|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 9/13/2008 7:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 44960
Palin was out of her element, they would have got Bullwinkle the Moose to set in for her!!  *Spirit*  |
Date: 9/13/2008 8:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16376
LOL Priss, she certainly did seem like she was out of her element. I should add that I know we shouldn't vote simply based on the VP choice. But I have to say that it makes me nervous that McCain is a seventy two year old man who has had health scares in the past. If he were to die in office, than Palin would become president. That just scares me, lol. I don't love Biden either like I said, but I would prefer him over Palin.  |
Date: 9/13/2008 8:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
It's funny how people perceive things. I thought Charlie Gibson, who I normally like, was patronizing. I found that insulting, myself. I like Sarah Palin. She and I could not be more opposite on a number of issues, but I like her. I think it's cruel when people on the left call her "McCain's Dan Quayle". She is one smart & tough cookie, in my book.  |
Date: 9/13/2008 8:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
oddly enough i watched this interview today...a part of me says she is a bit of a breath of fresh air because she is somewhat young she isn't situatated in the lower states so she can be distanced from all the politics in washington.. but i also find that works to her disadvantage, she doesn't know the issues and she circles around things without answering the full question, from what i got she wants to do what is great for the people but not the country, she'll cut taxes but at the expense of creating a larger debt load  |
Date: 9/13/2008 8:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 55344
I like Palin. I'm not real deep in politics myself, but i'm pretty sure she has more experience than Obama..  |
|
Date: 9/13/2008 8:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16376
I agree Midnightly, she doesn't seem to know the issues. One thing she has going for her is her confidence though. She did not hesistate when Charlie Gibson asked her if she was ready to be vice president. Spirit Child, I agree that she is a tough cookie. But I don't think she came off very intelligent in that particular interview. |
|
Date: 9/13/2008 9:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16376
Obama and Palin both don't have as much as experience as McCain does. I was surprised that McCain chose someone without a lot of experience since one really good thing he had going for him was that he has more experience than Obama. But now he can't really criticize him for his lack of experience... |
|
Date: 9/13/2008 9:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
ahh but does experince make a good president?? or does it mean that he's set in his ways and not willing to compromise with the changing world? |
|
Date: 9/13/2008 9:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16376
Experience is a definite plus, but what you say could be true Midnightly. |
Date: 9/13/2008 10:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 7830
"Lets all just pray that whoever wins does not die while in office, LOL." amen lol  |
|
Date: 9/13/2008 10:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 7830
Palin creeps me out...she reminds me of a stepford wife..or "invasion of the body snatchers" |
Date: 9/13/2008 11:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 22275
Personally, I don't like her much.  |
Date: 9/13/2008 11:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
Actually you are wrong. Gibson was the one who was confused. He asked about the "Bush doctrine" assumeing that the question was clear. It was not clear though sinse there are several Bush doctrines. Here is the story in the Washington Post...Charles Krouthammer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html  |
|
Date: 9/13/2008 11:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
Danniel, Palin IS the only one on either ticket with executive experience While I beleive that many years in the senate could make up for a lack of executive experience as it pertains to being able to act as our country's top executive...Obama has less than a year active in the senate. |
Date: 9/14/2008 12:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
she will do fine  |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 1:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
I agree with Coenlaf |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 1:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
I agree with Coenlaf . "Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage." Krouthamer |
Date: 9/14/2008 4:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 53961
Someone needs to slap Charlie with a hockey puck! I thought he was rude and obnoxious to her. Would he have drilled Biden or Obama the same way? I HIGHLY doubt it. I was really disappointed in him as I like Charlie. Sarah is awesome and she has my vote! She's not afraid to tackle issues and get to the bottom of things that need to be taken care of. She will be a fantastic asset to John McCain's leadership. I'd give her free lipstick anyday! Go Sarah! Now, if McCain will put Mitt on as Chief of Staff! What a power team!  |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 7:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
it was a trick question, there are at least four "Bush doctrines" and the one he mentioned is not the current one. She was right to act confused at the unclear question and he was wrong to give the answer he gave as well as being so snug and nasty about it. |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 7:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
Go Lipstick! |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 8:02:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16376
LOL, at the Stepford Wife comment. Coenlaf, call me wrong if you want but I still think she was the one confused. Obviously there are others that didn't see it the way that I did, and that's fine. But she definitely will not be getting my vote from me. She has yet to earn any of my respect. |
Date: 9/14/2008 8:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Can you explain the Bush Doctrine for me?  |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 8:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
When Palin did not answer a follow-up, Gibson informed her that the Bush doctrine is "we have the right of anticipatory self-defense." "Wrong," writes Krauthammer. "I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term" way back in 2001. Krauthammer notes both in his Saturday column and on Fox News' "Special Report" Friday that over the years the Bush doctrine has actually had several different meanings and that Gibson's definition isn't even the latest. The first was the Bush administration's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty and Kyoto Protocol, which was followed by the post-9/11 "you're with us or you're with the terrorists," which was followed by the preemptive war in Iraq, which Gibson was thinking of. The fourth incarnation of the Bush doctrine, Krauthammer explains, was the "freedom agenda" articulated in Bush's second inaugural address that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." "Yes," Krauthammer concludes, "Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain." Wonder if there'll be time to cover this story on "World News" come Monday night. -- Andrew Malcolm Photo: ABC News |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 8:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points. If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration. Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption. Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days. Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration. Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents. Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine. |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 8:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 22275
scratch the much... the only think I like about Palin is that she looks like Tina Fey. That's it. |
Date: 9/14/2008 9:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Why isn't anyone asking Obama questions about how his policies are supposed to work, or, for that matter, "change" anything about America other than solidify it as a Socialist Country? What I saw of this Palin interview, she specifically ASKED Charlie Gibson which "Bush Doctrine" he was referring to, and he got squirmish and acted a little haughty over having the tables turned on him and she ASKING the questions. To all the Obama supporters, I need to ask: What "change" are you expecting Obama to make in our country and how will such change affect you? God Bless.  |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 9:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
I know who I'm for; it's McCain and Palin; but I don't care who anyone else votes for. What is really important is this is a very awsome election year in which History is made no matter who wins. Go Vote |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 9:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
I do think we have a right to have our reporters be honest, but perhaps that's too much to expect. |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 9:17:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16376
The Bush Doctrine is the term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of the President George W. Bush. It can be viewed as several related foreign policy principles. I can go more into this if someone would like, although I am not running for VP. |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 9:18:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16376
I agree Man of Asgard. Vote for who you believe in, whoever it may be. I just wish there was a candidate I believe in 100%, but I guess I will have to go with who I believe in the most. |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 9:21:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16376
I also should say that I never meant for this post to say that you should vote for someone just based on one interview. Obviously, you've got to look at everything. |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 9:30:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 16376
I have to leave town for a few days, so I won't be able to respond here for awhile. Feel free to keep leaving comments though. |
Date: 9/14/2008 9:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
I Palin’s response to the question about the Bush Doctrine was “in what respect?”. This does not imply that Palin is aware of several different “doctrines”, quite the opposite. So, if it is correct that Mr. Gibson did not know what he was talking about, it must also be apparent that neither did Sarah Palin (especially if she accepted his explanation without correcting him.)  |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 9:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Deb, I thought it’s been pretty clear what Obama means by change, as he has said himself, it’s not just a word. The central message seems to be that Obama’s policies will bring change to people who cannot afford healthcare, change to people whose jobs have been outsourced, change to at least 80% of families who will receive tax breaks, change to the rest of the world with a different approach to foreign policy and revitalised support from the international community, squandered by Bush in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Whether or not any of these policies will have the desired effect is up for debate, but I think it must be acknowledged that policies do indeed exist to back up the rhetoric. |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 11:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Out of respect for Danielle's need to leave and because your question is a bit off topic (which I acknowledge I brought up), I will try to get another post relating to that topic up today, DP. God Bless. |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 2:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 26803
DP, you are right. "in what respect?" does not imply that she is aware of the total Bush doctrine. But neither dose it mean that she is not aware of them. If Gibson were more informed he could have rooted the answer out for us though. Would be like me asking you, "what do you think of hitler's policy in 1937?" You may then ask me, "His policies in respect to what?" sinse clearly there is more than one policy. If I were informed, I could specify what respect I meant...then you could answer, and we would find out the depth of your knowledge on the subject. It is a shame that Gibson was so ill informed an interviewer. If he were more like George Stephanopolis (sp???) he could have put the correct words in her mouth...as he did with Obama when he very nicely changed Obama's "Muslem faith" statement to, "Christian faith." But then, I guess interviewers are not working to save her from herself... |
|
Date: 9/14/2008 11:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 53961
Thank you BCAR. How many know it? I will be the first to admit I don't. A professional interviewer would have given their subject a list of the possible questions to mull over instead of forcing them to work off the cuff. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
