Palin Flunks First Foreign Policy Quiz

[Aristocrates]

ok, they can keep their all important three EC votes.

[libertyworld]

ok, they can keep their all important three EC votes.

You came in here smearing her with your vile and offensive petulance.

I called you on it and gave some numbers to support the fact that she is so popular and why.

Especially why she is not just "anyone..."

To which you can only try to weasel away into another subject that has nothing to do with what I called you on.

Next!

[iSeeDeadPpl!]

not surprising

[Startraveler]

I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training.

I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time.

--John McCain, October 2007

[Aristocrates]

You came in here smearing her with your vile and offensive petulance.

I called you on it and gave some numbers to support the fact that she is so popular and why.

Especially why she is not just "anyone..."

To which you can only try to weasel away into another subject that has nothing to do with what I called you on.

Next!

You're right. Her wild popularity in Alaska is just so overwhelming. I'm worried about this election.

McCain didn't pick her because she is some sort of god-send reformer; its because she's a woman (that was the original point behind MY post). Its a transparent attempt to win over disaffected Hillary supporters. Call it "sexist" all you want, but its true.

[ninjadude]

From what I've seen, Palin has about 95 percent approval from Alaskan Republicans and about 75 percent approval from Alaskan democrats for her record and performance there.

Wow. All 600,00 thousand of them. Meh.

[Incorrigible1]

Wow. All 600,00 thousand of them. Meh.

An elitist. It's no wonder you support Barry.

[Startraveler]

An elitist. It's no wonder you support Barry.

If you're going to read from the talking points at least know what the words you're using mean.

[ninjadude]

An elitist. It's no wonder you support Barry.

No that would make me a populist. An elitist is maybe what you're advocating. And the Democratic Presidential nominee's first name is B-A-R-A-C-K. For the challenged.

[BlindMessiah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48T3DnC7wc0

New Hampshire Republican primary debate

The candidates are asked if they agree with the Bush Doctrine. The question was about preemptive strikes. They all knew what it was...

[HKCavalier]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48T3DnC7wc0

New Hampshire Republican primary debate

The candidates are asked if they agree with the Bush Doctrine. The question was about preemptive strikes. They all knew what it was...

Thank you, BlindMessiah! You win the Internet!

[rideron]

Your typical "miss the forest and run headlong into a tree" analysis, HKCavalier:

If you (and Blind Messiah) had bothered to actually watch the clip from the New Hampshire debate; you would see that there, they gave all the candidates a video primer on which of the four possible versions of the "Doctrine they mean't, the 'preemptive stike' version, BEFORE they were asked opinons on it.

A definitional courtesy that your boy Gibson left out of his 'gotcha' to Palin.

Which is why she replied to his undefined question with a 'In what respect, Charlie?

TO which he STILL gave no indication of which of the FOUR permutations of the so-called 'doctrine' he mean't.

Of Course, when it comes to saving Obama from his own "my Muslim faith" slip, ABC's Stephanopolulous's fell over himself to correct Obama...

But as with ABC, hypocrisy coming from your HKCavalier, is nothing more than your unconscious homage to the truth

Edited September 14, 2008 by rideron

[BlindMessiah]

If you (and Blind Messiah) had bothered to actually watch the clip from the New Hampshire debate; you would see that there, they gave all the candidates a video primer on which of the four possible versions of the "Doctrine they mean't, the 'preemptive stike' version, BEFORE they were asked opinons on it.

I watched the entire clip thank you. I watched all nine clips actually.

[HKCavalier]

Your typical "miss the forest and run headlong into a tree" analysis, HKCavalier:

If you (and Blind Messiah) had bothered to actually watch the clip from the New Hampshire debate; you would see that there, they gave all the candidates a video primer on which of the four possible versions of the "Doctrine they mean't, the 'preemptive stike' version, BEFORE they were asked opinons on it.

A definitional courtesy that your boy Gibson left out of his 'gotcha' to Palin.

Which is why she replied to his undefined question with a 'In what respect, Charlie?

TO which he STILL gave no indication of which of the FOUR permutations of the so-called 'doctrine' he mean't.

Of Course, when it comes to saving Obama from his own "my Muslim faith" slip, ABC's Stephanopolulous's fell over himself to correct Obama...

But as with ABC, hypocrisy coming from your HKCavalier, is nothing more than your unconscious homage to the truth

Holy crizzap! I knew this was coming, but it's still pretty dang funny! It amuses me no end that you took the opening video segment as a "primer" (a primer he says!) for the candidates and not what it was: the fluffy intro for the audience to know what the big boys on stage were gonna talk about! I thought that it was for your own inscrutable reasons that you were willing to give Palin a pass on her ignorance, but now I see that you don't expect anyone running for President to know what the heck is going on in this country! Priceless!

And for the 98th time, it was not a "gotcha" question. It was strictly softball, it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE. She pulls here "in what respect, Charlie?" and he tossed her another softball in LETTING HER DEFINE IT FOR HERSELF. But she was so flummoxed by the whole issue that she couldn't see it. So then, yes, then HE DID SUPPLY HER WITH A DEFINITION and then she simply didn't answer the question, but blathered on in her steely-eyed, unblinking way about whatever patriotic talking points crossed her brain pan at the time.

I bet her handlers are kicking themselves right now--they didn't even show her this tape of Charlie Gibson questioning the real Republican candidates on exactly the same issue!

[rideron]

I love this stuff, over the cliff and claiming they're gaining altitude all the way to the bottom!

Thanks guys! Keep it coming! Now. excuse me while I go cling to my guns and religion.

[BlindMessiah]

I love this stuff, over the cliff and claiming they're gaining altitude all the way to the bottom!

Thanks guys! Keep it coming! Now. excuse me while I go cling to my guns and religion.

Who's claiming who is gaining altitude?

[Gustavo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48T3DnC7wc0

New Hampshire Republican primary debate

The candidates are asked if they agree with the Bush Doctrine. The question was about preemptive strikes. They all knew what it was...

Come on, you have totally mischaracterized the video.

Charlie asked the candidates whether they would run on the Bush foriegn Policy or run from it. Then he said, let me preface the question with a video. In the video the reporter descibed Bush's as a humble "foriegn policy", until 9/11 when "The new Bush Doctrine" was that we would preemptively strike terrorists, "hence the Iraq war" and then went on to say "With a second term, an even bolder vision" of "ending tyrany in our world and push for Democracy everywhere". This second term vision is the Bush Doctrine as it exists today just as Krauthammer described in the article that rideron posted up. So, Charlie Gibson didnt even know the answer to the question he asked Palin as so many have noted. Additionally, your link shows that your evidence wasnt what you said it was. It wasnt a question about the Bush doctrine, it was a question about Bush's foriegn policy.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Gustavo

[rideron]

Blind Messiah:

You are right, I was displaying a bit of snarky 'atittude' there and I apologize.

Unfortunately, its too easy sometimes to get caught up in this stuff....

Apologies to HK as well.

[Aztec Warrior]

Come on, you have totally mischaracterized the video.

Charlie asked the candidates whether they would run on the Bush foriegn Policy or run from it. Then he said, let me preface the question with a video. In the video the reporter descibed Bush's as a humble "foriegn policy", until 9/11 when "The new Bush Doctrine" was that we would preemptively strike terrorists, "hence the Iraq war" and then went on to say "With a second term, an even bolder vision" of "ending tyrany in our world and push for Democracy everywhere". This second term vision is the Bush Doctrine as it exists today just as Krauthammer described in the article that rideron posted up. So, Charlie Gibson didnt even know the answer to the question he asked Palin as so many have noted. Additionally, your link shows that your evidence wasnt what you said it was. It wasnt a question about the Bush doctrine, it was a question about Bush's foriegn policy.

I reviewed the video as well and Gustavo is right on the money. At the 1:28 minute mark, and before one question was asked to the candidates a video was shown explaining Bush's foreign policy/Doctrine and preemptively striking.

Gibson "I would like to start with foreign policy and in that context I have a little background here from ABC's Johnathon Carl"....roll tape. At the 1:44 mark the reporter explains the new Bush Doctrine.

So, I don't know what video you guys were watching and commenting on. Blind...I guess you proved the point that the candidates were asked about foreign policy after having a video explain what the Bush Doctrine was.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Aztec Warrior

[HKCavalier]

I reviewed the video as well and Gustavo is right on the money. At the 1:28 minute mark, and before one question was asked to the candidates a video was shown explaining Bush's foreign policy/Doctrine and preemptively striking.

Gibson "I would like to start with foreign policy and in that context I have a little background here from ABC's Johnathon Carl"....roll tape. At the 1:44 mark the reporter explains the new Bush Doctrine.

And Charlie Gibson explained what he meant by the Bush Doctrine in his interview with Palin as well. Before explaining it to her, he gave her the opportunity to define it herself. She never did understand the meaning of preemptive. She never answered the question, even after Gibson spoon fed it to her.

[eqgumby]

I'm not talking about what she said at the church. I agree with her and understand what she meant totally. It is her way of explaining herself on this clip that made my skin crawl. Even her posture was off putting. She reminded me a bit of Tom Cruise in some strange way. Her comments were aimed at the religious people listening and not the whole society. She should have said "Obviously we don't want to say anything to construe this as a religious war, and nor do we want to indicate that we think we are doing God's will."

Otherwise its just more of the same dreck and even worse.

It was to a religious AUDIENCE. Duh.

All of you kill me, both sides here. You're all showering in kool-aid, maybe different flavors, but still kool-aid.

Face it, the media IS LIBERAL. There is NO DOUBT that ABC, CBS, etc are FULL of liberals. Just LOOK a little and it's not even a QUESTION. That's why Palin get's questions that are designed to pigeon hole her, and make her look bad NO MATTER WHAT THE ANSWER. That "Bush Doctrine" question was absurd, period. Too broad a question, and it's not defined enough for a yes or no answer, PERIOD.

Palin has no more business being a VP pick than MANY VP picks historically. And yes, she was OBVIOUSLY a totally media driven pick to lure Clinton supporters that want a woman in power no matter HOW or what her stance. I think if he had a clue, he would have picked Condi Rice. Go big or stay home! And at least SHE has some experience.

So both sides are just being absurd and spinning it to suit their needs. Your all sick, and don't realize yet, it's all the same! Both sides LIE and SPIN.

[Startraveler]

Palin has no more business being a VP pick than MANY VP picks historically.

Which VP picks do you feel were equally unequipped?

[eqgumby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48T3DnC7wc0

New Hampshire Republican primary debate

The candidates are asked if they agree with the Bush Doctrine. The question was about preemptive strikes. They all knew what it was...

They got a 5 minute video and audio commentary that EXPLAINED what the Bush Doctrine was!!! WTF? Yeah, that's the same!!

[eqgumby]

Which VP picks do you feel were equally unequipped?

Personally I think Quayle is a classic throw-away VP. I don't think I'd hire that rube to run a deli let alone a country.

I think Geraldine Ferraro was an attempt at making history. As I recall, that election was a foregone conclusion. At least she had some real talent though. But VP? I don't think so.

Good VP?

Try Bush Sr. He did what a VP is supposed to do. Back up the prez and keep his OWN politics out of it. That's not because I agree with Sr.'s policy, it's because he did what a VP is SUPPOSED to do, and could have stepped in for Reagan in a moments notice.

[Whangarei]

It was to a religious AUDIENCE. Duh.

All of you kill me, both sides here. You're all showering in kool-aid, maybe different flavors, but still kool-aid.

Face it, the media IS LIBERAL. There is NO DOUBT that ABC, CBS, etc are FULL of liberals. Just LOOK a little and it's not even a QUESTION. That's why Palin get's questions that are designed to pigeon hole her, and make her look bad NO MATTER WHAT THE ANSWER. That "Bush Doctrine" question was absurd, period. Too broad a question, and it's not defined enough for a yes or no answer, PERIOD.

Palin has no more business being a VP pick than MANY VP picks historically. And yes, she was OBVIOUSLY a totally media driven pick to lure Clinton supporters that want a woman in power no matter HOW or what her stance. I think if he had a clue, he would have picked Condi Rice. Go big or stay home! And at least SHE has some experience.

So both sides are just being absurd and spinning it to suit their needs. Your all sick, and don't realize yet, it's all the same! Both sides LIE and SPIN.

As I said, which you either ignored or missed, it was the way she answered the question that bothered me. How she carried herself in the interview. She comes across as a good speech giver, not a good thinker. I wasn't aware that the media was responsible for that.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Whangarei