It was jsut a matter of time: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stum...n-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx
She's been attacked without responding for a couple of weeks. She was overhyped after her speech in St. Paul so this coming down to earth is simply mean reversion.
Troopergate has hit the news, and her not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was during the interview with Charlie Gibson have knocked some of the wind out of her sails.
Two questions: Exactly what is the Bush Doctrine? What would you say if Charlie Gibson got the definition completely wrong?
Think about every pretty woman you've ever met (and I'm not saying this to be sexist or judgmental about Palin's attractiveness. Although let's face it, I'd rather look at her than Joe Biden.) The first thing you think is that she's hot, so everything about her must be great. You fill in all the missing details with what you hope she might be. She must be totally cool with the dishes in your sink, the empty beer cans in your bed, the wretched stink of death and despair emittiing from your feet. And she has man hands. She goes and surprises you by not being as beautiful on the inside as she is on the outside. All those details you imagined would be great somehow aren't. Obama went through the same love affair with America that Palin has had. Eventually people complain that the candidate is too this or too that. Poll numbers drop. People panic. The candidate "must be doing something wrong." The reality is that politicians are just like hot women (and incidentally Portland Trail Blazers). You build them up so you can tear them down. And then you blame them for being torn down.
In my view, the Bush Doctrine stands for the principle that the U.S. has the right to launch unilateral preemptive attacks for its own self-preservation. I believe that was Gibson's view as well. I don't understand what the big deal is, to tell you the truth. Israel does it. The U.S. has just been isolated throughout its history so that we haven't had to take such actions before (although maybe the Bay of Pigs invasion counts?) I understand your viewpoint that the Bush Doctrine has "evolved" to include the concept of nation-building, but I don't agree with that--I think that is more of a "policy" and not a "doctrine." Regardless, it is just semantics.
I can't find any reference to the Bush Doctrine being what you (and Charlie Gibson) say it is. Even so, if it has evolved, then Palin's response "which aspect?" seems perfectly fine, no matter how it's being spun. You might reconsider the "we haven't had to take such actions before" part as well. Spanish-American War, how we did obtain Texas and California, the Philippines, Hawaii, the indian wars, and so on.
how about something simple, like Wikipedia: I don't believe that it HAS evolved, but you raised that argument in a different thread, I believe.
Apparently, people choose to cite whatever it is they want and call it the Bush Doctrine. While others see it as quite a bit more than what WikiPedia calls the "main part" Implying there are other parts, no? Then Palin's answer, "which aspect, Charlie?" is still a perfectly fine answer and demonstrates she understood it at the time. Her actual answer after clarification was perfectly consistent with the Bush Doctrine: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie? GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be? PALIN: His world view. GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war. PALIN: 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. (seems consistent with "the Bush administration has declared itself ready to remove the rogue regimes and terrorists it regards as uniquely dangerous"). 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. GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that? PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
who the hell cares? Really? Why does this bug you so much? She obviously didnt know what he was talking about, but so what? Did you react the same way when Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, and he answered "Jesus Christ" because he didn't know the name of any philosophers? Or that he couldn't name the leaders of certain other countries? Again, who cares? Reagan didn't seem to mind being seen as an "amiable dunce," and as far as I can tell, no other republican minds, either. It just doesn't matter as much as you seem to think it does. I see this as just more misdirection from the issues. Remember the issues? Why don't we spend some time discussion Palin's decision-making process, her demonstration of ethical behavior, her understanding of economics? etc.? Is it because no one knows?
I wouldn't describe it as "perfectly fine." It sounded a lot like a bluff to me (and to a lot of people). It sounded like I did back in high school when I had to write an essay I hadn't prepared for, but had read a little about. That said, the truth is that the Bush Doctrine is a muddle, which is a reflection that he's changed it every time he tried to think of a good reason to be in Iraq. So Gibson was asking her to take one shot at multiple targets. I'd describe her response to that as barely adequate, maybe something I'd say were I in her shoes. A response that is worthy of the Vice President of the United States would be something like, "Well, Charlie, I'm sure you know that there are several aspects to the Bush Doctrine. Pre-emptive war is one, building democracy is another, etc." She didn't demonstrate that she grasped The Bush Doctrine any better than Gibson did. Considering this doctrine is a huge reflection of the last 8 years of her own party's foreign policy, I find that pretty disappointing. I don't want her to be as smart as me or Charlie Gibson in foreign affairs, I want her to be an expert (like Biden is). Her interview clearly demonstrated that she was competent enough to maybe win a debate with me. But I expect a hell of a lot more than that.
I'm interested in the truth, wherever it leads. It bothers me that we can't trust the press to be objective. Aren't "the issues" an outright smoke screen in their own right? Maybe we should consider what a president can actually do, which isn't much at all except as commander in chief or through executive order. Instead, one side wants to discuss "issues" which is really just a laundry list of impossible amounts of spending on idiotic things that half the people think they want and half the people think they don't want and nobody's minds are going to be changed no matter how many debates there are. These are things that aren't going to make it out of congress in large part, or if passed are surely to be altered beyond recognition. The other side wants to stand side by side with the other candidate on full display to show their grasp of the issues so the voters can decide which of the two would make the better decision when the issue is a real world one instead of some hypothetical that is really pandering to some section of the voters. Most of us seem to want the guy who'll be most entertaining on TV, while Rome burns.
I think Palin's understanding of her own president's last 8 years of foreign policy is a pretty big deal. It's the single biggest issue she'll have control over if McCain dies, especially considering she'll face a Democratic congress.
That's all good, but the reality is that "Well, Charlie, I'm sure you know that there are several aspects to the Bush Doctrine. Pre-emptive war is one, building democracy is another, etc." doesn't fit in a sound bite, and is so long that it would end up on the editing room floor given the way the interview was hacked together for presentation on a half-hour news show that had several other segments/stories.
Maybe. But again, I'd blame Palin for putting herself in that position. Nobody put a gun to her head and told her she had to do this particular interview with this particular reporter with ABC getting to cut it as they so pleased. She could have gone anywhere, and required that the interview be shown in its entirety. That's how Obama earned his chops. She could have spent an hour straight chatting with Charlie Rose if she wanted. She didn't. Considering that a big criticism of her is a lack of gravitas, it really surprised me that she willingly went with an interview that played to this perceived weakness. You can't decide to be interviewed in a forum custom-tailored for shallow questions and sound-bite responses, and then complain that all they took were sound bites of you.
If you think that is all that a president can do, you are sadly mistaken. Among other things, he directs the attention and the resources of the federal departments and executive agencies. Understanding a candidate's position on things like the environment and the endangered species act (for example) will give a sense of what the related agencies may seek to accomplish under his term in office. Bush, in particular, has kept a stronger hold on agency activity than any other president that I am aware of. But I see you didn't bother to respond to whether we should have a sense of the process she uses to reach decisions, and to delve into her ethics. If it is just entertainment that people want, than Sarah Palin is a shoo-in. What are you worried about?
