Thread: Charlie Gibson's Palin interview

I have always thought that anyone who leans towards a career in politics has criminal tendencies, given the quality of politicians we have. The last few elections have been like choosing which form of cancer will kill you...either way, you are going to die from it.

The McCain team should have prepared her better...or at least prep'd her to not look like a deer...er..moose in headlights. There are several Bush doctrines (ironically, the administration only wants to be the ones to apply them...if another country takes the same stance, there is a major hissy in the White House)..but it's his party...he is the party leader, so why don't they know them?

Maybe too much time was spent on slinging mud about lipstick and pigs?

I think I would pass out in a dead faint if either candidate could speak without sounding like a pre-recorded sound bite.

Originally Posted by WireBeard

I have always thought that anyone who leans towards a career in politics has criminal tendencies, given the quality of politicians we have. The last few elections have been like choosing which form of cancer will kill you...either way, you are going to die from it.


I think I would pass out in a dead faint if either candidate could speak without sounding like a pre-recorded sound bite.

Man you are on a roll today brother, and I am with you 100%, I love the line about " criminal tendencies". When will America break the chains of the two(actually one) party system, educate themselves about the choices and set themselves free of politics as usual?

I wasn't able to catch the interview. Does anyone know if there is a transcript online, or perhaps have a link to the video itself?


I would like to check it out and then, of course, come to my own conclusions.

thanks


John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I wasn't able to catch the interview. Does anyone know if there is a transcript online, or perhaps have a link to the video itself?

Just search on Youtube, there are plenty of copies. Search "palin interview", or "charlie gibson palin" or something. Lots comes up.

Originally Posted by Philadelph

Not quite... Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is a collection of Blog posts in my book. I have read the Wikipedia entry and it does a pretty good job in discussing the topic. The article does make the point that many consider the Bush Doctrine to be different things to different folks.

Later,
R

I've been looking at the interview, and it would seem the "Bush Doctrine" question was definitely planted. *WHICH* "Bush Doctrine" was he referring to? is there anything wrong with asking a direct question these days?
So far I'm unimpressed with Mr. Gibson's interview, as he asked questions that really mean nothing. "Would you support military action against Russia if Georgia were a member of NATO" or some such. Well, Charlie....that's what North Atlantic Treaty Organization means. It is a binding treaty. The United States has already committed itself to such action on the forming of NATO.
The only things that've changed? Russia is less powerful, some of the former COMBLOC nations are now part of NATO or trying to be, as are some former Soviet Republics....and for some reason, our weak knee'd politicians and media types are unwilling to stand up to them, now. What have we become?
The questions about Israel, e.g. would she support Israel in striking an Iranian nuclear facility...were also bait. We do not control Israel. Iran (Charlie you failed to mention this) Iran's leaders have promised the "destruction of Israel".. It would follow that allowing such a regime to acquire thermonuclear weapons with which to tip their Shahab missiles would not be in Israel's interest of self preservation. What, was she supposed to say, no, I think the millions of Israeli citizens are expendable, and hands off Iran's weapons sites?
This is ludicrous. If Mexico had a huge nuclear program and a fanatical dictator in charge who promised to destroy the United States (not just Washington or LA...) do you think we would also have a right to cross their borders and destroy it? Of course. The promise of destruction is the first act of war.
Self defense prevails.
Likewise, Pakistan. If Pakistani military officials are unwilling to carry out strikes in the mission to subdue the Taliban and possibly capture Osama bin Laden, then either we are fighting the war to win or we are not. Allowing the enemy a safe haven in a supposedly friendly country is not in our best interests. Previously Pakistan was an ally, however more and more it seems such is in name only-Pakistani intelligence helps capture quite a few people, but it is a safe wager IMHO that these people are "selected" rather than all being captured as available.
So far I have no issue with her responses, but I'm still watching the various videos trying to get one that is the complete interview...

thanks for the links

John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I've been looking at the interview, and it would seem the "Bush Doctrine" question was definitely planted. *WHICH* "Bush Doctrine" was he referring to? is there anything wrong with asking a direct question these days?
John P.

I saw the interview, and imo she came across as someone without much knowledge of worldly issues.
If she hadn't known what the bush doctrine was, she should have just asked him to clarify.
She also seemed to be a bit heavy on the 'patriotism / love this country / our brave soldiers' rethoric, but perhaps that is what is expected of her.

Btw I don't say that Biden would do any better, but in this specific interview, she was not convincing.
Still, I think that atm she is the main reason McCain is still doing so good in the polls. She was chosen for that, and she is doing a good job.

As for the questions being plants.
The purpose of these interviews is to test candidates, to see what they know and think, and perhaps how they deal with difficult questions. It it had been an easy interview without substance, and evertyhing chewed out for her, it wouldn't have had value as an interview.

Originally Posted by Bruno

The purpose of these interviews is to test candidates, to see what they know and think, and perhaps how they deal with difficult questions. It it had been an easy interview without substance, and evertyhing chewed out for her, it wouldn't have had value as an interview.

An interview that has "conveniently" been clipped, is dishonest and has no value, but the liberal media and the Obama campaign, need to keep smearing Gov. Palin, they don't know other way to react to her success. JMHO

No doubt about it in my mind. She handled some questions well and some poorly. The things that stuck with me:

1. Her statement that Alaska seems to be a microcosm of the US. I disagree with this opinion and think it sounds ridiculous.

2. Her admitted lack of world travel. She didn't sound like the kind of person who wanted to travel and I think the kind of world curiosity that leads someone to want to travel is an important quality in a head of state.

3. She comported herself well despite being caught off guard at times.

4. I learned that I hate her accent. This is a total regional bias on my part.

Overall, she didn't seem like a bulldog in lipstick to me.

Life goes on...


-Rob

The more that they pound her the higher her ratings will go! Negative stuff in a political campaign will only work so long and never works against a woman or a particular ethic group. It is seen,rightfully so, as cheap political shot that is mean spirited and lacking any kind of modern mentality. Some of the liberals have come out with down right sexist remarks and I am here to tell you that the women in this country will not stand for it! How can she function as a head of state with children around? Really, did anyone think that such a sexist remark would go unpunished? I really amazes me that a party that spouts such liberal points of view could come up with such non-inclusive garbage. Get into the 21st century folks, you are only killing yourselves.


Take Care,
Richard