McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

[Bill Glasheen]

Her body language didn't say "do you mean THIS or THIS" it said "I have no idea what's going on."

Go back and listen to it again. Her first response was to call for clarification. When Gibson wouldn't give it, she realized he was trying to set her up. She smelled it.

Indeed he tried to set her up - with false information.

This reminds me of the 1968 election when Vice Presidential candidate Curtis LeMay (a military man) was asked "Would you use nuclear weapons if it was necessary?" That's a set-up question. No matter what answer you give other than "That's a bullschit question!", you are giving this wannabe reporter a soundbite for the 6 o'clock news. LeMay's response? "Of course I would use them if it was necessary! That is what you said, right?" But from that point forward, he was branded as the VP candidate who wanted to nuke the world.

Ever been interviewed for a fight, TSDguy? You really need to do some major redirection if you don't want to wake up in the ER or be pushing daisies from 6 feet under. The look on Palin's face was the look of someone who smelled the pending gotcha.

Gibson got his sound bite. And unfortunately only a few reporters will step up and call him on his incorrect characterization of The Bush Doctrine. But quite frankly I challenge anybody here on the ability to catch the nuances of both the interpretation AND the lack of any single policy which could be called that. No wonder Palin got deer-in-the-headlamps for a second. It takes the sharp mind of George Will to pick up on that.

Shame on the rest of the press for letting that one go.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

The "which policy is The Bush Doctrine" challenge was brought up by George Will. He speaks of it at the beginning of this Roundtable.

The Roundtable: The Female Vote

The part about getting the wrong version of the policy he was speaking of was on PBS's The McLaughlin Group. Sorry, but I can't find a transcript of that program.

I'm a news junkie. I watch at least 3 of these Sunday morning programs (NBC, ABC, PBS).

- Bill

[Jason Rees]

Filters!

[Bill Glasheen]

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe


By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

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.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term.

Read the rest of the article, published Saturday in The Washington Post.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

Gibson was obviously out to get her, but I'm still not convinced she knew what it was. I mean even not knowing the exact specifications of it, the phrase is 'generally' understood by everyone so she could have put whatever spin she wanted on the question. One thing Obama does when he's asked a difficult question is sort of ramble about something related before buying himself enough time to answer intelligently. I think she looked really bad by freezing. Even if she did know exactly what was going on, she looked stupid, which is not a good thing if your, say, negotiating in Palestine.

An acceptable pause would have been a reflective pause (hands in the 'praying' position or stroking your goatee for you over-actors ), not a blank face.

[cxt]

Jim

And if you can't keep track of what you post...you know rememebr it from day to day....well you can always go back and look it up....least that is what I would do.

The "technology" was from your post where you piss and moan about "technology" and commericals.

Sorry, I kinda thought you would recall what you typed or at the very least would be able to simply look it back up.

I don't get on-line everyday---and seldom on the weekends---too much to do.

And yes, your right "abuses of power" can and do happen....and mostly they depend on hysterical people that rant and rave instead of asking reasoned, informed questions........its much easier to get the paranoid and poorly informed and those that think their lives are being ruled/controlled by hidden cabals to do what you want than it is anyone else............as history bloodly shows.

So we should know what real abuses of power might be so as not to confuse and conflate them. We should know what we should be afraid of and why---not fear everything and everyone.
We should have a good grasp on our history and know that the nation is far more resilant than not----and be able to look at things in context with the history instead of looking at all things as if they were unique and without precedent.

The real fundamental problem is that we really don't live after the End of History---much to alot of folks chagrin.

[Bill Glasheen]

not knowing the exact specifications of it, the phrase is 'generally' understood by everyone

Bullschit! Even and especially Charles Gibson got it wrong.

There is no (zero, none, zilch) single Bush Doctrine. Fercryinoutloud, listen to the man who first coined the expression!

While we're at it... What's your opinion on The Glasheen Doctrine?

- Bill

[TSDguy]

It doesn't matter if he coined it, it's a "word or phrase in common usage" now. Are you saying you had no idea what was going on when Gibson asked his question, and you stared blankly at the TV, while dribbling applesauce out of the corner of your mouth?

[Bill Glasheen]

You're avoiding the question, TSDguy.

What's your opinion on The Glasheen Doctrine?

And while you're at it... Please read Charles Krauthammer and listen to George Will. Unlike you and Charlie Gibson, I did my homework. It's all there for your perusal.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

From Wikipedia...

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush

Emphasis my own.

You know what blows my mind? I've provided three sources, and someone who wants to nail Palin insists she blew it. Damn the facts, mind you...

It must be near election time.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

From the wiki article you'll also see all the variations all revolve around the same idea (admittedly the very first version by Krauthammer is different, but that's not the one in common usage.) She should have had SOME idea what was going on.

Gibson was out to get her, and let's be honest, he nailed her.

Edit: And for the umpteenth time, I'm not voting for the democrats. You people need to quit insinuating that I'm just out to make the repubs look bad. Palin dropped the ball.

[TSDguy]

All right, I'm not procrastinating at work anymore. Let me break this down for you, Bill. you're like the guy that gets insulted at a party but can't think of a comeback till he gets home. Here's why.

Gibson did not initially lay a trap, the question was pretty straight forward. It was fairly open ended in that she could have taken it in any direction she wanted. She could have blatantly said yes and gone on to explain it, she could have dodge the question slightly like she did in the closing seconds of the interview, she could have done a lot of things. But, as her body language broadcast to everyone, she had never HEARD of the term Bush Doctrine.

Now here, Gibson gives her an easy out. If she had heard of it, when he asks "what do you take it to mean", she could have used your argument Bill. She could have said "well the Bush Doctrine incorporates several different points, let me address the ones I agree with". It would have been an easy way out of the clumsy impromptu trap. But she continues to flounder and it was awkward for everyone.

Summary: She was unable to respond to ANY of the factes of the Bush Doctrine, and she gave up multiple opportunities to take the interview in a direction of her choosing.

[mhosea]

My take on the exchange was that she was not aware of the label "Bush Doctrine" as a specific thing and so interpreted the phrase literally, hence as non-specific. It's possible that she was aware of no less than 4 different "Bush Doctrines", but I would not assume so. In any event, I'm not following the importance of recognizing a media label used in political op-ed pieces and on Sunday morning political TV. The important thing is the actual principle, not what 3rd-parties call it.

[IJ]

Let's ask a hopelessly biased leftist site:

http://www.slate.com/id/2200090/

Confirms there isn't "a bush doctrine." The conversation:

Q: "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

A: In what respect, Charlie?

Q: The Bush—well, what do you—what do you interpret it to be?

A: His worldview.

Q: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

A: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Q: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?"

I add:

"Charlie, if there is legitimate, and enough evidence, that tells us that a strike is imminent against the american people, we have every right to defend our country."

There's little to find fault with there, but it is a position hardly anyone would disagree with, especially in the era of WMD. Imminent could basically mean planes in the air--or fueling up. Was an attack from Iraq even FELT to be imminent? I don't think it was. Just building toward the capacity to do so.

Now, the discussion appears to be, was the question bad, or was the answer bad? I fail to see why we need to choose only one. I don't believe she'd heard of the Bush Doctrine--she wasn't trying to clarify which one he meant. A more experienced speaker would probably have replied that Bush has had years to promote domestic and foreign policies and there isn't a single "THE Bush Doctrine" to discuss, or, if they really had no idea what he meant by that (which doesn't make her a bad person), then to just say it's not a good idea to make blanket statements and that he should ask her about how she should respond in a specific situation. But I'll have to agree with Bill that the question was dumber than the reply here.

[Jason Rees]

I read Slate all the time.
One of my favorite columnists is Christopher Hitchens. You probably couldn't find someone more ideologically opposed to me than him, but you can't deny the man's style and chutzpah. Yeah, the whole site's pretty much solid ivy league snootery, but they challenge the left alot, too (mostly out of self-interest). And yeah, Timothy Noah's a tried and true Lefty.