Thursday, September 11, 2024
By Steven L. Taylor

I am curious, what do you gentlefolk think of the following? I am genuinely curious and am not asking with a tone in my voice (so to speak) or with any specific goal in mind in asking. While I have guesses as to what some regulars may say, we’ll see.

It is a video snippet from the Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin:

All of this is quite a bit more important than lipstick, and is worth discussing, but instead of putting down my own thoughts, I thought I’d see what you all think.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (33)|
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

33 Responses to “Palin Reactions?”

  • el
  • pt
    1. Fiesty Charlie Says:

      I think over all she is repeating what she is supposed to and any real questions her handlers can’t or don’t anticipate are going to throw her off. I am unimpressed with her and in the long run, she is going to set women in politics back, because everyone will refer to her and other women will not be taken as seriously.

      She is not ready. She is not qualified. She has no world experience. My 3 year old has traveled more than she has and Palin is 41 years older than her.

      Hopefully people will wake up at how little she knows about the world around her, on her own.

      Thanks for posting this and allowing comments.

    2. Captain D Says:

      This actually reminded me a lot of the first part of the O’Reilly/Obama interview on the subject of military action to prevent Iran going nuclear. The interviewer repeatedly tried to pin the candidate down to a “Yes, I will prepare for war with Iran” or “No, I will not” but ultimately had to settle for the generic “I would not take the military option off the table.”

      To be quite honest, I’m not sure why interviewers ask questions like this one, and insist on a yes-no answer, other than to attempt to flummox the candidate in question (whether it be Obama or Palin or me). They can’t really answer these questions. They don’t have the benefit as candidates of being privy to the intelligence that the actual president has, nor should they. I didn’t hold it against Obama that he wouldn’t commit one way or the other on Iran, and I can’t say I hold it against Palin on Pakistan.

      As for the other part – the so-called Bush Doctrine – I did not know that there was a term for it until this interview, and I’m a pretty well-read, well-educated fellow. I understand the “Bush Doctrine” thoroughly; but if someone asked me, prior to this interview, to define it, I might have done much like Sarah Palin did.

      To me it wasn’t clear from the interview whether Sarah Palin understood the principle of the Bush Doctrine and just didn’t know there was a name for it (something I find possible, given that I had the same experience) or just didn’t know what the heck the principle was, and had never heard of pre-emptive war, etc.

      Since it’s unclear, I’m sure each side will interpret it in a way that suits them. Obama’s supporters will look at it and say “gotcha”, and Palin’s fans will look at it and say “that means nothing”. And really, from the interview, it’s pretty hard to conclusively say who is right, but more interviews and time will tell the story of who this person is.

      But again – I don’t know why interviewers think they’re going to get a “yes, I’ll invade nation X” from a candidate. As Barack Obama put it – even if that was his plan – he would not tip his hand by announcing it, before he was even elected. This would be beyond foolish. Interviewers should know that when they ask this kind of question, they’re going to get ideology, vague statements, nothing specific.

    3. Max Lybbert Says:

      I haven’t seen the entire interview. I haven’t read the transcript either. So far it looks like both Palin supporters and Palin detractors believe the interview proved their point.

      The portions of the interview I have seen (question about the Bush Doctrine and question about her prayer that the soldiers would know if they were on a mission acceptable to God) were loaded or misleading. The term “Bush Doctrine” has fallen out of use in the last few years and nobody seems entirely sure what it means. Is the “Bush Doctrine” the idea that you’re either “with us or with the terrorists” (“Axis of Evil” speech), or the idea that spreading democracy in the Middle East will combat terrorism, or that a pre-emptive strike can be acceptable? I have heard the term used for all three, and I’ve heard it used to mean other ideas as well.

      I don’t blame her for not reading Gibson’s mind.

      And if you bother to look up the full prayer quotes in context (and, no, Gibson doesn’t give the full quotes in context, although he tries to make it look like he did) they aren’t “and our military *is* most definitely on a holy mission” but instead “please let us know *if* our military is on a mission pleasing to (God).” There’s a difference. It’s also the kind of statement you’d expect in a prayer opening Congress. But if you use the quote in context there isn’t any controversy.

    4. Ohio Granny Says:

      Personally, I don’t know if it was the local channel or if it was ABC, but it was jarring. I saw a lot of freeze frames, camera jumping, twice it seemed her answers were cut off and then jumped back to the interview in progress.

      It was disturbing because it seemed like they (ABC) were editing in a very poor way. I don’t know if this was intentional but it spoke badly of ABC.

      In some places I read that Part 2 of the interview was on Nightline, but I couldn’t find any of the video any where, questions and answers. Sadly, that is past my bedtime and I didn’t TiVo it.

      As to the questions and the answers…..

      She reminded me very much of Jeane Kirkpatrick. But then, I’m old so I remember how tough JK was.

      Charles Gibson seemed, hmmm, odd. His ambivalence was more apparent than hers. He seemed unable to respond to the “Yes, I’m ready” answer, and that was one spot where the camera did a freaky freeze frame and there were additional words that seemed off camera at that point. Am I wrong?

      For all the howling about having an interview, this was a complete bust. I didn’t like the brown jacket. I didn’t like the “hair in the eyes”. I was seriously impressed with how toned her legs are. I felt robbed by the poor job by ABC. I felt this was edited in such a way as to prevent people from hearing the complete answers.

      People are claiming this proves she is not prepared to answer questions on national defense but it seems the questions and the questioner were so vague that the term “Bush Doctrine” was a trick question. I didn’t get that she wasn’t informed about the Bush Doctrine as much as I got that it was a trap that she didn’t fall into. She didn’t side step the question but ABC (again it seemed edited there) wasn’t able to provide context.

      Actually, how many people in the audience know themselves what the meaning of the “Bush Doctrine” is? Once Gibson started to explain it, I got it and remembered, but when he asked it, he betrayed his own motives with his body language.

      All in all, it actually resolves nothing, except that she is more than just a smart alex speech giver. It did show some depth of character, especially to those people who do understand that prayer is not about asking God to give them their outcome but about asking God to give them guidance. I remember that during the 2024 election, they asked Al Gore if he was praying for a win, and he did the one thing that I thought that showed him to be more than an ambitious man; he looked shocked at the thought of such a question and said that he was praying that Gods will be done, period.

      If this were a football game, I’d have to say the score was 0-0.

    5. Pete Burgess Says:

      Palin shouldn’t be expected to have in depth knowledge of foreign policy. She’s been a governor. What i am interested in is how she deals with the pressure of being in the spotlight of those who want her to fail. This would be the desire of foreign leaders who don’t like us and members of the opposing political party. Her reaction to hostile questioning, her measured responses, etc. are a better gauge of who she is and how she likely will respond to the pressures of the job. Coolness under fire, confidence in herself, and a willingness to put herself under all this fire from political opponents demonstrates to me she is capable of handling the job. BTW, how many stories have we heard through the years about sargeants, petty officers, and other people thrown into leadership positions because their leader was killed, wounded, incapacitated, etc. and suddenly a new hero was discovered? Experience is important but there are other qualities which make for great leaders. So far I am impressed with her.

    6. Buckland Says:

      3 random, somewhat independent observations:

      — She did well enough. Many will find fault in several pieces (Bush doctrine, God’s will in Iraq, etc.). But that was going to happen anyway. The fact that she didn’t embarrass herself was really all she was after. Good or bad, this won’t be remembered by most people by October.

      — What a lot of people that come to places like this don’t realize is the decision making process that most people go through before selecting a candidate. Most people don’t settle on a candidate until late in the process, and all of the little interviews, campaign gaffes, and other minutia that people here follow on a day-to-day basis just become a background blur. Together they all define the candidate. All of these small things forms the choice that people decide upon, usually in mid to late Oct.

      — Overall the most important interview of yesterday wasn’t the Palin one, but the service interviews of McCain/Obama that was on cable TV last night. It’s obvious that Team Obama has been unsettled since Palin’s selection. Going hat-in-hand to the Clintons, today’s report of new, sharper attacks, and porcine comments on the trail show that Obama and his team are flailing for a coherent strategy that will get them where they need to be. They’re starting to look like the Gore campaign of 2024, changing tacks on a weekly basis to try to find one that works. I’m expecting anytime a debate to hit the papers on whether Obama should wear brown or blue suits, or maybe move his campaign headquarters to Hawaii to prove he’s a man of the people. Palin (and by extension women voters) are in their head now. They can’t see beyond that.

      But last night Obama was in the zone. Talking about service in an intimate setting is what he needs to do more of. He’s good before loving crowds –the voice cadence he uses before crowds ignites the faithful but leaves the undecided voter with the impression he’s a combative, unlikable jerk. However the intimate settings he’s good, especially talking about something he really believes again. Relaxed, likable, and someone with ideas.

      So, overall I think that Palin did what she needed to do. But Obama needs to stop the bleeding. If he found his footing last night he has a chance. If he doesn’t soon, he will lose.

    7. Ratoe Says:

      I’m excited about the prospect of war with Russia.

      Buckle your seatbelts, if McCain & Palin get elected it’s going to be another wild ride!

    8. Sarah K. B. Says:

      Governor Palin’s responses showed a degree of self-confidence that some might mistake for hubris, as Gibson pointed out. She was obviously quite prepared to answer questions about herself, her state, her son, and her national security “credential” of energy independence in a well-versed way.

      However, misgivings about her foreign policy experience and knowledge of international affairs were once again not addressed by the fact that her state is closer to Russia than the other states.

      Her confidence level seemed to approach scornful arrogance at the very time such an attitude was least warranted–when asked about the Bush doctrine. The question highlighted one of many topics that I hope the next vice-president and president will have studied in depth. Her answer was not impressive. A search on reveals pages and pages of books and articles written over the last six years that discuss the principles and implications of the Bush Doctrine, using the exact phrase, “Bush Doctrine,” to describe the policies in question. I would argue that the concept is widely known, especially among those who follow American foreign policy with any degree of seriousness.

      Overall, my concerns about the Republican ticket have remained intact, if not increased.

      *on an after-note, I am reluctant to take seriously a comment that includes discussion of how impressive Governor Palin’s legs are

    9. amanda Says:

      I was planning to vote for McCain before he announced his running mate. I’m not now. There are several other women hands-down more qualified that McCain could have picked as a running mate. I agree with Fiesty Charlie — I think she’s been coached well, too well. Kind of reminds me of the old movie Stepford Wives — Stepford Running Mates??? She scares me more than Dick Cheney.

    10. jpe Says:

      The term “Bush Doctrine” has fallen out of use in the last few years and nobody seems entirely sure what it means.

      True, but ask a reasonably intelligent and well-informed person what they think about the Bush doctrine, and they’ll respond by asking which terrible doctrine is being referred to. Pre-emption? Reverse dominoes? The notion that a war of self-defense can be triggered by harboring terrorists?

      Those have all been referred to as “the Bush doctrine,” and any of us would have noted that back to Gibson.

      Palin, though, acted like a kid that got burned on a pop quiz and hasn’t been studying. (Actually, that’s probably more reality than simile.) And that’s probably because the only time she’s trained her average intelligence on foreign policy was the last two weeks.

    11. LaurenceB Says:

      The worst part was not that she did not know what “Bush Doctrine” referred to – rather, it was that her answer showed she was blissfully unaware that there was ever any controversy about whether or not “preventive” war (without an imminent threat) had ever been debated. As Vice President (and possibly President) Palin should know under what set of circumstances she would authorize a war. To not have considered and weighed the position of those (like Bush and McCain) who endorsed the Iraq War, even as they recognized that there was no imminent threat, I think very nearly disqualifies her from being Commander-in-Chief.

      I didn’t notice her legs.

    12. LaurenceB Says:

      Just to be clear: The reason I believe Palin is “blissfully unaware” of the controversial nature of “preventive” war, is that her answer was essentially the opposite of Bush’s position. Bush/McCain believes that we have the right to invade countries that are not an imminent threat. If Palin had been aware of this and had formulated an opinion about it, she certainly wouldn’t have phrased her answer as she did (unless her intent was to signal personal disagreement with McCain, which is highly doubtful).

    13. MarieM Says:

      I was not impressed by Sarah Palin. It was very apparent in her interview what she knew (Alaska, pipeline, oil, God) and also very apparent what she did not (foreign policy, Bush Doctrine). I admit that I know little about foreign policy and the Bush Doctrine, but it is not my job to know this. I expect the vice president of the United States to know these issues. I expect the vice president of the United States to be able to talk about this issues in an educated fashion at the drop of a hat, without memorization and coaching. She is not qualified for this position. She should go back to Alaska and beef up her resume and experience.

    14. Captain D Says:

      To be fair, let’s get one thing straight -

      All candidates are coached on what to say. This goes for John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and anyone else who is in the public arena.

      This is not an unusual practice, nor is it reasonable to harp on Palin about it if we’re not going to get all over everyone else about it.

      The only reason some of the other candidates are better at this game is that they’ve been coached a lot longer and have internalized most of the things they’ve been coached on; for some it’s been a matter of years, rather than months, that people have been helping them construct soundbites, images, and responses to this or that.

      If you think that speeches and responses to questions are not carefully planned to the best of any campaign’s ability, you’re living in a cloud.

    15. Marianne Says:

      I am an Independent and what I have seen in this election campaign has made me support the Democratic ticket. Palin has become an unnecessary diversion from the real issues at hand. Obama has been, to his credit and who deserves the most respect, above all this nonsense by saying enough to the three-ring circus and to get back to the points critical to this election. Attacks and negativity aimed at Obama are being condoned by the Republican campaign and their supporters as the way for McCain and Palin to win – quite a frightening rationale – and which does not provide one with any confidence in how they could run the country. Palin’s interview with ABC news indicates that she is an unrealistic choice to serve at such a high level. Only obtaining a passport in 2024 and having only been to Canada, Mexico, and Kuwait does not qualify her for any foreign experience, no matter how “ready” she thinks she may be. How can she sit across a table with someone from another country who learns she’d never left the US until 2024? What does that say about her perspective about the world? Why has she never been outside the US until so late in life? Would this lack of being open to the outside world affect her ability to be open and respectful of another country’s diversity and differing opinions? For her to first state humans have not caused global warming and then to state recently that we partly have done so is troubling. Any elementary school child knows this to be a fact. Does she think that animals or nature did something to make their own habitats so dangerous? Her open criticism and cynical jabs at Obama’s community service work for those struggling in Chicago were a direct insult to those people he helped. Her remarks were dismissive and completely disrespectful. For anyone who supported her views about that kind of community service work has a similar ignorant and narrow vision for how we should be helping those in need in this country. Her extremists’ views will only divide this nation and add to the already catastrophic polarization that is already doing us in here in the US. Obama has brought together incredibly diverse groups of people and he is smart, always respectful of others, gracious, collaborative, and gets it. For Palin who tried to ban certain library books and then threaten to fire the city librarian, if she did not do so, is beyond a giant red flag. It is simply dangerous to think she is fit for the VP role and people must start paying attention to such points. For someone in the audience at the Republican National Convention to boast wearing a button that stated, “Hoosiers for the Hottie,” just about says it all for the Republicans which is that Palin is here as a disastrous distraction and not because she is truly qualified.

    16. Ron Burgundy? Says:

      Palin’s unfamiliarity with the concept of the “Bush Doctrine” is simply inexcusable. This doctrine has been the driving force of US foreign policy for the last seven years. It’s one thing for the average American citizen to not be familiar with this term – although I still think that’s pitiful – but just to make a point, it’s completely different when a US vice presidential candidate does not recognize this concept. For those who still don’t understand the “Bush Doctrine” – otherwise known as the doctrine of preemption (otherwise known as the doctrine of attacking bad guys before bad guys attack us) Palin did not give anything close to what can be considered an adequate response. Instead she spoke in an assertive tone so that she wouldn’t look like a fumbling idiot and slowly stated some of her thoughts on terrorism. She simply did not answer the question; and it was incredibly easy to at least give an opinion if she had any idea what the question was asking.

      Palin has done very well for herself – she’s an ambitious, tough, mother of five; a former mayor; and current governor of Alaska. But these are not sufficient requisites for the vice president of the most powerful country in the world. I don’t care if she supports shooting down wolves from helicopters in Alaska (although, that’s not cool) my concern, which should be every American’s concern, is who is most fit to handle the daily tasks of governing this country. Anyone who “immediately said yes” to US VP candidacy does not know what she’s getting into. It’s not an easy job! And failure could be catastrophic. Let’s take this election seriously. Kinda important.

    17. Richard C Says:

      I was mostly embarrassed with the hatchet job that Charles Gibson executed. His interview came off as mean spirited, domineering, and outright biased against her and her answers. That’s not the high road of journalism. Don’t even try to paint that deplorable interview as journalism.

    18. Robert Lang Says:

      With this woman aboard McCain will change his change again next week. The straighttalk express is anything but and she fits right in. I think she set women’s venture in to this high an office way back. Lots of women are more qualified than this one. With her in office we will all have some sleepless nights.

    19. Captain D Says:

      I already have sleepless nights.

      I’d take comfort in someone else worrying alongside me for a change.

    20. Gia Says:

      The interview was ridiculous only on Palin’s part. And I am disgusted at professional political newscasters, and especially CNN, for saying they think Palin did “OK”.

      WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?? This isn’t AMerican Idol or Miss AMerica! This woman knows NOTHING! My 14 year old cousin knew what the Bush Doctrine was! Every media outlet who has a moron reporter say that ANYTHING was “OK” about her interview should FIRE EVERYONE.

      She continues to lie on proven FACTS. Either she is just a disgusting liar, or she really is delusional! Either way, its utterly TERRIFYING!

      I’m truly scared and that is the God’s honest TRUTH Sarah!

    21. Julia O Says:

      Okay, those of you besotted with her, spin it any way you want, but there are plenty of us who know what the “Bush Doctrine” is. I am a soccer mom with a state college education (Oh, that makes me just like Sarah, doesn’t it? NOT!) and I knew what the Bush Doctrine is. Granted, I have a read a few books on the Bush presidency, but nothing that anyone can’t pick up between working full-time, raising three kids, caring for elderly parents, and keeping a house. My eighteen-year-old son knows what the Bush Doctrine is. Give me a break!

      She WAS an embarassment! I shudder to think of what the rest of the world may think.

      And do we really need another elected official, particularly VP of the USA, who cannot pronounce “nuclear”?

      Women of America: WAKE THE HECK UP!

    22. jpe Says:

      Captain — of course all candidates are coached prepped. The difference here is that Palin doesn’t know anything apart from the coaching. Or: she wasn’t being coached; she was being walked through the basics of policy.

    23. Sharrie Says:

      Sarah Palin is not an experienced candidate as some people may think, and she will not do this country any good. Anyone with any kind of sense knows that.

    24. Buckland Says:

      Okay, those of you besotted with her, spin it any way you want, but there are plenty of us who know what the “Bush Doctrine” is

      Which Bush doctrine are you aware of? There have been at least 3 that have gone under that name in the last 7 years.

      1> Folks who harbor terrorists will be treated as such. This was the original Bush doctrine, aimed at the Taliban.

      2> People who are a threat will be dealt with. This is also called the preemption doctrine. This was aimed at Saddam.

      3> Democracy is the best way to quell the violence that has plagued the Middle East for the last 40 years or so. This was aimed at Iraq, with the hope that eventually others in the region take notice.

      Each of these has at one time or another gone by the title Bush doctrine. Gibson was talking about #2 when he asked his question and that was probably the one most often referred to in that way. However I think that Palin was somewhat confused, thinking he was talking about #3. Overall pretty sloppy journalism to assume the interview subject is on the same page.

    25. PP Says:

      8 years down the road to ruin people, is this farce what this country should settle down for ? It is NOT excusable for us the voters not to understand the BUSH DOCTRINE given the Iraq disaster, just as IT IS DEFINITELY NOT EXCUSABLE for a VP candidate not to know what it is about !! As for the press, what is the responsibility that they’re carrying IN SUCH AN IMPORTANT LIFE-AND-DEATH like election ?? Excusing sheer ignorance & incompetence that is bout to step into the VP seat is DOWNRIGHT ATROCIOUS !!

      Alright, McCain is a hero and he is patriotic !! But JUST WHERE WERE HIS “COUNTRY FIRST” loyalities when he selected this woman ??

      And I just can’t seem to get over the inanities that have taken hold of people. Sounding COCKY & ARROGANT while displaying ignorance & immaturity IS NOT ANY MEASURE OF LOOKING LIKE A LEADER !!

      As for those who are paying attention to legs, lipstick, pit-bulls, hockey moms, etc., have you heared of the tanking US dollar ? do you know of the HUGE, HUGE trade deficit ? do you know that we’re running out of Social Security funds ? are you aware of failing American competitiveness & the sheer mediocrity that plagues our public schools ? Please go get a life, else you will be undeserving of this great country !!

    26. Ohio Granny Says:

      I cannot believe you people!
      Barack Obama has less experience than Dennis Kuchinich. He had the least amount of experience of any candidate in the entire race, including Sarah Palin, who is only running for VP.

      Other than 1 interview with Bill O’Reilly, broken down into 4 segments to drive the ratings up, Obama has denied interviews to the press corp on his bus, interviews after speeches, answering any tough questions about many many many incredulous things. Rev. Wright? Never heard one looney word in years. Bill Ayers? Keeps his grass mowed. Tony Rezko? Nice guy. Didn’t know it might look bad if they paid for 1/2 his property.

      Yet no one asks him the primary questiosn or any follow up questions.

      This race is not about Sarah Palin. It is about trust. Who do you trust to do what they say? Because frankly, Mr. Obama is change alright. Every day he changes his programs and what he means.

      If we had other candidates, and be nice to hit the reset button on the primaries but we only have these 4 people, 2 of whom with govern our country.

      Shredding Sarah Palin is not the same as finding out how she is going to govern or what we need to know.

      Sadly, the press started the politics of personal destruction on behalf of their chosen One. And this interview only makes real discovery harder. Why would Mrs. Palin, or Mr. McCain contiune to submit themselves to this when it is a gross joke?
      Whoopi Goldberg asking John McCaon is she needs to go back into slavery?
      Charlie Gibson keeps hannering away at “But I have got to get you on the record as being stupid, so Sara, let me ask you once again if you believe in the religion of Man Made Global Warming because if you flinch, we are going to make sure the tar is hot and the feathers plentiful.

    27. Brutus Centinel Says:

      I don’t think she knew what Gibson meant when asked about the “Bush Doctrine.” I suspect she knew what Bush had said but probably didn’t know it by that name. She tried to wiggle out of it and did poorly.
      However, once Gibson explained what he meant I thought she answered well.
      I’m not sure I would have given a yes or no answer to that sort of question.
      I am also not sure I’ve seen that sort of interviewing done to the democratic challenger.
      All things considered, she gets a 7/10.

    28. RandyB Says:

      3/9/2007 Wash Post interview with Karl Rove:

      He (Rove) said that the biggest Bush legacy will be what he terms the “Bush doctrine.” It “says if you train a terrorist, harbor a terrorist, feed a terrorist, you will be treated like a terrorist yourself. And then the corollary of that, which is that we will not wait until dangers fully materialize before taking action.”

      A Rove protege, Steve Schmidt, is now running McCain’s campaign and handling Palin and overseeing presentations and responses to media.

      Sarah Palin’s lips move and Rove’s message comes out. Can’t blame her for strained view of Bush Doctrine – she performed as rehearsed. But memorizing “boilerplate” talking points won’t cut it when you’re pressed to choose and defend a definitive action. She may be in agreement with the talking points but needs to elucidate.

      She’s obviously not ready – can she be by 2024, 10 or 11?.(in my book the GOP Never will be ready until it ditches the Rove – winning is everything – legacy. Sometime the country and Constitution really Must come first)

      In fairness, Sarah has plenty of company among those in the media, Congress, and the executive branch who are clueless re the dynamics of places such Warizstan (or Iraq for that matter) where we currently engaged in military action.

      I would’ve intrigued by a follow up on what blunders she believes were committed by Bush.

    29. Tim J. Says:

      Interesting comments. Not a hint of bias in one of them. Wish I was in class this year Doc. I am sure I am missing some great conversations.

    30. Anne Says:

      I would like to recommend Charles Krauthammer’s article in the Washington Post today, in which he describes the evolution of the definition of the term “Bush Doctrine”.

      He claims to be the first to use the term (before 9/11/2001) in reference to the administration’s unilateralism with respect to the ABM treaty withdrawal, Kyoto, etc.

      After 9/11/2001, the term changed to refer to “with us or against us” policy.

      Gibson referred to the third iteration of “Bush Doctrine”…which was that of “preemptive war”.

      The fourth (and I agree with Krauthammer, final) definition of the “Bush Doctrine” was articulated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

    31. jpe Says:

      As I noted above, Anne, that doesn’t change the fact that Palin showed the nation how badly uninformed she is.

    32. PoliBlog (TM): A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » The Historical Significance of the Palin Stratagem and Effect Says:

      [...] of positions between those who are 1’s and those who are 0’s (as the discussion here illustrates). A lot of this is simply endemic to electoral democracy: at some point one has to [...]

    33. mbailey Says:

      his wasn’t an unfair yes/no question. it wasn’t even about policy. it was about principle. “do we have a right” is different than “will we do x, y, or z.” and the bush doctrine is not a popular term, true, but even an ignoramus on intenrational goings-on like me knows what it is. the interview was perfectly fair.

      and revealing.

    blog advertising is good for you

    Visitors Since 2/15/03

    Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics



    Powered by WordPress