Charlie's Gaffe...

Dirtie_Frank

SundaySilence wrote:

depends on how you pronounce potatoe

Sorry dan it is potato

fuck

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.

fuck

"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

bootlegger10

_outlaw wrote:

If Palin were a man, you'd be less full of shit.

That doesn't even make sense.

bootlegger10

_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.

JSBE

_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.”

MattyJoe

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.

fuck

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:

slightofjeff

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=

digster

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.

Brain of J.Lo

digster wrote:

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?"

...and that is literally the only thing that matters in this argument.

I love that people are trying to defend her on this, though. It's cute.

sweetpotato

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.

she doesn't need any "setting up". she's a moron.

mammasan

bootlegger10 wrote:

If Palin were a man, none of this would be happening.

If Palin where a man she wouldn't have been McCain's running mate. And give me a fucking break with the sexism excuse. Now people aren't allowed to ask her tough questions because she is a woman. That to me is fucking sexism.

nfanel

_outlaw wrote:

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.

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."