Determining when life begins is not part of a President or Vice President's duties. Conducting US foreign policy is. Unfortunately for her, that question was not above the pay grade for the job she's applying for.
Despite leaning right this is precisely what prevents me from outright voting for the McCain/Palin ticket. Not that Obama equals world peace but the prospect of war with Russia or Iran are both frightening thoughts for very different reasons. Picking a fight with either nation is not a smart idea with the state our military and economy is in.
Her answer to the Georgia question isn't what bothers me. It was a poorly worded question, where it wasn't clear if Gibson was asking "if" Georgia was a member of NATO should the US go to war if Russia invaded or if he was asking if as things exists now should we go to war with Russia if they invaded again. What bothered me is that she didn't have an f'ing clue what the Bush Doctrine was. She might just be bad enough to make me nostalgic for Bush.
Let's examine this silly uproar:....When asked by Gibson if under the NATO treaty, the U.S. would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded: "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. "And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable," she told ABC News' Charles Gibson in an exclusive interview. ....I agree. There is something called an agreement among NATO allies...What if Russia rolls Georgia, then Turkey, then Great Britain...? Where do you draw the line?...Perhaps so...mean perhaps...which also means it is an option... NEXT POINT OF "UPROAR" by my friends from the left:.... Gibson quoted her as saying: "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." But Palin said she was referencing a famous quote by Abraham Lincoln. "I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side." No need to explain further...She is drawing inspiration quotes from a great leader...She is an immensely great leader herself. She has performed and has excelled at the executive levels involving local and state governments...She is willing to do things differently...She has 65% approval of the state of Alaska...She has executive experience at the energy sector...She has tremendous appeal and legendary Truman-like decision making ability in her leadership... These throw stuff at the wall to stick-and-hit attack styles will continue to cause backlash, because she is real, and she is one of us from small-town America who "clings to their religion and guns" which Obama has jeered at...O, btw,...many very independent folks...Good strategy..Continue to belittle! That is why she has the appeal. She is a great American story...
What's sad is that there are 50 + people on this board from both sides that could have answered that question better than she did. Hell at least Jorge would have been funnier.
Exactly!...She is not going to regard Bush's phrase for foreign policy, as some sort of model that she will follow in step... He is the past, She is the future!...She is going to regard more effective leaders such as Lincoln and Truman, as she has... That is what she should do...
And a young, bi-racial man from a broken home who became the editor of the Harvard Law Review is a great American story too.
Sure,...he just desires a very, very big government (which always does things bloated and inefficiently more than not), does not have executive leadership experience, looks down upon those that have religion and guns...Besides that, he is a great story...
Yep, His vision of government will just be much more involved in our choices...That is a big reason I lean the way I do if given the choice... p.s. her reply on the Bush doctrine, I just saw it on CNN,...She stated to elaborate, then stated it is his "world view" regarding threats...She further explained the issue that an immenient threat is what SHE would act on,...SO she essentially has separated herself... I thought it was real cute that the interviewer read a "definition" of the Bush doctrine after the fact as if she was suppose to memorize this in preparation...She handled herself VERY, VERY well....I am VERY excited to have her as the future...She will only get better! (if that's possible!)
The interview is going to hurt her. She's gonna have to do better than that otherwise this is over. I thought the interview was scripted. She reminds me of when you are in college, and you cram for an exam. Misunderstood some of the questions, but then gave a long political answer. At least she didn't stutter.
I seriously doubt it was scripted,...otherwise she would pull out the Eastern Oxford's definition of the Bush doctrine to have it memorized verbatim to impress the liberals... She went into enemy media territory and she did GREAT!
again, the interview confirms her lack of experience. i think she kinda knew the questions ahead of time b/c she basically just spews talking points of john mccain's. i don't think she's thinking for herself. i don't want a robot being my VP. like it or not, dick cheney really expanded the role of the VP. palin is gonna make it a minimal role if she is one.
ROX Charles Gibson was hand picked by the McCain campaign because they like him and vice versa. The McCain campaign set up a two day interview on her turf and set all the ground rules.
I think you have no basis for stating she "knew" the questions ahead of time. ...I thought she thought for herself well enough to separate herself from the eastern oxford's definition of the Bush doctrine to state her views of a immenent threat being a pre-requisite for action...That is the very testimony of thinking for herself rather than pledging to this Bush doctrine that is inconsequential to her ideas...
Read it and everyone's comments, she did not know what the Bush doctrine is! Her "seperating" answer only came after the doctrine was described to her. I.e. You're really missing the point here. Someone going for VP who doesn't even know her own parties policies/view points. You can argue whe wants to sperate herself all you want, but you need to know what you are seperating yourself from in the first place to have any credibility.
