Sarah Palin Interview Excerpts (Long)

Nick Gillespie | September 12, 2008

GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin sat down with Charlie Gibson of ABC for her first big post-nomination interview.

Here's a chunk of exceprts courtesy of the (U.K.) Times:

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I - will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I - I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.

So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate....

GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. ...

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand - the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer....

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

More here.

Based on the bits I saw, and the incredibly tedious, partisan commentary on last night's yak shows, I'd say Palin easily passed the Quayle test (that is, she didn't completely bomb) but failed to rise far enough above that baseline to completely silence critics (as she did with her GOP convention speech). Shockingly, the folks in the tank for the GOP said she was great, and the Dem types thought she was stunningly bad (she clearly flubbed more than a few answers); the big fooferaw coming out this will be whether Gibson deliberately misrepresented various on-a-mission-from-God quotes, which will focus the post-interview debate on media bias (a win for the GOP).

If nothing else, this interview may signal a shift back to discussing the top of the tickets, though last night's national service-a-thon forum with McBama was a grimly awful affair whose basic premise—ask not what your country can do for you but what you can be forced to do for your country—should remind libertarians and liberty-loving folks everywhere just how few people get the whole freedom-from-serving-in-other-people's-grand-schemes point of this country.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Winthorpe|9.12.08 @ 7:43AM|#

Holy crap, she's a loon!!!

Someone check her fridge for human heads.

Federal Dog|9.12.08 @ 7:49AM|#

"I'd say Palin passed the Quayle test (that is, she didn't completely bomb) but failed to rise far enough above that to silence critics"

Not one damned thing that she could have said would have done the latter.

Gibson is despicable for Dowdifying her past words. I resent the media's ham-fisted attempts at thought control, and I cannot imagine that I am alone.

|9.12.08 @ 8:01AM|#

Obama wants Georgia and Ukraine in NATO as well.

Off topic: Did Barr ask Paul to be his running mate? If so, anyone know the chance Paul will accept? I come here for all of my Paul coverage.

|9.12.08 @ 8:05AM|#

Once again the liberal non-Christian dictators are telling women what's in their best interests and that Palin is not a good women. I am sick of bogus misleading and lying liberals. They are the worst thing to have happen to America in our lifetime. The thought and voting police are out in full force trying to tell women who to vote for. Effectively trying to control the women right of individual assessment and control of their individual vote thru lies and distortion projected thru a bias media and internet blogs.

Palin is extremely successful, strong; a determined woman who has the potential to become 1st seed material for future political office like heading ticket in future against Clinton. They are scared and they now the impact of letting an alternate vision of leadership of moral clarity and reflection for women. They are scared to hell of religious, community serving, moral and successful women who raise children and attend church and are soccer/hockey mom types rallying against the self-centered, elitist, moral deficient types that say they are the current leaders of the women movement.

Palin has 13 years of elected office, given birth five times, loved her country as much as her husband, fought corruption in her own party, dealt with relations with two countries that are direct neighbors of her state. She smashed the big oil good old boy system with her straight talk approach in leadership in Alaska. She risked death to fight corrupt men in the Alaska government whom were so corrupt they could have eliminated the threat using evil force.

She is a hero and a joy to all women's hopes and as a Christian Man I love her and trust her as my vice-president or president in my future.

NObama is going to fad away like Dukakus. Did you notice he flip floped to support the surge this week. Now he flip floped to support not removing the Bush tax cuts! He's blaming it on a recession that he thinks we are in.

News flash we are not in a recession because of the Bush tax cuts he opposed.

We don't you report the facts corrupt and bias liberal media. Shame on you. If I were McCain and Palin I would never answer questions from the media only Townhall meetings would be on my schedule.

Go Palin!

JMR|9.12.08 @ 8:11AM|#

Briefly, Yes. Barr asked Paul, who wisely said "no." Then Barr did his usual "look at meeeeeeee!!!!I'm Bob Barr!" show in another room and acted like the nutcase he is because fellow nutcase Cynthia McKinney was on Paul's stage, and we can't have THAT. My verdict is that it's now between Chuck Baldwin and the Boston Tea Party if they all keep sounding this crazy.

Fluffy|9.12.08 @ 8:13AM|#

Here's a fact, you fucking dumbass:

Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

What kind of fucking cave do you have to be living in for the last 8 years to not know what the Bush Doctrine is?

I actually thought Bush himself got kind of a raw deal 8 years ago when an interviewer tried to stump him with a quiz on the names of foreign heads of state, since after all there are hundreds of them, they change a lot, and it's the job of protocol officers and junior diplomats and nomenclatura to serve as the memory of the head of state for such things. But this is different - to not know what the Bush Doctrine is, you would have to be intellectually uncurious to the point where you literally did not pick up a book or a newspaper or turn on a computer to even consider issues surrounding our foreign policy for literally years.

Taktix®|9.12.08 @ 8:15AM|#

So Reagan was great for NOT going to war with Russia, but we should go to war with Russia if they invade some podunck former satellite.

If anyone can make sense of this, I'll give them a cookie...

|9.12.08 @ 8:15AM|#

Thanks JMR. Damn, I was hoping they would get rid of Root so I wouldn't be embarrassed to vote for the ticket.

|9.12.08 @ 8:16AM|#

If nothing else, this interview may signal a shift back to discussing the top of the tickets

Right. It would be unprecedented for the running mate to actually play a major role in the outcome of a presidential race (other than delivering their home state). With the novelty worn off and Palin neither rocking Gibson's world nor barking and rubbing sand in her hair, she's going to stop being the top story.

OT, you know how it's become popular to float increasingly-truncated quotes across the screen during political ads? I just saw a McCain ad that had the following quote:

"...lying..."

That's it.

There wasn't even a citation or source. Someone, somewhere, used the word "lying" in some context. Awesome.

|9.12.08 @ 8:22AM|#

*Yawn*

|9.12.08 @ 8:24AM|#

Palin/McCain are losing news cycles. Two in a row now. That hasn't happened since he picked her.

SIV|9.12.08 @ 8:27AM|#

The Republican candidate said he hopes to see the greatest expansion of service in private and faith-based volunteer initiatives, what he called "the grass roots" of service.

"I believe firmly that government should expand the avenues of opportunity," Obama said.

There appears to be a difference between the candidates on the definition of National Service.

Timothy|9.12.08 @ 8:30AM|#

Does anyone remember that the VP actually doesn't, you know, really do anything?

VM|9.12.08 @ 8:32AM|#

Hay Timothy -

thay sher dooo. they, like, open malls n shit. yeah. malls.

and they paint skoolz in irak. PAINTED SKOOLS!!

and wtf with "graduate student"? DanT/edweirdoo get the encyclopedia jammed up his posterior?

JMR|9.12.08 @ 8:34AM|#

Even if they got rid of Root, they'd still have Barr. Since Boston Tea's gonna be on the ballot in my state, I'm inclined to go with them, if only to say "screw you" to the media.

galthran|9.12.08 @ 8:36AM|#

Taktix® | September 12, 2008, 8:15am | #
So Reagan was great for NOT going to war with Russia, but we should go to war with Russia if they invade some podunck former satellite.

If anyone can make sense of this, I'll give them a cookie...

Not going to war is great, but if someone invades a country that we have a mutual defense treaty with then to war we must go. I'd think it would be best to enter into such treaties with extreme caution, especially in central Asia, but alas I'm not running for office. Stick your cookie up your ass.

As for Palin, the real test in my mind was whether or not she'd answer the stupid questions or just vomit out the prememorized crap that comes standard with politicians these days. She failed.

Fluffy|9.12.08 @ 8:36AM|#

There appears to be a difference between the candidates on the definition of National Service.

Yes, one of them indicates that were it politically possible, he'd bring back the military draft.

|9.12.08 @ 8:36AM|#

I hope Graduate Student is either a joke or a "graduate student" in something like home ec.

Seriously girl, "whom" only makes you look smart when you use it right.

|9.12.08 @ 8:43AM|#

Palin/McCain are losing news cycles. Two in a row now.

What did I miss yesterday? The last "news cycle" kerfuffle I remember was the pig in lipstick, emphatically not a win for Obama. If you're explaining, you're losing.

Based on the excerpts I have seen so far, about the only thing that might hurt her in this interview is going blank on the Bush Doctrine. As far as losing a news cycle out in the big world, though, even that one is iffy - not very many people outside of us obsessives know what the Bush Doctrine is, or even remember that there is one.

So Reagan was great for NOT going to war with Russia, but we should go to war with Russia if they invade some podunck former satellite.

Lets not forget that Obama and Biden are both in favor of Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, so if if Palin is an idiot for holding this opinion, so are her opponents.

At some point not excerpted above she goes on to indicate that she, at least, understands that war is not automatic, that our options may include something less then emptying our ICBM silos in Russia's general direction.

|9.12.08 @ 8:46AM|#

I'd think it would be best to enter into such treaties with extreme caution, especially in central Asia, but alas I'm not running for office

That's the second rule. The first is never go up against a Sicilian, especially when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha!

onlyalad|9.12.08 @ 8:54AM|#

Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

What kind of fucking cave do you have to be living in for the last 8 years to not know what the Bush Doctrine is?

I had to think about it for a moment before I remembered what it was. After all, the term hasn't been tossed around nearly as much as it used to be. OK, back to the cave.

|9.12.08 @ 8:58AM|#

"I believe firmly that government should expand the avenues of opportunity," Obama said.

Another masterpiece of semantic nullity from Obama. Seriously, WTF does that mean?

Back to the Polin Obsession of the Day: I would give her performance, that I haven't (and won't) watch in its entirety, a B-. I found the set rather weird and cramped, which was distracting, and Gibson visibly restraining himself from calling her an ignorant hillbilly who had some nerve, which was also distracting.

Cutting through the distractions, she gave a pretty typical talking-point performance, with points off here and there.

|9.12.08 @ 9:01AM|#

"I resent the media's ham-fisted attempts at thought control, and I cannot imagine that I am alone."

"The thought and voting police are out in full force trying to tell women who to vote for."

That damn free speech thing again!!

|9.12.08 @ 9:02AM|#

Epi -
No, the first most famous is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"

Geeze

|9.12.08 @ 9:05AM|#

Shit, I reversed them. Sorry. This is what happens when I take too much Vicodin.

|9.12.08 @ 9:06AM|#

LOL, Boy I sure am glad no one out there is taking McBush/Palin seriously. Whew!

Jiff
www.anonymize.us.tc

|9.12.08 @ 9:08AM|#

Step 1) Spam message boards and comment threads

Step 2)

Step 3) Profit!

ps - fluffy plz take ur medicine k thx bye

|9.12.08 @ 9:12AM|#

emphatically not a win for Obama.

I guess you don't pay much attention attention to the media, RC. Obama was cracking jokes about it on Letterman, and McCain surrogates were talking about how the media should really move on to more important things. The lipstick on a pig episode was the official shark-jumping moment of the Sarah Palin victimology tour, and the beginning of the media backlash.

not very many people outside of us obsessives know what the Bush Doctrine is, or even remember that there is one. No, we pay people for that. People like Presidents, and Vice Presidents.

'Sok.

Thanks though. I now have that entire scene running through my head

|9.12.08 @ 9:13AM|#

If you're in grajooitt skool, I'm the pope.

|9.12.08 @ 9:15AM|#

Some people sure are getting hysterical and touchy over the popularity of Governor Palin. You'd think she stole the spotlight or something.

Oh...wait...

|9.12.08 @ 9:18AM|#

Ah, panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism panic sexism.

John McCain has spent the last six months attacking Barack Obama. He must have been terrified. And did you see that Willie Horton ad in 1988? Plainly, a sign of Bush's fear.

You know, the fact that you just kicked my ass really shows how scared you are that I can kick your ass. I love this "logic."

As an independent, libertarian-minded voter, I find myself in disagreement with both of the major party candidates on many issues. What I took out of the interview, though, is that Sarah Palin is woefully unqualified to be vice-president. The Bush Doctrine, which she clearly does not understand, is the root of distrust around the world for America. All of the major candidates are wrong on allowing Georgia to enter NATO--it is simply not in our national interest. She took it to the extreme, however, and essentially said that she is willing to risk nuclear war with Russia to defend this small country in the Caucusus. Unbelievable and downright frightening.

'Sok.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

|9.12.08 @ 9:20AM|#

Now we measure trends in seconds. No one but a rabid partisan views the Obama campaign as anything but on the defensive. Palin remains novel, so she'll continue to get the most press for a bit longer. Then other news will take over. I think the thing that will hurt Obama the most is the memory that he and the Democrats in general attempted to throw every possible negative at Palin before they had the slightest clue about her. And the fact that a number of the attacks could easily be viewed as attacks on small states and "common folk" made the campaign look somewhat inept.

What's also bad for Obama is that whatever negatives come of this, the election is less than two months away, so he can't relay on our collective short-term memory. Better find something compelling to get attention off of the GOP, or he'll be losing in November by a significant number of votes.

|9.12.08 @ 9:21AM|#

lol! So you're admitting she kicked your ass?

|9.12.08 @ 9:22AM|#

Here's a question that all the candidates should be asked, but won't: "Is there any issue affecting the voters that you feel the government should not or could not try to solve? And if so, what are they?"

I think the crickets would be deafening.

|9.12.08 @ 9:23AM|#

You really have to watch Palin's "Bush Doctrine" answer to get the full effect. She does that thing, CHARLIE, where you open your eyes really wide and hold eye contact, CHARLIE, while you filibuster to try to, through sheer force of will and personality, CHARLIE, your interlocutor from noticing while you're doing a tapdance. If you've ever caught someone flat-footed in a political argument, you know the look.

The fact that she enunciated the old, imminent-threat threshold for pre-emptive action, while McCain has been an advocate of the "Bush Doctrine" of anticipatory self defense for even longer than Bush himself demonstrates on a substantive level that her flubbing of the quesiton wasn't just a matter of terminology.

|9.12.08 @ 9:24AM|#

You've made your decision then?

|9.12.08 @ 9:25AM|#

I think most of the people who screaming about the "Bush Doctrine" the question themselves or if they did they would give some bullshit "it means Bush claims the right to wage war against anyone he pleases". The wikipedia entry on it is atrocious claiming that it was used to justify the invasion Afghanistan. What is the Bush Doctrine? Loosely stated it is the idea that the US can strike terrorists anywhere they are. But that is not really a doctrine. If one country harbors criminals or pirates other countries have always been free to violate sovereignty and hunt them down. The doctrine of preemption goes back to the Caroline case and then Secretary of State Denial Webster's letter over the matter. There is nothing new about pre-emption. Further, pre-emption is state to state, not state to non-state actor or criminal. Shooting a terrorists or a criminal on sight is not strictly speaking "preemption".

The US has always reserved the right to go after terrorists and nonstate actors where we find them. Bill Clinton bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan trying to get Bin Ladin. Ronald Reagan bombed Lybia ostensibly to destroy terrorist training camps there in response to the Berlin nightclub bombings. The US whacked any number of communist guerillas and terrorists in Latin America and Africa during the cold war. Hell, Obama plans to go whack terrorists in Pakistan if he is elected. The term "Bush Doctrine" such as it is, is really just a restatement of existing international law bulked up with a little bit of rhetoric.

I wish I could have possessed Palin's body after dumb ass asked the question. First, I would have turned it around and asked him "what aspect of the Bush Doctrine do you mean?" and watched Gibson stutter around for 30 seconds or so. Then I would have lectured him on the history of preemption and shoved my fist so far up his ass I could feel his tongue. But alas, I don't have the power to possess.

As far as the interview goes, the Republicans say she was great. The Democrats say she is horrible. She came across fine. The Democrats will stomp and spit and claim what about this point or that point and no one but other Democrats will care. I love how Palin's entire career comes down to one interview. That is until the next interview and then the fact she did well on this one will mean nothing. One mistake and she is done. Obama of course can refer to 57 states and people clinging to their guns and religion and still be a super genius. Just imagine if she had said something like that?

I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?

Pro Libertate,

Now we measure trends in seconds...What's also bad for Obama is that whatever negatives come of this, the election is less than two months away, so he can't relay on our collective short-term memory.

???

Oh CRAP!
It's.. ahem

< charming brit accent >
You're trying to trick me into giving something away. It won't work.
< / charming brit accent >

"She took it to the extreme, however, and essentially said that she is willing to risk nuclear war with Russia to defend this small country in the Caucusus. Unbelievable and downright frightening."

I agree with her that when there's a commitment to defend each other, which is what NATO members are supposed to be committing to, then you have to honor your commitment. Honor and commitment are highly important.

The problem is, though, that Georgia or Ukraine are not members of NATO, so that does make the thought of going to war for them absolutely ridiculous.

|9.12.08 @ 9:26AM|#

Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

Possibly. But since there seems to be no consensus on what the "Bush Doctrine" encompasses, her request to clarify was reasonable.

In contrast, it was very clear that Obama didn't know that the U.S. has not recognized Jerusalem as the "undivided capital of Israel". Kind of an important fact to be ignorant of, wouldn't you say? Can you imagine how Palin would have been treated had she said that? I mean, hell, she's being portrayed as a war-mongering wacko for answer about Georgia in NATO despite the fact that it's the same position Obama has taken.

Watching excerpts of the interview, she neither put her foot in it nor particularly impressed me. But the reaction of Obama supporters and the media (but I repeat myself) continues to lower my estimation of them (and strengthen the hard-to-suppress impulse to hope for a McCain win if only just to enjoy their despair).

not very many people outside of us obsessives know what the Bush Doctrine is, or even remember that there is one. No, we pay people for that. People like Presidents, and Vice Presidents.

Sure, they should know. But, my point was, that this isn't necessarily a news cycle story, because practically nobody on the street knows. Not knowing how many states there are is a news cycle loser. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is, maybe not because its not common knowledge that will make ordinary people go "WTF?".

Who wins a news cycle is subjective, I guess. I really don't think Obama won the pig in lipstick thing, though. The video makes him look really bad (its the pause to soak in the laughter that makes it look as if he understood exactly who the pig in lipstick was), and no amount of explaining or laughing it off can wash that bad taste out of your mouth. But that's just my take.

She took it to the extreme, however, and essentially said that she is willing to risk nuclear war with Russia to defend this small country in the Caucusus.

I really don't believe she did. I seem to recall hearing some extended remarks that indicted otherwise. I could be wrong, though.

lol! So you're admitting she kicked your ass?

No, Einsteien. Give it another whirl, see if you can't figure it out. It's not that difficult a point.

jj|9.12.08 @ 9:26AM|#

How nifty - she doesn't know the Bush doctrine. I have to wonder though, if she knows about the Cuban missle crisis. She says she doesn't want to repeat the cold war, but she's too stupid to see we're replaying the Cuban missile crisis; this time in Poland, Georgia and Venezuela instead of Turkey & Cuba. Anyone want to take a guess as to how long it will be until Russia wants to put missles (or leave a few long range strategic bombers) in Venezuela for "defensive" purposes only? But hey, whats good for the Polish goose is good for the Venezuelean gander, right? I'm sure somewhere Robert McNamara is banging his head against a wall as he watches this idiocy unfold.

|9.12.08 @ 9:27AM|#

Well, I f'ed that up.

Anybody want a peanut?

Fluffy|9.12.08 @ 9:27AM|#

not very many people outside of us obsessives know what the Bush Doctrine is, or even remember that there is one

I demonstrably should not be President or Vice President.

Therefore, if you know less than me about "stuff", you definitely should not be President or Vice President.

matt2|9.12.08 @ 9:28AM|#

Wait a minute, Joe.

Liberty University has a graduate school. Accreditation is overrated. I think you owe our friend an apology.

|9.12.08 @ 9:29AM|#

Well, I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.

|9.12.08 @ 9:31AM|#

You guessed wrong

BDB|9.12.08 @ 9:34AM|#

The new attack ads from both campaigns have reached a new height of stupidity.

Did you know Obama is the world's biggest celebrity, and his star is fading? It's TRUE! And Joe Biden called her "good looking"! OMG!

Did you also know that John McCain was elected to Congress in the 1980s? I sure didn't! GAME CHANGER!

|9.12.08 @ 9:34AM|#

But, my point was, that this isn't necessarily a news cycle story, because practically nobody on the street knows.

Nobody on the street knew who the president of Pakistan was in 2000, and Bush got tagged for days over that. At that time, the identify of the president of Pakistan was not the central concept behind the most important event to take place in the world in the last fifteen years.

John,

The doctrine of pre-empting imminent threats is utterly non-controversial, and as you say, it goes back to the earliest days of the Republic. However, Bush's expansion of that doctrine to include potential future threats that are in no way imminent - we cannot wait until a threat become imminent - is also known as the Bush Doctrine. Whether the doctrine of pre-emption should be so expanded is perhaps the most important foreign policy debate in the post 9/11 era.

|9.12.08 @ 9:35AM|#

I already did the next line, Moose. Therefore I will divert:

And you: friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed! In Greenland!

BDB,

Did you know that Barack Obama used a political cliche that is also the title of book written by John McCain's top strategist?

Panic! And sexism!

BDB|9.12.08 @ 9:36AM|#

The dumbest thing I read this morning is that McCain is actually going to try to compete in Washington, Oregon, and Maine. Because his strategist thinks they're a lot like Alaska, or something.

|9.12.08 @ 9:40AM|#

"No, Einsteien. Give it another whirl, see if you can't figure it out. It's not that difficult a point."

Ooooh...touchy, touchy.

See my earlier comment. You prove my point, and I wasn't even talking about you to begin with.

Nobody on the street knew who the president of Pakistan was in 2000, and Bush got tagged for days over that.

Well, I guess maybe the question comes down to which audience matters in the news cycle - the coastal media or the man-on-the-street. I would say, especially after watching the coastal media run headlong into a brick wall on Palin's family life, that its now possible to lose a cycle with the coastal media and win it with public.

The Bush interview has become Exhibit A in "gotcha journalism", after all. I wouldn't be surprised if most people regard questions about the minutia of the Bush Doctrine and who is President of Goatropistan as being equally "gotcha". We'll see, I guess. Maybe the public is better versed on the nuances of hot pursuit, imminent threat, sovereign v. non-state actors, and all the rest than I think it is.

|9.12.08 @ 9:42AM|#

Can I just point out that this:

No, Einsteien. Give it another whirl, see if you can't figure it out.

may have just be the best exemplar of joe'z Law yet? Not quite as punchy as "get a brain, moran", but up there. Definitely up there.

|9.12.08 @ 9:43AM|#

"However, Bush's expansion of that doctrine to include potential future threats that are in no way imminent - we cannot wait until a threat become imminent - is also known as the Bush Doctrine. Whether the doctrine of pre-emption should be so expanded is perhaps the most important foreign policy debate in the post 9/11 era."

How imminent was the threat of missiles in Cuba? Kennedy was ready to go to war over that and blockaded Cuba over it. How imminent was the threat of Iraq in 1998? Both Clinton and Gore argued for war and launched operation Dessert Fox in response. The Israeli bombing of the reactor in the early 80s is another example of pre-emption.

The issue of pre-emption is always what is "imminent". That has always been a controversial topic. Taken to its extreme, incepting planes on their way to Pearl Harbor is preemption because the planes haven't attacked or violated US airspace yet. Some would argue that is the full extent of pre-emption. The other extreme is the Israeli bombing of the reactor. That is the kind of thing Bush is talking about. Is that pushing the envelope of pre-emption? Yes. Is it something completely unheard of and hasn't been part of the debate on preemption for like about the last 150 years? No way. It is an interesting debate to have but to have it you have to get rid of the histrionics about Bush. Bush is not stating anything out of the ordinary or anything nations, including the US hasn't practiced in the past.

|9.12.08 @ 9:44AM|#

The Bush interview has become Exhibit A in "gotcha journalism", after all.

It has now, several years later.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people regard questions about the minutia of the Bush Doctrine and who is President of Goatropistan as being equally "gotcha".

You wouldn't be surprised if the question about whether to start more Iraq-type wars is considered the equivalent of knowing the names of foreign leaders? I would.

The president of Pakistan didn't matter in the 2000 election. Nobody was running on their foreign policy cred.

That Vizzinni, he can fuss

Citizen Nothing|9.12.08 @ 9:45AM|#

"Since Boston Tea's gonna be on the ballot in my state, I'm inclined to go with them, if only to say "screw you" to the media."

Ouch. That's gonna sting.

Winthorpe|9.12.08 @ 9:46AM|#

I would not vote for her but I find her physically alluring.

So, I'd take Palin out for a low cost meal and try and seduce her. She'd likely be impressed by something along the lines of 'surf and turf'. I'd then hit her with the second least expensive bootle of red on the wine list, before sealing the deal with some mis-quoted shakespeare.

Then we'd root.

|9.12.08 @ 9:47AM|#

spin, joe, spin! Spin like the campaign depends on it.

No matter what you say against Sarah, we don't care. YOu can say all the evil things in the world,attack her as mcuh as you can, we will still be on her side. You can never put a good person down. The more she is attacked, the more we love her. Please continue doing that to her, liberals. The voters are watching.

|9.12.08 @ 9:51AM|#

Nick,

Do you really think she acquitted herself? Granted, she didn't back down from the questions, but didn't the answers sound like they could have come from an eighth-grader.

She is as slick as a pharmaceutical rep, but she doesn't seem to know much. Contrast that with Biden on Meet The Press and Obama on O'Reilly and she looks woefully inadequate to handle foreign affairs.

Unfortunately, none of the four will be able to "fix" the economy, but it scares the hell out of me to think that this woman could be a blood clot away from the button.

It got edited out, but I am told that at the end of the interview Charlie Gibson did he best James Cromwell (the farmer in Babe) imitation and said "That'll do Pig".

Raphael|9.12.08 @ 9:52AM|#

"I'd take Palin out for a low cost meal and try and seduce her. She'd likely be impressed by something along the lines of 'surf and turf'. I'd then hit her with the second least expensive bootle of red on the wine list, before sealing the deal with some mis-quoted shakespeare.

Then we'd root."

Lol! I have often suspected that a lot of the Obama support comes from similar attraction with both genders. I bet a lot of people want to take him to the Red Lobster.

|9.12.08 @ 9:53AM|#

LoL, RC. Yup, misspelling "Einstein" is a pretty good example

John,

How imminent was the threat of missiles in Cuba? Very imminent. The Air Force was placed on high alert over the threat. In addition, the Monroe Doctrine was in effect, which has long been used to justify action in this hemisphere on the basis of foreign hegemony, not the imminence of a threat. Heck, we backed proxies in an invasion of Cuba shortly before that episode, when there was no threat whatsoever, based on the Monroe Doctrine, not a pre-emption doctrine.

How imminent was the threat of Iraq in 1998? We were already doing flyovers and bombing runs in Iraq in 1998, and had been for years. Operation Desert Fox wasn't undertaken based on any preemptive doctrine, and no pre-emption case was made by the White House.

These examples stand in marked contrast to the Iraq War, which was explicitly justified by the administration based on the need to pre-empt the threat of Iraq passing WMDs to a terrorist group, or using them against us directly.

The Israeli bombing of the reactor in the early 80s is another example of pre-emption. Of prevention/anticipatory self-defense, you mean. The Israeli attack on Egypt's air force in 1972, when Egyptian tanks were massing on the border, is an example of pre-emption. Yes, the Osirik attack was an example of anticiopatory self-defense by Israel. That has long been their doctrine. It was not ours until 2002, when the Bush Doctrine was enunciated.

The issue of pre-emption is always what is "imminent". Under the previous, longstanding pre-emption doctrine, you are corrrect. Under the Bush Doctrine, "We cannot wait for a threat to become imminent. The smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud over an American city." You seem to be backing off on your support for this doctrine, John. Am I reading you right?

|9.12.08 @ 9:54AM|#

I bet a lot of people want to take him to the Red Lobster.

But Red Lobster doesn't serve arugula. That won't do.

|9.12.08 @ 9:56AM|#

TAO,

Did you see what John and RC did there?

Rather than noting that ZOMG! teh Democrat!!!eleventy-one!!1!, they put together arguments, with examples and evidence and logic and such. Why don't you just lurk for a few weeks, and someday, you might be able to do the same.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 9:56AM|#

The way the Democrats are acting, they're starting to remind me of Red Sox fans in 2004.

Mosby|9.12.08 @ 10:00AM|#

How much better would this world be if we executed everyone whose ever used the word "hubris" to refer to a politician?

dhex|9.12.08 @ 10:02AM|#

john thinks this is not a big deal and joe does.

i don't know what to believe in anymore.

ed|9.12.08 @ 10:02AM|#

I doubt Harry Truman could have done better.

galthran|9.12.08 @ 10:06AM|#

I wonder if in Truman's day politicians were allowed to actually answer questions instead of meeting any unexpected query with a rote recital of talking points.

|9.12.08 @ 10:06AM|#

"The issue of pre-emption is always what is "imminent". Under the previous, longstanding pre-emption doctrine, you are corrrect. Under the Bush Doctrine, "We cannot wait for a threat to become imminent. The smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud over an American city." You seem to be backing off on your support for this doctrine, John. Am I reading you right?"

No. It is semantics and Bush's speech writers not knowing what they are talking about. What is imminent and what is "anticipatory self defense"? I would argue that it is all anticipatory self defense since you are attacking the other guy before he attacks you. It is really where you fall on the continuum. Do you wait around for the bomb to be on its way or do you bomb the reactor that is building it? No matter where you are, you argue that the threat is "imminent" you just have a different definition of imminent. Cuba, was not imminent in a lot of ways. They were just putting the missiles there. There was no indication they had plans to actually fire them at us. The argument is that the created such a threat to the US by being so close to our shores, we had a right to act in your own defense to stop them. I hadn't really thought of it until now, but that really is a good example of anticipatory self defense. Really it is no different than Israel bombing the reactor.

As far as Iraq goes, we were basically at war with Iraq in 1998. So maybe that is not the best example. But bombing the Sudan and Afghanistan in 1999 sure is. What had the Sudan or Afghanistan done? They were harboring criminals and refuse to control them. Without UN sanction and without declaring war, we violated the sovereignty of the Sudan and Afghanistan and killed who we considered terrorists and criminals because they wouldn't. Again, I really question whether there is any such thing as the "Bush Doctrine", but if it means anything, it probably means that.

robc|9.12.08 @ 10:09AM|#

I'd think it would be best to enter into such treaties with extreme caution

Washington recommended we not enter them at all. I agree with GW.

|9.12.08 @ 10:11AM|#

I'm sorry, joe, but you did not respond to my posting appropriately.

Here's how you should've answered: "You mock my pain!"

|9.12.08 @ 10:12AM|#

Graduate Student-

Where did you obtain your undergraduate degree?
You need some remedial civics, contemporary issues and political science instruiction-I'll give you the name of a good tutor: FLUFFY

robc|9.12.08 @ 10:12AM|#

Huh, I generally follow this stuff closely, but today is the first time I have ever heard the phrase "Bush Doctrine". Then again, I dont ever listen to Bush. Or politicians. Or neocon pundits/writers/whatever like Kristol.

Nick,

Thanks for posting something substantive. It's most refreshing.

- Matilda

|9.12.08 @ 10:14AM|#

joe, I was more referring to your "McCain lost two news cycles!", like that's based on any kind of "evidence" and "Obama is teh funny! He knocked 'em dead"

Spin away.

|9.12.08 @ 10:15AM|#

Mosby-

If one favors the triumph of totalitarians, just swell.

ed|9.12.08 @ 10:20AM|#

Truman was woefully unprepared to assume the presidency, and FDR kept him out of the loop at a critical time, to his own discredit. Everyone could see he was dying. Churchill himself commented after the war that FDR was derelict in duty for not bringing Truman up to speed. And yet he pulled through. So it is possible to learn on the job if one has the basic tools. I'm more interested in the candidate's underlying political philosophy. And let's not forget what harm experienced presidents have done over the years.

|9.12.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Mike E-

"could be a blood clot away from the button"

Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to employ some fresh material-cause I am so sick of..."a heart beat away" from....

|9.12.08 @ 10:26AM|#

It is semantics and Bush's speech writers not knowing what they are talking about.

But it wasn't just a line in a speech. The concept was articulated in the national defense policy doctrine issued in 2002 - that we would pre-empt potential, not just existing, threats.

What is imminent and what is "anticipatory self defense"? Imminent means there is an existing threat and we will strike them before they strike us. Anticapatory self-defense means there is not currently threat, but there could be one in the future.

I would argue that it is all anticipatory self defense since you are attacking the other guy before he attacks you. Anticipatory self defense meang launching an attack before there is any possiblity of the other guy attacking you. It is used, like the Osirik attack or the invasion of Iraq, to prevent the other guy from developing the capability of being able to attack you.

They are both similar, as you say, in that they both involve hitting the other guy first. Traditional pre-emption requires the other guy trying to hit you. The Bush Doctrine of preventive war is to hit the other guy before he even attempts to hit you, or even, hitting him before he is even capable of hitting you.

No matter where you are, you argue that the threat is "imminent" you just have a different definition of imminent. Once again, I will repeat myself: Bush and Cheney, on multiple occasions in in official policy documents, stated that imminence is NO LONGER TO BE THE CRITERIA for determining when to attack. They specifically stated that "we cannot wait for the threat to be imminent." Not my words, not my judgement that the threat wasn't imminent enough - their words, their doctrine.

Cuba, was not imminent in a lot of ways. They were just putting the missiles there. There was no indication they had plans to actually fire them at us. Once again, Monroe doctrine. We have long asserted a doctrine of using force in this hemisphere completely unrelated to the imminence of a threat to the United States itself, but to the expansion of foreign powers into the Americas. I'll note that we did not take similar action against other Soviet missile installations that could hit us, when they were in other parts of the world.

Another way to put this is that the Cuban missiles DID pose an imminent threat to us - not an imminent threat of an attack on our homeland, but to a different national interest, the threat of a foreign power projecting military force into the Americas.

As far as Iraq goes, we were basically at war with Iraq in 1998. So maybe that is not the best example. Agreed, but to make one other point here: Bush could have made the case for an Iraq invasion in 2002 on the same grounds that Clinton used in 1998, and left it at that, and our pre-emption doctrine would not have changed. However, he chose not to - he chose to articulate a new pre-emption doctrine, in addition to Iraq's violation of the cease fire agreement i/r/t weapons inspections. This is because it wasn't just an argument he made to sell the Iraq War, but was intended to be a generally-applicable policy statement.

But bombing the Sudan and Afghanistan in 1999 sure is. The rules for non-state actors are different. There has always been a much lower standard to meet when dealing with "pirates and bandits."

Fluffy|9.12.08 @ 10:30AM|#

John, do you realize that you're on the same side as people who are so abysmally stupid that they come here and think they are talking to liberals?

I imagine you aren't embarrassed by that, because nothing embarrasses you.

After all, on John's planet, John McCain is a man of sterling honor, a veritable paladin, even when he lies. If you can say that with a straight face you certainly won't have any problem defending Sarah Palin's foreign policy genius and command of the facts.

|9.12.08 @ 10:31AM|#

Fluffy-

You are more qualified than any democrat or republican-ever. I know that as commander in chief, you would dismantle the military industruial complex and military keynesianism that is bleeding and bankrupting our economy.

|9.12.08 @ 10:32AM|#

I do agree with you on one thing, though, John: had you inhabited Sarah Palin's body and put forward the arguments you've been making here, her answers would have been much better. I disagree with your take on thinigs, but you clearly have a solid background in the issues, a well-thought-out point of view, and considerable knowledge about the relevant history.

How conversant is pretty Palin with Military Keynesianism?

|9.12.08 @ 10:34AM|#

Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to employ some fresh material-cause I am so sick of..."a heart beat away" from....

I always liked "a chicken bone away"...

The dumbest thing I read this morning is that McCain is actually going to try to compete in Washington, Oregon, and Maine. Because his strategist thinks they're a lot like Alaska, or something.

Now *that* shows an astonishing level of ignorance. The only thing of substance I (a Western Washingtonian for several decades) can remember agreeing with Eastern Washingtonians on was that 99 out of 100 of the Alaskans that came down into our state were idiots. The numbers aren't that much better when you actually visit the place. And I say that having relatives who still live there.

Oh, leave John alone, Fluffy. He's making a principled, informed, thoughtful argument. If we treat him exactly the same when when he does this as when he's being a hacktastic h8tr, why would he ever bother to even try?

LEAVE JOHN ALOOOOOOOONE!!! If you want to go after John, you'll have to go through me!

Why did this connection take my brain so long to make?

♪Sara, Sara,
Whatever made you want to change your mind?
Sara, Sara,
So easy to look at, so hard to define.♪

Oh well, better late than never.

|9.12.08 @ 10:36AM|#

I always liked "a chicken bone away"...

A delicious, salty pretzel away?

|9.12.08 @ 10:37AM|#

The dumbest thing I read this morning is that McCain is actually going to try to compete in Washington, Oregon, and Maine. Because his strategist thinks they're a lot like Alaska, or something.

1. McCain can't let the entire game be played on his side of the field, or he'll be crushed.

2. There are potentially-close down-ticket races in each of those states, and using Palin to pump up turnout in the presidential election can help Gordon Smith, Dino Rossi, and Susan Collins.

|9.12.08 @ 10:40AM|#

Last I read, Washington State is 49-Obama and 45-McCain. I don't think it's all that dumb to compete there, and neither should anyone else, unless you think it dumb for Obama to compete in Ohio.

Joe-

"inhabit Sarah Palin's body?" Joe, I thought you were the type of guy that wanted to first know a gal mentally before knowing her horizontally.

|9.12.08 @ 10:42AM|#

no guy is that kind of guy, libertymike.

|9.12.08 @ 10:48AM|#

J sbu D-

Off topic, but I have to complimant you for picking Benjamin Franklin as your favorite founding father. We agree. If it can be said that one founding father, more than any other, has passed his genes on to us, it would have to be Franklin.

|9.12.08 @ 10:50AM|#

Thank Joe. These issue are very interesting. Sadly, I don't have time respond. But another day. I will say this, if any political candidate ever gave detailed responses on International Law the way you and I have, they would be killed. Moreover, I don't think any of the four running now could do it. Politicians don't think much about these issues. Hell, I have seen Colin Powell, a former General and Sec State say some dumb things.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 10:50AM|#

But really though, Maine, MAINE? It's New England. New England=liberal.

And their reasonsing was so stupid. It was like "Well, Alaska is cold, and so is Maine. Maine has moose, and so does Alaska! Palin will help in Alaska!

It'd be like Obama trying to compete in Alabama.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 10:52AM|#

Er, should read "therefore Palin will help in Maine".

Bush Doctrine??!|9.12.08 @ 10:54AM|#

I don't like Palin much but I think he should of used the term Preemptive strike rather than Bush Doctrine. Everyone knows what the Bush Doctrine is just not that it is called the Bush Doctrine.

Neu Mejican|9.12.08 @ 10:56AM|#

Thanks joe,

You saved me some time in responding to John's comments. Apparently people don't know what the Bush Doctrine is...even aware and intelligent observers seem to think it is not a radical change in US policy.

Surprising.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 10:56AM|#

Besides Susan Collins can win on her own in Maine because she's a RINO. She's like Ben Nelson except Republican.

|9.12.08 @ 10:57AM|#

Last I read, Washington State is 49-Obama and 45-McCain. I don't think it's all that dumb to compete there, and neither should anyone else, unless you think it dumb for Obama to compete in Ohio.

I think it's dumb because I grew up there, know the people there, and know that the margin can go down all it wants; at the end of the day, the Seattle metro area is going to decide the race. The rest of the state is slightly more red than blue, but only just slightly, which means that when you factor Sea-Tac and it's several million people in, the race stops being close, despite what the polls say. For serious, Washington hasn't voted for a Republican since Ronald Reagan, and he had Mad Bardic Wizardry that could make men willingly walk off cliffs.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 10:58AM|#

If Dukakis can win the Pacific Northwest, Obama sure as hell will.

|9.12.08 @ 10:59AM|#

TAO-

Well, as much as I love to argue, there is no gainsayin' your observation of reality. However, wouldn't you agree that most guys understand that usually their chances of having horizontal relations hinge upon their ability to convey an interest, real or imagined, in having mental relations, first.

|9.12.08 @ 11:00AM|#

The first rule is never split tens.
The second rule is serve red wine at room temperature.
The third rule is if you buy her slutty lingerie you'd better include jewelry in the gift package.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Well, IMHO Ohio always ends up being fool's gold for the Democrats so the Washington comparison is actually apt--the Northwest is fool's gold for Republicans. Bush fell for it in 2000.

QSL|9.12.08 @ 11:04AM|#

If Russia tinkers with the US state of Georgia, go to war with them.

If Russia tinkers with the country of Georgia, let them sort it out on their own.

Military alliances frighten me. Literally vowing to commit troops and possibly igniting all-out war when one of the far-flung members has a territorial scrum with its neighbor.

Do we need some "alliance pact" to dictate who and when we send servicepeople to fight? Can't we just look at conflicts on a case by case basis, and decide from there how - and to what extent - we want to involve ourselves (if at all)?

Ugh.

|9.12.08 @ 11:05AM|#

I always liked "a chicken bone away"...

Don't forget "a pretzel away".

John,

I will say this, if any political candidate ever gave detailed responses on International Law the way you and I have, they would be killed.

"ZOMG!! John wants to START A NUCLEAR WAR!!!"

"DRUDGE ALERT! JOE: GIVE TERRORISTS FOOT RUBS, UNDERSTANDING"

BDB|9.12.08 @ 11:07AM|#

Joe-

"LYING!!!!"

Nothing else.

|9.12.08 @ 11:10AM|#

The bottom line is this - yeah, she's a dope and a dimwit, but I'd do her. The Quayle test - lol. Does it strike any as completely bizarre that the criteria for being an acceptable candidate to potentially occupy the most powerful office on earth is that you don't appear to be literally retarded.

I don't think any honest person will not admit that Dan Quayle is on the margin between being normal and being a "special needs" person. That people like this have been within a hair's breadth of occupying the Oval Office is staggering.

Try to imagine the lives both Dubya and Dan Quayle would have led had they not grown up in environments of privilege and opportunity and validation of their existences such as most of us can not even comprehend.

Try to imagine where they would have ended up if they had grown up like me and so many others - nobody, nothing and nowhere with not a single validating or affirming influence in their lives and living in a world where their insignificance, their worthlessness and their status as non-entities was confirmed and reinforced on a daily basis.

I wanted to like Sarah Palin. If she had just been honest and said "Yeah, I don't know jack about foreign policy, but I have enough sense, unlike Dubya, to pay attention to and to learn from people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the dynamics of international relations."

Dammit, Shem beat me.

|9.12.08 @ 11:21AM|#

The media is treading on thin ice with their treatment of Palin. Like it or not, women won't put up with their fellow woman being badgered into a corner on this issue or that. My wife was disgusted at Gibson's water carrying. Trying to force Republicans into gaffes is typical media fare, and it should'nt matter if its a man or woman. But I'm telling you, it is turning off suddenly interested women and will likely cost Obama the election

|9.12.08 @ 11:37AM|#

"What is your opinion of the Bush Doctrine?"

That badgering bastard. Picking on a girl like that.

|9.12.08 @ 11:39AM|#

The media should only ask Sarah Palin questions that don't have any wrong answers. It would be sort of like under-six soccer leagues, where they don't keep score, and everyone's a winner.

Oh, wait. "What is your opinion of the Bush Doctrine?" is such a question. Nevermind.

Fluffy|9.12.08 @ 11:39AM|#

Fine, joe.

I'll try to dial it back on John a little today.

It's just frustrating when he decides to try to pretend he doesn't see the obvious.

It's pretty plain from the video that she didn't know how to answer the question, so she just strung together fragments of other foreign policy answers into something she hoped would take up enough time to sound acceptable.

But to cover for that, John wants to talk about how the doctrine of preemptive war is ambiguous. Fine, the edges of the policy and its relationship to previous policy statements [and previous policy initiatives as actually undertaken, whether they were articulated as a "doctrine" or not] may be nebulous - but that wasn't Palin's problem with giving an answer. Her problem was - "Oops, I didn't study this yesterday - shit, what do I say?"

Megadeath|9.12.08 @ 11:46AM|#

"I think it's dumb because I grew up there, know the people there, and know that the margin can go down all it wants; at the end of the day, the Seattle metro area is going to decide the race."

I think you mean King County will decide the race.

|9.12.08 @ 11:54AM|#

Fluffy,

Her problem was - "Oops, I didn't study this yesterday - shit, what do I say?"

With the big eyes, FLUFFY, and the raised eyebrows, FLUFFY, and the staring right through his face, FLUFFY, and the slight head-nodding in time with her with her rhythmic speech pattern, FLUFFY, and the effort to keep up the patter, FLUFFY, in the hope that stringing together enough words, FLUFFY, would be enough to get him to forget what they were talking about.

FLUFFY.

You're right, it isn't that she had the wrong answer, but that she didn't have any.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 11:57AM|#

The problem is, as horrible a candidate as Palin is NOTHING sticks to her.

She could murder her children on live TV and the Republicans would say the media is treating her unfairly when they call her a murderer, and people would believe it.

|9.12.08 @ 12:27PM|#

Score points for Charlie on the "gotcha" Bush Doctrine question, but that's such a common interview tactic for politicians, it's hard to really count it for or against her to any great degree. I remember reading several different articles where interviewers asked both Republicand and Democrats who were involved in decision making about our current ridiculous war questions like, "what's the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite"? And if the interviewer asked enough questions sort of like that, every single interviewee blew a term or question that they ostensibly should have been able to answer.

Should she have known that? Probably. Does she know it now? Most certainly. If an interviewer approached Obama or Biden or McCain with the goal of making them look like they don't know what they're talking about on a specific issue, could he find something similar to this that would make them look just as silly?

Unquestionably and without a doubt.

|9.12.08 @ 12:29PM|#

I think you mean King County will decide the race.

No, because the cities and towns between Tacoma and Everett will make a difference as well. Hence, the "Sea-Tac area" comment later in that post. And eastern King County (past the Seattle suburbs) doesn't mean shit in terms of shifting the calculus.

|9.12.08 @ 12:33PM|#

You could just call "Casino Chris" the governor of east Puget Sound. And Braindead island, though it's simply an extension of Seattle anyway.

|9.12.08 @ 12:34PM|#

You know what we need? A video game that simulates the presidency. We make each candidate play it, and publicize how they handled various issues and crises.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 12:35PM|#

Pro L, McCain would end up holding the controller upside down and wondering why he's losing. Not really fair to him.

|9.12.08 @ 12:38PM|#

You could just call "Casino Chris" the governor of east Puget Sound. And Braindead island, though it's simply an extension of Seattle anyway.

I'm not a fan, but I'd still take her over Dino "Whores can have Horatio Alger stories too!" Rossi.

You know what we need? A video game that simulates the presidency. We make each candidate play it, and publicize how they handled various issues and crises.

Yeah, great idea, ProL. Except that's how they view the actual presidency now.

|9.12.08 @ 12:39PM|#

Oh, and it's "Brainless Island." Your version doesn't have the right cadence.

|9.12.08 @ 12:40PM|#

Shem, I'm on the fence whether to vote for Rossi. It would really be a vote against Gregoire. There's no way that mole with a face attached to it will get my vote.

|9.12.08 @ 12:42PM|#

With a game like that, McCain could just instruct a more game-savvy underling to handle the controls.

|9.12.08 @ 12:43PM|#

Oh, and it's "Brainless Island."

I hate that rock.

Tom Walls|9.12.08 @ 12:46PM|#

I might venture that it's a sign that she doesn't believe in the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike against non-imminent threats, but you know she has to fall in line with it whether she likes it or not. Those chalking it up to ignorance are wrong - the hysterical rush to condemn her obscures the slightly nuanced answer. She let on as best she was allowed that she doesn't agree with all of it (she did ask "which aspect do you mean?) and purposefully avoided answering it directly, but as you know her neocon handlers will force her to accept it.

Am I giving her too much credit? Whether she's ignorant or not, it highlights the danger of the actual Bush doctrine.

|9.12.08 @ 12:50PM|#

Sage- A long time ago I made myself a promise that I'd never vote for anyone who tried to sell me a self-made man story if their success was principally based on knowing the right people and being able to get on on the ground floor of their opportunities. Rossi got to where he is because he knew a guy who was really good at land speculation, not because he worked hard his whole life. So, given the alternatives, I'm glad I don't live in WA anymore.

Rossi will win, though, and will wind up getting nothing done, become increasingly unpopular, and wind up the State GOP's answer to Gary Locke.

|9.12.08 @ 1:00PM|#

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

She didn't send her son off to war! She didn't drug him, tie him up, and ship him off to Fort Dix. He is an adult and makes his own decisions. Even if she didn't want him to go, she doesn't have the power to stop him.

|9.12.08 @ 1:03PM|#

You wouldn't be surprised if the question about whether to start more Iraq-type wars is considered the equivalent of knowing the names of foreign leaders? I would.

If the question was phrased as "would you start more Iraq-type wars", sure. But it was phrased in a way that most people won't recognized the issue; that's why she's likely to get a pass for blanking on it - because most people would.

Palin is already shifting her positions, and lying about past positions. By Novemeber I doubt she will sound like the libratarian for which Radley gives her credit. Questions I would have liked to see Gibson ask.

Since Russia has invaded Georgia, and AK is close to Russia, do you think it's a good idea to send the AK national guard to Iraq?

Why did you say you were against the bridge to no where when you spoke for it in your gubernatorial campaign?

Do you support jury nullification for federal trials?

Do you support the prosecution of law enforcement officers that tazer or shoot innocent people?

Would you expand AK concept of privacy to the rest of the US?

Many in the federal government want to redefine define privacy to mean protection of the data they keep, is that an acceptable definition?

|9.12.08 @ 1:09PM|#

Brandybuck, the issue for that question was, did she believe the Iraq war was a task from God. Not if she sent her son to do a task from God. I saw that part of the interview and it was a vaild question since ABC had a video of her at a church making the claim that is was a task given to us by God. Charlie got her to admit she didn't believe it was, but that's contra to what she said in the church.

She may prove to be the mother of all flip-flopper. Time will tell.

|9.12.08 @ 1:11PM|#

Trick,

What would the point be? As the VP candidate, she is tasked with parroting McCain's view on everything. If you want to know how she's going to answer those questions, just look up McCain's "on the issues" page of his website. If you want to know what Palin thinks about those questions, you'll have to either deduce it from her past statements, or wait for McCain to die.

|9.12.08 @ 1:12PM|#

Another good question. Do you think a Senator with no executive experience is a good candidate for the Whitehouse?

|9.12.08 @ 1:14PM|#

Personally, I'd like our God-fearin' Christian leaders to keep us OUT of a war every now and then. Y'know, be all peaceful 'n stuff.

|9.12.08 @ 1:16PM|#

And she didn't say that it was a task from God. What she said was that we should pray that the tasks we are doing in Iraq are God's tasks, and that our leaders not only have a plan, but that it is God's plan. A neocon war booster doesn't have to pray that the tasks are God's tasks. He knows they are. Likewise, he doesn't express skepticism that the President has a plan nor does he feel the need to pray to God that it is a correct plan. The tone of Palin's church speech was optimistic, but skeptical. Gibson portrayed it as something completely different.

|9.12.08 @ 1:19PM|#

"""What would the point be? As the VP candidate, she is tasked with parroting McCain's view on everything."""

Not true anymore, if it ever was. Cheney has expanded the role of the VP to being directly involved instead of just going to funerals for heads of states. I see no reason why republicans would want to push the VP back into the closet. How the VP stands on issues is far more important now than when spelling potato was an issue.

|9.12.08 @ 1:20PM|#

I can't vote for the Boston Tea Party, but even if I could I wouldn't. They're the epitome of why libertarianism remains stuck in obscurity. The reason Barr isn't making headway with party building is because the party he's representing won't do what's necessary to move forward.

Ass: the Boston Tea Party for splitting off just because their candidate didn't get the nod.

Ass: Barr for dissing Paul's conference in the way he did; for suing private churches; for being whiny about the campaign.

Ass: Paul for insisting Barr be a part of a cheap photo op; for not endorsing Barr; for hording my campaign contributions.

Ass; Baldwin for giving lip service to the constitution while promoting anti-constitutionalist protectionism and borderism.

Ass: Obama, McCain Biden and Palin for far too many reasons to mention.

|9.12.08 @ 1:26PM|#

"""And she didn't say that it was a task from God."""

Did you see the interview? In the video from the church she clearly called Iraq a task from God in plain English.

http://www.military.com/news/article/palin-iraq-war-a-task-from-god.html?col=1186032307786

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ypVSYoEKA&feature=related

I'll admit, I don't have audio where I'm at now so I'm taking this video on some faith.

ed|9.12.08 @ 1:27PM|#

I'm fairly well-read and mostly aware of my surroundings but I didn't know that Bush had his very own Doctrine. And I don't believe his is much different than any other that has come along since Monroe. The U.S. does what it pleases with little provocation, and if there isn't any we invent some (see war with Mexico, Spanish American War, Vietnam and many others).

|9.12.08 @ 1:33PM|#

The Bush doctrine requires the VP to go to CIA headquarters to tell them what he wants to know.

|9.12.08 @ 1:37PM|#

TricyVic-

Here is the quote via The Huffington Post:

"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 [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Here's the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

|9.12.08 @ 1:42PM|#

"Out on a task that is from God"

Gibson's question was did she believe it was a task from God.

|9.12.08 @ 1:48PM|#

My friends, I'm playin' the Google!

Here, you think you can beat a score of 675? You can't do it, my friend.

BTW, the "task from God" thing is a phoney controversy. She said that we should pray they are being send on a mission endorsed by God. I thought that was just right, along the lines of Lincoln's statement about not assuming God is on your side. I find that kind of humility refreshing, after what Christian and Jewish conservatives have been saying about this war for the past six years.

The Bush Doctrine...folks seem stuck on that, but what about this?

"His [Putin} mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen."

So a sovereign nation controlling their own energy resources and those that pass through his country...can't have that!

|9.12.08 @ 1:50PM|#

I believe the exact question was, do you believe Iraq is a religious war? But Gibson used the video and pointed out that she did claim it was a task from God.

At the end of the interview what did you think?

Did Palin know more about the current world situation than Gibson? Or vice versa?

You need a base level of knowledge to be an effective president and she simply doesn't have that knowledge.

More worrisome is that she doesn't see that as a problem.

|9.12.08 @ 1:55PM|#

joe she said exactly what I claim she said. You can do the red herring trick by pointing to a different sentence in her speech, but she did call it a task from God.

The only controversy is that people are trying to deny it by point to a differnet sentence. She has the freedom to believe it was a task from God. I have two points on this issue with no judgement on her.

1. It is a fact she called it a task from God.
2. By having done so, it was a fair question for Gibson to ask.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 2:02PM|#

Again, Sarah Palin could murder someone on live TV and if anyone tried to prosecute her for murder it would be another example of panicked sexist liberal media elite bias.

That's why I really, really don't envy Joe Biden's position. He's in a fix with regards to the VP debate.

|9.12.08 @ 2:03PM|#

Tricky Vic,

When you say "Pray that" X, you are saying that X is in doubt, and you are praying for it to be true.

For example, "Pray that it rains tomorrow."

Is there some other quote you're talking about?

|9.12.08 @ 2:08PM|#

joe's right, I read the whole bit. She was saying that she prayed that we were doing the right thing, basically.

|9.12.08 @ 2:17PM|#

I've only seen the quote Nonnie provided, Tricky Vic. Seriously, is there a scarier bit that I'm missing?

BDB|9.12.08 @ 2:21PM|#

She says religious stuff no more scary than the Church Lady at your local Southern Baptist church.

Which is to say, not very scary.

|9.12.08 @ 2:25PM|#

Breaking news: Charles Gibson just interviewed new Democratic VP, George Takei.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 2:26PM|#

Or only scary to, say, Sam Harris or Bill Maher.

|9.12.08 @ 2:28PM|#

joe's making sense here. Anyone who thinks she was explicitly calling Iraq some kinda New Crusades needs to retake 4th grade English and learn how to diagram a sentence.

|9.12.08 @ 2:34PM|#

"BTW, the "task from God" thing is a phoney controversy. She said that we should pray they are being send on a mission endorsed by God. I thought that was just right, along the lines of Lincoln's statement about not assuming God is on your side. I find that kind of humility refreshing, after what Christian and Jewish conservatives have been saying about this war for the past six years."

That is where Gibson being in the tank for Obama hurts Obama. If Gibson had just done a straight interview and not tried to play gotcha and also try to make up a controversy about the "God" remark, Palin would have no doubt made a few gaffes and it would have been a big deal. But Gibson couldn't do that. Instead he played to the crowd and came accross as a condecending ass and actually got the God quote wrong. Thus, instead of talking about whatever gaffe she may or may not have had, people are talking about what a jerk Gibson is and how he messed up the God quote. The media is losing this election for Obama.

|9.12.08 @ 2:38PM|#

That's why I really, really don't envy Joe Biden's position. He's in a fix with regards to the VP debate.

Unless she gets a rep as a lightweight between now and then. If that happens, all he needs to do is be articulate, personable and well-informed and the media will present her as being his inferior. Otherwise, I'd agree, he'll have to tread lightly.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 2:39PM|#

You can't call her a lightweight shem. That's SEXIST! You must be PANICKED! And an ELITE! Why do you hate a working mother? MOOSEBURGERS!

See what I mean about how she would be able to get away with murder?

|9.12.08 @ 2:41PM|#

BDB - as funny as all that is, that amount of defensiveness needs to placed in context. Hit pieces on whether Palin was a "secret grandmother" came out the very day she was announced. It was fucking absurd.

Does anybody remember the 1981 Senate confrimation hearings concerning Ronald Reagan's nomiation of his friend, Judge William Clark, for the position of Deputy Undersecretary of State?

He could not name the prime minister of South Africa amongst other things. His testimony was ridiculed by not only our media, but elsewhere. If I remember correctly, the headlines of one British publication proclaimed: Reagan Nominates Nitwit. Another headline read: American Minister Knows Nothing.

Clark had been a judge for years in California. I do not recall if he served on the Calif. Supreme Court or not.

Seems like old times, John Henry.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 2:43PM|#

I agree that was pretty dumb TAO. The rumors about her the first week were just as bad as the scummiest Obama rumors.

But now the defensiveness is beginning to approach self-parody. At some point she needs to realize that being attacked on her positions--or lack thereof--is part of being a candidate and not because she is a woman or from Nowheresville, USA.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 2:49PM|#

Ex. I don't care about her family life or religion, but I'd like to know why she blew a balanced budget as Mayor and left such a small town with $20 million in debt, or about $1700 of debt for every man, woman, and child in Wasilla.

|9.12.08 @ 2:59PM|#

BDB,

McCain needs to be careful not to overplay his hand. I am amazed at the gift the media gave him by going so bizerk over Palin. If his campaign was smart enough to realize that in pikcing Palin and not having her do an interview that first weekend would cause the media to do what they did, they are geniusus. If not, they are damn lucky. Regardless, if Obama loses, I really hope it becomes conventional wisdom that Andrew Sullivan and Keith Oberman lost him the election.

Asharak|9.12.08 @ 3:00PM|#

I just came back for a laugh and looks like I found one. Besides watching SIV and Fluffy delude themselves into believing that Sarah Palin is a libertarian, we have this "Graduate Student" troll who's convinced that this is a liberal site.

Of course, nothing is more hilarious than watching Republicans play the victim card (funny, I though they were supposed to be against that sort of thing) and dismiss any and all criticism of Palin as sexism, while ironically enough, many of them are supporting Palin merely because of her looks and her gender, and because McCain needs the pathetic Hilltard/PUMA mob to win.

And where the hell is Lonewacko? He should have showed up by now to annoy everyone. I'm disappointed.

Asharak|9.12.08 @ 3:02PM|#

By the way, Guy Montag, if you're out there, I apologize for any nasty things I said.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 3:07PM|#

John I think they're already overplaying their hand. Running an ad attacking Biden for saying she is "good looking" three weeks after he said that? Lame. They gotta be careful not to end up driving guy that's ever been called sexist unfairly over to the Democrats.

|9.12.08 @ 3:12PM|#

BRB,

The debt thing is a real red herring. The population of Wasilla increased 13% in the last year of her being mayor alone. city that are growing, tend to take on capital improvement debt because they have to do things like build roads to keep pace with the population.

So, what did the 20 million go for? $14.7-million for a new multi-use sports complex; $5.5-million for street projects; and $3-million for water improvement projects. The road and water improvements are the very things the city ought to be doing. Further, since they are capital projects, they ought to be financed with debt. Since those projects benefit voters over years, they ought to be funded with debt so that current voters don't get stuck paying for things that future voters benefit from. That is city management 101.

The big item of that "debt" is the infamous hockey rink. Is that the best use of Wasilla's money? Hell I don't know. The majority of the voters there thought it was. Would I have voted for it? Probably not, but I would have voted for the roads and water improvements and it seems pretty silly to get that agitated over a hockey rink in a town I have never even been to. It is not like she got her brother-in-law rich off of it or something and cities all over the country build sports facilities for public use.

How did Palin leave the town in debt? She spent $22 million dollars on capital improvements that, as evidenced by the fact that the city continues to grow and has not gone bankrupt, the city could afford and the tax payers approved. Overall, it really isn't that big of a deal.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/705/

ed|9.12.08 @ 3:19PM|#

She was saying that she prayed that we were doing the right thing, basically.

Like 250 million other Americans. That's comforting.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 3:20PM|#

John, if she was really for "small government" she would have told the sports welfare crew to piss off. There's nothing more disgusting about local government than how much they shell out to keep sports teams in town when the sports teams can easily pay for it themselves.

|9.12.08 @ 3:27PM|#

"John, if she was really for "small government" she would have told the sports welfare crew to piss off."

It wasn't a minor league sports facility. It was a public rink for like little league and things like that. People up there love to play hockey. There is not much else to do. Moreover, I don't have a problem with cities building stuff that the public gets to use. That is different than building stadiums for millionaire welfare queens. I know you are dying for an excuse to hate Palin, but this really isn't it. There probably is a reason out there, but the $20 million in debt isn't it.

|9.12.08 @ 3:28PM|#

"""When you say "Pray that" X, you are saying that X is in doubt, and you are praying for it to be true.

Is there some other quote you're talking about?""""

I'm am referring to Nonnie's posted quote, but I'm referring to the first part not the second part.

" Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,"

BDB|9.12.08 @ 3:32PM|#

Just saying Gibson asking her about that rather than the "mission from God" BS would have been more informative. I was under the impression the hockey rink was a minor league stadium, for example.

I'm already worked up over that issue because my city is bending over backwards to keep some minor league baseball team nobody watches in the city even though our schools and roads are failing.

|9.12.08 @ 3:36PM|#

If she says "out on a task from God", then she is claiming it is a task from God. I've said nothing whatsoever about preying. She can pray about the task from God all she wants. She still called it a task from God. I'm not implying any meaning in it. I'm simply acknowledging that she did in fact call it an task from God.

"""joe's right, I read the whole bit. She was saying that she prayed that we were doing the right thing, basically."""

Pro are you saying she did not say these words, " Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,"?

|9.12.08 @ 3:39PM|#

"""joe's making sense here. Anyone who thinks she was explicitly calling Iraq some kinda New Crusades needs to retake 4th grade English and learn how to diagram a sentence."""

Nobody is making that statment.

|9.12.08 @ 3:45PM|#

TrickyVic,

There was some discussion about this at Volokh.com, which included this excerpt from her speech:

Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country - that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.

It's pretty plain that she's saying that she hopes we're doing what we're supposed to be doing, not that God has ordained our war in Iraq. Naturally, a mom wouldn't want to risk her son in a war that wasn't right. Of course, this one quote doesn't necessarily answer the whole question, either.

|9.12.08 @ 3:46PM|#

Asharak, you are absolutely right.

Let's chronicle Republican failures:
-runaway deficits
-foreign policy failures
-flip-flopper running for President
-politically correct cries of victimization against VP

What exactly do the Republicans have going for them again?

BDB|9.12.08 @ 3:46PM|#

"What exactly do the Republicans have going for them again?"

They know how to run a good campaign, even though they can't govern for shit.

|9.12.08 @ 3:49PM|#

Upon the nose, BDB has hit. While the GOP sucks while in power, they are good at campaigning and can often be reasonably good as a minority party. The Democrats are like staggering drunks in all three situations. Which is why they have to bribe voters and let dead people vote :)

BDB|9.12.08 @ 3:51PM|#

The GOP is a great Congressional Party, and the Democratic Party makes the best Presidential Party.

As someone said on the other thread, keep the Republicans away from the bombs and the Democrats out of your wallet and things work out as well as they possibly can.

|9.12.08 @ 3:54PM|#

Because none of you were curious enough about the important question - What is that website on Governor Palin's shirt?

From the website, a quote I found cute -

Valley Trash - recycling the MatSu Valley one peice of crap at a time.

|9.12.08 @ 3:55PM|#

Pro, that also proves she said what I said she said.

The problem here is that some people here think I trying to say what she meant. I am not. I'm not looking for meaning in her quote.

I said this earlier.
"I have two points on this issue with no judgement on her.

1. It is a fact she called it a task from God.
2. By having done so, it was a fair question for Gibson to ask."

Is that wrong?

|9.12.08 @ 3:59PM|#

"""As someone said on the other thread, keep the Republicans away from the bombs and the Democrats out of your wallet and things work out as well as they possibly can."""

Bombs cost money too.

They both want our money, they have different ideas on how to spend it.

BDB|9.12.08 @ 4:01PM|#

Though I have a moral problem with both, I have less of a moral problem with my money going to a useless bum so he can buy more MD 20/20 than my money going to kill a foreigner for some cooked-up reason.

|9.12.08 @ 4:02PM|#

"Pray. . .that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."

Seems pretty clear to me, though I could be wrong. I think it's hard to say that she said in this instance that we were divinely ordained in our war, but I couldn't say that she doesn't think that way. She's clearly very religious and may very well believe that God is involved in all things, including football and war.

|9.12.08 @ 4:30PM|#

Pro, point blank question.

Did she call Iraq a task from God? Yes or No

I'm not looking at her meaning, I'm looking at her words. It's not a question of preying, it's not a question of context, meaning or intent. The issue I'm discussing is that, for whatever reason, she did call Iraq a task from God.

|9.12.08 @ 4:31PM|#

"""Though I have a moral problem with both, I have less of a moral problem with my money going to a useless bum so he can buy more MD 20/20 than my money going to kill a foreigner for some cooked-up reason."""

I would agree, unless I was employed by a defense contractor.

|9.12.08 @ 4:53PM|#

TrickyVic,

I'm saying that her words say that she hopes that this is a task from God. A nonreligious person would probably have phrased it as hoping that we were doing the right thing. There is a distinction here, because if she'd said it was a God-ordained war, well, that's a scary statement. Hoping God's on our side is a little less scary.

|9.12.08 @ 5:06PM|#

You are implying meaning to her words, fine. I am not. The only point I'm making is that she did call it a task from God.

My question remains unanswered.

|9.12.08 @ 5:29PM|#

What of the other speech given at the same church where she talks about the natural gas pipeline being God's work?

I only bring it up as I have spent years worshipping in a pentecostal church and everytime "God's will" is invoked it is in the belief that the task at hand is explicitly the will of God. I know I am implying I know what her intent was but when I hear her talk about it being a task from God, my ming interprets her as saying she believes it to be the will of God.

Holy rollers believe more than any other christians, imo, about assigning the "will of God" to pretty much everything they want.

|9.12.08 @ 5:37PM|#

It was a magnificent interview! She was obviously enraptured by the Holy Spirit and "speaking in tongues."

No, I'm not. If someone is praying that something is a task from God, that means that they hope that it is. I think that's the literal reading of the statement.

|9.12.08 @ 6:05PM|#

TrickyVic, you're just being intentionally obtuse, taking a part of her statement out of context. The technical term is "Dowdifying" - selectively editing her statement to make it seem like she is saying the opposite of what she meant.

When even joe disagrees with you and says this particular line of Dem doctrine is BS, you need to back up a step and re-think. Give it up, man.

Not to mention, her invocation of Lincoln in the interview was one of her better moments, IMO. If you're trying to tear her down, you wouldn't want to draw attention to that.

|9.12.08 @ 6:30PM|#

Thus, instead of talking about whatever gaffe she may or may not have had, people are talking about what a jerk Gibson is and how he messed up the God quote.

John, do you ever, ever, read anything that isn't exclusively right-wing? Ever?

|9.12.08 @ 8:41PM|#

Looks like I picked the wrong time to quit sniffing glue.

|9.12.08 @ 8:43PM|#

Anyone actually been to the valleytrash.com website?

JGR|9.12.08 @ 9:12PM|#

Fluffy whined:
"Here's a fact, you fucking dumbass:

"Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

"What kind of fucking cave do you have to be living in for the last 8 years to not know what the Bush Doctrine is?"

Well, I guess you have to be Charles Krauthammer, the Washington Post columnist who ORIGINATED THE PHRASE in June of 2001, and who noted in his column for tomorrow that what Gibson was talking about was the THIRD "Bush Doctrine" -- and not even the CURRENT version!

He wrote "There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different."

Gee, you fucking dumbass, what kind of a fucking cave do you have to be living in not to know that your "fact" isn't really factual?

Tsu Dho Nihm|9.12.08 @ 9:19PM|#

There are reasons to like Sarah Palin, and there are reasons to dislike her. I won't get into those because they're largely irrelevant. The key issue here is that she's McCain's running mate. That's a complete deal breaker for me, and I think it would be for anyone who claims to be a part of the libertarian spectrum.

I think I'll be voting, yet again, for Cthulhu. And this year it's doubly important. You see, on 21 December 2012 the stars will be right and Dead Cthulhu shall arise from the depths. Sure, he'll spend the vast majority of his term dead and dreaming in R'lyeh and won't actually do anything, but I think most of us would agree that would be a good thing.

But when that singular horror awakes and rises from R'lyeh, it will be good for all of us if he already rules a significant landmass...

Cthulhu 2008
Why vote for a lesser evil?

JGR|9.12.08 @ 9:26PM|#

QSL wrote:

"Military alliances frighten me. Literally vowing to commit troops and possibly igniting all-out war when one of the far-flung members has a territorial scrum with its neighbor."

There is a United States of America solely because of a country on the other side of the Atlantic, which made such an alliance with us during the Revolutionary War. Until Benjamin Franklin used his powers of persuasion on France, we were on the losing side of the game.

We won WWII because of our alliances with Britain and the USSR, then won the Cold War because NATO was too big for the Bear to defeat.

Alliances can be very useful. And if that means sending our volunteer troops to help an ally in need, so be it.

|9.12.08 @ 10:38PM|#

Oh, well, if Charles Krauthammer says something which benefits the Republican candidate in the midst of an election campaign, that's the gold standard right there.

Shit, he even helped her out, giving her the date that the National Defense Policy document that articulates the Bush Doctrine was issues. Still nothing.

|9.12.08 @ 10:48PM|#

Is anyone watching this 20/20 "interview" (interrogation)? It's absolutely stunning. Gibson isn't even trying to pretend to try to be objective. I'm no Palin supporter (Barr for me - best of a bad bunch), but wowie kazowie! It's like televising an Obama campaign worker attacking Palin. I'm floored by this. Ya, I know, the media sucks in general and is no longer objective... but they usually at least TRY to hide it. Have I mentioned I'm stunned!?

dpsc:|9.13.08 @ 3:16AM|#

I almost want to say i would do her, despite her age. She's that hot. She's also really old and I would never actually get near her wrinkled pussy. But I might vote for her just on the basis that she once had a really alluring pussy. This election is that stupid.

|9.13.08 @ 3:31AM|#

"This election is that stupid."

No, you are that stupid.

|9.13.08 @ 9:00AM|#

A McCain/Palin White House will be called a "pro-market", "less regulation", "small government" administration.

These will all be grossly inaccurate.

I'll never push the button for Obama (politicians always assume a vote is a pledge of love and fealty).

If Gov. Palin is the most libertarian national candidate in a generation, I'd rather not have libertarianism characterized as "pro-national service".

mr simple|9.13.08 @ 1:26PM|#

Shit, he even helped her out, giving her the date that the National Defense Policy document that articulates the Bush Doctrine was issues. Still nothing.

Do you have all them National Defense Policy documents memorized by date? As far as my understanding goes, there is no document titled the Bush Doctrine and there is no official doctrine ever laid out under that name, except the various terms ascribed to the title by the media. In fact a quick Google search shows many pundits all asserting their own version of what the Bush Doctrine is, with varying results and varying varying time of its advent. So I see no problem with her asking exactly what he meant by the term the Bush Doctrine. If there is such a document, someone please point me to it and I will admit my mistake.

That interview was so horribly chopped up, I don't know how anyone could take anything out of it. They were cutting her in the middle of sentences.

I also don't know how anyone can complain about Palin getting a pass on issues unless it was an aside in the argument about how Obama, the presidential nominee, was getting a free pass on his work and relationships with Rev. Wright, Ayers, Father Pfleger, Rezko, the entire Chicago political machine, and the many other issues no one in the press seems concerned with asking him about. You know, the questions that aren't: "How is your family?" or "Aren't Republicans evil/stupid?"

Federal Dog|9.13.08 @ 3:27PM|#

Hey, Vic: English 101.

Enroll.

Now.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements