When you realized Palin didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was, you had a moment of panic, right? I mean, even if you settled down after that, please tell me you had a moment where you were like “Oh, my god, she doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
You can respond anonymously, even, if it makes it easier. I’d just like to know that even you saw that and were afraid.
Tiny Cat Pants 
You assume that the rest of theRepublicans know what the Bush Doctrine is to begin with.
I have to say anyone who doesn’t hesitate even one tiny second before saying “YES” to being VP and (possibly) the next leader of the free world is actually insane and unfit to lead. Not even blinking an eye. Yikes.
And hello, Aunt B. Been reading your blog for some time. I am thrilled about your dining room and Mrs. W’s new yard.
I’m much more afraid of Palin than I am McCain. I’m terrified of Palin. And I’m terrified of women who are voting for Palin.
(Admission: I didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine was either, but I think it’s okay that I didn’t know. She should know, right?)
STOP SAYING “CHERLIE”!!!
If you notice, she started the interview sitting up and shoulders back, she quickly slumped into the position you see in the above video. Ironically, it reminds me of the position that a student assumes when a teacher or parent is making them repeat things over and over to memorize them.
hmm. You think? :P
But don’t you see? She’s a perfect minister of the Bush Doctrine. There is no knowledge but that which you need (or can manufacture) to justify doing what you want. There is no history. There is no law that stands in your way. You are in charge, and you can do what you want.
The sad thing is that we appear to be a nation made up primarily of cowards. I even see liberals judging the Bush Doctrine by the metric of whether or not it has ‘made us more safe,’ not by whether it is just or reasonable.
If any of you are out there thinking that Palin’s responses are going to turn people off, think again. Belligerent certainty armed with ignorance (and clothed in bigotry) is exactly what at least a quarter of the electorate is looking for in a leader. As Palin mouthed her obstinate RWA boilerplate, they were cheering.
This is one of the reasons that Obama is going to lose in November, and I think this time it might even happen fair and square. He tries to talk tough like the RWAs, but he waters down the imperial belligerence with a lot of mealy-mouthed platitudes (‘hope’ and ‘change’) that only make him seem like he’s selling something. A significant portion of the population– again, including some self-identified liberals– don’t really care what we do to those foreign brown people as long as we are ‘safe’ to keep shopping and filling our tanks and living our consumerist dream. Sarah Palin is coming right out and saying it– “fuck the rules; we’re Americans and we make the rules”– so that John McCain doesn’t have to. I honestly think that a lot of people aren’t afraid of her moving into the President’s chair; I think they are hoping that McCain kicks the bucket and leaves her in charge.
She certainly has learned the phrase “Islamic terrorists hell-bent on doing harm to America” (with all its variations). I guess we can sum up her foreign policy as “won’t blink before acting.” It was bad enough she didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was and then tried to get “Cherley” to articulate it for her (good for him, I want to say; he never let her word-barrage her way out of an answer–what a fusillade!), but when she said “we are going to destroy Islamic terrorism” I almost lost it. We will NEVER destroy Islamic terrorism. All we can hope for is to marginalize it in the countries where it currently holds sway or enjoys public support–and the Awakening Councils in Iraq made up of Sunnis who turned against al Qaeda are an example of that happening. And please, before anyone tags me with supporting the Bush Doctrine, believe me when I say I believe there are other factors at work there, like a desire to arm and train themselves in the event the Shia govt comes after them. (Which turns out not to be such bad thinking, given the reluctance right now of the Shia govt to allow those from the Awakening Councils into the regular armed forces).
Church Secretary, I was with you right up until you declared with such certainty that Obama will lose. I’m not going there yet.
All across the Rovian hemisphere, there is panic that this is something they cannot spin. They WANTED Palin to be up front, to fade the heat, to put a pretty, lipsticked face on their campaign. Well….the worm has definitely turned.
You notice that the foreign policy she’s articulating here (one taught to her, presumably, by McCain’s aides who have been “bringing her up to speed” on this stuff) is far more belligerent than Bush’s? It sounds like McCain is preparing to take this country into a number of new wars.
I panicked.
I am still panicking. Palin scares the piss out of me.
NM, I think you are exactly right. I know this isn’t scientific, but if I had a dollar for everytime I heard a colleague say something like “we should just bomb the whole place and kill them all (Arabs/Muslims), I’d have enough money to emigrate today.
Palin isn’t saying these things because she’s stupid or unprepared, she’s saying them because she believes them. The results of the 2004 election seem to demonstrate that at least a healthy plurality of the electorate agrees with her, and Palin knows this.
In what respect, Church Secretary?
I didn’t panic because she didn’t know that the collective title of the administration’s policy is the “Bush Doctrine”. She was picked for this position not because she could recite the Doctrine word-for-word, but because she has internalized those same beliefs, no matter by what name she calls those beliefs.
For example, a person hearing the parables that the White Christ used as teaching tools can internalize them without knowing anything about Soren Kierkegaard or Christian existentialism.
I am, indeed, in a state of panic, not because she didn’t know the name of theory, but because of her willingness to put the theory into practice.
I know you had asked for Republicans to answer the question; for the record, I’m not one, but I’ve had Republican women (good and bad) on the brain ever since the fiasco of the Palin nomination.
Before that, my concern was that McCain would propose someone that I liked, admired, and that would put me in a true quandry as to which party to vote for: I was worried that he would select Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. I voted for her twice during the time I lived there – I didn’t agree with all of her views, but she is a woman of incredible conscience and integrity, in the manner of Margaret Chase Smith; never afraid to cross the aisle or call her own party to task.
In retrospect, why was I worried? The neo-cons hate her with a deep, abiding passion. She’s independent, intelligent, concerned, intelligent, bi-partisan, intelligent, moderate, oh, and did I mention intelligent?
Shit. I had planned to do nothing all day except say ‘in what respect?” on blogs….but Crow Meris nails it.
There were several good, solid, qualified women to pick from…and Mccain chose this one. That says it all for me.
She, like all too many people, believes in a worldview where things are black or white, good or evil. She cannot discern nuance or shades of gray. It would be nice to be so sure of everything, but the world doesn’t live up to the ideals expressed in that worldview.
BTW, Hobbs writes a lame response claiming deceptive editing by ABC. (by linking to two fringe Right Wing sites)
Can’t spin it…so attack!
Yeah, that brings up another question. How does one win, when the opponent continually redefines winning so they’re the only ones who can win?
Mack, attack in what respect?
Yeah, I felt just as panicky as I would have if that hack had asked her “I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 4, which one is it?” and she wasn’t able to guess that, either. That’s how many separate doctrines have been referred to as The Bush Doctrine (TM) over the years. Between this lame, attempted gotcha and accusing Palin of stating that our troops in Iraq were doing God’s will when in fact she had prayed that they would, I’m frankly at a loss as to why Gibson has a job.
Nice try. Even if there are conflicting definitions of the Bush Doctrine, when pressed to give an answer she didn’t know, she bluffed, and it was immediately apparent that she didn’t know what she was talking about. Better, i think, for her to have said “I’m sorry I’m not familiar with this, could you lay it out?” At least it would have come across as honest.
Gibson lobbed softball after softball, and never went for her throat. Let Rachel Maddow interview her. Please.
It amazes me, the caliber of people the GOP likes to field for the highest office in the land. We had Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, y’all had a “C”minus Yale grad that was admitted as a legacy….we have Obama, Constituional Scholar and Editor of the Law Review, you guys offer up a guy who finished in the bottom 20% of his class. What do you guys have against intelligence?
Well, you know, half the people in the US test under 100 on the standard IQ tests and 65% of Americans don’t have any college education whatsoever. Not sure what the stats are on US citizens that have actually visited a foreign country, but it’s not large. We are, on the whole, a pretty provincial, self-satisfied, and not very curious bunch. Americans collectively resent the hell out of people who “act smart” (the darker their skin, the more we resent them) and we don’t value knowledge nearly as much as we value the ability to look pretty or throw a tight spiral pass. (Breaks my heart to say it and I’ve gone into the line of work that I pursue to try to do something about that, but it’s true.)
Rather than admitting that the Presidency is a really complex job that requires not just intelligence, but academic breadth and a certain amount of world experience, the GOP has decided to field candidates that don’t intimidate the mass of people who don’t know much and ain’t never been nowhere and don’t see a damn thing wrong with that.
What do you mean, “even if” there are?! There are. If you can’t admit that upfront, rather than couching it with “even if,” I have little choice but to conclude that you the one one ignorant about the multiple doctrines that have been described as The Bush Doctrine over time. Yet, despite having no clue yourself what “the Bush Doctrine” means, you consider yourself qualified to attack others for supposedly not knowing what it means, either. Why am I not surprised you are a Democrat?
I guess that was “apparent” to someone who himself has no clue what The Bush Doctrine is. To those of us who do, her “bluff” was the best she could do under the circumstances: first ask him to clarify what doctrine he had in mind, and then, when he refused, assume he meant the fourth and most recent. That assumption turned out to be wrong; he actually had #3 in mind, but how on earth was she supposed to know that?
“you the one one ” = “you are the one who is”
Regarding Gibson’s “softballs” to Palin, LOL.
But, Xriq, she still didn’t understand Gibson’s question even when he gave a definition of the Bush Doctrine. Nor did she disagree with that definition. How do you explain that she still babbled with a bunch of empty rhetoric even when a more specific question was posed? She didn’t know any of the key texts and interpretations that make up the Bush Doctrine, all of which are related articulations of US foreign policy in the so-call war on terror.
Hey, I’m more worried that McCain can’t handle the ladies on The View. Jiminy Christmas, you’d be hard-pressed to find a bigger collection of vapid ding-dongs and celebrity-rattles and yet, they made him look both stupid and testy. Stupid is no bar to office (obvs), but one at least has to appear affable.
TP, she did talk about preemption in the most general of terms. To do anything beyond that would have been as stupid as Aunt B. thinks Palin actually was. What was she going to say, “Yes, preempt away,” or “no, let’s never wait until after the next 9/11?” Like Gibson’s attempt to con her into repeating Obama’s gaffe on Pakistan (or worse, making the opposite gaffe and saying “if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Zardari will not act, neither will we!”), there are no good answers to questions like that, so the best a competent politician can do is respond in generalities.
Pingback: damnum absque injuria » The Gibson Interview
you consider yourself qualified to attack others for supposedly not knowing what it means, either. Why am I not surprised you are a Democrat?
No, actually, I already know I’m not qualified to run for Vice president. Sigh. If she had known ANYTHING about the Bush Doctrine, she could have simply asked him to clarify which of the supposedly 7 parts to it. No matter, spin away.
Or, failing that, she could have said “I have tremendous respect for our President’s foreign policy decisions and his leadership as Commander-in-Chief” and then turned the question to something she was prepared to answer. If you’re a competent politician, you pretend you were asked the question you want to answer and stay on message.
bridgett: she failed to stay on message any number of times. Quite heartening to see to be honest :)
After reading this thread, I’m baffled as to where that stereotype of liberal elitism comes.
That was a gotcha question because it was vague and there are multiple anwers. It was a safer to to make Gibson get more specific than to guess at his intent and be wrong. Of course, I would have preferred if she she had said, “Which definition, Charlie? This one, or that one?” but that’s monday morning QB’ing.
It’s not elitism to not want to be led by a dumbass. That’s just common sense.
yeah, but all the valid answers are “that doctrine is fucked the hell up, and we need to repudiate it”.
elsewhere, Davenoon shoots this down in flames; if “the Bush doctrine” is not one single coherent thing, then that means Bush has not had one single coherent foreign policy all these years. that’s the GOP defense of Palin’s ignorance?
(rea’s comment on that LGM thread is perfect, too.)
Sure, by all means, make the US foreign policy a fucking bumper sticker.
Geeze, does it not seem obvious that our foreign policy might be a tad bit more complicated? And to think you libs think of Bush as a simpleton.
Good Lord.
Hey, if I had a quarter for every time you ridiculed someone or something you thought was stupid, you’d be broke and I’d be buying the first round.
Now that I think about it, you even entire groupings of posts on your blog titled “Stupid Government” and “Stupid Liberals.” Give me a damn break.
As long as you’re buying the first round, I’m in.
Nomen Nescio:
If you’re running on the Moonbat ticket, sure. “Down with the Bush doctrine, whatever that is. If President Bush likes vanilla ice cream, down with that, too!” Obama could get away with a knee-jerk answer like that. Palin can’t, if for no other reason, then because if she actually believed that crap it would beg the question why she’s running alongside McCain.
No, it’s the GOP’s defense of Palin’s intelligent response to a stupid question, followed by a Democrat’s non sequitur (but I repeat myself). If you had actually bothered to read up on the four so-called Bush Doctrines before spouting off, you’d know that they address four different subjects. There’s nothing “incoherent” about having one position on international treaties, another on how to deal with states that don’t openly practice terrorism but also fail to take reasonable steps to control it, a third on when to invoke the doctrine of preemption, and a fourth on the wisdom of promoting democracy abroad. In fact, it would be executive malpractice not to have had some policy on each of those subjects.
Which still begs the question…why didn’t she merely say, “which of the four parts are you asking about, Cher-ly?”
Though, the blizzard of words you’ve employed to cloud the issue is quite impressive.
Just a thought: why should Palin know shit about the Bush doctrine? She’s not running as Bush’s VP. How about asking about the McCain Doctrine? To expect her to be a student of the Bush Doctrine, whatever the version, is to expect her to be a puppet for Bush. The only ones pushing that idea is the left as a cudgel against McCain, which, by the way, they would swing against anyone running on the republican ticket.
It’s like asking Obama about the Clinton Doctrine. Who the fuck cares?
do you always have this much trouble with reading comprehension?
original problem: Palin doesn’t know what the “Bush Doctrine” is.
silly excuse enunciated on Palin’s behalf: there’s actually four different Bush Doctrines! how was she to know which one?
problem with silly excuse: all four of those purported doctrines are borderline insane, and need to be denounced. why didn’t Palin just do that, assuming she knew anything at all about any one of them?
Xrlq’s Rejoinder: ooga booga wacka baah, you’re a moonbat!
is this truly what the GOP has sunk to? who tied the anvil to its feet and pushed it overboard?
Yeah, I don’t see BUSH IS THE DEVIL! as being a helpful campaign slogan.
Except in certain circles.
We all know where Bush’s foreign policy has landed us. Voters want to know what she thinks of this set of policies and, thereby, evaluate her likely course of leadership. She is, after all, running with an elderly person with a history of cancer recurrence and has better than a one in three chance of stepping into his term (if actuarial tables can be believed).
Moreover, the global situation her boss inherits and the way that the rest of the world interacts with the US is a result of the Bush Doctrine; to demonstrate that she doesn’t know anything about the recent policy direction of her nation signals to other countries that she’s a joke. If you’re at all worried about national security, I’d think you’d be feeling profoundly uneasy right about now.
Not sure why it’s so important that you keep defending her. Whatever. I’m more concerned about McCain’s lack of a plan for economic turnaround, his lackluster tax plan, and his loser of an energy policy.
Ya know, Ex, if Palin had responded to that question with “I’m not here to talk about the Bush Doctrine; I’m here to tell you about John McCain’s ideas and plans,” I would give her points for giving an effective response and for being a good campaigner. I’m not gonna say I’d ever vote for her, but I would give her her props for that. Because that’s the way to handle a question that expects a specific answer when you can’t come up with the specific (for whatever reason – you might not know it, or you might be having a momentary brain fart, or anything) but are familiar with the general topic and the take on it that you’d like to present. And being able to do that, and to take charge of the discussion, is something a politician at the level she’s aspiring to ought to do. Palin didn’t.
What makes me worry about National Security is having the community organizer as president.
No reading comprehension problem at all, at least on my end. Judging by your next comment it’s pretty clear there was one on yours, though:
Had you read the comments in this thread prior to responding, you’d know that that was not the original problem. The original problem is that there is no one policy officially known as The Bush Doctrine. There are at least four separate ones, and Gibson refused, even after she asked a polite clarifying question, to divulge which of the four he had in mind. So she answered as if he had the fourth and most recently announced policy in mind, when in fact he was thinking of the third. And yet you have the gall to blame Palin for her inability to read Gibson’s mind, rather than rightly blaming Gibson for refusing to clarify his own ambiguous question.
I suppose that to a moonbat (yeah, I know you don’t like the term but given your knee-jerk attitude I’m not sure a better one exists), anything with Bush’s name attached to it is, ipso facto, borderline insane. To the rest of us, expecting Palin to agree with that statement is insane. Obama is running on the “anything Bush does is wrong, therefore, anything I can spin as ‘change’ must be good” platform. McCain and Palin aren’t.
Bridgett:
Yup, it’s landed us with seven years without a major terror attack on U.S. soil, Iraq being at least as close to a stable democracy today as it was to civil war two years ago. Afghanistan is in crappy shape, but at least al-Qaeda can’t operate their like they did under the Taliban. And Pakistan has gone from one of the three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban to being a staunch U.S. ally. I can think of worse places someone’s foreign policy could have landed us than that.
Alternately, our economy is in turmoil. We’re spending a million dollars a minute and digging ourselves a deficit so deep that it will take thirty years or more to recover. We’ve destabilized the largest oil producing region in the world and have created the conditions that makes it unlikely that we can pull out without exacerbating the bloodbath and jeopardizing our own energy needs. (Russia is jazzed about this, let me tell you.) We’ve bolstered warlords in Afghanistan that basically can get away with murder under our flag; the whole bs about “saving Afghanistan’s women” was just that — Kabul’s poverty rate has skyrocketed and the US army has specialized in creating widows, sex workers, and beggars out of the urban populations. Pakistan is such a great ally that last week our President had to authorize military strikes within its borders because the Pakistani government will not cooperate in policing the Afghani-Pakistani border.. We have created thousands of profoundly disabled soldiers who will need long-term care and rightly demand that we support their recovery. We operate prison camps that must remain open because the men detained there cannot be prosecuted (tainted evidence) nor can they be liberated.
I can think of better places to land myself. Foreclosure crisis, Wall Street collapsing, unemployment rate at the highest its been in over a decade. But whatever…I’m sure these empirical realities are just more liberal stinkin’ thinking.
and the however many years of that we had before 9/11, that would be credited to… idunno, the lack of tigers in Iceland?
the vast majority of the western world can go far more than seven years without major terrorist attacks, and frequently does. this even though they elect sane, reasonable leaders who do not engage in preemptive wars of choice! fancy that!
Yes, but he lost me by implying Palin needed clarification as to which Bush Doctrine Gibson wanted a comment about. Man, thats disingenuous.
Xrlq also advanced (or seemed to; it’s not clear he’s actually speaking the same English i am) the notion that, as a republican, Palin could not be expected to necessarily disagree with a republican foreign policy, no matter how blatantly insane it might seem to me.
fair enough. of course, in that case, one could have expected Palin to pick one of the republican foreign policies — any one of them would have done, really — and try to defend it. if she did not disagree with it, after all, she ought to have some arguments for why it’s not blatantly wrongheaded, wouldn’t you think?
however, “it’s his worldview” is not such an argument. well, not here in the sane world, it isn’t.
If you had actually watched the interview in question, you’d know that that’s precisely what she did. First, she asked Gibson to clarify which of the policies he had in mind. He refused. So made the most reasonable guess possible under the circumstances, and addressed the fourth and most recently announced policy that’s been referred to by that name (aggressively promoting democracy abroad as a tool to discourage terrorism). But lo and behold, Gibson actually had #3 (preemption) in mind. Boy is she dumb!
you really do have a reading comprehension problem, don’t you? because you can’t seriously think “it’s his worldview” counts as a reasoned defense of a political position, right?
Nomen, of course not…but you have to admit, the spin is impressive. Hobbs should take notes.