organs and nesting taxonomic relationships
9.12.2008 1:56pm
fullerene:


Palin's comment about Veeps and world leaders is correct if one interprest "go back in history" to mean "before All in the Family made its network debut." Counting Veeps since then, you are correct. But what stands out is that there are only two gevernors on that list. Agnew may or may not have met with a "world leader" prior to 1968, but I have no evidence that he did. The other is Rockefeller, who was, by definition, a Rockefeller; The family that brought the UN to NYC. So the question of what one would expect from a veep candidate remains open.



Depending on one's definition, it is not uncommon for governors to meet with "world leaders." I would say that many, if not most, travel to foreign countries to meet with business and political figures as part of their "official business." Palin did not do this probably because of some combination of Alaska being a small state, it having no industries tied to foreign companies, the length of travel to foreign countries, and her short tenure. Still, I am not sure I would give her or anyone foreign policy credit solely for having met a foreign leader on one of these state subsidized outings.

Palin's problem for those who don't like her is pretty much the same as Bush's. She doesn't seem to know a lot about foreign policy, because she does not much care about it. Of course, she is capable of learning, and we all expect that she will learn to some degree. The downside is that she isn't naturally interested in it, so her learning will be somewhat limited and prone to taking whatever shortcuts possible.
9.12.2008 2:26pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Palin did not do this probably because of some combination of Alaska being a small state, it having no industries tied to foreign companies, the length of travel to foreign countries, and her short tenure."

BP is a huge presence in Alaska.
9.12.2008 2:40pm
LM (mail):
subpatre:

It is not a valid criticism of the factual, scientific research proving liberal bias in the media. Evolutionary theory --and all its permutations-- is wholely derived from theory first, evidence later. Much of our knowledge of science is formed this way.

Please repeat this, and often. Nothing could better undermine claims of a left-biased media than associating them with opposition to evolution.
9.12.2008 2:50pm
one of many:
Orin,
I didn't even know what the "media research center" was; it was just the first thing that popped up with poll numbers when I googled something along the lines of "how reporters vote." You are being remarkably silly here.

Just for your information it is the right-wing equivalent of Media Matters, or to be more precise Media Matters is the left-wing attempt to replicate the Media Research Center. Both should come with the same caveat, "there may be some truth there but partisanship causes them to see bias that isn't there and ignore bias they agree with", read for entertainment but do not trust their evaluations and check to see if they mis-characterize their source materials.
9.12.2008 2:58pm
OrinKerr:
one of many,

Thanks -- I shouldn't have linked to their site. (I was just linking to it for the poll numbers they linked to, though, which I think are still valid.)
9.12.2008 3:10pm
byomtov (mail):
It is not a valid criticism of the factual, scientific research proving liberal bias in the media.

Media Research Center states that it was formed to prove liberal bias in the media. That's conclusion first, evidence later. Sorry.

Where 'Byomtov' announced that any conclusion except his is "delusional". Anyone. Any other conclusion. What a waste of electrons.

You know, if you, or Orin, or anyone else wants to criticize the quality of reasoning in these comment threads you're a little late to the game. If you want to criticize insulting generalizations and random insults about those who disagree with a commenter, fine.

But let's have a touch of integrity here. Read any number of comments by conservatives on any number of threads here and you will find an absolute treasure trove of insults and accusations and stupid generalizations directed at "liberals" or Democrats, or "libtards" or whatever.

Yes. I made an unpleasant remark about those who disagreed with my interpretation of Palin's interview. BFD. It is nothing compared to the stuff many right-wingers post here. Yet somehow it's my comment that generates the host's outrage and yours.

I'm unimpressed.
9.12.2008 4:31pm
Toby:
Alas, that so many wish to write off a faraway land of which we know little; I wonder if they know that writing it off would leave Russian able to shut off both of the major pipelines that supply Europe at will. Personally, if I had to choose, in terms of pure power politics, I'd rather Russia take Poland if by doing so, it would leave Georgia, with its pipelines, unomolested in perpetuity.

Of course, I'd rather that the neo-imperialist Bear was contained.

Question for the conspiracy: can we add "Member since" to he posts, at least until November...
9.12.2008 4:33pm
Smokey:
An Admirable Woman:
I have to be honest that I was a little confused about the "Bush Doctrine" question. I have heard the term bandied about for years, and it seemed to me to mean different things to different people.

One thing is clear, the Bush Doctrine is not Bush's world view.
The "Admirable" woman [another one of the dozens of messiah worshippers that have suddenly appeared here overnight to try and explain why they think Governor Palin doesn't measure up to their empty suit's pathetic lack of experience], admits to being "confused". Well, he/she has that right [hint: being confused isn't very admirable; so re-troll and do the usual name change, and start from scratch.]

If someone claims that the Bush doctrine doesn't represent Bush's world view, then what planet are they from?? Uranus? No wonder these folks are confused.

The fact that the 0 worshippers are desperately looking for something, anything, no matter how minor and inconsequential to attack, shows them to be willfully blind to truly unethical ignoramuses like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Janet Reno -- who all have a ton of unethical/dishonest/incompetent shenanigans under their belts.

Recall that Sarah Palin forcefully objected to political corruption. When she was disregarded and dissed by the good ol' boy network, she ran against the incumbent Governor of her own Party. And she won a hell of an uphill battle. Then she ran against a former Democrat Governor. And won.

Now, all the refugees from the DailyKos and the DU, who have [hypocritically] claimed all along that they want women to break through the glass ceiling, are suddenly backtracking on women's progress, big time. Instead, serial-intellectual property thief Joe Biden is their politician of choice. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? So once again, the female candidate can go to the back of the bus and sit next to Hillary.

Pretending that Gov. Palin was in any way inept is a really clueless claim when compared with their empty suited hero, the stumbling and inexperienced B.H. 0bama.
9.12.2008 5:40pm
Anderson (mail):
Goodness, people. Stop kidding yourselves.

The issue is not whether Gibson got the Bush Doctrine's definition right. He did not.

The issue is that Palin obviously hadn't heard the term before.

For anyone with an open mind on the subject, James Fallows -- a Democrat of course but a good journalist -- explains it. A snip.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
9.12.2008 7:04pm
Brian K (mail):
Milhouse,

So let me get this straight. you have absolutely no problem with taking obama's quote out of the context of his speech and putting it a completely different context in order to bash him. yet when someone one allegedly does that to palin you throw a hissy fit? there's a reason you had to address it so many times...if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

You can try to talk out of it all you want but you clearly hold a different standard for different people based on political hackery.

I don't believe it, and I don't believe that you really believe it.
really? so you know what i believe? did you get your master's in mind reading from cracker jack U?
9.12.2008 8:03pm
OrinKerr:
Byomtov,

I realize that you are trying to play the victim here, but please note that you didn't generate any "outrage" other than your own. I just wanted you to back off your foolish initial comment. You declined, and instead kept swinging, even pulling out some of the insult strategies that are generally used in junior high. If you're proud of the exchange, then so be it.
9.12.2008 8:15pm
Smokey:
Anderson:

You're the one who's fooling yourself:
The issue is that Palin obviously hadn't heard the term before.
You made two errors in one short sentence:

1) Her common-sense answer is not an 'issue,' except in your own imagination. Governor Palin gave an absolutely routine response to what was, in retrospect, an attempted set-up; a "gotcha!" that failed. The fact that she easily outwitted Gibson is driving the DailyKos contingent up the wall. But no one else cares.

2) You put yourself forth as a mind reader, which is risible ["obviously", heh]. If you could read people's minds, a couple days' at the Texas Hold 'Em tables in Las Vegas, and you'd be off to your new mansion in Tahiti. My mind-reading skillz are just as good as yours, and I can see that you're trying to take the spotlight off the fact that Obama doen't even know how many states are in the U.S. [or maybe he's still addled by the cocaine he brags about using].

Democrats are consumed with projection: always attributing their own faults to others. Just because you had to scramble to Wikipedia and look up a term doesn't mean Gov. Palin never heard it before, as you claim without one iota of evidence -- except for your mind-reading skillz. Didn't they teach you anything about logic in law school?

If your mind-reading is all you've got... you've got nothin'.
9.12.2008 9:16pm
David Warner:
Occam's Razor

A. She'd likely heard it before, as we all have.
B. It was likely as vague in her head as it is in ours, thanks to the abysmal communications record of the Bush administration
C. She was being hyper-cautious to avoid gaffes
D. So she first asked Gibson what he had in mind to focus the vagueness
E. The she responded with an answer aimed right down the center (an imminent threat test, over against Condi's pre-imminent smoking nuke argument)

Don't tell anyone, but I suspect she's not that "conservative", other than her Alaskan Libertarian instincts. Hard to be another Bush when you're dissing part of his doctrine, or, as the left claims, haven't even heard of it.
9.13.2008 12:01am
Struthius:
I just like round numbers.
9.13.2008 1:04am
Brian K (mail):
Democrats are consumed with projection: always attributing their own faults to others.

I guess i'd rather be a projector than a confabulator and serial liar, but that's something else we disagree on.
9.13.2008 1:28am
courtwatcher:
I just don't understand the idea that Gibson's "bias" is relevant here. The campaign hand-picked him as the first interviewer. Could they possibly have not known what they were getting into? If so, what does that say about the campaign? And shouldn't she be able to present herself well, regardless of the interviewer? Obama went on the O'Reilly Factor, for Pete's sake!
9.13.2008 2:06am
LM (mail):
David Warner,

I think Occam would differ. For one thing:

OrinKerr:

She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

Um, can I ask, what is the Bush Doctrine? To be candid, I don't think I've heard of it before.

Then there was her body language and the look on her face. Both signified something very different than recognition.
9.13.2008 2:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
byomtov:

It is nothing compared to the stuff many right-wingers post here. Yet somehow it's my comment that generates the host's outrage and yours.


You didn't get the memo. The rule here is that gratuitous insults are fine as long as they are traveling from right to left. Some evidence of that phenomenon is here.
9.13.2008 9:32am
David Warner:
LM,

"Then there was her body language and the look on her face. Both signified something very different than recognition."

If you were trying to implicitly run against an incumbent President while retaining the support of his supporters, what reaction would you have to being asked what you thought of his (abysmally communicated and everchanging) Doctrine?

The answer she eventually "stumbled*" into happened to be an imminent threat test that significantly walks back the Doctrine in question, in a direction much more palatable to the public.

* - I'm not so sure attributing this to dumb luck would be wise for Democrats who remember losing to W and Reagan in a similar manner. You are indeed more intelligent this go round. Show us, don't tell us.
9.13.2008 9:50pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
If you were trying to implicitly run against an incumbent President while retaining the support of his supporters, what reaction would you have to being asked what you thought of his (abysmally communicated and everchanging) Doctrine?


It would have been logical for her to give the same answer that McCain gave, when Gibson asked exactly the same question in a debate earlier this year.

One of the things Palin revealed is that she didn't watch that debate, and her handlers didn't even think of briefing her on the statements McCain made during the debates. I think this is pretty remarkable.
9.14.2008 4:47pm