Home› A Moving Train

Charlie's Gaffe...

saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
edited September 2008 in A Moving Train
...It's interesting that there seems to be several definitions of the Bush Doctrine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

...Maybe Charlie was trying to set her up? Hmmm.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • cubbieblue82cubbieblue82 Posts: 292
    saveuplife wrote:
    ...It's interesting that there seems to be several definitions of the Bush Doctrine.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

    ...Maybe Charlie was trying to set her up? Hmmm.

    Semantics...

    She clearly had no clue that there even was such a thing as the Bush Doctrine. Even once he gave her his "definition" she couldn't even address the given definition.
    Obama/Biden '08!!!
  • orig_long redorig_long red Posts: 2,029
    Charlie Gibson is a pompous dick and he blew the interview. Palin needs to be killed with kindness, not condescension.
    Jam out with your clam out.
  • Brain of J.LoBrain of J.Lo Posts: 3,259
    saveuplife wrote:
    ...It's interesting that there seems to be several definitions of the Bush Doctrine.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

    ...Maybe Charlie was trying to set her up? Hmmm.

    Her reaction to the question was the most important moment in that interview, in my opinion.

    Gibson could have asked her to name the color of Earth's second moon, and she would have had the same reaction. ;)
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    There is an overriding description of the Bush Doctrine, but it's generally defined as the notion of pre-emption; to be proactive in our response to terrorist threats as opposed to reactive. It's what led to our invasion of Iraq, because supposedly it was meant to make us safer by striking first.

    Besides, she seemed to apparently believe that the Bush Doctrine was Bush's "worldview." Even if the myriad number of reasons are accurate, the Bush Doctrine cannot be defined as his personal 'worldview.' Her face, her confusion, her first definition of the Doctrine being his worldview; why can't we just admit she didn't have a clue what she was talking about? I didn't like it, but I found her evasion of answers and rote memorization of responses to be equally troubling.
  • DOSWDOSW Posts: 2,014
    saveuplife wrote:
    ...It's interesting that there seems to be several definitions of the Bush Doctrine.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

    ...Maybe Charlie was trying to set her up? Hmmm.

    I guess both of them had no idea what they were talking about then. Doesn't change the fact that Palin didn't have a clue what the Bush Doctrine is.
    It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
  • YieldInHidingYieldInHiding Posts: 1,841
    long red wrote:
    Charlie Gibson is a pompous dick and he blew the interview. Palin needs to be killed with kindness, not condescension.

    Wow, I think you might be the first person to ever say anything like that about Charlie Gibson. He's one of the most respected news people in the industry.
    No longer overwhelmed it seems so simple now.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    Hahahaha, how can anyone take this guy seriously?

    "I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term."

    I'm sure that Wikipedia notes that because he wrote that line himself. What an honor to brag about.
  • orig_long redorig_long red Posts: 2,029
    YieldInHiding wrote:
    Wow, I think you might be the first person to ever say anything like that about Charlie Gibson. He's one of the most respected news people in the industry.

    you can be well respected and still come across as an asshole during a particular interview.
    Jam out with your clam out.
  • JaneNYJaneNY Posts: 4,438
    saveuplife wrote:
    ...It's interesting that there seems to be several definitions of the Bush Doctrine.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

    ...Maybe Charlie was trying to set her up? Hmmm.

    If she was knowledgeable of it then whether he was setting her up or not, she should be able to answer the question. It is something I'd expect a vice president to know.
    R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
    R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
    R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
  • YieldInHidingYieldInHiding Posts: 1,841
    long red wrote:
    you can be well respected and still come across as an asshole during a particular interview.

    Should he have lobbed softball questions at her?
    No longer overwhelmed it seems so simple now.
  • orig_long redorig_long red Posts: 2,029
    YieldInHiding wrote:
    Should he have lobbed softball questions at her?

    absolutely not. but if you watched that second interview, then you saw how he completely blew it. he left her off the hook.

    i hate Sarah Palin and I hate that she's gona swing this race.
    Jam out with your clam out.
  • SuzannePjamSuzannePjam Posts: 411
    I look forward to her next hard hitting interview featured in the Ladies Home Journal. Because you know that the Gibson interview was the last "real" interview she's going to give. :rolleyes:
    "Where there is sacrifice there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings."-- Ayn Rand

    "Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
    But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,060
    I enjoy how she is supposed to know the exact definition of a media creation.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,060
    If Palin were a man, none of this would be happening.
  • Solat13Solat13 Posts: 6,996
    SuzannePjam wrote:
    I look forward to her next hard hitting interview featured in the Ladies Home Journal. Because you know that the Gibson interview was the last "real" interview she's going to give. :rolleyes:

    C'mon, she'll be on Hannity next week. ;):p
    - Busted down the pretext
    - 8/28/98
    - 9/2/00
    - 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
    - 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
    - 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
    - 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
    - 8/2/07, 8/5/07
    - 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
    - 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
    - 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
    - 9/11/11, 9/12/11
    - 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
  • LONGRDLONGRD Posts: 6,036
    YieldInHiding wrote:
    Should he have lobbed softball questions at her?
    to be real with ya, i honestly thought he went soft on her.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • SundaySilenceSundaySilence Posts: 536
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    If Palin were a man, none of this would be happening.

    depends on how you pronounce potatoe
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    JaneNY wrote:
    If she was knowledgeable of it then whether he was setting her up or not, she should be able to answer the question. It is something I'd expect a vice president to know.

    Judging by how surprised Gibson looked when that exchange occurred, I doubt that it was intended as a gotcha question. You can hear how he quickly intended to move to the next question, but then stopped because he realized that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was.

    bootlegger10, I'll accept that there are many different aspects of the Bush Doctrine, even though I think that's kind of untrue. But, still, that's fine. However, none of those definitions defined the Bush Doctrine as the President's "worldview" as she stated. She just had no clue what it was; do you think Obama, Biden or McCain would have had difficulty with that question?
  • MattyJoeMattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    LongRd. wrote:
    to be real with ya, i honestly thought he went soft on her.

    Yeah, okay. Why don't we get Obama into the same situation and see how he performs? It's like a fucking police interrogation, no one would perform well under those circumstances. Obama has never been in any situation like that to date. The closest was the O'Reilly interview, but even that wasn't that bad compared to Palin's.

    Charlie Gibson, to show how fair and balanced you are, why not bring Mr. Obama on and grill him like that? No? Why not? It would make Obama look like an idiot? Really??? Then why did you bring Ms. Palin on? After all, she is running for Vice President, not President like Mr. Obama, who has less experience than even Joe Biden. No comment?? Suit yourself.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    MattyJoe wrote:
    Obama has never been in any situation like that to date. The closest was the O'Reilly interview, but even that wasn't that bad compared to Palin's.

    No offense, but are you actually serious with that statement?

    Gibson was a cakewalk compared to O'Reilly, if for the sole reason that Gibson was asking questions that matter.
  • Dirtie_FrankDirtie_Frank Posts: 1,348
    SundaySilence wrote:
    depends on how you pronounce potatoe

    Sorry dan it is potato
    96 Randall's Island II
    98 CAA
    00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
    05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
    06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
    08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
    09 Phillie III
    10 MSG II
    13 Wrigley Field
    16 Phillie II
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    If Palin were a man, none of this would be happening.
    If Palin were a man, you'd be less full of shit.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    "The really scary part of the Palin interview was how much she seemed like W. in 2000, and not just the way she pronounced nu-cue-lar. She had the same flimsy but tenacious adeptness at saying nothing, the same generalities and platitudes, the same restrained resentment at being pressed to be specific, as though specific is the province of silly eggheads, not people who clear brush at the ranch or shoot moose on the tundra."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14dowd.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,060
    _outlaw wrote:
    If Palin were a man, you'd be less full of shit.

    That doesn't even make sense.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,060
    _outlaw wrote:
    "The really scary part of the Palin interview was how much she seemed like W. in 2000, and not just the way she pronounced nu-cue-lar. She had the same flimsy but tenacious adeptness at saying nothing, the same generalities and platitudes, the same restrained resentment at being pressed to be specific, as though specific is the province of silly eggheads, not people who clear brush at the ranch or shoot moose on the tundra."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14dowd.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


    Maybe if she just answered every question with "change", than we'd have all of the specifics we need.
  • JSBEJSBE Posts: 1,078
    _outlaw wrote:
    "The really scary part of the Palin interview was how much she seemed like W. in 2000, and not just the way she pronounced nu-cue-lar. She had the same flimsy but tenacious adeptness at saying nothing, the same generalities and platitudes, the same restrained resentment at being pressed to be specific, as though specific is the province of silly eggheads, not people who clear brush at the ranch or shoot moose on the tundra."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14dowd.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

    this was one of the more annoying parts of the interview (and yes, i realize the op-ed is over-exaggerating her use of 'charlie' but not by much):

    “We must not, Charlie, blink, Charlie, because, Charlie, as I’ve said, Charlie, before, John McCain has said, Charlie, that — and remember here, Charlie, we’re talking about John McCain, Charlie, who, Charlie, is John McCain and I won’t be blinking, Charlie.”
  • MattyJoeMattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Maybe if she just answered every question with "change", than we'd have all of the specifics we need.

    OOOO good one man. I like.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Maybe if she just answered every question with "change", than we'd have all of the specifics we need.
    is that your come back?

    "well, I know she didn't ACTUALLY say anything, but maybe if she said "change" it'd be more specific"

    what a joke... :rolleyes:
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    The man who actually coined the term "Bush Doctrine" thinks Charlie Gibson is full of shit, for whatever it's worth:

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTU5YmYzNjU2MThhOTFiZWNmNjE4MTc5MzY3ZGRkMGY=
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    slightofjeff wrote:
    The man who actually coined the term "Bush Doctrine" thinks Charlie Gibson is full of shit, for whatever it's worth:

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTU5YmYzNjU2MThhOTFiZWNmNjE4MTc5MzY3ZGRkMGY=

    It's the same article, I believe. And Krauthammer (I think that's how it's spelled) is pretty much 100 percent conservative. Not to say the man can't have completely partisan opinions, but it wouldn't have been a leap to assume he's on Palin's side (that's another problem with editorial boards on newspapers; there's no more issue-based writing, and they pretty much just have resident partisan writers on call for each issue, but I digress).

    But there's absolutely no way Palin had any clue what Gibson was talking about. There was that pregnant pause before she responded (shit, I don't remember hearing about this in the briefing)........"in what respect, Charlie?" When Gibson didn't answer, she asked if it was Bush's "worldview?" Now, anyone with a passive understanding of what the Bush Doctrine was and meant would never confuse these policy positions as some ambiguous worldview. It's alot different than that, and it's the best evidence that she just had no idea about it. It wasn't a huge gaffe, but it just made it pretty clear that she was trying to coast through the foreign policy stuff on coaching she'd recieved.
Sign In or Register to comment.