Friday, September 12, 2008

Sarah Palin Gets Confused by the Bush Doctrine

... so what?

Here's the video.

The pro-Hillary site, TalkLeft, has the best take on it of all. From their comments:
Palin and Gibson in that clip are a little odd, but I don't think that she showed ignorance in that exchange as much as she demonstrated mastery of the the ubiquitous political tactic of not giving a direct answer.
Palin's response was clearly a delaying tactic, trying to look for a foothold on which to base her answer. Her follow-up answer, "it's his worldview" confirms that. I think anyone who's ever been in school and had to fumble through a question from a teacher knows what was going on there.
Yep, Sarah got that deer-in-the-headlights look and floundered for a minute or two? So what? In this election the only choices we have are McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. You could choose your foreign policy positions with a dart board and never do worse than the abysmal record of Obama/Biden. They're the 2007 Miami Dolphins of foreign policy.

If this were a perfect world, the Republicans would be running Fred Thompson and General Petraeus and the Democrats would be running Joe Lieberman and Bill Richardson. We'd have a coherent, reasonable debate about the role of government and the future of the country. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world and we've got imperfect candidates. We have to pick our favorites from the choices we've got.

Yep, Sarah Palin slipped a gear in that interview and had to stall for time. So what?


Foxfier said...

She looked to me like someone who could tell that they'd been asked a trap question and was trying to make dang sure that there WAS a possible answer that wouldn't screw her.

K T Cat said...

Could be, foxfier. I was going with the worst-case scenario and I still couldn't figure out what the big deal was.

Anonymous said...

You know, I think I've realized why the Democrats are getting so crazed about attacking Palin: They think that *they* were the ones who were supposed to get a woman as VP or President first. The first woman in the office was supposed to be indebted to *them*, carrying out *their* agendas. Which is precisely why so many people who were not Democrats were ready to oppose, say, Hillary Clinton - they (not unreasonably) expected that she would be even more rabid about the more extreme-Democrat positions, because she would owe her job to them.

But now, we've got the possibility of a woman who will be free to do as she feels best, without the Democratic establishment having any claws into her. They thought women would be subject to their control, dammit!

In a way, this is a lot like the crack people made about how "Only Nixon could go to China." Nixon was a noted anti-communist, so he could go to talk with them without everybody figuring he was a traitor. If he'd been a Democrat, there would have been a hue and cry about how he was going to China to meet with his paymasters to collect his silver. By being exactly the opposite of the type of president who would be expected to go to China to establish relations, he was able to actually go and do it without anyone having the nerve to bad-mouth him about it.

The same with Palin: I'm beginning to think that only a female Republican can be the first woman vice-president. A woman who was a Democrat would be exactly what everone would expect, and they'd expect her to toe the Democratic line much harder than a man would because she would owe them more. The Republicans (and, more importantly, the Independents) will therefore never, ever elect her. A woman Republican, however . . . people think, "Aren't the Republicans supposed to be opposed to women in high office?" But, here is a Republican . . . and suddenly the opposition to the idea of a female VP collapses.

The Democrats have been playing up the idea that *their* party was the one that supported the rights of women for a long time, and they are terrified that this will jerk the rug out from under them and force them to come up with a different angle.

Anonymous said...

It's quite clear and undeniable. She did not know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Foxfier said...


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.

K T Cat said...

Matthew - so what?

stled said...

It also turns out that they edited the interview and cut what they wanted too.

ronupnorth said...

omg, Palin is the biggest idiot I've ever seen in politics. Did you see her response to Couric's question about the bailout? wtf? Not a clue. Just think if Mccain/Palin get voted into office. How old is Mccain? 72? Palin being one heart attack away from the most powerful office in the world is pretty scary to me. I saw another interview from a few months back where Palin asked the interviewer to explain to her what a VP does, not fruitfult?? scary! this really shows poor judgment by Mccain to pick her as running mate. I think it'll be his downfall. As a democrate I was pretty worried about the election until I seen her. Why are they hiding her from the media? I think its now obvious.

Foxfier said...

ZOMGA!!!! In teh 1 qeustion, teh dude iz such a noob! She'd be juzt 1 heart beat away from teh prezident, so vote for teh more clueless dude for prez!@!!!!111!!1