The contents are complete drivel. He did not try “embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq.” he asked what she meany by saying Iraq was “a task from God.” Her fucking Christian faith per se had nothing to do with it? Where do you guys get this persecution complex? The media is not out to get Christians. The media IS majority Christian. The whole country is like 90% Christian. You are not a persecuted minority. Christians control all three branches of government and virtually all the wealth and always have.
No, we’re not pussies at all. We’re simply tired of the media trying to make Republicans look bad and Democrats look good, so we’re calling bullshit when it occurs.
Yeah, after 7 years of the media performing analingus on Bush every time he so much as opened his mouth…I’m sure you all are really tired of wandering in the wilderness.
Yes you are pussies. Princess Snowflake got nothing but medium fast, belt high balls over the plate. All she had to do was give her canned answers and praise America. It’s not Gibson’s fault her handlers didn’'t think to coach her on the Bush Doctrine. Gibson got caught off guard. He fed her a line and they hadn’t made her memorize that part of the script.
Selected excerpts from Starving Artist’s link (bolding mine):
You say that the author’s opinion confirms the existence of liberal bias in the media. I say that this editorial, as published by UPI, is a clear example of Republican bias in the media.
This is utter nonsense. By the time that Obama misspoke in front of Stephanopoulis, he had been grilled about growing up “Muslim” and about attending a madrassa in Indonesia, then grilled repeatedly about whether he agreed with every little quoted-out-of-context phrase uttered by Reverend Wright. For anyone who actually paid attention, Obama had thoroughly answered the questions about his religious beliefs and Stephanopoulis “rushing in” (more Right wing story spinning) was merely to keep a clearly accidental grabbing of the wrong word from sidetracking the discussion.
By contrast, Palin has only been visible for two weeks and there are any number of reports (mostly exaggerated) that she has claimed that the war in Iraq was the U.S. carrying out God’s will and reports (pretty accurate) that her pastor’s ravings make Reverend Wright look like Martin Luther King jr. Gibson gave her a perfect opportunity to set the record straight with some fairly innocuous questions about how she viewed her responsibilities as governor (or Veep) in the context of her religious beliefs.
Sieff is obviously part of the Right Wing media bias that I see so frequently spinning stories to demonize anyone to the Left of Genghis Khan.
I just got done watching Charlie Rose and he had 3 guests on his show on a discussion about the 2008 Presidential Election:
Bob Schieffer – TV Anchor and one of the debate moderators
Paul begala - Democratic Strategist whose advise for Obama is Attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, attack. Attack.
Jonathan alter – Senior Editor for Newsweek – outspoken critic of Bush
Much of the conversation revolved around what Obama had to do correctly to win. Now it’s fine if they want to have a Democratic strategy session on TV but hiding it on a publicly funded program seems to be wading in the deep end of the gray line, particularly during an election year. That aside I found it disconcerting to see Schieffer participate in a Democratic round table when he is a moderator for one of the debates.
That was indeed likely Stephanopoulos’s motive, but, as is fairly clear from Obama’s reaction in the clip, Obama didn’t actually grab the wrong word [except in terms of lack of immediate awareness of the sidetracking his phrasing would lead to when taken out of context]. He was just speaking about the fact that McCain had not made the (false) claim that Obama was a Muslim. His use of the phrase “my Muslim faith” was not a mistake, at least not in the sense that he actually meant to use the phrase “my Christian faith” in its place; it just didn’t mean what people might erroneously assume it to mean. It didn’t presuppose that Obama actually had a Muslim faith, anymore than my saying “To his credit, he disavowed the false rumors about my illegitimate black child” would imply that I actually have an illegitimate black child. If the wording should have been replaced with anything, it should have been “my alleged Muslim faith”.
Lets face it Politics and religion do not mix very well.
Bush thought (maybe still thinks) he is on a mission from God;he looked into Putins eyes and said he saw his soul;maybe he should have looked more at Putins policies and actions.
When any one tells me they are doing God’s will I ask them how do you know it was God’s will and not Satan acting as an ‘angel of light’. The fact is no one can know the will of God,only what some human tells them it is, or they feel their will is also God’s. Was Hitler in God’s Plan?
Today’s tribune has a lot of letters saying that as a Catholic they cannot vote for Obama because of the Church’s stand on Birth control and abortion. McCain stated that life begins at conception, yet biologically it started eons ago and life is in the man’s sperm, so saying life began at conception is biologicially not the truth.
A relative of mine wrote me that she was told if she voted for Obama she would no longer be Catholic so she said, “In that case I guess I won’t be one anymore”.
Palin may not know the Bush’s doctrine because she was not aware that her’s was the same as Bush’s.
After all the obloquy heaped on Palin in this thread for the Bush doctrine question it turns out that Charlie Gibson himself got it wrong. (And the author of the article, Charles Krauthammer, should know - he’s the guy that coined the term.)
The thing Charlie missed is that, even if you think Gibson, in his one sentence recap of the Bush Doctrine, was wrong, that fact in no way, shape or form, absolves Palin from not knowing ANY of the definitions beforehand. So, going by his logic, Palin should be faulted not just for NOT knowing Gibson’s definition of the Bush Doctrine, but also NOT knowing ANY of the other 3.
She’s 4 times as bad now than she was when she didn’t know just Gibson’s definition. Whew, that clears it up for me.
Let me put it this way. The fact that she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was means nothing!
Not in terms in terms of her ability to function as VP, nor in terms of affecting conservative votes. Dems are only jumping on it with such fervor because they are panicked by how she has energized the Republican base and they are desperate to find fault with her selection.
However, most people want a VP to possess a modicum of knowledge about foreign policy. YOU may not, but I really hope most people do. I am fully aware your Republ-armor deflects most anything negative about a candidate, but the idea that the VP is so completely unaware of foreign policy that she doesn’t know ANY of the definitions concerns me.
Edited to add: Krauthammer and your responses show the right IS concerned about this and know that it is damaging to those who want an informed VP.
In a weird way, I feel sorry for Palin. Up until a short time ago she was just the governor of Alaska. Now she’s been given a lot of info to remember (would someone in her former position need to have detailed foreign policy knowledge?) and had the press excavate her background. She could have said no. I can see why she didn’t, since it’s a rare opportunity, and now that she is in the race she should be heavily grilled just like everyone else, but still…it can’t be easy to be thrown into the grinder.
That being said, she has a LOT of work to do before I’ll buy her as being any kind of respectable student of policy. She’s gonna get her clock cleaned eventually, but I’ll still feel a little bad when she does.
I’m sorry, but this makes it sound like you’ve got a persecution complex. “Hiding it”? “deep end of the gray line”? “…when he is a moderator”?
If you’d like, I’d be willing to elaborate further. But not only would it be a hijack (I echo Sam Stone’s call for more on the subsequent airings), my primary reason for responding is to subscribe to the thread.
It was pretty much more of the same: beauty queen contestant answers, vague references, off-topic responses, smoke and mirrors. The usual political bullshit with no substance. Whenever Gibson tried to pin her down on things like “What three things will you do to fix the economic mess?”, she had no clear responses until he fed them to her. I was particularly intrigued about how they are going to reduce taxes and reduce government, yet take over management of GNMA and FRMC, which, according to her, are the cause of the mortgage meltdown. :rolleyes:
So, if someone is asked an ambiguous or overly broad question you don’t think the most sensible thing to do is to ask for clarification? You’ll have to explain that one to me.
