ABC's Charlie Gibson continues to receive poor reviews for his obvious attempt to perform a hatchet job on Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
One of the harshest assessments of Gibson's performance came from syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer Saturday who also took the opportunity to bash the New York Times for misrepresenting some of the specifics of the interview in order to discredit Palin (emphasis added throughout):
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. [...]
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term.
Rather than cherry pick from Krauthammer's marvelous analysis, I suggest the reader review the entire piece for the truth about this matter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
the interview will
September 13, 2008 - 13:29 ET by jkwtradingthe interview will strengthen Palin...for future interviews. She will become quite smooth as having tough incidences and passing them smoothly is where refinement then can occur.
That is right, they are
September 13, 2008 - 13:46 ET by general companyThat is right, they are trying to pound her while they think she is down, but they have way underestimated her. She is still learning policy and tactic's and she is as honest as the day is long. The last one will serve her well.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I'm glad you posted on
September 13, 2008 - 14:43 ET by motherbeltI'm glad you posted on this, Noel. I linked to it in comment in another thread this AM, but it's long buried now!
Krauthammer is a surgeon with words as his scalpel, and he dissects Gibson nicely.
let Gibson hear it
September 13, 2008 - 16:48 ET by regimeofterrorcontact Gibson here and let him know what you think of his bias please
http://abcnews.go.co...
Saddam Hussein and terrorism. The rest of the story...
http://www.regimeoft...
I went to the ABCNews site
September 13, 2008 - 19:10 ET by Indiana JoeI went to the ABCNews site and gave it to them. Don't remember the details, but I think I got across the point that I was not happy. Mentioned "yellow journalism" and "Citizen Kane," IIRC. Got a canned "reply," so at least it's in the system.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Excellent article by
September 13, 2008 - 13:33 ET by bigtimerExcellent article by Krauthammer.
It is as simple as he wrote...as only he can.
The poor msm of all venues are just in desperation mode, and we all know it.
All they do is chalk up more votes for our side of the aisle with the elitism and obvious bias/hypocrisy.
Let's say this exact same question was asked by Gibson to Obama, and he answered the exact same way...why it would of been a wonderful answer, plus Gibson would of been thrashed by his colleagues.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Oh my God...
September 13, 2008 - 13:49 ET by superconGibson came off as a complete jackass.It was so obvious that he was doing his best to embarrass her (Palin) or make her look like a crazed religious zealot. Where does he get the nerve?
I remember the time when he interviewed President Bush after he had a debate with John Kerry and he tried to imply that the President had some sort of radio device under his coat and was being fed the answers by Karl Rove no doubt.He showed the President a picture and asked"What's this"?What a jerk.
The guy is a leftie Barack water carrying fool.
Sarah Palin seems to bring out the suicide bombers in the MSM for some reason.They don't seem to care if they destroy their reputation or their network as long as they can take down Sarah Palin.In the end they will be rwarded with seventy two woman who had abortions.
It reminds me of how Dan Rather threw his career away in an attempt to take down George Bush.He did it for the team.They loved him for it.For two or three days the press were so excited until Charles Johnson blew the lid off their fraud.Then they were sad.
Victory in Iraq.
Liberals suck.
McCain for Preznint.
Gibson was playing gotcha
September 13, 2008 - 15:35 ET by SouthernRootsLook at how many times he rephrased his Israel attacking Iran question. Her answer was simple and clear. He was trying to force an answer that could have been edited for a different meaning.
That is not journalistic integrity. It is partisan hackery.
Was Gibson as hard on Obama? Did he repeat questions looking for soundbite snippets?
The MSM's job (as the watchdogs of government) is to be neutral in political coverage (op/eds excluded). They should be equally hard or equally easy on all parties in the "news" coverage. They should not press home their own beliefs and preferences. They owe this to the public because the public is not 100% of one party or belief.
If the MSM fail to be neutral, they are no better than PR firms for political parties and thus their reporting is just a contiuation of one-sided political propaganda and that does absolutely nothing in protecting the people from a tyrannical government, as envisioned in the Constituton.
By the way, I do not believe that the "Freedom of the Press" in the First Amendment refers to "Journalists", "Reporters", or "News Agencies".
I believe it refers to the ability of ordinary people to say and publish their thoughts and ideas. In the 1780's, the "press" was the way to push ideas out to the masses. Today, the function of the "press" is accomplished by paper, radio, TV, and the Internet.
Somewhere along the line, We The People allowed "Journalists", "Reporters", or "News Agencies" to become our surrogates in watching over the government and it worked for a long time - until they shifted from being watchdogs to being lapdogs.
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. - J.B. Books (John Wayne)
We have a winner!
September 13, 2008 - 19:18 ET by Indiana Joe"Sarah Palin seems to bring out the suicide bombers in the MSM for some reason. [...] In the end they will be rwarded with seventy two woman who had abortions."
Ding, ding, ding! The MSM hates Palin for the same reason the Islamofascists hate us; by default. She's their only real obstacle to imposing their version of the truth on us. Liberal logic or Sharia law, it's a "top-down" enforcement of a central authority. Communist, fascist, Marxist, take your pick. It has no connection to "We, the People."
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I love it that Drudge
September 13, 2008 - 13:34 ET by SumricaI love it that Drudge has Krauthammer's piece linked nearly front and center.
Mc Cain
September 13, 2008 - 13:41 ET by rick007Conservatives are not behind Mc as he went against them in Congress.
Whoes right?
The Republicans lost the 06 election because they did nothing while in power but goverment as usual.
They say Mc. is a Rino.
Thats because he didn't follow their lead. Look where their lead got them. Out of the majority.
Rembember. It's a goverment "Of the people by the people for the people".
Good piece
September 13, 2008 - 13:43 ET by general companyThe comments after the artical are interesting as well. I believe I saw a few familiar "faces" there. It is fairly obvious that the koolaid drinkers are at a loss, they have no idea how to deal with Palin. It is all the same uninformed bs. Do these idiots ever bother educating themselves on any topic? Is it realy that much fun to circle jerk?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
"Is it realy that much fun to circle jerk?"
September 13, 2008 - 19:21 ET by Indiana JoeI guess it must be, for a certain sort of person.
I'm proud to say I have no idea! ;^)
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Dr. K can do this better
September 13, 2008 - 13:46 ET by d1carterDr. K can do this better than anyone...Gibson, the mental midget vs Krauthammer, no contest.
"I know something about the
September 13, 2008 - 13:48 ET by ThisnThat"I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term."
Anyone want to bet how long it takes before someone goes in and tries to change the Wikipedia entry? Or, as in the case of the state of Alaska, have Wikipedia lock down the entry due to vandalism?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
An example of MSM Polls cookin the books...
September 13, 2008 - 13:56 ET by smartestmaninamericaYOU GUYS WANT A BIG LAUGH?
The DailyKos Poll, even though it shows the race tied, polled only 26% Republicans! That's right, 26%!!!!
They gave a 9 point sampling edge to Democrats (why am I not shocked?) even though both Rasmussen and Gallup say that is now closer to 4 or 5 points.
Still, despite playing games with the sample and hoping we wouldn't notice, the worst they could manage was a tie.
Lol, well done.
P.S., Just for a frame of reference, here are the party affiliation numbers from Rasmussen for August (before the Palin pick - they are even closer now):
Republicans 33.2%
Democrats 38.9%
Independents 28.0%
and here are the numbers DailyKos is using:
Republicans 26%
Democrats 35%
Independents 30%
lol, talk about cookin the books!
Waitaminute, WAITAMINUTE!!!
September 13, 2008 - 19:27 ET by Indiana JoeThe Rasmussen numbers add up to 100.1%. Okay, close enough. But the KosKids numbers add up to 91%!
So, 9% of the sample group were neither R nor D nor I??? So what were they? Whigs? They didn't just cook the books... they burned them to ash! And still came up with a tie?
Burn, baby, burn! LMAO!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
delete
September 13, 2008 - 14:27 ET by motherbeltdelete
Hale, I thought it was #2 or was it #3
September 13, 2008 - 14:47 ET by JWFThe whole you ain't gonna harbor terrorists on my watch, hippie!
You see how much I am paying attention to the MSM.
I've commented on the Gibson and Palin interview before,
September 13, 2008 - 14:55 ET by upcountrywaterI tell you what, Once i saw the video (elsewhere)... I'm really ticked at that wezzel gibson.
However,Charles Krauthammer did a much getter job..
-- 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.
well said..CK
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
Beltway jargon
September 13, 2008 - 15:37 ET by KC MulvilleI think this is in Palin's favor. Here's why.
Of course, Palin's whole point is that she is an outsider. That's exactly what qualifies her as a reformer. She doesn't think like the Beltway. She doesn't assume what Beltway veterans assume. She works on a different logic. Gibson's argument is that Palin won't be able to reform anything because she doesn't think like [Us! The elite!] do. But that's exactly why she qualifies as a reformer. And THAT scares the hell out of them. They're going to try to corrupt her before she undermines their power.
BTW: Krauthammer's a must-read. Agree with him or not, he always presents his argument reasonably, crisply, and with a sense of humor where possible.
Gibson Interview
September 13, 2008 - 15:42 ET by pickled herringChoosing Gibson for her first interview may be a stroke of genius. There can be no accusations of softballs thrown, no powder puffs, and no sympathy from the media.
Sarah not only handled it well, but now has the blog world buzzing about the shabby treatment she received from the MSM.
She will go into the next interview worldly wiser, and more accomplished, and she doesn't need to seek out a friendly network to do it. All she has to do is demand an unedited tape of the interview, and use it against the network if they abuse her positions. She can also tell ABC to go pound sand the next time they come calling.
Palin on the Bush Doctrine
September 13, 2008 - 15:49 ET by nicholas nicklebyIf Palin had been able to point out to Gibson what Krauthammer said--that the Bush Doctrine isn't one theory but a few ideas--then she wouldn't be wrong.
As it is, it looks like she's playing for the clock to run out by hemming and hawing. Say Krauthammer is right and that Gibson is wrong about the Bush Doctrine--well, then Palin is still wrong.
In fact, I don't think you can spin this so that it makes Palin look right. Gibson may be wrong, but heck, he's not running for VP. Sarah Palin is running for VP and she's wrong. So much for executive experience.
nicholas' lib logic
September 13, 2008 - 15:58 ET by MrShyPalin not quite knowing what the expression "Bush Doctrine" refers to = equals = "So much for executive experience."
Liberal logic in full display.
If only Gibson or a host of others could have employed gotcha questions as Gibson did for that guy running for "P" (not "VP") .... how I wonder if Nicky would raise an eyebrow about His experience/readiness...
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
But, uh, uh, Mr. uh,
September 13, 2008 - 16:13 ET by HermanoBut, uh, uh, Mr. uh, Shy...that would be racist.
The Newsbusters Comments Crew: Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
liberal logic is "two wrongs don't make a right"
September 13, 2008 - 16:33 ET by nicholas nicklebyMrShy, So, Gibson was wrong--how does that make Palin right? My central point is this: two wrongs don't make a right. Can we agree on that?
Then can we agree that both Gibson was wrong in demanding a single meaning for the Bush Doctrine and that Palin was wrong in not knowing how to respond. Heck, Palin knows less about the Bush Doctrine than Krauthammer!
(As for my jab about executive experience, it's a tangent, but I'll explain my logic: a lot of people are saying that Palin has executive experience because she's made tough decisions as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska, but no one is asking whether those decisions were right. For instance, was it a good decision for her, as mayor of Wasilla, to hire a lobbyist to get more money for her town? Was it right that, as mayor, she made rape victims pay for their own forensic examinations? Was she right to fire the librarian of Wasilla? Was she right in accepting the money for the Bridge to Nowhere and telling the people of Gravinia that the bridge was necessary for them (until Congress shut it down)? That was why I brought that issue up--because some people on the right (and the left!) are only asking half the questions. So, today, there's a NB article on how Gibson was wrong, but there's no examination or admittance of the fact that Palin was wrong as well, just as there's a lot of hyping for her executive experience, but not much examination here of whether or not she made the right decisions.)
nicholas
September 13, 2008 - 16:42 ET by MrShyWell, for me, two wrongs WILL make a right if Gibson would simply be fair in the way he conducts his interviews. Meaning, use gotcha questions for both liberal and conservative candidates.
Or, better yet, DON'T use them... as they are just that, games. Two rights will make a right, which I'm sure you and I can agree on.
"For instance, was it a good decision for her, as mayor of Wasilla, to hire a lobbyist to get more money for her town? Was it right that, as mayor, she made rape victims pay for their own forensic examinations? Was she right to fire the librarian of Wasilla? Was she right in accepting the money for the Bridge to Nowhere and telling the people of Gravinia that the bridge was necessary for them (until Congress shut it down)?"
I'll be honest that I haven't done all my research on Palin's days as Mayor, but if you are going to wheel out the negatives, please back them up with some links -- for each of the ones above, if you can, thanks.
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
who gets hardballs, who gets softballs, who can't hit anyway
September 13, 2008 - 17:08 ET by nicholas nicklebyMrShy, if we can agree that two wrongs don't make a right, than can we agree that three wrongs don't make a right? If Gibson throws softballs at Democrats and hardballs at Republicans, can we still agree that a Republican who is wrong is still wrong?
I think we agree on that, but no one here is saying it, and Krauthammer's defense of her is posed so as to make it seem like she was right after all. Gibson's question was not a trick question--it has a clear answer, which Krauthammer offers the way towards. (She should have said, "The Bush Doctrine refers to a range of policy decisions, some of which I agree with.") Which is why I think this was really not a Gotcha question.
That's probably the point where we disagree; maybe we could build some sort of database or list: hardballs thrown to Republicans, softballs thrown to Democrats.
As for links to proof of the negatives I brought out:
a) her support for the Bridge to Nowhere (as reported by the WSJ): http://online.wsj.co...
b) hiring a lobbyist to get money for Wasilla (as reported by FactCheck.org): http://www.factcheck... (second paragraph from bottom in section "A Bridge too Far")
c) firing the librarian (a decision she later had to reverse, as reported from Anchorage Daily News): http://www.adn.com/s...
d) making rape victims pay for their own forensic exams (a decision which the governor signed a bill to prevent, as reported by the Wasilla Mat-Su Frontiersman): http://www.frontiers...
You should really get
September 14, 2008 - 03:19 ET by Dan The Man 2You should really get out more Smike. She did support the bridge but as she said when she was in a position to learn more facts IE the governor she killed it because it was not in her state's best interest. As for hiring a lobbies, that is what all city, county and state governments do along with many quasi government entities. Nothing wrong in hiring some schmo to give your argument in a good light.
And your non story of firing a librarian and the police chief is laughable. She as administrator had the power to do so, she probably believed the adage if you are not with me then you are against me. And she is right. From reading the librarian sided with her and the police chief did not, so the police chief had to go.
The rape kits, so what she wanted to cut costs and did. Reading the comments was enlightening and pointed out many government departments charge for them. In my view it would cut down on false charges if anything else, possibly saved money too. If you see they charged insurance first. Funny article was published in 2000, I wonder what the state of the art for charging is today.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
how is a police chief for or against the mayor?
September 14, 2008 - 11:04 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Dan, First, your last question, about rape forensic kits--I've heard conflicting things, that Gov. Stein or the Alaskan Supreme Court ruled it was illegal to charge people for their own forensics. (Which makes some sense--you don't charge robbery victims for the fingerprint forensic kit, do you?) My guess is that the state still pays for forensic kits.
As for the lobbyist, you know the last mayor of Wasilla didn't hire a lobbyist to get earmarks from Washington--that was an executive decision on her part. And for the record, I don't think it's a bad decision--I just think it undercuts her image as an anti-earmark reformer.
But the part I really want to ask you about is, what would it mean for the police chief or the librarian to be with the mayor or against the mayor? The police chief's job is to see that the laws are enforced, right? So, how is that related to what the mayor wants--or does the mayor want only some laws to be enforced? (Remember, the last police chief didn't charge for rape kits, but the new one did--is that one of the changes that Mayor Palin wanted?)
N2, most of the questions
September 13, 2008 - 17:10 ET by BuffNBoneN2, most of the questions you ask have been pretty soundly shown as false. For example, she didn't fire the librarian but did ask what the process was regarding getting a book removed if a complaint was raised. The time to ask about and learn a process is before you need to do something. For the record, I am not aware of any wrong decisions in any of the instances you cited.
Being a little familiar with making decisions in a dynamic environment, I'd say even making wrong choices is a learning experience.
You take the advice of your subordinates, ask clarifying questions and then make the best choice you can knowing that you'll have to live with the consequences. I understand a wrong answer made quickly is still a wrong answer. But for the next go you get more skilled and ask better questions. The point most of us are making here is she's been in that arena and Obama hasn't. Plus we are talking about the candidate for VP and not the POTUS.
Listening to Obama, mostly what we hear is "I this..." and "I that...." There is no "I" in team.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
please check the sites I referenced
September 13, 2008 - 17:24 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi BuffNBone, I am prepared to be proven wrong, but if you'll look at the sites I referenced above when asked for sources, you'll see that I'm not wrong here. (But you are right: as far as I know, Palin never tried to ban a book, only asked the hypothetical question. She did, however, try to fire the librarian, a decision which she later reversed.)
The format and some of the
September 13, 2008 - 19:28 ET by BuffNBoneThe format and some of the text of your entry appear to have changed since my original viewing. Did you do some editing?
Even after a cursory viewing of the ADN article, I don't get the sense that the firing (later reversed) had to do with book banning. Possibly reading between the lines may reveal something not evident to me.
As you most likely know, political appointees serve at the pleasure of the executive. The can ask for resignations as they see fit. Civil servants fall under another set of rules with different protections. Their purpose is to maintain stabililty and a core of expertise this doesn't give them license do as they please.
I may be in the minority here but I don't think ALL earmarks are bad. Nor do I see anything wrong with hiring lobbiests to help procure funding. What is seen as "pork" is the debatable issue. In all cases the key for me is how well do things stand up reasonable scrutiny.
I believe my original points still stand. Even decisions perceived as wrong by some can serve to develop leadership qualities. I Obama's executive experience bucket is pretty light.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
your original point does not stand
September 14, 2008 - 11:17 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi BuffNBone,
No, I didn't edit my comments--I'm too busy writing new ones! (Which is perhaps where the confusion comes in--I have quite a few comments on this board, so if you saw one, it could easily have gotten confused with others.)
If you'll reread my comment, I didn't say anything about book banning in reference to the librarian--all I said was that she fired the librarian and later reversed that decision. And I didn't say that Palin didn't have the right to fire people (in fact, the court ruled that she did have the right to fire the police chief), and I didn't say that earmarks were bad (McCain is the one who says earmarks are bad, not me).
So, I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say that "my original points still stand" since your first point in the previous comment was "most of the questions you ask have been pretty soundly shown as false." (The questions I asked were about the firing of the librarian, the hiring of the lobbyist to get money, the support for the Bridge to Nowhere, and charging the victims/accusers for rape forensics kits.)
Now, I think you'll agree that all four of these stories have in fact been proven true--she was for the Bridge before she was against it, she did hire a lobbyist to get money for Wasilla, she did fire the librarian before she relented, and she did sign off on the new police chief's budget which charged rape victims for their forensics. (If you don't agree, please check the reference sites I cited above.)
What remains--and I think we'll agree on this--is for us to apply some scrutiny to these issues which will help us to make the judgment on whether or not these were good decisions on her part. But what we have to agree on first is that she did make these decisions--that these are not false accusations I'm making, but well-documented evidence.
Liberal logic...
September 13, 2008 - 17:36 ET by HermanoWas she right to fire the librarian of Wasilla? This has been debunked - the librarian was not fired.
Was she right in accepting the money for the Bridge to Nowhere and telling the people of Gravinia that the bridge was necessary for them (until Congress shut it down)? Congress did not shut this down - she did. She also offered the money back to the Feds for NOLA. BTW - Obama and Biden said no to that proposal.
Was it right that, as mayor, she made rape victims pay for their own forensic examinations? This was the Chief of Police's domain and budget. I agree, though, this is something maybe she should have looked into.
For instance, was it a good decision for her, as mayor of Wasilla, to hire a lobbyist to get more money for her town? She claims it was less money that having someone in her administration flying back and forth to DC to fight for funds. Oh, that would make her eco-friendly.
The Newsbusters Comments Crew: Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
please check the sites I referenced
September 13, 2008 - 17:50 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey Hermano,
at the risk of repeating myself, you might want to look at the sites I referenced above: she did fire the librarian (in that she gave her a letter saying that her services were no longer needed), though she later reversed that decision.
As for the Bridge to Nowhere, please check out the Wall Street Journal article on it, which is quite clear about her support of it.
For the lobbyist issue, you're right that hiring a lobbyist meant she didn't have to fly down to DC to fight for earmarks--but do you think it was right for her to fight for earmarks in the first place? (Or, having fought for earmarks, do you think it right of her to present herself as an anti-earmark reformer?)
As for the rape issue, in fact, as mayor of Wasilla, she replaced one chief of police (whose policy it was not to charge rape victims for forensics) with another chief of police, who did charge rape victims for their own forensic kits. Now, you might still argue that's the police chief's area, but she's the one who installed that particular police chief, and it's her signature on the budget okaying those billings.
nicholas - I have seen the
September 13, 2008 - 18:08 ET by Hermanonicholas - I have seen the reports. Palin did say she intended to terminate the librarian, but apparently recanted after the letter was sent but before the termination would have taken effect. My guess is that the two sat down and discussed what needed to happen for them to work together - this I assume from the article. A link provided on the WSJ article may show the removal of the funds for the BTN, but I cannot find the removal in the appropriations bill. As someone else sadi, if you are last to the trough, you don't eat. She should make her constituents pay for this? She wouldn't last long as mayor. I think the police chief explained the city's position pretty well -Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams. In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said. They bill an insurance company when possible. I do not see any indication that they charge the victim even if they do not have insurance.
The Newsbusters Comments Crew: Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
firing and other decisions
September 14, 2008 - 11:32 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey Hermano,
About the firing of the librarian, we might disagree on what we call it, but when someone drops a letter on your desk saying that your services are no longer needed, I call that "firing"--even if the person who dropped the letter off later reversed her decision.
(Frankly, if I were the mayor, I would like to follow your script--meeting with the person to discuss any possible differences we have and trying to work them out--BEFORE I tried to fire them. And if I really felt that we couldn't work out our differences, than I would let my decision to fire that person stand.)
As for the police chief's position, he makes it sound like it's a new cost--when in fact, under the last chief (the one Palin fired), the city paid for the forensic kits for rape--just as it did for the fingerprint and photographic evidence collection.
I can understand wanting to cut the fat out of the budget, but who here really thinks that charging victims is really "fat"?
(As for trying to charge the insurance company, as Fannon said, they charged the insurance company "when possible"--and I'm sure you've had the experience of having to pay your deductible first before the insurance kicked in. It's not like they tried to charge the home-owner's or renter's insurance "when possible" for fingerprinting a robbery scene.)
As for your Bridge to Nowhere argument, I'm afraid I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. (When you rhetorically ask "She should make her constituents pay for this?" was that about the bridge or the rape forensic exams?)
Yes, we disagree on the
September 14, 2008 - 14:06 ET by HermanoYes, we disagree on the definition of firing. If she was not payed for a time after the letter was given to her, then, yes, it would be a firing. The intent was there, but the action never took place, for whatever reason. I might agree with you regarding the rape kits, but I do not have any evidence that Palin micromanaged the police budget, telling the chief how his money was to be spent. If you can find that, then I would be happy to look at it. Sorry about the confusion on the BTN - in this day and age, if my directly elected officials are not doing everything they can to improve conditions in their district, then they would not have that job very long. In other words, if there is money being given out by the fed, then my elected officials better be going after it. This does not make it right that it is a standard practice (hiding your intentions is even worse), but it is the reality of our government right now. I, too, would like it stopped. The GOP ticket says they are going to stop this practice; the Dem ticket does not. I do not believe everything politicians say, but I am fortunate enough to be able to vote them out if they do not deliver.
The Newsbusters Comments Crew: Saving the Environment - One Ribeye at a Time! h/t Dr_Liberty
firing as a decision?
September 14, 2008 - 14:29 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey Hermano, thanks for the discussion. When I brought up the questions that I did I wasn't saying "Sarah Palin made these decisions and they are uniformly awful." I was saying that we need to question and have a discussion about these decisions (which are not awful, but which seem questionable) and voters need to decide how they feel about them, rather than denying that they ever happened (as many people tried to do in this thread).
I don't think we disagree on the Bridge to Nowhere or on hiring a lobbyist to get earmarks for Wasilla as decisions--McCain may think earmarks are bad (and he did put Palin on his anti-earmark newsletter once as an example of people trying to feed from the government trough through unnecessary earmarks, iirc), but I think each case needs to be judged individually. (I mean, who would complain if she was getting an earmark for a hospital?)
As for "firing" the librarian, I think we'll have to disagree about what we call it, but we substantially agree about what happened: she told the librarian to get lost, and then told the librarian to stay. As has been pointed out, we don't really know what went into that decision-making process, and I'd be curious to know more.
As for whether or not she was responsible for charging people to pay for their own forensic exams, I can only point to what I've pointed to before: she ousted one police chief, put in another police chief who changed the policy, and she signed off on his budget which changed the policy. You may argue that she didn't micromanage the police chief, but as Mayor, don't you think part of her job was appointing people whom she could trust without micromanaging? For me, this is a case of "The Buck Stops Here"--the person she appointed did something, and she signed off on it, so she has to take some of the responsibility.
Gibson desired to use one
September 13, 2008 - 17:41 ET by BDGibson desired to use one definition, Palin the other. TO my mind, she was adequate in her statement in regards to the selected definition.
For instance, was it a good decision for her, as mayor of Wasilla, to hire a lobbyist to get more money for her town?
Was it right that, as mayor, she made rape victims pay for their own forensic examinations?
Was she right to fire the librarian of Wasilla?
Was she right in accepting the money for the Bridge to Nowhere and telling the people of Gravinia that the bridge was necessary for them (until Congress shut it down)?
That was why I brought that issue up--because some people on the right (and the left!) are only asking half the questions.
So, today, there's a NB article on how Gibson was wrong,
but there's no examination or admittance of the fact that Palin was wrong as well,
just a short note
September 13, 2008 - 17:59 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi BD, I think we may disagree on a lot, so I'll only say something to your final point: I know you say that you see no evidence that she was wrong, but would you agree with Krauthammer when he says that Sarah Palin was wrong? (It's the bottom of his two-page essay here: http://www.washingto....)
Nicholas: You must
September 13, 2008 - 19:45 ET by BDNicholas:
You must understand that there is no official "Bush Doctrine" only the chattering class interpretations of what doctrine the administration is currently following from all of a composite of actions taken by the administration at president Bush direction.
As such, when asked "What do I think of the Bush Doctrine," without knowing specifically which portion of the administrations positions you wish to talk about. I would probably respond much like Governor Palin.
CHARLIE GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
Now, when further refined "WHat do YOU think it will be" with a reply of "His worldview" is adequate.
When asked for further clarification of:
"GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September, 2002 before the Iraq war, that we have a right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us."
I personnally would reply "Damn SKIPPY!!!!!!"
Her reply of "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."
Is a bit more diplomatic in nature than what I would have said.
You have a problem with this response?
chattering class includes Krauthammer?
September 14, 2008 - 11:37 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey BD,
If there is no official Bush Doctrine, then the correct answer to Charlie's question is something like what Krauthammer says or what you point out:
"Well, you know Charlie, there is no single meaning to the Bush Doctrine. I agree with it when it says that...."
That would have been a correct answer, but that's not what Palin said. As pointed out by Krauthammer in the last paragraph of his essay, Sarah Palin got the answer wrong.
That's the issue under discussion in this post--whether or not Sarah got the answer wrong. I happen to agree with Krauthammer here: they both got it wrong. One should've known better as a reporter, and the other should've known better as a VP candidate.
Do we agree with Krauthammer on that?
It was Krauthammer who
September 14, 2008 - 12:52 ET by general companyIt was Krauthammer who coined the phrase? After that, what the heck does Gibson know about it, other then nothing? But the real fact is, this is not very important, because their is no significant policy, and any part that anyone feels is significant, most folks would agree with. Gibson is counting on the hatred for Bush, when in fact, it is well over estimated, the msm hate him, WE elected him by a bigger margine then the first time. Not to mention, anyone watching the interview knows he was acting like a conteptive brat.
They both got it wrong
I dont think so. If this is your line of thinking well,,, Palin never pretended there was a such a thing, Gibson did.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
If there is no official
September 14, 2008 - 13:19 ET by BDIf there is no official Bush Doctrine, then the correct answer to Charlie's question is something like what Krauthammer says or what you point out: "Well, you know Charlie, there is no single meaning to the Bush Doctrine. I agree with it when it says that...."
That would have been a correct answer, but that's not what Palin said. As pointed out by Krauthammer in the last paragraph of his essay, Sarah Palin got the answer wrong.
That's the issue under discussion in this post--whether or not Sarah got the answer wrong. I happen to agree with Krauthammer here: they both got it wrong. One should've known better as a reporter, and the other should've known better as a VP candidate.
Do we agree with Krauthammer on that?
to quote Star Wars: stay on target
September 14, 2008 - 14:43 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi BD,
I can't help but point out that your argument has consisted primarily of asking me what I thought about the Bush Doctrine as explained by Gibson (but I'm not running for VP), asking what Obama or Biden would answer to this question (but like you said, we could stay here all day talking about hypothetical answers, so why bring it up?), and accusing me of proposing a "Stump the Chump" style interview (I never defended Gibson, I just pointed out that Krauthammer says that Palin was wrong).
I love a tangent, BD, but seriously, I hope you teach your second lieutenants how to stay on target more than this. The question here is Did Sarah Palin get the question wrong? Krauthammer's answer is Yes. If you want to argue with Krauthammer about "the chattering classes," please do.
Okay, lets play.... The
September 14, 2008 - 23:19 ET by BDOkay, lets play....
The question here is Did Sarah Palin get the question wrong?
Krauthammer's answer is Yes.
If you want to argue with Krauthammer about "the chattering classes," please do.
Gee your wrong Nick
September 13, 2008 - 16:23 ET by well99Did you want her to use your exact words?
Nick
"If Palin had been able to point out to Gibson what Krauthammer said--that the Bush Doctrine isn't one theory but a few ideas--then she wouldn't be wrong. "
Charles
"He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Charles
"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."
ahem: "you're wrong" brother, not "your wrong"
September 13, 2008 - 16:42 ET by nicholas nickleby[I usually don't correct spelling/grammar online--heck, we're not getting paid for this, are we?--but since this was a question of what people actually said...]
Retrieved from http://elections.fox...
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
[Now, that's what you wrote above, but the next line wasn't Charlie's on doctrine.]
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
[Here's something--she doesn't seem to understand the "Bush Doctrine" applies to a series of policies, which is Krauthammer's understanding of the term.]
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, annunciated 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. 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.
[Now, rereading her exact words, as retrieved from FoxNews, do you believe that she understands what the Bush Doctrine is? I don't--there isn't a single thing here that refers to policies. Hence, my original point stands: Gibson may be wrong when he boils down the Bush Doctrine to one thing, but Palin is wrong because she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine refers to.]
nicholas
September 13, 2008 - 16:49 ET by MrShyWith all due respect, and you've been civil with me so you deserve it....
"GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
Gibson had zero reason to frame the question using "Bush Doctrine"... zero.
Seriously, if the man was pure and wanted to know what Palin's take was on Bush's foreign policies, or his approach to dealing with terrorism, then he would have asked her using THOSE words, or something similar -- NOT digging up some rarely used term for it.
To me, it's obvious he was hoping he could catch her on that one. And not only to me.
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
thanks
September 13, 2008 - 17:18 ET by nicholas nicklebyThanks, MrShy--because I disagree with a lot of the things that get said here, I try hard to remain civil and respectful. (It's the best policy, especially because yelling and name-calling don't help and because trying to be funny or cutesy on the internet is hard, especially when people don't know you, or only know you as the contrarian.) And I also really appreciate when people are civil back. (Though I did crack up when someone tried to refute me--when I wasn't even making an argument, but asking for a source--by asking "When did you know you were a Marxist?")
That said, while I don't agree with you totally (I don't think the Bush doctrine is such an obscure terms), I think you have a better argument than others I've seen on this issue--and personally, when she did explain her opinion (good intelligence should be acted on), I agreed.
My point Nick
September 13, 2008 - 17:35 ET by well99"[Now, that's what you wrote above, but the next line wasn't Charlie's on doctrine.] I wasnt trying to put up Charles view on Bush Doctrine.
Charles
"He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Just to clear the air.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
That is what I was referencing.
Charles
"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."
Just a note:Feel free to correct my gramaar or speluking in da futare.You might think of giving up you're day job as this will be a monumental task.
Just a note 2:Being a non Harvard grad I do know where Auschwitz is.
no offense intended
September 13, 2008 - 17:56 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Well99,
I didn't mean to imply anything by correcting that one small mistake (which we all make at some time), as I'm sure you didn't mean to imply anything offenseive by your final two comments. Harvard? Auschwitz? I thought we were talking about Palin's answer to the Bush Doctrine?
As for that answer, I think Krauthammer puts my point pretty well towards the bottom of the second page: "Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is." (The "it" refers to the "Bush Doctrine.")
Nick
September 13, 2008 - 18:29 ET by well99Note 1. Was a joke about my grammatic goofs.There are many that is why I suggested you might have to give up your day job
Note 2.Has to do with a Obama goof saying his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz.Auschwitz is in Poland and was liberated by the Soviet Army.Harvard needs to work on their History classes.
My point in all this was Bush Doctrine is not really a doctrine persay.It is policys.Also just a note. Do you rememeber the Clinton Doctrine,Carter Doctrine,Reagan,Ford.No cheating now.No use of Google.
Clinton Doctrine
September 13, 2008 - 18:33 ET by BlondeUm, isn't the Clinton Doctrine a.k.a. "Wag the Dog"?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Yes Blonde
September 13, 2008 - 18:41 ET by well99Were not suppose to mention it.It is like Bill was being impeached for sex.Even though it was for perjury.Never say perjury.
I thought it was "Wag the
September 17, 2008 - 21:10 ET by ckc1227I thought it was "Wag the Weanie", or "Hide the Cigar", or "Take a Poll Before Making a Decision".
ah, now I get it
September 14, 2008 - 11:44 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Well99, I know people say a joke is ruined if you have to explain it, but thanks for the explanation for "note 2"--given the discussion above that about correcting spelling/grammar, I wasn't sure if you were making a jab at me as a Harvard grad (which I am not).
I understand your and Krauthammer's point that the Bush Doctrine as such is a collection of policy decisions. As for whether or not I remember what other presidential doctrines, I'll confess that I was only really sure about the Monroe Doctrine--but then again, I'm not running for VP following Bush's administration. (That is, Sarah Palin might have to rule on how to uphold or alter the Bush administration's policy decisions, and in order to do that, she should have a grasp on what they are.)
Nick
September 14, 2008 - 16:46 ET by well99Well I will email you when Comedy Central has me featured on a show.As far as Auschwitz comment it had to do with Barack who is a Harvard grad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D36OHolrdOg&feature=PlayList&p=3DDA593D632078A2&index=17
My point on the Bush doctrine is there is no Bush Doctrine really.If Charlie had asked about policys that would of been different.Just because someone from the media refers to it as such doesnt make it so.
nn, Palin is a WINNER
September 13, 2008 - 18:59 ET by upcountrywaterShe WON the race to be mayor..
She WON the race to be Governor.
All you have is 20/20 lefty hindsight..
,on how to micro manage her past decision making processes.
As usual a day late, and a trillion dollars short..
I'm glad i have a proven WINNER on my side, lmao.
Palin ain't perfect, she's the best we got.
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
A marvalous quote from Krauthammer
September 13, 2008 - 17:21 ET by JayTeeKrauthammer. . about "Charlie's" interview of Gov. Palin
"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."
I would only add a "Shrinking" Prefix to the Last Word above.
The Elite Media is so out classed, and the Good 'ole boys of West Va. that voted against Obamarama by Double digit percentage points, is "a fixin" to be the law of the Land.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
I think Todd Palin should ask charlie for a 1 on 1 Interview....
September 13, 2008 - 17:36 ET by JayTeeAnd watch Charlie Decline.......for all the reasons except the real reason Charlie would not do it.....Todd might treat Charlie like the Hockey Puck he is.
We need a Statement from Todd, similar (but not too similar) to Obama's Statement about Michelle to the Media. I leave it to your Imagination of what an Alaskan mountain man might say to Charlie and the MSM about the slanted "Editing" of his Wife's Interview.
For those of us who look into the "Missing" pieces that were Edited, ABC may no longer be a valid destination on our channel changer.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
JT... I heard he is going
September 13, 2008 - 17:49 ET by bigtimerJT...
I heard he is going to be interviewed on Fox I think it was...I heard a bit about it last night...anyway, it is going to be interesting...
Plus people are going to hear another real Alaskan with the accent form his tribe and all.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Yep, Greta Van Sustenance will interview him
September 13, 2008 - 18:20 ET by JayTeeHe should refuse all other Networks . . .if they ask. . . The alphabets will NOT mention that he went on Fox.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
Charles on Charlie
September 13, 2008 - 17:39 ET by killbill2I literally laughed out loud when Krauthammer made the "moose hunting rube" comment on Fox regarding the condescending tone Gibson took while interviewing Sarah Palin.
Monroe Doctrine
September 13, 2008 - 17:50 ET by allanfThe US State Department has an exposition on the Monroe Doctrine. I wasn't able to find a similar write up on the "Bush Doctrine" on the State Department web site.
Allan,
September 13, 2008 - 19:49 ET by Indiana JoeThat's because the "Bush doctrine" (small "d") is nothing like the "Monroe Doctrine" (capital "D"). It's not really a defined, spelled-out "Doctrine." It's just a made-up term for an easy way to define everything the left thinks is "wrong" and "evil" about the Bush Administration. Even Krauthammer doesn't capitalize it (I don't think... read the article yesterday), and he invented the term. He admits it's "malleable," a somewhat generic term that changes with the situation. So it really was a "gotcha" question. As another poster here noted, a question about "policy" or "actions" or "mission" would have been more conducive to an actual answer.
Gibson didn't want an answer; he wanted a sound-bite.
But I think you knew that. ;^)
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Totally agree calling up
September 13, 2008 - 20:08 ET by BuffNBoneTotally agree calling up the "2002 ......" was an attempt at trying to stump the dummy. What Palin asked was essentially I don't understand the question you are asking could you clarify your terms. Very appropriate and much better than trying to wing it.
I don't think "doctrines" become "Doctrines" until a generation has passed.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Charles seems to be one of
September 13, 2008 - 19:41 ET by Clear thinkerCharles seems to be one of the few insiders in Washington that actually uses brain cells. I love it how he put's an arrow in the bulls eye, everytime he takes aim at liberals. The other Charles (Gibson) should take lessons from Charles #1.
Hating Sarah Palin - Hollywood Style
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
I read this yesterday, and
September 13, 2008 - 20:01 ET by Indiana JoeI read this yesterday, and Krauthammer is masterful, as usual. He's one of the few out there who don't just talk to hear the sound of their own voices.
As much as it's trying to be spun, CK's point is valid. The question was vague enough to make anyone who tried to just jump in and answer it seem incautious, naive, and desperately shallow. Any thoughtful person would have wanted more specificity, and it was obvious that Gibson wasn't going to cooperate that way.
His point that the NYT and Gibson were wrong is pertinent, because they had the opportunity to be prepared. They had the opportunity to look up the precise, current meaning of the term, and cite the source for that info. Gibson just wanted to box Palin in, but she eluded it pretty well.
A pretty good example of thinking on her feet from this "uppity newby" who wants to "play on their stage." I think Krauthammer would agree, and I'm happy to agree with him.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall