@whopppi "You can't really fault Charlie Gibson for asking too "hard" of questions"
Perhaps in retrospect, you are right, that Charlie on Palin wasn't the problem, it was the lack of the MSM on Obama that was the problem. The press has only one critical function- to be tough as nails on ALL OF THE CANDIDATES. Who cares if Palin (VP) can or cannot articulate the "Bush Doctrine" when Obama (POTUS) lied to us about pulling out of our current wars but instead threw us into yet another conflict.
Everyone knows that the Bush docterine is something along the lines of millitary or pre-planned force to prevent possible attacks. It''s fairly broad to be truthful Bill. Atleast you could pull a precise and logical definition straight out of thin air and we all know your not the brightest crayon in the box.
"overall sarah palin didn't hurt herself in that interview" LMFAO! Is that a fucking joke? Or did Billo' just ignore the whole damn thing and is in his own little world.
FOX news is obsessed with righting the wrongs on idiots...Remember that pageant chick tat was treated so horribly, FOX to the rescue. Textbook damage control.
@jeiger "FOX news is obsessed with righting the wrongs on idiots"
Not sure what your point is, but FOX News is obsessed with making money. Best way to make money in broadcast news is scooping new stories, intelligent debate, attractive and articulate anchors, but in the long run, reporting the news with balance. If Fox is still around a few years from now, it will attest to the last point; if it's audience shrinks, it will be either because it failed or other news networks figured the formula.
You are mistaken in thinking that FNC is a nefarious right wing enterprise with a hidden agenda, when all Rupert Murdoch and company are interested in is making money. Of course, it's your kind of thinking that feeds their coffers because you're so wrong and over the top, that it gives rise to the need for a counter balance. He's making millions because of rhetoric just like yours. He would say to you, "mantener venir!"
"Mediocrity isn't an option"....the mantra of the GOP......except when describing Mrs. Palin. A "Gotcha" element to the questions? Hmmmmmm ...don't we want our leaders to be prepared to answer tough questions? As a Conservative, it's time we stop making excuses for her. If not, we can count on one thing for sure...........a two term Obama presidency. She isn't prepared to lead.
@laststandattheob "She isn't prepared to lead" No, she's not much more than a sycophant looking for a spot in the limelight. Book deals and speaker fees are more important to her than finishing her job as governor and any good she did in Alaska is erased by her lack of stick-to-the-job tenacity. I hope she gets knocked out early in the 2012 primaries before too much damage is done. BTW, I don't think it has anything to do with her intellectual capacity but her lack of character.
I wrote an essay in college years ago on the bush doctrine. I will not pretend there never was such a thing all so this cunt doesn't look as stupid as she is.
More executive experience? She was mayor of a town with less than 10,000 people in it, before being governor of one of the least populated states in the country (before quitting).
That is like me saying I could coach the philladelphia phillies, becaue I helped coach pony baseball.
Sarah palin is a brainless joke. And if you really did not think as highly of her as you claim you would not have put of this video of papa bear defending her.
"More executive experience? She was mayor of a town with less than 10,000 people in it, before being governor of one of the least populated states"
And Obama, McCain, and Biden, they were mayors of what city? And what State, regardless of population, land mass, or fiscal budget, over what state did these guys govern? Your analogy is incomplete. If you've coached pony baseball and the other candidates have never even touched a baseball, I may not like it, but you are the most qualified. Period.
Ugh... Well then maybe you should by the Phillies and hire me then. You are mentally unhinged.
Do you even know the roles of legislative and executive.
Are you forgeting Bush's bailout? Are you forgeting the layoffs in summer 08? Are you forgeting the DJIA sitting at 7000 the day before obama even took office?
Are you forgetting Bush blaming Clinto for every problem he ever had in 8 years.
BTW, Secular Media? What does he want? The media to lead off with a prayer?
Do you know the difference between the experience of a legislator and an executive. In 2008 we had 3 senators and a governor on the platform, the senators had zero executive experience between them. What is it about that which you do not understand? Your argument that Palin has no experience is vacuous and illogical and patently false on its face.
Regarding deficits and DJIA, by March 09, DJIA was 6500. Unemployment is 2M worse after Porkulus. Ergo, no jobs saved or created. Nasty facts.
Being an "executive" of a small town is much different than being a u.s. executive politician. Even a governor is small in comparison. To be president you need to have a strong understanding of the entire world. To be mayor of a small town you only have to worry about that town and i.e. budgeting for snow removal in winter I grew up in a small town).
Huh... apparently even at governor you not even need to know basic history or geography.
To be a senator, you need to raise money, put a lot of spit and polish on your image, entertain lobbyists and supporters, and debate endlessly. To be a governor, you actually have to get something done. Obama's foreign policy weaknesses aside, it's on the domestic front that he's failing miserably. He can't get anything done because he's too partisan and can't tell the difference between campaigning and leading. I don't need to defend Palin because she's not POTUS and I didn't vote for her.
Hahahaha. You spennt the last few days defending her from me... Now you say you don't need to defend her??? Obama is too partisan??? Wow. did you see the q&a? I did not even have respect for him until I saw that.
To be governor you actually have to get something done? and a senatoryr you don't? I don't even know where you got that...
I'm defending the fact that a governor, even a bad one, has more executive experience than a senator. A senator might manage a staff of 20 people. He doesn't execute anything - just makes proposals (have you ever looked at Obama's senatorial record? His landmark bill was quarantining dangerous carp), and voting on them (or in Obama's case, when he wasn't absent, voting "present"). You asserted "More executive experience?" after the ridiculous statement that Alaska isn't the biggest state.
Ugh... Alaska has about 1/40th the population of California. IT IS NOT THE BIGGEST STATE. Was she voted in by the moose and the wolves? Ruling over empty land is not a big respoinsibility is it? Unless you are farming it...
Okay soif you owned a MLB team you would hire me as manager over someone like Derek Jeter? Afterall, I do have more coaching experience...
You're just an argumentative hack! Don't play the fool, you know what is meant by "Biggest State", it's the largest area. No one said it was the most populous state. And cut the crap with moose and wolves, she was elected by a majority of the 700,000 that live there. You can make pejoratives all you want, it doesn't change the fact that she was a governor and the duties of a governor, HI or AK, CA or RI, is more executive experience than that of a legislator. period. Now go away.
No usually when people say biggest state that is what is meant. Just like New York and L.A. are the biggest U.S. cities
I notice how you ignored my baseball analogy. hmmm... Don't want to look foolish I suppose... Anyway, despite my "experience" coaching, I am sure Derek Jeter would be a better fit despite not having ANY "experience".
"Just like New York and L.A. are the biggest U.S. cities"
Your illustration is inadequate because LA and New York are both the largest and most populated cities. A better analogy would be HI and RI are the smallest states, TX and AK are the biggest states. CA and NY are the most populated states, etc.
But I'm done arguing semantics with you, because the size or population of Alaska is irrelevant in comparing executive experience at the time of the 08 election between a governor and 3 senators.
My point was that being mayor of a town with less than 10,000 people, and being governor of the 47th most populous state in america for less than 1 term, does NOT prepare you for the most important office in the land.
NOW BLOCK ME BEFORE I EXPOSE YOU FOR BEING NAIVE EVEN MORE THAN I ALREADY HAVE
And my point is that being a community organizer and part time senator doesn't prepare one for the most important office in the land. Of course, Palin showed her true colors by quitting mid-term, just like Obama quitting his Senatorial seat mid-term, but worse, we the proof is in the pudding (10%+ unemployment, failed foreign policy) that Barry "Commander-in-Training" Obama wasn't ready for the most important office in the land.
Note to my naive poster, Palin was candidate for VP, not POTUS.
Noboby asked Obama about his days as a community orginizers. Americans deserve the stupid leadership we got because we didn't do our homowork. Nice fluffy words coming from a half baked socialist got everyone excited. How excited will you be to pay the 1.9 trillion dollar deficit this year (plus the interest)?
Plenty of people dug into Obama's past, but many wanted change and gave him the benefit of the doubt. Some Republicans engaged in heated debates over Obama's qualifications and affiliations while the actual Republican candidate, John McCain wanted to give him a free pass. While that was graceful and might have been the high road, it made the more rancorous ones appear as fanatics on the fringe. In the end, if we'd just taken Obama at his word, we'd have known what to expect. Extreme socialism.
From your comment, i assume you have intelligence, can you give me an example of this extreme socialism you talk about? I haven't been given a paycheck for my new government job and i don't have health care, i really wanna know when this socialism is supposed to take place other than for the recipients of the bailout money.
- "Bankrupt the power companies" through environmental regulation
- "Shovel ready jobs"
- to ACORN "you'll have influence over policy"
- Mortgage cram down laws
*Quotes aren't verbatim - no time for lookup right now.
Socialism is the state over the individual, and every one of the above takes choice from individuals and hands it to government, either through entitlements, dependencies, or outright force. We aren't there yet, but this is what the fight is about.
Yes and no. We know that he was a communist organizer, but the press kind of stopped there. It was only after Cable News reported his connections to fringe folk like Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers that the Network News reluctantly picked up the stories. But what of the joint purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion with the convicted fellon Tony Rezko? What about the fact that Obama's FMAE loan to buy that home is almost double the amount allowable through FMAE? So many questions never answered.
Whhhhhyyy can't the admit that she didn't know what the hell she was talkijgn about?? Why can't they admit that this woman just wasn't qualified enough?? Why??
News flash, people weren't excited about Palin because she was an intellectual elitist. She's a real person with real values and has proven herself as an executive with good leadership and good governance. But maybe people it's more important to have a "smart" Vice President so that's why we now have Biden... Huh? Remember, in 1929 when the Depression hit, FDR got on the television...
"governance" as in "Governor"? Schlugg, she was (still is for couple of weeks) governor of Alaska, largest state in the Union. Curious if you know the "population" of the community group which Obama organized. I guess we are finding out now along with Barry how much work it is to govern. Don't know if he's enjoying it, but I find every "lesson" he learns to be very painful.
Yeah i guess we are finding out how much work it is to govern considering there are a few democrats who would rather follow the status quo rather than the man they elected and a republican party that is opposed to everything and anything obama wants to do. He was elected to bring change and a whole bunch of rubes stand in this way so yes i agree its very painful but u cant honestly say palin is any better or else your some jesus freak or something
"Jesus Freak" huh? Does that make Obamistas "Satan Freaks"? Attaching a label doesn't legitimize your argument. He wasn't elected to bring change, he was simply elected. Change may be inevitable, but so is compromise, and so is opposition from the OPPOSITION. Did he expect the Right to just roll over and take it in the behind? Was he expecting it to be a walk through the park? Simply put, he's had no real experience in governance before now and his learning curve is excruciatingly painful.
I am a Jesus freak but I am for obama's healthcare...but anyways, there's nothing wrong with republicans opposing, but the problem is why they are opposing. we shouldn't be opposing to things because we are rebpulicans and they are democrats. There have to be reasons. And I mean the reasons, not things like death panels used as scare tactics or fake patriotism of "we have the world's best health care" lie. change is inevitable we should work with dems to make adjustments in how to bring it.
You are 100% correct that opposition is patriotic, but opposition just to bring down the Dems is simply partisan and serves no one but the party. If you look at the polls though, most conservatives do not associate themselves along party lines (i.e. do not call themselves members of the GOP), as opposed to liberals calling themselves Democrats. Most CONSERVATIVES do not like anything about Obamacare because of Obamacare, not because of GOP talking points.
Actually Califorina is. With nearly 37 million people. Alaska is actually ranked 47th with under 700,000 people. I mean seriously, most major cities in America are bigger than alaska.
Um, actually California is the most populous state, but Alaska is the biggest state. I've never heard the word "Biggest" to quantify a plurality. In your profound college writings, did you say "and California has the BIGGEST number of people"? :)
It's not like the American electorate was inundated with a lot of great choices in November 2008, but weighing Mrs. Palin against the other platform candidates, Joe Biden, John McCain, and particularly Barack "rock-star-community-organizer-in-chief" Obama, then yah, she was more qualified than the others. You may not like her ideology and I may not care for her gun toting, moose jerky hockey mom repertoire, but fact is she STILL has more executive experience than the other three combined!
Community oraganizer? Yeah he sure was. He was also a state senator and a u.s. senator. That is like criticizing alex rodriguez because he played little league at one time.
"Community oraganizer? Yeah he sure was. He was also a state senator and a u.s. senator."
So, being a senator gives what executive experience? Perhaps O's the consummate politician, master of oratory and debates, but we're finding out now he has very little experience in the realm of management and leadership. With super majorities in the House and Senate, his landmark accomplishment has been a $787B ($1.2T Deficit spending) stimulus bill while the economy shed 2M jobs. Won't get fooled again!
Hey Ace - there are 5 or 6 Bush Doctrines depending on which political science publication you look at. That is why palin was right to ask "in what respect Charlie?" Oalin's point was on of the 5 that are all recognized as a Bush Doctrine.
Exactly. Charlie was disrespectful and ready to pick a fight at the smallest thing, and like the overzealous liberal pundit he is, tripping all over himself in a show of pedantry. Charlie and Company were so in the tank with Obama it wasn't even funny.
O'REILLY: They're going to come out and say the Iraq war was worth it, that the Bush strategy, they call it the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes against threatening people in an age of nuclear terrorism, has to happen. What do you think about that?
BUCHANAN: Well, first, the doctrine of preemptive strike, if Iraq had been developing nuclear weapons and we had hard knowledge of it, I would have said, yes, go in and take out the nuclear weapons. No one said that.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
thank you bill thank you...Bust doctrine is so vague. google it and you will find tons of answers depending who wrote it. Media is dead...they all have agendas.
Frankly its boring hearing the bickering going back and forth about palin. She looks like a fool right now and its pointless to defend her with comments on how she was a "victim" of "gotcha" journalism. Is there any other kind? If you follow politics at all you understand it comes with the territory.
The fact that she dos'nt hold her own in these interviews: gibson /couric, displays a weakness that we dont like to see in our politicians. She did a wonderful job in the debate tonite but if she is going to get tongue tied and flustered in the public eye- like george bush- then the media will continue to make her the butt of all thier jokes. Fair or not this affects the public opinion and will ultimatly come down to a tug of war.
I think Palin should go back to serve her state. Alaska is lucky to have her - it's manageable and it's easier to clean house in Juno than in Washington. Neither Obama nor McCain are going to bring any change to Washington and without a powerhouse administration, things are going to just get worse. I can't even tell the difference between McCain and Obama's positions anymore.
I'm going to write in Romney/Lieberman. They're both good men although they'll always be arguing over who's the gentile.
Anyone seen the latest interview with Curic? Ouch! These Republicans need to stop playing political games. The one great asset that Palin brought to the McCain ticket was she was real. The GOP machine has worked her so thoroughly, trying to make her something she's not, she's stumbling all over the place. She actually did well on correctly interpreting Roe v Wade (an issue of states' rights, NOT abortion), but she got sucked into elaborating when she had nothing else to add. Pathetic!
I thought Sarah handled her Position on Pro-Life quite well. Katie C. wasn't going to stop drying to get her leftist digs in.
Leftist Feminists can't stand it when a Religious woman not only stands on her Principles but also LIVES them. It just kills them. That is why they have to attack her anyway they can. Its what she represents that scares the crap out of them
Saarah Palin is an embarrassment. We have no chance of winning the election now with her involved. She should go back to Alaska. Seriously to be VP you should have to know something..
even if Palin was referring to another "form" of the bush doctrine, she did not point that out to Gibson and just ended up looking like a fool, when she was getting corrected by Gibson she should've said that there are many versions instead of just looking like a dumbass.
In summary, this interview was a dismal failure and neither Palin nor Gibson should be proud of their performance. I'm not blaming Gibson for challenging her - he should, but whether he knows it or not, he's pandering to his network hosts pandering to ratings through generating controversy instead of just reporting and investigating. Last I checked, he was an anchor. To be fair, Palin is getting over-worked by McCain's handlers and her appeal is rapidly disappearing along with her personality.
it doesnt bother me that she doesnt know the correct definition of the "bush doctrine",she believes in it nonetheless. what bothers me is that she would just be another fundamentalist christian with ZERO foreign policy experience,waiting for god to tell her what to do globally. being a christian is fine,but keep YOUR religion in YOUR homes,and YOUR churches. keep it out of OUR government. creationism in science class? abstinence only sex-ed? "thanks,but no thanks"
She's actually very temperate with separating her Christian values from her executive office. I imagine that many of the far right ideologues in Alaska are displeased that she isn't pushing harder. These quips that she "waits for God to tell her" aren't based upon what she has said, but what someone else has said that she has said. It's like the Obama is a Muslim arguments, not true, not helpful.
agreed,except for the fact that there is video of her claiming that the iraq war is a "mission from god", and that its "gods will". not to mention the fact that if she had it her way,we would be teaching creationism ALONGSIDE evolution. as if teaching both "theories" and letting the kids decide is the right thing to do. creationism is a religious "theory" with ZERO evidence. again i say,keep YOUR religion in YOUR homes and YOUR churches. keep it out of OUR government and OUR schools.
I'll have to check through my video clips to see if it's posted, but the video does not say what you say it does. She offers a "prayer" that, just like she claims in the Gibson interview, we may be FOUND to be on God's mission. In otherwords, that we (the US) is not on the wrong side from God. That's a pretty humble stance, and not the religious fanaticism you portray it to be. If I don't have the church video posted, I'll dig it up and post it. You're welcome to post a video as well.
"Pray for our military. He's(her son)gonna be deployed in sept. to iraq. 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 them out ON A TASK THAT IS FROM GOD. Thats what we have to make sure we're praying for,that there is a plan,and THAT PLAN IS GODS PLAN. so bless them with our prayers of protection over our soldiers." thats verbatim from her church video,and differs from nebulous explanations.
If you've quoted the speech she gave correctly, then you've proven my point and have confirmed what she was stating. Look at the syntax of the statement "Pray...that we are sending them out on a task that is from God." She's not stating that it's a mission from God, she's praying that the task that we are sending them out is a task from God. The soldiers go where they are bidden, let's pray that they are found doing God's will and not doing things that are against his will. Sounds fine to me.
Oh come on Bill-O, just because the Bush Doctrine isn't officially written out somewhere it doesn't mean it isn't clear what it is. Anyone who has been paying any attention to politics or the events since 9/11 will know what Gibson meant. And people like a Governor of a state who want to be VP should definately know that.
Stop changing the facts to try and make her seem like a good idea
palin is the new bush. won't america ever learn? this country is great but we do deserve the gov't we have. only when the economy really breaks will right wingers finally consider obama. mccain is clueless and everyone knows it, or will know it (depending if your republican)
Amazing how little thought some people put into forming their opinions and arguments. Malvo here thinks he can arbitrarily assign a label like "new Bush" and that he doesn't even have to back his argument. Well, let's see how this works from the other side, "Obama is the new Carter", "Biden is the new Hitler". What the heck, "Obama is Satan Incarnate". There, I don't have to say anymore, right? Not! Malvo, you are clueless. I hope the average voter puts more thought than this at the polls.
"Malvo here thinks he can arbitrarily assign a label like 'new Bush'"
Arbitrary?! Are you aware of his voting record? In his own words, "on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."
So, yeah, it *is* amazing how little some people (you) put into forming their opinions and arguments.
Absurdumb, read my words. My objection is the use of euphemisms and labels as a substitution for logic and reason. You may disagree with Bush, and I certainly have taken issue with many of his policies, especially his inept attempt to fix our economy with the current bailout, but Bush is his own man, just as McCain is his, and Obama is his. It's occasionally useful to draw analogies and comparisons, but to replace rational dialog with hyperbole and quick labels cheats us of meaningful polemics.
"God's will"?! "Bloodthirsty pro-lifer"?! Where do you get this stuff? Don't tell me, you live at home still and between puffs on your crack pipe you read the Huffington Post blog section!? Well, go back there and publish your hate speech!
keep digging bill-o! hopefully you'll fall in soon and disappear forever. palin would never presume to know what god's will is, but she's willing to take a wild guess and then impose it on all women. what a sweet, bloodthirsty pro-lifer she's turning out to be.
the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[15] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[16][17][18] It was updated in 2006 and is stated as follows: [19]
It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage.
The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemys attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.
I can see russia laughing at us! Right over that cliff. Where Sarah? Right there Charlie. Stand on this edge so I can kick you over this cliff Charlie!
Oh, Russia's laughing. Not because of Palin though. Their laughing because we've borrowed our way to complete financial vulnerability. Putin looked into Bush's eyes and saw a sucker. They watched for six years as our GOP majority failed to make the tax cuts final, while spending our dollar into the toilet. They watched a DEM majority do nothing for another two years. Now to put a nail in our coffin, some punk named Obama wants to socialize our economy, something the Russians know doesn't work.
It's unfortunate that after ABC's Gibson put a spin on this that the Factor had to come back and employ a counter spin. We need news programs now dedicated to debunking the stories coming from the mainstream media. It seems like we use to be able to just read the paper or watch/listen to the news and take it as it was stated, but maybe I'm just wearing rose tinted glasses in my nostalgia.
The spin is in an edited interview in which Gibson positioned a question that was ambiguous. According to Rove, the Bush Administration's foreign policy evolved during his first term, effected by the situation(s) facing the nation. Palin asked for clarification but then got baited into commenting without Gibson doing so. That's her fault, but the spin is in Gibson interrupting her answer and belittling it. He may have made her look bad in the short run, but him being anchor, he's hurt ABC News.
I consider myself a fairly well-read individual, and keep up with international events, yet I had no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" was until I did a little research. Even then, the definitions I came across were ambiguous, as Rove indicated. Funny, I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Karl Rove ;)
A few posts back, I said Gibson was nefarious in the way he posed the question, but I'm inclined to retract that allegation. Thinking about it, members of the press have to develop a lexicon so that they can move from story to story, getting deeper into it without constantly restating prior concepts. So the press corp starts to refer to the enigma of Bush's foreign policy with "Bush Doctrine". That was Gibson's honest perspective when he was questioning Palin and to him it was obvious.
What is wrong with people? Is the extent of your ability to communicate ideas limited to cussing and bywords? I don't care if you're for Palin as I might be, your words are foul and obscene. You are blocked and I'll remove your comment after a few days of people seeing that character and intelligence isn't a monopoly held by conservatives.
Sarah Palin is against higher education! Look at her family. She married a man with who never graduated from college, her son is not going to college, and her pregnant daughter's educational future seems pretty bleak. Instead of a high-tech workforce, she would have us chopping down trees, shooting things, or drilling for oil in our backyard for a living. The Palin family brings to mind the Beverly Hillbillies. Can you image that lot occupying the VP mansion!
Where do you get this stuff?! She's against higher education!? By the caliber of your commentary, I'd think you'd enjoy the company of some hillbillies.
The proof is in the pudding! I actually didn't know until a few minutes ago that she hopped around to 5 or so colleges before she finally made it through. I beleive the colleges did not even have have any entrance requirements (SAT scores, etc).
This isn't proof. I attended 4 universities and 1 technical institute during my college years, for no other reason than for specialized training that each was able to give. But that doesn't mean that I'm against higher education. Are you saying that she's against the government paying for all of it? If the biased conclusions you are drawing are a typical product of higher education, I guess I wouldn't want to pay for it either, because it has failed to give you any sound analytical reasoning.
Wasn't ready for this interview at least. I suspect that McCain's handlers are over working her preparation at the expense of her performance and frankly, if that's how McCain runs a cabinet, I'd be worried. I think she'd do better with a candid interview that delved into executive experience and principle based governance. Whether it's dems or republicans, I get tired of this "who knows more" competition between candidates and the talking heads. Time for some debates between the candidates!
Good example: someone asked my mother how is your kid? which one mother responded.(my mother has 4)
There are four Bush doctrines and Charlie Gibson did not ask particularly which doctrine you want me to answer. To top it off, Charlie did not know either which one he was thinking. hha no.1 hha no.2 hha no.3 or hha no.4 For a snobby person he is he did not look intellegent at all in that question.
For strict political experience, Kaye Bailey Hutchinson was the safest bet for a woman on the ticket. She would have excited the base, too. But Palin brings executive experience and (talking points aside) a maverick style. I think she has a genuineness about her that is refreshing, and her lack of exposure to Washington is actually an asset. Finally, she balances the ticket. In the end, American's are going to vote on the whole package. McCain/Palin beats out Obama/Biden.
Sorry, I hate to curtail anyone's ideas, but two liberal hacks just crossed the line and rather than engage in healthy argument, started spewing explicatives. Since my kids visit my video posts, I couldn't allow for it and had to remove the posts. If this is how your minds start parsing things, then take your ideas somewhere else. If you can express your ideas without schoolyard cussing, you're welcome to stick around.
The republicans run around screaming the media is biased because it is one of their talking points. That way if their candidate makes a mistake they can claim it is the fault of the media. It is a political strategy, and the democrats need to find a better way to fight back against this. The democrats need to get back to talking about real issues that matter to average Americans. McCains policies are very close to Bush. Obama can win on the issues.
If you listen to Limbaugh and hannity and the other propagandist, their message is clear - don't believe what you hear in school from educated professors, on the news from accountable journalists, or anywhere else....just listen to us.
Rob, calm down. While there are far right and far left idealogues, demagogues, nut jobs, Rushbo and O'Hannity are no more fringe than Gibson and Brian Williams. They are definitely conservative, but there's no cult. Stop the name calling.
For all the vitriol and blathering coming from the left-wing press, making thinly veiled claims that Roves was Bush's brains, I think it's fair to give deference to Rove's even-handed explanation. Roves is fair to Gibson as to how Gibson sees the Bush Doctrine, and yet clarifies why Palin's answer is also correct. My opinion was that Palin was over-briefed prior to this interview and Gibson was nefarious in preparing "trick" questions and he was as off the mark on the facts as she was.
Thanks for posting this. I've been trying strenuously to make these exact points for about the last 24 hours here on YouTube in 500-character comments. I'm glad somebody actually spelled it out on video. Obviously liberal ideologues don't care about the facts, but I hate to see independent, fair-minded voters being lied to.
Apologies, but I had to cut out a small section of O'Reilly/Roves because there was a section covering Hurricane Ike and some other segues and I wanted to keep the focus on examining this interview. O'Reilly and Roves actually approach this pretty "fair and balanced", though they shy away from admitting that the interview was a disaster in terms of Palin getting hammered. Gibson better hope McCain/Palin don't make it to the oval office because he'll never get an interview again with either one.
LOL, wow, this was a standard interview, and Gibson in fact was kind, he could have just asked her what the Doctrine was and watched her meltdown on national TV, but he was kind and finally gave her the answer.
Is it because she's a woman that you guys are so super-sensitive and expect her to get special treatment?
Don't you realize it was Gibson's mistake by thinking there was only one narrow definition of the "Bush Doctrine"? It was his liberal ideology that shaped his definition, not facts. If he actually researched it, he'd realize the term was vague and represented MANY different unrelated policies.
I'm not defending Gibson for the poor quality of his interviewer's acumen, but he pulled a quick phrase from his hat that has had an evolving meaning. 20 years ago, you could have used the word "retarded" and it would have had a pretty innocent connotation w/ respect to "special needs" children, but today it comes across pretty derogative. Similarly, the "Bush Doctrine" has evolved from preemptive strikes to defusing regional conflict by planting democracy. I don't think Gibson is far left.
You guys are spinning and spinning just to defend this clueless beauty queen that you know nothing about, and you laugh at Obama supporters!!!
Gibson asked Palin what SHE THOUGHT OF THE BUSH DOCTRINE. Why didn't she say which version? Why didn't she educate Charlie on the various aspects that you guys are proclaiming exist? You never heard of it, just admit it. Why is it that you right wingers can never just admit something? We all know she's clueless, you just loose credibility denying it
Can't speak for Dogma, but I'm not defending Palin. She did a poor interview. But you're chasing the wrong argument, because the Bush Doctrine probably won't be definitive for years to come unless the current discussion should catalyze it. The point is that rather than find out what she thinks, Gibson waste his time and our time engaged in showmanship, trying to trip up an interviewee. Wow, congratulations Charlie, you look real tough, now let's get back to the substance of the issues.
Don't you think you are being a little biased because she's your candidate? LOL, I mean this was not a tough interview, take it from an independent like me. If Gibson wanted to "trip" her up, he could have easily, and surely you must know that. At the same time, he can't just lob her softballs or he would loose credibility.
I agree that she should get a tough interview - she's not running for dog catcher. I've clearly stated that I think she did poorly - no bias. However, watching the body language and hearing the framing of questions, it's obvious to me that at least by this point in the interview, Gibson had become combative. He tried very hard to make her look stupid and in spite all your assertions regarding the Bush Doctrine, it's much broader than his nominal definition and he comes out of it looking foolish.
Agreed, combative, no spin interviewing is O'Reilly's hallmark. He's definitely not a journalist and his show has never claimed to be more than editorial in content. However, Charlie Gibson is an anchorperson for the news. People are looking for thoughtful but objective interviews. I'm okay with a reporter holding someone to the facts, but all told, Bill was more fair to Obama and less combative than Gibson on Palin.
seismedia, do you really think this bitch is the best VP choice the republicans could make? or are you going to keep defending her till the end of time
Chris, you crossed the line a few posts back. You're now blocked and I've removed your posts. Unlike Rob who can engage in some decent debate, you have resorted to slander and gutter language to make your point. However, the only point you've made is that you can't express yourself without injecting vitriol and bad words. I'm leaving this last post of yours up as a testament of the vile wretched hatred some on the left harbor towards their opponents.
The funny this is I actually like O'Reilly, as at least as far as right wing radio hosts goes. He has an agenda, but he is usually intellectually honest, and doesn't just spew out nonsense that the whole world knows is not true like the rest of them.
Perhaps I'm being biased, but I just didn't think Gibson was any different in this interview then is always is. Granted, some of the questions were tough, but that's because we know nothing about Palin.
I defend truth, fairness, and objectivity. I'm pretty sure those are independent of ideology.
Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Not only do you misrepresent Gibson's words, you also clearly don't understand Palin's. But of course, your mind is still clouded with the belief that the "Bush Doctrine" has one simple, tangible definition.
Let up on the personal attacks. Dogma produced some pretty compelling proof that the title, "Bush Doctrine" is a creation of the press. Fine, it's a convenient label and buzz word, but there's no consensus on what it means and the press have used it to describe evolving foreign policy. Rather than arguing nomenclature and semantics, Gibson should have clarified the question as Palin requested, and the interview would have been more substantive and useful. Poor reporting from a very seasoned guy.
What proof did he provide? The link to the National Security Strategy that I myself pointed to an hour earlier? He didn't provide any proof except that indeed, there is a Bush Doctrine, it's his National Security Strategy as I already pointed out, which states the the US can and will pre-emptively attack any nation that it deems is a potential threat. Pre-emption, that's the central theme of the Bush Doctrine, always has been. This is all spin from the right, their usual spin to con their base.
Simply, the NSA document describes the version of the "doctrine" to which Gibson was referring, but doesn't call itself "the Bush Doctrine". It's the press that gave it that particular monicker and not Bush, his administration, nor the State Department. They don't sit around the West Wing and say, "It's time to invoke the Bush Doctrine." Bush probably wouldn't be able to articulate it any better than Palin without asking for context.
It's like Prince. If you ask me if I like Prince, I would have to ask you, "you mean Little-Red-Corvette Prince, Party-like-it's-1999 Prince, the Guy-with-the-symbol-on-the-side-of-his-face Prince, the Artist-formerly-known-as-Prince Prince, or the obtained-the-copyright-to-start-calling-himself-Prince-again Prince? That's what Palin asked Gibson, "which respect Charlie?" Then Charlie "Carnac" Gibson played gotcha when she couldn't guess evolutionary stage of the doctrine to which he referred.
LOL, ok, well we will just have to agree to disagree. I see what you are saying, I just am of the opinion that she didn't know what he was talking about.
You are right, it's not called the Bush Doctrine "officially", but it's been referred to as that since day 1 by all forms of media - they certainly don't call it the "National Secrity Strategy"
Look buddy, clearly you don't know anything about the subject matter, and so you are just repeating what Rove and oReilly are telling you.
as I said before, here's the challenge. Do a goodle search on Bush Doctrine 2002, or 2003, or 2004, or 2005, or 2006, or 2007, or 2008 up to Sept 11th and TRY to find the Bush Doctrine defined as anything other then Bush's proclamation that we will pre-emtively attacks any "perceived threat."
I'm not going to defend that she pulled an ace in the hole, nor that Gibson was a horrible interviewer, but in spite of his hyperopia, the tilted glasses and the curt way he cut her off when she began to elaborate on an answer gives me a rather distinct impression of disdain and a pre-disposition on Gibson's part to launch a challenge no matter what she said. Bottom line is that she wasn't prepared for a grilling. The question and her answer aren't as relevant as her poor prep for the interview.
seismedia, I think it's time to give up on rob. He's just repeating the same assertions, and completely ignoring the evidence you and I keep throwing at him. He's hopelessly stuck in fantasy land.
Well, he did have a few good points. His rhetoric runs high at times, but he's more even keeled than a few others that have shown up. I went back and listened to Gibson's expansion of his question, and he did define both the time period and the concurrent events (2002 - "leading up to Iraq invasion") at which time anything definable as the Bush Doctrine INCLUDED the right to a preemptive strike. However, it also included stabilization through democratization.
I distinctly remember Bush talking about democracy bringing stability to the region during the period before the Iraq invasion because I was yelling at the TV in the hospital where my wife was getting an ultrasound. Bush was talking about democracy in the middle east and I just couldn't see it happening. Maybe Bush's vision will yet unfold, but even now it's hard to see democracy taking hold. I don't recall Bush's foreign policy solidifying into a "doctrine" at that time. It's all post facto.
Is there anything these guys won't lie about? You line up 100 politically active people and ask them what the Bush Doctrine is, and 100 of them would say it was the US's reversal of 200 years of foreign policy that stated that we are justified to premptively strikes any nation we view could potentially harm us - end of story.
Clearly, Palin was like a "moose" caught in the headlights. She never heard of it. Even if Rove was being honest, why didn't palin ask which doctrine?
Agreed that Palin was trapped into this question, not because she isn't smart on the matter, but rather because of Gibson's condescending line of questions. He's acting like Alex Trebeck when a contestant gets the question wrong. But the problem is that Gibson, as a member of the press is using the Press' loose definition and Palin was using the conservative party's definition. Coming from two different viewpoints, he should have clarified his question rather than ridicule her answer.
I would STENUOUSLY disagree. For one thing, she is the freaking VP candidate, she should know the Bush Doctrine inside and out. She didn't - that alone is absurd. Second, Gibson is actually KIND to her, he gave her clues, until he finally explains it in detail.
If he wanted to make her look like the fraud she is, all he would have had to do once he realized she didn't know what the Doctrine was would have been to ask, "Do you know what the Bush Doctrine is?" That would have destroyed her.
It is not an official policy. It has no definition. It is merely a label given to a bunch of policies. Being a liberal ideologue, you obviously "know" what it means. Most of America doesn't watch Keith Olbermann though.
With all due respect, you are listening to OReilly & Rove, they are purposefully spinning. The "Bush Doctrine" was his National Security Strategy, delivered in 2002 and required by ALL presidents. It's main theme is for pre-emtive strikes, a US policy reversal. It was (and still is) WIDELY discussed ad-naseum as it was 9and still is) quite contraverisal.
You could line up 1000 educated people and ask them and they would all say the same thing. LOL, these guys are full of shit and they know it.
I'm impressed. How is it that you literally filter out every single word that contradicts your current world view? As you are a liberal ideologue, don't bother yourself with my comments. I repeat:
Obviously liberal ideologues don't care about the facts, but I hate to see independent, fair-minded voters being lied to.
Idealogues by definition filter out anything that conflicts with their ideal. Let's be honest, it was a bad interview. I'm sure Palin isn't proud of it and I think Gibson, whether by intent or just a bad day, has painted himself a liberal pundit. Maybe he's a right winger and was anxious to shed that image? Whatever the case, my point in posting this video is that when we reduce the dialog to two-word talking points (e.g. "Bush Doctrine"), the discussion breaks away from discussing the issues.
OK buddy, here's a challenge to you ok? Run a quick google search see how many articles from BEFORE Sep 11, 2008, that describe the Bush Doctrine as anything other then a policy for pre-emptive strikes. Go ahead, this will be fun.
LOL, by the way, I see the right wing loons already ran over to Wikipedia and edited it to match Rove's right wing spin on Palin's cluelessness using "references" from news articles written yesterday. LMAO, classic lies and distortions from the right.
Not sure what relevance that has, but it does indict Gibson because he asked a vague question. Actually, he was clear with "do you agree with Bush", but he addressed a vague topic. Without admitting any ignorance (I follow things pretty closely), I had no idea the portion of the "Bush Doctrine" to which he was referring and saw the question as pretty broad, ranging from preemptive military strikes to defusing terrorism by planting Democracy. After today we'll have a clearer definition of it.
You keep saying this, as if you're citing evidence: "You could line up 100 people holding office right now what the Bush Doctrine is, and they would ALL have the same answer."
Do you know the difference between evidence, and assertion?
Just so you know, google isn't the end-all when it comes to facts. Why don't you go straight to the source. The National Security Strategy published by the White House in 2002: whitehouse(dot)gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html
LOL, shame you ideologs don't actually read the posts you are responding to...as I pointed out the National Security Strategy an hour ago - look up about 6 posts.
LOL, you are pointing ME to the National Security Strategy??? I already posted that about an hour ago (look up about 5 posts) when I was trying to explain to you guys what the Bush Doctrine is and where it can be found since you all seemed so clueless.
Strange that you would point me to a document that proves my entire point - that the doctrine does exist, and that it's primary theme, the one discussed across all media fronts for 7 years, is for pre-emptive military action.
Yes, you cited the name, but you clearly have not read the document. Nowhere in it is the "Bush Doctrine" defined. The DOCUMENT is NOT the DOCTRINE. Read the entire document, and let me know where it says "Bush Doctrine." It's only 31 pages. Shouldn't take too long.
You moron that document has been called the Bush Doctrine for the last 7 years. I'm sorry if you just started paying attention to things, or if Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity don't talk about it.
And I read that arrogant, foolish, imperialistic piece of insanity 7 years ago, but clearly you haven't.
Indeed, it has been CALLED the "Bush Doctrine." That is a LABEL given to it by lazy liberals. The "Bush Doctrine" is a term that is not officially defined ANYWHERE.
You can't really fault Charlie Gibson for asking too "hard" of questions. Nobody realized how little she actually knew until after these interviews.
whopppi 8 months ago
@whopppi "You can't really fault Charlie Gibson for asking too "hard" of questions"
Perhaps in retrospect, you are right, that Charlie on Palin wasn't the problem, it was the lack of the MSM on Obama that was the problem. The press has only one critical function- to be tough as nails on ALL OF THE CANDIDATES. Who cares if Palin (VP) can or cannot articulate the "Bush Doctrine" when Obama (POTUS) lied to us about pulling out of our current wars but instead threw us into yet another conflict.
seismedia 8 months ago
im starting a new religion "Our God Is For Us" if you want to make a donation to get the "word" out let me know
amosjordan 9 months ago
Everyone knows that the Bush docterine is something along the lines of millitary or pre-planned force to prevent possible attacks. It''s fairly broad to be truthful Bill. Atleast you could pull a precise and logical definition straight out of thin air and we all know your not the brightest crayon in the box.
ProRanting 1 year ago
"overall sarah palin didn't hurt herself in that interview" LMFAO! Is that a fucking joke? Or did Billo' just ignore the whole damn thing and is in his own little world.
mexicanboy92840 1 year ago
FOX news is obsessed with righting the wrongs on idiots...Remember that pageant chick tat was treated so horribly, FOX to the rescue. Textbook damage control.
jeiger 1 year ago
@jeiger "FOX news is obsessed with righting the wrongs on idiots"
Not sure what your point is, but FOX News is obsessed with making money. Best way to make money in broadcast news is scooping new stories, intelligent debate, attractive and articulate anchors, but in the long run, reporting the news with balance. If Fox is still around a few years from now, it will attest to the last point; if it's audience shrinks, it will be either because it failed or other news networks figured the formula.
seismedia 1 year ago
Como se dice
jeiger 1 year ago
@jeiger "Come se dice"
Lo que estoy diciendo es esto:
You are mistaken in thinking that FNC is a nefarious right wing enterprise with a hidden agenda, when all Rupert Murdoch and company are interested in is making money. Of course, it's your kind of thinking that feeds their coffers because you're so wrong and over the top, that it gives rise to the need for a counter balance. He's making millions because of rhetoric just like yours. He would say to you, "mantener venir!"
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia - I 'm speechless. All i can say is "schmigity schmooooo!!! "
jeiger 1 year ago
Bill Oreilly doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is either. Why does that not surprise me?
mrbubetube 1 year ago
"Mediocrity isn't an option"....the mantra of the GOP......except when describing Mrs. Palin. A "Gotcha" element to the questions? Hmmmmmm ...don't we want our leaders to be prepared to answer tough questions? As a Conservative, it's time we stop making excuses for her. If not, we can count on one thing for sure...........a two term Obama presidency. She isn't prepared to lead.
laststandattheob 1 year ago 2
@laststandattheob "She isn't prepared to lead" No, she's not much more than a sycophant looking for a spot in the limelight. Book deals and speaker fees are more important to her than finishing her job as governor and any good she did in Alaska is erased by her lack of stick-to-the-job tenacity. I hope she gets knocked out early in the 2012 primaries before too much damage is done. BTW, I don't think it has anything to do with her intellectual capacity but her lack of character.
seismedia 1 year ago 2
I think she did well for a fundamentalist! give her a brake Rove..
vanwahlgren 1 year ago
I dont care if its not defined shes a govener of a state she should know what it is.
Raz0rsedg3 1 year ago 2
Ughh.
I wrote an essay in college years ago on the bush doctrine. I will not pretend there never was such a thing all so this cunt doesn't look as stupid as she is.
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
And in your intensely academic writings, I'm sure you used such descriptive words... Or do you just save that for careless off-handed remarks?
seismedia 2 years ago
More executive experience? She was mayor of a town with less than 10,000 people in it, before being governor of one of the least populated states in the country (before quitting).
That is like me saying I could coach the philladelphia phillies, becaue I helped coach pony baseball.
Sarah palin is a brainless joke. And if you really did not think as highly of her as you claim you would not have put of this video of papa bear defending her.
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
"More executive experience? She was mayor of a town with less than 10,000 people in it, before being governor of one of the least populated states"
And Obama, McCain, and Biden, they were mayors of what city? And what State, regardless of population, land mass, or fiscal budget, over what state did these guys govern? Your analogy is incomplete. If you've coached pony baseball and the other candidates have never even touched a baseball, I may not like it, but you are the most qualified. Period.
seismedia 2 years ago
Ugh... Well then maybe you should by the Phillies and hire me then. You are mentally unhinged.
Do you even know the roles of legislative and executive.
Are you forgeting Bush's bailout? Are you forgeting the layoffs in summer 08? Are you forgeting the DJIA sitting at 7000 the day before obama even took office?
Are you forgetting Bush blaming Clinto for every problem he ever had in 8 years.
BTW, Secular Media? What does he want? The media to lead off with a prayer?
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
@Ugh
Do you know the difference between the experience of a legislator and an executive. In 2008 we had 3 senators and a governor on the platform, the senators had zero executive experience between them. What is it about that which you do not understand? Your argument that Palin has no experience is vacuous and illogical and patently false on its face.
Regarding deficits and DJIA, by March 09, DJIA was 6500. Unemployment is 2M worse after Porkulus. Ergo, no jobs saved or created. Nasty facts.
seismedia 2 years ago
Being an "executive" of a small town is much different than being a u.s. executive politician. Even a governor is small in comparison. To be president you need to have a strong understanding of the entire world. To be mayor of a small town you only have to worry about that town and i.e. budgeting for snow removal in winter I grew up in a small town).
Huh... apparently even at governor you not even need to know basic history or geography.
Please stop defending it. It's embarrassing.
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
To be a senator, you need to raise money, put a lot of spit and polish on your image, entertain lobbyists and supporters, and debate endlessly. To be a governor, you actually have to get something done. Obama's foreign policy weaknesses aside, it's on the domestic front that he's failing miserably. He can't get anything done because he's too partisan and can't tell the difference between campaigning and leading. I don't need to defend Palin because she's not POTUS and I didn't vote for her.
seismedia 2 years ago
Hahahaha. You spennt the last few days defending her from me... Now you say you don't need to defend her??? Obama is too partisan??? Wow. did you see the q&a? I did not even have respect for him until I saw that.
To be governor you actually have to get something done? and a senatoryr you don't? I don't even know where you got that...
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
I'm defending the fact that a governor, even a bad one, has more executive experience than a senator. A senator might manage a staff of 20 people. He doesn't execute anything - just makes proposals (have you ever looked at Obama's senatorial record? His landmark bill was quarantining dangerous carp), and voting on them (or in Obama's case, when he wasn't absent, voting "present"). You asserted "More executive experience?" after the ridiculous statement that Alaska isn't the biggest state.
seismedia 2 years ago
Ugh... Alaska has about 1/40th the population of California. IT IS NOT THE BIGGEST STATE. Was she voted in by the moose and the wolves? Ruling over empty land is not a big respoinsibility is it? Unless you are farming it...
Okay soif you owned a MLB team you would hire me as manager over someone like Derek Jeter? Afterall, I do have more coaching experience...
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
@Ugh,
You're just an argumentative hack! Don't play the fool, you know what is meant by "Biggest State", it's the largest area. No one said it was the most populous state. And cut the crap with moose and wolves, she was elected by a majority of the 700,000 that live there. You can make pejoratives all you want, it doesn't change the fact that she was a governor and the duties of a governor, HI or AK, CA or RI, is more executive experience than that of a legislator. period. Now go away.
seismedia 2 years ago
No usually when people say biggest state that is what is meant. Just like New York and L.A. are the biggest U.S. cities
I notice how you ignored my baseball analogy. hmmm... Don't want to look foolish I suppose... Anyway, despite my "experience" coaching, I am sure Derek Jeter would be a better fit despite not having ANY "experience".
I hope you enjoyed her book.
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
"Just like New York and L.A. are the biggest U.S. cities"
Your illustration is inadequate because LA and New York are both the largest and most populated cities. A better analogy would be HI and RI are the smallest states, TX and AK are the biggest states. CA and NY are the most populated states, etc.
But I'm done arguing semantics with you, because the size or population of Alaska is irrelevant in comparing executive experience at the time of the 08 election between a governor and 3 senators.
seismedia 2 years ago
"notice how you ignored my baseball analogy"
It wasn't a very good analogy, not sure how you want me to respond to it...
seismedia 2 years ago
My point was that being mayor of a town with less than 10,000 people, and being governor of the 47th most populous state in america for less than 1 term, does NOT prepare you for the most important office in the land.
NOW BLOCK ME BEFORE I EXPOSE YOU FOR BEING NAIVE EVEN MORE THAN I ALREADY HAVE
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago 2
And my point is that being a community organizer and part time senator doesn't prepare one for the most important office in the land. Of course, Palin showed her true colors by quitting mid-term, just like Obama quitting his Senatorial seat mid-term, but worse, we the proof is in the pudding (10%+ unemployment, failed foreign policy) that Barry "Commander-in-Training" Obama wasn't ready for the most important office in the land.
Note to my naive poster, Palin was candidate for VP, not POTUS.
seismedia 2 years ago
imbeciles. no spin zone - yeah right. what a joke.
satsumafire 2 years ago
Noboby asked Obama about his days as a community orginizers. Americans deserve the stupid leadership we got because we didn't do our homowork. Nice fluffy words coming from a half baked socialist got everyone excited. How excited will you be to pay the 1.9 trillion dollar deficit this year (plus the interest)?
AlanCom1 2 years ago
Plenty of people dug into Obama's past, but many wanted change and gave him the benefit of the doubt. Some Republicans engaged in heated debates over Obama's qualifications and affiliations while the actual Republican candidate, John McCain wanted to give him a free pass. While that was graceful and might have been the high road, it made the more rancorous ones appear as fanatics on the fringe. In the end, if we'd just taken Obama at his word, we'd have known what to expect. Extreme socialism.
seismedia 2 years ago
Thanks a lot for your comment. Good luck!
AlanCom1 2 years ago
From your comment, i assume you have intelligence, can you give me an example of this extreme socialism you talk about? I haven't been given a paycheck for my new government job and i don't have health care, i really wanna know when this socialism is supposed to take place other than for the recipients of the bailout money.
InKa4484 2 years ago
- "Redistribute the wealth"
- "Bankrupt the power companies" through environmental regulation
- "Shovel ready jobs"
- to ACORN "you'll have influence over policy"
- Mortgage cram down laws
*Quotes aren't verbatim - no time for lookup right now.
Socialism is the state over the individual, and every one of the above takes choice from individuals and hands it to government, either through entitlements, dependencies, or outright force. We aren't there yet, but this is what the fight is about.
seismedia 2 years ago
WTF are u talking about yes they have asked about him as a community organizer.
Filip3anut 2 years ago
Yes and no. We know that he was a communist organizer, but the press kind of stopped there. It was only after Cable News reported his connections to fringe folk like Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers that the Network News reluctantly picked up the stories. But what of the joint purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion with the convicted fellon Tony Rezko? What about the fact that Obama's FMAE loan to buy that home is almost double the amount allowable through FMAE? So many questions never answered.
seismedia 2 years ago
Gibson was a complete asshole. I actually liked Palin in the interview (despite the fact that I disagree with her on religion/abortion).
AlanCom1 2 years ago
then you like retards. she was hardly speaking english in the interview and she literally didn't answer ONE QUESTION.
kevinjim33 2 years ago
O'Reilly thinks Palin tastes just like chicken.
btlh2oguy 2 years ago
she didn't know any of the 4 Bush Doctrine options.
huntertristan 2 years ago
Whhhhhyyy can't the admit that she didn't know what the hell she was talkijgn about?? Why can't they admit that this woman just wasn't qualified enough?? Why??
mrspeacock07 2 years ago 12
News flash, people weren't excited about Palin because she was an intellectual elitist. She's a real person with real values and has proven herself as an executive with good leadership and good governance. But maybe people it's more important to have a "smart" Vice President so that's why we now have Biden... Huh? Remember, in 1929 when the Depression hit, FDR got on the television...
seismedia 2 years ago
yeah good leadership and governance in Wasilla population 7,000
Slugg329 2 years ago
"governance" as in "Governor"? Schlugg, she was (still is for couple of weeks) governor of Alaska, largest state in the Union. Curious if you know the "population" of the community group which Obama organized. I guess we are finding out now along with Barry how much work it is to govern. Don't know if he's enjoying it, but I find every "lesson" he learns to be very painful.
seismedia 2 years ago
Yeah i guess we are finding out how much work it is to govern considering there are a few democrats who would rather follow the status quo rather than the man they elected and a republican party that is opposed to everything and anything obama wants to do. He was elected to bring change and a whole bunch of rubes stand in this way so yes i agree its very painful but u cant honestly say palin is any better or else your some jesus freak or something
Slugg329 2 years ago
"Jesus Freak" huh? Does that make Obamistas "Satan Freaks"? Attaching a label doesn't legitimize your argument. He wasn't elected to bring change, he was simply elected. Change may be inevitable, but so is compromise, and so is opposition from the OPPOSITION. Did he expect the Right to just roll over and take it in the behind? Was he expecting it to be a walk through the park? Simply put, he's had no real experience in governance before now and his learning curve is excruciatingly painful.
seismedia 2 years ago
I am a Jesus freak but I am for obama's healthcare...but anyways, there's nothing wrong with republicans opposing, but the problem is why they are opposing. we shouldn't be opposing to things because we are rebpulicans and they are democrats. There have to be reasons. And I mean the reasons, not things like death panels used as scare tactics or fake patriotism of "we have the world's best health care" lie. change is inevitable we should work with dems to make adjustments in how to bring it.
binsbts 2 years ago
You are 100% correct that opposition is patriotic, but opposition just to bring down the Dems is simply partisan and serves no one but the party. If you look at the polls though, most conservatives do not associate themselves along party lines (i.e. do not call themselves members of the GOP), as opposed to liberals calling themselves Democrats. Most CONSERVATIVES do not like anything about Obamacare because of Obamacare, not because of GOP talking points.
And US Healthcare is the best there is!
seismedia 2 years ago
Alaska, largest stae in the union? Ugh...
Actually Califorina is. With nearly 37 million people. Alaska is actually ranked 47th with under 700,000 people. I mean seriously, most major cities in America are bigger than alaska.
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
Um, actually California is the most populous state, but Alaska is the biggest state. I've never heard the word "Biggest" to quantify a plurality. In your profound college writings, did you say "and California has the BIGGEST number of people"? :)
seismedia 2 years ago
Ugh...
So she is qualified because she governed over a huge mass of empty land?
Ugh...
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
It's not like the American electorate was inundated with a lot of great choices in November 2008, but weighing Mrs. Palin against the other platform candidates, Joe Biden, John McCain, and particularly Barack "rock-star-community-organizer-in-chief" Obama, then yah, she was more qualified than the others. You may not like her ideology and I may not care for her gun toting, moose jerky hockey mom repertoire, but fact is she STILL has more executive experience than the other three combined!
seismedia 2 years ago
Ugh.
Community oraganizer? Yeah he sure was. He was also a state senator and a u.s. senator. That is like criticizing alex rodriguez because he played little league at one time.
Ugh...
(continued)
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
"Community oraganizer? Yeah he sure was. He was also a state senator and a u.s. senator."
So, being a senator gives what executive experience? Perhaps O's the consummate politician, master of oratory and debates, but we're finding out now he has very little experience in the realm of management and leadership. With super majorities in the House and Senate, his landmark accomplishment has been a $787B ($1.2T Deficit spending) stimulus bill while the economy shed 2M jobs. Won't get fooled again!
seismedia 2 years ago
Hey Ace - there are 5 or 6 Bush Doctrines depending on which political science publication you look at. That is why palin was right to ask "in what respect Charlie?" Oalin's point was on of the 5 that are all recognized as a Bush Doctrine.
TalkerOne 2 years ago
Exactly. Charlie was disrespectful and ready to pick a fight at the smallest thing, and like the overzealous liberal pundit he is, tripping all over himself in a show of pedantry. Charlie and Company were so in the tank with Obama it wasn't even funny.
seismedia 2 years ago
If she was the democratic VP pick they would be talking different saying this woman doesn't know ANYTHING!!!!!
mmaraujo 2 years ago
he asked her about things that didnt necasarily have an answer? its completly unfair
marquette93 2 years ago
"billO the clown" typical idiot.
alber12111 3 years ago
The Factor August 30, 2004:
O'REILLY: They're going to come out and say the Iraq war was worth it, that the Bush strategy, they call it the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes against threatening people in an age of nuclear terrorism, has to happen. What do you think about that?
BUCHANAN: Well, first, the doctrine of preemptive strike, if Iraq had been developing nuclear weapons and we had hard knowledge of it, I would have said, yes, go in and take out the nuclear weapons. No one said that.
iqguy001 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thank you bill thank you...Bust doctrine is so vague. google it and you will find tons of answers depending who wrote it. Media is dead...they all have agendas.
smu414141 3 years ago
Frankly its boring hearing the bickering going back and forth about palin. She looks like a fool right now and its pointless to defend her with comments on how she was a "victim" of "gotcha" journalism. Is there any other kind? If you follow politics at all you understand it comes with the territory.
campbe47 3 years ago 15
The fact that she dos'nt hold her own in these interviews: gibson /couric, displays a weakness that we dont like to see in our politicians. She did a wonderful job in the debate tonite but if she is going to get tongue tied and flustered in the public eye- like george bush- then the media will continue to make her the butt of all thier jokes. Fair or not this affects the public opinion and will ultimatly come down to a tug of war.
campbe47 3 years ago
I think Palin should go back to serve her state. Alaska is lucky to have her - it's manageable and it's easier to clean house in Juno than in Washington. Neither Obama nor McCain are going to bring any change to Washington and without a powerhouse administration, things are going to just get worse. I can't even tell the difference between McCain and Obama's positions anymore.
I'm going to write in Romney/Lieberman. They're both good men although they'll always be arguing over who's the gentile.
seismedia 3 years ago
Anyone seen the latest interview with Curic? Ouch! These Republicans need to stop playing political games. The one great asset that Palin brought to the McCain ticket was she was real. The GOP machine has worked her so thoroughly, trying to make her something she's not, she's stumbling all over the place. She actually did well on correctly interpreting Roe v Wade (an issue of states' rights, NOT abortion), but she got sucked into elaborating when she had nothing else to add. Pathetic!
seismedia 3 years ago
I thought Sarah handled her Position on Pro-Life quite well. Katie C. wasn't going to stop drying to get her leftist digs in.
Leftist Feminists can't stand it when a Religious woman not only stands on her Principles but also LIVES them. It just kills them. That is why they have to attack her anyway they can. Its what she represents that scares the crap out of them
jlcopp3915 3 years ago
Saarah Palin is an embarrassment. We have no chance of winning the election now with her involved. She should go back to Alaska. Seriously to be VP you should have to know something..
drusurfing 3 years ago 4
she never heard mention of the "bush doctrine"
thickblkpa 3 years ago
even if Palin was referring to another "form" of the bush doctrine, she did not point that out to Gibson and just ended up looking like a fool, when she was getting corrected by Gibson she should've said that there are many versions instead of just looking like a dumbass.
birthmarkslaya26 3 years ago
In summary, this interview was a dismal failure and neither Palin nor Gibson should be proud of their performance. I'm not blaming Gibson for challenging her - he should, but whether he knows it or not, he's pandering to his network hosts pandering to ratings through generating controversy instead of just reporting and investigating. Last I checked, he was an anchor. To be fair, Palin is getting over-worked by McCain's handlers and her appeal is rapidly disappearing along with her personality.
seismedia 3 years ago
it doesnt bother me that she doesnt know the correct definition of the "bush doctrine",she believes in it nonetheless. what bothers me is that she would just be another fundamentalist christian with ZERO foreign policy experience,waiting for god to tell her what to do globally. being a christian is fine,but keep YOUR religion in YOUR homes,and YOUR churches. keep it out of OUR government. creationism in science class? abstinence only sex-ed? "thanks,but no thanks"
cstrand31 3 years ago
She's actually very temperate with separating her Christian values from her executive office. I imagine that many of the far right ideologues in Alaska are displeased that she isn't pushing harder. These quips that she "waits for God to tell her" aren't based upon what she has said, but what someone else has said that she has said. It's like the Obama is a Muslim arguments, not true, not helpful.
seismedia 3 years ago
agreed,except for the fact that there is video of her claiming that the iraq war is a "mission from god", and that its "gods will". not to mention the fact that if she had it her way,we would be teaching creationism ALONGSIDE evolution. as if teaching both "theories" and letting the kids decide is the right thing to do. creationism is a religious "theory" with ZERO evidence. again i say,keep YOUR religion in YOUR homes and YOUR churches. keep it out of OUR government and OUR schools.
cstrand31 3 years ago
I'll have to check through my video clips to see if it's posted, but the video does not say what you say it does. She offers a "prayer" that, just like she claims in the Gibson interview, we may be FOUND to be on God's mission. In otherwords, that we (the US) is not on the wrong side from God. That's a pretty humble stance, and not the religious fanaticism you portray it to be. If I don't have the church video posted, I'll dig it up and post it. You're welcome to post a video as well.
seismedia 3 years ago
"Pray for our military. He's(her son)gonna be deployed in sept. to iraq. 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 them out ON A TASK THAT IS FROM GOD. Thats what we have to make sure we're praying for,that there is a plan,and THAT PLAN IS GODS PLAN. so bless them with our prayers of protection over our soldiers." thats verbatim from her church video,and differs from nebulous explanations.
cstrand31 3 years ago
If you've quoted the speech she gave correctly, then you've proven my point and have confirmed what she was stating. Look at the syntax of the statement "Pray...that we are sending them out on a task that is from God." She's not stating that it's a mission from God, she's praying that the task that we are sending them out is a task from God. The soldiers go where they are bidden, let's pray that they are found doing God's will and not doing things that are against his will. Sounds fine to me.
seismedia 3 years ago
BTW, thanks for posting the text - saved me pouring over hours of Tivoed video.
seismedia 3 years ago
Oh come on Bill-O, just because the Bush Doctrine isn't officially written out somewhere it doesn't mean it isn't clear what it is. Anyone who has been paying any attention to politics or the events since 9/11 will know what Gibson meant. And people like a Governor of a state who want to be VP should definately know that.
Stop changing the facts to try and make her seem like a good idea
cooluh 3 years ago
palin is the new bush. won't america ever learn? this country is great but we do deserve the gov't we have. only when the economy really breaks will right wingers finally consider obama. mccain is clueless and everyone knows it, or will know it (depending if your republican)
malvohill 3 years ago
Amazing how little thought some people put into forming their opinions and arguments. Malvo here thinks he can arbitrarily assign a label like "new Bush" and that he doesn't even have to back his argument. Well, let's see how this works from the other side, "Obama is the new Carter", "Biden is the new Hitler". What the heck, "Obama is Satan Incarnate". There, I don't have to say anymore, right? Not! Malvo, you are clueless. I hope the average voter puts more thought than this at the polls.
seismedia 3 years ago
"Malvo here thinks he can arbitrarily assign a label like 'new Bush'"
Arbitrary?! Are you aware of his voting record? In his own words, "on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."
So, yeah, it *is* amazing how little some people (you) put into forming their opinions and arguments.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Absurdumb, read my words. My objection is the use of euphemisms and labels as a substitution for logic and reason. You may disagree with Bush, and I certainly have taken issue with many of his policies, especially his inept attempt to fix our economy with the current bailout, but Bush is his own man, just as McCain is his, and Obama is his. It's occasionally useful to draw analogies and comparisons, but to replace rational dialog with hyperbole and quick labels cheats us of meaningful polemics.
seismedia 3 years ago
"God's will"?! "Bloodthirsty pro-lifer"?! Where do you get this stuff? Don't tell me, you live at home still and between puffs on your crack pipe you read the Huffington Post blog section!? Well, go back there and publish your hate speech!
seismedia 3 years ago
keep digging bill-o! hopefully you'll fall in soon and disappear forever. palin would never presume to know what god's will is, but she's willing to take a wild guess and then impose it on all women. what a sweet, bloodthirsty pro-lifer she's turning out to be.
ho2cultcha 3 years ago
the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[15] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[16][17][18] It was updated in 2006 and is stated as follows: [19]
Pekabooicu 3 years ago
It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage.
Pekabooicu 3 years ago
The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemys attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.
Pekabooicu 3 years ago
Karl, Bill, Sarah,
Play it safe, like the "marriage doctrine." Talk about definitions, where in the "book" something is written down, how a question is asked...
Above all, avoid discussing what she did say in answer to this question, or any other question.
Maybe Bill, Sarah and Karl could get together and exchange... recipes?
5random1 3 years ago
I can see russia laughing at us! Right over that cliff. Where Sarah? Right there Charlie. Stand on this edge so I can kick you over this cliff Charlie!
postrero510 3 years ago
Oh, Russia's laughing. Not because of Palin though. Their laughing because we've borrowed our way to complete financial vulnerability. Putin looked into Bush's eyes and saw a sucker. They watched for six years as our GOP majority failed to make the tax cuts final, while spending our dollar into the toilet. They watched a DEM majority do nothing for another two years. Now to put a nail in our coffin, some punk named Obama wants to socialize our economy, something the Russians know doesn't work.
seismedia 3 years ago
i love how fox news is spinning this
crimsontears1987 3 years ago
It's unfortunate that after ABC's Gibson put a spin on this that the Factor had to come back and employ a counter spin. We need news programs now dedicated to debunking the stories coming from the mainstream media. It seems like we use to be able to just read the paper or watch/listen to the news and take it as it was stated, but maybe I'm just wearing rose tinted glasses in my nostalgia.
seismedia 3 years ago
lol,what spin the gibson do?
she said his world view?
crimsontears1987 3 years ago
The spin is in an edited interview in which Gibson positioned a question that was ambiguous. According to Rove, the Bush Administration's foreign policy evolved during his first term, effected by the situation(s) facing the nation. Palin asked for clarification but then got baited into commenting without Gibson doing so. That's her fault, but the spin is in Gibson interrupting her answer and belittling it. He may have made her look bad in the short run, but him being anchor, he's hurt ABC News.
seismedia 3 years ago
I consider myself a fairly well-read individual, and keep up with international events, yet I had no idea what the "Bush Doctrine" was until I did a little research. Even then, the definitions I came across were ambiguous, as Rove indicated. Funny, I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Karl Rove ;)
Zakhayelos 3 years ago 3
A few posts back, I said Gibson was nefarious in the way he posed the question, but I'm inclined to retract that allegation. Thinking about it, members of the press have to develop a lexicon so that they can move from story to story, getting deeper into it without constantly restating prior concepts. So the press corp starts to refer to the enigma of Bush's foreign policy with "Bush Doctrine". That was Gibson's honest perspective when he was questioning Palin and to him it was obvious.
seismedia 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LIBERALS are SHIT-SCARED of a strong, intelligent who believes in less taxes, strong defense and 2nd amendment and is against abortion!!
SARAH PALIN ROCKS!!!
fuck liberal bastard Charlie Gibson! fuck him.
and fuck that inexperienced son-of-a-bitch BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!! fuck that terrorist-lover OBAMA.
ts4truth 3 years ago
What is wrong with people? Is the extent of your ability to communicate ideas limited to cussing and bywords? I don't care if you're for Palin as I might be, your words are foul and obscene. You are blocked and I'll remove your comment after a few days of people seeing that character and intelligence isn't a monopoly held by conservatives.
seismedia 3 years ago
Sarah Palin is against higher education! Look at her family. She married a man with who never graduated from college, her son is not going to college, and her pregnant daughter's educational future seems pretty bleak. Instead of a high-tech workforce, she would have us chopping down trees, shooting things, or drilling for oil in our backyard for a living. The Palin family brings to mind the Beverly Hillbillies. Can you image that lot occupying the VP mansion!
amaho22 3 years ago
Where do you get this stuff?! She's against higher education!? By the caliber of your commentary, I'd think you'd enjoy the company of some hillbillies.
seismedia 3 years ago
The proof is in the pudding! I actually didn't know until a few minutes ago that she hopped around to 5 or so colleges before she finally made it through. I beleive the colleges did not even have have any entrance requirements (SAT scores, etc).
amaho22 3 years ago
This isn't proof. I attended 4 universities and 1 technical institute during my college years, for no other reason than for specialized training that each was able to give. But that doesn't mean that I'm against higher education. Are you saying that she's against the government paying for all of it? If the biased conclusions you are drawing are a typical product of higher education, I guess I wouldn't want to pay for it either, because it has failed to give you any sound analytical reasoning.
seismedia 3 years ago
Charlie could have asked about 1,2,3 or 4.
She just didnt know what the hell he was talking about.
She is clearly not ready!
fonda222 3 years ago
Wasn't ready for this interview at least. I suspect that McCain's handlers are over working her preparation at the expense of her performance and frankly, if that's how McCain runs a cabinet, I'd be worried. I think she'd do better with a candid interview that delved into executive experience and principle based governance. Whether it's dems or republicans, I get tired of this "who knows more" competition between candidates and the talking heads. Time for some debates between the candidates!
seismedia 3 years ago
wow! and this is the no spin zone!he spent the whole palin interview...then he brings on karl rove smh
undercutt 3 years ago
Good example: someone asked my mother how is your kid? which one mother responded.(my mother has 4)
There are four Bush doctrines and Charlie Gibson did not ask particularly which doctrine you want me to answer. To top it off, Charlie did not know either which one he was thinking. hha no.1 hha no.2 hha no.3 or hha no.4 For a snobby person he is he did not look intellegent at all in that question.
nonesence1965 3 years ago 3
I am in shock. She is utterly embarrassing.
hamnchz 3 years ago
Charlie exposed the real Palin.
It scares me that Palin was the most qualified woman the Republicans could find. Good looking and aggressive to hide the low grade of intelligence.
Worse is that lots of women think she is great. Just because she is a woman?
Please, wake up and use the brains you have.
bubba2612 3 years ago
For strict political experience, Kaye Bailey Hutchinson was the safest bet for a woman on the ticket. She would have excited the base, too. But Palin brings executive experience and (talking points aside) a maverick style. I think she has a genuineness about her that is refreshing, and her lack of exposure to Washington is actually an asset. Finally, she balances the ticket. In the end, American's are going to vote on the whole package. McCain/Palin beats out Obama/Biden.
seismedia 3 years ago
Sorry, I hate to curtail anyone's ideas, but two liberal hacks just crossed the line and rather than engage in healthy argument, started spewing explicatives. Since my kids visit my video posts, I couldn't allow for it and had to remove the posts. If this is how your minds start parsing things, then take your ideas somewhere else. If you can express your ideas without schoolyard cussing, you're welcome to stick around.
seismedia 3 years ago
its too late for this arguement
glencannondr 3 years ago
The republicans run around screaming the media is biased because it is one of their talking points. That way if their candidate makes a mistake they can claim it is the fault of the media. It is a political strategy, and the democrats need to find a better way to fight back against this. The democrats need to get back to talking about real issues that matter to average Americans. McCains policies are very close to Bush. Obama can win on the issues.
Charlie1248 3 years ago
If you listen to Limbaugh and hannity and the other propagandist, their message is clear - don't believe what you hear in school from educated professors, on the news from accountable journalists, or anywhere else....just listen to us.
It's a cult.
rob8910 3 years ago
Rob, calm down. While there are far right and far left idealogues, demagogues, nut jobs, Rushbo and O'Hannity are no more fringe than Gibson and Brian Williams. They are definitely conservative, but there's no cult. Stop the name calling.
seismedia 3 years ago
For all the vitriol and blathering coming from the left-wing press, making thinly veiled claims that Roves was Bush's brains, I think it's fair to give deference to Rove's even-handed explanation. Roves is fair to Gibson as to how Gibson sees the Bush Doctrine, and yet clarifies why Palin's answer is also correct. My opinion was that Palin was over-briefed prior to this interview and Gibson was nefarious in preparing "trick" questions and he was as off the mark on the facts as she was.
seismedia 3 years ago
Thanks for posting this. I've been trying strenuously to make these exact points for about the last 24 hours here on YouTube in 500-character comments. I'm glad somebody actually spelled it out on video. Obviously liberal ideologues don't care about the facts, but I hate to see independent, fair-minded voters being lied to.
DogmaFight 3 years ago
LOL, and Rove, the man who literally can't open his mouth without lying is your answer to dispelling the media's lies???
Whoa, i've stumbled into far right town here, haven't I...
rob8910 3 years ago
Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. You can't refute his words, so instead you attack his character.
DogmaFight 3 years ago
"character"???? Rove?????
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
rob8910 3 years ago
Apologies, but I had to cut out a small section of O'Reilly/Roves because there was a section covering Hurricane Ike and some other segues and I wanted to keep the focus on examining this interview. O'Reilly and Roves actually approach this pretty "fair and balanced", though they shy away from admitting that the interview was a disaster in terms of Palin getting hammered. Gibson better hope McCain/Palin don't make it to the oval office because he'll never get an interview again with either one.
seismedia 3 years ago
LOL, wow, this was a standard interview, and Gibson in fact was kind, he could have just asked her what the Doctrine was and watched her meltdown on national TV, but he was kind and finally gave her the answer.
Is it because she's a woman that you guys are so super-sensitive and expect her to get special treatment?
rob8910 3 years ago
Don't you realize it was Gibson's mistake by thinking there was only one narrow definition of the "Bush Doctrine"? It was his liberal ideology that shaped his definition, not facts. If he actually researched it, he'd realize the term was vague and represented MANY different unrelated policies.
DogmaFight 3 years ago
I'm not defending Gibson for the poor quality of his interviewer's acumen, but he pulled a quick phrase from his hat that has had an evolving meaning. 20 years ago, you could have used the word "retarded" and it would have had a pretty innocent connotation w/ respect to "special needs" children, but today it comes across pretty derogative. Similarly, the "Bush Doctrine" has evolved from preemptive strikes to defusing regional conflict by planting democracy. I don't think Gibson is far left.
seismedia 3 years ago
You guys are spinning and spinning just to defend this clueless beauty queen that you know nothing about, and you laugh at Obama supporters!!!
Gibson asked Palin what SHE THOUGHT OF THE BUSH DOCTRINE. Why didn't she say which version? Why didn't she educate Charlie on the various aspects that you guys are proclaiming exist? You never heard of it, just admit it. Why is it that you right wingers can never just admit something? We all know she's clueless, you just loose credibility denying it
rob8910 3 years ago
Can't speak for Dogma, but I'm not defending Palin. She did a poor interview. But you're chasing the wrong argument, because the Bush Doctrine probably won't be definitive for years to come unless the current discussion should catalyze it. The point is that rather than find out what she thinks, Gibson waste his time and our time engaged in showmanship, trying to trip up an interviewee. Wow, congratulations Charlie, you look real tough, now let's get back to the substance of the issues.
seismedia 3 years ago
Don't you think you are being a little biased because she's your candidate? LOL, I mean this was not a tough interview, take it from an independent like me. If Gibson wanted to "trip" her up, he could have easily, and surely you must know that. At the same time, he can't just lob her softballs or he would loose credibility.
rob8910 3 years ago
I agree that she should get a tough interview - she's not running for dog catcher. I've clearly stated that I think she did poorly - no bias. However, watching the body language and hearing the framing of questions, it's obvious to me that at least by this point in the interview, Gibson had become combative. He tried very hard to make her look stupid and in spite all your assertions regarding the Bush Doctrine, it's much broader than his nominal definition and he comes out of it looking foolish.
seismedia 3 years ago
C'mon, "combative"? "Combative""? That's ridiculous. You want to see "compative"? Watch a typical O'reilly interview. ;)
rob8910 3 years ago
Agreed, combative, no spin interviewing is O'Reilly's hallmark. He's definitely not a journalist and his show has never claimed to be more than editorial in content. However, Charlie Gibson is an anchorperson for the news. People are looking for thoughtful but objective interviews. I'm okay with a reporter holding someone to the facts, but all told, Bill was more fair to Obama and less combative than Gibson on Palin.
seismedia 3 years ago
seismedia, do you really think this bitch is the best VP choice the republicans could make? or are you going to keep defending her till the end of time
godblesskiddchris 3 years ago
Chris, you crossed the line a few posts back. You're now blocked and I've removed your posts. Unlike Rob who can engage in some decent debate, you have resorted to slander and gutter language to make your point. However, the only point you've made is that you can't express yourself without injecting vitriol and bad words. I'm leaving this last post of yours up as a testament of the vile wretched hatred some on the left harbor towards their opponents.
seismedia 3 years ago
The funny this is I actually like O'Reilly, as at least as far as right wing radio hosts goes. He has an agenda, but he is usually intellectually honest, and doesn't just spew out nonsense that the whole world knows is not true like the rest of them.
Perhaps I'm being biased, but I just didn't think Gibson was any different in this interview then is always is. Granted, some of the questions were tough, but that's because we know nothing about Palin.
rob8910 3 years ago
seismedia who are you trying to fool here? gibson tried very hard to make her look stupid? wtf? palin made herself look stupid
antonmigr 3 years ago
I defend truth, fairness, and objectivity. I'm pretty sure those are independent of ideology.
Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Not only do you misrepresent Gibson's words, you also clearly don't understand Palin's. But of course, your mind is still clouded with the belief that the "Bush Doctrine" has one simple, tangible definition.
DogmaFight 3 years ago
"I defend truth, fairness, and objectivity."
LOL, what are you a superhero?
Enough of this, you are I will never see eye to eye. Agree to disagree.
rob8910 3 years ago
Let up on the personal attacks. Dogma produced some pretty compelling proof that the title, "Bush Doctrine" is a creation of the press. Fine, it's a convenient label and buzz word, but there's no consensus on what it means and the press have used it to describe evolving foreign policy. Rather than arguing nomenclature and semantics, Gibson should have clarified the question as Palin requested, and the interview would have been more substantive and useful. Poor reporting from a very seasoned guy.
seismedia 3 years ago
What proof did he provide? The link to the National Security Strategy that I myself pointed to an hour earlier? He didn't provide any proof except that indeed, there is a Bush Doctrine, it's his National Security Strategy as I already pointed out, which states the the US can and will pre-emptively attack any nation that it deems is a potential threat. Pre-emption, that's the central theme of the Bush Doctrine, always has been. This is all spin from the right, their usual spin to con their base.
rob8910 3 years ago
Simply, the NSA document describes the version of the "doctrine" to which Gibson was referring, but doesn't call itself "the Bush Doctrine". It's the press that gave it that particular monicker and not Bush, his administration, nor the State Department. They don't sit around the West Wing and say, "It's time to invoke the Bush Doctrine." Bush probably wouldn't be able to articulate it any better than Palin without asking for context.
seismedia 3 years ago
It's like Prince. If you ask me if I like Prince, I would have to ask you, "you mean Little-Red-Corvette Prince, Party-like-it's-1999 Prince, the Guy-with-the-symbol-on-the-side-of-his-face Prince, the Artist-formerly-known-as-Prince Prince, or the obtained-the-copyright-to-start-calling-himself-Prince-again Prince? That's what Palin asked Gibson, "which respect Charlie?" Then Charlie "Carnac" Gibson played gotcha when she couldn't guess evolutionary stage of the doctrine to which he referred.
seismedia 3 years ago
LOL, ok, well we will just have to agree to disagree. I see what you are saying, I just am of the opinion that she didn't know what he was talking about.
rob8910 3 years ago
You are right, it's not called the Bush Doctrine "officially", but it's been referred to as that since day 1 by all forms of media - they certainly don't call it the "National Secrity Strategy"
rob8910 3 years ago
Look buddy, clearly you don't know anything about the subject matter, and so you are just repeating what Rove and oReilly are telling you.
as I said before, here's the challenge. Do a goodle search on Bush Doctrine 2002, or 2003, or 2004, or 2005, or 2006, or 2007, or 2008 up to Sept 11th and TRY to find the Bush Doctrine defined as anything other then Bush's proclamation that we will pre-emtively attacks any "perceived threat."
Be willing to learn something.
rob8910 3 years ago
I'm not going to defend that she pulled an ace in the hole, nor that Gibson was a horrible interviewer, but in spite of his hyperopia, the tilted glasses and the curt way he cut her off when she began to elaborate on an answer gives me a rather distinct impression of disdain and a pre-disposition on Gibson's part to launch a challenge no matter what she said. Bottom line is that she wasn't prepared for a grilling. The question and her answer aren't as relevant as her poor prep for the interview.
seismedia 3 years ago
seismedia, I think it's time to give up on rob. He's just repeating the same assertions, and completely ignoring the evidence you and I keep throwing at him. He's hopelessly stuck in fantasy land.
DogmaFight 3 years ago
Well, he did have a few good points. His rhetoric runs high at times, but he's more even keeled than a few others that have shown up. I went back and listened to Gibson's expansion of his question, and he did define both the time period and the concurrent events (2002 - "leading up to Iraq invasion") at which time anything definable as the Bush Doctrine INCLUDED the right to a preemptive strike. However, it also included stabilization through democratization.
seismedia 3 years ago
I distinctly remember Bush talking about democracy bringing stability to the region during the period before the Iraq invasion because I was yelling at the TV in the hospital where my wife was getting an ultrasound. Bush was talking about democracy in the middle east and I just couldn't see it happening. Maybe Bush's vision will yet unfold, but even now it's hard to see democracy taking hold. I don't recall Bush's foreign policy solidifying into a "doctrine" at that time. It's all post facto.
seismedia 3 years ago
Is there anything these guys won't lie about? You line up 100 politically active people and ask them what the Bush Doctrine is, and 100 of them would say it was the US's reversal of 200 years of foreign policy that stated that we are justified to premptively strikes any nation we view could potentially harm us - end of story.
Clearly, Palin was like a "moose" caught in the headlights. She never heard of it. Even if Rove was being honest, why didn't palin ask which doctrine?
Total BS
rob8910 3 years ago
Agreed that Palin was trapped into this question, not because she isn't smart on the matter, but rather because of Gibson's condescending line of questions. He's acting like Alex Trebeck when a contestant gets the question wrong. But the problem is that Gibson, as a member of the press is using the Press' loose definition and Palin was using the conservative party's definition. Coming from two different viewpoints, he should have clarified his question rather than ridicule her answer.
seismedia 3 years ago
I would STENUOUSLY disagree. For one thing, she is the freaking VP candidate, she should know the Bush Doctrine inside and out. She didn't - that alone is absurd. Second, Gibson is actually KIND to her, he gave her clues, until he finally explains it in detail.
If he wanted to make her look like the fraud she is, all he would have had to do once he realized she didn't know what the Doctrine was would have been to ask, "Do you know what the Bush Doctrine is?" That would have destroyed her.
rob8910 3 years ago
She asked "in what respect, Charlie?" Pay attention.
DogmaFight 3 years ago
Are you honestly insinuating that she had a clue about the Bush Doctrine????
rob8910 3 years ago
It is not an official policy. It has no definition. It is merely a label given to a bunch of policies. Being a liberal ideologue, you obviously "know" what it means. Most of America doesn't watch Keith Olbermann though.
DogmaFight 3 years ago
With all due respect, you are listening to OReilly & Rove, they are purposefully spinning. The "Bush Doctrine" was his National Security Strategy, delivered in 2002 and required by ALL presidents. It's main theme is for pre-emtive strikes, a US policy reversal. It was (and still is) WIDELY discussed ad-naseum as it was 9and still is) quite contraverisal.
You could line up 1000 educated people and ask them and they would all say the same thing. LOL, these guys are full of shit and they know it.
rob8910 3 years ago
I'm impressed. How is it that you literally filter out every single word that contradicts your current world view? As you are a liberal ideologue, don't bother yourself with my comments. I repeat:
Obviously liberal ideologues don't care about the facts, but I hate to see independent, fair-minded voters being lied to.
DogmaFight 3 years ago
Idealogues by definition filter out anything that conflicts with their ideal. Let's be honest, it was a bad interview. I'm sure Palin isn't proud of it and I think Gibson, whether by intent or just a bad day, has painted himself a liberal pundit. Maybe he's a right winger and was anxious to shed that image? Whatever the case, my point in posting this video is that when we reduce the dialog to two-word talking points (e.g. "Bush Doctrine"), the discussion breaks away from discussing the issues.
seismedia 3 years ago
OK buddy, here's a challenge to you ok? Run a quick google search see how many articles from BEFORE Sep 11, 2008, that describe the Bush Doctrine as anything other then a policy for pre-emptive strikes. Go ahead, this will be fun.
LOL, by the way, I see the right wing loons already ran over to Wikipedia and edited it to match Rove's right wing spin on Palin's cluelessness using "references" from news articles written yesterday. LMAO, classic lies and distortions from the right.
rob8910 3 years ago
Not sure what relevance that has, but it does indict Gibson because he asked a vague question. Actually, he was clear with "do you agree with Bush", but he addressed a vague topic. Without admitting any ignorance (I follow things pretty closely), I had no idea the portion of the "Bush Doctrine" to which he was referring and saw the question as pretty broad, ranging from preemptive military strikes to defusing terrorism by planting Democracy. After today we'll have a clearer definition of it.
seismedia 3 years ago
I flat out don't believe you. Either you just started paying attention to politics, don't pay that much attention, or you are flat out lying.
You could line up 100 people holding office right now what the Bush Doctrine is, and they would ALL have the same answer.
LOL, well maybe not today, the right wing spin to protect their beauty queen is clearly on.
rob8910 3 years ago
You keep saying this, as if you're citing evidence: "You could line up 100 people holding office right now what the Bush Doctrine is, and they would ALL have the same answer."
Do you know the difference between evidence, and assertion?
Just so you know, google isn't the end-all when it comes to facts. Why don't you go straight to the source. The National Security Strategy published by the White House in 2002: whitehouse(dot)gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html
DogmaFight 3 years ago
Thanks Dogma. Hang your hat on that one Rob!
seismedia 3 years ago
LOL, shame you ideologs don't actually read the posts you are responding to...as I pointed out the National Security Strategy an hour ago - look up about 6 posts.
rob8910 3 years ago
LOL, you are pointing ME to the National Security Strategy??? I already posted that about an hour ago (look up about 5 posts) when I was trying to explain to you guys what the Bush Doctrine is and where it can be found since you all seemed so clueless.
Strange that you would point me to a document that proves my entire point - that the doctrine does exist, and that it's primary theme, the one discussed across all media fronts for 7 years, is for pre-emptive military action.
rob8910 3 years ago
Yes, you cited the name, but you clearly have not read the document. Nowhere in it is the "Bush Doctrine" defined. The DOCUMENT is NOT the DOCTRINE. Read the entire document, and let me know where it says "Bush Doctrine." It's only 31 pages. Shouldn't take too long.
DogmaFight 3 years ago
You moron that document has been called the Bush Doctrine for the last 7 years. I'm sorry if you just started paying attention to things, or if Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity don't talk about it.
And I read that arrogant, foolish, imperialistic piece of insanity 7 years ago, but clearly you haven't.
rob8910 3 years ago
Indeed, it has been CALLED the "Bush Doctrine." That is a LABEL given to it by lazy liberals. The "Bush Doctrine" is a term that is not officially defined ANYWHERE.
DogmaFight 3 years ago