Printable View
I won't be stepping further into this conversation, but for those of you who have seen any of the Gibson/Palin interviews (please DO NOT comment if you haven't), how can you seriously want this woman for VP? Did you not find her to look completely incompetent? If no, please explain!
If I've noticed anything on these threads, it's that some people are pre-disposed to liking Governor Palin, regardless of anything she says or does. Where some of us will see problems, they will see a prejudiced news media, or unproven evidence, or they just discount what they see and continue to like her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelph
That said, I agree with you. Her performance was, to my admittedly partisan mind, appalling. That Bambi-in-the-headlights look she gave him when he asked her about the Bush Doctrine was bad enough. But then, she started talking about attacking Russia.
OMG!!
j
Hi Alex,Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelph
Of course, your question is directed towards the Republicans in the group. Actually, maybe I can answer this for you, so gimme a minute to lay this out. Your question is how can someone find the Palin pick appealing, even after viewing the interview. That's it right?
This woman was nominated for the Republican VP role by the presidential nominee, Mr McCain. Even though most party members had probably never heard of her before this, that was not the most important thing. Even though there were probably countless blank stares when her name was announced, that wasn't crucial at all. And, even though those confused members didn't know exactly WHAT was so good about her for VP, that also didn't matter.
Nope, all those people needed was to be told those things, they needed to hear the story told properly (party line, in other words). THEN, they knew why they loved her for VP. Yeah, once those catch words and phrases were put out there, the GOP ate it right up!
So, to answer your question, it's very easy for Republicans to argue her as a good choice, no matter WHAT she comes off as looking like to others. I've read a bunch of reviews (both party commentators), and guess what, many of those people give Mrs Palin good marks in that interview. Certainly none of the Dems were included in that group, and that's the whole point here.
As you probably know, members of BOTH parties will lie to achieve a goal. Both will avoid truth or reason when it suits em, and try to incorrectly rationalize somehow what's obviously not true to most others outside their political circles.
Watch, you're gonna hear some members here defending her choice. She's fresh, a maverick, she's one of us, all that same party line crap. Hey, that's fine if you believe it, but yeah, that reasoning has to be defended in a logical manner.
In other words, being competent is NOT the issue here, but instead, it's one to avoid mentioning too much about. What IS interesting is that Mr McCain obviously feels like she's ready to be Prez if needed, and must have picked her for the good of the country?
No, I'm not a member of either party, and this is truly my objective view. Take my answer for what it's worth.
Martin
Oh, in all seriousness, I hope my post didn't offend anyone......just my cynical and jaded outlook. Did I also mention the Democrats were exactly the same when it suites em?
In general, I agree with you that some form of obfuscation is inherent in both parties. I should know -- I've been a member of both.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Layne
But I'd be curious what examples you could cite where the Democrats (I'm being a good boy here -- I tend to refer them as "Dumbocrats" and "Repugnicans") exhibited the same degree of mendacity as the Republicans (good boy again) have in recent years. I'm talking about Swift Boating, personal attacks, character assassination, voter manipulation, and the like.
You might add the cynicism of foisting a person like Sarah Palin on an unsuspecting public.
I'm just asking.
j
Hi again,Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
I think you may be asking me a different question now. Most of those examples you listed have more to do with who's the most mean spirited party, which I'd rather not get into. Hehe, it kinda surprises me that political threads can go on here........says a lot for the members. Now, you talk about a badger getting whacked, and that's another matter.........heh.
What I was referring to was going along with the party line, and that's something I can type about. That kinda 4 legs good.....two legs bad kinda thing. Of course there's also the times when the actual votes (or true thoughts) of LAWMAKERS have little to do with the issues being discussed, but instead are meant to show support for the party's beliefs. What those members TRULY believe is often something else entirely, as you know.
I'd guess you were a Democrat in the late 90's when Mr Clinton was impeached. If that was the case, you probably thought that whole thing was really overblown and unwarranted. There were NO laws broken, NO lies told by the President. Well, maybe some small laws and lies, but not enough for impeachment.
Well guess what....every single Democrat felt exactly that same way! How incredible that so large a group (50 I believe) could agree so completely. Obviously, not one of those Dems voted for impeachment. Now, I'm not even talking about a conviction, but only initiating the impeachment proceedings. Them there Dems all thought the reason for it was out of line.That a good enough example of what I meant?
Hehe, unsuspecting public? You mean the non faithful ones like Democrats and independents? The VP pick shows exactly the direction that party has decided to go with in order to appease the base. If you meant the believers, they'd be too blind to see any cynicism or scorn in that pick anyway.
Politics is so interesting to me..........frustrating, but interesting....heh.
Hopefully, I answered your question in some way that made sense,
Martin
Lots of long answers. Mine is short.
1. I'm not surprised she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. Are you?
2. Her responses considering nuclear war are scary.
3. She is no more scary than any of the other candidates.
4. They all suck eggs.
My personal opinion is that this type of interviews are totally unfair.
I'd like to know for how long and how many people it took to prepare the questions that Mr. Gibson asked Gov. Palin
I'm sure that it wouldn't take a lot of work to prepare an interview and make Mr. Gibson look like an ass.
George W. Bush should be very proud that he's created a "Bush Doctrine"
I wanted to chime in here and thank everyone for their responses! Let's try to keep it on subject though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
In response to the above, I must disagree. It's not only in the responses you give but the way that you give them. There would be plenty of better answers to some questions, even stating that you don't know flat out, than to some answers that she gave. I think Gibson would know how to field most any question, even if he were asked about a subject that he has no knowledge of. Sorry for the little thread detour.
What is the Bush doctrine? Where is the printed manuscript? There isn't one! The "Bush Doctrine" is a series of critical observations by different individuals. Gibson is a pompous ass who does not know the "Bush Doctrine" because there approximately 5 different versions all slanted depending on which side of liberal you are from. That my friends is just one thing in the interview which shows how the elites in Washington think they are the only ones on the planet that can do their jobs. Sheer rubbish!
Later,
Richard
Not quite... Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by riooso
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by WireBeard
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.
Just search on Youtube, there are plenty of copies. Search "palin interview", or "charlie gibson palin" or something. Lots comes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelph
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.
I saw the interview, and imo she came across as someone without much knowledge of worldly issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
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. :shrug:
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. JMHOQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
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
we're talking about the interview, don't we?
Hi All,Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelph
Lots of posts, and a few members came to Mr's Palin's defense. How she handled the interview, or what's perceived by some as unwarranted media slur or attacks through selective editing are both interesting points, to be sure. The question Alex asked was something different though, and no one has addressed it yet. There's been some expounding on subjects, but no one's said why she was the best pick for the country. Kinda talking around things, or parallel to, but never actually coming up with reasons. Just the way it looks to me.
After seeing the interview (unedited), the question Alex asked was 'What struck you about her COMPETENCY' when asked to run a large country for example. I'm not asking if the thing was fair or not. If someone felt it WAS a set up of some kind, feel free to respond with other facts you can back up regarding her being the right person for this job. Why did the interview help reinforce that image of her as the best possible VP pick for the country? Why would you be reassured after seeing it? Personally, I'd like to read that.......a logical, facts only, opinion on why you would have made the same choice as Mr Mc Cain did. The interview was about two weeks after she was nominated, so any defenders should have already gotten the story down by then.
Martin
Hehe, seems like I sometimes feel like apologizing when I write stuff like this, and maybe in a way I AM looking for a little friendly back and forth. You know, I do miss lots of things, and other times I'm just plain wrong about stuff. Sometimes tho, I DO get things right, and I enjoy trying to explain my point of view. I also will try very hard to understand the other points of view as well, and that's the rub. When something just doesn't make sense, when I can't understand the 'why' of something....I can be motivated to spend some time figuring things out. More often than not, there's a hidden agenda there somewhere, and then things can become clear in a hurry.
I hate being lied to, or being steered or spun towards something that's NOT as it really is being portrayed as..........that motivates me pretty well at times. I'm not looking to start any fights, but I DO love a good debate. I have an open mind and am not locked into any party line, so I'll listen to 'reason' when I hear it.
The real problem with the interview is the the interviewer was a biased POS. How can we possible learn about who Palin is from an interviewer that is constantly trying to get a question in that would ruin the conservative ticket. It was not an interview to find her positions so much as to try to destroy her because he, the interviewer, doesn't like her.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Layne
You are of course correct in your wanting a more complete answer but long winded answers are often times a bore and the this blog may not be the correct venue, but you asked for it!:DQuote:
After seeing the interview (unedited), the question Alex asked was 'What struck you about her COMPETENCY' when asked to run a large country for example. I'm not asking if the thing was fair or not.
If someone felt it WAS a set up of some kind, feel free to respond with other facts you can back up regarding her being the right person for this job. Why did the interview help reinforce that image of her as the best possible VP pick for the country? Why would you be reassured after seeing it? Personally, I'd like to read that.......a logical, facts only, opinion on why you would have made the same choice as Mr Mc Cain did. The interview was about two weeks after she was nominated, so any defenders should have already gotten the story down by then.
- McCain's choice-----Brilliant, simply brilliant because he picked an outsider and a woman and that made him look like he can think outside the box and is looking to shake things up. Obahama picked one of the most entrenched, old school, pompous asses in the whole Democratic Party. How can you be a change merchant with that around your neck?
- McCain knew that if she was attacked the attacker would alienate a large section of the women in this country and if they did not attack her then her message would have no counterpoint in the media and thus by default would have added credibility.
- The Elites that sit in their ivory towers are out of touch with America and owe everyone around them favors up the ying-yang. The also thing that they are the only ones that can govern the rest of us "BIFFS" because we are stupid and not really capable of coherent thoughts.
- Abraham Lincoln was one of the finest presidents that this country has ever had and he grew up in a dirt mud hut. He was just a lawyer and his experience was what? Our forefathers knew that the common man, who had a stake in this country, was the best person for the job and it was Thomas Jefferson that fully expected a full scale revolution every decade or so to clean out the bureaucrats and everything that came with them. So yes Palin could rule the United States in a purely American way. I personally do not care a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks about us, the color of their flags in the past has generally been "WHITE" when the going got tough followed by "HELP US DEAR GOD HELP US"
So... because of the reasons above, the interview means little but because of the interview, and the perception that she was treated unfairly, her poll number are going up and Obahama's run for the presidency is rapidly going into the toilet the more they rail against her. In life this is called being between a rock and a hard place!:D
Take Care,
Richard
I guess I'll have to listen to the interview. Thanks Alex for motivating me :)
Ok, seriously you are still way off topic here. I asked your impressions of her competency for VP BASED ON THE INTERVIEW. Time and time again people have posted in this thread giving no concrete answer which show Palin in a positive light based on the interview. Since too many people fail to follow the direction that the author of this post has requested, I now request that this thread be closed. Thank You!Quote:
Originally Posted by riooso
Thread closed at the original poster's request.