Another Homerun for Palin!

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
The Bush Doctrine?

Who cares and how is that relevant?

She won't be in office with Bush nor any of his people. She needs to learn the McCain Doctrine, whatever the heck that might be.

Doesn't sound to me like Charlie knows what it is either. He fumbled when ahe asked what his OWN question meant.

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

Is this another new *Gate* now? The Bush-DoctineGate?

Fern

Are you honestly trying to tell people that you don't think it is important for someone running for vice president to know the simple definition of the dominant US foreign policy of the last eight years? Give me a fucking break, that's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

Of course he knew what it is, you don't ask a question you don't know the answer to.

What happened to the old Fern?

It's not the simple definition. Even the pundits on TV admit nobody refers to *preemptive attack* as the "Bush Doctrine". Edit: The specific pundant I was referring was David Gergen)

The phrase is simply not in wide use.

Besides the fact that GWB didn't even invent the concept, it's as old as time itself.

He knew what it was? I see no proof of that. Since the so-called Bush Doctrine is supposed to be composed of several components, her response was correct in that his question was about as broad as one could possibly be.

Didin't look to me like he knew what to say when she asked him to narrow or further define it. I wouldn't be surprised if his producer wrote the questions and he was caught unprepared.

Jeebus, to think these MSM people are all that smart requires Hillary's "willful suspension of disbelief". I'd need a notepad next to me when watching TV to catelogue the number of factual errors I hear made by that group on any given evening.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hehe, Palin is a non-entity in terms of actual substance, she can regurgitate talking points she's been trained to regurgitate. Actually that makes her similar to an average Republican politician.

Back when Hillary was still in the race, I watched her do 3 or 4 interviews one day. She gave the same 4 answers, didn't matter what the questions were about. Same 4 responses in all interviews.

Even the MSM noticed it.

Yeah, Palin's some kind of exception, imagine a politician having talking points?

Fern

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Palin is incapable of delivering lines that weren't given to her beforehand. That's what we're driving at here, as soon as she has to go off the script she fumbles like an idiot.

McCain, Obama, and Biden don't have that problem because they are versed enough in what they speak about to go off-script.

 

[theeedude]

If old fart croaks, and that is distinct possibility that this woman will have the lives of US people and the military in her hands. She has indicated that she wants Ukraine and Georgia in NATO and would fight Russia over them. Georgia has Russian supported independent areas, and Crimea would probably jump ship to Russia if Ukraine joins NATO, meaning NATO could be at war with Russia. War with Russia could escalate to the brink of a nuclear war very quickly, do you want Palin there calling the shots if that happens? I am sorry, I love hockey moms as much as anyone else, but I would not want my life in the hands of that bimbo.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

It's not the simple definition. Even the pundits on TV admit nobody refers to *preemptive attack* as the "Bush Doctrine".

The phrase is simply not in wide use.

Besides the fact that GWB didn't even invent the concept, it's as old as time itself.

He knew what it was? I see no proof of that. Since the so-called Bush Doctrine is supposed to be composed of several components, her response was correct in that his question was about as broad as one could possibly be.

Didin't look to me like he knew what to say when she asked him to narrow or further define it. I wouldn't be surprised if his producer wrote the questions and he was caught unprepared.

Jeebus, to think these MSM people are all that smart requires Hillary's "willful suspension of disbelief". I'd need a notepad next to me when watching TV to catelogue the number of factual errors I hear made by that group on any given evening.

Fern

Completely false. Do a quick search for "preemptive attack + Bush Doctrine" and you will come up with a bit over 350,000 hits. These hits go everywhere from stupid blogs to mainstream media websites, to scholarly journals by experts in the field analyzing these issues. The phrase has been used in major publications the world over, to say it is not in wide use is a lie. Stop it.

Not only that, but by FAR the most common application of the Bush Doctrine to a conversation on international relations is the controversial reservation of pre-emptive war. In fact it is spoken about almost to exclusion of all the other elements. To try and make a claim that a reasonable person would think Gibson was referring to 'working with others to defuse regional conflicts' requires a huge level of self delusion.

I'm most certain that Gibson did write most if not all of his questions. I'm sure they had to be run by someone else, but if you think he's some pretty face that gets his questions handed to him that's ridiculous and you would need to back that up.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hehe, Palin is a non-entity in terms of actual substance, she can regurgitate talking points she's been trained to regurgitate. Actually that makes her similar to an average Republican politician.

Back when Hillary was still in the race, I watched her do 3 or 4 interviews one day. She gave the same 4 answers, didn't matter what the questions were about. Same 4 responses in all interviews.

Even the MSM noticed it.

Yeah, Palin's some kind of exception, imagine a politician having talking points?

Not quite. Hillary was a wonk's wonk. She knew every issue inside and out. She had thoughtfully considered her arguments, and even in the O'Reilly interview, which had a lot of back and forth, she clearly came across as knowing her shit, and while she had a "home base" on each issue, she could speak freely about any topic, even better than Obama, especially on foreign policy issues.

Palin did not express any thoughtfulness at all, and looked like she was reciting. As did Obama early on in the debates. It's something that can be grown out of, but I still don't feel like she has shown any of her ideas except in that one part where she said she'd just have to "agree to disagree" with McCain on drilling in alaska. But it makes sense she'd be comfortable speaking about alaska at least.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

It's not the simple definition. Even the pundits on TV admit nobody refers to *preemptive attack* as the "Bush Doctrine".

The phrase is simply not in wide use.

Completely false.

Then you disagree with David Gergen and the pundits.

Fern

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hehe, Palin is a non-entity in terms of actual substance, she can regurgitate talking points she's been trained to regurgitate. Actually that makes her similar to an average Republican politician.

Back when Hillary was still in the race, I watched her do 3 or 4 interviews one day. She gave the same 4 answers, didn't matter what the questions were about. Same 4 responses in all interviews.

Even the MSM noticed it.

Yeah, Palin's some kind of exception, imagine a politician having talking points?

Not quite. Hillary was a wonk's wonk. She knew every issue inside and out. She had thoughtfully considered her arguments, and even in the O'Reilly interview, which had a lot of back and forth, she clearly came across as knowing her shit, and while she had a "home base" on each issue, she could speak freely about any topic, even better than Obama, especially on foreign policy issues.

Palin did not express any thoughtfulness at all, and looked like she was reciting. As did Obama early on in the debates. It's something that can be grown out of, but I still don't feel like she has shown any of her ideas except in that one part where she said she'd just have to "agree to disagree" with McCain on drilling in alaska. But it makes sense she'd be comfortable speaking about alaska at least.

That's true on Hillary, but probably an understatement on the number of interviews. I remember reading an article about her this summer by a reporter that followed her around the whole day (roughly 3 AM to 11 PM) and at one point she sat down and ran off like 30 of those five minute interviews in a row. She has a special room set up in her house with all the video equipment, your local anchor would interview her via the internet and to the viewer it would seem like she gave a personal interview to the local Channel 6 news. Hillary has very impressive stamina and grasp of the issues, I'll give her that.

 

[Fern]

Most of this thread is silly, we all know governors don't have foreign policy experience; yet we usually elect them and not Congresspersons to office.

And as VP, as far as foreign policy, her job will be to promote McCain's foreign policy.

As VP, she won't be negotiating with foreign leaders; that'll be the State Dept, the Secretary of State, and McCain.

When it comes right down to it, not one of these candidates has ever negotiated with a foreign leader. None of them really have any foreign policy experience either. NONE of them. The Constitution delegates that responsibility to the POTUS, and none of them has ever been the POTUS.

If traveling around to foreign countries seeing the sights and shaking hands is foreign policy experience, I've got more of that in my little pinky then all of them combined

Fern

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

^No.

The problem with Palin is she COULD easily be CIC if McCain croaks, he's 71 and has a history of cancer and other ailments. She has thus far demonstrated a very poor understanding of world affairs and her small-town qualities don't translate well at all into effective foreign leadership. We saw this with Bush, our foreign reputation is in the shitter now because of his blunders. Maybe you are okay with this, I am not. I want America to do better.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^No.

The problem with Palin is she COULD easily be CIC if McCain croaks, he's 71 and has a history of cancer and other ailments. She has thus far demonstrated a very poor understanding of world affairs and her small-town qualities don't translate well at all into effective foreign leadership. We saw this with Bush, our foreign reputation is in the shitter now because of his blunders. Maybe you are okay with this, I am not. I want America to do better.

McCain's not on his death bed.

and if he were to die, Palin would step into an already-existing foreign policy with a filled cabinet and more advisers than you can shake a stick at to get her up to speed (and a likely Vice President Lieberman)... and she might have a better grasp on domestic issues than any of the 3 senators.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: venkman
Did I watch a completely different interview from the OP?

You and the entire forum.

I wish we still had thread ratings; this one is a perfect 10/10.

I skimmed the news on Yahoo this morning before work and their coverage of this interview was not in Palin's favor. I didn't see the interview and can't find the Yahoo link now.

Shocker! The MSM coverage of the interview is not in her favor. Very surprising indeed.... or not. The good news is, that only serves to help her cause, it makes more people vote for her when they see the media behaving as it does.

That's pretty much the worst possible reason I can think of for voting for someone.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hehe, Palin is a non-entity in terms of actual substance, she can regurgitate talking points she's been trained to regurgitate. Actually that makes her similar to an average Republican politician.

Back when Hillary was still in the race, I watched her do 3 or 4 interviews one day. She gave the same 4 answers, didn't matter what the questions were about. Same 4 responses in all interviews.

Even the MSM noticed it.

Yeah, Palin's some kind of exception, imagine a politician having talking points?

Not quite. Hillary was a wonk's wonk. She knew every issue inside and out. She had thoughtfully considered her arguments, and even in the O'Reilly interview, which had a lot of back and forth, she clearly came across as knowing her shit, and while she had a "home base" on each issue, she could speak freely about any topic, even better than Obama, especially on foreign policy issues.

Palin did not express any thoughtfulness at all, and looked like she was reciting. As did Obama early on in the debates. It's something that can be grown out of, but I still don't feel like she has shown any of her ideas except in that one part where she said she'd just have to "agree to disagree" with McCain on drilling in alaska. But it makes sense she'd be comfortable speaking about alaska at least.

I think "reacting" is a good term for what she was doing. She tried to be aggressive to make up for her obvious nervousness--clenching her hands together, throwing "Charlie" into every other sentence, etc. She was too quick to fall back on generics when she felt threatened, you know those lines about 'those who would seek to destroy America, we can't blink, we have to fight for freedom.' Lines that have no content that can fluff up an answer but don't actually say anything.

If you compare her performance to what other governors would do--Jindal, for example--I think it is obvious that she is on a stage that she is not prepared for. We'll see if she can fix that in the next 50 days.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
She cuts him up here.

that's cutting him up?? really? ok... if that's her attack dog mode.. it's a bassett hound on xanax if you ask me. Unless i'm not watching the right video, he's asking her if she's ready to be the vp.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^No.

The problem with Palin is she COULD easily be CIC if McCain croaks, he's 71 and has a history of cancer and other ailments.
.
.

McCain's not on his death bed.

That's not the point. Win our lose, I don't wish it for him, but as a 71 year old cancer survivor, McCain is part of a group that, statistically, has a higher chance of dying than a younger person, especially one who has not contracted cancer.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^No.

The problem with Palin is she COULD easily be CIC if McCain croaks, he's 71 and has a history of cancer and other ailments.
.
.

McCain's not on his death bed.

That's not the point. Win our lose, I don't wish it for him, but as a 71 year old cancer survivor, McCain is part of a group that, statistically, has a higher chance of dying than a younger person, especially one who has not contracted cancer.

if he were to die, Palin would step into an already-existing foreign policy with a filled cabinet and more advisers than you can shake a stick at to get her up to speed (and a likely Vice President Lieberman)... and she might have a better grasp on domestic issues than any of the 3 senators.

the fact that you and I disagree on what that foreign policy would be doesn't mean that VP's have to have extensive foreign policy experience (or even presidents, for that matter. I was quite happy with the job that Bubba did)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^No.

The problem with Palin is she COULD easily be CIC if McCain croaks, he's 71 and has a history of cancer and other ailments. She has thus far demonstrated a very poor understanding of world affairs and her small-town qualities don't translate well at all into effective foreign leadership. We saw this with Bush, our foreign reputation is in the shitter now because of his blunders. Maybe you are okay with this, I am not. I want America to do better.

McCain's not on his death bed.

and if he were to die, Palin would step into an already-existing foreign policy with a filled cabinet and more advisers than you can shake a stick at to get her up to speed (and a likely Vice President Lieberman)... and she might have a better grasp on domestic issues than any of the 3 senators.

No, a governor of a remote 600,000 perosn state with extremist right-wing views does not have a better mastery of US domestic issue than US Senators who deal with federal issues.

And that's whown in her lack of displaying any such new issues fitting that description since she was nominated.

Her responsibilities for for the issues of 600,000. The Senators represented millions on issues affecting the whole nation.

Frankly, even the governor of a larger state like Texas, Bush, was hardly prepared by that for dealing with, say, Middle Eastern policy, as shown by his unfamilarity with Sunni/Shia.

Politicians today can be pretty accurately described IMO by who they choose to serve - the corporatocracy (wittingly or unwittingly) or the public.

The corporatocracy basically gives its people a head start, with financing, with easily borrowed phrases about patriotism and 'being strong' and such.

That allows their opponenst to be dismissed as 'jokes' like Mondale and Dukakis were, while their own people are hyped into phony great leaders.

The disastrous failures of the Reagan presidency leave the right wanting to put him on Mount Rushmore.

If Palin were president and an utter disaster - continued plummeting of the middle class, continued skyrocketing of the deficit, etc. - she'd still have 30% saying she's amazing.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^No.

The problem with Palin is she COULD easily be CIC if McCain croaks, he's 71 and has a history of cancer and other ailments.
.
.

McCain's not on his death bed.

That's not the point. Win our lose, I don't wish it for him, but as a 71 year old cancer survivor, McCain is part of a group that, statistically, has a higher chance of dying than a younger person, especially one who has not contracted cancer.

Not really important, but he turned 72 about 2 weeks ago (DoB: August 29, 1936).

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, a governor of a remote 600,000 perosn state with extremist right-wing views does not have a better mastery of US domestic issue than US Senators who deal with federal issues.
<snip>

Here are my opinion:

1. She is not running for President, McCain is. Would that be more objective to compare Obama vs. McCain rather than Palin vs. Obama? I am not a political junkie but I don't think I ever remember anything about VP vs P candidates before.

2. I read an article and it said Clinton won in 92 as a governor with a smaller state and smaller budget. He did ok. I don't remember anyone said anything about Clinton experience in foreign matters in 92 election.

3. Why all the talk about what "IF" McCain kick the bucket? I don't think I ever hear that much talk (if at all) about what happens if he dies and the VP took over before he picked Palin. Why all the talk about that subject over and over NOW all of the suddend?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

It's not the simple definition. Even the pundits on TV admit nobody refers to *preemptive attack* as the "Bush Doctrine".

The phrase is simply not in wide use.

Completely false.

Then you disagree with David Gergen and the pundits.

Fern

More like David Gergen and the pundits disagree with reality. I have given you the means to look up hundreds if not thousands of mentions of the Bush Doctrine across the political spectrum and across the entire spectrum of mass media. It's there, and nothing David Gergen says will change that.

 

[Ballatician]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
The Bush Doctrine?

Who cares and how is that relevant?

She won't be in office with Bush nor any of his people. She needs to learn the McCain Doctrine, whatever the heck that might be.

Doesn't sound to me like Charlie knows what it is either. He fumbled when ahe asked what his OWN question meant.

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

Is this another new *Gate* now? The Bush-DoctineGate?

Fern

Are you honestly trying to tell people that you don't think it is important for someone running for vice president to know the simple definition of the dominant US foreign policy of the last eight years? Give me a fucking break, that's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

Of course he knew what it is, you don't ask a question you don't know the answer to.

What happened to the old Fern?

It's not the simple definition. Even the pundits on TV admit nobody refers to *preemptive attack* as the "Bush Doctrine". Edit: The specific pundant I was referring was David Gergen)

The phrase is simply not in wide use.

Besides the fact that GWB didn't even invent the concept, it's as old as time itself.

He knew what it was? I see no proof of that. Since the so-called Bush Doctrine is supposed to be composed of several components, her response was correct in that his question was about as broad as one could possibly be.

Didin't look to me like he knew what to say when she asked him to narrow or further define it. I wouldn't be surprised if his producer wrote the questions and he was caught unprepared.

Jeebus, to think these MSM people are all that smart requires Hillary's "willful suspension of disbelief". I'd need a notepad next to me when watching TV to catelogue the number of factual errors I hear made by that group on any given evening.

Fern

In the video I watched, after Gibson asks her to clarify and she just says a lot of words, he then proceeds to define the Bush doctrine. I think he knows what it means.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, a governor of a remote 600,000 perosn state with extremist right-wing views does not have a better mastery of US domestic issue than US Senators who deal with federal issues.
<snip>

Here are my opinion:

1. She is not running for President, McCain is. Would that be more objective to compare Obama vs. McCain rather than Palin vs. Obama? I am not a political junkie but I don't think I ever remember anything about VP vs P candidates before.

Of the last dozens presidents, five had been vice-president. It makes sense to take seriously the presidential abilities of the VP candidate, though the public rarely does so.

2. I read an article and it said Clinton won in 92 as a governor with a smaller state and smaller budget. He did ok. I don't remember anyone said anything about Clinton experience in foreign matters in 92 election.

I agree with you as I've said previously that I don't think it's about the paper experience as much as the candidate's qualities.

But I was discussing the issue with someone who made a claim I disagreed with about those paper qualifications. By the way, Arkansas has more people than Alaska.

It's two different issues to ask me to compare the experience on domestic issues of two candidates, and to ask me whether that guarantees who will do better.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

In the video I watched, after Gibson asks her to clarify and she just says a lot of words, he then proceeds to define the Bush doctrine. I think he knows what it means.

Yes, you're right, good point. He does know at least one pillar of it.

Fern

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, a governor of a remote 600,000 perosn state with extremist right-wing views does not have a better mastery of US domestic issue than US Senators who deal with federal issues.
<snip>

2. I read an article and it said Clinton won in 92 as a governor with a smaller state and smaller budget. He did ok. I don't remember anyone said anything about Clinton experience in foreign matters in 92 election.

Actually, a lot of people said things about Clinton's lack of experience in foreign matters in the 92 election. I believe most famously somebody mentioned that Clinton's only experience with foreign policy was that he once ate breakfast at an International House of Pancakes.

Lack of foreign policy experience is always a legitimate topic when governors run for President. Nevertheless, four of our last five Presidents have gone from the Governor' office to President (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II), and none of them could claim any significant foreign policy experience.

The difference here is that people are focusing on the lack of foreign experience of a candidate for Vice President, which, rhetoric about being "ready to step in at a moment's notice" aside, is clearly not the same concern as you have at the top of the ticket. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two Democratic nominees for Vice President in our recent history (John Edwards and Geraldine Ferraro) who inarguably had less experience in both foreign and domestic governance than does Palin.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, a governor of a remote 600,000 perosn state with extremist right-wing views does not have a better mastery of US domestic issue than US Senators who deal with federal issues.
<snip>

Here are my opinion:

1. She is not running for President, McCain is. Would that be more objective to compare Obama vs. McCain rather than Palin vs. Obama? I am not a political junkie but I don't think I ever remember anything about VP vs P candidates before.

They are all four running for president. There are two 1a candidates and two 1b candidates. Almost 25% of our presidents have died in office whether from natural causes or otherwise. I don't want to bet on that 75% of McCain surviving especially with his policies eerily similar to the current president that has jacked things up so badly that our financial and housing sectors our in their worst shape since the great depression.

2. I read an article and it said Clinton won in 92 as a governor with a smaller state and smaller budget. He did ok. I don't remember anyone said anything about Clinton experience in foreign matters in 92 election.

Arkansas is smaller only in land mass. Population wise, Little Rock has more residents than the entire state of Alaska and Arkansas as a whole has >4x. And the budget for Arkansas was $2.3B in 1992 dollars (that's bigger than Alaska's also).. And Clinton's lack of foreign policy experience was a mainstay of the GOP attacks against him.

3. Why all the talk about what "IF" McCain kick the bucket? I don't think I ever hear that much talk (if at all) about what happens if he dies and the VP took over before he picked Palin. Why all the talk about that subject over and over NOW all of the suddend?

Because his other options on his short list were infinitely more qualified and trusted to do so. She is neither.

My responses in bold.