Well, Gibson did specify the Bush Doctrine as inunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War. At that time the Doctrine was articulated clearly enough as a justification of the invasion. After that time, Bush’s policy changed as the reality of world events turned against him. I respect Krauthammer, but I’m not sure he has “naming rights” of the Bush Doctrine, to say that it has changed along with the policy.
99% of the time I’m taking Krauthammer’s word for it, including this time. As I said earlier, other pundits toward the left side of the aisle said Gibson’s question was ambiguous and unfairly worded.
We have folk in this country that call the Constitution a “living document\”. Is it so out of the question to suggest that the Bush Doctrine is also a “living document\”, adapting to the changing political landscape. I’d argue that it’s a lot more plausible that the Bush Doctrine is a “living document\” than it is that the Constitution is.
Well, Gibson did specify the Bush Doctrine as inunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War. At that time the Doctrine was articulated clearly enough as a justification of the invasion. After that time, Bush’s policy changed as the reality of world events turned against him. I respect Krauthammer, but I’m not sure he has “naming rights” of the Bush Doctrine, to say that it has changed along with the policy.
Gibson for darn sure does NOT have naming rights. His initial question was completely ambiguous, and he should have known it. The term even appears to be a media invention, which would explain why it’s so malleable.
By the way, this is the reason that I’ll take Krauthammer’s word on the Bush Doctrine over all else’s--he is widely accepted as being the first to report and comment on it:
Well, Gibson did specify the Bush Doctrine as inunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War. At that time the Doctrine was articulated clearly enough as a justification of the invasion. After that time, Bush’s policy changed as the reality of world events turned against him. I respect Krauthammer, but I’m not sure he has “naming rights” of the Bush Doctrine, to say that it has changed along with the policy.
Gibson for darn sure does NOT have naming rights. His initial question was completely ambiguous, and he should have known it. The term even appears to be a media invention, which would explain why it’s so malleable.
He did specify September 2002, and at that time, the term was unambiguous. But I accept the point about what is fair for her to be expected to know about that specific term. It still doesn’t change the fact that Palin didn’t have even a vague clue what it was. And like I said before, I still find it frustrating that I can’t find out more about what this woman actually thinks about foreign policy. And I still know little about her views on economics. I know she doesn’t like fiscal spending, but that’s a somewhat different matter than macroeconomic issues. People on both sides seem more concerned about her “performance” or her “experience” then her substantive policy views. That’s the extraordinary thing about her, we still don’t know where she lies on dozens of issues because she has no voting record on them, and has made no public comment about them.
People are now starting to collect similar exchanges… with foreign policy experts being asked the same question… who give the same answer ‘which part of it’ ‘tell me what you mean by it’....
It was clear she had never heard of the term. When someone asks you to say what you think the Bush Doctrine is and you have actually heard of it, you don’t say “His world view?”
Also, last night chris mathews raved about Palin’s response to what she considers to be reason to go to war. He said (and his two guests agreed) that Palin sets a much higher standard for going to war than Bush does. I was surprised that the pundits were that impressed with her.
I think you missed the point of what Matthews was saying. He was noting the irony that she clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was, and when forced to guess, enunciated a doctrine that was much more reasonable and dovish than Bush. The compliment was that her natural reasoning ability, when simply making up her own foreign policy, seemed to be better than Bush’s. That’s what impressed them and made it seem ironic.
By the way, this is the reason that I’ll take Krauthammer’s word on the Bush Doctrine over all else’s--he is widely accepted as being the first to report and comment on it:
It was clear she had never heard of the term. When someone asks you to say what you think the Bush Doctrine is and you have actually heard of it, you don’t say “His world view?”
Then you agree that Gibson’s question was poor? Once you’ve answered that, then maybe we can move on to your latest conclusion.
It was clear she had never heard of the term. When someone asks you to say what you think the Bush Doctrine is and you have actually heard of it, you don’t say “His world view?”
Actually she said, “With respect to what?”
That was her first response because it is a vague question. Then Gibson asked her what she thought it to be, again not clarifying what he was looking for.
Also, last night chris mathews raved about Palin’s response to what she considers to be reason to go to war. He said (and his two guests agreed) that Palin sets a much higher standard for going to war than Bush does. I was surprised that the pundits were that impressed with her.
I think you missed the point of what Matthews was saying. He was noting the irony that she clearly had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was, and when forced to guess, enunciated a doctrine that was much more reasonable and dovish than Bush. The compliment was that her natural reasoning ability, when simply making up her own foreign policy, seemed to be better than Bush’s. That’s what impressed them and made it seem ironic.
People on both sides seem more concerned about her “performance” or her “experience” then her substantive policy views. That’s the extraordinary thing about her, we still don’t know where she lies on dozens of issues because she has no voting record on them, and has made no public comment about them.
Yep so long as people are busy either being mean to her, or complaining about it, apparently that doesn’t matter.
Of course we on the right are interested in policy issues. We’re just willing to give some time for everybody (e.g., media) to come around to it. In the meantime, it is very relevant how fairly the media treats her. Her policy positions may affect my vote, but the media portrayal may affect everybody else’s!
Of course we on the right are interested in policy issues. We’re just willing to give some time for everybody (e.g., media) to come around to it. In the meantime, it is very relevant how fairly the media treats her. Her policy positions may affect my vote, but the media portrayal may affect everybody else’s!
This ain’t a brain teaser.
It just seems that if this whole ‘blame the media’ roadshow might keep on trucking right through until election day and nobody will know anything about who they’ve voting for/against. Considering people are upset that they don’t know enough about Obama, I can only assume they must be beside themselves seething with anger that in only 7 weeks they could have someone so unknown at VP.
Of course we on the right are interested in policy issues. We’re just willing to give some time for everybody (e.g., media) to come around to it. In the meantime, it is very relevant how fairly the media treats her. Her policy positions may affect my vote, but the media portrayal may affect everybody else’s!
This ain’t a brain teaser.
That and we think, right or wrong, that we have a good idea what they are.
Of course we on the right are interested in policy issues. We’re just willing to give some time for everybody (e.g., media) to come around to it. In the meantime, it is very relevant how fairly the media treats her. Her policy positions may affect my vote, but the media portrayal may affect everybody else’s!
This ain’t a brain teaser.
It just seems that if this whole ‘blame the media’ roadshow might keep on trucking right through until election day and nobody will know anything about who they’ve voting for/against. Considering people are upset that they don’t know enough about Obama, I can only assume they must be beside themselves seething with anger that in only 7 weeks they could have someone so unknown at VP.
Exactly how have the media treated her unfairly?
Aside from your lame last sentence, fair enough… but alas, it seems worse that people hardly know much about the Dems presidential pick vs the republican’s vp pick.
As to unfair, check out the front pages of the NYTimes and Wa Po for the last week.
Of course we on the right are interested in policy issues. We’re just willing to give some time for everybody (e.g., media) to come around to it. In the meantime, it is very relevant how fairly the media treats her. Her policy positions may affect my vote, but the media portrayal may affect everybody else’s!
This ain’t a brain teaser.
That and we think, right or wrong, that we have a good idea what they are.
Based on what?
On foreign policy? Really?
They isn’t very much time left for everyone else to figure out what they are.
(EDIT: e.g. apparently early voting begins in Ohio in 15 days)
Of course we on the right are interested in policy issues. We’re just willing to give some time for everybody (e.g., media) to come around to it. In the meantime, it is very relevant how fairly the media treats her. Her policy positions may affect my vote, but the media portrayal may affect everybody else’s!
This ain’t a brain teaser.
That and we think, right or wrong, that we have a good idea what they are.
Based on what?
On foreign policy? Really?
They isn’t very much time left for everyone else to figure out what they are.
Based on the team of advisers she’ll end up with for one just by virtue of being a Republican. A lot of those political appointees have served in every republican administration during their adult lifetimes. The other is a hunch but I suspect right / the reason conservatives are excited about her is she has said the right code / stuff to imply she is one of us. Sorta the same reason the far left is excited by Obama, they hear him drop enough code to know where he really stands… Anyway, just like most conservatives on moorewatch have a fairly unified / similar view of history and foreign policy… I think I’ve heard enough to know she’d be with us…
Of course we on the right are interested in policy issues. We’re just willing to give some time for everybody (e.g., media) to come around to it. In the meantime, it is very relevant how fairly the media treats her. Her policy positions may affect my vote, but the media portrayal may affect everybody else’s!
This ain’t a brain teaser.
That and we think, right or wrong, that we have a good idea what they are.
Based on what?
On foreign policy? Really?
They isn’t very much time left for everyone else to figure out what they are.
Based on the team of advisers she’ll end up with for one just by virtue of being a Republican. A lot of those political appointees have served in every republican administration during their adult lifetimes. The other is a hunch but I suspect right / the reason conservatives are excited about her is she has said the right code / stuff to imply she is one of us. Sorta the same reason the far left is excited by Obama, they hear him drop enough code to know where he really stands… Anyway, just like most conservatives on moorewatch have a fairly unified / similar view of history and foreign policy… I think I’ve heard enough to know she’d be with us...
That’s lovely for you and the Obama supporters, but what about the people that don’t get turned on by the codes. Isn’t the media meant to provide some information for them? Isn’t that kind of their job? Or are they going to do another Iraq-invasion dereliction-of-duty?
Of course we on the right are interested in policy issues. We’re just willing to give some time for everybody (e.g., media) to come around to it. In the meantime, it is very relevant how fairly the media treats her. Her policy positions may affect my vote, but the media portrayal may affect everybody else’s!
This ain’t a brain teaser.
That and we think, right or wrong, that we have a good idea what they are.
Based on what?
On foreign policy? Really?
They isn’t very much time left for everyone else to figure out what they are.
Based on the team of advisers she’ll end up with for one just by virtue of being a Republican. A lot of those political appointees have served in every republican administration during their adult lifetimes. The other is a hunch but I suspect right / the reason conservatives are excited about her is she has said the right code / stuff to imply she is one of us. Sorta the same reason the far left is excited by Obama, they hear him drop enough code to know where he really stands… Anyway, just like most conservatives on moorewatch have a fairly unified / similar view of history and foreign policy… I think I’ve heard enough to know she’d be with us...
That’s lovely for you and the Obama supporters, but what about the people that don’t get turned on by the codes. Isn’t the media meant to provide some information for them? Isn’t that kind of their job? Or are they going to do another Iraq-invasion dereliction-of-duty?
I tend to think they’d be closer to Palin… than Obama… if they knew everything about both foreign policy wise.... but alas, it won’t all be said in the next couple months. but again, if it were, it would help the republicans IMO....
Saying the Iraq war is ‘God’s will, robotic chanting of ancient Bush propaganda lines, and casually saying there might be a war with Europe - the codes Palin is offering are sufficient to over-ride any desire to know whether she’s actually up to it? Ideology trumps ability? It’s more important that any alarm that she’s so clearly reciting from cheat sheets (again)?
These codes seem to feature a resentment of “elites,” “Washington insiders” and overeducated coastal snobs and goes hand in hand with an emotional identification with candidates who “are just like me.” Just what I was referring to last week.
Doesn’t this just mean that anyone with expertise, unusual intelligence, mastery, special knowledge, is likely to be rejected by voters who are resentful of “elites”? Doesn’t this constitute a rejection of the very idea that it matters if someone is better at something than someone else?
Voters who would not dream of taking their car to an incompetent mechanic or their body to an unlicensed physician seem to have no problem electing totally unqualified candidates to perform the most difficult and important job in the world, simply because they identify with them. So it becomes more and more like a reality TV show.
(I’m not saying that applies to you sl0re, or anyone else here specifically).
I don’t see how any of that is positive. Aside from winning a single election. Is that good enough to trump everything else?
Saying the Iraq war is ‘God’s will, robotic chanting of ancient Bush propaganda lines, and casually saying there might be a war with Europe - the codes Palin is offering are sufficient to over-ride any desire to know whether she’s actually up to it? Ideology trumps ability? It’s more important that any alarm that she’s so clearly reciting from cheat sheets (again)?
You lost me after this paragraph…
That’s based an intentional misquote spread by democrats (and their MSM pals like the AP and Gibson) regarding God and the Iraq war.. a few words at the start are always left out. With the extra words it shows she prayed / hoped we were on God’s side / doing the right thing… rather than affirming it as fact that we were. Which all things considered, it shows a lot humility and wisdom to say that.... A lot of people have been hurt by the war and we all hope we were right vs. just knowing we are / were. Your trying to slam her for saying that.
Causally saying Nato is treaty bound to aid allies… trying to make something of that too. Duh, Nato helps allies when attacked. Everyone in the race supports allowing Nato expansion to the states considered provocative to Russia… So unless O! and Biden don’t support aiding Nato allies under attack… this is a non point.
Obviously you’ve heard the code too CM as she is driving you nuts too and or the message is the dems can only hope to win over Americas with spin, misdirection, and misrepresentations.... which tracks with my point… if they really heard their positions they’d side with her. The dems know it too.
