Well, let me see if I can take a wild guess.
It’s because I’m a sexist, racist pig who’s also selfish and hates poor people, and, due to my stupidity and inborn EEEVIL, not only supports but actively encourages mass murder, especially that of brown people. Oh, yeah, and I think women who wear short skirts are asking to be raped.
Does that about cover it?
And what, prey tell did Gibson say back to her? He gave her the opportunity to pick any of the possible definitions of the Bush Doctrine. And she STILL couldn’t.
Surely you’re not insisting that she actually knew what the Bush Doctrine was and was just confused as to which thing he meant, are you? Are you? Hell, even Charlie admits she didn’t know.
Unfortunately liars populate both sides, and the left has an identical history.
Spoken like a true Palin-drone.
Fingers in ears… check.
Unconcerned at her lack of knowledge… check.
Cheerleader outfit on… check.
Flight Partisan Hack ready for takeoff.
This is ridiculous. I do admit that she wasn’t on are surest footing. But she first asked for clarification, then when he was intentionally unhelpful she sought clarification through, to paraphrase, “you mean his general world view”. He then stated what he wanted answered, which is one of the four iterations of the bush Doctrine. And not even the latest one. What HE should have done is preambled the question with a definition of what he meant and then ask her. It was a cheap shot if you ask me. As has been pointed out, when the Dems were asked a similar question in the debates, the definition was provided. This is helpful if one is genuinely interested in a candidate’s position on the BD. Gibson showed he was less interested in that than in trying to make her look bad. I like Gibson, but he appeared to be on a mission. He seemed annoyed and haughty the whole time.
Cute.
No, really. That was good. Especially the ‘Palin-drone’ part, though it does torture the correct pronunciation of her name somewhat.
But all in all, I’d give it an eight. You’re no elucidator, but then he bombs a lot, too. So keep it up. Seriously. I see some real talent here.
Regards,
SA
I agree. The very idea that she actually knew what the Bush Doctrine was is ridiculous. So you, Charlie and I all agree. [qutoe=magellan]I do admit that she wasn’t on are surest footing. But she first asked for clarification, then when he was intentionally unhelpful she sought clarification through, to paraphrase, “you mean his general world view”.
[/quote]
See the thing was he wasn’t “unhelpful”. He could not have been more helpful. He let here have a chance to decide for herself whatever she wanted the Bush Doctrine to be. The thing was, however, she had no clue there was even a thing called the Bush Doctrine, let alone being confused over which definition she wanted to use. She could have picked any one of the 4 that you guys like to say are Bush Doctrines. And she couldn’t even do that.
Of course you consider it a cheap shot. Because it showed she didn’t know ANY of the definitions.
Boo fuckin’ hoo. Poor Palin.
And the "blame the interviewer for the interviewee’s lack of knowledge. How devestatingly original.
Look, she didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was. You can, as SA decided to do, and pretend it doesn’t matter to you whether she did or not. But the fact is she didn’t.
Glad you like it. I figured that after your continued pointless posts devoid of any actual substance, that I’d give it a try. I simply downed a couple of 40 ouncers, watched Keifer Sutherland in 24 for 98 straight hours, read the Bible on speed, and BINGO, I was a right winger. It was fun.
Now, if you have anything of actual substance, just let me know.
That’s merely an assumption on your part. A fair interpretation of what happened would grant that. Guess that’s too much to ask. She asked for clarification—as she or anyone else should have—twice! And then she commented, albeit vaguely and generally, on Bush and the Iraq war. When he finally explained himself, she gave a direct answer. And the right one at that.
“Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is.” Those are Charlie’s words. Even he admits that Palin had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. She didn’t “ask for clarification” because she didn’t even know what she needed clarifying. And, when Gibson told her that she could define it anyway way wished, she punted on that one too.
Oh, but I do. Take a look at the state this society is in.
I won’t reiterate because my thoughts on the matter have been well elucidated over the last few days.
Just suffice it say that I view keeping Obama and leftie government out of office to be about the most important and substantive issue I could possibly come up with.
Charlie who? Gibson? The guy who was annoyed and haughty the whole time and jumped on the opportunity to make her look bad? That Charlie?
No; we’re talking about Charlie Gibson, the guy who graciously threw her a lifeline rather than continue to belabor the fact that she was BSing her way through a basic question for which she was unprepared.
You hid it pretty well. This post of substance of yours must be a doozy. Give me a sec to get ready for it.
:: deep breath::
::deep breath::
OK. I’m ready. Hit me.
THAT’S your post of substance? Obama is TEH SUXXOR?
Heh.
About what I expected.
Yeah…horrible deficit, unnecessary war, 4000+ American soldiers dead, the 4th Amendment all but dead, the rule of law as it applies to the president dead…I can see your point.
Oh, wait…those are all the Republicans’ fault! Silly me…
Otherwise, I see a society that’s about 1000 times more open and inclusive than it was 40 years ago. I see a society where women are actual human beings, where gay folk generally don’t have to hide themselves away any more, where African-American and Hispanic citizens have a voice and a place in government and in popular media, where the straitjacket of conformity has been relaxed a bit, where your religion or your sexual orientation or your race doesn’t generally make you a target for physical violence anymore.
I don’t know what it looks like to you, but it looks a hell of a lot better than it did when I was a kid.
While your description of Charlie Gibson and his actions in the interview are definitely more correct than magellan’s, the Charlie whose quote I used to show Palin didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was, was actually Charles Krauthammer, the conservative columnist.
Oh you’re talking about the interview that was held in Bizzaro Universe. Now I understand.
Thanks for the clarification. So to prove your point you use the guy who originally coined the term and who has said that she did the right thing asking for clarification, as their are four possible answers.
And all due respect to Charlie, but no one knows what she did or didn’t know as far as the BD. Maybe she didn’t know squat. Maybe she knew there was more than one definition of it. My guess is that she knew it to be ambiguous and simply sought clarification so she could be as clear in her answer as possible. as she was at the very end.
Anything else is Karnac territory.
And, once again just for you, he admits she didn’t even know what the Bush Doctrine was, whereas you seem to cling to this belief that she did. A belief that has been, in the interview and in this thread, shown to be incorrect.
Why can’t some McCain/Palin supporters simply do the following:
(1) Admit Palin screwed up on that question by trying to bluff her way through something she didn’t know; and
(2) Admit that response is evidence of a general lack of knowledge in foreign policy; but
(3) State that Palin’s error and/or lack of knowledge does not mean Obama/Biden should be elected over McCain/Palin because other aspects of the election or public policy are more important?
I am a Dallas Cowboys fan, but I can admit when a Cowboy blows a play on the field and also when an opposing player makes a great play against the Cowboys… even the Eagles. That does not make me less of a Cowboys fan and does not mean I want the other team to win.
“Tony Romo shouldn’t have thrown that ball into double coverage. Interception! That was dumb. Go Cowboys!”
“Donovan McNabb did a great job avoiding the Dallas rush and made a great play out of nothing. Go Cowboys!”
See, it’s not that hard.
All the mental gymastics and contortions going on to try to salvage Palin’s botched response are ridiculous. She obviously lacks foreign policy knowledge and experience, but why not just admit her flaw and admit that flaw makes little difference to you in the bigger picture instead of going through all this “damage control” spinning bullshit?
If Obama or Biden gave a bad answer to some question as evidence of a greater flaw, I’d admit it and move on with the understanding that the candidate’s particular flaw in that one area will not likley sway my vote because other considerations outweigh that flaw in my book.