Of course they like him...He is not considered slanted as well. He also stated his goal is to ask the questions that make politicians feel uncomfortable...To me that is enemy media territory in the sense there is ZERO catering...There is also...ZERO staged or prepped questions that have been suggested...Keep in mind ZERO evidence or basis of evidence...(I'm seeing a trend here on the attack style)...It's made up... She was AWESOME!...She appeared poise, natural, and ready to lead...Without a doubt!
I was more bothered by her simplistic answer to the role of NATO then whether she knew the Generally Accepted definitions of buzz words such as "Bush Doctrine." She just seemed so out of her element, quite apart from the PoliSci 101 memory dump on terminology.
Exactly. Here's what really betrays her lack of understanding IMO: she immediately invoked NATO. Well, that's great, but Georgia isn't even a member of NATO yet. In fact, IIRC, that is why Russia was so bold about attacking Georgia and this is the very reason why Russia is determined to prevent Georgia from becoming a NATO member. The other problem was that she did not even make so much as a hint at diplomacy. How do you deal with the subject of Russia and not even consider talking about diplomacy? You mean to tell me if I put this woman in the White House tomorrow, and Russia invades Kazakhstan, the first thing she'll be thinking about is war? Really?
Good lord, TJ has spread his virus to more of you... If people like Pat Buchanan are scared of McCain, doesnt that tell you something?? Also I cant believe that you think she has 'excelled at the local and state executive levels'.. she was mayor of a 'city' in Alaska for 6 years. The population of the town is less than 10,000. She has been governor for less than 2 years. For you to think that the interview isn't at least somewhat scripted is completely naive and somewhat asinine. I just dont understand what it is that the conservatives see in her..except for the fact that she is a bit of a MILF..
That's mis-characterization. from NYTime: Anyway, she said that she believes, as Mr. McCain does, that Ukraine and Georgia should be admitted to NATO. Mr. Gibson then asked: “And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?” “Perhaps so,” Ms. Palin responded. “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.” The headline was framed by the way the question was asked. I get the impression many of you on the board doesn't think like an average person.
First off, the Bush doctrine is not a party policy model to be followed...She answered in basic summary that the Bush doctrine was "his world view" regarding terrorists... Unfortunately, you guys want the eastern oxford definition spoke out verbatim...She didn't deliver that, but she did summize that this "bush doctrine" is his view which it is...Her focus is not what Bush phrased his foreign policy to be...Her focus is on doing better than before... She has stated her vision and goal is to reform, shake things up and do things a better way...She delivered that view VERY well!...
Unfortunately the camera angles were from two viewpoints, but regarding the frontal view, she appeared natural, and genuine in her responses...
Excellent wrap-up here. I normally don't like Jack Schaefer, and he can TOTALLY miss the point sometimes, but he nails it here, she was pretty bad. http://www.slate.com/id/2199999/ Palin vs. Gibson, Round 1 The ABC News anchor flummoxes the GOP amateur. By Jack Shafer Posted Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008, at 9:44 PM ET Without being smarmy about it or unfurling gotcha questions, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson demonstrated that he knows volumes more about national security and foreign policy than does Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In an on-location-in-Alaska interview that consumed 11 or 12 minutes (video) of the Thursday edition of World News Tonight, and continues later tonight on Nightline and again tomorrow on World News Tonight and 20/20, Palin recited her answers as if reading from a Teleprompter inside her head. The extensive coaching she has received could not save her from embarrassment in this exchange. Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? Palin: In what respect, Charlie? Gibson (refusing to give her a hint): What do you interpret it to be? Palin: His worldview? Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War. Palin attempts to fake it for 25 seconds with a swirl of generalities before Gibson, showing all the gentleness of a remedial social studies teacher, interjects. Gibson: The Bush Doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. That we have the right of a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? Of course Palin agrees with the Bush Doctrine, but she can't come out and say so having just admitted that she doesn't know it by name. At every point in the Q&A, Gibson had the right follow-up questions to elicit more from Palin, including after he asked the Bush Doctrine cringemaker. He asks her to give thumbs up or down to the U.S. military's recent forays into Pakistan from Afghanistan. He asks her several ways. But she can't answer the question and she won't dismiss it. Instead she slows the interview to a crawl again, dribbling and dribbling the ball but refusing to take the shot. "I get lost in a blizzard of words there," Gibson says, his glasses riding the end of his nose, asking for a "yes" or a "no" again. Palin finally expresses her view that the United States "has to exercise all options" to stop terrorists, making her reluctance to endorse a li'l cross-border thrust into Pakistan made by the commander-in-chief difficult to understand. In asking about 30 questions, including follow-ups, he gets Palin to call for the inclusion of Georgia in NATO and commits the United States to waging war with Russia if Russia reinvades a NATOed Georgia. (I'm guessing Gibson's hypothetical assumed an invasion into parts of Georgia that Russia doesn't already occupy.) Palin can't blame her muddled responses on Gibson, who treats her fairly and conducts himself professionally. Never mind about her not being ready to be president. She wasn't even ready for this interview.
I think that because it is true... Mayor for 6 years..Hmmm...Just as good or...even better than "community organizer" I dare say...(with added and pronounced responsibility involving budgets and personnel) Governor for less than 2 years,...yes, but alot happens in 2 years...Just as 164 days happens...say in the senate O, she also had executive level experience regarding the energy industry....Don't forget! Along the way she has made numerous day-to-day accomplishments happen while enabling job approval from the state much higher than all other state Governors...She earned this position of leadership service not by accident or last name, but by earning it through the peoples' trust... That Executive level experience speaks volumes to me rather than community organizing or 164 something days in the senate... Link?...
wow, that was painful to watch. EDIT: -2:49 is priceless. You almost empathize with Gibson as he cringes sitting through that.
How was the interview scripted? This is getting silly...Almost as much as being required to know the exact supposed definition of what George W. Bush called his foreign policy regarding terrorists... Pure silliness...I'd rather have this washington outsider who is not focused on failed GWB policies...Let her make a "Palin Doctrine"...Allow her to shake things up, reform, and exude the leadership that has made her popular in her state at the local and state executive levels... that's what we should ALL want!!!!
So a reporter who isn't slanted but still is willing to ask tough questions is enemy territory? If that is the case what is the point of having a free press? Shouldn't it be the duty of democratically elected leaders to deal with a free press?
After watching the interview, it's like they found Dubya's soulmate. I think the fervor by some to "clean" the news media began when Bush justified his reporter pruning by insinuating that tough questions dampened the war effort and was "aiding the enemy". How that morphed into the need for a pastry press or the cliched attacks of some liberal agenda is beyond me...
I'm watching the interview again and agree with this analysis. She is completely correct that if Georgia was a member of NATO then we would have to come to their defense as that is the nature of the NATO treaty. An attack on one is an attack on all. What I am more worried about though is her position that Georgia and Ukraine should be a member of NATO. As I've said before I don't think Russia is a good guy in this situation but Georgia isn't necessarily an innocent victim as Palin and McCain are making them to be. Georgia did launch a military crackdown in two separatists regions when they were warned that this would prompt a respons from Russia. While Georgia might've felt they had good reason too they knew the risks and gambled anyway. To make them an ally puts us in an incredibly dangerous situation where we are essentially liable for the gambles that Georgia takes. To me this opens up a situation way too much like how WWI started. Unfortunately though the Obama - Biden ticket has also been doing some sabre rattling on Georgia on their own and I fear even under an Obama admin we could also see Georgia in NATO.
