Sarah Palin has no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" is!

[Kelly the Dog]

In many cases, you may be correct. But since he's credited for coining the term, you'd figure that his opinion would matter in this singular instance. It's probably as close as you're going to get to the Manhattan movie line scene in real life.

The thing is, it doesn't matter how many definitions of it there are, or what they were. She had no idea what he was talking about. It was as if she had never heard those two words put together before. That, to me, is frightening. But what I expected. She has no reference for a lot of this stuff. Whether she had other things to worry about is pretty immaterial. She was not curious or well read or conversant in what is going on in the world outside of her isolated state.

[finknottle]

She may be politically smart, but she's not knowledgable on the issues. She does a good job of avoiding answering the questions she can't and deflecting by parroting canned responses based on key words in questions.

 

This flies in the face of your claim that she lacks experience in government!

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

This flies in the face of your claim that she lacks experience in government!

Nice reply, I don't think it makes your argument, but I do think that she has enough sense to avoid direct questions that she has no clue how to answer.

[GG]

The thing is, it doesn't matter how many definitions of it there are, or what they were. She had no idea what he was talking about. It was as if she had never heard those two words put together before. That, to me, is frightening. But what I expected. She has no reference for a lot of this stuff. Whether she had other things to worry about is pretty immaterial. She was not curious or well read or conversant in what is going on in the world outside of her isolated state.

 

No matter the disdain you have for Krauthammer, I think his summation is apt:

 

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

 

Imagine a governor who's more occupied with matters in her own state than on international issues. Too bad she hasn't been staying up late reading politics blogs and writing autobiographies to get ready for her ultimate job.

[Kelly the Dog]

No matter the disdain you have for Krauthammer, I think his summation is apt:

 

 

 

Imagine a governor who's more occupied with matters in her own state than on international issues. Too bad she hasn't been staying up late reading politics blogs and writing autobiographies to get ready for her ultimate job.

Gibson isn't a heartbeat away from the Presidency. That's blaming the messenger. I really don't understand why smart people don't think this is a huge problem with her. I just don't get it. I'm sick of stubborn, uninformed, non-curious, myopic people in the White House.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

No matter the disdain you have for Krauthammer, I think his summation is apt:

 

 

 

Imagine a governor who's more occupied with matters in her own state than on international issues. Too bad she hasn't been staying up late reading politics blogs and writing autobiographies to get ready for her ultimate job.

 

 

I agree that Charles Gibson looked bad in this one, but McCain and she havwe tried to tout her international issues experience as enough of which she has very little and spent very little time on. She did not acknowledge that. A more effective response could have been that "I am a quick study, I bring hard work, depend on knowledgeable people and rely on sound judgment of how to proceed on complicated issues. Then she could have made it a character issue.

[Chilly]

Gibson isn't a heartbeat away from the Presidency. That's blaming the messenger. I really don't understand why smart people don't think this is a huge problem with her. I just don't get it. I'm sick of stubborn, uninformed, non-curious, myopic people in the White House.

 

It seemed pretty clear to me watching the video that she was simply giving canned campaign answers. One of the problems with claiming she is "uninformed" or "non-curious" is you are assuming she doesn't have the knowledge or care to have the knowledge with foreign policy based strictly on canned interview answers.

 

I think it is completely illogical from that clip alone (I haven't seen the entire interview) to come to a conclusion one way or the other on what she actually knows. It seemed to me just one person trying to repeat campaign messages and avoid talking about anything that wasn't previously planned.

[finknottle]

Gibson isn't a heartbeat away from the Presidency. That's blaming the messenger. I really don't understand why smart people don't think this is a huge problem with her. I just don't get it. I'm sick of stubborn, uninformed, non-curious, myopic people in the White House.

 

Speaking of interviews, are you at all concerned that Obama - the guy some would have *in* the Presidency and not a heart-beat away - publically said in a debate that he would unilaterally send troops into Pakistan if we had information on the whereabouts of terrorists and the Pakistani government were not cooperating? I'm not raising questions about his actual position, mind you, since most politicians would agree privately. Rather, isn't it troubling that it never occured to him that those sorts of inflammatory statements are simply not said publically? Believe me, the coverage in South Asia at the time was not flattering for the US.

 

Are you not concerned that all to often when he talks, he seems unaware that what he says has a broader audience than the cheering groupies in front of him? Is he not interested in the ramifications beyond voting day, or simply unaware that what a public figure says has an impact beyond the electorate?

 

On current, politically sensitive issues of foreign policy, you can't treat these interview like a voyage of self-discovery. Sometimes the safe canned policy response is appropriate for the candidates.

[Kelly the Dog]

Speaking of interviews, are you at all concerned that Obama - the guy some would have *in* the Presidency and not a heart-beat away - publically said in a debate that he would unilaterally send troops into Pakistan if we had information on the whereabouts of terrorists and the Pakistani government were not cooperating? I'm not raising questions about his actual position, mind you, since most politicians would agree privately. Rather, isn't it troubling that it never occured to him that those sorts of inflammatory statements are simply not said publically? Believe me, the coverage in South Asia at the time was not flattering for the US.

 

Are you not concerned that all to often when he talks, he seems unaware that what he says has a broader audience than the cheering groupies in front of him? Is he not interested in the ramifications beyond voting day, or simply unaware that what a public figure says has an impact beyond the electorate?

 

On current, politically sensitive issues of foreign policy, you can't treat these interview like a voyage of self-discovery. Sometimes the safe canned policy response is appropriate for the candidates.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with what he said, and he was sending a message to them. One from strength, and one that says you can't go on just taking our money and not going after the guy we're paying you billions to not harbor. He didn't really say he would send troops into Pakistan like taking it over or occupying any of it or staying there. He said if he was given very good intelligence on where Osama bin Laden was hiding in the mountains, he would go in there and take him, bin Laden, out.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Gibson Interview, apparently the whole thing unedited is out there on the web.

 

ABC put it up. Here is a link to there site http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5793131

[finknottle]

Personally, I find nothing wrong with what he said, and he was sending a message to them. One from strength, and one that says you can't go on just taking our money and not going after the guy we're paying you billions to not harbor. He didn't really say he would send troops into Pakistan like taking it over or occupying any of it or staying there. He said if he was given very good intelligence on where Osama bin Laden was hiding in the mountains, he would go in there and take him, bin Laden, out.

 

The content of the answer is not the issue, it is the act of answering. Of needlessly inflamming the Pakistani public now, and effecting US-Pakistani relations now, when - as President - it will be more appropriate and more effective to pass the message privatley.

 

How would you feel if, when asked, he said the US definately would/would not come to the military defense of Taiwan if attacked by China? If he gave the answer that you as a voter wanted to hear, would that negate the fact that - by virtue of his celebrity status as a legitimate candidate - he is undermining the State Departments long-standing policy of stratigic ambiguity?

 

Sometimes its not just about the candidate and his thoughts.

[GG]

Gibson isn't a heartbeat away from the Presidency. That's blaming the messenger. I really don't understand why smart people don't think this is a huge problem with her. I just don't get it. I'm sick of stubborn, uninformed, non-curious, myopic people in the White House.

 

And if McCain had picked his real first choices, Lieberman or Ridge, your response would have been, "Even though those guys know foreign policy like the back of their hand, they don't represent enough of a departure from the current administration, because they are stubborn, uninformed, non-curious, myopic people in the White House."

[Kelly the Dog]

And if McCain had picked his real first choices, Lieberman or Ridge, your response would have been, "Even though those guys know foreign policy like the back of their hand, they don't represent enough of a departure from the current administration, because they are stubborn, uninformed, non-curious, myopic people in the White House."

I don't think Lieberman is stubborn, uninformed, non-curious or myopic in any way. I don't think McCain is uninformed or non-curious on most of the issues. So no, I wouldn't say that. The only part of that I would agree with is that I think McCain is stubborn and overly concerned with one issue (the war and terrorism) to the point that other equally important issues (the economy and health care) do not get enough attention paid to it.

[PastaJoe]

And if McCain had picked his real first choices, Lieberman or Ridge, your response would have been, "Even though those guys know foreign policy like the back of their hand, they don't represent enough of a departure from the current administration, because they are stubborn, uninformed, non-curious, myopic people in the White House."

 

And that's a key point; if McCain caved to the conservatives on his first major decision over his better judgement, what else will he cave to if he's president? It's in fact McCain who has put politics first ahead of country, while Obama picked a person he felt was a trusted advisor and qualified to take over if needed, even though it didn't buy him as much politically.

[Kelly the Dog]

The content of the answer is not the issue, it is the act of answering. Of needlessly inflamming the Pakistani public now, and effecting US-Pakistani relations now, when - as President - it will be more appropriate and more effective to pass the message privatley.

 

How would you feel if, when asked, he said the US definately would/would not come to the military defense of Taiwan if attacked by China? If he gave the answer that you as a voter wanted to hear, would that negate the fact that - by virtue of his celebrity status as a legitimate candidate - he is undermining the State Departments long-standing policy of stratigic ambiguity?

 

Sometimes its not just about the candidate and his thoughts.

Every issue and country and option is singularly different. You cannot say that just because he said what he did about Pakistan that he would say the same things or the same way or without considering the other factors when asked about other countries. He very often couches his answers without giving away his feelings about what he may or may not do with a foreign country. He did it last week on O'Reilly. The one about Pakistan was appropriate, in my opinion. I think he made a mistake on isreal a couple months ago before he cleared up what he meant. Until we hear what he says, I don't think you can make that jump you just did. The Pakistan statement was actually unusual, but he was making and taking a stand on something that is important to him, and the country, going after bin Laden.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I don't think Lieberman is stubborn, uninformed, non-curious or myopic in any way. I don't think McCain is uninformed or non-curious on most of the issues. So no, I wouldn't say that. The only part of that I would agree with is that I think McCain is stubborn and overly concerned with one issue (the war and terrorism) to the point that other equally important issues (the economy and health care) do not get enough attention paid to it.

 

Exactly!

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Exactly!

Ah, the old chew gum but can't walk syndrom

[ExiledInIllinois]

Doctrine smockrine!

 

I am waiting for Palin to crack the "starting line up" @ LA's website! Hockey MILF, some hot chocolate, yule log and Eskimo love!

 

[finknottle]

Every issue and country and option is singularly different. You cannot say that just because he said what he did about Pakistan that he would say the same things or the same way or without considering the other factors when asked about other countries. He very often couches his answers without giving away his feelings about what he may or may not do with a foreign country. He did it last week on O'Reilly. The one about Pakistan was appropriate, in my opinion. I think he made a mistake on isreal a couple months ago before he cleared up what he meant. Until we hear what he says, I don't think you can make that jump you just did. The Pakistan statement was actually unusual, but he was making and taking a stand on something that is important to him, and the country, going after bin Laden.

 

I would argue that he "couches his answers" precisely because he learned his lessons in the Pakistan and Israeli gaffes.

 

But suppose I am wrong and you are right: he meant to say what he did in the debate, because he thought it was important to take a public stand on it. That tells me that his mantra of 'changing the image of America abroad' really means only his fans in Western Europe. He doesn't care if the Mid-East and South Asia thinks he will take a Bush policy of ignoring national sovergnty and going after people he deems terrorists unilaterally when he sees fit.

[molson_golden2002]

How many of you are comfortable with her being President if something--God Forbide!--happens to McCain?